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
·文革教训原因考/郭国汀
·对物质的思考/郭国汀
·精神文明与物质文明/郭国汀
·内因与外因关系的沉思
·外因是决定事物运动变化发展的根本原因
·开放党禁与多党联合政治
·论质、量互变关系
·如何理解劳动?——有感于中国1956—1959年之“三大改造”
·人类与自然环境
·共产主义是违背自然规律的妄想
***(57)网友评价评论与批评郭国汀
·一代大师
·良好的名誉是人们在任何时代任何社会安身立命之本
·各界人士对郭国汀律师高度评价
·浦志强、张思之大律师评价郭国汀
·清水君(黄金秋):我要特别感谢郭国汀大律师
·上海美女评价郭国汀律师
·欧阳小戎忆郭国汀律师
·不要迫害中国的脊梁 ──郭国汀
·良心律师,人权大侠!
·为国为民 侠之大者——郭国汀
·被缚的普罗米修司----
·感谢郭国汀律师
·让英雄的血流在光天化日之下
·声援中国人权律师郭国汀、强烈反对中共利用司法机器釜底抽薪镇压维权运动征集签名书
·谁是当代中国最高贵的人?
·答浦志强对郭国汀的批评
·警惕:中共对郭国汀律师的迫害并没有中止
·从郭国汀案看中国法制的崩毁
·值得大学生与爱国愤青一读的戏剧
·大中学生及爱国愤青的娱乐读物
·刘路与郭国汀之间的友情
·刘路(李建强)共特真相大暴露
·为什么说李建强(刘路)是共特?
·欢迎李建强公开辩污论战
·我与刘晓波先生的恩怨
·我与英雄警官之间的友谊
·律师为英雄辩护的最佳策略
·敬请张耀杰先生公开向郭国汀大律师赔礼道歉的公开函
·郭国汀训斥张耀杰
·怒斥张耀杰----南郭系当之无愧的大律师!
·痛斥張耀傑----予汝真诚道欠的最后通谍!
·郭国汀痛斥假冒伪劣人格低下的[学者]張耀傑
***周游列国 漂泊四海
·我的哥本哈根之旅
·梦幻湖畔之春晖
·加国白雪公主之宫
·雪中加国风情
·圣诞日维多利亚雪宫
·我的总统跑道
·我的超五星级总统跑道之二
·迷人的维多利亚风光
·维多利亚人间仙境
·海上明珠维多利亚精景
·世上最美的往往是大自然
·郭国汀在渥太华和世外桃源
·郭国汀律师在温哥华
·冬吟白雪诗
·山青水秀地灵人杰
·与传统观念彻底决裂?!
·文明与传统
·轻松愉快的国庆节游行
·我的巴黎之旅
·浪际天涯孤独客
·郭国汀律师在纽伦堡
·余之法朗克福之行
·吾之法朗克福之游
·感受纽伦堡
·观光德国古城堡
·纽伦古城堡风光依旧
·感受如诗如画的世外桃源美景
·观光布鲁塞尔
·风景如画的莱茵河畔
·郭国汀律师出席布鲁塞尔第二届全球支持亚洲民主化大会留影
·郭国汀律师在德国法郎克福
·郭国汀律师在德国法郎克福
·郭国汀律师在德国法郎克福留莲忘返
***(58)郭国汀律师名案要案抗辩实录
***(一)郭国汀律师为清水君抗辩
·郭国汀我为什么为清水君辩护?
·律师郭国汀对黄金秋(清水君)颠覆国家政权案辩护大纲
·清水君网上组党案刑事上诉状
·江苏高院强行书面审判清水君上诉案
·黄金秋(清水君)颠覆国家政权上诉案辩护词纲要
·清水君案上诉辩护词附件
·清水君案江苏高院驳回上诉维持原判
·中共伪法官评黄金秋颠覆国家政权案
·郭国汀律师清水君颠覆国家政权案研究
·郭国汀归纳清水君思想论点主旨言论集
·郭国汀就黄金秋颠覆国家政权上诉案致江苏省高级法院院长函
·郭国汀致狱中清水君函
·郭国汀律师第五次会见清水君
·狱中会见清水君手记
·郭国汀就清水君案上诉审江苏高级法院刑一庭王振林法官函
·作家黄金秋被无罪判重刑十二年辩护律师郭国汀谴责中共司法不公
·我为留学生英雄清水君抗辩
[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