"As the War on Terror lurches from decade to decade, it will distract attention from far greater threats. Nothing decisive can be done to combat global warming or curb nuclear proliferation without American leadership. These, not terrorism, are the dangers that threaten the survival of the human race." from Geoffrey Perret's book "Commander in Chief"
Oppose media consolidation
It is a fundamental assumption of the the Constitution that concentration of power is dangerous. Since media was not comparable in the 1700's, it is necessary now to beware concentration of media. Not only has it become dangerously consolidated, it is almost exclusively hard right-wing. Not only that, we know that US covert agencies routinely shape media.
We need to assure that adequate information necessary for
responsible voting is reliable and widely available. When media lies, there should be consequences. How
did Rupert Murdoch come to own the Republican party and its megaphone,
the right-wing noise machine.
When corporations concentrate or even become monopolies, there is the potential for abuse. The fewer participants in a market, the more there is a need for regulation. Media has become too concentrated and it is a clear and present danger for democracy. Corporate media should NOT be part of the election process. Prohibit political advertising. Keep them away from the debate stage.
Concentrated corporate media does not serve the public interest. Since only corporations can afford to buy broadcast time, only their message is allowed. Right wing shock jocks rule radio. They were, and are, cheerleaders for war, more than likely because they participate in the profits of war. Even PBS was compromised by zealots.
The frequency of pharma ads is probably stifling useful discussion of healthcare reform. (I am politely not using the word extortion here.)
Support free time for political campaigning even if only on public access facilities. It is media expense that is the cause of campaign finance problems. Broadcasters, all progeny of major corporations, are a major enabler of fascism. That is why we need not only many participants, but also balance in media: some private, some public, and some academic, and government.
ought to be a diversity of media sources that balance public and
private interests. Jeff Chester's book "Digital Destiny" has excellent
suggestions for reform. Since video is now the major source of
American's information and most can not create it, there is a kind of
illiteracy that further empowers corporate interrests.
Oppose further media consolidation and insist on a balance of stakeholders and diversity of views in mainstream media.
Assure election integrity
The way US elections are conducted, it is a stretch to claim
that we live in a democracy. US decision-making has become
dysfunctional, and we are on an obvious downward spiral. We should be voting for an agenda, not candidates.
Range Voting is the most important single change we could make to the election process. Privatized vote counting is inherently untrustworthy. If we cannot have valid elections, there is no need to go further. (Please click on the word election for details.)
To have a real democracy, we need
election changes. Voting
reform could solve a number of problems with US elections, and it
could be far more democratic than our current procedure. A third party
would not be a spoiler. Public debate would be much more varied. Notice
that it is not up for discussion though. We need to rethink the silly
race between states to be the first to hold elections.
Presidential primary voting has become a race between States for campaign money and an opportunity for special interests in each State to exercise a veto.
We need to re-think the two party system. Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) or Range voting is a minimum and necessary change if more than two parties are to be allowed. Right now, a third party is a spoiler so you may not be able to vote in good conscience for your first choice.
The two party system is not helpful, partly because it
suppresses a broad exchange of views, and also because party loyalty
(money) warps views of the real issues. Neither party wants the other
to accomplish anything, so nothing can get done. The sports metaphor is
no good for formulating public policy.
Although it is partly the fault of corporate media, really major issues are usually not discussed leading up to elections. We discuss the Rev Wright or Rev Hagee, but real issues like health care, falling wages, shrinking benefits, or even the disastrous Bush foreign policy, are not on the table. Most Americans really don't agree with their government's policy, so elections have to be about wedge issues like immigration, gay marriage or flag burning.
The influence of money should be reduced because plutocracy
and democracy cannot co-exist. The market is not democratic. Free
public media should be the platform for political activity.
Citizens United should be overturned.
Corporate media belongs to hard-right Republicans and does not serve the public interest. The two major parties have excluded all competition. Excluding minor parties from debates has made our discussion extremely limited. Corporate media agents should be off the stage. Debates should be open to more candidates and run by independent NGO's...not corporate media.
Vote counting cannot be privatized to hard-right partisans if we are to have real elections. Partisans have installed machines that are blatantly hackable, and unauditable. Lieberman was one of the leaders on the HAVA (Help America Vote Act which perpetuated the problem.
The Electoral College ought to be abolished and all elections should use secure, standardized, transparent, open source, techniques. Privatized vote counting is not acceptable for trustworthy elections. New voting protocols like range voting would make multiple parties possible, widen the dialog, and make the process more democratic.
Obviously prompted by recent events, Senator Feingold proposed a Constitutional amendment that Governors should not appoint Senators. He is right.
We should be voting for an agenda, not candidates.
Each candidate in the US system makes their own agenda and you only get to choose the least bad of them. Most likely, major campaign donors (oligarchs) get to shape the platform. Once elected, candidates frequently do not do what they promised. We should not have to guess what the outcome of an election means. The candidates should swear to faithfully implement the people's agenda. Clearly they are NOT doing that. They are visibly working for the corporate elite...and that's the very definition of fascism. Most people no longer agree with the direction taken by the US, how is that democracy ?
People should decide the agenda, not a single individual or even the President. We have seen what happens when the President is not particularly wise.
Although details might best be left to experts, we can all agree that we need to protect the environment, operate a sustainable economy, avoid war, and maintain humane social programs. Unrestrained markets clearly do not accomplish any of these things.
We need to see that elections are fair. Election rigging should be a high crime, including staging false flag events.
We need to be sure that we have, as the Constitution mandates, provided for the general welfare. Even major corporations, like GM, now concede that privatized healthcare is NOT an option. The US is the only advanced country without national health care. For globalization to be on a flat playing field, ours should be nationalized...like every other developed country.
Protect the environment
Corporations want to use the environment as their toxic waste dump. Now we are seeing the results of that as global warming (better termed climate degradation) has shown itself in many ways. Conservation is necessary to mitigate the near-term possibility that oil production has peaked. The Bush record on the environment, as Robert Kennedy of the NRDC has written, is atrocious. The more we learn about near space, the more it becomes clear that there is no other accessible planet that will support life. Growing population means growing pressure on resources, and, of course, Republicans are on the wrong side of population mitigation. Take a look at the Earth Charter.
We should be careful of the planet so that future generations can be healthy and prosper. We should consider what our options would be if this planet becomes uninhabitable as inevitably will happen one day.
Rejoin the world's fight against climate change.
Oil is probably at or past peak production, and it makes sense to conserve energy for environmental, geopolitical, and economic reasons. Although it may be tempting to ravage wilderness areas, it is important to save unrenewable resources for future generations. It is an assault on the Constitution that Bush energy policy was made in secret and not subject to review. "Executive privilege" in a democracy is a dangerous myth. The Republican policy of maximum drilling is extremely misguided.The debate on global warming, though still funded by some large conflicted corporations, is over. The US should take an active role in attempting to save the planet. Don't cound on Republicans for this kind of leadership though.
Fix the Economy
David C. Korten's book, Agenda For A New
has an excellent analysis and some solutions for our economic problems.
Paul Krugman has accurately predicted economic events in his New York
Times column for years, but there is no evidence that anyone listens to
him. Wall Street rules.
We should reconsider the statistics we use to measure the economy. When we add up all economic activity, we sum both goods and bads. Miltary hardware only results in destruction. Nuclear weapons, although a heavy investment, fortunately have never been used. Such products ought not to be counted as part of our economic health. They are a waste. Endless war will certainly destroy US democracy.
It is time to ask the question if 'growth' is a suitable goal for a sustainable economy. Jared Diamond in his book, Collapse, warns of the consequences when the economy overtakes the environment. Population of the planet can now threaten human habitability of the earth.
Republicans, market fundamentalists, unwisely deregulated the financial community and we are now seeing the results. It should be clear to everyone now that regulation should be adequate to assure that speculator's risk is not passed on to taxpayers. In fact, government has had to bail out the private sector every time there is a slip. At times the bailouts look like crony capitalism.
"The very first priority will be to restore financial oversight to the finance industry." From The Trillion Dollar Meltdown: Charles R. Morris.
There should be a well reasoned discussion of those things best done by the public and those that should be privatized. Where one or two companies control a market, the private sector needs oversight. A free market is at its best when there are many competitors, where information is available and reliable, and where everyone is allowed to participate. This condition is rare in the US.
The private sector is not always the best choice: healthcare and eldercare are examples that demonstrate where privatization is not efficient or functional. Privatization of the military is particularly grotesque and may, if not stopped, lead to a praetorian guard. The simple-minded Republican mantra that lower taxes and smaller government are always better is just silly. It is, however, effective in keeping income disparities at extreme levels, removing the tax burden from the already wealthy, and making government an ATM machine for the well connected. Republicans have not made government smaller, nor have they been fiscally responsible. They did not pay for the wars that they provoked, they borrowed massively from third world countries (passing this debt on to the next generation), and enriched their cronies with much of the proceeds.
Republican policy is always regressive. They are happiest when giving tax cuts to the already comfortable. They are not willing to accept that the Constitution provides also for the general welfare.
Since the economy has been militarized, it is unlikely that we will ever again have the prosperity that we once enjoyed.
The Economic Policy Institute has produced an Agenda for Shared Prosperity. We are on a path to plutocracy, financial instability, social misery, and fascism. Unfortunately, appropriate changes are not visible now . Democracy or Plutocracy
Since the Supreme Court decided that corporations are legal persons with full rights, corporations have used their weight to avoid taxes, to lobby for special privileges, to reward CEOs exorbitantly, to renounce their US citizenship, to expand their power at the expense of consumers, and often to pillage the environment. Now many are busting their unions, and migrating off shore to low wage countries while lobbying to allow low wage immigrants to work here. Unions have been systematically weakened. Companies like Wal-Mart, while relying on the public for healthcare, do not allow unions. (It is in the UN declaration of Human Rights that everyone has a right to join a union, but you wouldn't know that from recent US policy.) Republican deregulation has caused broad lack of accountability, an alarming shrinking of public space, and a carnival of corruption. Control of government by corporations is the very definition of fascism. There is ample evidence that the US is turning into a kleptocracy.
It is clear that democracy is not a corporate value and that reform of corporate governance is necessary. Financial instability and environmental deterioration will make this even more clear and soon. Workers should always have representation on corporate boards. Shareholders should have voting rights over CEO compensation. The public should have a voice.
As Robert Reich points out in his book "Supercapitalism", corporations
are not people. Since the Supreme Court
has ruled otherwise, to get back to basics we may need a Constitutional
Corporate good citizenship should be a requirement for continuing the corporate charter. Government regulation of markets, including corporations, is a requirement for consumer protection, financial stability, a level playing field, and for democracy.
The Republican agenda is globalization for the benefit of transnational corporations, and everyone else will be a loser. We will also lose the Constitution, our democracy (what's left of it), our civil liberties, and our standard of living. (They pretty much don't care about the environment either.) They are willing to sacrifice the future of their children and the well-being of the American people for empire.
John Bogle has a sensible agenda for reform.
Reinforce the social safety net
Republicans seem to think that money is the only problem, complain about taxes, and vow to make government smaller, but they never acknowledge that most taxes go to the world's largest military. See here. They blame the victims...it used to be welfare mothers but currently illegal aliens. US government, unlike Europeans, seems unwilling to acknowledge the Constitutional duty to "promote the general welfare" and, although the U.S. signed on to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, there is only a very selective recognition of its details.
Even though our distribution of income has become progressively worse, red ink is everywhere, the Bush Republicans pushed for unconscionable tax cuts for the wealthiest, and didn't bother to pay for their wars. That is a symptom of a banana republic: running large deficits to benefit cronies. Financial crisis could occur any time our foreign debtors decide to pull the plug. It looks to be just a matter of time now.
We should have a social contract.
The very young, very old, disabled and sick (all who are not in the
workforce) should be provided for from the commons. There is no excuse for an advanced
country NOT to take care of its people. Right now there is a
Federal War on funding or providing Long Term Care, youth are being
forced into heavy debt for higher education, many are going
without adequate health care.
Corporations should not be burdened with the costs of social
services because, it is now plain to see, they become uncompetitive.
Anyway, they are backing out and people are
losing what little security they had.
The US made a fundamental mistake in making social programs an employer burden because, on a global scale, it puts us at a competetive disadvantage. The welfare state should be paid for with general taxes.
There should be an assurance that Social Security will remain strong, that health care will be there for everyone. Robert Reich in his book "Supercapitalism" advocates decoupling healthcare from employment. Doing this would make for a better population and a more robust economy.
The government should, as the only institution that can, assure the well being of the people: this includes guarantees of a minimum standard of living, access to healthcare, appropriate education for everyone, and decent eldercare. This is a moral value and lack of money for these things is no excuse.
Scandinavians may pay high taxes, but they do a good job taking care of their people. They pay ALL expenses for higher education. Elder care is a public responsibility. Their system is more democratic also, and their economy performs better. Here are a couple of examples.
Protect Civil Service
Homeland Security never was a goal of the Bush administration and we are not safer. They stripped away the National Guard, directed security funding to red states, and generally ignored real security risks. The logical result of Republican individualism is what happened after Katrina. Lieberman was on the committee that quickly endorsed Michael Brown as head of FEMA. The Civil Service should be strengthened so that party cronies do not replace competent, experienced professionals. Bush habitually appointed ideologue incompetents, like himself, to high office. Everyday security has deteriorated substantially while Republicans used the government like an ATM machine.
Republican religious zealots damaged US education with their war on science. Dr. Hansen's book, "Censoring Science", describes the techniques used by the Bush administration to muzzle scientists. It's not just bad for policy, for general knowledge, but also for education. The US could easily lose its scientific edge to countries that are now importing our jobs.
Recognize that Republicans have a stealth program to privatize education... for profit.
Finland, which pays for ALL education, has the world's best education outcomes.
Encourage the best professors at the best Universities to put their lectures on the internet. Some schools have done this already, but they need better incentives. Lectures from our best Universities could be publicly available. Higher education could be cheaper, better, and more democratic. It might be an antidote for ignorant, exploitive, partisan, corporate media.
The Republican War on Science, a direct result of their unholy alliance with religion, degrades our science education, introduces hateful prejudice into the political process, makes Middle East war look like a new crusade, and has very little value in policy making. Kevin Philips, Mark Crispin Miller and others have written extensively about this. Ralph Nader's comments on US support for Israeli bombing of Lebanon is instructive. Lieberman naturally has the interests of the Israelis at the heart of his agenda, but we need to be neutral so as not to be the recipients of (well deserved) blowback from the Middle East. Bush has made comments that make the War in Iraq look like another crusade. We need to examine religions for their role in fomenting war. Religions that urge violence are criminal. Their schools should be closed, their assets seized, and they ought to be illegal.
Defend civil liberties
Unauthorized telephone searches, internet surveillance, library monitoring, financial record data mining, all threaten our basic rights. The Patriot Act is an assault on our civil liberties and on the Constitution.
"Congress approved and President [sic] Bush signed into law the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which does away with habeas corpus, the right of suspected terrorists or anybody else to know why they have been imprisoned, provided the president does not think it should apply to you and declares you an enemy combatant... Does that not basically mean that if Mr. Bush or Mr. Rumsfeld say so, anybody in this country, citizen or not, innocent or not, can end up being an unlawful enemy combatant? Jonathan Turley, George Washington University Constitutional Law Professor: It certainly does. In fact, later on, it says that if you even give material support to an organization that the president deems connected to one of these groups, you too can be an enemy combatant. And the fact that he appoints this tribunal is meaningless. You know, standing behind him at the signing ceremony was his attorney general, who signed a memo that said that you could torture people, that you could do harm to them to the point of organ failure or death. So if he appoints someone like that to be attorney general, you can imagine who he’s going be putting on this board." (From 10/18/06 CLG news) Keith Olbermann:
Call off the War on Drugs. It is a sham. Americans seem to have trouble learning lessons from other countries or from history. Compare results from prohibition or from the Netherlands.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights includes the right to form a union. Republicans, notably Reagan, made union-busting a goal. They have been successful in propelling much of the population downward through wage cuts, shrinking benefits, higher tuitions, niggardly welfare, out-of-sight healthcare costs, and other predatory activities. They also brought the economy to its knees in the process.
Insist on transparency in government
Secrecy in government is the enemy of democracy, and the Bush administration was reluctant to allow visibility into its dealings. That Bush is the son of a former President created enormous conflicts of interest, not the least of which was the flaunting of the law which would have opened Bush Sr's records to the public. Charlie Savage's Book "Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy describes in some detail the process by which secrecy has all but kept the Congress from exercising its oversight role.
We need to have the Freedom of Information Act reaffirmed so that it cannot be pushed aside as the Bush administration did.
When government is secret, there must be vigorous, responsible oversight.
Make intelligence agencies accountable and independent of politics
Secrecy corrupts democracy
Bush's father was head of the CIA, an agency skilled in rigging elections. Recently, covert agencies have become more powerful, the Freedom of Information Act has been seriously weakened. The US government now has little transparency. It is no wonder that it is so dysfunctional.
"Intelligence" agencies may be the president's Praetorian guard, enabling his grab for power. In fairness to CIA agents who were disgusted by Bush's torture and rendition orders, Ray McGovern points out that torture and renditions have been privatized to companies like Blackwater.
It appears that when the Bush administration did not get the results they wanted from 'intelligence agencies', they intimidated them until they got it their way.
Twisting 'intelligence' for political gain is treason. Especially if it causes a war.
It is clear that covert agencies are a threat to our
Vigorous oversight and suspicion is warrented for government activities
that cannot be made public.
Defend the Constitution
"The American people are going to have to say, 'Enough of this business of justifying everything as necessary for the war on terror.' Either the Constitution and the laws of this country mean something or they don't. It is truly frightening what is going on in this country." Bob Barr, former GOP Congressman from Georgia.
Bush Republicans attacked the Constitution. It's not just that the "Patriot Act" was a frontal assault on the Bill of Rights, or that the Military Commissions Act negated Habeas Corpus, rolled back FISA, allowed torture, or dismissed the Geneva Conventions, they blazed a path to an imperial Presidency. These are the same people sworn to defend the Constitution and propagandizing for its strict interpretation. See Conyer's report on the Constitution in crisis.
During Bush's first six years, Republicans controlled of all three branches of government, had effective control of the press, and we had one-party government. Party loyalty among Republicans assured that the Bush agenda, which turned out to be extremely misguided, was US policy. There was no Congressional oversight of major issues. In short, Bush Republicans obliterated Constitutional checks and balances by misusing their party.
Real conservatives would want to protect the best features of the Constitution at the very least. Instead the Bush administration undermined the bill of rights, neglected important assumptions such as the avoidance of foreign adventures, the revulsion against concentration of power (whether it be the media, corporations, or the Presidency.), or the continued functioning of those 'checks and balances'. Long standing international treaties, like the Geneva Convention, negotiated over decades, were scrapped.
Andrew Bacevich pointed out: There is nothing in the Constitution that justifies an agenda of remaking the middle east. The framers knew to avoid foreign entanglements. We should participate in international problem solving instead of committing the US to endless war. Congress has thrust power on the imperial President.
Staying Bush's course means the end of our republic, and it confirms our path to empire. History has shown the likely fate of empires is destruction. It should now be obvious that we are a lot less safe now. War has become increasingly more destructive and our fate worse than those which have gone before. We are, as Noam Chomsky points out, on a path to an "Armageddon of our own making". See Chalmers Johnson's "Republic or Empire" in the January, 2007 issue of Harpers Magazine as well as his three important books.
Repair the Constitution
So far, the US Constitution has not failed completely, but it
is over two hundred years old and needs alteration.
Limit the Imperial Presidency
A President out of control has shredded the Constitution, broken the social contract, thumbed his nose at international law, and committed war crimes. He and his administration, even after leaving office, need to be held accountable.
The divine right royals in Europe no longer rule. They have been reduced to attending ceremonial events and most of their power has been reallocated to representatives of the people subject to recall. It is clear that we do not need a strong-man Presidency. It is dangerous. When the President is not too wise, as is sometimes the case, our national direction may be very misguided. When his advisors are sycophants, there are no limits to the damage he can do.
When the President is above the law, then the office has become too strong for the Constitution to survive. The Congress needs to be aggressive in its oversight and to do that it cannot allow the high levels of secrecy that now prevail. The President is unaccountable in his use of 'intelligence' agencies and they have been engaged in activities that Americans would not accept. There are obvious conflicts of interest when successive Presidents come from the same family. The Bush family has been particularly self-serving.
Bush has used signing statements, 'executive privilege', secrecy, and war to enhance the power of his presidency and the Congress has been only too willing to let him. It should be clear that 'executive privilege' does not have a place in a democracy. Records need to be as open as is reasonably possible, with the presumption that most documents should be open to public scrutiny. Secrecy allowed the war in Iraq to occur without real provocation, without good reason, with extremely poor judgment, and without public discussion. Jane Mayer reports that the "key piece of evidence buttressing congressional support for going to war against Iraq - was in fact fabricated to make the torture stop." (from the jacket of Jane Mayer's book 'The Dark Side'.
Congress made a grave error when authorizing Bush to go to war. As Chris Hedges put it: "A country that exists in a state of permanent war cannot exist as a democracy." (The Nation: Dec 10, 2007. pg 6.)
Atrocities committed by the CIA and rogue military agents can only be carried out in secret. Although their actions are mostly secret, it is public knowledge that the CIA engaged in torture, renditions, illegal wars, assassinations, regime changes, and that its 'intelligence opinions' can be twisted by senior administration. They trained very undemocratic strong-man states, military at the School of the Americas to practice atrocities. (See Naomi Klein's book Shock Doctrine.) Americans, like Germans of the 1930's, are complacent even though the atrocities are widely known. What should the good American do ?
In history, a strong-man head of state arises in the process of building an empire, civil liberties are curtailed, the military becomes the primary resource consumer, and people find that their needs are not attended. Corporations win. A powerful elite benefit, but the middle class disappears and most of the people are in extreme poverty. As the gap between rich and poor becomes wider, walled communities with high security become more common.
The President should not be able to set the agenda, he should have the responsibility of executing one democratically agreed on. He should be removed when his actions are at odds with the public good. Unfortunately in our rigged election process, we don't vote for an agenda, we vote for an individual and the agenda is often a surprise. Over time, unreported by corporate media, the agenda has become disaster capitalism. (See Noami Klein's book The Shock Doctrine: (also the video and this.)
Since we have a partisan Supreme Court, to save our republic it may be necessary to amend the Constitution to prevent a strong President from acting above the law or imposing a military dictatorship.
Constitutional checks and balances need to be maintained and in good repair. A President who can make war on his own word is too powerful and needs to be constrained. A President who is above the law is clearly not acceptable by any American values.
The Congress failed to exercise its Constitutional duty to determine, with due diligence, when it is necessary to go to war.
(It dramatically failed in providing oversight in the recent
past.) Keep in mind that the UN Charter forbids war without Security
Council approval. (The US has signed the UN Charter and made it
the law of the land, but it doesn't bother to pay its dues either.)
To exercise oversight Congress should open proper investigations of war profiteering, and 9/11. It also needs to assert that signing statements are in violation of the Constitution.
Because there is so much information that is secret and kept from the Congress as well as the people, it is possible that Constitutional checks can no longer operate. Clearly, the people oppose the war in Iraq, while the President did not. Remember what it says in the Declaration of Independence: "governments...derive their power from the consent of the governed."
The evidence strongly suggests that the legislative and judicial branches, having become so servile in the presence of the imperial presidency, have largely lost the ability to respond in a principled and independent manner. Could the people themselves restore constitutional government? A grassroots movement to abolish the CIA, break the hold of the military-industrial complex, and establish public financing of elections may be theoretically conceivable but is unlikely given the conglomerate control of the mass media and the difficulties of mobilizing our large and diffuse population." Chalmers Johnson: Nemesis pg 269
Do Not build an empire.
The Neocons plan to remake the world is in writing for anyone that cares to look. See Chalmers Johnson's book "The Sorrows of Empire", Noam Chomsky's "Hegemony or Survival", or John Tirman's "100 Ways...". Morris Berman's thoughtful outlook on the fate of the US is probably right. See his book Dark Ages America, the Final Phase of Empire. Berman thinks the outlook for the US is bleak. He is most likely correct.
For a positive agenda, see Network of Spiritual Progressives.
Control military expense
Ike warned about the growing power of the military industrial complex, but most people seem unconcerned for the arms industry is widely scattered across the country. It is a very misguided jobs program. We spend more on the military than all other countries of the world COMBINED. As a result, weaponry is now our largest manufacturing sector, other industries have bled away to low-wage countries. An all-consuming military will inevitably lead to a national security state. (We are already well on the way.) War profiteering should be regarded as criminal, but its benefits seem to go to the very highest level of the administration. It is the world's most powerful military that is causing a tsunami of red ink. The arms race is accelerating. Diplomacy should be our response to problems, not military action.
Get out of Iraq
Respect international law.
The Declaration of Independence reads "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.", but Republicans have shown only contempt for international law.
Because we have already signed these laws, it should be unnecessary to say this: The US should demonstrate an unwavering commitment to the Geneva Convention, human rights, the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, the judgments of the World Court, the International Criminal Court, and the Millennium Goals for the UN. (It is wrong for an unwise, out-of-control President to nullify treaties made over decades. You know its right when John Bolton opposes it.)
The rest of the civilized world has rejected the death penalty, so should we. Take a stand against torture in any form. See this video of Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh: On Human Rights at the University Of Connecticut Sakler Lecture.
Make diplomacy a priority, not war. Bush foreign policy has been a disaster. If the US did its fair share in foreign aid, which is clearly does not, there might be a little good will and a decline in terrorism. You don't make a lot of friends with bombs. See Jeffrey Sachs book The End of Poverty
We should make the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights national policy. After all we did sign it. The reason it is universal is that it applies to everybody. Something the Bushies overlook.
Assure the UN a reliable revenue stream
The US should pay its dues.
The UN should take the lead in international crisis, not the US. Most Americans agree with UN goals.
Like the US early experiments in government (the Articles of Confederation), the UN has been given responsibility but no tax base. A Tobin tax would do the job of dampening speculative international currency flow, raise large amounts of revenue, and support the UN.
In the US a majority support the UN. The US does not have to be the policeman for the world, nor should it be.
The Millenium Development Goals should be at the centerpiece of US policy.
Support the UN's Millennium Development Goals. Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vddX4n30sXY From http://www.betterworldcampaign.org/issues/millennium_development_goals.asp
The 9/11 Commission was a whitewash. Reopen the 9/11 investigation.
Stop the War on Drugs
See Mike Gravel's comments here.
Actively work for Peace
Traditionally the US maintained an illusion that it was interested in peace, but with the Bush administration the reality is evident. Both official political parties cannot wait to throw more money to the military. Even if the spending is wildly dysfunctional (like the BMD). What we have is a complete takeover of the US government by the military/industrial complex. Chalmers Johnson has described the consequences in his book Nemesis. It is unlikely that we will have an opportunity to vote for a candidate that is committed to peace. War is too profitable for that.
A Department of Peace would be a good idea. We should rely on diplomatic and economic solutions instead of military ones.
See the Road map for Peace.
Look to other countries to see if we can learn from their success
We need a Constitutional Convention.
Agenda For A New Economy, David Korten
If you have comments or suggestions about any of this, click here.