In the business world, everyone has a boss. When a problem arises, it gets taken to the boss for resolution. If the boss can’t solve the problem, they take it to the next person up the ladder and ask them to solve it. Eventually, if no one can solve the problem, it reaches the top of the ladder and is left in the hands of the ultimate arbiter, usually the business owner or company board of directors. At that point, the solution makes a reverse trip back down the ladder to the person who first reported the problem. This is the chain of command, and it is present in nearly all social organizations, from the workplace to the family, to clubs, churches, and even politics. For most of us, the chain of command is little more than an acceptance of “the way things are.” After all, somebody has to call the shots, make the rules, and put the foot down. And in the civilian world, we also accept the fact that the person at the top of the ladder may not necessarily be the smartest or strongest or most congenial person, but could occupy their position simply out of luck or nepotism. We don’t always like this, but we know that in our society, this sometimes happens. Businesses, being privately owned, can pretty much run as they see fit, provided that they follow the laws of the land. The success of a business may well depend on the decisions and actions of those at the top of the ladder, not least of all because they affect the lives of the rank and file employees who actually make the business work. The chain of command works (or doesn’t work) because of the level of integrity of those at the top of the ladder. A business executive who treats his people poorly is just as likely to fail as one who has no grasp of sales or marketing. But in the civilian world, most poor leadership results in little worse than temporary economic turmoil for a relatively small few.

In government, there is also a chain of command structure, with new politicians falling in behind their more senior legislators. But unlike the private sector, where one person usually has the final say in matters, in government, when a problem reaches the top of the chain of command without getting solved, there is a final arbiter in the people themselves, who have the power to change their leadership with a vote, and as such, the power to fix the problem. If those at the top of the political ladder fail to keep faith and fortune flowing to those at the bottom of the ladder, they lose their jobs and have to go back to running private companies into the ground.

The military has a chain of command too, but for them, the top of the ladder does not end with the highest-ranking general. For many matters military, the final authority rests with the politicians. Whereas a business leader can decide where to invest his resources, a military leader has no such option. And whereas an employee may take her employer to task for wasting her time or talents, there is no such recourse for the military. Decisions regarding everything from wages to deployments to post-service benefits rest in the hands of elected officials, leaving the military at the whim of those sitting in the chairs of power. Sometimes, the leaders are wise, just, deliberative, and fair when setting policy for the military. Other times, they are arrogant, unrealistic, uncaring, or just plain out of touch. In the civilian world, if our bosses or leaders are no good, we find a new job or join a new club. In the military world, one just grins and bears it. And hopes not to get too screwed over in the process.

The chain of command concept is only as effective as those at the top of the ladder. At some point, those sitting at rungs below the top must get the impression that those above them are making good, informed decisions or else they will want to leave that particular ladder. For the military, effective leadership boils down to a few basic things: being properly outfitted and prepared; having a solid objective, strategy, and exit plan; and following through on certain promises like health benefits, education assistance, and home loan programs. Yet failure of the civilian leadership to provide these things to our military is rarely met with criticism from those directly affected. Instead, the military’s strict adherence to the chain of command precludes members of the military from bringing these issues up with anyone but their contemporaries and immediate superiors. In such a tightly controlled chain of command, it takes longer for problems to be recognized and it becomes easier to pull a fast one on the troops.

Sadly, our military today is faced with an administration and Congress that is not only inept, but two-faced as well. It can’t help that so many of those in elected office have never served in a military unit. They have never seen the reality of war that is the result of their proclamations and policies. They have never been shot at or wounded on the battlefield, nor have they been to a veteran’s hospital for post conflict treatment. In fact, so many of our politicians come from a privileged background themselves, they have no idea what sacrifice even means. They sit perched in the halls of power making deals to decrease veteran’s benefits while declaring support for the fighting forces of this country. They make statements about standing behind the mission of the troops without ever defining what that mission is. They send soldiers into battle, but neglect to properly arm them. Instead of solving problems, politicians create them for the troops, and as the stink rolls downhill to the grunts in the field, the chain of command loses meaning, and the troops lose their sense of purpose and hope.

And though America may still have the most technologically advanced military in the modern world, the effects of our politicians and their policies are taking a toll on the military’s ability to attract and retain good soldiers and officers. The United States government, through its people, recognizes the sacrifice that soldiers make for our country, especially in times of war. As such, we make a pact with our fighting men and women that we will take care of them when they have come home from the fight. We promise medical care, educational assistance, loans to buy homes or start businesses, and assistance in transitioning from the military world to the civilian world with job placement programs. Imagine then how a returning serviceman feels when he applies to a community college in his home state, only to be denied resident tuition because he spent the last year deployed. Imagine how a returning veteran of war feels when he hears that the veteran’s hospital that used to be only an hour away has been closed due to budget cuts and that he now has to travel 4 hours for his treatments, treatments made necessary because of injuries earned in battle for his country. Imagine the aging veteran who lives on the street, without a job or a hope in the world, after having spent his youth in a foreign land fighting a political war with no real plan or purpose. You don’t have to imagine very hard to see these things. They are real, and they are happening.

It’s time to put an end to the empty lip service paid by our politicians to our service men and women. It’s time to fix the broken chain. Our politicians need to be held responsible for making rational decisions regarding our military. No longer should politicians be able to send soldiers into battle without the proper gear for protection and offensive actions. To do so should be an act of treason, for it is no different than sending a toddler into a tiger den. No longer should troops be committed to any action unless an honest and verifiable rationale is enunciated and a cohesive plan is in place, a plan that enunciates a specific mission, a definition for success of that mission, and a realistic method for withdrawal that places control of the war zone back into the hands of the natural citizenry as soon as possible. To send troops into battle without such a plan or purpose should be grounds for impeachment. No longer should resolutions be passed that profess support for the soldiers while legislation passes that decimates the funding for veteran’s affairs. All funding for veteran’s benefits should be legally secure before new military adventures are undertaken. And its time to turn out from office those hypocrites who pretend to love the military, when in fact their only love is the turmoil caused by war and the profits it reaps for their benefactor corporations.

In the chain of command structure, we may not have that much power in our jobs or in our churches. But when it comes to our government, we ARE the chain of command. And it is our duty, to all of those who put their lives on the line through their military service, to make sure that their sacrifice is not wasted, forgotten, or swept away.

Accountability can imply many things: financial efficiency, honoring promises, imparting factual information, and taking responsibility for decisions that are made. When it comes to government, accountability doesn’t mean any of these things. It is just a fancy word thrown about to make politicians seem like they are looking out for our interests, but deniability and distance are more common traits of our government today, a government raised on the principals of “me first” and “play now, pay later.” Our military is an extension of our government, a separate organization that is under the control of the Congress. And though the military has the might to subdue the government at will, our Constitution forbids the military from taking any action unilaterally, requiring it to act only on orders from its civilian boss, the president. The president, in turn, must get permission for military engagements through appropriations agreements with Congress. In short, he has to ask for the money to pay for the military, and they have to approve it. This little arrangement is supposed to create a nice system of checks and balances. It not only keeps the military from becoming an independent force (although the American concept of freedom among the members of our armed forces certainly helps keep any possibilities of a military coup d’etat at bay), it also keeps a president from using the power of the military at any whim. When everyone does their part, the system works pretty well. But what happens when part of the system, or several parts, stop doing their job?

Take a look at military spending. For fiscal year 2006, the budget appropriates $419 Billion dollars for the Department of Defense. That’s about $1400 in military spending for each American citizen. But the real costs are still higher. The military is involved in all government technological, medical, and scientific research programs, as well as providing pensions, medical benefits, and other veterans programs. In addition, military alliances with other nations sometimes have our troops assuming the role of military protector of foreign countries, all at taxpayer expense. These added costs push the actual military figures hundreds of billions of dollars higher than the Department of Defense appropriations. Well one might argue that having the finest fighting force on the planet costs a lot of money, and I would probably be inclined to agree, were it not for decades of reports detailing Pentagon overspending on things like hammers and light bulbs and commercial airline tickets that are never used. I would agree that the money budgeted is money well spent if troops in the field weren’t cannibalizing shattered vehicles to reinforce their tank armor. I would support the costs of defense more readily if the Congress stopped awarding “no bid” contracts to favored corporations while soldiers’ families draw food stamps. We should finally put an end to overcharges in the military through consistent auditing and enforcement, punishable with fines, denial of future contracts, and even prison time. And many of the new technologies that end up as consumer products, technologies developed first for the military, with tax dollars, but by private corporations, should not be given back to these same corporations to market and reap all the profits. All new research and development should be a shared investment if the corporation wants future marketing rights or the public should get a cut of the eventual proceeds.

There was a time when massive military spending was justifiable in light of the nuclear arms race with the former Soviet Union, but today’s geopolitical dynamics are far different than they once were. With the possible looming exception of China, who could more easily cripple our economy than defeat us in an all out war, America no longer has a military equal. Our enemy today is not some behemoth hostile nation, but rather smaller groups of hostile foes, who don’t march at us with tanks and soldiers, but sneak up on us as suicide bombers. And though the world is perhaps more unstable today, in large part because of the radical Islamic declaration of war on all “infidels,” the necessity of maintaining a large military presence all over the world is perhaps less necessary than it has been in the past, and may be a luxury we can’t afford. The “War on Terror” is something that affects all free nations, perhaps more so than the threat of Communism ever did, so shouldn’t it be incumbent on other nations to offer more in the area of military support? Shouldn’t they at least be protecting their own territories? Why is the US taxpayer paying for the protection of Iceland? We have permanent bases and troops in at least 17 foreign countries, supposedly to deter aggression from a conventional armed force. In several of these countries, the public doesn’t even want us around. Maybe its time we packed up and went home, or at the very least, started charging for our services as a protective, deterrent force.

Keeping a promise is a mark of integrity, and this is no less true for a large organization. Our military is no exception. With few exceptions, when it comes to working together as a fighting force, each element of our military has bonds of trust between the individuals of the unit that are forged and tested in the toughest of circumstances. They know they can trust each other and they know they’ve been taught their trade well. But too often, this trust, instilled in the fighting men and women as a trademark of military and personal conduct, is betrayed by the both their leading officers and the civilian handlers who profess to support and honor their service. In an all-volunteer service, we entice new recruits with promises of education, defined periods of service, medical care for life if injured in the course of duty, a pension, loan guarantees, and the prospect of moving up the social-economic ladder of American society. In some cases, military recruiters make false statements or promises to inductees regarding the jobs they will get or the places they’ll get stationed. Outside the compound, in the halls of Congress, lawmakers are cutting back veterans medical programs, closing veteran’s hospitals, and flat out abandoning former warriors the treatment they need to heal the physical and mental traumas of war. Lawmakers funnel funds into projects that the military brass say they don’t want or need, but the project is a payback for a donor and it gets shoved through. The result of these diverted funds is less support and arming in the theaters of war, a result that is nothing short of abandonment. Congress has the say so over whether troops get sent into harms way. If they approve a president’s request for military action, their have a duty to make sure those soldiers have everything they need to survive and succeed. The promise of adequate funding, once made, should not become a pawn in political power brokering. Our military personnel are the people in this country who will give up their own lives to protect our freedom. We can’t keep slapping them in the face during and after their tour of duty. We owe them everything we promise them.

Most people enter military service out of family tradition or as a way to get higher education and job skills without having to pay all the costs associated with civilian life, in essence, a transitory period in life. They enter the service with an eye to their future, and they operate on a kind of faith that their commanders will only send them into harms way if there is no other alternative. They are taught to trust the decisions and plans of the military brass and planners, who in turn have to sell their war plans to the civilian leaders. Sometimes, the civilian leaders have first hand knowledge of war, other times they don’t. Sometimes civilian leaders know when to defer to trained experts, sometimes they bend those experts to their own predetermined visions. In times of war, civilian leaders who don’t allow the generals to run the show on
the front are destroying the trust that is vital to a successful military operation. Because the military is obligated to take its orders from the civilian leadership, an inexperienced, micromanaging, or egotistical politician can quickly erode a mission’s efficacy and when too many troops on the ground don’t come back from a patrol, troop morale diminishes. Civilians try to pass on the failure to the military brass who usually stand there and take it. The result is a military body that doesn’t trust the civilian or the military leaders to get them home safe, a military body that can’t recommend service to others if he does get back home. Volunteers eventually stop volunteering when they know they’re just going to be used up and tossed out. In short, planning military campaigns should be left to the experts, just as planning political strategy and the use of troops should be left to the politicians

In a democracy, the military gets its lifeblood from the civilian leaders. The civilian leaders get their direction from their constituents. At least, that’s the way it’s supposed to work. But in order for the citizens to give informed instructions to their congressperson, they need to have factual information. This is ever more true in times of conflict. The power of technology has made it nearly impossible for governments to conduct military operations in secrecy any more. Yet the government tries to keep a closed mouth about much that takes place in the theaters. In a war of defense, some facts should remain concealed, but only until the hostilities have ended. In wars of offense, the truth about casualties and progress, and setbacks would go farther with keeping the public informed. But even before war breaks out, governments have the duty to clearly define the reasons for war, reasons that are provable and unchanging. They must offer details about the goal, and the plan for after the mission has been completed. The American people are not cowards, but they are not “yes men” either. If a valid reason for armed conflict exists, such as the 9-11 attack retaliations, the citizens are supportive. If a war has to be sold to the public, it’s likely to lose whatever support it once had, especially if things go badly.

There is no deed more somber a government can undertake than one of military action. Unleashing the tools of warfare on another people yields the very worst that humanity has to offer and leaves in its wake a shattered nation, a conquered people, and generations of despair. History often portrays wars of the past in heroic terms or romantic terms while discarding the horrors that war brings. And from a distance of hundreds or thousands of years, what we remember about these conflicts is the results of their outcomes; the “taming” of humanity into civilizations, the consolidation of geography and resources, the spread of religious ideologies. In today’s world of instant communications, we know all too well the true face of warfare, and it is anything but romantic. But depending on ones perspective, the resulting consequences of warfare can be seen in either a positive or a negative light. And depending upon ones cultural traditions, the horrors brought with warfare may be forgiven or taken forward through the generations in an unending feud for vengeance.

Because wars exist, and because wars will continue to be fought for the foreseeable future, nations maintain a military force for both protection and offensive movements. In this area, the United States of America has achieved what no other nation before it has, namely, a global military force that is second to none in terms of mobility, technology, and ability. Taken as a whole, our men and women in uniform are unmatched by any other military in the world, especially when given a winnable mission, the tools to win it, and the authority to control the action on the ground. This praise is not to be misunderstood as a wholesale endorsement of the American military apparatus though, for there is much about the way our military is used and run that can and should be improved upon. Even while the individual men and women who make up our (for the present) all-voluntary force can be commended for their professionalism as a whole, the civilians who are charged with funding the military and deciding its missions consistently foul things up. And the bureaucracy that encumbers the efficacy of the military’s duties is about as efficient and accountable as a comatose accident victim. The problems of both the civilians who guide military policy (also known as politicians and their corporate benefactors) and the bureaucrats in and out of uniform who keep the beast moving may not be easy to solve, but they are easy to identify.

Accountability Accountability in the military is a multi-pronged problem. First, we need to have greater financial accountability of the military’s expenditures, for it has been documented far too many times that the military is completely irresponsible with the tax dollars that are appropriated for “defense.” Secondly, we need to have greater practical accountability for the actions of the troops in the field. At issue, specifically, is who takes responsibility for the planning and execution of military events, and what should be expected to be in place before any military action is initiated. Third, we need greater accountability in the lower rungs of the chain of command, beginning with the methods used for recruitment all the way up to the information services that present military encounters to the public. And finally, we need public accountability, which in times of just war means falling behind our leaders and sacrificing some of our materialistic desires to reduce the nation’s costs of fighting, or in times of unjust war it means fighting the politicians to bring our troops back home as quickly as possible.

Responsibility Part of the appeal to joining an all-volunteer military is the knowledge that you are giving something back to your country of your own free will. A much bigger draw is all the programs and benefits available to veterans. Maybe “alleged” benefits is a better description. The government of this country has a long history of abusing the trust given to it by its military personnel. We promise our veterans health care and education grants and housing loans to get them to enlist. Then, when they have served their tours, and come home to return to civilian life, they find that their hospitals have been closed or consolidated, their grants won’t cover the costs of tuition, or the loan limits preclude actually buying a house somewhere near an employer. In short, we are engaged in a classic bait and switch con game with the very people who would give their lives for our way of life. Our government is also responsible for training and equipping our military forces with the best materials at our disposal. If we are to send people into harms way, it should always be a top priority to give them the tools to succeed and survive. There must also be in place a firm objective and a firm goal for cessation of hostilities and the withdrawal of forces. And, government must be responsible to the civilian populations in any country where our troops are engaged, taking the highest efforts to remove warfare from civilian populations and to assist in the rebuilding and protection of infrastructure as troops move to other forward positions.

Flexibility Just as the methods of warfare change as time and technology move forward, so too must the structure of an effective military evolve to meet these changing challenges. So far in the 21st century, our prime enemy is not a traditional state government, but rather an ideology that transcends borders and has no formal body of warriors. Efforts to combat this type of adversary are not always feasible with large deployments of men and machines. Other conflicts that call for armed intervention, genocidal conflicts within states that flare over borders, call for a different kind of force, one that is not unilateral in nature. In some cases, military actions such as containment of an enemy nation may require a different kind of soldier while actual defense of the homeland would present an entirely new problem and would likely result in an entirely different kind of fighting force. In order for our military to be prepared for each of these contingencies, we have a duty to reevaluate of military organizations and make rational adjustments based on the principals of security rather than on political appeasement.

Rationality Perhaps the most important aspect of the use of the military in a democracy is the duty of the government to keep the citizens apprised of what the troops are engaged in. It is our children, our parents, our friends and co-workers who are going off to fight. It is our right to know whom they are fighting and what they are fighting for. It is our right to know what the objectives are and how we will meet them. And for the people in the war zones, it is most necessary to understand what conditions must exist for our troops to make a safe exodus from their country and for the return of their government to them.

In this next series of essays, efforts will be made to address these problems with Common Sense solutions that could result in a much more efficient military, a much more effective military and a much more respected military for this country. In addition, discussions about the proper planning of military action, the rationale for taking military action, and observations on our current military endeavors will occur.

One of the basic tenets of American society is the right to privacy. Or at least, it used to be. With advances in technology though, it seems as if privacy is a passé idea in an information age where every transaction is digitally stored, every report is saved in bits and bytes, every communication traceable. But as human beings are inherently social creatures, needing of companionship in one form or another, so too do we need moments of privacy, away from the watchful eyes and ears of others. It is in these times that we have the occasion to contemplate or relax or be carefree. All of deserve these moments of privacy, whether alone or with our families, even public figures. For even in our faster paced and over-scheduled society, we still find moments to steal away from the rush and enjoy some quiet timeand family vacations away from our daily lives, unfettered by physical intrusions .

But the subject of this essay is the assault on our private information by government agencies and private businesses and identity thieves. Today’s privacy concerns involve the thousands of pieces of information about who you are, what you like, and what you buy, pieces that are collected and sold to the highest bidder so that they can market their wares to you and get a pretty good return on their advertising dollar. Today’s concerns involve the slip-shod way in which this information is collected and protected, allowing thieves to hijack a person’s entire digital identity and bleed it dry. So while it would be nice to have people take their phone calls out of the restaurants and into their homes, our privacy concerns today are of this other nature.

A quick internet search with the phrase “privacy rights” reveals the varied nature of the whole privacy concept. Instantly, one finds links to Consumer Privacy Rights, Health Information Privacy Rights, Educational Privacy Rights and even ways to protect my privacy in the digital age. It becomes clear that we have parsed the definition of privacy into an almost meaningless concept, for if we need rules to cover all these different aspects of “privacy” then we must assume that anything not specifically covered by a named “right” is either to be considered public or at least non-private. So to begin with, let’s get back to the most basic definition of privacy, which says that privacy is the condition of being secluded from the presence or view of others or the state of being free from unsanctioned intrusion. That’s pretty simple, isn’t it?

But when dealing with information, what constitutes privacy? And who, if anyone has the right to encroach upon that privacy? These are important questions to answer because as the world becomes more and more interconnected through technology, the amount of privacy we are afforded becomes smaller and smaller. And in times of political upheaval, one of the first things that we lose is our unfettered right to privacy from the government’s watchful eye, often under the guise of security.

What Should Be Private? Information collected by the government should always be considered private information and should not be allowed to be sold to or shared with any agency other than the one it was originally given to. This includes your name, age, address, contact numbers, health status, and any personal business between you and the government like taxes or financial status. This same provision should prohibit medical care providers, insurance underwriters, employers, banks, credit bureaus, and anybody you do business with from sharing or selling your information too. Rather than forcing people to opt out through a purposely arduous process, the standard operating procedure should be for people to opt-in. These days, privacy is becoming something you have to ask for, instead of being something presumed, and frankly that’s just backwards.

In addition to being responsible for keeping your information private, collectors of information must take more active steps in safeguarding the information that they do collect with your knowledge. The simplest way to ensure this is through a kind of “safe deposit box” mechanism, or something with two “keys” for access. In the digital age, this could be done rather simply with RFID chips or something similar. The information would always be encrypted and access would require both chips to be scanned or read before any information could be released. This would have the added benefit of ensuring that any individual records released would be done only with the knowledge of the individual herself.

The fact of the matter is that so much information exists on each and every one of us in the databanks of corporations and schools and hospitals and government records. The information is already there. We just need to protect it better.

What Isn’t Private? Unlike individuals, businesses and government activities don’t have the rights to private information, at least not in the same way individuals do, or at least they shouldn’t. Except for the private information of employees, and of course proprietary information integral to their businesses continued success, corporations should not be able to hide their financial operations or any legal actions against them by the government or private lawsuits. Government should not have the privilege of privacy in any actions involving public domestic policy or the expenditure of tax dollars. Nor should they expect privacy in matters of legislation or their own financial dealings. The reasoning behind this is simple: government exists to serve the people, and an accountable government does not conceal its actions. Similarly, a corporation provides products and services to the general public who has a right to know who they are dealing with and what they are getting. Only in matters of investigations of wrongdoing should a level of privacy exist.

For individuals, any record of public or military service would not be considered private, nor would any criminal convictions or public lawsuits be considered private matters, at least not from a protected standpoint. Another individual could access that information for general informational or educational purposes.

Need To Know Basis Personal information should be acquired only on a need to know basis. Both government and business have entered an age when information can be collected quickly and acted upon rapidly before its been analyzed properly, and both have a tendency to do just that. Both should be held responsible, financially and punitively for any unauthorized release of private personal information. If companies know they can be fined and if bureaucrats know they can be fired for letting information get into the wrong hands, we would probably see the numbers of identity theft diminish and the practice of personal smear campaigns. On the other hand, legitimate government investigations need to be able to share their information more easily, and if they have obtained a proper court order, information could be collected without individual authorization. The caveat would be that any release of that information not associated with the investigation or information improperly obtained would result in the dismissal of those responsible. In truth, there is very little need for all our information being zapped around in cyberspace, other than the trade of it creates money for everyone except the individual whose information is being bought and sold.

Privacy does require vigilance by the individual, but with the laws today, even the most vigilant consumer couldn’t keep tabs on all of his information, nor could he prevent its release. Not only does this invite identity theft, which wreaks havoc on personal and public finances, it also invites government intrusion, especially when anti-leaders who tolerate no serious, vocal dissent are running the government. Like so many things, the loss of our privacy has been given away as much as it has been stolen. B
ut it is not to late to reverse the trend.

You’ve probably heard the expression “Quid Pro Quo” before. It means “an equal exchange.” Another way to say this is “You get what you pay for.” Whatever your phraseology, the concept is pretty simple. For any thing you want, you must have something to exchange for it. This concept is the basis for our entire social structure and is manifested in many ways, from the exchange of our talents and time for money to the exchange of our money for food, shelter, and all the other things in life we buy. Determining the value of the exchange is important, and in our capitalistic economic system, the concept of supply and demand play a big role in determining the worth of things and talent. But the topic of this essay is not economics. There is another way to express the sentiment of quid pro quo, and that is “You get what you give.” It is this definition, and it’s association to our democratic government, that interests me.

If you believe the polls and the opinion editorials and the general grumbling of the people on the street, you might infer that Americans are growing increasingly unhappy with the quality of service they are receiving from their government, a government that is supposedly elected to respond to their concerns as a whole, and not just a government that works for the interests of the select or noisiest few. We complain about leniency for violent criminals and revolving prison doors. We decry the complexity and snail’s pace of the legal system, both criminal and civil. We constantly tirade at the state of our educational system, our medical system, or our retirement system. We shake our heads in disgust at the corruption uncovered almost daily among the political leadership in our cities and states and national levels of government. But when the jury summons arrives in the mailbox, our first thought is finding a way to get excused. When our children fail to pass skills tests or need remedial classes to get into community colleges, we find a teacher or program to blame instead of stepping in to help our kids learn. And when our politicians are out of touch or just plain stupid, we re-elect them based on a party affiliation instead of looking for a viable alternative. Even when they are indicted for corruption, we look to their contemporaries to fill their shoes, letting the shady deals pick up as if nothing had ever changed. In increasing numbers, we aren’t even voting at all. Quid pro quo. You get what you give. If we’re as unhappy as we proclaim to be, if we’re as dissatisfied and disgusted as we profess to be, why aren’t we giving more so that we can get a better product?

Part of the problem is the growing feeling among average people that the whole political process is too corrupt to change and that nothing we could do or say will make a difference. This feeling of hopelessness is neither accurate nor acceptable if we are to revive true self-government and restore democratic values to our political system. The fact is that at least 40% and upwards of 80% of eligible voters do not participate in local, state, or federal elections. In Fixing The Vote, Parts One and Two, I explored the reasons for this dilemma and offered some viable solutions to help turn this trend around. But an even bigger part of the solution lies in changing our own attitudes and deciding to get back in the game. Hopelessness is not accurate because if all of those unheard voices would let themselves be heard, then hope could transcend into reality through the election of real people-oriented representatives instead of the paid for politicians we have now. Hopelessness is not acceptable because to abandon the process is to give it to the corrupt corporations and their political hacks, in effect handing them the key to our public assets and turning our backs as they plunder the safe. If change is what you want, then you must let it be known. Find a candidate you can support and get the silent majority to actually turn out and back your choice instead of settling for the party’s anointed golden child of the season or forgoing the vote altogether.

Do you want a representative who spends his or her time cuddling up to big money donors instead of working on the public problems? Do you want to continue to pay taxes to support an over-bloated bureaucracy that fumbles the future integrity of our educational, medical, and retirement systems? Do you want a politician who would give away your public lands and funds so that they can be exploited by billion dollar corporations or shut down entirely by special interest demands? If your answer is “Hell No!” then you must give more than lip service. You must get more involved. You must vote. Otherwise, you might just as well keep your gripes to yourself.

It may seem simplistic to continually return to the importance of voting and its ability to create reform, but as with many things in life, simple is the way to go. And truth be told, while the act of voting is among the most important tools we have for reform, it is also the least imposing form of action imaginable. It takes mere minutes (especially if you get an absentee ballot sent to you) in many cases, and in places where the lines to the polls are longer, demand for and volunteer to staff more polling centers. As registration increases with a renewed realization of the empowerment that voting can bring, election officials will be forced to open more polling centers. If they follow the model set by Starbucks (a shop on every corner, because waiting more than a few minutes is too long to wait), voting could be as easy as drive-thru service. If you want people you can trust in office, you’ve got to put them there. Quid pro quo.

Increasing the vote is the first big step, and also the easiest, at least it should be. Beyond that, levels of involvement become more time consuming, but also more important as they relate to oversight and holding elected officials accountable for their actions on our behalf. We must be willing to join local citizen panels and school associations and public information committees. We must be willing to support honest attempts at reform as vociferously as we now bemoan the idiocy that passes for judicious public stewardship. We must eliminate government excess and corruption to retain our freedoms while reforming government efficiency to sustain our future. We must stop being silent.

With the active participants of democracy already in the fray, and getting nowhere but deeper in the morass of corruption and stagnancy, the ability of this country to move to a viable Common Sense position has been reduced. It has been stealthily subverted by the corporate interests and destructive forces of distorted religious ideologies and selfish attitudes of elected officials and fringe, self-serving positions of far right and far left special interest groups. You get what you give, and when you give less and less, someone else will try to fill that gap. In American politics, average citizens have been letting someone else dictate what they should think or support because they won’t speak for themselves. Are you one of those people? If you are, the future of change really rests in your hands.

When we speak of democracy today, we understand it to mean a form of self-government. Indeed, the word is derived from the Greek word, demos, meaning people, combined with the Greek word, krati, meaning power or strength. In it’s present incarnation, democracy has become synonymous with the American system of politics. Yet just below the shallow surface of appearances, the state of our political affairs seems to be anything but “people power.” True people power requires more than occasional elections and cynical political campaigns. True people power requires citizen involvement as well as responsible citizen representatives. It requires active participation from all the people in an effort to secure the best possible life for all the people. It requires honest stewardship from those who are chosen to watch over things and it requires ardent evaluation from the rest of society, on whose behalf those chosen are supposed to act.

Democracy is a system of government where the majority decides the rules for the whole, where the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. The beauty of it is, though, that the whole has a say in what those needs are, or at least, they are supposed to. And while the majority may end up with more of their interpretations becoming the law of the land, elected officials have an extra burden of duty to make sure that the rules they make on our behalf are as fair and just as possible. They are supposed to remember that they are making rules that affect everyone, themselves included. Unfortunately, our democracy is becoming a parody of itself, a sad caricature of what “people power” really is. For not only do we have widespread abdication by the people of their responsibility, we have turned the elected representative system into little more than a pre-selected popularity contest, run by the corporate and special interest groups with the money to play this absurdly expensive game. The two devolving facets of our democracy feed upon each other, each becoming more twisted away from the original intent of democratic government. When government moves away from the will of the people towards the will of the few, as ours increasingly does, it is no longer a democracy in the accepted form of the word. It is instead an oligarchy, or one that is ruled by the few, and depending on the integrity of those few, just a hop and a skip away from being an autocracy. Oligarchies and autocracies operate on the assumption that all men are not created equal, and that those in charge possess superior qualities to those that are not in charge. It is the antipathy of “people power,” but it is becoming a more and more accurate picture of our government today. We the people deserve a measure of responsibility for the state of our political affairs, but in a bigger way, those who become elected officials own the lion’s share of the shame, for they are the ones who make the rules and they are the ones who break the rules. Politicians of all stripes have turned our noble experiment in self-government into a façade, abusing the trust placed in them to line their own pockets at the expense of society as a whole.

Stewardship is the concept of managing another person’s property, finances, or affairs, and the role of a politician is to act as a good steward on behalf of the general public. Honest stewardship implies that the interests of others are put ahead of your own, simply because the things you are supposed to be looking over do not belong to you. This concept of stewardship seems to be completely gone in the halls of power today. Instead, special interests, the political parties, and corporate conglomerates have staged a coup that has usurped the rightful property (either physically or intellectually) of the people of this country as a whole. When politicians pass laws that exempt corporations from environmental responsibility, they are abandoning their role as stewards of the public lands, lands that will exist long after we are dead and that will be needed by future generations for their own sustainability. When politicians make rules that funnel public tax dollars into the offshore corporate accounts of multi-national corporations instead of into the infrastructure and well being of those who pay the taxes, they are abandoning their role as stewards of the public finances. And when politicians choose to frame their political debates in ways that deceive or mislead the public, they are forgetting their role as stewards of the public trust. As citizens, we deserve better than this. We deserve a political class that goes beyond the rhetoric of divisiveness. We deserve honest stewardship from our public officials. And it is up to us, the common people, to make sure that we get it.

So what can we do to change the way things are being run right now? The first step involves massive reforms in our voting and political funding mechanisms, as outlined in the previous two essays. Only by removing the lure of easy money and increasing the participation of everyday citizens can we begin to move towards redefining what a politician should be. But once we achieve those reforms, there are still many steps to take to return American politics to the American people.

The first, most obvious step to take should be in combating political corruption with more stringent penalties for those politicians who violate the laws related to political funding and gift taking. Whether or not we can ultimately reform those laws is practically irrelevant to making this reform a top priority. As things stand today, politicians and their financial donors already know the loopholes around the financing laws and they seem to have few, if any, qualms about circumventing both the spirit and the letter of the laws. The only way to eradicate this insidious behavior is to increase the penalties for such actions. Any politician found guilty of accepting unlawful donations, gifts, or payments of any kind should be immediately removed from office and barred from ever running for elective office again. Furthermore, such individuals should be sentenced to prison for a term equal to the amount of time they have been “on the take.” In addition to punishing the politicians, those who grease their palms should also be punished by having their personal assets frozen and their businesses taken away from them and placed into a public receivership. Only the enactment of such harsh penalties will make politicians and their patrons think twice before trying to corrupt the system for their own benefit and gain.

Secondly, we must reform the way business is done in our local, state, and federal legislative bodies. Two ways to dramatically change the status quo would be the “Read The Bills Act” (promoted by Downsize DC) as well as a ban on multi-faceted legislation. Taken together, these reforms would eliminate the ability of politicians to fill quality legislation with give-away spending measures or special interest legal maneuvers as well as requiring every politician to have a thorough knowledge of what they are voting on. As things stand today, most legislation gets saddled with any number of special interest add-on amendments, thrown in by elected officials in return for their support on the measure. Such add-ons rarely serve the public interest and instead are meant to reward the political donors. In addition, because so few legislators actually take the time to read and understand the full provisions of the things they vote on, many of these add-ons get passed as law without any real accountability in place. If legislation is so necessary as to be added to a particular bill, why must it be added in the dark of night, at the end of the packet, at the last possible minute? The obvious answer is that this kind of tit-for-tat legislating is endemic in the corrupt attitudes of our political leaders and we must put an end to it.

Third, we need to remove many of the “perks” associated with being an elected official. Compensation, in the form of salary, health care, and retirement pay, not to mention all the blank checks given for “administrative functions” should be seriously curtailed to reflect that which the average citizen could expect to receive from a similar type of job. If the Congress had to depend on the same kind of health and retirement system that the rest of us have to live with, you can be sure that they would be quick to make some real reforms in those areas too. Forget about the cries of those who say that good politicians need to be coaxed into office with these kinds of perks. Public office is about public service, not about personal wealth or special benefits. It is not a place to get rich, fat, and cared for on the public dime. We hear so much about welfare reform and the evils of being on the public dole from the very same people who themselves exist on the public funds and are always eager to soak up more.

Finally, we must refuse to accept distorted versions of the true acts of government. There is too much secrecy in our legislative bodies, often done in the name of the public good. It would seem, however, that anything that needs to be kept hidden behind closed doors probably isn’t something that is being done in the public’s best interests. Don’t confuse this call for real open government as a desire to have delicate military secrets shared with our enemies. There are some acts that do need to be kept under wraps, at least until they are borne out through action. But public policy, the deliberations of elected officials regarding public funds or social programs, and restrictions of liberty should not be kept under lock and key. Such subterfuge only reinforces the impression of corruption, and in all probability, it is corruption that keeps the doors closed.

For political change to occur, we need to change the way average people interact with the system. But to get people enthusiastic about their political leaders, we first need to have leaders we can respect, leaders we can trust, and leaders who truly want to serve the public.

Campaign finance reform is always on the periphery of politics, but not because the politicians in power want to change the very system that they have carefully constructed to maintain the status quo. Rather, these reforms are trotted out every so often as a means of placating the public, to assure us that our elected officials are making every effort to stay noble to the cause of public service while avoiding possible conflicts of interest with potential donors. The truth is that campaign finance is a sham, a game played by the wealthy corporations and the individuals that run them. Our system of funding candidates and elections is nothing more than a shell game run by charlatans. Despite the large number of complex regulations currently applied to campaign financing, the fact of the matter is that the system has been brutally finessed by those who seek access to power and have the money to buy it.

A primary cause for voter apathy is the fact that most political candidates do not represent the average citizen. It is hard to get enthusiastic about electing as your representative to the lawmaking halls of society someone with whom you have no common connection or point of view. The average citizen is not born in a wealthy family. They are not universally educated at the most expensive universities. They do not have six figure incomes, luxury boats, or domestic servants. Now take a look at the average politician at the federal and state levels of government. Most are millionaires, from well off families, living a life more luxurious than their countrymen. For people in this position, it becomes difficult to imagine, let alone empathize with, the life of ordinary people. But the costs associated with running an election, even a relatively small local contest, is beyond the means of most citizens who would likely take a shot at being involved if only they could afford the price of admission. What we end up with is the usual slate of candidates, well connected to the established political machines and corporate donors, offering little real choice for voters who crave change. For those left in the game (for that’s what it has truly become) the commencing battle becomes less one of ideas than one of wallets. The only winners are the corporations themselves, giving money for access and getting it back threefold or more when their candidate gets in. They play the odds and support both sides, so they’re always guaranteed a victory. And while it may be technically illegal under today’s laws for corporations to donate to a candidate directly, the spirit of the campaign finance laws are always circumnavigated by the crafty legal teams hired by the corporations and wealthy individuals who think that their great wealth gives them the right to rule the world.

Real reform is what we need if we are going to have a shot at getting our government back from the corporate interests who dominate the halls of legislation these days. We must leveling the playing field for candidates and lower the costs of running a campaign. First, we must enact tight spending limits on all campaigns including the amount of money a candidate (or their campaign committee) can collect. This will have the effect of reducing the amount of money donated, thereby reducing the inequity of influence by donors. Limits can be based on a cost per voter formula, costs per week of campaigning, or other such assessment. Second, we much put a cap on the amount of money an individual can donate to a campaign and eliminate any kind of collective corporate, union, or PAC donation drives. This cap could be tiered for each level of government, with a lower threshold set for local elections up to a maximum of $1,000 per person in federal elections. This regulation would have the effect of removing inappropriate influence from single entities contributing hundreds of thousands of dollars to a campaign, in effect buying a candidate. It would also give individuals greater control over their own political dollars by eliminating de facto political contributions culled from membership dues and other collective, but not necessarily elective, mandatory costs. Third, we must limit the number of weeks that active campaign advertising can take place, both for a primary run-off and a general election. By reducing the length of campaign advertising to within a month before a primary or general election, we would not only force candidates to spread their message through actually meeting and talking with constituents, we would reduce the costs of campaigning by reducing the amount of advertising that would be purchased.

Next, we must mandate that commercial broadcasters (who currently have practically free reign of the publicly owned airwaves and broadband spectrums) provide free political advertising for all candidates in a general election and token rates for all candidates in a primary election. These businesses exist at the good will of the Congress, with a stated obligation to use their frequencies for the public good. It is arguable that television shows are somewhat to blame for the dumbing down of Americans, so merely running their regular programming, laced with commercial messages, doesn’t really satisfy the obligation. Mandating political advertising concessions would be a small price for these companies to pay for the privilege of growing rich on the publics back. In return, broadcasters could be free to charge whatever rate they could command for any private political ads, provided they are issue oriented and contain no reference to a specific candidate. Such soft-money ads are often just a front for a candidates political assassin squad, but eliminating their ability to discuss anything but a particular public issue, without mentioning a candidates name or position, would remove some of their persuasive power, at least so far as demonizing a candidate is concerned, and would make the public learn about a candidates views by talking to them instead of relying on sound bites.

Fifth, limit political party contributions to candidates, making would-be politicians focus their energy on meeting the citizens and raising money through them. Political party funds could instead be used to pay for bipartisan (or multi-partisan) election commissions who would monitor, organize, and validate election results, prepare voter informational materials and cover the hard costs of having an election. And finally, each level of government should establish a specific fund that would pay the living costs of the non-incumbent, local and state candidates during the general election campaign cycle, up to a certain amount. This would allow people who have public service in their blood the ability to make a run for office without having to lose their home or have their kids go hungry while they were on the campaign trail. We’re not talking about extravagant funds, but enough to make the bills while standing up for election.

When it comes to the candidates themselves, there are several ways we can reduce the costs associated with entering politics, and reduce the probability of improper influence peddling through political contributions. First, we should remove any regulations that allow a prospective candidate to purchase their way on to the ballot. In many areas, in order to qualify for a primary ballot, you must collect a significant number of signatures from people living in the district you wish to represent. Or you can just pay a fee, usually more than a thousand dollars for federal or state office, and several hundreds for many local races. Those with the money just pay the fee, bypassing the whole “connect with the common man” element that signature gathering fosters. But the number of signatures is usually next to impossible for a working person who can’t afford to pony up the dollars to get in the door. Level the playing field here and you’ll get more people who look like the voters. Let’s remove the “fee option” and reduce the total number of signatures required to get on a primary ballot.

Also, we
should prohibit all elected officials from soliciting donations prior to three months before an election. They are not supposed to be campaigning during their terms anyhow. It is hard to govern when you spend all your time begging for money. That, and the fact that their incumbency should give them an upper hand in collecting campaign funds would reduce their exposure even more to those who would try to buy influence. First time candidates could get and extra month or two to raise funds and build name recognition. At the end of an election, all campaign funds not used would go to the national campaign fund or be divided by the prominent political parties for use in the next election cycle. Presidential candidates would have somewhat larger collectible donation thresholds and longer campaign periods simply due the size of a national constituency.

The final piece of the puzzle is the administration of swift and harsh punishment for politicians or political professionals who violate the public campaign finance laws. If found guilty of gaming the system for their benefit or for another person’s benefit, they should be dealt with as treasonous individuals who would subvert our government for their own selfish gain. The rules should be clear and simple, leaving no room for misinterpretation. Any efforts to bypass the spirit of the law should also be dealt with by banishing the offender(s) from public political aspirations. Such unbending resoluteness against any corruption may be just the deterrent needed to help end the abuse and usher in Common Sense reform.

Voting is fundamental to our system of democracy. It is through our votes that we pass initiatives that shape our laws. It is through our votes that we elect people to the halls of government. Without the ability to voice our political desires, democracy does not exist. But, as with so many other facets of our political and social reality, the practice of voting, and of counting the votes, has become an exercise in the ridiculous as voter apathy and party corruption distort the outcome, leaving the average citizen less represented than ever before. The title of this essay, Fixing the Vote, is an intentional double entendre, for it most aptly describes both problems of apathy and corruption while admitting that something must be done.

For many of us, voting as a concept is instilled early in our lives through student council elections. We experience our first campaign slogans, often just clever rhymes, and encounter our first campaign smears, often just childish retorts. We learn the concept of selecting someone to “represent” our class interests, but since as school children we really have few pressing political goals, class elections inevitably turn into individual popularity contests, with the outcome being of little consequence, except for bragging rights to the winners. While this may expose us to the fundamental mechanics of voting, it also creates an impression of what politics in the adult world will be like, and the seriousness of the whole system is lost. Perhaps this kind of political indoctrination is part and parcel to some grand scheme to keep political (and therefore, practical) power concentrated in the hands of the elite classes, perhaps it is just a reflection of what our real life politics have become. Regardless, the result is the same: large numbers of adults eschewing politics and voting because it seems pointless or unimportant in the big picture of life.

The result is predictable: elected officials are selected by a minority of eligible voters and supported by corporations and unions and special interests. As fewer voters participate in elections, politicians become less accountable to their supposed constituents and spend more and more time currying favor with their money mills, passing favorable legislation for their corporate cronies and filling non-elected positions with their sycophant fund raising hacks. The common voter, seeing the corruption sitting at the table of power, loses even more confidence in “the system” and opts out of future elections. As elected officials come from a narrower and narrower sampling of society, they tighten the rules of admission, effectively keeping out those same people who are frustrated with the way things are, leaving fewer options for real change available at the ballot box. The whole circle becomes a vicious feeding frenzy, engorging itself on its own rotten fruit.

What then can we do to change the way things are? The problems of voter apathy, voter disenfranchisement, and political funding must be taken on squarely and addressed with Common Sense solutions. Each must be reformed for the whole to be repaired and for the people of this country to reclaim for themselves real representation in the halls of government, from the smallest towns to Washington, D.C.

Ending Voter Apathy In 2004, 58.3% of eligible voters cast ballots in the national election. In most local and state elections, the percentage was even lower. While this represents an increase from the 51.3% who voted in the 2000 elections, since 1976, the year of our national bicentennial, the percentage of eligible voters who cast ballots surpassed 60% only one time- in 1992, when 61.3% voted. Even if all other problems with our voting process were removed, at least 40% of voting age adults in this country do not take the time to make their voices heard. The number one reason for not voting (at nearly 21% of respondents) was because people were “too busy.” Another 20% either didn’t like the candidates they had to choose from or felt their vote would make no difference. In fact, legitimate excuses such as illness, lack of transportation, and inclement weather together only account for 18% of excuses for not voting.

Ending voter apathy clearly will be tough work, but a little creative thinking could reinvigorate the average person to hit the polls, especially if they know that by doing so, they are helping themselves. And in our ever-quickening pace of life, with its increased productivity expectations, making elections a priority has got to be given higher visibility. We should start by making election days official holidays, with half-pay for all employed voters, and free refreshments for everyone. With the exception of medical and emergency personnel, all retail, service, and manufacturing activities would grind to a halt on elections days, encouraging citizens to participate in the running of their lives and deflecting the “too busy” excuse. We can sweeten the pot even more by instituting an election lottery. Create a lottery system that guarantees at least one winner in each state a substantial financial reward for participating in elective democracy, and multiple smaller awards for state and local elections. (The money to pay these awards could be culled from tax receipts earmarked for electoral expenditures.) These two measures alone could draw back many of the so-called “disenfranchised” voters by appealing to their “me” centers. You could further induce voting by adding a “stick” to the “carrot” approach, essentially fining any eligible voter who doesn’t vote. Combined with the reward possibilities, voting would begin to look less and less problematic.

Increasing the number of voter’s casting votes is the first step towards fixing the vote. As larger numbers of people make their voices heard, it becomes increasingly difficult for politicians to claim mandates for their programs that may not exist. It becomes harder to shun accountability when more of the public is engaged in the system. But increasing the number of voters alone doesn’t guarantee a better system. Eventually, those people who always vote and never win the election lottery will need to satisfy their own “me” centers, which is where voter disenfranchisement (and early education about civic responsibility) comes in to play.

Voter Disenfranchisement The way the system works now, by the time an election day rolls around, the choice of candidates is extremely narrow. Through a system of awkward primaries that exclude all but the majority party candidates through a concerted lack of exposure by the media and the electoral commissions, voters often feel as if the only real choices available are not representative of their own political and social goals, and decline to vote at all. The effects of this practice alienate voters and exclude a potentially large body of candidates from getting a chance at all. To the political parties and their poster children, this system has guaranteed a perpetual sew-saw struggle of pathetic proportions, but the reins of power are certain to remain within their spheres of influence, so they prefer the status quo of low turn-out and limited candidate eligibility.

Again, a little imagination could offer a solution to this problem. The primary system should include an independent (or non-affiliated) election primary as well as the organized party primaries, with the top two or three non-affiliated candidates getting a place on the final ballot as well as equal exposure. These “all-comer” candidates could offer viable alternatives to the present cadre of politicians, many of whom would be needed to really get down to the business of creating change.

Disenfranchisement also addresses the problems of voter registration and convenient polling stations. While only 9.5% of non-voters listed these as reasons for abstaining, that still represents several million people who need to be casting their
votes. To erase the problems with voter registration, we should move to an automatic registration program, perhaps using biometric indicators and Social Security numbers to get every person in the voter rolls. If it were a biometric indicator, like fingerprint or retina or DNA, the information could be gathered upon birth, stored in an encrypted data base until one achieved voting age, and then registered with the appropriate state and local jurisdictions automatically at the appropriate time. Upon voting, one would simply match their bio data to that in the record, and proceed to the ballot. Through the Social Security system automatic registrations based on the address of ones job could help establish proper jurisdiction for allocating ones vote. And while the debut of computer or online voting has so far been fraught with claims (both documented and undocumented) of fraud and abuse, the problems of poll convenience could be eliminated through a digital voting system, albeit one with stringent security mechanisms, tangible voting records and receipts (necessary anyhow, for the lottery enticement), automatic count verification, and total transparency.

Political funding is the third leg of reform with regards to fixing the vote, and it deserves an essay all on its own, because it includes reforming how we fund campaigns, how we learn about our candidates, and how we verify that votes are valid. I hope you will join me again as I explore more solutions that will give government back to the citizens.

In democratic societies, government is said to be “for the people, by the people, and of the people.” In the broadest sense, one could infer from this that governing institutions such as ours are not controlled by hereditary clans or moneyed interests, but instead are an amalgam of the interests of the general public, instituted by representatives of the public who are drawn from the population of common citizens. Take a good look at the political landscape today. Look back twenty years, thirty years, fifty years. The government we have today isn’t, and hasn’t been for some time, for the people, by the people, or of the people. It is a system filled with wealthy men and women, some from political families that span generations. It is a system of unabashed cronyism and political appointees whose only qualifications are the donations they collected. It is a system of flagrant corporate collusion that puts the profits over the people. And it is a system that is largely being abandoned by the very people it purports to represent, through their compounding apathy bred by years of stagnancy and corruption. We are losing our experiment with self-determination largely because we are failing to preserve it.

Our founding fathers held many lofty ideals regarding the state of mankind and its right and ability to self-govern. Their words are recorded in our most precious national documents and in their speeches and memoirs. Phrases like “All men are created equal,” and “…life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” inspire us, but if looked at in the context of the actions of those who spoke them, it becomes obvious that the phrases and their meanings, like humanity itself, have evolved to more truly represent their empirical meanings. In 1776, all men were not equal. Equality in those days was reserved for white, male landowners. In 1776, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were not applicable to blacks or Indians or any other non-European descendant. It wasn’t really for the poor either, at least not to the same degree as it was applied to the wealthier population. But words have meaning, and when words such as these are enshrined in national politics, they have a tendency to assert themselves. And in a democracy, even one with obvious limitations, these words have a way of realizing their true potential. Today’s definition of “all men are created equal” includes men of all colors and races, including women and children. And though it occurred gradually, at times even painfully slowly, it has taken the will and determination of common people to realize the dreams that words such as those promise. So it is the same with the phrase “government for the people, by the people, and of the people.”

Government for the People What does this phrase mean to you? Does it mean that governmental bodies should spend their days crafting favorable legislation for their political donors? Does it mean that tax dollars collected should be diverted to meaningless studies or inefficient, bloated, or poorly managed programs? Does it mean that your elected officials should ignore their fundamental role as servant to the citizens or politicize issues that have no place in the political realm? Does it mean that government should be an exclusive club requiring the right pedigree or personal connection? Or does the phrase “government for the people” imply that any action undertaken by our governmental officials must have at its core an overwhelming public benefit, provided with the greatest efficiency and highest available quality? Perhaps the biggest problem with our government today, and I’m talking about all levels of government from the local and state levels all the way to the federal system, is that politicians no longer seem to remember that ours is supposed to be a government for the people. Instead, they use their positions of trust and influence to increase their own power base and personal wealth while helping their buddies to the public till as well. Pick up a newspaper and you’re sure to find an article a day about public officials getting charged with a crime or about an agencies fiscal undoing. Our government is no longer for the people, except for a relatively select few who get richer at the expense of the rest of the population, for the simple reason that it is no longer a government of the people.

Government of the People Government of the people is the inside joke of our national and local political systems. Even at its inception, none of the ruling class of the day really wanted to open up the halls of power to the common man. Inferred, but seldom verbalized was the notion that politics was the domain of the wealthy or college educated or socially connected person and definitely not a place for the dirt farmer or the taxi driver or the construction laborer. Every so often, a man of humble origins would find himself elected to office, but his ascent could usually be traced through military service, lending an air of courage and strength in place of sophistication and birthright. The result is a ruling class, albeit an elected one, that has little in common with the general population, save the need to eat and drink and sleep. For a government to be for the people, if must first be of the people. Unfortunately, those who have passed the reins of power among their social and literal descendants have also gamed the system so as to preclude admission from any but those already like themselves. The process to become an officially recognized candidate for political office is fraught with barriers that to an average working person may be unbreakable. But to a person with money and access, political office is more of a game or a hobby, with the added benefit of increasing ones own net worth at the expense of the public tax roll. To restrict the playing field even more, political aspirants not affiliated with a major party are ignored by the press (controlled of course by the moneyed interests) and required to prove their ballot “worthiness” by jumping through additional bureaucratic hoops. And if you can get through all of that, there’s still the matter of collecting thousands of signatures or paying an entrance fee to become a candidate. If you’re working a job to feed the family, when do you find time to go signature gathering? Or maybe you’ve got a few thousand dollars just lying around to buy your name on the ballot? Designs like these often ensure that the common man does not get a chance to represent his fellow citizens. Those that are truly of the people are locked out from the start.

Government by the People Because government is not really representative of the people, and because it is not truly for the people, it goes to reason that we don’t have a government by the people either. To say that a government is by the people is to imply that the things government does are things that the people want it to do. If the government asks the people to approve a tax for road improvements, then government must make sure that roads are improved with the revenue, because that’s what people directed government to do. This is an example of government by the people. But does your local government act this way. How about your state governments? Or does your government pursue its own agenda, dictated by the interests of its elite membership class, with little forethought towards the citizens other than finding a snazzy way to present their latest swindle? If government were really operating under the principal “by the people” we would not have cities and states on the brink of bankruptcy. We would not have national laws flaunted by violators and unenforced by lawmakers. We would not have record level deficits or destructive national policies because the people would not let these things stand. Not if they had any real say they wouldn’t.

Words do have meaning, and the words “for the people, by the people, and of the people” have meaning too. But in order for their full meaning to be realized, we must recognize the importance of our place in maintaining and ensuring such a government. For the American experiment in government to be a success for all citizens, we must reinvigorate our role in this participatory government of self-rule. We must reinvent ourselves as concerned and involved citizens. We must all vote and perform other civic duties like serving on a jury or sitting on citizen advisory panels. We must also reform our political financing laws and streamline the process for candidate eligibility. We must clearly express what we expect and what we will not tolerate from politicians and crack down on government corruption, including the loss of personal privacy in an increasingly shrinking world of information. And we must be willing to serve each other selflessly for the common good and to give back to our society as thanks for all that we get in return.

Words have meaning. But unless we speak them loud enough and often enough and back them up with our actions, words are just words. And in this case, the words we ignore are the ones that come back to haunt us.

By the end of the 19th century, business interests had grown so powerful in our society that their stranglehold on individual prosperity created an inequity between the common citizens and the wealthy, industrial class. Tired of working harder and getting less than those who owned the businesses they helped succeed, and angered by conditions that amounted to little more than indentured servitude, the working class of America began to unite in its angst against the businesses and corporations. It was the rebirth of the Labor Unions. (Their original incarnations being the trade guilds that went back hundreds of years. The Guilds were different than modern unions though in that they existed primarily to promote education and ensure quality, rather than to ensure certain worker rights.) The bravery of those common men and women who stood their ground against the politically powerful and wealthy businessmen gradually but effectively secured many of the employment regulations that exist today. Without their efforts to organize workers towards a common cause, be it the 10 hour work day (later the 8 hour work day) or mandatory break periods or guaranteed wage scales, to name a few, our lives as employees would be very different than they are today. We have safety regulations (OSHA) and pension plans (401k’s) and medical benefits (for some at least) and conduct laws, all because individuals along the line have stood up and demanded an end to exploitation. At the height of their influence, unions represented the majority of both skilled and unskilled workers in the workforce. Having secured basic worker rights across the board, they refocused their efforts on increasing pay, securing medical benefits, establishing retirement plans and forming worker hierarchy systems of tenure. And in the process of being worker advocates, the unions became businesses themselves.

Unions were successful in getting the businesses to do by threat of work stoppage what they should have been doing already out of common decency and appreciation of the people who make the businesses successful in the first place. Wages in this country began to rise, and with it the standard of life for the “common man.” Unions were so successful in fact, that workers who belonged to a union could reliably depend on holding the same job for a lifetime, with annual wage increases and advancement opportunity, even if his competency or productivity didn’t warrant such rewards. Medical protection and pension plans were all but assured to union members, but actual business contributions were in constant flux with each contract renegotiation. Still, the prospect for a comfortable and relatively secure financial outlook was something that many workers could depend on. The fight, it seemed, was won. Every now and then a skirmish might flare up during contract talks, but by and large, the labor movement had managed to stabilize the relationship between workers and employers at a level generally acceptable to all.

So where do we stand today? Interestingly, membership in labor unions has declined steadily since the 1970’s, with a more rapid decline beginning in the 1980’s. The reasons for the decline of “Big Labor” are manifold, including among them the decisions of businesses to once again put profit ahead of people (emulated throughout the Reagan Presidency), the increased entitlement attitude of the union negotiators, and the growing disconnect between business leaders, union leaders, and actual employees. Were the unions too successful in gaining the concessions from businesses so early on? Did they demand too much as to sour the carefully forged stalemate that was intact? Did unions push for too much reform in the political arena, thereby excluding any sort of bargaining ability from the businesses? Or did business leaders simply get tired of having to accede to union demands to retain knowledgeable workers and instead pine for the days of low cost, expendable employees in favor of increased profits? As with so much in the political and social arena today, the answer can only be found by blending all of these questions into one, for all of these factors have led us back to where we once began, but with a twist. The unions became much like an over-protective mother against the abusive father that was business, and both began to call on government to play referee. Politics, already partisan on ideological grounds, naturally acceded to the call of inclusion, noticing a chance to both increase its own power in social life and increase its coffers by granting access and influence. And somewhere in the mix, the original intent of unions to help the common man became a turf battle of ugly proportions. Big Labor allied with the Democratic Party and Big Business allied with the Republican Party and whichever party held the reins of power advanced the desires of their biggest donors, the unions and the corporations. The worker became an afterthought as each of the three sought to consolidate their power to control the conditions of daily life in society.

To understand some of the problems that have caused the rift, let’s look at guaranteed tenure policies that unions have created. On the surface, this seems a good idea. Workers can have assurance that their job, and therefore their income, is secure. Companies have the assurance of qualified workers always being on the task. But having a guaranteed tenure does not guarantee that workers will remain equally productive. Indeed, the knowledge that it would be difficult for an employer to fire you can often lead to a decrease in worker efficiency and the quality of work. This can become costly to a business, as well as leaving them with little recourse to remedy the situation save from becoming a non-union shop entirely. The result- less job security for employees as businesses decide to cut their losses and hire non-union. Better to insist on a conditional guarantee of tenure dependent on maintaining efficiency and quality of work. What was a win-lose situation becomes a win-win. Simple Common Sense approaches to the non-compensatory agreements between businesses and unions could go a long way towards reducing the animosity.

Unions also spend a good deal of time trying to increase the non-pay benefits of their members too, and have been so successful in their efforts that many public employee unions (whose members are paid with tax receipts) have garnered promises that are greater than a city or state can deliver. As a result, we are seeing a large-scale breakdown in local government budgets as ill-conceived agreements are coming due. Blame the politicians who have not acted in the public’s best interests. But do the unions really think that bankrupting their own governments with these unsustainable deals is in the interest of their members? Do their members think this? Only by implementing reform in our pension and health care systems can we eliminate the drag these programs are placing on our public funds. (See The National Whole Life Pension Plan and Affordable Health Care Does Not Mean Free Health Care) By eliminating these as bargaining chips from the table, unions and businesses could concentrate on establishing and maintaining a more equitable wage scale, as well as returning to more traditional tasks of member skill training and quality control. These latter two objectives could only be a benefit to both workers and businesses, cutting costs while improving marketability of the products or services that are produced.

Because the corporations have shown us time and time again that they will always put profit above human need and decency, the importance of the unions as a watchdog, partner, and advocate will never really go away, nor should it. But perhaps it is time to refocus the energies of unions away from political agendas and towards the needs of workers. Union dues should not be used to support political candidates or launch issue attacks. Union dues should be used to assist union members in times of unemployment, disability, or to supplement pensions. Unions should strive to provide better-trained workers with a higher degree of dedication and integrity. Businesses need to refocus their own agendas by returning jobs to this country, removing their desires to influence social policy, and respecting their workers as they respect their CEO’s. Profits should not be channeled into campaign chests nor used to buy access to politicians, but instead to increase the value or safety of their products and the wages of their workers as they merit it.

The success of the American economy depends on the relationship between workers and corporations, and when the relationship turns sour, the whole country suffers. Businesses turned off by the spoiled brat antics of union leadership have begun moving their jobs out of the country (or are at least hiring non-union) in an effort to once again increase profit. The move to countries without the extensive labor regulations lets businesses effectively revert to their 19th century selves. American workers are left without jobs or income, meaning that the products sold by these American companies (in name only) aren’t being bought up as quickly. This leads to a decrease in profits again and the beginning of a downward spiral. In this scenario, which is playing out all over the country, workers and companies both end up as the loser. It’s time to end the counter productive struggle between employer and employee. It’s time to recognize that success for all is ultimately better for each of us individually and as a society. Business needs workers and workers need businesses. The relationship should be symbiotic, not antagonistic.