progressive vision

The End of an Era: Nation-Building at Home After Bin Laden's Death

Daniel Marans — Tue, 03 May 2011 10:03:37 -0400

In uncertain times like these, there is a thrill to be had in the occasional moment of moral clarity. Osama bin Laden’s death on Sunday was one such moment. Let’s hope it marks the close of an era lived in the shadow of September 11th, and the start of a period devoted to the more complex, but equally patriotic task of solving our country’s stubborn domestic problems--even if it rarely evokes the same sense of national unity as hunting a Bin Laden.

September 11th is a buried memory for me. But the shocking news Sunday night brought it vaguely back to life. We were still looking for that guy? Has it really been ten years?

September 11, 2001 was my second day of ninth grade at the Ramaz School in Manhattan. I was in the throes of freshman jitters, still getting used to waking up at 6 am for my school bus commute from Teaneck, NJ. Shortly after getting to school that day, though, the principal announced the attack on the World Trade Center over the loudspeaker. My adolescent anxieties were immediately supplanted by more pressing fears. Were we safe? Were our parents safe?

Bad news awaited me at home in New Jersey. The parents of two elementary school friends were missing. It would take months to confirm their deaths. The mood in my house was somber and anxious.

Almost ten years later, my friends’ loved ones are still gone. Nothing can bring them back.

I like to think of Bin Laden’s death not as closure for their deaths, but as the closing of a chapter in the country’s history. For nearly a decade we have turned our vast resources outward, pursuing enemies the world over—some real, some imagined. Even as our nation grew more unequal, Wall Street speculation steadily engulfed the economy, and the health and standards of living for most of our nation’s citizens deteriorated, we drew a sense of unity and pride, for a while at least, from our commitment to “defeating the terrorists” who had perpetrated 9/11. We were still a great nation, it seemed, because we could take it to the bad guys, and make them pay for their crimes.

In the end, our national obsession with avenging 9/11 failed both to catch the criminal responsible for the act (we spent billions of dollars and inestimable amounts of human life in wars that, arguably, until now, had not resulted in Osama bin Laden’s death or capture), and to bolster our national self-esteem (the world viewed us, and we felt, like failures). It allowed us to be swept up into the horrific and misbegotten Iraq War, as well as tolerate significant rollbacks of our civil liberties and a dangerous rise in Islamophobia. Terrorists emboldened; country dejected.

Meanwhile, the damage of neglecting the home front has been incalculable, including to the service men and women who risked their lives at Ground Zero and in Iraq and Afghanistan. Could it be any more ironic that Bin Laden’s death comes only five months after Congress passed the law paying for the health care expenses incurred by the cancer-stricken 9/11 rescue workers?! Then again, maybe it is poetic that the former only happened after the latter came to be.

The fight against terrorism must no doubt continue. But maybe with Bin Laden gone, we can turn our formidable attention to the more contentious and less euphoric pursuit of domestic nation-building. Our biggest priorities right now should be ending unemployment, reforming our financial and health care systems, and fighting climate change and other environmental disasters. Accomplishing those tasks will require us to work together in unprecedented ways to challenge entrenched interests. It will not always unite us as a country, or give us a warm and fuzzy feeling inside the way the hunt for Bin Laden did.

Consider the healthcare reform battle. There was no health care crisis moment akin to 9/11 for the country to rally around. It took years of momentum, and a watershed presidential election, followed by months of tense partisan wrangling, compromising with special interests and town-hall shouting matches that almost tore the country apart. When the President signed the law giving 30 million Americans health insurance, crowds massed outside the White House—only they were protesting, not celebrating, as they were after Bin Laden’s death. And yet there is no doubt that is was the right thing to do. We are a better country for it.

Likewise, if we succeed in providing relief to the million families whose homes were foreclosed upon, and the 14 million Americans who remain unemployed, or reducing our deficit by taxing the rich, rather than slashing Social Security and Medicare, it will be because of persistence and good organizing, not because of heart-rending footage we see on TV.

The mundane work of building a stronger, happier and more compassionate country is far less of a rush then nailing the bad guy. And frankly, it is also more divisive. But it is no less of a patriotic duty. Our fellow Americans need us. Once the understandable joy over Bin Laden’s death peters out, we should embrace domestic nation-building with the dedication of genuine patriots.

Center-Left America

Eric Lotke — Wed, 27 May 2009 10:23:44 -0400

The wind is at our backs. The media still calls America a “center-right” nation, but “center-left” is closer to the truth.

On issues ranging from health care to energy, the public is more progressive than people think. Demographic groups from youth to Hispanics are voting farther left and in larger numbers than ever before. The new report the Campaign for America’s Future is publishing with Media Matters for America—"America: A Center-Left Nation"—documents the trends and challenges the mainstream media to recognize reality.

Sources for this Report
The report relies on high quality, nonpartisan sources. Baseline information comes from the American National Election Studies (NES) maintained by the University of Michigan, along with Pew Research Center and Gallup. Additional detail comes from polls by mainstream organizations such as CNN and The New York Times.

Public opinion

The American people are surprisingly progressive. Surveys on individual issues show the way:

Government is not the problem. The authoritative new National Election Studies reveals why the conservative attack doesn’t resonate as it used to. Two-thirds of Americans (66 percent) say “there are more things the government should be doing.” Why? Because “the problems we face have become bigger” (62 percent). Only one third (32 percent) say, “the less government the better.”

Regulation of industry makes ideology concrete. Conservatives downsized government until it hurt. Salmonella in our tomatoes, melamine in our pet food, financial instruments worth less than the paper they’re printed on. People miss the cop on the beat.

• “Government regulation of business…” — Pew Research Center, October 2008.
“… is needed to protect public interest”: 50 percent
“…usually does more harm than good”: 38 percent

The proportion has almost exactly flipped since conservatives started their anti-regulation crusade.

Health care brings government home. Health care is a #1 issue, and people don’t want government to get out of the way. They want it to help.

• “Do you think it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have health care coverage?” — Gallup, Nov. 16, 2008.

Yes: 54 percent
No: 41 percent

• “Should the government in Washington provide national health insurance, or is this something that should be left only to private enterprise” — CBS News/New York Times, Jan. 11-15, 2009
Government: 72 percent
Private enterprise: 32 percent

• "In general, would you favor or oppose a program that would increase the federal government's influence over the country's health care system in an attempt to lower costs and provide health care coverage to more Americans?"— CNN/Opinion Research Corporation, Feb. 18-19, 2009
Favor: 72 percent
Oppose: 27 percent

Energy also requires government attention. Higher fuel prices weren’t enough to turn the market — at least not at a rate that will keep up with global warming and instability in the Middle East.

• Would you prefer the government to increase, decrease, or not change the financial support and incentives it gives for producing energy from alternative sources such as wind and solar? —Gallup, March 5-8, 2009.
Increase: 77 percent
Decrease: 8 percent

• “Would you approve or disapprove of a proposal that would require companies to reduce greenhouse gases that cause global warming, even if it would mean higher utility bills for consumers to pay for the changes?” — NBC News/Wall Street Journal, April 23-26, 2009
Approve: 53 percent
Reducing Deficit: 40 percent

Taxes are not the problem. According to Gallup’s poll on tax day April 15, more people consider their tax payments “about right” than “too high” (48 to 46 percent),

When people do complain, it’s less about their own taxes being too high, than about rich people’s taxes being too low. People think corporations and the wealthy pay less than their “fair share” (67 percent and 60 percent each). People are willing to pay taxes if they think they are getting something for it.

• “Which do you think is more effective in stimulating the nation's economy and creating jobs: An economic agenda focused on returning money to taxpayers through tax cuts, or an economic agenda focused on spending for improvements to the country's infrastructure such as roads, bridges and schools?” — Los Angeles Times, December 6-8, 2008
Infrastructure: 54 percent
Tax Cuts: 33 percent

No culture wars. “Moral values” get single digit support in questions about ‘the most important question” facing the country. People care more about jobs and the economy.

Even on moral issues, people are more progressive than often recognized. Yes, the California ballot initiative for gay marriage lost in November. But since then, same-sex marriage has become legal in Iowa, Connecticut and Vermont. Pew Research shows majority support for gays serving openly in the military (59 percent). The trends are clear. It is only a matter of time.

And yes, the number of people considering themselves “pro-life” took a recent uptick, but this devil is in the details. On finer points like parental consent for teenagers, Medicare payment for poor people, and the late-term procedure successfully labeled “partial birth abortion” — Americans do differ. But the fundamental Roe v. Wade first trimester right remains solidly supported (68 percent, CNN, May 2009). The people who want abortion to be “illegal in all circumstances” are simply a vocal minority (23 percent, Gallup, May 2009).

Demographics

Not only public opinion, but demographics are also pointing left. The bedrock voters of the conservative movement are growing older and declining in number. In contrast, progressive demographics, are on the rise. America is becoming an increasingly diverse, younger and more metropolitan. These changes will drive our politics more than any single election.

Younger voters: People under 30 chose Barack Obama for president by a full 34-point margin over John McCain (66 percent to 32 percent). Even more impressive than the margin was the diversity. Obama garnered a 91-point margin among young African Americans (95 percent to 4 percent), and a 57-point margin among young Hispanics (76 percent to 19 percent). He even won young whites by a 10-point margin (54 percent to 44 percent), a strong contrast to his 14-point deficit among whites aged 45 to 64 (42 to 56 percent).

Hispanics: Hispanics are growing and mobilizing, and political parties have been dueling for them. But Democrats are winning. The Pew Hispanic Survey from July 2008 showed 65 percent of registered Hispanic voters identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party. Only 26 percent identify with or lean GOP, a gap “larger than it has been at any time this decade.” The gap is driven by the same issues that drive white voters — a general dissatisfaction with the state of the country, and their priority issues of education, health care and jobs. In the 2008 presidential election, Obama won Hispanics by an impressive 36 points over McCain (67 percent to 31 percent).

Unmarried Women: Women as a whole tend to lean Democratic, and Obama outscored McCain among women by 56 percent to 43 percent (compared to 49 percent to 48 percent among men). But this is only the tip of the iceberg. The most important hidden block are unmarried women, who chose Obama by 70 percent to 29 percent, a stunning 41 point margin.

Unmarried women are growing in number (47 percent of adult women today, up from 38 percent in 1970). And they are starting to assert themselves politically. Fully 20 percent of unmarried women voted for President for the first time in 2008, compared to 11 percent of voters overall and just 4 percent among married women.

Moreover, the issues important to unmarried women read like the wish list of the progressive movement. Universal health care, clean renewable energy, ending pay discrimination, raising the minimum wage, making college more affordable. Married women share these concerns — but more unmarried women add the word “very” in front of “important” in their survey responses.

Geography: Proximity produces progressives. People living in close proximity tend to tolerate individual differences, and to appreciate shared resources like schools, courts and subway trains. As urban cores expand into suburbs and as metropolitan areas prove to be dynamic, fast-growing and desirable places to live, progressive politics find fruitful soil in which to grow.

More than half (54 percent) of the country now lives in large metropolitan areas, defined as places with populations over a million people. Obama won these 51 regions by a 17-point margin (58 percent to 41 percent). Another 20 percent of the population lives in medium-sized metropolitan areas, with 250,000 to one million in population. Obama carried these regions by four points.

Obama only lost in rural America and small metropolitan areas. McCain won in small towns by 11 points and in rural America by 16 points. These regions look big on the map, but they account for only a quarter of America’s population between them.

The Media

Not everyone has gotten the message yet. The media continue to describe America as conservative or “center-right,” as if the election were an aberration.

• Populist economics are associated with words like angry, and treated like road rage.

• Conservative blue-dog Democrats in budget negotiations are honored with such labels as centrist or moderate, even as they stand on the wrong side of the American people and on the wrong side of history.

The media is starting to turn. Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter’s defection was a wake-up call that no one could miss. But the mainstream media needs to recognize progressives for the true Americans that we are, not a fringe that sometimes ekes out a victory.

The Movement

This report should give people the courage to push ahead. The danger is not in going too far, too fast, or overreaching. The danger is in not doing enough. The American people want to achieve the promise in Obama’s great speeches, not the compromise forced by conservatives in both parties.

The crisis is great. Bold action is needed. The people are hungry for progressive change.

Greider: Be Willing To Destabilize The Party

Isaiah J. Poole — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 10:39:38 -0400

Journalist and author William Greider is urging the labor movement and other progressives to get tough with the Democratic Party, even if that means putting the party's majority control in the House and Senate at risk.

Greider, who was at the AFL-CIO headquarters in Washington Thursday to discuss his latest book, "Come Home America," said that groups that have reliably supported Democrats over the years needed to more aggressively counter the ability of conservatives within the party to "blow the whistle" against reforms that working people are fighting to gain. In saying that, he bolsters the case of progressives who have argued that they must act as an independent force that alternately cooperates with and challenges Democrats, including President Obama.

Greider said that progressives should respond to those southern Blue Dogs and other conservatives by telling the party, "We are going to their districts and talk about what they’re for and what they’re against. Are they for whacking Social Security or aren’t they? Let’s put it on the table. Let’s have an honest debate about that. If that makes people nervous, that's good."

“Yes, I am for putting candidates into selected districts who themselves have no great prospects for winning, but who may very well destabilize that safe seat for an incumbent. I’m for that," he went on to say. "And if that leads sooner or later to Democrats losing their majority control, yes, that’s a real threat. And think about it, Democrats. If you want to do something about it, you can. If you don’t, we are going to try to destabilize your comfort.”

Greider made those comments during a question-and-answer session that followed a 20-minute talk about the themes of the book itself, which he finished just as the current economic crisis was unfolding. The book discusses what he calls the inability of elected officials in both political parties to enact the serious reforms the country needs to not only properly respond to the economic crisis but to address the nation's other long-term challenges. He says that the key to shaking up the political system is an independent, grassroots uprising.

"We can get to a better place on the other side of the crisis," he said. "I call it America the possible... But, here's the killer 'but.' It cannot happen unless the people step up in some unorganized, chaotic, unruly, occasionally angry manner, and reclaim their role as citizens.”

That could force the Democratic Party to address its own identity crisis, Greider says.

The Democratic Party is at its testing moment,” Greider said. For the past 25 years it has been wooing the allegiance of both working people and moneyed interests. “It tried to manage that straddle without choosing. Now is the moment where we will find out what side you are on, as they say.”

Rather than allowing Democrats to assume that labor and other reliably Democratic constituencies will be with the party no matter what, Greider says that the message of labor to the Democrats should be simple: “We will be with you if you are with us, and if you are not with us, we will step back and make our own politics."

Greider, who as Washington correspondent for The Nation has written extensively about the financial system, also is a strong critic of the Obama's administration's response to the financial crisis. Asked to respond to a recent speech by President Obama that rebuffed calls from progressive calls to take tougher action to break up and reconstitute "too-big-to-fail" financial institutions, saying that the government's posture should be to "first, do no harm," Greider responded, "They are doing harm. They're doing harm to the future."

Greider said that Obama sounds as if he wants "to recreate Wall Street as it existed before the wreckage….That is a fallacious goal. You can’t do it….And he shouldn’t do it."

Instead, "if the president made some personnel changes and came out and said, 'We are going to have to spend some money on burying the zombies and distributing the parts, but here's the banking system I want to leave behind four years from now, five years from now, eight years from now, people will be applauding in the streets."

The public will support a plausible plan for a new and more equitable financial system, Greider said. “As long as they are trying to restore the old order, they will have justified public anger, and they will probably fail.”

America''s Future co-director Robert Borosage offered strong praise for Greider's book. "He gives you a really distilled, clear and searing look at reality, and lays out the big obstacles or challenges we face, and writes well. And then he lays out public policy alternatives that makes sense, so there is a sense that there are ways out of this hole and a way to move to what he says is a new and better place.”

Roger Peterson (Pete)

Roger Peterson — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:44:05 -0400

I graduated from the University of Maine with a B.A. in Psychology in 1970, after serving almost five years as a medic in the Air Force.

In June 1970, I started The My Corporation to distribute My Sauce and My Wine Sauce, two products I developed while attending school. I wanted to become rich so I could help the world change for the better because I didn’t like it the way it was. To that end I developed the concept of the Living Label. It involved a hooded figure with a staff walking across a bridge from the darkness into the light. The figure’s movement across the bridge was meant to coincide with positive change in the world. As he moved toward the light, he would gradually lose his robe until he was completely naked on the other side. A nice idea but it didn’t fly. I refused to add preservatives to my formula and early product spoilage brought an end to The My Corporation after three years.

1973: Moved to California with my wife and two children and lived in San Francisco until 1980.

In 1976, when my children were attending John Swett Elementary School in San Francisco, I served on a special, “Blue Ribbon” committee of parents, teachers, and administrators appointed by the then Superintendent of Schools, Robert Alioto. The purpose of the Committee was to completely reevaluate public education. At our first meeting I asked the question, who are we? One young male teacher looked at me and said, “That’s not our job, that’s up to philosophers to figure out.” My response was, If we don’t know who we are, how can we make effective decisions about education? When I saw the Superintendent’s Assistant pull out a stop watch to time our discussions, I turned and walked out, knowing this committee, like many others I’ve served on and observed, was a waste of time. I realized that if I wanted to know who we are, I’d have to figure it out for myself since no one else seemed to see the importance of doing so.

In 1978, after being inspired by the book Seth Speaks by Jane Roberts and Robert Butts, I started publishing Coordinate Point, a magazine that explored questions like who are we, what’s reality, and what’s the purpose of life? When I began to pay attention to my Inner experiences and experiment with the nature of my own consciousness, I began to see and experience things few of us do, or remember. To survive, we let waking events take priority over the more subtle, inner or intuitive experiences we all have. Even so, many of us do remember unusual dreams, imaginings, and waking experiences that are worth sharing. By pooling and sharing these unique experiences we can stimulate the development of our inner senses and intuitive abilities and, thus, redefine who we are.

If we want to change the world for the better we need to understand who we are and what reality is, otherwise, we will continue to recycle tired old ideas like we do now in government, business, education, and our own private lives, ideas that have proven time and again they only create revolution (going around in circles), not evolution (transformation into something more desirable). There is no doubt we are very clever but more than clever, we need to be wise. To change the world for the better, we need to change ourselves for the better!

For me, nothing is more exciting, or worth doing, than changing myself and the world for the better.

Pete

Glen Pritchard

Glen Pritchard — Fri, 09 May 2008 17:23:27 -0400

True People/Senator Power Ratio

Philip Palij — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 02:45:21 -0400

With figures from the US Census 2006 Estimate you can see just how undemocratic the Senate Is. There should be 142 Californian Senators for 2 Senators in Wyoming

This table shows how many Senators each state would return if it had the same people/senator ratio as Wyoming.

Table of State/Senators Power Ratio

State | Population | Senators Wyoming 515004 2 District of Columbia 581530 2.26 Vermont 623908 2.42 North Dakota 635867 2.47 Alaska 670053 2.6 South Dakota 781919 3.04 Delaware 853476 3.31 Montana 944632 3.67 Rhode Island 1067610 4.15 Hawaii 1285498 4.99 New Hampshire 1314895 5.11 Maine 1321574 5.13 Idaho 1466465 5.69 Nebraska 1768331 6.87 West Virginia 1818470 7.06 New Mexico 1954599 7.59 Nevada 2495529 9.69 Utah 2550063 9.9 Kansas 2764075 10.73 Arkansas 2810872 10.92 Mississippi 2910540 11.3 Iowa 2982085 11.58 Connecticut 3504809 13.61 Oklahoma 3579212 13.9 Oregon 3700758 14.37 Puerto Rico 3927776 15.25 Kentucky 4206074 16.33 Louisiana 4287768 16.65 South Carolina 4321249 16.78 Alabama 4599030 17.86 Colorado 4753377 18.46 Minnesota 5167101 20.07 Wisconsin 5556506 21.58 Maryland 5615727 21.81 Missouri 5842713 22.69 Tennessee 6038803 23.45 Arizona 6166318 23.95 Indiana 6313520 24.52 Washington 6395798 24.84 Massachusetts 6437193 25 Virginia 7642884 29.68 New Jersey 8724560 33.88 North Carolina 8856505 34.39 Georgia 9363941 36.36 Michigan 10095643 39.21 Ohio 11478006 44.57 Pennsylvania 12440621 48.31 Illinois 12831970 49.83 Florida 18089888 70.25 New York 19306183 74.97 Texas 23507783 91.29 California 36457549 141.58

United States 299398484 1175.96

Debugging Democracy: The People of the United States

Philip Palij — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 20:40:49 -0400

You have to believe your vote will count for something otherwise whats the point in voting.

Only 36 percent of voters from ages 18-24 showed up to cast their votes for the 2000 presidential election.
80 Million Americans, approximately 40% of the people, didn't vote in the last Presidential election
A survey of 100,000 high school students in 2005 revealed that students who say they either don't know how they feel about their First Amendment rights or they just take them for granted came out at 73%. These students will be voting in the coming elections.

The rule of the majority and the principle of free elections are the foundation of modern western democracies and most of the American democratic model as we see it today. All eligible citizens around 200 million of them can vote though too many don't. The system isn't working the way it should. Why?

Visualizing huge numbers is difficult think of them in massive anonymous groups and you lose the intrinsic qualities of the individual. To make any sense of the numbers you have to look at it another way, as a citizen. Every citizen has equal rights and responsibilities in the electoral process, so looking through the eyes of an individual as they enter the polling booth and the influences on them at that critical time, what they see, think and feel makes more sense.

The test of citizenship, your rights and responsibilities and the Bill Of Rights are included in the reference section below, its not a comprehensive list but a fair reflection of what the voter understands about the part they play in act of voting.

Next, depending on your state and the nature of your city and town council is the list of elections you can decide to participate in,. This list covers Utah local, state and national voting.

Elections you can vote in during 2008

President and Vice President
State Governor and Lieutenant Governor
State Attorney General
State Auditor and Treasurer
U.S. House Districts
US Senate Districts( 2010)
State Senate Districts
State Legislature
State Board of Education Districts
Council Elections
Mayoral Elections

This is a lot of elections, a huge number of issues and can anybody put hand on heart say they know the exact date and time they take place and the candidates stance on every issue at every level when they vote? Chances are they don't. Who has participated in ALL elections they were eligible for?

For the dedicated citizen willing to spend time finding out about all the issues to be fought for in these elections, legal, technical and weigh up all the arguments at all levels is a big job. It takes time and you have to be motivated. Picking a candidate who's policies and thinking are in line with yours is a matter of compromise, finding the best fit. The average voter with a family, job, mortgage and life to run is not dedicated to politics they are dedicated to the safety, security, health and well being of their families and themselves. So they turn to the professionals, the media to keep themselves informed or simply don't bother due to apathy.

Voter apathy and alienation
Apathy is a term used to mean indifference toward things you are not responsible for and can't control. For 80 Million Americans in the last presidential election there was a disconnect between themselves and the office of the President. It just wasn't worth voting. So how did the citizen get into this condition?

Thomas Jefferson once suggested that we should have a revolution every ten years to keep the government in line. Yep. Thomas Jefferson said that. Thomas Jefferson who had to take the presidential oath to protect and preserve the constitution and defend the country against enemies both foreign and domestic. Apathy is our enemy, and one must ask the question 'When did this start?'.

And we as a people aren't acting. When there are 50,000,000 persons aged 18-29 (the youth vote) most of which are pretty vocal about their beliefs and only 7,000,000 of them voted in the last presidential election, there's a problem. There is apathy. There is not spirit of revolution. And this makes me cry.

Go To Original Article

Citizens take their rights for granted

A survey of 100,000 high school students in 2005 revealed that students who say they either don't know how they feel about their First Amendment rights or they just take them for granted came out at 73%. These students will be voting in the coming elections.

The knowledge that every American is protected by the constitution and bill of rights, is not fully understood by the electorate and if they dont understand this then they dont fully understand each individuals responsibility to protect their rights.

Only when their first amendment rights are infringed in some way does the Bill Of Rights become meaningfull and the link is made between it and democracy. People who dont know what rights they have don't complain if their rights are taken away without their knowledge and are unaffected as an individual. Life goes on as normal so they are not motivated to vote.

How do you motivate someone like this out of complacency?

A Citizen may think their vote doesn't matter

17 US presidents have been put in power when only a minority voted for them. George W Bush is the latest example. That is undemocratic, the will of the majority has no legal standing, and in the days

Who can forget the lines of congressional representatives addressing Al Gore as 'Mr President' trying to object to the election of the new 'president' appealing for the support of just a single senator for an investigation. The bizarre sight of Al Gore himself overruling the objections. This sent a very powerful message to the voters.

Nixon, Bill Clinton, Bush/Cheney and the 935 lies that got the US and the coalition of the willing into an illegal war in Iraq and the Democrats willingness, even when voted into power to stop it again damaged the American democracy's credibility.

Now the obvious and glaring economic damage caused by deregulation, they voters did not vote for this and yet they are powerless as are the representatives they elected to stop it.

Citizens Distrust all politicians

Who can blame them, the constant stream of court cases and investigations at local, state and national level revealing the ever present, secretive, lawful and unlawful links between big money and their elected representatives own interests. Its not a question of if you are being lied to its a question of how much and voting accordingly. However the lesser of a dozen evils is still evil.

For a humorous look at the issue see this opinion and as true today as it was then in 2000 before the US presidential Elections.

The bugs have been in the system a long time.

Distrust of the Election System
America has one of the most mobile workforces, people move around a lot and voter de-registration /registration is not uppermost in their minds when they move or when they die. Electronic voting has opened up a whole raft of potential weaknesses in the system. Providing ID's, registration manipulating dead voter roles all contribute to a perception of distrust.

Some voter fraud stories bearing witness

Voter Fraud 2000 - Presidential Election
Recovered History: U.S. Election Fraud Circa 2000
Sludge Report #164 - Vote Fraud 2004 – WTF!!!
This story on 'Dead Men Voting'
For an eye opening list on voter fraud commencing 2004 Go Here
Voter Fraud (The Machines)
"Myth" of Voter Fraud Focus of Senate Hearing 2007

How could they get away with it?

This is just a few of the cases, the last one shows how you can disenfranchise a voter by convincing them not to vote by encouraging apathy. I will be looking more deeply at the election process in a coming post.

The result of an election should be fair and verifiable, if it is not, then your system is in big trouble. Another problem to look at is the long list of allegations compared to the number cases prosecuted, why?

Press Detachment From The Citizen
Blame the media

In this article Emma Claire Sohn, as an individual, blames the media for apathy and Brian Pierce makes the case that the media is not responsible. That the media is self service these days and its the responsibility of the citizen to go find what they want he ignores Emma's argument that she did. Brian's argument is spurious as you can never find whats not reported. The medias duty is to serve up only the most popular news and entertainment, the stuff that makes the most money.

The first amendment guarantees the individuals right to free speech and the freedom of the press. In supreme court judgments the press has rarely been given rights over and above that of the citizen. Its based on the assumption that the press should accurately reflect the citizens voice.

Here is the bug, in Emma's case the press does not reflect her voice and her needs as a citizen. It does this by not informing her of elections or even recognizing a duty exists to tell her elections are coming, the issues and who is standing for what.

Although at a local level it highlights a change in the role of the press in society one which should be recognized at a state and national level. The difficulty comes in identifying how much is evolution and how much is orchestrated.

All media have a commercial interest in selling as much advertising space as they can and if they have to ditch space on local or national democracy for something sexier to attract readership and revenue they will. Plus they can't afford to get involved in expensive court cases, they might win the legal case but go bankrupt doing it. This means they go after only popular uncontroversial stories. Self Censorship.

Media Owners may not invest simply to make profit but also to promote their own political views and suppress those they disagree with. Own enough media outlets and you can control the stories the people rely on to keep themselves informed.

The point is you cant argue, form an opinion or vote about something you don't know about.

Disenfranchised Voters - Voter Suppression – Voter Caging

Voters in general are made aware that this goes on, but not the scale of it because it is hard to prove and prosecute. I'm going to leave this to the post on electing Congress and the office of the President as this is something done to the citizen, something they are not aware of when they vote. Just like the citizen the perception this section gives is a somewhat uncertain feel about the worth of voting.

From the Huffington Post: Could the Republicans Pick the Democratic Nominee? -- The Untold Story of How the GOP Rigged Florida and Michigan" Posted March 31, 2008

Some believe they are more equal than others

Something I will just touch on here but it will be a large part of my argument later on.

You run a large corporation or a political party or you own a bank, you could be a General, your word is law in the domain you have created for yourself. The democratic system limits you to just one vote. Your vote has the same weight as the man or woman you employ to shine your shoes.

How can you exert political and economic influence in proportion your wealth, education, politics and breeding within a democratic system? You can't, Its very humbling for you and your peers to have exactly the same democratic power as an unemployed man or woman living in poverty. So that won't work, you have make the wealth or power you have tell another way.

As an honest political strategist and tactician how do you bring the undemocratic wealthy and powerful into the American representative democracy.

Summary

When Joe or Jane Public goes to vote they sacrifice time and effort to figure out who they are voting for and have some understanding on why they will vote the way they do. All the stuff written above and in the reference section below will be absorbed over time and form the background for their decision as they enter the polling booth and face the voting machine.

Now put on your power elite hat and think of ways you can use these bugs to control the outcome of elections and ensure that your view. Its really not that hard. There are a lot of other Press Issues which need to be identified and fixed but I am leaving those for my post on the role of the press here its the role and perceptions of the citizen.

The bug list

Bug People #1: Citizens take their rights for granted
Bug People #2: A Citizen may think their vote doesn't matter
Bug People #3: Citizens Distrust all politicians
Bug People #4: Distrust of the Election System
Bug People #4.1: Voter Fraud
Bug People #4.2: Disenfranchisement
Bug People #4.3: Voter Suppression
Bug People #4.4: Voter Caging
Bug People/Press #5: Citizens are not fully and fairly informed by the press
Bug People/Press #5.1 : The press has no obligation to be the citizens voice or to inform the electorate of pending elections, the issues or candidates so local democracy suffers
Bug People/Press #5.2: The press is risk averse it self-censors stories where legal action may follow despite credible evidence. This is big money at work throughout the US and western democracy. It is censorship through intimidation.
Bug People/Press #5.3: People love human issues, it sells, so framing political issues in a personality and image becomes more important than the issues they represent.. The more personally controversial the better. You are voting for the person not the issues. For most people its easier and more natural to form an opinion about a person than an issue
Bug People/Press #5.4: The Mainstream Media will over time, through the appointment of editors and staff reflect the political opinions of its owner, the owner in turn may be susceptible to or willing to promote the political views of others through publishing or suppression of stories.

Bugs will be analyzed in the final post in this series. Next....... Bugs in the Constitution 2008

References For The Citizens View.

Eligibility To Vote In State and Federal Elections

Be a citizen of the United States
Be a resident of your state at least 30 days before the next election
Be at least 18 years old by Election Day

There are other classifications but this covers the majority.

The citizens Rights and responsibilities

The following basic list of citizen rights and responsibilities comes from http://www.voteutah.org/ It covers the state of Utah. I chose this as a fairly representative site advising citizens old and new of their rights.

Citizen Responsibilities

Obeying Laws - Mandatory
Paying Taxes - Mandatory
Jury Duty - Mandatory
Serve as a Witness - Mandatory
Register for the Draft - Mandatory
Voting – Optional

Citizens Rights

Freedom of Religion – First Amendment, the establishment clause prohibits the government from passing laws that will establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. The free exercise clause prohibits the government from interfering with a persons practice of their religion
Freedom of Speech - First Amendment, the right to speak publicly or privately
Freedom of the Press - First Amendment, the right of the citizen to express themselves publicly through the press.
The Right to Assemble – First Amendment, Citizens can assemble to exchange ideas or protest peacefully any issue and demand reform.
The Right to Petition - First Amendment, The right to petition the government for a redress of grievances guarantees people the right to ask the government to provide relief for a wrong through the courts or other governmental action. It works with the right of assembly to allow people to join together to seek change from the government.
The Rights of Black Americans – After a tortuous political and military journey through American history the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. This law bans discrimination because of a person's color, race, national origin, religion, or sex. The act primarily protects the rights of blacks and other minorities.
The Rights of All Americans - In recent times, legislation has focused less on the rights of ethnic and racial groups. In 1980 the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act ensured that the rights of persons in institutions, such as government-run hospitals, nursing homes and prison, are protected against unconstitutional conditions. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) has helped strengthen the rights people with disabilities.

First Amendment: The Bill Of Rights

Full Bill of Rights in their original form with pre-amble can be read here

Amendment I - 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.

Amendment II - A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III - No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V - No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI - In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII - In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII - Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Lois Hamilton

vlhamilton — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 17:30:46 -0500

I am a retired business woman with a degree in English Literature from UCSB, who has decided to work full-time in the Peace and Social Justice Activist Community to help bring about the Progressive changes much needed in our country. I will never stop protesting and rallying for peace and equality for every man woman and child in our country and the World.

I am currently the Santa Barbara "Operation Democracy" Council Coordinator for MoveOn.Org and the "media chairperson" for both Health Care for All-CA and SB Progressive Democrats of America. I am also politically involved in our local, state and national governments, helping to elect Progressive candidates to office. I worked tirelessly to elect Barack Obama president.

I am an avid reader, who has made it my duty to stay informed on what is happening in my country and the rest of the world. I also LOVE historical novels and mysteries and read at least a couple each month.

As a mother and a grandmother I feel it my duty to make the world that my precious Grandchildren inherit the very best and most Progressive, Peaceful and Environmentally sustainable one possible.

Equal Opportunity for all, including a Universal Single Payer Health Care Plan and a strong public education system (K through College) is my most urgent vision and goal for my country.

Peace and a sustainable environmental policy are my most ardent hope for the World. There is a great movement afoot across our globe to bring a more sustainable and gentle attitude to the way we must live on our planet to protect our Mother Earth, to sustain her and leave her healthy for future generations.

As long as I live on the planet I will do my best to accomplish these goals.

New Report Debunks "Conservative America" Myth, Shows Progressive Ideas On The Rise

Toby Chaudhuri — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 00:00:00 -0400

WASHINGTON - The conventional wisdom that Americans are overwhelmingly conservative is fundamentally false, according to a new report released today by the Campaign for America's Future and Media Matters for America. The report shows that a majority of Americans have held progressive positions on a broad range of controversial issues for decades.

Campaign for America's Future co-director Robert Borosage noted that thousands of progressives gathering in Washington next week for his group's "Take Back America" conference will be emboldened by the report's findings.

"Americans are looking for bold leadership that will take our country in a new direction," said Borosage. "With the conservative movement in disarray, it's no surprise that progressive ideas are driving the national debate now."

By analyzing the underlying questions from surveys by the American National Election Studies (NES), the General Social Survey (GSS), Gallup polls and other nonpartisan sources, the study found that most Americans agree with progressives. Key findings follow.

ON HEALTH CARE: 69 percent of Americans think it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have access to health coverage; 76 percent find access to health care more important than maintaining the Bush tax cuts; three in five would be willing to have their own taxes increased to achieve universal coverage.

ON ENERGY POLICY: 52 percent of Americans believe "the best way for the U.S. to reduce its reliance on foreign oil" is to "have the government invest in alternative energy sources"; 68 percent of the public thinks U.S. energy policy is better solved by conservation than production.

ON THE ECONOMY: Seventy-seven percent of Americans believe Congress should increase the minimum wage; 66 percent believe "upper-income people" pay too little in taxes; 53 percent feel the Bush administration's tax cuts have failed because they have increased the deficit and caused cuts in government programs.

ON GOVERNMENT'S ROLE: 69 percent of Americans believe the government "should care for those who can't care for themselves." Twice as many people (43 percent to 20 percent) want "government to provide many more services even if it means an increase in spending" as want government to provide fewer services "in order to reduce spending."

###

**NOTE: An electronic copy of the complete report is available at www.ourfuture.org. **