November 27, 2005
Power in Small Numbers
Third parties and independent candidates for federal office, as well as half of the eligible voters in this country, utterly fail to recognize the power they hold in the palms of their hands. The power of just a small number of them to radically alter American politics as well as substantially, and significantly, reform American government is right there in front of them. Yet, so far, they have refused to see it and seize it for their own. Some who do see it, recoil from it. Is power in politics such a frightening thing? Perhaps, not for long.
In 2004, slightly more than 200 million Americans were eligible to vote. Pres. Bush won just 30.8 percent of that number with slightly more than 62 million votes. Kerry lost with slightly more than 59 million votes. 78 million eligible voters did not vote, more than the number of votes cast for either Bush or Kerry. (Washington Post vote figures here.) While no research available analyzes how many of that 78 million who did not vote saw no value in either Bush or Kerry as candidates, it is I think, safe to assume that at least half had no faith in either Kerry or Bush. There has been a fair amount of anecdotal evidence that even among those who voted for Bush or Kerry, a percentage of them were voting for the lesser of two evils.
What is interesting, and of great import in these numbers is the proposition that if just 3.5 million of those eligible voters who didn't vote, had shown up to vote; not for Kerry, not for Bush, but against the incumbent who they believed wasn't worth voting for, President Kerry would now be acting as a check and balance against the excesses of a Republican Congress. The Republican Congress would have acted as a check and balance against a Democratic President, and we the people, would have been the better off. Does anyone doubt that President Kerry would have used his veto pen to halt tax cuts for the wealthy? Or, that he would have vetoed the Medicare Rx Drug bill with its donut hole in coverage that will deplete the small savings of millions of elderly. Or, that he would have vetoed this same bill simply on the basis that it precluded competitive bidding amongst pharmaceutical companies which would have saved tax payers 100's of millions, if not billions of dollars over the life of the program?
I voted for Nader. So, I am not postulating that Kerry was a better man than Bush. But, it is clear to me given all that has transpired under a one party dominated government, that a Republican Congress and a Democratic President would have been healthier for America's fiscal policy and less prone to the excesses and abuses of power we have witnessed. National debt would not now be on track to hit 11 Trillion dollars before the end of this decade. The Plame case, the immensely flawed Medicare Rx drug bill, and multi-million dollar unnecessary bridges in Alaska would never have been part of our history. I have to wonder too, if our engagement in Iraq would not be further along toward completion as well.
The point here though is, 3.5 million of 78 million non voters held the potential power to change the results of the 2004 election and to alter the course America has taken under a G.W. Bush Presidency. The potential power of this anti-incumbent sentiment in America is nothing short of awesome! It is possible that of those 78 million who did not vote, more than half didn't vote precisely because of their anti-incumbent sentiment toward both Democratic and Republican Party elected officials. They do not recognize the immense power their vote could have wielded to change the course of history in this country.
What is even more striking is the potential power of anti-incumbent sentiment at the level of Congressional races. Congressional races conducted in non-presidential election years see a dramatically smaller voter turnout. This fact dictates that the potential power of anti-incumbent voters is greater by far in these Congressional election years. (Warning: If numbers put you to sleep, skip to next paragraph for summary.) Let's look at the 2002 Senate races for example. Leinsdorf.com reports: "Over 80 million ballots (80,008,764) were cast by about 162,613,047 registered voters, for a turnout of 49.20%." ... "Only four seats changed hands: Arkansas, which was won by the Democrats; and Georgia, Missouri and Minnesota which were won by Republicans. In the end, the Republicans gained the two seats needed to take control of the Senate." ... "The Republican candidates for Senate received 21,308,936 votes (49.5191%) to the Democratic candidates' 19,893,921 (46.2308%), out of the 43,031,757 votes cast for Senate. Independent candidates got 1,838,009 votes (4.2713%), but won no seats."
Therefore, of the 82 million Americans who were eligible but did not vote in 2002, had only 2 million of them, disgusted with both parties, shown up to vote out the incumbent, Republicans would never have taken control of the Senate. And again, with a Democratic Senate and Republican House of Representatives checking and balancing each other, it is fair to speculate that our fiscal, Iraq, and safety net problems may have taken a decidedly different turn for the better for all Americans. They had the power to improve our condition and change our history for the better. Two million out of 82 million had that power and failed to recognize it was there for the taking.
The potential power of the anti-incumbent vote cannot be understated. Despite the power outlined in my previous article, Creating a Void in D.C., the psychological tactics and conspiracy of the two major parties have thus far prevented very small numbers of non-voters from seizing the power in their grasp to revolutionize American politics and election outcomes. There are many organizations like Common Cause which have set up 501(c)3 non-profit organizations to get Americans registered and to the polls. But, where they fail, is in conveying to non-voters the absolutely huge difference their vote can make. Non-voters who believe, as vast numbers do, that incumbents in Congress of both parties are the problem have the greatest potential power. Small numbers of these eligible to vote anti-incumbent minded Americans can swing elections as they please for President and Congress if only they were organized around their anti-incumbent sentiment.
There is no question in my mind that the Republican and Democratic Parties both conspire to hold back this group of eligible voters: these who potentially could change the course of American politics for the better. Their political machines are designed to convince Americans that the vast majority of Americans are either Democrat or Republican and no others need show up to vote. These Republocrats oppose moving voting to the weekends, which would encourage greater eligible voter participation. They oppose voting over the course of 2 or more days which would result in vastly fewer congestions of persons and end waiting in long lines for hours to vote. They have no desire to lower the entrance bars for third parties and independent candidates to gain access to ballots, for surely such candidates would draw significantly more anti-incumbent voters. This is a conspiracy ladies and gentleman. It is a conspiracy to psychologically disenfranchise all eligible voters not inclined to vote for the two major parties. And it has been immensely successful.
I have spoken with some Green Party officials over the last few weeks about the power of alignment which, is potentially theirs. If Greens, Libertarians, and the now split factions of the Reform Party were to align in a common purpose to move their voters toward anti-incumbency at the polls, they would create a power-brokering constituency which Democratic and Republican legislators eventually could not ignore. For their unified anti-incumbency effort would in fact, begin to sway otherwise predictable races for Dem's. and Rep's., negate Republocrats gerrymandering of districts to preserve incumbency, and force the two major parties to lower the entrance bars for third party candidates. This would be a win-win situation too! Democrats and Republicans as well would benefit after the fact, since, as soon as they lowered those ballot access hurdles, Greens, Libertarians, and Reformers would lose their unity at the polls and run against each other again.
However, only some of the Green folks I spoke with get it. I have yet to contact other third party officials but it is on my agenda for the coming weeks. The idea of creating a coalition with their third party rivals and independents should not be so abhorrent to them, that they insist on cutting off their nose to spite their face. The Republocrat conspiracy to divide and conquer through the promotion of voter factions and barriers to voter unification, have been very successful when it comes to third parties. But that need no longer be the case with the growing anti-incumbent sentiment in America. Third party officials must realize, accept, and get passed the fact that they have been little more than pawns in the Republocrat game. They will never achieve significance in American politics until they unite with a common purpose. And if they do, what a shot in the arm it will be for America's freedom and diversity of choice in its exercise of democracy.
The power to reform American politics and government, making vast improvements on what we now experience, is there for the taking. So what are you going to do about it? Are you going to join and donate to Common Cause's Vote for America Education Fund's effort to register and move new voters to the polls? Are you going to join and donate to Vote Out Incumbents for Democracy's effort to re-train Congress to attend to the nation's needs instead of lobbyist's, campaign donor's, and special interest's? Are you going to take the pledge to personally move 3 family or friends to the polls in 2006 to vote anti-incumbent? Or, are you going to let all this potential power to reform American politics and government go to waste and allow the conspiracy to flourish?
Those who wish to comment, "great article", and then go away to do nothing different need not bother. Such flattery will be meaningless. And those who would argue 1/3 of the eligible voters should continue to run the lives of the other 2/3 and their children to follow them, will not deter the growing anti-incumbent voice of frustrated and disappointed Americans like myself. You can choose to lead this nation toward its greatest potential or remain an obstacle to it, to be gone around.
America cannot afford to maintain the status quo. The status quo is the foe of America's bright future and potential. It is time to reinvent our democracy, and Republicans and Democrats will fight that change tooth and nail. Let them. For all their organization, the fact remains that the outcome of future elections rests in the hands of very small numbers of previous non-voters, and as the numbers showed in 2004, they are coming out. Our participation will grow despite the Republocrat's psychological warfare against democracy, and against government of, by, and for the majority of the American people, present and future.
Posted by David R. Remer at November 27, 2005 01:56 AMDavid, I have read your articles on this topic recently, and while I think your heart is in the right place (as you know, I also voted third party in 2004 because of strong dislike for both Bush and Kerry)- I do not think this anti-incumbent solution is the comprehensive plan.
I have been thinking about what precedents there are in American history of large-scale political change- and the only ones that I can think of had particular POLICY proposals behind them. Democratic Republican’s populist defeat of the federalist. Republicans anti-expansion of slavery, pro-internal improvements defeat of Democrats in the 1850s. FDR’s expansion of the federal government to fight depression. And most recently, the Republican’s contract with America.
As I see it, there is no way to unite the (1) disgruntled independent votes who disagree on most everything (take greens and libertarians); (2) apathetic voters who are willfully ignorant about politics. The anti-incumbency is just not a unifying enough position, especially since I doubt candidates will embrace it as genuine political movement (because then they would lose their party’s funding, which they cant afford)
At best, your solution will get a couple of incumbents kicked out of office, and maybe put a different party in power. Say your plan works really well, and the Democrats get into power. They will not use this opportunity to “fix” government. They will simply think the American people want their POLICY AGENDA, and will then push forward with it. As someone who dislikes most everything on the Democrat policy agenda, this seems like a terrible price to pay for the very very very small chance that anti-incumbency strategy will be so effective that it will change the way American government works (frankly, i cant see any situation where it will happen through this strategy).
I do not want you to take this post as a slam on the idea of fixing American government. We need some solution. Personally, I would want to a reinstitution of CONSTITUTIONAL limits on the power of the federal government (per Rhine’s post earlier), and an implementation of MORE constitutional checks on what the federal government can do (balanced budget amendment). Our elected officials have proven that they cannot be trusted- as a result, we must put in (and rediscover) more absolute, per-se limits on their power.
p.s. I am registered in MA- so I will surely vote anti-incumbent forever :)
Misha, I think you need to reread the article from the point of view of looking for common interests that would unite them.
A coalition of Green, Reform, Libertarian anti-incumbency campaigns could turn 1) Turn out many more of their own constituents since in addition to voting for their third party candidate who is going to lose, they can vote for the anti-incumbency movement which strikes directly at the Republican and Democratic party incumbencies. In conjuction with Common Cause and others increasing voter registration and VOID’s growth and efforts, 2 million votes in 2006 could change the whole election equation.
If in 2008, the anti-incumbency vote is 3.5 million votes large, the outcome of the Presidential is in doubt due to the third parties and independents anti-incumbency vote.
The point you miss, I think, is that when the Republican and Democratic Party statisticians tell their respective parties they are losing incumbent races due to the third parties and independent voters, the Democratic and Republican Parties will have to negotiate with the third parties and VOID and others in order to halt the anti-incumbency growth at the polls.
At that point, third parties are in a bargaining position to lower third party barriers to elections. You can of course, look at anything new as impossible because it has never been done. I for one won’t buy that view. Not when a mere 2 to 4 million votes by a coalition with a common purpose is all that stands between our current corrupt political system and a less corrupt one.
I understand folks natural resistance to something new. But, if we don’t get something new going soon, the status quo will remain the foe of our democracy and our future.
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 27, 2005 01:55 PMMisha said: “At best, your solution will get a couple of incumbents kicked out of office, and maybe put a different party in power. Say your plan works really well, and the Democrats get into power. They will not use this opportunity to “fix” government.”
That is where you are dead wrong Misha. The anti-incumbency grass roots movement that kicks incumbents out, will remain as huge a threat to the Democrats if they become the majority in the Senate. I mean, c’mon, you think if they get back in the majority they will lose their desire to stay there? And if they desire to stay there, they will have no choice but to address the anti-incumbency grass roots movement and its organizers.
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 27, 2005 01:58 PMDavid, like I said, I hope you are right. The major challenge, as I see it, will be to get the anti-incumbancy movement seen by the two major parties as a real MOVEMENT…
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at November 27, 2005 04:33 PMMisha Tseytlin,
You may be right, but doing nothing, or giving up will only guarantee failure.
But, think about who an anti-incumbency movement will benefit? All 3rd parties and independents. Because there are currently none in the federal government. The incumbents like it that way, and have blocked access to ballots for 3rd party and independent candidates.
But, it depends largely on how successful we are at educating the voters, and convincing enough (a few percent is all that is needed to start tipping the scales) to simply start doing the most simple, peaceful, safe, non-partisan, inexpensive, responsible thing to peacefully force government to be responsible and accountable too. It is simply what voters should have been doing all along. But, we have ignored government too long. The longer it continues, the harder and more painful eventual reforms will be.
But, here’s a few things to consider:
[01] Why shouldn’t The People simply vote out irresponsible incumbents? Especially if most incumbents, as a whole, as one entity, are irresponsible and unaccountable? The proof of it is staggering, and would fill volumes. That is why no one can list even 10, 20, 50, much less 218 (half) within Congress that are responsible and accountable, and do not vote for pork-barrel, that don’t look the other way, that advocate campaign finance reform, that are not FOR SALE and turn down campaign money from big money donors, that advocate election reform, term limits, tax reform, and much needed transparency to reduce corruption, that aren’t consumed by raising campaign money for their election war-chests, and do not fuel the petty partisan warfare. So why empower the these users to continue to be irresponsible and unaccountable?
[2] Government will not reform itself. Government has no power except that which the voters grant to it. The voters have the power to peacefully, simply, and responsibly force government to be responsible and accountable too. Isn’t that what they’re supposed to do? Also, it’s important to note that this will not strip government of all power to accomplish anything. It will simply give incumbents an incentive to police their own ranks, and start solving the many serious problems that threaten the future and security of the nation. And, if they refuse, voters should continue to vote out incumbents, and start recalls, until they start showing results. There is a growing anti-incumbent sentiment. And rightfully so. Look at what happened in Pennsylvania after they tried to vote themselves raises at 3:00AM in the morning.
[3] The difference between VOID and other organizations is that (a) VOID doesn’t have a candidate, (b)doesn’t have a party, (c)is completely non-partisan, and (d)all that VOID asks people to consider is the one simple, responsible thing they should have been doing all along to ensure that government is sufficiently transparent, responsible, and accountable. Simply hold irresponsible government accountable. Oust those that are irresponsible. That’s simple, fair, constructive, and completely justified. And since most (if not all) incumbents in the federal government are irresponsible and unaccountable, it is only fair and logical that they should be replaced. If anyone disagrees, then please list at least 218 persons (at least half) within Congress that are responsible and accountable. I’ve tried. Even with the very best of them. I can only find a very few that come close, and even those have voted on pork-barrel, and looked the other way (by their own admission). That’s because the bar, these days, is set very very low. The logic of it is simple, fair, and honest. It’s not some vast conspiracy.
It is simply that The People should expect government to be more transparent, responsible, and accountable. That is all. Now, we’re not delusional. We recognize the difficulty in getting people to remove their partisan blinders long enough to even consider for a moment that they may have been cleverly seduced into the circular, divisive, distracting, and petty partisan warfare. Some are far too fond of wallowing in it. But, we can only hope that enough are not. We can only hope that enough have seen that what we’ve been doing isn’t working. That’s why it doesn’t seem to matter who we vote for.
[4] Most (maybe all) of our many pressing problems will be resolved or forgotten someday.
But, the question is:
Will it be the hard, painful way (again)?
Or, will it be the peaceful, smart, least painful, responsible way?
If you believe in prescedents and history, then perhaps you believe as many do, that we can only let things run their course. You may be right. But, if we don’t never try, we’ll never know, and we’ll only guarantee our fate to learn the hard way (again).
So, why not try to avoid a repeat of history?
Is it not a worthy cause?
What’s the worst that could happen?
Some irresponsible incumbents are ousted?
Or a few border-line OK incumbents are ousted?
That’s too bad. That’s the price they pay for looking the other way.
And, who has a better way?
Is what we’ve been doing working?
Why is the obvious solution overlooked?
Why is the very thing we were supposed to be doing all along discounted?
No one has a crystal ball.
No one knows the future.
But, doing nothing and continuing to ignore our many problems will guarantee failure.
And our nation may not be able to survive another decade of fiscal and moral bankruptcy.
[5] VOID is the only pure, honest, simple, logical, safe, responsible strategy that I’ve seen yet that contains the one thing required, that all others lack: peaceful force
Misha,
You said there’s no precedents in history.
Well, I’m not so sure about that. History often repeats itself.
But, even if you’re correct, do we have to resign to futility and despair?
Should we give up?
After all, sometimes, new history is created. Change is possible.
We don’t have to keep doing it the hard way do we?
Misha,
You, yourself said our elected officials can’t be trusted.
Without transparecny, I agree completely.
And, government won’t reform itself.
VOID can work. It theoretically can work. It does take into account human psychology, and the fatal human tendency to acquire security and prosperity with the least amount of effort. That is why transparency is so important. It discourages abuse.
Misha,
You also said we do not have a comprehensive plan. Respectfully, I’m not sure you read all of it. The plan is very simple, but it is does have a few subsequent steps and contingencies.
(1) The first step is to oust incumbents, because most (if not all) are irresponsible and unaccountable.
(2) The 2nd step is for government to analyze all procedures, rules, and operations, and make them transparent, because that will discourage corruption. Many of these are simple, obvious, no-brainer, non-contentious issues that most Americans already agree upon (the issue and the solution). A very good test to start with is a ONE PURPOSE PER BILL amendment, to put an end to the pork-barrel hidden with ten-thousand page BILLs and makes it impossible to know why anyone voted for or agains the BILL. A BALANCED BUDGET amendment is another good example. Some other no-brainers are: campaign finance reform (government shouldn’t be FOR SALE), election reform and elimination of election fraud, tax reform, law enforcement, homeland security, declining health care (for which government meddling is largely to blame), continued plundering of Social Security and Medicare, corporate/investor/stock fraud (for government is largely to blame for not enforcing the law), abuse of eminent domain laws to legal plunder people’s property, abused presidential pardons to release convicted criminals; violation or insufficient protection of basic rights (e.g. discrimination, and crimes based on religion, race, gender, age, wealth, sexual preference, etc.), and execution and incarceration of innocent people, secret CIA prisons, etc. (the list is long, but see this list for an idea of some good things to start with: 9-Point-Plan. Thus, we don’t simply want to vote out incumbents. Afterward, The People want them to start to solve some of these many, serious, no-brainer, obvious problems, and implement transparency where ever abuse is obvious. It’s not that complicated. It’s not rocket science. Politicians just want you to think it is. The most important thing for voters to recognize is that one, ugly fact of human nature that causes corruption where transparency does not exist: the human desire for security and prosperity with the least effort … or in other words: laziness. Laziness is a natural human trait, but it is immoral to surrender to it completely.
(3) If the incumbents continue to refuse to work on these problems, then voters should continue to vote out incumbents and start recalls, until politicians understand their careers will be short if they continue to be irresponsible and unaccountable.
Misha,
Thank you for taking time to address some important issues.
Regarding the Greens, Libertarians, Reform parties, and other 3rd parties and independents:
(1) VOID is primarily (but not restricted) interested in federal level offices.
(2) Since there are no 3rd parties in the federal government, the message of VOID can only help 3rd parties and independents. Hopefully, they’re paying attention. With the current growing anti-incumbent sentiment, they may be making a mistake to miss this opportunity to finally have a voice in government too. However, they had better not do what previous incumbents have done, or their careers may be very short too.
(3) True, the deeply ingrained partisan loyalty is tough to overcome. However, we’re non-partisan. VOID is non-partisan, so it only encourages voters to consider other non-incumbents (regardless of party).
(4) The reason incumbents are irresponsible and unaccountable is because they know that their cu$hy, coveted, and highly prized offices are secure. They know that their incumbency is virtually guaranteed. They know that a few that abuse vast wealth and power will donate big money to ensure their incumbency. They know if they ignore those big money donors, they will be replaced by someone with more money. They understand completely how it works. They are FOR SALE. None of them turn down big money donors. All of them look the other way. They know that 98% of the House and 95% of all Congress persons will retain their incumbency. They have an huge and unfair incumbent advantage. 90% of all elections are won by the person that spends the most money.
That is why incumbents ignore The People and the nation’s many pressing problems , that continue to grow in number and severity, and threaten the future and security of the nation. That is why incumbents reject campaign finance reform. How can the average-to-low-income-level American have a voice in government when 5% of the population has 60% of all wealth, and 60% of Americans have only 5% of all wealth? They can’t. Government is controlled by money. Government is FOR SALE. And not just to Americans with vast wealthe. Increasingly, to foreign money too.
(5) Look at all the things government refuses to address.
Incumbents won’t do anything that may limit their power or obvious abuses:
______________________________________
(a) campaign finance reform;
(b) election reform and stop blocking access of 3rd parties to ballots, debates, and the democratic process;
(c) term limits;
(d) ONE PURPOSE PER BILL amendment;
(e) BALANCED BUDGET amendment;
(f) tackling tough problems for fear of risking re-election (this is really backwards);
____________________________________
Misha,
What better way may unite 3rd parties to recognize the advantage of an anti-incumbent message? Have you seen these many benefits and reasons ?
Misha,
i agree that David’s VOID Movement will work great to get Republicans and conservatives out of office and progressive Democrats in… and so preserving the perpetual see-saw monopoly of Two Party Governance. At first i thought (optimism can be hard to keep down) he was advocating voting out BOTH incumbent parties and really looking for a change.
i could definitely get behind a
VOID 2 Party Governance
- Vote
- Out
- Incumbent
- Dumbos and Donkeys
Something like that would not take long at all to upend the PTB. lol
With political parties increasingly narrowing their focus according to what PACS and CEOs they can seduce, i think many are left out in the cold.
- Republican - world (multi-tnational) and corporate america
- Democrat - social activists, secular humanists
- Green - liberal environmental preservationists
- Constitution - religious right
- Libertarian - guaranteed ‘nay’ on any legislation (sorry Rhinehold)
- Reform - who can tell anymore
i do not find either a main nor a third party to adequately represent myself,
pro-religious, racial, class and gender equal rights
fiscally conservative
responsible environmental stewardship
pro-labor
pro-small business
anti-multinational corporations
anti-slavery*
*today, using illegal immigrants/ out-sourcing jobs to avoid american safety, labor and human rights standards costs
Of course i think (as most do) that i am an average american voter so perhaps some “MAINSTREET USA PARTY” could win over a lot of voters on a centrist platform like:
Mainstreet USA Party
- campaign finance reform
- balanced budget amendment
- labor rights
- border control
- small business representation
- inclusive of peoples of all faiths
- amendment to remove government from marriage*
i also like ACORN’s multiple party initiative where we can vote for a candidate, yet not necessarily the Party: http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/local/13269765.htm
jo,
I too initially wanted to vote out the two main party incumbents.
But, that is partisan.
There’s no need to be partisan.
There’s no need to unnecessarily alienate any party.
There is a need to focus on the real problem: irresponsible and unaccountable incumbents
Also, it doesn’t matter what parties new candidates come from.
The important thing is that they ALL realize that their career may be short if they continue to ignore the voters.
If the incumbents are irresponsible and unaccountable, shouldn’t voters vote them out, and vote for someone that will be responsible and accountable?
But not just once. Repeatedly, until government gets the message loud and clear. I seriously doubt incumbents will become honest after the first election. The voters must repeat the process. If voters can not accomplish this, they they will prove that nothing works but the long, hard, painful way. They will prove that things must run their course, and humans are simply incapable of governing themselves, without some always abusing their power. They will prove that we must always learn the hard way.
But, don’t be too certain about Democrats getting the majority. The current anti-incumbent sentiment could reduce both main parties total seats, and result in some third party candidates finally getting a chance to have a voice in government. Also, do not underestimate the number of voters that are starting to see that what we’ve been doing ain’t workin’ .
Also, consider for a moment the unpredictability that an anti-incumbent movement could have. Big money donors that abuse vast wealth and power to control government will find it more difficult to know which candidates to buy and fund. And, if we get many more choices on the ballots, it will make it even more difficult to abuse, and reduce government FOR SALE.
The American people badly need an education on how this stuff works, and how to combat it. It’s a never ending battle, and the voters are losing, because they mistakenly (and lazily) assumed their elected officials would simply do the right thing. But they are so, so wrong.
The American people also badly need an edcucation in human psychology. Many humans will seek security and prosperity with the least amount of effort. And, some with that temperament often gravitate toward certain professions (e.g. politics, law, etc.). While laziness is a natural human trait, it is immoral to surrender to it. But, many in government, over time, have become very accustomed to using others, and abusing power.
The American people badly need to recognize this, and understand that transparency is badly needed to discourage it. Transparency will lead to Responsibility which will lead to Accountability.
How does Transparency work? It simply reveals to the people what is happening. How do you detect a lack of transparency? Just look for things being hidden or needlessly over-complicated to reduce transparency. And there are plenty. Consider one of the most obvious examples of reduced transparency to hide pork-barrel, graft, back-room deals, waste, and corruption: the 10,000 page BILL laden with so much pork-barrel, so many unrelated items with different purposes, and so much bureaucratic nonsense, that no one can possibly know why anyone voted for or against the BILL. And, many Congress persons, by their own admission, don’t read them, much less scrutinize them. Everyone just looks the other way. All of them are guilty of it. The voters are being abused by hundreds of billions yearly. Much of this pork-barrel has a negative effect on the nation. Some will argue that it is helpful, but it isn’t. It is extremely irresponsible. Especially when you consider where our priorities should be.
Consider some of these fine examples of what our illustrious Congress has been doing, and some of the very difficult decisions they make daily:
[] Vote for $107,000 to study the sex life of the Japanese quail or Vote for body armor for troops with armor ?
[] Vote for $1.2 million to study the breeding habits of the woodchuck or more funding for disabled veterans ?
[] Vote for $150,000 to study the Hatfield-McCoy feud or more armor for humvees and military vehicles ?
[] Vote for $84,000 to find out why people fall in love or secure the nation’s borders ?
[] Vote for $1 million to study why people don’t ride bikes to work or fix the levees in New Orleans ?
[] Vote for $19 million to examine gas emissions from cow flatulence or shore up the plundered Social Security and Medicare systems ?
[] Vote for $144,000 to see if pigeons follow human economic laws or funding for flu vaccines.
[] Vote for funds to study the cause of rudeness on tennis courts and examine smiling patterns in bowling alleys or improve public education ?
[] Vote for $219,000 to teach college students how to watch television or vote use that money for scholarships ?
[] Vote for $2 million to construct an ancient Hawaiian canoe or secure the nation’s coastal ports ?
[] Vote for $20 million for a demonstration project to build wooden bridges or fix our crumbling infrastructure (bridges, roads, railways, etc.) ?
[] Vote for $160,000 to study if you can hex an opponent by drawing an X on his chest or reduce election/voting fraud ?
[] Vote for $800,000 for a restroom on Mt. McKinley or better medical care for injured soldiers and veterans ?
[] Vote for $100,000 to study how to avoid falling spacecraft or funding for better defense systems ?
[] Vote for $16,000 to study the operation of the komungo, a Korean stringed instrument or funding fight diabetes, aids, and other diseases ?
[] Vote for $1 million to preserve a sewer in Trenton, NJ, as a historic monument or improve existing and operational water treatment and sewer systems ?
[] Vote for $6,000 for a document on Worcestershire sauce or better intelligence that would prevent us from going to war for the wrong reasons ?
[] Vote for $10,000 to study the effect of naval communications on a bull’s potency or funding for communications and aerial surveillance of our borders and coastlines ?
[] Vote for $100,000 to research soybean-based ink or funding to increase produce production ?
[] Vote for $1 million for a Seafood Consumer Center or reform our ridiculous tax system ?
[] Vote for $57,000 spent by the Executive Branch for gold-embossed playing cards on Air Force Two or more and better weapons and armor for active duty troops.
A majority of Americans agree upon many of our pressing problems (and the potential solutions), but government still continues to ignore them. In our backwards system, politicians ignore problems.
Posted by: d.a.n at November 27, 2005 08:16 PMDan,
“There is a need to focus on the real problem: irresponsible and unaccountable incumbents”
Imo, the real problem is irresponsible and unaccountable PARTIES which hold good candidates hostage demanding they represent a party rather than their own constituency. So i guess i am partisan that way.
i am not sayin gthat Republicans and Democrats could not come back.. after having the stranglehold of PACs and CEOs removed… but at this time, i remain partisan and against the two party monopoly on American governance.
I really don’t think that Kerry would’ve vetoed any of the bills you mentioned David. After all he is part of the Washington clique. And if he did veto any of them he’d being doing it for the wrong reason, PARTISANSHIP.
The only way we’re going to get this crap stopped is to vote ALL incumbents out and keep diong it until OUR EMPLOYEES get the message about who they REALLY work for, WE THE PEOPLE, THE OWNERS OF THIS COUNTRY.
i am not sayin gthat Republicans and Democrats could not come back.. after having the stranglehold of PACs and CEOs removed… but at this time, i remain partisan and against the two party monopoly on American governance.
Your not he only one Jo. There are a whole heap of folks that are tired of the 2 main parties.
Guys, I really appriciate the effort you have put in, but there is a macro problem with your approach (which is why I do not think that there has ever been a precedent for it in U.S. history). Lets take this statement made by d.a.n.:
“campaign finance reform (government shouldn’t be FOR SALE), election reform and elimination of election fraud, tax reform, law enforcement, homeland security, declining health care (for which government meddling is largely to blame), continued plundering of Social Security and Medicare, corporate/investor/stock fraud (for government is largely to blame for not enforcing the law), abuse of eminent domain laws to legal plunder people’s property, abused presidential pardons to release convicted criminals; violation or insufficient protection of basic rights (e.g. discrimination, and crimes based on religion, race, gender, age, wealth, sexual preference, etc.), and execution and incarceration of innocent people, secret CIA prisons, etc. “
Now the American people have a broad range of opinions on these issues and many others. The two major political parties have been organized as mish-mash coalitions to track roughly the preferences of half the populous on these issues (which is why all elections are so darn close these days).
My point is that there is only ONE WAY to beat the governing two-party orthodoxy. You must actually run candidates, of a NEW party, on a platform you put together (this was Joe’s point too, I think). This party has have an actual agenda, sufficient funding, and a way to group diverse coalitions of voters together.
This, my friends, has been done before. This is how the Republican Party started in the 1840s and 1850s. So i urge you to move your idea to an actual concolidated political movement. I am not sure what platform you would adopt (Joe proposed one)- but it would likely track the policy agenda you spelled out in the above quote. As for me, I agree with most of what you said (Although my interest is far more close with the libertarian party). If you put together such a party and put candidates out who move it forward, you can win political victory and create real change.
Unless you do this, I do not think this plan can succeed. The problems are numerous: (1) collective action problem; (2) indefinite nature of exactly WHICH policies of any PARTICULAR incumbent were the reason for getting him kicked out; (3) party loyalty; (4) party funding; (5) the indifference of most americans who are too busy with their lives to pay attention to these things; (6) the nature of omnibus spending bills where no one can ACTUALLY be pinned to any of the spending you listed.
What I find most remarkable and most interesting about this proposal is that it IS Federalist 10. Basically, whatever our difference, when on a grand national scale we can have principled politics. The problem with James Madison’s Federalist 10 is that it failed within 15 years. Political parties have a complete advance in our political system (organization, money, loyalty ect ect). Winning elections in a country this big (or even in states) takes a lot of coordination/money/organization. Only a new politican party could shake the status quo.
As a tangential point- it seems that there is no effective way for us to vote “no confidence” on our elected officials like voters can in parlimentary systems. Say there is a rough race between candidate X and incumbant Y. Incumbant Y wins the first election 51% TO 49%… two years later candidate X wins 51% to 49%. Without any particular “no confidence” indication in the votes, any number of things could have swung the 2%… Like i said before, the ONLY WAY this works is if lots of people recognize that those 2% come from the anti-incumbancy movement. I doubt this will occur, for the reasons stated above.
Almost every presidential election but one, (my first one) I have voted third party. I have continually commented on the lack of third party candidates for not only state but federal offices. The system is controlled federally by the two parties in power who do not want competition. Yet, year after year, election after election, I held true to my principles. I voted for the best candidate of the two main parties if there was no third party candidate available, at times writing in a candidate. This has NOT worked.
VOID can work. But it only can work if those of us who have spent the past years of our voting history on third party candidates to change our focus. If we continue to talk about this and continue to encourage those of both parties who are just as sick and tired of the way things are to consider VOID? It can work.
It’s now or never. Do you really want change or do you want to continue to have the same imbalance of power? I opt for supporting VOID and I am voting VOID not only on a federal level but a state level. I encourage you to join…this is the best chance we have to really make a difference…if we continue to wait for the “perfect” candidate to inspire the masses? This opportunity will pass us by.
Those of you who know me here know I never get this adamant about something unless I feel very strongly about it. We can do this.
Posted by: Lisa Renee at November 27, 2005 11:17 PMjo,
I’m not so certain about that (i.e. that the problem is with the two main parties). The two main parties both have problems. No doubt about it. But, both consist of people. And, we’ve watched both sides long enough to see that they are simply taking turns being irresponsible and unaccountable. As far back as I can remember, and the historical records show both parties are irresponsible (for the most part).
So, I’m not sold on the blame lying with the party alone, since parties consist of people.
Those people make up the parties. Thus, the people are responsible.
However, in partial defense of your allegation against the main parties, there are vast systems that can be corrupt. More appropriately perhaps, rather than blame it on Republicans or Democrats, it’s more accurate to blame it on the federal government in general. That is, the federal government is dysfunctional, and the bar is set very very low. It is concievable that a a system is so dysfunctional, that all newcomers (initially well meaning) are quickly corrupted by the system.
But, even then, that system consists of people.
Thus, people are responsible.
If we must place blame, we must blame everyone:
(1) The elected and appointed officials of the Executive Branch;
(2) Congress;
(3) The People (the voters);
Personally, I would break it down this way:
______________________________________________
51% : blame to the Executive Branch and Congress.
49% : to The People.
______________________________________________
The people must learn that human nature demands that government, by virtue of the power it wields, must be closely watched. Transparency is required. The People can never simply trust elected officials to behave. Ignoring government not only invites abuse, but guarantees it.
This lesson is so old, but we still fail to grasp it.
History shows us time and time again, that the people do eventually get fed up. Unfortunately, the solution is not always peaceful.
It is unlikely any third party or independent can ever rally enough support to peacefully force government to reform.
But, all 3rd parties and independents should be able to recognize the benefit of all of them advocating an anti-incumbent movement. Especially if their true goal is to reform government.
But, if 3rd parties and independents choose to ignore this unusual opportunity to finally have a voice in government, and too few recognize the need to simply vote out irresponsible and unaccountable government, then it will simply prove that The People are really just sheep that are easy to divide over any petty little reason, without the logic or courage to unite for any important reason in their own best interest.
That’s what’s been going on you know. The incumbents cleverly use the petty partisan warfare to seduce us into a circular pattern, to divide us so that no majority can never exist to remove them from their cu$hy, coveted offices.
And, the incumbents also cleverly use the petty partisan bickering and warfare to distract us from the fact that they continue to ignore our many pressing problems.
That is so that the incumbents can continue to get theirs, continue to collude with their big money donors, vote for pork-barrel and graft, and vote themselves raises, cu$hy perks, and superior benefit$ , all financed by the tax payers.
It would be nice if for once we made history,
rather than repeat history.
It would be nice if we could reform government the smart, peaceful, responsible way,
rather than the hard, painful way (again).
It would be nice if we could learn from our mistakes.
Thus, I’m tired of the two main party system also.
But, I don’t find it as the root cause of the problem.
Why? Because people make up those parties. It’s that simple.
Lets say we had three or four equal parties.
If all their members are corrupt, then government, as a whole, as one entity, is generally still corrupt.
So, we both support an anti-incumbency movement, but for different reasons.
All I’d like to add is this. I used to be Republican. Not any more. It finally occurred to me that party didn’t matter that much. Parties are not vastly different. They are more alike than different. It also occurred to me that all parties use the same tricks to seduce members. They all use petty partisan warfare to distract voters from substantive issues and the failings of those they continually empower. It also occurred to me that it was a type of brainwashing into a sort of circular pattern of thought and behavior. When I finally realized this, I felt foolish, angry, but enlightened too. Hence, I admire and respect independents that recognized this early on in life, and rejected its seductive influence.
I grew up in a Republican environment. Thus, desiring to conform, I took on the same beliefs of those around me. Sadly, not until later in life, and studying human nature and dysfunctional government did the realization finally occur to me that I had be manipulated all along the way. But, perhaps I’ve made up for it some. My family and friends (just those interested in better government), after discussing, doing some reading, and looking at all of the evidence (which is actually staggering), but in a different way, they too are no longer Republican.
So, that gives me hope.
I’m not selling a candidate.
I’m not selling a party.
I’m non-partisan.
I only ask people the question?
Has it ever occurred to you that incumbents (of all parties) are cleverly seducing people into the petty, divisive, distracting, partisan warfare, while the incumbents are consumed with gettin’ theirs, gettin’ big money from their big party donors, spending a great deal of time building up their campaign war-chests, votin’ on pork-barrel and graft, and fueling the partisan warfare to distract The People from the fact that they incumbents are failing us ?
Just think about it.
Reject if if you wish.
But, beware if you vehemently reject it.
___________________________________
Misha Tseytlin,
Thank you for those good points.
You may be right, but no one can know that.
You doubt it for various reasons, of which I have seen and heard many times before.
I see the math part of it differenty though.
Only a small percentage is required to have a significant impact.
Your urge for us to have a candidate is not our goal.
We’re not campaigning for any one candidate or party.
We merely advocate a simple idea to do the one thing we were supposed to be doing all along, which is to educate Americans, and help them understand that incumbents are responsible, and voters should hold them accountable, and learn to keep a close eye on them at all times. And as more transparency is implemented , the easier it will be to keep a close eye on incumbents. The voters must learn that government, when ignored, will grow more corrupt.
But, the fact is, the voters can peacefully force government to be responsible and accountable, if they want to. The question is ofcourse, will they choose to do so? We strive for this goal because the alternative path will most likely be harder and more painful (if history does repeat itself again).
A new candidate or party is not the solution.
The rise of a single third party is extremely unlikely.
But the rise of many third parties and candidates simultaneously may be more likely.
That is one way to get more choices on the ballots. Give the voters more choices.
But, thank you for your reasons.
You may be right.
But even if you are, it’s still a worthwhile cause to refuse to resign to despair or futility or the status quo, in the most direct and effective ways we can think of.
We will simply, politely, and respectfully have to agree to disagree.
Misha,
You are overlooking a stat that I do believe you and others might be interested in. While I’ll not get into the reasons for the shift in politics. It seems that our parents have been switching control of Congress back and forth for years. Check out Freshmen in Congress and you will discover that America has voted at times to replace a large number of Incumbents out. The reasons may vary slightly, but the one thing that is for certain, Americans by Nature does not like to be lied to by those in Stewardship of our Nation.
1972-76 comes to my mind and trust me when I say that no real effort was needed to remove 251 Members of Congress from their duties. No, time and Human Events have a way of forcing great change in the Halls of Congress and thus the way we are governed. In 1994 alone a 110 Representatives and 12 Senators were replaced which is nothing when you compare it to 1949-50. In that year a 118 Representatives and 18 Senators were introduced as Freshman. Just in the past three years there has been 62 Freshman Democrats and 102 Freshman. Given the natural course of Human Events over the last 10 years and the ever growing discontent of the general public and America could be looking at setting a whole new record for the most Freshman in Congress.
As for VOID.org the message should remain ever so simple “Do what is right by “We the People” or risk not having a second term. For proof if it works, just go ask our Grandma and Grandpa. They should remember a time not long ago when stating that you were a politician may of got you shot. And for a cure of the right kind they emptied Washington in wholesale fashion. Should history repeat itself? Does the Youth of today have the courage to stand up and tell the Parents that they are wrong just like their Parents did to your Grandparents in the 60’s? For we are surely at that crossroads in space and time are we not?
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 27, 2005 11:50 PMLisa Rene,
I respect Misha’s opinion, and recognize that she may be right. But, I refuse to give up on an idea that is quite simply the right thing to do, and the responsible thing voters should have been doing all along. No tricks or tricky strategies. Just common sense and education is all that it requires.
Lisa Renee,
I admire your conviction and wisdom to refuse to be seduced into the partisan warfare. I wish I could say the same. Kudos !
dan, I hope you succeed. It alwasy encourages me when people have their heart in the right place and try to make a big idea a reality.
by the way, you refer to me as a “she”, but misha is russian for mike.. just thought I would mention it (no offense taken, but since we are gonna be both on this board a lot, i thought i would correct that).
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at November 28, 2005 12:05 AMMisha Tseytlin,
My mistake. Thank you for correcting me.
That just goes to show you that gender is difficult to detect by what one writes or how one writes (e.g. handwriting analysis). I apologize.
___________________________________________
Henry Schlatman,
Thank you so much for that research !
Wow! 251 ousted in 1972-1976 ?
I wasn’t aware of some of those earlier periods of anti-incumbent sentiment.
I remember well 1994, but didn’t realize so many had been ousted in 1972-1976 and 1949-50.
Excellent !
With that historical prescedent, it gives me more hope that Americans can do it again (peacefully).
Henry,
In your opinion, what is needed to keep government from always slipping back into corruption? What changes (if any) to procedures, rules, and admendments would increase transparency or prevent the tendency to always slip backwards? Or, do you think there’s a better way?
After all, must we always ask for a new amendment or law or rule or changes to make government responsible and accountable ?
Of course, I’m going on the assumption that you, like me, feel like government, if ignored, is always growing more corrupt and dysfunctional, and corrections are needed periodically.
Jo said: “Imo, the real problem is irresponsible and unaccountable PARTIES which hold good candidates hostage demanding they represent a party rather than their own constituency.”
Jo, the parties are a very large part of the problem, but, the individual incumbents bear the responsibility for their lack of bi-partisan effort which is failing to solve some of our most basic and dangerous problems. It is, in practical terms, not possible to separate the parties from the incumbents both of which look to legal bribes from big dollar donations to retain their incumbency at election time. Parties and incumbents alike use the argument that if they are not reelected, they can’t do the people any good, therefore they must cater to lobbyist groups who represent only small percentages of the American population, they must cater to the campaign donors with the big bucks and personal agendas attached to those bucks, and to the special interests who represent small numbers of Americans but whose numbers can make the difference in a reelection bid.
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 28, 2005 03:48 AMMisha, what I think critics and naysayers overlook are the numbers. When they look at the size of the Dem. and Rep. parties, it appears they are indominable. But the numbers reveal a vast untapped resource for bringing those two major parties to the bargaining table with the American people and third parties, 85 million eligible voters who didn’t vote.
And just 2 million in an off year election cycle, or 3.5 million in a presidential election year, can decide the races.
The only hurdle for VOID and third parties is to motivate 2 to 3.5 million of those voters to vote against incumbents. I don’t have researched data, but, it seems a safe assumption to me that of the 85 million non-voters, there are at least 5-10 million who would vote for a third party candidate or against incumbents out of personal preference, except for the fact that the third party candidate or challenger would not win. But this is a hurdle only if the focus on who wins.
The real hurdle is shifting their focus from who wins, to who loses, because that is where the power is. If D & R incumbents keep losing incumbent races, neither is assured or can develop a strategy to maintain majority control in Congress. That is why over the course of 2 or 3 effective anti-incumbent voting cycles, the D & R parties both will become motivate to overcome the anti-incumbent vote. And the only way to do that will be to meet the conditions demanded by the anti-incumbent voters who keep derailing their incumbents.
The conditions anti-incumbent voters are and will demand in order to stop voting out incumbents, are seeing multi-partisan solutions to the nation’s problems which the majority of Americans have faith in and support, and, since third parties and VOID shall be the architects of the anti-incumbent drive, the other condition will be lowered barriers to viable third parties in federal races and presidential races. If the D & R parties fail to meet those conditions, the tapping of the 85 million previous non-voters continues and the anti-incumbent movement grows, and outcome incumbent candidates and party leadership will demand their parties halt through yielding to the demands of the anti-incumbent voters.
In politics, nothing happens overnight. This will take a number of election cycles to accomplish. But, doing it, will be serve the interests of
1) America’s future and resolving many of her seemingly intractable problems like deficits and border security (the only practical way of insuring a much larger degree of homeland security), and
2) the voters at large who the polls tell us, are disappointed and disillusioned by both the D & R party’s ability to lead, and
3) third party and independent candidate supporters whose voice has been muted and censored by the D & R parties for far too long by the FEC, state R & D party Secretary’s of State who control the election regulations, and the Commission for Presidential Debates.
This latter group and VOID will be able to move the 2 to 4 million votes needed, with a concerted effort, to the polls to make incumbency unpredictable for the R & D parties. And that is where the power to broker a better way lies.
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 28, 2005 04:17 AMD.A.N.
Because your question covers such a wide area, I will attempt to narrow the field and answer your question based on the issues you raised.
Campaign finance reform:
This issue effects both sides of the proverbial political coin and must be dealt with in a manner that is equal and fair to everyone due to the fact that the freedom to express one’s rightful and truthful points of view are protected. The key words being that which is “Rightful and True.” Because if I am not mistaking, the 1st amendment says you have a right to free speech, but our laws clearly state that there will be Truth in Advertising Since Campaigning for any elected office has become a business outside the political parties (i.e. 527’s) than why is there a need for Fact Check org which was so prominent in the 2004 Election that President Bush mentioned it during the Presidential Debates. Surely this would and should be the role of the FCC Enforcement Bureau under the leadership of their Chairman Kevin J. Martin considering that there is precedence established by other units of “Commerce” must submit to the same laws.
For to say as Americans that it is ok for our Political Parties to openly operate outside the Realm of our Communication Laws are just crazy. Remember, no one is above the Law. Talk about putting a crimp in “Spin Mastering.” If Mr. Martin had the courage to uphold the law Advertising shall tell the truth, and shall reveal significant facts, the omission of which would mislead the public than I want to see Karl Rove and Howard Dean spin the Truth. However, by protecting the American Consumer our society benefits in a great many ways. Thus, I do believe that getting U.S. Attorney General to enforce the Laws of the Land when it comes to political ads outside our political parties advertisement would be in the inherent best interest of the Nation. Am I wrong?
Balanced Budget Amendment:
Well, this issue is were I firmly side with The Founding Fathers of America and for which this Country Stands. David Remer and I went head to head over the National Debt and how it could be paid off as well as build a solid investment plan for every American. Although at the time we had to agree that no evidence existed to back up my claim that it would work, we both realized it came down to a question of National Security for would not “We the People” be safer if the American Public held it? Besides did you know that it is the easiest way to ensure that every American becomes Economically Viable and Financially Independent.
By a stroke of a pin Congress and the President could set America on a course that would set not only our country, but the rest of the world on a path that will allow us to use the Knowledge and Wisdom of Our Forefathers and complete the “Unlimited Sustainable Life” that our parents could only dream of and work toward. Because if you think about it, the question is “If our Forefathers would have had the Foresight a 135 years or so ago to include in the 16th Amendment a Claus that would of allowed every American Citizen to set aside 10% of the revenue owed in Federal Taxes for the purchase of U.S. Federal Reserve “Special” Treasury Notes than would not our Society have given every Citizen the opportunity to invest in their own Inherent Interest? Namely the community and environment in which the dwell.
Changing the American Society and the rest of the World’s Governments from a Nation that Taxes their Citizens exclusively to a government that uses the Wisdom of the Founding Fathers that encouraged Americans in the beginning to invest in “We the People” may of sounded ridicule at the time. However, to borrow from an ad “For less than a Dollar a day” or $5.00/day invested by or in the name of every Human on Earth (6.4 Billion?) into “Central Bank Notes of Nations of Humanity’s Civilization” for 25 years yields in our collective National Treasuries $41 Trillion dollars and every citizen around $6,500.00 plus the interest added over the years. Now, in America that amount may not seem like a lot. However, considering in many parts of the world they live on less than $2.00/day I think we have the ability to raise the necessary funds to establish “The Basics” in a Sustainable Global Economy.
So, my view on a balanced budget amendment is more directed toward to how do we structure our society in a manner that lowers the need for our government to raise taxes. For example, would not our Society be better served if every Local/State and Federal Building produced more electricity than they used? How much money would adding solar panels save us in taxes and add to the new wave of manufacturing that is just about to bloom? Yes, I do understand that those over the age of 50 may raise the question of this money going toward the Federal Government, but The Federal Reserve is the 10 TON Guerilla that covers all bets. Even Mr. Greenspan stated that it would be a good idea. Although I would really have to do some homework to find the exact quote, he said it during a Senate Hearing (I think) in 2004 around the time of the elections.
Invest in your inherent best interest (i.e. The Future of America) or be taxed to exist where you live? Considering that Payroll Taxes are to be used by our Government to ensure a Social Insurance Program, can you tell me a better way of doing it than ensuring to our Children’s Children that Every Consumer can finally afford to purchase what they need and want. For is not that the Law of Nature?
Labor Rights:
Which Chore or Task should be removed and possible outlawed just because the Human required to due it has to make a living? A Livable Wage or a wage that requires a person living a simple productive life that is adding positively to the function of society to be a “Potential Economically Viable Customer for all of Commerce” for that is the Law of the Land. However, we must work hard on that as we must play on the World’s Stage. That said; I would address this issue by reminding Our Elders and Powers-to-Be of the last time those in Power failed to appreciate “The Labor of Society.” Masonic History has a real good story about the “Greed” of the Social Elite. Maybe it would be a good lesson to learn as our society works to turn the pyramid right side up. However, this means that the Individual Laborer must start taking more pride in their work. More money means more responsibilities and that is a fact of life that I do not believe we should play with.
I could go on, yet I hope D.A.N. that I have showed you and others that the best way to ensure that “We the People” are in control is to hold the “Pieces of Paper” that requires our Government and Societal Tools answer to us instead of the “Special Interest Groups” that have been pulling the strings of “The Invisible Hand.” As Labor in the past has always proved smarter than “The Learned Ones: of Management, I have faith in the American Public to make the right choice if given a chance. After all, America has changed from an Industrialized Nation to a Service Based Economy and our still standing even with the political leaders we have had. Therefore. If we want to end corruption and ensure transparency in Congress than we need to teach our Children and their Children just how and why Americans are hell bent on proving that we are right. The problem is both the Democrats and the Republicans only want to talk a good game. I’m hoping VOID.org and other third party candidates can show the American Voter and our Civil, Political, and Religious Leaders that there exist a different why to look at government than the Ancient and Old World Ideologies of Appeasement (Liberal) and Oppressive (Conservative). Does not our Government exist the way it does because of our willingness to be governed in such a manner?
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 28, 2005 09:46 AMDavid- “multi-partisan solutions to the nation’s problems which the majority of Americans have faith in and support”
What are these, exactly? The problem is that I think Bush’s social security plan was such a proposal, and a very reasonable one. Too bad those on the left thought it was the worst thing since the poor laws. I also think the tax cuts were great, but those are seen at super-evil.
You all think campaign finance reform is a panacea to fix government, I think it is a dangerous infringement on freedom of speech.
About the only thing we seem to agree on is pork barrel spending is bad and so is corruption. The problem is while pork barrel spending is bad in aggregate, the reason almost every incumbent doe this is because people WANT pork coming home to their own districts. As for corruption, that is something that needs to be proven against an individual.
I think our founders had it right- the federal government needs to be limited to particular ends, and should have no general police power (which the supreme court, Congress and FDR ruined in their irresponsible trashing of the Constitution). The Bush administration is just another example of what the federal government will do with unlimited power.
What divides those who oppose the two party system makes a coalition that you envisioned very strange and unlikely.
Misha said: “What are these, exactly? The problem is that I think Bush’s social security plan was such a proposal, and a very reasonable one.”
BZZZZTTT!!!! Doesn’t meet the criteria. The reason the President and Congress dropped replacing Soc. Sec. with an entirely new privatized program is because the polls showed the Majority Of Americans weren’t buying it. That is what I mean by “multi-partisan solutions to the nation’s problems which the majority of Americans have faith in and support”.
Now when they come up with a plan that Democrats and Republicans can agree on, very likely, the majority of Americans will have faith in it and support it.
“You all think campaign finance reform is a panacea to fix government, I think it is a dangerous infringement on freedom of speech.”
WRONG!! BZZZTTT!!! As VOID states on its website, VOID is not opposed to campaign donations, lobbyists, special interests, or experience through incumbency. VOID is opposed to the undue influence of lobbyists, special interests, and campaign donors to the exclusion of the interests and agenda of the majority of Americans. That is why VOID stands for Vote Out Incumbents for Democracy. We guys, as you refer to us though we all aren’t :-), are NOT campaigning for campaign finance reform. We are campaigning to oust incumbents until their parties and elected officials get their frickin priorities straight and never forget for a single day who the hell pays their salaries and benefits and who they work for. Americans, ALL AMERICANS, and the majority of Americans do agree on some things which are being ignored due to the influence of campaign donors, lobbyists, and special interests.
Misha, I thank you for your hardened opposition to hope and a plan to improve things. It helps us develop the appropriate responses to the naysayers who would protect how bad things are and defend them getting worse.
Our founding fathers are dead. Unless you have some plan to resurrect them, I suggest you deal with the reality of folks living under and in our government today. Because our government today, as you already acknowledge, bears little resemblance to that of our founding fathers. Wishing for the past will not improve things. Such wishing only stands between a person and action to change reality as it exists to a better reality which is possible and plausible.
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 28, 2005 11:50 AMI think it is a mistake for any new movement to not make a cornerstone issue of major campaign finance reform.
The idea as it is doesn’t seem to be striking a cord, as you yourself indicated from conversation with Green Party Reps. Marketing may not be your strength.
I’ll support it if it gains momentum - which is unlikely. Tweek it, you might get lucky.
Posted by: Schwamp at November 28, 2005 01:08 PMSchwamp, VOID has conservatives, liberals, independents, and third party supporters, across the board, for the one simple reason that we are not an issue advocacy organization, save one, responsible politicians, responsive to the people.
If we advocate for campaign finance reform, then we get bogged down into what kind of reform, and end up with contention even amongst our staff. No, the reason VOID has appeal to such a wide diversity of folks across the party spectrum, is precisely because we don’t advocate for how the deficits are to be eliminate, only that they are, for example.
And as long as these issues which a majority of Americans know need to be solved, remain unsolved, our supporters pledge to continue to vote out incumbents of any and every party in our national Congress.
We are encouraged, mildly, by your wanting to wait for others to do the heavy lifting for you before you decide to lend support. But, we will accept it later, than never, if it comes.
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 28, 2005 02:03 PMresponsible politicians, responsive to the people.
No argument with that sentiment. But it’s just rhetoric. If it came with some substance such as serious campaign finance reform it seems to me it would have more meaning. Even if it was just a longer term goal.
I agree with Misha’s thought that a more substantive issue is needed for impetus. You want to avoid taking positions so you dont taint yourself? At some point, someone has to take that chance and get specific, and yes, alienate some. But if its strikes a cord with average Joe, they may have something.
Just the opinion of someone who is not doing the heavy lifting.
Posted by: Schwamp at November 28, 2005 02:54 PMSchwamp, VOID has conservatives, liberals, independents, and third party supporters, across the board, for the one simple reason that we are not an issue advocacy organization, save one, responsible politicians, responsive to the people.
How right you are David, And that’s the way it needs to stay.
Posted by: Ron Brown at November 28, 2005 04:53 PMIsn’t the real problem that a democratically elected representative republic requires an educated and interested public to work correctly?
One of the single biggest problems is the rule that congress passed for itself in 1911 that restricted the size of the house of representatives (the house used to grow as the population grew). Since then, as the population has grown, representatives are less and less responsible to people and more and more responsive to money (PACs, Corprorations, etc) - why? because when you represent a million people you need media coverage to get elected - which costs money! Today the US House is less reprsentative than the British House, they have over 600 members for a few tiny islands!!! Why did we break away? Taxation without *Representation*??
The real problecm with the above decision is that only congress can undo this bad decsision and its a conflict of interest since undoing it would make each member of congress weaker and more representative of the people.
Misha & Schwamp,
VOID.org does take a stand without limiting their supporters freewill. Who am I to say what is exactly right for you? However, choicing not to stand for the Incumbent Status Quo does take the hardest line that I have seen in a long time from any group.
Like I have stated eariler, it depends on were VOID.org draws it’s line in the sand. Be you from the Left, Right, or Center is not the goal of every citizen to be governed and make laws that are found to be “Unalienable Right Regardless’ or do we maintain the political status quo that keeps that line so blurred that even our lawyers do not know what is Right/Wrong anymore?
A song IMO says it best. “Chose not to chose and you still have made a choice” speaks volumes. So unless Americans are ready to put their money where their political mouth is and prove just how great our nation can be than maybe we do not deserve the title of “The World’s only Superpower.”
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 28, 2005 05:08 PMFor once I agree with you 100% Henry.
Posted by: Ron Brown at November 28, 2005 05:34 PMRon,
Thanks; however, I do not mean for you to agree with me all the time. Although we are all entitled our own point of view, the larger question still remains “Is not what I have said Right and True?” Only in this manner can we all begin and end an argument/debate on the same page.
Henry wrote:
The problem is both the Democrats and the Republicans only want to talk a good game. I am hoping VOIDnow.org and other third party candidates can show the American Voter and our Civil, Political, and Religious Leaders that there exist a different why to look at government…
Thanks for that perspective. The thing is, it is theoretically possible. And, as you pointed out, there is also historical precedent:
Graph of Incumbency Rates
See 1952, 1958, 1968, and 1994 ?
In 1980, almost half of the Senate was ousted.
In 1952 and 1958 were also bad years for incumbents.
I’ve got a feeling the next decade is going to be especially bad (and deserved) for incumbents.
_____________________________________
Schwamp ,
The details are for you and all Americans.
The people should focus on the most important, most obvious, least contentious, no-brainer problems facing the nation.
I agree that campaign finance reform is important, because it is what helps fuel the corruption.
I thing most (if not all) members of VOID, as are most people, recognize government being FOR SALE, and influence peddling is one of the most serious issues the nation faces.
Laws and rules are not working, or can not be passed or enforced.
Why? Because something else is needed first.
And, without that other thing first, all else is futile.
That first thing that voters must do, the thing they should have been doing all along, is to get the attention of the elected officials. They currently enjoy a 95% re-election rate, which is why they ignore the voters, and answer mostly only to their big-money-donor puppeteers.
Without that one first thing, voters have no voice or leverage. The voters must be educated to wisely use their vote to leverage their votes to peacefully force government to be responsible and accountable.
First, vote out all incumbents, repeatedly, every election, until incumbents stop ignoring problems. It’s simply the smart, correct, and just thing to do. Otherwise, politicians will continue to not take The People serious.
I am incredulous when some people say, Oh…ummmm…..well…..Uhhh…..I don’t know. What about the good politicians?
WHAT GOOD POLITICIANS ?
Please, name at least 218 persons (half) within Congress that are good politicians.
Hell, just name 100, or 50, or 20 ?
Please list them. And then observe how pathetically easy it to show how corrupt each is, how each is irresponsible and unaccountable, votes for pork-barrel & waste, does unethical things, looks the other way, spends a large part of their time raising big-money from their puppeteers, cater to those big-money donors, peddle influence, make back-room deals, launder money, vote themselves rai$e$, cu$hy perk$, and $uperior benefit$, ignore tackling tough issues for fear of risking re-election, fuel the petty partisan warfare to cleverly distract voters from substantive issues, filabuster (what a great time waster, and headline generator), and often, not even show up to vote.
Thus, it’s unfortunate, but that’s the price incumbents should pay for looking the other way.
Members of VOID are free to spout their desires all they want. I do it all the time. VOID leaves issues up to the individuals. We all mostly have agree on the long list of problems. We all may prioritize items on the list differently. But, we want the most serious issues addressed. The problem is that it is futile to address details of those changes without first addressing the core problem that prevents all progress: irresponsible and unaccountable incumbents that have surrendered to laziness, greed, corruption, and looking the other way. Incumbents do not deserve to be re-elected.
As for me, and many others at VOID, we all dislike the fact that government is FOR SALE. But, to focus on one or two symptoms first is a mistake. The important issues are many, and all deserve to be addressed, but are symptoms of a more basic fatal human tendency, that must be addressed first. The symptoms can never be adequately addressed without first using peaceful force to oust the diseased part of government, and demonstrating to newcomers that the status quo will earn the same fate.
That is the first and foremost step. Use your vote wisely, in the most simple, logical, peaceful, safe, non-partisan, inexpensive, and responsible way to peacefully force government to be responsible and accountable too.
Then, subsequently, it’s quite likely you will see that government, once peacefully forced to pay attention to voters, instead of their big-money puppeteers, will then start to adequately address the many problems facing the nation.
But, it doesn’t work to merely threaten incumbents. It must be backed up with peaceful force. Voters must act and make good on their promise to hold government accountable, and simply oust the irresponsible incumbents.
And, not just once either, but continuously, until elected officials start actually being what they now only pretend to be.
After the first step is accomplished, the next step is to present the list of the nation’s most obvious, no-brainer, least contentious, most important, and most pressing problems to government and insist they not be ignored any longer.
In time, many other subsequent improvements will naturally follow, and the country would flourish and prosper knowing it has a plan, and is on a better path. Perhaps, taxes could be lower, while still providing for the truly needy, a strong national defense, better law enforcement and protection, and equal opportunity for all citizens.
If all third parties combined to champion this ONE simple idea, they may possibly acquire more support then ever before. This idea is probably the one thing that incumbents hope the people will never discover.
The anti-incumbent sentiment is growing, and rightfully so. But, let’s not squander it this time by only doing it once and not demanding more transparency, which will discourage a rapid return to corruption.
Posted by: d.a.n at November 28, 2005 11:17 PMHenry Schlatman wrote: Like I have stated eariler, it depends on were VOIDnow.org draws it’s line in the sand. Be you from the Left, Right, or Center is not the goal of every citizen to be governed and make laws that are found to be “Unalienable Right Regardless’ or do we maintain the political status quo that keeps that line so blurred that even our lawyers do not know what is Right/Wrong anymore?
Well said ! Thank you Henry. I especially like that “line so blurred” part.
That’s exactly how I feel about it. I realize many times in the past, I couldn’t see the line, because I had been cleverly seduced into the distracting, partisan warfare that obscures the facts, clouds the issues, distorts the truth, and tricked me into a sort of circular pattern of thought and behavior. I’m not an idiot, but I feel idiotic now, realizing I had been duped into participation in that vicious circle.
WHAT GOOD POLITICIANS ?
Well who is to say when voting incumbents out starts resulting in good responsive politicians? It’s all very nebulous and a little to long term for most.
Advocate throwing these guys in jail who accept money that appears to be connected to letters they write. (Ref Indian Casino money).
They are supposed to avoid bad appearances. I’m all for immediately firing or jailing those who dont. Voting out is too good for them.
Schwamp,
Hmmmm. What makes you think the legal system will hold them accountable? That’s more difficult than voting them out? Even if they’re ever indicted, they’ll weasel out of it somehow, or get a pardon, or suspended sentence, or paroled. Most politicians look the other way. The bar is set too low. They’re simply unaccountable, which is why they are corrupt and irresponsible.
You can try to throw them in jail, but they’ll just get a pardon, like the 140 felons Clinton released even though several had pled guilty. That just another reason why they are irresponsible and unaccountable. And the legal system is also dysfunctional too. It is a revolving door for criminals, and law enforcement is selective. Think about it. Many politicians were lawyers before becoming politicians. Government is in in-league with many lawyers. And even if a politician is ever convicted, they will get off easy. Hell, they’ll still get to keep their cu$hy, mult-million dollar pensions paid for by the tax payers.
Unless you have a better approach, why are you so opposed to voters doing the responsible thing they were supposed to be doing all along?
Before discounting the historically proven anti-incumbent method, give us a better way? If the voters choose to do so again (as they have in the past), then that is their right, isn’t it?
Unfortunately, it is the only method voters have to peacefully reform government. Nothing else (none I’ve heard thus far) has the necessary, peaceful force required to get their attention. That’s why voters resort to anti-incumbency. They get fed-up. And, that anti-incumbent sentiment is growing.
Watch Tom Delay and Randy Cunningham get pardons too. Randy Cunningham, like Dan Rostenkowski, pled guilty to fraud and theft. Rep. Randy Cunningham this week admitted to bribes from defense contractors to the tune of $2.5 million. It won’t surprise me at all if he does little or no time in jail, and gets to keep all that bribe money, and also gets to keep his cu$hy multi-million dollar pen$ion funded by U.$. tax payers.
But, please continue to recommend better solutions. I just don’t think they’ll ever be arrested. I haven’t seen or heard of a better, easier, more likely strategy yet, except to oust incumbents.
That’s the only thing that historically gets their attention. If you examine the graph, you’ll see that voters ousted almost half of the Senate in 1980, and a lot in 1952, 1958, 1976, and 1994. The only minor improvement to the simple strategy is to keep doing it until politicians learn that voters are watching them.
But, voters must also insist on simple studies to implement more transparency, and stop ignoring obvious problems of which a majority of Americans already agree upon (including the solution).
There are numerous easy, no-brainer examples of ways to eliminate over-complication that (by design) reduces transparency. There are numerous simple ways to reduce fraud, graft, and corruption.
But, NONE of those will happen until voters take the FIRST step required to peacefully force politicians to listen to voters.
Simply, VOTE out all incumbents,
Repeatedly, EVERY election,
UNTIL politicians stop being FOR SALE,
start listening to voters,
implement transparency so that voters
can know who to keep and who to oust,
stop ignoring the nation’s problems,
and adequately address the nation’s top 10
most serious, obvious, no-brainer, least contentious problems.
Of course, voters may continue to only vote anti-incumbent every once in a while. Politicians know and use that. Voters must be educated to realize that government is always trying to grow corrupt, and can not be ignored. And, the longer that voters ignore government, the longer and more difficult it will take to undo the corruption. We have waited too long.
In 1994, there was an anti-incumbent sentiment that swept Republicans into power. But, guess what? Both main parties just take turns being irresponsible and unaccountable. Voters have got to realize this and understand what is happening. Politicians know this already. Politicians fuel the back-and-forth, petty partisan warfare, that guarantees a circular pattern that guarantees both main parties simply take turns. Voters need to learn that politicians cleverly seduce voters into a circular pattern of thought and behavior, so that a majority of voters can never exist to realize what is really happening, and never hold the politicians accountable. Politicians are hoping voters never realize this. So far, most voters don’t get it. They simply get pissed offed occassionally (e.g. 1952, 1958, 1976, 1978, 1994), and vote out one party or the other. Politicians are well aware of this, which only amplifies the petty partisan warfare. That’s why voters need to take off their partisan blinders and vote out as many incumbents (regardless of party), and continue to do it for many election cycles.
If all third parties and independents stopped wasting their time trying to get their very few candidates in office, but got many more candidates on the ballots, and also advocte the anti-irresponsible-unaccountable-incumbent strategy, and help educate voters to what is going on, then we might actually achieve the goal of more responsible and accountable government.
We all know third parties don’t have much of a voice (especially in the federal government).
That’s why all 3rd parties should seriously consider helping to educate voters and advocate this growing anti-irresponsible-unaccountable-incumbent sentiment.
And, if all newcomers, via peer-pressure, and policing their own ranks, and implementing sufficient transparency, can prove to the voters that they are listening to the voters, and not continuing to be FOR SALE to their big-money-donor-puppeteers, them voters will have the means to know who to keep and who to oust.
That is, peer-pressure and policing their own ranks will be an important by-product of the reform. Imagine politicians that stop looking the other way, and actually become concerned about what the voters think?
Posted by: d.a.n at November 29, 2005 12:05 PM
