DEMOCRATIC MIDTERM LOSSES ROOTED IN CORRUPTION

                                               

Explaining Democratic midterm losses by pointing to President Obama’s performance confuses cause and effect.   While many voters are tired of Obama and voted Republican to register their protest, what really matters is that people are also disgusted with members of Congress from both parties. There is a historical tendency for voters to blame the President and his party and to vote accordingly, hoping that a change in party leadership will fix the problem. There was a time when politicians responded to the will of voters. In the post-Citizens United era, campaign contributions by special interests carry more weight than the wishes of the electorate. That is why voters support Democratic policies yet vote Republican.

America has divided along ideological lines, yet neither party is really guided by the basic principles they espouse. Republicans are arguably more honest, since they claim corporate profit is the source of America’s prosperity despite all evidence this has not led to economic benefit for workers.  Democrats acknowledge the economic disparities resulting from unchecked corporate power, but fail to challenge the chief source of their campaign contributions. Both parties kowtow to a Wall Street oligarchy focused on short-term profits. This rewards corporate executives who put immediate gain over the long-term interests of their companies and the national economy. Since CEOs have a responsibility to produce maximum profits, only regulations designed to protect the public interest can reverse the disastrous economic trends of recent years.

The root problem of corruption of campaign finance is obscured not only by partisan rhetoric but by a corporate-controlled media earning billions selling commercials marketing candidates like toothpaste. Given this incentive, broadcasters and newspapers largely owned by the same corporations are unlikely to highlight the problem. The result is voters who want to go with a winner choose between the well-funded candidates of the two major parties. Third party candidates are assumed to be incapable of winning. As long as this remains accepted wisdom, it will be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

With an electorate evenly divided between red and blue, elections are decided by the small minority of truly independent voters. Their votes swing control of Congress back and forth between the major parties in a vain attempt to change the outcome without addressing the real problem.  Presidents beholden to powerful individuals cannot stop Congress from putting business interests over those of the rest of us.  Only when a Presidential agenda aligns with that of the interests of powerful corporations does it succeed. There is rarely gridlock when corporate interests collide with those of the People.

Faced with a choice between candidates whose important policy positions are getting more difficult to tell apart in congressional races funded by the same business interests, more voters walk away in each election. Those who remain tend to be the hard core partisans who feel they have no choice but to go along with their corporate candidates, lest the country fall into ruin even faster. Despite the obvious truth that it’s the corrupt system that is responsible for our dysfunctional Congress, they continue to assign blame solely to politicians of the other party. This tendency is reinforced by a corporate media that does not question the false framing of major issues by candidates to justify their corporate-friendly positions. Treating election coverage like horse racing leads to confusion among voters about who might be willing to put their interests over those who control the strings of puppet politicians in Washington.

The only solution is to be found in making willingness to deal with corruption the litmus test for voters in 2016. Move to Amend’s Pledge to Amend campaign is an essential step in that direction, calling on candidates to take a position on a constitutional amendment to declare that money is not speech and corporations are not people. Over the next two years, statewide coalitions such as Oregon Democracy Coalition, WAmend in Washington State and Money Out-Voters In (MOVI) in California will be organizing locally around the country to raise the prominence of the issue among the electorate with a goal of making support for a strong amendment the deciding factor in determining who they send to Congress. When we educate enough people about why they need to make this the most important issue to consider when casting their votes, we will elect a Congress that will pass the amendment. The time it will take to succeed will depend on how many are willing to get involved in the campaign. With global climate change setting an upper limit on how long we have to accomplish the goal, we have to start building those coalitions now. 
For more information, contact the author at staggenborg4senate@hotmail.com or (541) 217-8044

IS DEMOCRACY POSSIBLE?

                                                                         

Occupy showed that the desire for real democracy runs deep in the US, uniting people across the political spectrum. From communists to libertarian conservatives, all who took part recognized that the US government is not one of, by and for the People. Occupy’s emphasis on the crimes of the banksters responsible for the economic crisis that sparked the protest brought attention to the fact that a tiny group of the economic elite control the fate of millions through their control over the US government.  However, the failure to organize action around an agenda for change left some observers wondering whether We the People could effectively govern ourselves. For many, it merely highlighted what they see as the drawbacks to popular rule. When everyone is pursuing their own agenda, chaos seems to result.

Ask a conservative about the state of democracy in America and you are likely to be reminded that the constitution established a republic, not a democracy. The importance that many people attach to this distinction may seem puzzling at first. After all, Americans are taught that another name for their form of government is “democratic republic.” Most of us fail to realize that democracy and republicanism are distinctly different things. However you want to dress it up, a republic is not a democracy. Democratic republicanism is a contradiction in terms. Having the right to vote for representatives who may or may not represent your interests is not the same as being part of the decision-making process of government. The irony is that somehow, those who are most aware of the difference seem most uncomfortable with democracy.

Many libertarians I have met define democracy as “mob rule,” where a tyrannical majority can and will demand that the state take care of them, regardless of their willingness to work. This is a variation on the fear of some of America’s founders that the majority would always trample on the rights of minorities, especially the right to amass wealth. It is unsurprising that the prospect of democracy would frighten those who identify wealth with virtue. Since the liberty to enrich oneself without government interference such as regulations on corporations has become synonymous with “liberty,” democracy is paradoxically regarded as a threat to freedom.

Those who believe that most people are lazy and willing to live off the fruits of their labor if they can seem to prefer to place their trust in the hands of people of wealth, which they associate with hard work. They see themselves as virtuous for supporting the slashing of the social safety net because they believe that  forcing the unemployed to work at whatever menial labor they may be lucky enough to find.saves them from a life of sinful sloth and indulgence. However, failing to take social responsibility for ensuring the ability of people to succeed in America’s economic system leads to the very scourge they seek to eliminate. As more people fail to find work at a living wage, the middle class collapses and the economy worsens. This has led to increasing reliance of individuals on government that so troubles them.

Instead of focusing on the root causes of the collapse of America's middle class, those who fear big government more than those who control it accuse those concerned about economic inequality of waging class warfare. Not only are they blind to the fact that the economic elite have made war on the rest of us, but they identify with the aggressor. If we are ever going to realize democracy in the US or the world, we have to make such people understand that they are part of the 99%. Regardless of any ideological differences betweeen us, we can agree that the government is being administered by politicians who are thoroughly corrupted by special interest money. We must unite to demand an end to the corruption, or our differences will mean nothing because politicians will use our division to advance the interests of their patrons over those of We the People.



For the first time since the ancient Greeks, America’s founders faced the issue of whether a People could rule itself. The debate focused around the question of whether Americans were good enough to consider the best interests of all when making decisions for the nation. On one side were those who believed in the essential goodness of men. Statesmen like Jefferson argued that an enlightened and educated society could rule itself justly, with due respect for individual rights. Others like John Adams were raised to believe in the religious doctrine that men were inherently evil. Such men cowered at the prospect of allowing average men to participate in the decisions that affected their ability to profit from the riches that America offered at that time. In the end, those who had economic power in the colonies made the decision for all Americans of that time and ever since. They chose to elevate property rights above the well-being of average citizens, especially the disenfranchised who were treated as chattel in fact, if not law.

It is obvious that the rich have no inherent right to rule, but that is the inevitable consequence of republican government. Instead of government of, by and for the People, Americans are living in an oligarchy. The idea that there is a natural aristocracy based on merit has been perverted. Raised to believe that the American form of self-government eliminated the hereditary class system of England, it has arisen in the New World. The progress made toward democracy in the course of American history has been largely forgotten. The willingness of modern Americans to submit to the rule of corporations and the wealthy has allowed them to seize power in Congress and the White House. Thus, those who believe that men are inherently evil have turned over the power of government to crass politicians who have shown that their primary purpose in life is to promote the interest of the ruling class. One wonders how they can imagine that this is better than democracy, where all stakeholders are represented.

The belief that we are not good enough to rule ourselves is not confined to conservatives. Liberals, seeing that most of those in power are self-serving, largely accept the belief that this is inevitable. The belief that “all politicians are corrupt” is perhaps as widespread among liberals as conservatives. This has led to a mass exodus from the political process, leaving those who seek power for its own sake more firmly entrenched than ever. This political class is convinced that it alone possesses the collective wisdom to rule over the rest of us. In fact, its members are devoid of the vision that would save us from the consequences of their greed and short-sightedness. As members of the economic elite, they are blind to the ways in which their efforts to mold the world in their image is leading to the demise of freedom. They cannot see any way forward that does not serve to perpetuate their privileges. In accepting the Randian view of the universe, they have become prisoners of the dystopian reality they have created.

The only way to save ourselves from being led to self-destruction by blind leaders is to create real democracy in the US and the world. It starts with electing members of Congress who will support a constitutional amendment declaring that money used to influence political campaigns is not speech and that corporations do not have constitutional rights. Americans must learn to see beyond the artificial right-left divide and work together in this common cause. It is up to them to ensure that the hope of government of, by and for the People does not perish from the Earth.  Only together can they make that dream real. It starts by recognizing that democracy is the only way by which to avoid plutocracy.

FROM EDUCATION TO ACTION

 

Move  to  Amend  has   made   great   strides  in educating  the  public about the need  to pass a constitutional amendment  to abolish corporate personhood, declare  that money is  not speech and that would  direct  federal,  state  and local governments  to   regulate   direct  and  indirect campaign   spending.  From  New  York  City   to rural  towns  like Coos Bay, Oregon, citizens are passing  resolutions  calling  for  an  amendment that would overturn Citizens United or do even more.

The question  arises as  to how we can translate this  support   into  concrete   action   to   move Congress   toward   passing   the   amendment. Clearly, most members of Congress now   in office  have  little or no desire to do so. While a dozen or so amendments have been introduced in Congress, the best of them fall short and the worst are dangerous. Many only give Congress the   power   to   regulate   corporate campaign contributions. Congress has demonstrated that it has no interest in using such power if it would undermine the  ability  of  the  corporate  tools among them to get re-elected.

Worse, this type of amendment would enshrine in the constitution the principle that corporate financing of campaigns is legal.  If our goal is to end  the  corruption  of  Congress  by  corporate money,  we  need  to  demand  that  members of Congress   support   an   amendment   that   will explicitly   ban    special    interest    money   in elections,    something    the    proposed    MTA amendment  does  not  do,  according  to  some experts on constitutional law.

The only effective way to pass an amendment is to make support for it a campaign issue in 2012 and beyond.  If members of Congress are more interested  in  keeping  their  seats  than  taking care  of  the needs and desires of the electorate, then we  need to  make their jobs dependent on standing  against  the   corrupting   influence  of money in  politics. 

If  people  around the US descend on town halls during   the  election  season  prepared  to  ask candidates  whether they will make a pledge to support  such  an amendment, the issue cannot be   ignored   any   longer  by  the  bulk  of  the “alternative” media.  It will eventually seep into the public consciousness through the corporate media, which  cannot   ignore  the   issue  when members of Congress  begin  to  lose  seats  for opposing it.

2012 can be a historic year  in American politics if enough  people  from  the  Occupy  movement and those in organizations working for universal health care,  the   end   of   war,   environmental responsibility  or  any  other  justice   issue  join together  to  call  on  our  politicians  to  declare publicly that they will put the interest of We the People  over    corporations   by  supporting  an amendment    that    will    abolish    corporate personhood,  declare  that money is not speech and  explicitly  ban  special  interest  money  in elections.

This strategy cannot be ignored until  we have 99%  of  the  American  public  behind us. If we only follow the  limited strategy of passing local resolutions  calling  on members of Congress to pass   an   amendment   we   will  have  lost  the opportunity  to  affect  the 2012 election debate and to set the stage for running candidates who support the  amendment in every congressional race  as  early  as   2014.   We have   seen how Congress   and   the   White House respond to petitions already. It is time that we held them accountable at the ballot box for ignoring us.

The beauty of this approach is that since nearly 80%    of    both   self-identified   liberals   and conservatives were opposed to Citizens United, a  Pledge  to  Amend  campaign may be the one way  to  bring together the left and Right in the common cause of putting America back on track to  becoming  a  real democracy. We must strike while   the   iron   is   hot, connecting   the  dots between  Citizens  United  and  the failure of the US  government   to  meet  the basic needs of its citizens.  I challenge  anyone  to  name another such crucial issue as that  has  such  widespread support across the political spectrum.

We all need to  support  the  efforts  of  Move  to Amend  to  raise  awareness  of  the  need for an amendment.   I   would   suggest  that  Move  to Amend   also   needs to  support  the  efforts  of those  of us working to add this weapon against corporate  control  of  the US government to our arsenal. Until we can agree to work together for our common goal, we will remain divided. With the many threats  to   the   survival  of  human civilization    from   global    climate   instability, endless  war  and  the twin threats of pandemic and mass starvation,  the world cannot wait. An incremental approach to democracy in the US is as naïve as thinking Democratic incrementalism will get us there.

HOW TO BUILD A MOVEMENT

Soldiers For Peace International was conceived as a model for how to build a movement capable of ending war. It closely parallels the mass movement after WW I to make war illegal by international treaty. That was spearheaded in the US by a war hawk turned diplomat and supported by groups around the country and then around the world who realized that if the vast majority of the citizens of developed nations worked together to make their will known, their governments could not easily refuse.

One of the key constituent groups of this movement was the religious community who all agreed that offensive war should officially be made an international crime. They put aside doctrinal differences and came together in the cause of liberty and justice for all of the Peoples of the world, which is of course the message that all the founders of the great religions of the world tried to impart to the billions of their followers. It is this kind of unity upon which a successful mass movement depends.

The movement was divided at one point when those who wanted to pass the law through the League of Nations butted heads with those who wanted to do it outside of the League by treaties ratified between individual nations. In the end it was the latter strategy that succeeded, but only because the two sides put aside their differences and supported each other as they pursued their individual strategies in parallel with each other.

We know of course that a strategy to end war that tries to use the United Nations as its vehicle is doomed to failure because of the undemocratic nature of the UN, where the most powerful nations retain the right to veto the will of the majority. The token representation of the rotating members of the Security Council is thus a sham. The only benefit of the Security Council is that the major powers provide a check on each other’s excesses. Even that was not enough to stop the rape of Libya, the weakening of the Russian sphere of influence that is one leg of the balance of power or the illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Like the Occupy movement that came two decades later, Soldiers For Peace International was designed to be anarchical. Contrary to the popular perception, that merely means that there are no designated leaders. The advantages of this structure should be obvious by now. Without designated leaders the movement is not subject to being co-opted. Leaders can arise only on the strength of their ideas, which is their only source of support. They become in a sense a natural “aristocracy” but one which can only retain leadership by consistently putting the interests of the 99% over ego and personal interest.

Soldiers For Peace also depends on the leadership skills of those who understand military strategy and tactics, whether they are veterans or not. Make no mistake: We intend to go beyond mere protest and create the conditions for a peaceful, democratic Revolution that will free all people from the threat of enslavement in a permanent fascist New World Order. That can only happen if we develop a consensus behind each step in the strategy that develops in this way. Our Army is not dependent on imposing the will of a few leaders on those who volunteer to serve but on the willingness of foot soldiers to fight for a cause they believe in, regardless of the strength of the opposition of their corrupt governments or the divisive infighting of self-appointed leaders within the movment.

We are seeing a point in the budding American and world Revolution where we have to choose whether to proceed together or in tandem. We have no hope of success if we cannot agree to work together on our mutual goal. If we compete with each other for money or for “followers,” we will find that we have none. As the Occupy movement has shown, in this worldwide democratic Revolution each of us must aspire and be given the opportunity to become leaders in our own right, to the best of our ability.

Millions of Americans have already decided that the key to establishing true democracy in the United States is passing a constitutional amendment that will cut off the source of corporate power at its root: The ability to choose the Puppets of their choice to represent their interests over those of We the People. That power rests on their ability to pay for the obscenely expensive political campaigns of those willing to sell their independence in exchange for working for the international corporate terrorists or at best to fight a losing battle against the endemic corruption that corporate rule has created.

The largest coalition in the abolition movement is Move to Amend, a hierarchically structured organization controlled by a few self-appointed “leaders” who dictate strategy and tactics to the huge coalition of groups they claim to represent. They have rejected all efforts of constituent groups and individuals to persuade them that depending only on their strategy of passing resolutions at the local and state level has no chance of success. Their most active spokespersons have repeatedly argued that Congress is so corrupt that it is useless to try and persuade its members to introduce and fight for an amendment that will accomplish our mutual goal of moving us a giant step forward in ending corporate rule.

There is a second coalition forming that has a different strategy. It is to make support for a strong constitutional amendment a campaign issue in every race in 2012 and beyond until we elect enough servants of the People to get the amendment passed. This strategy has been embraced by groups as diverse as Take Back America for the People, Abolish Corporate Personhood Now, Move to Amend of Ohio, Public Citizen, Free Speech for People, People for the American Way and Demand Progress. Take Back America and Abolish Corporate Personhood Now are working to develop a common strategy, while each of the other groups is encouraged to promote the Pledge to Amend campaign in any way of its choosing.

One of the other problems confronting those of us who are working for unity in the abolition movement is that some groups have chosen to back a particular amendment and bicker and backstab supporters of other versions. Move to Amend for instance backs an amendment that the Steering Committee wrote without allowing constituent groups to criticize or debate. Once more, the ugly head of elitism is threatening unity of the movement. The amendment they produced has been criticized by a number of constitutional lawyers and other experts on the topic, yet their response to this criticism is to ignore the concerns until they feel that their positions of influence are threatened, then attack the critics and attempt to isolate us.

The persistent disregard and outright rejection of the will of the members of a coalition that voluntarily puts their names in support of the efforts of those who start the coalition is the sure sign of a failed leadership. That is what all of us are fighting: failed leadership in Washington. If we cannot move forward together to create the critical mass needed to succeed in this nonviolent democratic Revolution, we will fail. Those who divide us are agents provocateurs, whether that is their intent or not. Those who challenge their autocratic ways are seeking to unite, not divide. As sovereign citizens we will continue to demand that our voices are heard so that others may have the knowledge of the variety of strategies and tactics they may choose to put their efforts behind.

There is no reason that we cannot choose to work on parallel tracks to get to the same objective. In choosing to dissociate Move to Amend from the rest of the movement, the Steering Committee risks undermining its own authority, which depends on the consent of those they purport to lead. I fully expect that in the end all will be forgotten in the flush of victory, but in the meanwhile I encourage the foot soldiers of the Revolution to choose for themselves what path to take. We are all headed to the same objective, after all.

SECRETS AND LIES

Democracy cannot survive unless citizens know what their government is doing in their names. Without this knowledge a People are unable to fairly judge the actions of its leaders. This is necessary for citizens to make informed decisions when they choose who to represent them. When schools, the media and politicians are all controlled by powerful special interests, any claim that a nation is democratic is a lie.

This is the situation in which the people of the United States find themselves today. It is clear that our government is concealing its actions in order to keep secret the fact that it is serving powerful corporate interests to the exclusion of those of We the People. Since these corporations owe no allegiance to any nation or its People, the United States government is effectively in the hands of traitors and foreign agents who manipulate it to serve their own interests. Although the evidence is in the public domain, it is hidden beneath layers of secrets and lies.

The victors in today’s culture war will write the history that our children will be taught in schools. If we let them defeat the forces of democracy they will not study books like A People’s History by Howard Zinn, but be fed a Bolshevized history that reflects the fascist views of the economic elite who dictate the curriculum. George Orwell warned us in 1948 that a time would come when America would be enslaved by international corporate terrorists who would collude to keep us fighting for corporate Empire and ignorant of the truth of our plight. His argument reflected a deep understanding of the means by which fascist and communist leaders keep rebellion to their rule in check.

When the People of a nation forget the mistakes of the past it is condemned to repeat them. The deliberate distortion of US and world history by the corporate elite threatens to condemn our children to enslavement in a fascist New World Order. It is thus up to us to become the teachers who will train them to changethe world. We who have lived through the history of a nation that has strayed from the path to democracy have the moral responsibility to help them understand the difference between fascism and traditional conservatism, which seeks to preserve the best of the past rather than to assume that the course of history is not in our hands.

 
The complicity of the US government in the 9/11 attacks is unmistakable, yet anyone who calls for a reassessment of the facts is labeled a “conspiracy nut.” Those who promote theories of deliberate collusion between the power elite are given a platform for their ideas so as to discredit those of us who are more cautious in making conclusions as to the way in which the US government has been made subject to a few powerful individuals. The battle of the SuperPACs taking place in the Republican presidential primary illustrates that there is no organized conspiracy against democracy in the US, only fleeting alliances between those among the economic elite who are concerned only with their immediate self-interest.

It is ironic that the more the US government takes pains to conceal the fact that it has been taken over in a corporate coup, the more it tries to control the flow of information on the internet. One means by which it does so is to give itself the power to engage in surveillance of all traffic on the internet, as well as phone conversations and bank transactions. This is done in the name of fighting terrorism to conceal the fact that it is our own government that is the chief cause of the War of Terror that no longer threatens only the Peoples of governments that refuse to submit to the expansion of corporate Empire, but the freedom of the formerly complacent citizens of the US.

Some would say that the death of privacy is detrimental to democracy. I would argue that it has the potential to be a principle determinant in whether democracy can survive. Imagine if our so-called leaders were required to take an oath that they would never lie to us. If enforced, this would enable Americans to not only judge but to remove the corporate Puppets in Congress who do not give a second thought to the fact that they routinely betray those who put them in power. Having sacrificed their privacy for the sake of power, they would no longer be able to dismiss those of us who demand accountability for their actions.

If we demanded such transparency from our leaders, we should expect that our own actions would be open to the inspection of our fellow citizens. The business leaders who conceal the criminal actions they commit in the pursuit of profit could then be held accountable to We the People. The petty little injustices that we commit against each other should be known if we are to claim to be leaders in our communities. In a true democracy under the rule of law, we would have nothing to fear if our actions matched our words. Such a society could function democratically because all the facts would be known when we must make a collective decision affecting all of us.

As a therapist I have found that any problem is made worse by keeping it to yourself. Worse yet is concealing the truth from yourself. It becomes a cancer eating at your soul. Hiding your faults prevents you from achieving integrity and the essential ability to become capable of being a responsible citizen. It is thus not only a betrayal of self but of all our children and generations yet unborn.
 
Democracy requires that a People be good enough to rule themselves. The only alternative is to accept rule by others. Inevitably, this gives rise to an economic aristocracy that will seek to control us in order to maintain their positions of privilege. Only in an open society can a People fairly judge what its government should be allowed to do in its name.

Freedom of thought cannot be abridged, but freedom expression can be violently suppressed by a government in a nation bitterly divided against itself. This cannot happen in a truly democratic society whose people understand that what is best for the individual  is always what is best for all. Only when the American people decide to cross the great divide that separates them can they hope to end the civil warand finish the revolution.