As polls demonstrate, most Americans are losing faith in their elected officials: they feel both major parties are in one way or another are directly responsible for the increasing decline of America’s middle class. And they feel that the reason the parties are so willing to facilitate that decline is their now total devotion to Wall Street and the wealthy corporate elite — those who are profiting the most from that decline. That devotion has come with a price: the millions of dollars it takes to win elections and the promise of post-government careers on Wall or E Street. Now that elections have become so grotesquely expensive, only those with very rich campaign donors can expect to win — in either party.
Which essentially means that there are no longer two separate parties representing two separate collections of governing philosophies — there is now only one group of corporate stooges representing only the best interests of those who paid for their election. And it would appear that the Supreme Court decision in the case of Citizens United Vs. FEC, allowing unlimited corporate campaign funding, has locked that situation firmly in place.
A government of, for, and by corporations is otherwise known as a fascism, and most countries that have experienced such a government have fared badly. If we, the people, cannot come up with a way out of this collapsing box, we are going to lose both our personal and our financial independence. Most ideas for improving this situation call for some form of congressional legislation or constitutional amendment, and will certainly fail for one simple reason: no politician is going to vote against his or her best interests. “Will I vote to reduce corporate campaign donations? Sure I will — trust me!”
It is our contention that we, the people, are going to have to take matters into our on hands and bring about the changes necessary to avoid both a total collapse of our middle class along with all our hard-won rights, as well as an outright bloody revolution.
We recommend starting with a change in our method of representation. In politics, there are two different models of how elected representatives can behave when elected to office: one is the Trustee model and the other is the Delegate model.
The Trustee model holds that representatives should be allowed to use their own judgment when voting on particular legislation. It is assumed they will consider both the facts and the views of their constituents in their voting decisions regardless of whether or not they believe the majority will agree with those voting decisions. It is understood that the voters “trust” that their representative will ultimately vote for the best interests of his/her constituents and thus relieve the constituents of the necessity of learning about the issues and communicating with the representatives. The representatives tell the voters what is best for them and assure them that they will do it. This is a parent-child relationship.
By contrast, the Delegate model holds that representatives are not given the option of using their own best judgment and are to vote strictly according to the majority wishes of their constituents, regardless of whether or not the representatives agree with their constituents. It is understood that in this model the voters will stay informed on the various issues and take the time to communicate with their representatives. Here the people tell the representatives what is best for themselves and mandate that it is done. This is an employer-employee relationship.
In America, we have generally chosen to follow the Trustee model of representation and have limited the input we can have on our legislative process to the elections alone, trusting that the promises made by the candidate will be fulfilled once he or she gets elected to office. We have generally rejected the Delegate model because we have been reluctant to trust the judgment of the public for fear of so-called “mob rule.” But looking back, have we been well served by our Trustees? Have they, in fact, actually been using their best judgment on our behalf? Are they truly working for us?
The answer is clearly and emphatically “no.” What we have today is a perversion of the Trustee model whereby the elected representatives are now actually voting against the best interests of their constituents and for the best interests of the wealthy corporate elite who provide the money for their political campaigns as well as the multi-million dollar careers they receive after they retire from politics.
With all that in mind, it might be time to take another look at the Delegate model of representation. That, as we said earlier, was a form of representation whereby the people decide on the key legislation to be passed and the representatives simply vote as directed by their constituents. With this model, the representative is strictly in the employ of the constituents and not some corporations. Certainly the representative will have freedom to handle day-to-day legislation without having to consult first with his constituents. But decisions on major legislation, like health reform bills or whether to go to war, should be made by the people — not a handful of corporate CEOs who have financial interests involved.
The basic issue comes down to this: do we want to elect someone who does not have to represent or answer to his constituents like a Trustee does, or do we want to elect someone who will do what we tell them like a Delegate does? In other words, who’s the boss? Do representatives work for us or do they work for corporate sponsors who in fact are working against our best interests? Right now, they work for their corporate bosses. Wouldn’t you like to try something different — something that more closely resembles democracy, instead of the plutocracy (rule by a powerful few) we currently live under?
How do we make such a change? We start by ending our support of the corporate stooges (i.e., the Republican and Democratic parties) and instead support independent candidates. We will need an organized independent voter group that can adequately support qualified candidates and a way of campaigning that is both effective and affordable. Affordability is key: if campaigns continue to be so grossly expensive, only the personally wealthy or heavily sponsored will be able to run for office.
And we will need a way of recalling (firing) our representatives if they fail to live up to the terms of their agreement with their constituents. One way we could possibly do that is with a pre-signed letter of resignation: if the constituents decide the representative must go, after following an established procedure, the letter is dated and the representative is released.
How will the representative know what the constituents want? By accurate polling. Once an issue is ready for voting, the constituents are polled by a trusted neutral company and the results published on-line and in the major area newspapers. That way, everyone in the district will know how the voters want their representative to vote.
With this form of Delegate representation, we will maintain control of our employee/representative, we will accurately be able to communicate how the majority of us want them to vote on various issues, we will know when they fail to vote as we want, and we will have a method of firing them if they fail to perform as we demand.
This would be a REAL democracy — not some illusionary democracy where the voters actually have no choice and no control. Which is why the corporate elite and their stooges will fight us every step of the way if we try to make these changes. What do we have to do to start making these changes?
We have four suggested steps you can take right now.
- First, register and vote as an independent — stop supporting the enemy.
- Second, encourage and support independent candidates — consider running yourself.
- Third, join and help build our network of independent voters — numbers are our main weapons.
- Fourth, join our discussions and give us your suggestions and feedback — be positive.
Taking power away from the super-rich people who now control our elections will not be easy. But what is our alternative? If we fail, we will lose all that we have fought and worked for for over 200 years. In 1776, we rebelled not against Great Britain but against the corporate might of the East India Company who was using Parliament and the British military to maintain a strangling monopoly over all commerce in our colonies. The tea they threw into Boston harbor was owned by the East India Company and was a symbolic gesture to say, “we will not be slaves to corporations!” That is what they fought against then and is what we are going to have to fight against now.
So consider, ladies and gentlemen, that you and I are back in that Boston hall deciding if we have had enough of corporate treachery and greed, and will actually throw their tea in the harbor. It means war, it means sacrifice, it means change, and it will certainly not be easy to defeat some of the most powerful people and corporations in the world. But, we did it once, and we can do it again. In the immortal words of Martin Luther King, Jr., “We shall overcome!”
So stick some feathers in your cap, yankee doodle, and let’s start kickin’ some corporate butt!
