[WDDM] Strategy [Jim Powell]

[Fred Gohlke <fredgohlke(at)verizon.net>]

Good Morning, Jim

> > I found no provisions that fostered the election of the kind
> > of people who can be expected to act in good faith.
>
> *** I perceive this to be impossible.
>
> *** I believe that there is intelligence but little integrity.

I urge you to reserve judgment on this point.  Please consider this
perspective:

THE MYTH OF CORRUPTIBILITY
Some believe we cannot remove corruption from our political systems
because humans are corruptible.  Why should we believe such a canard?

We are misled by the high visibility of deceit and corruption in our
culture.  The idea that it is inescapable leads to the self-defeating
notion that trying to correct it is futile.

The reality is that the vast majority of humans are honorable,
law-abiding people.  They have to be, for society could not exist
otherwise.  By far, the greater percentage of our friends, our
relatives, our co-workers and our neighbors are trustworthy people.

The reason our political leaders are corrupt is that party politics
elevates unscrupulous people by design.  It does so by heeding the
notion attributed to B. F. Skinner:  "The bad do bad because the bad is
rewarded".  Since the goal of a party is to advance its own interest, it
rewards those who do so unfettered by the restraints of honor.  Once
these unprincipled people achieve leadership they infect our society
because morality is a top-down phenomenon.

The idea that we can't remove corruption from our political systems
because we are corruptible is nonsense.  It is a myth.  The problem is
not the people; it is a political system that rewards subservient
politicians for sacrificing their integrity.  The vast majority of our
peers are honest, principled people.  When we make probity a primary
concern in our electoral process, the pervasiveness of dishonesty in our
society will diminish.


> > Not many have any idea how that Noble Experiment was
> > subverted, but it is quite easy to understand.
>
>  *** Human nature

Of course it was 'human nature', but it is a mistake to dismiss it like
that.  Instead, we must examine the means by which 'human nature' was
able to subvert an excellent concept.

When we understand the U. S. Constitution was undermined by the simple
expedient of creating quasi-official institutions and giving them the
power to control the political process, we have something more tangible
than 'human nature'.  We have a mechanism we can examine in considerable
detail, both as to its beneficial effects and its injurious ones.


In the course of your letter, you made several references to Initiative,
Referendum and Recall:

*** Effective Initiative, Referendum and Recall will allow voters
     to act in their interest.

     With Initiative, Referendum and Recall the voters would have
     control

*** With Initiative, Referendum and Recall the system can be
     changed

*** I few have recall, we can remove those that are not to the
     liking of the voters

I share your view of the importance of Initiative, Referendum and
Recall, but it is backward-looking; it is a reactive mechanism.  By
definition, adverse circumstance must obtain before these mechanisms can
be invoked.  Society will be better served when we select
representatives who will anticipate new problems rather than fixating on
old ones.


*** If we place the correct rules in place, we will attract more
     of the right people and the decisions will be more voter
     orientated.

The problem with rules is that good people don't need them and the other
kind will find a way to subvert them.  That is one of the most
fundamental things about our (or any) society.

The challenge is not to put 'the correct rules in place'.  The challenge
is to find the 'good people who don't need them'.  Perhaps it would be
helpful to think about how you would decide whether someone you are well
acquainted with is a good person; a person of principle and integrity.

You can do that ... and so can the rest of us.  What we must devise is a
mechanism that gives us an opportunity to do so.

Fred Gohlke