Why America is No Longer a Democratic Republic

Why America is No Longer a Democratic Republic

Based on an editorial by David Model, posted at OpEdNews

Cited here are quotations from David Model, a college professor, author, and public speaker.. They are excerpts from his recent editorial titled Media Circus Obsession: Obfuscating the Real Deficiencies of U.S. Democracy, In addition to the statements below, Mr. Model presents what he sees as thirteen defects in our government that keep America from being a democracy.Aside from his list of thirteen defects, these are the comments I see as being of greatest interest to Americans who dread the erosion of democracy in America.

“When commenting on the impact of elections on democratic ideals, it is necessary to look beneath the symptoms and identify the real problems.”

“Barnum and Bailey would turn green with envy at the circus masquerading as an electoral campaign currently in the United States.”

“Electioneering spectacles are both artificial and superficial but are really just a symptom of the underlying infringements of democratic ideals.”

”United States, Britain and Canada are the only three democracies that have not implemented some variation of proportional representation but have clung to the First-Past-The-Post system, a majoritarian system, in which only a plurality is needed in each voting district to determine the outcome.”

.”.. it (is) virtually impossible for smaller parties to gain any ground in the elected chambers of government. ”

.”..the Electoral College ... enhances the possibility of the winner having fewer popular votes than the loser.”

”American election campaigns are incapable of informing the public about the real stances of candidates on all the issues and revealing the true character and integrity of the candidates.”

”In many European countries paid advertising has been banned due to the overriding manipulative nature of a thirty second ad designed by public relations and advertising experts who are only interested in selling a product rather than informing the public.”

”Many democracies have also banned donations by any groups such as corporations and unions …”

“... the ideal method for funding elections would be based on a fair formula by which the government would either provide all the money or a balanced combination of government funding and individual donations with strict limits.”

“In the U.S., there is a two party system in which both parties are beholden to corporate donors …”

“In 2011, a total of $3.3 billion was spent on lobbying by 12,633 lobbyists translating into $6,168,000 spent on each member of the House and Senate on average and 23.6 lobbyists per each member of both Houses.”

In 2012, many pundits are predicting a total expenditure of $5 billion for all campaigns, the major source of which are wealthy benefactors or corporations.

“Lobbying virtually destroys political equality in the United States thereby undermining the principle of "by the people, for the people" and "dedicated to the principle that all men are created equal.”

“It is impossible to govern with only the public interest in mind when candidates are beholden to the people who funded their victory.”

“As for ordinary citizens, they may be able to meet with their member of Congress or Senate but the extent of their influence is often minimal.”

“The bailout during the financial crises ignored those who suffered the most, namely those who lost their jobs, the poor and those who lost their homes.”

“Leadership in Congress has been accorded too much power which can be used to serve ideological ends rather than the public interest.”

“In the United States, Supreme Court appointments are tainted by ideological considerations.   The Citizens United and the Florida Recount cases demonstrate the role of ideology in the Court's judgments.”

.”.. the criminalization of dissent and militarization of the police have resulted in a multiplicity of violations of civil and legal rights not to mention the First Amendment.”

“Corporate ownership and advertising and the symbiotic relation between big corporations and the government have reduced the media to stenographers of power.”

I hope the items quoted here will prompt you to read Mr. Model's entire editorial on the subject. And, of course, you will have to read his full statement to review the thirteen defects he sees in our government today.

Restoring the American Dream - Part I

           CITIZENS IN ACTION CAN DEFEAT GOVERNMENT INACTION

“I remain just one thing, and one thing only – and that is a clown. It places me on a far higher plane than any politician.” – Charlie Chaplin

The “Occupy” Movement. This movement has been active since September 17, 2011 . It was formed to bring attention to the fact that there are strong financial ties and mutual support between Wall Street and Congress that have contributed to some gross inequality, inequity, and iniquity. They drew attention to their cause by establishing encampments in cities across the country. Support comes not just from New York, but from all over the country and all over the globe. These are the cries of the weak, the needy, the down-trodden, the unfortunate, the disenfranchised, and of people of principle who unite with them in their struggle, not just for equality, but for survival.

“If you ask the government for permission to protest it, you deserve to be told no." – Jim Lesczynski, Manhattan Libertarian Party Chair

The Grievances. There are massive numbers of problems that beset our country and it people today, The Declaration of the Occupation of New York City by the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators outlined 21 major grievances, and even then noted that the list was not all-inclusive. With a little more thought, that list could easily have numbered 100 or more.

"Our tradition is one of protest and revolt, and it is stultifying to celebrate the rebels of the past, while we silence the rebels of the present." – Henry Steele Commager

"During the last bubble (from 2002 to 2006) the top 1% of Americans -- paid mainly from the Wall Street casino -- received two-thirds of the gain in national income, while the bottom 90% -- mainly dependent on Main Street's shrinking economy -- got only 12%. This growing wealth gap is not the market's fault. It's the decaying fruit of bad economic policy … “My G.O.P. destroyed the U.S. economy. " – David Stockman, (former Director of Ronald Reagan's Office of Management and Budget)

The Over-Riding Point. The most important sentence in this Occupy Wall Street document sums up all the frustration and suffering that the people of our country have been forced to endure. It states,

“No true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic interests. We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments.” – Declaration of the Occupation of New York City

Four key words in this statement are “corporations ... run our governments.” This is especially true at the federal and state levels. The bottom line is: All of the other issues spring from this one root problem.

There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root. – Henry David Thoreau, Walden, 1854

Big Money Drives Politics. Politicians need huge amounts of money to campaign for public office. Corporations (and the financial elite) need strong support in our legislative branches to ensure that their wealth will be protected and will continue to grow. The money brokers thereby become power brokers, helping to finance the campaigns of candidates who will protect the power elite's interests in return.

"A relatively small number of deep-pocketed donors exerted an outsize influence on Tuesday's [election] results," – Michael Luo/Griff Palmer, New York Times (11/3/10). "The big corporations are going to try to get what they paid for. – Richard Trumka, AFL-CIO President, New York Times (11/3/10).

Money can't buy you love . . . but it can frequently buy you an elective office. Typically, in federal elections the candidate that raises the most money wins about 90 percent of the time. Most of this money comes from wealthy donors who expect something in return. And, whenever politicians accept huge monetary donations from deep-pocket sources, they are likely to feel indebted to do something for them in return, to ensure that those same sources will contribute again in future elections. Because money plays an undue role in how politicians are elected, it also plays an undue role in how they act. Even Glenn Beck agrees.

“Wall Street owns our government. Our government and these gigantic corporations have merged.” – Glenn Beck, New York Times (9/19/09)

How Many Millionaires Does It Take to Take Control of the Politics of a Whole State? In the October 10, 2011 issue of The New Yorker, Jane Mayer reported how one conservative millionaire did exactly that. In North Carolina, a swing state that is expected to be important in the 2012 elections, one millionaire bankrolled the campaigns of 22 conservative candidates for the state legislature. Eighteen of them were successful, giving majority status to the Republicans in both houses of the state legislature for the first time since 1870.

“For an individual to have so much power is frightening. The government of North Carolina is for sale.” – Chris Heagarty, Democratic candidate for the North Carolina legislature in the New York Times (10/10/11)

Money talks, and politicians listen . . . and they respond in kind to the benefit of corporations and the wealthy.. Was it just a coincidence that three of the five top corporate donors to the candidacy of Barack Obama and John McCain in 2008 (Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase & Co, and Citigroup Inc.) were all among the top ten financial firms to be bailed out, to the tune of $80 billion? That amount of money could have provided from $25,000 to $50,000 for 1.6 million to 3.2 million homeowners to escape foreclosure and potential family ruin. The big three donors were seen as being “too big to fail,” but 1.6 million to 3.2 million homeowners, individually or collectively, were apparently not “too big to fail.” Let's face it. Big money owns Big Business, and Big Business owns the government (at both the federal and state levels).

If you are a major contributor and go to Washington, you might have a chance to have lunch with a senator or representative; or if you are a really big contributor, you might even end up at the White House. The closest chance you or I have at having lunch at the White House is buying a hot dog from the vendor on Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the building. – Marc A Triebwasser, How Corporations Influence the Government (1998 )

Congress Members' Loyalties Once elected, members of Congress frequently ignore the people whom they are elected to represent. Their first priority is to get reelected. Their second allegiance is to their political parties. Third comes their financial backers. Then come their supporters – the people who voted for them, followed as a distant fifth the people in their district who did not vote for them,. And, dead last, come the needs and welfare of our country and all of its people.

A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman thinks of the next generation. — James Freeman Clarke (1810–1888), Unitarian clergyman, writer

So, when Congress members say that they are going to consult with their constituencies, it isn't necessarily the people in their representational district to whom they are referring. They are just as likely to be conferring with their financial backers and lobbyists. When they do meet with their true constituency, it is just as likely that they will be trying to convince them on his or her stand of an issue rather than soliciting their input on the subject. A Congress member's constituency should be all of the people in the country. Next, it is supposed to be the voters or residents in a district represented by an elective officer. However, it doesn't always turn out that way. Here is a more realistic way of how many Congress members view their constituencies

Wall Street's Views of the OWS Protest. With regard to the Occupy Wall Street movement, one Wall Street money manager recently expressed disappointment that their New York Congress members had not “come out swinging for an industry that donates heavily to their campaigns.” He stated, “They need to understand who their constituency is.” He is saying, in effect, “To hell with the people; we are the ones they really represent.” Unfortunately, there is a great deal of truth to that premise.

"We've got government to the highest bidder. We've got auction block democracy. It's not true that each voter counts for one and only one; that's the way it's supposed to be in a democracy. Money determines who gets to run for office, how people run for office, it determines what people do while in office and the fact of the matter is the vast majority of people are cut out of the loop." – Senator Paul Wellstone (1992)

Continue to Part II

Restoring Democracy - One Vote at a Time

Our country is in the midst of its biggest political, social, and economic crisis since the Great Depression. This crisis was not caused by the people of the country, but by a runaway Congress. Congress has been bought by big money interests whom they dutifully serve at the expense of "the 99%." Our two major parties constitute a corrupt political duopoly that does the bidding of the wealthy plutocracy, and together they are transforming our country from a democratic republic into a fascist state.

Some of our politicians are preaching reform, such as reversing the Citizens United ruling, but this at best is just a token effort. These proposals are piecemeal approaches and very much like tossing a bone to a dog to keep him from biting. We cannot expect Congress to solve our root problems on their own, because Congress is the root problem. However, there a process we can implement that should motivate them to act on our behalf.

The one thing politicians fear most is the loss of their elected positions. Threatening them with this is probably the best way for us to get their attention and to let them know that we mean business. We will need to demonstrate our undivided strength as a threat to their retaining their positions. Then, if they don't act in our best interests, we can continue the process until they are all voted out.

So, how do we regain our rightful control over the government and restore power to the people? We stage a peaceful revolution -- a rebellion at the ballot box. In the Congressional primary elections, we need to vote against every Democrat or Republican incumbent, because they are all beholden to their parties and to the financial elite who contribute billions of dollars to their elections. But we must make sure not to replace them with other members of the same party machinery who will just continue their predecessors' practices. In short, we must cast our votes for independent or third-party candidates wherever possible and never for a candidate of the two major political parties.

There are more than 310 million citizens in this great country. A little more than 3 million belong to the top 1%, leaving 307 million in the bottom 99%. As long as we have the “one person, one vote” rule, we have the numbers; we have the strength; and we have the clout to vote them out.

In the last presidential election, there were 206 million citizens who were eligible to vote, but only 131 million actually did, leaving 75 million who chose not to vote. If we can get just 20% of that 75 million to vote as recommended herein, we can send a very powerful 15 million vote message to our politicians – enough to sway even the hardest of hearts..

We must communicate our plan to both voting and non-voting citizens alike. In this election, more than any other in the past 30 years, the American people are truly responsible for doing something that can improve their lives for many years to come. If we can energize and mobilize a sufficient number of citizens to vote against all Democrats and all Republicans in the primary elections, we would certainly get the attention of these lawmakers and send a very loud populist message that immediate drastic action is needed if they want to stay in office.

In the general elections, we need to recognize that candidates from the two major parties are still part of the problem. We should vote to reject all of the Democrats and Republicans running for Congress this year. However, there may be some rare situations when one candidate, regardless of how bad he or she may be, might still be strongly preferable to any available alternative. In such circumstances, the voter should feel to vote his or her own conscience, as the lesser of two evils.

This process should also be applied at the state level (especially the governor's position), because the states are often the breeding grounds for future national politicians, and governors frequently appoint replacement representatives whenever a mid-term vacancy occurs.

In both elections, we need to get our message across that we aren't willing to settle for the status quo; we aren't going to settle for less than our forefathers ordained; and we aren't going to accept anything less than the American Dream. Either they return our democracy to us or we will turn them out of office.

The "Saving American Democracy" Amendment

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont has proposed legislation to pass a Constitutional amendment to address the problem of huge money sources in electoral politics. A complete copy of the amendment can be found here.

At his site, Bernie Sanders says that his amendment would stipulate that:

1. Corporations are not persons with constitutional rights equal to real people.
2. Corporations are subject to regulation by the people.
3. Corporations may not make campaign contributions or any election expenditures.
4. Congress and states have the power to regulate campaign finances.

However, this amendment and others like it, would only undo the Citizens United ruling and leave political corruption at the same unacceptable level it was at before the Supreme Court weighed in with its opinion.  My major problems with this legislation lie in the following:

1. It is primarily aimed only at reversing the Citizens United ruling.
2. It restricts only for-profit corporations and limited liability entities, but not non-profit organizations
3. It would not get money out of politics.
4. Rather, it would just get for-profit entities out of elections..
5. It says that corporations would be subject to regulation by the people, but provides for this to be done through their elected representatives. This doesn't even seem to be a change.
6. When it comes to not making “campaign contributions or any election expenditures, I can see the possibility of loopholes that corporations could use to get around this provision.
7. The amendment leaves it up to Congress and the states to pass legislation to enact this amendment. They already have the power to do this. We've seen what they have done thus far, and, while they might be convinced to pass an amendment to reverse the Citizens United ruling, it is not likely that they will enact any major controls on other gifts of money, goods, or services.

This particular amendment appears to be somewhat like tossing a bone to a barking dog just to quiet him and keep him from attacking. If it also distracts the public from the fact that it doesn't even address the issue of getting money out of politics, all the better for the politicians. There is no mention of restricting lobbying, so lobbyists could still feel free to contribute money, goods, or services and bill them to the corporations they represent as business expenses or bury the in their consulting fees.

In my opinion, this is just a baby step in the right direction, when we urgently need a giant leap.

Big Problems with Our Two-Party System

Where a Two-Party System Can Function Well.  In any country where there is a two-party system, these parties represent opposing ideologies. Otherwise, there wouldn't be a perceived need for two parties. However, as long as there is sufficient overlap in their positions where they can find some common ground between them, and as long as both parties have the best interests of the country and its people at heart, the two-party system can function well.

Advantages. In a two-party system, voters are exposed to only two different ideologies and it is relatively easy to contrast their platforms and positions against their own beliefs and goals. It tends to be an “either/or” situation which simplifies the decision-making process. When there are multiple parties, it is more difficult to assess their comparative differences and to decide for whom one might choose to vote. When a two-party system has been established for a long time, the party positions are well known to, and generally understood by, the electorate.

Two-Party System Needs Centrists.  Two-party systems are supposed to encourage political parties to focus on the areas of overlap in their positions with one another and to cooperate in enacting legislation that promotes those positions for the good for the country. This should result in a form of centrism where the two parties overlap on common ground. When this is true, it can promote stability and and progress, resulting in greater satisfaction among voters.

"The Loyal Opposition."   In those areas where there is disagreement, there used to be a concept known as “the loyal opposition.” This term reflects the fact that the electorate put a particular person in power to govern for the good of the people. Out of respect for the electorate, the party not in power may defer to the will of the voters and compromise with the party in power for the common good. The greater the margin of victory for the ruling party, the greater would be the cooperation of the minority party.

But What Happened?  However, as reported in the New York Times in 2009:

“... in the partisan politics of recent decades, another view developed, advanced by Congressional leaders like Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, that the minority party has the right, even obligation, to stick to its ideological principles.”

Result: Democracy Threatened.  Thus it is that we see most of the advantages of a two-party system slip from the grasp of democracy and democracy itself is in the stranglehold of what has become a two-party political duopoly.

Disadvantages. The spirit of bi-partisanship has been virtually cast aside. Whenever there are vestiges of such cooperation, it is frequently for the good of the two parties involved as much as it is the good of the American people as a whole.

Two-Party System at Its Worst.  The loyal opposition has evolved into a royal pain, as it fails repeatedly (and even refuses) to find common ground with the party in power and expresses a firm stance against anything that might smack of cooperation with the other party. The situation today has gotten so out of hand that the Republican Party has vowed that they will take any action necessary to see that the sitting president will be a one-term president. The result is a Congress that passes relatively meaningless legislation such as declaring pizza to be a vegetable and reaffirming “In God We Trust” as the national motto, while risking deadlock, lowered credit ratings, and threats of shutting down the government. That is not doing the will of the people who put them in office, but is totally self-serving.

Where Are the Moderates? The greatest areas of cooperation in the past have rested with the more moderate (or centrist} members of each party. However, CBS News recently reported that research has found that the number of moderate Senators has fallen steadily from 60 in 1982 down to 36 in 1994, to 9 in 2002, and to zero now. That leaves virtually no area of overlap between the two parties and little chance of bi-partisan support or compromise.

How Extreme Can You Be? Competition between the two parties had devolved into a rivalry for control, and each views their opposing party as the enemy who must be contained or beaten. Candidates frequently campaign not on what they can do for the country, but on how different they are from their competitors. Among the present Republican candidates for president, we have experienced a great rivalry as to which candidate is the most extreme in their conservatism as though that is a virtue, when it is more likely to become a vice that will disenfranchise all Americans who are not of the same ideology.

Enmity Breeds Contempt. Over time, this enmity between – and sometimes even within – the parties grows into bitterness and hatred. Neither party wants to cooperate with the other party, particularly the one that controls the White House, lest they be seen as cooperating with the enemy and collaborating in accomplishments might be seen as those of the party in power at the time. Distortion, baiting, and and name calling have become the norm, but compromise has become a dirty word.

And the Contempt Spreads. These negative sentiments are accepted and espoused by the close followers and strong supporters of the two parties. They are even encouraged by the parties themselves. Some media coverage has become strongly biased toward one political ideology and against the other. Eventually, this poisons and polarizes our country and its people, resulting in a central government that is divided against itself. This opposition itself becomes paramount, the will of the people is subverted, and the country suffers immensely as a direct result.

Impact on Democracy. It is these political parties that make the rules – who can run for elective office for their party, who can “debate” in public forums, who can vote in which elections, and who they can vote for.. When there are only two parties on most ballots, especially for federal office, we have little choice but to perpetuate this charade of democracy that has been perpetrated on the American people. Most of the time, the only choice we have is to vote for “the lesser of two evils,” resulting in perpetuating “evil” in office. The only other option is not to vote for those particular positions or not to vote at all. Unfortunately, too many Americans have opted for the latter option. As a result, we often have elections decided by about 40% of the electorate. If a winning candidate should get 50% of that vote, he or she would receive only 20% of the total electorate. This is hardly a democracy in which majority rules.

A Country Drastically in Need of Change. At his essay titled A Third Party Vote is Not Wasted, Szandor Blestman states:

“It is well past time the stranglehold this duopoly has on the nation was broken and someone else got the opportunity to lead. The change that this nation needs will not come from the establishment candidates who simply pay lip service to the concept of change. Perhaps the change needs to come from the people. We must be the change we seek. To help accomplish this, we need to change the types of people we vote into office.”

Hope for the Future. The writer goes onto say:

“It would give this journalist great hope to see just ten percent or so of the electorate voting third party, if for no other reason than to send a message to the establishment that we grow weary of their failed policies and are looking for a genuine shift in direction. If twenty percent of the people were to do so it would be fantastic, the politicians would take notice, and I would be exuberant. The more people that can be convinced to vote third party, any third party, the better in my opinion ...”

More on Third-Party Candidates and Voting in 2012. For readers who would like to read more about third-party candidates and some recommendations for voting in the coming 2012 elections, please go to Problems for Third Party Candidates and/or The Quickest Way to Solve Our Problems?
.
For another slant on this problem, check out Third Party Tyranny.

Coming Up:	Elections :Heart of Democracy or Height of Hypocrisy?
	In Presidential Debates, Duopoly Reigns
	Presidential Debates: Fraud or Farce?
	Problems For Third-Party Candidates

Congress Ignores the Will of the People

Who Do These People Think They Are? In short, they think they are our rulers and we are their servants, instead of it being the other way around. We elect them to serve their country and its people. Instead, they represent their own best interests and those of the wealthiest one percent. The fact is that most of them care much less about the country's welfare and much more about their own welfare and that of the richest among us.

Do We Have the Right People in Congress? Absolutely not! Members of Congress are the select few (535, to be exact) chosen from our entire population of 307 million who have been elected to represent the best interests of the entire country. Each House member represents an average of more than 700,000 citizens, and each Senator represents an average of more than 3 million citizens. That's a pretty heavy burden to bear, so it stands to reason that these representatives should be selected from among the cream of the crop of the political elite when it comes to intelligence, creativity, leadership, and the ability to accomplish meaningful legislation on behalf of their. Based upon the performance and achievements of the both the 112th and the 113th Congress (so far), we and they have failed miserably.

Who Are Their Constituencies? As stated elsewhere in this blog, Congress members have multiple constituencies, interests, and priorities. Often, these conflict with one another. That is when their priorities come into play. Here is my summation of the priorities of typical politicians at the state and federal levels.

• Once in office, their first loyalty is to themselves and doing anything they can to ensure that they get reelected. One of the greatest fears of any Congress member is to get voted out of office.
• Next is their allegiance to their political parties to ensure that enough of their members get elected to push their political agendas through their legislation. This will also help gain party support when the officeholder seeks reelection.
• Third are their financial backers – the corporations and the super-rich who contribute heavily to Congressional campaigns, and who run ads supporting their anointed candidates while excoriating their opponents. This includes lobbyists, PACs, Super PACs, 527 Groups and other special interest groups. The ;politicians have to give something back to these entities in order to secure their financial support for reelection. Money talks, and politicians have perfect hearing – especially whenever the words “contribution”, “donation,” or “check” are mentioned.
• Fourth come the people who voted for them. In public, most Congress members say these people are their constituents, but you can see just how high they come on their priority list. During election years, you will see them pandering to those whose votes they need to get reelected. In other years, they will do little for their benefit. However, when they do something for them, they will trumpet it from the heavens as though they are the second coming of the Messiah.
• And dead last come the rest of the people in the country whose best interests they are also supposed to represent. This group represents the overwhelming majority of us. This is supposed to include voters and non-voters alike, whether children or adults, and whether they are eligible to vote or not.. However, most legislators tend to consider their state or district constituencies to be only those who voted for them prior elections.

Why Do They Ignore the Will of the American People? The simple reason for this is “because they can.” They know that they can thwart the will of the American people and still get reelected. They can do this for the following reasons:

1. There is a built-in bias toward incumbents. Poll results released in October, 2011, showed that Congress had an approval rating of only 9%. However, another poll released in December, 2011, showed that:, although 76% of the people feel that most members of Congress don't deserve to be re-elected As a result, in 90% of the races, the incumbent gets reelected.
2. Incumbents are able to raise more money than new office seekers. And it is well known that in more than 90% of the elections, the candidate who raises the most campaign funds wins the election.
3. Electoral districts in most states are determined by politicians. As a result, the party in power generally secures a redistricting plan that is designed to keep party incumbents in office. Gerrymandering may be a dirty word to voters, but it is a Godsend to incumbent politicians because candidates from opposing parties are generally helpless in opposing this process.

This is by no means an all-inclusive list of why it is so hard to unseat incumbents. With the deck stacked so heavily in their favor, it is little wonder that politicians turn a deaf ear to the people of this country.

What is the Effect of Incumbent Bias? When the same people get elected to Congress again and again, we get the same old ideas, the same old practices, and the same old cronyism . In essence, we have a stagnant Congress, but one that has a stranglehold on our country . These politicians don't care much about the will of the people, and they don't care at all about public opinion, whether expressed in letters, e-mails, tweets, or polls, because they have rigged things in favor of their election, term after term after term. This is certainly not to the advantage of our country.

People First. The people must come first, not last, and those who do not see that, agree with that, and legislate to that end do not represent the people and deserve to be voted out of office. That includes virtually every member of Congress, and it is almost impossible to determine the few who are the good apples in a basket of rotten ones. So, we might have to sacrifice a few of the the good ones for the sake of our country, its citizens, and our democracy.

Use Your Clout and Vote Them Out. It is time for us to muster our collective elective strength and vote as many incumbents out of office as we possibly can. We need to send a very strong but clear message to the remaining representatives that we are “mad as hell and we aren't going to take it any more.” At the same time, however, we don't want to vote in party politicians who are going to fall right in line with their cohorts and work for the same priorities as their predecessor. We don't just need new blood in Congress. We need a new source of that blood, and it preferably won't come from either the radical right or the extreme left. We need progressive populists who know the Constitution and what it stands for, and who will to restore to this country once again a government of the people, by the people, for the people.

Democracy: From Definition to the Constitution

First let's examine two types of democracy and see how the founding father chose the type they did..

Pure Democracy

A pure democracy is one in which the power to govern lies directly in the hands of the people. Hence, it is sometimes also referred to direct democracy. All citizens are allowed to participate on an equal basis with fellow citizens in establishing policies, regulations and laws, and their enforcement. This form of democracy can work well for organizations or small towns, but it becomes unwieldy and virtually impossible at a national level. Attempts at pure democracy in a few colonies failed, which helped lead our country toward a different form of government.

Democratic Republic

To overcome the unwieldiness of a pure democracy, the drafters of our Constitution turned to a representative form of government. Instead of direct participation of the people in day-to-day governance, they set up a system that provided for elected representatives to enact executive and legislative policies and laws on behalf of its citizens in accordance with the common good and the welfare of our country. Therefore, our country was founded not as a pure democracy but as a democratic republic.

The Articles of Confederation

The Articles of Confederation were this country's first attempt to draft a constitution, uniting thirteen states under a weak federal government whose primary responsibilities were overseeing the revolution against England, conducting diplomatic discussions and negotiations with Europe, and dealing with territorial matters. There was no president, no cabinet, and no federal departments of any significance. It had no power to levy taxes (which was understandable considering the issues at that time), and was totally at the mercy of the states to make voluntary contributions for its support. This confederation did not establish a new country. Rather, it established only a loosely knit association of thirteen separate, diverse, and independent states. While this confederation was relatively successful in the three areas outlined above, it was totally ineffective in dealing with other urgent matters that required a stronger central government to be effective in other critical areas.

The U.S. Constitution

The United States Constitution was written in 1787 and took effect upon ratification of nine states in 1789. In framing a new constitution, its drafters had to walk a very tight line between national rights and states' rights. Many concessions had to be made on both sides to develop a document that would be acceptable to states with widely varying principles and practices. As a result our Constitution as drafted was considered by many to have been imperfect, even for the times, and had many defects which needed to be corrected after ratification. 

Where Do We Go From Here? 


Our Constitution has served us fairly well for more than 200 years.  It has endured thousands of challenges to our democratic republic.  However, it was not written to address every possible event or development that could arise in the indefinite future.  There is no way our founding fathers could ever, in their wildest dreams, have conceived that one day corporations would be recognized as persons, entitled to the same rights of free speech as private citizens, and that money would be considered free speech.  They could never have perceived of our government and our political system essentially being bought by big money interests. Most of all, they could never have envisioned that this country would one day (today) have established an aristocracy that rivals the very one they sought and fought with their life's blood to escape.  It is small wonder that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg recently made the comment,  "I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.,".

Our Constitution could not anticipate the challenges of the distant future, and our government has failed to guard our country from adapting it to changing times..  The bottom line is that our beloved Constitution  is in critical condition and needs to be revised.  The only real question that remains now is whether or not we are up to that challenge.


Next Topics:

	Are We a Democratic Republic or a Plutocracy? Major Threats to Our Democratic System
	The Great Economic Divide

We Must Drive Big Money Out of Politics!

Fundamental Reasons Why We Must Do This To Save Our Democracy.

Words of Wisdom From Two Great Republican Presidents

Introduction. The thoughts expressed herein are a reflection of my personal interests and beliefs. They are the reason for this blog. We have a great country, but it is not as great a country as our forefathers envisioned. The problems that beset us today are not new. We have faced them and conquered them before. We must once again regain our democracy or forfeit it forever.

Popular Government Must Triumph. "Our country -- this great Republic – means nothing unless it means the triumph of a real democracy, the triumph of popular government, and, in the long run, of an economic system under which each man shall be guaranteed the opportunity to show the best that there is in him."

Promises Without Action Are Empty.  “… words count for nothing except in so far as they represent acts. This is true everywhere; but, it should be truest of all in political life. A broken promise is bad enough in private life. It is worse in the field of politics. No man is worth his salt in public life who makes on the stump a pledge which he does not keep after election; and, if he makes such a pledge and does not keep it, hunt him out of public life."

“In our day it appears as the struggle of freemen to gain and hold the right of self-government as against the special interests, who twist the methods of free government into machinery for defeating the popular will."

Duty of Humankind.  Theodore Roosevelt referred to Abraham Lincoln as “the man to whom we owe (the) most,” and cited a couple passages from The Great Emancipator:

"I hold that while man exists it is his duty to improve not only his own condition, but to assist in ameliorating mankind."

Labor Is Superior To Capital.  And again:

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

Special Interests Are Entitled To Justice ...”Now, this means that our government, National and State, must be freed from the sinister influence or control of special interests. Exactly as the special interests of cotton and slavery threatened our political integrity before the Civil War, so now the great special business interests too often control and corrupt the men and methods of government for their own profit. We must drive the special interests out of politics. That is one of our tasks today."

… But Not To Political Power.  “... every special interest is entitled to justice, but not … to a vote in Congress, to a voice on the bench, or to representation in any public office. The Constitution guarantees protection to property, and we must make that promise good. But it does not give the right of suffrage to any corporation.”

The citizens of the United States must effectively control the mighty commercial forces which they have called into being.”

Control of Corporate Political Activity. “There can be no effective control of corporations while their political activity remains. To put an end to it will be neither a short nor an easy task, but it can be done”.

“It is necessary that laws should be passed to prohibit the use of corporate funds directly or indirectly for political purposes; it is still more necessary that such laws should be thoroughly enforced. Corporate expenditures for political purposes, and especially such expenditures by public-service corporations, have supplied one of the principal sources of corruption in our political affairs.”

Corporate Accountability. “I believe that the officers, and, especially, the directors, of corporations should be held personally responsible when any corporation breaks the law.”

Duty of Congress. “The duty of Congress is to provide a method by which the interest of the whole people shall be all that receives consideration."

Change Is Needed. “The prime need to is to change the conditions which enable these men to accumulate power which it is not for the general welfare that they should hold or exercise.”

“We grudge no man a fortune which represents his own power and sagacity, when exercised with entire regard to the welfare of his fellows. We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community.”

Government Intervention Required. “This, I know, implies a policy of a far more active governmental interference with social and economic conditions in this country than we have yet had, but I think we have got to face the fact that such an increase in governmental control is now necessary.

The Path To Ruin. “Those who oppose reform will do well to remember that ruin in its worst form is inevitable if our national life brings us nothing better than swollen fortunes for the few and the triumph in both politics and business of a sordid and selfish materialism.”

Government Responsiveness To The People. “If our political institutions were perfect, they would absolutely prevent the political domination of money in any part of our affairs. We need to make our political representatives more quickly and sensitively responsive to the people whose servants they are. More direct action by the people in their own affairs under proper safeguards is vitally necessary.”

Removal of Non-Responsive Representatives. “I believe that the prompt removal of unfaithful or incompetent public servants should be made easy and sure in whatever way experience shall show to be most expedient in any given class of cases.”

Government Should Serve People, Not Special Interests.  “One of the fundamental necessities in a representative government such as ours is to make certain that the men to whom the people delegate their power shall serve the people by whom they are elected, and not the special interests.”

The Bottom Line.  “The object of government is the welfare of the people. The material progress and prosperity of a nation are desirable chiefly so long as they lead to the moral and material welfare of all good citizens.”

The Moment Of Truth.  Although I agree with and embrace all the statements made above, I cannot claim authorship of any one of them, Although we are at a time in history when these statements and observations are extremely appropriate, they weren't made in recent times, but they were made to address the same type of situation such as we now have. The people who made them were both Republicans who saw the same kinds of problems for our country that beset us again today. The bulk of the comments were made by Theodore Roosevelt, with a couple of additional comments from Abraham Lincoln. These are all extracted from a speech that Roosevelt delivered approximately 100 years ago. His message is just as pertinent today as it was back then. The full text of his speech can be found at http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=501.

It Is Time To Reclaim Our Democracy.  The past has repeated itself inasmuch as big financial interests (private, corporate, and political) have once again wrested our democracy away from the people and usurped it for their own gains. Can we also repeat the past and rid ourselves of their stranglehold, thereby restoring democracy to its rightful place with the people of America? Our country's fate is in our hands.

Coming Next:  First, Let's Define Democracy.