The Grand Obstructionists Party: Good for Theatre, Bad for America

As a self-proclaimed maverick and moderate conservative, John McCain won the Republican presidential nomination because of his supposed appeal to moderate voters. Even though this strategy was jeopardized the moment his running mate opened her mouth and winked at America for the first time, McCain’s platform included stances that were controversial among the conservative base, including a health care plan that resembles the one signed into law this week.

It would be assumed that someone with moderate values would be engaged in bipartisanship, but when Mr. McCain realized that his central stance jeopardizes his Senate Seat, he knew he had to return to the status quo. "There will be no cooperation for the rest of the year… They have poisoned the well in what they've done and how they've done it." This Maverick learned his lesson from the best of the best – never leave your wing man.

One might ask if McCain should retain his rank of Maverick if he’s pandering to party needs, but the Republicans, bolstered by the Tea Partiers, have become a party of mavericks. Merriam-Webster defines the term as ”an independent individual who does not go along with a group or party.” Since the GOP (Grand Obstructionist Party) leads an “independent” mob of individuals against the “Evil Empire,” McCain’s title holds clout.

And I can’t think of a better way for McCain to promote this position than joining forces with the infamous rogue revolutionary herself, Sarah Palin. Despite the fact that McCain is running against one of her beloved Tea Partiers J.D. Hayworth, she believes the party needs "statesmen and heroes like John McCain."

One has to wonder if this is an indication that Ms. Palin has completed her institutionalization into the world of politics. When one considers the controversial campaign fallout between McCain and Palin publicized in her best-selling book "Going Rogue" combined with Hayworth's credentials as an ideal Tea Party representative, it seems suspicious to say the least that Palin pledged her power and influence to McCain. I wonder who scratched Sarah's back and made her an offer she couldn't refuse.

Regardless of the outcome, this is just another painful example of the polarization of this nation. When John McCain, a brilliant man but poor politician, is forced to sell out because his values are too moderate, there definitely is a problem.

But with McCain and his fellow Republican Senators pledging to oppose anything and everything coming from the left, what are the Democrats to do? Senator Frank Lautenberg wants to make a spectacle of it best enjoyed with heavily buttered popcorn and a cola. The Senator is pushing for anti-filibuster legislation dubbed the Mr. Smith Filibuster Bill, named after the Oscar winning 1939 classic "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" which portrays a politician killing time on the senate floor by reading allowed the phonebook or vintage literature like "Moby Dick."

Essentially, the bill allows for obstruction through a filibuster only when someone actively is on the floor debating an issue. This ensures that thought provoking discussion is actually taking place by creating transparency and allowing the American people to hear the side of the minority. If the minority wishes to use the filibuster to kill a bill altogether, then they will need to engage in various time wasting techniques in front of the American people, allowing the public to judge whether the arguments are in good faith or simply an obstructive tactic used to inhibit the legislative process. This legislation will create incredible political theatre and hold the minority's feet to the fire.




If John McCain doesn't want to cooperate for the sake salvaging of his political career, lets at least ensure that either some productive discourse occurs or reveal the obstructionist sham for the mockery of our system that it is.

California's Direct Democracy Cripples the State

Perhaps the most important political-economic event of the 1970s, California’s Proposition 13 initiated a nationwide tax revolt that set the stage for Ronald Reagan’s presidency (Cohen). Fueled by populist rage at the escalating property taxes despite a $5 billion budget surplus, “The People’s Initiative to Limit Property Taxation” was masterfully crafted by Howard Jarvis to be a deeply seeded corporate-conservative Constitutional amendment with the longevity to survive even the death of Reaganomics (O’Leary). With an angry mob to support his plan, the measure included not only a cap on property taxes that locked the value of the development at the time of purchase but also mandated a supermajority to pass any future legislation that raises taxes. It doesn’t take a doctorate in economics to understand that when it takes a simple majority to create social programs, but a two-thirds majority to provide the necessary funding and revenues for these causes that problems will ensue. On top of the obvious structural dilemma, state and local governments became dependent on revenue that was directly correlated with the states economic prosperity. As an economy booms, the government enjoys success, but when a state is in the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression and needs to provide more social services than normal because of the increased unemployment despite a drop in state revenue, we have the Golden State’s current debacle. “California is broken – and broke,” and thanks can be attributed to our hybrid democracy (Cohen).

This term, hybrid democracy, refers to the combination of America’s constitutionally founded representative democracy, where citizens vote for delegates to represent them in government, and direct democracy, where every eligible citizen actively votes and participates in the legislative process. Used in twenty-four states as well as the District of Columbia, this plebiscitary process of direct democracy can be implemented by initiatives (proposals by citizens), referendums (proposals by public officials differed to citizens), and recalls (the removal by the public of an elected official). The use of these has created a fourth, nearly unchecked branch of government that manages to undermine the structural integrity of our nation’s Constitution by handicapping the representative system of our founding fathers.

Even though it was implemented in California less than one hundred years ago, this concept of direct democracy has been around for thousands of years. Although certainly proposed earlier and executed informally, the first recorded political system that embraced direct democracy was the Greek city-state of Athens in 594 BC. This idealistic system was open to all citizens – males over the age of 18 who had completed their military training – and allowed for open participation in the legislative and judicial components of government to all. The purpose of the few elected officials was to take care of the administrative and day-to-day business of the organization, but the entirety of power was placed in the hands of the people. This system created high levels of civic engagement free of political parties and enriched the lives of its citizens through the open discourse and transparency of public matters (Gale).

After achieving freedom by overthrowing British rule in its Revolutionary War, America had to determine which system of government would best represent its core values. After deliberating between direct democracy, a representative democracy, or some sort of fusion of the two, the founders determined that America would be best served by a direct democracy. In a letter to John Adams, Thomas Jefferson acknowledged that this representative system would indeed create an aristocracy and take the power to govern directly out of hands of the citizens. Unlike, as described by Edward Coke, the British artificial aristocracies empowered by divine rights, America’s natural aristocracy would be forged by the virtue and merit of the delegates striving to serve the common good. While Jefferson certainly held an idealistic perspective of the integrity of his plan, it was also the only realistic option. In a rural nation as expansive as the thirteen original colonies, implementing a system emulating the Athenian democracy was nigh impossible. Additionally, despite valuing each citizen’s right to choose, the founding fathers feared majority tyranny could steamroll the rights of the minorities (Budge). It was supposed that the natural aristocracy would ensure justice for all members of society and a voice for every citizen, even though who could not speak for themselves.

Unfortunately for America, many of the morals and values that Jefferson spoke about were not shared by all government officials, and by the end of the 19th century, corruption had corroded the righteous ideals of public service. Big industry had taken over government, and political machines like Boss Tweed’s Tammany Hall were hardly the exception. No one was immune to the floods of bribery and unethical tactics of the special interests groups attempting to usurp power for personal gain. Regardless of “whether a man was a Republican or Democrat… the Southern Pacific Railroad controlled both parties” (The Economist). As the corruption spread, a populist movement grew to oppose it and the Progressive era brought about across the board reform. In an effort to protect Americans from this tyranny of the rich, the Progressives in several states passed legislations that adopted direct democracy into the political system, bestowing the ability to stand up and fight any future corruption. California passed similar reform in 1911 and since then has had an average of 18 measures on every ballot (“Ballotwatch”). However, where power goes, corruption is always soon to follow, and the system that was put in place to protect the people quickly became too expensive for the common man, making the fourth branch of government the jurisdiction of Corporate America and Special Interests groups (Cohen).

Despite the fact that direct democracy’s current function contradicts its intended purpose, there are still many arguments protecting its establishment. Proponents like to declare that the initiative process is crucial to America’s effort to restore civic engagement since each additional measure increases voter turnout by 2% during midterm elections and 1% for presidential races (Tolbert). It is indeed irrefutable that Jefferson and friends would feel discouraged if they saw the civic values of Americans today, and that action would be necessary to rectify this injustice. Any democracy, representative or otherwise, without participation from the people is scarcely a democracy at all. So it would seem logical that the increase in people at the polls should encourage citizens to become more engaged about the issues, discuss it with family, friends, and colleagues, and leave a lasting impression that not only are politics interesting and informative, but also a necessary part of our citizenship.

From a distance, the increase in participation due to initiatives seems like a savior for our democracy but upon further inspection might indicated our own delusions. The 2008 presidential election saw one of the highest voter turnouts among the college age demographic in over 40 years, so logically one would assume that their civic engagement must have gone up during this period as well. Unfortunately, research shows that in 2008, 25-34% of 18-24 year olds did not receive the news across any medium, compared to 1998 when just 14-19% did not get the news, and that was during a midterm election year when voter turnout is much lower than presidential elections (Starr). Of the 66-75% that were updated on the news, I would venture to guess that large proportion were being ‘informed’ by the political satire of The Daily Show and Colbert Report. This seems to indicate that voter turnout may be a poor determinant for civic engagement.

Just because a hotbed issue like gay rights drives more people to show up at the polls does not mean they are arriving prepared for all the issues. When this happens, Americans show up passionate to vote on a serious issue, and maybe they are familiar enough with one of the candidates running for office to vote for him, but there remains a whole book of additional policies that they do not fully understand. In this situation, people usually vote based on party lines or make an immature, hastily-concluded decisions, both of which fail to embody the spirit of direct democracy. This type of participation may actually be detrimental and result in the death of justifiable initiatives that aren’t as exciding or don’t have widespread appeal. It seems safe to assume that citizens need to do more than just show up on Election Day to really be civically engaged.

Even if they do come prepared, it is debatable whether the average citizen is able to analyze and assess complex policy issues with the best interest of society for the present and future. Proposition 13, the aforementioned 1978 property tax revolt, presents a clear case that citizens make decisions based upon their personal preferences in the present without using any foresight. In an article published in 1979 defending the claim that passing of Prop. 13 was not passed by an angry mob but instead by a concerned group of responsible citizens, a primary argument stated that the bill provided tax relief without cutting local public services because the additional funds come from the state’s $5 billion surplus (Lucier). I guess this gross fiscal irresponsibility can be attributed to Californians assuming that the state government will forever maintain a budget surplus even though they just passed a measure that cut the state’s primary revenue source in half, forcing Sacramento to rely on unstable taxation methods (Lucier). Sorry conservatives, but cutting taxes during times of prosperity and expecting the same level of social services, especially knowing the cyclical nature of the American economy, may be a great political maneuver to shift the blame of financial shortcomings onto the Democrats, but not a viable way to run a State.

If Proposition 13 was an isolated event and an anomaly, I would not consider it a justifiable point to hinge an entire argument around, even though its changes to the tax code along with the two/thirds majority is the cause of our state’s budget failures (Klein). However, the California voters are notorious for believing in “two principles: the state should provide vastly more services to its citizens, and citizens should pay vastly less to the state” (Delong). Since it is impossible for California to maintain its once world-class public services with stunted revenues, it should come as no surprise that California has fallen to the bottom of almost every category in state comparisons of social services (Cohen).

The laundry list of citizen initiatives that have handcuffed our representative government is long and distinguished. Sponsored by the California Teacher’s Association, Proposition 98 mandated that the state spend 40% of its budget on K-12 education. Proposition 184 put into practice the three strikes increased sentencing requirement, and our state spending per capita since 1984 climbed 126% after adjusting for inflation (Cohen). In 1990, voters placed limits on term lengths for its state legislators that created a high turnover rate. Giving legislators the boot right around the time they fully grasp the system and replacing them with fresh blood is something any businessman would consider an incredibly inefficient use of resources. For these reasons and many more, California is infamous for having the potential for the best social programs in the nation, but alas they go either unfunded or under funded. Meanwhile, the officials that Californians elect to manage the state cannot break free from the restraints of direct democracy regardless of their will to do so.



Even though the people have clearly made some poor decisions, I’m not saying that they are failing the system put in place by the writers of the Constitution. Direct democracy places a heavy and unfair onus of responsibility on the citizen to create public policy, a task and burden that our forefathers never intended the average citizen to bear. In order to make the best possible decisions, officials work full time with a supporting staff under them and have access to a nearly limitless supply of data and information that might be privy to the public. Their understanding of how this policy fits into the political and fiscal puzzle of government is supplemented usually by years of experience and a post-graduate education. Clearly these resources are not available to the common man, so it is no surprise that the average voters do not have the same ability – or maybe just the opportunity – to make rational decisions as elected officials. It seems as though it would be foolish to expect quality decisions. Personally, I would feel uncomfortable asking the average man to analyze both the House and Senate versions of Health Care Reform and determine the fate of the reform in our nation. Did I mention that this individual works fifty-hour work weeks and comes home every night to a wife and two children? While this is of course an extreme scenario, especially since most politicians in Washington don’t understand health care more than a year later, this is the reason why we have a legislators, the President and his cabinet, and judges, so that the people can work in the free market and not have to worry about the issues of public policy(Penny).

Maybe direct democracy has failed to provide quality legislation, but not as a result of the citizen’s incompetence or limited access to resources, but simply because of the sheer volume of the initiatives. With an average of 18 initiatives per ballot, there are a lot of initiatives from various arenas to comprehend. Additionally, from 2000-2006, 15 of the 46 initiatives were more than 5,000 words and 8 of those eclipsed the 10,000 word mark (Center for Governmental Studies). Needless to say, before even finding and reading additional objective sources to supplement their comprehension of the cryptic and intentionally confusing jargon, every voter must set aside a significant amount of time to plow through this dense material. This discourages directly democratic principles as voters take shortcuts and do not come to their own personal conclusions about the initiatives.

With the argument that direct democracy promotes civic engagement debunked, other proponents of the initiative process argue that their precious direct democracy is the essence of any national truly striving to be by the people and for the people (Budge). They argue that with the expansion of the Internet, citizens, regardless of geographic location, have the opportunity to engage in thoughtful discourse in an adversarial style similar to that of the Athenians. Unlike representative democracy, the power is in the “trustworthy” hands of the people and was free from the corruptible reach of special interest groups or political parties.

Before continuing, it is important to recall that John Adams chose to acknowledge America as a republic because he feared the consequences of democracies. He looked at the longevity of historic democracies and concluded that their structure was too prone to crumble (the Economist). When assessing the causes of these shortfalls, John Madison concluded that the most objectionable aspect of a direct democracy is majority tyranny. This occurs when the will of the members in power infringes upon the individual liberties of the minority class (the Economist).

While this may qualify as democracy, the rule by a single demographic or class of individuals simply because their population boomed after a war is not justice. Equality and civil liberties should not be based on immutable factors since “All men were created equal” and not just those born into the majority because of the color of their skin or the wealth of their parents.



California’s Proposition 8 in 2008 was a voter initiative to repeal the right to same-sex marriages and proof that the tyranny of the majority exists. Ronald George, the chief justice of California’s Supreme Court that originally bestowed the right to wed regardless of gender, joked that “chickens gained valuable rights in California on the same day that gay men and lesbians lost them” (the Economist). Prior to the vote, the airs of prejudice were stirred vehemently in the minds of supposed Christians by the insistence of their religious dictators that these men and women were damned to hell because of their love was ‘sin.’ This compelled a plurality of the eligible citizens to strip away civil liberties and the significance of judicial review in a single vote.

Another act of majority tyranny took place this year in Switzerland, the only nation in the world where direct democracy is used on a national scale. The citizens voted to ban the future production of minarets, a distinctive architectural piece of Islamic mosques, fearing that their nation would be overrun by Islamic radicals and terrorists (Cumming-bruce). The Swiss voted that this architectural style, representative of the second largest religion in the world, was unfit for their nation because they did not want this imagery to symbolize their national beliefs. Clearly, the nation’s four minarets were just too much for them to handle (Cumming-bruce). Well, the Swiss may have successfully alienated over a billion people from ever living in their country, but they also just invited the very same radicals they were trying to avoid into their country to commit acts of terror.

If this is not bad sad enough, consider the state of America if direct democracy was used to overrule Brown v. Board of Education. Needless to say, but nonetheless, thank you, founding fathers!

A common rebuttal to argues that the same tyranny can and does take place in a representative democracy, but studies have shown that “minority rights do in fact fare better in representative democracy, especially when policy proposals are intended to limit the rights of the gay and lesbian minority” (Haiden-Markel). In local and state initiatives from 1972-2005, gay rights advocates lost 71% of the time, and there was an increase of harassment and violence against minority groups during these ballot campaigns (Haiden-Markel).

If one believes that majority tyranny is an acceptable cost of democracy, than they probably feel that at least direct democracy allows for the voice of the people to be heard. Well, it certainly allows for the voice of some people. Proposition 13 was a citizen’s revolt against high taxation, implying that the people felt more comfortable handling their own money than giving it to a government to implement services on their behalf. However, only a decade after its passage, the local and state governments grew in terms of real per capita and their revenue stream returned to Pre-proposition 13 levels through various taxation methods (Galles). While lower taxes and a smaller government may have only been an implied interpretation of this Constitutional Amendment, it certainly was the mindset of the voters who were tricked into thinking that Proposition 13 would provide a lasting conservative state. Their voice said, “We want lower taxes,” not “give us an amendment that would cripple our representative democracy from being able to pass necessary budgets.”

Regardless of whether the voice of the people is heard during most initiatives, and the majority vote may only be a plurality of the eligible voters. This means that just because a vote passes with one million votes in California, support for that vote may be a minority view point since there are well over 15 million registered voters and even more if one includes eligible voters into this formula. Additionally, since age, socio-economic background, and education levels are reliable predictors for the percentages of voter turnout within demographics, the elderly, the rich, and the educated have a stronger and over inflated representation of their voice (Wagschal). In other words, direct democracy is the voice of some, not all, people.

Ironically, even though the initiative process is supposed to be a protection against Corporate America and special interest groups, they can only be initiated by those with enough money. In order to get a vote onto a ballot, there is a constitutional requirement that a proposal requires a certain number of signatures in order to be considered a legitimate issue and to protect against situations like in 1914 when there were 48 measures on the ballot (“Ballotwatch”). In order to obtain these signatures, organizations must get people to go out and sign up public support. Unfortunately, organizations that rely on volunteers often times failed to achieve the necessary number of signatures during the 150 day period, but those organizations with enough money can pay for people to get out and sign up citizens and to ensure the measures they want end up on the ballot. The process has gotten so corrupt that California now has a Signature Industry, allowing corporations to outsource the process to a middle man (San Francisco Business Times). This industry -already corrupt in its origins - incentivizes signature fraud, forgeries, and identity theft, which further taint the process. Even though states like Oregon have attempted to curb this corrosion by criminalizing per-signature compensation, the market created by an industry without regulation will go to the provider whose track record shows the higher number of signatures for the lowest cost.



Sadly, the role of special interests and corporate sponsors do not end after the initiative is on the ballot. Corporations, who have the same rights as citizens because of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, can pour limitless funds into commercials and advertisements that promote initiatives that benefit their bottom line. Not even the staunchest conservative, unless they have no business sense or are simply liars, would argue that marketing does not affect decision making. Therefore, when a corporation funds an ad that promotes their own personal good and not the public’s good, they are creating an unethical bias that could result in public policies that promote the private interests of the few. 73 % of Californians already feel that government is run for the benefit of the few, and since 94% of American’s do not have a great deal of trust for big corporations, this only perpetuates problems of civic engagement (Cohen).

Defenders of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and special interests argue that hearing out the voice of these Corporations is important since they are experts in the field and that the capitalism is the driving force behind our country. An expert is someone who provides an objective analysis free from bias or personal agenda. By law, publicly owned companies must serve their own interests to honor their agreement with their stock holders. The concept of free-market capitalism practicing self-regulation is ideological at best since it does not consider that the CEOs and their cronies care much more about their own self-interest than that of the company. As long as they can pocket as much of the profits as possible through direct and indirect means during the entire course of their tenure, then that’s what they’ll do. If there is one thing that the latest recession has made clear as crystal, it is that corporate greed dictates the deliberation process of the CEOs from companies like AIG, Goldman Sachs, and many, many more (Taibbi). These “trusted” experts are already far too involved through campaign contributions and ads in a representative democracy, yet the initiative process may be a more “fiscally” responsible way for corporations to influence government. This results in ads by the few, for the few.

Proposition 13 showed businesses and conservatives the power and opportunity for corporate benefits inherent in the initiative system. By locking property values at their 1978 levels until the land is purchased and sold – at which time the value with be reevaluated and relocked, the older and more stable businesses have been able to keep their property values at the same place for over 30 years despite the fact that real estate has skyrocketed during that same time period. Therefore, since residential housing changes ownership more than businesses, the proportion of the property taxes paid by businesses versus government revenues from residential lands has steadily decreased since 1978 (Cohen). Along with the benefits of lower property taxes, any restriction on taxations results in less government revenue that could be spent enforcing restrictive regulations that are seen as deterrents by CEOs..

The abuses have not been solely by the corporations, but also their representatives in the Republican Party. Despite having a 51-28 majority in the Assembly and a 25-14 advantage in the Senate, the Democrats still must rely on bipartisanship to pass any revenue increases because of the 2/3s requirement of Prop 13. While reaching across the isle for a few moderate Republican votes may seem like a simple concept, the polarized nature of politics means that California legislators must decide between doing the right thing and their job security. When former Senate Minority leader Dave Cogdill worked with Democrats on a budget, he was voted out of office the following year, and when freshman GOPer Anthony Adams followed Cogdill’s lead, conservatives attempting to recall him (Cohen). Clearly, either Mr. Adams does not understand his party’s ‘oppose everything by the liberals’ platform, or he cares about the public good more than his political affiliation.




Of course, Conservatives say that it is simply against their principles to raise taxes and not because of their symbiotic relationship with Big Biz. They argue that increases to corporate income tax will drive businesses out of California, despite the fact that California’s corporate tax is slightly above the national average (Cohen). Stating that any taxes or regulations will cause businesses to flee the worlds 8th largest economy in favor of the more relaxed tax codes of South Dakota is just unrealistic and contradictory to a study by the Public Policy Institute of California, but it does show the connection between Corporate America and the Grand Old Party (Cohen). This strong affiliation explains why initiatives have been primarily used by businesses and conservatives to take advantage of a flawed system. If they can’t buy Sacramento, why not buy “Joe the Plumber.”

In order to protect against this sort of corruption, the public requires information and watchdogs to inform and educate Californians, so alas we arrive at the responsibility of journalism in a direct democracy. An idealistic perspective on the issue portrays the media as the medium for public discourse, providing the necessary news to civically engage citizens. Not too long ago, during the heydays of Walter Cronkite, professional and investigative journalism allowed all Americans, regardless of where the fell on the political spectrum, to receive the same, quality information. This occurred since the competition was low so news groups attempted to appeal to the masses. However, since the dawn of the Internet and 24 hour cable news, the incentives have changed and partisanship pays (Starr).

With the abundance of media, there is a scarcity of attention since one’s audiences has a greater opportunity to ignore what they do not like (Starr). For example, 20 years ago when someone wanted to hear about how their favor hoops team faired on the previous night, they could either sit through an hour of Sports Center, their local nightly news, or pick up the paper the next morning and flip past the front page to what they want. In all of these situations, he was exposed to extraneous news and information he did not necessarily want on his quest to see how many points Magic scored on Jordan. In the era of the Internet, all he has to do is go to espn.com and he can see the box scores, a recap, and highlights of the game all from the comfort of his own smart phone. While this is incredibly convenient for the consumer, this increase of available information has brought about the downsizing of media.



In order to create a more attractive product, news groups have elected to focus on obtaining a strong hold over a single demographic or niche issue. Usually, this is done by appeasing a political perspective by providing entertaining opinion segments from talking heads instead of objective reporting. This limits the public discourse as consumers naturally tune in (if they can get away from youtube and facbeook) to the programs they find most rewarding, which tend to be the media sources that align with their own perspectives. Sadly, this does little good but instead perpetuates the polarization of America, and instead of developing their own views, they adopt the ideas of others. This is not how direct democracies were intended to operate. Their purpose is to hear out the voice of all citizens, not just echos of Glenn Beck, Keith Olbermann, Rush Limbaugh, Rachel Maddows, and Bill O’Reilly, who all are influenced by the race for rating supremecy. While new media through the interconnectivity of the World Wide Web may some day be a savior, the blogosphere and podcasts are currently still anomalies for most Americans, and a civic enlightenment revival may be on the horizon, but it is probably just a mirage.

California’s hybrid democracy tries to exploit the best aspects of both representative and direct democracy, but has turned out to be catastrophic for the state. Sometimes, when two antithetical ideologies are consolidated into one system, the sum of the parts ends up weaker than the original principles. Even though direct democracy was implemented with good intentions, it has been desecrated and contaminated by the corruption it was supposed to protect against, and it is absolutely necessary to reform the process before it has the opportunity to further undermine representative democracy. Repair California, a special interest group whose goal is to rectify this issue, is trying to pass two initiatives. Proposition 1 would allow the citizens of California to call for a limited Constitutional Convention, and Proposition 2 would be that call to action. Each proposition would require 1.4 million signatures and enough money to advertise and promote the measure which is destined to receive a wealth of opposition…

God help us all.


References

1. Budge, Ian. "Direct and Representative Democracy: Are They Necessarily Opposed?." UNDESA. International Conference on Engaging Communities, 17 Aug 2005. Web. 15 Mar 2010.
2. " California Constitutional Convention." Repair California. The Coalition to Repair California, 2010. Web. 15 Mar 2010.
3. Cohen, Donald, and Peter Dreier. "California in Crisis." American Prospect 01 Feb 2010. Web. 15 Mar 2010. .
4. Cumming-bruce, Nick, and Steven Erlanger. "Swiss Ban Building of Minarets on Mosques." NY Times 29 Nov 2009. Web. 15 Mar 2010.
5. "Democracy by Initiative: Shaping California's Fourth Branch of Government - Executive Summary." Center for Governmental Studies. Center for Governmental Studies, 2008. Web. 15 Mar 2010.
6. Fellows, James. "A demur to my former Atlantic colleague Ross Douthat." The Atlantic. The Atlantic Monthly Group, 03 Aug 2009. Web. 15 Mar 2010.
7. Galles, Gary, and Robert Sexton. "Computing the Extent of Circumvention of Proposition 13: A Response." American Journal of Economics and Sociology 59.1 (2000): 133-40. Web. 15 Mar 2010.
8. Haider-markel, Donald, Alana Querze, and Kara Lindaman. "Lose, Win, or Draw?: A Reexamination of Direct Democracy and Minority Rights." Political Researcher Quarterly 60.2 (2007): 304-14. Web. 15 Mar 2010.
9. Khoury, Sarkis, and Poorna Pal. "Computing the Extent of Circumvention of Proposition 13: A Note." American Journal of Economics and Sociology 59.1 (2000): 119-31. Web. 15 Mar 2010.
10. Klein, Joe. "California Bust." Swampland: a blog about politics. Time Inc., 10 Jan 2010. Web. 15 Mar 2010. .
11. Lucier, Richard. "# Gauging the Strength and Meaning of the 1978 Tax Revolt." Public Administration Review 39.4 (1979): 371-9. Web. 15 Mar 2010.
12. "National Conference on Citizenship." NCoC. National Conference on Citizenship, 2010. Web. 15 Mar 2010. .
13. Ostler, Jefferey. "Review: A Government by the People: Direct Democracy in America, 1890-1940 by Thomas Goebel." Journal of American History 89.4 (2003): 1556-7. Web. 15 Mar 2010..
14. Penny, Richard. "Direct vs. Represenative Democracy." International Debate Education Association. IDEA Inc., 27 Sep 2009. Web. 15 Mar 2010.
15. Starr, Paul. "Governing in the Age of Fox News." Atlantic Feb 2010. Web. 15 Mar 2010.
16. "Signature industry needs to keep out of reform process (Op. Ed)." San Francisco Business Times 12 Feb 2010. Web. 15 Mar 2010..
17. "The tyranny of the majority." The Economist. The Economist Newspaper Limited, 17 Dec 2009. Web. 15 Mar 2010.
18. Tolbert, Caroline, and Daniel Smith. "The Educative Effects of Ballot Initiatives on Voter Turnout." American Politics Research 33.2 (2005): 283-309. Web. 15 Mar 2010.

Edited 3/15/10 - Includes References

Corporate America: The Party in Power

After a year of passive politics on Health Care, President Obama realized that change we can believe in can only come by playing Washington politics. No matter how charismatic our President may be, he will be unable to change the culture of politics as long as prominent political figures care more about their own agenda than the public’s interest. While it was necessary for the legislative branch to orchestrate reform to avoid suffering the fate of the Clinton health plan, the Democratic Party needed leadership and the American people needed answers to this convoluted and confusing reform. As the Republicans expertly perpetuated the problem through efficiently executed talking points in an effort to kill the bill on behalf of their sugar daddies (lobbyists), Obama called for a responsible discourse across the aisle in order for the best possible bill. As the Right wing choked the “socialist” ideals out of the bill and raised mindless populist support against the “Evil Empire,” the Democrats allowed the reform to transform into a moderately conservative bill. While over the course of the last week Obama has taken the initiative to make the final push to finish reform, many wonder whether it’s too little too late. But seriously, what took so long? Sure, the abuse of the filibuster certainly complicated the issue, and the comprehensive nature of health care does make it a lengthy subject, but the only innovated ideas about health care that have resulted from the last six months of debate are the various ways be which Republicans have attempted to cripple the legislative process.

So, who ultimately really is in power? The democrats surely can’t be so incompetent that they have a 59 seat minority in the Senate, right? They certainly have been limited in their ability to pass liberal bills, even when they had a supermajority. But it’d also be foolish to say that the Republicans have been dictating the legislation that has passed, even though they have done an extraordinary job at obstructing the democratic process. The only thing that the fractured GOP can agree upon is that they must furiously attack all things liberal. This shameless polarization of the political parties by the right has created an entirely inefficient process, which was exactly their goal until they can regain a majority or the presidency.

So if neither the Dems nor the Republicans are running congress, what party is primarily influencing decisions in Washington? A simple rule of thumb when attempting to understand the influences of politicians is to track the source of their funding, and one quickly discovers that politicians pander more to special interest groups and lobbyists than their constituents. In order to finance their own careers, elected officials choose to ally with individuals (including corporations who now have the same rights as people) who are able to will their wallets with campaign contributions. This taints the decision making process if politicians are forced to reconsider decisions based on whether it appeases or alienates funding from corporations. This shifts the focus of politicians from serving their role as public servants to finding private partners for their own agenda.


Now, it’d be foolish to say that everyone in Washington uses teleological ethics, but health care has illuminated how much power corporations have over our government. Arguably every republican (exceptions like our good friend Ron Paul do exist) and these ‘blue dog’ democrats represent the Health industry and not the American people. Blue dogs are the democrats from small states who give corporations the best return on their investments since their campaign contributions go a lot further. Obviously $10 million dollars for campaigning in Wyoming means a lot more than $10 million in New York.

If you think that health care is the exception and not the norm, open your eyes to some of the other issues. The Consumer Financial Protection Agency, a proposed group to provide a check against unethical financial practices of banks, credit companies, and other organizations using fine print and bombastic verbatim and jargon to deceive consumers, has been crippled by the buying power of our banks. With assets that make up 63% of our GDP, just the threat of the power of the banks has scared the Dems into nerfing the CFPA into a powerless regulator ruled by the banks.

Still don’t believe me? Look at almost any liberal legislation and you can almost without exception find a corporation funding opposition? It’s the reason our nation doesn’t have stricter federal pollutions laws. It’s the reason why discrimination in the work place lasted so long. It’s the reason why more cannot be done to ensure children from lower socio-economic classes have the same opportunity to pursue the American dream as anyone else. The only time liberal legislation is passed without a corporate response is when opposing it will tarnish the company image so much that it’s not worth it.


And please don’t even get me started with the potentially devastating effects of the recent Supreme Court decision opening the floodgates of corporate spending into campaign advertisements. Since the Citizen’s United ruling removes limits to campaign funding for both American and foreign corporations, our government could potentially be bought by the highest bidder. Companies will run campaigns for judges who support their agenda through judicial legislation. American companies receiving most of their profits from offshore subsidiaries will be able to promote ideas against the interests of America. It goes on and on, but I can’t wait for the day when Corporations are given the right to vote, or when The State of the Union is sponsored by Exxon, or when the Air Force One resembles a NASCAR Stockcar, or when the only voice of the people left – the internet – is censored by the passing of HR 8743 present by News Corp. I hope my children won’t one day be saying, “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United Corporations of America…”

If I sound like Olbermann forgive me, it’s because I’m scared – on Glenn Beck levels – that my government is going to turn into a monopoly, a dictatorship ruled by Corporate America or even China. Fortunately, there are bills being proposed to limit the initial fallout from Citizens United, but much greater campaign reform is needed to keep companies and organizations from corrupting the way politicians serve the common good. Whether its publically funded campaigns or extremely high taxations on the contributions or some other idea, something needs to change to make sure we do not end up with a government by the corporations, for the corporations.

Really, Republican National Committee?

Surely you could have come up with something scarier than Scooby Doo... Your tactics surprise no one, but usually you're far more creative...