Democracy And Free Markets: Is That All?

Potential for Change and Ideal Future Scenarios

My own proposal, buried above, is for a shift towards

Entrepreneurial

Small scale

Regional and local

Higher education

Sustainable

Strong use of technical innovation in the service of the above.

More justice, more art,

And a safe global commons, using a few of the globalaized companies, under new charter provisions, to encourage that commons.

This could create the environment for the flourishing of individuals, not so much in competition or even cooperation, but in exploration of each other, inner self, musings about the universe - not lazy, but intensely interested.

The religious aspect is core. Everyone has gods, even those who don't think so use the same psychic projections to fill out technology or markets or nations as are used to round out gods, be they anthropomorphic or analogues of mind.

The question might be, what social beliefs lead to long term survivability? The quality of religious ideas – the mixture of ritual and transcendent awareness and its symbolization.

Stephen Jay Gould wrote in Full House that the reason we are not visited by aliens is because no society has been able to survive socially that had the technical power to be able to come here. This I think we need to take very seriously.

We need to see that the current state of belief on the democratic free market side is also through and through the product of religious thinking, about redemption, creating a perfect future, discovering how the mind of god works. Much of this is unconscious. The history from Christianity to Free Masonry to the Royal Society is just one thread. David Noble’s *The Religion of technology: the divinity of man and the spirit of invention* is a shocker. Your idea, that we create the mutations, is a part of man playing god move that is part of modernism.

If we can show that the current free market/ democracy mind set is also a religion, then we can compare.

The idea of god controlling the king gave way quickly to the king as free because appointed by god. Hobbes quoted says that god gave the sovereignty to each individual and they collectively gave it to the king. The manipulation of these images has been intense and profound. See the very good summary in Stephen Collins *From Divine Cosmos to Sovereign State*.

The issue here I am driving towards is:

1) Is there more determining the quality of the future than democracy and markets? and 2) Democracy and markets alone seem to lead towards a totalitarian arrangement. The first seems hollow and the second seems disastrous.

Hope lies towards openness, experimentation, justice, art, family, community, realism, education, and participation. (I sound like a libertarian.)

But I want to see things for what they are. With Pakistan, the whole Islamic belt from England through China and Indonesia, the potential for real conflict is there. Perhaps Bush & Co. are doing the best possible under the circumstances of a modern entropically inclined civilization. Even stupidity might have strategic value for a bully strategy. Can the West with its things cope adequately and meaningfully with an Islam (or Confucianism) that is culture conscious? Can post-modernity even deal with an energized Christianity?

Wow, there is a thought. It's not the West versus Islam, it’s modernity and post modernity versus the traditions.

We need to be able to ACT to limit, correct, or substitute through government action OUTSIDE the frame without messing up, too much, the system inside the frame that is working pretty well.

I'm sure we all agree that this is bad, and that is it a currently serious trend. I get the feeling, however, that I'm the only one who believes that this is the foundation of all, or nearly all, of the other problems cited here.

I submit, gentlemen (and lady-readers if we have any), that until we find a successful strategy to counter the trend of "one person one vote turns slowly into one dollar one vote" that we will make no significant headway on any other issue of public policy.

* From the elite intellectuals -- such as ILF?

* From the current holders of power -- e.g. the Bush administration and hangers-on?

* From others -- from China to the Terrorists?

* From the religious right?

* From we, the people, or some segment of it (e.g. labor, senior citizens, hippies or other segments of youth groups?

* Combinations of the above?

Participant) The issues we have been discussing are highly complex and subject to interpretation. There are potentially no right answers and for us to presume to have those answers would make us one more special interest group promoting our view of how the world should be.

Our economy and government are managed by systems that are suppose to efficiently provide the correct answers, with the correct answers being defined as whatever the will of the people is either through their choices of representatives or goods and services.

I would not want the fans calling the plays in a football game any more than I want individual citizens deciding on highly complex issues of government when they lack the skill, experience, complete information and perhaps even the intelligence to make those decisions. I also think it is unrealistic to expect the general population to ever have these qualifications any more than for anyone to be qualified to be their own lawyer, doctor, or investment advisor.

Do our systems of government and economics actually represent the will of the people? Doug says that our economy and democracy are not doing well. That we can agree on. I don’t think anyone refutes that we are in a recession. I see no indication that this is other than cyclical, although the cycle has been artificially influenced by government intervention, which in this case could lead to severe consequences. Also, with the Patriot Act and the prevailing attitude that dissent is the same as treason, we obviously have shifted unhealthily too far right. Capitalism and Democracy, as we have discussed before are linked, which will pose an interesting dilemma for China. I would argue that whatever problems we have with the system of Capitalism are due to the problems we have with our Democracy. Capitalism isn’t designed to avoid concentration or deal with issues of income disparity. We need an INDEPENDENT democracy for that. Capitalism is amoral, democracy is supposed to represent our collective values.

If I look at those individuals who are our elected officials, whose responsibility it is to not only represent the will of the people but to provide LEADERSHIP, which means to inspire the people to see and want a better society (well-being), I see a group that does not have the socioeconomic diversity of the people they represent. I see a group that I do not consider among the best and brightest this nation has to offer. I see a group that devotes an inordinate amount of time to not representing the people but getting elected. I think this is the number one problem with our country today. You will not have thoughtful solutions and quality leadership until you change the election process.

I have two suggestions that are really part of one proposal. My proposal is that we start a movement. We publish a manifesto requesting that all political contributions in excess of "x" dollars are illegal. This would include contributions disguised as something else (PAC money, etc.). We also need to decide on whether elections should be publicly funded or privately and should the amount, depending on the position be fixed that can be spent. I personally like the idea of a fixed amount because I would like my elected officials to demonstrate that they can solve problems without always resorting to raising more money. I also think it would tend to shorten the election process because a candidate would have to husband their cash and make the biggest impact right before the election. Anyone who violates the contribution limits, both the contributor and the candidate should be severely punished. For the contributor, I would suggest a substantial financial penalty based on their ability to pay and for the candidate, barred for life from holding any political office.

Our manifesto would need to be thoroughly researched so that we are not shooting from the hip and our argument is clear and compelling. It would leverage the reputations of the members of the ILF. I would also suggest that we get other prominent figures to sign such as Bill Joy of Sun Microsystems, the board members and/or CEO of Wal-Mart, Jesse Jackson, a prominent Catholic Cardinal, Barbara Streisand, Warren Beatty, Steven Tyler, Bill Clinton, John McCain. We use the internet to spread the message and get the general public to sign an electronic petition. We present these signatures and our manifesto to the candidates of both parties as the will of the people and ask them if they support it and if not why not. We make it a political issue a rallying cry (I am getting excited).

My other suggestion is to get more people to vote and could be part of our manifesto (I think rather than manifesto I prefer Freedom Document as it sounds more American). I would ask companies to make Election Day a paid holiday for all employees who vote. I intend to implement this at my company.

Douglass Carmichael John, as I read it, three points:

1. The economy is in a cyclical down phase

2. A no-money political campaign is realistically possible

3. Get people to vote.

It’s my understanding that

1. The forces in the economy towards a long term weakening is based on the rise of china and other competition in a world of overproduction, and signs in the US of balance of payments deficits, unemployment, tech weakness and skimming the cram off the top rather than reinvestment in the US support that analysis. If the economy I not cyclic, then what?

2. Taking money out when money rules is hard politically. Look at the article on nepotism I posted in the news item. It probably would be ruled unconstitutional. The group of people you list would be a flag for the now majority right as to who the enemy was. What I think would be more fruitful would be the American business leadership questioning the whole direction, since it is undermining the wealth of American business generally.

3. With Morris/Rove style politics, voting has ceased to be very meaningful.

I've no idea where the solutions lay (see my new item I'll start later this afternoon, however) but I think they require a larger frame. The review I posted about empire points to big questions.

Participant) Doug, it is impossible to forecast the long-term direction of a company let alone the economy. Chaos Theory certainly applies to both. The situation you describe is very similar to the situation of our economy during the 70’s and early 80’s. I don’t think anyone forecast the explosive growth in the economy that followed. Other than a potential increase in the cost of goods, it is difficult to predict what impact the rise of China will have, especially given that U.S. companies are much more involved in China than we ever saw with Japan. We can’t even say with confidence that we will see a rise in the cost of goods given that during the robust economy of the past 10 to 15 years, we have seen little appreciation in the commodities index.

Of course taking money out would be difficult but necessary. Are there simple solutions? I am suggesting that we create a groundswell of support. The risk to the money candidates is that ultimately it does come down to the number of votes. Just as abortion became the single defining issue for voting so could election reform. If we can’t find members of the right who agree and would be willing to sign, then perhaps they are the enemy. I don’t see how limiting campaign contributions would be unconstitutional. We already have laws that do that. Also I seem to recall that my tax return has a line that asks if I would like to donate $1 to the presidential election fund.

Morris/Rove politics are a trend. Voting is only meaningless for all the reasons already discussed. Personally, I don’t think it is meaningless. With a few thousand votes we would have a different president. Do you really think that Gore’s center is the same as Bush’s? Do you even consider Bush to represent the center?

Participant) It would be interesting to see if we could get the ILF Fellows to sign on to the kind of election reform advocated by John. It might be an issue that could develop some consensus. The obvious problem is that previous efforts in this direction have been thwarted by Republicans because they can raise more money than Democrats. Bush plans to raise two hundred million for his re-election campaign. That's twice what he raised last time, and that was a record. So the Republicans among us might balk.

Perhaps we should invite as a special resource person, someone who has been working on the advocacy of clean elections, government supported, free media, limited donations, etc. Three states have such programs already in place for some elections. Arizona is one, and the others I think are in New England.

I do think you are right, John, in thinking that if enough people with clout got behind such a movement, and it could have a chance. Thanks for your thoughtful and passionate proposal. I wonder what the polls say about how the public regards the problem of election financing.

Participant) I think Doug is responding to John's proposal by asking us, in our possible enthusiasm for election reform, not to lose sight of the larger context, the other issues that threaten democracy and the better life, which of course is what this conference is all about. And I think John is saying, let's get election reform and then see which problems disappear, and which remain.

Douglass Carmichael I may be wrong but I think power follows money, and if power is not related to money, money fights back. At the current time, separating voting from money seems like a long shot. It would require a really good strategic analysis. Half the democrats in congress are millionaires, and if you ever get to hang around these types, the belief in wealth will stand out, as they still talk about Venice and real estate and getting kids into Harvard, drink single malts. They mostly believe in the cyclic theory of the economy and imagine that the American middle class lives the best—but that is because they haven't seen the middle class in much of Asia or Europe.

But working for any electoral reform is part of the pressure, the demand for reasonableness and fairness.

One analysis of the French revolution says that a new middle class had emerged with real economic and social power, but had no representation in the political process of king ministers and aristocracy. The revolution sought a new balance (and watches out - it also led to napoleon - a good model for where Bush might be headed).

The current situation, where wealth is refocused back on a small minority, has led to a new imbalance, and we may see doing the French revolution over again –backwards—in order to reestablish a balance between power and political representation.

This next campaign will be very interesting. My question: will there be surprises?

Previous Page          Next Page

top