Tag: democracy

Democrats … Start Doing it for Yourselves

Published on March 28, 2005

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
House Minority Leader

Dear Congresswoman Pelosi:

I recently received a mailer from you that included the following text:

>> Dear Friend … why don’t you take the enclosed George W. Bush Disapproval Poll and use it to me me how high (I doubt it) or low President Bush ranks with you. It’s your chance to tell me exactly what you think of the 43rd President. If you give George W. Bush grades of A or B, then I have bad news: First, you are a Republican. Second, you are going to be on the losing side of history. BUT … if you give George W. Bush C’s, D’s or F’s then you are a true-blue Democrat and I urge you to join us in our fight to hold the line against President Bush’s radical agenda and begin laying the groundwork for victory in the 2006 mid-term election … <<

I would like to offer you my thoughts on this effort of the National Democratic Committee.

I am in fact what most would consider to be a “true-blue Democrat”. I don’t think there’s any doubt of that. For 22 years I have voted a straight Democratic ticket. However, I find myself having a great deal of trouble believing what you say, despite my inclination to give more credence to junk-mailers who at least pretend to be on my political wavelength. Your message sent up a number of warning flags, I must admit.

To start with, “History” is written not by those who are right, but by those who are in power. What determines the “losing” side of history is what the “winners” determine the opposite side from their own. At this juncture, I’m not too sure that the “losing” side is going to be written in a manner pleasing to “Democrats” for quite some time. Why? Because the problem is not just that George W. Bush is doing wrong. Although I agree there is a lot of wrong-doing going on.

The problem, as I see it, is that giving George W. Bush a “failing” grade on this poll doesn’t make me a true-blue Democrat, as much as it makes me a complete and total IDIOT. Because I appear to be supporting a political party that has no vision of their own, that has not been too effective in countering these horrible policies, that is afraid of being called un-American for fighting a fascist-leaning, right-wing, neo-conservative agenda. A party that has no plan of their own, except to tell me what’s wrong with the other guy’s plan. That has in essence conceded that morality, right, truth, justice and the American Way are the property of the Republicans, and has contented itself with whining and bitching that those damn “righty-tighties” are just misusing those properties differently than a Democrat might misuse them if given the opportunity. What line exactly are “we Democrats” holding? And what good does it do to hold some imaginary line when there are so few of our so-called representatives that are willing to stand up for what they claim their constituents stand for? Further, for all these issues where George W. and his radicalized cronies have forced their way upon the unsuspecting American public, where have the Democrats been? In short, what good are they?

I’d like to see some groundwork, Congresswoman Pelosi. As you state in your letter, even though the right-wing doesn’t have one, I’d like to see a platform that unites, instead of divides. I’d like to see the Democratic Party come up with such a platform, and stick with it. I don’t think anyone can claim sole right to morality and doing the right thing. And surely, the 80% of people in the USA that claim some affiliation with Christianity (and the other 20% that follow equally valid and morally-based religions, whether Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Wiccan, Sikh, Shinto, Zoroastrian, Druid, Bah’ai or even Atheism) can’t be all Republicans. And Republicans aren’t the only ones capable of girding themselves with the mantle of the self-righteous … what about a little Democratic righteous indignation now and again? I can’t think of a better time that right now.

To be frank with you, Congresswoman, I’m disgusted with the political process. I’m disgusted with voting Democrat just because it seems like the lesser of two evils. I’d like to be able to vote, with a clear conscience and sense of accomplishment, for something worth believing in. Something that the big party Democrats are willing to state, in public, they believe in, too. Something, and a serious set of someones who are not straw dogs, but actual contenders. But remember, there’s not much point in picking who we’re going to travel with until we’ve figured out where we are going. The journey dictates the skills we’ll need, and not visa versa. So please, give us a something before trying to foist off another glad-handing someone in a suit more expensive than the average Democrat’s income can afford.

Just a suggestion: if you want a Presidential candidate to be elected “by the people”, you’ve got to be “for the people”, and whoever you put on that ballot had better be “of the people”. Not Democratic leadership people. Not Beltway Brotherhood people. Not “because anything is better than a Republican” people.

Don’t worry. I’ll keep voting Democrat until I die. However, I’m sick of knowing that underneath the surface, regardless of which candidate I choose, the bottom line doesn’t change for me, nor for millions of others who seemingly cast their votes in a seeming maelstrom of futility. After that, watching the few Democratic candidates who DO make it into office only wring their hands and cry, “oh, those neo-cons are ruining the country” is decidedly anti-climactic. And discouraging.

The bottom line is that George W. Bush’s F looks like an A to most people, and that’s why they voted for him. That occurred only because in order to give ourselves any kind of excuse for what either party is doing, the American People have been forced to grade on a curve. And the sad truth is that neither the Republicans or Democrats deserve to pass the class.

Feel free to use any part of this letter you wish to improve the Democratic Party.

Sincerely,

John Litzenberg
New Orleans, LA

Leave a Comment

Goodnight for Gonzo

Published on February 21, 2005

for Hunter S. Thompson

A life in isolation breeds its own brand of malaise,
that the respected classes just ignore
and seek instead on worthless causes to heap shame or praise,
with their good sense, naming such moods a bore.

The paranoia of the underdog they call a sham,
not worthy of their time, a waste of ink;
the causes that disturb the peace are just not worth a damn,
or dangerous, if they make people think.

And who would dare innoculate the tough, unfeeling side
of such a beast, except a man possessed
with his own brand of madness and a sense of civic pride,
when noticing the emperor’s undress?

Beyond the limits of good sense, and often at great risk
(where reputations are built on mere whim)
who is to say where genius crosses into wild hubris?
The line between the two is faint, and slim.

But madmen are the world’s redemption; there amidst the cracks
in grand facades, under its public face,
they toil to bring to our ennui the honesty it lacks,
and see beyond our masks, to our disgrace.

When leaders bend reality to disguise or deceive,
cloak their ill intentions with a winning smile,
despite volumes of evidence they cannot be believed,
are any sane who hold back on their bile?

Too many sane, respected souls stand silent and do naught,
while freedom, trust and liberty are sold.
It is the madmen, in these times, whose minds cannot be bought,
that shock us into breaking from the fold.

They ask why should such things take place, in language coarse and rough,
and whisper their dissension in our ear.
What’s more, they make us wonder if we’re paranoid enough,
or numbed by false pretense and hollow fear.

Truth lies somewhere past the lines that we’ve been taught to see,
those boundaries of someone else’s dreams.
Too often, we accept as gospel such insanity
that even madness is not what it seems.

21 FEB 2005

Leave a Comment

A Dirge for the Left Wing

Published on January 22, 2005

So we’ve inaugurated him
the Jingo Kid, ol’ Cocaine Slim
to serve again as our great chief.

Despite the obvious belief
of many folks that he’s the spawn
of Satan. Soon he will be gone,
and who will fill his king-sized shoes?

That we’re in sad shape is no news,
and four years hence things will be worse
fed evil pap from this wet nurse.

I wonder, though, if just for spite
the constant scheming God-filled right
won’t train a Democrat or two
to follow on the Shrub, Part Deux;
and hoist some harmless seeming Left
upon a nation, now bereft,
its sense of truth and honor gone,
its holy cause, freedom, a pawn
used as a ploy to sell your way
on next inauguration day.

I’ll end with this, and make it brief:
next time you pick our chosen chief
be sure to check at your hairline
for three tattooed inverted nines.

22 JAN 2005

Leave a Comment

Neo Politics

Published on November 17, 2004

Neoconservatism is not a threat to the free-living, free-wheeling, bleeding heart liberal philosophy of us drug-crazed, sex-minded hippie freaks.

No, despite its definition as “an approach to politics or theology that represents a return to a traditional point of view (in contrast to more liberal or radical schools of thought of the 1960s)”, it is not the left wing, per se, that is the target of neoconservatism. It’s target is not to return us to before 1960, but before 1760. After all, the traditional point of view in politics or theology is not democracy. It is monolithic, totalitarian and unquestioned rule. It is fascism, painted with a nostalgic brush called “the good old days” — those days before liberal science gave us the conveniences that gave us the free time to sit around and reminisce without having to actually experience the minor setbacks of medicine, culture, diversity, equality, and economic well-being that were in those halycon days available only to the extremely wealthy, or extremely lucky (and luck would be defined as in the right place to benefit from the temporary whims of the current dictatorship). It is belittling, beheading, excommunicating, exiling, or executing any who disagree with your point of view. And it is the point of view of rich, white men — who have convinced, somehow, the remaining 95% of the population of this country (that’s right, 95% of the wealth is controlled by 5% of the people, remember, and those aren’t people living in Harlem, or Watts, or Chinatown) that this is the agenda upon which America should settle. The course which we must steer by. Our mandate.

Let me get this straight — our mandate, as a democratic nation, is to abandon democracy, much as the Anasazi abandoned New Mexico.

Under a banner of religious self-righteousness, jingoistic nationalism, military might and xenophobic paranoia — particularly regarding people of Semitic origin and language.

Careful with that swastika, Eugene.

You will not successfully barter the illusions of freedom and liberty for the illusions of control and safety on my watch. The former may be undisciplined, untamed and only nebulously defined, but even in that raw, feral state they are worth ten times the most alluring manifestations of the latter.

That’s what I call a Neo-Liberal agenda. Fixing the broken left wing so the eagle doesn’t have to spin in circles and wear itself out trying to leave the ground.

Or to put it more bluntly, you can have the Constitution to wipe your ass with when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

The right to bear arms is NOT the same as the right to own or use a gun.
Schools and hospitals should be a greater priority than prisons and graveyards.

The ends never justify the means.

A Democracy is more fragile, and therefore needs more protection, than a Republic. The former is an idea, while the latter is a thing. That’s why the Pledge of Allegiance is somewhat misleading. A symbol, such as a flag, stands for an idea or ideal, not a thing. A thing is a limited interpretation, a casting in the temporary stone of time, so to speak, of an idea. It is not the idea itself, only a small part — in the same way that a religion is merely a bucketful of seawater mistaken for the entirety of the ocean.

Once you disregard ideas in favor of things, you stop thinking. Once you stop thinking, it doesn’t matter what the polls say, because the opinions you are offering are not your own, anyway. Most likely they have been given to by someone who does not know of, care about, value, respect, understand, or have any responsibility for, your life.

The responsibility, at least, they can never shoulder anyway. Responsibility is the price you pay for ideas — whether your own or someone else’s.

Leave a Comment

Rambling on Politics

Published on July 12, 2004

Democracy is dependent upon a single, basic premise: that those with power as a result of wealth and social standing are willing to reject the advantage conferred by the possesion of this power and reject the use of any such advantage in the defense of their position against others with differing viewpoints and agendas who do not possess similar advantage. In short, democracy demands equality before the law. Despite the obvious fact that individuals are NOT equal with respect to environment, education, race, religion, intellect, physical prowess, social standing and/or graces, financial wherewithal, and so forth, the intention of a TRUE democracy is to ignore those factors and regard each person as legally interchangeable.

There are, of course, safeguards built into our legal system to ensure this. But unfortunately, they do not address the fact that there is in practice, if not in the theory upon which that practice is based, a great disparity between the resources available to some versus others. In our democracy, for example, a defendant is provided with legal counsel in matters of criminal court. In a true democracy, it would be either ensured that this legal counsel vouchsafed an indigent defendant is comparable (in education, experience, and expertise) to the counsel for the prosecution, or that the party prosecuting the case would be no better than the individual produced by the defense. Likewise, for a wealthy defendant, it should be ensured that the quality of their attorney should be correlative with the quality of the prosecuting attorney.

With respect to democracy by representation, true democracy requires that the agent, or representative, be truly of the people they represent. For example, a congressman should be of similar educational background, financial status, cultural milieu and so forth of their average constitutuent. That means no congressperson should being wearing suits that the majority of their district cannot afford. Likewise, the salaries of government officials should never exceed the average per capita income of their “flock”. In regard to campaign contributions, no political candidate should receive from ANY contributor (personal, or corporation — which legally is the corpus or body at the head of which is the representative of any number of stockholders who have chosen to invest their individual monies and/or opinions in the legal person thus incorporated) more than the equivalent of one week’s salary of their average voting bloc. That would eliminate the campaign finance issue altogether, perhaps — and salary increase issue as well — because the only way for a candidate or congressperson or president to get more money (either in salary or contributions) would be to actively improve the living wage of their constituency. Now of course, you might say that will increase the jostling over “prime districts”. Well, I think it only need be sorted out at the smaller district level. Larger districts, such as states or countries (i.e., senators and presidents) typically include a wide range of income, including much that is NOT wealthy. In California, for example, it is probably likely that the district that includes Beverly Hills would have a high median income, versus the district that includes Compton and Gardena. For a Senator, that would probably wash out at some level. For a Representative, however, Beverly Hills represents a cushier spot. However, the basic premise of democracy as defined above can be applied here. The point is that financial, social, etc., inequality MUST not influence legal equality. Therefore, the average amount of campaign contributions from the wealthiest quarters CANNOT exceed the average contribution amounts from the poorest quarters. That means that if Pickens County, Arkansas as a whole contributes only $500, then Los Angeles County, California can only contribute the equivalent per capita amount (for example if there are 500 contributors in Pickens County, Arkansas that roughly equates to $5 per contributor; to apply that to Los Angeles County assuming a population of 5,000,000 means that the most that could be used by that constituency is $5 each, or $25M. But that is a VERY wild theory that probably in five minutes will make no sense.

The point is this, I guess. To me, it’s like televangelism. There are no circumstances when a preacher should be wearing a Rolex unless the majority of the constituency to which they preach ALSO not only can afford Rolexes, but chooses to spend their monies on such things. By the same token, under no circumstances should an elected official be wearing a suit, driving a car, living in a home, that the majority of their constituents could not afford. Not on the distribution of wealth, but the distribution of numbers. Because, you’ll remember, democracy is about legal equality. Which is a numeric base. 1 = 1.

Of course, military service should be determined on the same basis. Particularly in a draft. There is no legal way, in a true democracy, for a wealthy child to get a deferment when a poor child does not. As far as the law of democracy goes, they are absolutely equal. Anyone who bends that system does not believe in democracy. And should NEVER be elected mayor, governor, senator, congressperson, president or even head of a homeowner’s association in so-called democratic nation. Or something like that.

Leave a Comment

The Eagle at the Tree

Published on July 9, 2004

Now, watch the eagle perched upon the limb;
his eyes, that seem to peer into the soul,
take in the troubled world that waits below him
and see beyond illusions of control.

How like that noble bird we seek for answers,
and take upon ourselves his inborn traits;
there still upon the branch we preen like dancers,
not understanding our purpose or fates.

Great nations take him for their sacred symbol,
and bid him clutch dual tokens, peace and war;
while discontent to let their future gambol,
they cast aside the instinct borne to soar.

This imitation eagle, one wing pinioned,
is let loose now in low, small circle flights —
a source of great amused, confused opinion,
with freedom’s duties, but none of its rights.

His talons have been dulled on greed’s coarse whetstone,
his molted feathers used to plume parades;
and old now are the songs of where he has flown,
for memory of that flight is now charade.

The tree on which he rests? False public service
in obeisance to some unseen lords;
Look, anything that comes near makes him nervous
and strain against his rough, restraining cords!

No eagle can be destined for the showplace;
on such a stage his spirit wilts and dies.
The bird of prey exists for the hunt, the chase;
to posit otherwise is to speak lies.

Who are the fools who seek to tame his spirit,
to bid him dance and entertain their whim?
Look there, not on the tree, but somewhere near it —
the selfish few who claim to own the limb.

09 JUL 2004

Leave a Comment

Independence Day

Published on July 6, 2004

I heard the sounds last night of war
outside my window and front door,
wild shells and streaks of fire and light;
and I was troubled at the sight.

No thought of where the sparks might land
entered the minds that worked the hands
that with their matches struck these bombs;
a country of brave automatons.

The flash of light, the burst of sound
and emptied beer cans all around
while through the smoke which slowly cleared
the throng of wise non-voters cheered.

They cheered the colors and the show
and cursed the duds that would not blow
their senses wowed by shock and awe,
and the ends of their fingers raw.

The cost of fireworks? Twenty bucks,
from out the back of nameless trucks;
The cost of freedom? Tears and bone
worth more than any flag now flown.

For what good pomp and grand parades
to celebrate a poor charade?
It lessens knowledge of the cost
if lives in some great lie are lost.

This freedom that we celebrate,
is it a license by which hate
and fear become the only sense
by which we gain experience?

Our independence, so hard gained,
is its dirge to be our refrain?
I seek, although perhaps in vain,
to define freedom, once again:

Freedom from the right of kings,
in matters large, and petty things,
and from the presumed word of God
that with chains bids man’s feet be shod,

and from the whim of landed wealth
who seek first their own fare and health
and from the bane of presumed right
that sees darkness, save its own light

and from the harsh slavemaster’s whip,
and fear of persecution’s grip,
and from the unseen, hurtful ties
that persecute the meek and wise

and from the threat of hangman’s laws
that seek to punish without cause
and from the hand that seeks to still
the tongue, the mind, the heart and will

and from the bloodied, soulless crowd
that sees itself as just and proud
and from the ignorance that seeks
to serve itself, and harm the weak

and from the politician’s greed
that dines in pomp, while poor men bleed
and from the engines geared for war
that gnash their teeth, and cry for more

and from the state, that seeks to bind
the tongues of reason, and be blind
and from the cloaked and hidden cause
that bids us follow, just because

and from the forked and evil ways
that seek by bloodshed gold and praise
and from all those who would be kings
and paint themselves with angels’ wings

and from our baser natures, too
that seek reward where none is due
and from the impulse not to act
when those who guide us go off track

and from the right to hold one’s peace
when liberty and freedom cease
and lastly, freedom to believe
and when that freedom’s risked, to grieve.

06 JUL 2004

Leave a Comment