Easier is not the word I would use. A ban on political parties would
only result in political parties by other names. People tend to
cluster around like thinking people. But regulating how elections are
conducted is possible. Not easier, but possible. For one thing,
given the right Congress and in-coming president, the Supreme Court
could be increased to 15 members, and reverse the ruling that granted
first class citizenship to corporations. A set of rules could be
promulgated including such items as a four month campaign season, no
paid advertising for candidates, open channels for airing political
discussions, campaigns, and any related activities that effected the
Public. Violators would have their names or their Causes removed from
the upcoming ballot.
Such an approach would bring the nation back under the People, the
ones mentioned in the phrase, Of The People, By The People and For The
People, taking our government back from the 1%, and making us a nation
ruled by the majority. And we could then drop the Electoral College.
Once we had our government back in the People's hands, we could turn
our attention to the job of "reforming" our capitalistic system.
But we need to get busy. The Corporate CO's are not sitting idly by.
The more our government is taken over by Mega Corporations, the harder
the job of reclaiming our right to self rule will be.
In many ways, Donald Trump and his gang of Trumpeteers are providing
us a huge window of opportunity. Unless too many of us have been
charmed by the Smoke and Mirrors.
Carl Jarvis...is that the Pied Piper I hear? Or is it Donald Trump.
On 9/8/20, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
And why do you think that it would be easier to put an end to money in
politics than a multi party system? You know, we had a law about money in
politics, a bipartisan law, and it was ignored. And then the Supreme Court
ruled in 2010 that corporations could contribute, just like people can. That
corrupted what was left of the system. And when all those new, bright eyed,
idealistic young people enter the House of Representatives, they are whipped
into line very quickly so that there are positions on issues that they
cannot take that they would naturally take if left to their own devices.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Monday, September 7, 2020 9:53 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Fw: balancing the free and the fair
Miriam,
I can go along with your suggestions. But I don't see a time when we will
bring an end to the Two Party System. But if we can bring an end to this
mad rush to raise millions of dollars and spend it on trashing everything in
sight, and put an end to the negative campaigning, that will go a long way
toward bringing an end to this mistrust of government and people on the
other side of the aisle. But even as I type this, I know that the problems
are much deeper than a quick fix can cure.
Carl Jarvis
On 9/7/20, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Well, if we're going to talk about changes that the elites will refuse
to make, I'll add mine once again. Do away with the two party system
and allow a multi party system and do away with the electoral college.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Monday, September 7, 2020 9:36 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Fw: balancing the free and the fair
we appear to be encumbered with political parties, and we're stuck
with Capitalism, so we need to turn our efforts to the one change we
can make...if we truly want change. We need to regulate our
campaigning. A national campaign rules committee, perhaps. We might
establish Rules and Procedures for conducting campaigns. Time limits
would be set in place.
Possibly a three month campaigning season.
Let's do away with the phony commercial ads. Free time provided by
our public airwaves which would allow all serious candidates equal
time to promote themselves.
I could go on, but that's the general thrust of my proposal.
Carl Jarvis
On 9/7/20, Andy Baracco <wq6r@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: Edwin Cooney
Sent: Monday, September 07, 2020 1:57 PM
Subject: balancing the free and the fair
Hello Everyone,
I don't know anyone who likes political commercials? Do you? All they
are is prefabricated insults designed to distort everything
candidates and their minions say and, even worse, believe about each
other.
Political commercials contain even less constructive information
these days than the typical beer commercial. In fact, political
commercials have become just as harmful to the public than the old
cigarette commercials.
It's time to find a constitutional way to balance freedom and
responsibility.
One of the most misleading historical myths is that free men and
women have fought for their freedom. As true as that may be, free men
and women have done something even more important before firing a
single musket!
I'll tell you what it is a few lines from here.
Warm Regards,
Me, E.C.
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 7th, 2020
BALANCING THE FREE AND THE FAIR!
Despite what you're about to read, I still like both politics and
politicians. However, everything in life must have its limits
including political rhetoric!
Unfortunately, we've gotten ourselves into a national mindset that's
anything but constructive or patriotic. When we view every political
philosophy that's different from our own or any candidate we oppose
as a criminal, we're setting ourselves up for a national nervous
breakdown! If there is such a thing as a “National Nervous Breakdown”
due to our national leadership's unwillingness to accept the result
of the election this November, the ultimate fault will be our very own.
While I'm not sure that we have a "right" to be protected from
political annoyance, the fact of the matter is that we're suffering
these days from political, emotional, and intellectual abuse. Even
more, it's pretty easy to document that the public mind is being more
than annoyed, it's being deliberately and systematically poisoned
just as the climate in which we live is being polluted by carbons.
Even worse, it too often seems that the word "united" (a vital word)
is being slowly but surely obliterated from who we historically say we
are.
It's becoming increasingly clear to me that we're well on the way to
destroying our own liberty. After all, if no two people of opposing
points of view have sufficient legitimacy to be trusted in public
office, how can we have any confidence in any political candidate’s
capacity to govern once elected? What the United States of America
needs most desperately today has less to do with "civil liberties"
and more about "civilized liberty,” but how do we accomplish that
while preserving freedom of speech?
Of course, the nature of politics is confrontational! Our British and
European ancestors were invariably led by exceedingly rich and
ambitious men and women who contested one another for the right to
rule on battlefields.
Even our right to self government was established by George
Washington on battlefields between Massachusetts and South Carolina
between 1775 and 1781.
Not until the adoption of our own Constitution did party politics
become the instrument for achieving executive, legislative and
judicial power in the United States — and, as we all learned in
school, George Washington warned in his "farewell message” in
September 1796 of the potential evils of party politics. Note that
since the retiring president suggested no substitution for political
parties, all we're left with are those parties.
Since the establishment of our federal system of elective government,
we've taken pride in our capacity to peacefully transfer power from
party to party as well as from president to president.
Of course, presidents have been exceedingly critical of one another
from time to time. Both John Adams, our second president, and John
Quincy Adams, our sixth president, refused to attend the
inaugurations of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson in 1800 and 1828
respectively.
Thomas Jefferson considered Andrew Jackson a dangerous man having
observed Jackson from his
vice presidential chair when Jackson was briefly in the Senate
representing Tennessee in 1798. Andrew Jackson came to hate almost
everything Quincy Adams stood for, especially after 1824 in the wake
of that "corrupt bargain" between Adams and House Speaker Henry Clay
that made Quincy Adams president and Clay secretary of state after
the
1824 election.
Herbert Hoover heartily disliked FDR following the 1932 election.
Harry Truman considered Richard Nixon a "damned liar” who often
"...lied just to keep his hand in." The 1952 presidential campaign
made both Truman and Dwight Eisenhower, who were once friendly, into
bitter political opponents from then on. Truman observed that “[Ike]
doesn't know any more about politics than a pig knows about Sunday!")
Richard Nixon and Jack Kennedy (once friends of a sort) came to
dislike each other. Nixon was jealous of Kennedy's wealth and glamour
and Kennedy often insisted that Nixon had "no class!" Finally,
according to Thomas M. DeFrank's book "Write It When I'm gone,” Jerry
Ford, who became reconciled with Jimmy Carter, did so out of their
mutual contempt for Ronald Reagan. (Although he vigorously campaigned
for Reagan in 1980, Ford never forgave Reagan for challenging him for
the GOP nomination in 1976.)
The above instances of political and even personal animosities pale
in significance to the cultural divide that is all too apparent
between President Trump and former Vice President Biden. Today our
opponents aren't merely dishonest or incompetent, they are criminals,
traitors, and terrorists. I assert this not from above the battle,
for I, too, have little if any regard whatsoever for one of the
candidates and, as justifiable as I regard my attitude as being, I
hold it with considerable discomfort.
A few days ago, I read that Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook intends to
block political ads on his site one week before the November 3rd
election. I think that's an excellent idea, as this need for
rhetorical responsibility and accountability is an absolute must -
considering where we're all headed!.
At the outset of this musing I observed that the "Sons of Liberty"
who offered us their lives, their fortunes, and their "sacred honor"
did something vitally important. Before they fought for freedom, they
thought about freedom.
Now, that's our task!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
