Month: August 2016

America has the best government money can buy. There are two significant problems with that:

1. Democracy (government of, by, and for the people), is not supposed to work that way.
2. Most of us don’t have enough money to buy any government, we just pay for it.

The effect of money in US politics is centered around financial contributions to political campaigns with the expectation of political favors in return. These favors may take the form of legislation favorable to the donor, appointment to powerful positions in government, both, or one after another.

A political campaign is expensive. Although campaigns use many volunteers, they must hire political and policy experts, hire important core staff, rent office space, pay for communications such as telephone and internet, pay for transportation, lodging, event venue rental, security, and advertising. Tory Newmeyer estimated in a 2015 Fortune article http://fortune.com/2015/03/28/campaign-financing/ that a presidential campaign must have $10 million just to begin operation. The article states that campaigning in each of four example states will cost $6 million to $15 million. Using the average cost among those four states, one can expect a presidential campaign to cost around $263 million. However, in the 2016 presidential campaign, the contribution (and therefore spending) goal of one candidate is $1 billion! US congressional election campaigning is not quite as expensive. Various sources give a range of $4-21 million for a US House seat and $12-27 million for a US Senate campaign.

The majority of this money goes to purchasing “free speech.” Many enthusiastic and promising candidates have run out of money and quit before making serious progress.

This situation resolves to the ridiculous condition of the candidates of the parties, well-supported by the corporate powers that they represent, continually asking the common citizens, whom they do not represent, for money. This practice is apparently intended to give the common citizens that impression that they are participating in the political process.

Since the one who speaks the loudest is the one who attracts the most attention, it is easy to assume that the one who spends the most money on “free speech” gets elected. That is why the media constantly report the amount of money that various candidates have raised, with the implication that the one that has raised the most money will win. That is also why, even the progressives who are trying to avoid being bought but must still play in the same game as those who are, must continually ask for money, particularly as an FEC (Federal Election Commission) quarterly report deadline nears. That data will become fodder for the next round of media projections. People tend to abandon candidates based on media projections that are based on the amount of money that a campaign has raised and the spending rate of the campaign.

American elections have become popularity contests with limited substance. The media, along with other aspects of our society that promote limited attention span, limited substance, and instant gratification, benefits greatly. The sale of short, limited substance, advertising is lucrative, as is the promotion of the elaborate spectacle of “the debates.”

The effect of money on American politics has three elements.

The first element is an interpretation of the First Amendment, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, that effectively equates money with speech. Under that interpretation, not only is the press (which is, in the 21stCentury, the media) unrestricted, anyone with the money to purchase time or space in the press is unrestricted.

There are movements, such as WolfPac http://www.wolf-pac.com/ that are seeking to amend the constitution in a way that ends the Supreme Court’s interpretation that makes corporations people for the purpose of political contributions. That alone may not be effective.  Rich people who are actually people may still influence politicians with campaign contributions.

A.J. Liebling stated “Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one.” Jim Morrison stated “Whoever controls the media, controls the mind.” In America today, the people who own the government own a substantial part of the media, and virtually all of the media that is generally accessed by the majority of the people.

The second element is a campaign and election system that favors candidates with money. The more money a candidate has to spend, the more likely the candidate is to win, particularly if the candidate outspends the competition. The playing field must be level, providing a source of funding for serious campaigns, limiting or eliminating the cost of political advertising, and other means to take the influence of large campaign contributions out of politics. Leveling the playing field in this manner would probably face constitutional challenges as a violation of the first amendment. This amendment has already been interpreted to equate money with speech. Therefore, the second element of removing money from politics will probably also require a constitutional amendment or a broader version of the amendment proposed by those who want to overturn the Citizens United decision.

The third element is the trading of powerful, high income positions in business to politicians in exchange for political favors. It’s called the revolving door. A politician works to develop legislation that is favorable to a large corporation. The politician then gets a position in the corporation, generating substantial income and power. After that, the individual is appointed to a powerful position in government by another politician interested in starting a trip around the revolving door.

The three elements will not be easily fixed. They are too entrenched in our current system.  We must, however, fix them if we are to return to the people being the government. An important first step is the support of progressive candidates who will not be bought. Unfortunately, even that will require a substantial amount of money from people who can’t afford to buy the government, at least, individually. With enough of them in office, laws may be written and developed that will fix all three elements of the problem. That will take time, but we must make the effort and employ the patience and tenacity needed to fix our broken political system.

“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.” (Edward R. Murrow)

HW

…don’t fix it.

It’s an old and popular saying, the origins of which are not clear. However, Jimmy Carter’s Director of the Office of Management and Budget was quoted in Nation’s Business, the newsletter of the US Chamber of Commerce in 1977:

Bert Lance believes he can save Uncle Sam billions if he can get the government to adopt a simple motto: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” He explains: “That’s the trouble with government: Fixing things that aren’t broken and not fixing things that are broken.”

Looking at current events and at history, that observation is often accurate.

Our political system is seriously broken. Theoretically, the people are the government and the government is the people. Everyone can materially participate in the affairs of the country. However, that is only in theory. In reality, the government and the people are separate entities.

The political system is the government. The government is the political system. This arrangement is making may people rich, or more rich, and powerful, or more powerful. A majority of the citizens of the US, or at least a very significant plurality of them, want the political system to be fixed.

The US political system has been broken for a long time. However, the Democratic primary and nomination debacle of 2016 has finally drawn enough attention for a lot of people to want do something about it.

Breaking our political system took a long time. Now, having noticed and deciding to do something about it, many people want an instant fix.

Generally, the instant fix sentiment involves protest voting. Call it what you wish, voting for an impossible outcome is a protest vote. I outlined the hazards of protest voting in Checkmate! http://www.us-remake.com/?p=41. Clay Shirky has reinforced the idea in There’s no such thing as a protest vote https://medium.com/@cshirky/theres-no-such-thing-as-a-protest-vote-c2fdacabd704#.z9417p7c2.

There are two apparent ways to fix our political system and make the government and the people be one and the same.

1. The method chosen by Bernie Sanders and others, is to work within the two party system that the Founding Fathers unintentionally enabled. The two political parties have become powerful, elite, private clubs. If that can be changed, the political system will be fixed. Changing that will not be easy.

This method can be facilitated by removing the influence of money from politics. That is not as straightforward as it seems. It is a subject to be treated separately.

The most important change is to begin replacing the establishment members of the party with progressive, non-establishment members. That requires starting a comprehensive program of electing non-establishment candidates to as many political offices as possible. That resolution will take some time and it will be a tough road for those who are not taking money from the corporate establishment, but it is absolutely necessary. Bernie Sanders is starting a group called Our Revolution, which will support the candidates needed for the ground-up change of the Democratic Party.

2. The other method is to establish additional political parties, the method chosen by Jill Stein and many others. That approach can only work if the constitution is overhauled to allow proportional voting instead of winner-take-all voting in each state.

Doing so will not be easy. It probably involves a constitutional amendment that will establish a system of the election of President and vice president by popular vote, or at least some apportioned intermediate means. That change may allow third party candidates to become president; however, without first taking the influence of money and power from government, the chance of success is limited.

Neither process is quick or easy. Either or both are essential.

HW

 

John Lennon went on to say

Well, you know
We all want to change the world.

It doesn’t appear that he was right. A more accurate observation would appear to be that we want the world to change, but we don’t necessarily want to change it.

Bernie Sanders started a political revolution in the US.  He generated a lot of excitement about his long-supported themes that are important to the working class and poor, which includes almost all of us. He attracted unprecedented support, both in attendance at rallies and functions and in campaign contributions, attesting to the popularity of his ideas.

Bernie put a huge effort into the campaign, following a schedule that would be arduous for people 20 years his junior. Throughout the effort, he repeated the admonition that he was in the race to win, but the revolution is about much more than a candidate, an office, or a race. He repeatedly stated that change comes from the bottom up, not the top down.

Bernie Sanders and his revolution took on what is arguably the most powerful political machine in American history. Almost predictably, he did not win the Democratic presidential nomination. Almost predictably, the Democratic party and the establishment it represents had to resort to cheating, dirty politics, and treachery to make the failure happen.

Among the party’s methods to prevent Sanders’ successful campaign were the superdelegates. Regardless of the overwhelming voter support for Sanders, the Washington superdelegates virtually unanimously supported Clinton, including with their votes at the Democratic National Convention in July. In Washington, Bernie Sanders supporters vociferously called for the superdelegates to follow the will of the voters.

They didn’t, and nothing came of it.

Accepting the defeat about which he could do nothing, he turned the spotlight over to Hillary Clinton, the only viable strategy at the time, but continued supporting the revolution and the ground-up strategy he promoted throughout his campaign. He advised those wanting our political system to change to change it themselves, starting with running for local and state offices, putting the beginnings of political power into the progressive movement.

How is that working out?

Washington State is a good example. In the Washington State Democratic caucuses of 2016, Bernie received 72.7% of the vote. However, that was 72.7% of the 28% of the voters who bothered to participate, or 20.4% of Washington voters.

Some excuse the low turnout with the inconvenience of the Democratic caucus system. That may be the case, but let’s look further.

In August, Washington State held the primary for all offices except President. In the Washington State primary, all candidates for an office are listed as running for that office, regardless of party affiliation. Voters may choose any one of them. The two candidates with the highest vote count, regardless of party, go on to the general election. It is possible to have a general election race between two Republicans, two Democrats, two Independents, etc.

The candidates for the various offices included the Democratic incumbents and several progressive candidates, many of whom were endorsed by the Bernie Sanders campaign. One might say that these people were the start of Bernie’s political revolution.

One might also say that the revolution was stillborn. The positions of seven of the superdelegates that supported Clinton were on the ballot. There were Berniecrat progressive challengers for all but one of those positions. Voter turnout was 34%. All of the superdelegates that supported Clinton retained their positions. In most cases, they won by large margins. That doesn’t sound like much of a revolution.

The lack of interest is made more concerning by the ease of registering and voting in Washington. Registering and voting in Washington are both simple. Washington does not have obstructive voter procedures or requirements. Voter registration can be done on line, by mail, or at any state office. There are no polling places in Washington. Ballots and a publication containing statements from all candidates are mailed to voters well in advance of the election. The ballots may be returned by mail or deposited in any of the many conveniently located collection boxes.

This makes Washington an interesting test of the political will of folks who say they want a revolution. The revolution doesn’t require pitchforks or guns. It doesn’t involve danger or even any substantial inconvenience. Yet, the vast majority do not bother participating.

Perhaps the majority of the population is not as much complacent as it is ignorant of the fact that electing a president changes almost nothing. Maybe they don’t realize that the president is 0.18% of the US government and it will take a lot more than a progressive president to change anything. That information is not difficult to find. Anyone who has graduated from high school should know it. Perhaps the ignorance of the workings of the government is merely another form of complacency.

Bernie didn’t mention all of the elements of the revolution. It should not have been necessary to do so. Yes, progressive-minded people need to run for any and all public offices, starting to staff American politics with the people who will eventually break the corrupt system controlling the country. 41 candidates took the challenge in one state, Washington. However, it takes more than candidates. The candidates need votes in sufficient quantity to win their races.

It appears that we don’t want to change the world; we want it to change by itself while we wait impatiently. That probably won’t happen.

HW

 

Want a list of Bernie-recommended candidates?  So, in my state, I have to admit, not all berniecrats listed will get my vote, but most will.  And some are in districts other than mine.  But, hey, if you love Bernie’s message and policies, this is where you can find like-minded candidates.

The Berniecrat Directory

Blame the Founding Fathers.

Had the 2016 Democratic primary and convention been merely a debacle, it would have been a great improvement.

Bernie Sanders started the most important movement in a very long time, probably the most important since around 1776. He is also one of the most respected and influential leaders America has seen.

Bernie’s populist movement made record-breaking progress. It looked like he would make it to the White House, a new beginning for America. That didn’t happen. Bernie conceded to and endorsed Hillary Clinton. Many of his followers, members of his political revolution feel betrayed and angry. Many feel that Bernie Sanders is a fraud and/or a political opportunist. He is neither. Anyone who takes the time to listen carefully hears two messages from him:

• We must not allow Donald Trump to be president. To that end, we must elect Hillary Clinton.
• We must continue our political revolution. change must work its way from the bottom up, not the top down.

It was a dream; Bernie Sanders is president, implementing all of the policies that excited and motivated us. It was a dream that didn’t come true, but even if it had, reality might not have looked like the dream. Had Bernie Sanders been elected president, the outcome would probably have been four years of political stalemate.

The president is one third of the process that develops and implements policy. The president is outnumbered by 535 members of congress. The policy positions of the president and congress may be overridden by the supreme court. That means that actually, the president is 0.18% of the government. The president can suggest, propose, and demand, but if a majority of congress does not agree, nothing will happen. On the other hand, congress can pass all of the legislation it wants, but the president can veto to prevent it from becoming law…unless there is sufficient support in congress to override the president’s veto.

But why would he concede so easily, without complaint? In a way, you can blame the Founding Fathers.

When the constitution was written, the authors did not anticipate  political parties because they didn’t desire political parties. Many of them felt that political parties would become powerful factions that would not represent the people as well as they would represent their own interests. They were right.

Unfortunately, political parties developed, largely founded by some of the folks who thought that they were undesirable and dangerous.

Our two political parties are effectively private clubs that have complete control over the government. They set the rules for choosing presidential candidates, they set the rules for presidential elections, and they set the rules for how congress conducts its business. Whichever party is in the majority runs the show.

Yes, there was apparent election fraud in several state primaries. Regardless of the private club nature of the parties, fixing elections is a crime. However, in order to substantiate accusations, regardless of the definite appearance of fraud and collusion, it must be pursued through the court system. That takes time.

A popular political strategy in the US is gratuitous accusations. A party, a candidate, or a public figure makes an accusation, true or not, and the guilt of the accused party is implied by the media and assumed in public opinion. If the accusation is later proven to be false, it makes no difference. The damage has already been done merely through accusation.

Bernie Sanders approached his entire campaign with integrity, which is what drew millions to follow him. At no point did he make any accusations that were not substantiated. The election fraud, although patently obvious, was not substantiated by the courts. Bernie made no accusations, but his movement is pursuing the matter in court. That is the correct way to pursue the matter. Unfortunately, court procedures take time – a lot of it.

Then there’s the treatment of his movement at the Democratic convention. The Bernie Sanders delegates and staff were maligned and mistreated to an extreme. The entire convention was merely a show for the installation of Hillary Clinton as the presidential nominee. Bernie Sanders never said a word of objection.

That’s probably because it was not for him to object. The Democratic Party is a private club. They set the rules. They do what they want. Paraphrasing Lesley Gore, The convention is their party and they can do what they want to.

Having obviously lost and anticipating return to the senate as an independent, he needs to have the cooperation of the Democrats in congress in order to be effective at all. He will do none of us any good as one lone voice, alienated from the rest of congress.

Why did he run as a Democrat in the first place and why not run for president as an independent or join Jill Stein in the Green Party? As our system is currently structured, there is very little, actually almost no, chance for success for an independent or a third party. The process of the electoral college choosing the president is virtually impossible for a third party or an independent to circumvent.

There is no almost and there is no aggregate of the popular vote. In each state, the candidate with the most popular votes wins all of the votes for that state. Elections have been apparently won in the nationwide popular vote and lost in the electoral vote. To run as an independent or Green would have unintended negative consequences.

The Founding Fathers didn’t anticipate or want political parties, but they exist. The Founding Fathers couldn’t have even dreamed of instant communication, let alone the effect of instant communication on politics. The telegraph wouldn’t come along for another 40 years. The concept of  a little box that allowed instant access to audio and animated pictures was not present in even the wildest dreams.

Our political system was developed in 1787 for the conditions of 1787. It has served well, but its obsolescence is showing.

Bernie’s political revolution requires five important steps in order to advance:

• Obtain a sufficient number of congressional seats to allow progressive legislation to be formulated and passed.
• Elect a progressive president to sign progressive legislation into law.
• Eliminate money as the deciding factor in elections.
• Limit the power of the political parties. Don’t allow them to set the rules for choosing presidential candidates.
• Change the method of electing the president from the arcane electoral college to elections based on aggregate popular vote.

There is plenty for Bernie Sanders supporters to do. They all need to choose the part they can and want to act upon, and implement the changes that we all want and need.

Anger, complaints, and/or return to apathy will do nothing for any of us.

HW

 

Long article, have not read all, looks good.

The low ratings of candidates WE KEEP ELECTING

What is your truth?  What do you base it on?  Everyone has a right to feel and think their truth.  To what extent does it apply to others? Do you have a right to impose it on others? Don’t we need to impose some structure on society?  Some ‘government intervention’?  Make some rules? What about our ‘civil liberties’?

There is room here for your opinion, but please keep it civil and limit profanity.  If it gets stupid we will bump it.  Let’s have better vocab than Trump.

Thanks, Harry, excellent articles.  But I would not say “Dear” when addressing Hillary.  Sorry, jaded.

Local voting takes place in several states this week. Tomorrow, Tuesday Aug. 7 Kansas, Washington, Michigan, Ohio, Missouri.  On the 4th, Tennessee, on the 6th, Virgin Islands…..

Primary elections calendar.

Are you researching your candidates?  We tend to go along and do what we always do.  Is that what we want to do?  Do we really want to change things?  I will be pouring over my voter pamphlet tonight.

Pepper

The conventions are finished. The 2016 Presidential campaign is on. It’s not heating up, it was already pretty hot. It’s not getting into full combat mode, it was already in full combat mode.

There is a substantial populist movement that is, with good cause, quite upset. They feel that the primary election and the Democratic Presidential nomination were stolen from them and, more accurately, from their standard-bearer. They are right, it was.

Well, let’s put it this way, there was a concerted effort put into stealing the election and the nomination. The party’s candidate won. It is not really possible to know what the outcome would have been because the actions to rig the process were so diverse.

There are many cries of I’m not voting for and I’m voting for.

The title of this article came from that famous American philosopher, Yogi Berra. The advice comes from another, Stephen Stills.

I think it’s time we stop
Children, what’s that sound?
Everybody look – what’s going down?

Today is July 31. Nobody is voting for anyone today. The election is November 8, 100 days from now.

In a normal election year, having already chosen a candidate to vote for would be reasonable. This is not a normal election year, however.

Of the two major party candidates, one, Donald Trump, the Republican, is being investigated for fraud and is widely unpopular for his unreasonable and hateful positions on important subjects. The other, Hillary Clinton, the Democrat, has committed crimes outlined by the FBI after a long investigation, for which the Justice Department has decided to not prosecute. However, there are other pending problems.

The primary progressive contender, Bernie Sanders, has conceded. The next most popular progressive candidate, Jill Stein of the Green Party, has become the primary progressive candidate. However, there is a second alternative candidate, Gary Johnson of the Libertarian party.

The situation is complicated by the arcane Electoral College process of electing the president. That process has in the past, occasionally resulted in the candidate with the most popular votes nationwide not being elected president. Popular vote is only rather remotely related to electoral vote.

If one  candidate does not receive the required 270 electoral votes, the House of Representatives will elect the president, choosing from the three candidates with the highest electoral vote count. The House is now overwhelmingly Republican. Complicating the situation further, the Senate would elect the vice president, choosing from the two candidates with the highest electoral vote count. The Senate currently has a Republican majority.

Right now, neither of the alternative candidates has sufficient popularity to win the election. Being that there are two of them, the risk increases of not having sufficient popularity to win the required number of electoral votes, but at the same time either might have enough votes to force the election into the House and Senate. On the other hand, given the ongoing troubles and investigations, one or both of the two major candidates may disappear from the race before the election.

The best course of action to follow today is to provide support to your chosen candidate. Don’t worry about impossible or long shot. At the beginning of November, take a careful look at legitimate independent and professional polling results to determine if voting for your chosen candidate may result in an unintended consequence.

On November 8, vote your conscience, but make sure that results in a situation that your conscience can be comfortable with.

HW