Why do I say this?  Because Americans are overwhelmingly ignorant or misinformed about the constitutional paths for amending the Constitution.  Too many, in fact, seem to miss the profoundly important point that the Founders and Framers knew that they had not created a perfect document and blueprint for the US.  That is why they placed two specific paths for amending the Constitution.

But very few Americans know that only one of these amendment mechanisms has been used in the entire history of the country.  All the current amendments were proposed by Congress.  This should raise this serious question today: Considering the very low regard for Congress by the overwhelming majority of Americans, which is richly deserved, why should we have any confidence that Congress would ever propose amendments that could kill so much of the corruption that plagues our system, especially corruption of members of Congress?

This situation was somehow anticipated by the Framers.  They could see that there was a strong possibility that Americans would eventually lose confidence in the federal government.  Which is why they put a second path to amending the Constitution into the document.  A path that has never been used.  This is the provision in Article V for a convention of state delegates that could propose amendments, which like the proposals from Congress would still have to be ratified by three-quarters of the states.

Being human, the Framers made a mistake.  They gave Congress the sole power to call or convene an Article V convention.  The single explicit requirement that was supposed to make Congress call a convention was that two-thirds of state legislatures had to request an Article V convention.  The Framers did not, apparently, envision a future in which Congress would stubbornly ignore state applications for a convention and get away with it, despite language that demands that Congress "shall" call a convention when one simple requirement is met.  How could they envision that Congress would blatantly disobey something so simply stated in the Constitution?  How could they anticipate such weak states, unwilling to make Congress respect their constitutional right?  The Framers clearly were not cynical enough.

The situation we face today is that all 50 states have submitted over 750 applications for a convention, considerably more than enough to trigger the constitutional mandate that Congress convene an Article V convention.  How could Congress get away with this kind of unconstitutional behavior?  Apparently, a combination of political corruption and public ignorance has allowed Congress to get away with this.  Even among the millions of Americans that proudly declare their loyal allegiance to the Constitution, there is no recognition that unless they demand that Congress obey Article V, they are constitutional hypocrites.  Congress has no right to unilaterally decide that it can ignore and disobey a part of the Constitution.

Note that Congress never even created a mechanism where they would collect in a public way the state applications for an Article V convention, which helped create public ignorance of this situation.  Add to this that many, many organized vested interests on the left and right like their ability to corrupt Congress to get what they want from it.  This is why they have frequently mounted campaigns to make the public fear a convention, because such a convention might actually propose reforms that would remove corruption of Congress by contributing money for campaigns and pursuing lobbying.

Ignorance and fear have combined to thwart public demands that Congress obey the Constitution and convene the first Article V convention.  In fact, there is only one national, nonpartisan organization vainly attempting to educate the public so that Congress would be forced to finally give us the first Article V convention.  Friends of the Article V Convention at foavc.org is also the only group that has collected state applications for a convention and made them publicly available.

Their efforts may be working.  A new online survey asked this: Based on your assessment of American politics, would you support or oppose a call for a Constitutional Convention?  Supporters won easily at 65 percent.

It comes down to this, unless you get informed and join the mission to make Congress obey the Constitution, you are a constitutional hypocrite, not what the nation needs.

[Contact Dr. Hirschhorn, a co-founder of FOAVC, through delusionaldemocracy.com]

Americans clearly are capable of being outraged.  Missing, however, is a sustained, vibrant demand for deep reforms of our political and government system.  You hear a lot about populist rage these days, especially connected to the AIG bonus debacle.  But populist rage as a reflection of class conflict and anger about our economic meltdown does not necessarily make a political revolution.  The saddest thing about Obama winning the presidency was that his change message drained what might have been sufficient national energy for true revolutionary political reforms.

With the Bush-corrosion of our Constitution and collapse of the economic system after it had been exploited by the rich and corrupt, what better time for revolution?  Instead, we got a president with a glib tongue, a terrific smile and a deep commitment to the two-party plutocracy and corporate state.  Obama is no populist, not even close.  Nor is he a genuine reformer.  At best, he is a master exploiter of populism.

Obama was and still is a master of masquerading as just a regular guy.  Even now, after making more than $8 million from his books, and even before when his wife made a huge salary and he lived in a million dollar house, and he reaped the many benefits of an elite Harvard Law School ticket to success.  Totally consistent with his plutocratic and elitist background he has packed his administration with the same Harvard, elitist and Wall Street crowd that pumped many millions of dollars into his campaign and did nothing to stop the mortgage crisis and economic meltdown.

He has shown absolutely no courage or interest in standing up to the status quo, earmark-driven, and corrupt Democratic leaders in the House and Senate who, in large measure, share blame for the nation's economic crisis, especially its roots in the mortgage insanity and under-regulation of the financial sector that they nurtured.  Obama should have rejected the spending bill with tons of pork earmarks.  But in reality Obama has shown no taste for standing up for principles.  He had no problem with a Treasury Secretary that was a blatant tax dodger.  Almost on a daily basis there is news about decisions being made that resemble Bush policies.  Rather than shunning signing statements when Congress sends him bills, so abused by Bush, Obama immediately issued his own one.

The spending of the nation's debt-based wealth on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continue with no end in sight, despite the painful economic meltdown and mind-boggling deficit spending.  When it comes to the wars and domestic problems, he seeks success through massive spending rather than through structural and systemic reforms.

Here is the problem: All the venom aimed at AIG and its bonus-receiving employees served more as a distraction than a viable political strategy to reform our government.  True, there has been terrible economic warfare by the rich and corrupt in government and the private sector that has savaged ordinary Americans.  Our corrupt and dysfunctional government did not protect us.  We need a Second American Revolution.  We need deep structural reforms to make our current MISrepresentatives obsolete and return our government to us.  For this to happen we must not let ourselves be deceived by lying politicians.  We must recognize that voting and elections have NOT worked effectively.  We must look to our Constitution for the legal path to revolution.

The Founders anticipated that Americans would eventually lose confidence in the federal government.  They created a never-used option in Article V.  Never used because Congress has refused to obey the Constitution and gotten away with violating it and their oath of office.  That option is an Article V convention of state delegates that has the constitutional power to propose constitutional amendments, only amendments, no wholesale rewriting of the Constitution.  The one and only requirement in Article V is that two-thirds of state legislatures must apply to Congress for a convention.  In fact, there have been over 700 such state applications from all 50 states.

Why no Article V convention?  Because Congress and virtually every politically powerful group on the left and right oppose and fear an Article V convention.  Why?  Because clearly such a convention which is outside the control of Congress, the President and the Supreme Court has the constitutional authority to discuss and propose amendments that could truly reform our government to remove corruption and make it much more equitable and effective for we the people.  Where is the public outrage over Congress disobeying and disrespecting the Constitution?  There is far less to fear from a convention than from maintaining the status quo two-party plutocracy.

If you believe in our Constitution, if you liked the change rhetoric of Obama, if you are furious about the economic meltdown, and if you see the need to seriously reform our government, then examine the materials at foavc.org and become a member of the nonpartisan Friends of the Article V Convention.  Help make Congress obey the Constitution and give us the convention we have a constitutional right to have.  If you see yourself as a patriot, dissident or activist, join our effort.

[Contact Joel S. Hirschhorn through www.delusionaldemocracy.com; he is a co-founder of Friends of the Article V Convention.]

Considering that nearly all of the people who received the 2008 bonuses also received high salaries and even larger bonuses in previous years, and the many billions of dollars of federal dollars going into bailouts of companies, there should be no qualms about such a greed tax.  For example, in the two previous years a total of about $70 billion in bonuses were received by these greedy financial sector elites.

Even outside the financial sector, executives also received obscene bonuses in 2008 despite terrible performance.  The compensation research firm Equilar, for example, reports that the average performance-based bonuses for top executives, other than the chief executive, at 132 companies with revenues of more than $1 billion increased by 14 percent, to an average of $265,594, in the 2008 fiscal year, in addition to high salaries.

As just one of countless examples of greed, consider that the CEO of Hewlett-Packard, Mark Hurd, received $42.5 million in 2008 pay.  He had received over $20 million in signing inducements in 2005.  During his tenure some 40,000 jobs have been eliminated at H-P.  And consider this nice little perk: In 2008 the company also paid out about $181,000 for his business meals.

And then there is the case of Robert Rubin at Citigroup. During his nine years there the company lost over $65 billion.  What did Rubin earn?  He pocketed $126 million.  What did he say when he left?  "I bet there's not a single year where I couldn't have gone somewhere else and made more."

Enough already.  Drastic action is needed to achieve some justice.  With all the attention on the Obama stimulus plan based on spending money the nation does not really have or can afford, it is appropriate to use this proposal to raise more revenues.  Tax greed!

[Contact Joel S. Hirschhorn through delusionaldemocracy.com]

Joel S. Hirschhorn

With the meltdown of the American economy, what better time to ask: Can libertarianism come to the rescue?  Perhaps the most interesting statement in the Wikipedia discussion of libertarianism is that "There is no single theory that can be reliably identified as the libertarian theory, and no single principle or set of principles on which all libertarians would agree."

Nevertheless, I think it is fair to say that libertarianism includes the belief in economic freedom that emphasizes removing corporate subsidies and other favoritism to special interests and provides maximum freedom to individuals to pursue financial success and security.

It also seems to me that authentic libertarians would be agonizing over the current historic growth in governmental ownership of what we thought were private, corporate enterprises.  We seem to be seeing more authoritarian government being justified by the current economic recession and the public demand for rescue of the economy and alleviation of the considerable pain inflicting so many millions of Americans.

What I find myself intrigued by is this central question: In these terrible economic times, is it not reasonable to think that if libertarianism was ever to have a chance of attracting very broad public support as an alternative to what the US has had for many, many decades, would this be the time?  That is, if American capitalism that has prevailed for so long with the support of the two-party plutocracy-run government has clearly failed, then why not demand a fundamentally different paradigm?  After all, what we are witnessing right now is the demise of "free enterprise" and the growth of more authoritarian government.  Government, through the Federal Reserve, is eager to print and borrow more money, with no limits in sight.  Not exactly what libertarians would prefer.

So I have been examining websites with a libertarian orientation to see whether there is a serious effort to offer an alternative to what President Obama and Congress seem totally committed to do with the aim of stimulating the collapsing US economy,

I found a very thoughtful article by Sheldon Richman in The American Conservative critiquing the New Deal that current politicians seem intent on replicating.  Here is an excerpt from it: "Yet with all this government activism, the U.S. economy, despite halting attempts at recovery, could not shake the Depression.  In 1937 and 1938, the financial system went into an unprecedented secondary depression, with a new stock-market crash and unemployment climbing back to over 20 percent.  Jim Powell notes in FDR's Folly that the New Deal further eroded the banking system; raised taxes; made hiring workers, particularly unskilled blacks, prohibitively expensive; increased the price of most goods, including food; and discouraged investment.  This is hardly the New Deal we're taught in school.  As historian David Kennedy put it, 'Whatever it was, [the New Deal] was not a recovery program, or at any rate not an effective one.'  ...The New Deal did not, therefore, end the Depression.  ...What can we learn from all this?  That money is too important to be left to the state.  One way or another, government mismanagement of the monetary system wrecked the U.S. economy.  It's happening again now.  The only permanent way to avoid a repetition is to place the system where it belongs: in the free market.  ... individual liberty is the first casualty when bureaucracy expands to manage the economy."

If minimizing the role of government in our lives and economy is an essential feature of libertarianism, then it does not that appear to be much public or political interest in it.

If greed and irresponsible economic behavior by both government and private entities in past years has brought us to the current awful recession, then is anyone interested in selling a libertarian alternative based on sound money and free markets?

Who better to look to than Ron Paul.  He recently addressed the House Financial Services Committee's hearing on the Madoff Ponzi scandal.  He noted out that Bernard Madoff was operating under the supervision of the SEC, that more regulation will only make the fraudulent operations easier because they can claim to be approved by the government, and that two of the biggest government-run Ponzi schemes are the Social Security system and even the monetary system itself.  Paul supports abolishing the Federal Reserve and the SEC, and returning to an honest monetary system based on gold and/or free competition in currencies.  He says outright that "we need to get rid of the bad policies, the monetary system, and these mountains of debt.  ...we're gonna hire more bureaucrats and we're gonna appropriate more money we don't have.   ...We've been doing this for 78 years, and we'll do it again, but believe me, this will not solve our problems."

I did not notice any significant media coverage of Paul's views and certainly no rush of politicians with far more power to him or his views.  In other words, if Paul is probably the best spokesperson for libertarianism in the country, and if he is right, then there clearly is no significant public or political interest in libertarianism in these historic and terrible economic days.

Personally, when Paul said: "We could return to sound money.  We could balance our budget.  There's a lot of things that we can do.  But the worst thing that we can do is perpetuate the bad policies that gave us this trouble in the first place.  And that is that we no longer, over the last quite a few decades, believed in free-market capitalism." I think he got it right.  But I am forced to conclude that libertarianism is dead as a door nail and doomed to remain a marginalized and insignificant movement offering a home for the relatively few that seek intellectual shelter in a true alternative to the current dominant economic system.  Paul's revolution is going nowhere, yet another marginalized effort that does not threaten the status quo plutocracy.  After all, when the US economy splinters, as it already has, and the nation does not turn to the one true alternative to it, what else can we conclude?

If libertarianism offers the better solution, then the path that President Obama and Congress are on, with the support of the mainstream media, corporate America, and most of the public will prove painful and fruitless.  This means a lot more pain and suffering for most Americans.  Maybe, come 2012, Ron Paul can run again for president and say "I told you so."

[Contact Joel S. Hirschhorn through delusionaldemocracy.com]

In other words, besides all the blame that rightfully can be heaped on many others for the current recession, it is also true that the public through its dollars drove the nation and the world into the current meltdown, mostly by using far too much borrowing.  They got suckered into using easy credit.  True, in many cases, they acted on incorrect and intentionally misleading information and were taken advantage of.  But so much of this consumer behavior was driven by greed or stupidity.  Confidence was placed in government regulation, Congress, mortgage and other financial companies, banks, and more generally in the plutocracy that runs everything that matters.  We had delusional prosperity because most of the population had willingly let themselves be deluded or manipulated by the power elites running the government and the economy.  In essence, consumer power was usurped or pirated by the worst people in our society.

Here is the most critical fact.  Consumers control over two thirds of the economic activity of the nation.  Long before the current economic meltdown I kept writing about the potential political power of consumers.  To get desired government actions, millions of consumers could threaten to cut their spending in order to get actions, like stopping the Iraq war or impeaching George W. Bush.  But without leadership consumers just kept borrowing and spending, maintaining the delusional prosperity that they themselves propelled.  Now they must act to fix things.

Now that the economic meltdown has hit us very, very hard it is critically important for people to understand that depending on the usual power groups to turn the economy around is dumb.  Thinking that President Obama, Congress and various federal agencies, in particular, will save us is continuing the delusional thinking that has been like a chronic disease.

American consumers must understand that literally within days and weeks THEY themselves could turn around the economy.  I was struck by data from the Federal Reserve that there is, even after the grotesque economic meltdown, presently a historic amount of cash is in bank and money market accounts, an astounding $8.85 trillion.  Look at that number again.  Relative to all the government bailouts and likely actions to stimulate the economy, that number is remarkable.  That humongous amount of cash (not the value of homes and investments) comes to about $29,000 for every man, woman and child in the nation, or roughly $88,000 per household.

Your first thought may be "I don't have that kind of cash!"  In fact, economic inequality has risen terribly in recent years, helped by various public policies, making the affluent rich and the rich super-rich (and most of the middle class poorer).  This means that much of this national cash belongs to a relatively small fraction of the population, perhaps 20 to 30 million people.

No matter how much cash we have, we must put our faith in ourselves more than the government or the business and investment sectors to turn the economy around.  The more cash you have, of course, the greater your potential power to push economic recovery.  We often hear about consumer confidence.  Whether people are in the mood to spend or whether they have become too afraid for their personal financial security, causing them to spend as little as possible.

To turn the stock market and just about every segment of the private sector around, 10 to 20 million Americans must grab their inherent consumer power and start spending and investing with gusto, from home appliances, computers, cars, clothing, furniture, new homes, travel, and so on.

The stock market would immediately start to climb up, retail stores would stop closing, the automotive sector would resume producing cars, companies would start rehiring and the news media would start pumping out good news that, in turn, would trigger still more consumer confidence and spending.  Suddenly, a positive spiral of economic activity replaces the hoarding of cash that has driven the negative economic spiral.

Think of that number $8.85 trillion again.  Think of it relative to the billions and trillions constantly talked about to spur economic recovery through bailouts and other government actions, all of which must somehow channel money into consumers' pockets or make credit for them more available.  A modest fraction of all that cash, say a quarter, has the economic power to do more good than anything the government does.  Better than all those government actions is the absolute certainty that rapid increases in consumer spending and investment would definitely drive the economy upwards.  Positive consumer confidence can feed on itself psychologically, become a viral message that shoots the economy forward, reverses unemployment, makes stocks and mutual funds and, therefore, retirement accounts more valuable, and so on.

We sure could use some national leadership that motivates and inspires use of consumer power, rather than all the blabbering about what the government should or should not do.  Americans have the choice to depend on politicians or to depend on themselves.  Either use YOUR cash-power or remain victims of greed and corruption, as well as the inevitable incompetence of politicians and government officials.  Consumer power awaits you.  The nation needs it to avoid still more massive federal deficits and borrowing and inevitable tax increases.  We the people must do much than vote; we must use our dollars to save our own financial health.  Unless we shift our thinking and spend, we will stay in economic hell for a long time.  We are the economic stimulus solution we've been waiting for.

[Contact Joel S. Hirschhorn through delusionaldemocracy.com.]

If moral honesty and courage have any meaning, then the nation must take seriously the concept that no president can ever be allowed to be above the law.  How can President Obama not strongly support this?  Surely no president must be allowed to disrespect and dishonor the US Constitution.  George W. Bush broke his oath of office.  His behavior was treasonous.  Instead of defending the Constitution he disgraced it.  Instead of protecting constitutional rights, including privacy, he sullied them.  He asserted his right to ignore or not enforce laws so he could break them.  Respect for the office of the presidency must never be allowed to trump truth and justice.

Millions and millions of Americans and people worldwide know that George W. Bush made 9/11 the trigger for initiating an illegal war in Iraq that has killed and maimed so many thousands of people.  What Vincent Bugliosi, author of "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder" called "the most serious crime ever committed in American history."  I say convict Bush of myriad counts of criminally negligent homicide related to both Iraq and the Katrina disaster and put him in prison.  A former president in prison would not disgrace the presidency.  It would restore honor to the office and the Constitution.

Surely millions more people now understand that George W. Bush bears responsibility for creating the conditions that encouraged greed-driven capitalism to rape and murder the middle class and push us into the current global economic meltdown.  By removing government oversight and regulation he committed the greatest acts of fraud in the history of mankind.  After he made American democracy delusional he made prosperity delusional.

We the people are paying the price for George W. Bush's criminal acts and so must he.  When George W. Bush is sent to prison everyone will see that American democracy has earned the respect of the world.  Everyone will better understand that evil comes in many forms and that even an elected president of the United States of America can and must be recognized as a perpetrator of horrendous criminal acts.

Please President-elect Obama, make it so.  Be the principled person we want you to be.  Make the USA the nation it is supposed to be.  Have the courage to do what Congress refused to do when it did not impeach George W. Bush.  Change history by showing the world that American justice applies as equally to the president as it does to anyone else.  Do not let George W. Bush escape the justice and prison sentence he deserves.  Do not let respect for the presidency trump respect for justice.  If we do not bring George W. Bush to justice that probably only you can make happen, then surely we do not restore respect for the office that you worked so hard to achieve.

To ensure that no future president behaves like George W. Bush we must punish him.  Not merely through the words of historians, but through the physical punishment that he has inflicted on so many millions of people.  In previous eras citizens would have demanded "off with his head."  Now we must demand "lock him up."  How poetic for a pro-torture ex-president.  As summed up at www.imprisonbush.com: "Bush must be made accountable to the law, to serve as a lesson to all those who would attempt to destroy the American system of laws and liberty for the sake of their own power."  This is a test for both President Obama and American democracy.

If there is any kind of God in the universe, then George W. Bush must go to prison.  When he does, then and only then should God bless America.

[Formerly a full professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison and a senior official at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the National Governors Association, Joel S. Hirschhorn is the author of nonfiction books, including Prosperity Without Pollution, Sprawl Kills and Delusional Democracy.]

A key problem is that for many years, third parties have not offered presidential candidates that capture the attention and commitment of even a modest fraction of Americans, unlike Ross Perot (8.4 percent in 1996 and 18.9 percent in 1992), and John Anderson (6.6 percent in 1980).

This year, among the four most significant third-party presidential candidates, Ralph Nader without a national party did the best with 685,426 votes or 0.54 percent of the grand total (a little better than in 2004 with 0.4 percent but much worse than in 2000 running as a Green Party candidate with 2.7 percent).  He was followed by Bob Barr the Libertarian Party candidate with 503,981 votes or 0.4 percent of the total (typical of all Libertarian candidates in recent elections, including Ron Paul in 1988), followed by Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party with just 181,266 votes or 0.1 percent, and then Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party with only 148,546 votes or 0.1 percent.

In the primaries Ron Paul had earned enormous public support and before the general election he urged his supporters to vote for one of the four main third-party presidential candidates.  However, it does not appear that they did so in significant numbers.  Recently, Paul commented about the Obama victory: "the candidate demanding 'change' won the election.  It mattered not that the change offered was no change at all, only a change in the engineer of a runaway train."

Showing the problem of ballot access, engineered by the two major parties, is that there were only 15 states where all four were on the ballot.  In all but one, Nader received more votes than the other three third-party candidates.  In four states only one of the four candidates was on the ballot; in one state none of them were (Oklahoma).

Nader's best state was California with 81,434 votes, as it was for McKinney's with 28,624 votes.  Baldwin was not on the ballot there.  Alan Keyes received 30,787 votes in California.  Barr's best state was Texas with 56,398 votes.  None of the other three were on the ballot there.  In his home state of Georgia where he had been a Representative Barr received 28,420 votes (and none of the other three were on the ballot).  Baldwin's best state was Michigan with 14, 973 votes.  Nader was not on the ballot there.

In round numbers, Barack Obama raised $639 million or about $10 per vote, and John McCain raised $360 million or $6 per vote, compared to Ralph Nader with $4 million and $6 per vote, Bob Barr with about $1 million or $2 per vote, and Cynthia McKinney with only about $118,000 or less than $1 per vote.  Money matters, but the ability of the two-party duopoly to keep third-party presidential candidates out of nationally televised debates matters more for media attention, money and votes.

It must also be noted that there were countless congressional races with third-party and independent candidates, but none were able to win office, with only a very few reaching the 20 percent level.  That third-party candidates can win local government offices means little because political party affiliation at that level is overshadowed by personal qualifications.

I say that current third-party activists should admit defeat, shut down their unsuccessful parties, and move on.  Unlike so much of American history, current third-parties no longer play a significant role in American politics or even in affecting public policies.  They have shown their inability to matter.

We need a new, vibrant political party that could bring many millions of American dissidents, progressives and conservatives, and especially chronic non-voters, together behind a relatively simple party platform focused on structural, government system reforms (not merely political change).  Examples include: replacing the Electoral College with the popular vote for president, restoring the balance between Congress and the presidency, eliminating the corrupting influence of special interest money from politics, preventing the president to use signing statements to nullify laws passed by Congress. 

What would unite people is a shared priority for revitalizing American democracy.  It should position itself as a populist alternative and opponent to the two-party plutocracy.  It should define itself as against the corporate and other special interests on the left and right that use money to corrupt our political system.  Possible names: Patriotic Party, United Party or National Party.  With Thomas Jefferson as its spiritual founder it should seek the political revolution he said was needed periodically.

Here is what helps.  Despite considerable enthusiasm for Barack Obama, there is widespread unhappiness with both the Democratic and Republican Parties.  One indication is that so voters register as independents.  Plus there has always been a chorus of negative views about the two-party system.  In one pragmatic sense this is the ideal time to create a new party.  Why?  Because of the incredible loss of stature of the Republican Party.  Why not envision a new party that could replace the Republican Party on the national stage and provide a sharp alternative to the Democratic Party?  In other words, we don't need a new third party as much as we need a new major party.

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

Considering the totally awful public approval of Congress you would think that 2008 would be an historic year for voting out congressional incumbents, especially because it is so easy to blame both Democrats and Republicans for the nation's woes.  Moreover, public interest in politics and this year's general election were higher than in a long time.  And the Internet is awash with passionate statements against incumbents of both parties.  So, how have Americans just behaved?  How did congressional incumbents do this year?

This year the retention rate was typical at 95.6 percent overall (and unlikely to change significantly when some unsettled races get resolved).  Likewise, though most incumbent Republicans were reelected, out of just 20 incumbent seats lost, only one was for a Democrat.  Need proof of just how little political competition there is?  Consider uncontested House seats that incumbents did not even have to defend, including 32 Democrats and 12 Republicans that did not face a two-party challenger.

As usual, no third-party congressional candidate was elected, with just a few able to hit around 20 percent, mostly when there was only a Democrat to run against, while in the vast majority of cases they stayed in low single digits.  In the presidential vote category it looks like just 1.6 million people voted for third-party candidates, compared to 1.2 million in 2004 - not much of an improvement.

In other words, we have once again witnessed the pendulum-effect, where voters may feel strong anti-incumbency sentiments but in only a few cases express them as voting in candidates of the "other" party.  So power shifts, but the corrupt status quo two-party system remains.

While I have agreed with the motivations of those leading the anti-incumbency movement I have concluded that there is something so rotten about our political system that there will never be a sufficiently large anti-incumbency vote to have any real impact.  This year proves my point.

In the larger picture, the anti-incumbency movement merely serves as a distraction from more sensible approaches for reforming and revitalizing American democracy.  It is just another of a seemingly endless array of ineffective and marginalized political reform movements.  Until American patriots and dissidents unite behind something a lot more powerful the two-party plutocracy will remain in power.

The core problem is that the public has been thoroughly brainwashed to believe in the two-party system.  One major consequence is that they refuse to vote for third-party candidates, so that even when they see what is tragic about our politicians they think the solution as voting for a challenger from the "other" major party.  This happens despite the high fraction of voters registered as independents.

The anti-incumbency movement could only be successful if it was truly bipartisan so that voters rejected not only ALL incumbent Democrats and Republicans, but also refused to elect new members to Congress from BOTH major parties.  Merely shifting control of Congress from one of the major parties to the other has never worked effectively.  Why?  Simple, both major parties have been corrupted by the same corporate and other special interests that pervert public policies to serve them rather than the general public.

The problem is that we still do not effective political competition in a nation that prides itself about competition.  The two-party duopoly and plutocracy has worked hard to block true political competition.  When it comes to congressional elections, gerrymandering has been used as a potent weapon.  Gerrymandering of districts by both major parties when they have the power to accomplish it has not only protected incumbents, it has also made it nearly impossible for third party congressional candidates that are on a huge number of ballots to be successful.

Nelson Lee Walker of Tenure Corrupts recently made these sage observations: "I'm coming around to the idea that the bulk of the American people are basically stupid, stupid, stupid! Why?  How else can we explain how Congress, which has a 9% approval rating, gets reelected about 95% of the time?  Do we ever "throw the bums out"?  Listen to these stats: Senate: As of 2008, of 100 Senators, 39 (39%) reelected for 18 yrs or more, 4 over 40 years!  House: As of 2008, of 435 members, 143 (33%) reelected for 14 yrs or more, 5 over 36 years!  And the longer these guys are in office, the more of them will run unopposed in future elections, since nobody will bother to challenge them.  Unopposed races have doubled in the last 20 years, from 40 to 80 seats.  And who is responsible for this sad state of affairs?  YOU!!!  Not your dumb neighbor.  Not the media.  Not the crooked political system.  Just YOU, the typical stupid American!  The guy who complains how those crooked politicians are ripping off the country and sending us all down the tubes, and then reelects them!"

In this of all years these critical views are hard to dispute.  After all, could it be any clearer that the anti-incumbency movement is a failure?  I urge those who have put so much time and energy into the anti-incumbency movement to call it quits and devote themselves to strategies that may be more effective.   One option is to work hard to form a new national third party.  Another is to support the relatively new nonpartisan attempt by Friends of the Article V Convention at www.foavc.org to compel Congress to give Americans what they have a constitutional right to have and what has been requested by the required number of states, and what the Founders believed we would need when the public lost trust and confidence in the federal government: an Article V convention that could consider proposals for constitutional amendments, a number of which could truly reform the structure of our dysfunctional political system.

For too long Congress has refused to obey the Constitution and we "dumb" Americans have let them get away with it, in large part because both Democrats and Republicans have feared (and instilled fear about) such a convention.  The same people that keep getting elected to Congress!  How's that for symmetrical infamy?

[Contact Joel S. Hirschhorn through www.delusionaldemocracy.com.]