VOTE 2020 - Theme Music Video

REGISTER AND VOTE

TAIWAN - The Vote

"In Taiwan, presidential election brings long-simmering tensions with China to the surface" PBS NewsHour 1/9/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  For decades, Taiwan's political status has been a contentious issue between the U.S. and China.  The U.S. considers it a real democracy, while mainland China sees a rogue province that should be under Communist control.  Taiwanese voters will elect their next president Saturday, in a decision with major implications for Taiwan and U.S.-China relations.  Special correspondent Divya Gopalan reports.

U.S. HOUSE - Democracy Takes the Helm

COMMENT:  OK, I am a progressive (small 'p') but I was a Registered Republican in 2000.  The GOP has become the enablers of a dictator-want-to-be Trump and his destine for rule-of-law, our Constitution, and long held American values including not speaking hard against Nazi and White Supremacists.

So, yes, I see the Democratic Party taking the House as a real move FOR democracy.

"An ‘extraordinary’ day in Washington as shutdown looms over new Congress" PBS NewsHour 1/3/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  On the first day of the new Congress and 13th of the partial government shutdown, political posturing distracted from progress on policy.  Newly elected Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) promised bipartisanship, while President Trump reiterated his belief that a border wall would keep Americans safer.  For more on Washington's big day, Judy Woodruff is joined by Lisa Desjardins.

DEMOCRACY - In Retreat Worldwide

"Democracy is in retreat in the U.S. and around the world, report finds.  What happened?" PBS NewsHour 1/16/2018

Answer, Donald Trump.

DEMOCRACY: The United States is "Presidential Republic"

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The United States is becoming less engaged in the world in order to focus on fixing problems at home, but that shift is creating a power vacuum that will be filled by countries that don’t share U.S. values, according to Republican Ohio Gov. John Kasich, and Madeleine Albright former Secretary of State under President Bill Clinton.

Kasich and Albright talked to the PBS NewsHour’s Judy Woodruff about a report released Tuesday by democracy advocacy group Freedom House, which says democracy worldwide today “finds itself battered and weakened,” a trend it has reported for the past 12 years.  It noted this year a “striking” withdrawal by the United States due to the Trump administration’s “America First” stance.

CITIZENS SPEAK - Why Should We Pay

Sometimes it takes a senior to remind us of the fundamentals of Democracy and civil responsibility.

Barbara Rank, Thanks

SURVEILLANCE - A 702 Warning

COMMENT:  "After all, surveillance powers are wielded by humans, with all of their prejudices and temptations and flaws."  And people can misuse the data collected for their own personal purposes.  Which can include a President wanting to stay in power.

"Why US surveillance bothers me — and should bother you" by Sarah St.Vincent, The Hill 6/11/17

As the Trump Administration comes out swinging in favor of one of the United States' most controversial surveillance laws and Congress debates them with top intelligence and Department of Justice officials, everyone in the country should be thinking about why being watched by the government makes us queasy.

I've been working on US surveillance issues as a lawyer, policy analyst, and general geek for the past three years.  In my current role, I spend every day investigating and spreading the word about what the government is doing with your private data, especially your Internet and phone conversations.

Although there are plenty of good arguments out there — both principled and pragmatic — about why government overreach in this area matters, the ones I seem to wind up discussing most with people who are curious about these issues tend to center on the idea of “privacy.”

Sometimes, even as I say the word, I can see my listeners' eyes start to glaze over.  Privacy — really?

There are people out there with guns and bombs who want to kill and maim others en masse.

How can something like privacy — which is almost never absolute anyway — take precedence over the need to prevent that?

Aren't governments responsible for protecting their populations?

So, maybe arguments that only focus on “privacy,” in the abstract, leave you cold.

Well, the truth is that—at least at a visceral level—they do the same for me.

But after spending many hours pondering the nature of government surveillance, I've been able to pin down exactly what it is about the large-scale and overwhelmingly secretive programs run by the US that does trouble me deeply—and, in my view, should also trouble you.

Especially as Congress gears up for a major battle over whether to reform one of the country's most sweeping warrantless communications surveillance laws, Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (the subject of the upcoming Senate hearing), we should all be asking ourselves what it is about these programs that disturbs us.

Here's what keeps me up at night.

First, it bothers me that these warrantless, potentially enormous programs create such a vast power disparity between the US government and the people it is intended to represent and serve.

In this, I have solid backing: James Otis, a Boston lawyer who made a fiery argument in 1761 about the British colonial authorities' use of broad “general warrants” to barge into homes and rifle through private papers, decried that practice as “the worst instrument of arbitrary power, the most destructive of English liberty and the fundamental principles of law, that ever was found in an English law book.”

Otis pointed out that such broad powers enabled any official who wielded them to carry out “petty tyranny” and “lord it over us”—and in doing so, he helped inspire the American Revolution.

Particularly when I look at the government's Section 702 programs, which include warrantless demands for private communications from major US Internet companies and (allegedly) the bulk scanning of many of the communications that pass over the undersea cables that connect the US to the rest of the world, Otis' objections still seem relevant.

This is not how democracy is supposed to look.

It also bothers me that the US government effectively misleads its own population, not to mention the rest of the world, about what it is doing.

To cite just one example, the authorities like to describe Section 702 surveillance as “targeted” because, officially, the monitoring must “target” foreigners (or foreign entities) outside of the United States.

What the government doesn't announce with quite as much enthusiasm is that as part of this ostensibly targeted monitoring, it believes it is entitled to sweep up potentially huge numbers of private calls, emails, texts, and so on—including those belonging to Americans—“incidentally.”

There are other examples of executive branch use of narrow, secret, or non-obvious interpretations of terms in an apparent effort to conceal or minimize its activities.

If the government truly believes its surveillance practices are constitutional, then its use of these verbal smokescreens is, to say the least, difficult to understand. 

It bothers me that my free speech is no longer truly free.

As many of us probably do, I hesitate before using certain words in emails or texts.  And by “certain words,” I mean those that allude to my religious beliefs, which—I can say with great confidence—would not please everyone.

I mean those that express my views on culturally sensitive topics.  I mean those that some might regard as obscene, or are the product of frustration or anger or simply bad taste.

I mean those that some US government official, somewhere, someday, might not like.

In case law about the First Amendment, there's a term for this hesitation: the “chilling effect.”  It's a pretty unambiguous sign that fundamental rights are in jeopardy.

It bothers me that if an FBI agent reads this and doesn't like what I've written, he or she can do a search for any of my communications the government might have “incidentally” grabbed under Section 702.  Literally.  Right now.  Without a warrant.

These are known as “backdoor searches,” and the government doesn't think it needs any suspicion of wrongdoing whatsoever to do them—it only needs to be hunting for “foreign intelligence information” (a very broadly defined term) or “evidence of a crime.”  The potential consequences for activists, demonstrators, minorities, and the politically unpopular should be obvious.

After all, surveillance powers are wielded by humans, with all of their prejudices and temptations and flaws.  This is why they're supposed to be constrained by clear, strict laws and overseen by judges on a case-by-case basis—which Section 702 snooping is not.

Ultimately, these are all problems that privacy protections are intended to forestall.  Think of privacy as a “gateway” right; when I know my calls and emails are truly private, and that law enforcement can't search them unless it has a specific pre-existing reason to think I've done something wrong, I speak more freely.

When I know I can trust my government to be forthright about when it can and cannot spy on me, I'm more likely to take advantage of my legal rights to assemble with others, protest, or explore or practice a religious faith.

If I'm ultimately charged with a criminal offense, the existence of clear laws and policies on when the government can monitor me (and what it can do with that information) will help ensure that I can discover and challenge any activities that may have violated the law.

In a rule-of-law country, these are necessities, not luxuries.

If you believe in democracy and in individual freedoms, there is a great deal about the federal government's out-of-control surveillance, including under Section 702, that should worry you.  Now is the time to think about why it does.

TRUMP AGENDA - Spreading Falsehoods

"Al Gore: We need to restore American democracy's immunity to blatant falsehoods" PBS NewsHour 3/13/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Former Vice President Al Gore is troubled by what he sees as an American vulnerability to false assertions driving political policy.  Gore has just re-released his book “The Assault on Reason,” 10 years after its original publication with an update for the Trump era.  Gore joins Judy Woodruff in a discussion about the state of democratic dialogue, as well as his interactions with President Trump.

JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour):  Has faith in the power of reason fallen victim to modern politics?

Ten years after its original publication, former Vice President Al Gore has updated his book “The Assault on Reason.”  Its new subtitle is telling:  “Our Information Ecosystem:  From the Age of Print to the Age of Trump.”

I sat down with him this afternoon, and started by asking about the sharp criticisms he made in the original version against then President George W. Bush.

AL GORE, Former Vice President of the United States:  My criticisms were not mainly aimed at any individuals, including President George W. Bush or Vice President Cheney, but rather the way in which our democratic conversation has been degraded over the last several decades.

And I would say the same thing about President Trump.  For me, the most serious problem is how our nation became so vulnerable to the assertion of blatant falsehoods that drive policy and are not corrected by the so-called immune system of democracy, a free press and a free democratic discourse.

And I think we have a huge systemic problem that we have largely ignored.  When our founders created America, it was in the age of the printing press, when individuals could freely join the conversation.  And that robust, democratic dialogue more often than not lifted up the best available evidence and asserted what was more likely to be true than not.

Now we have things that are obviously false, leading us to war, leading us to deny people health care, leading us to ignore the climate crisis.  We have to restore the integrity of the democratic conversation.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  Well, back when you first wrote the book, you were pretty optimistic, you wrote, that the Internet would be an open — an opportunity for the kind of discourse that you would like to see.

AL GORE:  Yes.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  Has it turned out that way?

AL GORE:  Not as quickly as I had hoped, that's for sure.

I still do have hope, however.  If you look at the way all of the new reform movements dedicated to the public interest are living and thriving on the Internet, I do think there is still some considerable hope that the full participation of individuals in that conversation of democracy can once again restore the integrity of the way our democracy works.

EGYPT - Sputtering Democracy Update

"Pivotal vote on Egypt's new constitution stirs violence and division" PBS Newshour 1/14/2014

Excerpt

GWEN IFILL (Newshour):  In Egypt today, at least 11 people were killed in sporadic protests and clashes, as millions went to the polls to vote on a new constitution.  The violence highlighted the deep political divisions that persist six months after its Islamist president was ousted from office by the military.

NewsHour chief foreign affairs correspondent Margaret Warner reports.

MARGARET WARNER (Newshour):  For the second time in little more than year, Egyptians lined up today to vote on a new constitution.  They seemed eager, but anxious.

WOMAN (through interpreter):  May God bring calm to the country.  Many people have been lost

MARGARET WARNER:  The campaign for the balloting, which ends tomorrow, was intense, with advocates for the current government urging a yes-vote.

MAN (through interpreter):  No one will ever agree 100 percent with any constitution.  I would say, if you are agreeing with just 60 percent of it, say yes.

MARGARET WARNER:  And the government's nemesis, members of the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, denouncing it.

MAN (through interpreter):  We had a transparent election that elected Morsi, and it was blown away.  It is impossible to say that now there is democracy or a fair referendum.

EGYPT - Update on the End of Democracy

"Latest law limiting demonstrations sparks outrage, protests among Egyptians" (Part-1) PBS Newshour 11/28/2013

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Egypt's military-appointed interim government enacted a law over the weekend forbidding protests at places of worship and gatherings of more than 10 people without a permit.  The latest crackdown on the freedom of expression sparked protests among Egyptians leading to arrests and violence.  Hari Sreenivasan reports.

"Crackdown disappoints Egyptians expecting social justice from revolution" (Part-2) PBS Newshour 11/28/2013

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Egypt's military-backed government has issued its latest crackdown on dissent, but now both Islamist and secular activists are being punished.  Hari Sreenivasan talks to Leila Fadel of NPR about how Egyptians are reacting to the arrests and how the events are being portrayed by the media.

EGYPT - Morsi's Assault on Democracy

"Egyptian Protests Persist as Morsi Defends Powers Free From Judicial Review" (Part-1) PBS Newshour 11/26/2012

RAY SUAREZ (Newshour): And we turn to two stories about conflict in the Middle East, starting with Egypt, where the controversy surrounding the president's recent decrees continues.

This morning saw relative calm in Cairo's Tahrir Square, but protesters insisted they will not leave the site until President Mohammed Morsi withdraws a sweeping decree he issued last week. It gives him broad new powers, free from judicial review.

MAN (through translator): We demand that the president listens to the people who chose him. The people elected him so he would defend the people, not to do as he pleases.

RAY SUAREZ: Instead, Morsi defended himself in a meeting today with the country's Supreme Judicial Council. A spokesman said he told the judges his actions do not infringe on their authority.

That stand could provoke more trouble after a weekend of violence pitting liberal and secular factions against Morsi's Islamist supporters. Last night in Cairo, protesters threw rocks at police, who fired back with tear gas. Demonstrators also clashed with pro-Morsi Egyptians in the city of Damanhour. Attacks on the local offices of the Muslim Brotherhood left one teenager dead and dozens of people wounded.

Thousands of the president's backers staged rallies in several cities.

MAN (through translator): We support Mohammed Morsi's fair and correct decision. And eventually the good from the bad will be distinguishable. We support Dr. Morsi for a better life for Egyptians.

RAY SUAREZ: U.S. officials raised concerns about Morsi's decree and prospects for new political strife.

Today, the State Department's Victoria Nuland called for calm.

VICTORIA NULAND, State Department: What is important to us is that these issues be settled through dialogue, that these issues be settled democratically.

We are encouraged that the various important stakeholders in Egypt are now talking to each other, that President Morsi is consulting on the way forward, but we're not going to prejudge where that is going to go.

RAY SUAREZ: The domestic unrest has overshadowed Morsi's role in mediating a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas and Egypt's role as a mediator in indirect talks between the two adversaries. Concern was growing about more trouble in Cairo tomorrow. This afternoon, the Muslim Brotherhood spokesman said the party had postponed demonstrations Tuesday to avoid bloodshed.

"Egyptians Debate Accountability for Democratically-Elected Presidents" (Part-2) PBS Newshour 11/26/2012

Excerpt

SUMMARY: Ray Suarez talks to Nancy Youssef of McClatchy Newspapers, who says that at the heart of the Egyptian debate about President Mohammed Morsi's sweeping new powers is whether presidential authority should be wide-ranging, or whether greater accountability measures need to be enforced.

AMERICA - Author on 'Revitalized American Democracy'

"Author Bill Ivey Argues for Rediscovering Values at Heart of American Ideal" PBS Newshour 10/29/2012

Excerpt

JUDY WOODRUFF (Newshour): Now, as this divisive and closely fought presidential election sprints to a close, a new book argues the country needs a revived progressive vision. The book is "Handmaking America: A Back-to-Basics Pathway to a Revitalized American Democracy."

The author is Bill Ivey, former chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts in the Clinton administration. He's now director of Vanderbilt University's U.S.-China-Center for Education and Culture.

Jeffrey Brown recently sat down with him.

MYANMAR - Sanctions Eased

"U.S. Eases Sanctions as Myanmar Passes Democratic Reforms" PBS Newshour 9/19/2012

Excerpt

SUMMARY: Though significant steps have been taken, tensions remain between reform and hardline Burmese politicians. Margaret Warner talks to U.S. Campaign for Burma's Jennifer Quigley and Open Society Foundation's Maureen Aung-Thwin for more on what the U.S. role should be in encouraging Myanmar's path to greater democracy.

MARGARET WARNER (Newshour): Today, the Treasury Department removed Myanmar's president and house speaker from a list of individuals barred from doing business or owning property in the U.S.

I'm joined now by Burmese-born Maureen Aung-Thwin, who was taken off the Myanmar government's blacklist in the last few weeks. She directs the Open Society Institute's Burma Project.

And Jennifer Quigley, advocacy director of the U.S. Campaign for Burma. Both were at the congressional medal ceremony today.

POLITICS - Today's Dictators

"How to Be a Modern-Day Dictator" PBS Newshour 7/16/2012

aka "How NOT to Be Bashar al-Assad"

Excerpt

HARI SREENIVASAN (Newshour): 2011 brought the year of the protester. Demonstrations rocked Tunisia, Egypt and Libya. Yet, despite this wave of pro-democracy movements, the number of free countries declined for the sixth year in a row. That's according to the Freedom House Research institute.

One reason for that is authoritarian regimes are learning to manipulate political system without using brute force for suppression. A new book by William J. Dobson, "The Dictator's Learning Curve: Inside the Global Battle for Democracy," tackles that subject.

For two years, Dobson traveled the world to examine regimes that managed to rule with a velvet glove, in spite of their iron-fisted policies.

POLITICS - Walker Wins, American Democracy Looses

aka 'How to Buy an Election'

"How Walker's Win in Wisconsin Might Shape Obama-Romney Race" PBS Newshour 6/6/2012

Excerpt

SUMMARY: After a decisive victory Tuesday, embattled Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker became the first governor in U.S. history to successfully turn back a recall election. Gwen Ifill, The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's Craig Gilbert and USA Today's Susan Page discuss the high turnout and how the vote may influence November's elections.

GWEN IFILL (Newshour): The aftershocks from Wisconsin's recall election were still resonating today after Republican Scott Walker convincingly turned back a challenge from Democrat Tom Barrett in a bitterly fought contest.

ALSO:

"Reflections on the Walker Recall from California's East Bay" by Nicky González, Huffington Post 6/6/2012

"Wisconsin vote dispels notion of a mellowed electorate" by David Lauter and Bob Secter, Los Angeles Times 6/6/2012

"'We don't have government anymore, we have an auction', defeated recall candidate tells Lean Forward" by Amanda Sakuma, MSNBC 6/7/2012

"Failed Walker recall begs question: Where are Democrat superstars?" by Rich Stowell, Washington Times 6/7/2012

OPINION - American Democracy, Dying or Dead?

"Lessons from Wisconsin - Is Democracy Dying in America or is it Already Dead?" by Cliff Wilson, Cliff's Notes 6/6/2012

I should make clear that I rooted for the recall of Scott Walker and victory for the progressive forces in the Wisconsin recall elections this past Tuesday. The right wing Tea party radical Republicans were victorious in their efforts to keep their Governor and Lt Governor and they won convincingly. There are lessons to be learned from this effort by both sides. I am mostly concerned that the progressive liberal forces in the country learn the right lessons. What are some of those?

First, it’s hard to defeat an incumbent. Voters need to feel either great anger or great despair when voting a party out. And, today it appears they need to dislike the candidates they are being asked to vote against.

Second, we need to realize that most voters just don’t understand the details of the political system. They probably can’t see why there wasn’t a simple yes/no vote on Walker since he was the person they petitioned to recall. And I would contend that in such a yes/no referendum recall would be favored to win. The Wisconsin system in effect allows you to petition for a new election and that is what occurred.

Third, the weakest candidate to defeat an incumbent is the person that incumbent beat previously. You are asking the voters to concede that, in this case only 16 months ago, they made two mistakes. They voted for the wrong person and they voted against the right person. To defeat an incumbent it has to be about him and the best way to do that is to run a blank slate candidate so the only issue before the voters is the continuation in office of the incumbent.

Fourth, Mayors of the largest city in the state are the poorest candidates for Governor. Ed Rendell notwithstanding the Mayors of New York City, Atlanta, Los Angeles, Columbus and Chicago are not the Governors of their states and almost never have been since the nineteenth century. The large cities are seen as different by the rural residents and the place they left by the suburban voters.

Fifth, money is now all there is in politics. This is not the seventies when door to door campaigning turned a nation against the Vietnam War (with the help of TV coverage of that gruesome war). Now campaigns are fought out on the TV screens with Ads. And, today's generation wants quick and easy to remember Advertising not detailed brochures. Today’s electorate feels about candidates and issues they don’t study about them.

Sixth, we are now in a time when the majority of the population is concerned about itself. They want to know what and who is going to do for them. Talk about the future, about everyone having access to the American dream does not resonate with a population that has begun to believe that that dream may be a nightmare. No one cares about the Wars we fight unless they are among the small percentage of people who have relatives who are part of the now professional armed forces. No one cares about the unemployed unless they have a relative who is among that 8 %. I would argue that the reason that reproductive rights and gay rights are still meeting with majority support is because a majority of Americans know or are related to someone who is a woman who might need birth control and/or an abortion and a majority of Americans know or are related to someone who is openly Gay.

Seventh, the radical right Tea Party Republicans have succeeded in making government appear to be the problem instead of the problem solver and to demonize the public service. They have convinced Americans that we are in dire economic straits because teachers and firefighters and policemen and other public employees fought for decent wages and health benefits and retirement benefits. They will not admit that our economic problems are due to the greed and selfishness of the corporate CEO’s, and those who use money to make money-- the very Bain capitalists whose poster boy now stands as their candidate for the highest office in the land.

Eight, the radical right wing attempts to undue two hundred years of franchise expansion by adopting legislation that can only be characterized as voter suppressive is working. It is convincing the 50% of Americans who are not registered that they shouldn’t even bother. And quite frankly this isn’t 1965 and the only people who care about these voter suppression tactics are those whose vote will be suppressed.

Ninth, the radical right wing Supreme Court Citizens United ruling has turned our political system into a corporate oligarchy - a potentially neo-fascist state in which the richest of the rich will decide the result of elections by spending unmatchable sums in support of their candidates and at the same time will manipulate the economy to create a large class of poorly educated (hence the war on public education) poorly paid (hence the war on unions) workers who won’t even care about voting since the rich will own the candidates and the determine the results.

One volunteer who spent months working on the Wisconsin recall said quite emotionally on TV last night that democracy dies in America on Tuesday and it died in Wisconsin. He may have been right. As the next decades unfold we will see no strong labor unions fighting for the wage and hour and health care laws that they spent the twentieth century fighting for. We will see no large middle class as a buffer between the haves and have nots. We will hear no politicians - no FDRs or Eisenhowers or even Clintons suggesting that the richest should pay more in to the system and that the system should help the middle and the poor.

America has always been a violent country. 600,000 men had to die in order to free a race from slavery in this country. When the inevitable battle between the 99% and 1% (maybe it will be 90/10 by then) comes how many will have to die in order to restore this country to the path it was so successfully on in the twentieth century - an America with liberty and justice for All and one in which All shared in an American dream of peace, freedom and the pursuit of happiness.

POLITICS - Democracy, Almost Like a Religion

"WILL DEMOCRACY SURVIVE IN AMERICA IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY?" by Cliff Wilson, Cliff's Notes 4/21/2012

I am a strong believer in Democracy - it’s almost like a religion to me. I’m a sort of Jeffersonian swearing eternal hostility against any form of tyranny over the mind of man. America after its revolution became the Symbol of Democracy to the world -- to Europe and South America in the 19th century and to the peoples of Asia and Africa in the 20th. From Bolivar in Columbia, the radical republicans in Europe in 1848, down the years to the young Chinese protesters in Tiananmen Square; the democratic movements throughout the world used America as an example and often our Statue of Liberty (a gift from the first nation to follow our revolution) as a symbol.

But can democracy continue to thrive in its modern birthplace, the United States of America in to the twenty first century? Throughout America today legislators are passing laws to restrict access to the vote - to make it more difficult to register and to require more paper and some use of money to be able to vote. This counter revolution comes after over one hundred and fifty years of franchise expansion. From a small number of well to do property owners to all white male, and then all male and then all female citizens the nation and its constituent states expanded the electoral franchise. With the Civil War the use of military ballots and absentee ballots became more common.

Today with recent Supreme Court decisions money is now uncontrollably flooding the political arena. We always had the ability to spend personal funds now corporations can spend their funds and in most cases now there is little to no accountability nor transparency. With the cost of waging Congressional and Senate campaigns becoming prohibitive to all but self made millionaires we are seeing more and more keeping offices in the family with sons and daughters running for their parents seats gaining the advantage of both their parents fundraising capability as an incumbent and inheriting their name recognition. The word for this type of government is Oligarchy - the rule of the few and the related - the curse of the Roman Empire. And when you add money to that you get Plutocracy - the rule of the rich few.

So in America today a new generation of citizens is entering the body politic --disenchanted with the political system believing that anyone can buy an office be it Mayor of New York City or President of the United Sates. And, today young citizens consider the jury still out as to whether their involvement going door to door and making calls and using social networking can overcome the expenditures of the billionaires.

So as the twenty-first century unfolds what kind of government does it portend for America: a democracy with a government of the people, by the people and for the people or a plutocratic oligarchy where a few rich families rule in the interests of the 1%. If that happens I fear that the peoples of the world who gather in Tahrir Square and seek freedom in Tibet and civil rights in Burma will turn to other models and examples -- perhaps to a Chinese model of economic freedom with some personal liberty and local control over local matters and a strong military keeping order. Or the Putin type man on a white horse approach in Russia where the leader by whatever title personalizes the government.

Democracy can be messy -- too many people today practice the politics of personal destruction and obliterate candidates - too many elected officials place such total loyalty to the D or the R behind their name that they refuse to work with each other to the benefit of the people. As citizens get turned off and fewer and fewer vote they care less if the democracy becomes the oligarchy or the plutocracy. And by not caring they ultimately loose the rights they have come to take for granted - the right to think what they want, to practice the religion they want, to get a good education, to get a good job earning a Living wage, to live in a safe community, to obtain quality health care and to decide who will make the rules that govern their society.

If the 99% allow the 1% to take ownership of their government “they will get” in Harry Truman’s words “the government they deserve.” America will enter the history books not as “the shining city upon a hill” that the Puritans so hoped it would be but as a failed attempt by a diverse society to govern itself in a democratic fashion. Many saw the 2008 Presidential elections as a cross roads that asked the question “would America elect a black President.” Now and especially since the counter-revolution of 2010 we are at a fork in the road - one path leads to continued democracy -- an end to the radical right wing Republican anti democracy moves--; and the other path leads to a society ruled by the rich and their relatives. The entire history of our nation and its great leaders and the many Americans who gave their lives fighting for freedom since 1776 calls out for today’s generations of Americans to keep the faith and keep their democracy.

For me, Democracy -IS a religion.

POLITICS - Representative Democracy

"Representative Democracy in America Is Changing -- for the Better?" by Cliff Wilson, Cliff's Notes 12/22/2011

When I was a youngster and lived with my family in Cypress Hills, in the borough of Brooklyn, NYC, I often dropped by the local Democratic club. These clubs had buildings where they met and conducted their business and they were the citizen’s gateway to the government. Every Friday if you dropped in you could see and talk to the Congressman Eugene Keogh, the last to wear a straw hat.

If you wanted to see your state representatives they were there also as was the party district leader around whom the clubs organized. In the days before Baker v. Carr (one man one vote) districts were often geographically based, e.g. one representative per county or a state senate district consisting of three state house districts. With the Supreme Court rulings that electoral districts that served to elect representatives to legislative bodies had to be equal in population (with a wider discrepancy allowed the smaller the districts were) counties and neighborhoods became less important to the concept of district representation.

Because the Courts have refused to rule that political based partisan gerrymandering is contrary to the federal constitution we have suffered under forty years of ever increasing politically motivated redistricting – with computers making partisan calculations even more precise and using population equality to hide behind.

The nature of representative democracy in America has changed. In the 19th century district representation played a great role but districts themselves not so much. Congressmen were people who went to Washington to act on the nation’s problems, state legislators went to state capitals to do the same on state matters. For local representation, that one could go to for assistance with problems, one went either to the local county officials or in the cities to the aldermen (precursors of the Councilmen who were a combination of elected officials and party officials).

In the 20th century the nature of representatives duties and compensation changed. From annual state elections we went to two and four year terms. From rotation in office for Congressional nominations (the norm by which a party gave its nomination to state representatives who waited their turn) we went to incumbents and even incumbent families “owning” Congressional seats. These federal and state legislators also took on the role of constituent servants. They opened offices in the districts and assisted with red tape problems; at first all problems and then eventually a hierarchy of helping only with the problems that related to bureaucracies at the level of government they served in.

As the nation continues to increase from its’ nearly 4 million in 1790 to its’ 312 million now - the nature of representative democracy has again changed. Rather than bemoaning it and yearning for the good old days- that trust me weren’t that good - we should understand and accept and use the changes. When the nation started the founding fathers wanted one representative per 30,000 persons – now it’s one per 705,000 (precise number may vary by state).

Districts today have become masses of election precincts combined for the purpose of electing a Congressman or a state legislator. Often that elected official is the only thing the people of the district have in common with municipalities and postal areas and shopping zones divided. These legislators should be looked at as representatives and the citizenry should use the social networking and the Internet and the 24/7 news media to follow what their representatives due in Washington D.C. or the state capital and judge them accordingly.

Local municipal government and councilmen and party officials should again be handling citizen constituent. Representatives should represent. With the demise of earmarks and the public outrage at the insider trading antics of federal representatives we may see a new Congress where members vote and speak and are judged accordingly. Again with the use of social networking, online petitioning, and the availability of information about the legislative branches activities district lines will become even less relevant. If we impose federal Congressional term limits (both Houses) and, if we ever get a handle on the money that is poisoning our politics (we need open public funding not backdoor public funding by the contributions of corporations that take federal money) we might see a return to real Representative Democracy in America.

EGYPT - Election Plans

"Egypt Rulers Outline Plan for Elections" by DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK, New York Times 7/20/2011

Egypt’s interim military rulers established a system on Wednesday for what is promised to be the first free and open elections in the country’s history, laying out a complicated plan evidently designed as a compromise between the competing demands of liberal and Islamist groups.

The parliamentary elections, which will follow the popular revolution that ousted President Hosni Mubarak in February, are being watched closely around the region as a test of the Arab democracy movement.

Rejecting the suggestions of American officials and many human rights groups, the military said that for reasons of national sovereignty it would not invite international monitors to oversee the elections. But it said that independent Egyptian human rights organizations and other groups would be free to do so.

Maj. Gen. Mamdouh Shaheen, speaking on behalf of the military’s ruling council, said “the electoral process” would begin in September in compliance with a referendum held in the spring. But for logistical reasons the final vote will take place in three stages over a month later in the fall.

Half the seats will be chosen by voters in each district picking individual candidates running in winner-take-all races, as in the American system. To fill the other seats, each voter will also choose a political party, and each party will receive a number of seats proportional to its share of the total vote, a system used in many countries to ensure the representation of minority views.

The defense minister, acting as interim president, will retain Mr. Mubarak’s power to name 10 of the 514 members of the lower house.

The military said it was abandoning a quota for the number of women in Parliament that Mr. Mubarak had imposed. But the military said it would retain an anachronistic requirement — widely ignored or abused under Mr. Mubarak — that half the seats go to workers or farmers. In a nod to the youth who led the revolution, the military lowered the minimum age of lawmakers to 25 from 30.

Maybe not perfect, but looking up. Getting closer to an Egypt for the Egyptian people.

WORLD - Indonesia as a Model for Democracy

"Indonesia on the Rise: Is It a Model for New Democracies?"
PBS Newshour 7/19/2011


Excerpts from transcript

DEWI FORTUNA ANWAR, deputy chief in the office of the Vice President: But in the economic sector, you still have to have the capital, the connections and so on, and it is still not yet a level playing field. And some people are born with silver spoons in their mouths and others have to scrape for their living.
----
RAY SUAREZ (Newshour): Over the last 15 years this country has accomplished some pretty important national goals. It’s moved from authoritarianism to democracy, with freer, fairer and more open elections. It’s put together solid years of back to back to back high levels of economic growth. But one thing Indonesia hasn’t managed to do is root out the legendary levels of corruption that discourages foreign investment and handicaps future economic growth

Sidney Jones watches Indonesia for the International Crisis Group.

SIDNEY JONES, International Crisis Group: In some ways almost because of substantial economic growth, people see income inequalities increasing and the corruption has just gotten completely out of hand. One of the concerns is that you now have a parliament that's trying to cut away at the powers of the only institutions with integrity in Indonesia. One of those is the anti-corruption commission, another one is the constitutional court here.
----
SIDNEY JONES: This is one concrete example, a district head called in his minister, his local head of education and said, we need, I need you to provide x amount of money to get that. You get it any way you like, but I need you to produce that amount of money. That individual then goes to the heads of schools that he runs and says I need x amount of money in order to collect the pot of money that I have to give the candidate who appointed me to this position. Because if I don't pay he's going to transfer me somewhere else. The head of the schools then puts the, the onus on the teachers to come up with the money. The teachers then put the onus on the parents and children end up having to pay in order to graduate from one class to another or to get report cards.
----
RAY SUAREZ: Indonesia has had more success in targeting terrorist violence. It has a strong track record finding, arresting, and trying religious extremists.

DEWI FORTUNA ANWAR: It is important to remember that Indonesia is probably one of the few countries that has been able to arrest a lot of terrorist activists and bring them to justice, due process of law and imprison them. Some of them have been executed. We do not have rendition. We do not have secret prisons we do not have military tribunals, everything is done properly according to due process of law.

IMAM H. ALI HANAFIA, Istiqlal Mosque: In Indonesia Islam is very tolerant of other religions. Islam doesn’t recognize violence. That might be hard for people outside of Indonesia to understand but that is Islam in Indonesia.

Side comment: In the video you can see Commissioner Umar Haryono key-in his access code to a secure area. NOT very smart of whomever edited the video.

WORLD - Arab World Revolts' Ripple Effect

"'Huge Step up for Democracy' in Arab World Revolts: Who's Next?"
PBS Newshour 4/5/2011

This comment is especially for my readers outside of the U.S.

America does not have a "lock" on what democracy is, we are not the only model. The U.S. brand of democracy may not work for everyone in the world. I would even say our model is NOT for everyone.

People of the world who hunger for democracy where they live need to take into account:

• The road to democracy is always long and hard, especially if your country does not have the historical tradition
  


• The democracy you desire must be your own model, one that works for you


• You must realize that democracy is built bottom-up


• You should not just depend on any leader having all the answers, it is "the people" who must take the rains (which is what is happening now)


• The foundation of democracy is freedom of information and literacy (therefore education)


• To have a democracy, you must follow the ideal, not loyalty to a leader nor a group, and must be supported by a document (law of the land) that no leader nor group can just override
  

American democracy is imperfect, as is all human enterprises, but it can be a good place to start building your own democracy.