Money In Politics Is Talking Louder Than You

Do any of you remember the movie All The President's Men? That was the dramatization of the Watergate scandal. Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman portraying Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein.
Do you remember the advice given to them by Deep Throat... "Follow The Money."
The truth for almost any situation always tends to be at the end of the money trail.
If you're wondering why politicians take certain positions, change their positions, speak one way and vote another... follow the money.
A lot of people use the saying "Money is the Root of all Evil". However, in the Bible, it's actually "The LOVE of Money is the Root of all Evil."
When you ask yourself, why we don't have single payer health care in the USA and couldn't even get the much weaker "public option", what answer do you come up with? Was it the mean ole Republicans?
Was the public insufficiently excited about single payer and/or the public option? Was it that the Administration wasn't skilled enough in their messaging to convince a Democratic Congress at the time to do its bidding?
Or does it all ultimately come back to Money? Campaign contributions are protected under law as free speech. But what happens when my wallet is bigger than your wallet? Is my free speech accorded more weight than yours? Do I possess more influence than you? Do policies get shaped to additionally benefit me, further enhancing my position?
Let's say that you have a friend, and that friend is in need of cash. And you generously provide that friend with the needed sum. And at a later date, you make some request of that friend.
Do you expect that friend with which you were so very generous to ignore or dismiss your request?
Or do you expect that friend to be very compliant with your wishes in light of your previous generosity?
Now you may say that politics is very different from what I just described, but is it really?
In particular, when the very generous friend is able to form a Political Action Committee and bundle millions of dollars in contributions and make them available for the cause of the friend's election. Is the recipient of this generosity really going to be uninfluenced by it?
Or is it more likely that the recipient finds themselves more willing to consider positions favorable to the source of the contributions? Convincing themselves that once they are elected they will be able to serve some greater good, after of course providing the appropriate considerations to those generous friends who made their election possible.
It seems that the only way to eliminate this dynamic is to have all campaigns publicly financed. I don't know what the details of this would be, but I do believe that money completely corrupts the process and shuts out the voices of those without means to participate.
It's been demonstrated that it's very easy to ignore the individual donor who perhaps contributed $5 to a campaign. I submit that it's probably equally easy to ignore the individual donor who made the max contribution of $2,500 (although that might get you an autographed picture or something).

A Politician That Uses Regulations for Political Agendas Would Also Use it to Attack Adversaries

One thing that seems so obvious to me and yet no one seems to be catching it, and no one has made any comments in the media about, is that we have politicians usurping the Constitution at the highest leadership levels through the advancement of the regulatory bureaucracy to promote their agendas.
Okay so, yes, there are some who have caught that obvious power play in Health Care, Energy, Employment, Budgeting, Military, Aviation, and Education, etc - going on right now, but no one seems to have made the connection that; any politician who would use the regulatory bureaucracy to promote their political agendas, would certainly use any and all of the bureaucracy to go after their political adversaries.
Now then, I ask; is that happening right now? Yes, yes, it is. I would submit to you that there are things going on behind the scenes where the justice department for instance is or soon will be beginning investigations into the affairs of regular citizens, businessmen, media, and political supporters of the opposing party.
We know this happens in other countries. In fact, it is so obvious in places such as Venezuela, Russia, and our third world that it is considered the norm. Those who oppose are thrown in prison under trumped up charges, it's such a common occurrence, we just say; "of course" no real revelation there.
Why is it so hard for Americans to see this happening in the here and now, in milder forms? One doesn't really have to read between the lines much to see it, and yet, it seems as if the "enemies list" of any given executive branch never seems to come out until well after the fact, in subsequent years to come.
Many in our society that are on the side of the current leadership, see no problem with this, after all, it is politics, a dirty game, after all - and if their side wasn't doing it, then the other side would be doing it to them instead. Yes, perhaps, but that doesn't make the two-wrongs a right. Nor does it give validity to any argument that politically usurping the Constitution to attack the political opposition is okay, it's not, and it is an abuse of power.

John Locke's Second Treatise of Government and the Limits of Our Implicit Consent to Government

In John Locke's Second Treatise of Government, his entire political philosophy hinges upon the fact that humans are moral equals and thus unable to legitimately govern or impose rules upon another without that other person's consent. For Locke, the perfect answer to this is entitled express consent. According to Locke, "[n]o body doubts but an express consent, of any man entering into any society, makes him a perfect member of that society, a subject of that government" (Locke 64). Express consent is the perfect way to bind the original members together. This however, raises many difficulties for Locke once critics begin to question how someone can consent to a system of government for which they never expressly consented or gave their agreement; simply stated, they were not the founding members, and thus how can it be argued that they are legitimately ruled by the government? Locke's rebuttal is tacit consent, a method by which any man "that hath any possessions, or enjoyment, of any part of the dominions of any government, doth thereby give his tacit consent" to be ruled by that government (64). Though this seems to be a sound remedy, further holes can be exposed using a hypothetical, but very plausible, situation to demonstrate. The situation is as outlined below:

An adult citizen who was born in this country (and thus never had to take an oath of citizenship) was disgruntled about the lack of funding for education and began protesting on the steps of a government building. Shortly thereafter, a police officer confronts her and informs her that she has broken the law by protesting within 100 feet of the public building without a permit. He attempts to arrest her but she explains that, as a moral equal, she never consented to join the body politic and thus these laws do not apply to her.

Using the above situation, it becomes simple to apply Locke's response, tacit consent. However, to fully understand this issue, a counter argument by the protestor must be offered and tacit consent must be adjusted to include her arguments such that she is still bound by the national law.

Assuming that the police officer is an educated man and familiar with his political philosophy, specializing in Lockean philosophy, his response would be a classic example of tacit consent applied to life. He would start with the beginning - at one point in time, a group of citizens joined together to form a body politic and institute a government on the land now called the United States of America. For the sake of simplifying the situation, one of her direct relatives was amongst these first founders.

The police officer, his name badge proudly displaying his name, Darryl Worley, looked the protestor in the eye. "Look here," he said, taking out his copy of Second Treatise he kept in his pocket, "this relative took an oath to bind his land to the authority of this government; ergo, he showed his express consent, for he both knew to what he was consenting and was voluntarily agreeing." He assumed that the woman knew her philosophy as well, but might not be as versed as he in Locke.

Politics, No More

Five years ago, during a deep meditation, I had a series of realizations that led me on a five-year hiatus from a brief period of piety in Zen. One of the things that I had realized during the meditation was that piety was for practice and it was time for me to walk the middle path. I never stopped studying nor did I cease meditating. Simply, I abandoned an illusion.

Since that day, five years ago, without pious practice, I have held steadfast to Zen principles while limiting my involvement with the illusions of this world. That is, until a few months ago when I started to pay attention to U.S. politics more intently.

Before I knew it, I was roped into the political confusion. I was angered, appalled, and as 'mad as hell' over the ignorance, lies, and greed. I would throw my hands up in the air out of rage as I listened to this congressperson or that senator make their statements on CSPAN. I would get angry when I heard of how 'this policy' might be changed on this date, which in return would affect 'these people.' I couldn't take it anymore--I went to work fighting, publishing articles, and championing for the middle and lower classes.

A few articles, arguments, and months later, I was preparing for my next battle. For inspiration, I sat down on the couch and turned on the television to MSNBC. It was the same old aggravations and, of course, I was following the same old routine--I got mad, threw my hands up out of disgust, and became red in the face.

Upon observing the pattern that I had found myself in, I saw that my participation in the battle against ignorance would never end. I knew that no matter how often I screamed "truth and justice," only half of my fellow citizens would understand the message. "There must be a better way," I thought.

It was after the realization of my futile actions when I remembered something that I had learned many years ago: We are not capable of understanding anything beyond the extent of our knowledge. Part of this is because our knowledge is based on what we choose to believe and what we choose to believe is based on our knowledge. Additionally, our knowledge is sculpted by our environment and this leads to another topic about the evolution of humanity and its illusions.

As Confucius said, "Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance." I realized that the fight would never end as long as those of whom I was trying to convince were unaware of their own obliviousness. Let's face it, most people think they are right and will do anything to justify and validate their egos--even after being presented with insurmountable evidence that they are wrong. Upon facing the sea of unawareness... I saw the error in my approach.

Back to the observations of my anger and frustrations--I questioned the sanity of my approach until I realized that I am more upset with the lack of wisdom in our government than I am with the policies and plans that they're arguing about. It seems that the basic principles of wisdom are absent in America and I blame most of this on the corporate greed that has spilled over into our government. Regardless of where I place the blame, I know better than to let the ignorance bring me down and to participate in the madness. I know that I need to be more accepting of humanity's ignorance. Yes, I am angry about the crimes against humanity, the rape of the world, and the injustices being done to the poor, the elderly, and the sick. Nevertheless, acting in anger towards our ignorance is not the way. Peace is the way.

Divisiveness, Politics, and a Philosophy for Change!

The political climate of the United States is a reflection of the political climate changes affecting the entire world. While others point in disgust and dismay at the evolutions of the Republican nomination, as well as the enormous gaps between Republican and Democrat, our issues are not so very unique.

As a planet, we appear to have evolved socially to the point where the main arguments revolve around our sense of responsibility for each other. Who owns the responsibility to make decisions for others and to what degree?

Should we have national health care? Should we involve ourselves in the affairs of others? Are we responsible for removing dictators from power when they abuse their populations? Do we, or do we not, impose our beliefs on those who are less trained? How are we using our sophisticated weapons and who has the right and the responsibility to do what? Who is responsible for the overuse of debt as a means to finance what we cannot afford, and who will pay the debt so we can get on with our lives?

We Are All Responsible

Our issues are not about who we should blame for our potentially catastrophic choices. These choices and their consequences are natural results of how the human being reacts to stimuli. We need to make the next leap in our evolution, own the entire mess as a jointly created consequence of being imperfect, and figure out what to do about it in a much more holistic way.

Certainly we can round up and punish everyone at the top responsible for creating financial tools that were self-serving and destructive. We can identify the extremists and attempt to take them out one at a time. We can bomb others for their gall in thinking that they have the right to create weapons like our own. At the end of the day, we will have solved NOTHING and we will have created the reasons for the next big divide.

We are all a part of this shift and we are all responsible for its pain. Do you not also react in fear when you are not making your numbers, pleasing your boss, having trouble paying your bills? Do we not all hope for someone to step in and save us from the precipice? Think of the choices you make every day, that in essence, are not so different from the choices that our politicians, whom we elect, are making for us.

Politics of Coalition and Contradictions!

The ruling coalition of India led by the Congress has been moving from crisis to crisis for more than two years now. Blackmailed and stalemated at every step of its operations by the allies and the opposition parties. After Congress did poorly in three of five states where Assembly elections took place February-March, 2012 the worst was expected. Now, with the start of the Budget session of the Indian Parliament from 12th March the worst fears seemed to have been confirmed.

Political parties join a coalition for grabbing the dictating power and a few ministerial berths. Being responsible ministers of the government they do not still bother to work for it, but rather think of ways to destroy it from within. The opposition parties as ever look for opportunities to ally with the 'allies' to corner the government, stall its functions and even to dethrone it so that they have a chance to come to power in mid-term polls. For a weak coalition withdrawal of even a single ally with only a few seats can reduce the coalition government to minority. If an 'ally' minister indulges in horrid corruption the ruling coalition has to take the blame hounded by the opposition parties and if it punishes the errant minister the concerned 'ally' would blame it again and threaten to quit supported again by the same opposition that shouted against corruption.

The Assembly elections results thus emboldened the allies more than the opposition parties who kept on lurking round the corner for opportunities. The prospect of a mid-term poll or General Election became a distinct reality.

The Railway Budget was presented in Parliament on March 14, 2012 by Dinesh Trivedi who belonged to an ally, Trinamool (grass-root) Congress (TMC) having 18 seats. The Budget was considered to a good and bold one. For nearly a decade trains fares were never increased. So, due to the resulting resource crunch and a stagnation in improving services Trivedi proposed an across the board hike in all classes of passenger fares. Before the aam-admi or the common man could react their representatives were up in arms. What happened was unprecedented.

Mamata Bannerjee, the Chief of TMC, attacked her own party's minister Trivedi for the fare-hike. She reportedly said she was not aware of this proposal and that she could never support any proposal adverse to the interests of common people. Like an 'understanding' ally she shot off letters to the Prime Minister asking him to sack Trivedi and for a rollback of the fare hike. TMC even came up immediately with an alternative railway minister. Trivedi defended his Budget making a historic statement 'Nation first, family second and party only after' and now his inevitable sack had been the hugely debated issue till the last reports came in.

Parity in Politics - Why Women Don't Want It

Marking the 20-year anniversary of the Year of the Woman, Karen Tumulty's front-page Washington Post article details the never-ending challenges of gender parity in American politics. While an informative piece about the United States' 78th world ranking in woman's representation in national legislatures, tied with Turkmenistan for those keeping track, it reflects a flawed conventional wisdom about why more women don't run for and win elected office.

In discussing why more women are not politically engaged, many well-know facts were listed:

• Women often wait until later in their careers and lives to run for office making it a challenge to rise through the ranks to high office

• Many women wait to be asked to run, instead of initiating a political campaign, often questioning their credentials and qualifications more so than their male-counterparts

• Often women feel that the electorate is biased against women candidates, with high-profile examples of Clinton, Palin, Pelosi and Bachman as media and partisan targets fresh in their minds

The answer to these challenges as espoused by numerous women's groups is to train more women to run for office. From political "boot camps" like Rutgers Center for American Women in Politics Ready to Run program to the newly minted 50-50 in 2020 women's groups throughout the country believe that if more women are trained to run for office they will.

The problem with this strategy is that it doesn't work-just look at the last 20 years the article details as proof.

In 1992, I was a young political consultant determined to bring parity to politics having grounded my early political life working for a rising star of women leaders, Debbie Stabenow, now one of just 17 females Senators. During that election cycle and for many to come, I flew around the country training women, helping with their campaigns and hopeful that the efforts of so many women who tirelessly gave of themselves, and for a lot less money than our male counterparts, would bring us closer to parity.

Eight years later and hundreds of thousands of frequent flyer miles behind me, I examined the challenge of woman in politics as I created a leadership course at the Graduate School of Political Management at The George Washington University. The reason why women didn't run were clearly researched then and not significantly different that the facts presented today. The answer two decades ago was to prepare women to run for office and 20 years later it has had little impact. Why?

The truth is that preparing women for the battle of politics is not the answer. Woman are not running for office because they are choosing to spend their time and energy in ways other than engaging in the senseless, and all too often futile, act of policy making in contemporary politics. No amount of preparation is going to change the pragmatic nature of women who will choose to focus their energy and attention on real world solutions, rather than engage in politics that rarely creates meaningful change and when it does at a very high personal cost to one's quality of life.