The Regime’s Root Problem

(This is written as part of the Youth Media Blog-a-thon, sponsored by Youth Outlook and WireTap.)

In a country that was built on genocide, slavery and a system of legalized racism that was only abolished some forty years ago, Barack Obama’s Presidential victory is indeed a historical breakthrough and cause for celebration. I also celebrate because the man appears to be an outstanding individual with liberal politics and an organizer’s instincts. His regular YouTube addresses to the people, like the one below, demonstrate not only a firm grasp of utilizing modern technology to communicate with the masses but also great messaging for empowerment and organizing.

I believe there is also something to be said for the fact that, while not being the diametric opposite of Bush and Republican policies that we would like to think, we are witnessing a significant, bloodless regime change with the incoming regime having markedly different policy approaches than the last. Many places and different conditions require violent revolution or coups for this to happen.

Still, we as progressives have to acknowledge that Obama has clearly demonstrated his willingness to “move to the center” on many issues important to us, as have countless left-supported Democrats before him. Take for example, how his political activities as an Illinois politician seemed to indicate a sympathy for the Palestinian cause, but has changed to the status quo, “Israel is our strongest ally” rhetoric with his ascendancy to the White House.

Again, this is not a singular trait of Barack Obama. Many Democrats that we on the left have supported in the past have compromised their campaign promises and the will of the people in the interest of other bureaucrats, money, greed, their own political ambitions or simply to “get something done” no matter how marginally beneficial or detrimentally harmful the result.

Although there are meaningful differences between the two most powerful US political parties in terms of policy approaches, the undeniable reality is that the Democrats and the Republicans are run by essentially the same people: the rich. At least 35 percent of members of Congress were millionaires in 2005, according to the Center for Responsive Politics–compared with 1 percent for the population at large–and senators had a median net worth of $1.1 million. Furthermore, without publicly financed elections, it often takes a good deal of personal wealth and connections to run for office–the average Senate campaign in 2006 cost about $5.8 million.

Which brings us to the regime’s, or rather the American political system’s, root problem: money rules. The two ruling parties are run by the rich, and thus, it is in their interest to keep the two parties in power, and marginalize any individual or independent political party that tries to challenge them. That’s not democracy, that’s an oligarchy, a plutocracy.

We on the left are told that we should support the Democrats because they are the only ones who can win. We are told we have no other choice but to support them, even when they act against our interests. We are told a vote for a third party candidate is a vote for the Republicans, as if the Democrats are entitled to our votes, even if they haven’t earned them.

I say this all still in support of Obama, but with the full realization that he is only one man. However well-intentioned, he leads an imperialist empire that is in full effect, but a democracy that is broken.

For real progressive change, I believe we need many things. In combination with Obama’s leadership, we need empowered and engaged communities. We need a unified mass movement for progressive change. We need a political system that truly represents the diverse spectrum of political thought that exists today in America.

Here’s a few small reforms that could push us towards a more equitable electoral system and a healthier democracy:

1) Publicly Funded Campaigns

We have to put the voters, we the people, back in control of politics, instead of lobbyists, special interest money and donors with deep pockets. Easier said than done, I know, but it’s actually already happening in a small way through the movement for publicly funded campaigns.

2) Proportional Representation

Basically, proportional representation is an electoral system that believes that all voters deserve representation and that all political groups in society deserve to be represented in our legislatures in proportion to their strength in the electorate. In other words, everyone should have the right to fair representation. To do this, multi-member voting districts are used instead of electing one person in each district like we do in the US. Then, seats in these multi-member voting districts are divided up according to the proportion of votes received by the various parties or groups running candidates. Thus if the candidates of a party win 40% of the vote in a 10 member district, they receive four of the ten seats — or 40% of the seats. If another party wins 20% of the vote, they get two seats, and so on. This leads to a government that is much more representative of the spectrum of political thought in the electorate, instead of being solely dominated by two parties (when a third of the US voting population identifies as “independent).

You can read a much more in depth explanation of how proportional representation works here.

3. Instant Runoff

In conjunction with proportional representation, instant runoff voting is a method that aims to make the electoral system more equitable. The FairVote organization states that:

“Instant runoff voting allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference (i.e. first, second, third, fourth and so on). Voters have the option to rank as many or as few candidates as they wish, but can vote without fear that ranking less favored candidates will harm the chances of their most preferred candidates. First choices are then tabulated, and if a candidate receives a majority of first choices, he or she is elected. If nobody has a clear majority of votes on the first count, a series of runoffs are simulated, using each voter’s preferences indicated on the ballot. The candidate who received the fewest first place choices is eliminated. All ballots are then retabulated, with each ballot counting as one vote for each voter’s highest ranked candidate who has not been eliminated. Specifically, voters who chose the now-eliminated candidate will now have their ballots counted for their second ranked candidate — just as if they were voting in a traditional two-round runoff election — but all other voters get to continue supporting their top candidate. The weakest candidates are successively eliminated and their voters’ ballots are redistributed to next choices until a candidate crosses a majority of votes.

Instant runoff voting allows for better voter choice and wider voter participation by accommodating multiple candidates in single seat races and assuring that a “spoiler effect” will not result in undemocratic outcomes. IRV allows all voters to vote for their favorite candidate without fear of helping elect their least favorite candidate, and it ensures that the winner enjoys true support from a majority of the voters. Plurality voting, as used in most American elections, does not meet these basic requirements for a fair election system that promotes cost-saving elections with wider participation.”

Instant runoff voting is already used around the world and in the US in places like San Francisco, California; Burlington, Vermont; and Takoma Park, Maryland.

You can read more about instant runoff voting (IRV) and other reforms at FairVote’s website here.

I realize that these solutions aren’t perfect and won’t fix everything, but I think they are steps in the right direction in terms of the electoral system. For the sweeping progress we want, the regime change will only go so far unless the roots of the problem are addressed. Fortunately, we the people always have the power to make that change.

1.20.2009: On a cold day in DC…

I was fortunate to be able to share in celebrating with millions of other people the inauguration of Barack H. Obama to the presidency of the United States. It was surreal to be there, and I joked with my friends and family that Obama has created an alternate reality in which human decency is restored (for real though, everyone in DC was mad friendly; even the police were helpful and didn’t make a single arrest!).

Although I don’t agree with Obama on all the issues, I respect him as a human being based on the small window of his personal life that we have been allowed to see, and am so happy to have an intelligent, rational person back in the big seat after the last eight years of Bush ridiculousness.

Of course, the homie Rage eloquently keeps things in perspective, telling us to:

“…Take a deep, collective breath, because regardless of how this election turned out, there would still be homeless folks on the streets, poor people struggling to maintain some kind of stability in a rapidly changing world, and inequality, hatred, and violence acting out on everyone from individuals to nation-states. We’re all yearning to be free, but are our definitions the same?”

One man can’t fix a huge, fucked up, bureaucratic empire (or even have the desire to, for that matter), but I hold out hope that we will see at least see some moderate change for the better under an Obama administration. Lord knows we need it right now, both locally and globally.

(President and First Lady Obama greeting the crowd at the Neighborhood Ball, kind of summarizing why I dig his swagger and general messaging)

Elections ‘08: Troy Davis & The Death Penalty

(This is written as part of the Youth Media Blog-a-thon, sponsored by Youth Outlook and WireTap.)

Troy Davis was scheduled to be executed on Monday, October 27th, 2008, but today received a stay of execution by the Federal Appeals Court in Atlanta. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution states that: “Davis, 40, sits on death row for the Aug. 19, 1989, murder of 27-year-old Savannah police Officer Mark Allen MacPhail. Since Davis’ trial, seven of nine key prosecution witnesses have recanted their testimony.” There is no physical evidence in this case implicating Davis. No gun, no bullet, no nothing, just “witness” testimony, the majority of which have since recanted said testimony, saying they were pressured to implicate Davis by the police and others.

For anyone who has been keeping up with this case, it has been a rollercoaster ride, with Davis being granted stays of execution sometimes mere minutes before he is scheduled to die.

I stood out with hundreds of other people last night at a rally for Davis organized by Georgians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty (GFADP) on the steps of the Georgia State Capitol. In freezing cold weather, we were fired up by chants of “I am Troy Davis!” It was thus great news that we were greeted with this morning, upon hearing of the Court’s decision. The fight for Troy’s life is not over by any means, but the stay has given Troy more days to live, and has given us more time to strategize, fight and hope.

Sadly, Troy’s story is not unique. He is one of 3,300 people on Death Row in the United States. The NAACP Legal Defense Fund states that of that 3,300:

“…Over 41 percent are African-American—more than three times their representation in the general population. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, since 1973 there have been 130 people exonerated—people wrongly sentenced to death—in 26 different states, including five exonerated on death row in Georgia. Evidence even suggests that at least four innocent people have been executed in recent years.”

This is not an equal system of justice. The Death Penalty is a system that overwhelmingly kills poor people of color, many of whom are found to be innocent of the crimes they are accused of. And with that reality, in the midst of a Presidential election in 2008 America that has constantly thrust race in the spotlight, the two mainstream candidates, John McCain and Barack Obama, have both pledged their support to continue this barbaric, disgustingly racist system.

Troy Davis has not escaped being executed by the State due to the significant evidence casting doubt on his guilty conviction alone. Decision makers have had to rethink their rulings in regard to him because of the hundreds and thousands of people who have been taking to the streets and demanding that if there is but one inkling of evidence suggesting his innocence, the man at the very least deserves another trial.

No matter who we choose to vote for in the upcoming election, a vote alone does not bring about progressive social change. It takes organizing our communities to take collective action in demanding the justice that we deserve. It takes educating and informing ourselves and our communities about what’s really going on. It takes passing on to our children and communities lessons that value the lives of human beings, and not violent vengeance.

We will not let the State kill another innocent human being in our names, with our tax dollars. We will not let the State continue to profit off of killing innocent human beings in our names, with our tax dollars. We are Troy Davis. I am Troy Davis.

Please check the GFADP website regularly for updates on the Troy Davis campaign and for info on how you can take action.

Obama 2008 DNC Speech

Sometimes, I really just have to put aside my cynicism and marvel at the power of a skilled orator. Despite all of my frustrations with the Democratic party and Obama himself, you can never say that he doesn’t know how to deliver a damn good speech; the man is a seriously gifted speaker. Those skills were on display at the final night of the DNC, where Obama gave his speech accepting the Dem’s nomination to run for President, the first Black candidate to ever do so.

I was really feeling how he emphasized that: “This race was never about me, it was about you and what’s happening all across America…Change doesn’t come from Washington, it comes to Washington.” I actually take that message as a rallying cry for us in the social justice movement. We’ve seen how much the Democrats cave in to conservative demands, it’s the nature of our rigged two-party duopoly in 2008 America. However, if he gets in office and we organize our communities to demand progressive action, my hope is that this man would listen. At the same time, we should be doing the same thing with our city council people, county people, state people, etc. Even Lyndon Johnson, a conservative southern good ‘ol boy, had to sign the Civil Rights Act into law because people were taking it to the streets and demanding action from the government.

Barack Bitterness Ballin’

Dave Lindorff at CounterPunch wrote a great article the other day in response to attack’s on Barack Obama over comments he made at some Frisco speaking event. I know I’m late on this but in case you didn’t hear, Obama apparently described the bitterness and frustration felt by voters in small town, middle America and how this bitterness has led a lot of them to vent their frustrations on Black people, immigrants, non-God fearing heathens, people wanting to take away their guns, etc. instead of the politicians and corporate interests who are really the ones that have been hurting them. Um, sorry, call me a city boy but I don’t really have a problem with those comments.

The interesting thing though, is that Lindorff talks about how Barack’s responses to those attacks on him have brought out this somewhat populist message that is just as strong as anything Ralph Nader has been saying for like, his whole life. He says:

“If Obama sticks to this rhetorical approach in the coming weeks, he will nail this nomination in spite of a concerted attack on him by the corporate media and by the combined forces of the Clintons and McCain.

And if he does win the nomination, and resists the siren calls of the Democratic Party leadership to “move to the middle,” and instead hones this populist message, he will go on to win the presidency.

That’s when the real challenge will come, for an aroused citizenry, in those rural communities and in the larger cities across that nation, to make a President Obama and a Democratic Congress deliver on these words.

For now, they’re pretty powerful words, and just hearing them coming from a Democratic Party frontrunner is an exciting change.”

Word.

In totally different Barack news, the homeboy Tad passed along this wonderfully entertaining little youtube clip showing an interview with the presidential hopeful talking about his passion for basketball. I mean shit, the man was likable enough already but knowing that him and I share a mutual love for this great sport is almost too special. I mean come on, he said he would put a full court in the White House, fer chrissakes! That is just too dope (thanks, Tad).

Obama’s Landmark Speech

You can’t help but get swept up in Obamania when he makes speeches like this (except for that really irritating line about “Israel being our strongest ally.”)

Nader/Gonzalez, Democrats and “Fear Based Voting”

Paul Street wrote a great article today posted over at SleptOn. As an admitted supporter of Nader during the 2000 presidential election, Street deconstructs the “spoiler” argument and shows the steady bullshit the Democratic party has been spewing since the Clinton administration in describing themselves as a party for the working class and the marginalized, but only acting in the interests of the corporate elite. He says:

“Obama appears to be the most likely candidate to go up against Mad Bomber McCain. It would be nice if he would dial down the level of his maddening attachment to bullshitting voters – an attachment that may (as with his NAFTA-Canada nonsense in Ohio) admittedly undermine his ability to win the nomination.

In any event, I have a reason I’d not anticipated for wanting him to stay strong in Iowa. If Obama can keep going with a sixteen point lead or more over the scary G.O.P. guy in my state, I can be considerably less afraid to vote for Nader or a different Green or other left candidate.

How strange. If the Democrats end up going with their most thoroughly corporate and militarist candidate (Hillary) – a person McCain can beat within and beyond Iowa – it will increase the likelihood I’ll have to make a fear-based vote for their party. If they go with Mr. HOPE, maybe I can make a vote closer to my own concept of hope, and it won’t be Obama – not by a long shot.”

I understand the phenomenon of “fear based voting,” fearing that if you don’t vote for a Democrat, Republicans will continue to destroy this country. The thing is, I’m starting to wonder if life really is better under a Democratic administration, especially when corporate Democrats like Hilary (and unfortunately, Obama) largely influence the direction of the entire party. As Street shows, the Clinton years weren’t actually that great for working class people, marginalized ethnic groups, labor unions, etc. It only makes the backlash from the Democratic party against any independent candidate like Nader and Gonzalez all the more sickening.

Ishmael Reed on Obama and much more

 

Really great interview with Bay Area writer Ishmael Reed on CounterPunch today. He discusses a whole bunch of subjects, such as the presidential primaries, Barack Obama’s “Blackness” and the overall issue of race in this country, his writing process, etc. I’m loving this quote on Obama:

“I like the guy. I think he’s a real inspiration. For once, African American kids, especially the boys, are able to see someone handle intellectual combat. Like Jesse Jackson or Sharpton. Instead of the way they restrict us to athletes, or entertainers, or criminals.” 

At the same time, he is critical of Obama and never outright endorses him. I feel exactly the same way! I love everything Obama represents to the millions of young Black children in this country. To actually see someone that embodies the “you really CAN be anything you want to be” notion that we are taught as children. At the same time, Obama’s positions on many issues does not reflect my left progressive politics (I’m not talking about what he says in speeches, I’m talking about what he has voted for and what he says he will vote for. Those damn cold hard policies. What can I say? I’m a sociologist, a sucker for facts and data). I feel like such a downer next to all the Obama supporters of my generation, but hey, what are you gonna do.

Ishmael Reed’s book, Blues City: A Walk in Oakland, is one of my favorites.