An Ordinary Person and Politics in America

Extreme Makeover: Blogging Edition

2007-10-20T16:59:00.000-04:00

Extreme Makeover: Blogging Edition

I have redesigned and revamped this blog. Please check out An Ordinary Person over at the new location.

END OF POST

Welcome to the Machine

2007-10-16T20:02:00.000-04:00

Welcome to the Machine

I started this blog to explore the question of the role of the ordinary person in politics in America. The main question in my mind being does the ordinary person matter at all anymore? In a country which touts itself as the beacon for democracy and democratic participation is the ordinary person's political voice truly relevant or even needed?

Of course my ruminations were primarily subjective and based on my own impressions and experiences. I am an ordinary person, after all, and am as much a subject of my explorations as I am the observer.

I am coming to the conclusion pretty quickly that the ordinary person is politically powerless and without influence in this society. Now I am not sure how exceptional that conclusion is—how earth shattering the news given that I am probably only stating what is probably obvious to most people. The idea that America is the best democracy money can buy where those with most money have the best (sometimes the only) access to politicians and policymakers is a cliche after all.

So I am at a crossroads right now on whether or not to continue this blog. After all, if the ordinary person is irrelevant, what on earth can one blogger do about it? What more can I say and observe about the powerlessness of the ordinary person without sounding like a scold or a broken record week in and week out?

I’ve also started to explore the reform movement community. Those who are involved in electoral reform and other activist activities of some sort to explore the issue of who is doing something to make the average person and ordinary voter relevant again. While the first few months were heady and inspiring in discovering new organizations and meeting new people and activists in person and online, I quickly discovered that the reform community is rife with its own divisions on which types of reform are favored by which group, and my endorsement of one group over the other briefly had me caught in a particularly nasty and partisan bickering going on in the Internet (which is instigated more by one side than the other).

I thought to myself: who needs this crap? I started this blog to have fun and to learn and educate myself about politics and activism. I didn’t start it to instigate fights or to choose sides and if I happened to choose a side, to make enemies because of it. I had the illusion that just because we were all outsiders to the system and powerless, that there would be solidarity and a feeling of common purpose. Turned out I was wrong.

In any case, this is not a goodbye letter. I am just feeling a little bummed out and will be doing some deep thinking on which direction to take this blog, given what I have found out for myself on the state of politics and activism for the ordinary person. You can still catch me making posts over at Mirror on America and perhaps will post something here once in a while. In the meantime, I have to take a little break to find a way to make this blog a fun and worthwhile activity again.

E is for Empowerment III

2007-10-14T19:37:00.000-04:00

E is for Empowerment III

A recent response to my blog post E is for Empowerment II by Angry Independent bummed me out. Not because he was attacking me or anything like that. But because of the implications of what he said if he is right.

In my blog post I talked about political empowerment for the average working and middle class person.

He said:

But you bring up political empowerment... as a way for the masses to see some kind of economic/social justice. But I don't see much hope there either. Especially in this era where we are living under the "best Democracy money can buy".... Where money gets you access to the political candidates and to the policymakers.

It's ironic that the U.S. Capitol was once thought of as the peoples house. But the average citizen has almost zero access to their Congressional reps. But a lobbyist from a multinational corporation has all the access in the world. See the PBS documentary Capitol Crimes.

Therefore, I don't know how much political power the average citizen can have, particularly with two largely corrupt political parties controlling the game. As long as we have a two party system, the average citizen will have little influence over either domestic or international policy. It's almost as if we are locked out of the system altogether. Yes... there are elections every couple of years...and every 4 for the Presidency... But voting in a broken election system equates to very little power for the average joe. Especially when you can't even be sure that your vote will be counted. Elections have become almost ceremonial in nature in this country.

Always astute, hard-hitting and honest, I appreciate Angry Independent’s comments. Of course he is right. The average citizen has very little to no influence on domestic and international policy and the ordinary person is locked out of the system altogether.

Rather than wallow in despair or become cynical, I would like to explore the question—what can be done about it? Who is currently engaged in the work of “doing something about it” – that is, making the ordinary citizen and voter relevant again in politics?

Here’s some links and posts that encourage me enough to give me hope:

FairVote
New America Foundation
Creating a Progressive Movement
Rock the Debates
National Popular Vote
Fusion Voting
Instant Runoff Voting
Ten Steps to Repair Democracy
Electoral Reform
Fixing a Broken System

E is for Empowerment

2007-10-10T20:26:00.000-04:00

E is for Empowerment

I’d like to share a couple of great articles I read today. First is a blog post by Registered Independent which rightly asserts the limitations of politics as a vehicle to make the world a better place. He finds a better vehicle through the notion of empowerment in its various forms

I came to this blog and to my love of politics with a desire to see the world become a better place for the people. I have now come to realize that politics alone cannot accomplish this goal. A view of the evening news on any night of the week proves this fact.

Instead, I think the answer is empowerment. The people need to become more empowered in order to make the world a better place and empowerment comes in many forms.

For example, the people can become empowered philosophically, technologically, spiritually, scientifically, holistically, athletically, mathematically, and artistically, as well as politically. The empowerment from each of those disciplines often does increase the effectiveness of all the rest. It’s like they all work together in some way.

I think empowerment of the people in any way is the answer. And, it shouldn’t matter whether you are independent, conservative, liberal, progressive, libertarian, centrist, black, white, yellow, red, or whatever, empowerment is for everybody, with the only exception being those in government entities and corporate conglomerates who would prefer the people to be less empowered (not all of them do) so that they can exercise more control.

Registered Independent hits the nail right on the head when he talks about empowerment as the main goal why people get involved in politics and get active in political activity. Empowerment can mean any number of things: economic, social, political, personal, etc.

The main reason why I chose to start a blog in the first place comes from the belief that politics or being active in it can be one avenue to empowerment. That can mean empowerment for me as an individual, for my ethnic or cultural group as an Asian-American, for all citizens as Americans, and the group I persist to identify with the most, social class—empowerment for the working and middle classes—my definition of who an “ordinary person” is in America.

Why I consider myself an Independent is, itself, a result of my observations on empowerment. I have come to a personal conclusion that voting for either Democrats or Republicans does not result in the empowerment for the average, ordinary person. This blog is a running chronicle of my quest of trying to understand the world better so as to answer the question: what should be done—and more specifically, what should I do—about it?

This brings to mind a recent exchange of blog comments I had with another blogger called Constructive Feedback. I consider myself a liberal and a self-professed Progressive. He comes from a point of view that is critical of much of what I believe and policies which I support. Whether he is truly opposite of me I truly didn't know and asked him what he believes given that he is so critical of Left or Progressive perspectives. His answer surprised me. In a recent blog post he responded:

I must also note that my criticism against Liberals/Progressives/Democrats should not be taken as a desire for Black people to vote Republican. It is simply an attempt to hold those who have a monopoly majority hold upon my community accountable rather than having the masses gear up for another election cycle in which the Democrats gain further control over more Black districts but the districts and the people living within receive little benefit (except the knowledge that yet another Democrat has been victorious).

I am calling for Black people to STOP living VICARIOUSLY THROUGH DEMOCRATIC VICTORY. We need to take back our own yolk and place it back inside of our communities. Most of our problems are APOLITICAL in nature and only require a clearer goal and then management to achieve a more directed end.

He surprised me in the sense that despite our divergence in opinion on political stands and policies we support, that we actually do stand in common ground in regards to the deeper, fundamental issues that we ask and are after in why we choose to blog about politics. For him as for me, the fundamental issue is one of empowerment.

For him, he focuses on the African-American community and is asking critical questions on whether or not being for the Democratic Party and being elected as liberals and Democrats is truly empowering for the African American community. He demands that those who believe in this route to empowerment to show him the goods. What have the African-American community gained for their dependable loyalty to the Democrats and liberalism as constituents? A truly provocative stance but I believe a very valid question to ask.

So the word for today is Empowerment. A truly radical notion when you think about it. Once you get over its status as a cliché and apply it to how you view yourself and the world and interact with people you can really appreciate its meaning and implications as being, well, empowering.

Political empowerment is only one form of empowerment. There are many others. This blog is primarily about politics but I’d like to think that it can also be about empowerment for the individual and ordinary people in other ways.

Here is part 2.

Conservative Philosophy

2007-10-09T21:33:00.000-04:00

The Republican Collapse

I don't consider myself a conservative but I found this op-ed by David Brooks at the New York TImes to be illuminating and thoughtful. What struck me the most about it is that he makes the point that the traditional notion of conservatism that he adheres to is most definitely not the creed that free-market capitalists, religious conservatives, and political neoconservatives espouse. And most interesting of all is his assertion that the Bush administration's policies run counter to the conservatism that he favors. All in all a good read.

Modern conservatism begins with Edmund Burke. What Burke articulated was not an ideology or a creed, but a disposition, a reverence for tradition, a suspicion of radical change.

When conservatism came to America, it became creedal. Free market conservatives built a creed around freedom and capitalism. Religious conservatives built a creed around their conception of a transcendent order. Neoconservatives and others built a creed around the words of Lincoln and the founders.

Over the years, the voice of Burke has been submerged beneath the clamoring creeds. In fact, over the past few decades the conservative ideologies have been magnified, while the temperamental conservatism of Burke has been abandoned.

Full article here from the New York Times

Letters to the Editor in response to Brooks' column

Why Democracy?

2007-10-08T18:12:00.000-04:00

Why Democracy?
by Stanley Fish

Democracy is a form of government that is not attached to any pre-given political or ideological ends, but allows ends to be chosen by the majority vote of free citizens.

What this means is that democracy is the only form of government that, at least theoretically, contemplates its own demise with equanimity. Democratic elections do not guarantee that the victors will be democratically inclined, and it is always possible that those who gain control of the legislative process will pass laws that erode or even repeal the rights – of property, free expression and free movement – that distinguish democracies from theocracies and monarchies. (Some would say that this is exactly what has been happening in the past six years.) Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes captured the fragility of a form of government that can alter itself beyond the point of recognition when he said that if his fellow citizens want to go to hell in a handbasket, it was his job to help them, even if he deplored the consequences. Democracy, then, can be said to be its own biggest threat.

Full article here from the New York Times blogs

Enter the conversation directly at www.whydemocracy.net and www.myspace.com/whydemocracy.

Thoughts of an Outsider

2007-10-07T20:47:00.000-04:00

Thoughts of an Outsider

I am an independent: an outsider to the two-party system. I could very easily join one of the two major parties—either the Democrats or the Republicans—but I won’t feel right with myself if I do. Today, nearly 40 percent of the electorate self-identify as independent, rejecting party labels.

I have been reading a lot about people like me—political independents—in the media and primarily via web sites like the Hankster and the CUIP. I’m learning a lot and it is a comforting thought to know that I am not alone in treading this path outside of the two-party system in the U.S.

There is a great diversity among political independents in political opinion and ideologies. The CUIP expressed it best when it cites that what independents have in common, despite its diversity, is a sense that the political system in the U.S. has gone awry. That there is something deeply wrong and askew with democracy as it is currently practiced in America.

Moreover, independents are in agreement that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans hold the answer to fixing our broken System. The key to positive change is not to be found operating within the confines of the two-party system. In fact, for independents, much of the problems of American democracy can be laid to the very fact that we have a two-party monopoly in political participation in this country.

What makes the future so uncertain and a bit exciting for me is that the diagnosis of what ails American politics thus made, the prescription of what to do about it is still wide open and up for grabs.

The CUIP advocates the formation of a social movement among political independents to act as a third force to fill the political void that is not filled by either of the major parties. Other independents are advocates and members of various third-party organizations.

Myself personally—I am a supporter of electoral reform efforts such as Instant Runoff Voting and the National Popular Vote—efforts designed to encourage wider and greater participation among the electorate in politics and which seeks to expand democratic participation beyond the two major parties.

So as the political horse-race of the national Presidential elections come to a head in the coming year and most people start considering once again for whom to cast their vote, I feel an odd sort of excitement about politics.

An odd sort excitement because although I know that the horse race is still going to be between Democrats and Republicans, I have a perception that major change in American politics will be coming in the next decade. This change is going to be driven by political independents—people like me—for whom the two party system does not adequately reflect their beliefs, concerns and democratic aspirations. Sooner or later, something has got to give. A solid third of the electorate self-identifying to reject the two-party label has the potential to change the way the game is played in politics. This population is becoming organized and is starting to realize the potential for change that it wields.

So if you care about democracy, democratic participation for the ordinary citizen, and the relevance of politics to our lives in America, the blossoming of the independent movement is worth observing. Reports from the mainstream media like this one indicate that the presence of independents are being felt by the insiders. The fact that the report primarily viewed independents according to how they relate to either of the major parties, I feel, is a big mistake and misses the true picture of what it means to be an independent. I have a feeling that a report much truer to political independents and where they stand—on their own terms and not primarily vis-à-vis the two party model of American democracy—is coming sooner or later. To read it would mean only one thing: the political independent movement has come of age in the mainstream.

Talkin' 'Bout a Revolution

2007-10-03T20:22:00.000-04:00

Talkin' 'Bout a Revolution

A man from Vermont once said: "You have the power!" Indeed. And now is the time to use it in a more expansive way -- to challenge not just those running for president -- or those running Congress, or major news outlets -- but also to challenge us, the people, to stiffen our civic spine.

Help us connect the dots -- between rights and responsibilities -- between the individual and the collective -- between civic apathy and political corruption, and all that flows from that.

Help us make all the critical connections you can think of to demonstrate that the personal is political. Never more so than today.

Blog about it. Make an endless stream of YouTube videos about it. Start a "Take The Pledge" campaign ("I pledge allegiance to the idea that I will take my job as a citizen seriously").

In short, become a tidal wave of Tom Paines -- encouraging your audience to not only adopt a new citizenship manifesto, but to fire up their friends and family as well.

Reverse the curse of civic apathy and ignorance. That's a revolution worthy of the word.

A revolution of the American mind.

Full article here from Open Left diaries

Liberal Arts Dude sez:

Another excellent post from Jeffrey Abelson!

Like him, the idea of how to counter civic apathy among the general population and disengagement from active participation in politics fascinates me. LIke him I see so much potential for the ordinary citizen to be able to have an influence on society at all levels--only if they will take the reins and actually take their roles as citizens seriously.

A recent blog post at Ivory Towerz laments the same things that Jeffrey cites and gives the conclusion that for the political elite who really run things, that voters and voter opinion don't really matter anymore. That the elites see ordinary people primarily as Orwellian proles to be manipulated this way and that.

I fall somewhere in between Abelson's optimism and the pessimism in Ivory Towerz. While I don't have any ready answers I do appreciate that there are others who think about politics this way and that the Internet has given me a medium to commiserate with like-minded folks.

Preaching Revolution

2007-10-01T21:37:00.000-04:00

Preaching Revolution: A new evangelical movement offers lessons for the left

Bell and Claiborne are two of the better-known young voices of a broad, explicitly nonviolent, anti-imperialist and anticapitalist theology that is surging at the heart of white, suburban Evangelical Christianity. I first saw this movement at a local, conservative, nondenominational church in North Carolina where the pastor preached a sermon called “Two Fists in the Face of Empire.” Looking further, I found a movement whose book sales tower over their secular progressive counterparts in Amazon rankings; whose sermon podcasts reach thousands of listeners each week; and whose messages, in one form or another, reach millions of churchgoers. Bell alone preaches to more than 10,000 people every Sunday, with more than 50,000 listening in online.

But this movement is still barely aware of its own existence, and has not chosen a label for itself. George Barna, who studies trends among Christians for clients such as the Billy Graham Evangelical Association and Focus on the Family, calls it simply “The Revolution” and its adherents “Revolutionaries.”

Full article here from In These Times

Upgrade Democracy

2007-09-30T21:25:00.000-04:00

Upgrade Democracy
A couple of entries to FairVote's Upgrade Democracy Video Contest from YouTube

This first one is hilarious and I think has a great chance of being the winner. A democracy sing-a-long

The second one is my and my wife's joint entry

Creating a Progressive Movement

2007-09-30T11:33:00.000-04:00

Creating a Progressive Movement

Three excellent articles worth reading for Independent Progressives

Creating Progressive Infrastructure
The American conservative movement has succeeded in moving public attitudes steadily rightward over the last 30 years, with far-reaching consequences for the country’s governance. This success has been achieved through a well-funded and well-coordinated political infrastructure that follows a long-term, disciplined communications strategy. With increasing knowledge about the conservative infrastructure and its impact on politics and policy has come a realization that moderates and progressives need to develop an effective infrastructure of their own.

Full article here from the Commonweal Institute

Speech by the Commonweal Institute's executive director, Barry Kendall
The point is that it takes a movement, not just a party, to make social change happen. The job of a political party is to get its candidates elected, and keep them in office – and that’s an important job. But the job of a social movement, like conservatism or like the new progressive movement that is emerging today, our job is to advocate for a vision for society, a philosophy of governance, and the public policy solutions to get us there. As an organized movement, we have to exert our social will in order to make political change happen. We have to gather supporters and adherents, unite our voices and speak up for the things we care about. That’s what creates the political will that enables our elected officials to act. That’s the problem with how Congress has responded to the Iraq war—we the people have failed to create sufficient social will to force the politicians to do our political will. That’s why what MoveOn.org is doing—thank you to our advisor, Joan Blades—is so important, bringing all the anti-war groups together and leading a strategic grassroots publicity campaign to bring mounting political pressure to bear on Congress and the President to end this occupation. MoveOn is a model of what can be achieved when progressives cooperate with each other. Now, I may be naïve to say this, but I do believe that someday the occupation of Iraq will end. But the need for a progressive movement will never end.

Full article here from the Commonweal Institute

Creating Real Change
The election that put the Congress and the Senate into Democratic hands is not enough when they do not have their constituents pressuring them more steadily and more effectively than the keepers of the status quo in Washington and the rabid right. And we cannot forget that it is up to us foul-mouthed lefty bloggers to make it easy for the politicians to do the right thing by working for and promoting a progressive future and the kind of world we want to see for our kids and the rest of the world.

Full article here from the Left Coaster

Co-Blogging at Mirror on America

2007-09-26T18:33:00.000-04:00

Co-Blogging at Mirror on America

Greetings all! I have major news to share. I am now one of the co-bloggers at Mirror on America, one of the hardest-hitting, Independent blogs in the blogosphere which deal with race, politics, culture, and current events. It is a great honor for me to have been invited to participate in Mirror on America as a contributor and I look forward to honing my writing skills and political views as I interact not only with my co-bloggers but the readers of the blog as well.

I'll keep writing in this blog and will use this primarily as a vehicle for writings that do not fit over at Mirror on America. Please visit Mirror on America and sample some the most thought-provoking and hard-hitting commentary you will find in the Internet--from an Independent perspective!

END OF POST

Rants and Raves

2007-09-23T21:51:00.000-04:00

Rants and Raves

Sometimes I run across a blog post on politics that is well-written, thoughtful, intelligent, and reflects wisdom and a concern for humanity and peoples’ intelligence. Posts such as this from Paul Krugman on political coverage in the media; and this one in Open Left about using referendums as a strategy to challenge the powers that be in government on the war. Or critiques like this one from Mirror on America about the silence in the white Progressive blogosphere on the Jena 6 issue.

When I read posts such as these I start thinking to myself that there is hope in this world for serious, intelligent dialogue to happen among people and the Internet holds a tremendous promise to facilitate and spread such conversations and insights to a wide audience.

That is, until I start reading the Rants and Raves section of Craigs List. For those of you who don’t know, the Rants and Raves section of the Craigs List bulletin board (one exists for each city that Craigs List has a board) is there for discussions on various topics between posters. Sometimes you will find amusing anecdotes on everyday life. Sometimes people letting off steam on this or that issue. And sometimes—a lot of times—people venting their anger towards one another over various issues related to politics.

Most of the time, these exchanges can get quite nasty with name-calling, racial insults, and using pornographic photos to boot to drive home their points. A constant pattern that I observe is race. Always there is some sort of racially-driven nasty argument and name-calling going on between individuals. This is true with Rants and Raves in almost every city that I visit.

What is the point you may ask? Why call out the Craigs List Rants and Raves? If you don’t like it why keep reading it? Why waste your time on it if it offends you so much?

I keep reading Rants and Raves despite my objections to much of the content to remind myself of the reality of the world and people in it, especially the relations between different racial groups. Rants and Raves is a perfect vehicle to learn how people really think uncensored and without any filters of politeness or normal courtesy that you would employ in everyday life. And much of the time, the nasty racial insults and political arguments predominate because, I would think, that is really the way people think. That is really the way certain groups regard other human beings and the past several decades of advances in race relations since the 1960s haven’t changed that.

Rants and Raves forces me to be realistic and more cautious about the state of human nature than I otherwise would if I were to only fill my head with the best writings. Sometimes you need to wallow in the gutter to be able to really appreciate the reality of how people can really be despite the civilized front that they might use to present themselves to the world in everyday life.

Random Stuff Worth Reading

2007-09-19T19:44:00.000-04:00

Random Stuff Worth Reading

A Lost Cause

(Dated article by Adolph Reed from the last presidential elections but still very much relevant to this upcoming one)

I think the problem is that the national Democratic Party is torn between two constituencies whose interests are fundamentally incompatible. And, no, this doesn’t concern race.

Mobilizing the kind of popular electoral base necessary take back political initiative would require that the Democrats, as Perlstein argues, propound a compelling alternate vision of what public policy should look like and how the country would be governed if it were governed to reflect the interests and concerns of the vast majority of people who live here. That would require sharply differentiating themselves from the Republicans on class grounds. It would require mobilizing around issues such as real national health insurance (eliminating the travesty of corporate health care), restoring and strengthening workers’ rights, providing access to high-quality education through college for all, or renegotiating NAFTA and the WTO trade and investment agreements to assert some controls over disinvestment.

The Democrats can’t make that kind of appeal because they’re no less beholden to corporate and Wall Street interests than the Republicans are. Perstein’s proposals are fine, but they’ll fall on deaf ears. The Democrats will by and large continue to cater to those interests and palliate the rest of us with rhetoric.

Is P.C. Persecution Overblown?

(Asks the question: is PC Persecution an overblown phenomenon in college campuses?)

I just got an invitation to see Indoctrinate U, a documentary on the tyranny of political correctness in higher education. The trailer left me with a furrowed brow. Why? Because in all honesty, I've never been the target of p.c. persecution.

You might say: "Well, you're at GMU!" But before that, I was a student at UC Berkeley and Princeton. During those years, I was bored about 1000 times as frequently as I was mistreated for my contrarian political views.

You might say: "You were in economics!" Now, you're on stronger ground. But even in my non-econ classes, the serious problem was instructors' lack of enthusiasm, not instructors' enthusiastic brainwashing.

China's Hot Stock: Orwell Inc.

(Thought-provoking and hard-hitting editorial that excoriates Wall Street and American business for investing in China. Posits the situation that if it comes to a choice between promoting and defending democracy and making a buck by propping up totalitarian and antidemocratic regimes, the choice of making a buck trumps democracy every time in American business)

Capitalism is global now; democracy is not. We are moving toward one unified world market that is home to democratic and authoritarian systems alike. The Chinese model of Leninist capitalism poses a systemic challenge to the democratic capitalism that the West espouses. It promises continuing power and greatly increased wealth to the ruling elites of developing nations. Which means that America must disenthrall itself from one of its most cherished myths: that capitalism and democracy go hand in hand, that the spread of markets inevitably means the coming of democracy. That was a key argument that proponents of extending permanent favored trade status to China made during the 1990s. In fact, the creation of the Chinese-American economic entity that followed -- in effect, moving our manufacturing belt from the Midwest to Shenzhen -- has demonstrated the opposite. Leading American companies such as Microsoft, Google and Yahoo have acquiesced in Chinese Internet censorship. China's nonexistent standards of product safety -- the direct consequence of its absence of democracy -- became our standards, too.

And now, some of Wall Street's smoothest operators are investing directly in China's suppression of speech, worship and the right to assemble.

The Conscience of a Liberal
(Paul Krugman introduces his new blog at the New York Times)

The great divergence: Since the late 1970s the America I knew has unraveled. We’re no longer a middle-class society, in which the benefits of economic growth are widely shared: between 1979 and 2005 the real income of the median household rose only 13 percent, but the income of the richest 0.1% of Americans rose 296 percent.

Most people assume that this rise in inequality was the result of impersonal forces, like technological change and globalization. But the great reduction of inequality that created middle-class America between 1935 and 1945 was driven by political change; I believe that politics has also played an important role in rising inequality since the 1970s. It’s important to know that no other advanced economy has seen a comparable surge in inequality – even the rising inequality of Thatcherite Britain was a faint echo of trends here.

On the political side, you might have expected rising inequality to produce a populist backlash. Instead, however, the era of rising inequality has also been the era of “movement conservatism,” the term both supporters and opponents use for the highly cohesive set of interlocking institutions that brought Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich to power, and reached its culmination, taking control of all three branches of the federal government, under George W. Bush. (Yes, Virginia, there is a vast right-wing conspiracy.)

Chomsky vs. Llosa

2007-09-17T22:13:00.000-04:00

An exercise in comparing and contrasting

Alvaro Vargas Llosa writes “The Return of the Idiot” in Foreign Policy Magazine (2007)

Throughout the 20th century, Latin America’s populist leaders waved Marxist banners, railed against foreign imperialists, and promised to deliver their people from poverty. One after another, their ideologically driven policies proved to be sluggish and shortsighted. Their failures led to a temporary retreat of the strongman. But now, a new generation of self-styled revolutionaries is trying to revive the misguided methods of their predecessors.

Noam Chomsky writes in “The Empire and Ourselves” in A Solidarity Pamphlet (1986)

If you want to learn something about the nature of the Soviet Union, what kind of a government it is and what kind of a society they run, one of the best things to do is look at Eastern Europe. That tells you what they do whey they have a chance, when something is under their control.

Central America and the Caribbean have been in the iron grip of the United States for a century and therefore they tell us a lot about ourselves. What you find if you look is one of the world's worst horror chambers. There's starvation, slave labor, torture, massacre by U.S. clients. Virtually every effort to bring about some constructive change has led to a new dose of U.S. violence.

Noam Chomsky talks about the role of the United States in the history of the Carribean and Latin America. Of propping up and openly supporting brutal dictators in Haiti, El Salvador, Guatemala, and the Dominican Republic. Of undermining leaders of legitimate popular movements for democracy, and of sponsoring death squads.

He surprisingly mentions the names of John Kennedy and Jimmy Carter, iconic among American liberals, as culpable in crafting policies that led to these atrocities, along with Reagan. What Chomsky argues is that the American political and economic elite has historically maintained a façade of being supportive of the ideals of liberal democracy and a free society but have no scruples in undermining and destroying popular political movements and popularly elected governments in other countries if these movements endanger American business and political interests.

Llosa talks about Latin American leftist leaders and what he asserts are their misguided economic policies and authoritarian tendencies. He talks about Western intellectuals enamored of leftist leaders such as Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, and Ecuador’s Evo Morales who favor policies such as nationalization of a their country’s industries, who champion the poor and indigenous people, and who are virulently anti-American in their stance towards the United States. He favors a world that is rid of these types of leaders and the ideas they subscribe to so that Latin America can follow socioeconomic policies along the lines of free and open markets, privatization, and friendly relations with the United States.

What does this have to do with American politics for ordinary folks?

I would argue that for this ordinary folk, the issue and idea of the foreign policies being enacted by my government says a lot to the world about the United States. If the United States has a history of covert and overt abuses in Latin America Llosa conveniently forgets to include these examples in his tirade against leftist leaders. The anti-Americanism of these popular and populist leftist leaders and hostility to free-market style economic reforms such as those favored by the US is a natural outgrowth and reaction to the history of US intervention in the region.

I favor a populist brand of politics such as those abhorred by Llosa within the United States. A true, grassroots, bottom-up expression of popular democracy which will support movements for liberal democracies world wide and whose popularly elected government will follow a foreign policy that supports those ideals. A foreign policy that will not follow policies such as those reported by Chomsky in his article. Does this politics have to be leftist? Not necessarily. I support true, grassroots democracy and I know that such expressions don’t necessarily equate to leftist politics.

Here is a quote from Chomsky’s article that I think is very prescient:

Now, there is no reason at all for us to allow this horror story to continue. In a country as free as this one, there is a great deal that can be done to reverse this course. It basically requires two things. The first thing is that it requires a certain amount of honesty. Enough honesty to learn who we are and what we do in the world and what we've been doing for a long, long time. Secondly, it requires a certain degree of courage and commitment, namely to devote ourselves to changing a world of terror and suffering that we have helped to create and now maintain.

Also check out "On Class-Based Politics"

Rock the Debates!

2007-09-17T20:09:00.000-04:00

From the Rock the Debates web site:

Never before in American history has it been more vital to have an open, honest, and innovative examination of America’s problems and solutions.

The best way to sparking the minds of Americans is to open up the presidential debates beyond the Democrat and Republican parties. Rock-the-Debates seeks to include third parties who will energize the presidential debates placing their ideas into the mix, without endorsing or opposing any particular candidate. We just want the ideas out and let the American people decide.

You can play a key role in this unprecedented, historical endeavor.

The idea is to get the Democrat and Republican presidential candidates to commit to debate third party candidates.

How? We’ll ask them to debate, get the clip on video, and place it on You-Tube. Folks in places like New Hampshire can play a key, historic, pivotal role in making this happen.

Here's a synopsis/review of the various responses received so far from the candidates.

Click here for the Rock the Debates web site.

Earth to Bush

2007-09-16T23:21:00.000-04:00

Earth to Bush
By Sen. Bernie Sanders

A commentary by Senator Bernie Sanders from In These Times
Ground control to Mr. Bush: What planet are you living on? Today, tens of millions of Americans are experiencing a declining standard of living and yet you continue to insist that our economy is “strong” and “robust.” Rather than acknowledge the economic anxieties of American workers, you insist that they don’t know how good they have it.

Since you have been president, 5 million more Americans have slipped into poverty; hunger and homelessness have increased. Because you refused to raise the minimum wage for six years, millions of workers are continuing to work full time and live in desperation. Low-wage workers are often unable to find quality childcare and their kids enter school at a special disadvantage—many of them never to catch up. It is no coincidence, Mr. President, that we have both the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world as well as the highest rate of incarceration.

Click here for the full article

An Independent Movement?

2007-09-14T22:06:00.000-04:00

An Independent Movement?

Independents are a diverse group. It would be hard to pigeonhole how to predict the political behavior of this population because of the astounding diversity of their viewpoints. There are left wing Independents, right wing independents, and various shades of political opinion in between. Independents can be progressives, they can be quite conservative. They can even be extremists in ideology or some other viewpoint.

Given this I see the task of organizing political independents into some sort of political movement to be a monumental one fraught with severe difficulties. How on earth can you get a group of people so disparate in their beliefs to ever agree on anything, much less mobilize them to act in unison?

The established political parties have an advantage in that they already self-identify according to some ideology, belief system or agenda. They know who they are and what types of policies they support. They can, therefore, build a constituency and try to get that constituency to act in unison – voting, fundraising, protesting, marching, etc.

The way I see it, a political organizing effort aimed at Independents is best channeled towards reforming the political process so that Independents and those unaffiliated with either major party can have a voice. You won’t be able to get a left-wing independent to agree with a right-wing independent on the fine points of a major issue, let’s say the Iraq war or illegal immigration. What you might get them to agree with is that their viewpoints as Independents and non-mainstream parties should be given as much weight and exposure in the public discourse as the voice of Democrats and Republicans.

Opening up the political system and process – that’s something concrete that I see left and right wing and other independents of various ideological hues can stand together and actually stand as a united front for something. That can mean being for reforms of our method of voting (Instant Runoff, Range, etc.); inclusion of non-mainstream candidates in presidential debates, reform of ballot access laws to accommodate third parties, Proportional Representation, etc. There are a surprising number of reform ideas floating out there that, if implemented, can really make a big difference in US politics.

As a progressive Independent, if there is to be a political movement for Independents, these are the types of reform measures that I would be happy to ally myself with right-wing, conservative, and other folks who might disagree with me on a host of issues. When it comes to the issue of leveling the playing field, I would be happy to set aside these differences to work together with people who I might not totally agree with on many fronts. On certain fronts that deal with inclusiveness of the political process I believe there is room for Independents to be able to agree with each other on something and to be mobilized towards a concrete goal.

Random Stuff

2007-09-10T22:06:00.000-04:00

Random Stuff

A couple of good things to read:

Two more great Open Left diary entries by Jeffrey Abelson on America's civic apathy. Well worth a read. And with comments by the Liberal Arts Dude!

We the Who?

The Armor of Apathy

And from this weekend's Washington Post magazine, a surprisingly candid and engaging look at longshot presidential candidate Mike Gravel

Citizen Slackers?

2007-09-06T19:45:00.000-04:00

Citizen Slackers?

From the Open Left blog diaries by Jeffrey Abelson:

What does it really mean to be a responsible citizen in modern times? How informed and engaged do we really need to be? What does it mean for democracy when 42% of us can't name the three branches of government -- let alone fathom the critical issues that not only affect the direction and character of the nation, but that directly affect our own lives, and those of future generations. The dirty little secret in American politics is that civic apathy, and the dangerous civic ignorance that flows from it, is rampant in America. And in a very real sense, it's the true root cause of our dysfunctional democracy.

Abelson cites a couple of sources to support his exploration of these questions:

Public Knowledge of Current Affairs Little Changed by News and Information Revolutions--What Americans Know: 1989-2007 by the Pew Research Center

Dunce-Cap Nation from Newsweek, June 23, 2007

Abelson’s conclusion:

The only way out of the hole America's dug itself into is to find a way to inspire ourselves to take our jobs as citizens much more seriously. To radically upgrade the operating system of democracy.

Liberal Arts Dude sez:

Well done! I look forward to reading (and responding to) the rest of Abelson’s writings on this subject in the coming weeks in Open Left. He is asking all the important and relevant questions that should be asked and exploring them in a fresh and challenging way.

In a lot of ways the subject he is tackling is not a new topic at all. I remember variations of “the uninformed public” as a recurrent theme in political and social commentary when I was growing up. It is only when I grew up that I realized how important it is to ask these questions and explore their logical conclusions and their implications.

One thing that I would caution the reader though is not to have knowledge of facts and current events of Civics 101 be the be all and end all of the worth of a citizen’s civic IQ. We have a lot of citizens for whom not knowing these information may be true. Those who are illiterate, those who are not well-educated or formally schooled—but who do recognize their interests as voters and citizens in a democracy and are eager to participate.

I will stand corrected if I am wrong but in the heyday of the labor movement in the 1920s and 30s, and in the civil rights struggle of the 1960s, many of the citizens who supported these movements and stood to benefit were the poor, uneducated, and disenfranchised. If they were to be disqualified from participation back then there would have been no movements at all.

Now the willfully ignorant citizen—those with access to education, information, technology but choose to remain ignorant anyway—well, they are another story.

Post-Mortem America

2007-09-03T21:41:00.000-04:00

Every American citizen concerned about the state of democracy should read this eloquent essay by Chris Floyd (see below)

Post-Mortem America: Bush's Year of Triumph and the Hard Way Ahead
From Empire Burlesque

Tomorrow is here. The game is over. The crisis has passed -- and the patient is dead. Whatever dream you had about what America is, it isn't that anymore. It's gone. And not just in some abstract sense, some metaphorical or mythological sense, but down in the nitty-gritty, in the concrete realities of institutional structures and legal frameworks, of policy and process, even down to the physical nature of the landscape and the way that people live.

The Republic you wanted -- and at one time might have had the power to take back -- is finished. You no longer have the power to keep it; it's not there. It was kidnapped in December 2000, raped by the primed and ready exploiters of 9/11, whored by the war pimps of the 2003 aggression, gut-knifed by the corrupters of the 2004 vote, and raped again by its "rescuers" after the 2006 election. Beaten, abused, diseased and abandoned, it finally died. We are living in its grave.

Click here to read the full article

END OF POST

Independents and War with Iran

2007-09-03T12:13:00.000-04:00

Independents and War with Iran

A great discussion has been going hot and heavy the past couple of days in the Open Left blog on Barack Obama’s strong rhetoric against Iran. Follow the links below to read the full article and the comments that follow.

Obama, Iran, and the Confidence of Your Convictions

I tend to offer criticism of a politicians based on policy disagreements or issues of integrity. Over the past few days, the object of my criticism has been Barack Obama and his pugilistic language towards Iran. Obama is pushing a bill that would make it easier for American entities to divest from companies doing business with Iran, a bill with wide support in Congress as well as being a top AIPAC priority. An Obama supporter in the comments, horizonr, angrily pointed out that I was unfair to Obama because I hadn't linked to this Op-Ed he had written titled ' Hit Iran where it hurts', and that this piece gave his comments more context.

To see full article and discussion click here.

A blogger posed a question to me: how do you get political independents engaged in stopping the drumbeat for war with Iran?

This is a great question to ask in my mind because it is a direct challenge to the community of active Independent bloggers and activists to take a stand on a specific issue. And then harness that united stand towards concrete opposition towards an impending policy decision by the administration.

I can’t claim to speak for anyone out there but me. For this Independent, you have my attention. You personal outreach blogger to blogger succeeded in getting my attention to an important, looming issue and I am listening and observing what happens next.

For the Independent community at large, engaging bloggers and activists on an individual basis is a good strategy. A formal, organized outreach effort that says “we are Progressive Democrats and we oppose any war with Iran. This is what we are planning to do about it. Will you in the Independent community join us?”

But I think the larger question the blogger is actually asking is how do you harness the potential of the 35-40% of unaffiliated voters towards a political movement to stop the impending war with Iran?

That is the $1 million dollar question that I am afraid I don’t have the answer to. Based on my readings of Independent blogs and articles in the Internet, there is a wide diversity of views among Independents. The Independent community spans the spectrum of political opinion in various shades between Left and Right. Not all Independents will be against war with Iran. There will inevitably be some who would be for a war with Iran.

Then there is the fact that these 35-40% of the electorate is unorganized. I know that an effort is underway to change that by groups like the CUIP. But so far at this time, there is not an entity among political Independents similar to MoveOn.org.

Coming Soon: PR Push to Promote War with Iran?

2007-09-02T21:47:00.000-04:00

Coming Soon: PR Push to Promote War with Iran?

I followed an alert in the comments section of the Hankster’s blog on the possibility of impending war with Iran being reported via this blog. Breaking news on this issue here.

Sheer madness is the only thing I can think of about such reports. Madness not on the part of the reporter, but in the part of the US government and those of our leaders if it is true they are seriously contemplating an attack on Iran. The last time I heard the US military was operating at full capacity with ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan—does it think that it can carry on military operations against Iran, conquer and occupy yet another Middle Eastern country? Or is occupation not even in the works and the US only intends to bomb the bejesus out of Iran, causing the inevitable civilian casualties and further destabilizing the region into chaos? And I ask—what for? Iran hasn’t attacked the U.S. except perhaps verbally.

From the same blog above, here are some questions posed by George Packer of the New Yorker:

Does the Administration expect the Iranian regime to fall in the event of an attack? If yes, what will replace it? If no (and it will not), why would the Administration deliberately set about to strengthen the regime’s hold on power? What will the Administration do to protect highly vulnerable American lives and interests in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world against the Iranian reprisals that will follow? What if Iran strikes against Israel? What will be the strategy when the Iranian nuclear program, damaged but not destroyed, resumes? How will the Administration handle the international alarm and opprobrium that would be an attack’s inevitable fallout?

Wise questions that our leaders should heed.

I never thought I’d see the day when preemptive military strikes would be a normal, everyday part of US foreign policy and diplomacy. Reports say that the public relations push to sell a war with Iran to the American people will start a week after Labor Day.
Let’s see what happens the next week or so.

Here’s an anonymous comment from the same blog which contains the best bit of wisdom I have seen so far in this brewing debate:

Anonymous said...
Want to know THE best way to totally deflate Ahmadinejad's sails? Apologize for overthrowing their democratically elected and very popular Premier Mossadeq and inflicting the dictator Shah upon them. THEN push hard for rapprochement with no strings. No trying to force an oil law upon them, no trying to force them to accept a Disney franchise, nothing. Tell them we want peace and economic ties, no strings.

Doing THAT would turn the Great Satan into the Great Puppy. Instead of feeding the fires in the bellies of the Ahmadinejads of Iran, keep throwing water on it and turn their fiery rhetoric hollow.

In short, quit acting as if we are entitled to ANYTHING they have. Quit acting as if we own the world or that it is "out way or the highway".

Political Engagement 101

2007-08-30T22:47:00.000-04:00

Political Engagement 101

Survey after survey reports that American students — while concerned about the world around them — are apathetic about politics. Events like Katrina or Darfur spark activism and voluntarism. And to be sure, college Democrats and Republicans are good at organizing competing speakers. But voter registration (and voting), turnouts at town hall meetings and knowledge of the political process remain embarrassingly low.

Research that will be presented this week at the American Political Science Association’s annual meeting, which starts today in Chicago, suggests that political engagement can be taught. In a project led by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, researchers identified a series of courses that mixed more traditional political science education with participatory politics — not in the sense of organizing rallies for presidential candidates but with activities that go beyond formal classroom instruction.

To read the rest of the article click here.

Liberal Arts Dude sez: check out the comments section at the end of the article!

A Guide to the Democratic Party and Democrats

2007-08-26T23:16:00.000-04:00

A Guide to the Democratic Party and Democrats

An excellent guide to the various factions within the Democratic Party from the Monthly Review zine by Chris Townshend

That said, nowhere here did I say that work within the Democratic Party world is futile, impossible, or taboo. It's the only game in town, like it or not. But perhaps a more detailed understanding of the Democratic Party will provide all of us with a better sense of what we as a Left need to do in order to somehow, someday, build our own political action vehicle capable of defending working people and finally solving some of the acute problems we face. Possession of this knowledge may lower your blood pressure as well. To view the full article click here.

Stop the GOP California Electoral College Power Grab

2007-08-25T00:53:00.000-04:00

Stop the GOP California Electoral College Power Grab

The Electoral College should be abolished, but there is a right way to do it and a wrong way. A prominent Republican lawyer in California is doing it the wrong way, promoting a sneaky initiative that, in the name of Electoral College reform, would rig elections in a way that would make it difficult for a Democrat to be elected president, no matter how the popular vote comes out. If the initiative passes, it would do serious damage to American democracy. Click here for the full New York Times editorial.

from Alternet

Just when it seemed like the Democrats had a good chance of taking the White House, along comes a cynical power grab by GOP operatives to divvy up California's electoral votes based on the number of congressional districts each candidate wins.

From FairVote

To combat the feeling many states have of being voiceless in presidential elections, some Republicans in California and Democrats in North Carolina want to see their states’ electoral votes awarded by congressional district rather than by winner-take-all. That way, the Golden State’s GOP can presumably deliver a score of electoral votes to their party’s nominee, and Democrats of the Old North can give five for their team otherwise have none. That’s fair, right? Not quite. A new report by FairVote studies the flaws in alternative methods of allocating electoral votes.

From Newsweek

Our way of electing presidents has always been fertile ground for mischief. But there's sensible mischief—toying with existing laws and the Constitution to reflect popular will—and then there's the other kind, which tries to rig admission to the Electoral College for strictly partisan purposes. Mischief-makers in California (Republicans) and North Carolina (Democrats) are at work on changes that would subvert the system for momentary advantage and—in ways the political world is only beginning to understand—dramatically increase the odds that a Republican will be elected president in 2008.

From ABC News

If passed, this could have a potentially big affect on a presidential election. a candidate who loses the popular vote in California could still walk away with a decent share of the electoral votes -- as many as a winner would get in Illinois or Pennsylvania. The way the system works now -- a presidential candidate who wins a majority of votes in California will take all of the state's 55 electoral votes. Because California has been leaning left in recent years that system is good for democratic candidates. But a republican-backed group called Californians for Equal Representation wants to change it, and plans to put an initiative on the June ballot.

Profile: Progressive Majority

2007-08-20T18:36:00.000-04:00

Profile: Progressive Majority

What if I told you there was a political organization in the U.S. for liberals and progressives which has a winning and realistic strategy for participating in electoral politics—would you believe me? And what if I told you that their effort is nationwide in scope and they are already hard at work electing progressive candidates on a local level—ward by ward and district by district in City Councils across the country? On top of that they have a leadership training program in place to identify and recruit promising, progressive leaders, especially among the ranks of labor union activists, those under 35 years old, and people of color?

Let me introduce you to Progressive Majority.

From their web site here is Progressive Majority’s Vision and Agenda:

Progressive Majority's mission is to elect progressive champions. We accomplish this by identifying and recruiting the best progressive leaders to run for office; coaching and supporting their candidacies by providing strategic message, campaign, and technical support; prioritizing the recruitment and election of candidates of color; and bringing new people into the political process at all levels.

Agenda
• Economic Justice: Prosperity should be accessible to everyone, not merely the few.
• Civil Rights: Every individual's civil rights must be protected; discrimination and harassment based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or physical and developmental ability should be banned.
• Health Care: Every individual should have affordable, quality health care.
• Education: It is essential that we invest in quality public education for all.
• Environment: We must commit to restoring and protecting our environment.
• Reproductive Freedom: Women and men - not politicians - deserve the right to make personal decisions about their reproductive health in accordance with their own personal and moral beliefs.

Progressive Majority was founded in 2001 to serve as a multi-issue political action committee (PAC) by leaders from organized labor, Members of Congress, and progressive donors. Its network has since grown to over 50,000 progressives nationwide. They have programs in Arizona, California, Colorado, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wisconsin. Their aim is to grow the movement until it is in the top 24 battleground states.

Liberal Arts Dude sez:
Regardless of how you feel about participation in electoral politics (most, if not all of PM’s candidates will run as Democrats rather than as a candidate unaffiliated with either major party) an infusion of progressive candidates and leaders on the local level is sound strategy in building a national, progressive agenda. PM’s approach is long-term in scope and recognizes the principle that to have a viable political movement, the foundations for it must first be in place. And that foundation lies in electing candidates in locally elected offices in key geographic areas. Get enough of your people elected in those offices nationwide and pretty soon you will find the progressives competitive with the Republican-corporate backed political machine on a national level. But this time, with an active base of local and grassroots support as the foundation.

This is an effort that was clearly designed with a long-term goal in mind. The goal is to build a national movement and not just throw support to a big name individual or high-profile candidate in high-profile races. The goal is to build a strong political infrastructure on a state-by-state basis—much like the conservatives did for themselves in the last 40 years.

I’m an independent but if these are the types of Democrats that Progressive Majority represents, then these Democrats are worth supporting.

An Independent's Dilemma

2007-08-14T22:48:00.000-04:00

An Independent's Dilemma

As the presidential elections get closer I face, as a registered independent, a choice—whom to vote for President. Realistically, in the current system we have, it is a choice between the Republican and Democratic candidate.

I’d actually like to have the option of a candidate like Bill Van Auken, Socialist Equality Party candidate (not for the presidency but against Hillary Clinton in the Senate in 2006). Check out his YouTube interview below:

Until barriers and obstacles on third parties are removed from American politics and the playing field becomes more level for insurgent candidates outside of the two major parties these are the only choices we have.

There is a growing effort right now among political independents to address this problem. Here is a clip from the documentary “Facing America’s Independents” on YouTube:

In it, the speaker posits the dilemma for most third party efforts as being that the third party often becomes an appendage of either of the two major parties. What the new movement is aiming for is something different—to have a movement that is truly independent of the two major parties and where the interests of ordinary people who are not beholden to either major party are recognized.

There is a lot to be said for such a goal. But a question in my mind is how? How can political independents influence American politics for the better in an organized way and maintain its independence from either of the two major parties—without organizing a third party or falling into the same trap that third parties fall into when they start playing the game of electoral politics?

The way I see it, if the aim is to let the Democrats know that they cannot take your vote for granted, then the obvious strategy is to let the Democrats know you are willing to vote for their opponents (the Republicans or if one is running, an independent). But to an independent voter for whom voting Democratic is voting for the lesser of two evils, I just can’t see myself playing the game of threatening to vote Republican—because what if the Democrat disappoints? What choice do I have but to follow through on the threat? And I can’t bring myself to consider Republican candidates under any circumstances, unless a sea change in ideology and actual policies miraculously happen overnight to the Republican Party.

So what’s a liberal Independent to do? I am faced with either voting Democratic or the longshot third party candidate in a symbolic protest vote—or sitting out the elections at home because neither choice is good enough.
The way I have dealt with this dilemma is to think long-term. Play electoral politics as it exists today but work for reform of the system for the long-term. Supporting initiatives like Instant Runoff Voting and the National Popular Vote or supporting your local third party and building a grassroots constituency for that party are ways I can see how one can work for change incrementally with an eye for what democracy can look like ten or twenty years or a generation from now.

Does it look like I have given up the fight for politics today? Hardly. Only that I acknowledge and recognize who the big dogs are in the yard and let them—for now—rule it out over the rest of us. But all the while I have my eye set on working with like-minded folks on building a long-term effort to provide a viable alternative to the big dogs. And that’s not going to happen overnight.

National Popular Vote Q&A

2007-08-13T18:46:00.000-04:00

National Popular Vote Q&A

I was interested in the National Popular Vote effort being conducted by FairVote, the electoral reform organization. I had a few questions and the folks at FairVote were kind enough to answer them. Without further adieu, here’s my Q&A on the National Popular Vote!

How did the idea for NPV come about? Has anything like it been done before in the past?

Dr. John Koza, a Stanford University computer science professor, conceived of the idea as a way to do away with the current division of the country into safe states and battleground states. Currently, 2/3 of our states get absolutely no attention by presidential campaigns. The principle behind it is not new at all. Article 1, section 2 of the Constitution gives state exclusive power over how to award their electoral votes. That is why we see Maine and Nebraska using a different method than 48 states. Under NPV, states join an interstate compact to agree to give their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote in all fifty states. The compact goes into effect when enough states have joined to add up to 270 electoral votes, or a majority in the Electoral College.

The nationwide scope of the NPV effort is impressive. What are the primary difficulties a campaign of this magnitude faced with? And how do you overcome them?

Our biggest asset is the huge percentage of Americans who favor a national popular vote for President. Ever since the Gallup poll began to ask the question, it has gotten 70%-80% of the public's support, and that holds true today, in every single state. We've taken advantage of that and now have bills in 47 states with over 350 legislative sponsors. Even in states that may benefit from the winner-take-all rule for award electoral votes that NPV is looking to change, you will find that constituents overwhelmingly favor the idea of a popular vote.

Playing devil's advocate: one argument against NPV says under a national popular vote system, people living in smaller, more sparsely populated states will be at a disadvantage because more votes will come from densely populated states and coastal regions. Those regions tend to have more Democratic-liberal leaning voters. Candidates and campaigns will thus, tend to focus their resources and efforts primarily in these densely populated regions. How do you respond to the criticism that NPV will put smaller, more sparsely populated (and Republican-leaning) states at a disadvantage?

I am always amazed that this is brought up. A national popular vote is a reform that helps small states and empowers rural areas.

Right now, on the other hand, the smallest states in the country are severely disadvantaged by the current system. Of all the 13 states with 4 electoral votes or fewer, six are red and six are blue, and only a one - New Hampshire - is a swing state. The rest of the states are totally locked out. Campaigns don't poll them, spend money there, advertise, visit, or campaign there.

Just consider the math. Those 12 smallest states have about 40 electoral votes and 11 million people. Ohio also has 11 million people, but only 20 electoral votes. Does the small state bonus make candidates go to the small states? Not at all. They go to Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania, the biggest of the swing states. Even Iowa, which is a swing state, finds itself ignored toward the end because regardless of how that state votes, Ohio is the true kingmaker because of its size.

A popular vote makes every vote equal, and candidates will vie for every vote they can. In other popular elections for governor, candidates campaign in every part of the state. If cities always controlled and election, we might have nothing but Democratic governors. But that doesn't hold true. Gov. Schwarzenegger, for example, did not win by carrying San Francisco and Los Angeles, nor did Bush win the state of Ohio in 2004 by carrying Cincinnati and Cleveland.

To win a popular vote election, you simply need to campaign everywhere. If you do not, you will lose. Low population areas will never the be center of the universe, but they will at least be included in the universe, and have reason to activate their local party organizations and be heard by the national parties. As things stand, candidates can ignore all but a handful of, and within that category, pay attention to the biggest.

Playing devil's advocate: one criticism of NPV (and which was used by Arnold Schwarzenegger in his veto of the bill) was that if candidate A won the national popular vote but candidate B won the state's popular vote, shouldn't the state's electoral votes go to the winner of that state? How do you respond to that argument?

Nobody who votes for president ever wakes up the day after Election Day and says, "Hurray! My candidate didn't become president, but he won my state!"

The issue is not who wins which state, but who becomes President of the United States. In Utah, there are plenty of Democrats whose votes don't count. In California, there are plenty of Republicans whose votes don't count. In fact, not only are they failing to help elect the candidate they voted for, but they are in effect having their votes cast for the opposite party. So we must not forget that the issue cuts both ways.

At the end of the day, only a national popular vote makes every vote count the same, and count exactly for the candidate for whom it was cast.

Playing devil's advocate: one argument that has been advanced about NPV is that it is not a comprehensive reform effort. They say NPV, for example, is not intended to mitigate majority parties' control of election rules nor is it designed to bring improvements to or eliminate problems resulting from campaign financing. Why NPV rather than some other type of reform?

The National Popular Vote plan is intended to make every vote equal, make every state important, and make sure the candidate with the most votes wins the presidency. It may have other salutary effects, such as impelling states to protect their voting process and get more voters to turn out to vote. However, it's main goal is to make the election of the president fairer at a basic level.

For election reform in general, there is no silver bullet. Campaign finance reform will not clean up politics in a comprehensive way, nor would redistricting reform, or so on. That doesn't mean they are not worthy efforts. We need to pursue good policies across the board.

Making sure we have a president accountable to all 50 states and all Americans, however, seems like an ambitious effort all by itself!

If you can say anything to ordinary people (Democrat, Republican, Independent, liberal, conservative, etc.) to elicit their support for the NPV effort what would it be?

If you believe in the principle of one person one vote, and your vote should count no matter where you happen to live, then you should support a national popular vote for president.

Anything else you'd like to add?

With all the partisan gaming out there, it's time we work toward goals that benefit the country universally. The National Popular Vote campaign ( www.nationalpopularvote.com) does just this. Thank you for taking an interest in this important issue.

Upgrade Democracy Video Contest

2007-08-12T10:40:00.000-04:00

From the FairVote web site, a fun opportunity to participate in a contest held by a truly legit pro-democracy organization:

FairVote is launching its Upgrade Democracy Video Contest, and we're giving everyone a chance to flex their creativity by making a short digital video that answers the question, "if you could change anything you wanted about elections, what would our democracy look like?"

Contest entrants will upload their videos to YouTube where FairVote staff will choose a slate of nominees, and winners will be chosen by celebrity judges like filmmaker Richard Linklater (School of Rock, A Scanner Darkly), political guru Donna Brazile, and The Daily Show's Dan Bakkedahl...and many more!

Cash prizes will be awarded in various categories, and the first prize winner will get a trip to Washington, DC to receive their award at FairVote's Claim Democracy 2007 Conference on November 10, 2007. Click over to www.UpgradeDemocracy.com for all the details!

END OF POST

A Question for Labor

2007-08-07T23:01:00.001-04:00

A Question for the Labor Movement

This is a serious question to members of the American labor movement out there.

How does one go about joining the movement if one is in a non-unionized, white-collar industry? Is there a way for people like me to help out or be exposed to labor politics and organizing if a union doesn't exist where I work? I have been thinking for some time now about the type of social movement I would like to participate in. And it all points me in the direction of a movement based on social class and which advocates for the ordinary person. There's only one movement, historically, that has done that and that is the labor movement.

I live in Washington, DC and there is a lot of labor union headquarters out here. But membership seems to be closed to folks for whom their workplaces are unionized. Hence, for people like me, I'm mostly on the outside looking in.

Anyone wanna help out the Liberal Arts Dude?

Inequality Has Run Amok. Do Leaders Care?

2007-08-06T22:00:00.000-04:00

Inequality Has Run Amok. Do Leaders Care?
By Dmitri Iglitzin & Steven Hill

When pets are poisoned by imported pet food or U.S. attorneys are fired under suspicious circumstances, Congress gears up hearings and vows quick action. A far greater scandal, however, has hardly gained the interest of legislators or the presidential candidates. That is the increasing wealth gap between the rich, the middle class and the poor, which is reaching alarming proportions.

Click here to read the rest of the article.

Liberal Arts Dude sez:
This is pretty much THE issue for me that gets me going and which is the originating spark that made me want to be a political blogger in the first place. The issue of inequality—and what to do about it.

So far I have heard little from either the Republicans or Democrats on socioeconomic inequality as a major issue. John Edwards talks a bit about poverty but I have yet to hear any of the candidates talk about inequality along the terms of social class and to propose solutions along those lines.

Why do I favor such a discussion? Because inequality in a capitalist society is about social class. One cannot talk honestly about inequality in this country unless you include in the discussion the subject of class. And as a country, we cannot move forward to formulating solutions unless we first acknowledge exactly what is going on.

However, American politics and civic discussion seems strangely silent on the topic of class. That is something I have never really understood in my over two decades of having lived in the U.S. and grown up here. Sure, there are Socialists here who do view inequality on an explicitly class-based level. But they are pretty much marginal in their influence and not part of the mainstream.

I am not sure if it is the American culture of radical individualism, or the belief that we are all middle class that is the problem. Americans just don’t think about politics and economics on explicitly class-based terms. Hence, they don’t act politically and economically on explicitly class-based terms. Which means the middle and lower classes are divided easily by wedge issues and various “values”-based appeals by those in power who would like to maintain the status quo as it is.

It is one thing to appeal to our leaders and politicians and implore them to have our interests in mind when they craft policy and they implement laws and regulations on a national level. That’s the model that exists right now. We depend on the few Populist politicians out there who are still decent human beings to represent our interests.

It is quite another to aim for a situation where those leaders and politicians are swayed by our influence because the middle and working classes recognize their common class interests and are united in making sure that those interests are represented in the halls of power. This is the type of politics that I favor.

Republican Debate Recap

2007-08-05T12:56:00.000-04:00

Republican Debate Recap

I caught the debate between Republican candidates for President this morning in a special edition of George Stephanopoulus’ Sunday morning political talk show. The event was held at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa, moderated by George Stephanopoulus, and included questions from viewers who submitted their questions via email or video. Click here for the Washington Post summary of it. See below for the Liberal Arts Dude recap

The first question, predictably, was on abortion. Predictably, most of the candidates on stage declared themselves “pro-life” (whatever the heck that means these days with many who are against abortion supporting anti-life policies such as the death penalty, war, etc. But that’s a digression that is for another blog post to deal with).

The exceptions are Rudy Giuliani who declared himself personally pro-life but ultimately, the matter of abortion falls on a woman’s right to choose with the advise of her physician. Tommy Thompson also declared himself pro-life but that the issues facing Americans are much larger than this one issue and he hopes the debate is not framed along such narrow lines. McCain declared himself pro-life and that such a stance is also a matter of national security (which elicited a big question mark from me because I see no connection between the policy of preserving “life” and the willingness to joke about bombing Iran).

The question turned to foreign policy afterwards and Ron Paul elicited the first loud reactions of the night (a mixture of cheers and boos) by openly and forcefully saying the troops need to come home. That the US is in Iraq illegally, that we went to war under false pretenses as in Vietnam and Korea and that the Bush foreign policy is defective. He’s the Republicans’ own Mike Gravel but with a larger following. I sure hope he doesn’t get lost in the shuffle too soon as he is the only one in the Republican bunch willing to hold the Bush administration’s feet to the fire and to call the issues plainly and truthfully instead of spinning it to electoral advantage.

Duncan Hunter and John McCain agreed on the surge as working. Hunter is quick to say that the Democratic candidates are all rushing to exit out of Iraq. McCain says we are winning and that we must succeed and morale is good.

Huckabee offered to win this war we must end dependence on foreign oil. Bownback says that what is missing is a “political surge” and that a three-state solution is needed to stabilize Iraq (partition Iraq between a Kurdish North, Sunni West and Shia South).

Guiliani seemed more interested in debating his Democratic rivals than his fellow Republicans onstage as he argued none of the Democratic candidates uttered the words ”Islamic terrorism” in their debates. He says no peace through weakness and appeasement and that American should win in Iraq. Which makes him, Romney and McCain all on the same page in regards to Iraq.

Tancredo tried to distinguish himself in this field by taking on a more of a warmongering stance by saying the “rules of engagement” must be reviewed to allow the troops to fight more effectively. He says the troops are fighting with one arm tied behind their backs and that no political solution is being offered by the Iraqis. This sounds to me dangerously like a call for the US to do whatever the hell it wants in Iraq and for the removal of all constraints in warfare such as the use of torture, being able to kill anyone indiscriminately—including civilians—without retribution, etc. This is how I read it and it frightened the hell out of me that someone is actually calling for this type of thing in a national political forum.

Tommy Thompson prevented the discussion from falling off the warmongering deep end by asserting that how the war is going (badly) is a failure on the part of both the President and Congress and that the Iraqi Parliament can’t realistically decide on a vacation for itself, much less a political solution to the civil war it is in.

Ron Paul, again upstaged everyone by speaking the obvious truth. That Neo-conservatives (he actually used that word!) engineered the war in Iraq for the purposes of profiting off the Iraqi oil reserves, that we had no reason to go to war with this Third World country, and that the current war in Iraq is an undeclared, unconstitutional war.

McCain, who oddly, seemed deflated, offered weakly that the surge is working, that the early stage of the war was badly mismanaged, but that we now have a strategy and leadership to succeed.

The candidates were then asked if they were in favor of the Grassley plan to fund health care for uninsured children with a tobacco tax. Predictably, most of the candidates dodged the question and tried to reframe the argument to something else.

Huckabee said the focus of American healthcare should be on prevention and wellness, rather than on intervention. Thompson said neither the President nor Grassley is right. That he agreed with Huckabee that the focus should be on wellness and prevention rather than intervention.

Tancredo once again goes for the radical individualist crowd by saying government has no responsibility to provide healthcare to people from cradle to grave. That it is unhealthy to have a government administered healthcare plan. And oh yeah, he made sure to display his xenophobic creds (to large cheers) by mentioning that 20 million illegal aliens are siphoning off billions of dollars in illegal health benefits.

Romney is the only one to offer a solution rather than a critique by saying “market-based” insurance has been used as a solution in Massachusetts and that this can be used as a model for the nation. Giuliani made a forceful statement that what we need is not socialized medicine but tax deduction, personal health savings accounts.

Duncan Hunter offered that it is illegal to buy insurance across state lines right now and that he would try and fix that. Brownback spoke it simply—no to government healthcare and yes to a market-based solution.

So everyone on the stage was against the Grassley proposal.

The next question dealt with Barack Obama’s proposal last week to bomb Pakistan unilaterally with or without President Musharraf’s consent if it meant being able to “take out Al-Qaeda.” (a comment I am extremely disappointed he made)

Giuliani says Obama was right. That we shouldn’t take the nuclear option off the table but he said he’d say it more diplomatically.

Romney gave a ridiculous explanation that he says Obama is confused—that he (Obama) would talk to enemies like Iran and Venezuela but will bomb allies like Pakistan. He says that he agrees the US should have the option of bombing a sovereign nation unilaterally but for the sake of diplomacy, one shouldn’t announce it on TV to the world. So I guess he is advocating being a hypocrite—smile and say you won’t attack but all the while keeping the option open of bombing the bejesus out of you if he wishes to do so.

Duncan Hunter says Obama made a mistake. He would first ask for Musharraf’s OK if he needs to bomb Pakistan.

The next question dealt with the Bush doctrine of “spreading democracy”—do the candidates support a similar doctrine?

Huckabee said it is not the job of the US to police the world and export its form of government overseas. Its job is to make sure the US is free and safe. Ron Paul again provided the fireworks by saying that it is wrong for the US to try and spread its values by any way other than example and he used the word “neocons” disparagingly once again! I’m really starting to like this guy!

Giuliani offered that democracy must first be established on a bedrock of rule of law and order, and stability. Democracy is a long-term goal but we must first get there through this foundation first.

McCain displays Fascist tendencies by saying “elections do not mean democracy”—this is an actual quote—it is the rule of law. “True democracy“ will take place under the rule of law. I guess dictatorships which call themselves “democracy” and which follow policies of repressing and crushing political opposition with violence still fall under “democracy” according to McCain’s definition—as long as they support US foreign policy objectives. Despite this bloodthirsty definition of “democracy” McCain declares that the US is still a shining city on the hill that the rest of the world should look up to and want to emulate.

Romney continues the slippery slide into the Dark Side started by McCain by saying democracy is not defined by a vote. It is defined by having values—which of course, can be anything. He asserts he is not a carbon copy of Bush and that he adheres to the foreign policy philosophy of “speak softly and carry a strong stick.”

Tancredo makes no bones about his Dark Side creds (which will be laugh out loud funny towards the end of the debate as he asserts Jesus Christ to be his personal saviour) as he says he will bomb and destroy the Muslim holy relics of Mecca and Medina and that he was proud when the State Department called his comments “reprehensible.” He strongly put forth that he will definitely use nuclear weapons in the war against Al Qaeda and that anyone running for president who will take away that option is not fit to be President.

Tommy Thompson (thank goodness) provided a reason to still see the humanity in Republicans by saying bombing holy artifacts will accomplish nothing except galvanize a billion Muslims worldwide against the US. But he maintains that we are still in a war.

Brownback offered that words matter from a President. And that Obama’s words were a mistake.

Next question: crumbling infrastructure of bridges, highways, etc. What are you gonna do about them? And how are you gonna pay for them?

Huckabee will fix them. And he laments how old and dilapidated these are.

Giulainai asserts such things can be fixed by lowering taxes and by raising revenue in ways other than raising taxes. Roney says the biggest source of revenue is a growing economy and he will make sure that’s what we have. McCain says no to pork before he gets cut off by George as we go to commercial.

The next set of questions dealt with the role of Vice President, alluding to the power and influence of Dick Cheney in the Bush White House.

McCain says we only have one President. Thompson says Cheney is an honorable individual. Romney says the president will decide the VP duties and gives a shout out to Bush and Cheney for “keeping us safe” the last six years. Brownback echoes Romney’s points. Ron Paul, once again, ruins the love-in and says Cheney is a “neo-conservative” and that the policies of that crowd has ruled the Republican leadership in recent years to disastrous results. He favors a return to traditional conservative values and to take back the Republican party from the Neocons. Go Ron Paul!

The next question dealt with Tax policy: are you in favor of the Fair Tax? I must admit I know very little about this reform which would abolish the income tax among other things and replace it with a national sales tax.

Huckabee: yes. Romney: we need to be careful and study the issue more. Giulaiani: eliminate the death tax. The Fair Tax seems too complex. McCain: need to simplify tax code; Tancredo: I’m a co-sponsor of the Fair Tax. Brownback: I support a flat tax.

Last question: Defining mistakes of your life?

Hunter: contemplating running as a Democrat at one point

Paul: not speaking forcefully enough for the cause of liberty and the Constitution

Huckabee: personal health

Romney: his previous stance as pro-choice which he now regrets

Giuliani: not in 30 seconds. He needs more time (jokingly which gave him a free pass on this one)

McCain: a combat decision that led to his capture in the battlefield

Brownback: not telling his family he loved them enough

Thompson: not being an advocate of breast cancer prevention enough with breast cancer running in his family

Tancredo (in the howler of the debate, considering his warmongering, bloodthirsty stance on foreign policy): that it took him 30 years to acknowledge Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior.

On that note, the debate ends.

In an Introspective Mood

2007-08-03T13:30:00.000-04:00

In an Introspective Mood

I know most people don’t go to political blogs to read about the introspective thoughts of the blogger. They come to the blog to read about politics and political opinion. But I’m in an introspective mood so please bear with me.

I took a hiatus from political blogging for several reasons. Chief of which is just exhaustion. Blogging for me is a hobby I do in my free time. It is something I do for fun. I am not a journalist and I don’t derive an income from doing this.

To be a top-flight political blogger you really do need to devote a considerable amount of time and effort keeping up with the news, researching facts and tidbits of information, reading various news sources, fact-checking, and keeping up with hot topics in the other blogs out there. Let alone maintaining the political outrage on core issues that motivated you to start the blog in the first place. If you are not careful blogging can take over your life.

After a certain point, doing the blog began to feel more like a chore rather than something fun and exciting to do in my free time. I do have a full time job and I do have a family. Keeping up with the blog was competing with these obligations for my time and attention so I chose to concentrate on these things for the meantime and let the blog alone for awhile.

Aside from the mental exhaustion, I was also beginning to feel weird vibes as I gained a readership and other people started commenting on what I wrote on the blog and letting me know that what I was saying is actually being heard. I started worrying if what I say will offend anyone—not just anyone but the many nice people from political groups who have contacted me and whom I liked on a personal level.

I started worrying when I had fundamental disagreements with or had reservations about the types of things some of these contacts adhered to pretty strongly and believed in quite fervently. I started worrying about writing anything that might alienate readers. Granted I wasn’t taking in thousands of readers per week like top flight political blogs but I was gaining a decent readership. I started worrying if I offended or disagreed with anyone, that I would lose this readership.

In short, all the things that I loved about blogs—their freewheeling, independent nature and highly personal points of view—was being replaced with a self-censoring and ultra-careful filter. When that started to happen, I knew it was time to take a break from blogging because whatever I write will be filtered through that lens. And I don’t want to be a blogger whose writings are filtered through those lens.

So right now I am trying to figure out how to re-draft my blog mission statement. So my expectations and my capabilities are in sync with the reader’s expectations. I will be honest right now and say that I do not have the time, resources, and energy to try and compete with top-flight political blogs. The types of blogs that have a significant readership and are constantly updated with news on the most recent events and happenings in the world of politics. I simply do not have the time or resources or a desire for this blog to be anything more than something I do for fun and a hobby.

What I will aim for is to be consistent with the theme and title of this blog—“An Ordinary Person and Politics in America”—a personal platform for my writings, thoughts, and ideas on politics and related matters. If it is of interest to anyone else but me (I don’t claim to speak for all ordinary people out there) I guess people will continue reading.

Class Notes: Posing as Politics and Other Thoughts on the American Scene

2007-07-21T22:17:00.000-04:00

Review of Class Notes: Posing as Politics and Other Thoughts on the American Scene by Adolph Reed

This article is from the Liberal Arts Dude's archives. I hope you all enjoy it until I get back to regular blogging.

I first read political scientist Adolph Reed’s book in 2001 and I was deeply struck by his uncompromisingly class-based view of the type of politics needed if the interests of poor, working and middle-class people were to be a priority in the American national agenda. I reread his book in 2006 at the height of Republican and right-wing dominance in American politics and when the Left and Progressive social activism were largely marginalized. I publish this review in 2007, a year before the U.S. Presidential elections and when the Progressive movement seems energized to take on a weakened Republican leadership.

Reed makes his point very clear in the introduction:

[T]he key fact is that we do not have the popularly based, institutionalized, mass political movement that we need to realize any meaningful progressive agenda in the United States. Therefore, the principal task should be building an active membership base for such a movement... [T]he movement we need cannot be convoked magically overnight or by proxy. It cannot be galvanized through proclamations, press conferences, symbolic big events, resolutions, or quixotic electoral candidacies; it can be built only through connecting with large numbers of people in cities and towns and workplaces all over the country who can be brought together around a political agenda that speaks directly and clearly to their needs and aspirations as they see them….This…promises no guarantees of ultimate victory or even shorter-term success. But there are no alternatives other than fraud, pretense, or certain failure (Reed, ix).

The book is a collection of commentaries on various issues, personalities, and events in American and African-American political and cultural life. In many of these commentaries, Reed shows how each of these subjects are involved in some aspect of publicly visible political activity which, eventually, do not gain much traction in terms of actually advancing an egalitarian and democratic political agenda.

Among those whom Reed takes to task are the identity politics and race essentialism of the Multicultural Movement; Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam; various members of the civil rights establishment such as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Marion Barry, the NAACP; the conservative movement, the liberal-progressive movement; and Black public intellectuals such as Cornel West, Henry Louis Gates, Jr. and Michael Eric Dyson.

Reed argues eloquently—sometimes elegant, sophisticated and logically complex, such as his objections to identity politics. Other times, he aims sharp diatribes and blunt language towards his subjects such as his portrayal of Farrakhan as an anti-Semitic charlatan and a fascist, or of Jesse Jackson as a self-serving opportunist.

For Reed, the solution to much of the problems that beset the poor, working and middle classes lies in these people finding common cause with each other to unite to create an advocacy organization which will work on behalf of these populations as a class. Reed envisions this organization’s main function as—by legislation, state action, and public policy—to stave off the most pernicious and devastating effects of an unregulated private sector on these peoples’ lives.

It always seemed to me that our struggle, to rehearse a long outdated slogan, wasn’t really to smash the state, but to seize it and direct it to democratic and egalitarian purposes (Reed, 68).

Anything less than a bona-fide social movement geared towards these ends, according to Reed, is mere posturing, counterproductive, and ultimately, futile. What makes Reed different from most public intellectuals is that he is actually involved in creating the type of mass-based, class-based political movement that he talks about in his book. Reed is on the Interim National Council of the US Labor Party . I agree with Adolph Reed and I fully support the conclusions that he makes. Reed is one of those intellectuals who walks his talk.

But how on earth do you build a mass-based political organization and do it effectively? The Labor Party, despite a promising start, hasn’t made a significant impact on U.S. politics.

The idealist in me sides intellectually and emotionally with the idea of a Labor Party and wants to believe in it. Yet the ineffectiveness of the Labor Party effort to gain traction for the past eleven years makes the pragmatic side of me feel disheartened and disillusioned. Is there not a viable market in American society for Populist thinking that can result in a bona fide, class-based political movement? Then how come it hasn’t come to pass?

For my personal observations check out this essay.

On Class Based Politics

2007-07-21T22:09:00.000-04:00

On Class Based Politics

This article is from the Liberal Arts Dude's archives. I hope you all enjoy it until I get back to regular blogging.

Yesterday I had an interesting exchange of ideas with a dinner guest. The conversation turned to politics, particularly the state of politics in American society. We both agreed that the Democrats are doing a terrible job against the Republicans. Where we both diverged are our ideas of what will make it better. My friend is a Democrat by affiliation.

According to him, what needs to happen is for Democrats to get their act together and beat the Republicans. I diverged from him when I said that I have totally abandoned the Democratic party as representing my interests as an ordinary, working person. I told him that the Democratic party in the past decade has veered to the right in matters of economics that there is virtually no difference anymore between the Republicans who espouse a pro-business, corporate-dominated agenda based on free market ideology. Democrats, for all intents and purposes, now espouse the same things as Republicans in matters of economic policy (no matter what rhetorical style they use in appealing to the public).

I told him that what is needed is class-based politics where working people are organized politically to fight for their own interests.

This is when the discussion turned interesting. It turns out my friend disagrees with me. What surprised me is that his disagreement was based on him defending the idea of the US political and economic system as being primarily created for the benefit of business and that to challenge it is tantamount to espousing Socialism or Communism. Basically he made several points:

What is good for business is ultimately, good for workers

The US is a capitalist country

In Socialist economies people become lazy and complacent. They develop a tendency to over-rely on government handouts and not make any independent moves to improve their lot in life.

Capitalism is ultimately better for workers than Socialism. Socialism doesn’t work.

The US system of political democracy allows for representation of all points of views, even workers. There is no need to change the system.

What I said in response ultimately boiled down to:

There is something wrong with the inequalities that currently exist in American society. The skyrocketing cost of higher education, crumbling public schools, the persistence of racial and class inequality, the inequities of an employer-based healthcare system, etc.

The American capitalist system works primarily to the advantage of and for the benefit of corporations and the rich. If you have money you will have access to the best this country has to offer. If you don’t you don’t.

The Democratic party is not addressing these issues in any substantive way. The interests of working people simply aren’t a priority for the Democrats. The Republicans at least are honest and upfront about their pro-business, pro-free market agenda.

What is needed is a political party of, for and by working people to fight for their interests in the political arena.

Mind you I said nothing about Socialism or that the capitalist system is inherently evil. It was he who offered the “Socialism is bad” counter argument to what I was saying.

Just to clear things up here is what I believe:

I believe in democracy. I believe in democratic participation. I am not out to “change the system” from its current model to a Socialist or a Communist model.

However, I believe that the two-party political system is too narrowly focused and too dominated by pro-business and free market interests to represent the interests and concerns of working and middle class people.

I also believe that the two-party system is rigged by the two major parties to keep out any outsiders who will challenge the dominance of the two major parties.

I am perfectly willing to work within the confines of the US political and economic system.

However, I also believe that the interests of working people are not properly represented in the US political and economic system.

The capitalist class is for its own interests, period—whatever makes them the most profit. They will choose the bottom line over the interests of working people when these interests clash 100% of the time.

The business class and millionaires are overwhelmingly represented in positions of power and influence in this country. Working people are not. In order for things to get better for working people, this needs to change.

The first step to change is for working people to organize themselves into a political party which will fight for their interests in the US political system. Notice I say nothing about overthrowing the system or the government. What I actually advocate is a more active role in participating in the system to make sure the interests of working people get their proper due.

Then I get into the conundrum posed in this blog post.

Taking a Break from Politics for a While

2007-07-19T19:58:00.000-04:00

Taking a Break

In the spirit of this blog post the Liberal Arts Dude is taking a break from blogging about politics for a little while.

I've been finding myself getting bummed out and upset over political matters lately and am not in the proper frame of mind to write. So folks, stay tuned! I'll be back shortly once I have refreshed my batteries.

Clinton and Edwards Planning on Shutting Out Minor Candidates from Debates?

2007-07-14T10:29:00.000-04:00

Clinton and Edwards Planning on Shutting Out Minor Candidates from Debates?

I could hardly believe it myself when I first heard about it. John Edwards and Hillary Clinton were caught on camera and on a live microphone during a break at the NAACP Forum discussing winnowing down future Democratic debates to exclude third-tier candidates. Presumably they were talking about Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, and Bill Richardson.

Fox News was the first to break it and you can see it on YouTube. Being skeptical of Fox, I tried to see if other news outlets picked it up and indeed they did. There is a story at The Guardian about it as well as USA Today. Most damning of all that indicates this story is legit is the Dennis Kucinich campaign has published an official rebuke.

Regardless of how you feel about Kucinich, Richardson and Gravel as candidates, you have to be concerned about the Establishment big dogs trying to exclude the few remaining independent voices in the political mainstream. This is just plain wrong no matter how you look at it. I am seriously disappointed with Hillary Clinton and most of all, with John Edwards who had positioned himself as the People’s Candidate.

The Committee for a Unified Independent Party is organizing political independents to protest the actions of Edwards and Clinton. They are urging concerned citizens to write DNC Chairman Howard Dean to express their thoughts and feelings. More information at the CUIP web site.

Is Participatory Democracy Like Jury Duty?

2007-07-12T19:43:00.000-04:00

Is Participatory Democracy Like Jury Duty?

This is a serious question. Sometimes I get the impression that participatory democracy is sort of like jury duty—something that you know you should do, but the actual practice of it is perceived by many people to be so inconvenient and onerous that most people really don’t like doing it or thinking about it and do what they can to avoid it whenever possible.

I pose this question because I recently had a conversation with a young person. She tried to engage her peers in political conversation and this is the outcome:

While chilling out with a bunch of young people around my age, I tried to engage in some political chit-chat, to the tune of "what do you think of the current candidates?" I was really disappointed at the outcome. Nearly everyone, and these are smart young people, that they didn't like any of them, but when I asked if they knew much about any of them, or watched any debates or read any interviews, every answer was a no! So no confidence in political figures, paired with no engagement in political dialogues! Just blanket "dislike" of them all, because they're politicians and not worth the trouble, never mind that, like it or not, one of them will be leading the country in less than two years. Oy.

Her experience mirrors mine as an adult where I find that despite politics being a hot topic in cocktail parties sometimes, that to keep oneself continually educated on the issues, personalities and candidates, and to be informed as much as possible takes a heck of a lot of time and work! Most people, rather than go through the work, would rather just take a cynical and skeptical stance towards politicians and the political process and just be done with it.

The end result is sort of like jury duty. You have a small pool of eager people who really do take this seriously as their civic duty and want to be there. You have some who would rather be doing something else but are just going through the motions because it’s the law to participate. And then there’s (I believe) the vast majority of folks who would rather not be bothered by it, who consider jury duty to be a nuisance and an inconvenient break from their daily routines, and would welcome getting out of it if they can.

So if you look at the population of Americans as they relate to political engagement and activity I bet you that you will likely find it to be analogous to the jury duty model.

You’ll have the Super-Engaged: a small set of people who are really active, engaged, passionate, and do take civic responsibility and democratic participation seriously. These are the ones who stay informed on the issues, read blogs and other media, and who probably are active volunteers in political groups. These are active voters and who are the most likely to volunteer for get-out-the-vote drives. These are also the most likely to be educated enough about the flaws in the political process to be critical and propose and work for reform measures.

You will have the Minimally Engaged: they are familiar with the issues from watching TV and the news and they can be persuaded to vote if they feel the candidates are worth voting for. Voting is the primary way this subset of the population expresses its political inclinations.

Then you’ll have Those Who Could Care Less. Many of them don’t vote. Many could care less about politics and political activity. Many take a cynical view of politics and politicians. These people are simply apathetic.

The group above should not be mistaken for Those Who are Engaged but Disgusted by the System. This last category displays the same anti-politics behavior but their behavior is driven more by the motivation of rejecting the legitimacy of the system rather than just simple apathy. This last set can be as every bit as educated and informed as the Super Engaged but the outcome of being educated for these folks is rejection of the System as inherently corrupt.

OK, what’s the point of all this, you might ask? If you’ve read this far, my friend, read on to Part II.

Is Participatory Democracy Like Jury Duty? Part II

2007-07-12T19:41:00.000-04:00

Is Participatory Democracy Like Jury Duty? (Part II)

In Part I, I made the argument that American attitudes and political behavior can be mirrored by the way many people feel about jury duty. You have a small pool of eager people who really do take this seriously as their civic duty and want to be there. You have some who would rather be doing something else but are just going through the motions because it’s the law to participate. And then there’s the vast majority of folks who would rather not be bothered by it, who consider jury duty to be a nuisance and an inconvenient break from their daily routines, and would welcome getting out of it if they can.

What’s the point of this analysis you might ask? The point of this is that I believe politicians, political parties, and those who hold and keep power have already figured this out to a science and actually conduct their campaigns and implement policy with this type of categorization of Americans by political attitudes and behavior in mind. They have figured out how to game the System by the way actual people behave and think.

Democratic governance and participation in its ideal sense requires as much of the citizenry as possible to be educated, engaged, and confident in the System to actually work. It assumes that the majority of citizens actually do care about the issues and the state of the nation to actually want to participate and to take participation seriously as their civic duty.

But what if they don’t? What if the model for jury duty really is how most people actually do think about political participation and democracy in America? And that professional politicians and political parties have already figured this out and are taking advantage of it to keep their hold on power and to prevent any substantive change from happening?

This is bad news for you if you are one of those who are Engaged but see many flaws and problems in the System that needs to be fixed. You might be one of those willing to do the work not only to educate yourself but also to put yourself out these as an activist for reform. But the essential task of getting something done remains dependent on appealing to the vast majority of folks who could care less.

I’m not being cynical just for the sake of being cynical. I’m seriously exploring the implications of how the ideal of democracy works based not just on the institutions set up for it but also on the makeup of the population who are supposed to benefit from it. I mean, why have the pretense of a democracy at all when the vast majority of people could very well care less and are pretty much satisfied through bread and circuses and being left alone?

Do the neocons and those for whom the People are a gullible and easily led and manipulated bunch have it right? That the best (and most stable and self-perpetuating) form of government and society is one that appeals to the population's base needs and their greed and apathy? If so, then the times and state of democracy is frightening indeed!

Rocking Out To Our Demise

2007-07-07T23:35:00.000-04:00

Rocking Out To Our Demise: It’ll take more than outdoor concerts to stop global warming (A reaction)
By Megan Tady from In These Times

Left out of the plan is any understanding that our entire energy system (and economic way of life) has to be completely restructured in order to truly thwart global warming. But instead of talking about how we can bring corporate polluters to their knees, oust our lying leaders and undermine a system that favors profit over people—which leads inexorably to the destruction of the planet, no matter how warm your sweater—we’re told to clap along at feel-good concerts, sponsored by the likes of Chevy and Phillips.

Krill says the climate change movement is gearing up for the fall, when a new coalition called “No War, No Warming” is planning a “National Intervention” in Washington, D.C. in October. Great, I’ll see you there. But if we’re serious about combating global warming, we need to face the fact that actions like this give people the illusion that protests alone are enough to prompt social change.

Such events do not rock the boat, do not challenge the global economic system, do not hold our elected officials accountable and certainly do not move people to act in any radical way after the event is over. Rather, they allow us to return to our homes, put our posters away and turn on the A/C with just a twinge of guilt. Oh what the heck, we can repent in October.

Liberal Arts Dude sez:
Check out the comments section at the bottom of the article. Especially the ones that follow the comment that said: “So what can we do? I’m just one person, I’m not a politician. What can I do to affect real change? It’s pretty hard not to feel powerless. How are we going to change the corrupt system that we live in?”

My commentary in this post really isn’t about global warming or about Live Earth (although it does touch on those things). It’s about the stance that Megan Tady takes in her article – a sort of sardonic attitude that casts doubt on the whole Live Earth phenomenon and which asserts nothing short of a radical revolutionary action that will “bring corporate polluters to their knees, oust our lying leaders and undermine a system that favors profit over people” can make a difference in the climate change issue.

I agree with her on a literal level. Nothing short of some sort of radical cultural and social change will bring about the changes she would like. I consider myself a former adherent of her type of thinking where nothing will satisfy my sense of justice being fulfilled than the fulfillment of the vision of radical, revolutionary change that will overthrow the System.

But the practical side of me wants to shake her and people who think like her and tell them that real change in the real world requires incremental steps that allows people—ordinary, regular, working people who aren’t political radicals—to take concrete steps in their own ways that may not be sufficient in the eyes of political radicals but to them, are pretty big steps.

Live Earth and the effort that goes with it is an attempt to mainstream values that were pretty radical back when environmentalism wasn’t such a hot topic. Conservation, global warming, etc. These were radical ideas just 30 years back.

Can you really expect suburban soccer moms to foment revolution? How about working folks with kids in school and jobs that they depend on for their livelihood? How about Evangelical Christians? I would tell Meg Tady that to expect radical, revolutionary change from the mass of society is just plain unrealistic because people, for the most part, aren’t radical or revolutionary.

But hey, what Live Earth and its ilk are doing, in mainstreaming these values in the popular consciousness, is laying the foundation for more radical reform to be possible and is allowing the expression of environmentalist values to be mainstreamed and be trendy. Hey, of course it’s a fad. But isn’t it a significant achievement for recycling and conservation to become mainstream values?

I used to consider myself one of those for whom radical change is the only way to go—anything less is a compromise and a sellout. That is, until I found myself sucked into the inevitability of the System—the necessity of holding down a job and livelihood, paying rent, paying back my student loans, getting married and facing the possibility of having and raising kids, etc. Then I found out through just plain living this reality that (a) most people are in the same boat as myself; (b) most of us aren’t evil or have sold out—we’re just living life and being responsible to our obligations as adults.

So to Meg and other radicals out there, I know that this isn’t gonna be an adequate answer to your howl of outrage regarding what it will take to really change things and realize justice in this world. But most of the nation and the world’s population are people like me more than they are people for whom these obligations and responsibilities don’t exist and are irrelevant. If you really want to change the world, you will have to get people like me to go along with it.

One way it ain’t gonna happen is to call for a radical revolution that will most likely never come. One way it can feasibly do is for the masses of ordinary people like me to undergo a cultural change that, step by step and bit by bit replaces our consumer-centered values with something much healthier and Earth-friendly. One way this can happen is through popular education programs that aim to mainstream values previously thought of as radical like environmentalism.

Hey, I’m not saying give up being a radical. If that is who you are and which drives you more power to you. What I am suggesting is to don’t knock getting the cultural mainstream on board as a path to social change. It’s a much slower and less radical process than fomenting revolution. But in the end, I don’t see many people getting on board the revolution train anytime soon. And when you realize that ain’t gonna happen, what choices are you left with? Back to square one.

Fusion Voting

2007-07-04T12:16:00.000-04:00

Fusion Voting

From the TPM Cafe ,Dan Cantor of New York's Working Families Party explains what Fusion Voting is and how it can benefit third parties.

We have run 3,000-plus candidates on our line since our founding in 1998, and have a solid field and local chapter operation in most parts of the state. But none of it would be possible without the “rules of the game” that make for a more hospitable environment for third parties.

Here is a response from the blog A New America.

If I read this right, this method sounds like a demographic tool to inform the winning candidate which supporters voted under which platform of importance. This is all fine and good, but the cynical part of my brain is asking how this would affect anything.

Here is an old blog post from MyDD

One system I've always been a huge fan of is New York's fusion voting. For those of you unfamiliar, candidates in the state can run on multiple party lines. The state's Conservative and Working Families Parties typically endorse the Republican and Democratic candidates, respectively, but have also been known to shake up elections by endorsing their own candidate.

Here's an interesting discussion on Fusion Voting from the Working Families Party blog:

I don’t mean to be a bore, but third parties without fusion (remember – it was once legal in EVERY state) are just writing themselves out of politics. Run in a close election, and you spoil. Run in a safe Dem district, and you might as well run in the Democratic primary instead.

Liberal Arts Dude sez:
Fusion Voting has intrigued me since I read the book Spoiling for a Fight by Micah Sifry. The book gives significant attention to the Working Families Party and how the party has made successful use of the strategy of Fusion Voting in New York State.

I'd like to learn more, especially if there are any efforts to bring Fusion Voting to other states. Anyone out there have any suggestions on good sources of info?

Opportunity Maine

2007-07-01T21:54:00.000-04:00

One Student Does the Incredible: Gets Law Passed for State to Pay Off College Debts (from Alternet)

When nonvoters are asked why they don't participate in politics, the most common answer they give is that they don't think they can have any impact. The system's gamed, they say, broken, and lawmakers are only concerned about the interests of their cronies.

Thankfully, Andrew Bossie, a young grass-roots organizer, never came to believe that ordinary people are powerless. In 2005, Bossie, then a student at the University of Southern Maine, looked around and noticed that a generation of young people was having real problems affording the kind of education that most people see as vital to having a shot at the American dream.

Click here for the full story.

END OF POST

Political Independents in the Washington Post

2007-07-01T12:24:00.000-04:00

Political Independents in the Washington Post

The Washington Post had a huge, front-page, double-spread article on Political Independents today. The article detailed the results of an in-depth study by The Washington Post in collaboration with the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University.

The survey data established five categories of independents: closet partisans on the left and right; ticket-splitters in the middle; those disillusioned with the system but still active politically; ideological straddlers whose positions on issues draw from both left and right; and a final group whose members are mostly disengaged from politics.

The article’s analysis, although welcome and timely, ultimately was dissatisfying to me as someone who self-identifies as an Independent. Mainly because it analyzed the phenomenon of political independence primarily along the lines of how groups of independents can be predicted to behave in the voting booth in relation to either major party. That is, how segments of independents will view a choice between Democrat and Republican in a two-way race.

What frustrates me about the article and this type of mainstream media treatment is that Independents are not seen and analyzed on their own terms. That the phenomenon is only valid to analyze along the terms of how it relates to Democrats or Republicans. Questions that could have been asked and implications explored could have been:

• Why is it that so many people are rejecting party labels to the point that one-third of the electorate are doing so?

• Is there something fundamentally wrong or broken with the two parties that so many people have ceased to identify with either major party?

• If so, what needs to be done to correct it? How would a “corrected” system look like? Would it still be a fundamentally two-party system or would it be more along the lines of a multiparty system?

• What about the assertion by most independents that the two-party system doesn’t work for them? Shouldn’t this be interpreted as a desire among the electorate for more political choices and more candidates and politicians who speak to their needs and concerns?

• What types of reforms could serve to address the mass disaffection that seems to be occurring in the American electorate? What will it take to make these reforms into reality?

I could go on and on. As an independent I couldn’t give two shits about Democrats and Republicans and how people like me relate to them come election day. Because it is only during those days that any lip service to my concerns ever come about from these guys. The rest of the time I’m a non-entity and my concerns are invisible to the major parties.

What I want: a political system, politicians and a government that works for the needs and concerns of ordinary people. A system that goes beyond paying lip service to my concerns every four years and which actually has the concerns of people like me on top of the agenda. Will that happen in either a Democratic or Republican regime? I highly doubt it.

If the Post, Kaiser and Harvard really wanted to get to the heart of the matter on the phenomenon of Political Independents I would urge them to actually start talking with Independent activists and reformers who are trying to change the System. Hey it’s not hard to find them. I only started this blog two months ago and I’ve made plenty of contacts and spoken with many of these types of people.

Sicko: A Review

2007-06-30T22:52:00.000-04:00

Sicko: A Review
Wow. That was my immediate reaction to Micheal Moore’s latest film as the credits rolled after it finished. Every American should go out and see this movie. It doesn’t matter whether you are a Democrat, Republican, Independent, Green, Libertarian, liberal, conservative, or any other category in the ideological spectrum. Watch it. Now.

The movie is thought provoking, sure to provoke outrage, and is certain to piss people off—for many different reasons. It is one of those rare films which is designed to—and which succeeds—in eliciting a strong, visceral reaction from the viewer. I don’t see it as the type of movie that people will just say “It’s OK.” Either they will love it (I did) and hate it. Very few will be stuck in the middle and apathetic.

Michael Moore’s latest movie details the problems in the American healthcare system. It makes the argument that the profit-driven model, controlled by the pharmaceutical, HMO’s and insurance companies is not working for the benefit of average Americans. He gives a human face to the statistics that say around 44 million Americans lack health insurance. He contrasts the inadequate and extravagantly expensive costs of American health care with those of Canada, the U.K., France, and Cuba which all enjoy free, socialized, government-run healthcare (among other benefits that ordinary people get).

In case after case, he gives an anecdotal, man-on-the-street treatment to the healthcare crisis that faces the U.S. He shows examples of people who have lost loved ones, have had to pay thousands of dollars, and who have been denied crucial treatment which could have saved lives. He contrasts these sad, American stories with upbeat, almost comical positive (but true) stories of ordinary citizens overseas who have free or inexpensive access to healthcare and medicine. In case, after case, after case, Moore chronicles what is wrong about American healthcare and lauds the examples of Canada, France, U.K., and Cuba as perhaps something worth looking at and adopting.

I have read some negative reviews about Moore’s movie. Some say that Sicko is one-sided and functions more as propaganda than a serious, objective treatment of the subject.

If it is one-sided and it is propaganda—I say so what? You have to think—one-sided and propaganda towards what and against what? If you want a clinical, two-sided treatment of the healthcare crisis facing America today, you will find Michael Moore’s movie to be one perspective of the debate. It is an attempt to frame the debate along the terms of ordinary people being denied the care and benefits that they need.

But hey, you don’t need to look far to get the other side. You only need to look at the PR departments of the insurance and drug companies and HMOs (which themselves, sell their own brand of propaganda) to get the corporate perspective and spin on this. So if you want to get the other side on this I say knock yourself out! You only need to contact the PR departments of these organizations to get their perspective on American healthcare.

What Moore does brilliantly is that he wants you to be outraged and to think about these issues even if you oppose his point of view. What he wants is for you to try to refute him—to take him seriously enough to want to refute him. Anything except be complacent and apathetic. Because an complacent and apathetic population accepts whatever crap and shit is handed to them without complaint.

And that, ultimately, aside from healthcare, is what Sicko is about. It is primarily about what kind of society do we, as Americans, want America to be. Do we want it to be a dog-eat-dog, every man for himself kind of place where selfishness, profit and greed are the primary arbiters of how society and its benefits are allocated? If you have yours fine and screw everyone else? Or do we find something in the best of what the rest of the world is doing to take care of their citizens and emulate them because they are doing it right? Because as a society, we have a moral obligation to look out for one another and establish a system for such a basic human need—healthcare—that benefits all Americans and not just a lucky few.

I know that some assholes would say “If you like it so much in Canada/France/UK/Cuba why don’t you go there and live there?” I would respond that is not the point of the movie. Moore’s point is not that everything is so great overseas and therefore the solution is to move there and to hell with the U.S. and Americans. His point is that Americans must realize the extent of the problem enough to want to do something about it so that the stories he detailed in the movie won’t have to happen again.

In the richest, most powerful country on earth, no citizen should have to go without healthcare as a basic right. His point, therefore, is not that he hates America and therefore, wants to expose its ugly underbelly for all the world to see. I believe Michael Moore loves America and he made this movie because he is outraged at what it has become. He sees the promise of a better future for the country by emulating a system of social solidarity and caring for one another as citizens as demonstrated in other countries by their mass commitment to healthcare that is available to all at minimal cost.

So in a nutshell, this is an important movie that is worth seeing. I don’t care if you call yourself a liberal, conservative, or any other political label. You owe it to yourself to see it and examine your own beliefs regarding what type of society you want America to be. If you find yourself siding with the drug, pharmaceutical companies and HMOs, hey that is good too. At least you will know whose side you are on.

Recap: All-American Presidential Forums on PBS

2007-06-29T20:13:00.000-04:00

Recap: All-American Presidential Forums on PBS

All in all, in my opinion, this event was as good a political “debate” between the candidates as far as these types of events go.

Here is an aggregated site of the various reactions by credentialed bloggers who attended the forum in Washington DC. Here is a report on the event from the Washington Post.

African American Political Pundit gives a hilarious take on the event, likening the give and take between the moderators and the crowd to an old-school rap Kurtis Blow concert. And I just have to include my sister’s take on it: an Obama/Edwards or Edwards/Obama ticket would be the hotttest, and win, ultimately, via a wet t-shirt contest.

The good: the moderators asked questions to each candidate. All eight candidates got to respond to the questions with pretty much equal time and took turns answering first so I didn’t get a sense of any candidate being marginalized by the format.

The bad: no issue was really dealt with in a substantive way or with any real depth. The 1 minute, then 30 seconds, then 15 second requirements for the candidates to respond really precluded any one issue to be analyzed deeply. So yes, it was a night for candidates to primarily show how quickly they can spin and how quickly they can think on their feet to respond rapid fire on issues being thrown at them.

I was surprised that the candidate who seemed to really shine and distinguish himself was not Obama or Clinton (although they had their moments) but Dennis Kucinich of all people. He hammered his antiwar message into every response consistently. His answers consistently got a good response from the crowd.

Mike Gravel, for some reason, reminded me of the character Howard Beale from the movie, “Network.” He didn’t seem to be there to try to endear himself to the crowd or his fellow candidates. He seemed there to play the role of renegade outsider to call his fellow candidates out and the American people to rile them up. Gravel made reference to “changing the system” and doing away with the War on Drugs. His ideas and delivery made it seem like he was trying to play the part of radical. He wasn’t always successful and at the end just seemed tired as he says none of his fellow candidates have any moral authority.

Overall, to learn more about the candidates I would like to see them in an in-depth interview setting with a thoughtful interviewer like Bill Moyers. I’d learn more about them as people and their positions on issues in such a setting much more so than the soundbite-ready Smackdown battle royale that was the event at Howard University.

Did I learn something? A little bit. I would have liked more meat and potatoes. But as far as these types of events go, it was fun to watch and I took it for what it was so I wasn’t too disappointed.

Third Party Summit

2007-06-26T21:45:00.000-04:00

Third Party Summit in 1996

I stumbled upon this little tidbit of info recently. Apparently, a summit of third party representatives actually occurred in 1995 and 1996. Check out these links: here, here and here.

Consensus was the theme as 126 independent partisan activists from 26 states and 40 organizations gathered on the campus of George Washington University June 1-4 for a political issues campaign conference entitled "Third Parties '96: Building the New Mainstream."

I guess it is safe to say that in the past eleven years since then nothing like it has happened again. Which is sad, because I think these types of political gatherings among political outsiders are exactly what is needed today and in the coming election in 2008. Is the fact that something like this did not take off and has not been repeated in the past eleven years an indication of the dire straits of American democratic participation?

Change in the Air?

2007-06-25T22:12:00.000-04:00

Change in the Air?
I started this blog to chronicle the journey of one ordinary person—me—in participating seriously in democracy in the U.S. It’s only been two months and I’ve learned plenty from interacting with many people. I have been exposed to various methods and approaches on politics and have started thinking much more deeply than I have ever had about society and where politics fits within.

For the average, ordinary person, the act of voting (or withholding their vote) is most likely the most significant political act that they will make in their lives. It is the primary way they communicate to the persons in power their displeasure or approval of government and public policies.

What I am realizing and thinking about now, more than ever, are the various problems that limit the potency of the vote of ordinary citizens. A political system heavily dominated by the two major parties and which give little breathing room for third or alternative political parties to be effective vehicles for political expression. Systemic problems such as gerrymandering, an electoral system open to abuse, the influence of big money and professional lobbyists, problems associated with a winner-take-all system of conducting elections, etc.

Many, many people are fed up and disgusted with this state of affairs and would like to do something about it. Many have registered as anything other than the traditional political labels of Democrat or Republican as a way of expressing their disenchantment. Many have become political bloggers as technology has allowed ordinary citizens a vehicle to express themselves in an unprecedented manner.

The big shots in the two major parties can’t be too oblivious to these things happening. Barack Obama, himself, hinges his appeal primarily on his status as a maverick who promises change. Billionaire Michael Bloomberg, also generated an intense level of excitement by his rejecting the Republican label and hinting at the possibility of an insurgent run as a presidential candidate. There clearly is a hunger for fundamental, structural change and there definitely is a market for it among the American voting population.

The big question is: what now? How can ordinary people best harness this national sense of disillusionment into something positive? Is the key through electing the right person in electoral politics? Or does the key rest in the hands of ordinary citizens themselves? Doing what?

All-American Presidential Forums on PBS

2007-06-24T16:00:00.000-04:00

All-American Presidential Forums on PBS

Join Tavis Smiley as he moderates the "All-American Presidential Forums on PBS." The Democratic Forum will take place on June 28, 2007, from 9:00-10:30 p.m. ET at Howard University in Washington, DC. The event will be televised live on PBS and simultaneously webcast at pbs.org.

The All-American Presidential Forums on PBS mark the first time that a panel exclusively comprised of journalists of color will be represented in primetime. Questions to the candidates will be posed by Tavis and journalists Michel Martin of National Public Radio, nationally syndicated columnist Ruben Navarrette, Jr. and USA Today and Gannett News Service columnist DeWayne Wickham.

They also have a section for submitting questions which I hope they will utilize in the broadcast. I highly encourage the Independent blogger community to submit a lot of questions from the Independent perspective. Maybe one or two of our question will get past the gatekeepers and get asked on national TV.

Just Missed One

2007-06-23T14:21:00.000-04:00

Just Missed One

Damn! I just missed out on a great opportunity. The deadline has passed and I just found out about this yesterday. See below:

NEW ROCHELLE, NY, June 20, 2007 – PBS has set aside a limited number of media credentials for bloggers who wish to cover the upcoming "ALL AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL FORUMS ON PBS” hosted by Tavis Smiley, to be held June 28th, 9:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. ET at Howard University in Washington, DC. Candidates scheduled to appear next week are U.S. Senator Joe Biden, U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton, U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd, former U.S. Senator John Edwards, former U.S. Senator Mike Gravel, U.S. Congressman Dennis Kucinich, U.S. Senator Barack Obama and New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson. Click here for the full article.

So apparently PBS is now allowing bloggers to their political events and are issuing press credentials! Pretty neat! I'll have to keep close watch on the Media Bloggers Association web site for future opportunities like this.

A Solid Foundation

2007-06-23T10:52:00.000-04:00

A Solid Foundation

Check out Registered Independent’s very good analysis on the dilemma that Michael Bloomberg faces as he contemplates (or not) a run for President in 2008. I think Registered Independent has it right that after the initial euphoria of declaring himself an Independent, Bloomberg’s most pressing problem is formulating and making it known what types of policies he will be for or against. Based on these policies, Bloomberg will either be rejected or accepted by the population of voters—Independents, Democrats, Republicans, etc.

The above for some reason reminded me of a statement that someone said to me back in the mid-90s about student activism in my alma mater, the University of Vermont. A professor remarked to me that the students, in concentrating their efforts on trying to get someone appointed to a high position in the university bureaucracy, are only setting up a head without a body. By that I took it to mean that they were setting someone up as a leader to champion their cause but the efforts will be limited in effectiveness because there is no “body” or a strong foundation of grassroots support to support the “head.” What the professor is implying is that a social movement needs both a head and a solid foundation of grassroots support in order to be effective.

Which brings me to the Independent movement. Can it be called a movement—yet? Is it headed in that direction? I think the Independent Voting web site had it right when it asserts an Independent movement shouldn’t be about a cult of personality designed around some big shot who decides to enter electoral politics.

From the Independent Voting web site: “Politics is currently run from the top by the insiders, with the majority of the American people kept out. We believe that arrangement has to change, and that independents are the force that can make that happen.”

It appears to me that although the news of the possibility of a Michael Bloomberg candidacy is certainly welcome news to independents fed up with the way two-party politics is conducted in the U.S., that independents keep the above quote in mind as a central point in their activism. An independent movement—at least one that I will support—primarily has to do not with installing a head but building a body as well. Building grassroots support for the effort of making the process of politics more inclusive to the average American no matter their political affiliation.

And that includes not just installing leaders in electoral politics but also making sure that the processes by which those leaders are elected and operate are fair and inclusive to non-mainstream politics as well. That is why along with electoral politics, I see a need for independents to be involved in electoral reform efforts. See my sidebar of Reform-Minded organizations for more about this.

What’s Next?

2007-06-21T19:49:00.000-04:00

What’s Next?

Since I launched this blog I have been fortunate enough to establish contact and get acquainted with many people involved in some way with political activity. It’s hard to believe it’s only been two months since I launched this blog as an experiment in testing the waters of being an active citizen in politics.

On the Independent scene I have met and talked on the phone with The Hankster and folks from the CUIP and participated in a nationwide conference call with them. I have published and exchanged blog comments with advocates for electoral reform. These include folks from range voting, Instant Runoff Voting, and FairVote. I exchanged cordial emails with Steven Hill, author of the book I reviewed in this blog. I have even gone to a political conference predominantly for Progressive Democrats where I met the kind folks from FairVote in person.

At the conference I attended sessions on youth activism, labor activism, heard fiery Populist speeches and a panel discussion with my all-time favorite Senator Bernard Sanders. In fact, near the hotel deli before the panel discussion started I found myself sitting just five feet away from Senator Sanders but was too shy to approach him and shake his hand or ask for an autograph.

I missed out on a fundraiser for the New Organizing Institute because I was too lazy to brave the rain on a Tuesday night and attend the event at a club in downtown DC. But I hope to see if I can participate in some other event in the future. I also missed out on a mini-conference on election reform at my alma mater, American University held by the Center for Democracy and Election Management.

So all in all, not too shabby for two months’ worth of blogging! I also managed to develop an audience for the blog (see graphic below). Modest numbers but still not too bad for a two-month old blog from a political amateur who is doing this around his schedule as a full-time worker and husband.

What’s next? If I can have this much fun as a blogger in two months, I can’t wait to see what is in store the next few months and the year leading to the 2008 Presidential elections!

Take Back America Conference II

2007-06-19T19:45:00.000-04:00

Take Back America Conference II
Whoo! It looks like I missed a heck of a great Day 2 of the Take Back America conference. Highlights from the blogs include a rousing speech by Barack Obama a panel on how Fox News was outfoxed by progressive activists, a rally for the Employee Free Choice Act in Capitol Hill a speech by John Edwards.

Last night I was able to see a “kitchen table discussion with three Populist senators (Sanders, Brown and Klobuchar) moderated by Katrina vanden Heuvel of the Nation magazine. Here’s a blog report.

Yesterday, what intrigued me was the session on “The War of Ideas: New Economics.” Presenters here were alumni of the think tank Economic Policy Institute. Rich Trumka (AFL-CIO), Julianne Malveaux (economist and president of Bennett College); Larry Mishel (economist and President, EPI); and moderator Roger Hickey (Campaign for America's Future). Trumka gave a Powerpoint presentation along the theme of a Progressive economic agenda. He said that this presentation will be the start of an ambitious, nationwide worker education drive. He says (and I agree with him) that the key to winning back power from the conservative movement is to have a compelling economic message to combat the conservative “You’re On Your Own” ideology of privatization, outsourcing, globalization, and small government. He has it correct that the real battle is for the hearts and minds of average Americans. The Progressive movement must have a powerful counterpoint to the conservative message. Just pointing out conservative failures is not enough. Progressives must provide a compelling alternative vision of how economic issues will be implemented under a Progressive agenda.

The session was an unveiling of the education program and the AFL-CIO is seeking feedback from interested people and organizations on the presentation and how it can be crafted for multiple audiences.

In my mind, this is where the Democrats are potentially strongest—traditional Populist issues that concern the economic well-being of ordinary people. I am extremely happy that this Populist energy is being expressed openly and widely via vehicles like the TBA conference. I just hope that come election time:

a) The Democrats will not water down this Populist message in order to appeal to the so-called “Center” – as if watering down a Populist message is the way to appeal to the Center

b) The Democratic leadership will be good on the rhetoric but when it comes time for them to take the reins, that the national agenda will still be the agenda of the rich and the corporations rather than the agenda of ordinary working folk.

Representative Keith Ellison said it best in the opening plenary that in order for (b) not to happen, that ordinary people must be vigilant and active in holding Congress and elected officials like him to the fire. That ordinary people must take an active part in keeping their government on the up and up.

Yes, the conference was definitely one big pep rally and the words, soaring rhetoric, and fighting attitude is definitely much easier said than actually done. But for a first-timer, this was a great introduction to movement activism. And I do feel that there definitely is a movement ongoing that is much bigger than political party affiliation.

Take Back America Conference I

2007-06-18T22:47:00.000-04:00

Take Back America Conference I

Whew! What a day! I spent today at Day 1 of the Take Back America conference and I thoroughly enjoyed myself. My head is swimming with plenty of thoughts about what I saw and heard that I probably will spread out my report on the conference in two or three posts.

I only could afford this one day so I will miss appearances by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich as well as I am sure plenty of interesting sessions. But that is OK. I had a good twelve and a half hours of straight conferencing done.

I attended these sessions:

• Opening Plenary: Our Time Has Come
• The War of Ideas: A New Economics for America
• We’ve Got Issues: Young People in Action
• FairVote: National Popular Vote
• Plenary Session: The New Populist Energy

One of the questions I wanted to answer for myself when I first set out to go to this conference was whether or not I saw a role for Independents and non-affiliated people in the Progressive movement. Whether or not I see the Progressive movement’s agenda as being inclusive of Independents.

• In the speech by Robert Borosage of Campaign for America’s Future in the opening plenary, he showed a chart of the building blocks of the Progressive Agenda and movement. One of the items were Independents.
• Progressive Reform was defined, again by Borosage, as an “Independent Movement” from both major parties. That it has to go beyond party politics.
• In the presentation by Rich Trumka of the AFL-CIO, he defined the Progressive and Labor Agenda as “more than just throwing out Republicans and electing Democrats.”
• The presence of Senator Bernard Sanders, the lone true Independent in Congress

So all in all, to answer the question of is there room for Independents in the Progressive movement, it seems to be "yes." The Progressive movement, as expressed in the TBA conference, is invoking language that in order to truly push a Progressive agenda forward, that the movement must go beyond party politics in order to appeal to most American voters (a lot of whom are not affiliated with either major party). Now that effectively translates to vote Democratic rather than Republican in the next elections. But the crux of what I got from the conference is that the movement’s job is to make sure that the right types of Democrats are the ones in line for our votes.

Is that good enough for many, if not most Independents? I don’t know. I can’t speak for every other Independent out there. But I do come out of the conference feeling good, with a lot of energy, and optimistic about the road ahead to the 2008 elections.

National Popular Vote

2007-06-17T20:15:00.000-04:00

National Popular Vote

Quoted from the web site: http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/index.php

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee that the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in all 50 states will win the Presidency.

In April 2007, Maryland became the first state to enact the bill. The bill has passed 10 legislative chambers. In 2007, the bill passed the Arkansas House, California Senate, Colorado Senate, both houses in Hawaii, Illinois House, both houses in Maryland, and North Carolina Senate. In 2006, the bill passed the Colorado Senate and California Assembly and Senate.

The bill currently has 350 legislative sponsors in 47 states.

The current system of electing the President has several shortcomings—all stemming from the winner-take-all rule that awards all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state.

Under the winner-take-all rule, candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the concerns of voters of states that they cannot possibly win or lose. Voters in two thirds of the states are effectively disenfranchised in presidential elections because candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of “battleground” states. Candidates concentrate over two-thirds of their advertising money and campaign visits in just five states; over 80% in just nine states; and over 99% of their advertising money in just 16 states. The spectator states in presidential elections include 12 of the 13 least populous states (all but New Hampshire); 7 of the nation’s 11 most populous states (California, Texas, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Georgia).

Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 votes would have elected Kerry in 2004, even though President Bush was ahead by 3,500,000 votes nationwide. A shift of a handful of votes in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in five of the last 12 presidential elections. A second-place candidate won in 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000.

The Founding Fathers gave the states exclusive and plenary (complete) control over the manner of awarding of their electoral votes. The winner-take-all rule is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was used by only 3 states in the nation’s first presidential election. Maine and Nebraska award some of their electoral votes by congressional districts.

Under the National Popular Vote bill, all of the state’s electoral votes would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The legislation (in the form of an interstate compact) would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538).

The bill has been endorsed by the New York Times, Chicago Sun Times, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Los Angeles Times, and Sacramento Bee, Common Cause and Fair Vote.

70% of the public has long supported nationwide election of the president.

The Progressive Majority: Why a Conservative America is a Myth

2007-06-17T16:37:00.000-04:00

Thoughts On “The Progressive Majority: Why a Conservative America is a Myth”

I quote:

“For anyone interested in where the American public really stands on the big issues that distinguish progressives from conservatives -- including the issues at the forefront of today’s political debates -- “The Progressive Majority: Why a Conservative America Is a Myth” offers hard facts and analysis based on decades of data from some of the nation’s most respected and nonpartisan public opinion researchers. This is the evidence that political leaders have a mandate to pursue bold, progressive policies. This report by the Campaign for America’s Future and Media Matters for America shows that in study after study, solid majorities of Americans take progressive stands on a full spectrum of issues, from bread-and-butter economics to the so-called “values” issues where conservatives claim preeminence.”

Compare the above to the quote below from a 2005 issue of Mother Jones from Steven Hill of the New America Foundation:

“But what has been completely missing from the conversation is the fact that even when the Democrats win more votes, they don't necessarily win more seats. That's true in the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House, and the Electoral College. That's because there is a structural disadvantage for Democrats resulting from regional partisan demographics in red versus blue America that now are strongly embedded into our fundamental electoral institutions. This unfair structural disadvantage makes it more difficult for Democrats to win than Republicans. It's like having a foot race in which one side begins 10 meters in front of the other, election after election.

Yet practically no one is talking about it. Even though this bias undercuts any attempts by liberals and Democrats to gain control over the government, and will continue to do so for years to come, no matter how many volunteers Democrats mobilize or how much money they raise, these sorts of structural barriers are being ignored.”

Liberal Arts Dude sez: I think the time is ripe to start talking about serious, structural reform—what types of reforms are needed and what it will take to implement them. If Mr. Hill is right (and I count myself among those in agreement with him) participating in electoral politics without some sort of reform agenda in mind is sheer folly.

Take Back America Conference

2007-06-17T14:50:00.000-04:00

Take Back America Conference
OK the big day is almost here. I will be attending Day 1 of the Take Back America conference tomorrow. I couldn’t afford the full three days but I plan on getting as much out of my day as I can.

I’ll be wearing a badge that shows my monicker: “Blogger: Liberal Arts Dude” so if you see me please say hello.

I’d like to attend each and every session but alas, some are running at the same time. Here is a preview of some of the most interesting sessions:

Session: The War of Ideas: A Real Security Agenda for America

Session: The War of Ideas: How Conservatism Has Failed

Session: The War of Ideas: New Economics

Self-Organizing Session: Clean & Fair Elections Now
Description
You know the problem - campaign cash is the currency of our democracy. Money drowns out the votes and voices of ordinary Americans resulting in policies that benefit the wealthy special interests. If we want clean air and water, affordable and accessible healthcare and education, consumer protection, alternative energy and more, then we need clean and fair elections. Let's level the playing field and give progressive candidates a way to run and win on ideas. We can end the corrupting pay-to-play politics with public funding of elections. Come learn more about the successes in the states and the nationwide movement to pass the Fair Elections Now Act.

Session: Out of Iraq: What Comes Next?

Session: We've Got Issues: Young People in Action

Session: Voicing Your Values: How to Talk About Progressive Issues

Self-Organizing Session: Conservatives are to Supply-Side Economics as Progressives are to ________?

Self-Organizing Session: Reaching the Public

Self-Organizing Session: Creating a National Popular Vote for President: Organizing Insurrection in "Spectator States"
Description
Maryland State Senator Jamin Raskin and representatives of FairVote will discuss the exciting campaign for a Natioanl Popular Vote, which was just passed into law in the state of Maryland and has passed 11 state legislative bodies, including both houses in California, Hawaii and Illinois. The plan is to create an interstate compact of states comprising 270 in the electoral college that will commit to cast their electors in presidential elections for the winner of the national popular election. This plan, which has been endorsed by the New York Times, would prevent nightmarish election scenarios like the 2000 election when the national popular vote loser (George Bush by more than a half-million votes) was able to win based on manipulation of the vote in Florida and partisan intervention by the Supreme Court. It would also reenergize presidential politics in the two-thirds of states which are now safely red or blue and are thus fly-over territory in presidential elections. This grassroots movement and strategy could revitalize democratic politics in America and make every vote count. Come hear more about the National Popular Vote plan from the State Senator (and constitutional law professor) who introduced it in Maryland as well as speakers from FairVote, America's leading electoral reform group.

Self-Organizing Session: Election Protection 2008
Description
We'll review the challenges we face with electronic voting machines, caging lists, voter intimidation and so much more in 2008. We'll organize to protect the vote.

Self-Organizing Session: Do You Want a New U.S. Foreign Policy?
Description
Join Foreign Policy In Focus and the Institute for Policy Studies in a discussion of how to take back American foreign policy. Americans went to the polls last November to elect a new foreign policy. Instead, we got more of the same. The Bush administration has sent more U.S. troops to Iraq, stepped away from reductions in nuclear weapons, ignored the urgency of climate change, and continued to support economic policies that widen the gap between the haves and the have nots. The Democrats have a golden opportunity to present a new U.S. foreign policy in which America is a global partner, not a global cop. Drawing from their bold, new Just Security framework, FPIF and IPS will offer a new way for Democrats to think about America's role in the world. Join report editor John Feffer (FPIF and IPS), along with report contributors Emira Woods (FPIF and IPS), Anita Dancs (National Priorities Project), and Kevin Martin (PeaceAction).

Session: The New Populist Energy
Speakers:
Senator Sherrod Brown
Senator Amy Klobuchar
Senator Bernie Sanders
Katrina vanden Heuvel

I’ll be attending these sessions with the notion in mind of how unaffiliated, Independent voters and concerned citizens fit into the Progressive agenda—if at all. Disclosure: I think they should. I know that the purpose of these conferences is to rally the base of tried and true diehard Progressives. But if the Progressive movement wants to win legislative victories they cannot afford to ignore Independent voters and their concerns about the Democratic Party and party politics in general.

The ReDistricting Game

2007-06-15T22:18:00.000-04:00

The ReDistricting Game

If you get a chance and have some quality time to devote to understanding an extremely important part of American political process check out this web site. It is an online video game introduction to the practice of “gerrymandering” or manipulating the way electoral district boundaries are set for electoral advantage.

The game was developed by the USC Annenberg Center for Communication. I played it and it took a little effort to be able to play it but just going through the process allows you to experience the different dynamics involved in redistricting—how the system is set up and most importantly, how it can be abused.

Kudos to the USC Annenberg Center for creating this valuable tool and distributing it online for free so ordinary citizens can have easy access to it. I only hope that many, many people visit the site to check out their very worthwhile creation.

Book Review

2007-06-12T20:06:00.000-04:00

Ten Steps to Repair American Democracy: An Owner’s Manual for Concerned Citizens
By Steven Hill

The book starts with a quote from the economist Milton Friedman:

“Only a crisis—actual or perceived—produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable.”

The Liberal Arts Dude gives a standing ovation to Mr. Hill for having written this book. In a nutshell, not only does it analyze what is wrong in U.S. democracy today, it also gives a solid, practical prescription of how to fix things. More than just a jeremiad of how things are wrong in the System, Hill actually presents many compelling arguments and ideas on the types of reforms needed if the U.S. is to have a functioning participatory democracy for the 21st century.

Here is a list of Hill’s reforms:

1. Secure the vote
2. Expand voter participation
3. Increase voter choice with Instant Runoff Voting
4. Scrap winner-take-all elections
5. Direct election of the President
6. Overhaul the U.S. Senate
7. Reclaim the airwaves
8. Minimize money’s role
9. Reform the Supreme Court
10. Restore faith in government

Every chapter is chock-full of information and insights. For chapter 1, he explains why, for example, the vote needs to be secured. His description of voting irregularities, the lack of national oversight in election administration, the cozy relationships between those who manufacture voting equipment, bureaucrats who administer elections, and politicians who run for office was eye-opening.

He then lays out point-by-point policy prescriptions on what needs to be done in order to address and solve those problems. He ends each chapter with a listing of organizations and activist groups which are currently addressing these issues, including their web site addresses and phone numbers.

This is how he tackles the issues of media consolidation, gerrymandering, the influence of money in politics, the ideological polarization of the country, lack of meaningful debate on issues in the media, voter apathy, voter disenfranchisement, and others. As a handbook for ordinary people to understand the way politics works in the U.S. today, this book is invaluable. It is truly a practical handbook and an owner’s manual for democratic participation.

There are only two points where I am critical of the book:

1. The book leans heavily against Republicans. If the message of the book were to be disseminated to a mass audience, many Republicans might be turned off by it. Hill doesn’t give Democrats a free pass—he is critical of them also. The book’s reformist policy prescriptions do not deal primarily with party ideology but more on processes. Processes which impede widespread political participation and electoral politics to the two major parties. But then again, to tone down the language and descriptions of what is wrong and who is at fault could very well water down the potency and urgency of the book's message.

2. Hill doesn’t give a clear idea of what it will take to implement the types of reforms he is proposing. Some of these reforms will require, for example, Constitutional amendments. But what type of political pressure and conditions can make a push for Constitutional amendments possible? Will it require a sufficient number of sympathetic elected officials, working from the inside the System to pressure change from within? Will it require an organized effort in the part of ordinary citizens to put pressure on the elected officials? Will this organized effort be more likely to come from within the ranks of the two major parties or does he foresee a significant role for Independent voters and third-party adherents in a potential social movement? Most importantly, are the conditions right—in 2007 and in the upcoming elections in 2008—for such a movement to arise?

All in all, I found Hill’s book to be exactly what the title says it is. It was inspiring to know that someone has taken the time to compile all of this information and present it in such a coherent and unified manner. This book should be required reading for all concerned citizens who believe in participatory democracy.

Great Stuff

2007-06-11T19:19:00.001-04:00

Great Stuff on the Net

Here is a set of great stuff I got from the web today:

When College Ends, So Does Activism
Jaime Nelson could make anyone feel lazy. Over the past four years, Nelson, an undergraduate activist at the University of Michigan, has led writing workshops with Michigan’s incarcerated, organized voter registration drives to battle the anti-affirmative action ballot initiative in 2006, and united local immigrant rights and labor organizations through the Restaurant Workplace Project, a coalition that sought to expose the dangerous working conditions faced by undocumented employees of Ann Arbor’s dining establishments. To read the rest of the article click here.

Are America's Elections Fair and Competent?
Are America's elections as fair and professionally-conducted as Mexico's? Such a question would have been laughable fifteen years ago. Today, the question is not a joke, and the answer also isn't funny: "no." American University's Center for Democracy and Election Management (CDEM) will host "Change the Way America Runs Its Elections," a conference examining our current problems and offering new proposals. To read the rest of the article click here.

OpenCongress brings together official government data with news and blog coverage to give you the real story behind each bill
For most people, finding out what's really happening in Congress is a daunting and time-consuming task. The legislative process is frequently arcane and closed-off from the public, resulting in frustration with Congress and apathy about politics. Small groups of political insiders and lobbyists know what's really going on in Congress, but this important information rarely makes its way into the light. The official website of the library of Congress, Thomas, publishes the full text of bills, but we can do much more to inform ourselves and make our government accessible. Now, with OpenCongress, everyone can be an insider. OpenCongress is a free, open-source, non-profit, and non-partisan web resource with a mission to help make Congress more transparent and to encourage civic engagement. OpenCongress is a joint project of the Sunlight Foundation and the Participatory Politics Foundation. To access the web site click here.

Here and There

2007-06-08T22:55:00.000-04:00

Here and There

You’ve probably noticed that for a political blog mine has almost no material written on the ongoing Presidential race for the 2008 elections. I figured you can get more than enough great opinions and news on that aspect of politics from thousands of other blogs. Since it’s such a hot topic I won’t add my 2 cents worth until probably close to election time. Until then I’ll focus on stuff that excites me the most.

I went to the bookstore and got me a book which I will review for this blog. Ten Steps To Repair American Democracy: An Owner’s Manual for Concerned Citizens,” written by Steven Hill of the New American Foundation looks like the type of book I have been looking for. It is not just a critique of what is wrong in American democracy—it is actually a handbook of reform ideas on how to fix it. From the reviews I have read so far, it looks like a winner. I’ll post a review after I finish reading it.

Anyway, one of my passions is new media and using technological tools for activism. If you are curious, my recently finished master’s theses was on the use of cell phones for a political advocacy campaign in Africa. You can download it from this link. I also recently installed the “Causes” function in my Facebook account and will be experimenting with how that works. If you are curious check out these links: here and here. The tools are potentially very powerful and I bet techie-activists are already on it working to see how best to leverage these new tools for their campaigns and political parties.

I’m counting down the days until the Take Back America Conference and I can’t wait. If you are going look for a guy with a nametag that says “Liberal Arts Dude” – that’s right, I entered my monicker as my badge name! Pretty neat huh? Who says political activity can’t be fun?

Guidelines for Schmoozing

2007-06-06T23:38:00.000-04:00

Guidelines for Schmoozing

OK I’m going out to try to meet and mingle with political types. Here are some guidelines I set up for myself to make sure that my encounters with people in person and online are productive. I recently realized the value of having such guidelines in my comments policy for my blog posts so I thought I’d set some guidelines up for personal contacts as well.

If you are a political type meeting me for the first time here is what to expect:

I’m inexperienced and somewhat politically unsophisticated in organized political activism

My inexperience may be an asset that I don’t have the baggage of jaded cynicism that can come with experience

I bring an “outsider” perspective of being a political Independent who is not aligned with either major party and feels no personal compulsion to toe a party line

Although an Independent, I veer left in many issues. I self-label as a “Populist Progressive”

I have a lot of energy and enthusiasm that I’m raring to channel in productive ways

I have skills in writing, editing, desktop publishing, graphics, web development, and a newly-minted master’s degree in communications I am wanting to apply and put to practice

I’m a veteran of many volunteer efforts and can do grunt work with the best of them

I am nice and play well with others

And here is what I am looking for in terms of what will make me want to get involved:

I’m looking to see examples of Progressive idealism put into action

I am impressed by concrete, measurable results

I respect political argument and perspectives. I respect words backed up with action consistent with those words more.

I respect a solid track record and a widespread reputation for good works

Anyone can take a position and spout off on any issue. I am looking for people who can and have made things happen in the real world

I am looking for good teachers and mentors

Do the Hustle

2007-06-05T19:43:00.001-04:00

Do the Hustle

I guess I'm gonna have to dust off my Liberal Arts Grad job-hunting toolkit in my quest to find a meaningful way to participate in democracy as an ordinary person. No I'm NOT searching for a new job. What I am realizing, however, is that the process of trying to see which political groups to get involved with is not unlike the job-hunting process. In particular, networking. I can't just sit in front of a computer and blog all the time. I actually have to get out of the house, meet people and activists, press the flesh and get to know them as human beings and fellow citizens on a one-on-one basis.

It's very easy to get overwhelmed with the options that exist in the DC area to get social and get involved in political groups. Opportunities to go to happy hours can pretty much eat up your after-work time and dollars. Being that I am married and have family life with my wife I can't really go for the happy hour scene as I could if I were still single.

Nonetheless, here's some interesting politics-related happy hours if you are inclined.

New Organizing Institute Fundraiser June 12
Drink with Labor
Drinking Liberally DC Chapter

Then there's the Take Back America conference in June 18 where I will attend for one day.

I recently spoke with members of the Committee for a Unified Independent Party on the phone and will explore their group further in the next coming weeks.

All in all I will have my hands full meeting, greeting, and getting to know the people behind the causes in the DC area and beyond. Let's see where this all leads.

DC Note: Controversy is brewing in local Washington DC politics regarding Mayor Adrian Fenty’s plan to have the mayor’s office and City Council take over the city’s schools. A coalition of various community, independent, and third party leaders has formed to oppose the mayor’s plan. Check out their web site at http://letmevote.org. They argue that the school takeover plan should be put to a referendum of DC residents.

Here is their proposal:

Referendum Measure No. 007
SHORT TITLE
"Referendum on Certain Provisions of the Public Education Reform Amendment Act of 2007"
SUMMARY STATEMENT
This referendum asks the voters to approve or reject the parts of the "Public Education Reform Amendment Act of 2007" that would:
- Establish the District of Columbia Public Schools as an agency controlled by the Mayor;
- Create a Chancellor to administer the District of Columbia Public Schools who is appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the Council of the District of Columbia, and;
- Transfer to the Mayor all functions of the District of Columbia Board of Education as the local education agency.

Electoral Reform

2007-06-04T19:35:00.000-04:00

Electoral Reform

The more I read the arguments and materials by people who argue for electoral reform as the most effective way to address the problems in U.S. democracy, the more I am convinced that the reforms they propose are the way to go if we truly want real change to happen in this country. And the beauty of it is much of what electoral reform proponents argue for appear to be practical, realistic, and doable.

Read this essay by Douglas J. Amy to get an idea of electoral reform via Proportional Representation voting:
Excerpt: Americans continue to be disillusioned with politics. Cynicism about candidates and parties runs high and voter turnout is abysmally low. A number of proposals designed to revitalize American elections have been made, including term limits and campaign finance reform. But a new reform is also beginning to get some attention: replacing our present single-member district, winner-take-all election system with proportional representation (PR) elections.

This web site is a library of readings on Proportional Representation
Excerpt: Proportional representation -- sometimes also called "full representation" -- is the voting system used in most Western democracies and is widely considered to be fairer and more democratic than the current U.S. system. In the United States, interest in this electoral reform has been growing rapidly, fueled by Americans' frustration with our traditional winner-take-all elections.

FairVote is an excellent source of material and information and has an extensive library to educate oneself on this type of reform. They have a blog which links to various locally-based efforts and ally organizations in their blogroll. FairVote even has an effort right in my backyard of Washington, DC.

Best of all, proponents of Proportional Representation span across ideological lines. People who don’t necessarily agree on many things ideologically can find common ground in this effort. Check out this list from a web site of a reform group in California Marin Ranked Voting. They have Republicans, Greens, Libertarians in their ranks. Also check this out this list from FairVote which includes prominent liberals and conservatives.

I am amazed that this is the first time I have really learned about this reform effort in all my years of being interested in political issues. I’d like to learn more and perhaps meet people involved in this political reform movement.

In closing here are some inspiring words from a Green Party member and advocate of this type of reform:
Excerpt: To convert our antiquated 18th century winner-take-all voting system does not require any changes in the US Constitution. All that is involved is a change in applicable local, state—and to change Congress to PR—a single federal-law. Some communities, like San Luis Obispo, Calif., with 40,000 residents, only need 2000 signatures to put an initiative on the ballot to change their local city council to PR. Only 2000 signatures! Five people working three hours a week for ten weeks can put that on the ballot. By mounting local voter initiatives, we can build a groundswell of support. If we plant the seed of an idea, that seed will grow. Once we have built enough grassroots support by waging initiatives at a number of localities, then we start at the state level, using the mailing lists and names and contacts we collected from our local initiatives.

Instant Runoff Voting

2007-06-03T10:43:00.000-04:00

Instant Runoff Voting

Check out this Flash animation explaining how IRV works from FairVote. Fairvote is an organization working for improving the process of democratic participation for citizens. Rather than working for a particular party line or ideology, FairVote is a proponent of reforming the nuts and bolts of the political system to allow greater participation among minor and third parties as well as allowing voters more choices at election time.

From their newsletter: "FairVote is joining with other leading pro-democracy organizations to organize a major pro-democracy conference in Washington, D.C. on November 9th to 11th at the University of the District of Columbia Law School. On the evening of November 10th, we will hold a banquet to celebrate our 15th anniversary and honor our long-time board chair John Anderson. Stay tuned for more details."

Fence Sitter

2007-06-02T12:47:00.000-04:00

Fence Sitter

The above term is something that I never really thought about until conversation at lunch with a colleague let me know about it. The term refers to someone who just can’t make a decision on whose side he or she really is on. In American politics, that’s someone who can’t decide on whether they are Republican or Democrat and wanting to keep all options open, does not decide at all. That is, until voting day and then they will vote based on “gut” or some other emotional, non-rational basis. Enough voters like that, or so the theory goes, the election is swung towards the candidate they really don’t want to win. Sort of like how many present-day Democrats regard Ralph Nader voters in 2000. Yes, “fence sitter” is a derogatory term and it is bandied about by some folks to describe independent voters or voters who choose not to affiliate with either major party. Someone like me.

Just to clarify and to work out for myself the implications of the term, I decided to conduct a mock interview with myself to see whether or not the idea of a “fence sitter” fits the likes of the independent voter.

Q: Why can’t you make a decision? We live in a two-party system. It’s either Democrat or Republican and that may suck and that may be unacceptable to you but that’s reality. Pick one side or the other and stick with it.

A: Let me ask you this—if the choice were about ice cream, why should I choose between chocolate or vanilla when what I really want is strawberry with a touch of caramel? Are our choices in this supposed democratic system so limited that I have to choose between one or the other of two options I don’t like? Is that what democracy is all about—being forced to make choices between two things neither of which appeal to you or your needs, aspirations, dreams or beliefs?

Q: That’s fine and dandy to be idealistic and all but there is still reality to deal with. You call yourself a so-called “Progressive” and in this country, the game is played between Democrats and Republicans. Most candidates who can be considered “Progressive” fall under the Democratic camp. Whether you like it or not, if you deny these Democratic candidates your vote and throw away your vote for some longshot third party candidate that has absolutely no chance of winning you end up helping the Republicans. Is that what you want to do?

A: Independent doesn’t mean dumb. I am very much aware of how two-party dominated elections work and how the election can be swung to one side or another by a third party candidate. If a Democratic candidate can sufficiently demonstrate to me that they are in line with my beliefs they will get my vote. It’s a long shot but if a Republican came along that can demonstrate to me that they are strong advocates of the economic interests of ordinary, working people, then they will get serious consideration for my vote as well. But let me ask you this—what if neither candidate from the major parties demonstrate a concern for or even try to pretend that they care about the things I care about? What am I supposed to do—stay home on election day? I’d much rather file a protest vote for a third party candidate than truly waste my vote on either major party candidate who could care less about things I care deeply about.

Q: OK I get your point. Nonetheless, what you end up is marginalized. Without playing by the rules of the game, you end up marginalizing yourself and you end up with nothing. Isn’t it better to be a player in the game and have a chance at changing it from within instead of intentionally refusing to play because the rules don’t suit you? Isn’t that being a little short-sighted and selfish and a bit immature?

A: You bring up several points with implicit assumptions. By participating in the game—defined as declaring myself Republican or Democrat—you say that I get a chance at changing the game from within. Whereas I don’t have that chance if I exclude myself from those labels. Let me ask you this—show me an ordinary person and a citizen who is registered Democrat or Republican. Someone who not in a powerful position in government, non-government or the private sector. An ordinary person whose involvement with politics often occurs primarily in deciding which president to vote for every four years and which local and state officials to vote for in every local election cycle. Ask them if they believe that they truly are participants in a democratic process and that their votes and opinions truly do count from the lowest levels of the local party to the highest levels in Washington DC in Congress and the White House. Chances are, they will be more likely to admit they are like me—feeling powerless and alienated from the political process—than truly engaged. And that is because ordinary people ARE alienated and powerless in our system dominated by big money and corporate interests. Hey I’m not making this up—even Al Gore is saying in his new book that is the case. And he’s only one of a long line of pundits and reformers who say the same thing.

Q: OK, you make a good point. Nonetheless, what do you propose ordinary people should do about it? It’s very easy to be critical and be all doom and gloom about our System but that is what we have and we have to live with it.

A: I propose that every ordinary concerned citizen who feels powerless and alienated from the democratic process—Democrat, Republican, Third Party and Independent—should all get together and start talking. Start getting to know one another and having conversations on what needs to be done so the System can work as it was meant to work—of the People, by the People, and for the People. I will be going to this conference as a way to make connections with like-minded folks and to see if I can get to meet any of the players in the Progressive community—Democrat or otherwise.

Political Quote of the Day

2007-05-31T22:34:00.000-04:00

Political Quote of the Day

"Electoral politics without grassroots community organizing is a politics without a base, community organizing without electoral politics is a marginal politics, and electoral politics and community organizing without good, sound public policy is a politics without a head."

a quote from the late Paul Wellstone from this article from the Utne Reader

END OF POST

Fixing a Broken System

2007-05-30T18:54:00.000-04:00

Fixing It

OK I believe that the System of political participation for ordinary people is broken. What do I propose to fix it?

To best answer that question I will contrast an approach I agree with from an Independent activist with the approach of another existing reform movement, Unity08. Unity08 is a political reform movement which also views the political system as broken and in need of serious fixing. They argue that the main problem with the System is that the political process and relationship between left (Democrat) and right (Republican) have become so polarized to the point that it has become a problem. From their web site:

Unity08 believes that neither of today’s major parties reflects the aspirations, fears or will of the majority of Americans. Both have polarized and alienated the people. Both are unduly influenced by single-issue groups. Both are excessively dominated by money.

For most of the 20th Century, the contest for the U.S. presidency was waged over those “in the middle.” Recent Presidential elections, however, have not been focused on the middle but on the turnout of each party’s special interest groups — with each party’s “base” representing barely ten percent of the American people.

We believe that, while the leaders of both major parties are well intentioned people, they are trapped in a flawed system — and that the two major parties are today simply neither relevant to the issues and challenges of the 21st Century nor effective in addressing them.

As a result, most Americans have not been enthusiastic about the choices for President in recent elections, the key issues they ran on, or the manner in which the campaigns were conducted.

Therefore Unity08 will act to assure that an alternative ticket is presented to the American voters in 2008.

The problem thus set, Unity08 posits their solution to be presenting an alternative President/Vice President ticket as a way to galvanize voters who are disaffected from the System.

I believe that such an approach is flawed because it (a) does not address the systemic aspects of the problems in the US political system; (b) is primarily an appeal to people who consider themselves Democrats and Republicans (albeit disaffected ones). It is not an appeal to independent voters (like me) who do not self-identify with either one of those labels; (c) it is not an appeal to those who are already organized into third-party political groups--those segments of the population who have taken the trouble to self-organize into alternatives to the two major parties--and ones most likely to be politically active and participate in any reform movement.

Contrast that approach with this list of reform ideas specific to New York State by Michael H. Drucker of IndependentVoting.org from this blog

KEY STRUCTURAL POLITICAL REFORMS

Same Day Voter Registration
Voters can register on the same day of an election, helping to increase participation -- especially among young voters. The standard for verification is higher than other forms of registration since one has to provide ID on the spot and proof of residency. Voter turnout in the U.S. is among the lowest in the world. Only 34% of the eligible electorate came to the polls in the 1998 elections. The national average of 36% voter turnout ranks the United States at the bottom of all Western democracies. Voter turnout, for instance, among New York's youngest voters has hit an all-time low -- less than 17% in recent elections. Compare this to states with SDVR where voter turnout has increased participation by upwards of 25%. Minnesota, one of only six states with SDVR, led the nation in 1998 with 60% voter turnout to elect independent Jesse Ventura Governor. Nearly 16% of Minnesotans who voted registered on election day, half of them were people under the age of 25.

Term Limits
This is a powerful tool against Democratic and Republican party incumbency. It would, for instance, limit the terms of Senators and Assembly Members to between 6 and 8 years. It brings an end to life-long career politicians, and allows for citizen-run rather than special interest-run legislatures. It has been supported at levels of up to 70% in elections throughout the 1990s.

Ballot Access
Reforming access to ballot is crucial for greater political participation of eligible voters and candidates in the U.S. For instance, to run for President as an independent candidate for the first time, one needs to gather up to 40 times more signatures that either of the major parties. The ballot access laws should be rewritten to facilitate rather than discourage candidates from running. Petitioning periods need to be lengthened to make it easier for insurgent candidates and independents to qualify for a place on the ballot. Voters should be permitted to sign as many candidate petitions as they desire, and anyone should be able to circulate a petition. One-third of the states do not impose restrictions on who can circulate. However, in states like New York, candidates' families, supporters and friends cannot help them petition if they happen to live in a different district. So, while minor party candidates for statewide office in New York must collect the signatures of 5% of their enrolled voters, Democrats and Republicans need less than .05%. This
requirement makes statewide petitioning virtually impossible for minor party candidates.

Initiative & Referenda
Twenty-three states permit citizens to circumvent their legislatures by circulating a petition ("initiative") to place a proposed legislation ("referendum") on the ballot. New York is one of the many states without I&R. The fist step toward I&R would be an amendment to the New York State Constitution. The State Legislature could pass a Constitutional Amendment, but it is unlikely that the bipartisan controlled Legislature would be willing to do this since it would mean jeopardizing their steady flow of special-interest dollars. The alternative is to pass a Constitutional Amendment at a Constitutional Convention. That there will not be one until the year 2017 is an indication of how stifled democracy is in New York.

Non-Partisan Municipal Elections
This eliminates party primaries and increases both participation of candidates and voters, who are exposed to broader range of choices. Major cities, such as Los Angeles and Chicago, already have this reform in place. In fact, over 80% of municipalities in the country with populations of 200,000 or more elect their officials through non-partisan elections. By removing party primaries, non-partisan elections give voters a broader choice of candidates from whom to choose. Non-partisan elections also allow for more meaningful public debate and increase the possibility for innovative policy solutions. Non-partisan elections would also change the character of the legislature for the better, since legislators would be less concerned with crossing their party for fear of retribution if they sought to run for reelection. Finally, non-partisan elections would help foster new citywide coalitions, which would serve to unify cities - not pit groups against each other. Non-partisan elections would therefore offer more options and greater power to voters to decide on policy-making decisions. Expert testimony given to the Charter Revision Commission in New York by Dr. Allan Lichtman, Chairman of the History Department at American University, points to the fallacy of the attacks by those who claim that non-partisan elections discriminate against minority voters. He cites a National League of Cities survey that found that in forty cities with populations of 50,000 or more with elected black mayors, twenty-nine were elected through non-partisan elections. Legislation is also needed to restructure local Boards of Elections to include minor parties and independents, functioning as non-partisan agencies.

Campaign Finance Reform
Campaign finance reform measures are needed that would level the playing field between independents and the major. One way to do this is to tie the acceptance of public financing of campaigns to agreement by the candidates to participate in public debates. Americans should be allowed to direct their own tax dollars to support the development of independent parties. New York City, for instance, has one of the most innovative and successful campaign finance programs in the country. It is a matching fund program, which outlaws corporate contributions and includes an agreement by the candidates to participate in publicly televised debates. It should be adopted by the whole state.

Open and Inclusive Debates
Public debates afford voters an opportunity to learn about their candidates in ways that campaign literature, television ads, radio commercials, and the internet do not. The pseudo-governmental bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates should be abolished in its current in favor of a non-partisan body that sets equitable criteria for the inclusion of candidates at the presidential level. Local non-partisan bodies should also serve to facilitate debates.

The Great Unwashed

2007-05-29T22:28:00.000-04:00

The Great Unwashed

From the New York Times on Sunday (requires login)
Of all the people who deserve some blame for the debacle in Iraq, don’t forget the American public. Today, about two-thirds of Americans oppose the war. But back in March 2003, when United States troops stormed into Iraq, nearly three out of four Americans supported the invasion. Doves say that the public was suckered into war by a deceitful White House, and hawks say that the press has since led the public to lose its nerve — but the two sides implicitly agree that the public has been dangerously unsure, or easily propagandized, or ignorant. Click here to read the article in its entirety.

This is an argument that needs to be addressed by this blog author. If I am self-described proponent of democratic governance and democracy, what do I propose should be done about an electorate that is ignorant, uneducated, and demonstrates irrational voting behavior?

Economist Bryan Caplan, in the book, “The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies” argues for solutions such as (1) To encourage greater economic literacy, he suggests tests of voter competence, or “giving extra votes to individuals or groups with greater economic literacy.” (2) Caplan also suggests changing the educational curriculum to stamp out biased beliefs in voters and policy makers alike.

I would argue that the focus on voters as ignorant and easily manipulated based on their voting behavior is tackling the issue from the wrong perspective. One shouldn’t need to have an economics PhD in order to make informed decisions about political and economic policies that impact one’s life. But one must first believe that political participation can and does have a significant impact. And if a voter were going to make an informed decision, there must be decisions to be made in the first place.

I argue that the current sad state of U.S. democracy isn’t necessarily due to voters being ignorant as Professor Caplan would suggest. I would argue that the real reason is that voters really aren’t given much of a choice when it comes down to elections and issues to vote about. The public policy debate is so narrowly defined between the Democratic and Republican parties that most people really do not believe there is much of a choice to be made. If you think both parties’ approach to the issues, for lack of a better word, suck, where do you go and what do you do?

The current system has the duopoly of Republican/Democrat so ingrained that any alternative viewpoint is automatically relegated to the fringes. Think of how the two major parties dominate political discourse on TV, radio, newspapers, the major news shows, etc. When was the last time you heard perspectives other than Democratic or Republican on political and economic issues being given as much exposure? I bet you that if you did, that it was highly unusual and an anomaly.

Add to that the system of political campaigning that is highly dependent on having a major amount of money—I mean in the hundreds of millions—to get your hat in the ring, that ordinary citizens who are not well-connected, who are not backed by big money interests (who will only back you if they stand to gain something from it) and who are not savvy to how the game is really played don’t stand a chance in participating as outsiders to the two-party system.

So I would argue that the real problem isn’t voter ignorance or that they are uneducated. It is that ordinary people are given such narrow, limited choices in participating in American democracy that most just view electoral politics (rightly so) as a rich person’s game and therefore, out of their reach to really affect in any significant way. Ordinary people are reduced to the role of spectators who vote for their favorite racehorse once every four years. And that’s not their fault—it’s the way the System of political participation is set up that’s the problem.

My next blog topic: what I think should be done about it.

I'm Not Crazy After All

2007-05-29T19:23:00.000-04:00

I'm Not Crazy

I'm not the only person who thinks the way I do about the state of democracy in American society. Here are some material from the Washingon Post.

From an online chat at the Washington Post today:

Newton, Mass.: Professor, according to your article, money pays the defining role in our nation's policies. Freedom of speech, rule of and by the people have devolved into well-worn cliches. If this is the case -- and you argue strongly and compellingly that it is -- then who and what are we as a nation? If the ballot box no longer ensures that the peoples' voice is heard, then what recourse remains? I also have a son who served. If you failed, then so did we all.

Andrew J. Bacevich: Free speech still matters because that's one way that "we the people" can register dissent -- we express our refusal to endorse the status quo. Unfortunately, dissent -- even when it rises to the level of something like the Nov 2006 elections -- doesn't have much of a political effect.

I don't have any easy answers on this. But it does seem to me that we should no longer assume that "democracy" provides the best one-word descriptor of our political system. In a superficial sense, we remain a democratic nation. But peer beneath the surface and the reality is something else again.

And from the article in Sunday's Washington Post:

To whom do Kennedy, Kerry and Lynch listen? We know the answer: to the same people who have the ear of George W. Bush and Karl Rove -- namely, wealthy individuals and institutions.

Money buys access and influence. Money greases the process that will yield us a new president in 2008. When it comes to Iraq, money ensures that the concerns of big business, big oil, bellicose evangelicals and Middle East allies gain a hearing. By comparison, the lives of U.S. soldiers figure as an afterthought.

Money maintains the Republican/Democratic duopoly of trivialized politics. It confines the debate over U.S. policy to well-hewn channels. It preserves intact the cliches of 1933-45 about isolationism, appeasement and the nation's call to "global leadership." It inhibits any serious accounting of exactly how much our misadventure in Iraq is costing. It ignores completely the question of who actually pays. It negates democracy, rendering free speech little more than a means of recording
dissent.

This is not some great conspiracy. It's the way our system works.

Liberal Arts Dude sez:
If you accept what is said above as true and you are a believer in democracy there are some choices to make:

(1) Accept things as they way they are, don't complain, and just learn to live with it.

(2) If the state of things are unacceptable, find common ground with like-minded folks. Decide among yourselves what to do about it.

(3) Discuss if your solution will work and if it is worth the time, risk, and effort to implement it.

Below is an excerpt from anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan's goodbye letter to the antiwar movement. It is a particularly poignant reminder on the question of whether or not it will be worth it to take on an ambitious and idealistic undertaking such as trying to realize democracy. She says (and I agree with her) that this is a country that seems to care more about who will be the next American Idol than democratic participation.

The most devastating conclusion that I reached this morning, however, was that Casey did indeed die for nothing. His precious lifeblood drained out in a country far away from his family who loves him, killed by his own country which is beholden to and run by a war machine that even controls what we think. I have tried every since he died to make his sacrifice meaningful. Casey died for a country which cares more about who will be the next American Idol than how many people will be killed in the next few months while Democrats and Republicans play politics with human lives. It is so painful to me to know that I bought into this system for so many years and Casey paid the price for that allegiance. I failed my boy and that hurts the most.

Fighting Bob Fest 2007

2007-05-28T19:59:00.000-04:00

Fighting Bob Fest 2007

From the Fighting Bob Fest web site:
Public participation in government has tragically eroded, corporations dominate the policymaking process, and elected officials systematically neglect the public interest in favor of private ones. Freedom and justice are defended through education, and the exchange of ideas promotes solidarity among progressives. To this end, Fighting Bob Fest strives to provide citizens with a forum for democratic participation where frustrations with current policies can be constructively molded into calls to action.

If you like what you read visit this web site http://www.fightingbobfest.org/. I'm going to see if I can go. It looks like exactly the type of political gathering that I am looking for.

Meaningful Political Activity

2007-05-28T08:43:00.000-04:00

Meaningful Political Activity

I was reading a blog about immigration today (click here) which contains many ideas about immigration and immigrants which I personally did not agree with. However, what struck me about it were the ideas I DID agree with and found common ground despite my disagreement with the author on the ideas and attitudes towards illegal immigrants in the blog.

Here’s a top ten list I quote from the blog on why the author thinks Americans do not join anti-illegal immigration marches. I quote from the blog:

1. We are too busy with living; jobs, families, etc.
2. We have lost faith in our political system and our ability to effect change.
3. We spend much time refuting spurious charges of racism and xenophobia.
4. We have no (or few) rallying-points or unifying organizations for that purpose.
5. We are not affected by the issue in the same way as the marching Illegals.
6. Spineless politicos on both sides of the aisle are in bed with special interests.
7. Much of the media is owned and operated by those with a Pro-Illegals stance.
8. We are reluctant to bring harm to others even when in defense of ourselves.
9. Our political leadership believe us to be sheep who will go along quietly.
10. We have been feared into passivity.

Several points from the list resonated with me and made me exclaim “Hey I feel that way too!” about the state of politics and democracy in the contemporary U.S. In particular, points 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10.

Where I diverge from the blog author is that I don’t feel illegal immigration is the cause of the problems of the U.S. I see it primarily as a symptom—note the relationship between cause and effect that I am asserting—of the screwed up priorities of those who have power and authority over us ordinary folks.

By screwed up priorities, I mean the system of participatory democracy that is supposed to have been set up to represent the interests of the average citizen does not anymore. It primarily serves the interests of those who are organized and who have money—corporations who are in it for profit and special interests who are in it to serve narrow ideological goals.

The average citizen used to look to either of the two major political parties as the vehicle to represent their interests. Yet more and more with both parties passing legislation like NAFTA, CAFTA, and other so-called free trade agreements which sell the average worker and the middle class out it is clear to me whose interests the political and economic system primarily serves—and it’s not the ordinary, average American.

What do the Republicans offer—they get ordinary people all worked up about gay marriage, illegal immigration, prayer in schools, gun ownership and other so-called “values” issues when the real issues that concern the socioeconomic well-being of average, middle and working class folks get buried. And what do the Democrats offer—lip service to traditional populist ideals but when it comes time to actually do something that concerns the socioeconomic well-being of average Americans, they pretty much follow the same free-trade, outsourcing, deregulating, privatization, line that the Republicans follow.

No wonder average people like the blogger I cite are in a froth about the deteriorating state of American society. Immigrants are being made into a convenient scapegoat for society’s ills when the real people who should be the target of the fury of average citizens—those who are in power—are given a free pass and get off the hook as long as they conveniently pit average people (immigrants and non-immigrants) against each other for crumbs in the rapidly shrinking socioeconomic pie.

What I advocate: working people and those at the bottom of society’s rungs should have, through organization, a powerful voice in how the affairs of the country are dictated. Especially as it concerns laws, regulations, and other aspects of government and the economy which have serious and great consequences for their lives. This can only be done by ordinary people organizing themselves.

What immigrant activists have done which ordinary American citizens haven’t is to organize themselves into a political force and to advocate for themselves. The time-honored tradition in all democratic societies of organizing for a common interest. Can ordinary Americans take the time to do the same? The blogger above is a sign that there definitely is a need for it among ordinary citizens. What form will this organization take—if it ever comes about? Will it be coopted by the two major parties who may take on the rhetoric and appearance of accommodating its agenda but not its substance? Will the people surmount the difficulties of organizing into an alternative political party and result in a third party rising? Or will ordinary citizens give into the anti-illegal immigrant scapegoating hysteria and will narrowly focus on that issue without tackling the big picture of public policy in any substantive way?

Milton Friedman: A Reaction to Capitalism and Freedom (Part 1)

2007-05-25T22:22:00.000-04:00

Milton Friedman: A Reaction to Capitalism and Freedom Part 1

I will admit that while I appreciated the mostly jargon-free, non-technical language that Friedman used in much of his book, quite a bit of the discussion that he had about economic theory were hard to understand for me as a layman and a non-economist. Passages that detail the role of gold in domestic and foreign exchange, the mechanisms by which tariffs work, fiscal policy, etc. will require a second reading for me to be able to fully comprehend.

What I will delve into is what was fully understandable to me—the underlying philosophy behind his book. Specifically the role of competitive capitalism—defined by Friedman as the organization of the bulk of economic activity through private enterprise operating in a free market—as a system of economic freedom and which is a necessity for political freedom. The minor theme in his book is the role a government should play in such a society dedicated to individual freedom and relying primarily on the market to organize economic activity.

Friedman posits individual freedom above all as the main principle to be protected in a democratic society. He argues that a competitive, free-enterprise capitalist economy with the government playing as little a role in it as possible as the optimum way to organize a society. He argues that individual freedom and a capitalist economy go hand-in-hand. He contrasts the lack of individual freedom in totalitarian states in which the government dictates the operations of the economy (Socialism) with the freedom Americans enjoy in America. One of his anecdotes presents the example of a Communist being free to espouse and promulgate Communist philosophy in Capitalist America whereas the same freedom to espouse and promulgate Capitalism will not be permitted in a Socialist state.

Friedman’s book delves into a mind-bogglingly wide span of ideas on public policy. What types of political, economic and social arrangements need to be in place in order to have an efficiently running society with free enterprise capitalism and individual freedom as its primary organizing principles.

Its running theme is the assertion that anything produced by the government or through government regulation is inevitably of poor quality and is inferior to anything produced by the free market. It cites failures of the modern welfare state as inevitably the failures of government regulation. Problems in education, fiscal policy, inequality, monetary policy, etc. all can be attributed to excessive government regulation and influence in economic affairs.

The solution he proposes is to deregulate and to let the free market run unfettered. He asserts that the results of such deregulation will be that everything we value as a society—general prosperity, political freedom, a rise in living standards, socioeconomic equality, improvements in education—we will attain.

What are the implications of Friedman’s ideas to ordinary people?

A) That one should comply and agree with the free market as the primary arbiter of society and its rules.

B) That inequality and other social problems will be fixed as long as the market is allowed to do its work without government interference. All we have to do is wait and let the market work its magic.

C) That we should trust in the free market and actors who operate within its rules to provide for us everything that we need and want.

Something about A,B, and C bothers me a great deal as an individual and an ordinary citizen. Essentially, Friedman would have citizens following like sheep in matters political and economic. Just accept what the market gives. Don’t complain. If you end up getting a raw deal in a market-driven society better to learn to accept it and move on without creating a fuss.

I won’t make the presumption of arguing with him on the grounds of economic theory because I am not an economist. But as an ordinary citizen, Friedman’s philosophy equates to blind obedience to a market society and market forces. In addition, he would also take away or severely weaken the one institution in society through which ordinary citizens would have a voice—the government—and relegate it to the role of referee and arbiter among corporations and other economic actors.

Friedman’s implicit assumptions (A,B and C) point to a logical fallacy in Friedman’s free-market ideology (and that is exactly what it is—an ideology). Where Friedman says there are failures in the American Capitalist system, it is due to excessive government regulation. What he envisions as a perfect, free-market society running unfettered by cumbersome government regulation, therefore, does not exist and has never existed. It is a theoretical model that is untested and has never been tried.

Why should I, as a citizen in a democratic society, put my fate in the hands of such a model? Because Thomas Friedman said so and he’s a Nobel laureate and I’m not? Therefore, I should trust the market as he does?

Milton Friedman: A Reaction to Capitalism and Freedom (Part 2)

2007-05-25T22:19:00.000-04:00

Milton Friedman: A Reaction to Capitalism and Freedom Part 2

In addition, I take issue with Friedman on several points:

The role of social class as a natural and inevitable byproduct of Capitalist economies—and what we, as citizens of a democratic society, are supposed to do about it. Friedman delves a bit into racial inequality, segregation, and minority groups in his analysis. However, he primarily asserts that what poor people and disadvantaged racial minorities need is actually MORE of the free market. He argues that it was entrepreneurship and being able to trade (albeit in a limited sense) in an economy that most minority groups have been able to survive and rise up the socioeconomic ladder historically in America. Friedman is not a proponent of what I believe—which is that working people and those at the bottom of society’s rungs should have, through organization, a powerful voice in how the affairs of the country are dictated. Especially as it concerns laws, regulations, and other aspects of government and the economy which have serious and great consequences for their lives. Friedman would discourage working-class folks from organizing themselves into a collective, political force and would urge them to focus instead on becoming entrepreneurs intent on their individual fates only. Because the political route always leads to bigger government.
The book is written from a very U.S.-centric point of view. Capitalism and its relation to individual and political freedom is much more complex than Friedman presents it to be. While Friedman cites the U.S. as an example of a society in which political and individual freedom exist because of a Capitalist economy, he neglects the very real examples of other countries which not only adopted Capitalism, but were also closely allied with the U.S—but were totalitarian states ruled by dictators. The history of countries such as Guatemala, the Philippines, Haiti, Chile, etc. show countries whose governments and economies were closely tied with the U.S. Capitalism but were anything but bastions of individual nor political freedom . In fact, in the history of these countries, the U.S. had a hand in suppressing grassroots democratic movements in favor of propping up autocratic regimes which were friendly to U.S. political and economic interests.
The role of power. Friedman’s arguments posit a high concentration of power in government as a condition that will result in inefficiency, waste, bureaucracy, inhibit competition, and will have deleterious effects on the free market. He doesn’t delve into how such arguments can be made as well if the corporate and private sector become too powerful and the deleterious effects such power can have in eroding democracy and individual rights, the destruction of the environment, and having the democratic process for individuals and ordinary people be subverted by big-money interests.

One can ask of me: “OK Mr. Smarty-Pants, if Capitalism is so bad and the U.S. society so bad, (a) why don’t you leave the U.S. and (b) what would you rather have in Capitalism’s place?”

To address option (a) I say:

I have no intentions of leaving the U.S. at this time. This is supposed to be a free society. I am merely exercising my rights to free speech. And since when does being critical of the U.S. equate to banishment? Should all people who disagree with the status quo just go away and leave the country to free market-loving Capitalists? Where does it say the “We the People” should mean “We the Capitalists?” Whether you like it or not I have as much right to my ideas and opinion as you do although we disagree and I am in the minority.

To address option (b) I say:

I am not naïve enough to think that I or anyone who agrees with my ideas can impose an alternative form of economy in the U.S. to Capitalism. What I would say is that in a Capitalist economy where social class is inevitable, that I favor having a strong, organized working class whose interests are represented in the public debates, discourse, legislation, and represented by advocates in elected office. I could care less if a Socialist economy were put in the U.S. That is not my focus or my interest. What I care about is for the working class interests to be represented in public discourse no matter what economic model we live under.

Getting back to Friedman, his book was an excellent introduction to the intellectual basis of conservative philosophy. The credo of small government, free enterprise, and individual freedom. It did not convince me, however, to become a conservative or persuade me that joining the political party of American conservatism, the Republicans, was the way to go for a political independent like me who is dissatisfied with the Democrats. In fact, it even made me solidly more strident in espousing Socialist ideals as my main political philosophy.

Senator Bernard Sanders

2007-05-24T18:55:00.000-04:00

Senator Bernard Sanders

Click on this link to access a Washington Post interview with Senator Bernard Sanders of Vermont, the lone Socialist in the U.S. Congress. Click on this link to access his Senate web site. Here is a link to his excellent political autobiography, Outsider in the House.

Senator Sanders has intrigued me from the very first time I heard about him when I was an undergraduate student in Vermont in the mid-1990s. His principled and unwavering commitment to his Democratic Socialist ideals and advocacy of working-class interests has made him a folk hero in Vermont. Needless to say, I look up to him as an advocate and protector of working-class and middle class American interests. Not only is he an anomaly as the lone Democratic Socialist in the U.S. Congress, Vermont is also known as a very conservative state that one would think would be prone to vote a Republican in office rather than a Democrat, much less a Socialist. Here is a link to an index of his stated positions on various issues ranging from immigration, to health care, to international trade.

What I'm Reading

2007-05-22T18:43:00.000-04:00

What I'm Reading

About a year ago I asked a friend--a self-described conservative and a staunch Republican--to recommend some books to help me understand the conservative point of view. I wanted to learn as much as I can about the side which I ordinarily oppose ideologically to see if I can find some common ground with the conservative viewpoint. It also helps that my friend is someone that I like and respect. Although we disagree on many, many things, what we agree upon is an attitude of mutual respect and understanding. We've had our share of philosophical and political debates. I thought it was high time to develop a more well-rounded perspective on things political, social and economic.

Because I was in the middle of my masters program, I wasn't able to read a single book from the reading list he gave me last year. It is only now that I am able to have the time to do some reading for pleasure and personal reasons, rather than assignments. So Leroy, I know it's one year late, but I am now reading Capitalism and Freedom by the economist Milton Friedman. I will post my thoughts/reaction/a review soon once I am finished with it.

Articles on Immigration

2007-05-21T19:42:00.000-04:00

Check out this excellent commentary on the topic of immigration, "The Immigration Bill Sellout" Part 1 and Part 2. Ivory Towerz is one of my favorite blogs on politics and culture.

Immigration, especially as the issue heats up this and next year, is one of the issues that perplex me the most. Being an immigrant who has played by the rules to gain American citizenship, I can understand the arguments of anti-immigrant people who decry illegal immigration. Yet I can't help but relate as well to undocumented immigrants who are here in this country to find work because the economies of their home countries are so bad they are willing to risk everything to have a chance to work in the US. I just can't understand the vitriol and extremely xenophobic attitudes that often accompany anti-immigrant diatribes, especially as they relate to Mexicans and other brown-skinned people.

I agree with Jeff Siegel (the author of the articles I link to above) that what we are witnessing is nothing new in American history. Anti-immigrant sentiments and xenophobia have been experienced by the Irish, Italians, Poles, Jews, Chinese, Japanese, etc. before.

Here is an interesting take on the immigration debate from the perspective of economics from the Left Business Observer.

As someone whose main interest is political participation in a democracy and who generally sees collective action from the grassroots as a good thing, this is where I see the true practice of democracy as actually quite messy and chaotic rather than the orderly vision that we learn in civics class in school. Both sides of the debate -- the organized, anti-immigrant nativists on one side and the supporters and advocates of immigrants on the other -- are both expressions of grassroots sentiments from the general population. Moreover, the ranks of both sides are primarily derived not from elite populations but from middle and working class folks. What should be a civilized, orderly debate looks more and more like gang war as the issue heats up the closer the presidential elections get.

Building a Party for Working People

2007-05-16T22:31:00.000-04:00

Building a Party for Working People

Check out this link. I know it’s old. It’s an analysis of the results of the 2006 Midterm Congressional elections in which the Democrats narrowly took over from the Republicans. But what it says rings very true as America gears up for the 2008 Presidential elections.

Pay attention to this quote:

“Although minimum wage and anti-war ballot measures passed in numerous states, more fundamental challenges to corporate power such as California's Clean Money and Fair Elections Act (Proposition 89) did not prevail." Across the board, the biggest winner on Tuesday in California was big money," said Rose Ann DeMoro, executive director of the California Nurses Association, which sponsored Proposition 89. This bi-partisan commitment will continue to bring accelerated globalization, outsourcing and plant closures, declining real incomes and no end in sight to a failing health care system. Working people will remain stuck in the political wilderness with no one to speak for our needs and aspirations. And we will remain in that wilderness until we find a way to build a party of our own to confront the corporate power that continues to control the political agenda of both parties.”

The speaker, Labor Party National Organizer Mark Dudzic, is making the argument that a victory for the Democrats does not necessarily translate to a victory for working people. He asserts that both major parties are so intertwined with corporate interests that the choice between Republican and Democrat has effectively become a choice between two corporate-sponsored parties. Data from the Center for Responsive Politics on corporate sponsorship (this and this) of the major parties bears this out.

The solution, according to Dudzic, is for working people to build their own political party that will work for their own interests. That will defend working people’s interests against the powerful lobby of the corporate class. I wholeheartedly agree with Dudzic and I support his and the Labor Party’s goals.

But this article, again from the Center for Responsive Politics, details the sobering reality of trying to run a political campaign as a third party candidate. The Labor Party is an effort to turn the idea of a political party for working people into reality. It faces an uphill battle with no guarantees of success.

The other choice: forcing either major party to become the party of the people by an internal revolt and reformation. Which choice do you think is more realistic to make happen?

Some News

2007-05-16T19:18:00.000-04:00

A couple of interesting articles from today's news:

FOOD STAMP CHALLENGE: Lawmakers Find $21 a Week Doesn't Buy a Lot of Groceries (Washington Post)
Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) stood before the refrigerated section of the Safeway on Capitol Hill yesterday and looked longingly at the eggs. At $1.29 for a half-dozen, he couldn't afford them. Ryan and three other members of Congress have pledged to live for one week on $21 worth of food, the amount the average food stamp recipient receives in federal assistance. That's $3 a day or $1 a meal. They started yesterday. To read the rest of this article click here.

Higher Ed and 2008 (Inside Higher Ed)
In the last week or so, higher education appears to have arrived as a 2008 campaign issue. Democratic candidates are vying to be the boldest defender of student loan borrowers and one in particular — John Edwards — has issued proposals that are unusually detailed for this early in a campaign. And in a sign that Edwards’s move was noticed, Barack Obama followed Tuesday with a plan of his own. To read the rest of the article click here.

LAD Sez:
Kudos to the Congressmen for doing this. Not necessarily as an exercise in "walking in someone else's shoes" but as a way to gain attention to an issue that really doesn't get much traction in the mainstream media. That is, poverty and the lives of folks who have to live it. Whether it leads to anything substantial in a legislative sense is another story. Another hopeful sign is the article on education. At least in rhetoric and public presentation, two presidential candidates are willing to take on the issue of higher education as a major aspect of their campaigns. Again, I'm taking a wait and see attitude whether or not this posturing leads to anything productive that truly does improve the lot of student loan borrowers. As the article says, it’s much easier to promise to do something on college costs than to actually do something.

Show Me the Money

2007-05-15T19:19:00.000-04:00

Show Me the Money

If you are interested in learning about the role of money in U.S. politics, I strongly urge you to be a regular visitor to the web site of the Center for Responsive Politics. They have a storehouse of financial data on the role and influence of big money in politics and government. Among other data, of particular interest is an excellent chart which illustrates just how much money is involved in making a run for President. Click on this link to go to the 2008 Presidential elections chart.

END OF POST

Gimme a Small “d!”

2007-05-14T15:02:00.000-04:00

Gimme a Small “d!”

I was pondering ways ordinary people can participate in the democratic process. By that I mean for ordinary people to elect government legislators and influence their decisions once elected, and to influence public opinion about issues. I ended up making a list of activities that range from individual efforts that anyone interested can do all the way to activities that require tremendous resources, organization, and access to folks in power.

The very fact that I was able to come up with this list off the top of my head in one afternoon speaks well for the type of free, liberal democracy that exists in the U.S. That doesn’t mean that I think everything, therefore, is all hunky-dory. The level of access to legislators, ability to elect like-minded folks to political office, and ability to conduct political and public information campaigns to sway public opinion is highly dependent on how much money you have to spend. And these days, obtaining that type of political juice for advertising and consulting services is a multi-billion dollar industry in itself.

So my cheer for small “d” democracy comes with a caveat: it’s still primarily a money-driven game where the ones with the most money or have the most access to money can play the most effectively. My list follows:

1. Voting

2. Lobbying

3. Joining a cause-oriented organization such as NOW <http://www.now.org/>, the Sierra Club <http://www.sierraclub.org/>, or Greenpeace <http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/>

4. Conducting a public information campaign about particular issues

5. Volunteering for a community organization such as ACORN <http://www.acorn.org/>

6. Attending rallies and protests

7. Supporting political interest groups such as the NRA <http://www.nra.org/>, MoveOn <http://www.moveon.org/>, Progressive Majority <http://www.progressivemajority.org/>

8. Working for a cause-oriented nonprofit organization such as the Open Society Institute <http://www.soros.org/>

9. Setting up or supporting a policy-oriented think-tank such as the Institute for Policy Studies <http://www.ips-dc.org/>, the Brookings Institution <http://www.brook.edu/>, the Cato Institute <http://www.cato.org/>, or the Heritage Foundation <http://www.heritage.org/>

10. Becoming a blogger or a citizen journalist

11. Attending political meetings in your community such as City Council <http://www.dccouncil.washington.dc.us/>or Advisory Neighborhood Commission <http://www.anc1c.org/>

12. Forming or joining a union <http://www.aflcio.org/> at your workplace

13. Becoming active in activities at your church <http://www.all-souls.org/> especially if your church <http://www.ilovethischurch.com/> is active in the community

14. Forming cooperatives and self-help groups such as United Professionals
<http://www.unitedprofessionals.org>

15. Writing your representative in Congress at the House of Representatives <http://www.house.gov/> or the Senate <http://www.senate.gov/>

16. Forming an independent political party with like-minded folks and participating in the electoral process, such as the DC Statehood Green Party <http://www.dcstatehoodgreen.org/>

17. Writing about politics and publicizing your writings via the mainstream or alternative media (such as Media Matters <http://mediamatters.org/> or IndyMedia <http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml>

18. Setting up a citizen-oriented Internet radio station <http://www.pacifica.org/>

19. Reading politically-oriented books, publications and web sites to educate oneself

20. Joining or supporting a group that is built on ethnic group affiliation such as the NAACP <http://www.naacp.org/home/index.htm>

21. Participating in political debates online

22. Reading political web sites and commenting on articles as a way to contribute to the discourse about particular issues

Throw the Bums Out

2007-05-11T22:15:00.000-04:00

Throw the Bums Out

Am I the only guy in this country who’s fed up with what’s happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder. We’ve got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we’ve got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can’t even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, “Stay the course.”

If you think the above quote is coming from some foaming at the mouth, liberal, populist you better think again. The above quote is from a new book called “Where Have All the Leaders Gone,” by Lee Iacocca. That’s right, THE Lee Iacocca, former CEO of the Chrysler Corporation and corporate icon. A solid stalwart of capitalism and strong adherent to the U.S. socioeconomic status quo—or so we thought.

I see jeremiads like Iacocca’s as a symptom of something going on in American society. A pissed off, “we’re mad as hell and we’re not gonna take it anymore,” anti-establishment mood that used to be the cultural space occupied by the radical and liberal left. What is different now is that people whom you wouldn’t normally think of espousing, much less widely publicizing, anti-establishment views (like Lee Iacocca) are now foaming at the mouth calling for a popular, grassroots uprising to throw the bums out of Washington.

People like me who identify as political Independents have recognized for a long time that there is something very wrong going on in American society. A sense that the System is broken and needs serious fixing and neither of the two major parties are doing anything worth a damn to seriously tackle, much less address these issues. While a substantial number of Americans still self-identify as either Republican or Democrat, the number of people who are self-identifying as Independent or some other third party designation are growing (35% according to the Committee for a Unified Independent Party.)

Yet third-party efforts in recent years have not been very successful in overturning the System, much less cohering into a potent, political force that can challenge the dominance of the two major parties. The examples of Ralph Nader and Ross Perot illustrate the difficulties of enacting and sustaining a third-party bid for the American presidency as outsiders. Moreover, established non-mainstream parties (Greens, Labor, Socialist, Democratic Socialist, Libertarian, Working Families, etc.) are not a strong factor in national elections, although there have been examples of local success on a state by state and city level.

So what’s an Independent, ordinary American person to do who sees many problems going on in American society, would like to do something about it, but sees no viable options within the existing mechanisms of traditional politics to do it? I specifically say politics (rather than through the economy, family values, or religious institutions) because traditionally, this has been the arena in democratic societies where the average citizen is given a chance to get their voice heard, and to elect representatives who will represent their interests.

This blog will be a chronicle of one person’s journey in trying to answer that question.

Copyright 2007

Regarding Comments

2007-05-11T20:50:00.000-04:00

Comment Policy

This is my policy regarding comments in this blog (adapted from PR Squared's policy. Click below to read more):
- I reserve the right to delete any comments I find offensive.
- I will strive to maintain an atmosphere of free and open conversation. Constructive criticism is okay,but personal attacks or harsh language directed toward the author or other commenters (or other people engaged in the extended conversation) will not be tolerated: any comment containing such language will not be published.
- By commenting here, you are granting me license to the content of your comment, and acknowledge that I do not have a duty to modify or withdraw posts, but that I may do so if I choose.
- If a commenter repeatedly abuses my comment policy, then none of their comments will be published in the future.
- Comments that smack of “spam” will not be posted.

thisisatest2

2007-05-10T16:23:00.000-04:00

This is the title

This is my summary

This is the rest of my post

END

Bank Swirled

2007-05-08T21:37:00.000-04:00

Check out Bank Swirled, an annual satirical newsletter produced by World Bank employees about the World Bank and the field of international development that pulls no punches.

Blast from the Past

2007-05-08T20:39:00.000-04:00

Idberg is a political/social commentary cartoon that I collaborated with an artist to create back in 1996 when I was living in San Francisco. I am surprised that it is still online after all this time.

Welcome to My New Blog!

2007-05-08T19:24:00.000-04:00

I perceive and position myself as an ordinary person in American society--meaning I don't hold an elected position in government, I am not in a high powered leadership position in business or the organization I work for.

I work for a living. I live on my wages and manage a household budget judiciously. I rent the apartment I live in. In terms of education I recently graduated with a masters degree. I have student loans. Both my spouse and I work. We are in our 30s. We have no children yet. These are my credentials for writing this blog.

America and Americans always pride themselves on the tradition of political democracy. The idea that ordinary people can participate and have a voice in the political process. Through the eyes of one ordinary person--me--I will write about the challenges and realities of democratic participation for an ordinary person in the United States.

This blog, itself, is an effort in democratic participation in the public sphere or free space in society where citizens can present arguments for or against political and economic issues and their solutions through reasoned debate.

Rules of thumb for selecting issues to discuss
• Ranting and venting is not what I want to do. We have enough of that negative energy in cyberspace.
• I want to engage the critical potential of the public sphere as a vehicle for citizens to communicate their ideas on politics, economics and society as ordinary people.
• I want to communicate with people on issues that are relevant to them and which resonate with their status as ordinary folks living in the United States .
• I do not consider myself a member of either major political parties, the Democrats or Republicans. I am a registered and proud Independent.