Category: News

It would have been a great experiment in direct democracy.

At the turn of the century, there was a politician by the name of William Jennings Bryan. He was called the Great Commoner because he claimed to represent that era’s person on the street –Êor in those days, it was just as likely to be the person on the farm.

He must have been popular, because three times the Democratic Party nominated him for president: in 1896, in 1900 and again in 1908. He was a forerunner of the later Progressive movement and pioneered reforms such as the referendum, recall and initiative.

It is through such devices that people in our form of governance can take matters into their own hands when their elected representatives fail.

Our system is designed as representative democracy, not direct democracy. Yet Bryan’s slogan was "let the people rule," and he believed the public fully capable of making critical decisions.

"To Bryan, truth and virtue were determined by the popular will," wrote Ray Ginger. "He resented the experts in government as much as he resented the plutocrats in business. He insisted that ordinary people are fully competent ‘to sit in judgment on every question which has arisen or which will arise, no matter how long our government will endure.’ And so Bryan advocated all measures that would extend direct democracy in government: the initiative, the referendum, direct primaries."

In barring the reform proposal from the ballot — despite the fact that some 400,000 Michiganians signed petitions to put it there — the three judges of the Michigan Court of Appeals stressed that "we do not act to prevent the citizen from voting on a proposal simply because that proposal is allegedly too complex or confusing. Nor do we seek to substitute our own preferences as to governmental form, structure or functioning for those of the electorate."

But you have to wonder. Among other things, the proposal, billed as an amendment to the state constitution, would have reduced the number of appellate judges and cut the salaries of those who remain –Êamong other things.

Be that as it may, the reason the court gave for striking down the proposal was that judges said it constituted a general revision of the constitution because it dealt with more than one subject. They pointed out that the proposal affected four articles of the constitution, seeking to modify 24 sections and add four others.

But as Andrew Nickelhoff, attorney for Reform Michigan Government Now! pointed out, there is no such specific language in the constitution restricting the amendment process.

Oddly, the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, one of the organizations seeking to invalidate reform group’s petitions, itself proposed a ballot plan last year seeking to change multiple sections and articles of the constitution.

"Talk to the person on the street," said the reform group’s spokeswoman, Dianne Byrum. She said they appeared to understand the proposal as they jumped at the chance to sign the petition.

Critics claim that the group’s proposal was a stealth effort to change the way redistricting occurred in Michigan so as to benefit Democrats.

If true, would the people have been smart enough to figure that out?

What do you think? The proposal as it would have appeared is printed alongside today’s column.

Do you understand it? How would you have voted: yes or no?

Let us know — and why.

Glenn Gilbert is executive editor of The Oakland Press. Contact him (248) 745-4587 or glenn.gilbert@oakpress.com.

Arizona has the best democracy that money can buy. Or, it has the worst democracy that money can buy.

It depends on how much money you have.

That is probably not the situation the state’s founders had in mind when they inserted into the Arizona constitution a provision (Article 4, Section 1) that reads in part: "The people reserve the power to propose laws and amendments to the constitution and to enact or reject such laws and amendments at the polls, independently of the legislature; and they also reserve, for use at their own option, the power to approve or reject at the polls any act, or item, section or part of any act, of the Legislature."

It’s an excellent concept. It speaks to the passion of ordinary voters. It’s positive. Enlightened. Optimistic. And these days, meaningless.

Particularly when you get to the part that requires 10 percent of "qualified electors" to get an initiative on the ballot and 15 percent to propose an amendment to the Constitution.

Signature gathering is a pain. Particularly as the state’s population has grown and particularly in the summer, which is when most of the names have to be collected.

The passion of most ordinary voters is no match for summer heat. So, most folks who want to put an initiative on the ballot hire paid petition circulators. As a result, it is no longer "the people" who get proposals on the ballot, but the RICH people. Or special-interest groups.

One of the many problems with such a process is that people getting paid on a per-signature basis sometimes cut corners.

"We continue to see errors, mistakes and even potential fraud that is very troubling," Secretary of State Jan Brewer told me. "It’s very costly not only for those who hire these paid circulators but also expensive for my office to process them and then challenge those that are not in the correct form. I really think that this is something the Legislature needs to address. The proof is in the pudding. Just consider what we have gone through this time around."

Already several propositions have failed to make the ballot because not enough valid signatures were collected. One such proposal would have ended affirmation action in Arizona. Proponents of that measure, supported by out-of-state money, went to court to get it back on the ballot, then gave up the fight. It’s been a mess. The opposition to that proposal was lead by state Rep. Kyrsten Sinema.

"Arizona is the most popular place to come if you are an out-of-state rich person with an agenda," Sinema told me.

Secretary of State Brewer believes the Legislature should pass a law that either would require petition circulators to be paid by the hour rather than then signature. Others want to ban the practice all together. The problem with the latter, Sinema said, is the number of signatures that currently must be collected.

"If you want to eliminate the paid collectors then I think you have to lower the threshold," she said. For example, dropping the required number of signatures from the current 10 and 15 percent to something like 5 and 8 percent. She added, "Otherwise, we’d be eliminating direct democracy for all practical purposes, and I wouldn’t be in favor that."

According to Brewer, one of the main reasons the system hasn’t been reformed is that elected officials benefit from it.

"Our politicians can’t find volunteer circulators, either," she said. "So they’re not eager to make changes in how things work."

Sure, it costs a lot of money to hire paid circulators, but with the help of a few generous campaign contributors, the politicians can afford it.

The question is, can we?

Reach Montini at ed.montini@arizonarepublic.com or 602-444-8978.

This fact was demonstrated earlier this month in a very public way. Thanks again to everyone that helped make this happen. We were extremely busy up until the last minute before the event. We were still buying hardware at 9:00 pm before the polls opened 10:00 am the next morning.

The system was well received by participants, and it worked as expected. The election included five contests on the first day, then six contests on the second and third days.

At 6 pm after the first day, OVC received the list of eleven best-of-show finalists. By 10 am the next morning, the voting machines were ready and the polls opened with the new ballot definition (including voice prompts and tabulation routines updated and checked).

Press was very favorable. Besides the San Francisco Chronicle article posted before the event, there was an excellent Computerworld article that appeared during the 3-day event.

The event was also documented on YouTube.

Hundreds of people signed a support letter.

All of the 816 ballots cast scanned successfully with the barcode reader (in a previous trial in January of 2008, one out of 204 ballots could not be tallied with the barcode reader due to mangling and poor print quality, although the text was readable). Ballots were tallied in batches every 45 minutes or so. Each batch was then sealed in an envelope with a copy of the tally sheet.

A video-taped audit was conducted two weeks after the event. The batches that were checked demonstrated that the tally sheets matched a hand count of the votes. A few individual ballots were audited by checking the barcode output with the text on the ballot. The grand totals were also checked by summing selected contests from the tally sheets.

Get ready, America, for a lesson in one of our country’s strangest states. What makes Alaska so different? It’s not just the cold and the empty landscape. Alaska is the only state in the union to have had direct democracy since its founding. The other 23 states with the ballot initiative adopted it long after they became states.

So it’s fair to say that Alaska has been shaped more profoundly by direct democracy than any state in the union. As every bit of Gov. Sarah Palin’s life is scrutinized, you’ll hear lots of odd things for which direct democracy is part of the answer. (Here’s my strongest prediction about this choice: once Americans learn how Alaska works, Leno and Letterman will start making jokes — and it’ll be years before they stop). For example, she’ll have to admit — as she has done in the past — that she smoked marijuna. But she’ll have an explanation that may surprise people. Marijuana was LEGAL in Alaska until 1990, and not just for medicinal purposes. Thank the voters for the right. The voters also took the right away.

You’ll also hear about her love of hunting and fishing, and her husband’s work as a commercial fisherman and in the oil fields. You’ll hear a lot from environmentalists about state management of public land. Alaska law in all these matters has been profoundly shaped by the ballot. And you also should expect to see her attacked by good government types as "not a real reformer" for her decision not to back a ballot initiative establishing public finance in Alaska. The measure was defeated in Tuesday’s primary elections there.

For an overview of Alaska’s initiative and referenda history, check out the state page on ballotpedia.

Fighting terrorism will not be easy in this age of ours when the superpowers and their allies have all the necessary ammos to justify their terrorization of unarmed civilians while the have-nots have very little to lose through their mindless suicidal acts of vengeance or retribution.

As far as America is concerned, what is needed is thinking outside America’s current paradigm to combat this menace. It is good to see that under a new leadership the Pentagon is realizing this fact. The 2008 National Defense Strategy, approved by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and released by the Pentagon on July 31 says that while the military’s top priority is to defeat al-Qaeda and other extremists, but winning the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan alone will not achieve that. Nor will the use of force alone accomplish the mission. The most important thing the military can do, the report says, is to prepare friends and allied nations to defend and govern themselves. Coming as it does from the Pentagon the report shows that the department is admitting the follies of strong arm tactics alone. Truly, without a combination of political measures that address the underlying root causes and economic incentives, it would be impossible to combat terrorism of the have-nots.

In this age of insecurity, America needs a total reevaluation of her position vis-à-vis the ‘other’ people of our world. And in that evaluation, she must weigh properly her actions in the Dar al-Islam. She must recognize that with the burial of the Caliphate, the Muslim world is fragmented and there is no leadership that speaks for all 1.5 billion Muslims that are spread all over the globe. The current leadership in most Muslim countries is utterly corrupt and spineless to have a meaningful dialogue with its counterparts in the West, especially the USA. It is that vacuum in leadership that has unfortunately brought to the fore individuals like OBL to speak about collective humiliation of Muslims in the post-Caliphate era. While most Muslims share those grievances stoked by OBL and his deputies, only an insignificant segment of the population share either their vision of politics or their ways and means. If American leadership fails to make this distinction between groups like al-Qaeda and nominal religious Muslims, it will only play into the hands of the very nemesis that it purports to defeat.

America must also take into consideration rising anti-American political and religious hostility produced by American unilateralism. As much as she must restrain her trigger-happy fingers from firing on civilians, and getting into uncalled fights with others, she cannot allow herself to be seen as awarding oppressive governments. She cannot allow Israel and other such rogue partners to use American weapons to kill unarmed civilians. She must set a higher standard of morality and fairness for herself in everything she does, including the military trials of rapist and murderous soldiers and the detainees of the Guantanamo Bay prison. She simply can’t afford Pharaohnic arrogance and Hamanic despotism.

So, will American leadership change its mindset that prefers war over negotiation?

In a debate on January 31, 2008, Senator Obama said: “I want to end the mindset that got us into war in the first place.” As Kevin Zeese (Director of Democracy Rising) has noted "if this statement is to be taken seriously it would mean a paradigm shift in U.S. foreign policy away from militarism towards diplomacy, foreign aid and cooperation with other nations. It will also mean shrinking the already too large defense budget creating the ability to invest in the new energy economy, U.S. infrastructure and the basic necessities of the American people. The vast majority of Americans – a growing super majority – opposes continuing keeping U.S. troops in Iraq, bombing Iran and wants a less military-based foreign policy. Now is the time for greater emphasis on negotiation, diplomacy, multilateralism and foreign aid. The people demand it. War is not the answer to any of these conflicts. The U.S. is not made more secure by creating new enemies and draining our treasury."

Zeese is right. By ending the "mindset" that led to the Iraq War, it will allow for a re-prioritization of resources at home and abroad, moving the U.S. away from a military economy toward a civilian one. Now is the time to begin to end the mindset of war. Is Obama ready for that challenge?

In Berlin rally of July 24, 2008, in front of a crowd of some two hundred thousand people, Obama preached the wisdom of true partnership and true progress through trust and cooperation. He called on people to "tear down new walls" between races, countries and religions. He said, "The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down. … Now is the time to build new bridges across the globe as strong as the one that bound us across the Atlantic. Now is the time to join together, through constant cooperation, strong institutions, shared sacrifice, and a global commitment to progress, to meet the challenges of the 21st century."

As America tries to come out of the shadow of Bush-Cheney era of deception, surely Obama’s speech is very refreshing, much like John F. Kennedy’s, offering some nuggets of hope in an otherwise hopeless world of ours. Only time would tell if such high-sounding, and yet not unrealistic, words can be put into practice by removing the curse of perennial war through shared expectations, cooperation and negotiation.

American Politics – the Path Forward – Accountability

As the adage goes – you do the crime, you must serve the time (in prison) – something must be done with accountability. When a criminal absconds from justice that day is a sad day for its victims. And when the most powerful man on earth abuses his authority and misleads his nation into war thus devastating the world, it is catastrophic for all. And that is what President George W. Bush has done in the last eight years of his office. He ruined American economy and destabilized the entire globe. He killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people overseas and brought about the death of thousands of his own countrymen, when it was not necessary. By deliberately overwriting international laws in matters of treatment of prisoners of war (the so-called enemy "unlawful" combatants) and ignoring human rights, he has essentially made all Americans traveling outside vulnerable to similar abuses that were meted out to prisoners in the Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay prisons.

No President in American history has probably done more harm to America’s image than President Bush. It will take years, if not decades, to wipe that nasty bloody stain he leaves behind when he vacates the White House in January 2009. America ought to hold Bush and his inner circle of advisers accountable for committing the worst mass murder of this century.

By lying to the Congress, Bush violated U.S. Laws related to Fraud and False Statements, Title 18, Chapter 47, Section 1001 and Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, Title 18, Chapter 19, Section 371.

If Americans fail (which is a foregone conclusion) to send Bush to the World Court in The Hague for war crimes, the Congress owes it to its own electorates to at least impeach or try him internally per its own laws. [While on July 25, 2008 the House Judiciary Committee has opened up hearings on Congressman Dennis Kucinich’s impeachment resolution, it is highly unlikely that President Bush will be impeached by the Congress because of opposition from Speaker Pelosi.] As has been argued by former Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Vincent Bugliosi, Bush needs more than impeachment. He said, "For anyone interested in true justice, impeachment alone would be a joke for what Bush did." In all fairness, Bush should be tried for crimes against humanity.

It goes without saying that Bush’s trial would be a solace to millions who lost their loved ones and were directly affected adversely by his criminal actions. It would also help to restore confidence in American leadership and heal the wounds caused by his administration. It would also enable people from outside to look upon the USA favorably with respect and admiration, and help not only to close the Atlantic divide but also along the global fault lines. People would know that no crime, big or small, goes unpunished in this nation we call the USA – the land of the brave (brave enough to put its own highest authority behind the bar for committing crimes against humanity). That trial would also be a sufficient deterrent for any would-be Hulagu Khan from embarking on an imperial trail and committing mass murder.

Is the Congress ready for that task? Or will political expediency sideline this major issue of our time?

What Next? Politics as Usual?

Jean-Jacques Rousseau said, "The strongest is never strong enough to be the master unless he translates strength into right and obedience into duty." However, American democracy and leadership are failing in that measure.

Journalist Jonathan Rauch observed in his book "Demosclerosis: The Silent Killer of American Government" that the American government probably has evolved into a sprawling, largely self-organizing structure that is 10% to 20% under the control of the politicians and voters, and 80% to 90% under the control of the countless thousands of client groups. Coming as it does from a veteran observer of American politics, such a prognosis is not a healthy one. Today, an American political candidate must raise millions of dollars to stand a chance in getting elected for a gubernatorial, senatorial or congressional post, let alone the presidential race. The candidates raise money in small increments from tens of thousands of individual contributors and Political Action Committees (PACs), whose agendas are less well publicized and less scrutinized. And it has produced a new group of power brokers: the fundraisers.

Fareed Zakariya has also noted in his book "The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad" that an American candidate must now spend the all-important year before the primaries winning the support of thousands of affluent contributors. As a result, raising money has become the fundamental activity of a political campaign, and performing well at fundraiser the first, indispensable skill for a modern American politician. Hence the sad spectacle of modern American politics, in which politicians ceaselessly appease lobbies, poll voters, genuflect before special interests, and raise money. Of course this does not produce good government – quite the contrary – and so the search for good government continues in America.

One can well imagine the hideous, devastating influence on politics when a PAC combines with the military industrial complex to push their shared agenda. This is exactly what has happened with the Israeli Lobby, which includes the Neocons, when it allied itself with the Christian Zionists and the war industry to exercise their “unmatched power” over U.S. government policies to push the country to war against Iraq. Such an unholy alliance is very harmful to the national interest of America and must be stopped for the greater good of America and humanity at large.

It is known that legitimacy is the elixir of political power. Most politicians are now lacking that legitimacy. American public dissatisfaction with the effects of politics continues to grow. As duly noted by Zakariya, if these problems grow people will be more inclined to define democracy by what it has become: a system, open and accessible in theory, but ruled in reality by organized or rich or fanatical minorities, protecting themselves for the present and sacrificing the future. This is a very different vision from that of the enthusiasts of direct democracy.

The battle for the soul of American democracy must, therefore, continue. This, according to Professor Cornel West of Princeton University, in large part, is a battle for the soul of American Christianity; because the dominant forms of Christian fundamentalism are a threat to the tolerance and openness necessary for sustaining any democracy. As Americans try to choose their path, they must weigh between their new found fondness (or misadventure) with Constantine Christianity that pushes them toward an imperialistic identity and a Prophetic one that adds a moral fervor by caring for the poor, public service, tolerance and compassion. Which option will they choose?

In this regard, we should not be oblivious of the unpleasant truth that the vast majority of white American Christians supported the evil of slavery – and they did so often in the name of Jesus. And then there were also abolitionists who were Christians. There lies the classic case of American Christian schizophrenic experience!

How ironic it is also to see American Jewish lobby today to fuse with right-wing evangelical Christians whose anti-Semitism, past and present, is notorious and despicable, and whose support for the Jewish state is based on the idea that its existence paves the path for the second coming of Christ, who will slaughter them for their unbelief! As much as the majority Christians in the USA ought to sort their way out of the mess that they got into, the Jewish Americans cannot afford not knowing the danger of playing with the fire. They must distance themselves from the conniving foot soldiers of the Armageddon. The must also avoid being a party to American policy makings that are unjust, shortsighted and harmful in the long run.

As America introspects it is worth remembering that the embrace of communism and fascism in the 1930s did not seem as crazy at the time as it does now. If Americans fail to pick the right choice, signs are too clear to suggest that they may settle for fascism.

As the dust of 9/11 settles down and the bloodstains of Iraq dry up, American people will realize that it is not terrorism that is the greatest threat to their national security. But it is their very democracy – increasingly manipulated by a powerful coterie – that is the greatest threat to their national security.

In closing it is worth noting an observation from an American military historian Victor Davis Hanson: "The real hazard for the future, as it always has been in the past, is not Western moral decline or the threat of the Other now polished with the veneer of sophisticated arms, but the age-old specter a horrendous war inside the West itself, the old Europe and America with its full menu of Western economic, military, and political dynamism." He continued, "Gettysburg in a single day took more Americans than did all the Indian Wars of the nineteenth century."

More Americans have now died from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq than all those combined in 9/11. Is there something to learn from this experience?

Habib Siddiqui

When he talks about his track record of striking nerves in Springfield, Pat Quinn comes off as more than slightly amused.

Illinois’ lieutenant governor of five years, Quinn has become increasingly vocal in calling out the General Assembly, the Cook County Board and his own boss, Gov. Rod Blagojevich, for what he perceives as intrusions into taxpayer rights.

Most recently he took issue with the Assembly’s plan to give themselves pay raises as Cook County taxes steadily creep upward.

“A lot of people today feel that the office holders too often ignore the public point of view,” Quinn says. “Indeed there may be some that are even contemptuous of the public point of view.”

Last week Quinn picketed one of the governor’s speeches, urging the public to sign a petition dissuading lawmakers from allowing the automatic 7.5 percent pay raise to take effect. Blagojevich dodged the crowd by entering the building through a back door, and Senate President Emil Jones refused to shake Quinn’s outstretched hand as he brushed past him.

“When he walked in, he said, ‘What’s your name?’ to me,” Quinn says. “Not very complimentary, I guess.”

Despite the cold reception, the stunt worked. The lieutenant governor collected more than 17,000 signatures in 48 hours, putting enough pressure on the Assembly to call a vote and cancel the raises.

Quinn takes pride in his ability to move the masses, referring to his grassroots campaigns as the unstoppable force to Springfield’s immovable object. He has built his political career around his support of initiatives, public referendums and recall of public officials, all of which he regards as vital components of participatory government.

“I believe in direct democracy,” Quinn says. “It’s a good safety valve to have when things go askew in government.”

Quinn has fought for his concept of direct democracy since the ’70s, when he led a series of petition drives asking legislators to reform the state tax system and grant Illinois citizens the power to vote directly in referendums. His best-known effort to enact such referendums, the Illinois Initiative, received widespread public support before failing in the state Supreme Court in the late ’70s.

The ultimate line of defense, in Quinn’s opinion, would be an amended state constitution that gives Illinois residents a louder voice in the political process and limits the government’s ability to overburden taxpayers. “The people are the boss,” Quinn said at a recent conference while proposing an amendment to strengthen the power of the state’s Compensation Review Board.

Quinn says taxpayers should have the power to vote directly on constitutional amendments, which will only become possible if there is sufficient support for a constitutional convention in November’s election.

A constitutional convention, or “con con,” as it’s called by insiders, is a meeting of specially elected delegates who propose and vote on new amendments to the state constitution—which could include new regulations on campaign ethics, school funding, pay raises or a number of other possibilities. The proposals would then be sent back to Illinois voters, who would approve or reject each amendment in an up or down vote.

Convention delegates, as Quinn is quick to point out, do not have to be career politicians, nor do they have to be affiliated with any political party. This distinction, the lieutenant governor says, makes them more independent of the Springfield mentality and thus more capable of representing the true perspective of the citizens of Illinois. Many delegates attending a 1970 con con had had no prior political experience, and many never returned to politics after the meetings concluded, according to Quinn.

“They were there to do a job,” Quinn says. “And I think that attitude is why a convention is superior to just relying on the same old people in Springfield that we have today.”

Quinn’s ongoing quest to amend the constitution has given him a sort of notoriety among his peers—some see him as a man staunchly devoted to ensuring a formal guarantee of taxpayers’ rights, while others regard his actions as a threat to the stability of the state’s most important document.

“There’s just not agreement that a constitutional convention would be productive or constructive, given the political climate that we currently have,” says Jeff Mays, president of the Illinois Business Roundtable and member of the Alliance to Protect the Illinois Constitution.

Mays and the alliance believe that there are other avenues to bring about the types of reforms Quinn is pursuing. Most importantly, Mays says, politicians themselves have to stand for public election, holding them directly accountable to their constituents.

“This is a constitution you’re talking about changing. It’s not just a statutory compendium. So maybe it should take a little more time,” Mays says. “I would not want to expose our constitution to the current political winds that are blowing right now.”

Quinn says his odds of success are relatively slim, but he believes he’s got enough public support to pass the con con vote.

“There’s no question that we’re the underdog,” says Quinn, referring to a $3 million advertising campaign soon to be rolled out by the anti-con con coalition.

“The opponents of a con con, to me, they’ve got to trust democracy. They basically make an argument that the status quo is acceptable. And I think that’s where their weakest position is.”

The well-documented climate of “friction and gridlock” between every branch of Illinois government must subside, Quinn says, before the issue of amending the constitution can even be reached.

by Rob Heidrick

This November, Americans will of course select a new president. But some of the most pressing issues of our time will not be decided in that race. Rather, they will be decided at the state level with ballot initiatives.

These public questions address a wide range of issues, including gambling and environmental issues.  The most critical public questions are affirmative action and homosexual marriage.  Although one should have concerns about the widespread use of direct democracy, these measures are really the only way to wrest control over policy issues from the ceaseless usurpations of courts and return them to the people.

Three states – Florida, Arizona, and California – have proposals to amend their state constitutions to define marriage as exclusively between one man and one woman.  The Proposition 20 California initiative is especially important because it represents a direct attempt to undo the invention of same-sex marriage by the California Supreme Court this past May.  A Proposition 20 confrontation of this sort was impossible in Massachusetts (the only other state to legalize same-sex marriage by judicial decree) because of a more complicated amendment process.  Florida and Arizona are taking preemptive step to frustrate any future judicial inclination to redefine marriage.  Once adopted, these three measures will join similar amendments adopted in twenty-seven other states.

Marriage of course was already defined statutorily in all 50 states as a union of one man and one woman.  The problem is that courts have assumed the leadership of the homosexual revolution in the area of marriage.  Elected officials are terrified of pushing back at the courts, and the judicial overreaching is thus meekly ratified.  This is no way to address the solemn question of who may and may not be married. 

Americans overwhelmingly seek racial neutrality in government contracts, hiring, and university admissions.  Unfortunately, bureaucrats are able to keep a vast network of racial preferences in place at both the state and federal level.  Elected officials who may oppose this unfair use of race rarely raise any concerns.  In Arizona, Colorado and Nebraska have or will have ballot questions that will comprehensively ban the use of race in government.  These same measures passed easily, despite fierce and well-funded opposition, in Washington, California, and, most recently, Michigan. 

John McCain has endorsed the proposed ban (a reversal of his earlier position), and Barack Obama flatly opposes them.  (Indeed, he actively campaigned against the successful Michigan initiative.)  "I think in the past he’d been opposed to these Ward Connerly initiatives as divisive," Mr. Obama has said of McCain’s position.  "And I think he’s right.  These are not designed to solve a big problem, but they’re all t oo often designed to drive a wedge between people." 

Despite all his chatter about moving beyond racial divisions, Mr. Obama’s endorsement of affirmative action discloses that he is just another quota-loving politician, precisely the sort who has kept racial preferences in place despite their vast unpopularity and unconstitutionality at all levels of government.  These initiatives are in fact designed to solve a big problem – namely, government classifications based on race.  And in the states where they have been adopted, they have not driven a wedge between people.  They have simply compelled those governments to make decisions without taking race into account. 

All proposals to ban affirmative action are invariably characterized as "divisive"; however, it is undeniable that hiring for a government job based on race, awarding a government contract based on race, or admitting students to state universities based on race are among the most divisive practices in the country today.  Eliminating racial considerations is the only way to alleviate racial divisiveness.

Ballot questions involve a kind of plebiscitary government that the founders of this republic would have viewed with various degrees of hostility.   Their great fear was mob rule, and such fear was and is justified.  Indeed, that voters need to resort to this method of reform demonstrates a basic failure of our republican form of government.  In the case of marriage, it is an out-of-control judicial branch that nullifies legislative determinations.  With affirmative action, it is feckless elected representatives who are fearful of becoming entangled in racial politics.

But this is where we are, and the need to use these less-than-ideal means to maintain or restore basic understandings – about the proper nature of marriage and the necessity of racial neutrality to ensure equality before the law – is inevitable.    

Gregory J. Sullivan (Gregoryjsull@aol.com ) is a lawyer who resides in Bucks County.

You have to admire a man who can stay mad for almost four decades. No matter how dedicated and fired up most of us may be initially, we cop out, wear out or burn out long before that. Not former Democratic Sen. Mike Gravel of Alaska, again this year, long-long-shot presidential candidate. Mr. Gravel gets mad, usually for good reason, and then, eschewing the conventional wisdom, never gets over it. You gotta like the guy, and thanks to his able co-author, Joe Lauria, you gotta like his book.

What made Mr. Gravel mad back in 1971 was the arrogance of power, especially as wielded by democratically elected leaders to favor the defense industry over the common good. "The separate histories of my life and American militarism collided in 1968, when I arrived in the Senate at the age of thirty-eight," he writes. "My fight against militarism turned into a personal battle with Scoop Jackson, the senator who personified the military-industrial power even more than I personified its opposition."

In the Senate, Mr. Gravel was never a go-along-to-get-along kind of guy, displaying an independent streak right from the start. Eventually, he was a major thorn not just in the side of other senators, but also in that of the president of the United States, Richard Nixon, whom he infuriated by reading into the public record 4,100 of the 7,100 pages of the Pentagon Papers. By publishing the Pentagon Papers, Mr. Gravel cast a very large and ominous die that didn’t stop until the war in Vietnam came to its ignoble end.

"A Political Odyssey" lays out Mr. Gravel’s thesis that, far more often than not, our leaders have used fear – of the British, the Indians, the Communists, the radical Islamic terrorists – to justify ever larger outlays for defense, whether we happen to be at war or not. During his time on the national stage, however, Mr. Gravel’s main causes were the war in Vietnam and nuclear testing. But after fighting those battles throughout the 1970s, he was "swept out of office when Reagan and resurgent militarism were swept in. I sank into a long political and personal despair, only to start climbing out of it in the ’90s, seeking ways to reform the political system."

Mr. Gravel’s main reforms are direct democracy, the national initiative and the flat tax. Before you groan, stop and think what a transformation these ideas would produce in this country. (Better yet, read this book, because it is filled with information and insight.) As a prime example of the workability of the first of his ideas, Mr. Gravel cites Switzerland: "In 168 years of direct democracy, the Swiss have built the most peaceful and prosperous nation in Europe. The United States would become unrecognizable, if the people would have this same power."

There are several other good reasons to read this book. One is that it’s very well-written (Mr. Gravel’s collaborator, Mr. Lauria, is an experienced New York-based journalist whose specialty is foreign affairs). Another is that it’s refreshingly candid. He says that Republican Sen. William Saxbe of Ohio "really loathed me," Jimmy Carter was "more Stevenson than Eisenhower," Bill Clinton "was the first president since FDR who did not feel obliged to scare that hell out of people to pump up profits and power," and he describes the late Rev. Jerry Falwell as "the extreme-right political operative masquerading as a preacher."

It’s difficult to sustain anger, even righteous anger, for almost 100,000 words, and yet Mr. Gravel manages to do it without sounding shrill, probably because he doesn’t take himself anywhere near as seriously as he takes the issues.

By the end, the tone is, to my ear, just right, as when he tells us, "History is irrational. Powerful people think they can control it. They are fools. The lawlessness unleashed by the supposedly rational schemes of American, Pakistani, and Saudi intelligence beginning in the 1970s, in which terrorists and extremists were used for short-term political gain, resulted in September 11, 2001."

And don’t make the mistake of thinking Mr. Gravel is impressed by all the current talk about "change." This is how he ends "A Political Odyssey": "[Americans] cling to anyone who promises them change, however superficial. Under the current system that’s all they’ve got. They deserve more. They must participate in power to alter this nation’s march to disaster. That’s the only change we can believe in."

John Greenya is the author of "Silent Justice: The Clarence Thomas Story."

Representative government fails when corrupt politicians mostly serve corporate and other special interests. Then it is crucial for citizens to have direct democracy opportunities. This means having the right to place initiatives or referenda on ballots that can make new laws, amend constitutions, recall elected officials, or control taxes and government spending.

Though many local and 24 state governments provide rules for some ballot measures and initiatives, they have been limited by diverse establishment, status quo political interests on the left and right that feel threatened by such populist citizen power.

I was impressed by the recent Wall Street Journal article by John Fund: The Far Left’s War on Direct Democracy (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121702588516086143.html?mod=todays_columnists). He made the point that direct democracy, though sorely needed, has been successfully crushed by ugly tactics from those interests that would rather use their money and influence to control legislative and other government functions. They fear citizen power. They know how to control elections and manipulate voters. "Unfortunately, some special interests have declared war on the initiative process, using tactics ranging from restrictive laws to outright thuggery," said Fund.

I agree with Fund’s summation: "Representative government will remain the enduring feature of American democracy, but the initiative process is a valuable safety valve. …attempts to arbitrarily curb the initiative, or to intimidate people from exercising their right to participate, must be resisted. It’s a civil liberties issue that should unite people of good will on both the right and left."

If this sounds reasonable to you, then the appropriate question to ask of presidential candidates is straightforward: Do you support providing more direct democracy opportunities?

Indeed, many people want some way of creating a federal ballot initiative mechanism whereby the misdeeds or inaction of government could be addressed by Americans voting directly to get the transparent and accountable government and effective public policies they want. A national ballot measure to end the Iraq war would have succeeded in 2006, for example. Putting Democrats in control of Congress did not work. Do we need the ability to recall a president because of dishonesty, incompetence and wrongheaded policies? Yes.

Also consider that the two-party plutocracy has been able to stifle political opposition by making third party and independent candidates unable to grasp any real power, as they can do in most other democracies.

In thinking about direct democracy I was reminded of the all too prevalent view that Barack Obama will challenge the traditional, money dominated two-party control of Washington politics. So, I pose this challenge to Obama: If you truly represent a force for fixing a divisive and ineffective political system, then why don’t you explicitly come out in favor of creating more direct democracy opportunities? Why not condemn all attempts to crush ballot measures and initiatives? And why not help start a national discussion of the possibility of a federal ballot initiative mechanism?

When over 80 percent of Americans see the nation on the wrong track it is fair to conclude that representative government has failed. The two-party plutocracy has too much power. This is the ideal time to recognize the limits of electoral, representative democracy and become an advocate for more direct democracy.

President Theodore Roosevelt, in 1912, wisely observed "I believe in the Initiative and Referendum, which should be used not to destroy representative government, but to correct it whenever it becomes misrepresentative." Direct democracy is all about converting the notion of sovereignty of we the people into reality.

It comes to this: Should we be content to put our faith in elected representative or should we put it in ourselves? When you vote for candidates you don’t put your faith in yourself, you put it in them. Haven’t we been disappointed enough in those elected? We have less to fear from the will of the majority than from the actions of dishonest, corrupt and plutocracy-serving elected officials.

For political reform seeking Americans the litmus test for presidential candidates should be whether they support more direct democracy. If Obama is not just about rhetorical change, but a true reformer of the political system, then we need to hear from him on this issue.

Let him explain whether or not he supports what Ralph Nader does, who has said that presidential candidates should "put front and center empowering the American people in direct democracy format so they can move in when their so-called representatives cave in to the interests of big business. …Campaign finance reform has got to go hand in hand with direct democracy like initiative, referendum, recall." His current platform says that we need "more direct democracy reflecting the preamble to our constitution which starts with ‘we the people,’ and not ‘we the corporations.’"

Can you imagine Obama saying these things? I can’t.

[Joel S. Hirschhorn can be reached through www.delusionaldemocracy.com.]