A Revolution: Part I The End Goals, Why and How.
The major revolutionary changes I would like to see are three-fold:
1.) Total revolutionary change of our government, to be run by an "equality party", a government that is not influenced by capitalism, socialism or communism, but governs for the benefit of the country as a whole, rather than on behalf of some at the expense of others, and
2.) A government under which there is a new system of Economic distribution that does not depend upon capitalism but is what I would call a true equal opportunity system.
3.) A combined system that leaves the running of government to the experts and the running of the economy to workers.
How we get there? These goals will not be reached overnight. The path is
not simple. It is long and arduous. But good goals are always like that. They
take hard work, dedication, perseverance. And, in the long run, our goals might
have to be modified to gain consensus.
The path to these goals, as I see it requires:
a.) that we give as much support as we can to third party candidates who share our ideas at the state legislative level, as well as to our local officials who would give those state representatives inspiration and political support.
b.) Concurrently we must advocate for an Article V. Constitutional Convention supported by, hopefully, those parties we have supported at the State level and
c.) participate actively to assure any such convention will be dominated by delegates who share our ideas and goals, and people seeking real change;
d.) become active in promoting a Constitutional Convention that will result in adequate re-write of our constitution to promote a new form of government that will be run by an equalityParty, or at least something akin to an equality party, and which cannot be captured by capitalism, socialism or communism.(More on that subject in another article.)
e.) Finally, another long process, bring about means by which our economy begins on a path to domination by worker-owned businesses. (Also subject to another article.)
The first tasks on the path to these goals is to obtain equal voting
opportunity, here's why:
According to Nader/Gonzales
corporations control more than half of all mass media in our country:
newspapers, magazines, books, radio and television. Our democracy is being
swamped by the confluence of money, politics and concentrated media. Their conclusion,
, ..... "Without a reconstruction of our democracy ....no ambitious
program of political and economic change will succeed. Nor can worries about
poverty, discrimination, joblessness, the troubled conditions of education,
environment, street and suite crime, budget deficits, costly and inadequate
health care, and energy boondoggles be addressed in a constructive and enduring
way. .............So it is time for a civic rebellion, Jefferson style."
Public Citizen gives us a link, where we find the article Citizens United is
Just the Tip of the Iceberg by Kaitlin
Sopoci-Belknap who Serves on the Executive Committee Move to Amend. She is Field Organizing
Coordinator for the campaign. She says here "At the crux of the
[electoral] crisis are two core legal doctrines. One is "corporate
personhood," a court-created precedent that illegitimately gives
corporations rights that were intended for human beings. The other is "money
equals free speech.An amendment to the US Constitution is the only lasting
solution to this problem. The only amendment worth fighting for MUST address
both doctrines. As a quick refresher, here is are some examples of why we must
abolish ALL corporate constitutional rights:" Her conclusion is that a LASTING
(emphasis mine) amendment to the Constitution is imperative and that "the Move
To Amend coalition suggests that we should not limit our vision and
From all that I have read, these actions by Move to Amend may include the
efforts which co-exist beside, and is a friend of, Public Citizen and Wolf-PAC
and other such rebellious organizations including those actions calling for an
Article V, Constitutional Convention. Certainly there would be many enemies of
an Article V Constitutional Convention because many politicians and regular
citizens presently have a big stake in our system as it exists today, and these
people are afraid such a Convention could lead to the loss of some of the
benefits they now have. Many do not realize they, too, will slowly lose whatever
they have left unless we get major changes.
It will take a lot of unselfish people to be willing to potentially sacrifice
what they have for the benefit of our country. Thom Hartmann who also provides a
link to Move to Amend in his transcript of his show, has talked extensively about the sacrifices
made by the Founders of our Constitution. In summary he ends by saying they were
unselfish for the most part, risking it all for the benefit of the nation, and
that we need more people like that today. He states also that
"These were people who didn't send others' kids off to war but fought it
themselves - these were people who didn't give kickbacks to the bankers and
robber barons but fought to restrain the power of banksters and business - these
were people who didn't get richer and richer the longer they stayed in office
but who usually retired from public office broke.
"These were people who risked it all - and in some cases - gave it all up -
for the best interests of this nation.
"We need that same mentality from our lawmakers today.
To put our government back into the hands of the people, go to Move to Amend dot org\. That's The Big
My position is that the path to "lasting amendment to the Constitution" is by
an Article V Constitutional Convention, and I am supporting that effort with Wolf-PAC.
Some people have argued with me that neither Thom Hartmann nor Move to Amend
have endorsed an Article V Constitutional Amendment, yet it appears they are
certainly prepared to consider it based on all they have written. What you want
and/or how you get it are always debatable. But the best pros and cons about the
value of an Article V Constitutional Convention, which I, myself, advocate,
come from experts on Constitutional Law to be discussed in a later article.
Getting support in an environment of opposition brings these kinds of
responses: Lazy people will ask why we can't get a handle on the election
campaign problems some "easy way." It is ludicrous to think major problems and
corruption or diseases can be easily cured. Look what we went through to get a
handle on mafia, drug lords, HIV, Cancer - and still not completely solved.
People who are too busy to vote or participate in campaigns and figure they are
doing all right as things are and don't have time to worry about these problems.
Self-deceptive people say the problem is getting people to vote, and complain
that only about sixty percent (60%) of eligible voters bother to vote and the
rest of citizens are too lazy or ignorant to understand the importance of the
vote. They believe if everyone voted, we could solve the problem of our
electoral inequality and get our issues addressed by the present government.
These people ignore the fact that even if 100% of the voters voted, we cannot
defeat the powerful SUPER PACS on issues they feel are important to them, even
tho detrimental to the rest of us.
Why is that? Because the electoral system is broken. Broke, broke, broken.
The system is corrupt, not by all individuals involved in it, but by the way the
deck has long been stacked, and made worse by Citizens United. We are referred
in a posting on "TED"
April 8, 2013 that a revered professor of Constitutional Law, Lawrence
Lessig, gives us an idea of what we are up against: ..." how .000042% of the
American population, or 132 Americans, provided 60% of the SuperPAC money raised
in the 2012 election. These people essentially have the money to ensure who is
going to make it out of the primary process, and hence win that golden
opportunity to run in a general election. And these 132 individuals do not
represent a demographic sampling of all Americans, they share at least one thing
in common--extreme wealth. But it gets more interesting from here, I won't spoil
it--watch the talk below
Some argue that only "extremists" would be proponents of a Constitutional
Convention. Yes. True. There are many of them too, and I am one. They don't want
change and they fear a re-write of the entire Constitution. This gives us a
people well divided on our goal. But it is also debatable whether a
Constitutional Convention would necessarily result in the total re-write, which
I now advocate and just might not get. Until more recently I have not
personally recommended that we MUST necessarily "throw out the baby with the
bath water" and totally re-write the Constitution. " I believe in using the
tools we have available, and I know that Article V Convention was meant to be
used whenever we had a Congress that adamantly would not propose Amendments we
need. Opponents call for patience and the use of our old, worn out tools (the
vote, petitions, etc.) to convince Congress to do the "will of the people." But
the patience of many of us extremists has been worn out.
True, egalitarians often - though they too have many intellectual arguments
for their positions - must base their reasoning on the "I have a dream" model,
rather than pure intellectualism. I do not deny it. And from that point of
view, anyone would agree that having a Constitutional Convention might be
dangerous. But many advocates of a Constitutional Convention are calling for
very narrow changes, not for a whole re-write..(This is another area of great
debate on how the Convention will be conducted. )
End Part I. Next Part coming soon, arguments and details will be
Palsimon, formally educated in journalism & law, is an independent progressive activist & writer, focusing on guarding integrity of media & government. (.)
|The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.