How-We Build A Better Democracy
Reaching beyond democracy cliches, and bypassing status quo no-change agents, or go slo-mo incrementalists, requires a decent understanding of our history, our entire electoral system, and human behavior. People want to make quick judgements about our system. Democracy is mob rule, tyranny of the majority, blocked by the electoral college, gets thwarted by the Supreme Court, still relies on the filibuster, abuses the outdated two senator per state concept, etc. However, these tired tropes, and narrow process-tinkerings take up too much of our time, energy, and focus.
.
Elements like the filibuster and electoral college are artifacts of an old system. Unfortunately, and paradoxically, the Constitution is a socially fixed, and only grudgingly flexible document. Secondarily, the fixed or originalist faction is in a stronger position because it has nearly two and a half centuries of social, economic, and legal precedent undergirding, and weighing down our Constitution. I see the undergirding power less from having the legal perspective, as I do how it was socially influenced. Our Constitution was based to a large extent on a social perspective with an intertwining economic element.
.
With slavery being one of the most substantial and infamous influences on its construction, from private property rights, and states’ rights to congressional district representation (three-fifths clause), we created ugly anchors, and terrible confluences on the whole document. Even though slavery was later abolished, its social and economic effect remain enforced and active in various social guises. Since the social connections cannot be easily separated, the legal or literal elements of the Constitution are twisted to fit status quo or fixed perspectives.
.
Again slavery, is another ugly anchor to this problem in respect to its persistence in an atmosphere of equal rights. From day one of the constitutional convention, the Declaration of Independence pointed to, and other early abolitionists saw, the contradiction. While some people today blame our slavery practices on the era, as in “that is how everybody thought back then,” we know that to be untrue.
.
Many of the founders including the first four presidents, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and James Madison objected to slavery, and worried about how posterity would view them, even though they did almost nothing to end the people as property laws. Other founders who wrote about their anti-slavery views, or made statements, before 1787 include the Lion of Liberty Patrick Henry an enslaver, Common Sense author Thomas Paine, musical inspirer Alexander Hamilton, and Poor Richard’s Almanack author, Benjamin Franklin.
.
It is my belief that if any voter in 1786 was told that those eight individuals were against slavery, most every voter would have been sure that slavery would never get a foothold in the Constitution. While the Constitution never specifically used the word slavery or slaves, slavery was definitely not outlawed in the Bill of Rights, ratified in 1791. Therefore, whether or not the three-fifths clause was a surrogate for indirectly approving slavery, or others are, the Constitution did sanction it. I believe despite all the others who more staunchly supported slavery, it would have been hard to push it passed those eight giants, if they had decided to block the peculiar institution.
.
Three surrogates for the missing slavery wording in the Constitution:
Article I, Section 2, paragraph three: a.k.a. Three-fifths clause.
Article I, Section 9, paragraph one: import of persons, etc.
Article IV Section 2, paragraph three, also indirectly referred to slavery.
.
Besides my bet on the great eight being able to end slavery if they decided to, I wanted to show how no natural law, inalienable right, self-evident truth, or any other purely legitimate legal theory was guiding them. It was their social and economic fears keeping them from doing what they knew was the right thing. “Shit, my buddies cannot find out I am a bleeding heart liberal in disguise!” “Sorry, the money made me do it!” This type of law is what I call selfish-evident truth. Always be very wary of those who trot out natural law to justify anything; it is too often a silage blower of white-manmade bullshit.
.
What that all proves is our Constitution was a social construct created by fallible as well as greedy men, not an inflexible,fireproof parchment handed down by god. Of course, the framers were not, overall, any smarter or better than us. As they made big mistakes, so have we, and will we. That said, we must not compound our mistakes by pretending their original document, or the subsequent amendments, solve everything forever.
.
Realize that slavery was not the end all of this problem in the Constitution, or any other part of our society, economics, religion, and government. I am not saying you should doubt everything you once believed in, but that the constructs, developed in those four areas, are often infected with extraneous elements like greed, selfishness, and harmful prejudice (sexism, racism, etc.).
.
When I noted the weight of 233 years of Constitutional precedent earlier, I was not making a legal case for its validity. Social and economic precedents are much more powerful. My rudimentary slavery history lesson above showed how social and economic constructs actually superseded the legal constructs, or natural law theory that supposedly validated the originalism of our Constitution. Upending irrelevant aspects in, or adding missing elements to, the document would be less fraught if we all worked from that non-fixed in stone, and non-originalist legal perspective.
.
Imagine having the ability to show the framers of the Constitution how badly their idea to delay abolition went over. Not to mention the millions of Black Americans in bondage, and abused, nearly 700 thousand died in our Civil War to abolish slavery. John Adams misspoke for many framers and founders. Again, he was hiding from his supposed ethics and morals (and maybe his own moneyed interests too), admitting in the case of slavery his bleeding heart liberalness only went so far:
.
“Adams dismisses radical abolitionist measures as ‘producing greater violations of Justice and Humanity, than the continuance of the practice’ of slavery itself. Adams also wrongly asserts that ‘the practice of Slavery is fast diminishing.’ Rather than declining, slavery was growing in America.” — John Adams, (and the Gilder-Lehrman Institute).
.
Where does a smart person like Adams develop such soul-cringing logic from? Why does he dig so deep a hole by falsely noting slavery’s growth? Notice how we have not grown much from this kind of false flag, and faked facts “Natural Law and order” creation. Try a thought experiment for me. Go back 25 years, 50 years, or some additional increment of 25 years, until you reach a time in our two centuries plus history when you definitely would not have wanted to experience life here:
.
Besides missing all the technology, somewhere between fifty and one hundred years would be my most distant alternate life experiment. Being a former Catholic, I cannot imagine growing up when it was more strict than the 1960s. People of color likely would not go back anymore than a couple decades, most white women no more than fifty years. No matter when you choose, consider all the ways you would be coerced in some fashion to fit in, either by culture, custom, law, or other.
This is how the making of a social construct can be more viscerally, and personally understood. This experiment also quickly makes evident to more people why white, christian (depending how far you go back, not catholics), straight, men with at least some wealth were able to determine our laws without using any diversity of logic, or having any empathy for the Other. Unfortunately, too many of these laws, and deeply inculcated and enforced norms still thwart the work of ending harmful inequalities.
.
What’s worse, life is not an experiment; it does actual bad things to actual people. Although many people have it better now than fifty years ago, it is not fair, or consistent of us to allow others to suffer, as we pat ourselves on the back for the progress we have made in some areas. The black Americans who have lost and will lose family members from COVID, and all Americans losing family members from addiction and mental illness, are not so happy about our advances in closing the health, and healthcare gap.
The Transition To A Better Democracy.
First, we must realize that we, today, have the responsibility to make the changes we can make. The Constitution requires our participation; the document will never discover or fix on its own what is missing, or incorrect. New precedents can overtake older, out-of-date precedents. However, a redirection of our focus is required.
.
The main, or at least a parallel, focus should be on something bigger than changing the minor process elements of democracy. Ending or changing filibusters, or making voting easier may improve things on the margin, but nothing will stop opponents from enacting subterfuge in other ways. Ending the electoral college, and packing the court may hold more promise if enacted. Yet, those changes will be much more difficult to do in this decade.
.
The process fixes also carry with them psychological depression, and time wasted, potential. Each one that does not fix things how we hope it will, means the energy for putting more time into the next fix lessens. More uncertain is will these changes make the process materially different, and powerful enough to actually recalibrate our democracy?
.
Except maybe for ending the electoral college, the toughest and most long term assignment, is not every tweak merely ‘six of one, and half dozen of the other’ as in likely improving our democracy to make a big enough difference? Ergo, tweaking the same system will never outdo power and money.
.
The main thrust in the first section focused on slavery as a way to understand how, and why the Constitution is structured as it is. But there are many other problematic consistencies in our way. Its precedents predict a similar future. The slog will continue. The easiest way to get to my point, is to say, what we have is as good as it is going to get, since our opponents can easily rise above us. Of course, this is not to discount changes, like simplifying the voting process, or completely equalizing voting opportunities.
.
Removing a number of the process obstacles put in our way by status quo or regressive conservatives, will give us a better chance playing the current game. That said, it will better our odds only in some contests, nor will it give us the consistency needed to defend against the mega wealthy and powerful. Instead we require a new system to compete directly with the billionaires, and the bullies on their own turf. If we just work through the political process, we will always be outmatched.
.
We must add a booster rocket to progressiveness. Right now we have about 520 thousand public office holders, one for every 615 people in the U.S. How do we keep track of all of those politicians, and effectively and consistently influence them, and they respond to us? And there are only 537 federally elected officials, one for every 600 thousand U.S. residents. How do they respond to all of us, and act on all we need? What is happening due to their (and our) ineffectiveness, is legion. The worst problems not taken care of, held up in committee purgatory, means much harm is being done. Politicians are also caught up in fundraising duties, and in fundraiser influence.
.
There are many ways we could do things better, but why have they not been done? In the end, good ideas not implemented are not the best ideas. Working within the political system, and the two parties, is necessary, but always insufficient. The forces arrayed against us play the game narrowly with deep pockets, and we desire a diverse group of changes, without the power to narrowcast as well. The poor, discriminated, undereducated, and unhealthy, have very little power, money, expertise, and time in comparison to their needs.
.
Almost nothing as been done to help those in the bottom 20% of incomes for decades. The deserving poor fallacy has greatly harmed the most vulnerable people in America. This travesty alone shows that our system has serious and irreparable, built-in flaws. Tweaks, tinkering, or pruning will almost never get to the root of our current problems, which is getting worse, or barely improving in many areas including life expectancy, and the racial wealth gap. Without a full root and branch removal, and a constitutional do over, our political system will fail to deliver results except in a white, male, christian nationalist, multi-gender phobic, incrementalist’s dystopian distant future. That is dystopian except for the current dominant group.
.
Yet, the system flaws are only a minor problem compared to what has been unleashed. That is the influence of the mega-wealthy and powerful. They will never accept additional leveling of any significance; otherwise they would have already allowed more leveling, or at least curbed the last four decades of greedy engorgement. Therefore, a better way is necessary.
.
The solution is a fuller bore democratic workaround, and counterbalance system. We must fight from the streets, and soapboxes, as well as in the boardrooms, and smoke-filled rooms. The system will raise all democracy loving participants high enough to face off against any billionaire or political bully, with the power of up to 300 million Americans, all standing up at the same time for every democratically approved cause.
.
Again, the political system we currently have must be improved. The transition proposed will not require any more or less from the current system. It will actually make it more possible to improve every process element needed. Consider the new system the super heated glue to make everything the American people require stick. Burning through any barnacle or bully standing in the way of We The People.
.
Conclusion: Raising Up And Locking Down.
The American people need a platform that raises them up as high, or higher than the wealthy and the powerful. That also locks down the solutions required to make our nation better for everyone, not merely a select few. The system will significantly expand our reach, while it laser focuses our massive power wherever needed. Assessing the best angle to destabilize the opposition, and moving our forces in place at the right time to achieve the best results possible.
.
The comprehensive advocacy system will move democracy to a true 21st century stage. Its flexible development and structure coincides with, and accentuates our many human, and Americans traits, providing for collective and individual participation. Democratic advocacy pressure is greatly strengthened with strategy and tools to put more legislation on a finality fast track. Additionally, longer term, pragmatic certainty is achievable in cases where it was not possible before.
.
Set up as a democracy adjunct, it provides a transitional platform to move from our current system to a fully revised political process. Fortunately, the transition can take as long as it needs to. Actually, the adjunct democracy system can play a very powerful role without ever transitioning. Think of it as guiding us towards a constitutional convention, making the changes we want, and moving passed a convention without ever scheduling it.
.
This is possible because of its quasi-governmental structure. One analogy could be it is like a free app that everyone at some point in the future could purchase. We all learn to use the (free app) adjunct, do real things with it, crowd source improvements, and either keep using the adjunct (free) version, that does real things, and never (install the pay version) integrate the adjunct with the government, or we do all go in on it. Unlike an app, of course, integrating a new political system, and the government connection would require a nationwide, constitutionally recognized vote.
.
When considering this new system, you must commit your mind to its flexibility, and fluid functionality.
Star Trek fans can think of it as a Vulcan mind meld. Except for an initial public/non-profit partnership funding agreement, no wires need be connected to government; instead it can be connected at various times, and areas, never becoming one mind. However, this Vulcan, (We The People adjunct), mind can be forever meld into the constitutional mind, if both entities, system and government, accept the transitional melding. Otherwise, the adjunct mind only melds when it wishes. The adjunct and the constitutional mind are both always members of the United Federation of Planets (a.k.a. United States). That said, the adjunct mind stays an at-large, independently functioning entity until fully melded.
.
Thankfully, this concept is not a Star Trek fantasy. The system is possible by using the same technologies available now, hopefully on a parallel internet system. Either way, utilizing our own communication, management, and logistics applications with the same capabilities as Facebook, Amazon, Zoom, Twitter, Slack, and others to create a national lattice work, or matrix of interconnections to every American to much easily involve themselves in local, state, and national causes, and greatly improve electoral participation.
.
This new adjunctive democratic system, expansive and expandable, is more than advanced technology, and online interactions and activities. It depends on the situation, and each worker’s or citizen’s needs, meeting them “where” they are at.
.
Rather than being political in the parties sense, the adjunct system will stay focused on solutions. While those solutions will include the political and civic, our hands, if connected to political machinations, must be cleaned and clearly separated between activities, and no political games played within the system. Basically, as if you were on a local town board, you would not discuss your political positions during a scheduled meeting, or use your political connections to cajole votes, etc.
.
Another reason you would not want to play party politics is the watchdog element of the system will be very assertive and impartial, similar to (a very fair and non-Stasi) internal affairs. Of course, the watchdog spotlight will mostly be turned towards the two political parties, the government, and the world of business. Yet we must keep our own adjunct house clean.
.
The quasi-governmental connection is similar to any public/private partnership funding. The system would apply for funds, and that source would be perpetual, and possibly contingent on some budget formula. At some point, the system could be self sustaining through various government improvements, and spending reductions We The People achieved. System administrators and contributors (all of us) would develop, and possibly implement agency improvements that achieve direct savings, or indirectly, throughout the government. For example, developing a jobs system that makes employment more consistent, so it reduces healthcare costs, loss of work depression, unemployment insurance, work mishaps, etc.
.
If the current system allows corporations to inject dark money into their political campaigns to takeover our government, surely We The People can be funded by our own government’s tax receipts to stand up to them. There will never have been a public-private partnership that compares to the good the We The People System, public-non-profit partnership will deliver.*
.
Just like our Constitution never sanctioned political parties, We The People should get the same freedom to create a counterbalance to the political parties caught in past precedents, and bought by the currently moneyed.
.
By Richard The Chwalek.
.
*The infusion of public money into the WTP System would help make up for the two-centuries head start the corporations got.
Learn more, get my book: Our Democracy Requires An Update Now
Comments
Post a Comment