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.

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

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

(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

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.”

A 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 20^th century. The 21^st 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

This entry was posted on Tuesday, February 9th, 2010 at 4:00 pm and is filed under Columns, Politics Opinion . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

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

When Democratization fails to benefit society

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.