We The People
There's a vast gulf between what the Framers intended when they founded this country and where we now find ourselves - such a gulf that it's fair to say the proverbial "they'd be rolling in their graves" if they saw us right now. Looking into this abyss, we as citizens must focus with urgency and precision on the need for "change" not as a campaign slogan belonging to either candidate (both now claim it), but as a far deeper national challenge that can only be met by the people of this country, as opposed to its leaders. Unless we see ourselves - individually and collectively -- as the engine for real societal reform - no matter how hard that may be to imagine given our developed habits of disengagement -- our vote on election day is wasted.
In my new book The American Way of War, I try to put today's constitutional crisis (let's call it what it is) in an historical perspective. The Framers intended a government of the people, in which the separated powers of equal and opposing branches of government would exert checks and balances over each other and thus prevent any individual or faction from steamrolling the remainder of the society. Fast-forward two hundred years and we today see a very different picture - a government unleashed, its arrogant executive branch aided by Congress and the courts as it tramples over the separation of powers, shows contempt for the checks and balances, and guides the country to long-term ruin in its effort to seize its own short-term gains.
From the fraudulent selling of the Iraq War, to the horrors of Abu Ghraib and Katrina, to the travesty on Wall Street, to far-reaching scandals like wiretapping, martial law, corporate croneyism, staggering deficit spending, to the deepening crises of our forsaken health and education systems, to an epidemic of domestic and international disillusionment about America, there is so much broken that, if we are not careful, it can be intimidating to think about repairing it. And yet, we must remember that societies throughout history have undergone revolutionary change in trying times, and they have done so at times when such change seemed impossible. Who would ever have thought that the American colonists could break off from the British Empire? Who would have told South Africa's black population it could overturn Apartheid? And the list, thankfully, goes on.
At this moment in our history, we, too, have a great deal to do. And what I think I learned most in first making Why We Fight and then writing The American Way of War is that the American system is by now so internally tilted toward runaway executive power, corporatism, and the militarism these produce that only a force from outside the system can change it. And, ironically enough in a country that was supposed to be of the people, by the people, and for the people, it is we the people who are now that force from outside.
Those in Washington who currently seek our vote - no matter what their intention -- are fundamentally on the payroll of our corrupt system and thus have little or no motivation for serious reform. Particularly, once they win office, if we want to bring out the best in them, we must make them feel the heat of an uncompromising public. Otherwise, they will be no match for the forces of evil that disfigure and misguide public policy everyday. If they don't have a public mandate, they will end up with a private one.
So here is the question I would like to discuss: what should be the top elements in the public's mandate for the coming years and in what order they should be pursued? To think about this aloud, TPM and I have invited some super-smart people to weigh in, and I encourage readers to join the discussion with an eye beyond November to the change you want to see, how you want to get there, and what challenges you anticipate along the way.
Good topic. Especially now that Obama will be president. For progressives the last eight years have been a bad time for any kind of activism -- we were totally and completely ignored. Now we will have an administration that will at least listen to us and maybe even share some of our goals. We should also not delude ourselves that the problems we face are simply the result of Republican rule. Afterall, it was Truman that set the precedent of going to war without congressional approval in korea and democrats that led us into VietNam.
Our number one priority should be to fight against the militarism of our politics, economy and society. This should number one because without reducing the costs of the military we will simply be unable to afford any domestic reform. Reduce military spending and maybe we could afford health care or a big infrastructure repair program. There is also a political reason this should be our number one priority. I believe Obama's and much of the Democratic Party have good instincts when it comes to domestic policy, however, Obama is surrounded by people who are traditional militarists (Biden anyone?). Even if Obama wants to do the right thing here, we must use our activism to its limit to push him in the right direction. For sure, the militaristic wing of our society will be pushing him hard in the other direction.
October 27, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a non-traditional student currently enrolled in a class on the framing of the Constitution and the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, this topic is extremely timely for me.
We just spent a couple of class sessions discussing the framers' arguments concerning the independence of the executive and the balancing act they tried to perform setting up the office. Given the trend to toward unchecked executive power I worry that they erred on the side of too much independence.
I am inclined to believe that several things must happen soon:
We must find a way to put teeth back into the idea of officers of our government having a sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. When the Speaker of the House cannot see past the political obstacles to impeachment, and none of her colleagues save for Kucinich feel any real compulsion to make the executive answer for high crimes and misdemeanors, we have a major problem.
We must find a way to eliminate the idea of corporate personhood. I have seen pertinent arguments on both sides of the issue - an amendment seems the only way to make people answer for the actions of corporations once again.
We need to become signatories to the International Criminal Court. Our politicians need to feel fear from some other body than our flawed three-branch system when they perpetrate crimes against another sovereign nation or against humanity.
October 27, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have come very close to posting exactly what I wanted to say. That makes it much easier for me. Thank you.
I would add at least one more item: the people need to rein in the newsmedia. This can be done by re-regulating radio and TV stations and networks, requiring them to go back to the equal time doctrine, in return for their license to use the broadcast bands they now enjoy. A way must be found to make that apply to the cable stations as well. One tactic that may help in this is for President Obama to use the carrot and stick approach when granting press access to his news conferences and interviews.
Two philosophical approaches that are desperately needed are to find a way to change our citizens perceptions about taxes, from seeing them as punishment to seeing them as an obligation of citizenship, and a way to change our perceptions about capitalism, from seeing it as a stand alone best possible system, to simply a component of a merger of socialistic and capitalistic systems that uses the strong points of each.
October 28, 2008 12:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is an excellent topic, and I'm looking forward to what's to come.
October 27, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
You talk about an "outside force" as being the only driver that can instigate change and that at this moment in history it appears that we the people are that force. I disagree. The "outside force" is the global economic meltdown and coming realignment of global influence. The collapse of our economy and our worldwide war-driven empire will be sudden and unstoppable.
October 27, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excuse me, naked emperors, but what is all this nonsense about a "constitutional crisis"? America is falling apart in many ways but the Constitution is intact.
The Supreme Court can still uphold the Bill of Rights when it is violated in Guantanamo.
The president is still chosen by electoral votes, except once in a lifetime when those votes are so close between two candidates that any weird quirk (like legal interpretations of votes by illiterate voters using ballots designed by morons) can determine the outcome instead
Congress still has the power to declare war, and the so-called "war" in Iraq (i.e. the stationing of U.S. troops there with no viable long term plan for what the H. they should do) would have been ended many months ago if the Democrats controlling Congress since 2006 had anything like backbones.
No doubt the Founding Fathers are spinning in their graves. They deeply mistrusted political parties, and rightly so. Today we have two: one has decided to campaign on the worshipping of ignorance, the other on clever rhetoric and slogans ("American way of war," "constitutional crisis," etc.). Their utter ineptitude when it comes to substantive action has been exhibited in their inability do much of anything about a "financial crisis" caused by allowing trillions to be lent to people without the ability to repay, so that they could create a real estate bubble. Except throw more trillions at the problem.
Fortunately the Founding Fathers bequeathed us a constitution robust enough to withstand a generation of ignorant masses, intellectually lazy elites, and spineless hypocrite politicians.
October 27, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
The housing bubble wasn't created by the 1.5 million or so homeowners in foreclosure danger.
It was created by qualifying those 1.5 million risky people as well as over-leveraged real estate speculators to run up the prices on houses which allowed the entire industry to act like predators to those of us who pay our mortgages just fine. The vast majority of homeowners fall into that category.
It also allowed those same 1.5 million bad credit risks to use their houses like ATMs, thus ensuring the "equity" would be gone when they defaulted as well. This allowed financial institutions to write off even more in taxes as "losses" to increase profit margins.
Thus driving prices down for everyone who wasn't part of the 1.5 million idiots now being blamed.
The Constitutional crisis is plain to see. The voters stopped holding Washington DC accountable decades ago. It enabled Congress to shirk their responsibilities. It enabled the imperial presidency to flourish. Under both parties, this country has changed from a representative republic to a fascist oligarchy built on to of the military industrial complex.
We pursue policies of empire and have done so for fifty years. We can just as easily change our spending priorities and have those same companies build something with a higher return on investment than bombs.
Like solar arrays and wind turbines.
October 28, 2008 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are two fundamental problems the founding fathers did not address:
1--the trustworthiness and security of national elections. The fact that the SC ruling of 2000 specifically set no precedent was telling. There MUST be reliable and verifiable voting procedures. The fact that there aren't means that the status quo serves the interests of entrenched power.
2--Information wars. Too many public servants, or seekers of public office disseminate demonstrably false claims and assertions about the issues and their opponents. The public ends up the victims of campaigns of misinformation that occlude their better judgment. It is imperative for policy formation that the best available information be vetting in a trustworthy fashion. It used to be that journalists could make a living performing this service--but no more. Investigative journalism is an endangered species. Providing high quality information to the public is a principal duty of leadership--and the current administration has used info war as a weapon against democracy itself. This is problematic.
Until these two issues are addressed--I don't know how Democracy can survive. There are two historical developments that were beyond the imagination of the Founders: The rise of the Industrial Revolution, with the emergence of mega corporations that resulted from industrial scale production levels--and the emergence of technical issues that require special knowledge to understand. How can congress form policy when they are not capable of understanding the technical issues that confront them? In many cases they are out of their depth and making bad policy. It is not enough to merely do what their principal lobbyists want them to do. This is often against the public interest.
October 27, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: the trustworthiness and security of national elections.
By modern standards 18th century elections were shockingly corrupt. Candidates sometimes bribed voters openly (this was doable because rather few men, gendered word intended, had voting rights) or even got them drunk before sending them out to vote.
Re: Too many public servants, or seekers of public office disseminate demonstrably false claims and assertions about the issues and their opponents.
Again, plus ca change plus la meme chose. The Adams-Jefferson contest makes Obama-McCain look like a courtly minuette, featuring as it did vicious personal attacks, wild exaggerations, and openly partisan newspaper attacks on both sides.
There are things nowadays that the Founding Fathers would be shocked at, but the reverse is also true (see: slavery). The men who founded this country may have had a modicum of wisdom, but let's not pretend they were saints. Scoundrelly behavior in pursuit of power was no stranger at their tables.
October 27, 2008 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I am not pretending their wisdom was perfect. It's just that at least several of them, Adams, Madison, took such a systematic approach, almost the view of a clockmaker, that it is rather glaring the the greatest vulnerability of democracy--elections was not addressed.
Sure, the story of Lyin' Lyndon and the infamous Ballot Box 13 is only, what, 60 years old? The so called 'chain of custody', traditionally, has been subject to all manner of depradations with respect to the ballot box.
But to admit that this has always been a problem is no excuse for complacency. It is still a great vulnerability and a simple engineering problem to solve. Power does not want it solved. Likewise with scurrilous informatioin peddling: just because it's the standard is no reason to tolerate it. I think I hate the 'argument from tradition' as the weakest of all logical fallacies.
October 28, 2008 5:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
The primary glitch, in my view, is one that was pointed out at the Constitutional Convention and its aftermath- the controversy over whether or not to sign the new Constitution. It is so basic that it is easy to overlook-
It is simply that the size of the nation in 1787 was already causing people to worry that the Government would become what the British Government was before the Revolution- a distant, disenfranchising force. Madison addresses this problem, saying that the competition among the States would cancel out the power of each in a manner which would produce an orderly, Newtonian framework in which no individual could become so powerful, no local interest could become so powerful, that Government could be distorted into oppression quickly and easily enough to happen without the other interests intervening.
The problem? Distribution of power does not operate like celestial mechanics. Gaining something like his idealized "neutral space" doesn't just happen by itself. It's precious territory, expensive- and a hard sell. That's the flaw.
October 28, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The public ends up the victims of campaigns of misinformation that occlude their better judgment."
I think what you point out here is supremely important. Misinformation campaigns are everywhere. In order for the public to better understand what is going on in government, the government also needs to be more streamlined, transparent and simple. A complex government that makes complex laws can create an awful lot of smoke and mirrors, and by the time the electorate figures out what's going on is not good, it's too damn late.
October 28, 2008 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely
October 29, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've had this crazy idea in my mind for the longest time;
What would happen if we took away the value of holding elected public office?
October 27, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good question! There are, of course, two values to holding elective public office. One is the salary and perks, but the other is the potential for becoming very rich by selling ones votes and influence. I seriously doubt that the salary attracts that many candidates to run for office, and the perks, as nice as they are, are also peanuts compared to the potential for becoming very rich by literally selling one's soul to the highest bidder.
If elected officials who took advantage of the enrichment powers of their office were prosecuted for doing so, and the gains they made were confiscated, that value would be reduced to near zero. But, for that to happen, those who are benefiting from that value would have to be the ones to do the prosecuting. Fat chance!
October 28, 2008 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
.
Thanks John.
Thanks for jogging my memory.
I'll never forget meeting the mayor of Poitiers, France in the summer of 1969. While serving in the US Navy I was there with the US CISM Track and Field team to compete in an international track and field meet. As we all milled about at the base of the stairs at the city hall waiting for the mayor to show up and greet the team, a fella about the age of 50 in a suit rode up on a bike and cheerily introduced himself as the mayor. I asked our attendant/translator what was with the bike and was told that that was the mayor's pay, he served the city without monetary renumeration except for the bicycle. Serving the people as mayor was an honor, not a job. He also owned the best restaurant and nightclub in the city and we were all invited as his guests on his tab while there for three days.
Now that's what I call public service.
~OGD~
** Becoming a more frequent Cafe contributor since first joining in June 2005 **
October 28, 2008 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
OldGolden,
excellent story :-)
I was thinking that if we took away the value of holding elected office we may find just altruistic people running for office, and once there, having no reason to stay there, other than
the true meaning of "public service" rather than the self service now passing for public service.
By the way, I haven't given this extensive thought, just more or less passing thought,
so the whole idea is probably full of holes.
October 28, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
That story put a big smile on my face. Thanks. Not many positive stories out their lately.
October 28, 2008 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
--out there
October 28, 2008 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
We might presume that those in government have felt "the heat of an uncompromising public" and have promoted endless war and war profiteers, because what the public (propagandized by the corporate media) wants is security and jobs. And with war they get both!
Case in point: Joe Courtney, D-CT, whose efforts have been successful in increasing the annual production of submarines in his district from one to two, at $2bn a copy. Needless to say, Joe is a hero at the sub plant and all around his district for the additional Pentagon dollars he has managed to bring into his district. Multiply that by 435 + 100.
The bottom line is the bottom line. There is no profit in peace like there is in war, and the US is a land built and sustained not on human welfare but on profit. It's the economy, stupid. (attributed to Clinton campaign strategist James Carville)
October 27, 2008 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well there are lots of good ideas but my opinion is that you have to start with money from industry, either directly or through lobbyists. The corruption starts right there and leads to all the others. State self-interest in maintaining unneeded miltary bases, over-expensive contracts, etc. all spawn from this, plus the ability to add earmarks to bills having nothing to do with the addition, which leads to vote buying; I'll vote for this bill if you add this-and-that for my state.
The first part is, for more normal members of society, known as bribery, and the second as blackmail. Most anywhere else other than the legislative body and, lately the executive, everybody, including the judicial, knows what a conflict of interests is.
The government is by, for and of the people. Companies can continue to lobby, but on the strength of their case and its relevance to the welfare of the country and its people, not the depth of the corporate wallet and the self-interest of executives and shareholders.
People alone have the vote and their representatives should vote in their electorates' interests, not sell their vote for campaign contributions.
Whether that means federal funding for elections or much lower budget campaigns gathered from the people, I don't know. To begin with I'd like to see the second. Politicians would have to concentrate on the people of their state and precinct, and demonstrate their performance on their behalf. We don't need this ridiculous amount of money spent.
October 28, 2008 2:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The government is by, for and of the people. Companies can continue to lobby, but on the strength of their case and its relevance to the welfare of the country and its people..."
Well put!
October 28, 2008 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
The focus of what the WH and congress do on a day-to-day basis has to be redirected to more carefully examine the potential outcomes of their decisions.
Where the citizens of this country are not represented and are not served by legislation under consideration, our elected officials need to insert a perspective that at least balances legislation so that citizens are not harmed. The idea of legislating in a way that promotes government or business at the expense of citizens is a contradiction. If, by the passage of a law, you harm or disadvantage individual citizens then you harm the country.
It has to be decided if we are a country that is defined by the sole expression of a government, a country of corporations or a country of citizens. You cannot modify the expression of representation in a willy nilly fashion without introducing contradictions that are unreconcilable. Somebody has to hold the trump card. And the holder of that card cannot be a variable. In the case of a democracy the holder of that card can only be citizens. Across our history, for most every undesirable outcome, this concept was violated and produced a predictably undesirable result.
October 28, 2008 2:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great post, Eugene.
Education and accountability: I would like to see the next president act as a real leader and harness the electorate. One good president with a good team could go a long way toward clearing away the smoke and mirrors that surround so many issues and laws. An executive and his team could create change by informing citizens in plain language about what is going on and who is doing what. Good information would fast-track the electorate to hold any undesirable representatives accountable and influence positive change.
Publicly funded campaigns: I would also like to see large numbers of each state's electorate begin a movement to withhold votes from all candidates who do not institute publicly funded elections (if in office) and strictly abide by public funding and an equal playing field when running campaigns.
I suspect the corporate media would lose whatever credibility they've got left if a president were to regularly dole out more trustworthy, relevant and verifiable facts than our "journalists" do.
October 28, 2008 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eugene,
As someone who writes a lot about the role of the citizen, and the dangers of public tuneout, I’m happy to see you aiming the spotlight in the right direction. But your closing question is diametrically opposed to your stated goal.
If the public is currently ill-informed, disengaged, and therefore silent about the great issues that affect all our lives (as they most definitely are), they obviously cannot, by definition, substantively contribute to defining a “public” mandate. And they won’t be able to do so until some years following the day they finally decide to accept that being informed and engaged is part of their job description as citizen.
So I was surprised that, instead of asking your audience -- the informed/engaged minority -- what they might do to inspire their fellow Americans to join the citizen chorus, you instead ask that small slice to define the public mandate on their own. While your goals are clearly more noble, this is -- from a political point of view -- no different than any crowd of elites seeking to impose their will on the other 90%, and then adding insult to rhetorical injury by calling the result the will of the public.
I dig your work, and I know your heart’s in the right place. And you’re saying important things. I also believe that there are times and places where experts must rule the day. But in the context of a plea for a paradigm shift in how citizens view their role in our democracy, let’s not confuse the issue by calling for a “public” agenda by way of the views of only a tiny sliver of that very public.
Instead, let’s all assert our inner Bacevich and tell it like it really is.
October 30, 2008 1:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are so many things that have gone wrong, are still going wrong and will go wrong in the foreseeable future that makes clear, concise, decisions almost impossible.
Unfortunately, we have lots of politicians and so few statesmen to help guide us through these times.
If we could get another James Madison (a statesman who lead us based on the strength of the people instead of the might of the government) we MIGHT be able to see a light at the end of the tunnel.
It's rare that such leaders can even get on the ballots today, let alone get elected to a position to make any real changes to bring us back to our founding ideals.
If there is any hope in restoring the Republic to it's original intent it would probably have to be lead by the people, hopefully in the form of a Constitutional Convention.
If we can clarify the powers and responsibilities of our Federal government, find a way to strengthen the 10th Amendment, clarify the voting process, restore powers to the states and the people and a couple of other items in the Constitution, we might have a chance.
But short of that, we will either plumet deeper towards a Socialist state or have open revolt, neither of which is desirable.
October 31, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are so many things that have gone wrong, are still going wrong and will go wrong in the foreseeable future that makes clear, concise, decisions almost impossible.
Unfortunately, we have lots of politicians and so few statesmen to help guide us through these times.
If we could get another James Madison (a statesman who lead us based on the strength of the people instead of the might of the government) we MIGHT be able to see a light at the end of the tunnel.
It's rare that such leaders can even get on the ballots today, let alone get elected to a position to make any real changes to bring us back to our founding ideals.
If there is any hope in restoring the Republic to it's original intent it would probably have to be lead by the people, hopefully in the form of a Constitutional Convention.
If we can clarify the powers and responsibilities of our Federal government, find a way to strengthen the 10th Amendment, clarify the voting process, restore powers to the states and the people and a couple of other items in the Constitution, we might have a chance.
But short of that, we will either plumet deeper towards a Socialist state or have open revolt, neither of which is desirable.
October 31, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink