In Massachusetts, Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Florida, citizens voted overwhelmingly yesterday for their legislators to pass a constitutional amendment to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling and declare that only human beings – not corporations – are entitled to constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending can be regulated.
Residents in dozens of cities had the opportunity to vote on measures calling for an end to the doctrines of corporate constitutional rights and money as free speech, and in every single town the vote was supportive. Often by an overwhelming margin.Common Dreams
Move to Amend Wins Big at the Ballot: Americans Ready to Amend the Constitution
Move To Amend
9 comments:
What would it be like if we the people could vote on the issues instead of voting for the lesser of two psychopaths?
Dan, I'm afraid that with the prevailing level of collective consciousness, it would be an unworkable mess. There would be no systems awareness, for one thing. Moreover, in a liberal society in which many cohorts are strongly illiberal (my way or the highway) conflict would ensue without some pretty intense security.
While I advocate for popular participatory democracy, I am not under the illusion that the US could just go right to it without adequate preparation. It's why neoliberalism/neoconservatism doesn't work internationally. It's not possible to just drop democracy into a country with no foundation for it.
It's really necessary to educate children for democracy right from grammar school. John Dewey wrote extensively on freedom, democracy and education, for example.
I don't see a problem implementing Swiss-style direct democracy in the US. After all, we already have something similar in many of the states.
The public doesn't always make good choices, but on the whole I'd rather go with a public vote than with our corrupt politicians.
You are a lot more trusting of the wisdom of crowds than I am. Maybe we have had different experiences but I have spent my life pretty much with libertarians and I can report that getting anything done based on consensus takes time, patience, tolerance, and a group of highly intelligent and committed people who already have practice, and that's just getting one thing done, let alone organize a complex highly diverse society. The communities I am aware of that have been successful over some time have been pretty small and lived pretty simply, too. I have also seen some brazen ripoffs or attempted ripoffs, con artists, psychopaths, you name it.
Conversely, I have served in the military during wartime, and it's really quite amazing how efficient and effective tight hierarchical organization is and working with a very diverse groups that is "all over the place." It comes together though and works.
The trick is maximizing freedom, equality, and solidarity while making a complex society reasonably functional. What seems to work is working from the highly structured hierarchical model incrementally and iteratively toward greater flexibility.
Just how to do this has not yet been explored to the degree necessary to roll it out, let alone ramp it up. Actually, the exploration is part of the process of readying people for it.
The Swiss system does not require consensus. It works very similar to the referendum process in some American states. If you don't like a law, you can collect petition signatures to put the law on the ballot.
Or, if you want to propose a new law, like the Swiss UBI proposal, you can collect petition signatures to put that on the ballot.
The petition process weeds out the trivia and the net result is that only the more important and more controversial laws are put to a public vote.
The only problem that I have personally experienced with my state's referendums is that sometimes they are so poorly worded (lawyer talk) and so poorly advertised that I'm not sure what I'm voting for.
Also, in my state the referendum process has been used largely by conservatives while the Democratic party showed no interest in it (that should tell you something about the Democratic party).
This went on for years until finally in 2012 the legislature passed neoliberal education "reform" and there was a grassroots movement to put that controversial bill on the ballot. The referendum succeeded in overturning the neoliberal "reform." The Republican legislature responded by modifying the initiative process so that it in now infinitely more difficult to obtain the required signatures.
Another problem with referendums is in California where referendums have been used to pass spending programs without figuring out how to pay for them. It seems to me that at the state level referendum proposals should be required to follow "paygo" type rules.
Imagine if we had national referendums on the following:
-- whether to cut SS and Medicare
-- jobs and infrastructure programs
-- whether to spy on Americans
-- whether to bail out Wall Street
-- whether to prosecute the Bush Administration for war crimes.
-- whether to raise the minimum wage
-- free trade agreements
-- money as speech & campaign financing
The public does not always make smart choices. But ... you have to compare it to our existing mess, not to perfection.
For once, I completely agree with you, Dan L. The trick that the ruling class pulls off is to divide and rule a populace that is essentially in agreement with the policies that the rulers loathe. They've succeeded marvelously well, but the situation is ever more unstable.
Noam Chomsky likes to point out that polls for decades have shown that there is a very broad consensus for New Deal policies. People just have vastly distorted perceptions of reality - fantastically overestimating foreign aid & "welfare", grossly underestimating inequality etc.
Collective consciousness doesn't need to change much, people just need to think more logically, absorb a bit of economics that makes logical sense, & not let themselves be divided and ruled. Doing this, implementing more direct democracy is the adequate preparation that will raise consciousness. Otherwise we are making "the wise resolution of Scholasticus, not to venture into the water until he had learned to swim." (Hegel)
I think that the only possibility of sudden change is through systemic breakdown and restructuring, in short, either a social and political revolution or a catastrophe. Absent that, social change occurs gradually, however it can be directed intelligently. This is what liberal democracy is supposed to do and the fly in the ointment is the class-interest of the ruling elite.
If there is a path to popular participatory democracy that gets around the barriers erected by the ruling elite and that doesn't involve sudden change as set for above, I would like to hear the plan in order to assess its feasibility.
But most of what I hear from progressives amounts to wishful thinking and poking at the periphery rather than policy, strategy and tactics for effecting systemic change systematically.
If there is a path to popular participatory democracy that gets around the barriers erected by the ruling elite
I can imagine only 2 non-violent paths within the system. One would be to organize a "wildcat" national referendum, passing a direct democracy amendment among other things.
If you could pull it off, and if turnout was high, the wildcat referendum could claim legitimacy.
The other non-violent path would be to elect a "good" oligarch, like a Roosevelt or a Kennedy.
most of what I hear from progressives amounts to wishful thinking and poking at the periphery rather than policy, strategy and tactics for effecting systemic change systematically.
True, but I would say the same about MMT's policy proposals.
This is what liberal democracy is supposed to do
But is the US a liberal democracy, as we have been brainwashed to believe, or is it built on genocide, slavery, land theft, and elitist control with only superficial democracy as Howard Zinn maintained?
I don't claim to have the answers, Tom. Yes, there is a lot of wishful thinking going on. There is nothing wrong with having a utopian vision of how things ought to be, as long as you are honest that it is merely a utopian vision.
Nor is there anything wrong with wheeling and dealing and compromising to get legislation passed (as Huey Long did) in our current imperfect system, but right now there is no path for the 99% within the political system.
The earth is green and the sky is blue: - we move from crisis to crisis (GFC) and there is always opportunity in a crisis. Between crises we consolidate the path chosen. Problem is unconsciousness - money and machines (materialism) over people (living beings). People do not understand the value and beauty, the intelligence integral in a human being; nor do they see a human being. A being - the outcome of billions of years of evolution of the atoms (dirt) - so that dirt stands up and walks and talks, laughs and cries, thinks, acts; loves, and can be fulfilled. Is capable of contentment. Not through what is on the outside and conditional, but through knowing, feeling, experiencing every moment of every day what is on the inside and unconditional. Knowledge makes us human. We need to be human to organise the conditional creatively. Otherwise, it will always be a dog's breakfast - where greed and wolves and clumsy dull-witted dinosaurs rule!
Without knowing our essence, we are a plant pulled up from the very substance that allows us to breathe. This is our fundamental and sovereignty. There is a difference between the mind and the heart, between the outside and the inside and this reality needs to become crystal clear. The bridge needs to be built – that is human creativity, not ‘society’. We need a mirror, so that we can know ourselves both within and without.
For me, this is human reality: this dichotomy, this unconsciousness drives everything in the world - it is the engine turning everything around. All of the experts go round and around. We humans are blinded by events in the world, lost in the 'fairground' fascinated by everything we see - not grounded in the Self. The one thing in this existence, that IS REAL. This is our human priority but the problem with ignorance is it does not know itself; which makes something simple and profound a bit more complicated and seemingly superficial ....
I trust myself as a human being, because I appreciate the incredible journey of all of those billions of years that allow me to exist, for a fleeting moment – and experience that Breath within. It is the greatest gift; it is within us all. With appreciation comes gratitude; the heart understands the mystery of Love. If we wish to organise the outside world with kindness and intelligence, then we will have to become conscious.
Post a Comment