Some “deep political strategy” for Democrats

We can’t win if we play on the home field they’ve rigged.  It is folly to try, but we can’t seem to resist and they lead us by the nose.

Instead, Democrats need more “Deep Strategy” -- political strategies that get us out from under the rigged system of campaign financing and media control the Republicans have built.  We have to change the game on them.  We need to think like guerilla marketeers and not like establishment big-media-ad buyers with deep pockets.

To reach Americans, first we need to think about and be clear about the principles that are fundamental to us and to all Americans.  We need to get creative about how we express them in values-based language they “get”.  And we need to be original about how we get our message out to them.

Technorati Tags: Active Liberty, Constitution, Constitutional amendments, Constitutional principles, corruption, Election system, Filibuster, Judicial nominations, political strategy, Stephen Breyer, Supreme Court, Values and principles

We can’t trot out some Democratic version of the 1994 Contract on America -- been there, done that.  We can’t get the attention of the media by press conferences or by reading speeches to an empty Senate chamber.

This means giving up equivocation and taking some risk and giving up some ways of doing things that are familiar.  And it means not trying to out-Republican the Republicans on Iraq and on media control.  We must not play on their home field, it will always give them the advantage!

So let’s turn to Deep strategy -- those things that help level the playing field fairly & new approaches to how we take our message to the people -- this has two components,

1. Changing the way the system works to level the playing field
2. Using new and different ways to take our message to the people

Here are two suggestions for leveling the playing field while taking clear strategic stands.

• Cutting off special interest money campaigns
• Mainstream Judges for America

Cutting off special interest money campaigns

We need significant, far-reaching change to campaign and election financing reform.  We can do this because of the Republican corruption.  The principle behind it is simple:

There are very, very few constitutents that can send their Senator or Congressman on $20,000 expense-paid golfing vacations to Scotland.  Why should lobbyists be able to?  And they should NOT be able to just because they in ADDITION give them money and call it a fund-raiser!  Have we forgotten the principles of our constitution, to create a government of, by and for the people and not of monied interests or the power-hungry?

It is time for radical campaign and governance reform, not tweedldumbing around the edges. We have to make our representatives beholding We The People.

There is no reason for lobbyists and corporations to give them money or favors.  There should be a complete ban on non-citizen campaign contributions.  So we should take a stand:

• the only financing allowed is citizen contributions or public-finance
• no more PACs
• no candidate support except for citizens, only issues for special interests (that’s as true of unions as of corporations)
• interests (that’s as true of unions as of corporations)
• if we determine that it takes a constitutional amendment, then that’s what we must propose
• limit the amount that any one citizen can contribute to ensure that everyone has opporutnity fo reasonably similar level of influence so that no one has disproportionate influence

Some argue that the First Amendment freedom of speech right argues against campaign finance reform, but the point of freedom of speech is really to have a way to the people to make the case against the powers that be in order to effect political change.  If the freedom of speech argument actually prevents a government of the people (by letting it be overwhelmed by corporate and other special interests), then it needs to be given lower priority than the free speech rights of citizens in order to implement the overall goal of reinforcing our system of government.  (For Justice Stephen Breyer's take on this, see Active Liberty.)

And if it would take a constitutional amendment to achieve it, then let’s start that process.

Mainstream Judges for America

We keep arguing about the importance of the filibuster to help preserve the right of the minority to have a meaningful voice, but the filibuster is an arcane rule of the Senate, and not a right.

Most people agree that there should be important checks on the “tyranny of the majority”.

What we all want is fair, impartial judges that don’t come from pre-concieved ideological positions.  The filibuster requiring 60% agreement has been a tool used to help provide that there is not merely bare support for a nominee, but that there is broad-based support.  This priniciple should be made a right of the people, not an accident of arcane Senate procedures that may be taken away at any time.  This should be as true of lifetime judicial appointments as it is for treaties.  This requires a consitutional amendment to require 60% of Senators vote in the affirmative for a nominee.