What Happened in Bolivia This Week Could Save Our Failing Democracies

It was 11 am and Evo Morales had turned a football stadium into a giant classroom, marshaling an array of props: paper plates, plastic cups, disposable raincoats, handcrafted gourds, wooden plates and multicolored ponchos. All came into play to make his main point: to fight climate change, "we need to recover the values of the indigenous people."

It was 11 am and Evo Morales had turned a football stadium into a giant classroom, marshaling an array of props: paper plates, plastic cups, disposable raincoats, handcrafted gourds, wooden plates and multicolored ponchos. All came into play to make his main point: to fight climate change, "we need to recover the values of the indigenous people."

Yet wealthy countries have little interest in learning these lessons and are instead pushing through a plan that at its best would raise average global temperatures 2 degrees Celsius. "That would mean the melting of the Andean and Himalayan glaciers," Morales told the thousands gathered in the stadium, part of the World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth. What he didn’t have to say is that the Bolivian people, no matter how sustainably they choose to live, have no power to save their glaciers.

Bolivia’s climate summit has had moments of joy, levity and absurdity. Yet underneath it all, you can feel the emotion that provoked this gathering: rage against helplessness.

It’s little wonder. Bolivia is in the midst of a dramatic political transformation, one that has nationalized key industries and elevated the voices of indigenous peoples as never before. But when it comes to Bolivia’s most pressing, existential crisis — the fact that its glaciers are melting at an alarming rate, threatening the water supply in two major cities — Bolivians are powerless to do anything to change their fate on their own.

That’s because the actions causing the melting are taking place not in Bolivia but on the highways and in the industrial zones of heavily industrialized countries. In Copenhagen, leaders of endangered nations like Bolivia and Tuvalu argued passionately for the kind of deep emissions cuts that could avert catastrophe. They were politely told that the political will in the North just wasn’t there. More than that, the United States made clear that it didn’t need small countries like Bolivia to be part of a climate solution. It would negotiate a deal with other heavy emitters behind closed doors, and the rest of the world would be informed of the results and invited to sign on, which is precisely what happened with the Copenhagen Accord. When Bolivia and Ecuador refused to rubber-stamp the accord, the U.S. government cut their climate aid by $3 million and $2.5 million, respectively. "It’s not a free-rider process," explained U.S. climate negotiator Jonathan Pershing. (Anyone wondering why activists from the global South reject the idea of "climate aid" and are instead demanding repayment of "climate debts" has their answer here.) Pershing’s message was chilling: if you are poor, you don’t have the right to prioritize your own survival.

When Morales invited "social movements and Mother Earth’s defenders … scientists, academics, lawyers and governments" to come to Cochabamba for a new kind of climate summit, it was a revolt against this experience of helplessness, an attempt to build a base of power behind the right to survive.

The Bolivian government got the ball rolling by proposing four big ideas: that nature should be granted rights that protect ecosystems from annihilation (a "Universal Declaration of Mother Earth Rights"); that those who violate those rights and other international environmental agreements should face legal consequences (a "Climate Justice Tribunal"); that poor countries should receive various forms of compensation for a crisis they are facing but had little role in creating ("Climate Debt"); and that there should be a mechanism for people around the world to express their views on these topics ("World People’s Referendum on Climate Change").

The next stage was to invite global civil society to hash out the details. Seventeen working groups were struck, and after weeks of online discussion, they met for a week in Cochabamba with the goal of presenting their final recommendations at the summit’s end. The process is fascinating but far from perfect (for instance, as Jim Shultz of the Democracy Center pointed out, the working group on the referendum apparently spent more time arguing about adding a question on abolishing capitalism than on discussing how in the world you run a global referendum). Yet Bolivia’s enthusiastic commitment to participatory democracy may well prove the summit’s most important contribution.

That’s because, after the Copenhagen debacle, an exceedingly dangerous talking point went viral: the real culprit of the breakdown was democracy itself. The UN process, giving equal votes to 192 countries, was simply too unwieldybetter to find the solutions in small groups. Even trusted environmental voices like James Lovelock fell prey: "I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war," he told the Guardian recently. "It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while." But in reality, it is such small groupings–like the invitation-only club that rammed through the Copenhagen Accord–that have caused us to lose ground, weakening already inadequate existing agreements. By contrast, the climate change policy brought to Copenhagen by Bolivia was drafted by social movements through a participatory process, and the end result was the most transformative and radical vision so far.

With the Cochabamba summit, Bolivia is trying to take what it has accomplished at the national level and globalize it, inviting the world to participate in drafting a joint climate agenda ahead of the next UN climate gathering, in Cancún. In the words of Bolivia’s ambassador to the UN, Pablo Solón, "The only thing that can save mankind from a tragedy is the exercise of global democracy."

If he is right, the Bolivian process might save not just our warming planet but our failing democracies as well. Not a bad deal at all.

Naomi Klein is an award-winning journalist and syndicated columnist and the author of the international and New York Times bestseller The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism (September 2007); an earlier international best-seller, No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies; and the collection Fences and Windows: Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Globalization Debate (2002). Read more at Naomiklein.com.

LOYAL DISSENTER: We should move toward direct democracy

I usually don’t argue semantics, but in this case, it makes all the difference.

Alpine School District in Utah has recently witnessed a heated debate about a word in the district’s mission statement. The statement includes the phrase “Educating all students to ensure the future of our democracy.”

Concerned parents worry about the use of the word “democracy” in the mission statement. These parents rightly argue that our nation is not a democracy, but, rather, a republic.

I usually don’t argue semantics, but in this case, it makes all the difference.

Alpine School District in Utah has recently witnessed a heated debate about a word in the district’s mission statement. The statement includes the phrase “Educating all students to ensure the future of our democracy.”

Concerned parents worry about the use of the word “democracy” in the mission statement. These parents rightly argue that our nation is not a democracy, but, rather, a republic.

Parents allege this terminology is being used to pursue some sort of socialist agenda.
While it is admirable to want our students to receive the best and most accurate interpretation of our nation’s history, these conservative parents — some of whom are represented by Utah’s Republic, a group that believes in a strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution — are mainly concerned with upholding its own anti-progressive agenda.

“The Constitution guarantees every state a ‘republican form of government.’ Karl Marx said, ‘Democracy is the road to socialism,’” Oak Norton, the founder of Utah’s Republic, said. “A true democracy relies solely on majority rule and inevitably devolves into anarchy, which then sprouts socialist dictators.”

These parents object to the use of the word “democracy” because they fear democracy will lead to socialism in America.

“There seems to be a segment of the population who is worried not just about being technically precise on these words … but somehow interprets a move to democracy as some type of a progressive movement that needs to be stopped,” Kirk Jowers, director of the University of Utah’s Hinckley Institute of Politics, said.

The issue here is one of petty political spin. However, we should look at these parents’ concerns and at the bigger picture. Our institutional history, as taught to us in public schools, teaches us to be complacent and paints a romantic view of the democracy and direct elections we enjoy in America. This education is inaccurate and I agree with changing the mission statement to reflect the fact that our nation is a republic, but for different reasons.

While a term in a mission statement itself will have little impact on the knowledge of the students, there is an issue with representing our nation as a democracy in schools. Falsely deeming our nation a democracy demonstrates the tendency of schools to project a false, glorified image of our nation’s governance.

Presenting our nation to impressionable youth as a democracy actually helps conservatives because it keeps further democratic aspirations at a minimum.

This inaccurate interpretation of our governmental structure is something conservatives should support because it makes people less critical of our current republic.

America is far more anti-democratic than people believe, both at the time of its founding and today.

While you cannot present a completely objective view of history, you can attempt to cover all the facts impartially. The reality is our founding fathers were not heroic champions who gave power to the people.

Since our founding, American citizens have frequently fought against the founders for more democratic policies, such as women’s suffrage and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
This can be a troubling reality to confront because we like to think we are all in control of our own political course, at least by means of voting. However, our seemingly democratic system of voting is questionable.

There are people who acknowledge the less-than-democratic structure of our nation and want to keep it that way. They approve of the lack of direct democracy and the control of the government by the wealthy.

The false portrayal of our nation as a democracy hurts liberals and helps conservatives such as those in Utah because it makes the country appear to already be highly democratic when in fact, it is not.

We are taught that we already live in a democracy. Some people believe that we have the best model of government. We need to break down these false perceptions and teach the truth.

Knowledge itself is power, which is precisely what was meant by the mission statement in the first place. Educated citizens are important for a developed and advancing society, whether you deem it a democracy or a republic.

Norton is right about a true democracy giving political power to the people.

To those similar to Norton who fear a progressive or socialist uprising, I would say, there is nothing wrong with more direct democracy if it springs from a better educated citizenry. And the better we educate our citizens, the more informed we will be when given more power in our decision making process.

—Sally Schilling is a political science senior

Kirkpatrick Sale on the secession of “Katuah”

Secession activist Kirkpatrick Sale will speak on "bioregional liberty and the proper care of the land" at Firestorm Café in downtown Asheville and at UNCA on Friday, April 9.

The talk at Firestorm — billed as "Secession is in the Air" — begins at 5 p.m. Sale will continue the conversation at UNCA as part of student-sponsored Greenfest activities, speaking on "Bioregionalism: Your Home As Your Country," at 7 p.m. in the Alumni Hall at the Highsmith University Union.

Secession activist Kirkpatrick Sale will speak on "bioregional liberty and the proper care of the land" at Firestorm Café in downtown Asheville and at UNCA on Friday, April 9.

The talk at Firestorm — billed as "Secession is in the Air" — begins at 5 p.m. Sale will continue the conversation at UNCA as part of student-sponsored Greenfest activities, speaking on "Bioregionalism: Your Home As Your Country," at 7 p.m. in the Alumni Hall at the Highsmith University Union.

Sale, a political activist, scholar and prolific writer, argues that the only way to restore democracy to "the American empire" is to divide it into small, autonomous countries practicing direct democracy. According to Sale, "Most talk so far has been around existing states, but there is no reason secession couldn’t be successful along bio-regional lines. People in the Northwest are talking about Cascadia — which would extend from British Columbia down through Oregon."

Sale notes that a bioregional council named Katuah operated in Western North Carolina for about 10 years in the 1980s and 1990s, and the name may be appropriate for a hypothetical country. The Katuah bioregion includes mountain areas of North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, southwestern Virginia and northern Georgia.

The secessionist movement was officially launched in 2004 in Middlebury, Vt., with a declaration that called for "true popular participation and genuine democracy." The newly established Middlebury Institute dedicated itself to the study of self-determination and "devolutionary trends and developments, on both national and international scales." Vermont has one of the most active secessionist movements, and according to Sale, the lieutenant governor and seven state senators have raised the possibility of a secessionist convention in 2015. The Middlebury Institute recently moved to Mount Pleasant, S.C.

Secessionists can be found across the political spectrum, from left to right, and in all areas of the country. What they have in common is an anti-authoritarian viewpoint. The whole point of secession is to "live under a government that fulfills your interests and aims," says Sale.

Such a hypothetical country would announce its intention to leave and establish a "separate and legitimate moral authority" that the U.S. government currently lacks, according to Sale. In time, he argues, secession would gain the support of many Americans, as well as nations around the world. Sale is also quick to point out that the United States in recent history supported the secession of Kosovo.

Sale believes that the Constitution does not preclude secession and that there is American precedent for it, even before the Southern secession which resulted in the Civil War. Nonetheless, it has a way to go as a viable political strategy, he admits, but he believes that the first steps are occurring now, in which "ideas percolate" and various groups agitate or advocate around the idea and even get it on the political agenda, as people have done in Vermont. A 2015 secession convention seems "a little hasty," says Sale, but "as the American Empire disintegrates, more and more people will come over to talk about secession."

 

Critque of 2012: Libertarians

Critque of 2012: Libertarians


My thoughts


by Jay Wendt
(centrist)
Wednesday, April 7, 2010

Critque of 2012: Libertarians


My thoughts


by Jay Wendt
(centrist)
Wednesday, April 7, 2010

Let me say this right off the bat, I feel 2012 should be the year of the Libertarian Party. The Democrats and Republican have both failed to inspire the imagination of everyday Americans, so there should be a real opportunity for a new force in American politics. Unfortunately, I also feel that, just as in 2004, every LP will over-hype the possibility of change and disappoint everyone come Election Day. Let me go over reasons.

Lack of Pragmatism: The largest contender to challenge the two party system, and arguably the most successful third party. They are fiscally responsible, socially open-minded, and a driving force for small government. Ideologically, they are in the same category as the Free Democrats in Germany and the VVD of the Netherlands, so clearly the ideals and concepts are electable. The only problem with the Libertarian Party is the fact that it is dominated by the fringe elements of the movement. The Party tends to take the more extreme elements of the Libertarian movements and accept them as part of the platform. The fact of the matter is that to be electable, a political party has to be extremely pragmatic. For example, the VVD and Free Democrats are in favor of some immigration controls, some government subsidies, and some environmental regulations. It’s just the political nature of the beast that is electoral politics; trying to offend the smallest number of people as possible.

Lack of Foresight: Another thing that is against the Libertarians is its lack of foresight in selecting it’s Presidential ticket. True, in 2008 they nominated a former Republican Congressman (Bob Barr), unfortunately his record in Congress was the complete opposite of the Libertarian platform, especially with regards to immigration and drugs. It was only exacerbated by nominating a former Republican who was in favor of the war for Vice President. Now, had they nominated Mike Gravel, whose positions matched exactly to a moderate to left-wing libertarian stance, the situation would have been different. Gravel, with his experience in the US Senate and liberal voting record, could have convinced Democrats who disliked Obama to vote for him; and say had Mary Ruwart been his VP, it would have been an extremely interesting ticket. Of course that is speculation, but based on history my scenario is more likely. Remember, Ed Clark won almost a million votes in 1980 arguing that Libertarianism is low-tax liberalism; and since the 1980 elections the Libertarian Party has never found a candidate who could beat that total.Having Gravel as the nominee, Libertarians could argue that they are low-tax liberals, and could have been a major player in the election. Unless the party starts to identify itself as the "low-tax liberal party," I highly doubt it will ever truly take advantage of an opportunity.

Get beyond rhetoric, take back government

Get beyond rhetoric, take back government

(Last updated: 04/05/10 7:03pm)

As I approach the final month of my undergraduate career at MSU, like so many others, I am reminded of the things since my freshman year. The experiences I have gone through will no doubt impact the rest of my life — whether positive or negative.

Get beyond rhetoric, take back government

(Last updated: 04/05/10 7:03pm)

As I approach the final month of my undergraduate career at MSU, like so many others, I am reminded of the things since my freshman year. The experiences I have gone through will no doubt impact the rest of my life — whether positive or negative.

I have witnessed the MSU men’s basketball team advance to two Final Four games, I have met the very best and very worst of people and I have made friends I will have forever. The one thing that sticks out more than any other is the change in my values and political beliefs throughout the past four years.

Coming into MSU, I was all about George W. Bush and everything Republican. To me, they could do no wrong, and all the Democrats were evil schemers trying to convert America into a socialist country. I still believe the Democrats are turning America to socialism, but I can see now that Republicans have equal motives not in America’s interest. Democrats and Republicans alike are putting their own self-interests above the interests of the country as a whole. The funny part about the last four years has been watching both parties play partisan games through the media. However, as in most cases, what was at one time funny quickly became annoying. The last decade has been filled with nothing but finger-pointing and name-calling. I only am glad I was able to realize it and not continue to follow the childish games of the Democrats and Republicans.

For a combined four semesters, I have written guest columns for The State News about political news, mainly stating an issue then telling why both parties are wrong and how we need to find somebody who is right. Well, I have figured out (and have known for a while) that people tend to write these beliefs off as not possible and at times radical. The general belief that no other party can arise in this country is precisely what keeps it from happening. The media shoves down our throats the idea that no one outside the Democrat-Republican spectrum can win, when in essence, these are only footnotes in actual political philosophy.

The media tells us that the “independents” are those who haven’t decided which party to support in the given election. That is not the case for most “independents,” including myself. We are just very displeased with the selection and would rather choose neither.

In the 2008 election, 29 percent of voters classified themselves as independents. This third of the country was displeased with the selection of candidates, not that they were undecided between the two chosen by the media. The president’s approval rating is below 50 percent and Congress has a rating below 20 percent. Both are the same as during the Bush years, telling us that a majority of the country is displeased with both parties.

So why is it that we continually elect them into office? Although there are many reasons why, one seems to establish the mindset for it. The media has established for so many citizens that the two-party system never will be changed. This apparently has been engrained into the minds of everyone. We need to rise above the rhetoric and the constant bickering among the children in Washington and instead take back our government.

At times I have wondered if, in fact, a direct democracy would be more efficient and representative of the people than the current system we have. A direct democracy would give every person one vote. Considering the politicians we chose to go represent us seem to represent their own interests instead, this system would be ideal. Many believe it is inefficient to have to individually vote on every issue; however, I believe people would be willing to vote every month in order to have their interests represented and not special interests. I, for one, would be more than willing to take an hour out of my life every so often to make decisions that matter to me instead of taking an hour out of every day to hear about how politicians have once again disappointed us.

In the end, this will be chuckled at and given no credence, but you know the next time you watch the news and hear how those politicians have once again put their interests ahead of American interests, you might think, “Geez, I could do a better job.”

Eric Thieleman is a State News guest columnist and political science and history senior. Reach him at thielem4@msu.edu.

Originally Published: 04/05/10 6:56pm

U.S. should become direct democracy

Is it time for America to become a true democracy? Government by representation is failing the American people.

Our representatives are not listening to the people they represent. If you write your representative, you receive no reply or a generic reply written by an aide with no content.

If we eliminate our representatives, Americans can save billions of dollars, if not trillions, that are being spent on private jets, pork barrel projects and special interest deals.

Is it time for America to become a true democracy? Government by representation is failing the American people.

Our representatives are not listening to the people they represent. If you write your representative, you receive no reply or a generic reply written by an aide with no content.

If we eliminate our representatives, Americans can save billions of dollars, if not trillions, that are being spent on private jets, pork barrel projects and special interest deals.

We are living in a different age; we no longer have to send a representative by horseback to represent the village. That village now has access to all the information to make a well informed decision! This is the age of technology, computers, and e-mail. It is time for Americans to govern their country. A government that has minimal representation and a figurehead government will be a true democracy.

Ray R. Mehrer

Billings


Mr. Mehrer,

I believe you are correct, despite some misgivings by a few of your readers. As a matter of fact,constitutional experts also agree with you and have sighted our country’s founding fathers and our own Constitution as supportive of a deliberative form of direct democracy. Allow me to explain (and respectfully correct) the detractors of direct democracy.

There appear to be two leading misconceptions why many Americans distrust direct democracy; both of which are almost completely without merit or factual basis. Let’s explore miconception #1: The founding fathers’ felt a representative form of government should always be the only form of government (Republic). This could not be further from the truth and evidence clearly suggests the opposite. The founding fathers had no other choice but to choose a representative government because technology did not exist in 18th century America for all citizens to express their ideas and opinions regularly over great distances at that time.

As you’ve stated, Mr. Mehrer, times and technologies have advanced. Constitutional expert, Alan Hirch wrote: "In sum the Framers’ choice of representative democracy at the federal level should not be wrenched from context. That choice derived from a commitment to a deliberative ideal that could not be achieved at the founding because of conditions that have subsequently changed"- a clear reference to a representative form of government being chosen because no technological alternative existed at the time our Constitution was written then ratified.

Hirsch goes on to say: "Based on all of the available evidence, Article IV’s guarantee of a ‘republican form of govenment’ cannot be said to reflect opposition to direct democracy. It is fitting, then, that many states have adopted direct democracy and our highest courts have given it their imprimatur." Hirch is refrencing the 24 states who currently have the initiative process (which is a form of direct democracy) and how the Supreme Court has acknowledged their Constitutional right to do so.

Misconception #2: Mob rule. This is my favorite one to discredit because it is here where we are completely void of any factual basis for this notion. For starters, with over a 310 million Americans and counting, there are no mobs. The more diverse a nation the less likelihood there is for stable majorities on any particular issue. Hirch wrote: "However, America’s large, heterogeneous population mitigates against oppressive majoritarian action at the national level…People know they will sometimes be in the minority, and thus may hedge their bets, by exercising restraint when they are in a majority. As James Madison reminded us, an individual state is far more likely to be dominated by a single tyrannical majority faction than is the nation."

To further discredit the ridiculous "mob rule" mentality lets ask those who support it for some examples of ‘The People’ exemplifying this on the National level. Do the believers of "mob rule" mean to say that the majority of Americans are racists or chaufvenistic thugs who can’t wait to start burning cars and beating people? Or that ‘The People’ just can’t wait for the opportunity to oppress one another through law making? What absurdity. While I’m certainly not implying that many Americans are not racist or chauvenistic, I can safely say it is not the majority of us. I’ll also remind the believers in "mob rule" that historically it has been government policy (not citizen policy) which supported slavery and segregation. If I’m not mistaken, it was national initiative which gave woman the right to vote and national protest which forced the hand of government to repeal segregation, no?

I believe "mob rule" comes from a misguided and unfounded trust of others. Do we consider our jury system of 12 individuals to be incapable of deliberating the evidence when they convict or acquit? Do we consider jurors and those who serve on them "mobs"? Of course we don’t, so why can’t we trust them to make laws? We trust them to imprison and sometimes to execute.

I also believe the "mob" mentality is used out of context. People behave much like mindless creatures in confined, panic situations, not in deliberate law-making; when they are keenly aware the laws they are passing will also effect their own lives. "The people can never willfully betray their own interests; but they may possibly be betrayed by their representatives"- Federalist, No.63. Let’s put the whole groundless "mob rule" notion to bed already.

The current initiative process which exists in 24 states is flawed. With the exception of Oregon, the initiative process lacks debate and transparency. These fundemantal flaws have given direct democracy a somewhat deserved black eye. However,a process does exist which has studied the flaws of our current initiative system and devised a very deliberative alternative which I believe will impress most of those who take the time to study and learn it. It is called the National Initiative for Democracy (www.ni4d.us or www.vote.org). I, and many others believe that only deliberative, citizen participation in law making will give us back what we are lacking most…power.

"The marvel of all history is the patience with which men and woman submit to burdens unnecessarily laid upon them by their governments"-George Washington.

To think that we can "get control" of our nation by voting a politician out is to ignore the fact that they’ve enjoyed a 90% re-election rate for many decades now. To think that turning to our elected represenatives to "police" themselves is effectively turning to the problem for the solution. People need to get involved in policy making and stop distrusting one another to such an extent that we actually feel our nation will somehow get out of this quagmire without the direct influence of our citizens. Not going to happen. Not by a long shot, folks.

Stephen Verbeek

Guest column: Gravel’s road

Guest column: Gravel’s road

 

By Jon Saltzman

 

Published: Monday, March 1, 2010

Updated: Monday, March 1, 2010

Guest column: Gravel’s road

By Jon Saltzman

 

Published: Monday, March 1, 2010

Updated: Monday, March 1, 2010

More than two years ago, everyone laughed at then-presidential candidate Mike Gravel’s objective proposal to amend the Constitution  and switch to a more directly democratic system. Such a radical reform was considered as outlandish as his stone-throwing campaign ad (if you haven’t seen it, you’re really missing out). But now, after a year of political deadlock, it is becoming ever more apparent that former Sen. Gravel (D-Alaska) just might end up being vindicated.

It was June 2009 — yes, it has been that long — that President Barack Obama started his presidential quest for health care reform. Five months later, the House of Representatives passed its version of  his proposal. Keep in mind, the Democrats had more than 75 more members in the House than the Republicans did.

More than a month after that House victory, a demolished and weakened bill passed in the Senate — the same Senate where the Democrats held a 60-seat supermajority. No, really, the same Senate.
Then came the clear and transparent deals that would be made on a compromise bill that could be passed in both houses. Wait, no, I meant the private backroom debates that saturated Congress’s winter break. It seemed as though the politicians had finally realized true political compromises, with all the dark secrets behind them, could not be reached in the public sphere.

So after the private talks, then could we get our health care? Of course not. All we got was more gridlock. We deserve better.

Switzerland has a direct democratic system: If 50,000 citizens sign a form demanding a referendum on legislation within three months, a national vote will take place in which only a majority of citizens are needed to pass the referendum. OK, maybe it’s not exactly direct democracy, but it’s pretty close.

You may point out that Switzerland has a population about 1/40th the size of the United States’ population. Nonetheless, keep in mind this system of referendum was established in 1848.

Nowadays, we have the Internet. We can go beyond any semi-direct democratic system and establish a fair, truly democratic society. Just imagine how much easier our legislative system would be without party inflexibility, powerful lobbyists and personal disputes among politicians. Health care could have been passed eight months ago!

One constitutional amendment could change our nation forever, making it the proud democracy that our forefathers envisioned. Had they possessed the tools we have today, they would likewise see how easy it would be to incorporate everyone into the government.

Realistically speaking, this can be done. If we all demand more power from our government, we can make change. Think late 19th- and early 20th-century progressive movements. Think civil rights sit-ins. Now is the time for action.

Write your representatives, organize marches, send letters to those easily manipulated Tea Partiers. We can do this, people — it’s what this country is all about.

This is the vindication of Mike Gravel.

Jon Saltzman is a freshman anthropology and government and politics major. He can be reached at jonsaltzman at gmail dot com.

Gravel talks about views, comedy show

Former Alaska senator and 2008 Democratic presidential candidate Mike Gravel spoke Monday night at Pruis to promote the National Initiative for Democracy and his upcoming comedy TV show.

Gravel’s main focus was the importance of national ballot initiatives to ensure that governmental power goes to the citizens instead of politicians or corporate interests.

Former Alaska senator and 2008 Democratic presidential candidate Mike Gravel spoke Monday night at Pruis to promote the National Initiative for Democracy and his upcoming comedy TV show.

Gravel’s main focus was the importance of national ballot initiatives to ensure that governmental power goes to the citizens instead of politicians or corporate interests.

Ballot initiatives allow citizens to place proposals with enough support up for vote during elections. If the initiative passes, it becomes a constitutional amendment. Ballot initiatives only exist on the state level. Gravel has been unsuccessful in his attempts to get national initiatives on the Libertarian Party platform.

Recent successful initiatives include Proposition 8 in California, which made gay marriage unconstitutional.

When an audience member questioned the likelihood of the majority oppressing the minority with similar national initiatives, Gravel said “of course they would.”

He assured the audience, however, that the government makes the decisions instead of the people in the current system, which is much worse.

National ballot initiatives would give citizens the power to directly affect law without having to go through a senator or congressman. Gravel said this is ideal to the current system.

“All you can do [currently] is vote for a personality,” he said. “It’s easier to vote for an issue. … You’re more knowledgeable on your own life than any member of Congress.”

Gravel is no stranger to controversy. He said during his presidential campaign that the deaths in the Vietnam War were “in vain,” and he voiced his opinions openly and bluntly Monday night.

He began the evening by detailing his views on the United States’ domestic policies as well as foreign affairs.

“Are they all dumb at the top of government?” he asked, “Not really, but they’ve got a different agenda.”

On the subject of North Korea, he called Kim Jong Il a “nutcase,” but “not a threat to anybody but his own people.”

His critique was not just limited to the government.

Gravel spoke out about private military contracts, corporate influence on lawmaking and the mainstream media, who he says does not publish his editorial pieces.

“Thank God that’s going on,” he said of the recent financial troubles of large newspapers and success of blogs and independent online news sources. “That’s the thing that can save us. … Mainstream media’s not having a tough enough time if you ask me.”

He revealed details to the audience about a new comedy television program he is creating, “I Like Mike,” which he will use to promote his platform and increase his visibility with a younger demographic.

The show, which he described as a combination of “The Office” and “The West Wing,” is a half-hour mockumentary-style program about a hypothetical nation in which Gravel won the 2008 presidential election. The show is made to be aired on cable or network television and will be available online on Web sites like YouTube and Hulu.

Gravel wrote 25 storylines for the show based on his political views, and a team of comedy writers wrote 13 episodes based on his ideas.

Gravel’s speech was preceded by a series of YouTube videos from his 2008 presidential campaign. Clips included his critique of fellow Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden during the debates as well as humorous campaign videos. Gravel compared the creative process of his upcoming program to that of the ads, giving full control to the creators.

Gravel ran for president as a Democrat but switched affiliations to the Libertarian party in 2008.

He told the audience that he was not interested in running for president or any other office again because he felt he was too old. He will turn 80 in May.

Audience turnout was modest, but Gravel was still appreciative.

“It’s not the size of the audience, it’s the quality of the audience, and you’ve proven your quality,” he said.

Following the speech, Gravel invited the audience to join him at Doc’s Music Hall where he was a guest on FM Music Live. A recording of the program can be found at FMMusicLive.com.

O’Connor: It’s time to elevate digital democracy

Disgusted with the news, yet?

 

Heard enough about the sex-capades of politicians and celebrities?

Mad about bankers, credit card companies, bailouts and the stimulus yet?

Government debt got you down?

You are not alone.

According to a new Rasmussen poll, 75 percent of all Americans are angry about current government policies.

Disgusted with the news, yet?

 

Heard enough about the sex-capades of politicians and celebrities?

Mad about bankers, credit card companies, bailouts and the stimulus yet?

Government debt got you down?

You are not alone.

According to a new Rasmussen poll, 75 percent of all Americans are angry about current government policies.

And a whole gang of Tea Party activists are driving both Democrats and Republicans a little crazy just discussing it.

I have an idea. Let’s leapfrog over all of the quicksand dragging us down and try some new ideas.

After all, you have no right to complain if you’re not willing to do something about it.

That is our “new normal.” Each of us must come up with an idea to fix our political system.

Everything else is a do-it-yourself economy. Why not do-it-yourself politics?

According to British philosopher, Edmund Burke, “the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for a few good men to do nothing.”

San Diego: sdnn-opinion32A few good men and women, plus one good idea can alter history.

One new “old” idea: more democracy

As British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, Wisconsin Progressive Gov. Robert M. La Follette, and New York Gov. John Dewey each frequently opined: “the cure for whatever ails democracy is more democracy.”

Rather appropriate today.
In the last century, during the upheaval that forced President Richard M. Nixon to resign in disgrace and President Lyndon Johnson to concede his party’s nomination before the primary fights even began, I co-authored an article that espoused picking a name out of a hat – believing that we would be better represented by our local mail carrier than members of the out-of-touch establishment.

Naive and young, I believed that the political corruption surrounding Watergate and the riots surrounding the Vietnam War expanded by Nixon — with the acquiescence of Congress — to include Cambodia and Laos couldn’t get any worse.

And yet, here we are. Sex, lies, and videotape scandals among the leaders in politics, sports, Hollywood, the business and religious communities.

Thus, the popular Northern California bumper sticker. “I never thought I would miss Nixon.”

Anyone with the stomach to watch contemporary news, read the blogs or channel surf the cable networks can easily recognize the near collapse of a civilized — let alone intelligent — discourse about the country’s woes.

People must lead themselves

In real terms, the people must now lead themselves. The press and the politicians will follow.

The people led the dissent on Watergate and Vietnam and most recently, on the stimulus, bank bailouts and the public debt. The people led on women’s rights, civil rights, an end to child labor and campaigns against drunk driving and domestic abuse.

The press and politicians belatedly followed.

The recent Supreme Court decision permitting unlimited corporate contributions to campaigns and the obvious lobbying/moneyed interests controlling all levers of American political power make direct democracy the next evolutionary/revolutionary step.

Or the U.S. may face President John Adams’ unhappy admonition:

“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy that did not commit suicide.”

Granting women, blacks and 18-year-olds the right to vote helped rejuvenate the American system in the 20th century. The 21st century needs something more.

In this country, approximately half of the eligible voters register. Of that 50 percent, only half again bother to show up; meaning 25 percent of those eligible. That is considered “a good turnout.”

In local and state elections, it is not unusual for a councilmember to be selected by less than 5 percent of the population. Hardly representative.

Hence the need for ideas to educate, train, and move every citizen along at warp speed, so they might better represent themselves.

Tools already exist

The tools for such an imaginative experiment already exist.

Netroots and the multiple new social media Web sites, constitute a viable collective exchange that could permit every interested voter to represent themselves. They are already frequent users of the system.

Look at the numbers:

  • 90 trillion – The number of emails sent on the Internet in 2009.
  • 247 billion – Average number of email messages per day.
  • 1.4 billion – The number of email users worldwide.
  • 100 million – New email users since the year before.

Facebook, alone, just crossed into 400 million users.

Or as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) unintentionally telegraphed a fail-proof strategy for digital democracy’s future, “We’ll go through the gate. If the gate’s closed, we’ll go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we’ll pole vault in. If that doesn’t work, we’ll parachute in…”

The parachutes are already in flight. American science, technology, and the netroots have been operating around the roadblocks for some time. In fact, they designed the parachutes.

In politics, Howard Dean’s early presidential campaign, then Sen. Barack Obama’s, and recently Sen. Scott Brown’s (R-Mass.) Web strategies all demonstrated the early potential of the Web as an organizing and fundraising tool.

Social networking is for more than dating and organizing rave parties.

During the recent Iranian demonstrations, Twitter was there.

In the aftermath of Haiti, the Red Cross and texting were there.

If cell phones are good enough to purchase goods with just a swipe at a bar code; good enough to raise hundreds of millions of dollars for Haiti with a short #90999; and robo computers can fly airplanes, perform surgery, rescue us from rubble, launch satellites to the moon, fly unmanned drones into precise targets, and produce Quant sheets for the financial world; they can surely allow us to vote without representation.

How hard can this be?

Think eBay, email, the Kindle, weathercams, robocalls, GPS, etc.

iPhones are now used as stethoscopes by physicians; as police alerts by neighborhood watch groups, and as snowpack measures to keep ski resorts honest.

Read the suggested legislative bills in PDF format on the Internet. Research, debate online, discuss with friends, converse over Skype, or with Facebook.

Watch YouTube. Download trustworthy learning materials. Teach yourself. Surf the web for more than just a distraction.

Steal this idea and design a killer app

In the spirit of the 1960s, you have my permission to steal this idea. Patent it. Design a “killer app” and make yourself richer than Bill Gates.

Start in California. Oregon won the race to the “mail only” ballot. California has three tech savvy candidates for governor in Jerry Brown, Meg Whitman, and Steve Poizner. Each is capable of grasping and influencing the future.

Perhaps, the next governor can patent this “digital democracy” product for the State of California; then sell it to other states, and countries (instant translation is easy on the Internet) and pay down California’s debt with more than just revenue from pot.

However, this idea needs a great marketing slogan and a catchy URL. Need some talent here.

Think about it.

Imagine it. Perhaps you will or Steve Jobs will.

California needs you. The U.S. needs you. The planet needs you.

Help out here.

Or stay home and wait for the Mother Ship to arrive.

Colleen M. O’Connor is a former college history professor, the director of the “Faces of San Diego 2000″ family photographic history project and co-editor of Eleanor Roosevelt: An American Journey. She is an SDNN political columnist and can be reached at CoConnor15x(a)Yahoo.com

READER COMMENTS

2 comments


Comment by: Kitty Juniper Posted: February 10, 2010, 3:20 pm

 

Great ideas! Now let’s look at how our representatives do business. Given the state of our technology, there is no need for elected officials to be in Washington, D.C. or Sacramento for twelve months of the year. Many professionals telecommute; why can’t they? Think of the money we would save if our elected officials stayed in their districts, held video-conferenced hearings and meetings, cast their votes electronically and travelled to Sacramento or Washington for joint, in-person meetings only one month out of the year? No more dollars allocated to year long housing. Most important, it might actually disperse the special interests and lobbyists and make it easier for our representatives to buck their parties. Think of the back-room deals that may be less likely to occur since they could be recorded when not made in person. The electronic legislature — it might even put more power in the hands of the people who elected them.

 

Comment by: Stephen Verbeek Posted: February 10, 2010, 6:19 pm

 

Ms. O’Connor,

Amen.

I simply could not agree with you more. Interestingly enough, our country’s Founding Fathers and Constitutional Framers also agreed with you…over two hundred years ago.

Our Constitution was written and altered specifically to allow for self governance, a vital fact lost to many Americans and those who teach American history. It’s the idea of First Principle: it is the People who are inherently invested with all authority and legislative power to create and alter governments, constitutions, charters, and laws.

The Founding Fathers chose our current form of representative government because there was a lack of technology which would allow every citizen to gather regularly over vast distances to express their opinions on laws and policies. They chose representatives because there was simply no other technological alternative to represent the collective will in eighteenth century America. Therein had lain the problem.

Herein lies the problem now: Americans are looking in the wrong direction for change. We seek change outwardly through representatives as we feel this was what our Founding Fathers intended when they created our current branches of government. Well, it was what they intended. Then. Over two hundred years ago. The truth is that our Founding Fathers wanted us to look inwardly for change whenever possible and by failing to do so, would surely result in misuses of power. Well, eureka!

Most Americans are completely unaware our Constitution was cleverly written to allow change through direct decree in such times as we The People saw fit. The idea that the will of the masses surpasses the authority of any branch of government. The idea that once the citizens of this country feel their representatives are no longer representing, we need only decree our will by majority and it is so.

James Madison supported this when he stated: “The People were, in fact, the fountain of all power, and by resorting to them, all difficulties were got over. They could alter constitutions as they pleased.”

Our relatively low voter turn out is a result of our knowledge and frustration that our representatives are influenced more with special interests and re-election than with the needs of their constituents. So why vote? And besides, I’ve got a busy schedule and mouths to feed and no time to drive to the other side of town to the local elementary school and vote! I know nothin’s gonna change anyway. Same game, different name.

This little theory is supported by a recent survey conducted by the California Voter Foundation (CVF). The survey shed some light on the reasoning of low voter turnout. The number one reason why registered voters didn’t vote (and why qualified voters didn’t register to vote) was because they were “too busy”. Reason number two was “a feeling that candidates don’t really speak to them.”

Shocking.

Furthermore, why is it we have to re-register to vote by just moving from one town to the next? Shouldn’t voter registration be for life no matter where you move? Additionally, why are federal elections held on Tuesdays? Why not Sundays when most people have off from work? Let’s go a step further and ask why not all week to let those who can’t find a babysitter participate on a more convenient day? It’s all intentional, make no mistake about it. Our “democracy” is DESIGNED to be difficult. The fewer voting participants means fewer headaches for the even fewer decision makers. This may be an oversimplification but you can call it an accurate one.

Founding Father James Wilson made a prophetic statement supporting direct democracy through advancements in technology when he stated: “All power is originally in the people and should be exercised by them in person, if that could be done with convenience, or even with little difficulty.”

Hmm. Call me crazy, but I think he just might be indirectly referring to what we call the cell phone and internet. Two “conveniences” which will surely make obsolete the two leading reasons citizens don’t vote as supported by the CVF survey. The whole process need be no more complicated than a call or click. You said it well.

Our current, almost purely representative form of government is a paradox. It is nothing remotely close to being representative of our citizens’ will. As our population grows and diversifies the number of lawmakers remains the same. Our laws and our Constitution must be altered periodically to reflect new growth, new technologies and new injustices as they arise and we must stop being reluctant in altering them ourselves. Peacefully and simply.

Let’s quote George Washington: “The marvel of all history is the patience with which men and women submit to burdens unnecessarily laid upon them by their governments.”

And what a long marvel it has been.

In closing, I’m a bit surprised you made no mention regarding The National Initiative For Democracy in your article. Are you familar with this initiative? It is a proposed Constitutional amendment designed to give law making powers to every registered voter in the country without changing any of our current branches of government. It has none of the drawbacks of existing state initiatives and has formulated an impressive deliberative process in which to accomplish this through current technology. Please review it at http://www.ni4d.us or http://www.vote.org to learn more.

Something tells me that “Mother Ship” you mentioned may just have landed…

Regards,

Stephen Verbeek

 

When Democratization fails to benefit society

The Rebel Yell / Opinion / When Democratization fails to benefit society

The Rebel Yell / Opinion / When Democratization fails to benefit society

 

When Democratization fails to benefit society Default Thumbnail

February 1, 2010 by Nathan Warner 

We need more effective government, not more democracy

The blogosphere, the punditry and editorial pages have held no shortage of criticism of the Supreme Court’s recent decision, which struck down parts of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law and allowed corporations the right to fund political ads.

Like other critics, I too disagree with this decision, but I will not rehash arguments that have already been made.

Without addressing other problems with the Supreme Court’s ruling (e.g., that corporations are not people, or even the limits of what “free speech” entails) that have been discussed elsewhere, it is worthwhile to ask what the effects of such a ruling will have on our democratic processes and institutions.

The real loser in this decision is American democracy itself. More and more free speech is considered to be the more democratic option, but in this case, unregulated democracy is more of a hindrance to good government than a benefit to society.

In modern America, it is often assumed that more democracy is always a better thing. More people should be able to vote on a wider range of issues. Our representatives should vote according to their constituents’ will and not based on what they think is best for our country.

We even welcome direct democracy when possible, affirming that the people have absolute power and should be able to assert their will in any means possible.

Far less often do we discuss or even consider the problems with this approach.

The framers of the U.S. Constitution never intended for America to be a pure democracy.

As James Madison and Alexander Hamilton showed clearly in the Federalist papers (see especially Madison’s number 10), they possessed a healthy distrust of the public will and argued that the entire point of representative democracy is to temper public opinions and reach more ideal outcomes.

Today’s furor of reforms in the name of democracy and political rights give ever-greater control of the government to a vague concept of “the people.”

Nowadays, Americans vote on issues and throw millions at special interest groups representing their respective causes.

The special interests, for all intents and purposes, effectively run our government.

This is, in itself, a contentious statement. Even those who agree with it may ask what the problem is. After all, don’t those interests represent the will of the people?

Perhaps that is so. But as controversial as this may be, it must be said that the people don’t always know what is best. We each vote as our conscience dictates, which, naturally so, is to secure our own best interests. It is this selfishness that is a democracy’s greatest failing.

Fareed Zakaria, in his book, “The Future of Freedom,” makes this same point: In the case of democracy, there can be too much of a good thing. That is, too much freedom (in this case, meaning unregulated political processes) can not only reach adverse outcomes, but can corrupt the very system itself.

California’s budget troubles clearly illustrate this phenomenon.

As Zakaria writes, California has produced a government that is “as close to anarchy as any civilized society has seen.” Their experiments with direct democracy means that Californians can pursue referendums to bring about their will if the legislature or even state courts act against their wishes.

And, as could be expected, California has performed dismally. Its citizens routinely vote themselves more government benefits and services while decreasing their own taxes. And why shouldn’t they? It is their right, after all, to vote for what is in their best interests.

Obviously, the reason this system is untenable is because of its innate selfishness. With people looking out for themselves, no one is looking out for the best interests of the community.

This, then, is the point of representative democracy, as the framers rightly intended. The government surely is by and for the people, but it must act as a filter to tamp the selfish tendencies of American individualism.

Our legislatures should consider not only the will of the people, but also primarily the good of the nation. They should not be blindly beholden to the money and influence of corporations and special interests.

The voice of the people is not what our leaders hear. It is well-organized special interest groups that roam the halls of Congress.

It is motivated and organized minority (by interest, not identity) groups that keep absurd and pandering policies afloat, like agricultural subsidies and trade wars with China.

As Zakaria further writes, today’s rampant political cynicism shows that we Americans don’t feel like the government listens to us at all. As the system becomes more open and “democratic,” it becomes more overrun by money, special interests and organized political fanatics.

It is for these reasons that we have government institutions that are supposed to be above politics.

This is why we have a Federal Reserve that can increase unemployment or even cause a recession for the long-term economic good of the country, and why we have, ideally, non-political courts to oversee the decisions made by our government.

Ironically, however, it is our most anti-democratic institution that has here attempted to increase democracy, but at the expense of the people and our nation as a whole.

Corporations are now considered people and have the right to financially support whomever and whatever policies they want in their own advertising.

Some will argue that the corporations still don’t have actual votes and that people still have the choice to not actually listen to the advertisements.

To this, I only need point to the current state of affairs. Our representatives spend millions on advertisements to get elected to a job that pays less than $200,000 a year. Maybe we don’t actually care about the ads themselves, but our politicians do.

This decision may be a victory for free speech, but it comes at the expense of effective, honest and accountable government. The answer should not always be more democracy, but rather, more effective government.


Mr. Warner,

After having read your article I’m compelled to respond. With all due respect, I’m not entirely sure what you are saying as you seem to jump around and contradict yourself a bit. What I pretty much gathered is you feel too much free speech and direct democracy is counterproductive to our nation. I think.

You cite Federalist No.10 as your reasoning: “As James Madison and Alexander Hamilton showed clearly in the Federalist papers (see especially Madison’s number 10), they possessed a healthy distrust of the public will and argued that the entire point of representative democracy is to temper public opinions and reach more ideal outcomes.”

“A healthy distrust of the public will” you say? Is this the same James Madison who stated in 1787: ” The People were, in fact, the fountain of all power, and by resorting to them, all difficulties were got over. They could alter constitutions as the pleased.” Is this the same James Madison you feel had a healthy distrust of the public when he stated at the Virginia Convention of 1788: ” I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurptations.” That Madison?

Federalist No. 10 refers to “factions”. The definition of factions in 18 Century America were significantly different than factions of the 21st Century. What we face today James Madison and Alexander Hamilton could never have possibly imagined in their worst nightmares. I think it’s safe to say Madison and Hamilton would unanimously define today’s factions as ‘Wall Street’ and ‘ Big Corporations’. Big Corporations which have completely dismantled our already weak democracy through endless financial “donations” or what they should more accurately be called: bribes.

You stated: “Obviously, the reason this system (the initiative process you wrongly referred to as referendum) is untenable is because of its innate selfishness. With people looking out for themselves, no one is looking out for the best interests of the community. This, then, is the point of representative democracy, as the framers rightly intended. The government surely is by and for the people, but it must act as a filter to tamp the selfish tendencies of American individualism.”

Oh boy. Do you really mean to tell us that it is the American People who are the selfish ones? Was it The People who were selfish in their tendencies and spent 300 million over 20 years lobbying Congress to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999 which directly led to our current banking and housing collapse? Was it The People who were selfish in their tendencies to rack up a 12 trillion dollar deficit? Was it The People who were selfish in their tendencies to bail out Wall Street? No, Mr. Wagner. It was the selfish tendencies of our corporate influenced elected representatives who did all that. Did you also know that the last three U.S. Treasury Secretaries were executives at Wall Street’s very own investment firm, Goldman Sachs? If you did know this, do you think it was coincidence that during their tenures the most massive de-regulation of our financial and banking industries took place? Or was that too the result of The People and their selfish tendencies?

We live in a different world than 220 years ago. But our constitution was written so that ‘We The People’ may, through direct decree, alter our constitutions or charters any way we see fit. The Founding Fathers knew this was the only way future generations could deal with new challenges as they arose. This is the genius of our constitution. It can be changed at any time directly by The People and does not require our representative to do so. Additionally, there is no such thing as too much free speech. There is no such thing as too much influence by ordinary citizens of this nation. There is such thing as too much influence my corporations. It’s not by accident our constitution doesn’t mention them anywhere in its text and yes, corporations did exist back then. Just not nearly as vast as today…

As of September of 2009, 45% of Americans say they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in our legislative branch of government and 73% of Americans trust the American people as a whole to make judgments about the issues facing our country. This is according to a Gallup Poll of over 1,000 randomly selected Americans. However, I don’t need a poll to confirm this. I need only talk to my wife, my neighbors, my friends and family.

It is true that the 24 states who currently have an initiative process, including California, have their share of problems. The initiative process in these states is racked with confusion, corruption and an almost complete lack of transparency. However, there is a much better solution many Americans are unaware of. It is called The National Initiative for Democracy. It is a proposed constitutional amendment designed to give citizens law making powers through a much more deliberative process than currently exists in any of the 24 states. It does not take away or replace any of our current branches of government. It only adds another check and balance: every citizen of this country

It may be important to inform you that our Founding Fathers did not choose a purely representative form of government because, as you said: “it must act as a filter to tamp the selfish tendencies of American individualism.” They chose it because it was impossible, through lack of technology in the 18th century, to collectively gather all the views of every single American or gather the masses together over vast distances to express their opinions. They chose representatives not to filter the people, but to represent them the only way they physically could.

To further support the initiative process, I’ll remind Americans what they have without it: their vote. Sounds like a lot, right? Wrong. By casting a vote in a purely representative form of government such as our own, we effectively hand over our power to the elected representative in the hopes he or she will do what is in our best interest. Of course, we all know how that’s working out for us. To remind everyone what Cicero once said: “Freedom is participation in power.” Our participation in power ends the moment we cast our vote.

As if sensing the future of technological progress, Founding Father James Wilson said: “All power is originally in the people and should be exercised by them in person, if that could be done with convenience, or even with little difficulty.” Well guess what? It’s called the internet. Or the telephone. Or the text message. Take your pick.

Support the National Initiative for Democracy.