In college I befriended a fellow student. We were both pursuing a degree in the same academic subject. This student was one of the most organized persons I had ever seen. His class notes were a thing of beauty, crafted with highlights of various colors, succinctly recording the most important information that was discussed in class that day. Compared with my notes, his notes were GQ, while mine needed a makeover on the scale of "How do I look?"
Visiting his apartment one day, I found it to be small, but well organized. Even his mail was treated to this excessive, but precise, organization, which he was proud to show off. Amazingly, he sorted his mail in drawers by sender. He could quickly find, among his several senders, an electric bill, or a gas bill, by year and day, with the same ease that one might find a book using a library catalog.
I didn't envy him. I knew my limitations. I knew, further, that I could stumble through life--perhaps encountering far more frustration than my fellow student would encounter, because he could always find what he was looking for and I couldn't--but, despite stumbling, I would still succeed, notwithstanding this unfortunate, but manageable, impediment of being disorganized.
Yet, in life, organization has its place. If you're on a mission to run the country, and to impose your political ideology on the American people, organization can come in handy. In fact, the better organized and focused you are, the greater your potential success.
Let me make an observation, and a painful one at that: Republicans are organized. Republican are better organized to "take back the country," than Democrats are to keep them from doing so.
And how are Republicans actually going about this? In state houses across this nation they've turned to ALEC to give Republican-dominated legislatures the means to move in a common direction, with similar goals, seeking complementary outcomes.
ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) is the secret, organizational weapon Republicans are using to effect this takeover of state governments, and possibly our national government.
As the states go, the nation isn't far behind.
How successful ALEC has been in out-maneuvering Democrats is made clear in this open letter from CMD's (Center for Media and Democracy) Executive Director, Lisa Graves:
About ALEC Exposed
An open letter from CMD's Executive Director, Lisa Graves
In April 2011, some of the biggest corporations in the U.S. met behind closed doors in Cincinnati about their wish lists for changing state laws. This exchange was part of a series of corporate meetings nurtured and fueled by the Koch Industries family fortune and other corporate funding.
At an extravagant hotel gilded just before the Great Depression, corporate executives from the tobacco giant R.J. Reynolds, State Farm Insurance, and other corporations were joined by their "task force" co-chairs -- all Republican state legislators -- to approve “model” legislation. They jointly head task forces of what is called the “American Legislative Exchange Council” (ALEC).
There, as the Center for Media and Democracy has learned, these corporate-politician committees secretly voted on bills to rewrite numerous state laws. According to the documents we have posted to ALEC Exposed, corporations vote as equals with elected politicians on these bills. These task forces target legal rules that reach into almost every area of American life: worker and consumer rights, education, the rights of Americans injured or killed by corporations, taxes, health care, immigration, and the quality of the air we breathe and the water we drink.
The Center obtained copies of more than 800 model bills approved by companies through ALEC meetings, after one of the thousands of people with access shared them, and a whistleblower provided a copy to the Center. Those bills, which the Center has analyzed and marked-up, are now available at ALEC Exposed.
The bills that ALEC corporate leaders, companies and politicians voted on this spring now head to a luxury hotel in New Orleans' French Quarter for ALEC’s national retreat on August 3rd. In New Orleans, Koch Industries -- through its chief lobbyist -- and lobbyists of other global companies are slated for a “joint board meeting” with a rookery of Republican legislators who are on ALEC's public board. (ALEC says only the legislators have a final say on all model bills. ALEC has previously said that "The policies are debated and voted on by all members. Public and private members vote separately on policy.") Before the bills are publicly introduced in state legislatures by ALEC politicians or alumni in the governor’s offices, they will be cleansed of any reference to the secret corporate voting or who really wrote them.
With CMD’s publication of the bills, the public can now pierce through some of the subterfuge about ALEC, and see beyond the names of the bills to what the bills really do, alongside the names of corporations that lead or have helped lead ALEC's agenda and accompanied by analysis to help decode the bills.
Many of the bills have obvious financial benefits for corporations but little or no direct benefit to the constituents that a particular legislator was elected to represent. Still, it may be tempting to dismiss ALEC as merely institutionalizing business as usual for lobbyists, except that ALEC’s tax-free donations are linked to it not spending a substantial amount of time on lobbying to change the law. ALEC has publicly claimed its “unparalleled” success in terms of the number of model bills introduced and enacted. But seeing the text of the bills helps reveal the actual language of legal changes ALEC corporations desire, beyond what can be known by the PR in their titles. ALEC says it has created a “unique” partnership between corporations and politicians. And it has.
It is a worrisome marriage of corporations and politicians, which seems to normalize a kind of corruption of the legislative process -- of the democratic process--in a nation of free people where the government is supposed to be of, by, and for the people, not the corporations.
The full sweep of the bills and their implications for America’s future, the corporate voting, and the extent of the corporate subsidy of ALEC's legislation laundering all raise substantial questions. These questions should concern all Americans. They go to the heart of the health of our democracy and the direction of our country. When politicians -- no matter their party -- put corporate profits above the real needs of the people who elected them, something has gone very awry.
If this piqued your interest, you can find the rest of the article here.
While Democrats and liberals are napping, dreaming of a world where the beauty of democracy reigns supreme, others are plotting to put forth their well-organized agenda, policies that are an anathema to the souls of liberals and progressives.
We can respond in kind, or sloppily, but in a world where one's opponents never sleep, but are continually striving for the edge politically, using the vastly superior power of organization to achieve their ends, it becomes incumbent upon us to remain vigilant, and sort our goals with impeccable organization, so that we may later find them upon the political landscape in the form of successful legislation that actually benefits people rather than special interest.
11 comments:
>>>The full sweep of the bills and their implications for America’s future, the corporate voting, and the extent of the corporate subsidy of ALEC's legislation laundering all raise substantial questions. These questions should concern all Americans. They go to the heart of the health of our democracy and the direction of our country. When politicians -- no matter their party -- put corporate profits above the real needs of the people who elected them, something has gone very awry.<<<
And this is why the country is going to hell in a hand basket. No surprise here at all. Politics and corporate power has always been married here in America even going back to the days of J.P. Morgan. The only difference between then and now is that we had a few people with backbone willing to reign in the excesses. And its those excesses that are at the very root of the problems we face now. While everyone else is enthralled by Casey Anthony (probably brought to us by some of the same folks involved here), you've got folks with their hand in the till planning how they will continue rape the treasury and/or shape the laws in their march for total dominance over the economy.
You're right, there's no organized opposition to any of this and for that to even occur, there has to be a degree of awareness. Unfortunately, corporate controlled media has dulled the senses of most or has directed their anger towards strawman issues (i.e. immigration, burning Korans, gay marriage, Obama's birth certificate and etc.). The idea is to enlarge these issues hence making them THE issues while the real issues of concern go unacknowledged, undisclosed and undiscussed. Basically, bread and circuses for the people, while thievery continues by sleight of hand.
Why no organized opposition? The vast majority of the people, if these facts were known, would oppose the situation, but let's face it, you've got to work (i.e read, observe, and think) to even get the information, let alone organize to counter it. The economic state that we're in leaves many scrambling to cover the basics of existence, so there's little time to grasp any of this and with whatever free time that is available, many would prefer to focus on the trite or just engage in hedonistic endeavors as a salve for their economic troubles. This is a situation tailor made for a small minority of people to work their agenda. No one is organized to watch the store or defend it and I've no doubt that these people are several steps ahead in their planning to counter that in case that begins to happen.
It is indeed a scary time in America.
"The idea is to enlarge these issues hence making them THE issues while the real issues of concern go unacknowledged, undisclosed and undiscussed. Basically, bread and circuses for the people, while thievery continues by sleight of hand."
The intermural fight between the Left and the Right keeps their respective base both entertained and distracted.
If the fights actually accomplished something concrete for the American people, rather than being simply a diversion, I could see indulging them.
I'm afraid that both sides have refined the technique of doing one thing (trading American jobs for corporate largess) and saying another(trumpeting their undying support for America's economic future).
"No one is organized to watch the store or defend it and I've no doubt that these people are several steps ahead in their planning to counter that in case that begins to happen."
And those who might "organize to watch the store or defend it," have already been co-opted by Big Corporations.
Tea Party believers are so ideologically comprised, that they've convinced themselves of the following absurdity: What's good for the Koch brothers is good for America.
I listened to a Tea Party member of congress today. He saw liberalism as the enemy of the nation, and that the only way to return sanity to the political process, was to give Republicans the reins of government--from the presidency to both Houses of Congress--forgetting that it was a nation ruled by Republican majorities, including the presidency, that was the catalyst for the economic ills we're facing today.
I agree with your final sentiment: "It is indeed a scary time in
>>>The intermural fight between the Left and the Right keeps their respective base both entertained and distracted<<<<
Exactly. Sometimes I think about what the focus would actually be on if it wasn't for this staged fight. It's safe to say that we might be more focused on what the real problems are and would be fairly outraged at what both sides have done to support the economic havoc being visited upon people.
Now, I'm not saying that there aren't some legitimate differences in views and approaches on some issues, BUT, on the things that really matter and make a significant difference both sides are in lockstep agreement. This quiet consensus is largely not seen as most are caught up in the wedge issues that are put out there to divert us. That diversion is very necessary to continue what they're doing.
Also, this is why I've become a political atheist as that the only stance I can have that allows me to evaluate what's presented. Effectively, we've arrived at a one party state as far as most economic and foreign policies go.
There is a great need for more political parties beyond the two we have now, however it's uncertain whether that alone can reform the system, but it might be a start. There are a large number of independents who'd welcome such a thing.
"This quiet consensus is largely not seen as most are caught up in the wedge issues that are put out there to divert us. That diversion is very necessary to continue what they're doing."
I have for sometime suspected a collusion, and backroom dealmaking that serve the interests of both parties, while giving each side sufficient cover to appease their respective base.
As you suggest, they're both on the same page, reading from the same book, with an occasional plot twist to satisfy their more ardent supporters, and a slightly different ending from time to time to build suspense, and keep us engaged in the drama.
Isn't this how they used the debate over the extension of the Bush taxcuts, and the current battle royal over raising the debt ceiling?
Both sides are playing us for idiots, because, in us, they see nothing but village idiots, as this is the role we have too eagerly played over the intervening years.
"Effectively, we've arrived at a one party state as far as most economic and foreign policies go."
And I wonder just how far down the rabbit hole this deception goes?
With both sides catering to their respective base, and needing just the right amount of red meat to toss there way, to keep them quiet, who's to say that this, too, isn't orchestrated, and that a hidden, multilevel "consensus" doesn't reach deeper, and expand wider, than heretofore thought possible?
"There is a great need for more political parties beyond the two we have now, however it's uncertain whether that alone can reform the system, but it might be a start."
Ross Perot gave it a shot, immortalizing the phrase, "NAFTA will cause a giant sucking sound as jobs go south."
If you're interested, watch the NAFTA debate between Ross Perot and Al Gore here.
My point is this: Independents aren't as independent as one would think. They're merely voters in search of a party, and attach themselves to whichever one, Republican or Democrat, that appeals to their particular values during an election year.
Were they more alike, other than calling themselves Independents, that similarity alone would form a solid basis for the creation of a new party, with new party energy, and new party goals and objectives.
On the political continuum, from progressive to conservative, one of the two parties have enough tent to house all Independents.
Unless they can find a way to distinguish themselves from the two mainstream political parties, I don't see a third-rail party politics emerging, as much as I feel that this rail would go a long way toward keeping them all honest.
How about the "Unbossed, and Unbought Party" (to borrow a phrase from Shirley Chisholm), as a way to distinguish this party from the other two.
Nah! Political corruption in this country is as American as mom's apple pie.
Oh, Yeah! There are tons of Independent Parties, but without a unifying message that cuts across a broad swath of the population, they will never make sufficient inroads into the two major parties to challenge their political supremacy.
Check them out here.
>>>And I wonder just how far down the rabbit hole this deception goes?
With both sides catering to their respective base, and needing just the right amount of red meat to toss there way, to keep them quiet, who's to say that this, too, isn't orchestrated, and that a hidden, multilevel "consensus" doesn't reach deeper, and expand wider, than heretofore thought possible?<<<
I think this consensus goes deep and all of the divisiveness is there to get everyone's dandruff up. It seems to me that this extreme partisanship really began with the Clinton administration and has just continued, but as we were discussing relative to trade policy, the Clinton administration (as well as the Obama administration) turn out to be fairly "conservative", yet quietly so. Basically, these guys only fight over certain things and the result is that it's extremely difficult to discuss politics without getting angry. I'm convinced that some of this stuff is done deliberately to generate that.
>>My point is this: Independents aren't as independent as one would think. They're merely voters in search of a party, and attach themselves to whichever one, Republican or Democrat, that appeals to their particular values during an election year.<<
This is an excellent point BD. If independents were truly so, then the next logical step would be to actually form a party. I think a better way to describe them would be disaffected. Actually, that could describe a large number of the electorate and all of the extreme partisan tends to increase the numbers of people who feel that way. I remember Ed Rollins getting caught trying to suppress the black vote back in the day and one has to consider that voter suppression is just as much of a strategy as getting your vote to turn out. This stuff does tend to suppress the vote in certain demographics and that may be by design. I think the level of voter disaffection is apparent from recent polling showing a clear minority of people (a little over 10%) that had faith in the congress. That's astounding and reflects the lost of consent to govern.
The country seriously needs other political parties and the disaffected would likely swarm a genuine third party effort.
>>>Oh, Yeah! There are tons of Independent Parties, but without a unifying message that cuts across a broad swath of the population, they will never make sufficient inroads into the two major parties to challenge their political supremacy. <<<
I think a successful effort to form another political party has to almost start locally to build the sort of apparatus to support a national effort. Ross Perot had the most successful effort in launching a third party, but the effort wasn't sustainable beyond his presidential run and I think the lack of a local structure along with not having a broader agenda beyond Perot's candidacy was their challenge. This is something that must be built from the ground up and is a slow process. There are many achievable things that can be pursued that don't necessarily involve a presidential run IMO.
I will watch that video with the debate between Perot and Gore and let you know what I think
@Greg L: "This stuff does tend to suppress the vote in certain demographics and that may be by design."
Good point and an interesting way to explain what we're seeing.
Voter suppression is on the rise, and coming from one direction--the Republican camp. A disaffected,
unengaged voter is, more than likely, going to stay away from the polls--and this benefits Republicans, who usually do well in low-turnout races.
"The country seriously needs other political parties and the disaffected would likely swarm a genuine third party effort."
I agree. I still believe that the "Unbossed, and Unbought Party" would be a welcome alternative to the other two parties--these virtues in today's political parties are as rare as a truthful
politician.
"This is something that must be built from the ground up and is a slow process. There are many achievable things that can be pursued that don't necessarily involve a presidential run IMO."
Republicans have caught on: They have shifted their attention to local governments--state and municipalities, as well as the courts.
Power resides in the courts, especially appeal courts, all the way to the Supreme Court.
As I've stated before: This is one reason why President Obama can't get his judicial appointments through congress. Republicans want to lock up the courts so that their draconian policies will stand up to judicial challenge.
So far, it has worked for them.
Interesting post.
Reggie said...
"Interesting post."
Thanks, Reggie.
Post a Comment