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