RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

Reflections in a Dark Room – Part 3

Obama is not the problem – we are.

I’ve been re-reading the “Anti-Federalist Papers” trying to get a feel for what the FFs were thinking as they gathered in the spring and summer of 1787 to hammer out a constitution. One pleasant surprise is that James Madison, acting as scribe and reporter of the various players, was possessed of a very trenchant wit. His sly observations on the speakers and their opining liven up what might easily have been a lugubrious exercise.

Three things come across, very clearly:


These were men who had thought long and hard about the issues being raised. Many of them warned against exactly the condition of corruption of the body politic we find ourselves in today.

They were men in and of their time. That is, they were aware of history and were glad to take example or make example of historical solutions to the problems besetting them.
By the same token, they were not able to see themselves clearly, in situ, nor were they aware of what was to come. (Rumsfeld’s “unknown unknowns”)

..and fourth, Jefferson was in Paris. A tragedy in my opinion, we would never have had to make the first ten amendments had he been present, for one thing, and I can’t help but think that the Constitution would be a much better document than it already is.

Two things should be taken into account when thinking about this time, these men and the work they wrought.

First, the context of the time. That context comes in several flavors depending on what we’re looking at.


Politics: the French Revolution hadn’t happened yet. Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette were still blithely coasting along with le Ancien Regime, unaware of the gathering storm. Marat, Danton and Robespierre were just dots on the political horizon, Napoleon was undreamt of.


Economics: The Industrial Revolution in England was just picking up steam [heh, heh!] and the textile mills were beginning Great Britain’s voracious appetite for raw materials which would lead them to found the greatest empire ever known (southern American cotton fields were part of the mix that fueled the American Civil War in the next century).


Legal: American jurisprudence was still based, in large part, on English Common Law. This ancestry was the story of a seesaw class battle (in Marxist terms) between the peasants (now the proletariat) and the Upper classes (in the person of the King). Nowhere in this mix was any consideration of, or thought given to, the corporation.


All of which leads us to my next point:


It was not possible for the framers, given their milieu, to comprehend, much less anticipate, the mind-numbing reach and power that would be amassed by deathless, faceless, amoral, avaricious, irresponsible corporations.


Neither could they have anticipated the nigh-logarithmic advances in science and technology that have occurred over the last 221 years. James Watt had received a patent on his steam engine only 8 years earlier, Morse’s telegraph (the first global internet) was 50 years in the future.

The point is that we have gone into legal/political/moral territory that constitute another dimension insofar as an 18th century viewpoint is concerned, enlightened as they may have been. We may not be their equals but I think we’re at a point where we have no choice but to try.

We need to take this system apart and glue it back together again, with a few improvements. Until recently I thought that a third party (and a 4th and a 5th party) would be enough to upset the duopoly that now exists but the corruption has spread too far and too deep. With the system as it now stands no individual can remain uncorrupted, no new party can be effective against the power now entrenched. Good luck to the Tea Party, btw, I’d love to be proved wrong on this.


What we need now is a reset – a full stop, down tools, wildcat strike, to hell with the bosses and the union reps too kinda reset. The US has run for 221 years on a pretty good set of rules but times change and so does circumstance. The visionaries who created the US Constitution were, frankly, a lot smarter and wiser than anyone I see around today but even they couldn’t anticipate the kinds of changes that have taken place in the intervening two centuries. We face a lot of the same threats they faced then but we also face some they could not have dreamt of. Corporate structures vaster and more powerful than nation-states: accountable to no one. Weapons that threaten life over the entire planet. Forget the weapons: deliberate actions by individuals and groups that threaten life over the entire planet. Crazed religious fanatics, within and without, who would kill every last person on earth who refuses to accept their creed… hmmm, well I guess they were familiar with that one.


Obama is not the problem – we are.


There is a well-trodden path for the kind of political train wreck we’re experiencing: a nation-state with a claim to some kind of democracy representing all or most citizens begins to experience broad-based stress. This can take the form of attack from without by other nation-states, economic difficulties deriving from any of a number of circumstances, internal strife created by opposing ideologies, deliberate sabotage by interested parties, general or specific corruption of internal control agencies by bribery or blackmail. Usually it is a combination of several or all of these ills that eventually breaks the system down. Inevitably, as frustration levels skyrocket, violence breaks out – which is what the saboteurs have been waiting for: some sort of insurrection begins to form and whoever is in control of the military moves in and declares martial law, massacres their enemies, sets up a tinpot dictatorship and goes merrily along their way. Alternately, there is a civil war and the victor declares martial law, massacres their enemies, sets up a tinpot dictatorship and goes merrily along their way. Or there is a general breakdown of society from, say, a biological attack and the nearest military force declares marital law… well, you get the idea.


Think of it, aside from the American revolution, just about every political revolution in the last 200 years has worked out this way: the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution (the second one), several of the so-called ‘communist’ revolutions – they all devolved into savage dictatorships unrecognizable even by their most devoted followers. There’s no compelling reason why we won’t head in that direction as well.


How do we avoid this trap of history?


We need to start seriously thinking about convening a constitutional convention.


Article V of the US Constitution:

“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” [my emphasis]


I know that ‘constitutional conventions’ (CC) sounds almost funny, like we should dress up in periwigs and frock coats, but it’s a legitimate process that we have the right to use. There are, however, some very serious questions to be asked first:

Why propose this path?

Because it’s the only thing left that will forestall the slide into insurrection/dictatorship.


Can we do it?


Maybe, the first option provided by Article V is closed to us, I don’t see any way that Congress would agree to opening a Constitutional Convention when it’s obvious that we mean to deprive them of their money and their power. On the other hand, once you convene an Article V CC, all bets are off. I notice that there several proposals in Congress purporting to deal with the ‘Dred Roberts’ decision – all of them strictly adhering to that single issue. I think they’re (justly) terrified of what would happen if the ‘people’ ever got their hands on this process.


How would we do it?


Go through the state legislatures, there may still be enough uncorrupted folks at that level to see the value and necessity of a CC. Try to do it as a simultaneous effort in all the states so as to vitiate the tons of money that will be thrown against the idea.


How do we keep out the wingnuts – from both wings?


We can’t, they’ll be there in force and will try to co-opt the process for their own ends. This means ‘we’ must be organized to prevent this kind of takeover, especially from the corporate fascists, this is just the kind of opportunity they think they can take advantage of.


How do we keep out the money?


Ah, there’s the rub: the transnats will see this as an opportunity to twist the laws to their own ends and will release a tsunami of money in order to do so.


What’s the real danger here?


Once you open up a CC, it can pretty much do whatever it wants. We could end up with President-for-Life Obama – for real, or a true corporatist/fascist state like the Randites and other nutjobs want. If it gets too wacko some MacArthur wannabe could declare martial law…[see above]. We might actually start the civil war we’re trying to prevent.


So, this could be dangerous, couldn’t it?


Yup. But I think it’s become abundantly clear that we’re going to have to take some kind of risk. If we stick our heads in the sand now, it’s quite likely that we’ll end up with a true corporate/fascist state run by Hank Paulson, Bernie Ebbers, Jeffery Skilling or one of their clones.


What do we want out of a CC?


We want to update the Constitution to deal with 21st century problems.


Howinhell do we do that?

See Part 4

  • jwrjr

    Serious diseases require serious cures … which means serious risks.  And this country has the most serious disease that it has had since 1776.
    Side issue: a completely unmanaged “free enterprise” system no longer works.  The problem is that “free enterprise” works fine for an economy based on small businesses, which is what they had in the 18th century.  It is unable to cope with major corporations, which collude with each other to buy politicians and get whatever laws passed they want for their profit.  The politicians look after the ones who pay them the most, which leaves Citizens hung out to dry.
    A nitpicky point – the author refers to “the nigh-logarithmic advances in science and technology that have occurred over the last 221 years.”  Are you sure that should not be “the nigh-exponential advances in science and technology that have occurred over the last 221 years.”?

  • jwrjr

    Serious diseases require serious cures … which means serious risks.  And this country has the most serious disease that it has had since 1776.
    Side issue: a completely unmanaged “free enterprise” system no longer works.  The problem is that “free enterprise” works fine for an economy based on small businesses, which is what they had in the 18th century.  It is unable to cope with major corporations, which collude with each other to buy politicians and get whatever laws passed they want for their profit.  The politicians look after the ones who pay them the most, which leaves Citizens hung out to dry.
    A nitpicky point – the author refers to “the nigh-logarithmic advances in science and technology that have occurred over the last 221 years.”  Are you sure that should not be “the nigh-exponential advances in science and technology that have occurred over the last 221 years.”?

  • jwrjr

    Serious diseases require serious cures … which means serious risks.  And this country has the most serious disease that it has had since 1776.
    Side issue: a completely unmanaged “free enterprise” system no longer works.  The problem is that “free enterprise” works fine for an economy based on small businesses, which is what they had in the 18th century.  It is unable to cope with major corporations, which collude with each other to buy politicians and get whatever laws passed they want for their profit.  The politicians look after the ones who pay them the most, which leaves Citizens hung out to dry.
    A nitpicky point – the author refers to “the nigh-logarithmic advances in science and technology that have occurred over the last 221 years.”  Are you sure that should not be “the nigh-exponential advances in science and technology that have occurred over the last 221 years.”?

  • jwrjr

    Sorry about the multiple post.  I could swear that I only clicked the “post” button once.

  • sowsear

    Do you have any sand? I want to stick my head into it.

  • sowsear

    Can you delete?

  • EllenD

     First off, let me thank Craig for his always thought-provoking essays. I look forward to them and enjoy them immensely.

    jwrjr, your comments are very welcome as they always give a new slant.

    The problem is that “free enterprise” works fine for an economy based on small businesses, which is what they had in the 18th century.

    I – a small business person – have been thinking the same thing. I now, because of monopolies of large corporations, no longer have access to the client base I once had. Corporation self-dealing has pretty much eliminated my small corner of the free market.

    This has led me to rethink Corporations.

    Craig said: This ancestry was the story of a seesaw class battle (in Marxist terms) between the peasants (now the proletariat) and the Upper classes (in the person of the King).

    Americans tend to think that the problem was personified in the King. They are missing the power of the Nobles with their Serfdoms that are the most comparative to our large corporations. It was the Nobility that revolted against the King and created the first crack – the Magna Carta. They saw that as a document allowing them to rule, not the King. I don’t think it was ever their intention that control would trickle down to the masses.

    With that thinking, you can see that the large Corporations are the equivalent of the old Serfdoms, with a rotating group of CEO Nobles that enrich themselves and move on. The Serfdom (Corporation) itself keeps getting blamed but it is only the system wraparound that allows our Upper Class to keep looting and pillaging for their own gain.

    A Teddy Roosevelt Trust-busting President could help, but unfortunately there is no Teddy Roosevelt even on the horizon. No one else has the power.  The American culture of “bread and circuses” should keep the people in their place. Except now they’re even taking our bread.

  • oowawa

    It’s rare to see an intelligent mind really wrestling with pretty much insoluble issues–very admirable. 

    My general attitude is very cynical about the possibilities of launching a constitutional convention that is not immediately co-opted by money and power.  And what would “we the people” aim for anyway, at such a convention?   It seems  we have a better chance of simply enforcing our existing laws against white-collar crime and fraud to make a big improvement.  Like Karl Denninger on Market Ticker likes to say–”stop the looting and start prosecuting.”  Will that happen?  I doubt it.  “Vote the suckers out . . . ” That notion has some resonance in the short term . . . This November may well shake up the established powers . . .

  • oowawa

    I have some sand, sowsear, but my cats are using it . . . But I know how you feel!

  • Tricia

    Brilliant essay!  I love it.  Not sure how to fix the problem though…I still think that a truly viable 3rd party with a solid leader (I myself like Michael Bloomberg–in no one’s pocket) who really gives a damn about the America we think we are–an honorable democracy that cares about people.

  • Docelder

    This could turn into the best thread ever. Thre is so much meat in this topic. Thanks to the author and people already really thinking about this. This is the topc we should be concerned with. Health care, stimulus and even Obama himself aren’t the disease, rather the symptom of a larger disease. Wow, the idea of a constitutional convention is interesting. My question is this… are we being led to that eventuality right now? Is BHO a sort of “fear factor” tool of corporations more than he is a legitimate tool of the radicalized left? I don’t have the answer, just questions.

  • Kathleen Wynne

    Craig,

    Very comprehensive analysis of our present situation!

    I agree it’s going to be up to “we, the people” to prevent our nation from sliding into a dictatorship of total corporate control (we’re already almost to that point).  Clearly, we definitely have our hands full with the many things that must be done to stop the tsunami which is about to hit our democratic republic and drown everything that we stand for.

    However, you left out the need for citizens to take back the only power they have to make the kinds of changes you propose — that is, WE MUST TAKE BACK OUR ELECTIONS!  If the people don’t really have a say in who gets into power, then it be tantamount to “herding cats” to affect the kind of change that will give us back our country.

    Election integrity advocates have for over 7 years been trying to convince the American people that they’ve given away their power (the ballot box) to black boxes (electronic voting machines) which count the votes in secret, making it impossible for ANYONE to know for certain if our votes are being counted as cast.  Because of this, our elections are truly a sham — an exercise in futility – because anyone who believes that the inability for citizens to see their votes counted at every phase of the process, in public, is not factoring in human nature!  Really!  Who believes that the power elites have not sanctioned the advent of these machines for the sole purpose of controlling who gets into power, who stays and who goes?  If one can control the outcome of elections, one has total power over the masses, right?  Well, is it that big of a leap to conclude that this is where we are in our elections here in America?

    Ironically, Germany recently banned all electronic voting machines and opted to count the ballots by hand because these voting systems violated a German citizen’s human right to be able to “see” their votes counted if they wanted and that to do so and that it should not require a citizen to have a specialized technical expertise in order to do so.  Amazing, that former Nazi Germany understands the absolute necessity for elections in a democratic republic to be public and transparent and that to protect the citizens right to “obsevere” the counting in public must supercede all other considerations in the elections process!

    The question we should be asking ourselves first is, are the American people willing to build a grass roots movement whose primary goal is to take back our elections and demand that we, like Germany, ban these machines which have long ago been proven to undermine our rights as citizens to a transparent election that can be trusted actually “reflect the will of the people”?  

    Once we take back our elections, then we can expect to implement the changes you suggest.

  • sowsear

    Thanks for offering…but I’ll pass on it.

  • sowsear

    I would worry about a constitutional convention getting out of hand, too. Power to the people, done gone away.

  • sowsear

    Like I said to you yesterday, I think we were bamboozled by both parties in the last election. Someone behind the curtain is pulling the strings.

  • Craig Della Penna

    Yes! Exactly. If you analyze the internal political structure of any capitalist organization, you see that they are all pure feudalist: groups of inferior powermongers, the ‘nobles’, jockeying for power in satellite configuration around a central authoritarian figure, the CEO or Chairman or king.

  • Hokma

    “It was not possible for the framers, given their milieu, to comprehend, much less anticipate, the mind-numbing reach and power that would be amassed by deathless, faceless, amoral, avaricious, irresponsible corporations.”
    You kind of lost me with that statement.
    This is the typical mantra of the far left going back to the radical 1960’s. Corporations are us. They are run by people, are made up of people, and are funded by people either through a variety of investment tools or through being a customer.
    Most corporations are highly ethical in their operations and moral principles. We tend to blame corporations for economic problems because they are an easy target.
    You want to blame healthcare insurance corporations and cast them as evil doers. But who empowers them? Government. And who empowers government? People.
    As to the balance of your discussion, I’ve read the Federalists Papers as well as many books on the founding fathers. You do not give them enough credit.
    What the founding of this country was about was not about a society at any point in time. It was about creating a system of government that allowed free people to have proper representation in their government and not interfering in their fundamental freedoms under natural law.
    The founding fathers were forward thinking throughout this period and were always fearful of a strong central government – knowing that the larger they became the more they denied people the ability for self determination. The only reason for the federal government was:
    1. national security
    2. monetary system
    3. legal system to maintain the rights of people
    4. arbitrate disputes between states.
    There were only four cabinet posts: secretary of state, secretary of war, attorney general, and treasury secretary. Jefferson added a secretary of navy.
    The problems we have today are not a reflection of an out-dated Constitution – it is a reflection of our willful move away from the principles of the founding fathers and toward what they feared the most – reliance on a central government.
    The problem is the not the Constitution. The problem is us because we willfully empowered the central government for the past 70 years to control our retirement, our healthcare, our education, and our utilities. We talk about Obama taking into socialism. Well look around. All he is trying to do is finish the job.

  • oowawa

    “Clearly, we definitely have our hands full with the many things that must be done to stop the tsunami which is about to hit our democratic republic and drown everything that we stand for. ”

    As it happens, I just watched the ridiculous movie 2012, which deals with the end of the world–ultimately by devastating tsunamis that leave a few thousand human survivors floating in big arks.  As miserable a movie as this was, it bespoke a myth that is taking shape right now in our national psyche: We’re all doomed!  Ha Ha . . . that scenario is not what was envisioned when Thee One spoke of Hope! and Change! and took us all on the Good Ship Lollipop to sail off to the Big Rock Candy Mountain . . .

  • oowawa

    Kathleen Wynne wrote: “Clearly, we definitely have our hands full with the many things that must be done to stop the tsunami which is about to hit our democratic republic and drown everything that we stand for. “ 
     
    As it happens, I just watched the ridiculous movie 2012, which deals with the end of the world–ultimately by devastating tsunamis that leave a few thousand human survivors floating in big arks.  As miserable a movie as this was, it bespoke a myth that is taking shape right now in our national psyche: We’re all doomed!  Ha Ha . . . that scenario is not what was envisioned when Thee One spoke of Hope! and Change! and took us all on the Good Ship Lollipop to sail off to the Big Rock Candy Mountain . . .

  • Yttik

    “Corporate structures vaster and more powerful than nation-states: accountable to no one”

    I love your series of articles!

    I disagree with several points. I believe our founders did understand. We’ve come from a history of railroads and the company store, kids working in factories, the East India trading company, slavery, a whole slew of corporate abuses. This is a country dominated by big cotton, big tobacco, bankers and railroads, wealthy europeans who has all working as maids and stable hands for pennies a day. There has never been a utopia in the United States, a time when big business and government did not form unholy alliances against the people. That is who we are, it’s a part of human nature and our history.

    What people in the US have managed to do over the past couple of hundred years is fight for something better, to always strive for our ideals. We’ve made some progress. The US today is not suffering from the end of democracy or a completely apathetic citizenry, we’re right where we’ve always been, fighting to keep our government of the people for the people and fighting to keep the wealthy few from dominating everything. It’s what we’ve done since our country was born, indeed it’s part of the reason those founders fought so hard to create something new.

    We do have a series of small revolutions now and then, there are something like 335 seats in congress up for election this year. We don’t need to dismantle our government or create several more political parties or to launch a constitutional convention. We simply have to have some faith in our system of checks and balences, in the people of this country, in our history, in our Constitution. Our founders, our ancestors, suffered much more then we do today and they survived, but more importantly, the whole country survived. We have a sound process that will set things right if people keep level heads, common sense, and make it happen.

  • sowsear

    We have to take back our elections on the state and on the national level, but first we have to have legislators who will write the laws which will return some honesty to the whole process. You can’t have different rules in differenet states, ridiculous gerrymandering, AGs who are biased for one party over another, presidential candidates who are not required to take financing through the public option, the FEC overlooking obvious fraud in campaign funding, national parties who will make up rulz as they go along and steal votes when they want to, etc etc. Looks like an almost impossible order or, at least, a very long, extended process that might make some improvements if we could get people to decide what those improvements might be and how to go about getting them.

  • Peggy Sue

    oowawa said:

    “This November may well shake up the established powers.”

    I’d really like to believe that, oowawa.  But sadly, I think we’re simply looking at an endless merry-go-round–throwing the bums out with other bums, meaning individuals hopelessly compromised and/or corrupted.  Stamping a “D” or “R” on their butts is irrelevant.  And though I agree with Craig–I’d like to be wrong about the Tea Party–I just see another co-opted movement, this time to the Right.

    I’ve heard the rumbles of a Constitutional Convention on the blogs. And yes, it would be a risk.  But, as a Nation, we’re already at risk.  We can cover our eyes and pretend everything is hunky-dory [certainly the powers that be and the media would have us do just that].

    Or we can try to prevent [as Craig suggests] the total breakdown that I feel in my bones is coming.  Our present course cannot be sustained economically or socially or politically.  We have a bottom up economic disaster that eventually the lies won’t be able to hide.  We have the big banks rigging the system with fradulant balance sheets and creative accounting schemes.  We have the Fed and Treasury putting up Fire Sale signs and the spector of 3000 small community banks being rolled by the commercial real estate collapse. We’re throwing uber-funding to foreign wars, while Americans remain jobless.  And then, we have the POTUS today drumming up support for a massive healthcare bill, touted as reform when, in fact, it’s a simply a massive give-away to the insurance companies and Big Pharma.

    The Big Lie will explode at some point and it threatens to take us all down with it.

    Thank you, Craig, for a terrific essay.  I’ve bookmarked it and plan to read again.  Look forward for the next installment.

  • oowawa

    Oh yes, and in 2012, who got the ark tickets to survive the end of the world?  Why politicians, of course, and any citizens who could scrape together 1 billion euros per person.   And Morgan Freeman was president . . . Hmmmm . . . maybe this movie wasn’t so far-fetched after all . . . Don’t know where the Ark Co. was planning on spending those euros, though . . .

  • sowsear

    Oh, just one of those laspses of logic…

  • Craig Della Penna

    Hokma:

    It looks like we’re going to have a continuing disagreement (based on my memory of our past disagreements) – which is good for the general discussion.

    I would very much like to believe your characterization of transnational corporations as ethical and/or moral institutions but the evidence I see all around me supports the contrary.

    I see our culture as being, at best, a balanced affair between the people, business and government. Whenever any part of that triangle is out of whack there’s hell to pay. Right now the business/govenment part is way out of whack and so we, the people, suffer.

    You might also want to reflect on Howard Zinn’s perception that the founding fathers were a bunch of relatively rich landowners who crafted the new constitution to protect their interests, which is why there are almost no controls on business activity in the document.

  • Kathleen Wynne

    sowsear,

    How can you depend on the people in congress to do the right thing and write legislation that will ”return honesty to the process”, who were elected with the very machines that exclude us from really knowing if they were truly elected or not?

    That’s putting the cart before the horse, when it comes to election reform.  The kind of reform I spoke about is that which comes directly from the people, willing to build a critical mass of citizen support demanding that their respective state governments return to hand counts.  That kind of radical change putting people back in control of elections won’t come from D.C.  We’ve already tried it and the bill “Paper Ballot Act of 2006″ never even made it to Committee because the representatives (all 20 of them) who supported the bill had very little power in Congress to push for such reform.

    “The road to hell was paved with good intentions” and we can’t afford to continue to make that mistake when it comes to our federal government.

  • getfitnow

    I’m lurking and learning. Thanks, Craig!

  • Onofre’s arm

    Thanks Hokma, again, I’m in total agreement with you. Craig’s constant  use of the corporate straw man argument is getting old. He never seems to factor in the likelihood that the evil corporations that he rails about, don’t derive their sustenance from capitalism or the free market system. They exist as coercive monopolies in most cases BECAUSE of government, not in defiance of it and it’s laws. The FF’s believed that the central government was supposed to provide a level playing field, and offer unbiased referees to make sure all competitors played by the rules; the same rules. The moment one team could slide the ref a ten-spot to shave points, or look the other way when fouls were committed, is the moment the system begins to collapse into an ugly contest with an outcome that is no longer determined by the athletic skills of the competitors, but by which team can offer the biggest bribe to the ref. This isn’t “Capitalism” or the fault of capitalism, it is a corrupt accord between shady politicians wishing to keep their jobs, and corporations or unions seeking unfair advantages over THEIR competitors. 

  • Chelsea Patriot

    LMAO!!!  You think Bloomberg cares about people??!!  LMAO!!!

      Bloomberg is only interested in enriching himself.  Bloomberg is in HIS own pocket!

      LMAO!! It’s hilariously Pathetic to read an essay rightfully attacking our Corporate Oppressers and have someone suggest Bloomberg as the solution! LMAO!!

  • Bill Walker

    The author is obviously unaware of public record as are the commentators to the page. There is already sufficicent applications by the states to cause a convention call. You can read the over 700 applications from all 50 states at http://www.foavc.org. Congress has disobeyed the Constitution and refused to call the convention as the Constitution mandates.

    The author also misunderstands or has misread Article V. It clearly states the purpose of the convention is to propose amendments to the current Constitution and no more. Still these amendments can make major changes in our system of government giving the people new constitutional tools to rectify our present and future situations. The problem is not so much that we don’t know what is wrong but that we can’t do anything about it. Obviously, elections will not solve the problem as the problem is systematic. Therefore logically the solution must also be systematic and only a convention, as Congress is part of the problem, can solve this kind of issue.

    Contact your member of Congress. Ask him why he believes he has the right to veto the Constitution. Tell them to call the convention as they are required to do.

  • Onofre’s arm

    Well Hokma, I posted my agreement with your thoughts, along with thoughts of my own, and it disappeared.

    Hey oowawa, has this happened to you. My post was up, and even made it to the recent comments box, then poof, it was gone. 

    Admin: Is it ever going to be possible to engineer this newish formate so that we can click on comments in the “recent comments” box, and go straight to them? We all waste a lot of time searching for comments, especially on the longer threads, when we’re trying to respond to comments that pop up in the recent box.

  • Craig Della Penna

    Your logic is askew. You blame bad govenment for not imposing controls on naughty corporations, but the corruption of government happens because of the vast amounts of money poured in by corporations to buy influence. The influence serves to prevent any competent oversight of corporations… and the game goes round and round.

    My view of corporations is not based on a perception that they are somehow evil but on the actual fact that, in their worldview, they are amoral that is: without any duty towards or reference to morality or ethics. If you say: “Bill Gates, you have a monopoly on all the operating systems on the face of the earth – you are a bad man.” He will very rightly reply: “What are talking about? I just did exactly what you tell businessmen to do: crush your enemies, destroy your competition by any means necessary, corner the market and acquire all of everything.”

    In our culture’s adulation of Capitalism we have chosen to ignore that reality – to our detriment. Corporations will always strive to become monopolies, it is unreasonable to expect them to do otherwise. In like wise, capitalism depends upon the many being pillaged by the few -that’s just the nature of the beast.

    Where we make our mistake is that we equate capitalism with democracy in our minds – when, in reality, they are antithetical. That’s why we can listen to so-called ‘conservatives’ for decades as they spew corporate/fascist propaganda thinly disguised as promoting ‘business interests’. Nevermind that all these schemes inevitably result in even more disparity between rich and poor, even more concentration of wealth amongst fewer an fewer, ever more debt being loaded on our children’s children.

    We have to get over our belief that, because we lost the lottery last week, our odds of winning are better this week…

  • Craig Della Penna

    Yes, I’m aware that there are many applications out there but there is no consistent push across the states to get any one of them through – vitiation of the effort by the very fact that there are so many applications.

    Actually, my views on Article V are the result of reading quite a few scholars of the constituion who say exactly what I’m saying: once you open the door to a constitutional convention you are not bound to consider only the initial argument or amendment. It’s actually open-ended at that point.

  • jwrjr

    Sorry, no.  I registered here some time ago, bot that was before the forum was last updated.  Maybe I should do something about that.

  • Docelder

    Remonds me a bit of MAD – Mutual Assured Destruction during the cold war. Each could obliterate everything. Here we have a radical leftist push to Cloward-Piven the system to rebuild the curent system in the way they want it. On the other extreme we could call a constitutional convention and potentially start over completely. All the while we have 80% of our people grounded in the center and none of them are in control whatsoever. This is the most important topic of our time.

  • Docelder

    Reminds me a bit of MAD – Mutual Assured Destruction during the cold war. Each could obliterate everything. Here, we have a radical leftist push to Cloward-Piven the system to rebuild the curent system in the way they want it. On the other extreme we could call a constitutional convention and potentially start over completely. All the while we have 80% of our people grounded in the center and none of them are in control whatsoever. This is the most important topic of our time.

  • Hokma

    Zinn was an admitted socialist so his view would be rather tainted of the foundng fathers or frankly most of us.

    Another socialist, the late Michael Harrington believed that the presidents of multi-national corporations did not look in the mirror every morning and ask how they could screw (his word) Americans – a view commonly held by ’60s ideologues.

    As far as the government being out of whack, I agree but not for the same reasons as you.

    The federal government was never intended to control our retirements, medical care, and frankly most aspects of our lives. Something goes wrong we look to the federal government to fix it which they never do – they make it worse.

  • Diana L. C.

    Much to think about, Craig.  Thanks for the post.  And I will think hard about all the ideas presented by the people who commented–for and against.

    As an ex-Democrat, I amaze myself because I’ve come to feel somehow that the only way to correct some of the major problems that have arisen because of the cesspool that Washington has become is at the local and state levels.  Our blogs usually cover national issues.  

    At the state level, I see mostly blind loyalty in the state parties (at least in my state) to the national party.  I would love to see the states begin to undermine the national parties by breaking away and figuring out how to have state political parties that get to work independently somehow from the national parties.  I’m too inexperienced and can’t think it through, but it’s the current party system that I would like to see undermined.

  • Onofre’s arm

    My logic is askew?? You wrote:

    “You blame bad govenment for not imposing controls on naughty corporations, but the corruption of government happens because of the vast amounts of money poured in by corporations to buy influence.”

    First, I never wrote that I blamed bad government for not imposing controls on naughty corporations, and this type of distortion is a common practice of yours when you’re constructing your next straw man argument. 

    My statement and sentiments are quite the opposite of your gross misrepresentation of them. Government SHOULD impose controls on corporations, and it is IMPERATIVE that the government apply those controls equally and fairly to all parties. Those controls are called LAWS, and as long as those laws are in accordance with the Constitution, it is one of the primary functions of the central government to make sure everyone is held to them. It is only when, as you say, corporations pour vast amounts of money to buy influence, that the process works contrary to the intentions of the FF’s. You seem to accept the flawed premise that because big corps can, and do, game the system, that the system needs to be scrapped. That’s about like saying that since players constantly break the rules of the game, we should simply give up trying to enforce the rules, and invent a new game.

    You constantly trash “Capitalism” as though it were the CAUSE of systemic abuse by corps, the government, and the incestuous relation between the two. That is the perception of a child. Capitalism is a concept, and at the root of that concept is the right of individuals to own property, the right to enjoy the fruits of their labors and inventions as they see fit, and the right to make whatever deals they regard as most prudent, with other individuals; all of course within the boundaries of Constitutional law. When people game that concept, or abuse the privilege that concept embodies, it’s not the concept that is at fault, but the people who’ve abused it.

    Freedom is another concept. In a relatively free country it is reasonable to expect a higher degree of crime. Are you going to make a parallel argument that freedom sucks because more crimes occur in a free society? This is essentially the argument you constantly use to smear Capitalism. In an extremely strict and oppressive dictatorship, where everyone’s activities are heavily monitored, crime is usually low. Do you want the same type of government oppression dictating how much we’re all paid, what we produce, how much we ask for our products, and how we use our property, if we’re allowed to own it? 

    The trade off we accept for having more freedom is that we’ll expect more crime. The trade off we must accept with Capitalism is that there will be greater possibilities for abuse, but that only requires more vigilance by the referee to spot and penalize those abuses. 

    You seem to believe that huge multinationals are autonomous and beyond control, and that may be true to some extent. The question you fail to ask is, “How did they get that way?”. If you trace the genesis of all of those coercive monopolies, you’ll find generous amounts of government fertilizer that helped them grow so large. THAT is the tie that must be severed, as it is a tie, or relationship, that is destructive to the intentions of the FFs. If the government were to eject all lobbyists, remove all government buttresses, and reveal the amounts of influence money paid by EVERYONE, and maintain a level playing field, then your scary multinationals would begin to decay as smaller entities make inroads into their territory. Monopolies and multinationals can only exist if the game is fixed, not because there is something wrong with the rules or intent of the game. 

  • oowawa

    No, Onofre’s arm, I can honestly say that has never happened to me.  I have accidentally deleted my own posts.  I have no idea what might cause such a thing–a conflict in java script?  Who knows . . . and the various browsers are perhaps processing the software differently . . . Your suggestion fix about the “recent comments” box is something most of us would like to see, but I gather from previous remarks that this cannot be implemented . . .

  • oowawa

    No, Onofre’s arm, I can honestly say that has never happened to me.  I have accidentally deleted my own posts.  I have no idea what might cause such a thing–a conflict in java script?  Who knows . . . and the various browsers are perhaps processing the software differently . . . Your suggested fix about the “recent comments” box is something most of us would like to see, but I gather from previous remarks that this cannot be implemented . . .

  • Craig Della Penna

    Good points, but we have, it seems, a fundamental disagreement. You appear to think it’s all the govenment’s fault for not making the correct laws and/or not enforcing the ones that are on the books. I think that when we talk about govenment vs business we’re talking apples and oranges. I see it as a clash betwenns two worldviews: on the one hand there is the ‘commons’ which creates and enforces the ‘rule of law’ in order to have a fair system (your level playing field) vs the ‘marketplace’ which has no rule at all and recognizes no limits. To say that these two worldviews are incompatible is an understatement.
    And, no, capitalism is not a ‘concept’, nor is it subject to the vagaries of constitutional law. This is exactly the kind of conflation I’m talking about. Capitalism is an economic system most often characterized by the private ownership of capital, land and the means of production – there is nowhere in capitalism the slightest regard for the constitution or the rule of law. This is not a pejorative on capitalism it is simply the nature of reality.  
    And, yes, the huge multinationals are autonomous and largely beyond our control but this is not because of government seeding – whatever there was of that is miniscule and far, far inthe past. The multinats are autonomous because they were smart enough (I never said they were dumb) to see that it was hugely in their interest to transcend national boundaries, it offers them protections from taxes (see KBR now HQ’d in Dubai), litigation (see Union Carbide and the Bhopal disaster) or accountability of any kind (note that the only successful prosecutions of corporate malfeseance in the last decade have been on US-based companies, Enron for example).
    And no, I don’t advocate government control of costs/prices – the Soviets tried that and it was a disaster (btw Nixon tried it too and it was a disaster for him as well).
    What I want is, paradoxically, what you want: a system of governance that works to control the natural bent of capitalism to have all of everything by any means whatsoever. I want a restored balance where anyone who wants can risk everything they have for whatever reason they want – without risking anyone else’s stuff ot rights. Right now we don’t have that and if we don’t do something radical we’re going to lose all our rights to a corporate/fascist dictatorship.    

  • Craig Della Penna

    Agreed! We need to keep talking and building pressure for action.

  • AC

    Simply, I’m in agreement with you Craig as it seems reasonable “I want a restored balance where anyone who wants can risk everything they have for whatever reason they want – without risking anyone else’s stuff ot rights” (emphasis mine).
    How much clearer could it be!

  • Hokma

    Craig – you said: “’marketplace’ which has no rule at all and recognizes no limits”
    I disagree. The rules of the marketplace are fundamentals of economics from supply and demand to ROI to basic competition. That alone assures that monopolies cannot thrive and corporations that ignore customer satisfaction decline.
    As free market capitalism flourished in the U.S., countries around the world wanted to get in on it. It was the demand of business opportunities that created multi-national corporations – not the other way around.
    Regarding taxes, a corporation of any kind has fundamental fiduciary responsibilities to its shareholders and its customers – not any government. So if they can base their operations effectively in a country with a lower tax structure they do can do it.
    Show me an example of a company that is a “corporate/fascist dictatorship” because the term itself is paradox.

blog comments powered by Disqus