A CALL TO ACTION
BAILOUTS R U.S. - Be A Part of America's Future Direction
TANC Petition - Sign Up For A "Citizen's Congress" & Direct Democracy Now!
National Alliance Renewal Act (NARA) - Draft 1
Consensus Lawmaking Powered By An "Electorate Legislative Branch"
TANC Presentation: A Roadmap To Reform
"Direct Democracy" Enhances Countries'
Socio-Economic Standing
A CASE FOR "DIRECT DEMOCRACY"
An Open-Letter Rebuttal from Michael A. Freeman, Executive Director/Co-Founder
_______________________________________
First off, I would like to thank all of you who wrote the thought-provoking letters in response to TANC’s recent question appearing in various LinkedIn Group discussion forums asking whether or not if you think all Americans should have the right to “Direct Democracy.”
A few LinkedIn members have commented that our long-standing “representational” form of government “uses democratic tools to work together in a civil society,” as one LinkedIn member wrote, further suggesting, “full Democracy is MOB rule and something the founders of this country worried we would end up with.” Another member also wrote back to note the “framers of the constitution would have made this country a democracy instead of a republic, which it is, if that was their intent. So there is no ‘going back’ to a democracy that never existed.”
On both counts, the respondents are correct in pointing out the historical perspective in which the original framers of the Constitution sought to establish a “representative democracy” as an answer to the kind of “mob rule” and class/society-based revolts common in Roman times and throughout Europe and Asia’s “feudal” empires of the first millennium-and-a-half or so of our world’s history.
But let us put this all in historical context again — our Constitution was authored over 220 years ago and much has transpired over time, especially within the last 60 years with our modernized, globalized economy that now suggests our American “representational” democracy is seriously dysfunctional and failing to take into account the needs of its citizens. Moreover, I, for one, have faith in our modern, informed American electorate being able to consider, debate and decide independently if they would ever opt for “Direct Democracy” — not just descend into some resemblance of a pre-19th Century “unruly mob” armed with torches and guillotines.
I would further submit that our Founding Fathers had no conceivable way of predicting the rise of large corporate and trade association lobbyists, Special Interest Groups and Political Action Committees (PACs) funneling through the corridors of power in today’s Washington, D.C. — something that only sprouted roots and began flourishing since the post-World War II economic ascendency of American power. Particularly, over the last 40-plus years since election of President John F. Kennedy and the utilization of television as a powerful medium for campaign advertising, politicians (of all stripes) on both the federal and local levels felt the pressure of having to raise significant election contributions — mostly legal but occasionally through illegal means.
In other words, if I were to draw a correlation between the rise of lobbyists and the ever-mounting needs of politicians to raise extravagant election campaign funds, this is where our American “representational” democracy completely fell off the tracks over the last five decades. This is a widespread, systemic flaw with our “representative” democracy. It really is not “representative” of the people as it is of large corporate lobbyists, special interest groups and PACs, and other so-called “insider” influence peddlers.
Perhaps it started with America’s Vietnam involvement, then escalated with a parade of other national scandals: Going from Watergate and followed by the Savings & Loan scandals of the 1980s and 1990s (at an estimated $236 billion cost to American taxpayers), Iran-Contra, Whitewater, the energy “price-fixing” of Enron and other utilities (leading to “rolling” electrical blackouts in California in 2001), Iraq War II (remember those “no-bid” contracts for Halliburton?), and now the MULTI-TRILLION DOLLAR bailouts of the banks/financial institutions, the burgeoning U.S. government budget deficits and the deregulation-based meltdown of the subprime mortgage market.
Does this show our “representative” form of democracy is actually working in the “public’s best interest” in any sort of logical or far-reaching, practical ways while also looking at the long-term implications?
Even today, with a new administration set to begin in early 2009, there is the new criminal charges of “influence peddling” by Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich for allegedly trying to “sell” the U.S. Senate seat (vacated by President-elect Barack Obama) that perhaps paints a dire picture of American politics in serious disarray — minus accountability, transparency, equality and any kind of “ethical conscience” or rudder.
I am not trying to portray any kind of “doomsday”-like scenario here, but it does seem America is sitting on a precarious socio-economic precipice — something that is really shaping up to out-shadow the depression of the 1930s. This is no great secret; polls have outgoing President George Bush at all-time low approval ratings and America’s citizenry voted for massive changes in the makeup of both houses of Congress and in the Executive Branch, now all in held in Democratic majority. But it is going to take more than the overused 2008 presidential campaign calls for “change” — it is going to take serious “reform” of America’s entire federal government system…because the country is midst of its most serious financial drain in our country’s history.
These are the overriding factors that came into play behind the formation of the Trans-American Alliance for a National Consensus (TANC).
Given the brevity and little amount of space LinkedIn allows for “Discussion Group” questions, it would probably be best if I clarified that TANC’s two-pronged mission to: 1) Generate grassroots support and a legislative movement behind an “Electorate Legislative Consortium,” which would conceivably be led by a rotating pool of nonelected/nonpartisan college students and scholars from select universities around the country – who would be “catalysts” for bringing input from ALL key segments of American society; and 2) Raise the specter of placing “National Electorate Referendums” in front of all American voters (possibly within regularly scheduled primary and general elections locally) as a secondary, last resort if TANC-authored domestic economic legislation met no-votes in either houses of Congress and a potential veto from the President of United States.
TANC’s conceptualization of an Electorate Legislative Consortium is based on potentially enlisting “America’s Best and Brightest,” inclusive all key segments of American society, through the crafting/authoring of “consensus” reform legislation — thus hopefully establishing an “Ethical Conscience of Democracy.” By spreading TANC-sponsored committee hearings and townhall meetings throughout campuses around the country, we are looking to create a “Participatory Direct Democracy” that reflects the needs of citizens in local/regional areas — outside of the cloistered environs of the Washington Beltway and the influence of lobbyists focused there.
Let’s come back to the notion of “Direct Democracy” turning into “Mob Rule.” More than two-dozen countries around the world have held “national electorate referendums” as some form of “Direct Democracy” since the mid-1800s. Going forward from there and into the “Industrial Age,” I am not sure if any of us can recall these direct democracies — such as those practiced throughout Europe and Asia — ever descending into some sort of “mob rule” or other form of anarchy?
To the contrary, in-depth research empirical research conducted by World Economic Forum and the United Nations readily points out that various forms of “Direct Democracy” (such as national referendums, ballot measures, etc.) have had some degree of translatable, beneficial impact on key European and Asian countries’ standard of living and economic competitiveness measurements.
Undoubtedly, holding “National Electorate Referendums” can be a daunting challenge in terms of the cost, logistics (on a state-by-state basis) and the potential for voter fraud or error — although the latter is something our country could and should address on a concerted basis with more accurate/verifiable paper and electronic balloting.
As a secondary prong of TANC’s agenda, our organization is simply raising the notion of a “National Ballot Referendum” only if TANC-authored legislation failed to get Congressional passage or subject to veto by the President — then a ballot initiative potentially put in front of all American voters would ultimately decide the fate of the domestic economic reform bill.
After all, the Constitution is built upon the premise of our representational form of government ultimately acceding to “the will of the people.” That is certainly not the case now with the mountains of debt and gross malfeasance of our federal government in recent decades.
The big question I have is who is willing to be a true “checks-and-balances” monitor (i.e., “Watchdog”) of our federal government? How about nonelected/nonpartisan American citizens taking part in an “Electorate Legislative Consortium” and through potential select “National Electorate Referendum” ballot initiatives as part of a new “consensus-based” legislative body, the TANC: Trans-American Alliance for a National Alliance? To me, and hopefully with many other Americans to follow, I believe the only true hope lies with “the American people taking back ‘our’ Democracy” through direct means.
Despite the unparalleled historical prosperity of the United States, the fact is there has been steady erosion in our country’s’ “Standard of Living” scores, which may mean it is about time for some form of “Participatory Direct Democracy” in America.
Socio-Economic Standing
A CASE FOR "DIRECT DEMOCRACY"
An Open-Letter Rebuttal from Michael A. Freeman, Executive Director/Co-Founder
_______________________________________
First off, I would like to thank all of you who wrote the thought-provoking letters in response to TANC’s recent question appearing in various LinkedIn Group discussion forums asking whether or not if you think all Americans should have the right to “Direct Democracy.”
A few LinkedIn members have commented that our long-standing “representational” form of government “uses democratic tools to work together in a civil society,” as one LinkedIn member wrote, further suggesting, “full Democracy is MOB rule and something the founders of this country worried we would end up with.” Another member also wrote back to note the “framers of the constitution would have made this country a democracy instead of a republic, which it is, if that was their intent. So there is no ‘going back’ to a democracy that never existed.”
On both counts, the respondents are correct in pointing out the historical perspective in which the original framers of the Constitution sought to establish a “representative democracy” as an answer to the kind of “mob rule” and class/society-based revolts common in Roman times and throughout Europe and Asia’s “feudal” empires of the first millennium-and-a-half or so of our world’s history.
But let us put this all in historical context again — our Constitution was authored over 220 years ago and much has transpired over time, especially within the last 60 years with our modernized, globalized economy that now suggests our American “representational” democracy is seriously dysfunctional and failing to take into account the needs of its citizens. Moreover, I, for one, have faith in our modern, informed American electorate being able to consider, debate and decide independently if they would ever opt for “Direct Democracy” — not just descend into some resemblance of a pre-19th Century “unruly mob” armed with torches and guillotines.
I would further submit that our Founding Fathers had no conceivable way of predicting the rise of large corporate and trade association lobbyists, Special Interest Groups and Political Action Committees (PACs) funneling through the corridors of power in today’s Washington, D.C. — something that only sprouted roots and began flourishing since the post-World War II economic ascendency of American power. Particularly, over the last 40-plus years since election of President John F. Kennedy and the utilization of television as a powerful medium for campaign advertising, politicians (of all stripes) on both the federal and local levels felt the pressure of having to raise significant election contributions — mostly legal but occasionally through illegal means.
In other words, if I were to draw a correlation between the rise of lobbyists and the ever-mounting needs of politicians to raise extravagant election campaign funds, this is where our American “representational” democracy completely fell off the tracks over the last five decades. This is a widespread, systemic flaw with our “representative” democracy. It really is not “representative” of the people as it is of large corporate lobbyists, special interest groups and PACs, and other so-called “insider” influence peddlers.
Perhaps it started with America’s Vietnam involvement, then escalated with a parade of other national scandals: Going from Watergate and followed by the Savings & Loan scandals of the 1980s and 1990s (at an estimated $236 billion cost to American taxpayers), Iran-Contra, Whitewater, the energy “price-fixing” of Enron and other utilities (leading to “rolling” electrical blackouts in California in 2001), Iraq War II (remember those “no-bid” contracts for Halliburton?), and now the MULTI-TRILLION DOLLAR bailouts of the banks/financial institutions, the burgeoning U.S. government budget deficits and the deregulation-based meltdown of the subprime mortgage market.
Does this show our “representative” form of democracy is actually working in the “public’s best interest” in any sort of logical or far-reaching, practical ways while also looking at the long-term implications?
Even today, with a new administration set to begin in early 2009, there is the new criminal charges of “influence peddling” by Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich for allegedly trying to “sell” the U.S. Senate seat (vacated by President-elect Barack Obama) that perhaps paints a dire picture of American politics in serious disarray — minus accountability, transparency, equality and any kind of “ethical conscience” or rudder.
I am not trying to portray any kind of “doomsday”-like scenario here, but it does seem America is sitting on a precarious socio-economic precipice — something that is really shaping up to out-shadow the depression of the 1930s. This is no great secret; polls have outgoing President George Bush at all-time low approval ratings and America’s citizenry voted for massive changes in the makeup of both houses of Congress and in the Executive Branch, now all in held in Democratic majority. But it is going to take more than the overused 2008 presidential campaign calls for “change” — it is going to take serious “reform” of America’s entire federal government system…because the country is midst of its most serious financial drain in our country’s history.
These are the overriding factors that came into play behind the formation of the Trans-American Alliance for a National Consensus (TANC).
Given the brevity and little amount of space LinkedIn allows for “Discussion Group” questions, it would probably be best if I clarified that TANC’s two-pronged mission to: 1) Generate grassroots support and a legislative movement behind an “Electorate Legislative Consortium,” which would conceivably be led by a rotating pool of nonelected/nonpartisan college students and scholars from select universities around the country – who would be “catalysts” for bringing input from ALL key segments of American society; and 2) Raise the specter of placing “National Electorate Referendums” in front of all American voters (possibly within regularly scheduled primary and general elections locally) as a secondary, last resort if TANC-authored domestic economic legislation met no-votes in either houses of Congress and a potential veto from the President of United States.
TANC’s conceptualization of an Electorate Legislative Consortium is based on potentially enlisting “America’s Best and Brightest,” inclusive all key segments of American society, through the crafting/authoring of “consensus” reform legislation — thus hopefully establishing an “Ethical Conscience of Democracy.” By spreading TANC-sponsored committee hearings and townhall meetings throughout campuses around the country, we are looking to create a “Participatory Direct Democracy” that reflects the needs of citizens in local/regional areas — outside of the cloistered environs of the Washington Beltway and the influence of lobbyists focused there.
Let’s come back to the notion of “Direct Democracy” turning into “Mob Rule.” More than two-dozen countries around the world have held “national electorate referendums” as some form of “Direct Democracy” since the mid-1800s. Going forward from there and into the “Industrial Age,” I am not sure if any of us can recall these direct democracies — such as those practiced throughout Europe and Asia — ever descending into some sort of “mob rule” or other form of anarchy?
To the contrary, in-depth research empirical research conducted by World Economic Forum and the United Nations readily points out that various forms of “Direct Democracy” (such as national referendums, ballot measures, etc.) have had some degree of translatable, beneficial impact on key European and Asian countries’ standard of living and economic competitiveness measurements.
Undoubtedly, holding “National Electorate Referendums” can be a daunting challenge in terms of the cost, logistics (on a state-by-state basis) and the potential for voter fraud or error — although the latter is something our country could and should address on a concerted basis with more accurate/verifiable paper and electronic balloting.
As a secondary prong of TANC’s agenda, our organization is simply raising the notion of a “National Ballot Referendum” only if TANC-authored legislation failed to get Congressional passage or subject to veto by the President — then a ballot initiative potentially put in front of all American voters would ultimately decide the fate of the domestic economic reform bill.
After all, the Constitution is built upon the premise of our representational form of government ultimately acceding to “the will of the people.” That is certainly not the case now with the mountains of debt and gross malfeasance of our federal government in recent decades.
The big question I have is who is willing to be a true “checks-and-balances” monitor (i.e., “Watchdog”) of our federal government? How about nonelected/nonpartisan American citizens taking part in an “Electorate Legislative Consortium” and through potential select “National Electorate Referendum” ballot initiatives as part of a new “consensus-based” legislative body, the TANC: Trans-American Alliance for a National Alliance? To me, and hopefully with many other Americans to follow, I believe the only true hope lies with “the American people taking back ‘our’ Democracy” through direct means.
Despite the unparalleled historical prosperity of the United States, the fact is there has been steady erosion in our country’s’ “Standard of Living” scores, which may mean it is about time for some form of “Participatory Direct Democracy” in America.
MEMORIES OF 1968: LESSONS FOR 2008?Students and Scholars Can Lead a Non-Violent, Legislative "Reform" MovementAn Open Letter from Michael A. Freeman, Executive Director/Co-Founder_______________________________________A sense of hopelessness gripped a nation with fear. There was a palpable sense of growing national unrest in the air. Frustrations over an economy on a downward slide, a protracted war and non-responsive Legislative and Executive branches of the U.S. government were pushing large segments of America’s youth, poor and middle-class citizens towards the boiling point. Those corrosive, highly volatile conditions — which could as easily describe the growing national disillusionment with today’s Washington political landscape — actually relate to the convulsive precursors that led to the tragic yet needed revolutionary events of 40 years ago, 1968. As a native Chicagoan (long ago transplanted in Los Angeles), my memories are still vivid from the days of the 1968 riots outside the Democratic National Convention and the student-led protests against the Vietnam War. It was one of most harrowing of times in our nation’s history (including the assassinations of Rev. Martin Luther King and Senator Robert F. Kennedy), but also one of the most exciting in terms of our country’s heightened consciousness and transformation. So, here we are 40 years later, at another critical juncture in our nation’s history, and it is again going to take students and scholars to bring about reform. What we are talking about is a “populist movement” under your leadership: Peacefully reigniting all of our citizens to reshape our democracy and take it to its next logical extension, an “Electorate Legislative Branch” to be known as the Trans-American Alliance for a National Consensus (TANC). Over the last seven-plus years, our country’s growing list of economic and social ills, along with a protracted, no-end-in-sight commitment to the second Iraq War, has hatched an even greater sense of hopelessness and lack of empowerment among our citizenry. Other nagging problems left unaddressed are an economy beginning to spiral into a bear market, a growing percentage of unemployed, U.S. jobs being “outsourced” to workers in other countries, 47 million Americans not being able to afford health insurance, record federal deficit spending, the tepid government response to post-Hurricane Katrina rescue and recovery efforts, and no clear consensus legislative efforts on how to address illegal immigration. It seems readily apparent that the level of dysfunction and inertia from the federal Legislative and Executive branches has reached new heights. As bad as things appear, taking into account the conflicting agendas of some lobbyists and special-interest groups on both sides of the political aisle, it again comes down to students and scholars who can — by non-violent means — lead our country’s federal government out of this long-standing pattern of partisanship and divisiveness by serving as the foundation of an “Electorate TANC.” This is a chance for students and scholars —joined by retired civil servants and all other key segments of society — to serve as the “Ethical Conscience of Democracy” and write a new chapter in American history. As we have seen over the last 40 years, an unyielding string of national political scandals, partisanship, divisiveness, and avarice, the systemic ills of our federal government greatly stem from the influences of some well-funded lobbyists special interest groups. Perhaps more than any other period in our nation’s history, it is also time to bring an end the tired campaign clichés and instead address the need for a concerted, “consensus democratic reform” movement. In fact, the time is NOW for the creation of an independent “Electorate Legislative Branch” which is NOT beholden to well-funded lobbyists and special-interest/political action groups. With that paramount notion in mind, it is my sincerest hope that you will read the accompanying Web pages and the downloadable position paper and presentation material to find how you can take a leading role in shaping a “participatory democracy.” We are asking of you to pass along our Web site link and hyperlinked files listed above to other college students, scholars and school deans. As you click your mouse through the navigational tabs of this Web site, it is our sincere hope that you will easily find the specific information, resources and links relating to the proposed structure of TANC helpful. We hope it also ignites our students, teachers and all other segments of our society to start a grassroots “populist movement,” where you can write letters and emails to your elected representatives to legislate and enact the National Alliance Reform Act (NARA) before the current session of Congress goes into the summer 2008 recess. Regardless of what candidate wins the Presidential election, or what parties hold majorities in the two houses of Congress, we need our “electorate” to help our government and leaders stay pointed in the right direction…and ultimately serving in the public’s best interest. Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to hearing any feedback you may have regarding the future initiatives behind TANC’s formation as a binding “fourth branch” of government. "God Bless You and God Bless America!”
|