Democracy Doesn't Begin With President Obama

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
Is getting Obama in the White House all we need?

I have been concerned with the way people see Obama as a panacea for all the world's ills. I don't mean to denigrate or take away from him. I am fascinated by his presence and seemingly strong core. The core that shows up whenever he answers a question. There is no hemming and hawing from him. He seems to know who he is and what he stands for. I admire that. Not just as a politician but as a human being on planet Earth.

Having established that, I wish to address what I see as a fatal mistake by the Obama supporters and the McCain opposers. It's the same trap people fall into every four years and that is: This next guy will fix everything.

Thing is, it never happens. Even if a buddhist monk was elected president, he or she would still have to work, or fight, congress. Even the politician with the noblest of intentions must compromise and take political sides. It's those sides that I feel is at the root of our problems in government.

When I was 18 I registered Democrat and was there for many years. But I became disenchanted and switched parties. I registered Green, Independent, and just to prove to myself that parties don't matter, I recently registered Republican. I'm the same person and I don't feel anymore allegiance to the Democrats, Republicans or Greens than I do to The Whigs.

To me the answer to our many and varied problems lie outside of partisan politics. I know, I know. Not an original thought, but here's what is:

Even if Obama does become president, that isn't the most important thing. The importance lies within Congress. That's where the real power lies. You may argue that statement given the past 8 years, but in order for Cheney and Bush to pull their crap, they had to be emboldened by a willing Senate and House. If the mouths of the Legislative Branch had said "no", the Executive Branch would have been powerless. Think about it.

So here's what I think needs to be done to affect real change: ready? We need to run TRUE INDEPENDENT candidates who use reason over fear. Logic over emotion. People who we know who they are going in. People who can see past party identity. Who  are complex, not black and white. People not easily given to greed and power. In total: people who aren't politicians.

When I was younger, someone once said to me that the people most qualified to be president never run. I found that concept fascinating and I've ruminated over it for a couple of decades.

You and I know plenty of people who are educated, reasonable, compassionate and forward thinking, but would never go into politics. They recognize the filth and the deception associated with such a career. They get the black and white world in which politicians operate and avoid it at all costs. They have too much character and sense to compromise who they are at their core. But we need them.

These people are usually found in the foundations of bureauacracy. Be it the nurse who carries the load for the doctor in a hospital. The school clerk who knows more about how the school functions than the principal. The unsung heroes of the everyday world who keep the clocks running but are quiet about it because they do not seek glory. These are the people who must be our new leaders.

So what's to be done? I believe we must recruit those individuals we know to run for the House and Senate as TRUE INDEPENDENTS. Surely no one would go in alone as an independent because they would be powerless in a Demo/Repub dominated world. That's why there would need to be a group of such people. But a group sounds like a party. Okay, this is where things get interesting.

If I can get Mr. Perfect Non-Politican in New Hampshire to run as an independent, then I can get Mrs. Perfect Non-Politician to run in Arkansas. If I can get her to run, then I can get someone in Idaho to run. Until we have a coalition of independents.  The difference is, they don't answer to one another or a party line. They have a foundation of mutual understanding and beliefs, but they are not beholden to one another.

Let's say we get twenty such people to run for the Senate. Maybe a dozen actually win. That becomes a very powerful voting bloc that can swing votes between two increasingly warring and out of touch parties.  There would also be some similar action needed for the House. I have no idea what the number would be, I admit my ignorance of voting in the House.

Do you see what happens? This no longer becomes a "this side of the aisle or that side of the aisle" government. It becomes accountable. It comes closer to representing the many voices of our country.

Initially these independent candidates would work like a slate. Supporting one another across the country. Show themselves as a unified spirit, but as independent people. They are joined not my political party, but by intention and independent thinking.

I hesitate to use this example because it is so loaded, but think about terrorist cells. They don't communicate with each other, there is no hierarchy, but they are bonded by a common belief. Unfortunately their belief is about killing. The analogy obviously ends here.

But what if we had "cells" of people bonded by their desire for a non-militarstic foreign policy? By educating and raising our people's position in life? By sharing our wealth with the world and lifting everyone with us? By coming together to heal our economy with sustainable banking and business practices? By using laws to protect our health and that of the planet instead of bowing to the myopic practices of destructive corporations. What if?

I used to believe that what we needed was a third party. Then a third and fourth party. But that means people will continue to fall into the same traps of party ideology.

We need to move beyond that and this is how I see us accomplishing this task. So take a moment and visualize this. Picture someone from your own state taking up the cause. Envision them joining with another such person from the state you think is completely the opposite of your own. Then picture individuals from every state in between. Picture them working together to level the playing field in Congress and holding everyone there accountable for their actions.

Picture it.

Peace,
Andrew Koenig

< How Rich Are You? | Going Viral on McCain >

Poll

Who do you know that would be a perfect candidate for the House or Senate?

Votes: 0
Results | Other Polls
 Display:
but there are a few problems.  First is the massive opposition this would receive from the both parties.  Just getting those first few people elected would be incredibly hard.  Not saying that its impossible or not worth doing, just incredibly hard.  Also, people tend to form into blocks in a situation like the senate and house of representatives.  This is how the first american political parties formed themselves, despite the strong opposition of George Washington.  You could discourage this natural proclivity through various different procedural mechanisms, but I think that many of those mechanisms would double edged swords.  When you get a situation like the Italian parliament, it can be very hard to get anything accomplished.  there would also be problems with the actual nuts and bolts of how to run things (like who gets to chair what, and what the legislative schedules would be).  But on the whole I agree with you.  We have to find some way to take this government back from the parties.  Ideology is the antithesis of reason.

by funkyspoon on 06/19/2008 01:37:47 AM EST


Washington didn't believe in the formation of political parties.  He was really all about making a political party (the Federalists).

And it was all Hamilton's words anyway.  Washington was almost completely uninvolved as president letting his Sec of Treas essentially run the country.

In our national mythmaking we have decided to turn GW into a saint who ruled with no bias or preference towards anyone and fought valiantly but vainly against those who would but that is just a myth after all. 

by ProfRich on 06/19/2008 09:55:16 AM EST

[ Parent ]

I think it's awesome how many of you took the time to read my post and comment on it. I'm in a rush to get to work and won't have much time today. But when I do, I will respond to your comments. Thanks again. The more he merrier.

One last thing, I am eager to develop this idea further. No plan is perfect. I've just taken it to where I could without any feedback. I'm sure it will grow with all of your help.

Peace,

AK 

by Andrew Koenig on 06/19/2008 12:56:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Hello Andrew,

There are three points of disagreement I have with you.

First, Obama-supporters/McCain opposers don't see Obama as a Messiah. This is a Hillary Clinton talking point that has no basis in reality. People are impressed with the guy, can we get past it? However, the converse is in my view true of McCain. I think his election would be a disaster for the American people. It may be too late already, but that event would likely seal the deal.

Second, the president is far more important than you suggest in your post when you say 

"Even if Obama does become president, that isn't the most important thing. The importance lies within Congress. That's where the real power lies."

This statement would normally be true, but congress is broken. I recommend to you The Broken Branch by Norm Ornstein and Thom Mann where these scholars lay out the case for why Congress is effectively not doing its job--democrats and republicans alike--to weild the very power that you say they theoretically have. But, it's not just congress, and it's not just Bush. You're fundamentally wrong on this. There's a reason the "party in power" is the president's party. Even the minority party (the situation we currently enjoy) can effectively call the shots when the opposition is unable to mount a prohibitive majority to override. Yadda yadda yadda you know all that. But the president also sets the legislative agenda, writes the budget, and apparently declares endless wars on unspecified enemies.

But the third point I want to make is regarding this idea of a "coalition of independents". Guess what: its already here. Our two party system may suck in your opinion, but neither party is going to do anything to upset their grip on power. Not a chance. All the talk of a "centrist" party, or any of the other minors coming up is pissing in the wind. But take heart. Despite the rigid structure of our system, there is ample evidence of major realignments every so often. Hence, new coalitions are formed as old ones break apart. Have you noted the talk recently in the press of the breaking of the "Reagan Coalition"? This much isn't in doubt, but the question is who will pick up these voters? Will the republicans reinvent themselves in time, or will moderates find a home in the party of FDR? One of the reason so many see potential in Obama is that he has a good chance to be the catalyst for such a realignment.

When you register as a democrat (as I did) no one assumes your loyalty to the party. You're still free to vote libertarian, republican, democrat, green, blue or orange if the mood strikes you. The only thing the registration does is declare which primary ballot you'ld like to participate in--unless you wish to be politically active. Here's where I detect a slight naivite in your writing. Parties are the substrate of politics, and politics are the cauldron where we boil our ideas. Parties do not have rigid agendas. They change over time. Yes, even the republicans. So if you have some ideas, bring'em to the party. If you say you don't believe in parties, or that you don't believe in these parties, that's fine, but you're effectively sitting on the sideline. There's too much at stake for me to follow your advice, however.

The behavior you describe in your final paragraph as "independent", is ideally that of a partisan who comes to the table in service of all those whom he/she was elected to represent, not just the ones that voted for them. The problem is that special interests, and not the people, are responsible in our current system for the election campaigns of our politicians. You should focus on that problem, rather than wasting your energy organizing new parties. You may have noticed that Obama has already made this a major priority--not just for a new administration but for the coming campaign. That is what leadership is about.

by hazmat on 06/19/2008 02:44:53 AM EST


Thanks for taking the time to write. Okay, I will respond to your three points,

1 First off, I don't believe I referred to Obama as a Messiah. I said panacea. But this has nothing to do with what Clinton said. I've come to the conclusion that MOST candidates are thought of in this manner. "My guy is the guy!" It's the same thing we see with sport team loyalties.  There is an enthusiasm that takes hold of people and they get behind their boxer in the ring.

 I think a big part of many people's reactions here was the title of my blog. My point by naming Obama wasn't that he's not good enough, my point is that nobody is good enough. I'm just making the assumption that Obama will be president but that we can't all breathe easy (well we can breathe easier) when he takes office. That democracy is an ongoing struggle and that the office of the president isn't the only part of the political equation. I believe this gets lost in the frenzy of political coverage.

Hope that's clearer.

 2. I'd say that I'd read the book you recommended, but I'm an incredibly lazy person.

You say that congress is broken. That is precisely why I came up with my idea. A loosely affiliated group of individuals with no party loyalty would hopefully hold the balance of power over the two increasingly partisan and divisive dominant parties. I believe that those 12 or so Senators  (and whatever magic number in the house) would be able to hold accountable the two parties .

 

3. Okay here is where we start to part ways or focus or understanding. My idea isn't about asking the parties to give up control, it is about wresting it away from them. I'm not asking for permission. I'm saying that this is something that could be done by sheer will and desire for a better government.

I disagree with your assessment that I'm sitting on the sidelines. I think my premise is very proactive. It goes beyond the  pendulum-like swing of power between the two parties which never seem to, for lack of a better phrase, grow up. Finally I thionk there is too much at stake to allow business as usual.

I'm not sure I agree with your definitions of partisan and independents. I'm also not sure I don't.

But your suggestion that I'm trying to start a new party completely misses my point. I don't believe in parties in practice. I gave up on the idea of third and fourth parties. It would be just more of the same.

What I am suggesting is going beyond parties.  

 You wrote:

 "The problem is that special interests, and not the people, are responsible in our current system for the election campaigns of our politicians. You should focus on that problem, rather than wasting your energy organizing new parties."

But I'm not talking about campaigns. I'm talking about what the elected do once they are in office.

Would candidates be freer to vote for our interests without corporate sponsorship? Possibly. And it might work. But for someone to accept that sponsorship from the beginning already shows  a weak core. A lack of backbone. What I am proposing is a group of people that do what they say and say what they do. There are people like that out there. 

I look forward to more conversation with you. Thanks.

AK 

 

 

by Andrew Koenig on 06/19/2008 10:24:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Point taken about one man not being the solution. I don't advocate that and honestly I don't know anyone who does. I think a lot of people saw what happened to Kerry in '04 and became dissillusioned because of the manner in which he was selected (basically by New Hampshire and Iowa to the exclusion of everyone else). Obama isn't going to fix everything, but the president is a very powerful position indeed, and having a guy in there who is a true progressive willing to state what he believes in and advocate aggressively for his beliefs is a sea change in democratic party politics. Up until now, the DLC has told us to pretend to be closet liberals. These people are insufferable. Such tactics have caused americans to view liberals as weak and unprincipled. And you know what? These ones are.

It is no small irony that I type these words on the eve of the passage of telecom immunity.

The only thing I'm not following I guess is what's the diff between what you're suggesting and a principled partisan like Russ Feingold? Shouldn't we just get more people like that elected? You could say Bernie Sanders, who is literally an independant (I) but caucuses with the dems, is the model, but he's also a rarity. I come from a progressive leaning state, but believe me, people got the memo in 2000. You vote for Nader, look what you get for your efforts. I think you have to work within the system and change the party from within. That's exactly what conservatives did with Reagan in '76 and arguably what Dean and Obama are doing right now with the democrats. So if this isn't the proper course how do you get to there from here?

by hazmat on 06/20/2008 10:10:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Hey Hazmat,

 

I dont know that the general poulace advocates for the Pres being the solution, maybe they do, but I think there's a simplicity to the average voter. I know that the people who come here are indeed thoughtful and consider a great many things, but I think we are not representative of all voters across the board. I think there's a laziness of though and planning that doesn't go beyond the presidential campaign. I of course could be wholly wrong. No way to tell I guess.

 You asked:

"The only thing I'm not following I guess is what's the diff between what you're suggesting and a principled partisan like Russ Feingold? Shouldn't we just get more people like that elected?"

Yes, but you answered your question in the previous paragrapgh: "Up until now, the DLC has told us to pretend to be closet liberals. These people are insufferable. Such tactics have caused americans to view liberals as weak and unprincipled. And you know what? These ones are."

Just becasue a new progressive president Obama comes in, it doesn't mean that the party as a whole will change overnight. I can suggest with complete certainty that it won't. Change is something entrenched authorities, let alone humans in general, don't take to quickly. 

The democtaric party will not come around until pressured. And I believe my premise of indenpendent congress people, not obligated to one party or the other, will provide that impetus.

 Bernie Sanders may be a rarity in congress, but I still argue that there are many people out there who are not politicians, as yet, who become part of congress. But they need to know that they wouldn't be alone. Thus the need for a slate of unafilliated independents.

 

"I think you have to work within the system and change the party from within. That's exactly what conservatives did with Reagan in '76 and arguably what Dean and Obama are doing right now with the democrats. So if this isn't the proper course how do you get to there from here?"

But that change was to the extreme right. Not towards the middle. And this still plays into the left/right dynamic. Us or them. It plays into a black and white world view that just doesn't exist in the real world.  An unafiliated slate of independents would, coceivably, be above the pendulum swing of left and right. SOmetimes siding with one side then the other based upon logic and compassion rather than party loyalties.

 

Peace,

AK 

by Andrew Koenig on 06/23/2008 02:11:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
But I do think he'll fix some things, and that is infinitely better than the alternative -- making things worse.

by jarett on 06/19/2008 04:16:44 AM EST


     You make a number of interesting points Andrew but I'm sure most of Obama's voters are more level-headed than all that.
     I voted for Obama and have already been disappointed in him-most recently his silence on the FISA capitulation-but he's a politician not a saint. Worse yet, he's a democrat and, unfortunately, our party is in serious disrepair. The years of attacks from wingnut-dominated talk radio and lousy press coverage have taken their toll. When I vote, I'm under no delusion about the person I'm voting for; I just want the best man or woman for the job.

Oh, one other thing, you've got to switch your registration back to democrat. Turn back from the dark side!

by dclawyer06 on 06/19/2008 02:01:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Hi DCL,

Thanks for writing. I can only hope that Obama's supporter's are as level headed as you suggest. But even so, my MAIN POINT is that the office of the president is not enough to make a difference. We need big change in congress and I have presented my proposal as a solution.

Is it THE solution? I don't know. Does it need work? Probably. That's why I presented it here. I assume that the listeners to the Young Turks are thoughtful and compassionate people, for the most part, and I wanted to share my ideas with you all and have you share yours wih me. It's a group effort.

And as far as my party registration, I'll most likely be changing back to  independent.

Peace,

Andrew 

by Andrew Koenig on 06/19/2008 11:00:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I agree Jarret.

by Andrew Koenig on 06/19/2008 10:25:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]

"I have been concerned with the way people see Obama as a panacea for all the world's ills."


"I have been concerned with the way people see Obama as a panacea for all the world's ills."

"Having established that,"

This is, more or less, how you begin.

But you don't establish anything.  Who is it exactly who sees Obama as a panacea?

This is a fiction created at first by the Clintons and now carried on by the McCainites.  I asked bobo to post the quotes that made him think posters here felt this way and he couldn't.

Can you find some delusional die hards that said some stupid shit?  I am sure you can.   But I can find just as many if not more that are saying stupid shit about McCain.  ("He'll win the war! Tax cuts will fix the economy!" " More deregulation is the answer!")

I for one, don't even feel the need to digest the rest of this article until I see the premise proven.

I don't see any evidence that a significant number of Obama supporters see him as being a messianic figure.  I hear a lot of his opponents claiming that to be the case but I can't find the evidence myself.

Just another example of letting our enemies frame the discussion outside the bounds of reality and us fighting the fight on their terms.


by ProfRich on 06/19/2008 10:03:42 AM EST


More deregulation IS the answer!


If the question is 'what was behind the Savings & Loan debacle, Enron and the Housing Bust'?

by ihavenobias on 06/19/2008 11:19:53 AM EST

[ Parent ]
What do people want Obama supporters to do to prove that they are simply enthusiastic supporters of their candidate?  Should they denounce and reject him?   Support McCain?  The enthusiasm originates from any number of reasons among supporters, but most of all, many of us are just impatient to see the Bush era end.  I would have been just as enthusiastic for almost any of the dem candidates honestly, even Clinton had she won the nomination.

by desertpear on 06/19/2008 12:23:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Exasperating as a matter of fact. People get a talking point in their head and it just can't be dislodged. This is exactly why everyone got pissed at hillary for going negative in the first place. Millions of dollars spent didn't win her an election, but she managed to stick a few lampreys on our whale. Just keep engaging.

by hazmat on 06/19/2008 01:53:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Thanks for taking the time to read and relply to my post. 

I realize now that the title I used has created confusion. My point isn't that people shouldn't support Obama, it's that the office of president is only one part of the equation.

I too want the Bush era to end. I have been encouraging impeachment from near the beginning of his administration, but very few people would listen.

If my "group" of individuals were in place eight years ago, perhaps we could have avoided much of the travesty that has become the Bush administration.

Again, it's not that I don't want Obama to be president, becasue I do, it's that even him as president won't be enough to make things right. 

 

Peace,

AK 

by Andrew Koenig on 06/19/2008 10:50:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

 

What I was attempting to establish, perhaps poorly, is that I am not anti-Obama. My point is that no matter how good the person is that becomes president, we can't rely on that person alone to do the right thing. That Congress has a very important part to play.  And with the campaign  coverage, that point seems to get lost in the shuffle. For the record, I am voting for Obama and want him to win.

 Perhaps I was using too much hyperbole by saying panacea, but I was trying to make a point. That the president is not the be all and end all of our government. And yes, I do believe there are people who are rather caught up in Obama without any desire to see anything wrong with him. There are many people who are excited for him to become president, but really couldn't tell you why. Same thing for just about any leading candidate. We saw the same kind of behavior with Michael Jackson's fans. "He couldn't possibly have done anything wrong."

Again, this is not about Clinton talking points. Or McCain talking points. These are my own observations over many years that preceed and include this campaign. This is not about Obama. This is about the office of president.

I'm sorry you won't consider the rest of my blog, but appreciate the  time you took. And I never used the word Messianic. I said panacea. Maybe messianic is a word that Clinton or someone else used, but you're making a mistake that I am her or that I am Obama's enemy.

 

 

by Andrew Koenig on 06/19/2008 10:43:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Hoping to continue the discussion

by Andrew Koenig on 06/20/2008 08:10:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
What we can expect is that when Obama is president he will have quite a rush of power. Will he become intoxicated with it like Bush did? Hopefully he won't. What we can guanrantee is that the Democrats won't try to stop him since they didn't try to stop Bush.

The democratic system of checks and balances is broken and Congress is the place where it breaks down the most.  For example on the habeus corpus issue the Congress collaborated with Bush to enact an unconstitutional law legalizing Guantanamo military trials without civil habeus corpus.  We should have expected the Democrats to prevent that law but no, they went along with it.  The Supreme Court had to overturn it so we were saved. .

by Gregory Wonderwheel on 06/21/2008 09:35:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Hi Gregory,

 

Thanks for your thoughts. I for one do not believe that an Obama presidency would resemble anything close to Bush's. They are such completely different people with such completely different experiences that the likelihood is next to nil. However, you are right about the intoxication of power, and even the most strident human would fall prey to it.

On to your second point, you seem to understand what is the basis of my arguement for a slate of independents. Even if the Democrats back President Obama on every issue, do we really want that? Every situation, every challenge, requires a reasoned and compassionate response. Sometimes that will mean arguing and dissenting from the president and/or party leadership. 

 Also, with the Democrats in charge, do people really think there won't be infighting and power struggles? This always happens when a party is in charge for too long. It eventually leads to a collapse and back to the pendulum swing.  And in the meantime, we the people suffer.

Look, I probably side with the Democrats on 95% of the issues, at least as laid out in the party charter, but we are dealing with human beings here. Most, regardless of party affiliation, are intoxicated by authority and will abuse it if not kept in check. I am proposing a group of people who are, hopefully, above this.

 

Peace,

AK 

by Andrew Koenig on 06/23/2008 02:28:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
 "Even if a buddhist monk was elected president, he or she would still have to work, or fight, congress."
 
LOL.

That reminds me of a Chinese Buddhist story.  A prince was studying with a Buddhist master in China and was doing well. But before his training was completed the prince was called to the throne and had to leave.  The master asked him how he would lead the people and govern? The prince said, "I wlill follow the scriptures and do what is good."  The master said, "The nation is ruined."

by Gregory Wonderwheel on 06/21/2008 09:26:36 PM EST


 Display: