"My message is that massive numbers of Americans have deluded themselves about the nature of American representative democracy. If they think that our system is equitable, effective and trustworthy – or the best that it can be – they are truly delusional. The goal of my book was to breakthrough peoples’ psychological defenses, see the truth, and then become engaged to improve our beloved nation through many reforms."
3. How did your work as a Congressional staffer influence your strong antipathy for the entrenched duopoly of the Democratic and Republican parties?
"Those 12 years working for Congress gave me first-hand experience with all the corruption, dishonesty and wasteful spending that defines this institution. The enormous negative influence of big corporate and other special interest money is even worse than informed people see. It also gave me remarkable exposure to Executive Branch agencies and how awful the federal bureaucracies are. I helped put a presidential appointee in jail; that was rewarding. And I did help write a few statutes that I was proud of."
4. Whom did you serve in Congress, what was your specific job, and with what party was your boss affiliated?
"I was there from 1978 to 1990, working as a Senior Associate at was then the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment. I directed many studies on industrial and environmental issues, published many reports, and testified about 50 times before Senate and House hearings. I did a lot of work for specific members, including helping grassroots groups that had asked their congressman or senator for help."
5. Your homepage for your book mentions that you offer practical solutions for peacefully repairing our broken republic. Would you briefly summarize some of these solutions?
"One of the most important is to spread the use of the Clean Money/Clean Elections approach for providing government funding for political campaigns; we must get big private money out of political campaigns. As an advocate for third parties, this policy approach is crucial to make third party candidates competitive with candidates from the two major parties. There are also a host of electoral reforms that we need to make voting easier and more widespread, such as making Election Day a national holiday. I also advocate making ballot initiatives and measures more widespread – among the states and at the federal level. This is a crucial element of direct democracy and because our representative democracy has failed the public interest, we desperately need some forms of direct democracy."
6. One of the fundamental flaws in many “solutions” to the myriad problems facing our republic is that they ignore the obvious fact that the economic paradigm loosely referred to as American Capitalism represents a significant barrier to our political system even approaching a true republic, let alone a democracy. What potential systemic economic remedies do you suggest?
"An extremely important issue for me is the rising economic inequality. It comes to this: wealthy Americans (directly and through corporate venues) have taken over the political system and this has removed the necessary watchdog and regulator role of government in ensuring that our economic system is fair to working- and middle-class Americans. There really is a war on the middle class. We are rapidly approaching a two-class society: the rich Upper Class and the Lower Class for everyone else. We must stop corporate welfare, privatization of government that benefits contractors, illegal immigration that gives low cost labor to the private sector and drives down wages for citizens, and free trade that has already sold out many industrial sectors and put our nation deeply in debt. We must tax the wealthy much more, and limit the amount of profits made in the financial sectors – such as the obscene fees used by credit card companies."
7. You have initiated a drive for an Article V Constitutional convention. Would this involve rewriting the Constitution or simply amending it?
"An Article V convention, just like Congress, can only make proposed amendments that must be ratified by ¾ of states – this cannot be circumvented. I cannot imagine any attempt at a wholesale rewriting of the Constitution. But I can foresee serious consideration of many possible amendments. There is too much concern about social issue amendments (like abortion and marriage), while the reality is that they have little chance of ratification. Convention delegates would spend much more effort on serious reforms to improve the quality of our democracy and government."
8. How many have signed on to your movement so far?
"We really just got started with a website and still have not mounted a serious campaign to get members. But people are signing up everyday. We realize that we have to do a lot of outreach to inform and educate people about why we need an Article V convention and why we have a constitutional right to one, and also that Congress and many left- and right-wing groups have opposed a convention because they do not want to lose the power they now have to corrupt Congress and the presidency."
9. Who would participate in such a convention? How would they be chosen?
"Article V leaves all the details of operation up to convention delegates, and the states are free to select their delegates as they choose. However, the very first Article V convention would be such a historic and newsworthy event – with global coverage – that attempts by corporate and other interests to pervert delegate selection and convention operation would be difficult to pull off. What I like to say is that the many millions of Americans that are truly fed up with the current state of our democracy and government that has already been taken over by evil and greedy forces should accept some risk and support an Article V convention. All revolutionaries must believe that there is so much to gain that the risk of making things even worse is worth taking."
10. What specific changes are you advocating if such a convention comes to pass?
Like you I would like to see a little democracy for a change. But given the current reality as it exists today, I shudder to think what kind of Constitution we would end up with if those who would most likely attend such a constitutional convention were given a free hand at tinkering with what we now have.
Remember these facts: in the last presidential election approximately half the voters in this country voted for a man who has done more to undermine the rule of law (both national and international) than any president heretofore. On top of that, we have a citizenry that remains largely oblivious to what is happening to their Constitutional protections and other important realities concerning the world we live in. And in large measure you can blame a dysfunctional media for much of what has happened. Presumably it would be this same media that would report on such a convention. One has to assume that it would look more like a sporting event than a serious social transformative event.
Dispite what you might read at this web site, most Americans appear to be in some kind of slumber and not at all interested in events that are likely to shape their lives for decades to come. A case could be made that there is even little evidence that they are interested in their own freedom or see any threat to it. As we have watched the Constitution be attacked and undermined, I see little if any real movement by ordinary citizens to do anything about it.
So given all this, I think attempting to revamp the Constitution when there is so little intellectual and political energy devoted to its preservation, would be a disaster. When a president can essentially dismiss the Constitution in its entirety without any real opposition from either party of Congress... given that kind of disrespect for the rule of law and over 200 years of experiement in self-government, what kind of Constitution do you think delegates to such a convention would come up with?
by
Mark A. Goldman (81 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 243 comments)
on Saturday, March 17, 2007 at 4:46:38 PM
Hirschhorn: "The only people who should feel ashamed and guilty are the ones putting Democrats and Republicans in office. To me, it is pure insanity to keep putting both of these totally corrupt parties in power. I am a proud dissident and would rather see..."
I totally agree,
but I cut in here as an American Irish dissident,
Who wants to see a We the People Party, a THIRD WAY, a revolution that returns to the vision of the most radical and revolutionary of our Founding Fathers, Tom Paine:
"Soon after I had published the pamphlet "Common Sense" [on Feb. 14, 1776] in America, I saw the exceeding probability that a revolution in the system of government would be followed by a revolution in the system of religion... The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion."-Tom Paine
If we the people are the government, we the people need to take back The House!
I am in Florida-and I am looking for a District to serve!
I want to serve my state and nation because I believe the well being of every resident in Florida is connected to the well being of every American.
The well being of every American is connected to the well being of every human being and every form of life on our planet.
One must act locally and think globally, and to whom much is given, much more is required.
I will work to protect the environment, the nurturing of children, the building of Habitat for Humanity homes.
If elected I will donate up to one half of my take home pay to Habitat for Humanity homes in the district I serve.
I will seek to reconcile and mend foreign relationships and uphold the spirit and intention of the Constitution of America that successfully separated and balanced governmental powers to safeguard the interests of majority rule and minority rights, of liberty and equality, and of the central and state governments.
"The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion."-Tom Paine
Only in Solidarity "do we have it in our power to begin the world again."-Tom Paine
DO SOMETHING: Take back The House:
It begins with CLEAN ELECTIONS:
House Bill 2690
"Never doubt that a few, thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world: Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."- Margaret Mead
I have read your announcement to run for president and your platform and I am in Solidarity with you-
I also LOL at how much we have in common:
You wrote: "No one has asked me to be a candidate for President and I have no concrete evidence that my candidacy will be welcome news to anyone. I have no obvious constituency and I don’t have the resources to compete in the electoral process the way other candidates do."
As I am in the Bible-belt of Florida-it is more like Texas than Miami Beach here, and I have as much chance of making it to the House as you do to the Oval Office,
But -it is not so much the winning as running the race and agitating the powers to be that I am seeking foremost, I think we maybe able to provoke some thought and rattle some cages.
I am indeed proud to stand with you as a partner in support of our Republic and its future. Welcome to the revolution. And you are absolutely right in quoting this...
"Never doubt that a few, thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world: Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."- Margaret Mead
and we will test this proposition to the limit... you and me and everyone else who is willing to stand up for justice, honesty, and basic decency among all people including and most particularly as it applies to those who serve in government. Thanks for speaking out to share the vision.
Mark
by
Mark A. Goldman (81 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 243 comments)
on Sunday, March 18, 2007 at 9:04:46 PM
This is a good addition to the conversation about democracy
Which isn't to say I agree with every word to be sure, but I think at this point it is perhaps more worthwhile to say I now favor a constitutional convention for the very public educational value it brings, combined with the belief that it can't get much worse WITHOUT also getting better in the way of being openly bad... so there's less to fear from a convention....
Priority one should be mechanisms of public control and oversight needing to be beefed up. Especially public oversight of elections, which are the sole channel of power and taxing authority-transfer from the People to the government. Voting, as the right that protects all other rights, is only valid when we ALL come together as a community in a special way of one person/one vote (and no ballot box stuffing or electronic fraud equivalents) in order to properly obtain the consent of the governed. As sacred as each individual's vote is, the counting of all of America's votes is approximately 100 million times as sacred, if there are 100 million voters... Yet today it is in electronic voting districts (80-90% now), both optical scan and touch screen, conducted entirely in trade secrecy, with no human being or combination of human beings having any direct knowledge of what the true count is (except perhaps a hacker or rigger).
If We the People are to be in charge of this country, as is undoubtedly the indispensable characteristic of any representative democracy or republic or direct democracy, then we MUST control and witness the COUNTS of the votes. WIthout that, and we don't have it now, there's no basis for confidence in elections. Just "magic numbers" popping out of corporate machines made by corporations that literally claim to OWN the heart of democracy, the counting of the vote, as their own intellectual property "trade secret."
The privatization of democracy, outsourcing public liberty, and the claimed ownership of our electronic ballots even, combined with the lack of any basis for confidence in elections since we can't reproduce them, verify them, or anything else (congress presently offers us a check on 3% or some measly amount, as they threaten to vote themselves re-election with secret counts, telling We the People that's the best we can hope for), means that, logically speaking, and under democratic principles, it is not possible except by an act of faith to adjudge the elections by electronic means to be Legitimate.
Evolution? Revolution? Maybe just Realization that democracy needs to have its elections restored to the legitimacy obtained only by open and honest elections with robust public oversight.
It can't be government oversight, or appointed oversight. The government, getting all its power via elections, can not audit itself or recount itself --- that's as reliable as Enron auditing Enron, a step beyond Arthur Anderson auditing Enron, because, you know, conflicts of interest make for unreliable processes. That's just another reason why PUBLIC oversight is completely indispensable in elections.
by
Paul Lehto (30 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 52 comments)
on Saturday, March 17, 2007 at 10:35:04 PM
All elections for a national office must be held as follows: 1. They must be held over a four day period that includes a Saturday and Sunday, and polls must be open a minimum of 14 hours on two days and a minimum of 18 hours on two days. 2. All voting must be done on paper ballots that are marked by hand by the voter, with the "intent of the voter" being the final deciding criteria. 3. Ballots must be counted by hand in full view of the public by three different election workers until their totals match exactly. 4. Totals of all ballot counts must be made public at the precinct level prior to any centralized tabulation.
I would have a separate article to grant the right to vote to all American Citizens not incarcerated or judged insane without regard for prior legal or mental status and make it a felony to knowingly perform or fail to perform any action that causes an American Citizen to lose their right to vote.
That's about 70,000 felony's for the current U.S. Attorney for Arkansas.
by
Charlie L (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 718 comments)
on Sunday, March 18, 2007 at 11:05:44 AM
Don't forget to get rid of the federal reserve bank and the laws that protect corporations.
The federal reserve bank is an instrument of the devil and corparations should serve the interests of the people and this planet as a whole, not the greed of a few idiots who think that money is a goal instead of a method.
by
Han (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 204 comments)
on Sunday, March 18, 2007 at 8:19:27 AM
Perhaps there is no harder effort attempted under this form of government than an attempt to rewrite the constitution. Nor a more unnecesary one, in my own opinion.
If you spend a little time reading the Federalist Papers, which were a series of articles appearing in New York newspapers, drumming up support for the proposed Constitution at a time when each of the new soon-to-be states were sceptical as heck of bestowing any power on a federal government. Especially New York itself which was wealthy as all get out from being the chief port of the new union.
Jefferson and Madison, the chief architects of the document, took great pains to write it as carefully deliniating the powers of the federal government being, in almost all cases, subservient to those of the individual states. I do not think necesary any rewriting of that document, only a stricter adherence to it and a much, much greater role of the individual in the daily tasks of the government, at a state and local level.
Frankly I fail to find any wisdom in Mr. Hirschorn's casual and a bit confusing dismissal of the efforts of third party politics. First he off handedly criticises the Greens and Libertarians for having success only at the state level. I cannot believe a man as intelligent as he appears to be thinks that those parties are unsuccessful because they didnt elect a Senator or President first crack out of the box. Then he claims support for the Populist Party , which, if memory serves, hasnt run or elected nearly the numbers of the Greens, which ran 374 candidates in 38 states for 66 different offices gaining 65 victories in '06.
This is not a response which intends to debate the relative merits of third party politics or which of them is the better choice. It is a response to the idea that a Constitutional crisis is at hand and that the method of combatting such a crisis is to hold a convention to alter and add to that document.
Yes, we have a crisis of democracy in this nation, because we the people have abrogated our responsibilities for maintaining this democracy, have allowed bullshit to go unchallenged or not carefully thought about enough before we vote, those few of us who actually do vote ,that is.
It is not the Constitution that has let our nation down, it is us. It is completely unnecesary, in my own opinion, and a waste of valuable time and effort as well, to attempt this massive task. It is also very, very likely, in this time of careless thought about politics and decision making, that the result would be a far inferior document to the one we now possess and tend to ignore far too often.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Sunday, March 18, 2007 at 10:25:15 AM
The idea of a constitutional convention holds that our intensifying crisis can be fixed through purely mechanical or procedural means. But the roots of the crisis are not mechanical or procedural. They derive from the very structure of our society & economy, and any proposed "fix" ignoring this will be vulnerable to all the same corrupting forces that have driven us to this pass.
What would all the immensely powerful forces that have destroyed our democracy do, even if somehow 2/3 of the state legislatures joined the call for an article V Convention? No doubt, the D's & R's in Congress would quickly calculate that its effect would be to diminish the control of the duopoly, & would vote against it. Or, they'd find some way to control the proceedings, & fix the outcome to their liking. It would be no different than their reaction to calls for transparent elections or campaign finance reform.
Beyond that, the presentation in the interview pretends that the convention could be called and then, magically, "good things would happen." Thus, "the people" would attend the convention, and start making far-reaching changes, motivated only by their own innate wisdom. No articulated program would be advocated in advance, and supposedly, "everyone" (liberals & conservatives alike) would all get together and improve things.
This seems a preposterous expectation, because it presumes that most Americans today have the political consciousness required to accurately understand what has gone wrong, & the vision to see how to fix it. My feeling is that most Americans have been so systematically brainwashed by the media, schools, TV & the lies of D's and R's for several generations, that very few of them would be able to accurately analyze the problems, & evaluate possible solutions.
IMO, a concrete agenda should be advanced FIRST, then an attempt must be made to build support for it. One cannot simply take it on faith that an article V Convention would arrive at the right answers. Just as an example, suppose the proposed program included these points: 1) Immediate halt to the Iraq War and the phony "War on Terror" 2) Major cuts in defense spending, with the announced intent to begin dismantling the military-industrial complex 3) a Universal Health Care single-payer program 4) a societal committment to convert to alternative energy sources with all possible speed, & 5) efficient mass transit. // If the idea behind an article V Convention included these elements, fine, then I think the idea is exciting & worth working for. But without a clearly articulated agenda, I'd have no faith that the process wouldn't be hijacked by the powers that be; or that it would lead to any improvement at all.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1228 comments)
on Sunday, March 18, 2007 at 1:12:54 PM
10 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
