Friday, May 28, 2010

Together we stand, divided we fall. We need to move the politics to the center again...

The problem with any extreme view is exactly that. It is rare that solutions manifest their finest version in the extreme. It is rare that we expect the extreme and get it (think of Orwell's 1984 and think of what we see - versions of what he spoke about but in many cases, in some more moderate and governed form - although the Patriot Act admittedly still brings us to close to Winston's world).

Now - that is not to say I haven't found myself on one side of a particular issue. But I'm sad to see that our candidates are polarized to such an extent that they represent a loss of common sense and negotiation that our nation has thrived upon.

Compared to the rest of the world, and excepting a few totalitarian countries or oligarchies, we are pretty far to the right already. It is what makes the formerly center left seem extreme - but it's not. I think it is important to have some yardstick other than our own two political parties upon which to define the extremes. Canada, England and France are farther left than we are, and yet they are more moderate in many cases too.

And contrary to anyone's ideas, the Soviet system was the farthest thing from true leftism that you could probably find - Stalin called himself a communist because he succeeded Lenin, but he was a dictator - and post Stalin USSR and Russia has been an Oligarchy at best. China is an oligarchy as well and falls on the right, not the left as they may claim, because the force the political opinion. True leftist arguments tend towards a classless society where equality in status and possession are the goal. It is easy therefor to draw the conclusion that at anything that works towards providing equality is leftist. But wait a minute. We want racial equality. We want sexual equality. Those are human rights issues. Why is fiscal equality not a human rights issue? It IS a human rights issue to the extent that some cannot eat. But I believe in socially responsible capitalism where we still have unlimited potential to reach our zenith as individuals and collectives - with the understanding that it is important that we preserve everyone's ability to survive in order to allow them to pursue liberty.

No, there is no real good example of a pure left state, so we have to use our imagination and call that communism and understand it to be a completely community oriented society - no personal property, etc... socialism is a moderation of the ideal and social democracies like Britain are closer to the center than the left.

The closest reference we have for "Right" is Hitler's Germany. But it doesn't matter. All extreme's abuse human and civil rights. They dimiss the compromise that we need, as a society, to function and live together. And we need to change our society from the inside. My father once pointed out that protest is great, but not as effective and systemic change - because protest is always from outside the system.

We need the center of this country to pull forward and learn to work together. Both public and private interests function in our great nation because of the debate and our ability to collaborate. Collaboration is the optimal brother of compromise - where we don't just arrive at a balanced agreement, but we step forward together to improve the situation for the majority of folks. Party politics support the idea to a point. But they also get in the way of collaboration and compromise when they show no ability to work on behalf of the citizenry, which is far more moderate, in general, than either of the parties.

Come on people. Don't get angry. Start thinking about how we work together to solve problems. Don't like a particular solution? Figure out how to modify it. Examine the goals in mind and determine if there is some common ground. Together we stand, divided we fall. It was true when it was originally said and it's true now.



Thursday, January 21, 2010

Selling the American voter out


The Supreme Court, the group that defends the rights of our citizenry has just announced its decision in Citizens United v. FEC. In a 5-4 decision, the court overturned the 60-year-old ban on corporate spending in elections. This means that while corporations cannot contribute directly to a candidate, they can buy adds supporting a candidate or slandering others.

If this doesn't seem like a big deal, consider how much money was spent on influencing congressional voting and consumer opinion on healthcare was over 600 million dollars, with special interests against public insurance spending about 2:1 against those who are for it. And this is to influence the vote of less than 600 people.

Citizens United is a conservative PAC funded organization that produced a negative campaign against Hillary Clinton which was slated to run during the 2008 election. The FEC (Federal Election Commission) sued to keep the movie off the air because it was a political advertisement, funded by business.

Naturally, the RNC and some other conservatives are calling this a win for "Free Speech". Many others, moderate conservatives and liberals, including John McCain and Olympia Snow have called the ruling regrettable and disappointing.

The big loser here is the american voter. The volume of the special interest propaganda, on both sides of the fence, is about to go up. But that isn't the truly bad news - the bad news is that corporate voices are going to be much louder than those of ordinary citizens. Without rules governing truth in content, these ads can say anything. Anything.

That's going to make it harder for Americans to discern the truth and easy for companies to push their agendas regardless of the effect on ordinary americans. We are all losing today.


The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty....
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.
Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to William S. Smith (13 November 1787)

In Jefferson's day, guns were thought to be what evened out a man with his government. Clearly that is not the case - I don't believe that violence is an answer. Our weapons are those of our voice, our action. We need to pass the "Fair Elections Now Act" and we need to work to limit the voice of lobbyists and PACs. Follow the links to:

http://www.publicampaign.org/node/38166 and help get legislation passed to put limits on the damage this ruling invites.


Sources
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Citizens_United
http://www.publicampaign.org/node/38166
http://jpetrie.myweb.uga.edu/TJ.html
http://www.fec.gov/

The sale of our representative government

The Supreme Court ruled today in a 5/4 decision to remove the 60 year old ban on corporations contributing to political campaigns. This essentially opens the door for blatant purchasing of candidates. God help us all. More on this later.