We Are No Longer A Democracy

Recently, in an interview with Thom Hartmann, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter said regarding 2010 Citizens United decision and the 2014 McCutcheon decision, “It violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system. Now it’s just an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or being elected president.”  Huffington Post goes on to explain that the decisions were rendered by “five Republican judges on the U.S. Supreme Court.”

According to liberal left commentators, experts, political minds, and the Huffington Post, the two rulings “enable unlimited secret money (including foreign money) now to pour into U.S. political and judicial campaigns.”

The Huff Post article then goes on to explain that in politics, there are only two choices.  Either, we are an aristocracy (oligarchy) where the richest citizen’s desires are reflected in governmental actions, or we are a democracy where the leaders represent the public at large.

Upon hearing such a thing being perpetrated by the liberal left Democrats, the political minds that reside right-of-center react, attacking what Carter, or Huff Post, had to say, without fully understanding that the premise is wrong in the first place.  While fighting on the liberal left’s terms, the “right-wingers” make fools of themselves trying defend plutocratic activities and damning what the Democrats consider to be the “will of the people.”

Via Canada Free Press

Continue Reading.....

We’re Losing The Two Things Tocqueville Said Mattered Most About American Democracy

This is the first installment of a new series: a Frenchman reads Democracy in America and investigates how it applies to the contemporary United States.

In Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville doesn’t waste any time letting  you know what impresses him most about America.  To Tocqueville, equality and, to a slightly lesser — but very important — extent, religiosity, are the two foundations of the American experiment. His understanding of them certainly challenges both liberal and conservative sensibilities. But what does it say about America today that these two aspects of the American experience seem to be at all-time lows? And does Tocqueville point to a way forward?

The importance of economic and social equality

Tocqueville praises equality in his very first sentence: “Among the many things which drew my attention during my stay in the United States, none struck me more than the equality of conditions.” Two paragraphs later: “As I went on studying American society, I saw more and more in the equality of conditions the main fact which seemed to cause every other particular fact, and I kept seeing it before me as a central point to which all my observations led.”

Conservatives might not enjoy Tocqueville’s praise of economic and social equality as key to the success of the American experiment, but with some thought, you realize that Tocqueville is giving us a welcome way out of our incredibly dreary debates on the topic. A lot of conservatives claim that while the Left believes equality means equality of outcome, the Right is for equality of opportunity — but that’s a load of hooey. Everyone agrees with equality of opportunity, and all non-communists agree equality of outcomes is not desirable. The question is whether too much inequality of outcome leads to a greater inequality of opportunity. It’s a stubborn fact that, as a matter of dollars and cents, American society has gotten more unequal over the past 30 years. Does it mean that it has also become unequal in other ways? And if so, should we do anything about it? And what? Does Tocqueville show us a way?

Via: The Federalist

Continue Reading.....

Californians’ Love-Hate Relationship with Direct Democracy

Californians have a love-hate relationship with direct democracy.

We love that we have the ability to set the politicians straight, either by getting a jump on them on the next big issue or reversing course when we think they’ve made a big mistake.

But we’re not wild about reading through all those damn initiatives that appear on the ballot every year, or sorting through the claims and counter claims of the interest groups that sponsor and oppose them. And we don’t like the way that big money pays to get most measures on the ballot and then underwrites the campaigns.

Those are among the findings of recent research by the independent Public Policy Institute of California, a non-partisan think tank which also suggested a few reforms.

Ironically, one of those ideas is to increase the role the Legislature plays in shaping ballot measures. Voters overwhelmingly approve of this idea, even though they relish the opportunity to overrule the politicians. That might seem like a contradiction. But the voters seem to hope that by bringing the Legislature into the game we can get them to do the right thing without the need for an initiative campaign.

One way to do this is to revive the idea of the indirect initiative, in which sponsors of an idea collect a certain number of signatures and then present the proposal to the Legislature. If it passes, the campaign ends there. If the Legislature balks, the measure proceeds to the next ballot.

Another, less ambitious approach would be to simply let the Legislature review ballot measures and suggest changes, perhaps limited to drafting errors or constitutional impairments. The authors could then adopt those changes and move on with their ballot campaign, or reject them.

The second suggested reform is to increase transparency when it comes to the backers of ballot initiatives. Some ideas: identify funders on petitions, in paid advertising and in the official ballot guide.

The third reform is to re-engage citizens in the initiative process. Remember, the idea of the ballot measure was to give citizens more power in the legislative process. But other than the vote, much of that power has been ceded to the same interest groups that lobby the Legislature full time. Now they also lobby the people.

Among the possibilities: giving volunteer-only signature campaigns more time to gather names to qualify a measure for the ballot; asking voters to re-affirm their decisions on ballot measures after the have been law for a few years; and establishing a citizens’ commission to review ballot measures and make recommendations on the ballot.

Via: California Political Review

Continue Reading....

Civility Deb

Debbie Wasserman Schultz is out, today, with her first book.  In his Politico Playbook, Mike Allen calls it a "D.C. Must-Read."  Which, if true, is the most depressing news to come out of the Imperial City so far this week. But, then, it is only Tuesday.

Anyway … the book is called For the Next Generation: A Wake-Up Call to Solving Our Nation's Problems.  

Just what the country needs, a wake-up call.  Why didn't someone think of that sooner?

Allen reports that Ms. Wasserman Schultz:

...started writing the book three years ago because she wanted to describe how being a young mom changed her outlook on what members of Congress should do to make good policy: “We tell our kids to work together and care about their community. We need to do the same.”  

And quotes from a chapter called “Discourse, Not Discord”:

“Differences of opinion are natural and healthy aspects of a democracy governed by two parties, and we must be able to express these differences with civility. But as anyone who has observed Washington knows, we are not always able to hold ourselves to these standards of conduct. The modern political climate is nastier than any in recent memory, marked by party members who tend to hector one another when they should be engaged in constructive debate.”

Outside of Washington that sort of stuff is laughable. 

"Civility," thanks to the Wasserman Schultz’s of the world, has become another word without meaning.  Only political utility.  

Via: Weekly Standard

Continue Reading.....