百家争鸣
[发表评论] [查看此文评论]    郭国汀律师专栏
[主页]->[百家争鸣]->[郭国汀律师专栏]->[US Constitution revolution for real democracy]
郭国汀律师专栏
·《还原蒋介石》:中华革命党
·《还原蒋介石》:袁世凯称帝与张勋复辟
·《还原蒋介石》:军阀混战
·《还原蒋介石》:南北军政府对抗
·《还原蒋介石》:辞职将军蒋介石
·《还原蒋介石》:孝子情深
·《还原蒋介石》:情深义重
·《还原蒋介石》:远见卓识 肝胆相照
·《还原蒋介石》:壮志未酬身先死
·《还原蒋介石》:列宁的对华政策
·《还原蒋介石》:中共的由来
·《还原蒋介石》:孙中山的“联俄容共”
·《还原蒋介石》:共产党篡夺国民党的领导权
·《还原蒋介石》:篡党夺权
·《还原蒋介石》:‘联俄联共,扶助农工’的骗局
·《还原蒋介石》:蒋介石领导北伐
·《还原蒋介石》:中山舰事件真相
·《还原蒋介石》:北伐雄师所向无敌
·《还原蒋介石》:中共恶意制造南京事件
·《还原蒋介石》:共产党阴谋操控反蒋运动
·《还原蒋介石》:上海三次起义
·《还原蒋介石》:汪(精卫)陈(独秀)联合宣言
·《还原蒋介石》:四一二清党真相
·《还原蒋介石》:恢复北伐
·《还原蒋介石》:宁汉政府相争
·《民族英雄蒋介石》33、汪精卫武汉政府清共
·《民族英雄蒋介石》34、南昌暴动
·《民族英雄蒋介石》35、蒋介石辞职
·《民族英雄蒋介石》36、蒋介石访日
·《民族英雄蒋介石》37、蒋(介石)宋(美玲)联姻
·《民族英雄蒋介石》38、广州暴动国民党与苏联决裂
·《民族英雄蒋介石》40、济南事件
·《民族英雄蒋介石》39、北伐第二阶段
·《民族英雄蒋介石》41、浩气长存的蔡公时
·《民族英雄蒋介石》42、忍辱负重
·《民族英雄蒋介石》43、北伐最后阶段
·《民族英雄蒋介石》44、日本关东军暗杀张作霖
·《民族英雄蒋介石》45、北伐军胜利汇师北京
·《民族英雄蒋介石》46、满洲易帜归国民政府
·《民族英雄蒋介石》47、关税自治,
·《民族英雄蒋介石》48、李宗仁及冯玉祥反叛
·《民族英雄蒋介石》49、南方战云--叛乱的瘟疫
·《民族英雄蒋介石》50 、中原大战
·《民族英雄蒋介石》51 周恩来的灭门惨案
·《民族英雄蒋介石》52、共匪红军的兴起
·《民族英雄蒋介石》53、剿共匪--攘外必先安内
·《民族英雄蒋介石》54、55、56 “九一八事变”
·《民族英雄蒋介石》57 日本侵华与国联
·《民族英雄蒋介石》58 忍辱负重
·《民族英雄蒋介石》59、上海“一二八”抗战
·《民族英雄蒋介石》60、皮肉伤与心脏病
·《民族英雄蒋介石》61儒雅绅士 基督情怀
·《民族英雄蒋介石》62、国家危机和国内政治
·《民族英雄蒋介石》63、国家团结会议,蒋介石再辞职
·《民族英雄蒋介石》64日本攻占锦州,蒋介石复职
·《民族英雄蒋介石》65、国军上海一二八抗战
·《民族英雄蒋介石》66、伪满洲国成立
·《民族英雄蒋介石》67、心慈手软
·《民族英雄蒋介石》68、福建平叛
·《民族英雄蒋介石》69、剿匪
·《民族英雄蒋介石》70、西安事变
·《民族英雄蒋介石》71、七七卢沟桥事变
·《民族英雄蒋介石》72、沪淞会战
·《民族英雄蒋介石》73、悲壮的南京保卫战
·《民族英雄蒋介石》74.南京大屠杀
·《民族英雄蒋介石》75.血战台儿庄
·《民族英雄蒋介石》76 英勇的太原保卫战
***(33)《匪首毛泽东》郭国汀编译
·《匪首毛泽东》
·《匪首毛泽东》郭国汀编译
·《匪首毛泽东》2、毛泽东滥杀政敌
·《匪首毛泽东》3、共匪滥杀无辜,十万红军将士地方党干魂飞魄散
·《匪首毛泽东》5、冷血毛泽东为权力疯狂滥杀红军将士
·《匪首毛泽东》6、毛泽东周恩来诱骗张学良发动西安事变
·《匪首毛泽东》7、受苏联指令张治中挑起八一三上海抗战
·《匪首毛泽东》8、中共假抗日真勾结日寇,狠打抗日国军
·《匪首毛泽东》9、平型关战斗和百团大战
·《匪首毛泽东》10、宛南事变:毛为争权借刀杀项英
·《匪首毛泽东》11、延安洗脑运动中共种植贩卖毒品
· 《匪首毛泽东》12、发动国共内战的罪魁是毛泽东!
·《匪首毛泽东》19.极度无知而狂妄自大的毛泽东
***中国问题研究
***(34)《论中共极权专制暴政的本质》郭国汀著
·共产党极权专制暴政的变革
·论中国共产党极权暴政的滔天罪孽
·《论中共极权专制暴政的滔天罪孽》之二
·《论中共极权专制暴政的滔天罪孽》中共夺取政权以前的杀人罪孽
·《论中共极权专制暴政的滔天罪孽》中共盗国窃政后的滥杀罪孽
·《论中共极权专制暴政的滔天罪孽》中共谋杀性大饥荒
·《论中共极权专制暴政的滔天罪孽》毛共文革罪孽深重
·《论中共极权专制暴政的滔天罪孽》六四天安门屠城
·《中共极权专制暴政的滔天罪孽》中共统治西藏罪孽深重
·《郭律师论中共极权流氓暴政》郭国汀著
·共产党极权暴政为争权夺利党内自相残杀的罪恶
·论推翻中共极权专制暴政的合法性
·中共政权始终是一个非法政权 郭国汀
·驳中共政权合法论 郭国汀
[列出本栏目所有内容]
欢迎在此做广告
US Constitution revolution for real democracy

US Constitution revolution for real democracy
   By Tom Crumpacker Noted by Thomasgguo
   Pending a radical change to the US Constitution progressives can forget genuine democracy, says Tom Crumpacker. Meanwhile commercial oligarchy(government by a small group of people, often for their own interests ) will continue to promote raw power rather than rule of law in a parliamentary system outwith the control of ordinary people

   Too many US progressives seem to accept the myth of United States democracy. We hear and read of all kinds of change strategies and tactics, which have one thing in common: a belief that winning elections by progressive candidates will solve our problems. But until we have a real democracy this won't happen, and we should have learned this sometime in the last 50 years. Without real democracy, we cannot peacefully or successfully address the calamitous(a sudden terrible event causing great loss and suffering ) problems which face us, such as economic crisis, war, unilateralism, authoritarianism, corporatism, environmental destruction, loss of privacy and liberty, discrimination, poverty, wage, health care, education, etc. In society these crucial issues are addressed by laws, which derive from political power. With no real democracy, electoral strategies and complaints about issues are just so much hot air. What US progressives have in common, whatever their specific issue or interest, is a desperate(ready for any wild act and not caring about danger because of loss of hope :suffering extreme need, anxiety or loss of hope; full of risk or danger; done as a last attempt and with little hope of success; extremely difficult and dangerous grave) need for democracy.
   Thomas Jefferson [1743-1826] once predicted(to see or describe a future happening in advance as a result of knowledge.) that every generation would need its revolution. Politically speaking, we seem to be on the verge of entering a new dark age, where relations between people, classes, groups, governments and nations depend on raw power rather than the rule of law. Our national political system was structured 217 years ago by white, male property owners in what was then thought to become an essentially agricultural and mercantile society based in small communities and states. Limited powers were granted to a federal government of three separate branches.
   Since then, enormous technological, economic, scientific, geographic, demographic (statistical study of human population) and other factors have completely altered the power relationships then contemplated. Nevertheless, we are still attempting to operate with what is essentially the original structure. The only basic changes we've made have been extending the vote to the propertyless, racial minorities and women, and centralizing the public funding and decision-making power at the federal level.
   Although our rulers frequently say that we have a democracy and seek to impose our institutions on others, the only accurate words to describe our system as it now functions are commercial oligarchy(government by a small group of people for their own interests ) or plutocracy(a ruling class of wealthy people). The core of the historic idea of democracy is the possibility of collective decision-making about collective action for a common good. The reason humans have been trying to achieve this vision at least since the days of ancient Athens has to do with freedom. To the extent people can participate in the important decisions which affect their lives, personally or by true representation, the decisions become theirs, they implement them, and society's need for coercion diminishes.
   The United States was not originally intended to be a democracy (except for one branch of the legislature). Populism(a person who claims to believe in the wisdom and judgment of ordinary people) was feared by those who set up our government. It was first called a republic, and, like Rome and all the rest, has now morphed into empire. Our important decision-making is done by a power elite(a group that is of higher level or rank) consisting of big business-corporate, military and political, as described by C. Wright Mills in his 1960 essay "The Power Élite." By funding the politicians and mass media, our élites acquire the power to use them to obtain public acquiescence in the societal decisions they make privately.
   The problem is that most of our national politicians are not representing the public interest (common good); rather they are representing the powerful private interests which fund them, on the theory that some of the benefits will “trickle down” to the people. They are pursuing self-interest, seeking to retain their offices which bring them wealth and power – as encouraged by our dominant “laissez faire” ideology. In a democracy people can protect themselves by forcing the politicians to set the societal rules which govern their relations.
   Our rulers seek to justify our “interest based” system by calling it pluralist. In this type of system, where advertising in the media is crucial, economic power produces political power, political power produces economic power, and the role of the people disappears. The purpose of a political system is to allow for an appropriate degree of social change within an appropriate degree of stability. Today, progressive change in and within our system has become impossible. Our mass consumer society, which binds us together not by our values but by enmeshing(to catch in a net) us in a net of commercial relations, has become an overwhelming(very large; too great to oppose) depoliticizing force.
   The seats in our House of Representatives (our “people's house”) have become virtual lifetime appointments, encouraging allegiance(loyalty, faith , and dutiful support to a leader, county, idea) to private rather than public interests. David Brower has called it the House of Lords. Our Congress has delegated its legislative authority to an imperial presidency. About half of eligible Americans no longer participate in national elections. Bush, who was elected by 27% of the eligibles, says he represents those who agree with him. With a winner-take-all electoral system, only two parties are possible at the national and state levels. They have morphed into one two-pronged party purporting to help special interests and status groups. The growth of alternative, people based parties founded on values has been made impossible by entrenched laws, impossibility of funding and exclusion from the mass media and public debate.
   There are plenty(a large quantity or number) of good ideas out there which need to be explored publicly and considered in a revision of our Constitution. Such as (1) a parliamentary system with proportional representation, where people could find participation and representation by voting their values; (2) public control of, or at least significant input in, the broadcast media (the airwaves are public); (3) selective decentralization of political and economic units so that real democracy could function, such as return to the original federation idea and further; (4) elimination of campaign expenditures, replacement with public funding or at least anonymous(done or made by someone whose name is not know or stated), limited contributions; (4) limitation of size, function and activities of corporations, return to public control (originally they were public institutions); (5) elimination of our Senate; (6) elimination of gerrymandering, re-draw House districts based on population and geographical affinity only; (7) term limits; (8) elimination of Electoral College; (9) elimination of lobbying - where expertise is necessary, replace with public commissions; (10) provision for accountability and recall of representatives; (11) articulation of implied right of privacy in Bill of Rights; (12) clarification of Congress's responsibility to declare war, military for national defense only.
   Many more political reforms are needed and they all have their benefits and drawbacks(difficulty or disadvantage). The point I am trying to make is not which are appropriate; rather, I think it is now too late to work through the system. The system cannot be fixed by working through it because it is not functioning. It is no longer in the people's control. If we keep trying, we are wasting our precious time, and the other problems like war, ecological(the scientific study of the pattern of relations of plants, animals, and people to each other and to their surroundings) disaster, economic crisis, might do us in first.

[下一页]

©Boxun News Network All Rights Reserved.
所有栏目和文章由作者或专栏管理员整理制作,均不代表博讯立场