Brainstorming New Political Systems

The political system needs a good deal of reform. Now with corporations able to pump as much money as they want into elections, there is going to be a much larger amount of corruption than before. So I think it would be a good idea to try to dream up different political systems that would avoid the pitfalls of corporate domination and moral bankruptcy.

1. Electing Ideas. I do not think that politicians should be the prime electees. Voting on broad goals (not specific things, like the referenda in CA often take the form of) would be a much more fruitful system... the system wouldn't get stuck in personal attacks and mudslinging, and corruption would be a much less endemic because it is much harder to corrupt ideas than it is people.

2. Electing officials through a series of trials. We should have a set series of tests and trials that officials have to pass through to become elected. These trials would put the skills of the candidates to the test, and all trials would be broadcast and chronicled by the media. People would have discussion forums to discuss how the candidate did and who was the top competitor. And trials could last a long time. One trial could be One trial could be managing a small government agency. Another trial could be to live on welfare for 2 months. The trials would be designed to both test the individual as well as acquaint them with the country (or state or whatever) they are going to govern.

3. Local Townhall meetings to set general goals of the bureaucracy in small areas. Included in this are a webpage forum for people to discuss things.

4. Some sort of public forum that is more participatory than the current media structures. I am not sure what that would look like.

5. Organized volunteer public works - the government should be more involved in organizing people to improve their locality.

6. Free, voluntary education programs. Basic for any thriving democracy to thrive.

Ok, that is all I have time for right now.

Thoughts on the future and Obama

I can't lie, Obama has moved me. And while I hope he institutes a progressive policy, it would not surprise me if he did not. Politicians have a responsibility to the public to do what the public wants, and if they think the public wants them to do A, they will probably go along with it. So while I am celebrating Obama being elected, I do not buy the "he was being centrist to get elected, he is really a progressive-wolf in centrist-sheep's clothing."

I would say the most moving part of his story, though, and the reason I am more hopeful of his ability than most other politicians are his self-reflective nature and his community organizing roots. Atleast according to various exposes of him in various forms of media, he spends alot of time contemplating himself, trying to develop self-knowledge. Self-reflection is so key to so much in my life, that I can't help but have some confidence in a leader who appears to have a similar relationship with it. That and various anecdotes that speak to the kindness in his heart give me cause to hope.
Now, if he can manage to transition his campaign arm into a grassroots organization with the purpose of passing progressive policy, oh man, that would make for an interesting future. The creation of a Democratic grassroots "machine", so to speak, that would have a progressive agenda of its own, plus an ameniable President and congress could be a recipe for significant change.

This is a rare opportunity. If the left can mobilize a grassroots mind-changing campaign along side a policy changing campaign, then we could see some real change. I hope sds manages to jump on this opporunity, because we could sway large numbers of people if we can manage to get our voice out there in a relevant and meaningful way.

Another interesting development that Obama's campaign's extreme grassroots nature could produce is a substantial uptick in the pariticipation of the public in our government. It could be the beginnings of a culture of participation, which will only lead toward participatory democracy. I wonder if Obama realizes the impact he could have on the way government works if he can transition his grassroots campaign organization into a more permeanent institution.

This campaign has also shown that you can get marginalized groups mobilized and involved, as well as the average citizen. They just need to be inspired and she the disillusionment that our system of government seems to naturally produce in people because of its unresponsiveness.

Politicians and power

Real power is not a commodity, it is consent.  Specifically, consent from large groups of people. Power can only be bought when people consent to being bought off, and it can only be stolen when people consent to giving it up through some form of intimidation.  But there is a difference between active consent and apathetic consent.  Active consent produces real, tangible power that can move mountains and change the wheel.  Apathetic consent produces the shadow of power, people go along with it, but their hearts aren't in it.  Consent to the activities and policies of politicians fall into the second category.  Only half the population is motivated to spend one hour or less to do something as easy as voting, now that is apathetic consent to be governed.   

Too many people believe politicians are able to do things, that they have power enough to make decisions themselves.  That is not the nature of the beast.  It was the nature of Monarchs and Emperors, back when people put more stock in the authority of their leaders and were much much more willing to act on their leader's wishes.  But it is not so today.  If a politician asked me to do something, I doubt I would do it unless it was something I was going to do anyway.  I bet the same is true for most of you out there.  We are forced to apathetically consent to their existence, because there is no alternative, as of yet.  Because they receive this type of consent, politicians do not have latitude to do what they wish.  We have stripped them of that power by our lackluster enthusiasm.  Like most of us, their hands are tied, they are stuck in Weber's iron cage of rules and regulations, and without support, they are unable to do what they want just as much as we are unable to create what we wish. 

I am reminded of a story about FDR.  During the early days of his administration, he met with labor leaders, they gave a presentation to try to convince him to adopt their policies.  At the end, FDR told them that they had convinced him and he completely agreed with what they were saying, and that now they had to go out into the public arena and force him to do it.  Hating politicians for being spineless and unable to do what we want is like hating grass for being unable to remain rigid against the wind.  If we want to shift the way the grass bends, we have to change the direction of the wind.  

I don't bother getting angry at politicians anymore.  Not worth the effort, they just do what they do and that won't change until we change our system of government.  Getting some active consent going for a policy will change policy, but it will not change the anti-participatory nature of our republic.  

It seems to me that too many people on the left focus on the people at the top levels of our government, and focus on them for failing to live up to America's ideals.  But they don't have the real power.  The population that apathetically consents to their existence has the REAL power, and they nullify it by being apathetic.  If we ever want to change our society, we have to change the minds of the population and get them organized and acting.  Politicians are a moot point, when the population's minds are changed, the minds of politicians will be changed. Just look at the environmental movement's success in converting the general population.  Even Republicans are now trying to appeal to green-minded voters.  We shouldn't waste our emotional energies decrying politicians and fighting the power-structures unless these activities are aimed at changing people's minds and mobilizing them.  And unfortunately, they often are not aimed at this, they are aimed at forcing authority figures to do what we want.

Strategy for Changing the US... Take 1

I wrote most of this about a month ago, and was going to add more, but life became really busy, so I decided to publish this as is, since it has been a month an a half since I wrote something.

The question in front of us is not naming the system, or even understanding it, but figuring out how to rebuild it and our society to reflect our highest vision. The people exist to do it. The resources exist to do it. The motivation exists to do it. The only reason it has not happened is because we don't agree on how to do it and we are not organized enough to implement it. We need to understand

This is my first try at setting down a skeletal strategy to restructure our entire society to make it more human, democratic, sustainable, and a generally affirming way of life. This strategy is still in bits and pieces at this point, but I think there is some worth in writing it down so i dont forget.

1. Create local democratic structures. Not sure what these will look specifically, but I imagine them as General Assemblies for non-administrative decision-making, with working groups (open to everyone) to execute tasks. If working groups become too large (What a problem that would be! Too much participation, is it possible?), then they can be split into several working groups that coordinate activity. The judicial system would stop being punitive, and become a rehabilitating presence. It would consist of a system where people would share their grievances and perspectives with each other, as well as consensus-based sentencing.

This really needs further study and experimentation in my opinion, hopefully with some resources behind this endeavor.

2. Non-violent Army. Just a really cool idea that has been stuck in my head for a few years now. They would have the discipline and cohesion of a regular army, minus the extreme hierarchy and violence. They would put their lives on the line for others, just like violent army soldiers and they would be extensively trained in conflict resolution, non-violent tactics and strategy, as well as human behavior. The non-violent army would be trained to confront violent forces as well as other non-violent forces. They would go on campaigns against various injustices across the country, mobilizing thousands. Again, resources are the key problem, as well as research into how to do it. The know-how is extremely important. Hopefully we will be able to create the equivalent of army manuals for the nv army.

3. Parallel Structures. With some local democratic institutions in place, these towns and counties could start forming parallel structures to state and federal governments. These would do everything that an organization composed of the entire community should do, including provide social services (police, hospitals, firefighters, general social support, protection and help)

Democracy and Violence Part 2

Some more rambling thoughts on democracy and violence. WARNING, THIS POST CONTAINS RAMBLING, INTENSE BRAINSTORMING AND STREAM OF CONSCIOUSNESS WRITING.

I think I need to do a more in depth analysis of violence.
Let me start by explaining something about human cultures. We have commonly held beliefs about the way things are accomplished. A simple example of this is the way we make circular holes in things. We make circular motions, like a drill. Indeed, the drill motion has become so accepted as the way to make a small circular hole that we are prone to interpret holes in ancient artifacts as produced through a drilling motion. But they often weren't. It is easy enough to make a circular hole with other carving motions. When a culture vests a certain amount of belief and confidence in a means, then they start to believe that everyone does it that way and that other ways do not really work.
This is what has happened to our culture with violence. Violence is seen as THE method to force people to do things, to force their consent. So people on both sides of the conflict tend to obey this misconception... the forcer will believe the forcee will accept it, and the forcee believes that they have no choice. As a result, the belief is reinforced because everyone consents to go along with it. There is nothing inherent about violence that makes it have this power, it is a social construction and nothing more. It is one of many social constructions that need to be dissolved before democracy can be installed.

Having large numbers of people solving conflicts through violence (either personal or state violence), as happens now, will not work for a democracy. Using violence to solve a problem does not actually solve it. In fact, it complicates the matter. It denies the right of the victims of the violence to have their concerns addressed and it assumes that those imposing the violence have the right to value the issue of contention over the person. In a democracy, people are the most important thing, they should be prioritized over everything else.

Violence is done out of desperation. Resorting to this type of action assumes that the victim is unreasonable and will not be persuaded any other way. It shows how little control someone has over a situation if they resort to violence. This is the difficult position police are put into. They are invested with the responsibility of keeping the peace, and controlling a situation. When they lose control, they get desperate and they get violent.

Right now our society lacks the social institutions necessary to conflict resolve on the spot. The police are the only institution vested with immediate conflict resolution, and they tend to do it by arresting one party. If there was a common belief in a system that involved real, on the spot conflict resolution, then the police would not be forced to resort to physical force and violence.

The act of forcing someone in this way is anti-democratic. Democracy is about discussion, compromise, consensus and understanding. It is not a results-oriented method of governance, it is a people-oriented method. Violence places results over people.

So far, I have said:
1. Violence and democracy have different priorities
2. Violence and democracy have contradicting products
3. Violence does not produce circumstances conducive to democracy.
4. Violence is used (ineffectively) in the stead of democratic institutions of conflict resolution.
5. Violence is a social construction that is thought to be practical, but ends up not being in practice.
6. Violence undermines the democratic prerequisite that citizens need to be able to make decisions free of oppression
7. Violence as a means to force consent would be replaced with other institutions under a democracy

Things I wish to explore further: How violence effects the victim. The ends produced when one uses violent means. And the chaos factors in democracy and violence.

Democracy and Violence Part 1

Well, I am concretely defeating Bucky when it comes to keeping up with my blog. He can consider that a challenge to try and catch up.

So, this is my first stab at trying to articulate why violence is anti-democratic.
Democracy, by its very nature, is supposed to uplift and equalize, to empower and enhance communication. To facilitate understanding and to bring about consensus. Violence is the opposite of this. It is forced disempowerment, a diminishing and isolating means that tends to breed hatred and more violence. In fact, it often destroys power through death. It attempts to undermine the power of a nation not through turning that power to a different mindset, as with democracy, but through the physical act of destroying people and the inherent power they have. Indeed, it undermines power by both destroying it and by forcing consent through fear.

Violence, in our culture, is believed to be an effective way to force someone to do something. I interpret this as forced consent. The person believes they have no choice, even though they do. They can refuse to be coerced and allow themselves to be harmed... indeed, to force the attacker to use violence out of their own desperation to control other people.

So, violence is used in two ways to try to consolidate control: 1. destroy power through removing number of supporters. The worst examples of this are genocides. 2. Forced consent through the threat of violence; most notable emotions involved are fear, a feeling of helplessness and hopelessness.

Democracy can not be created through a process of destroying power and/or forcing the consent of others. The whole point of democracy is for everyone to be able to affect and/or make the decisions that impact their lives. A system such as that depends on people's trust of each other and willing consent to be a part of the system. You can't get people to participate, I mean REALLY participate in the way we want them to, by threatening them. Nor will killing them get them to participate... for obvious reasons.

Now, that that basic argument is kind of out there... many people will rebut with the argument: There are people out there who are oppressing others and exerting coercion and forced consent over them. How do we deal with them? Would it not be prudant to force these people to consent to stop oppressing? And sometimes people will even take it as far as "Isn't a violent revolution necessary to overthrow such an oppressive system as this, it is so violent that it will respond to nothing but violence."
My answer to this is: That is a false situation. When one group oppresses another, they are forcing the other group to consent. All the oppressed group need to do is stop consenting, and they will, with sacrifice (sacrifice that is required for any kind of fighting, whether it is violent of non-violent), be able to end the oppression. The power is truly in the hands of the oppressed, since they are always more numerous. They could (and have in many historical instances) easily and non-violently thrown off the shackles binding them. This is how you build a democratic society, you create democratic institutions in the effort to overthrow oppressors. Using democratic means will create a democratic system, while using violent means will create a violent system. But I digress... violence will only serve to undermine democracy, because it will make the group who were the oppressors not want to participate in a new government, which would probably not be democratic if it were built out of the flames of a violent revolution. So already there is a problem of a (probably) large minority of people who do not want to participate, and are willing to actively oppose whatever democratic institutions had come about. This creates a situation where the people trying to build a democracy start to believe they need to actively take control, or force consent to the democracy from the actively opposing minority. And that is just plain anti-democratic. We come back to the problem of the impossibility of building a participatory democracy by forcing people to agree to democracy. That is just not how democracy works.

So far in this brainstorming session, I have explored what the means of violence produces (i.e. destroying power, forced consent) and how these products are incompatible with the project of democracy. Violence, as a means, simply seems to be ineffective at producing democratic outcomes.

I want to explore this more, but it is late. So I will put off further discussion for another post. I still need to explore the impact of forced consent on people more, and the products that non-violent means produce. I should also explore the chaos factor from both violence and democracy.

In other news, I got my California License!

What is the government?

I have been thinking about the concept of "the government." It is a tricky idea, because it has mutated into such an odd organization. It used to be, mainly, the forum for the public (or those appointed by the public) to make decisions about what needs to happen for the benefit of the entire public; a tool to enact those decisions; and a social space for conflict resolution. Hence, the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. But, it has separated itself from the public and ceases to play this role in its entirety.
I have come to the conclusion that the government should literally be the public. It should not be this conceptual "other" that is has power over you. It should be the place you go to exercise your power. But how would one construct a government that is re-merged with its community?
I do not know the answer to that question, yet. I am certain it would look quite different from the government we have now, which gives off an aura of all-powerfulness and authority. It would embrace participatory democracy, certainly, but I am still trying to figure out the institutional organization. I have managed to narrow it down, though, to some needs and goals. The decision-making arm needs to be directly democratic, and have a vibrant and accessible public forum for the discussion of issues and problems. Every citizen should feel able to engage in these debates and input their opinion, while being able to directly act on their beliefs through regular referendums. I think we should elect ideas instead of people. Of course, necessary in this system would be a culture of participation and consensus. This would be harder to create than anything else.

In other news, I have not heard back from the PIRGs about whether I got the organizing job with them or not. I guess that probably means not. oh well. And sadly, the ac adapter cord for my laptop has stopped working, so I have had to order a new one of those. My laptop will be out of commission for the next week. I have been thinking about starting to look for day laborer jobs until I find a long-term job, so I will atleast be able to make alittle money to support myself. I will probably start that after I get back from Christmas.