Framework for a Grassroots, Transparent, Mobile Web-Based Politics
“...the Left needs to stop being a religion and become a tool in the hands of the people.”
Politics in this country, as in most
others, is a complete clusterf**k. Despite the passionately
contested battles between our legacy parties for political dominance
every few years—and the venomous and vile attack ads that
inevitably accompany them—most people I know, regardless of their
political affiliation, don't seem to feel that they have much affect
on national, or even state politics. There is an odd paradox between
the heated pronouncements of our politicians, on the one side, and
the icy disconnection most people feel toward electoral politics, on
the other. The reaction of most folks to even their own party's
candidate in any given election is more often than not a disaffected
and noncommittal shrug. As we say on the interwebs, “meh.”
Inevitably, if the person is interested
in politics at all—and most people are, at least a little
bit—they'll give you the old saw about the lesser-of-two-evils.
The “he's a bastard, but he's our bastard” mentality.
This is actually a politically sophisticated view of things, in that
it at least has the honesty to admit openly what our political system
has become: evil...with bastards running the show.
The cynicism with which most people now
greet campaign promises, knowing that all are inevitably negotiable
and prone to change (depending on factors usually involving money
and/or matters of personal convenience) just goes to show the utter
lack of legitimacy our current political class has acquired in the
eyes of most. Our elections have become essentially debates over
which of the liars is going to lie the least about what's
really going on — which corrupt official is the going to leave
the most behind when he or she is done looting the country and
selling off the best parts to their friends?
Given that this is the case, it's
hardly surprising that the outcomes for most of us have been so bad. [1]
The point, however, isn't to belabor
the brokenness and backwardness of the political system as it now
exists—or to bemoan the perverse policies (and bailouts) this
brokenness has led to—but rather to present another option for how
we might organize ourselves politically that avoids entirely this
whole morass of big money, special interests, and lesser-of-two-evils
defeatism. The idea I would like to suggest we try is a simple
one—one that should be familiar, at least in principle, to all
Americans—it's called “democracy.” Perhaps you've heard of
it...
Imagine a political party with no
national platform—a party where local rank-and-file members select
candidates from among themselves, and dictate the policies those
candidates will support. [2] Imagine a political party whose
candidates are transparent; one that guarantees every member an equal
voice in shaping the actual policy proposals—and the votes—of
their representatives. Imagine a political party whose focus is on
empowering the rank-and-file members, instead of the charismatic
con-artists we call politicians. Imagine a political party that runs
on direct democracy, from bottom to top: open, transparent and
accountable.
That, dear friends, is what I am
suggesting.
Just a few years ago, this idea might
not have been thinkable, but widespread adoption of mobile
technology, even among people with lower incomes, makes creating a
truly grassroots driven political party—without the need for big
money or expensive political consultants—a real possibility.
First I'll describe the basic ideas
behind this new structure, and then we'll get to the technological
implementation.
In our party, the platforms of the
local candidates will be decided by the members through face-to-face
and on-line dialogue and discussion, and on-line voting. If someone
has a policy proposal, they submit it for discussion, debate, and
amendment; if the proposal gathers a preponderance of support from
the members, it becomes a local policy position.
Candidates are nominated by the members
in their district and have the obligation to submit and vote on
legislation only in line with the positions of the local party
chapter, once they are elected. In office, the job of the
representative is to present and explain legislation up for vote to
the members, and, in cases where the proper vote is not clear from
the local positions, to have the local party vote on which way the
representative should cast their vote in the legislature. Our party
will not only allow, but encourage real-time interaction and
meaningful participation from the members in the daily work of
legislating. This will give members the chance to actually effect
the votes of their representatives in a meaningful and transparent
way.
The candidates in our party will be
contractually obligated to represent only the preferences of
their constituencies, regardless of their personal opinions or
interests. Any candidate failing to do so will be recalled at the
soonest possible time. In this way of doing politics, the political
candidate is not the leader of the party, but merely the spokesperson
for her or his constituents.
Compare that to both Democratic and
Republican representatives, who spend most of their time on Capitol
Hill schmoozing with lobbyists and dialing-for-dollars to fund their
next campaign, when they'll do their darndest to convince enough
voters that they are the lesser evil and to put them back in
power for another term...which they plan to spend schmoozing with
lobbyists and dailing-for-dollars.
There are two essential ingredients
necessary for this plan to work: 1) the dissaffection of enough
people with the maneuverings and continual disappointments of both
major political parties, and their willingness to join a party that
offers first and foremost, a direct voice in the political process,
and; 2) the willingness of these people to put in the energy and
effort to get as many people involved as possible. For reasons I'll
explain a little later, the more people involved in the project,
whatever their political views, the more successful this project—this
party—will be.
Also, we'll need an app...maybe two.
More in a little while.
To be continued....
[1] Full-time jobs are still below their pre-crisis peak, some six years after the crash; overall job numbers have caught up to and surpassed previous peaks only thanks to the BLS's habit of counting anyone working at least one hour of paid work per week as “employed.”
[2] Rather than the other way around, which is how we do things currently: i.e. the candidate selects the rank-and-file (D or R) and dictates the policies to support to them.
[1] Full-time jobs are still below their pre-crisis peak, some six years after the crash; overall job numbers have caught up to and surpassed previous peaks only thanks to the BLS's habit of counting anyone working at least one hour of paid work per week as “employed.”
[2] Rather than the other way around, which is how we do things currently: i.e. the candidate selects the rank-and-file (D or R) and dictates the policies to support to them.
Here’s the thing: if you consume only that which you actually need, restrain yourself from activities that harm other life, and devote your life to easing the suffering of others, you will necessarily be considered poor. You will have given your excess wealth away to those poorer than you, your dwelling will be simple, your lifestyle spare. Not because you’re an ascetic, but because you have your priorities in line.
Buddhism is appealing to Americans largely, I think, because it doesn’t seem to demand any material sacrifice on the practitioner’s part. Americans like Buddhism because they’ve (mis)interpreted its message to be it’s ok to have lots of stuff, just so long as you aren’t attached to it.
For instance, there is a Marriott Hotel heiress living not 50 miles from me that has gained the title of “Lama Tsomo,” despite being a multi-billionaire (I’m looking at you, Linda). Supposedly, she’s trying to become a bodhisattva, whose mission on earth is to end the suffering of all sentient beings. Apparently, however, no one has hipped her to the fact that her 4.1 billion dollars could ease a whole lot of suffering, if only she could find the strength to let it go. But no, she prefers to teach meditation classes since, you know, all suffering is psychological and you just need to be detached and whatnot. Convenient, that.
Western Buddhism’s focus on personal non-attachment and psychological ‘growth’ all too often turns into a “blame the victim” mindset. What’s that you say? You’ve just been laid-off from your job and diagnosed with cancer? You don’t know where your next meal is coming from and you can’t afford to see a doctor? You should try meditation and detachment: nothing is good or bad but thinking makes it so. Your suffering is all in your mind! Don't blame the government or their corporate overlords for your misery, it's just your karma, embrace it…..which is way easier than actually trying to help someone improve their situation. Also it makes you feel superior, since you’re so much more wiser than those suffering sots.
The problem, of course, isn’t with Buddhism, but rather with academics like Brown who try to sugar-coat it for Western consumption, although I assume they do this unwittingly.
The deal with any religion is this: if you take it seriously as the most important thing in your life, you won’t worry about material possessions and you won’t need to take a vow of poverty. Prioritizing your spiritual development will make it easy to not notice, or care, if you become officially poor. As material wealth is not your goal, so too its absence will not be defeat. But Buddhists like Brown think that you can have your cake and eat it too: the material wealth as well as the (mostly BS) non-attachment to it.
The facts of the matter are that if you are not attached to wealth, wealth will not attach itself to you. If you prioritize your spiritual development, this will not cause you consternation.