The Ultimate Wedge Issue Test

One of my recent articles prompted a brief but revealing exchange.

This person accurately pointed out that my proposed electoral strategy required an enormous amount of work.

Why should this come as a surprise? The ruling elite has over five decades contributed millions of dollars, tens of thousands of hours, gone to great lengths to take our democracy apart, skew the laws to maximize their profits, marginalize and silence opposition, reduce the voice of everyday citizens to a pathetic whimper, perhaps worst of all, promoted war and ecological destruction, bringing us face-to-face to possible human extinction. And we should expect to undo all of this with an article here and there, a few comments, and some Twitter and Facebook posts?

I don’t mean to criticize or mock anyone. But I get this all of the time and every time I’m truly astounded that well-meaning, concerned progressives think there’s some quick and easy defense to the wrecking ball taken to the building blocks of our “democracy” and the value system that underpins it, and to repair the colossal damage already done by the oligarchs to our current quality of life and potential for a decent and harmonious future.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen and everything in between, there’s a lot of work to be done. And with some reservations, I’m inspired by the enormous amount of energy and time devoted by the few sane activists among us.

Unfortunately, almost all of that energy and time is completely wasted. It isn’t going anywhere and never will without some serious rethinking and creative strategizing.

Change is impossible without “the people” and the vast majority of people are pretty much left scratching their heads at BLM, woke, cancel culture, Antifa, QAnon, Proud Boys, build back better, and especially the incapacitating, binary weaponizing of everything into left vs. right, Republican vs. Democrat, and all related iterations: liberal vs. conservative, Trump vs. Biden/Sanders/Clinton.

Here’s the main problem as I see it. People vote against their own interests because they’re overwhelmed, confused, misdirected, brainwashed. They step into the voting booth thinking they’re voting for one thing and end up getting the opposite. The science of messing with people’s minds has surpassed quantum physics in sophistication. Soon we’ll all be implanted with neural interfaces and directly turned into clueless, obedient drones. But that’s for another article.

What I try to do is introduce issue-by-issue some genuine clarity. Remove any possible ambiguity or misinterpretation. If you want this, then do that. To the point of this article, if you want to know if the candidate you’re voting for is truly on your side, then perform a simple, straightforward, sensible test. You can and will know. The result will be a clear and unambiguous ‘yes’ or ‘no’.

That in a nutshell is the whole idea behind the electoral strategy I’ve been talking about for ten years. Another topic for yet another piece, as if I hadn’t already written three books and hundreds of such articles already. But for now let me quickly reiterate, the candidate contract electoral strategy represents issue-by-issue clarity and real choice. A candidate is either for the proposed change, or against it. He or she signs on the dotted line making their commitment crystal clear. If they sign, we know where they stand. If they don’t sign we know where they stand. In either case, we as voters know exactly what to do.

Why don’t current activist demands for real change ever make a difference?

Two reasons . . .

FIRST:  They are directed at the wrong people. They are directed at those in power who are not listening, will not act, will never listen, will never act favorably. We only need to look at the record to know this is true. Very legitimate, extremely popular reforms simply NEVER GET DONE. Do I need to mention a few? 

 • Decent good-paying jobs

 • Fair, equitable, livable wages

 • Health care reform (Medicare4all)

 • Serious attention to climate change

 • Election reform (getting $$s out of politics)

 • Law enforcement and comprehensive prison reform

 • Ending the wars (reversing military expansion)

 • Comprehensive immigration reform

Mind you, there are huge consensuses on these and similar issues. How do we know what these areas of agreements are? There’s no mystery. Poll after poll, year after year, point to pretty much the same things. Without exception, concerns about the economy are at the top of the list. People now more than ever are struggling. The American Dream is fading and prospects for the future are becoming increasingly bleak. 

SECOND:  Many activists are personally committed to a cause, feel enormous passion for that cause, can’t imagine a world without it, can’t imagine any decent, aware human being being opposed to that cause. 

Unfortunately, they’re often wrong and despite their best efforts, nothing changes, nor will it ever change. Either the object of their devotion is unpopular and/or it simply doesn’t even get noticed. There’s not sufficient public awareness, perhaps little enthusiasm, for whatever they’re promoting. Such niche issues are important and can be addressed when we have a Congress and White House listening to and on the side of the people. But until we put in power who actually represent the interests of the vast majority of citizens — NOT those of the ruling elite, Wall Street, the MIC, big banks and big corporations — NOTHING WILL GET DONE for the people. PERIOD!

These two undercurrents are intertwined and synergistic . . . in the worst possible way. Making impassioned pleas to our elected officials when they’re not listening is a non-starter and enormous waste of energy and resources. Focusing on issues which have little popular support ends up discrediting activists and knee-capping more promising activism, all too often turning the majority of citizens off. This not only drives away support, but infects the citizenry with cynicism about anything positive ever getting done. Predictably, resignation and apathy sets in. Just look around. Look at the comments we see on articles like this. Hopelessness is growing. Surrender is the new pandemic.

The system is rigged … AGAINST US, WE THE PEOPLE. 

It’s certainly foolhardy to think that the people who benefit from the rigging are going to unrig it. They will continue to do what they’ve been doing. Serving themselves. Ignoring us. They will thrive. We will suffer.

Maybe naively I believe we can refocus, unite, change things. Maybe foolishly I believe we can rock the boat enough to get the scoundrels on board into the drink, without sinking the ship.

But I don’t think so.

We can fight this but we have to work together.

So what do we do?

First, we apply the Ultimate Wedge Issue Test. What is that? There are certain issues which are crucial to the survival of our nation as a democracy which “promotes the general welfare.” The test determines who is in favor of a nation that works for everyone, not just a privileged elite, and who is too selfish, myopic or misinformed to want what is the foundation of our society … equality, justice, peace, harmony, opportunity.

This is the wedge. Either you’re for working together as a society . . . or you’re for continuing on the road to oligarchy, tyranny, fascism. This applies both to citizen voters and candidates for office.

I sincerely believe that the majority of citizens want a country that works for everybody.

Issue-by-issue we find out what we as citizens think is important, then issue-by-issue we see which candidates are willing to commit to getting the job done.

We only vote for those candidates who are on the side of the vast majority of Americans.

No excuses. No compromise. No exceptions.

While applying the “wedge test”, we always keep in mind, this has nothing to do with party or label or ideology. It’s strictly about where candidates come down on those items which the vast majority of citizens have targeted as essential — in most cases things we’ve needed all along — things across the board that haven’t been getting done.

As I said, we all already know what these issues are. And we know those now in office have not nor will they ever support us in promoting and instituting the necessary reforms, such that WE THE PEOPLE get what’s long overdue . . . a fair stake in the vast wealth, blessings, and opportunities of the allegedly richest country in history.

WE ONLY VOTE FOR CANDIDATES WHO GUARANTEE RESULTS.

Not just talk about it. Not just say pretty words and make empty campaign promises. Not just continue to spew out sound bites and pleasant-sounding word salad so we will again trust them, fall for their shallow rhetoric, and vote these hypocrites back into office.

Enough is enough!

ONLY VOTE FOR CANDIDATES WHO GUARANTEE THEY WILL LISTEN TO AND SERVE THE NEEDS OF EVERYDAY CITIZENS.

It’s that simple. I didn’t say easy. No way will this be easy. But it’s certainly simple.

It starts with us no longer being gullible fools. Those in power will continue to lie to us, continue rigging the system in their favor and that of their patrons, the privileged elite, if we let them.

But we can stop this right now. By getting serious about installing a government of the people, by the people, for the people. By electing “people’s candidates” who have proven themselves worthy of our vote.

No negotiation. No compromise. No fear.

It’s our future. It’s up to us.

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

The Ultimate Wedge Issue Test | John Rachel

“Daddy is a drunk!”

I’ve spent at least ten years talking about “regime change in Washington DC”, trying to explain exactly what that entails, and why it’s necessary for the survival of our nation.

Here’s my last go at it. Daddy is a drunk! It’s an allegory.

Before I start with this heartwarming story about a dad who’s a drunk, let me just make one qualifier. When I advocate regime change in our nation’s capitol, I’m not suggesting a violent revolution. In fact, the idea is to AVOID that, because if there is a violent overthrow of authorities here in the U.S., I have no doubt it will be the bloodiest, most horrifying one in history. We as a citizenry are armed to the teeth, are obsessed with and glorify violence in our myths about ourselves as people and as a nation. Even those who claim to abhor violence seem inexplicably tolerant, with all sorts of rationalizations for never getting serious about eliminating guns or attempting to refashion a culture which is predicated on less adversity, competition, and confrontation. I’m not here to argue any of that. I’m just stating the obvious. If there’s another civil war, it will be a bloodbath.

Regime change, from my perhaps naive perspective — and I do mean total regime change — can be accomplished peacefully, humanely, and legally. But understand what I mean is truly, in fact, without qualification or compromise: REGIME CHANGE. It is removing every single person now holding public office from power and replacing them with qualified public officials who will actually serve the citizens of the country.

Today’s message is directed to the hugely vast majority of fellow citizens, who to my utter and complete astonishment, don’t see any need to replace ALL OF THEM. They don’t see that there are times in life, when things can’t be repaired. Something is so broken, it simply has to be tossed in the trash and replaced.

On to the most touching story you’ll read in the next several minutes.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Daddy Is A Drunk!

Daddy in his twenties was pretty much like most guys his age. He liked to go out and have a good time with his buddies. Have a few beers. Cheer the home team at a sports bar.

When he married mom, they’d occasionally share wine with the meal at a nice restaurant, or even once or twice a month have cocktails with their friends or other young couples.

Twenty years later, daddy was a different human being. The kids were in high school, he worked very hard and since he’d been very successful at his job, he didn’t “hang out” with his personal buddies anymore, but spent a lot of time socializing with colleagues from the corporation he worked at, and VIPs from the international customer base they serviced. Lots of travel now. High pressure and high stakes. But he got paid very well for it.

There was one problem. Now he drank constantly. Morning to night. He literally started the day with two stiff tumblers of bourbon, either of which would put most people on their tushies. Drinks at lunch. Drinks at happy hour. As soon as he arrived at home, he’d pour large glasses of whiskey, drink through dinner, then cap the night off with a few “sweet dreams” shots of liqueur before collapsing in a sloppy stupor on their king-size bed.

Daddy was a drunk.

But it wasn’t just his problem. It was a problem for every member of the family, for the few friends he and mommy still had, sometimes even for neighbors. Like when he drove his new Porsche onto the lawn of the neighbors next door, and wiped out $3000 of their professionally-landscaped lawn and garden.

Daddy had changed from a affable, well-liked, often funny, always entertaining young man into a ego-maniacal, self-possessed, graceless, humorless prick. Oh yes, he could still pour on the charm, even be funny, and in his own self-aggrandizing way be entertaining, nice, sympathetic, affable, whatever the occasion might call for. But the Mr. Fun Guy act would eventually fall apart, and behind the scenes he’d again become Mr. Hyde. Life at home was unbearable. He ranted. He paced. Appeared angry most of the time. Never took any real joy or satisfaction out of being there with his wife and kids.

It was tearing the family apart. Correction. Since this had been going on for three years — it started right when their oldest boy started high school — it had already torn the family apart. There was nothing left to salvage. The kids hated daddy. The wife hated daddy.

Over the three years, there had been five sessions of marriage counseling. Daddy had even agreed on and off to get psychiatric help. At least six times Daddy had been in and out of Alcoholics Anonymous. He’d even been to a hypnotist. Except for very brief periods off the bottle — only days, not weeks — it was the same story. And getting worse by the day.

Within the family — at least at first — they’d talk to daddy, plead with him, try to reason with him. They said all the right things. They thought what they said was persuasive and would make a difference: Daddy, you’re destroying yourself. Daddy, when you drink, you’re not the same person we know and love . Daddy, we just want to be with you and want what’s best for you. Daddy, you’ll be a much happier person — we’d all be happier — if you stop drinking. Daddy, you’re going to die if you keep this up. Please, daddy!

Through it all, with the rare glimpses of the pain and havoc he was creating in their lives, with a fleeting awareness that he had a serious problem, that he was hurting himself and those he who loved him, daddy would listen and apologize, promise to do better and claim he really appreciated their concern and help. He would do what was best for all of them and quit. Of course, that never happened. After only a few days off the bottle, when he went back, it seemed like he even drank more.

And so the family was — and still is — facing one stark, disheartening, unavoidable reality.

Daddy is a drunk.

Mommy can’t take it anymore. The verbal abuse. No affection. Nothing resembling companionship. No possibility of communication. Nothing could be done to fix things.

It was time for a drastic solution.

Daddy had to go. He had to be removed from the family before he did any more harm.

Mommy filed for and won a divorce. Daddy was gone.

If life was generous, mommy would find another man to love, to love her, and be the father to the kids they deserved.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

What’s the moral of the story? Sometimes things get so bad, there’s so much damage and bad history, you have to start all over.

That’s where we are at with our government, with the elected officials now in office, who time and again, over and over, make it clear they do not and will not serve the people who elected them to do just that. They are beholden to their deep-pocketed patrons, both major parties serve the ruling class. The connection between WE THE PEOPLE and those who are chosen — not by us but by the pay-for-play insiders of the Democratic and Republican parties — for us to vote for on election day, exists as a figment of fantasy, the product of very effective and very deceptive messaging. Regardless of what these puppets say during their money-drenched electoral campaigns, they are not on the side of the people.

We can’t take this anymore. We should be mad as hell!

The abuse of power. No loyalty to the voting public. They sidle up to us when they want our votes, then disappear inside the Washington DC bubble. They talk at us. They don’t listen. The iron grip of the rich and powerful on our current elected officials is absolute. There’s no fixing anything with those now in office.

It’s time for drastic action.

These lapdogs of the rich and powerful need to go. They must be removed before they do anymore damage. Examples: More looting of the Treasury to serve Wall Street and the big investment banks. More stalling on climate change, minimum wage, health care, abortion, criminal justice reform, election reform, infrastructure. None of it will get done. What will get done is privatizing social security, more tax breaks for corporations and the rich . . . MORE WAR!

Throw these bums out! You could randomly go through a telephone directory and select names and come up with a better Congress and White House than this circus of clowns who now pose as our national leaders. No . . . I’m not being funny. I’m dead serious!

And you should be too.

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

“Daddy is a drunk!” | John Rachel

Candidate Contracts: Weaponizing Populist Electoral Campaigns

Here we go again.  If you can handle my mid-Western whine, the above video offers a detailed explanation on how candidate contracts can be used to weaponize the electoral campaigns of populist candidates.  The entire text of the presentation follows here:

In my last article, I talked about the ethical and political basis for introducing candidate contracts into our electoral process.

Now I want to address their practical application, specifically how the candidate contract becomes a powerful and decisive weapon on the raging battleground that our campaigns for public office have become.

Let me be absolutely clear at the outset.  The candidate contract strategy can only be used to boost the effectiveness and accelerate the momentum of populist campaigns -- those which reflect the priorities and values of a majority of American citizens -- because the strategy is predicated on expressing the democratic will of that majority.  Therefore, using the candidate contract for narrow, niche activism, or unpopular causes is a non-starter.  In theory, candidate contracts can be drawn up for any reason, around any issue big or small.  But they are only effective in attracting voter support if they reflect enormous popular support.

Having said that, making the candidate contract the centerpiece of a populist campaign can be decisive -- it can win elections.

Here's how.

It's crucial to recognize, the candidate contract by embracing a number of pivotal populist policies, then requiring focused and unwavering dedication by whoever signs the contract to inaugurate those policies, is not intended to constrain or control the 'good guy' populist candidate.  These items are the things he or she would do anyway if elected.  In fact, within each district the 'good guy' populist candidates themselves each tailor the contract for their particular constituents, literally designing the contract he or she can and will deliver on. 

While my template lists eleven issues where vast majorities of Americans want decisive action, I recommend, that based on a familiarity and understanding of each local voting jurisdiction, only those "wedge" issues unique to a particular district and the campaign taking place there, be included in the contract for that district.  It's hardly necessary or even productive to put an entire campaign platform in the contract.  Less is more.  Three to eight decisive issues is sufficient.  Just enough to defeat the establishment opponents and assure victory.

For example, if the demographic is relatively older, Social Security and Medicare likely would be incorporated, whereas free college education may not be consequential enough to include.  If the demographic is young and working class, most likely the $15 per hour minimum wage clause should be adopted.  And so on. 

The 'good guy' populist candidate must know where the voters stand, and fashion his or her candidate contract accordingly.  Specifically, he or she is looking for those pivotal, high-visibility issues which have major voter support, but are not championed by the opposition candidates!  If an incumbent has, for example, voted in Congress against an increase in the minimum wage, and there's enormous support among low wage voters locally, that divergence is exactly what the populist candidate is targeting.

I can't stress this enough . . .

The contract should identify those issues with popular local support which differentiate him or her from their opponents.  The progressive candidate is on the side of the people, whereas the opponents -- establishment/centrist/neoliberal candidates from either major party -- are on the wrong side of these issues.

This now points us to how the candidate contract weaponizes the populist's campaign.

The contract draws a massive, unmistakable line in the sand.  The populist is on one side -- the side of the people -- and his or her opponents are on the other side.  The populist candidate offers the voters something substantial, powerful, unprecedented, a guarantee in writing in the form of a legally-binding contract, declaring in no uncertain terms, what he or she will be doing from day one when arriving in Washington DC, for those same voters who voted them into office.

What can the establishment candidates put on the table?  More vague promises, more empty rhetoric, more nice campaign slogans and pleasant sound bites?

Recognize this . . .

Establishment candidates cannot and will not sign the contract.  Why?  Because if they do, they will lose the fat checks from their deep-pocketed campaign donors -- corporations, Wall Street, big banks, the ruling elite -- and the corrupt pay-for-play major parties will withdraw their support as well.  The major party campaign machine will be put to what they judge as better use supporting someone who knows how their bread gets buttered.

Thus, the establishment candidates effectively surrender to the populist candidate exactly what's needed to put up a great fight and turn the tables.  The candidate contract becomes a weapon of mass destruction which can be aimed at the opposition, to gain the advantage and turn the whole campaign on its head.
 

The candidate contract, used properly and relentlessly, destroys the message, credibility, viability of anyone who won't sign on the dotted line.

Without any hesitation, it should be displayed proudly and prominently at every public event.

"Here it is, good people.  My guarantee to you the voters.  Look at this!  This is not some wishy washy campaign promise.  It's a legally-binding contract, spelling out in precise detail what I'll be doing for you, the voters, when I arrive in Washington DC.  That's my signature there at the bottom."

The other side of that is at every public appearance, town hall meeting, press event, photo op, the establishment candidates should be confronted with their lack of courage, honesty, and commitment to voters.  Using the candidate contracts, they should be called out by campaign and citizen activists who want real action, not posturing and prevarication.

I'm dead serious!

Vilify, demonize, discredit the establishment candidates for their disloyalty to the people.  If they were serious about serving the vast majority of citizens, they'd sign on the dotted line.  Not signing the contract means only one thing:  They're blowing smoke.  All their nice-sounding speeches and wonderful TV ads are just more vaporous, hollow blather.

Let me offer three examples.  Use your imagination and you'll come up with many more.

Get the FightFor15 crowd at campaign rallies for the 'bad guy' candidate.  Wave signs that say:  Why won't you sign the contract for the $15 minimum wage so I can afford to live?

Line up old people on the sidewalk in front of his campaign headquarters.  Beautiful old folks in rockers, wheel chairs, leaning on aluminum walkers.  Have them wearing t-shirts saying:  Why won't you sign the contract to protect my Social Security and Medicare?  Make sure the local press and TV stations are there to cover the geriatric insurrection.

Have the Veterans For Peace and Code Pink at his campaign rallies.  Hold up big banners:  Why won't you sign the contract to bring the troops home from Afghanistan?  No more American soldiers in body bags!

Is this negative?  Is this mean?

No, it's not negative.  And it's not mean.  It's a public service.  Voters need to know what they're getting when they vote for someone.  If that person won't come clean, then we need to come clean for them.  Not signing the contract is a BIG DEAL!  It's a BIG RED FLAG!  Voters deserve to know.
Especially with incumbents, it's absolutely our public duty to call them out on their false claims and excuses.  They haven't in the past demonstrated a basic understanding of their duties and responsibilities to their constituents.  And judging from their refusal to sign a simple, straightforward contract -- which reflects the will of majorities of citizens across the nation on issues that have now reached crisis levels -- these establishment candidates will not in the future be working for the everyday people of this country.  Instead they'll be working for the Wall Street banks, the multinational corporations, the rich and powerful. Instead of passing the legislation to address the critical problems we face, they'll be drumming up more campaign contributions for their next run for office.

The candidate contract allows honest, committed 'good guy' candidates who have integrity and are willing to answer directly to the good folks who elected them, to blow off the doors of calculated deception and treachery, and expose the corruption that has become endemic in American politics.  Corruption which silences the voice of the people and locks everyday citizens out -- individuals just like you and I -- preventing us from participating in our democratic form of government.
At the same time, it opens other doors.  And through those doors will walk representatives who represent, public servants who serve the public, determined, hard-working elected officials who will begin reinstating accountability, transparency and integrity, to a good system gone bad -- a unique promise of self-rule by all citizens, corrupted and co-opted by the crushing anti-democratic forces of unlimited money in politics, and unchallenged power by an autocratic ruling elite.

It's time we fight back.  Candidate contracts are the weapon of choice.

[ As a footnote, let me add one highly encouraging recent development.  Revolt Against Plutocracy is building an entire campaign around the candidate contract strategy which will constitute a major thrust in an effort between now and the 2018 election to challenge centrist/neoliberal candidates, and promote genuinely progressive/populist campaigns.  The folks there integrated the candidate contracts, which they call CFARs -- Contract For American Renewal -- with what they call their leverage strategy.  Keep a keen eye out for some significant electoral activism from this excellent organization, of which I'm now a board member and contributor. ] 


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



Candidate Contracts: Weaponizing Populist Electoral Campaigns

Candidate Contracts: A Democratic Renewal

If you can handle my tinny, nasally mid-Western voice, the above video offers a detailed explanation on how candidate contracts take the guesswork out of voting and set a whole, new standard for electoral integrity in our country.  Or you can just read the entire text of the presentation, which follows here:

The candidate contract idea is simple and straightforward.

The candidate contract takes the guesswork out of voting.

It sets a new standard for deciding where a candidate stands on crucial issues, how serious that candidate is about solving problems which are important to us voters, how serious that candidate is about representing his or her constituents.  In fact, it sets down in writing what exactly that candidate will be doing when they arrive in Washington DC, right from Day One.

Every candidate says the right things.  They always say what they think the voters want to hear, the things that will get them elected.  Everyone understands this.

But talk is cheap.  And after they get elected, when these folks arrive in our nation’s capital and get inside that DC bubble, amnesia sets in.

How do I know?

That’s simple.  It’s so obvious anyone can see it.  You just have to look.

Just consider a few of these items.

63% of Americans want a federal minimum wage of $15.00 per hour.
That means more than 6 out of every 10 citizens want the minimum wage hiked to $15 per hour.  Mind you the minimum livable wage in urban areas like New York, San Francisco, Boston is over $22 per hour.  But $15 per hour would be a good start in the right direction. What is it now?  It’s equivalent in today’s dollars to what it was in 1950!  It’s a paltry $7.25 an hour.  It hasn’t increased since July of 2009.  That’s eight years ago!

75% of voters want fair trade agreements protecting jobs, workers, the environment.  75%! That’s a huge majority opposed to the trade bills which now give corporations enormous advantages, are responsible for exporting our jobs, destroying our unions, replacing good permanent employment with low wage temporary jobs.  Is Congress listening?  It doesn’t matter which party is in the Oval Office or even on Capitol Hill.  We still get NAFTA, CAFTA, TTIP, WTO.  Last year our pay-for-play legislators in the deep pockets of the multinational corporations fast-tracked TPP, the worst trade bill in history.  These neoliberal lapdogs won’t quit until we’re all back to being hunter-gatherers!
76% of voters want a cut back on military spending.  So what do we get next year?  Trump proposes an increase of $56 billion in the official defense budget with members of Congress from both parties cheering him on like a bunch of snarling pit bulls.

76% of voters want the U.S. completely out of Afghanistan.  We’ve been fighting that miserable pointless war for 16 years, folks!  They promised to get U.S. troops out of the country by 2014.  Now it’s 2017 and they’re putting more troops back in.  We’re going to be there forever!  For what?  To waste another $600 billion dollars and have more of our best and brightest come back in body bags?
79% of voters want no reductions in Social Security.  70% support expanding it.  79% of voters want no reductions in Medicare.  Here we have two of the most successful programs in our history, loved and supported by the people.  Yet every new session of Congress, there’s talk about cutting benefits, raising eligibility age -- slash slash slash.  Or they talk about “privatizing” it, which is doublespeak for turning it over to Wall Street so they can gamble with the money we’ve put away all our lives.  

It’s truly a crime!

There are many more.  So far I’ve just scratched the surface.

But there’s one last one I’ll mention that truly tells the story, that shows what a sad state of affairs our faltering democracy is in.  Get this: 93% of Americans want GMO labeling.  Mind you, they’re not saying GMOs must be banned.  They’re just saying that the labels for our processed food should say whether the product contains GMO ingredients or not, so that a shopper can make an informed judgment about whether they want to buy it — a mother who wants to be prudent in planning the diet for her kids, a person who may have severe food allergies which requires them to pay attention to the ingredients on a label.  93%!  That crosses all party lines, ideologies, religions, liberal, conservative, all ethnicities, visitors from outer space.  93%!  And Congress won’t pass a bill requiring GMO labeling.  That really says it all, doesn’t it?

Okay, we’ve got a range of different issues on the candidate contract we’ve prepared.  They are the things millions and millions of Americans want done — huge majorities of U.S. citizens.  As different as these items individually are, what do they all have in common?  You've got it!  NONE OF THIS GETS THROUGH OUR DEADBEAT CONGRESS!  Well, I shouldn’t say they’re deadbeat, because they’re not.  They are actually working hard to make sure none of these things gets passed, working hard not for you and I, but for their rich patrons, their deep-pocketed Wall Street donors, their Koch brothers and defense contractors, investment bankers and hedge fund buddies.

Like I said, candidates always say the right things.  Take minimum wage:  “I believe everyone deserves the right to make a decent living. This is the richest nation on earth. Every person deserves a good life.”  Sound familiar?  What’s he going to say? I think some folks should starve to death on slave wages?  Of course not.  But he used a lot of words to say nothing.  The candidate contract makes it a simple but powerful yes or no question: Will you commit in writing to raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour or not?  Yes or no.

So . . . all we’re saying to a candidate is this:  "We love your TV ads, you’ve got a lovely family, your t-shirts and bumper stickers look great!  But running this country is serious business.  So from now on, we want it in writing, in black-and-white, in a legally-binding contract what you will be doing to serve us, the folks who are sending you to your cushy job in Washington DC.  No ambiguity.  No compromise.  No equivocation.  We want it spelled out as an 'employment contract' and we are asking you to sign it.  We’re not forcing you.  It’s your choice.  It’s a straightforward deal here.  You sign the contract, you’ve got our vote.  You don’t sign the contract, we’re looking for a candidate who has the integrity, courage, and responsibility to sign it.  We’ll be voting for that person.  Understand this:  There’s no room for negotiation.  This is final!  That’s the way it works now."

You see, professional politicians have gotten spoiled.  They get so much attention, so much money, so many favors lavished on them once they get in office, they forget the most important single aspect of their job description:  THEY WORK FOR US!  We’re not casting votes for them to talk to lobbyists and rich campaign donors.  We’re casting our votes to have them go to DC and work on behalf of us, the people, the everyday Americans that make up 99% of the population.

Please. Just read the contract.  Everything in it is what at minimum 62% of us regular folks want done.  On many items, it’s even greater.  75%.  78%.  80% and above.  Right now those things aren’t getting done.  Year after year, our elected officials ignore the will of the people, the very citizens who vote them into office.  The candidate contract will make sure they start paying attention.

Here’s the simple truth.  Here’s what’s happening on the ground in real time right now in America.
Voters are tired of slick campaign rhetoric and empty campaign promises.  They’re fed up with a system that’s rigged.

They’re fed up with being left behind, forgotten by their elected officials.

They’re tired of everything getting done for Wall Street, the big banks, the corporations, the wealthy.

They’re fed up with nothing getting done for the PEOPLE — honest, hard-working everyday citizens.
Folks!  We need to DRAW A LINE IN THE SAND!

No negotiation.  No excuses.  No mercy.  No fear.

That’s exactly what the candidate contract does.  It lets us know exactly who’s on our side and who isn’t.

Okay, one last point:  People sometimes ask me, “What kind of candidate would sign such a contract?”

The answer to that is very simple:  A candidate who wants to win the coming election.  The contract spells out what the voters want by huge majorities.  Voters are sick and tired of compromises. They want the job done and want it done right.  Therefore, voters need to stand united and stand strong.  Vote only for candidates who are on their side, who will work for them!  And that being the case, the reason why a candidate should be running full speed with pen in hand to sign the contract is because they want to get elected and be sent to Washington DC to serve those who elected them honestly, faithfully, transparently.

Let me add some beautifully twisted logic to illustrate further why a candidate would want to sign this contract.

We all know there are some good people in politics, decent human beings who truly want to do the right thing.  But politics is often more about power, money, twisting arms, bullying, than about doing what’s good for the people.  So let’s say our candidate — who has signed the contract — arrives in Washington and right off the bat, there’s some lobbyist at his door.  The lobbyist gives his pitch, the typical let’s-see-what-we-can-do-here, the usual I’ll-scratch-your-back-if-you’ll-scratch-my-back blah blah blah.  He’s got some mega transnational corporation paying him big bucks to wax the slide with Congress and get some favorable legislation passed.  Well, here’s the beauty of the contract: Our guy, the one who got elected because he signed on the dotted line with you the voters, can say:  “Hey, I sure appreciate your coming in and talking to me about this.  But here’s the deal.  I’m under contract to my constituents.  I have no room to negotiate, no room to trade or bargain on any of this.  If I go against my constituents on this, I’ll be on the streets without this job, I’ll have to refund all my campaign contributions — and hey, the money is spent, how will I begin to do that? — and I’ll probably get my ass sued for more money than I’ll make in a lifetime.  So even if I wanted to go along with what you’re proposing, I have no choice.  I am legally-bound by contract to answer only to those who voted me into office.  Thanks for stopping by.  Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.”

See how this works?  See why this introduces an unprecedented level of honesty, transparency, integrity, back into voting?  Do you see why at least in terms of good, decent, honest politicians, we’re actually doing THEM a favor with this contract.

Okay, I’ve talked your ear off.  Let me wrap this up.

Yes, the candidate contract is a new innovation.  But it’s a necessary innovation.  Before there were cars, we didn’t need traffic lights.  Before big money and unprecedented concentration of wealth and power into the hands of a ruling elite, we didn’t need an enforceable contract with our elected officials.  Times change and we need to change with it.  Candidate contracts are the answer to the dismal state of our democracy. 

Granted, we have a lot of work to do to repair the mess we’re in.  But good work depends on good dependable workers.  Let’s put some real public servants in office who will serve the public, not just the rich and powerful. Let’s put some representatives in Congress who will represent everyday Americans, not Wall Street banks, corporate CEOs, not the incomprehensibly rich.  Let’s put some integrity back into our elections by electing only those with the integrity to sign on the dotted line, guaranteeing they will work for you in creating an America that works again for everyone.

---

Here is the link to look at the version of the candidate contract for a progressive running for the House of Representatives:  Candidate Contract - An American Renewal.

If you're interested in getting into the real details of an independent campaign using the candidate contract strategy -- and it is an entire electoral strategy, not just a slip of paper with some legalese -- I recommend reading the two books which got me noticed by the progressive activist groups now adopting the candidate contract for future campaigns.

 

"Candidate Contracts: Taking Back Our Democracy" was published in June of 2015 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 September 2015 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 ]



Candidate Contracts: A Democratic Renewal

Whack A Mole Activism

Why is it in terms of progressive reform the country is going backwards?

Last time I checked, citizens were by very sizable majorities for practically all of the things progressive activists actively promote.

I've cited these statistics repeatedly but they're worth looking at again:

75% of Americans want a federal minimum wage of $12.50 per hour.
63% of Americans want a federal minimum wage of $15.00 per hour.
75% of voters want fair trade agreements protecting jobs, workers, the environment.
76% of voters want a cut back on military spending.
76% of voters want the U.S. completely out of Afghanistan.
79% of voters want no reductions in Social Security, 70% support expanding it.
79% of voters want no reductions in Medicare.
80% of voters oppose the "Citizens United" U.S. Supreme Court decision.
68% of voters think taxes on the wealthy should be increased.
71% of voters support massive infrastructure renewal.
65% of voters want laws to combat climate change.
62% of voters want tuition free public colleges and universities.
74% of American voters are for ending oil industry subsidies.

We could probably add a few more to the list but this offers us the necessary perspective.
A great deal of energy and time by dedicated activists continues to be devoted to these and many other worthy causes: protecting a woman's right to choose; respecting human rights, especially those of immigrants and vilified minorities like Muslims; protecting the quality of air and water, stopping the wanton destruction of the environment; reining in abuses in the workplace; reducing police violence; on and on, all initiatives reflecting the best values and instincts of people who believe America is for all Americans, not just a privileged few.

Yet, all of these are constantly under assault.

This should come as no shock.  There has always been a tiny aristocratic elite in our nation which views itself -- not hard-working everyday citizens -- as the true engine of our wealth and greatness as a country.  Reacting to both the reforms of the 1930s under FDR, and the hard-won gains in civil and human rights in the 1960s and 1970s, these elitists set about reversing these populist measures with a comprehensive, long-range strategy of taking over the governing institutions at all levels and in every branch of government, then subsequently imposing their own selfish, self-serving agenda on the rest of us.

What we see now is their spectacular success.  The Republicans -- who most thoroughly and with ideological purity represent the interests of this ruling elite, though over the past two-and-a-half decades or more, the Democrats have been scrambling to align themselves with the ruling class, abandoning their traditional base of union workers and other citizens of the lower and middle classes -- now have the White House, both houses of Congress, a majority of the state legislatures.  Even the majority of state governors are Republicans.

They have kicked our progressive asses good!

The reaction by our end of the political spectrum to this highly organized assault on the system of government, which we progressives and the majority of everyday people believe is supposed to serve the interests of all citizens, has been short-sighted and fragmented. 

The end product of decades of what we failed to properly assess and address is what I call Whack A Mole activism.

Just like the amusement center Whack A Mole game -- though we hardly find it amusing -- we are constantly challenged to whack at one crisis, while others are poised to quickly follow.  There's always another crisis popping up somewhere else.

We haven't even finished fighting in Afghanistan or Iraq, but now we have to fight another war in Syria.  While we're fueling the crisis in Syria, we start another one in the Ukraine.  As if these weren't enough, we're getting ready to fight Russia, China, North Korea.

We stop the Keystone XL, but five more pipelines get backroom approval.  We get ready to challenge them, the Arctic gets opened up again for more drilling.  More offshore rigs start popping up everywhere.  Leases are being handed out like Halloween candy to explore for gas in our National Parks.  Our heads are spinning.

We see school lunch programs cut.  Funding for the arts.  Then women's health centers get put on the chopping block.  Before the paint on our protest signs dries for those, the police kill a bunch of unarmed black folks because . . . well, they're black.  What other reason do the police need these days?

Even a crisis that we think we whacked, gets new life and pops up again a short time later.  Think about Net Neutrality.  Think about the modest, completely inadequate and symbolic victories on behalf of fighting climate change with the timid and compromised gestures of the Obama administration, wiped out with the swipe of a pen by Trump.  Look at banking and Wall Street regulations.  Consumer protections. One step forward, four steps back.

The crises keep coming faster and faster and just keep piling up.

Let's get real here.  There's no way we can win.  Just like the slot machines in Las Vegas, this game is rigged.  The house will always win.  Who owns the house?  They do!

They keep us scrambling.  They keep us divided.  They keep us distracted, in a constant state of panic, disoriented and exhausted by the sheer number of crises being created, we're never able to mount a unified, comprehensive, coherent counterattack.

Whether you credit the ruling elite with the ingenuity to have intentionally crafted this constant state of frenzy and chaos, or whether it has just been a convenient and effective but purely chance by-product of their original program, the upshot is the same.  We are being systematically crippled in our attempt to stop the juggernaut of regressive change.

What's pathetic about all of this, beyond our continuing failure to make much difference and the clear prospects that we will only lose more of these battles as time goes on, is that there apparently is still this naive, completely clueless belief that by just appealing to those now in power, by just pointing out the virtues of our reasonable demands, by highlighting the goodness and justice and fairness and decency of our causes -- yes by golly -- they will actually listen to our heart-felt pleas, come around, and do the right thing!

Maybe we watched too many Disney movies growing up, eh?

Let's not kid ourselves any longer.  There is a class of ultra-wealthy people, a tiny elite minority who despise us, disdain democracy, believe themselves extraordinary, superior, and above the rules and considerations which apply to the rest of us slobbering inferiors.  You can look at this psychologically, anthropologically, historically, sociologically, however you choose to analyze this phenomenon.  The reality is that it has been a factor in recorded history as long as there has been recorded history.

A fundamental principle in an egalitarian democracy is that such inevitable aristocratic forces be kept in check.  Look around.  We have failed.  Those aristocratic, authoritarian, elitist instincts which are always part of the DNA of a certain class of such patricians, are completely out of control in contemporary America.  The commons is being plundered or acquired and hoarded, the "general welfare" is being ignored -- even mocked -- the notion of the American Dream has become a punch line for a comedy routine that's played out on the stage of a country in a suicidal tailspin, a nation unraveling and apparently determined to now promote everything it once stood against: grotesque wealth inequality, plutocratic pillage, grotesque and anti-democratic militarism, foreign entanglements and imperial conquest, perpetual war, destruction of citizen privacy and constitutional protection.

Of course, if we point any of this out, or especially if we gather the courage to fight "them" and their self-serving agenda, we'll be accused of being troublemakers, insurrectionists, anarchists, communists, traitors.

But never ever forget . . .

Regular folks like you and I did not and are not starting a class war.  The simple truth is, we're the victims of an ongoing class war started a long long time ago, a class war which just becomes more fierce and destructive with each passing day and each passed piece of legislation by our corrupt Congress.  Make no mistake about it.  We are in a war!  It's a battle for survival.  The ruling class do not care if we live or die.  Unpleasant as this may sound, these are the facts on the ground.
Sometimes I'm accused of being extreme.  Excuse me?  The rich and powerful have stolen our country, destroyed our democracy, are now putting the finishing touches on a new incarnation of feudalism, and I should be deferential and gracious, warm and amicable?

I should give a pass to the Koch brothers?  Sure, they have families and friends, probably go to church every Sunday and sing All Hail the Power of Jesus's Name, or another lovely hymn praising the God that so blessed them with gold bumpers on their new Rolls Royce.  So what?  Their psychopathic level of greed and diabolical destruction of the environment is incompatible with democracy, with common decency, with the values of our nation, and with the survival of the human race.  THEY ARE THE ENEMY!  Period!

As the enemy, they are not to be respected, trusted, certainly not hailed as exemplars of our way of life.  They're just like demented children beating an anthill with a baseball bat.  We are the ants.

If as I say it's true that we're being played by the ruling class . . .

How then do we stop playing the Whack A Mole activism game?

There's only one solution:  We unplug it, take it out back, then take a sledgehammer to it.
We destroy the machine!

How does this translate to the struggle of everyday citizens to take back control of their country from an abusive and ruthless ruling class?

There's a lot of room for interpretation here and history is replete with examples.

The obvious and most decisive way of "destroying the machine" is a bloody revolution.

Perhaps I am naive but I'm hoping we can avoid that.  Considering both the enormous fire power of the federal authorities and the mind-numbing number of privately-owned guns, a revolution in the U.S. would be an unprecedented bloodbath.

Destroying the machine in my view is destroying the mechanism by which the ruling class now exclusively impose their will on our republic.  That mechanism is "owning" those who we allegedly democratically elect as our legislators.  The Achilles heel of that ownership are those owned.  We stopped the ownership of our governing officials by replacing the owned with the unowned.

Almost everyone now sitting in Congress is directly responsible for or complicit with the control of our legislative bodies by the ruling class.  They benefit from it.  They go along with it.  They are not going to change it.

Therefore we must change them.  Either we change their behavior -- a dubious prospect at this stage from what we've seen -- or we "change" the them who hold those positions.  We "unelect" those now in office and elect honest, accountable, responsive representatives to replace them.

That is why I'm calling for regime change in Congress in 2018.  This to me is the positive, non-violent path to cutting deep into the system and excising the poison of corruption.

We must look at replacing at least 400 of the current sitting members in the House of Representatives, and the 33 senators up for election in 2018.  This is certainly a drastic proposal.  But sometimes you need to completely clean house and start from scratch.

Should we take them out back and take sledgehammers to them?

There are probably many in this country who are so frustrated and angry -- or will be when they finally realize the level of corruption of our current elected officials -- they might opt for such violent reprisals.

I myself say the most important thing is to get these criminals out of office before they do any more damage to the country.  If you press me for how we should handle long histories of such political criminality, of abuse of public trust and the mockery they've made of our system of government, I will say that I can see a special tribunal being set up -- along the lines of the Nuremberg war crimes trials -- and our current congressmen being indicted.  We could call it the American Crimes Against Democracy Court of Reconciliation.

Maybe there would be a new arcade game along those lines to help fund the proceedings.

The Whack A Politico activist game!

In my next two articles, I will get into the specifics of implementing my candidate contract strategy toward dramatic regime change in Congress via the 2018 election.

We can continue playing a pointless game toward a fruitless ending.

Or we can unite and change the game itself.

That's the choice in 2018.


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



Whack A Mole Activism