Revolution anyone?

In a week which saw Scott Brown win a historic Senate victory in Massachusetts and the Supreme Court open the floodgates of corporate campaign contributions against a defenseless public, it wasn't likely that I would be writing about anything other than political matters today. As the week has worn on I've had the chance to listen and learn, study, ruminate and cogitate, and have come to the conclusion that indeed, now may be the time for one of the revolutions that Thomas Jefferson prophesied when he famously stated that, "The tree of liberty must from time to time be watered with the blood of patriots..."

First, rest assured that I am no patriot 1, nor do I consider patriotism an admirable or attractive trait. While I do love much about America, I equally love much of other continents and countries, some of which I've not yet physically experienced. To the degree that a country is a parcel or parcels of real estate defined by well articulated borders, it seems a foolish thing to love. Are the mountains of America more lovable than the mountains of Europe or South America or Tibet or Africa? Surely not. Our beaches or prairies or rivers or valleys are somehow more lovely than those of other countries or continents or peoples? Don't be foolish. So if the physical country is not worthy of loving above others, what is it that we should love? Our people? There is something admirable about the historic can-do attitude of Americans, although it seems much on the wane in recent decades. And like all things human, all things in existence really, our self confidence has another side, a darker side - sometimes a destructive arrogance, a disdain for the consequences of our actions, a parochialism born frankly in patriotism, or more accurately nationalism2, which is what drives people to gather in mobs and shout "USA, USA." What is celebrated and promoted in this country, and in most countries, actually is nationalism, which is a very ugly thing and, along with religion, the source of all wars of the modern era.

So, if its not the physical America or the American populace viewed through a clear lens that might inspire a love that would pass the test of patriotism, what might there be? I cannot speak for anyone but myself, but for me it has always been America's future potential, a few proud snippets of our history, and most critically, our form of government as ensconced in the Constitution. I have long held that America's greatest days lay yet ahead, but the events of the past week have caused me to take a closer look and engage in a bit deeper thought on the matter, and as I sit here on a lovely Sunday morning in a America, I am no longer certain. And I am frightened for my children for the first time in my adult life...

Certainly the angst in the American people precedes the startling developments in Massachusetts and in the Supreme Court, the current fiscal crisis, or Obama's change-focused election. Historians can argue it out, but I have long held that America changed in a fundamental way during the Viet Nam era. Our government waged a war for several years that the citizens of this country and the world opposed, all in an era of excessive politicization of governmental powers under the paranoid Richard Nixon. The abuses of Hoover's FBI came to light on the heels of the national scandal of state troopers waging war against unarmed civilians during the then recent and not settled civil rights movement. Following the shootings at Kent State, an unprecedented schism formed between the generations that has only partially healed over as my parent's generation began receiving its just recognition as "the greatest generation" for having come together, struggled through the depression and fought the last just war in our nation's history. America emerged dazed, uncertain about government or our role, struggled against new global economic competition, suffered through Jimmy Carter's so-called "malaise," and witnessed the end of the "cold war" and the rise of the new battle against radical Islam, all without ever having our sense of confidence in government restored. Politics became more polarized and coarser, driving away independents and moderates, at the same time that unprecedented levels of money poured into the electoral process following the Supreme Court's disastrous Buckley v. Valeo3 of 1976, which drew a bizarre distinction between political contributions and expenditures, and created the cancerous correlation between campaign expenditures and free speech.

In the intervening period, attempts have been made by various factions to both increase and decrease the flow of moneys from various sources into various segments of the political process in an ongoing battle between disparate and antagonistic interest groups, with the net result being that the 2008 election cycle saw an unprecedented $5 billion spent on federal campaigns from Congress through the Presidency. While this is a topic too intensive and convoluted for treatment here, suffice to say that the American electorate believes with complete justification that the process is corrupt, tainted possibly beyond repair, and as such government at all levels is held in universal disdain. The Brown victory was a breath of fresh air in demonstrating that an underdog challenger can in fact wage and win a successful campaign against the odds, but only in an open seat race. The effect of the this week's Supreme Court decision is to dampen whatever hope the Brown victory might have birthed among independents and thinking Americans across the political spectrum.

Seeds of Revolt
In November of 2008 President Barack Obama won an historic election, which was itself a revolution against the eight dark years of the Bush era, with its attendant executive branch over-reach, encroachments on civil liberties, electoral and other political chicanery, and unapologetic politicization of all branches of government. Following the 9/11 Al Queda attack on the WTC and Washington, Bush was handed perhaps the opportunity of a generation to follow up on his campaign promise of being "A uniter and not a divider," and to unify the American people in a way not really possible since the darkest days of the Viet Nam era. Instead, he chose to prosecute an illegal and unpopular war in Iraq, divide the people with his unprecedented violations of privacy, his illegal support of criminal acts, total negligence of government's regulatory responsibilities, and unprecedented spending. And he topped it off with the appointment of John Roberts and Samuel Alieto, two right-wing demagogues, to the Supreme Court. The stage was set...

The Obama effort was historic in terms of money raised and spent, the level of participation at the grass roots level by both volunteers and contributors, and of course in the clear cut and inarguable victory of America's first African American President. Obama raised and spent unprecedented amounts of money, and with an unprecedented number of contributions from individuals and small donors. Most watchers and pundits saw this as a watershed moment in America's political history, and indeed it was. Obama, like Bush, campaigned on a change platform, promising to change the tone in Washington and its way of doing business. Unfortunately, and a little counter-intuitively, he has been most hampered in this noble direction by having proven to have significant coat-tails, achieving office with a robust majority in the House, and what became a super-majority in the Senate with the final seating of Minnesota Senator Al Franken. Just as this seemingly powerful position elevated the hopes of many liberal Democrats, the Republicans showed their trademark discipline in coming together in lock-step to oppose the liberal agenda being pushed by both houses, with Obama proving unequal to the task of restraining their enthusiasm. As a result, and amazingly despite the overwhelming Democratic majorities, Obama and the democrats have proven incredibly inept at accomplishing anything of substance that would allay the very real fears and anxieties of the American people.

To add fuel to the fire, within months of Obama's victory, the 912 Project was launched, ostensibly as a counter-revolutionary effort promoted and led by Glenn Beck, one of the most despicable figures in American political media today. This group brilliantly emulated many tactics from the Obama playbook, reaching out through the internet to attract both supporters and donors, and to organize in an increasingly intensive fashion. While it remains to be seen what the long term effects of the "tea party" movement will be, it seems clear that just as Obama brought unprecedented numbers of new participants into the process, the "teabaggers" have already proven an unsettling force on the Republican side of the aisle. Comprised overwhelmingly of disaffected middle-age and older white voters of a libertarian mind-set, this movement nonetheless has provided a venue for anti-government and anti-incumbent reactionaries that threatens incumbent Republicans at local, state and national levels. Right here in Texas, a former Republican state chair alighned with the tea party movement is surging in the Republican gubernatorial primary, and incumbent Republican representatives find themselves facing for the first time in their careers viable energetic challengers from the tea party faction. The old adage, "May you live in interesting times," has found a home on the contemporary political landscape. So...

Revolutionary Opportunities...
Many on the left felt or hoped that Obama's election was both the revolution and the victory, despite the fact that he stressed over and over that it was but a beginning. I believe recent developments prove the accuracy of his characterization, and that none of us has the foggiest notion of what the end result might look like. While I am indeed preparing for the worst, and am in no way confident that Jefferson's bloody revolution can be avoided, I believe there is an avenue worthy of consideration. The simple fact is that Obama remains immensely popular, and only a small but vocal minority oppose him personally, almost totally on racial grounds, although only the tiniest subset will concede that fact. But when you look at the disaffection with the federal government, Washington, Congress, et al., the numbers are vastly higher, and very real. Most, without a reasoned intellectual understanding of the causes, believe that the government and virtually all that stems from it are corrupt, and I tend to count myself among these.

There is a quasi-legal construct unofficially titled "The Fruit of the Poison Tree,"4 which holds specifically that the product of illegal searches is inadmissible as evidence. The same principle, felt but not generally articulated, applies to politics and government, and is what I believe underlies most public disenchantment with politics, politicians, and government. My belief is that it all traces back to money, and power, and the power that money brings, and the money that power attracts, which is why this week's SCOTUS decision has possibly opened a door widely to a new revolutionary approach. Ralph Waldo Emerson in an early 1800's paean to our revolutionary ancestors, called the Concord skirmish "the shot heard 'round the world." I think in our current revolution, that shot was fired last week at the American people by the Supreme Court of the United States in its ruling in Citizens United v. FEC. The question now, is, will we run or will we fight, and if we fight, what is our strategy and what are our tactics?

And so I have spent the last several days reading and studying and scratching my head and visiting with friends and associates and strangers, all with one objective in mind, which was to answer a question to which I already knew the answer. Namely, is there any way to undo the damage the Court has done us short of a Constitutional Amendment? Of course, the answer is no. How then, do we Amend to undo the damage, and if we're going to amend, do we want to isolate it to this particular transgression? I say no. This action was perhaps the proverbial straw, but it is the culmination of political and governmental violations extending back more than a quarter century. I say, if we're going to fight, let's fight to win, and get the whole mess as cleaned up as we can once and for all. And all my friends are aghast!

I cannot begin to tell you how many have leaped into the fray yelling and screaming that there could be nothing worse than a Constitutional Convention, that there's no way to limit the topics and issues covered, and that this action could lead to the total destruction of our Nation. To which I reply, respectfully, "Balderdash!" It will do no such thing, and if it did, perhaps its time for us to declare the experiment a failure and get on to whatever comes next. On the other hand, I am absolutely confident that if we accept the Court's ruling, and all the other erosions of our government and politics that have befallen us in the last several decades- if we do nothing to, as President Obama is so fond of saying, "bend the arc of history," then we are well and truly lost.

Now before everyone flutters off in a panic, how about we read exactly what Article V of our beloved Constitution actually says, eh?

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

There are two means by which Constitutional Amendments might come about. The first, a top-down process originating in the Congress, which, since Congress is about 90 percent of the problem, we shouldn't be expecting any time soon. The second is a bottom-up approach which has never been utilized, although it has been threatened and has come close to being enacted on several occasions. Name me one revolution worth discussing that has been anything other than bottom-up. Just one? No? Uh-huh. I thought not. The Founders put this provision in place specifically so We the People would have an avenue to wrest control from those who believe they control the government, should the need arise. I believe the need has arisen, and that now might well be the time. And anyway, what in the world is everyone so afraid of? Calm down and read the damn thing, please?

First, the Convention shall only be called upon the application of two thirds of the state legislatures. If we, the citizens of the United States, convince two-thirds of the legislatures we want some amendments that aren't forthcoming from Congress, you'd prefer...what? And you'd consider yourselves to be living in a democratic republic...why? What color of collar would you like, and how heavy a chain? Not for me, thank you very much...

Ok, so now the Congress is in convention for the purpose of considering an Amendment or Amendments upon the request of the citizens. Granted, its a little messy that there are no rules defining the exact mode of operating the Convention - I would recommend that be one of the first Amendments to be considered, although said consideration would have no effect on the disposition, passage or ratification of the others. This time...

The point is, the Article clearly defines what the process will be before any action of the Convenened Congress becomes part of the supreme law of the land - exactly the same course as followed in adopting the last twenty-seven Amendments: send back to the states, with ratification by three fourths of the legislatures within a prescribed (generally seven-year) period of time required to pass. So, despite all the alarmism, the predictions of one of my more excitable friends will not be the end result of such an effort. Rupert Murdoch will not be on the Supreme Court. KBR will not run EVERYTHING, and Glenn Beck will not be Secretary of Education, at least not as a result of a Constitutional Convention.

So, for the sake of argument, let's pretend that a decent segment of the American people latch on to this notion. How do we act on it? This is the sweet part. This is a very doable fully grass roots opportunity, and folks who know me know I'm all about the grass roots. First, remembering that this is the Supreme law of the land we're dealing with here, we agree on a small but effective group of Amendments we feel would rectify the major structural problems we face. (I will list my preliminaries below.) In a coordinated fashion on a 50 state basis we let our aspiring and incumbent legislators know what we're expecting from them, and identify them to our members as supporters of the people or opponents of the people, and let the voters have that information toinform their votes. Hopefully we elect enough of our supporters in enough of our legislatures that the process takes off and runs.

Now, here comes the fun part! We're telling our state legislators, the bulk of whom hope to one day advance to federal office themselves, to implement a process that will weaken the ability of incumbents currently clogging up the works to stand in the way of this avaricious ambition. Sweet, huh? Yes, they will be making it tougher on themselves down the road should they succeed, but that's a bridge I'm willing to bet they're willing to worry about when and if they get to it.

And here's even better news! I manged to make contact this weekend with leaders of a national coalition that is already in motion to accomplish something very much along the lines of what we're discussing here. And they're already in motion. And you'll be hearing about it publicly within a matter of weeks. And you'll have ample opportunity to get involved right up to your necks. And we're talking about this year and interfacing with candidates who are currently jockeying for your support for the November 2010 general elections. How cool is that? Right? Right...

So, as another friend asked, what Amendments would you propose, Mark? Well, as we all know I've again exceeded budget (and likely your attention span) and this is already a lot to digest, I'm going to give a very quick rundown of where I see the problems and the very general solutions I think would help, without getting into all sorts of fancy schmancy legalese - there will be lawyers aplenty to guide us when and if this actually gets off the ground. Please keep in mind that I am a single small voice, and one which isn't overly enthralled with the federal model, which was at its inception a compromise between the federalists and anti-federalists. I see an absolute need for the states, for certain sovereignty, and for the efficiency of certain governmental functions being controlled at the state and lower levels. I don't see this need as extending to the gumming up of the whole governmental machine...

Article I, Sec. 2. Is too lengthy to get to in depth - suffice to say that Representatives shall be limited to a maximum of four two-year terms, and that redistricting shall be handled at the federal level by an fully-automated computerized process which pays no heed to incumbency, and which has as its focus compactness, recognition of municipal, topographical and other objective criteria, except that such modification cannot have the effect of diluting current minority representation.

Article I, Sec. 3 Again, too much to get into, but I would propose limiting Senators to three six-year terms, and am not opposed to a discussion of returning Senatorial appointment to the State legislatures. I am not passionate either way, but as I know I'm in the minority in my general disdain for states' rights and federalism, this would be in my view an acceptable swap for our removing from the states the powers of legislative redistricting, partisan gerrymandering, inequitable and preferential ballot acess provisions, etc.

Article I, Sec. 4. Modified to read: The Congress shall by Law make or alter Regulations governing the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, which Regulations shall be uniform throughout the several States, and which shall have neither the intent nor effect of giving advantage to incumbents over non-incumbent challengers, nor to candidates of one political Party over another, nor of a Political party over a candidate not aligned with a political Party, nor of Candidates of a major or established Party over a minor or new Party...(You get the drift.) And I suppose it will be here that the fully publicly financed campaign provision would be inserted.


Article I, Sec. 5. Another lengthy one, but it is here that we would put certain restraints on both Houses to make their own rules (This is the Founders single biggest failure in my view, but those were different times...), in particular eliminating for all time the rules surrounding the filibuster, the most undemocratic tradition in all of the Federal government. Ditto the crap about a single Senator being able to put a hold on executive appointments. We need to be reasonable, but not overly...

Article V. Modified to read: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States for specific Amendments, shall call a Convention for proposing only such Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. (James Madison was opposed to the convention process precisely for the reason that so many are afraid of it now, but I believe this can be overcome by careful wording in this particular Amendment. There must be wording that limits the Amendment process to Constitutional matters and doesn't attempt to utilize it for legislative purposes, lest we become as screwed up as California or Texas in this respect...)

And of course we will need to try and give SCOTUS some direction regarding its authority in determining Consitutional matter, particularly as affects the Court, a source of contention going all the way back to Marbury v. Madison.

As you can see, this is a project in the early stages, but one which is infinitely doable, and which I will argue vehemently must be done. I am extremely flexible on the specifics of what we strive for, but strive we must. In any case, I will build my armory in anticipation of the worst possible outcome, which will be occasioned by our doing nothing. It is my most sincere hope, however, that we will be able to avoid the armed struggle that my father predicted when I was still wet behind the ears, and that my children will in fact have the opportunity to grow old and raise their families in the great and peaceful nation of which so many of us have for so long dreamed.

It is late and I am exhausted. Please forgive the typos - will attempt to rectify in coming days. Good night, friends, until next we visit...

(1) Merriam-Webster online: "one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests."
(2) Id: loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational group
(3) http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0424_0001_ZS.html
(4) http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Fruit+of+the+poison+tree
(5) http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art5_user.html#art5_hd10 (See "The Convention alternative - questions)