I don't know if this is worth putting forth, but with recent polls indicating that the American Public is beginning to get (on some level) that Preznit Whale Shit and the Congress Criminals and all their apparatchiks from the judiciary to the K-Street goons are less-than-savory, maybe it's time to look at/for themes for the Democratic Party.
Remembering that in 1994 the republicans used a document that's been violated more times than Colin Powell's personal integrity, the "Contract with America" to roll into power, perhaps it's time to put forth our own easy-to-understand document that we can both live up to and hold forth as the gold standard of Democrats and what we stand for.
So, I humbly suggest this: The Covenant for Democracy. Make it simple, something that reinforces our belief that we don't believe that the Government belongs in our lives in any way other than as envisioned by the Founding Fathers and that provides a visceral comfort to all but the most extreme right-wingers that we are not planning on re-inventing the Great Society, but instead we're intent on regaining the America we all grew up in, where we could be truly free and unafraid of our Government.
Covenant for Democracy:
(1) We believe that no law made by the Federal Government should supersede the individuals right to excercise their constitutional rights as they see fit.
(2) The ultimate goal of the covenant is to return control of the Federal Government to the people.
(3) Excessive Governmental secrecy is in instrument for the invasion of privacy and personal rights on every level. We will work to end practices which encourage the Federal Government to not allow full-disclosure of matters which are funded by tax dollars.
(4) Every citizen has a right to know where their tax dollars go. Only by knowing and understanding government spending can deficits and taxes be reduced.
(5) We will be more accountable to constituents by spending less time taking company-sponsored trips to luxury resorts and vacation destinations and more time in our states and districts.
(6) We will hold ourselves accountable at every election by taking direct responsibilty for what we have done. We will not blame the "other guy" for our failures because it's our responsibility to work with every member of congress in the interests of all Americans.
OK. So that's my input/suggestion whatever.
I realize that I don't have the reach of Atrios or Kos, but damn you all are loyal and smart (sometimes I think I have some of the smartest readers out there). Give me some input, spread this around...maybe we can make this a netroots contribution that might help us make inroads into the House and Senate both at the DC level, and in state capitals as well.
It all starts with an idea and a printing press sometimes. Can ya help out an old sailor here? I want my country back.
posted by Jo Fish on 06.17.05 at 12:09 PM
Comments:
An interesting start on a Dems "CliffsNotes Manifesto."
One thing I wonder about here w.r.t. #1: While I agree with the substance of this vis a vis personal liberties, pursuit of happiness, etc., I'm wondering if another point should come before the present #3 so that language could be included that lays out the sorts of things that government *should* do "in loco polis." For example, I'd love to be able to buy beer on Sundays (can't do it in GA), but I don't imagine I will be dumping waste oil from my lawn mower in the Savannah River. The first is, to me at least, a civil liberties issue what the second it one of public health. What, then, should be the federal gov't role in, for example, enforcing sound environmental policies, public health policies, interstate commerce policies, civil rights policies, and anything else that can't be (or simply isn't) handled well on a state and/or local level. Should Feds do any of this, or is it up to the states?
Can't remember where, but I've heard states' rights folks speak of the Federal role in public education policy in terms of providing a clearing house for research, expertise, and development of "best practices." Not sure I agree that such a minimal role is appropriate, and definitely don't like the way that corporate language and practices tend to creep in. Democracy and corporatism are very different, and I think it's time that Dems get that good citizens and happy customers are not the same thing. Conflating these ideas may, I believe, create many of the conditions that lead to some of the problems we face now. Nonetheless, it's an idea to explore.
But I digress...
Among other things, it would be interesting to explore to what extent a "well-regulated militia" at the state level (e.g., national guard units) can be conceived as more a part of the "regular" forces. Perhaps it would be interesting to think about the possibility that states individually could decide whether or not to send their men and women in arms to, say, Iraq, at the behest of the Feds.
Additionally, maybe defining how a more active role in government for the "press" (conceived as broadly as possible, i.e., not just "journalists"--Fuck you, Cal Thomas) could happen--i.e., What would an active watchdog press look like, and how could and should it contribute to the health of our nation?
Finally, I think that it's very important to make clear how the "Contract on (er with) America" is NOT the basis for this covenant. There is the risk of being labeled as political copycats by opponents. Hell, call it a foregone conclusion. The point of doing it: Notice that "contract" is business-speak for an agreement between folks, while "covenant" is quasi-religious values-speak for a sacred obligation taken on as a personal and/or collective responsibility. Further, contracts tend to stick to specific acts rather than principles under which approapriate acts can be evaluated. It's the difference between promising to "reform social security" and "honoring the social contract". It's a bit rough, but I hope that makes sense to y'all. My area in academia is educational policy rhetoric, so I tend to want to change the frame to suit the strengths that non-Busheviks bring to the table (fresh arguments that need to see the light of day). At the same time, this shift helps to undermine on a variety of levels the bullshit notion that anyone to the left of Ann Coulter is a morally bankrupt, baby killing, flag burning, cheese-eating surrender monkey (and, so, the new frame provides implicit counter-arguments that enhance credibility among other things).
I like the concept of what you're proposing here, Jo, and look forward to hearing what else people have to say. I imagine that there are a lot of ways to set Dems' policies apart from Repugs while at the same time making clear that we really are talking about a vision of America and American life and citizenry that is well-founded in the republican and democratic political *and moral* tradition.
posted by: Doc Johnson on 06.17.05 at 03:28 PM [permalink]
Just a thought.
The Government shall make no laws requiring any citizen or resident of this country to bow down to someone else's God.
