Rescuing American Democracy

A healthy democracy depends on a large percentage of the electorate voting and on the voting outcome being the result of a debate on issues and policies.  Our democracy is far from healthy on both these fronts. (I know there are other problems, but those are not within the purview of this post.  See, for example, "The Value of Differing Opinions," 1/4/13.)

In the US, voter turnout is notoriously low even in presidential election years compared with other developed countries.  (The US rate was recently 62%, well below the average of 70% and the top country, Australia, with 95%.)  Certainly, some eligible citizens choose not to get registered and vote.  But much of the low voter turnout results not from choice but from obstacles to voting, which belie the principle of “one man, one vote” and dilutes the participatory nature of our democracy.

A major obstacle in the U.S. is the day selected for elections.  In most countries, election day is on a Sunday, making it easier for people to vote.  In those countries that vote on a weekday, many declare election day a national holiday in order to make it easier for people to vote.  

In the US, of course, voting is on a Tuesday; it is not a national holiday; and voter turnout is shamefully low.  There is thus a nascent movement afoot to have federal elections on the first weekend in November.  As stated in a New York Times op ed piece, “Our current system penalizes single parents, people working two jobs, and those who have to choose between getting a paycheck and casting a ballot. Two weekend days of voting means those working families would have a greater chance of making it to the polls.”

But short of making such a change, it has been generally accepted for several decades that voting should be encouraged by making it as easy as possible to both register and vote.  These efforts have recognized that many people need expanded hours and early voting to have effective access to the polls because of their jobs.  

Recent efforts by Republican-controlled state legislatures to restrict early voting and expanded hours thus attack the principle of “one man, one vote.”  The same is true of laws that require photo IDs.  Both of these efforts make voting more difficult, especially for the working poor.  Voting is an essential right of citizenship; no unnecessary obstacle should be placed on that right.  

The primary concept behind the Constitutional right of free speech and its importance to the functioning of our democracy is the concept of a “marketplace of ideas.”  For this marketplace to function properly, the consumer’s choices should be made based on the quality of the competing ideas not on the marketing effect caused by unequal funding of campaigns.

Since we have never had public financing of campaigns, the unequal impact of money on the marketing effect has always been problematic.  But in recent years, the Supreme Court has struck down even the meagre laws we had attempting to restrict the amount of money given to campaigns by an individual and the amount of money corporations can spend on campaign and issue ads on the basis that such laws are an unconstitutional abridgment of the right to free speech.  

These rulings have resulted in exactly what was feared … an avalanche of corporate and big donor (and thus primarily conservative) dollars in an attempt to influence the outcome of elections, not by virtue of the quality of their ideas but the overwhelming volume of marketing.  This makes the marketplace of ideas totally dysfunctional.

It also dilutes the concept of “one man, one vote.”  If one takes the concept seriously, it necessitates not just that no person’s actual vote counts more than another’s, it means that no person’s voice counts more than another’s …  at least not because of the amount of money a person has.  Because if it does, if money talks in elections, then a relatively small body of people and corporations have a much greater voice in the election and thus often the outcome of an election than the general voting populace.  Obviously, money doesn’t always ensure winning.  But it sure helps.  This is contrary to the egalitarian nature of our democratic principles.

For this reason, we should have public financing of elections with all candidates having the same amount of money to spend and with all outside advertising, whether on issues or candidates, prohibited within a certain time period of elections.

But the proper functioning of the marketplace of ideas requires more than equal time (a concept in broadcasting which unfortunately has been discarded).  It requires the absence of lies and deceit.  

I know the theory is that lies will be exposed in the give and take of the marketplace and so will not give the perpetrator an advantage.  However, in our viral instant communication age, the fact is that a falsehood once cleverly spoken attains so much currency that it is virtually impossible for the victim to recover, to effectively counter the lie and render it harmless.

What we therefore need is a “Truth in Political Advertising” law.  See my very first post, “Truth in Politics: De-Frauding American Politics,” 2/1/11.

There is nothing more important to the continued healthy functioning of our democracy than that we have an informed electorate, that a large percentage of the electorate votes, and that no one has a greater voice in the outcome of an election by virtue of the amount of money he (or a corporation) spends.  Laws need to be passed to protect and improve the process.

Our Culture Is the Serpent in the Garden of Eden

As told in Genesis, in the paradise that God created, man and woman were naked, but they were not embarrassed by their nakedness and they were one with all things.  The only thing forbidden to them was to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.   They lived in a world where there was no knowledge of right or wrong, good or bad.  Interestingly, the paradise of Genesis is virtually identical with the Buddhist Nirvana.

But once they ate the fruit of the tree, they became aware of and were embarrassed by their nakedness.  They now had knowledge of value judgments; they were no longer innocent.  They lost God’s favor and were forced out of the garden into a world full of the frustrations of cravings, fear, and strife.

The Abrahamic faiths’ take on this story is that man is a sinner because he violated God’s commandment.  And that women are the causal source of sin because it was Eve who listened to the serpent and tempted Adam to eat the fruit; it is thus also a cautionary tale regarding sexual temptation.  Man can only be saved by obeying God, which is to obey the multilayered moral and ritual strictures of His religion (take your pick as to which one).  

But if one looks at the story with fresh eyes, without all the layers of religious interpretation by rabbis, monks, imams, and others, a different lesson takes shape.

The real lesson here is that the world of God is the world of innocence, where there is no good and evil.  There is no evil because there is no desire for what one does not have.  There is no good because man does not compare himself to others.  There is no good or evil because man is one with himself and all things.  This is the world of freedom from the known.  The point is not so much that God’s commandment was broken, but that because it was broken, mankind lost its innocence and the world was never the same.

Speed forward several millennia to the current age.  The world is filled with serpents, those who seek to entrap mankind with the knowledge of good and evil, of beauty versus ugliness, of every duality one can create.

The consumer culture on which our capitalist economy depends is based on people being manipulated by marketing into wanting more of what the masters of the world want them to crave and into thinking that a product will in some way give them entry to a better life by satisfying that craving.  We have all been taught that happiness comes from having what we don’t have and thus we have become creatures controlled by craving.

The political culture is based not on bringing people together but by dividing them into opposing camps.  Often fomenting ill will and at times even hatred towards those “others,” thus again manipulating the populace.  Political rhetoric today, such as it is, appeals mostly to the emotions, even when it is put in a form which sounds rational.

Even the prevailing religious cultures provide no refuge.  Religion, which theoretically should be the main advocate for peace on earth and goodwill towards all, instead has over the millennia been perhaps the major source of strife among mankind.  It has been, together and in concert with nationalism, the greatest divider and thus the greatest source of conflict.  And how convenient to fight others, exploit others, dominate others in the name of promoting God’s law, when in truth it is always about promoting the power of nations and individual men.  And to the extent that the fight was against “savages,” ironically those who were being “saved” often lived a life and had a culture much closer to the garden of eden than the warriors of religion.

Towards its own, religion has never really been a force to bring mankind back to the state of grace that existed in the garden of eden.  Instead, it has created a system of fear, using its own concept of good and evil to control its flock and build power and influence.  

In truth, though, none of this should be surprising.  Religion is after all, despite its protestations to the contrary, a product of man, not of God.  If it were the latter, why would there be so many different religions, all at odds with each other?  

Is there then no force in the world to help mankind return to a state of innocence, which is its birthright, and live in peace?  The only force I am personally familiar with is found in the teachings of the Buddha.  His teachings seek to enable man to perceive that all his suffering is caused by what he has learned from family and culture and that all this learned experience is empty of any intrinsic existence and has no inherent value.  When he perceives these truths, he experiences all things without the intervention of thought and emotion ... he is once more free of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  And when he reaches that state, all suffering and doubt cease.  (I must acknowledge that I am a practicing Buddhist.)

The Buddha was a historical person.  The Buddha saw his role as relieving mankind’s suffering by putting him back in touch with his true pure nature, thus ending his craving and bringing him peace.  Jesus sought to achieve a similar aim by putting man back in God's grace.

But even here, the teachings of the Buddha are one thing ... Buddhism as an organized religion can at times be something quite different, witness the Buddhist mobs doing harm to Muslims in Myanmar, or even at times vying groups of Buddhist monks fighting with each other.  These are cases of men being Buddhists in name only.  They have strayed far from the teachings of the Buddha.

Indeed all religions ... including Judaism, Christianity, Islam ... have at their core the basic moral teaching of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you and most sought in their own way to bring mankind back to a state of grace because they are all based on the teachings of truly holy men.  But the basic teachings of most religions also created an us v them culture, and in the hands of less holy men the religious establishment has turned this aspect into the dominant theme of our world.

If we want to free ourselves from having tasted the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, if we want to experience peace and happiness, there is only one way, and that is to turn our back to the dominant culture and follow the simple truths of the teachings of the Buddha and the other religions, while disavowing any teaching that your religion is the only path to God.

One final note ... Eden was a place here on Earth, not a paradise one accessed in heaven upon death.  While there is no way, given the dominant forces and the conditioning of mankind, to ever achieve that state of innocence again here on Earth, we can each in our own small way create waves of Eden that spread out from each of us.

When Ego Drives Politics, Can There Be Any Hope?

We can rant all we want about the insufferable and destructive attitude and policies of the Tea Party and its fellow travelers, but truth be told, virtually all politicians are sorely lacking.  

A politician should be first and foremost a public servant ... there should be no greater interest than to serve the interests of his or her constituents and the greater public good.  And where the greater public good conflicts with the interests of constituents, politicians should back the greater public good because the welfare of the nation should always take precedence over the narrow interests of a locality.

Why is it that there are no, or at best a handful, of politicians today, and for that matter in the past, who encompass this ideal?  The short answer is that all politicians, and indeed all people, are driven primarily by their ego ... which is to say the sum of their learned experience that forms how they view themselves and the world around them.  All people and all politicians are programmed by their upbringing and societal environment to look at things a certain way.  They cannot really do otherwise.

And what is the primary lesson that our culture teaches?  Is it that we must work for and if necessary sacrifice for the good of the community, or is it that we should insure first and foremost that #1, ourselves, is taken care of first.  During much of our history there was a balance between these two messages.  But over the past 30-40 years, it has become increasingly the latter.  Everything else is secondary, at best.

When one combines the self-centeredness of politicians with their programmed view of the world, the result is often disaster for the nation they are supposed to be serving.  In the past, while politicians and people have always been driven by ego, most people were exposed to a strong centrist tradition ... for example the news broadcasts of the three networks and most major newspapers ... and that formed the core of their political learned experience.  Thus they were able to see it in their interest to come together, not on all issues but with sufficient frequency, to serve the public good.

But as the power of corporations has increased in politics and as the attitude of the people has become more extreme, especially on the right due to the emergence of right-wing cable news and right-wing radio talk shows, there remains virtually no issue on which the two Parties can come together in the nation’s interest.  The result is the total dysfunction that we’ve been seeing in Congress.  The result is a growing fissure in our society.  The public good and the interests of those most vulnerable suffer.

Our political system is a mess.  The electoral system is a mess.  Our society is a mess.  Is there any hope out of this morass?  There is no hope so long as even well-meaning politicians and people seek to find answers within the system as it exists because within those constraints there can be no real change.  There is no hope without being willing to examine the concepts that lie at the very core of our culture.  For it is these concepts that make people what they are and make our system of government what it is.

What in the world am I talking about, you might ask.  It means going back to basics.  The core moral ethic behind all the world’s great religions is, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”  Yet there are few people, even among those who profess themselves to be ultra-religious, who practice this core ethic.  

Why is that?   The bottom line reason is that most people are insecure, both individually and as groups.  If you are insecure, you only think of yourself, not others.  Yes, many people, groups, and nations may appear to have strong egos and are full of bluster and bravado, but deep within, people whether low or high are insecure.  That’s why those on top are typically so imperious.  It’s a mask.

And why are people so insecure, even those who have “made it” in our society and have so much?  The answer is that most people were not brought up with unconditional love and compassion.  

I know this sounds very new age, but don’t laugh.  We are all cursed with the learned experience that we have to be someone other than we are, we have to be better than we are, in order to be loved and respected.  We learn this in childhood from our parents and later from our peers and the broader culture that bombards us with messages that we need to be or do more.

If on the other hand, we were all brought up with the constancy of unconditional love and compassion ... and mind, this does not mean no criticism; it means that criticism is done with loving kindness; children need direction, but there’s a way to do it and a way not to do it ... then we would not be insecure as children and we would not grow up to be insecure adults.

This atmosphere of unconditional love and compassion would not be limited to the family, but would extend to all people in the community, in the country, indeed to all mankind because we would be taught that all of humanity is one.  We are all children of the same God (if there is one), we all suffer in the same way, we all are programmed by our learned experiences to act the way we do.  No one is innately bad or evil, but history has shown that it is surprisingly easy to teach people to be bad or evil.  With that knowledge we can have compassion and love for all, even those who seek to harm us.  

This new attitude does not mean that we would not defend ourselves, as a nation or individually.  But with this new attitude we would have a chance to break the cycle of hate with love.   To show those who are insecure that they have nothing to fear from us; that there is no need to be aggressive.  And with time, this new force of love would gain in strength, encompassing ever more people and nations.  Slowly but surely the aggressive traits that we have assumed are part of the human condition would be replaced by a more spiritual perspective based on unconditional love and compassion for ourselves and for all others.

Martin Luther King said, "Someone must have sense enough and religion enough to cut off the chain of hate and evil, and this can only be done through love."  To that I say, "Amen."

What If Ethics Is Antithetical to the American Ethos?

Why is the lack of ethics so prevalent in American life at all levels?  The recent financial crisis and the Deep Horizon oil spill have revealed once again an all-too-familiar pattern in American business and government.  Corporations take actions, even risky ones, without regard for the potential negative impact on the public, and government regulators who are supposed to police such activity choose instead to give business a free pass to do pretty much as they choose.  Even individuals have little concern with how their actions impact others, even family members.  And when called to task, lying – a refusal to take responsibility – is endemic.

These habitual behaviors pose grave risks to the common good on a daily basis.  Normally, the reaction of most is that this is "business as usual."  Only when a disaster occurs is there talk about cleaning house in government agencies and promulgating new regulations.  Of individuals needing to take responsibility.

But it seems to me that all this talk misses an important point … the proverbial elephant in the room … these problems at their core reflect a lack of ethics in American business and government and in individual lives.   Which raises the question, what role does ethics play in the American ethos?  

What is the American ethos?  It has been defined in various ways.   It is said to have capitalism and democracy at its core; it is said to be competitive; it is said to be a land of opportunity for all.  These are all interrelated and none mplies or even necessarily encourages ethical behavior.

Let's look at our history.  Regarding American politics, from the very beginning, politics has been rife with dirty tricks.  Even founding stalwarts Jefferson and Adams resorted to underhanded tactics in their battles against each other.

Then there are the ethical questions raised by a country founded on the proposition that all men are created equal, and yet slavery was accepted and women did not have the right to vote.  Yes, these conditions were prevalent everywhere at the time, but nowhere else was a country founded on the principles of the Declaration of Independence.  The ethical conflict cannot be denied. The Founding Fathers, however, were ultimately pragmatic souls who did what was necessary to achieve the birth of the new country.  

During the country's expansion and the early stages of the industrial revolution, the government’s embrace of the capitalist system left business enterprise more or less free of any government oversight.   And as they became larger, corporations lost community contact and with that loss, any sense of responsibility; they became impersonal anonymous enterprises that were concerned only about acquiring wealth and power.  The result was a rapacious system in which the powerful exploited the weak … owners exploited workers, powerful companies devoured weaker ones ... and the impact on the common good was of no concern.  The concept of ethical behavior was absent.

But by the dawn of the 20^th Century, progressive ideas founded on the words of the Declaration of  Independence began to take hold in government.  As a result, a series of laws were passed that both limited the power of business and provided a structure that gave workers the power to negotiate with employers.  Thus ethical behavior was imposed on the capitalist system by government.  During the Depression, more laws were passed that both regulated business and provided a safety net for the poor and the elderly.

America may have been looking more and more like an ethical society, but that was mostly an illusion.  Where government or the courts did not impose ethics, the people, business, and government, especially at the local level, continued to exhibit a lack of ethical standards.   The business world was all about competition and getting away with what one could.  Local government corruption was commonplace.  In the larger society, prejudice and discrimination was prevalent, not just against blacks and women, but against Jews as well.  And in general, people were only concerned with what was best for them.

From this historical perspective, ethics was never part of the American ethos.   To the extent it broadly existed, it was because it was imposed from above, not because it was part of the very fiber of the people.  Yes, there was a façade of ethics, but that's all it was.

The Vietnam War and Watergate laid bare just how lacking in ethics our leaders were.  And while the Watergate hearings may have been a great display of American ethics and showed the potential of government and people, it was a mere burp in the otherwise constant display of a lack of ethics.

It was our then President, Richard Nixon, who opened the window for an unethical operative like Lee Atwater to begin his rise in Republican politics.  Almost single-handedly Atwater brought about the nasty, unethical, political culture we have today … at least on the part of Republican.  

And so today, American politics has reached its nadir in its display of a lack of civility, let alone ethics.  Business, freed of much regulation, whether through deregulation or through malfeasance of the regulators, once again has acted as one would expect, having little concern for the public impact of their actions and only concerned with increasing profits to keep investors happy.  And the famous “me” generation of Ronald Reagan, as well as those following, has lost any feeling of responsibility for their fellow man. A cynicism about government and authority arose among the people.   America thus seen has merely reverted to its underlying ethos, free of the constraints of a progressive mindset that had brought order to the unruly world of capitalist democracy.  

If we truly wish to be a great nation, we must be true to our Declaration of Independence and Constitution and do justice to all of the people – as President Lincoln stated, we must restore "government of the people, by the people, and for the people."  The progressive moment in our history must be restored among Republicans and Democrats, corporations, and the people.

The Need for a Truth in Politics Law: De-Frauding American Politics

“Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?”  With those words, an Army lawyer took Senator Joe McCarthy to task and helped end McCarthy’s destructive un-American witch-hunt.  The time has come to say the same to the Rush Limbaughs and Sarah Palins of the chattering class and stop their vile perversion of our right to free speech.

American politics has always been rife with misleading statements and at times outright falsehoods.   Mendacity just seems to be an ever-present aspect of politics.  But during the past decade, and especially this past year, things have taken an especially nasty turn, becoming so aggressive and incendiary as to pose a real threat to the health and well-being of our nation’s democracy.

What has become of this country?   Time reported that a “plurality of Arkansans think that Barack Obama is not a U.S. citizen.” The health care reform debate was hijacked by fears that the law would create “death panels” and that it contained “Hitler-like” policies. The silly fear that the reform legislation posed the threat of creeping socialism was by comparison quaint.  All, by the way, Republican scams.

These are all incredulous positions that fly in the face of reality.   Why then do so many Americans, not just a small radical fringe, hold these beliefs so adamantly?  The answer is clear … political commentators they respect, such as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Sarah Palin, have taken to extreme demagoguery to create a rabid, angry voter block.  Perhaps even more damning, not a single Republican member of Congress has refuted these scurrilous accusations.  Some old-line conservative commentators did call these lies for what they are, but unfortunately, they don’t carry much weight these days.

If actors on the political scene are so ready to pervert the truth, if they feel no ethical constraints, if they have no shame, we have reached a point where the American people need a Truth In Politics law to protect them.

To this suggestion, both liberals and conservatives will no doubt react with horror and raise the flag of the Constitution’s 1^st Amendment right of free speech.   But the right of free speech is not absolute.  Courts have long recognized that one cannot cry “fire” in a crowded theater because of the threat to the public safety that would result.  Inciting to riot is also not protected by the 1^st Amendment. 

More on point is the Truth in Advertising law that protects consumers from deceptive advertising.  Specifically, under Federal law, advertising must be truthful and non-deceptive; there must be evidence to back up any claims made; and ads cannot be unfair.  The law is enforced by the Federal Trade Commission.

Why is this important exception made to the Constitution’s right of free speech?   The reasoning behind this, and other consumer protection laws, is that the consumer is at a disadvantage vis a vis the businesses that cater to them … in this instance because they don’t have the ability to reasonably determine for themselves the truthfulness of advertising claims and that they therefore might make purchase decisions that either actually cause harm or are otherwise detrimental to them.

If consumers can be protected from false and deceptive advertising, surely the general public should be protected from false and deceptive claims in political statements and advertising that are “likely to mislead and be detrimental.” The danger here is twofold … first, citizens will cast their vote or take other action in ways they wouldn’t if they knew the truth, acting contrary to their interests … such ads are thus another type of fraud used to alter election outcomes and policy decisions; second, these incendiary falsehoods are creating an emotional angry atmosphere making meaningful substantive debate on the issues impossible, thereby stifling the lifeblood of American democracy … the marketplace of ideas.

Those opposed to a Truth in Politics law will say that there is still ample opportunity for individual citizens to determine the truth, that public debate exposes all falsehoods.  That’s the point of free speech.  There’s even a website, factcheck.org, that enables people to check the accuracy of statements made by politicians.

But this argument does not reflect the polarized nature of today’s politics and body politic.  In today’s world, if you are on one side, and someone on the other side says that your leader is lying, there’s no chance of that being heard or believed.   Fact-checking is only done by people who are rational, who are seeking the truth.  Since so much of today’s debate appeals to the emotions, reasoned thought is a scarce commodity.

Also, today, misinformation spreads at such a speed and depth as to make refutation practically ineffective.  The impact of media political commentators, the internet, and You Tube videos is such that a new phrase has been coined … a charge is said to “have gone viral” because it has spread so rapidly and so broadly.   While charges can be, and have been, refuted, there is no chance for the damage to be stemmed.

No, much as it goes against my grain and the grain of most Americans, we have reached that point where to save our democracy, we must enact a Truth in Politics law.  We can no longer depend on ethics or rational thought to save us from the demagogues.

Blog Mission Statement

Our nation stands under attack … not from without, but from within.  Both our politics and our culture have been corrupted.

Politics on both the right and left are ever more polarized.  We cannot be a great or strong country if the people and their politicians view fellow Americans who happen to have opposing points of view in an us v them mode, as the enemy; we can only progress if we are united, albeit with differing perspectives on how to go about things.  And our culture caters to the worst aspects of capitalism with ethics and concern for the common good falling to the demands of greed and competition.  The same issues are present throughout much of the world today.

One central aspect of the problem is that our country and much of the world is bereft of spiritual values.  Now right here we have a definitional problem.  I am not referring to the values hawked by born-again Christians in this country, or Islamists in Muslim countries, or the ultra-Orthodox in Israel.   Because interestingly, in almost all cases, the “spiritual” or “moral” positions taken by these self-righteous people go against core tenets of their own religion.  

On the other hand, you have the majority of people, at least in the United States, who claim to believe in God but are not spiritual in any meaningful sense; their lives are totally a creature of contemporary culture.  Their spiritual core is if not empty sorely depleted.

It will be the mission of this blog to look at current events, be they political or cultural, from a spiritual, not religious, perspective, with relevant support from our founding documents, the Constitution and Declaration of Independence.   Remember when it was popular for Christians to wear bracelets that said, “What would Jesus do?”  That’s basically the question that this blog asks, but from a larger spiritual perspective.

I will take as my perspective the common teachings that are at the core of the spiritual/moral constructs of all the world’s great religions … Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism:

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Greed is the root of all evil.

Put away lying; speak every man truth.

Only when these maxims are followed will we achieve “government of the people, by the people, and for the people” and realize the goals set forth in the Declaration of Independence, that “governments are instituted to secure” the equality of all men and their “right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”