After posting the last article I had a long phone conversation with Che Bob from Lonestone Revolution. After our hour long discussion I wish to modify my comment that we need a third party of moderates, and leave the far right and far left to define these positions.What Che Bob pointed out to me is that we Americans live in a political "Samurai Deli". Those of us that remember the early days of SNL, John Belushi played a samurai that owned a deli, and the customers could only have one kind of drink not other, the catch line was "No Coke! Pepsi!"
We basically have a political process of no choice. Where else in our live would we accept only two choices for anything. Go to the convenience store and there at least 14 different beverage choices, go out to dinner and unless you live in a one-horse town you have literally dozen of choices for your dinning experience.
So why do "we the people" accept a political menu with only two choices. If we are going to be a wedge issue voting country then we should have a political party for all of these issues. If your big issue is universal heath care then you should belong to the People's Health Party. Once that is accomplished, change your party to the next issue that is most important to you.
With more political parties, then "we the people" can frame the debate, not have the debate framed by one or the other of the existing parties.
Of course some would say that a new party can't compete with the entrenched two party system. That may be true, there are definite changes that need to be made to our political process, but isn't our country supposed to be the flagship of democracy on the planet. Why can't we make some simple changes that will make us a true example of democracy?
Some of the changes that I would suggest are:
- Nationalize the elections; Take back the election process from PAC's, lobbyist, corporations and special interest. This is the only logical way to make this happen nationalize political funding. We the people pay for the results of the who is elected why can't we pay for the elections themselves. Each candidate would get exactly the same amount of funds from the public treasury, no limit to the number of canidates that can apply for the funding, just that the candidate have petition with 1% of the population of the district inwhich they are runnung for office. Once the candidate has a signed petition then they can get public funds for their campaign.
Additionally, if the airwaves are in fact the property of the public then why can't the public demand a lease payment for all the profits the telecommunications companies make from the use of these airwaves. Each telecommunications company can pay us back by giving air time to each candidate, and airing and producing 5 debates for the candidates. - More representives at the fedral and state level, I believe that we should at least have double the number of representives in the House of Representives as we do now. Same holds true in all state houses. How can we have a representive government when we have only 400 representing 300 million. Better yet why not use established geographical devisions to set up representive districts, geremandering is a big problem with entrenching poticitian into life time jobs, why not use the counties and parishes to define the House districts on the fedral level and school districts on the state level.
- Pay raises for congress by refererendum only; why should our public servant be in control of their own paychecks? Where else in this country would a sane employer give the employees the ablity to write their own paychecks? We need to have some more control over how much or public servants are renumerated for their service.
Now you're talking! I like the sounds of this a lot better than hoping that "voter turnout" will solve anything. Even if the smaller parties weren't initially as numerous, hence as powerful, as the main parties, some one is going to covet their votes, so they'll have to be included in the decisions at some level. Just think if socialists were to have to be included in the voting on such issues as the Patriot Act, or the "no-bid" contracts being extended to Halliburton and Bechtel. Dems and Reps would have to turn to the socialists, greens, libertarians, et. al. for support in order to pass their policies.
ReplyDeleteIncreasing the political spectrum can only be beneficial to democracy!
I agree with you on your points. A move towards a more socialist-style form of government would allow for the masses to decide their fate instead of elected shills that are subservient to their elite masters. More importantly though, until the way money works is changed, we're stuck where we are.
ReplyDeleteAs a cynic, I'm always quite convinced that regardless of whatever change takes place, human nature will rear it's ugly head. Even with a nationalized economy and voting, I feel it's somewhat inevitable that greed and the human need to conquer will be dominant at a later date.
Don't get me wrong. You're right--the masses need more control over their government. However, from a historical perspective, most revolutions revert to the same tactics as the body that was overthrown. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss, as the saying goes. Thus, my skepticism.
I hope I'm proven wrong, and that something positive will come to light soon.
Rev,
ReplyDeleteYour cynicism is not irrational. In fact, it is quite understandable considering human history. Perhaps though, if you (like me) would accept the symptoms and refuse the label of "cynicism" such as: "I suffer from 'polemicism' or Foultcault's 'problematizing' not 'cynicism' because I want to debate ideas and refine my analysis and I do not want to give in to inevitabilities," then there would be more possibility and hope for restructuring society.
Noam Chomsky said: "If you assume that there is no hope, you guarantee that there will be no hope. If you assume that there is an instinct for freedom, there are opportunities to change things, etc., there's a chance to contribute to the making of a better world. That's your choice."
Socialism happens to be the most viable and reasonable alternative to capitalism and deserves our continued efforts to make it a reality. If along the way we find flaws or ways to improve the system then we must be open to accepting the fallibility of human-made systems and make adjustments. One of the problems with capitalism is that it is presented to us as history's end, inevitable, and natural. Fortunately, it is no such thing!