Putting Boots (Birkenstocks) on the Ground: Part V

 

Bernie Sanders talks eagerly about a "revolution".

While this obviously is fantastic campaign rhetoric, his presidential aspirations fall a bit short of a revolution.  Many of his ideas for reforming the political system, revamping our national priorities, and replacing the current agenda with one that serves the greater good of the vast majority of citizens, notably are consistent with revolutionary change.  It is hopeful, heartening, inspiring, truly a breath of fresh air in the stagnant and highly toxic atmosphere of the now dominant neoliberal/neocon regime in Washington DC.

But the simple fact remains:  We're not electing a king.  We're only electing a president.  Reform comes from changing the laws.  Changing the laws comes from changing the law makers.  Either we change their minds or we change them, meaning we replace them with elected public servants who will serve the public instead of their corporate masters.

This entire series of articles is about exactly that . . . the need for such change and how I see that coming about.

It's all about people power.  Not PACs and SuperPACS.  Not big piles of money -- though the enormous sums the wealthy throw into the ring present a formidable obstacle for even the most organized and energetic citizens groups.

Change still comes down to the choice each of us personally makes in the voting booth.  Power resides in our aligning our individual choices, so that collectively -- as in tens of millions of us united in an unstoppable juggernaut of people power -- we get done what needs to get done.

I've already pointed at many crucial issues where there is substantial agreement.

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.
74% of American voters are for ending oil industry subsidies.
93% of voters want GMO labeling on their food.

In Part IV of the series, I recommended collecting signature from people on a combination pledge-petition, which does two things:  1) it ascertains the level of local voter support for specific issues; and 2) invites individuals to take a stand on those issues, i.e. solicits their commitment to only vote for candidates who if elected will represent them and promote the agenda their constituents have united behind.

So we are now confronted with a critical question . . .

How do we know a candidate will do what we want once elected?

My solution is so simple and so obvious, many scoff and dismiss it immediately.

These are the same types of people who, by the way, stood on the beach at Kitty Hawk, scoffing and derisively observing:  "Ha! That contraption will never fly!"

The short answer is . . . we make the candidate sign a legally-binding contract.

While the contracts can address any number of issues, here is an example, specifically for a candidate running for House of Representatives, demanding an increase in the minimum wage to $15.00 per hour.


 
If you're immediate reaction is . . .

"Why, my congressman will never sign something like that!"

. . . all I can do is jump for joy!  It means we're getting somewhere!

I'll explain exactly how this is intended to work in the next installments of Putting Boots (Birkenstocks) on the Ground.  But before we go there, I have to make one critical point.  This really has to sink in and be fully understood in order to appreciate the power of the candidate contract and its potential as a game-changer in our current dysfunctional political environment.  Here it is . . .

While the candidate contract is a legally-binding agreement, properly implementing it is NOT A LEGAL STRATEGY.

IT IS A POLITICAL STRATEGY!

This is not about courts and juries and lawyers.

It is about forcing elected representatives to represent us.

It is using a legal instrument to our POLITICAL ADVANTAGE!

Please repeat this as often as needed for it to sink in . . .

Candidate contracts are legal instruments to force democratically-elected representatives to represent their constituents. They are political levers!

They are POLITICAL SLEDGEHAMMERS!

All will become clear in the next installments.



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



Putting Boots (Birkenstocks) on the Ground: Part V

We’ll just have to agree to agree.

 

Agree to disagree?

How about if we agree to agree?

Did you know that 72% of American voters want a federal minimum wage of $10.00 or more.

74% of American voters are for ending oil subsidies.

76% of American voters want to cut back on military spending.

79% of American voters want no cuts in Social Security and Medicare.

93% of American voters want labeling of GMOs in their food.

There is vast agreement that the Citizens United decision was bad for America, with 80% 
against it and 65% strongly opposing it.

In a very recent poll, 68% of voters said that taxes on the wealthy should be increased.

I was very surprised, considering the stream of anti-Iran invective issuing from Congress, 
that 61% of Americans think we should do everything we can to cement the recent deal on
monitoring and controlling development of nuclear technology by Iran, as
opposed going to war, as is being promoted by Israel, Saudi Arabia, and
a rabid core of saber-rattling warmongers here in the U.S.

Glancing at the headlines, the constant stream of partisan yelling, social
turmoil, reports of widespread anger, mistrust, alarm and frustration,
you would never know that on many extremely crucial issues, there is
such a broad range of consensus among us normal, sane folks. You know
the people I'm talking about __ real people who have better things to do
than rail at everything and hate everyone in sight.

I'm not a conspiracist. But it sometimes seems as if a certain minority of
self-absorbed miscreants, who don't agree with the majority of decent
people in our country, decided to mangle and manipulate the
conversation. They seem bent on keeping things stirred up, making sure
we don't have a civil, constructive exchange of ideas, try to work out
our differences, then join together to move things in a good, positive
direction.

It's as if they intentionally mislead and misinform us.

By keeping us divided, they control us . . . making it easy to get their own way.

This is nothing new to other countries who view America as the greatest threat to world peace, as a source of chaos, a force not for unity and order but mayhem and disarray.

What we are beginning to recognize within our borders is what the world has for a long time observed outside of them.

They see an America which wantonly uses its military and economic power to muck things up, keep people scrambling, divided, confused, desperate. They watch in horror and fear as we destroy entire nations, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people, and then claim we're safer now because those countries are in shambles and no longer organized enough to stand up to us, oppose our policies, our exploitation, our callous bullying.

Is this what we want?

Surely we don't really want to live in a nation that is at war with itself
and everyone else. That's not the America we believe in . . . that we
care about . . . that we're proud of . . . the America we hope to hand down to future generations.

We can agree on that, can't we?

I'd say that's a good start.

Let's agree to agree.

Go from there.


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