Issues

Democracy

Democracy - "power to the people." If you are over 45 years old you can probably conger up visions of unkempt, long haired, pot-smoking, young people in the streets protesting the Vietnam War or Love Canal. In spite of the goals of the movement to get the United States to pull out of a pointless war, the spin often was: if you looked like that then how good could power to the people be. Someone who yells "power to the people" in a crowded room today would probably still be viewed with suspicion more so than if they yelled "democracy'. And what have we been doing in the name of democracy lately!

As we know, the Greek word 'demos' means people and 'kratos' means power or authority. If the people vote and the majority rules, have we satisfied the requirements for having a democracy? The assault on America's democracy today is happening in many ways. Some of the nuances are particularly disturbing.

If the public votes but is deprived of the unbiased facts, have we achieved the potential of our democracy? Modern media is so multifaceted in its assault on our senses and emotions, that it easily lends itself to the presentation of distortions and personal attacks by those in power or hungering to be in power. In this arena democracy is sort of a bystander, or worse, window-dressing for what is really going on - the grab for power without any genuine commitment to the democracy and its essential food - accurate information, separation of church and state, checks and balances (separation of powers), and the idea of service to the common man. The grab for power without conscience or with self-righteous conscience is ugly and vile.

As the paid stewards of our democracy politicians must get back to the roots of this democracy. And if they can't, because they are so caught up in their struggle for power, then ordinary people are going to have to put down their private pursuits and by the power of their votes commit the politicians to a number of activities as a prerequisite to holding office:

1. Gathering and presentation of accurate facts
2. Making government and its representatives more accessible
3. Facilitating the affiliation of private citizens and their access to government
4. Limiting the private access of corporations and their representatives to elected officials and public servants.

Let me repeat this. By the power of our votes, we must tell our politicians, before all else, that the bottom line is being committed to the truth, helping the common man get better and easier access to the halls of government, and conversely limiting private and privileged access of business to legislators and the executive branch.

Fairness

What does fairness have to do with it? Actually, fairness is everything. And when we look at the distorted dialogue of today's political arena, fairness may be one of the strategies to help turn us away from the abyss and back to a purer form of democracy. No matter where events and movements have taken us in the name of democracy and no matter who controls government, on an individual level people still have a sense of fairness that may transcend political affiliation and the notion of "winning" and "losing". Can we get more than 50% of the people to agree what is fair and what is not? Even better, could we get more that 75% to agree what is fair with regard to some basic questions?

• Is it fair that that the two major parties control the political arena so that a third party cannot establish itself?
• Is it fair that independents are often left out of the organized political arena by being deprived from serving on commissions, boards, panels and other special bodies that contribute to the workings of government?
• Is it fair that the party in power has the right to redraw congressional districts to improve its chances of staying in power (dynasticization) or would it be preferable that non-partisan commissions be in charge of creating voting districts based on common regional, cultural, or economic factors?
• Is it fair that government representatives are more responsive to corporations' interests and their lobbyists than the interests of the common voter?
• Is it fair that 45 million people in the US don't have any health care insurance and cannot pay for the drugs that some need to maintain or improve their quality of life?

Well, if 75% of the people agree that these "conditions" are not fair, maybe we have a common starting point? How do we build from here?

Power

Power has corrupted every political system that has ever existed. Even a system that relies on a system of checks and balances such as ours is susceptible to manipulation and distortion from its true principles (embodied in the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution). And today, the spirit and letter of these documents are being assaulted as never before through a combination of technology, powerful media organizations, and a dumbed-down electorate that can't master critical thought processes. This electorate has turned away from reading toward "easy-thought" types of information transmittals and entertainment. And along the way, it has developed a perverse respect for elected officials who employ Madison avenue tactics to inform and lobby for votes.

It's hard to know how to put power in the hands of the right people. We the people have the responsibility and often don't seem to get it right. The system that brings the candidates forward is flawed and manipulated.

Values

After the 2000 election it seemed that more people were willing to hold the view that moral character was the result of interaction with an organized religion - and atheists have a lower moral character than someone who attends church or synagogue.

Or maybe, as religious minorities such as Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus have increased in numbers in the U.S., many Christians have grown fearful that the U.S. as a country is straying from its Christian roots. Of course, that was one of the principles that founded this country - our forefathers strived to "stray" from their European Christian roots because they felt oppressed. It is often forgotten that in devising the laws of this country the founders made rules that would not only accommodate their freedom to be Christians their own way, but for all religions to practice in safety and free from persecution.

Unfortunately, the majority of the religious right in this country holds that having been founded by Christians, this country and principles are first for its Christian citizens and second for other immigrant religions. Too many also hold that Christianity is a superior religion to Islam (or for that matter any other) and that mainstream religions such as the Anglican and Protestant Churches are overly permissive sects Christianity.

There is an obsession in this country with qualifying where a person lies along the continuum of good or bad. Being "religious" places you close to the good end. Being an atheist places you close the bad end.

None of this has anything to do with running the country for the good of the common man.

It is useless to debate who has values or the right kind or more of the right kind. The only values of consequence for running our country are embodied in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Those are the rules by which we are supposed to run our democracy. If you follow those rules what more do you have to say about values.

One of the values from the Judeo-Christian tradition that has carried into one of the founding principles of American democracy is "freedom and the pursuit of happiness." That in no small measure means that people have the right to be left alone. To not have their business, their religion, their life minded by others when it does not affect others. To hold, act on, and express their private beliefs whenever they choose so long as their neighbors are not harmed. For example, this very important right has been overlooked by many fundamentalist Christians who on the one hand affiliate with a political party that says that government should leave us alone and, on the other hand (when in power), is determined to meddle in our lives if our religion or values are not "correct."

Facts

There is an old adage that says "the facts speak for themselves." The way the world is today, the facts are on there own. Facts may be folded, spindled, concealed, spun, replaced, mutilated, or simply lost in the shuffle of political expedience. People forget that one of the most important functions of government is the collection and compilation of data. This data is used to manage and distribute the wealth of the nation (government programs) to the populace and the basis for compiling a scorecard on government performance. Through the courts, the government creates factual records of events and information in order to assign criminality, assess damages and compensate victims. For some reason however, the executive branch has forgotten this duty to the American public of assuring accurate information for the public debate.

Baseball, our national pastime, provides the concept of the box score. Based on the thousands of box scores of games, division and league pennants are won and world series participants are chosen. Dedication to the accuracy of the box score is critical. Without it the game is meaningless. The same goes for government. Every civil servant and aspiring politician in the country should dedicate themselves first and foremost to the compilation of accurate fact sets on which to base discussions, debate, and form policy. Without this dedication and moral political code, we have meaningless and inefficient debates that are more easily coopted by powerful special interests.

Pork

In spite of the myriad of rules and guidelines for running government and the political process, politicians find a way to generate pork. It is the lifeblood of incumbency. One cannot argue with some of the wonderful things that have been accomplished with pork. In the best sense, politicians can bring home special projects that often have great local importance - the restoration of a treasured landmark, the funding of a community health clinic, the building of a dam to bring cheap hydroelectric power to an underserved region. The problems with even the best pork is that politicians selfishly promote themselves and their involvement with these projects. Their behavior is akin to dogs that like to roll around on their backs on some rotting piece of garbage. They fully cloak themselves in these sweatheart projects so the public can't distinguish between the pork and the politician at election time.

Their contributions and associations with this pork are splattered all over their campaign literature. As a result of promoting their pork contributions, significantly less of their communications substantively deal with national issues and legislative agendas of either party. Their constituent surveys ask questions that insult our intelligence and are designed so simplistically that they, if answered, feed and reinforce the political leanings of the legislator rather than challenge them to better understand and serve their electorate. And for God's sake, the purpose to holding national office is to guide national policy, not fund local projects.