Knee-jerk Democracy vs Revolution

Right now the airwaves are bursting at the seams with talk of "Obamacare", "Angry Americans", "Government Takeover of Healthcare", "Historic Victories", "Monumental Deficits" and the like. And according to quite a few conservative legislators and voters, the revolution will not only be televised, but broadcasted, twittered and electorally significant come November.

Only time will reveal the reality of all the fears, hopes and predictions being presently made. What history has already shown us is that true "revolution" is more than checking off a ballot. Revolution is about vigilance, awareness, action at every turn to shift whatever unbalanced reality exists. After the 2008 General Election, the word revolution was spoken of to describe the present and the not too distant future. Those legislators (regardless of party affiliation) whom were associated with President George W. Bush's agenda over the past eight years were for the most part summarily dismissed.

It is now March 22, 2010 and many of the same petty fights, name-calling and partisan maneuvering are still happening, even after the "revolution of 2008". Why? You ask. Because while Thomas Jefferson's quote "Every generation needs a new revolution" is often connected with the electoral process created by our democratic republic form of government, by itself, elections are not enough to revolutionize anything. It is merely one in a long line of steps towards the kind of reform that true revolution brings about.

Voting is very important, but so is knowing what those you have voted in to represent you are voting on, proposing and legislating. The real opportunity for revolution comes when our elected officials start talking, debating, crafting and voting on issues that become policy for the city, county, state, region and nation. However, as was said earlier, revolution requires full commitment on the part of all those who claim to want it and that commitment must be proven at every step.

Having a knee-jerk reaction to what a political pundit, elected official or media outlet says is right or wrong won't actually lead to real change. The real change occurs when people stop depending on the thoughts, opinions and information of others to tell them right from wrong and make a commitment to knowing what's going on in all governments (local, state and national) so that they can decide for themselves.

"Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government." Thomas Jeffferson

Civic Investment

I was talking with someone from a financial management company today about what his company does and what they are about. All-in-all, the man's company seemed on the up-and-up. While he was showing me the investment strategy side of his company's business, he asked if I knew about "The Rule of 72", while it pained me to admit it, I had to be honest and tell him that I knew absolutely nothing about the rule of 72 other than it being greater than the "Rules of 0-71" and less than the "Rules of 73 - infinity".

He tried to explain it to me, but not being astute to the rules and practices of financial planning/strategy, I didn't understand all of it, but basically it has something to do with the amount of time it takes for an investment in a mutual fund to multiply. As he was speaking, I was struck with two thoughts:

1. My wife and I need to get our financial planning on track, or we won't be able to afford adult diapers let alone afford to live a reasonably decent life after retirement (with the current trend of inflation).

2. As much as people in general have become more and more enamored with instant gratification, the concept of long-term investment can be rationalized for a child's education, retirement, vacations, weddings, buildings, companies, stocks, bonds, etc, but long-term investment in government or anything related to civic engagement, comes off like a twisted dream sequence from a Tim Burton movie, a fantastical idea of wonder and imagination that could only exist in the make believe land of cinema.

As I thought more and more about this in the car on my way home, I became both saddened and pissed off. No longer than a month or so ago, President Obama, declared that scientific Research and Development needed to be a higher priority for both companies and the nation as a whole. However, I have never heard anyone ever mention a word about necessary R&D to push democracy or government to its potential. Ironically, both of those areas have been sorely under-invested for decades if not a century.

Technically, the last real investment in government came after 9-11, but that was hardly an invest for the progress of government in the way of Homeland Security, but that more an investment in the nation's defense and that is one area this country has rarely had a problem short-term or long-term investing in. One could also look at "The New Deal", FDR's response to the Great Depression, but that again was an invest in an acute aspect of government, but not in government itself.

Money is a relatively easy way to fix the "investment" gap, but as can be seen with institutions like the Department of Education, throwing money at an issue only provides more possible resources, but not actual solutions. However, education and applied practice could provide a lot more bang for the proverbial buck. If people gave more money to their local, state and federal governments, it wouldn't help them improve or become more productive, most likely the money would do exactly what "rainy day" surpluses in budgets like social security and the like do in the hands of governments, get used to miraculously provide "tax cuts" that rarely do the good for the needy that is often promised.

But, if people were taught, not only the pros and cons of our systems of government, but also how to maneuver in and through those systems for the purposes they were intended; the yield of that investment in government might be great enough to make Wall Street traders blush. Still, all the other investment examples I brought up earlier have their own people who advocate for short-term and long-term invest in those various areas. Who do we have to advocate for the same level of investment in government or democracy?

Money vs Voters

This week by a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of removing any limits to the amount of money a corporation or organization (like a labor union) can spend in support of a candidate running for federal office. This ruling strikes down 63 years of precedent set by previous supreme courts as well as severely weakening the McCain-Feingold Act, which set restrictions on the direct involvement large special interests could have on campaign finance.

Now, some might say the McCain-Feingold Act just resulted in the rise (beginning with in the 2000 Presidential Election) of what have come to be known as 527s, popularized to the point that they have been given their own verb, "swift-boated". McCain-Feingold, in a lot of people's opinions, has in no way addressed the issue it was supposed to address, money versus free speech. The efficacy of McCain-Feingold can be (and has been) debated to exhaustion, but at the very least, it was a proactive attempt to ensure the electoral process remains connected to the voters and not special interests.

The Supreme Court decision, according to some, has done nothing to significantly change the landscape of electoral politics, while others suggest the sky may be falling. The only certain reality of this decision is the fact that it has just become easier to influence an election with money and more difficult to hear the voice of the average voter. The argument could be made that corporations, unions and non-profit organizations are filled with voters too and making it easier for them to speak is a victory for free speech.

However, there is no way to know whether or not groups who might financially support a candidacy are actually speaking on behalf of the interests of that candidate's representative area or on behalf of a broader agenda. While, the voice of the voter in a particular election is ensured to be directly related to the interests of their area of representation. The ability for organizations to affect an election with endless amounts of money allow special interests, who may have absolutely no concern for a candidate's effect on their region, to have a significant hand in the futures of people thousands of miles away, all to further one particular cause.

Even more disturbing is the reality that the Supreme Court made this decision based on the case brought by a partisan organization, Citizens United, about whether or not they could disseminate ads to "On-Demand" cable services for their movie "Hilary: The Movie" during the 2008 Presidential Election as motion picture and not as a political advertisement, which fall under different regulation. A case, originally about whether or not a movie is treated like a motion picture or a political ad, has now opened the flood gates of financial influence on federal elections and potentially drowned out the voices of average people.

And once again, the fate of millions have been virtually decided by the few who decided to show up. This court decision, like many others will most likely go forward without many people paying any attention, that is until September, October and November come around and the Mid-term elections are front and center nationwide. However, what the now oblivious masses will discover at that time, is that the money train left the station while they weren't looking and there is nothing they can do to stop it.

Tragedy & Engagement

While driving around with my wife I began to think about Haiti. Not about the tragic events that have racked that nation or some of the stupid things that public figures have said regarding their plight. What struck me was a feeling of hope and the idea that in the face of all the things in this world that are wrong, depressing or sad, people still have the capacity to help those that they do not know.

Celebrities and artists from all walks of life and every corner of the globe, former heads of state with a plethora of differences between them have come together with thousands of the world's citizens to reach out to a devastated nation. With every global tragedy, be it Darfour, Somalia, Rwanda, Ethiopia, Serbia-Herzegovina, The Phillipines, China, Thailand, Katrina or September 11 (to name a few), the world comes together to the best of its ability in an effort to return some semblance of normalcy and hope to those who have been affected.

Later in the day I was struck with a question, one that often comes to me in the aftermath of charitable efforts like this in the face of tragedy. Why? Why does it take such painful, awful and tragic events like Haiti to remind all of us that everything going on around us, whether or not we are directly involved, should matter to us. If my neighbor down the street gets mugged or beaten up, it affects me. If I lose my job, or my cousin drops out of school, it should matter to our community, because both of those events could be a pattern of a larger issue going unresolved.

As the saying goes, "no man is an island" and since we can't actually succeed without the efforts of everyone else, it would benefit all of us to care about what happens to others and get engaged before things escalate. Before a couple of weeks ago, most people couldn't point to Haiti on a map, but now it's the first thing you hear about in the morning. Haiti has had problems for many years now and if the world cared about the country a little sooner, things might be a little different.

If each of us can take a minute from the isolated lives we're working so hard to live, we might become more aware of what's going on around us and put ourselves in a position to do something about it. Who knows, maybe we can prevent the next Haiti, Katrina or Darfour. One thing I do know is that effort spent preventing disasters is goes a lot further than the effort responding them and a little concern for others today might result in a brighter tomorrow for everyone.

The Problem with MLK and Barack

Today is January 18, 2010. On this day falls the national observance of Martin Luther King Jr's Birthday, and furthermore, his contribution to a civil rights movement that changed the consciousness of the country. A year ago, Barack Obama was sworn in as President, becoming the first African-American person to hold the nation's highest office. These two events are related in ways that might surprise the average person.

Both of these men are known for leading movements that neither of them sought to lead. MLK was just a budding preacher at Ebenezer Baptist Church when the Bus Boycott began in Birmingham, Alabama. It was this boycott that brought the injustices to Blacks in the south to the national stage (you'd think the Civil War and Reconstruction, might have been a pretty big clue, but I digress) and MLK front and center as figure head of the Civil Rights Movement. Barack Obama was a junior senator from Illinois, when Sen. Harry Reid brought Barack into his office and told still young senator that he thought he should run for President and could win. Obama, as we now know, would go on to unify a country (shattered by financial ruin, unending war, fear of terrorism and eroding confidence in its leaders) as well as an international community increasingly disenchanted with an arrogant nation.

Both of these men are also portrayed as examples of the best the African-American race has to offer as well as proof of progress the United States has made in achieving racial equity. The fact that these two men are not seen as the potential of any educated, motivated, supported and hard-working African-American who is given a chance is proof positive of how little African-Americans think of themselves and the rest of the nation thinks of African-Americans. The fact that people can look at the singular victories of MLK being given a national holiday and Barack Obama being elected as President as evidence that "race doesn't matter any more" only serves to prove how little we understand the enormity of the work yet to be done.

As I type these words, there are thousands of marches, panel discussions, festivals and other various celebrations being held across this nation in honor of Dr. King. In the homes of many proud African-Americans (including many that I know personally) exist commemorative shirts, calendars, bobble-heads, playing cards, etc in honor of Barack's historic victory.

Unfortunately, in many measurements of success (high school/college graduation rates, average income per household, average salary), African-Americans still rank near the bottom and have actually fallen behind races that existed in negligible numbers at the time the Civil Rights Movement began, while in most measurements of failure (incarceration rates, murder rates, infant mortality rates, high school dropout rates, obesity rates) African-Americans still rank near the top.

Now, there are many factors that contribute to these disturbing realities and some very smart people (Cornell West, Henry Louis Gates, The Center for Information & Research On Civic Learning and Engagement - CIRCLE, to name a few) have written and reported on this issue ad nauseam, but that's another point for another post. The point I'm making is that the success of a race, nation or movement cannot be wrapped up in the histories of two people. While MLK and President Obama can absolutely be held in the highest regard of dreams achieved, potential realized, and hope of progress to come, it cannot stop there.

In order for the dream of a truly progressive society that judges people (to use the words of MLK) "...not based on the color of their skin, but on the content of their character", we must use the successes of these two men as a call to arms and not singular trumpets of victory. The consequence of our complacency could darken the light shone on our nation by these two men until they become distant stars we only read about in dusty forgotten books.

Broken Glass and White Paint

A few weekends back, my wife and I had dinner with another couple.

As an aside, I truly enjoyed this dinner not only because this couple makes a mean salad and are in general just really good people, but mostly because we had the kind of five hour conversation that people these days don't usually take the time to have.

It was during our conversation that I was reminded of the "Broken Glass Theory". For those who have never heard of it, the theory basically says that an old building with no broken windows will always look more appealing than a new building with one or more broken windows. And it's not so much about the windows being broken, because accidents happen, but more about how long the window is allowed to remain broken.

The idea is one of priority, image and assumption. A broken window suggests instability and carelessness. A broken window suggests abandonment and worthlessness, because if someone really cared about the building they would fix the window. If someone doesn't care enough about fixing the broken window, the image being presented is that the building is worthless and from then on, everyone who sees that building will see it as worthless.

We have a lot of broken windows in this country, both literally (just take a drive or walk through the old urban neighborhood in your town or city) and metaphorically. Quite a few of these windows have been broken for a LONG time and this, the nation has moved forward (whether consciously or subconsciously) with the belief that every agency or institution with long unattended broken windows is worthless.

Don't believe me? Take a second and think about all the parts of this country that are referred to as being "broken" or "in disrepair" and then ask yourself how often you or someone else have made a statement about those same things being "worthless" or "a lost cause". It happens everyday and it's happening right now as I write. Whether it's the Healthcare System, Public Education System, Justice System or the system of Government, once it is perceived to be broken and broken for a long time, people just stop caring.

As an antidote to the "broken glass" theory, I offer another insight that came from the same conversation (this is the kind of holistic conversation that happens when you give it five hours of time to grow organically). This couple lives in a very nice home which resides in a very nice neighborhood, but one day while taking a walk, the husband noticed some graffiti had been put on a stone wall in their yard. After the shock of the act wore off, he proceeded to fall into the kind of apathy that many people do when they feel powerless.

In the following weeks, the husband thought of a number of solution to his graffiti problem, like putting up shrubs or something to hide this wall now tainted with someone else's failed attempt at art. One day the husband comes home from work to see a gentleman painting over the graffiti on his wall. The husband had never met this man, knew nothing of him and yet here he was, doing his part to brighten up this couple's property. After speaking with this man for a few minutes, the husband comes to find out that his neighborhood has an association and the association oversees the betterment of the neighborhood through subcommittees like the "graffiti committee".

Upon finding out this information, the husband and wife immediately joined this association and became members of it's various committees, taking proactive steps to better their community that at first seem small, but say in the case of a graffiti-marked wall or maybe even a broken window, can make all the difference in the world.

While a little thing like a broken window can make a worthwhile place look worthless, all it takes is a little paint to turn a tainted wall of apathetic despair into a rallying cry for community engagement. Everyone talks about the ripples created by a pebble in a pond, but just as powerful is the movement going on under the surface, immediately shifting the foundation in ways most will never see.

Free Will and Civic Engagement

I had a conversation with my wife the other day and it began as an exercise for me to clarify why I love this country and its Democratic Republic form of government. The two of us are nerdy enough to do this on a semi-regular basis, but I digress. What began as an exercise focused on me clearly knowing the foundation of my passion for the democratic process became something much more telling for the both of us.

With plenty of experience coming in contact with the very worst parts of politics in all off its shameful horror, my wife is not exactly what one would call a "political animal". It would be more fitting to consider her a politiphobe (not sure if that is an actually word, but humor me). With the exception of following Obama's presidential campaign, she can hardly stomach hearing from political news shows like Hardball and AC 360 (don't even get her started on The Briefing Room and any Fox News programming).

Anyway, we're talking and I begin telling her that when people get civically engaged it not only helps that person, but their family, loved ones and a bunch of people they may never meet in their community. When more people get involved, it leaves less people out there feeling like they are alone in their experience whatever it is, because engagement allows people to share their story; their triumphs, trials and tribulations. When we know we're not alone in what we're dealing with, fighting for or trying to find our way through, we step more confidently and more courageously because we believe there'll be someone to pick us up should we fall.

I gave her the example of my mother's fight to secure full disability benefits for my brother who is a veteran of the First Iraq War and is now wheelchair bound due to Hodgkins Disease and Muscle Ataxia believed to be brought on by Gulf War Syndrome. For many months my mother made calls, visited offices, made personal appeals to elected officials and finally got in touch with someone who believed they could help her. Even after that, she had to constantly call this person and make 3 hour long round trips to visit with this man to finally get my brother what he was owed by the government for his service to his country. My wife knew this story all too well and it seemed to fuel her disdain for the government's ability to turn its back on its citizens, thereby becoming an accomplice in the citizen's condition.

After going back and forth with her, we separated for a few minutes after she suggested that if I'd brought her a bible instead of the massive packet of non-profit organizations I put in front of her (my evidence of the power of those who chose to become civically engaged in subtle and specific ways), I might have had a case. So after a little thought I came up with a fail-safe legitimization of civic engagement in spite of the current conditions the average citizen finds him or herself in today.

It goes to the very core of Christianity or most any belief rooted in a higher power. Free Will. My wife and I being the believers that we are, understand that every day, every hour and minute is a choice. We can either choose to live as someone who believes in God, his son and the holy spirit or we can chose to live as someone who does not believe. God goes on whether we believe or not. We aren't forced to do anything we don't want to, but as believers we understand that life (in all its manifestations) is better when we choose to live as believers.

The same goes for those who live in a Democratic Republic. We can choose not to live as people who believe in a Democratic Republic or we can choose to live as people who do believe. As things stand now, the Democratic Republic will go on whether we do or don't actively engage in it. Still, life tends to be more full and satisfying when we choose to live as believers in our form of government. Throughout history, Democracy has proven to be the only form of government that allows its people to choose the direction of both themselves as individuals, but themselves as a smaller part of a greater whole.

Our government (as could be argued with modern religion) exists in such a way that is hardly recognizable from its earliest beginnings, but there is still hope in its foundation. It is in that foundation that the possible cures of our government's ills lie dormant, waiting to be rediscovered. The ability to change, shift and chart a better course for our country is the most unique and most precious element of the Democratic Government we live in today.

There is but one question left to ask. Are you a believer or not?