Declare a Democratic Worldview 

by John Hank Edson

This Fourth of July, let's give America the birthday present Finally, the logical basis of human equality made clear!she cannot do without. Let's give the people back their Declaration of Independence.

The Declaration of Independence sets forth a worldview that, back in the 18th century, served as the foundation of our new nation. This foundation was composed of the principle of human equality and the rights of self-determination implied by the famous phrase "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Back then, this foundation was sufficient to support the society we hoped to build, one free of the economic monopolies, religious authoritarianism and military brutality embodied, respectively, in the English nobility, the Church of England and England's Redcoat soldiers. As large as these forces loomed over the colonists in the New World, these were forces still dwarfed by the Atlantic Ocean, the American wilderness and the sheer number of people they aimed to dominate.

In a day of bayonets, wooden hulls and musket balls, mere consciousness of the principle of human equality was enough to give the people confidence in their ability to rewrite the social contract, even if it had to be written in their own blood. "Give me liberty or give me death," Patrick Henry cried. In his day, he could calculate the odds of success as reasonable against an enemy that was still on a human scale. He could look his enemy in the eye and say to King George with confidence, our equality is self-evident.

When we won our independence, we dismantled all the power platforms setting some human beings above others. Against the concentration of wealth and power of the classist aristocracy, we built the one-person, one-vote principle. Against the psychological oppression of religious authoritarianism, we constructed the doctrine of separation of church and state. And against the physical domination of mercenary armies, we instituted civilian control of the military.

But then we lost our way.

After the Civil War, corporations stole the principle of equality and put it in the service of nonhuman monetary engines antagonistic to our democratic political process. During World War II, the military-industrial complex grew into a powerful privatized industry no longer answerable to the people. After the civil rights movement, the corporations and the military-industrial complex offered the authoritarian religious right political legitimacy in exchange for their votes. It took us far too long to recognize the Republican Party as embodying the same feudal alliance of authoritarian platforms we once revolted against.

Simply put, for more than two centuries, we did nothing to defend ourselves against the anti-democratic forces in society that were themselves constantly seeking ever-increasing sophistication and power. Thus, while economic monopolists, religious authoritarians and military industrialists developed subtle strategies for placing the people under their control, the people remained content with a merely "self-evident" equality. As a result, today we harbor serious doubts about our equality, our ability to rewrite the social contract, and the future of our democracy.

Fortunately, our understanding of the principle of human equality, the rights of self-determination that flow from it, and the people's power to rewrite their social contract need not remain in its 18th century "self-evident" condition. A logical explication of these truths exists. We can give America the birthday gift she so desperately needs if only we will make thinking seriously about the democratic worldview our responsibility. Our original articulation of the democratic worldview changed the course of history in 1776. In 2009, it is high time we upgrade that worldview to meet the sophistication of our 21st century society. In so doing, we will once again expose the ideologies of authoritarian supremacy advanced by economic monopolists, religious authoritarians and mercenary militarists as directly in conflict with the people's rights and humanity's well-being. Equipped with this new understanding, we will find the true direction of change that America is wishing for as her birthday candles all blow out.

"The Declaration of the Democratic Worldview" can be purchased at: http://democracypress.net

of Independence’ and

The Declaration of the

Democratic Worldview

By Hank EdsonThe Declaration of the Democratic Worldview answers Obama's call. To purchase your copy, click here! 

If you are a reader of this blog, you know that on election night, November 4, 2008, I published my first book, The Declaration of the Democratic Worldview, a sequel to The Declaration of Independence. That night I also posted the preface to my book on this site. If you’d like a copy, you can get one at: http://democracypress.net. I dedicated my Declaration to Barack Obama and added this thought:

History will honor the architects who advance the quality of humanity

By improving the sophistication of the structures of democracy

My Declaration is a call to renew our democratic vows, a demand that the time has come to upgrade the worldview set forth in The Declaration of Independence. My Declaration argues that the egalitarian worldview that begins with the phrase, “we hold these truths to be self-evident...,” ought to be given a logical foundation. My Declaration makes the claim, in fact, that The Declaration of Independence is a crucial part of the technology of democracy that ought not be allowed to remain in an 18^th century condition, but ought to be advanced, instead, as every other technology in our society has, to a much higher level of sophistication.

And then my Declaration delivers the more sophisticated upgrade we have for too long neglected to give The Declaration of Independence. My Declaration sets forth the logical foundations of the principle of human equality and explains why a failure to master these logical foundations leads to the hijacking of the people’s power by authoritarian-leaning political alliances that inevitably consist of the uneasy partnership between economic monopolists, religious fundamentalists and imperialistic militarists.

My Declaration explains that we need a sequel to The Declaration of Independence, a “new” Declaration of Independence, because our failure to master the logical foundations of the egalitarian worldview set forth in The Declaration of Independence is at the heart of the reason why the administration of George W. Bush was able to abuse the people’s political power and the national trust so badly.

A week or two before Christmas, my wife and I decided to send our new president and his family a holiday card. We told him we were proud and grateful for his leadership and were holding him and his family in our prayers. We also enclosed a family photo and a copy of my book.

I don’t know if he and his family got our card or my book, but I’d like to think the energy and thought that went into both somehow reached him and played some part in the formulation of the ideas President Elect Obama expressed yesterday, January 17, 2009, on a train stop on his way to being inaugurated as the next president of our nation. President-elect Obama began by saying:

We began this train trip in Philadelphia earlier today. It is fitting that we did so - because it was there that our American journey began. It was there that a group of farmers and lawyers, merchants and soldiers, gathered to declare their independence and lay claim to a destiny that they were being denied.

It was a risky thing, meeting as they did in that summer of 1776. There was no guarantee that their fragile experiment would find success. More than once in those early years did the odds seem insurmountable. More than once did the fishermen, laborers, and craftsmen who called themselves an army face the prospect of defeat.

And yet, they were willing to put all they were and all they had on the line - their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor - for a set of ideals that continue to light the world. That we are equal. That our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness come not from our laws, but from our maker. And that a government of, by, and for the people can endure.

Then after reflecting perils faced by our nation in the past and here in the present, Obama called for a new Declaration of Independence, which of course is what The Declaration of the Democratic Worldview is. Obama explained:

And yet while our problems may be new, what is required to overcome them is not. What is required is the same perseverance and idealism that those first patriots displayed. What is required is a new declaration of independence, not just in our nation, but in our own lives - from ideology and small thinking, prejudice and bigotry - an appeal not to our easy instincts but to our better angels.

Some important questions are raised by Obama’s call for a new Declaration of Independence. In declaring their independence, the founding patriots who risked their lives to create a new nation were taking a stand against something extremely concrete: the British monarchy and empire, the parliament’s protection of the East India Tea Company’s monopoly in the tea trade, taxation without representation in parliament, military oppression in the quartering of soldiers, injustice toward colonists in the legal system, and on and on. There were ideas at stake to be sure, but they were not simply the product of the “small thinking” of the English people. Instead, the hard and unjust facts that inspired colonial revolt reflected a ruling worldview that was not necessarily held by the English people, but that justified the English nobility’s authoritarian oppression of the people of America.

Therefore, the first question we must ask is: what are we in 2009 taking a stand against? Obama says we must take a stand, but he does not identify the concrete oppression, injustice and abuse that “ideology and small thinking, prejudice and bigotry” are being made to serve. The majority of The Declaration of Independence, after all, is dedicated to providing a lengthy indictment of the injustices, crimes and sins committed by the British government. Little is said about King George’s state of mind. As my Declaration makes clear, by contrast, and as most Americans will acknowledge, we can easily produce a lengthy indictment of our own for this current day, if only we will study our recent history.

So long as the abstract qualities of mind identified by Obama remain unattached to a the type of showing of injustice, crime and sin found in The Declaration of Independence, these qualities will only inspire rhetorical shadow boxing, not political revolution.

More importantly, Obama’s new declaration of independence speech raises the question: Do we really mean to declare independence from all ideology? Is it possible to have a politics completely free of ideology? Is democracy not in itself a kind of ideology? Is Obama asking us to sever our relationship with democratic ideology?

These questions are far too important. We must not allow their answers to be avoided through ambiguous word use. Dictionary.com defines ideology as follows:

•1. The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.

•2. A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.

Under this definition, I believe The Declaration of Independence contains an ideology when it states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Language is hard to pin down, however. One definition of ideology is “theorizing of a visionary or impractical nature.” Now, I ask, were our founding theorists “visionary”? I would say, 100% YES! Were they impractical? Many people thought so at the time, but in fact they succeeded. Therefore, the answer must be, “No.”

This definition of ideology as “visionary” or “impractical” theorizing demonstrates that what one person calls ideology may be the most sacred, beautiful thing humanity has ever produced, while what another calls ideology may be the scourge of foolishness and bigotry.

I think when Obama refers to the need to declare our independence from ideology, he means we must free ourselves from the negative, impractical type, but since he is invoking The Declaration of Independence, which itself contains an ideology, he cannot be referring to the positive “visionary” meaning of ideology.

It is because there is confusion over the meaning of the word, “ideology,” which particularly arises out of the negative connotation the word has come to have for so many, that my book adopts the word “worldview” in referring to the system of ideas upon which our democratic nation, government and society are founded.

Dictionary.com defines worldview as follows:

•1. The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world.

•2. A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group.

I don’t think these definitions of “worldview” differ very much from the definitions of “ideology” given above, especially the second definition given for each word. Yet, while president Obama can suggest we declare ourselves independent from ideology, he probably would not claim that we could free ourselves from having a worldview.

I maintain that everybody has a worldview and everybody has an ideology and the two are that to have a worldview is also to have an ideology. And if I am correct, then we have to ask again, what is it President-elect Obama thinks we are standing against when he argues that we need to declare our independence from ideology? What are we really declaring our independence from?

If you read my book, The Declaration of the Democratic Worldview, it will explain that one of the four important understandings that flow from the logical foundations of the principle of human equality is that there is an important distinction between what is called a “content-focused” worldview and what is called a “process-focused worldview.” Within the democratic worldview implied by The Declaration of Independence and made explicit in The Declaration of the Democratic Worldview, process-focused worldviews are right and content-focused worldviews are wrong.

This is as true as to say under The Declaration of Independence, the claim that all men are created equal is right and the claim that some men are superior to others is wrong.

There is a right and wrong in a democratic society because a democratic society is built on a system of ideas, an understanding about the way the world works, a worldview, an ideology. There are worldviews and ideologies that, under a democratic worldview, are inherently wrong and bad for our nation. These we call content-focused.

We should declare our independence from these content-focused ideologies. But in order to effectively declare our independence from content-focused worldviews, we need to understand and be able to embrace a process-focused worldview. In order to do this, we need to understand the logical foundations of the democratic worldview and the principle of human equality from which it arises.

Thus, what we really need is a better understanding of the democratic worldview than is provided in the two sentence worldview provided in The Declaration of Independence. The inadequacy of the two-sentence worldview set forth in The Declaration of Independence to address our modern problems with a sophistication reflective of our modern society is the real reason, to quote the President-elect, “what is required is a new Declaration of Independence.”

President-elect Obama is right that we need a new Declaration of Independence. I hope he will read his Christmas mail soon. I sent him a copy of what he is looking for a month ago. In the meantime, I hope you will take your cue from our President Elect and get your copy at:Purchase Your Copy at DemocracyPress.net http://democracypress.net . The time really has come to renew our democratic vows. Spend five hours reading my book and you will gain a clear sense of what it means to have a democratic worldview and how necessary having a clear grasp of the democratic worldview is to protecting the integrity and welfare of our democracy.

Preface to The Declaration of the Democratic WorldviewTO ORDER YOUR COPY TODAY, CLICK HERE!

By John Hank Edson

 
Dedicated To 
Barack Obama:

History will honor
the architects who advance the quality of humanity
by improving the structures
of democracy.

This Election Day, November 4, 2008, we find ourselves in the midst of an extraordinary and important moment in the history of the United States of America. In May, 75,000 people overflowed an auditorium in Portland, Oregon to hear Barack Obama give a campaign speech in his run to become the first African American president of our nation. By the end of May, the Federal Elections Commission reported that so many Americans had donated money to Obama’s campaign that the commission could not keep up with its regulatory oversight duties. In July, a stunning 200,000 people gathered in Berlin in hopes of a sign that America might be returning to its enlightened ideals. And at the Democratic Convention in August, Obama delivered his acceptance speech from the middle of a football stadium to a standing-room-only throng of ecstatic voters. In September, Time magazine reported that more than three and a half million new voters had been registered since January in seventeen states alone. Clearly, the American people, and indeed the people of the world, have no doubts about the importance of this election to the future of our nation and to all humanity.

The energizing focus of this unprecedented public engagement in our political process is a black man who tells the nation, “It’s not about me; it’s about you!” And by the tens of thousands, American citizens are responding, turning out over and over again to be a part of Obama’s campaign, whether it be in the cold and snow or in the sweltering heat, in rural town halls or in urban concert arenas. Across the country, they have carried a sea of signs held high, on every one of which a single bold word exclaims: CHANGE! Waves of public declaration, chanted in unison with voices raised high, repeat over and over again, “Yes, we can! Yes, we can! Yes, we can!”

It is in this moment that the truths spoken by Barack Obama, “It’s not about me; it’s about you!,” and by millions of patriotic believers in democracy, “Yes, we can! Yes, we can! Yes, we can!,” demand and deserve an advancement of our democratic principles beyond their current 18th century condition. Dissatisfied with our political process, abused by our leaders, and pushed beyond all tolerance by the mismanagement of the public trust, we, the American people, are taking it upon ourselves to bring to our democratic principles all the sophistication we have otherwise come to embody in the way we navigate our contemporary, highly technological, scientific, and educated society.

When the principle underlying our democratic worldview, the principle of human equality, was first declared by the people, its newness was sufficient in itself to change the world. We simply claimed this principle to be “self-evident,” and the rest was history. But today, we are not so young a society as we once were, nor are the enemies of human equality so plainly organized as the English monarchy once was.

As time has passed, we have unfortunately allowed our democratic worldview to become antiquated as though we were safeguarding an archeological relic too frail even for human breath. We should have understood instead that this worldview was a technology of paramount importance that must be continuously tested and developed in order for our society to maintain its trajectory toward higher and higher levels of humanity.

While we have been neglecting the technology of our own humanity, however, those dedicated to the concentration of wealth and power solely among themselves have spared no effort to acquire every technological advantage and every available means of leverage over the people’s exercise of self-determination. It is for this reason that the people now wonder whether the American Dream is dead and whether our shared commitment to equality actually has any meaning. It is for this reason our political process now requires stronger support than merely the “self-evident” truth if it is to defend, restore and advance its democratic integrity.

Our shared awareness of the extreme state of governmental dysfunction and the potentially irreversible corruption of our democratic political process is what makes the positivity, populism, and common sense of Barack Obama so terrifically energizing. The public has no more patience for politicians who offer only excuses for why they are unable to advance the quality of our democracy. We believe in our equality and the power it gives us as a united people. We are tired of the voices in both parties telling us that effective and principled democracy is not possible. We are angry at the impact such attitudes are having on our society and on the reputation of our nation around the globe.

No one in America is immune to the powerful energy that is building around the detrimental impact our degraded political process is having on the quality of our individual lives. As a result, we are in the midst of a profound and transformative moment in our history as a nation.

We are, in fact, in a moment of discovery, in which a fundamental law of nature is being understood as never before. No longer will we have to explain that our human equality is simply “self-evident.” As at our nation’s founding, once more, a revolutionary perspective is about to cause a Copernican shift in humanity’s understanding of the natural relationships determining the value and sustainability of government, society and political power.

This understanding arises from the necessity and desperation we feel after our recent experience of a government that has deliberately sought to take advantage of hidden power dynamics, pressure points, and blind spots to incapacitate our ability to self-govern. When we thought our democracy would always survive, safe and sound, a beacon of liberty and justice to all the world, we never felt much concern for the condition and integrity of our political process. As this optimistic belief has been shaken to the core, we have seized upon the promise of change and the leadership of Barack Obama. Taking our cue from his leadership, today on Election Day, we recognize that it is not about him, it is about us.

By itself, Obama’s call to action is not enough. We, the people who this election is supposed to be all about, must determine for ourselves the nature of the democracy we are seeking to bring into being through such action. Yes, when we achieve clarity and consensus as a people about what we believe the nature, purpose and obligations of our government should be, then we can change our government.

Indeed, this coupling of a clear statement of the relationship between the government and the people with the assertion of the power to CHANGE! was precisely what enabled the original thirteen colonies to liberate themselves from England and to form a democratic government for the United States of America. This coupling, that is, was precisely the formula applied by our founding generation in The Declaration of Independence. Without this coupling of CHANGE! with a deeper understanding of the natural laws defining the relationship between the people and their government, the American Revolution never would have occurred.

Therefore, if we do really all want CHANGE!, it is now incumbent upon the American people to engage in a re-examination of the supposedly self-evident truths in which we believe, and to articulate for ourselves a principled, logical and advanced understanding of the democratic worldview to which we subscribe as the foundation of our society.

If we do not strengthen this foundation and give to it the precise and ingenious engineering we have so often proven ourselves to be capable of providing in every other context in society, then the political process we construct on top of it will crumble like the proverbial house built on sand. After two hundred and thirty-two years, it is high time we upgraded the archaic 18th century foundation we have relied upon for far too long.

With this imperative in mind, I have assumed the tradition that our founding parents once were forced to establish, and which we thereafter unfortunately neglected to continue: the tradition of coming together as a people to declare the basic parameters of a shared democratic worldview. We have long reverently regarded The Declaration of Independence, and the democratic principles articulated therein, with full appreciation for their spiritual import to humanity. In undertaking to write a declaration of the democratic worldview for the consideration of my people and my country, I have tried to treat our shared humanity with a similar reverence and idealism.

I believe we owe it to ourselves as a people to nurture and protect this reverence and idealism by giving it the fullest possible expression when we explore the dimensions of human equality, which are simultaneously too much taken for granted and too much denied. My hope is that this attempt will inspire others to express their pursuit of a more advanced, more humane, and more democratic society and that together we may realize the change for which we are clamoring and which our democracy so badly needs.

The Declaration of the Democratic Worldview is available at: http://democracypress.net

   
for the People

By Hank Edson

After the worst presidency in history, during most of which the Republican Party controlled all three branches of government, we, the people of the Democratic Party are going to win a landslide victory in November over John McCain and the Republican Party. We need to begin every thought with this sentence. We need to test every opinion we hear against this sentence too. We need to use the heft of our conviction on this point in responding to the voices that thrive on confusion.

The corporate media has two agendas. One is ratings. The other is aiding corporate control of the American people’s government. Both agendas are served by projecting a “tight” race for the presidency.

We’ve got to be more sophisticated if we, the people of the Democratic Party, really want control of our government. We have to know our truth and their lies.

Even when appropriately angry, liberal commentators like Keith Olbermann, host the broadcast platform, they still needs corporate advertisers and therefore they still need to magnify small details to suggest a degree of drama that simply doesn’t exist if you look at the big facts that make the race for the presidency no contest.

Sorry, Keith, every time your talking heads deviate from our truth, we have to turn you off. We don’t need your drama anymore than we need Hillary Clinton’s “Big State” argument. We are so tired of all your panelists, of all those cable faces, spewing insincere perspective simply to collect their pay check from the pundits’ union. We know what you are all about and it’s not politics and its definitely not anything we want or need.

What we need—what our country needs—is to look hard at what we’ve just been through under the likes of George Bush, Dick Cheney, Tom Delay, and Mitch McConnell. What we need is for the press to hold the Republican nominee to account for the disastrous policies of the Republican Party over the last seven years.

Better yet, what we need, is for Cable News and the corporate press just to go silent for the next eight months.

The corporate media is projecting a lie. The corporate media wants us to believe the race is close because it boosts ratings and gives legitimacy to a Republican platform that slavishly serves corporate interests.

It used to be that the Republicans tried to intimidate the referee into making calls in their favor by throwing false tantrums about a “liberal” media—as if the media that broadcast President Bush’s war propaganda could really be “liberal.”

The spin this time is the same, but different: the media is being used to call the contest “close” when there really is no contest at all.

In both scenarios, however, the strategy can have the power of a self-fulfilling, toxic prophesy. After a while, if the lies are constantly shouted over and over and over again, people begin to accept them as legitimate opinions.

“The earth is flat! The earth is flat! The earth is flat! The earth is flat! The earth is flat! The earth is flat!” Fox News tells its viewers every night and because Fox News says so, it is an opinion that at least deserves consideration in the public discourse.

We, the people of the Democratic Party, need to reject the lie that the race for the presidency is close. If we voice our conviction in the overwhelming superiority of the Democratic Party’s appeal to a people still suffering the consequences of the worst presidency in history, during which the Republican Party controlled all three branches for the overwhelming majority of the time, we will see that this conviction has the power of an incredibly beneficial self-fulfilling prophecy.

This is our job. We must not leave it to our candidates. We definitely must not leave it to the press. We must broadcast our own conviction. The Republican Party’s gluttony and abuse had caused that party’s self-destruction. The people of the Democratic Party have a platform that will begin to restore democracy and prosperity to our nation. The race for the presidency isn’t even close. The Democrats are going to win by an overwhelming majority.

And we will all be so much better for it.

Copyright © Hank Edson 2008

Hillary Clinton's Big State Lie 
    

By Hank Edson

No matter who the Democratic Party nominates, that candidate ought to win hands down--following as he or she will, the worst administration in history, during which the Republican Party controlled all three branches of government.

That's why diverting the political discourse into considering any other alternative is to put oneself at odds with the interests of the Democratic Party.

We, the people of the Democratic Party, already have a resounding victory.  Don't tell us our victory is at risk; it is not.  Don't tell us you will save us; we don't need to be saved.

We don’t need a candidate selection process, in fact; anyone will do. Make no mistake about this.

The fact that we would like a genuine leader does not mean that we are in doubt about our victory over the abusive politics of Republican rule.  It does not mean that we are looking for an answer to our fears.  We are not afraid.  We are eagerly anticipating election day and the victory it will bring us.

Clarity on this single point is now the deciding factor that we, the people of the Democratic Party, should apply in choosing a nominee for the presidency.

The one who get's this point is in.  The one who doesn't is out.

This is why our nominee must be Barack Obama.

Hilary Clinton’s bid for the presidency has been whittled down to the “big state” argument: the argument that she won the large states with the most electoral votes, which tend to be won by Democrats, and that Obama won the small states, which tend to be won by Republicans.

The Clinton team argues that Obama won’t be able to beat McCain in the general election because the states that supported him during the primaries will be won by McCain and the states that McCain would otherwise lose, won’t vote for Obama because they wanted Clinton to be the nominee.

It’s bad that Clinton has been reduced to making such a stupid argument, but it’s disqualifying that she has chosen to make an argument so contrary to the interests of the people of the Democratic Party.

Clinton is willfully projecting for her own benefit a scenario in which the Democratic Party loses small state after small state to John McCain. And then she is insanely suggesting that Obama can’t win California, New York, Texas and Florida because her success in those states demonstrates their undying allegiance to all things Clinton.

On one hand, this argument might suggest that Obama can’t win these states because her success indicates a Republican leaning amongst these voters. On the other hand, it might suggest that Obama would somehow so anger the state’s democratic voters with his electoral victory among pledged delegates that democrats in big states would simply not vote.  No matter what it suggests, this argument is absurd, self-serving, and a grave disservice to the Party.

We already have a win. We don’t need Clinton. And we don’t need her suggesting our victory is in doubt.  We definitely don't need to entertain her desperate rationalizations of why democrats must nominate her, even though she doesn't have the votes.

I urge my fellow democrats to think about this and announce your support for Barack Obama--if you have not already--based on this principle: Democrats are going to win big in November and we don’t want a candidate whose nomination depends on calling that victory into doubt.

We are done with Republican rule.  Our every spoken word should explain why.

Copyright © Hank Edson 2008

By Hank Edson

As the number of Americans killed in President Bush’s deceitful war surpasses 4000, this shameful milestone ought to be the Democratic Party’s bully pulpit for a saner, safer, more humane government. On one hand, it ought to be a bully pulpit that speaks for itself. The leadership of the Democratic Party ought to circle the American people around it for a moment of profound and deliberative silence. On the other hand, it ought to be a bully pulpit from which the tragic aftermath of Republican rule of all three branches of government during the majority of Bush’s administration is reviewed with eloquent and angry common sense.

One thing is sure, with 4000 Americans killed by the Republican management of foreign policy, the general election should already be won by the Democratic Party. John McCain’s showing in the polls should be as low as George Bush and Dick Cheney’s approval ratings. He has been their lapdog, after all, throughout their administration. The Democratic Party should be dancing circles around a helpless McCain, giving him a thorough work-over before delivering the knock-out punch. It is March 2008 after more than seven disastrous years of Republican rule. The Democrats should be able to send Dennis Kucinich into the ring and be assured of leaving McCain unconscious on the mat.

To forget this fact for even one second is an injury to the American people. Any talk that proceeds on an assumption that the facts could be otherwise is inexcusable. We voters need to assert our independence on this score. The politicians and the talking-heads have the broadcast strength, but we must remain clear and confident in our own sober conviction that the Republican Party has lost its legitimacy, its honor, and, finally, its cover.

We, the people in the Democratic Party, are the Democratic Party and we are going to register a searing condemnation of Republican rule in the upcoming election. Our elected leaders in the Democratic Party may not have had the integrity to properly condemn such rule through impeachment, but rest assured, whoever the people of the Democratic Party nominate as their champion, he or she is going to kick some ass. I make no excuses here: eloquent and angry common sense, I said, is what this moment calls for.

John Edwards, where are you now?

Copyright © Hank Edson 2008

   
By Hank Edson

Americans want change. A spirit of optimism is awakening in the new generation. A new rule of equality and justice for all waits to be born in the politics of our nation. A secret is being whispered from ear to ear by the young and the visionary. The secret is our non-negotiable unity as human beings.

The old generation doesn’t understand this point and their failure to understand it betrays a lack of commitment to truly advancing humanity through democracy. Even when the heroes of the old generation proclaimed our essential equality, they proclaimed it only for “all men” and then continued to hold many as slaves. The pattern they gave us has been flawed from the start, flawed by its violation of our non-negotiable unity.

We now see where the progress of this pattern has led. We see that the old generation has built a political process in which the campaign contributions of the top 5 percent matter more...READ MORE!

                                                                                     Subscribe to MP³'s RSS Feed!

A Positive
 
Vision

 
of 21st
 
Century
 
Democracy

We need to be as ambitious in envisioning political process integrity as John Edwards has been honest in talking about political process corruption.

By Hank Edson

For supporters of John Edwards, the end of his 2008 campaign for the presidency should not be spent in either deep gloom or false bravado.  The future of the cause Edwards champions remains open and John Edwards’ influence on the rest of this campaign and perhaps on the next four years is unknown.  We would be mistaken to write him out of our script just because he has bowed out of the race for the presidency.  At the same time, clearly his campaign is lost and what is most appropriate in the face of this political loss is to take stock of the lessons we can learn from it.  They are not Edwards’ lessons to learn alone, but are instructive to the entire nation.

What we learn from the Edwards campaign is that American politics requires from its populist candidates the highest standard of vision:  It requires much more than the ability to see and speak the truth about corruption.  It requires much more than the ability to set forth a ground breaking plan to address our problems.  For a populist candidate to win in America, he or she must ring the bell of our ideals loud and clear.  We need a positive vision of our democracy that is pitch perfect, resounding, and inimitable.

Back in August when John Edwards began to aggressively challenge the Democratic Party to look honestly at the corruption and inequality in our nation, he promised his campaign would be about “real change,” saying: ... READ MORE!

                                                                                     Subscribe to MP³'s RSS Feed!

 
What the
 
Reagan-Flap
 
Really Says
  
about Obama, 
  
Clinton,and
 
Edwards

By Hank Edson

The recent flap over Barack Obama’s comments on Ronald Reagan speaks volumes about what distinguishes our three democratic presidential candidates. But what it says is not complementary to either Obama or Clinton. Instead, once again, it shows us that John Edwards is the real candidate all Democrats should support.

Obama’s Intent

When Obama described Reagan’s Republican Party as the “party of ideas,” his intention was to use Reagan as a sort of yardstick for measuring whether or not a candidate has the mojo to rally a large majority of the nation’s political support. By invoking the concept of “the Reagan Democrat,” Obama intended to show that the Clintons did not measure up to the Reagan yardstick and to suggest, however, that he would.

Obama was thus casting a Clinton White House as one which would lack a governing majority, one that would only perpetuate an entrenched partisanship the nation would not willingly choose if offered an alternative.

By contrast, an Obama White House, he implied, would, in a Reaganesque manner, make the Democratic Party once again a “Party of Ideas,” capable of maintaining a governing majority. This governing majority would attract “Obama Republicans” discontented with the Presidency of George W. Bush, who, however, would never vote...READ MORE!

By Hank Edson

It was primary day in the forest and so Goldilocks told her mother she was going to go vote. Goldilocks was a democrat and she was terrified at the terrible condition of her country. Her vote today mattered a great deal to both her and her country.

She left her home and went down the path to the local library where the voting booths were all set up. The kind young man at the welcome counter had her sign her name in the register and gave her a voting card to take into the poll booth.

When Goldilocks had pulled the curtain closed behind her and sat down on the stool in the voting booth, she was surprised at what she saw. Instead of a computer screen with a touch pad, there was a counter with a slot for her voting card in the side and three porcelain mugs resting on top. Each mug had the face of a different candidate on it.

Goldilocks impulsively picked up the Barack Obama mug. She had heard so much “buzz” about him. Below his picture were the words, “It’s not about me; it’s about you.” Goldilocks wondered why, then, it wasn’t her face on the mug. Then she looked at what was in the mug, and much to her disappointment, the mug was empty. At the bottom of the empty mug, she read the words, “The people are thirsty for change.” Goldilocks did not know what to make of this mug. She was thirsty, but the mug was empty. She set it down. “There’s nothing there,” she said to herself.

Then she picked up the mug with Hillary Clinton’s face on it...READ MORE

                                                                                     Subscribe to MP³'s RSS Feed!