|
Watching convention coverage, memory drifts back to that
time when such things were part of life, not just optional but possible.
That was 1954, and there are only about four months left for us to try to
bring ourselves forward into 2004. Since the 1950’s we’ve been sowing
the seeds of the violent winds that are now sweeping across our world. The
time to harvest the fruits of our actions has arrived.
The points at issue now, are not nearly as simple as many would like them
to be. The co-opting of the congress and the general decay within the society
did not happen overnight, it has taken decades to become as serious as it is
today. As a consequence it cannot be undone by simply wishing that things were
different. The speeches have been grand and uplifting, some of the speakers
have surpassed themselves in words. But words are only as meaningful as the
actions they lead to, and it’s not clear that there will be consequent
actions that come anywhere near close, to the level of change called for by
the full range of politicians – on any side.
The situation we face has three components. There is what we’d like to
see, what is politically possible, and then what is real. Every politician
uses spin, to increase their appeal, just as they usually stretch the truth to
enhance what they tell voters about what they want to accomplish. In the last
two decades promises made to the voters have come to be seen as swiftly
vanishing pipe dreams that were used just to get elected.
For instance: There needs to be substantial change in the way we choose how
our government is arranged. In particular this country needs to elect the
Attorney General, rather than to continue this office as an appointed
position. The laws in this nation are far too important to be relegated to
high profile appointees that only answer directly to the Oval Office. With an
elected individual, the public would actually have a voice in how the laws of
this land are overseen and enforced – independent of any dictatorially prone
"president."
In this instance the above might be a desired goal, (a preference), but is
this politically practical? Not without a major upset within the process
itself. So, what is real: In this case, the egregious actions of this Attorney
General will have to become so outrageous (we’re nearly there), that the
public will demand changes in how our laws are enforced; and who will oversea
those efforts, in order to protect the public from overtly aggressive
government policies. Can something like this happen? It’s possible, but no
one within the power structure will ever willingly give up any aspect of that
power—never mind such a high-profile job as the AG now holds.
Things such as the above, amount to tinkering with the implementation of
government, but the real core of America’s problems originates in the
controlling powers that rule the political parties themselves. Case in point,
the Democrat party is trying mightily to shape arguments and mold rhetoric to
fit positions that the public simply does not hold.
The core points at issue this year are the war in Iraq and the economy.
There’s a tremendous amount of emotion and determination surrounding both
the continuing war, and the continued flood of jobs that are disappearing from
the nation. To artificially attempt to "make nice" about these two
violently contested points, is to miss the entire point of elections in the
first place. Those who are directing the party’s positions believe that they
cannot afford to allow the public to dictate the terms of the election. They
fear such passions will turn off the as yet uncommitted voters, and that this
may cost their party the election.
Citizens in the ancient Socratic world of democracy were compelled to
participate or face banishment from their city-states. People here, who fail
to participate this year in the coming elections, will do so or not, based on
their private conscience. We don’t force people to vote. But we should force
the government to at least make that process clear, verifiable, and certain
for those who do.
Micro-management of the issues is reminiscent of corporate thinking and
transnational practices but should not be part of any election for the office
of the presidency in this country. If politicians had to face the actual wrath
of the voters, then changes would be made, or those who supported blocking
that, would certainly be out of a job. Elections are needed because times and
needs change, just as people change. When those in office will not respond to
change, then elections are needed to remove those who have failed the public.
Politics is not a parlor game, it’s a civilized substitute for civil war—and
this kind of artificiality makes a mockery of that civil process.
There is an example of why this is bad policy, for any political party to
follow. In California, the Democrat party decided who would be the candidate
for Governor in the late 1990’s. They chose Gray Davis, because he had been
standing in the wings for years (being the good party-line man). The voting
public clearly didn’t want him, but the party stood fast, and shoved him
onto the California public. Davis was the 37th Governor of California from
1999 to 2003. He was re-elected to a second term but on Oct. 7, 2003, he
became only the second governor to be recalled in American history. He was
succeeded by Republican Arnold
A. Schwartzenegger on November
17, 2003.
This happened because the Democratic leadership in California believed that
no recall of a sitting Democratic governor could ever succeed, especially not
one who was in his second term. But they were wrong. The party managers
thought the issues that were affecting California were really not that
important, just as the National Democratic leadership is now failing to grasp
the national sentiment against Bush.
Political issues are life and death issues, and are far more important than
contracts, beauty contests, or political no-bid situations, especially when
those arrangements have been part of what has not worked for the public at
large. The party managers of both major parties are now practicing this kind
of interventionism, and this will result in upsets that they obviously have
not foreseen. That’s because we are overdo for real changes, and in the way
we allow ourselves to be governed.
There is a compact between the public and elected officials. Their duties
and their offices come directly from the trust of the public. When that trust
is violated, then the official has lost his or her right to function, because
they no longer represent what they were put there to perform. Just as no
leader can lead without being the living example of what he says he or she is—no
politician can continue in the job if they fail utterly to consider the health
and well-being of the people who put them in office.
That standard has been wholly lost under this administration: And flowing
directly from the distrust of our political leaders, comes distrust from
long-time allies, and others throughout the world. No nation on this planet is
big enough to go their own way without the support of others in the community
of nations. Bush tried to do this and his failures come to us daily with each
new headline, each new scandal, each new failure.
The world is a complex and intricately entangled place, in which everything
is inter-related. Compartmentalization and ultra secrecy does not allow a free
and open society to function at all. Moreover, the decisions about what
threatens this nation, and what benefits this nation cannot be taken lightly
or be implemented from a purely personal perspective, by any sitting holder of
the office of the presidency.
Bush has done all of this with hubris and arrogance to a pitiful degree. It
is so bad that now despite the overwhelming evidence, Bush will not change
course, yet he commits evermore troops to serve as human targets in war zones
that he neither controls, nor can functionally terminate. This is perhaps the
largest single blunder in US foreign policy ever made.
As the public has demanded answers, Bush has continued to refuse to discuss
too many of the many things that have gone horribly wrong. The effects of this
behavior from the Oval Office, are cumulative, and are increasingly nasty, as
more and more Americans die or are severely damaged in these wars that are
seen not to have had a national point; beyond the preferences of this small
group that has dominated our agendas, since the 2000 election. Media has
failed to cover the issues, so it would seem appropriate to let the public
have the debates they seek, since we cannot get accurate or timely information
from those who are paid to bring it to us. Why not let the candidates answer
what they will or will not—so that on November 2, 2004, the American public’s
voice can finally be clearly heard?
This is far too important to be left to spinmeisters, or to professional
politicians, this needs to come from hard ball political debate. Demonstrators
need to have free and unrestricted access to all public events, regardless of
their party affiliations. To restrict the rights of people to confront the
candidates they oppose, is the same as denying those individuals their right
to speak. This is what is meant by the First Amendment. All citizens have the
right to confront those they feel need to be replaced or who are running for
any office. To the degree to which the government prevents this from happening
is the degree to which we are now living in a police state—and that’s a
fact!
All of this shepherding of the public to "free speech zones"
behind razor wire, miles from the events in question is simply illegal—and
any judge who fails to uphold the rights of the citizens, not to be restricted
to such areas, should be removed from the bench. This is as basic as it gets
in America.
War or no war, people here have the right, by law, to attend in force any
political event they chose to participate in. The government has the duty to
keep the peace, and to maintain order, but these duties cannot be allowed to
prevent people from attending and speaking out in a civil manner, about their
personal beliefs especially now.
As for canceling the elections—many countries have held elections when
their nations were involved in full scale wars, why should we. especially in
the USA be any different?
Wars and attacks bring people together, divisions flourish only in divided
societies. The national symbol of free speech zones in the USA, surrounded by
barbed wire and riot police, is hardly an image of American’s practicing
their constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech. It is subjects just like
this one, that the coming election is all about.
There is a time and place for the government to control the actions of its
citizens, and there are times and places when to do so is criminal. During
these coming elections, to restrict the rights of the public to directly
participate in free and open elections is a crime of the highest order. For
the public to tolerate such a tyrannical policy is un-American. The public in
this country needs to be heard from without filters, without chaperones: and
if nothing else comes from this political season, that’s one issue that
should be erased from national policy – by the mutual consent of all
participants. |
studios