From thomassx@turing.uncg.eduFri Apr  7 06:38:51 1995
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 11:31:37 -0500
From: Steve Thomas 
Reply to: prj@mail.msen.com
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa, soc.rights.human, talk.politics.misc,
    alt.government.abuse, alt.politics.usa.congress,
    alt.flame.right-wing-conservatives, alt.activism, alt.college.us,
    alt.consciousness, alt.conspiracy, alt.current-events.usa,
    alt.dear.whitehouse, alt.fan.noam-chomsky, alt.impeach.clinton,
    alt.individualism, alt.nuke.the.USA, alt.politics.clinton,
    alt.politics.correct, alt.politics.elections, alt.politics.equality,
    alt.politics.org.misc, alt.politics.reform, alt.politics.usa,
    alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.politics.usa.misc,
    alt.president.clinton, alt.revolution.counter, alt.revisionism,
    alt.society.revolution, alt.society.generation-x,
    alt.society.civil-liberty, alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: AMERICA HELD HOSTAGE BY OLIGARCHY
Resent-Date: Sat, 18 Feb 1995 06:30:31 -0500 (EST)
Resent-From: James Daugherty 
Resent-To: prj@mail.msen.com



CREATING TRUE DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA



BY
ANDY ROGERS AND STEVE THOMAS

FOUNDERS OF THE NEW DEMOCRACY MOVEMENT--A NON-PROFIT, 
NON-PARTISAN ORGANIZATION DEDICATED TO GOVERNMENT BY THE 
PEOPLE


	AMERICA THE DISILLUSIONED

	Why is cynicism and distrust in the United States government 
at an all-time high? Why do the dissatisfied masses stay away from 
the polls? Why do unpopular incumbents win time and time again? 
And why do so many people feel powerless to do anything about it?

	GREAT AMERICAN MYTHS

	The United States is supposed to be a country in which the 
ruling class consists of all citizens. It is not. The concepts of one 
person-one vote and equal representation are supposed to be 
embodied by our nation. They are not. Why? What's the problem? 
What keeps us from fulfilling the words of the constitution?

	THE AMERICAN SYSTEM: democracy WITH A SMALL d

	We the people, of the United States, are supposed to look upon 
our leaders as democratically-elected servants. Instead, it seems as if 
we are the subjects of  inaccessible rulers who protect only their own 
interest. We have the right to vote, but most of us do not. We have 
the right to run for office ourselves, but for most of us, the idea is 
unthinkable. Why do we feel so powerless to change things? 

	THE UNITED STATES OF OLIGARCHY

	You may remember from civics class that the word oligarchy 
refers to a form of government in which power is vested in a few 
persons. The word also refers to the people in that ruling class. What 
they may not have told you is that the United States is an oligarchy. 
The fact of the matter is that elections in the United States are not 
won--they are bought. And the vast majority of Americans no longer 
see voting as relevant because they realize the entrenched power of 
the wealthy elite. In an era when Americans are working longer 
hours for declining wages--many don't have the time or resources to 
become involved in government. And even those who do vote 
usually elect whichever candidate has bought greater name 
recognition in the press. Or if all else is equal--which candidate 
defecated the character of the other more through negative 
advertising. Often it truly doesn't seem to matter much who we vote 
for. And to run for office ourselves would require great personal 
wealth, great support from wealthy corporate interest or a complete 
preoccupation with fundraising. The result is that many sincere 
intelligent people are discouraged from running for office. The result 
is that the United States is ruled by a wealthy self-interested elite 
which is not about to give power to the people without a struggle.


	NOAM CHOMSKY AND SHELDON WOLIN ON DEMOCRACY


	Respected Journalist Bill Moyers interviewed these two 
outspoken scholars as part of his book and television series "A World 
Of Ideas." Chomsky is as well known for his political criticism as he is 
for his groundbreaking work as a linguist at the Michigan Institute 
for Technology. Wolin, who has taught at Berkeley and Princeton, 
founded a journal called Democracy. His writings greatly influenced 
the political activism of the sixties. Here are some thoughts on 
American government from  the Moyers interview series.


Chomsky: More Democracy is a value within itself. Democracy as a 
value doesn't have to be defended any more than freedom has to be 
defended. It's an essential feature of human nature that people 
should be free, should be able to participate, and should be 
uncoerced.

Moyers: But why do you think if we go that route--

Chomsky: --that's the only hope that other values will come to the 
fore. If the society is based on control by private wealth, it will 
reflect the values that it, in fact, does reflect now--greed and the 
desire to maximize personal gain at the expense of others. A small 
society based on that principle is ugly, but it can survive. A global 
society based on that principle is headed for massive destruction. We 
have to have a mode of social organization that reflects other values 
inherent in human nature. It's not the case that in the family every 
person tries to maximize personal gain at the expense of others.. If 
they do, it's pathological. It's not the case that if you and I are 
walking down the street, and we see a child eating a piece of candy, 
and we see that nobody's around, and we happen to be hungry, that 
we steal the candy. Concern for other people's needs and concern for 
our fragile environment that must sustain future generations are 
part of human nature. But these elements are suppressed in a social 
system which is designed to maximize personal gain. We must try to 
overcome that suppression. That's, in fact, what democracy could 
bring about. It could lead to the expression of other human needs 
and values which tend to be suppressed under the institutional 
structure of a system of private power and profit.

Moyers: But by your own analysis, we're moving in the other 
direction.

Chomsky: Certainly the institutions are moving toward more 
centralization, more marginalization, the elimination of options, and 
so on. On the other hand, the population itself is increasingly 
dissident.

Moyers: Ratification Means--

Chomsky: Ratification would mean a system in which there are two 
positions presented to me, the voter. I go to the polling booth, and I 
push one or another button, depending on which of those positions I 
want. Now, that's a very limited form of democracy. In a really 
meaningful democracy, I'd play a role in forming those positions. 
Those positions would reflect my active, creative participation--not 
just me, but everyone, of course. That would be real democracy. 
We're very far from that.
	But now we're even departing from the point where there is 
ratification. When you have stage-managed elections, with the public 
relations industry determining what words come out of people's 
mouths, even the element of ratification is disappearing. You don't 
expect candidates to stand for anything, you simply expect them to 
say what the public relations expert tells them will get them past the 
next obstacle.....

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Moyers: Do we have a democracy now?

Wolin: I think we don't. The idea of democracy and the idea of a 
strong, centralized state, inherently bureaucratic and administrative 
in it's structure and orientation, are not compatible notions. 
Democracy implies involvement, shared power, and above all, a 
significant equality. State power means the opposite of those things. 
Democracy clearly is at odds with corporate structures and power 
that are unaccountable and unresponsive.

Moyers: Do we need a revolution?

Wolin: We need a radical reconsideration of some fundamental 
assumptions--but violent revolution is as anachronistic as New 
England town meetings, maybe more so. Modern societies are so 
fragile that the notion of overthrow makes no sense expect if one has 
an unlimited appetite for barbarism. Ultimately, I'm driven back to 
the possibilities of education to help ease our way into a better kind 
of world.

Moyers: What are the questions we must ask as we move toward the 
year 2000?

Wolin: The central question to me is the question of collective 
identity. What do we think we want to stand for, as a people? That's 
what the preoccupation with a democratic culture is all about. What I 
think we want to stand for is not expansion of American power and 
not the endless economic and technological innovation that I think 
we're committed to whether we want to be or not. Do we want to see 
ourselves identified with notions of cooperation, diversity, respect 
and encouragement, and of different kinds of sensibilities and 
cultures? Or do we want to see ourselves instead as the technological 
power of the world?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

	What is The New Democracy Movement?

	The New Democracy Movement is a non-partisan, non-profit 
association
of citizens working for the common goal of true democracy in 
America. Our primary objectives are to build public support for 
democratically financed elections and to create an active and 
informed citizenry by conducting voter education campaigns. We feel 
these measures can bring true democracy to America. Your 
participation in our organization and in civic life in general can help 
us accomplish these goals. We ask for a membership contribution of 
three dollars or more to help cover our expenses. The following is a 
listing of some of the methods we plan to use to build a new 
movement towards true American democracy.

* Further distribution of this free message

* Hold discussion and lecture series featuring well-known advocates 
of democracy.

* Hold petition drives to demonstrate public support for pro-
democracy reforms--present petitions to the media and government 
officials.

* Operate a new-democracy speakers bureau offering free speakers 
to clubs and civic groups interested in learning about the New 
Democracy Movement.

* Operate New-Democracy information tables in various public 
settings.

* Publish a newsletter for our members detailing New-Democracy 
activities, events and strategies.

* Operate an Internet site to bring New-Democracy news and ideas 
on-line.

* Conduct "Issue of the Month" voter education campaigns on issues 
such as the federal deficit, entitlement reform, health care reform, 
crime, the environment and others. Conduct issue forums for the 
public and distribute free educational materials to the public as part 
of issue campaigns.

		
		DEMOCRACY HELD HOSTAGE


	The basic structures of democracy do exist in the United States. 
However, actual true democracy is being held hostage by money.  
The fourteenth amendment guarantees "one person, one vote." But in 
reality, "money talks" would be a more accurate description of 
American government in it's present form. Those with money can 
buy influence, access and power with their dollars. So in effect, their 
"vote" counts far more than the average person's. The rich have a 
disproportionate amount of control over elections because in addition 
to their one vote, they can buy many more for their candidate of 
choice by funding negative campaign ads and other costly election-
buying methods.

		THE MONUMENTAL 1994 ELECTIONS

	Many viewed the 1994 elections as monumental because of the 
Republican takeover of Congress. But they were monumental for 
another reason as well. They were the most expensive congressional 
elections ever. And the increased price of purchasing office wasn't 
just a result of inflation. Congressional candidates raised $611.5 
million dollars and spent $589.5 million during the 1994 general 
elections. That was an increase of $87.5 million or 17% from 1992 
levels. Not included in this record spending is the more than $28 
million spent by candidates in special elections, and over $76 million 
spent by candidates who lost in primaries. They also do not include 
the millions of dollars in "soft money" contributions the political 
party organizations made to candidates. A particularly disturbing 
trend was candidates literally trying to buy themselves into office. 
The leading Democrat in this effort was  Senator Herb Kohl of 
Wisconsin who spent 6.5 million dollars of his own money to get 
reelected. His donation pales in comparison to that of Republican 
Michael Huffington of California who spent 27.8 million dollars of his 
fortune in an attempt at buying a Senate seat. Overall, candidate 
campaign spending increased by 113% over 1992 levels. Also up 
were PAC (political action committee) campaign donations. PACs 
contributed a staggering 170 million dollars to congressional 
candidates in an attempt to buy influence. Unfortunately, most of 
these PACS represent corporate interest rather than average citizens. 
It now appears that to win a congressional election without personal 
wealth or enormous corporate PAC contributions requires candidates 
to become full time fund raisers. This leaves little time for real 
discussion of issues of national importance. In fact, Al Hunt of the 
Wall Street Journal goes so far as to say that most members of 
congress are more concerned about their own campaign budgets than 
about the federal budget.   

	TYRANNY OF THE TWO: DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS
	
	Independents and "third parties" (parties other than Democrats 
or Republicans) can legally run for office in the United States. But in 
reality, independents and parties other than the Democrats and 
Republicans have little chance of winning because of rules favoring 
the two established parties. Rules that require big money to run for 
office in the U.S. Seemingly, only a billionaire like Ross Perot can 
afford to mount a serious challenge to the two parties nationally. 
Political critic Noam Chomsky even argues that we have only one 
established party in the U.S.--the business party. Chomsky argues 
that the Democrats and Republicans are just two factions of the same 
party. And in fact, it is true that both the Republicans and Democrats 
receive millions upon millions from big corporate interest trying to 
buy favorable legislation. Where does this leave the average citizen 
who might want to mount a challenge to the big established parties? 
Not in a very good position. The Democrats and Republicans have 
clearly tried to protect their interest by enforcing a two-party 
system. For example, if you wanted to establish a new political party 
in the state of North Carolina you would have to collect tens of 
thousands of signatures from all over the state and pay the state five 
cents for each name. Assuming you had the time and money to 
accomplish this, you must field a candidate for president or governor 
in the very next election and that candidate must receive more than 
ten percent of the vote or else your party is abolished by the state. 
At that point you would have to start all over again. The process is 
similar for individuals wishing to run as independents. Mount an 
expensive petition drive and then pay the state for each name that 
appears on the petition. Most people who have the money and/or 
time to do that are comfortable with the status quo. 

		PARTIES AS GOVERNMENT

	Political parties aren't even mentioned in the Constitution. Yet, 
millions of tax dollars go to pay unelected party workers. Martin L. 
Gross estimates, in his book, A Call for Revolution, that the total tax-
payer tab for Democratic and Republican party workers is over 20 
million dollars a year. By the way, this money comes from the taxes 
of independents too. There are about 160 party workers for the 
House of Representatives and about 200 for the Senate. Some of 
these workers draw six figure salaries. Gross says the biggest 
spenders are the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee (eleven 
federal employees), the Democratic Caucus (twelve), and the 
Republican Conference (forty-two). Additionally, party leaders in the 
Congress get extra pay and perks such as free limo service 
throughout the capital. They also get extra offices and staff. All this 
despite the fact their positions are mentioned nowhere in the 
constitution.
	The two established parties have so entrenched themselves 
that many Americans think of the parties as being the government. 
How different is this from the rule of the Communist party in the old 
Soviet Union?

				A NEW MOVEMENT

	The American election system is broken. It is corrupted by 
money. And unfortunately, corrupt elections lead to corrupt 
government. So what can we do about it? We must build a peaceful 
grass roots citizens movement to pressure congress to remove 
private money from the election process. There are sincere people in 
congress who would help fight the battle with adequate public 
support. This is the next step towards truly fulfilling the words of the 
constitution. Through various reform movements of the past, 
Americans of every religion, race, gender, and ethnicity have gained 
the right to vote and run for office. Now let's make those rights really 
mean something. Let's make the next great voter reform movement 
one to remove the undemocratic corrupting influence of money from 
the process. It won't be easy, and it may take a few years, but in the 
end it will be worth it. A government truly of the people and by the 
people will truly be for the people. All the people. 

				 THE REAL SOLUTION

	Many Americans no longer see voting as relevant to their lives. 
They realize a wealthy elite is in control of the American 
"democracy." Officials are unaccountable to most constituents while 
big donors get high level access to our elected leaders. Many 
qualified individuals among us choose not to run for office because 
they cannot afford to finance a campaign and refuse to sell out to 
those who can. Those who do run have little chance of beating the 
oppressive system. Incumbents outspend challengers 8-1 and win 
reelection around 90 percent of the time. In an effort to appease the 
cynical public, some politicians have proposed minor reforms such as 
further limiting individual contribution amounts, and voluntary 
spending limits for candidates. But as long as private money is 
allowed to fund elections, loopholes will be found and  corruption 
will abound. The real solution: Democratically financed elections.

	IMPLEMENTING DEMOCRATICALLY FINANCED ELECTIONS

	In order to create a true American Democracy, we must have 
democratically financed elections. The only sure way to do this is by 
removing private money from the election process. Public financing 
of campaigns could guarantee fairness and equality for all candidates 
and set mandatory spending limits on campaigns. Democratically 
financed elections could also eventually mean billions of dollars in 
savings for the American taxpayer. With candidates no longer 
dependent on big contributors, they would not have to fulfill 
expensive legislative and regulatory favors for big donors. 
	How will democratically financed elections work? Well first of 
all congress must make all political contributions to or on behalf of 
candidates illegal. Money from the voluntary three dollar checkoff on 
your federal tax form will go towards an American Campaign fund. If 
the big donors still want to give more then they can give larger 
amounts anonymously to this fund. Each race would receive funds 
based on population. Candidates would not be allowed to spend their 
own money to run for office. General election candidates would 
receive free and equal broadcast airtime to debate and discuss the 
issues. This would be paid for by the American campaign fund. No 
political advertising would be allowed. This could help cut down on 
negative campaigning and focus on issues. Parties would not be 
allowed to funnel money to the candidates. No tax money would go to 
pay party workers or pay for extravagant political conventions. In 
order to limit the field to serious candidates only, one would have to 
gain a reasonable number of signatures and five dollar donations for 
the American campaign fund in order to appear on the ballot. These 
numbers would be determined by population in the election district. 
In order to avoid electing extremist such as Nazis or fascist, a 
majority of the vote would be required to win. Races in which no one 
receives a majority of the vote would result in a runoff between the 
top two candidates. These measures could level the playing field and 
allow people like you and me to run for office. They would also 
drastically reduce the amount of money spend on political 
campaigns. 

For comments, suggestions, or if you would simply like to help, send 
mail to Steve Thomas and/or Andy Rogers at one of these addresses:

sbthomas@turing.uncg.edu
thomassx@turing.uncg.edu