This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Do We Need Politicians, Or Can We Cut Out the Middleman?
American Politicians Are Bought and Paid For
Virtually all independent economists and financial experts agree that the economy cannot stabilize or recover unless the giant, insolvent banks are broken up (and here and here). And the very size of the big banks is also warping our entire political system.
Politicians are wholly bought and paid for. As famed trend forecaster Gerald Celente writes in the current Trends Journal:
Politics today is little more than legalized prostitution. While a streetwalker gets busted for selling her body to a john, politicians get rewarded with campaign contributions for selling their souls to a corporation or lobbyist. With all of the whoring going on – the money exchanged and the pleasures lavished – the only one actually getting screwed was John Q. Public.
But the chairman of the Department of Economics at George Mason University (Donald J. Boudreaux) says that calling politicians prostitutes is inaccurate – because it is being too nice. Specifically, Boudreaux says that it is more correct to call politicians “pimps”, since they are pimping out the American people to the financial giants.
So the state of banking and politics in America is grim, indeed. But do we really even need banks or politicians? Or can we cut out the middle man?
This post looks at whether we can use Direct Democracy to cut out the corrupt political middleman. In a separate essay, we look at whether we can use alternative financial arrangements to cut out the big banks as financial middleman.
Do We Need Politicians … Or Can We Cut Out the Corrupt Middleman?Gerald Celente writes in this month’s Trends Journal:
For some years we’ve been seeing the promising stirrings of a global Renaissance; a “new order” that would reject the gross materialism, excessive consumerism and glorified militarism that has dominated contemporary western societies. But each initiative undertaken to retrofit and change the failing system has had its momentum blocked or sabotaged by the entrenched agents of “no change.”
***
Therefore, I’ve come to the conclusion that the only solution is to take that control from the handful of “them” – the power possessors and power brokers – and put the power into the hands of the people. But how?
***
I propose … of Direct Democracy – a potentially globe-changing movement that would replace today’s “representative democracy.” Positive change will not and cannot occur until power is taken away from the power obsessed.
While, in 2011, no one would dream of reinstituting the divine right of kings, what is passed off today as “Democracy” is little more than a structure to clandestinely
support an ersatz nobility that perpetuates that very divine right practice.
The Direct Democracy solution I propose will not only transfer power to the public (for better or for worse!), it will make “we the people” fully responsible for creating the future. The choice is stark. Either we take action to create our destiny, or others will continue to create it for us … and judging by past performance, we’re not
going to like what they create.
***
Regardless of who is elected – Republican or Democrat – the only solution I can see at this time that could save America (and be applied worldwide) is to take the power out of the hands of politicians and put it into the hands of the people.
In Switzerland, where this is practiced, it is called “Direct Democracy.” The people vote on major issues that affect them locally and globally, and the elected officials (whether they agree or not) perform their duties as “public servants,” carrying out the will of the people.
The US and other nations that call themselves “democratic” have “representative democracy.” In theory, elected officials pledged to carry out (represent) the will of the people. But, in practice, at least in modern memory, most elected officials carry out the will of special interests whose “campaign contributions” (a.k.a. bribes and payoffs) assure their subservience. While most everybody knows this, it’s both tolerated and accepted as political business as usual.
***
Given today’s dire socioeconomic and geopolitical conditions and our forecast for them to dramatically deteriorate, I believe that changing from a faux-representative democracy to Direct Democracy would be a giant step in the right direction. If the Swiss can do it successfully, why can’t anyone else?
***
WHERE TO START Understanding the tremendous power that social networking played in galvanizing the revolutions of the “Arab Spring” and the uprisings and protests raging through Europe, I propose using the same model to bring about a Direct Democracy revolution.
***
It should never be forgotten that no law is immutable. Laws are made only to be superseded by new laws. No clearer example can be given than the wholesale raping of the Constitution by the Supreme Court and successive presidents. What better time to write a new one? If the Founding Fathers could pull it off with horses, sheer will and quill pens, surely 21st century revolutionaries can make Direct Democracy a reality with the strokes of a keyboard. Not only can the Internet serve as the galvanizing force
to bring about Direct Democracy, it can also be used as the 21st century ballot box.
“Voting online could be subject to hacking and fraud,” the entrenched parties will argue. But casting a vote online is no more susceptible to “irregularities” than casting a vote at the polling place … be it stuffing the ballot boxes or rigging the voting machines.
In fact, voting online, with full transparency, would prove more secure than any polling place run by party operatives. I say, “If you can bank online, buy online, gamble on line, you can vote online!” Going to vote should be easier than going to the ATM. And if you don’t have your own computer, there’s always the polling place.
It is due time Thomas Jefferson’s vision that “… in due time the voice of the people will be heard and their latent wisdom will prevail,” prevails.
***
Publisher’s Note: “Representative Democracy,” the form of government we adhere to in the West, is no more than a cruel sham, a bone thrown to the proles following the overthrow of the aristocracies of the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries. The restive public was gulled into believing that, by voting for members of political parties pledged to represent their interests, their voices would be heard.
While attractive in principle, in practice, political parties come to represent the same very rich and very powerful interests that have ruled throughout history. Only the names and ranks have changed. No longer called Kings, Queens, Czars, Dukes and Barons, the new aristocracy is called the “too big to fail.”
***
Thinking people everywhere are recognizing that Direct Democracy can provide a blueprint for revolution in the New Millennium. Non-violent, intellectually and philosophically sound, emotionally empowering, and potentially inexorable … the greatest obstacle to Direct Democracy is to do nothing.
Celente also includes in his latest newsletter an article on direct democracy from Thomas H. Naylor. Naylor is Professor Emeritus of Economics at Duke University. For thirty years, he taught economics, management science, and computer science at Duke. As an international management consultant specializing in strategic management, Dr. Naylor has advised major corporations and governments in over thirty countries.
Naylor writes:
Taking note of the unsustainable, unfixable, gridlock nature of the US government and its inability to fix the American economy, Gerald Celente has proposed that the United States turn to Swiss-style Direct Democracy as an alternative way to resolve such divisive issues as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the magnitude of the government’s budget deficit, how to finance health care, the size of the defense budget, and national immigration policy. He envisions this being carried out on the Internet.
***
Over the past 700 or so years Switzerland has developed a unique social and political structure, with a strong emphasis on federalism and Direct Democracy….
Switzerland has a coalition government with a rotating presidency, in which the president serves for only one year. Many Swiss do not know who of the seven Federal Councillors in the government is the president at any given time, since he or she is first among equals. In Switzerland a petition signed by 100,000 voters can force a nationwide vote on a proposed constitutional change and the signatures of only 50,000 voters can force a national referendum on any federal law passed by Parliament.
Among the high profile issues that have been resolved by Swiss national referendums are women’s voting rights, abortion rights, creation of a new canton, abolition of the army, and Swiss membership in the League of Nations, United Nations, World Bank, IMF, and the European Union.
***
Most political scientists agree that the Swiss have taken the concept of democracy to levels heretofore unattainable any place else in the world. In his excellent book Direct Democracy in Switzerland (Transaction Publishers, 2002), Gregory Fossedal describes Switzerland as “a Direct Democracy, in which, to an extent, the people pass their own laws, judge the constitutionality of statutes, and even have written, in effect, their own constitution.” That’s a lot!
All of this is in stark contrast to the United States in which our government is owned, operated, and controlled by Wall Street, Corporate America, the Pentagon, and domestic and foreign lobbies. Whereas the primary role of Swiss Direct Democracy is to protect the Swiss people from the Swiss government, the US government is more concerned with protecting its powerful clients from the will of the American people. In Switzerland the people own their government. In the
United States the government owns us.
[Given how much larger the U.S. is than Switzerland, and our different politicial system, it would be challenging to institute Direct Democracy in the U.S.]
But the alternative is a nation whose government has lost its moral authority and is tightly controlled by a self-serving military/industrial/congressional complex accountable only to itself – a nation that has become unsustainable economically, militarily, socially, environmentally, and politically. The United States is so large that it may no longer be governable and has possibly become unfixable.
If there is a way out of our nation’s death spiral, Direct Democracy just might be one of our last remaining viable options. We could do a lot worse than emulate the Swiss.
If American politicians have become so corrupt that they are beyond redemption, maybe we should use Direct Democracy to cut out the middleman.
And see this analysis by Yves Smith of how the direct democracy-like process involved in the Wall Street protests is one of its greatest strengths.
Wouldn’t Direct Democracy Lead to Mob Rule?Some have expressed concern that direct democracy would lead to “mob rule”. In response to such fears, Gerald Celente responds:
Mob Rule? That’s precisely what we have now. The Wall Street Mob Rules. The Republican and Democrats? They’re nothing more than the White Shoe Boyz version of the Gambino’s and Bonnano’s.
Mob rule? “We the People” are too stupid to think for ourselves? What self respecting individual would look up to a House of Weiners to make life and death decisions for them? A Congressional Gang of 535 controlling the lives of 312 million … that’s mob rule!
We’re too stupid? We should bend over and suck up to The Gang of 535 … the DC Drama Queens and the Beltway Circle Jerks that put on a summer long Debt Ceiling Soap Opera … the inept and incompetents whose public spectacle was cited by Standard & Poor’s as a reason for the downgrading of US debt?
Those opposed to “Let the People Vote” are either party operatives, entrenched interests or little minds that can’t think … or are afraid to think … for themselves.
»
- advertisements -
Jefferson saw the value of government and helped found what you detest. Like most who follow idealogical celebrities (Stalin, Keynes, Marx, Rand), you fail to account for human nature in your preferred answer to the world's problems.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
No. Jefferson was a US citizen. He saw the value of his comfort. Associating Freedom and Jefferson is cheap propaganda. Jefferson did not favour freedom. He favours his comfort.
He is also an ideological celebrity/icon.
Human nature? US citizens are such deep knowers of human nature. If only they would like to share more about human nature...
Because for now, all they show as being human nature is the US citizens nature, which is smaller than human nature.
The small percentage of ruthless people who seek to rule others through manipulation or violence want you to believe that and so you do. They don't need any chains to keep you in line and you think you're smarter and better than anyone who would set his eye on the north star and make a run for it.
Anarchy can only be sustained if the natural rights of the individual are maintained. If someone with a bigger gun uses force to obtain his goals then that's not anarchy. It's the foundation of a new government.
Enlightened people who want to be free understand that they can only hold on to that freedom by vigorously defending it for themselves and by helping others to do the same.
In the final analysis it doesn't matter whether "my system" sucks. I have no interest in Utopias and my concerns revolve around what is necessary for a man's life and not some kind of perfection of society.
Anarchy can only be sustained if the natural rights of the individual are maintained.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
This is incredibly stupid.
Would you care to explain why you think so?
"Or do you envision that most people will simply be controlled by force or threat of starvation by the wealthy elite in the Randian "free market" utopia?"
Perhaps you misunderstood my comment...let me clarify.
My comment was a direct slap at ObamaCare.
When the government, by law, requires under civil or criminal penalty that you purchase a good or service from a private corporation you are living in a totalitarian state.
Have you found your free market utopia yet?
I don't believe in a free market utopia, because private companies do really bad things like bribe politicians to create ObamaCare aka insurance industry give away extraordinaire. I believe we are essentially ruled by multi-national corporations and bankers who have hijacked our representative democracy. Celente is suggesting an alternative that sounds a heck of a lot better to me than handing the keys to the hijackers.
"...who have hijacked our representative democracy."
Please find for me the word "democracy" in our founding documents.
"We the people"
Where do the words "free market" appear in the founding documents?
They DON'T, and that's the point!
"Free market" is simply what people do, until you force them to do otherwise.
Your reasoning falls apart after a cursory examination of 2000+ years of history. Without a stable government, warlords, Kings, gangs, whatever, rise up and take control. If the magical free market would arise instead, it would have happened by now. The free market answer to the world's problems is an illusion greedily adopted by those who crave simplistic answers to complicated problems.
Those stable governmets have killed more people and stolen more wealth than all the warlords ever born. Defend that, baby killer.
Give me direct Democracy over Stalin any day of the week. The baby killer comment just says that you have lost your argument and have nothing left but mud and shit to sling out of blind anger for having your worldview challenged by facts. With that, I'm done.
Right. When you defend the government's monopoly on violence which is responsible for the deaths of over a quarter of a billion people during the twentieth century I should not be upset. I should applaud you for terminating larval vermin and not suggest that you support baby killing.
Of course you're "done" because you will never be able to name any one who has used the free market to kill as many people as have been killed by government. Game over.
Now enjoy sweet dreams in which the only possible worlds are those run by Stalin or direct democracy. I imagine that such dreams appear exclusively in black and white.
Home run.
Strike out.
.
I saw what you wrote before you edited yourself. Once again, a brilliant point.
I was trying to edit the post to read:
You want to be the referee and a player at the same time. And that's why government never works.
And yes, it is an excellent point.
Actually, no, you were criticizing me for not answering your little friend's post which I already had. I guess we can add blatant dishonesty to your list of faults. Good night, Gracie.
But I did try to edit my post whether you believe it or not. Do you really think that you have a better knowledge of my actions than I do? That's just bizarre.
representative democracy works once we 1. get money influence out of politics; 2. focus on promoting equality of opportunity. short of meeting these 2 criterion we'd have to try egalitarianism.
At least try a parliament where coalitions from minority parties can form a majority. The "winner take all" system in the US ensures that we will only have two parties, and that the choices will suck.
This is why the representative democracy fails. Once your rep is voted in, he manipulates the conditions to keep himself in office.
Direct Democracy is a joke. Figure out a way to implement a direct republic and we'll talk.
Or at the very least direct democracy with an intelligence and current affairs test with voting limited to only net tax payers.
Switzerland is a multi-party federal parliamentary democratic republic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Switzerland
you dont think that maybe folk will pay more attention to current affairs if they have more power to infuluance policy. also most intelligent people think that bailing out the banks is a good idea. most stupid people dont. intelligent people do the most stupid things. or you could say that stupid folk are too stupid to do anything really stupid
as for net tax payers, that sounds a bit jim crow
Well then you will get 51% of the population voting themselves money and resources from the 49%.
One reason why we were given a republic and not a democracy by the FF.
We have the opposite now. Hmmm...
Uh, jerk off to Ayn Rand much?
Bourdeaux (my real name) says, again: "off with their heads"!
It's a lot healthier to just forget about them and build our own systems.
Californians vote themselves all sorts of goodies this way, no?
"Direct Democracy"--failed every time it's been tried. - Ned
Direct Democracy is superior because it's harder to buy a few million votes than a few dozen, do the math
People trashed this comment?? It is 100% true!
Or... maybe we just have a new batch of trolls here.
People? meh.
Just back from downtown today, after 3 enjoyable days. Walked by the Dewey Square venue, quite peaceful and got better over the weekend. Lots of "People" there, too.
But I got a sniff of not-so-quite-nice-as-they-would-wish-to-portray, well, "attitude." Signs and (physically) outlier members. Violent proposals mixed with "Peace." Totally different vibe from TP--> esp.: ZERO humor.
And certainly unlike reports of other "Occupy" sites, nothing publicly untoward nor entertaining. The site is really small, hard to get to, so didn't attract (as far as I saw) the "homeless" crowd.
- Ned
{sniff was not odor, no complaints on hygene at the venue}
{{Not at all what I'm reading about NYC, Paducah, etc., So kudos for the Boston crowd}}
{{{Then again, this is likely a series of experiments among the various states.}}}
{{{{"Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it", http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Santayana, I'm sure with such good weather today that at least one of the attendees of the Worlds Most Perfect University deigned to grace the walk on the "Common" with his/her presence.}}}}
We have people who don't know what a real democracy is.
Democracy is, tyranny of the majority over the minority.
We have people who don't know what a real democracy is.
Democracy is, tyranny of the majority over the minority.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
US propaganda is so cheap. Made me laugh.
Just a question for the fun of it
if democracy is ochlocracy, why did ancient people who determine the two, found it important to distinguish the two by two different words? Sophistry?
The point of a republic, you festering sore on humanity, is to protect the minority in society through its law. Year after year.
It is not to have that law changed every other year through the ballot box or plebescite at the whim of the 51% of the majority.
Ironically, the thing you defend with such reckless abandon would be your own undoing.
thanks.
I had been looking for a way to sum up your incessant trollboy American baiting tactics of the last week or so...but never considered the possibility that it could be boiled down to just one word!.....sophistry....brilliant self analysis....
now go find a life outside of irritating your betters.
Democracy is a religion, with only one Commandment: "Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote."
"Democracy is two Wolves and one tiny little piglet sitting around the lunch table and considering the question: 'What shall we have for lunch.' "
Representative democracy has become a fox opening the door to the henhouse and announcing what is for lunch.
Well put...lol.
Did you read the article? Like the part that deals with Switzerland?
caus-YES.
Got History?
- Ned
1. I do not see how "voting on internets" will change anything. Votes can be bought online and offline as well, and people will vote for the representatives that are paraded more on their television anyway.
2. The Switzerland example is much better and is really a nice example of direct democracy that paradoxically goes back to middle ages and is surprisingly successful. In few cantons the voter assembly (Landsgemeine) actually decides most important things. However, they still bailed out the banks without asking the voters if I remember correctly.
Votes can be manufactured online...
Fixed it for ya.
- Ned
{Those of us older than 104 weeks or so can remember the caterwauling when those nasty Diebold machines actually counted the votes correctly vs., let's say, Cook County "Voting Machines.}
http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Another-Vote-Wont-Landslide/dp/0870127489