Useful Idiots Are Still Useful

There are a lot of smug, self-righteous folks out there — I hope not but maybe some right here reading this — who like to look down their noses at what they call “sheeple”.

Tellingly, if we are really honest with ourselves, at one time or another and to a greater or lesser degree, we’ve all been sheeple. We’ve gone with the flow. Gone along to get along. Yes, I’m embarrassed to say, I have too.

What am I supposed to take from that?

The hardest thing for me, as a very smart person, with a smart mouth, and a smart aleck attitude, to learn and fully internalize has been this:

Don’t judge.

Of course, there are situations and people all of the time which require a “judgment call”. Should I trust this person? Is that guy over there yelling at the top of his lungs about UFOs dangerous? Is this politician focused on getting my vote telling the truth or blowing smoke?

What I mean by ‘don’t judge’ is simple. Don’t make final declarations which cut you off from any further understanding or appreciation, whether it’s about a person or a circumstance.

Sheeple, for example.

The idiom implies that such people are incapable of thinking for themselves, that they purely are followers. The herd sleeps, they sleep. The herd chews on grass, they chew on grass. The herd runs into the chute to their slaughter, they run into the chute to their slaughter.

There’s some truth to that. But the fact is, we all do this. Anybody out there wearing their pants backwards or answering the phone by reciting Shakespearean couplets? Any of you celebrate your last birthday by playing the drum solo from In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida naked at the bottom of an empty swimming pool? 

We all do a lot of things in concert with others. We go to concerts and sing along with the chorus to our favorite songs. By the millions we watch the same TV shows, laugh at the same jokes, cry at the same tragedies, sit like hypnotized lumps taking in the daily news, then say the same things everyone else is saying about the same scandals.

And the undeniable truth is, sometimes it feels great being part of some “community” of people doing the same thing. Is anyone going to tell me that tens of thousands of people packing into a stadium or millions of people glued to the boob tube, watching grown men — very big grown men — battle to cart what looks like a leather melon to the end of a grassy rectangle, that’s asserting individuality and true independent thinking?

Rah rah rah. More beer! Yay!

Don’t judge.

Let me take this to another level.

‘Useful idiot’ is another phrase I’ve been giving serious thought to.

I watched a couple videos the other day, then shared them with a few trusted friends. They were appalled. They’re not speaking to me now.

Okay, what could be so offensive other than a porn movie featuring Trump, his daughter Ivanka, and a freshly disemboweled chimpanzee?

If you think you can handle it, here are two of a whole series of YouTube videos by a minor-genius video blogger by the name of Mark Dice.

The Common Sense Test

Talking With Californians

Yes, really it’s difficult. I keep telling myself: Don’t judge. Don’t judge.

Okay . . . if I don’t judge, what then? What exactly do I do?

First, some perspective. 

Our heralded democratic system is a great leveler. Every person in those videos, the ones who didn’t know why we celebrate the 4th of July and those who don’t know what country Mount Rushmore is in, has the right to vote. And here’s a truly sobering fact . . . EACH OF THEIR VOTES counts exactly the same as EACH OF OUR VOTES. 

Hey, it’s right there in the Constitution! One person, one vote. This is democracy in action, folks! Equality in the voting booth is the oxygen of our amazing political system! Ladies and gentlemen and everyone in between, this is SO INCREDIBLY BEAUTIFUL . . . I can’t stop crying! 

[ 42 minutes later: It’s taken a while, but I’ve finally gotten a grip and will now continue with my touching article. ]

Political activists are always asking: how can we get people involved, how can we get them engaged, how can we get them to vote, be a part of the solution instead of a part of the problem? That means everyone! Even the sheeple in the videos deserve to have a voice, right?

I’m simplifying but . . .

“Dude! I got some great reefer! If you vote for Bernie Sanders, man I’ll get you so high, you’ll meet Jim Morrison.”

“Hey, you are one fine-looking babe! How would you like $18,000? Tell you what, if you vote for this peace candidate, Theresa Treehugger, I’ll get you your money!”

Ridiculous? Actually, here’s the deal. Either we do it or someone else will. And then it will look like . . .

“Let’s make America great again! F*ck the Mexicans. F*ck the Muslims. Kill the Chinese. Kill the Russians.”

Make no mistake about it: USEFUL IDIOTS ARE STILL USEFUL!

To really make you understand and appreciate how important this is, here’s my final thought. Someone in some elevated seat of power, someone with the money and resources to completely shape the future of your world, is thinking that very thing . . .

AND LOOKING AT YOU!

[ This originated at the author's personal website . . . https://jdrachel.com ]

Useful Idiots Are Still Useful | John Rachel

No Contract No Vote

 
Asking our current political leadership to reform itself is like expecting a rabid dog to seek out medical treatment and find a path to full rehabilitation.

It's quite obvious our "professional politicians" are now infected and controlled by an anti-democratic brain-eating virus, are well-compensated, septic purveyors of raging, exponentially-spreading corporate tyranny and ruling class oppression -- a tenacious systemic disease which the brilliant, unfortunately late, political theorist Sheldon Wolin called inverted totalitarianism.

Which means if anything is to get done on behalf of the everyday citizens of this country, it will have to be initiated, engineered, and advanced by "outsiders" -- that would be you and I, working with future political office holders who have not so far been and will not ever be sucked into the slipstream of the neoliberal, rapacious capitalism-at-all-costs juggernaut.

We must particularly remain keenly aware of and rigorously vigilant against spoilers in our midst.  For example, we shouldn't for a single, inattentive moment think we can count on any of the pseudo-progressives who are now, with the Trumpenstein monster's ball in full swing, capitalizing on their resurgent popularity on dance cards of the desperate.  There's no question, we're in big trouble.  Our democracy is in the middle of an existential crisis.  That hardly suggests we should turn to those who have been participating in, have often been instrumental in engineering the mess, to see what their latest bright ideas are.

Time for some new blood!  Some fresh thinking!

We especially must not be fooled or sidetracked by what has been appropriately dubbed the McResistance, those who would lead a false challenge and short-lived charge against the current order, then in the end just cave to more crippling, insidious compromises on behalf of the ruling elite.  We might not want to admit it but we do know who they are.  They include such political rock stars as Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.

How, then, do we know who to trust?  How can we determine who is merely engaged in another round of the tomfoolery that has destroyed our democracy, buried the American Dream under mountains of jingoistic puffery and comic book exceptionalism, gutted the hopes of everyday Americans, keeping them from participating in the enormous potential and opportunities which our country is supposed to represent for all its citizens?

There are times when 'bold and simple' are better than 'nuanced and complicated'.

Yet, there is always a temptation to make something bold and simple more tentative and complicated than it needs to be.  However, there's no need here for wishy-washy thinking, waffling, Aristotelian cogitation, or utopian daydreaming.  So . . .

Let me be clear about the purpose of the candidate contract strategy.

This might sound insultingly simplistic to some but I'm going to say it anyway.

The purpose of the candidate contract strategy is to get the good guys elected and throw the bad guys out of office.

Period!

And since in my view most of the current legislators and certainly the president falls into the 'bad guys' category, most of them should and -- if the strategy is successful -- will be replaced by a whole new freshman class of 'good guys'.  Yes, I'm talking about . . .

Regime change in Washington DC!

REQUIRED DEFINITIONS:

While the candidate contract strategy is certainly applicable at all levels of government for any position chosen by electors, 'elected' and 'office' for my immediate purposes refers to federal openings -- membership in the House, membership in the Senate, the President.

A 'good guy' is an elected official who is honest, transparent, and wholly responsible for representing the needs and priorities of those constituents who by majority vote have chosen him/her as their congressman or president.

A 'bad guy' is an elected official who does not consistently and unwaveringly represent the needs and priorities of his/her constituents, probably is beholden to or strongly influenced by campaign donors, corporate lobbyists, well-funded special interest groups, in a phrase, 'the ruling class' of this country.

Having said that, let's get down to the nuts and bolts of how the candidate strategy works.

BASIC BUT CRITICAL Q & A:

Q.  Who would want to sign such a candidate contract?

A.  Any candidate running for office who wants to get elected.

 

Q.  How can signing a candidate contract guarantee getting elected?

A.  Of course, there are no absolute guarantees. At the same time, please refer to the title of this article.  If a candidate does not sign the contract, we don't vote for him or her.  If a candidate does sign the contract, he or she deserves, thus will get our votes. Of course, this means voters must unite and take a firm stand.  But why wouldn't they?  It's in all of our best interests and the best interests of our country as a whole to be strong and take back our democracy.

Q.  Why is the proposed contract in our best interests?

A.  The contract as offered, subject naturally to minor adjustments which reflect the specific needs and priorities of each voting jurisdiction, embraces those things which by huge majorities everyday citizens want done and aren't getting done.  Poll after poll shows support for all of the items which are addressed in the contact of 65% or more of everyday American citizens.  Most of the initiatives are supported by more than 3/4 of those polled.  The people have spoken.  The contract just takes their concerns and priorities and puts it in writing.

Q.  Why should the voting public demand candidate contracts?

A.  Because at least on key issues which are important to the voting public, they take the guesswork out of voting.  There is no ambiguity, room for negotiation, or even margin for error.  The contract stipulates in no uncertain terms what an elected official must and will do on those key issues from the day he or she arrives in Washington DC.  Voters are fed up with hot air campaign rhetoric and broken promises.  In one master stroke, the contract gets rid of the smoke and breaks the mirrors.
Before we go on, let's look at the contract I'm offering.  This is the comprehensive catch-all version, based on critical issue polling and Bernie Sanders' campaign platform.

Now . . . back to the nuts-and-bolts.

The candidate contract or contracts are initially introduced to the electoral process -- a campaign for public office -- from two directions, eventually to meet in the middle.

CANDIDATE CONTRACTS FROM THE PEOPLE:

A citizens group or citizens groups representing certain constituent causes can and should put up a candidate contract which reflects issues of concern, then present them to those candidates running for office in their district.

For example, minimum wage workers in a congressional district should challenge anyone running to sign a contract boosting the federal minimum wage.  There already are many "FightFor15" activist groups around the country.  The appropriate candidate contract turns their pleas into a concrete demand -- a forceful, decisive ultimatum.  If a candidate signs such a contract, he or she gets not only the endorsement of the group, but the members of the activist group take it upon themselves -- after all it's in their best interests -- to actively and enthusiastically campaign on behalf of that candidate, reinforcing his/her own official publicity and whatever media coverage can be generated.

Senior citizens groups may likewise prepare a candidate contract to protect Social Security and Medicare.  The candidate who signs such a contract again gets the full support and backing of such senior citizens groups.  They highlight the candidate's loyalty to them in all of their newsletters, at their shuffleboard club meets, bingo contests.  They wear t-shirts or put bumper stickers on their cars and golf carts:  Future congressman Godfrey Goodman signed on the dotted line to protect SS and Medicare!

CANDIDATE CONTRACTS BY NON-ESTABLISHMENT CANDIDATES:

At the other end of the equation, an independent or third-party candidate, or a candidate running as a dissident major party candidate, for example in a primary, would make the candidate contract central to his/her campaign.  Based on research and polling in the local district, a contract which reflects the priorities of voters in that district would be drawn up, which highlights those key issues which have broad public support.  Such a contract would look like the one above, making solid, unambiguous commitments on a range of popular, critical causes.

Now it's important to understand, the establishment candidates may give lip-service to what's in that contract or an appropriate variation of it.  But the reality is, they will not sign it.  They can't!  If they did, their major parties would abandon them, their campaign funding would dry up, they would be targeted -- as Bernie Sanders was by the Democratic Party -- for marginalization and defeat.

This makes the signed contract a huge public relations coup!  It effectively gives the 'good guy' anti-establishment candidate the high ground, the right to legitimately say and be able to prove, he or she is on the side of the people.  Putting the contract front and center in the campaign takes the guesswork out of the voting for the public.  They can see in the starkest terms exactly where the candidates stand and who's really on their side.

INTRODUCING HONESTY AND TRANSPARENCY INTO THE GAME:

I don't know how to say this gently or with Zen dispassion.  So . . .

The candidate is not a magic wand.  It's a sledgehammer!

Signing the contract will not create some harmonic convergence of metaphysical forces which will usher people into the voting booth and make them vote for a candidate.

Signing the contract does, however, provide a powerful tool to beat up an opponent and discredit a 'bad guy' candidate in the eyes of the voters, while portraying in stark relief the candidate who does sign the contract, as an individual who has volunteered a bulletproof guarantee, if elected, of service to his constituents.

This is no trivial matter.

Right now, campaigning is a house of mirrors in a bank of fog.  Words are chosen with a lawyer's eye and a Madison Avenue ear.  I'm not sure the candidates typically even know themselves where they stand on much of what's important to the public.  But if they do, they sure aren't telling us in clear, unambiguous terms.  Thus expectations and performance are secondary to image and appeal.  The same shallow devices, cynical psychology, and stealthy methodologies, are used to "sell" a candidate as are used to sell any other products out there, from eyeliner to soda pop and fast food to automobiles and fantasy vacation cruises.

The candidate contract puts back front and center what a political campaign should be -- but rarely is -- all about, which is what exactly can we expect the candidate to do once he or she arrives in Washington DC.

Having the candidate contract be the new standard for electoral integrity, particularly having it arrive simultaneously from the two critical participants in the voting mechanism -- the advocacy groups among the voting public and enlightened candidates themselves -- means it reflects the best traditions of the democratic process.

It represents a long-lost level of honesty and transparency, reintroduced into the requisite and most basic communication that is the foundation of a robust democratic system -- the vetting process for identifying and selecting elected representatives.

The voters can and must probe the candidate:  "Where do stand on this?"

And the 'good guy' candidate gets to reply:  "Glad you asked.  Just read my contract with you, the voters.  It's all spelled out in black-and-white.  And yes, that's my signature at the bottom."

If we as voters and those among us who aspire to be elected representatives turn our backs on this idea, during such divisive and perilous times, when we're starting to hear the initial portents of a death rattle from our sick and dying democracy, we will deserve the brutally totalitarian, crassly authoritarian, wantonly fascistic debacle our government-by-the-corporate-ruling-elite is fast becoming.

The time is right for candidate contracts.

Unless you have a better idea . . .


[This originated at the author's personal website . . . http://jdrachel.com ]



No Contract No Vote

Bird Dogging

I'm always humbled when I find a gaping hole in my vocabulary. 

The other day, someone in a political activist group suggested that it would be effective to 'bird dog' incumbents about a rather controversial issue we were discussing.

Mind you, I have made this tactic central to my electoral campaign proposals, integral to implementing my candidate contract electoral strategy. I just didn't know the name for it.



See?  Even the Google definition mentions bird dogging in a political context.

Yes . . . "dogged determination" . . . very cute.

That cute characterization is the polite, PC way of describing what I'm proposing.
As I presume will happen, my enlightened, progressive, honest and transparent people's candidate has signed one or more contracts on issues that reflect the will of the majority of voters in the district where the contest is taking place.  You can view the contract and the laundry list of progressive issues here, one that's drafted for the House of Representatives.

But . . .

His opponents, whether newcomers or an incumbent, are establishment candidates, thus HAVE NOT SIGNED THE CONTRACT.  I've explained elsewhere why they cannot and will not sign these contracts, but basically it boils down to their all but certain loss of campaign funding and major party machinery support.

For simplicity sake, let's say the contract in dispute is not the one listing the whole gamut of populist issues, but just one for raising the minimum wage.  It would look like this.

Of course, raising the minimum wage is the main focus in the battle for voters.

But the actual centerpiece of the publicity is the contract for raising the minimum wage.  This is where the bird dogging comes in.

At every public rally, campaign event, fundraiser, town hall meeting, meet-the-candidate barbecue or hotdog eating contest -- literally everywhere the establishment candidate(s) show up in public -- there will be protesters wearing t-shirts, carrying signs, chanting:

Why won't you sign the contract for raising the minimum wage?

Understand:  'Why won't you sign the contract for ...' is not a genial request for an answer.  It's an expression of outrage!  It's a condemnation!  It's saying:  You are insulting us!  We as voters are making a simple, fair, reasonable request.  And you are defying the will of the people!  It's a rhetorical question challenging the empty rhetoric of the candidate.

Of course, every candidate, especially when speaking to younger folks who are most likely working for or just barely above the minimum wage, is going to discharge billowing gusts of smiley-face vapor about the "crisis in the availability of good jobs in this country", and "all workers deserving a livable wage".  This always sounds nice but is really a lot of stinky poop, considering that the official rate hasn't increased in seven years, and moreover, that adjusted for inflation the current $7.25 per hour is worth less than it was 50 years ago.

There's only one way to take such patronizing oratory seriously, and that is to have him or her sign on the dotted line -- put it in writing, in the form of a candidate contract.

The corollary to that is:  The only way to boldly and loudly declare that such a candidate is NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY is by challenging them for NOT SIGNING the contract.

That's how the candidate contract becomes a sledgehammer in a political campaign, a serious tool for exposing an establishment candidate's hypocrisy and duplicity.

Why resort to harassment?

To be blunt about it, at least at first, any candidate which signs any version of the contract I'm proposing won't have much choice.  He or she will not have much in the way of funds, will not have the organizational support of a major party's machinery, will be marginalized or entirely ignored by the mainstream media.  Such an outsider campaign will have to get in the news by making news!  By creating so much trouble and controversy, the media and anyone within any proximity can't help but notice!  Using street theater, outlandish stunts, sit-downs, sit-ins, blocking traffic, naked acrobatics . . . whatever!  All to call attention to the fact that the slick, well-groomed, smooth-talking sack-of-hot-air opponent REFUSES to sign the contract.

Along those same lines, this is how the candidate contract works around big money.  Yes, those establishment types will have huge campaign chests to run slick ads, to disseminate their carefully-worded and misleading messages.  Those messages will always seem to be saying the right things.  They've got the best spin doctors, PR and campaign consultants money can buy, massaging their images and words to a milky silky stream of lovely goo.

But voters are waking up.  And people don't like being manipulated and deceived.

As with our example, either a candidate is for or against raising the minimum wage.  That being the case, if he or she is claiming to be with the voters on this particular issue, and the voters by a vast margin are for raising the minimum wage, why is it unreasonable to ask for a clear and unambiguous commitment in writing?  After all, that's what this candidate contract is -- a clear and unambiguous commitment to raise the minimum wage.

If indeed it does turn out to be too much to ask a particular candidate, then it appears that WE'VE GOT A SERIOUS PROBLEM.  And the problem is the candidate is blowing smoke!  He or she is full of the brown stuff that comes out of the south end of a bull heading north!

Our democracy is sick.  Our whole electoral system is diseased.  This has largely because the professional political class of this country has discredited itself -- and seems to be bent on continuing to discredit itself -- every time one of them opens his or her mouth.  We the voters didn't bring on this crisis of trust.  The political establishment did.  By consistently and intentionally lying to everyday Americans and with almost a religious fervor breaking every campaign promise that might actually benefit the majority of American citizens.

Worst of all, any newcomers to this corrupt system have been vilified, marginalized and excluded, unless they are willing to play ball by the corrupt rules of ruling class obeisance.  Bernie Sanders's brilliant campaign was systematically undermined by the Democratic Party establishment.  I surely don't need to review here how the major parties in sinister, symbiotic collusion with the media openly mock and trivialize attempts by minor parties to introduce some integrity into the river of political filth the current system has become.

Yes, the duopoly of the two corporate parties has gotten control of just about everything having to do with electoral politics.  But there's one thing they haven't been able to shut down completely.  That's word-of-mouth.  That's people talking to people.  Which is why even the most powerful individuals can be brought down by the right scandal.

What's more scandalous than lying to voters just to get their votes?

What's more cynical, what's more insulting, what's more corrupt than refusing to stand up for what's right and good for the majority of good, decent, hard-working citizens?

And since it's every citizen's right to know where a candidate really stands on issues that affect the everyday lives of everyday Americans; it's every citizen's right to be informed, and to be treated with candor and respect; it's every citizen's right to know with certainty who is on their side and who isn't; sometimes we need to let that dog-bird, bird-dog, that hybrid-GMO-predator out of its cage, and proceed with "dogged determination".

Let it be known . . .

You're being put on notice, establishment Democrats and Republicans.

Just the right amount of bird dogging might make honest politicians out of you after all!

If not, then it's really quite simple . . . you'll be replaced.

By politicians with the integrity to sign the contract.

Woof woof chirp chirp!

---

 

"Candidate Contracts: Taking Back Our Democracy" was published middle of last year and is available worldwide from all the usual suspects:

Amazon (Kindle)  . . . amzn.to/1QJRiNZ
Amazon (Print) . . . amzn.to/1Cuq0du
Apple (iTunes) . . . apple.co/1BXnPcy
Barnes & Noble . . . bit.ly/1GpTTLq
Kobo (Indigo) . . . bit.ly/1OEI2xj
Smashwords . . . bit.ly/1B4DQCp
Direct from printer . . . bit.ly/1MGjDnN

" 

Fighting for the Democracy We Deserve" was published this past September and also is available both in every popular ebook format and as a deluxe paperback:

Amazon (Kindle) . . . amzn.to/1VMf2Ft
Amazon (Print) . . . amzn.to/1L9SdIC
Apple (iTunes) . . . apple.co/1JD1YAg
Barnes & Noble . . . bit.ly/1ZUJUpn
Kobo (Indigo) . . . bit.ly/1IX6rO4
Smashwords . . . bit.ly/22PXWLf
Direct from printer . . . bit.ly/1i7ISFM


[ This originated at the author's personal website . . . http://jdrachel.com ]



Bird Dogging

A Look At The Numbers

 

This references my previous article, The "I'll vote for Jill if you will" Pledge Campaign, which to my pleasant surprise has resulted in quite a bit of positive support.

Several commenters asked me how I came up with the numbers, and how realistic was it to think that we could get 50,000,000 folks to sign the pledge to vote for Jill Stein, the target for "activating" the promise to vote for her.  Meaning, if 50,000,000 voters took the pledge, they could all vote for her, secure in the knowledge that they would not be throwing their vote away -- a vote of conscience resulting in a victory by whichever major-party candidate they happened to despise.

I said that 50,000,000 would "guarantee" a plurality win?  How did I arrive at that figure?

Well, there are no "guarantees" in a system using unverifiable electronic voting machines, so we can just give this our best estimate:  There are 146,311,000 registered voters in the U.S.  In the 2012 election, 126,144,000 voted.  If we assume a very formidable turnout of 130,000,000 for 2016, 50,000,000 represents a 38% plurality. This would allow as much as a 12% spread between Trump and Clinton, e.g. 25% Trump and 37% Clinton.  Actually, some predict that it might go the other way, meaning as much as 37% for Trump and 25% for Clinton, on the expectation that Stein would be pulling the "progressive" vote away from Clinton.

I also said that 50,000,000 was realistic -- it was an achievable target -- and showed how the power of an exponential multiplier provides us plenty of time to get this organized and done.  At the same time, we should recognize that the arithmetic alone begs the question of whether there are people out there who are even receptive to a third-party option, who are sufficiently disgusted with the way this election is shaping up to jump off the major-party bandwagons.

Again, we can only speculate.  But a few factors are encouraging.

As cited in a Salon article, Gallup polls for the fifth year in a row indicate that over 40% of voters identify themselves as "independents", so disenchanted are they with the two-party system which has defined electoral politics for much of recent history.

More specifically, deep dissatisfaction with the major-party choice of Trump vs. Clinton is evidenced by historic levels of unfavorability ratings.  Clinton is at 55% and rising, Trump is at 70% and could go either way.  But just taking them at these current levels means that there is a minimum 25% of voters who strongly disapprove of both.  This 25% translates to more than 36,000,000 registered voters -- a huge number of voters who apparently prefer to vote for neither.  If they can be directed Jill Stein's way, this is a big head start toward our goal of 50,000,000!

Lastly, Jill Stein has taken a bold and powerful stand on an issue which garnered much favor and enthusiasm in the Bernie revolution, that of free college education.  Currently, some 42,000,000 college graduates are saddled with onerous debts, just trying to obtain skills and credentials which will give them a fighting chance for a decent job in our highly competitive and compromised job market.  Jill Stein has committed to a full forgiveness of student loan debt if she becomes president.  Talk about reaching out to young people and appealing to them to vote in their own interests!

I don't have to tell you that I think the "I'll vote for Jill if you will" pledge idea could be a real game-changer.  It risks nothing, demands little of voters other than a few minutes of their time and a commitment to attentive, fearless voting, should the campaign succeed, yet offers the possibility of a paradigm shift in electoral politics.  Finally, the stranglehold of the two major parties will be broken, and a new broad range of potential solutions will be brought center-stage to the national conversation.
But good ideas are not automatic.  Good ideas only get traction if people take the time to understand them, then actively share their understanding with others.  The language of the pledge makes this necessity clear:

"I will now contact two other people who I respect and trust, let them know there is a real alternative to the Clinton vs. Trump political spectacle, explain that if we frustrated voters join together, we will not be throwing our votes away, we can elect a great president, America’s first female president no less."

The corporate-controlled main stream media did everything it could to marginalize and destroy the Bernie Sanders campaign.  It has also been completely successful at keeping Jill Sanders an invisibility on the political stage.

Therefore, it's up to us:  Each person tells two others, who each tell two others, who . . . 

It's the power of numbers.

It's the power of people over plutocracy, the voice of individual citizens shouting down the mind-numbing mantras of the 1%, mouthed by their brain-dead talking heads and political puppets.
There are 61,450,000 "independents" out there somewhere.  There are 36,578,000 voters who think neither Clinton nor Trump should be president.  There are 42,000,000 students struggling to pay for their college education.

We have work to do!

[ This originated at the author's personal website . . . http://jdrachel.com ]



A Look At The Numbers

Throwing My Vote Away?

The presidential election of 2016 -- if you only consider the presumptive nominees of the two major political parties -- is like choosing between being brutally beaten to death by a street gang and mercilessly Tasered to death by the police.

It's a masochists game.  But I've never viewed voting as a game, no matter how minor the stakes or ridiculous the choices.

Maybe in the past, having a lower tolerance for deception and corruption, I've mirrored Ralph Nader's decades-long warnings about and battle against the corporatization of our society and the tyranny of an oligarchic elite which would inevitably result.

Perhaps until now, this appeared to be driven by a heady, theoretical, ivory-tower world view, an approach distanced from day-to-day realities.

Perhaps such abstractions seemed frivolous or self-indulgent, even dangerous.  Need we revisit the spurious judgment that voting for Nader threw the election and set the stage for eight years of George W. Bush?

Perhaps all of my histrionics about the disappearance of democracy, the corruption of our Congress, the takeover of our government apparatus by self-appointed autocrats, the need for replacing at bare minimum 450 senators and congressmen, my railing at the duplicity of Obama, my warnings about the subversion of his allegedly "progressive" leadership, yes all of this may have been dismissed as hyperventilation and raving lunacy.

But with the treachery and abysmal hypocrisy of Bernie Sanders' endorsement of Hillary Clinton for president this past week, it couldn't be clearer where things stand.

Nor could it be more evident how broken our two-party political system is or what a trap lesser-evil voting has been all along.

Don't anyone dare tell me that by not voting for presumptive nominee Hillary Clinton or presumptive nominee Donald Trump, I am throwing my vote away!

Voting for either of these privileged-class monsters is the definition of throwing away my vote, of surrendering my right of choice, of rendering voting a meaningless exercise.



[ This originated at the author's personal website . . . http://jdrachel.com ]


Throwing My Vote Away?

The Hillary Endorsement Bernie Should Have Given

"Historically the two-party system has a long and durable standing in our heralded electoral process.  Many believe this is the way it should be.  I myself chose to run my campaign for the presidency within this two-party framework, as a Democrat.

"The voice of the voters has been heard and honored.  That is to say, those who voted in the recent primaries have made their choice for who will be representing the Democratic Party in the coming presidential election.  I accept the implied wisdom of this choice.

"In my official capacity as a candidate, as a person who has faithfully worked within the mechanism the Democratic Party has in place for campaigning for the highest office in the land, I now address the voters of this country. 

"If you as voters see the presidential election as binary, meaning, purely as a choice between presumptive nominee Hillary Clinton and presumptive nominee Donald Trump, I can say unequivocally and with conviction that you should vote for Hillary Clinton.

"Having said that, and being known for my candor and honesty -- and mind you I am now speaking only as a private citizen but with the same privileges and responsibilities I share with other private citizens -- when I step into the voting booth on November 8th to make my choice for President of the United States, I will be writing in the name 'Bernie Sanders'.  Thank you and God bless America."

[ This originated at the author's personal website . . . http://jdrachel.com ]



The Hillary Endorsement Bernie Should Have Given

Is this really happening?

I've avoided writing very much about the presidential election.  I know I'm in a very tiny minority, many of whom are housed in large buildings with locked doors and bars on the windows.  But I really see it as an entertaining distraction, a three-ring circus, keeping us all enthralled and on the edge of our seats, while out in the parking lot they are stripping our cars of anything that can be fenced to pawn brokers, body shops and used-tire dealers.

So while the photo at the head of this article would seem to suggest otherwise, I'm not going to add to the big noxious cloud of vaporous analysis and shock-jock commentary about who is up, who is down, where is Bernie, who is Jill, can you find Waldo.

Instead I'm staying the course here, announcing my latest initiative, and doing so, risking adding even more evidence to my public file that I'm masochistic and delusional.

Yes . . . I'm at it again, giving it one more shot, attempting to drive home my message.

"What is that message?" you ask innocently -- your acting about as convincing as Obama on his visit to Hiroshima when he donned such a sad face and declared nuclear weapons a very bad thing, though he's spending another $1 trillion to upgrade our nuclear arsenal.

Come on!  You know my message!  I'm more of a broken record than Bernie Sanders.

 

Speaking of whom, isn't it amazing how easy it is to marginalize and destroy a good man?  A little voter fraud here, some media bias there, well-placed dollars to lock in the loyalty of super-delegates, the nauseating duplicity of "progressives" like President Obama and Elizabeth Warren, the nomination victory manufactured by the pundits, and BINGO!

Bye-bye, Bernie!

That's where things allegedly stand right now anyway.

But back to my message.  Which is built around this certainly vulgar but perhaps thought-provoking question:

WHO GIVES A FLYING FUCK?

Because . . . (brace yourselves, folks, here it comes again) . . . regardless of who ends up in the Oval Office . . . 

IT'S CONGRESS THAT MAKES THE LAWS!

So this time . . .

I'm reaching out to progressive congressional candidates!

Anyone out there who is running for the Senate or the House, anyone out there who knows someone who is running for the Senate or the House, or anyone out there who knows what the Senate and the House of Representatives do, please look at my new activist website:

NO CONTRACT NO VOTE!

I have proposed this approach in countless blogs, published articles, and in three books.

It is a methodology, a strategy, a powerful political device for WINNING ELECTIONS!

Ha ha ha!

"Winning elections?  Why would we want to win elections?"

If you have to ask, you might want to read this.

Anyway . . .

In my left-of-left, radical-revolutionary dreams -- or are they actually hallucinations? -- I imagine pink-slipping the current crop of corporate suck-ups, the pay-for-play political toadies, plutocratic lapdogs, flunky footmen for the rabidly rich, insatiable plunderers of our economy and destroyers of the American Dream, the sycophantic Yes-men of Wall Street looters and the too-big-too-jail banksters, the sniveling servants of crony-capitalists and ruthless kleptocrats pillaging our national wealth, the cynical complicit despoilers of democracy who are cravenly turning America into a Third World banana republic (if it's not completely obvious, I'm referring to the execrable frauds now serving in Congress), then replacing them with unselfish, committed, truly progressive public servants who honorably represent all of us, not just the rich and powerful.

And . . .

After completing my imagined shake-up of government and rooting out the corruption, installing a Congress of the people, by the people, for the people, a legislature serving the needs of all Americans, thereby assuring a healthy, safe, fulfilling, prosperous future for our children and our children's children -- YES! -- at this glorious juncture I see all of us, united, delirious, grateful-beyond-words, turning to one another and asking . . .

Is this really happening?



[ This originated at the author's personal website . . . http://jdrachel.com ]

Is this really happening?

Putting Boots (Birkenstocks) on the Ground: Part VIII

 

People understandably ask:  "What good can the candidate contracts do?  Can they really make a difference?"

The answer to that comes in two pieces.

First, anything is only as good as its application.  That is, a hammer is only as useful if you manage to hit the nail and driving the nail is part of building something that is important and positive, like a new house.  Or a twenty-foot high wall on the Mexican border (just kidding!).

The candidate contract has to be implemented properly, it has to be wielded effectively.  I've described in Part 7 how it can be used to demonize the traitors and promote the true supporters of representative democracy.  Once the candidate contract strategy is in play, hopefully on a national level where it achieves some critical mass and becomes "news", it literally can set a new standard for the way candidates are assessed in terms of worthiness for public office -- precisely how we determine if we are going to vote for them or not.

It can do this because -- and here is the second piece of my answer -- it accomplishes something which so far has been elusive, and intentionally so.

It gives us a bulletproof method for determining where a candidate stands on issues.

No more empty campaign rhetoric.  No more vague language.  No more double speak.

It's all in black-and-white.

Let me demonstrate this and in doing so answer another question I've often gotten . . .

"Can this work with presidential candidates?"

TPP and its evil step-sisters, TPIP and TISA, are the most heinous "trade agreements" in our history.  The majority of American citizens are just starting to wake up to the horrible consequences if these agreements.

Both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton have been confronted as to where they stand on TPP.  Bernie Sanders has unequivocally come out against it.  He has been consistent on this for as long as TPP reared its ugly head. On the other hand, Ms. Hillary as Secretary of State clearly supported and promoted it.  But now she is waffling, introducing vague and manifestly misleading language to deflect potential supporters from reviewing her record or from drawing the obvious conclusion:  As a corporatist shill she is loyal to Wall Street, she is loyal to the big banks, she is loyal to the trans-national corporate interests behind this nefarious trade agreement.

Initially, Hillary said "This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field."  More recently here is what the mistress-of-the-duplicitous said:  "I waited until it had actually been negotiated because I did want to give the benefit of the doubt to the (Obama) administration.  Once I saw what the outcome was, I opposed it."

This, of course, resulted in all sorts of analysis and debate on where she really stands.
I say:  Why don't we just cut through this silly waste of time and energy and determine with absolute certainty where Ms. Clinton and Mr. Sanders come down on TPP, an issue which dramatically shapes the future of international commerce and geopolitics for generations to come? 

Let me offer a candidate contract:


Bernie Sanders, consistent with his voting record and public pronouncements, would sign this in a heartbeat.

 

I can only speculate, but I believe Hillary would laugh, roll her eyes, do that Hillary "thing" she does so well, and brush it aside. 

Frankly, there is no way she could sign it.  If she did, she couldn't do the job her corporate masters hired her to do.

And that's exactly how the candidate contracts work.

Now we know exactly what we need to know.

It's in black-and-white.  The choice is clear.

Now we know how to vote.

Apply this methodology issue-by-issue, candidate-by-candidate, and suddenly the smoke and mirrors are gone.  The voting public can make informed decisions about who they want representing them in Washington DC, in both Congress and the White House.



[ This originated at the author's personal website . . . http://jdrachel.com ]



Putting Boots (Birkenstocks) on the Ground: Part VIII

Putting Boots (Birkenstocks) on the Ground: Part VII

 

This again builds on preceding articles, which outline my approach to community-based “regime change” activism.  I recommend you read them first to fully appreciate what now follows here.

Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV
Part V
Part VI

It's easy to get discouraged -- even become cynical -- when viewing our current electoral system.  The news is highly sensationalized.  Much coverage is quite superficial, focusing on human drama, scandal, who's up who's down, more resembling reporting of celebrity gossip and sports team rivalry than offering responsible perspectives on political matters.

Of course, the Democrats and Republicans are fine with this, neither truly committed to representing the needs and demands of the voting public.  Anything which distracts us from realizing their indifference to the everyday citizen is to their benefit and welcomed.  Along the same lines, they stubbornly prevent minor party candidates from participating in debates, guaranteeing the absence of fresh ideas or meaningful controversy. A genuine, thoughtful and rewarding national conversation about the challenges confronting both the country as a whole and us as individual citizens appears impossible in this environment.

But is it?

The whole point of this series of Putting Boots (Birkenstocks) on the Ground articles is that it is possible!  But for it to happen we must rely on ourselves.  The corporate media and our government are not going to lead this effort.  In fact, those now in power will do everything to prevent a national conversation of substance from occurring, because it would threaten their privilege and primacy.

Do you think I'm exaggerating?

Just look at the news.  Just look at our choices for president.

Clinton?  Cruz?  Trump?  Is this a bad joke or what?

Bernie Sanders offers a powerful vision and coherent plan for change, which is why he gets virtually no press and faces sure annihilation at convention time.  John Kasich appears not to be a raving lunatic, which in this election clearly disqualifies him from consideration.

Let's face it:  To come up with a more extreme version of reality, we'd have to resort to reading Franz Kafka novels or watching Andy Warhol movies.

So with nothing better to do than shake my head at the absurdity of it all, I am with no irony or secret agenda trying to salvage something constructive out of this election ordeal. And I start by ignoring the entire presidential three-ring circus and focusing on the only political sphere which by any sensible analysis can make a difference come November.

There is no law -- not yet anyway -- against any of what I've proposed thus far.

We gauge community support and solicit voter endorsement on hot-button issues with citizen petition/pledges.  This is grass-roots democracy in action. 

Based on the (hopefully) substantial number of petition/pledges gathered, we formulate candidate contracts.  All candidates running locally for a particular office are offered the opportunity to sign them.  If possible, extending this offer should occur in a highly public forum -- a campaign rally, a town hall meeting, any public event or personal appearance where there are people and reporters.

Because the contracts are so demanding and the associated penalties so severe for breach of their terms, we should expect the mainstream candidates to reject them outright.

A candidate who does sign them -- only expect there to be one, probably one identified beforehand by the citizens group which formulated the candidate contracts -- should get enormous praise.  He or she deserves love and support, accolades and plaudits, and most of all deserves to get elected.

The candidates who do not -- this will often include the incumbent -- should be called out, demonized, vilified.  Voters should be clear in their minds about what the contracts mean.  A candidate who signs is on the side of the voters.  Candidates who don't are working for the rich and powerful.  Sign contract = good!  Don't sign contract = bad!

Yes, I'm serious.  This is not being simpleminded.  This is just being straightforward.

After all, the contracts equate to a commitment to represent the needs and desires of the voting public.  That's good!  That's exactly what we're trying to accomplish. Democracy of the people, by the people, for the people.

Correspondingly, a failure to embrace and sign the contracts calls into question both the integrity and commitment of a candidate.  I'd say that's pretty bad, wouldn't you?

Every opportunity to draw public attention to the contracts -- who is on board and who is not, keeping a keen eye for press coverage -- should be exploited to fullest advantage and potential for mass exposure. 

Bear in mind that the candidate who signs the contract probably will be independent or minor-party, or running on the short end of the stick against a powerhouse incumbent. Thus he or she will not have much money.  The only way to get around this obstacle is generating free publicity.  Free publicity is obtained by creating news-worthy events.

I believe that if the candidate contracts are wielded properly -- not as some polite legal document but as a weapon of mass media engagement -- it will not be all that difficult to get them and the candidate who signs them all over the news. It's just a matter of setting the stage and getting the lighting right.

Let me offer a couple examples.  These may at first seem a bit extreme, but as far as I'm concerned, in the service of real democracy and honest representation, there's no such thing as 'too outrageous'. Having said that, please understand that I'm not advocating dishonesty or mean-spiritedness.  There's a lot of room for creativity here, without embracing the dark side.

Example #1 . . .

We have an incumbent that won't sign a contract protecting Social Security.  We have an independent or minor party candidate who has signed it.  So we line up ten or twenty very old people in wheel chairs and block traffic on a major street.  They hold signs that say: "Why won't Congressman [ name of incumbent ] sign the contract?  I need my Social Security to survive!"  The candidate who did sign it circulates among them holding up the signed contract in one hand, and a poster in the other that says:  "I'm Michael Marvellous. These elderly people deserve our support.  I SIGNED THE CONTRACT!"

Of course, the media was given advance notice for this staged event.  Even if they send second stringers, they'll still get it all on video. 

Now what's going to happen?  Are the police going to pepper spray grandma?  Well, now that I think about it, they might.  (Sorry about that, grandma.)  But this is perfect!  I can see the headlines now . . .

Sweet Old Lady in Wheelchair Pepper Sprayed at Protest
Over Incumbent's Refusal to Support Social Security

How does the expression go? . . . You can't buy publicity like that!

As if you hadn't surmised, I am all for street theater, massive protests, civil disobedience, getting arrested, whatever it takes barring violence to get the public to focus on important issues.  What makes no sense to me is when such displays don't produce the potential for concrete action.  Going on right now as I write this piece is a very admirable effort to make the public aware of how thoroughly our democracy has been corrupted and destroyed by big money in politics.  Sadly, Democracy Spring has gotten very limited media exposure, though its agenda and intent are truly laudable.  So far their biggest claim to notoriety seems to be how many people have been arrested, a new Guinness Book world record!  Other than that, it offers no actionable agenda, no specific legislation, no constitutional amendment, nothing voters can rally around and vote for, other than a vague demand that America needs a new Congress which will listen to the people.

My example draws attention to a specific choice: Vote for a buttplug who, notwithstanding a lot of wonderful sounding campaign rhetoric, doesn't give one whit about retirees caught in a web of poverty, or vote for a candidate who has signed a legal contract that guarantees he or she will fight to keep Social Security viable, solvent, and sufficient to meet the needs of the elderly who depend on it for a decent life in their golden years.

Voters are given something they can act on.  Vote for a black hat or a white hat.

Let me give one more example, even more dramatic than the last, of how the candidate contract can be used to draw in the media, always hungry for news that "bleeds".

Major party candidate A refuses to sign a contract to end all the wars in the Middle East.  Candidate B, who has signed the contract, goes to a VA hospital with a talking head from the local television station.  Several patients are wearing 'Candidate B signed the contract!' t-shirts.  One of them holds up a sign . . .

If Congress had brought the troops
back home, I'd still have my legs.

The talking head interviews some of the maimed and crippled vets.  Candidate B talks about how "supporting our troops" means not fighting wars we don't have to fight, going on to explain how most Americans want the wars to end.  He declares his unequivocal support for ending the wars in the Middle East and waves the contract as proof.

Is this manipulative, exploitative?  It's not as manipulative and exploitative as our leaders lying and leading the country into conflicts it doesn't have to fight.  It's not as manipulative as saying one thing when campaigning just to curry favor with potential voters, then going to Washington DC and doing the bidding of lobbyists and fat-cat campaign donors.  And it's certainly not as exploitative as having our soldiers in the bloom of their youth give their lives for corporate profits or in pursuit of delusional fantasies of world empire.

Sometimes we have to fight fire with fire. 

And always, we have to fight lies with the truth.

Maybe it makes you uncomfortable thinking about grandma getting pepper sprayed or looking at young men with stumps where healthy legs used to be and puckering sockets where they once had eyes.  But personally it makes me really uncomfortable thinking about grandma starving to death in her apartment or dying because she couldn't afford some prescription medication, or seeing these these young men mangled in battles which never should have been fought in countries we never should have invaded, all while inside the DC bubble congressman are having $200 lunches with lobbyists from Wall Street and CEOs for the defense contractors.

My point is simple.  If we want to change the way politicians get elected, we need to make choices stark, obvious.  No ambiguities.  No equivocation.  No obfuscation.  No excuses.

Getting the truth out to the voting public on exactly where the candidates stand requires audacity, creativity, courage, some outside-the-box thinking.  But it can be done.  It should be done.  It must be done!  Voters don't need to see protest signs.  They need to see honest and clear choices at the polls.  The contracts leave no room for error or misinterpretation.

"Hmm.  That fellow signed a legally-binding contract.  If I vote for him, I know I'll get some service, not a bunch of broken campaign promises."

On the flip side -- that is, in terms of the candidate who refuses or can't sign the contract, -- we can't show any mercy.  None!  This individual is showing his or her true colors and should be stigmatized, ostracized, and condemned at every opportunity.  Picket campaign offices, demonstrate at rallies and all public appearances.  Get manhandled and arrested.  Get in the news!  This is free publicity.  But it's news the public should be getting.

Is it negative campaigning?  Let's see.  This candidate is making a public refusal to sign a contract that commits the candidate to serving the needs and desires of his constituents.  It's a refusal to represent the very people who elected him!  Why shouldn't that be public knowledge?  Before they cast their ballots, people need to ask themselves things like . . .

Why won't the Republican guy sign the contract to raise the
minimum wage? Can't his rich friends pay a living wage?

Why won't the Democrat for Congress sign the contract for
free college tuition? Isn't education important to her?

 Why won't my congressman sign the contract on GMO
labeling? How do I know what I'm feeding my kids?

Why won't my congressman sign the contract ending
Citizens United? Whose side is he on anyway?

I know of no other way go about this, besides magically coming up with an enormous pile of money to take on the enormous piles of money these bought-and-paid for politicians have in their coffers -- legal bribes to charm and woo voters, often to deceive them.

Either we play tough or we lose.  Then all we're left with is wiling away the time until the next election rolls around, pining about what we could and should have done.

Politics is not a polite game of ping pong.  It's a gladiator sport.  Either come ready to do battle or slink back to your slave quarters and sip on the brine they're telling you is soup.  At night you can lay on your moldy cot thinking of ways to apologize to your children for not having acted boldly and decisively when the duties of citizenship required it.

I offer no apologies for being so blunt.  We are losing our democracy.

We are losing the America we all believe in.

We need to come together!

We need to act now!


[ This originated at the author's personal website . . . http://jdrachel.com ]


Putting Boots (Birkenstocks) on the Ground: Part VII