[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]

00716: Re: [WDDM] An incremental change in governance

From: <rosen(at)vpsystems.net>
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 13:38:04 -0800
Subject: Re: [WDDM] An incremental change in governance

Hello Abraham and other list readers,

I agree with much of what you wrote in your post. However, I think history demonstrates that the reforms you suggest for campaign finance will never be implemented. It requires corrupt politicians (and for the most part one absolutely MUST be corrupt to be elected) to pass legislation, and corrupt jurists to let it stand. I don't know what could be more clear at this point than the fact that the system is incapable of reforming itself.

More importantly, you wrote: "For representative governance to work in the public's best interest it must be administered by ethical career professionals selected by a fully informed public electorate on the objective basis of the candidate's legislative and administrative knowledge, skills, abilities, and desire to serve the general public first and foremost. In order to administer our government effectively all public servants must be obligated to continually improve the rights, and serve the needs of the vast majority while preventing abuses to the rights of those who choose to dissent."

This is indeed the conventional theory of representative government. Sadly, it is only the conventional theory. In theory, practice and theory are one. In practice, they are not.

Our reality is precisely the opposite of your theoretical description. Indeed, it is necessarily the opposite - as, again, history amply demonstrates. Government is corrupt because government must necessarily be corrupt when two conditions are met: first, the existence of a privileged and disproportionately wealthy elite; and second, a backward technology of politics.

We are suffering under the limitations of horse-and-buggy political technology. At Nevada Vote Direct, and in my congressional campaign this year, I have demonstrated a properly contemporary way of applying technology to politics, in order to implement direct democracy at the level of the congressional district. Since this development is based simply on my own personal commitment as a candidate to be bound, if elected, by the will of my constitutents (as measured at Nevada Vote Direct), this momentous alteration in the structure of power may be carried out entirely without the need for new legislation or judicial judgments.

Apart from this difference of analysis and approach, I can easily endorse your idea that the representative should be a cut above the crowd, so to speak. After all, the representative in my proposed sense of the role would be required to facilitate the process of informing his constituents about the issues and about pending legislation. Then, perhaps, a politician would conform more to Eleanor Roosevelt's notion of the politician as educator.

Be that as it may, it is worth noting that your concluding question is really the very important one: "How many of us are willing to work toward developing the environment that can help us achieve those goals?" I need to complain, for the sake of grounding this discussion in perfect frankness, that the direct democracy movement, such as it is, proved with respect to its support for Nevada Vote Direct to be (with a few extremely welcome and greatly appreciated exceptions) nothing but a self-serving ego-driven talk-shop-loving band of do-nothings.

Nevada Vote Direct happens to be the first concrete, working and functional system of direct democracy at a level of government larger than the town meeting. In order to demonstrate its viability and practicality - indeed, in order to change the world and open up a vast new area of opportunity for democracy - only one thing was required: that I should be elected, and this at a time of spectacular opportunity for any independent candidate who poses a coherent alternative to the two party American nightmare. Indeed, had I been able simply to make voters in my district aware of Nevada Vote Direct, I would now be absolutely confident of winning on Tuesday. I say this boldly because of the tremendously positive response that I had from the comparatively small number of people I was able to reach with the limited campaign funds available to me. I regard the direct democracy movement as disgraced in their failure to actively engage themselves in the effort to raise money for my campaign.

Sincerely,
Daniel Rosen
Candidate for Congress 2006
775-588-4211
http://www.NevadaVoteDirect.org
rosen(at)vpsystems.net

[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]