The fact is, beneath the thin veneer of prosperity our politicians seem so eager to celebrate, America is a fast-ticking time bomb. It’s time to do something about it, before the clock runs out.
The first step will be for the American people to take back their country-to overthrow a governmental system that has gone rotten at the core, and replace it with a reinvigorated democracy that serves all the people, all the time. Let us begin.
Our political world is divided into two camps: those who consider plummeting turnout and high disengagement a serious threat to our democracy, and those who do not. The problem is that almost every elected official and political consultant is in the latter camp. Which isn’t so surprising when you consider how many of them owe their jobs to the worst aspects of the system.
The defenders of the status quo have no problem with disaffected citizens dropping out-it keeps them from making waves. Better that they get out than care enough to stay in and vote against them. In many ways, it is easier to play to, control, and manipulate a smaller audience.
Sen. Wendell Ford (D, KY) wrung his hands over the possibility that increasing the cigarette tax would lead to reduced smoking. That’s clearly an undesirable outcome, especially when you’ve received-as Ford has-$94,773 from the tobacco industry. Trent Lott ($88,000 in tobacco contributions) even went so far as to call the president twice and warn that raising taxes on cigarettes was a “deal breaker.”
Here’s a better idea: Let’s fight back against the pollsters. Contact your congressman and demand that he or she work to get telephone polling added to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. This would not only offer consumers one more tool to protect their privacy, it would also give citizens a valuable weapon to protect democracy from its ongoing hostile takeover by pollsters. Given the collective nature of politics, people always ask, What can one person do? Well, you can start by removing yourself from the polling pool.
As Bob Dole so passionately said: “The Republicans want government to grow by 14% while the Democrats want it to grow by 20%.“ Wow, I guess we’re lucky we avoided civil war. No wonder so many Americans are sick of the political process-how can you get excited when all you’re offered is a choice between two versions of the same outdated agenda?
This bipartisan identity crisis has already begun to shred the fraying coalitions that have defined the two parties for years. Traditionally loyal factions seem readier than ever to pick up their marbles and play the third-party game.
Only 1/3 of the anti-drug budget is earmarked for education, prevention, and treatment programs; the remaining 2/3 go to the higher-profile trio of interdiction, supply reduction, and law enforcement.
Drug abuse is the only market in which the government thinks it can suspend the laws of supply and demand.
Millions of underprivileged minors are crowding our prisons, all the result of crowd-pleasing but cowardly mandatory minimum sentencing law. This is modern politics at its worst. Such bad policy can only serve to erode the public’s already shaky trust in democracy.
“Mania” pretty much describes Harris’s web site, on which he wrote: “My belief is that if I say something, it goes. I am the law. If you don’t like it, you die.” This should have troubled any doctor who was following Harris after he was put on Luvox. Or was Harris one of the tens of thousands of children cavalierly prescribed anti-depressants without either a proper psychiatric evaluation or any ongoing monitoring of side effects?
In the aftermath of the Littleton massacre, President Clinton proposed new laws to restrict the marketing of guns to children, and hosted a conference to examine the entertainment industry’s marketing of violence to children. But no one [considered] the third problem-the marketing of mood-altering prescription drugs for children.
That the drug companies are acting out of pure self-interest is not surprising. But the drug industry’s unadulterated self-interest is also governing public policy. Despite two years of complaints from public health groups, Gore remained steadfast on the industry’s side until embarrassing public protests at campaign stops forced him to issue anemic defenses of his position. The protesters persisted, [eventually resulting in a] long-overdue change in the Administration’s position is directly traceable to them.
Now, I’m certainly in favor of all the gun control we can get-but if we want to rebuild our frayed civil society, we’d better reload young people’s hearts and spirits at the same time. And while reading the Ten Commandments is great, living them is even better-particularly the biblical admonition about tending to the least among us. The TV bookers need to program their speed dials to include people around the country who are using family volunteering to keep kids connected to their own families as well as their communities.
Now, I’m certainly in favor of all the gun control we can get-but if we want to rebuild our frayed civil society, we’d better reload young people’s hearts and spirits at the same time. And while reading the Ten Commandments is great, living them is even better-particularly the biblical admonition about tending to the least among us. The TV bookers need to program their speed dials to include people around the country who are using family volunteering to keep kids connected to their own families as well as their communities.
It’s a simple idea-and a radical one. But, as Professor Ayres reminded me, the radical idea on which it’s modeled-the secret ballot-is only about a century old, though we take it for granted today. The secret ballot put a halt to voter buying [at a time] when party bosses [bought votes]. “The voting booth,” Ayres says, “made it harder for candidates to buy votes. The ‘donor booth’ would make it harder for candidates to sell influence.”
Would it really work? In some states, it already has - Louisiana, Tennessee, Washington, and South Dakota have experimented with keeping donors to judicial campaigns anonymous.
Like any reform, this would create its own set of problems. But at this stage, even cynics are ready to exchange a new set of problems for the old ones. With the donor booth, PAC money would dry up-because knowing who’s giving is exactly why PACs exist. Donor anonymity would prove-as if more proof were needed-just how many contributions have nothing to do with the donor’s policy desires. And while the protectors of the status quo keep trying to use constitutional arguments to protect soft money, this proposal is as constitutionally unassailable as the secret ballot. Donor anonymity calls everyone’s bluff [because] donors can never prove [their donations].
Reformers are also proposing “early voting,” which extends the election period from a single day to up to three weeks; “weekend voting,” which, like early voting, keeps the polls open longer, and on days that are more convenient; and “vote by mail,” an institutionalized form of absentee voting in which the entire election is held by mail.
Of course, once it’s easier to vote, the problem becomes finding someone worth voting for. That’s where questions of ballot access and debate access come into play. Byzantine ballot regulations make it next to impossible for those outside the political mainstream to take on the system. [And] the other way the two parties try to perpetuate their duopoly is by limiting access to debates.
|
The above quotations are from How to Overthrow the Government, by Arianna Huffington.
Click here for other excerpts from How to Overthrow the Government, by Arianna Huffington. Click here for other excerpts by Arianna Huffington. Click here for a profile of Arianna Huffington.
Please consider a donation to OnTheIssues.org!
| Click for details -- or send donations to: 1770 Mass Ave. #630, Cambridge MA 02140 E-mail: submit@OnTheIssues.org (We rely on your support!) |