"Small gov't" slogans are for suckers

Ever since The New Deal, conservatives have excoriated the idea of a government that helps the nation's most vulnerable citizens. Through the decades of the Cold War the right's hostility toward government intensified as the U.S. faced off with the repressive Soviet Union. And, with little  effort, conservatives added fear to their loathing of government.

Over time, what hardened into conventional wisdom among conservative thinkers, leaders and voters, found its way into President Ronald Reagan's 1981 inaugural speech. Delivering his retort to a straw man argument, Reagan asserted, "Big government isn't the solution to our problems, big government is the problem." Such thinking, however, cannot withstand the most lenient level of scrutiny.

The rhetorical assault upon government assumes the participation of a fully engaged voting population. President Reagan's patronizing reference to “we the people” in the same speech,  illustrates this assumption. However, mediocre electoral participation by eligible voters does not bear this out.

Rather than encouraging citizens to exercise greater influence over elected leaders, anti-government ideologues have sought to exploit failures of trust between government and the people whenever they occur. "See? Government does not work! So, we need less of it," say those who angle to profit from a government that is out to lunch as an agent of accountability.

Just look at the financial catastrophe that most of our nation is still digging out of. It is a fact of public record that securities fraud and criminally negligent lending practices led to the siphoning of middle class assets (401k's, pension funds) and filled the coffers of Wall Street's financial elite.

Until this day no significant decision maker from Wall Street has been brought to justice. And no one should harbor hope that any complicit parties will be held criminally accountable--not as long as campaign donations can purchase them the best immunity money can buy. For this miscarriage of justice, voters have no one to blame but themselves. Regulatory and judicial delinquence flourishes at the end of a broken chain of accountability--what should link from citizens to their elected representatives and out over all the civic institutions charged with overseeing the public interest.

Today's typically knee-jerk antagonism toward government conceals a far more crucial dimension of our nation's politics: that voters are largely failing at the task of self-governance.

How?

Every time a voter stands back to blame the government for decisions or bureaucratic folly that violate common sense, that individual abdicates his or her responsibility as a citizen legislator.

What responsibility?

To be specific, first, voters have avoided the effort of staying informed about decisions their elected representatives make--the "why?" or "how much money?" that is incentive for the casting of each legislative vote. Then, more importantly, a majority of voters remain disorganized, unable to ply the force of their considerable numbers. They find it far more preferable to complain than having to interact with other voters for the cause of improving our republic.

There's no more relevant example of this reality than the loud wailing over the "news" of the NSA's surveillance overreach. The sudden shock many have expressed about government snooping authorized by the Patriot Act, illustrates the prerogatives of the Rip Vanwinkle class of voters: passivity and a studied cluelessness. When the original bill was introduced in Congress back in late 2001, it received very little public scrutiny.

Need more evidence?

Look at how difficult it is for everyday citizens to get a fair hearing from their elected representatives on a matter like firearms and public safety. Just a few months ago the U.S. Senate considered legislation expanding background checks for gun sales, an effort that enjoyed support from close to nine out of ten Americans. The measure failed to pole vault over filibuster by only six votes. The National Rifle Association, along with other gun lobby shops, flexed its considerable influence over the Senate in the effort to monkey wrench the background check from approval.

This scenario illustrates the influence gap between the will of a majority and the power of a fractional but elite group campaign funders.

The role as a citizen legislator, however, is a useless part to play unless one cooperates with a plurality of other voters. This cooperation serves as crucial bond within the governing body known as 'we the people'. (Research in the field of physics has looked at the impact of voter networks upon the outcome of elections. Its findings suggest that the party with the most mutually-linked voters comes out on top at the polls.)

Again, it should by now be blindingly obvious that just showing up to vote on Election Day doesn't cut it in this republic--that is, if voters hope to keep up with the syndicate of campaign donors and lobbyists currently pulling Congress's strings.

In order to overcome the influence advantage exploited by wealthy campaign funders, voters must reevaluate candidate viability. Until now, the campaign funders (along with party leaders) have defined viability as the candidate who can competitively raise large sums of money (i.e., keeping up with other contenders raising mounds of  mammon). As a result, a campaign's budget has become the de facto barometer of a candidate's worthiness as a public servant. The quality of his or her ideas? Not so much.

So it begs the question--how do voters go about redefining candidate viability? How might they demand campaign finance accoutability from candidates running for public office? Whatever effort they attempt, they need a plurality of citizens to speak with one voice so that it is clear to political candidates that an election cannot be won without this plurality of voters.

What said plurality of voters must demand from candidates is equal consideration of all voters; and without limiting all campaign donations to an amount that equalizes the influence of all citizens, fairness will continue its exile from our nation's politics.

With this in mind, I have launched a petition addressed to the 2016 Democratic front-running candidate for president, Hillary Clinton. The document asks Mrs. Clinton to limit all donations to her campaign for president to $250 per donor. (A reasonable criticism of this petition suggests that it unfairly singles out Clinton's campaign. This would be true if there had already emerged a front runner from another major party whose members are assembling the apparatus for a 2016 run.)

This petition must utilize the Clinton name recognition and notoriety to reach as many voters as possible. It has the lofty goal of reaching five (5) million signatures by Jan. 2015--a number I hope will make campaign finance accountability worthy of discussion within the political arena.

Given that most voters, as individuals, do not give a second thought to what practical steps they can take to stop the legalized bribery, this petition at the very least opens a discussion about consensus building among voters for meaningful change. Aside from sending a crucial message to political candidates, the petition's intent seeks to engage voters in a simple conversation about political campaign funding and fairness within our republic.

Apathy is a warm gun

If it was true about Congress's failure to avoid sequester budget cuts, it's especially true about the U.S. Senate's epic miss on the background check amendment to the gun control bill last week.

Again, voters got the septic end of the stick. And who got to hold the clean end? That small, select group of campaign finance contributors--whose 'generosity' wields far greater force than 86% of Americans who support background checks.

What's more stunning than that injustice? Voters (you and I and everyone else we know) have no one to blame but themselves.

How could that be?

By and large, voters are not working together to draft candidates to run for public office. So, when a candidate for particular office emerges, he or she needs to reach the broadest audience of voters to win an election. That calls for mass communications--which requires immense financing. This is where the small, elite campaign finance community has emerged. Someone has to pay for those television and radio ads.

Most people have yet to acknowledge that between voters and wealthy campaign contributors lies a crucial fault line. The Senate's botching the background check amendment illustrates this influence gap. Very few elected officials are willing to talk about this--it would risk burning their own meal ticket.

Voters have surrendered their perogative as the majority interest in this nation; one that should be setting the terms over how much money a candidate can accept as a campaign contribution--that the amount should not wield a corrupting influence.

It goes without saying that very few voters would willingly elect a pederast or convicted felon to public office. The scruple is clearly defined. And though there is a general consensus about how much the current campaign finance system corrupts public policy, acknowledging this agreement is not enough.

It takes but a small, meaningful commitment by a pluralilty of voters to convey to all candidates for public office, challengers and incumbents alike: you're not a candidate worth our consideration if you accept any amount greater than $250 per campaign contribution.

If, ever, that day arrives, you'll observe a people taking responsibility for the republic and its destiny by which they live.

Nevermind what the NRA has to say about public safety or gun violence

Any sane person would have difficulty taking seriously what the National Rifle Association has to say about public safety and gun owner responsibility. Two months after the massacre of six school teachers and 20 children in Newtown, Conn., all the firearms trade group can offer are 'solutions' that ultimately fatten the bottom line for the companies they represent.

Consider the windfall of increased sales the industry enjoys each time one of our communities suffers yet another slaughter of innocent citizens. The spike in sales owes to the paranoia (no doubt flamed by right-wing talk radio) of ignorant people convinced that the government is just days away from outlawing guns.

Fat chance, as the NRA has bought off almost half the members of Congress. Also, its massive spending on issue ads and millions in independent expenditures for or against specific candidates, makes opposing the gun lobby a Sisyphean task. The scope and depth of NRA's influence over elections is unquestioned--a force that it wields in Congress in the name of 'individual freedom'. The freedom as an individual to avoid being shot, be damned.

The time is long past that we begin to acknowledge the vicious cycle of violence that benefits the NRA's business model. More guns in the hands of more people increases the frequency of bloodshed, whether or not the shooters possessed the firearms legally. A comparative look at gun fatalities between the U.S. and other industrialized nations, illustrates the peril of easy access to firearms.

It's a sweet spot the firearms industry occupies: given relaxed gun laws in a nation saturated with its product, such conditions improve the chances that someone mentally unfit (Newtown, Conn.; Aurora, Colo.; Oakpark, Wisc.; Tucson, Ariz.; Virginia Tech) will get his hands on a rifle or pistol. A meaningful segment of the population already worked up by talk radio, will do the NRA's bidding and move gun manufactuers further into the black--after victims of firearms violence have hemorrhaged red.

Perhaps it will take additional Sandyhook massacres before national consensus begins to recognize a callous, blood-shedding industry in operation. How many more lives must be snatched before voters see blood money in the hands of candidates for public office taking campaign dollars from the NRA?

Sore losers strike back?

Special Snowflake Soledad O'Brien, Wasserman Schultz beg for viewers; Twitter users would rather have root canal

Citizens From 18 States Ask Obama to Secede From the Union
(They're asking politely--why can't we oblidge them?)

Democrat-Boycotting Libertarian Eric Dondero on Whether He Would Let a Democrat Drown

To call those who are rubbed raw about President Obama's reelection victory, maladjusted is a polite characterization of their behavior.

Somehow they pretend that the Republicans hadn't tried to outright disenfranchise voters and buy the election to win.

They've been spared a dishonest victory. Who takes sincere pleasure in winning by cheating? Doesn't winning at any cost illustrate the saddest, most pathetic instincts there are in human behavior?

No matter who wins, the voters lose

And the loss is self-inflicted.

Already conversations are underway about presidential race for year 2016. More often than not, voters who complain and write off the political process will not engage with other voters in the effort required to draft a candidate to run for office.

Instead, most voters will wait around over the next four years, looking in from the outside as party leaders, loaded campaign contributors and political operatives decide what candidates will be "viable"--worthy of their support, primarily; then there is that secondary consideration--will voters support them?

For once can't we, the people, do the foot work for a presidential candidate that makes the exploratory committee and party machinery obsolete? Voters have the numbers to make this a reality; lacking only the coordination and political will.

How goes the cliche? If you don't vote you have no right to complain. And complaining never drew any voter closer to the decision making process that nominates and ultimately elects a candidate president.