In this essay the author discusses seven divergent political and religious groups. In another second essay the focus is on why and how we should revise Article V, the part of the U.S. Constitution that tells how the constitution can be amended. Then in a third and final essay, the author shares his vision of the ideal U.S. constitution, which shows how 26 changes can be implemented to create the ideal American society and world. The author's proposed constitution is called the Third Constitution of the United States, created after the Articles of Confederation and the current Constitution.
There are many dystopian naysayers in the world who have given up on delimiting or changing the powers-that-be who are leading the world to destruction. But if enough people start sharing and promoting a precisely defined vision, these ideals will become a reality and not a utopian dream. Some of these ideals are already valued by others. The following three essays are an expression of a sustainable worldview that can save the world.
With such a vast diversity of worldviews in America, how can there be any kind of unity? One major way is to radically decentralize the public schools by allowing the residents who live within the boundaries of every public elementary, middle, and high school to determine their own school philosophy and curriculum using public funds. This will bring back the long-lost sense of neighborhood togetherness.
People who share the same worldviews will seek likeminded individuals as neighbors, and it will also cause diverse people to develop common dreams, as they live and work together. This and 25 other major changes will be elaborated on in the Third Constitution . But to make all these radical changes that can transform our society, it will be necessary to revise Article V, so that we can more easily amend the Constitution and more easily abolish the Constitution through an orderly and fair Constitutional Convention.
Many average Americans across the political spectrum can be convinced that we must level the political playing field and take all money out of politics. Our Constitution is extremely difficult to amend, and it does not tell how to properly abolish it, which was a big mistake our founding fathers made. This means that lovers of democracy, who oppose oligarchy, will continue to be shackled by the Constitution and our current government; and if a violent revolution does not ultimately occur--the discontent, alienation, and hostility toward the system will only mount.
What is now happening is the working class is increasingly getting a smaller share of the pie, the middle class is disappearing, and the rich keep getting richer. World crises and environmental degradation keep getting worse. Based on current trends, the world is unraveling. The first step in reversing this course of destruction is to revise Article V as proposed, so that we can develop a much better national constitution that is acceptable to the 99 percent. This will be discussed more in the third essay. The founding fathers wanted an entrenched system that is virtually impossible to change, and that is what they got.
Accomplishing all of the goals proposed here may seem impossible to achieve, but as Americans increasingly see how to maximize democracy, create tribal neighborhood school districts and a tangible world peace--they will join the movement to make this vision a reality. Readers are encouraged to think about all the things people said would never be achieved that were achieved in time.
The first political group consists of the paleoconservatives; many of its adherents may not even use this long word to describe themselves. Like the founding fathers who said our nation should not get entangled in the affairs of foreign governments, paleoconservatives are against the interventionist foreign policy of the neoconservative Republicans. Members of the Constitution Party are probably the best representatives of paleoconservatism in today's world. The Constitution Party endorses 7 principles: life, liberty, family, property, Bill of Rights, states' rights, and American sovereignty.
Neoconservatives, on the other hand, believe that our government has a right, even a moral obligation, to police the world. Though Republicans and Democrats have well-known, definable differences regarding taxes, general spending, and social policies, many individuals from both parties favor a neoconservative foreign policy. And, by the way, the neoliberal foreign policy of the Democrats is roughly the same as the neoconservative foreign policy of Republicans. Both are imperialistic. It's okay for the United States to intervene in the affairs of other sovereign nations, they reason, because we're the "good" guys.
For those who view the world as a place where dog eats dog, the neoconservatives are right. But Buddhists, yogis, mystics within Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, and other groups that practice peace and nonviolence would say that, if we take the initiative in showing compassion and benevolence, other individuals and nations will reciprocate with corresponding sentiments, sooner or later. Love conquers all.
Paleoconservatives are socially conservative, so they are less likely to support gay and abortion rights and the legalization of marijuana. They are usually against putting more restrictions on gun owners.
Paleoconservatives are quick to argue that our government is a republic with guaranteed individual rights, and it is not a democracy, they say. They will inform you that the word "democracy" is not in the constitution because our founding fathers feared the "mob rule" of a democracy. Democracy, or rule by the majority, is what you have when two foxes and a chicken decide what's for dinner. Paleoconservatives will argue that our constitution was not meant to be a "living" document that changes with the times. They fear a democracy that can take away their God-given rights by the decisions of a majority.
The Libertarians are the second political group. They are socially liberal, but economically they are conservative. They are more likely to support gay and abortion rights, and the legalization of recreational drugs. But economically, they are apt to recommend laissez-faire capitalism. They want a small government with the fewest number of government regulations. Libertarians may want the liberty to become millionaires and billionaires through the free market. Libertarians, however, oppose crony capitalism, which occurs when there is a collusion of private companies that get subsidies and special benefits from the government. Libertarians, like paleoconservatives, are against the interventionist foreign policy of the Neoconservatives.
Fundamentalist and evangelical Christians are two religious groups that are combined as one group here, referred to as the third group. The fundamentalist churches interpret the Bible in the most literal way, even more so than the evangelical churches do. But both have a pre-seventeenth century, or pre-Enlightenment Age, viewpoint of the Bible--believing in a fiery, eternal hell for the lost who refuse to take Jesus as their Lord and Savior. They believe that abortion, in most cases, and homosexuality are sinful practices. Evolution is wrong, because it contradicts the first few chapters in the Book of Genesis. Biblical professor and former United Methodist pastor Ernie Bringas, author of Jesusgate: A History of Concealment Unraveled, provides an excellent survey of the latest biblical scholarship for laypeople from a liberal Christian worldview. To hear a thought-provoking podcast interview of Ernie Bringas, click on this link: http://www.strategiesforliving.com/podcast.php?p=2206
The problem that pastors often have, according to Ernie Bringas, is that if they tell their congregation everything they learned in seminary (that is, if it was a liberal seminary) about the latest scientific research on the Bible, many of the laypeople would stop attending and go somewhere else for reassurance, if their entrenched beliefs were challenged. Not wanting to be without a congregation or a livelihood, many pastors don't tell the full truth that there is flimsy evidence for Jesus' virgin birth, his literal resurrection, and the trinity. For many people it is, or was, difficult to face the truth and give up certain childhood Christian beliefs. But even after the initial shock and inner turmoil that results when Christians learn what scientific Bible scholars say about the Bible, self-identifying Christians can still grow spiritually. And they can become better citizens with broader political views when they stop believing that their religion is the one and only way.