[sixties-l] Fwd: A Turning Point In American History

From: radman (resist@best.com)
Date: 01/09/01

  • Next message: radman: "[sixties-l] Hunter-Gault recalls first steps onto white campus"

     > January 2, 2001
     > A Turning Point In American History
     > By Connie White <connierw@earthlink.net>
     > Election 2000 is one of those turning points in American
     > history: it reminded some, and exposed to others, that this
     > is not a country "of the people, by the people, and for the
     > people," and it reminded some and exposed to others that the
     > American judicial system is now, and has always been,
     > partisan and is not impartial.
     > Electoral democracy is based on citizenship, and citizenship
     > means that the individual has certain rights and duties. What
     > has been presumed to be among an American citizens' rights
     > is the right to vote and that each vote counts. Tossing out
     > ballots is a fundamental violation of the rights of voting
     > citizens. During the debates before the U.S. Supreme Court
     > regarding "uncounted" votes in Florida, USA, one of the
     > leading justices of the Supreme Court, Antonin Scalia,
     > stated that there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution
     > that guarantees U.S. citizens the right to vote. So much for
     > members of the "highest court in the land" believing in the
     > "democratic right to vote." When the Supreme Court upheld
     > the decision to stop the vote counting in Florida, America
     > was exposed as not being a "democracy" -- representative
     > or otherwise.
     > The Republican pundits are justifying the Supreme Court
     > decision (intervention) by pointing out that America is not
     > a "democracy," but a "republic." (The two political systems
     > are not mutually exclusive. A "republic" is a political
     > system whereby the "people" elect representatives to govern
     > for them -- inherent in this definition is the understanding
     > that there is no "king" -- and a "democracy" is a political
     > system based in majority decision-making. You could have a
     > democratic republic, which is a political system that has
     > democratic decision-making, and no king.) The American
     > government more closely resembles a "timocracy" -- a
     > government of the propertied class. The point regarding
     > America being a "republic" was also made during the Monica
     > Lewinsky hearings, when the overwhelming majority of the
     > American people denounced the Republican party witch
     > hunts, and the poles indicated that Clinton should remain
     > president. Here is where the "constitutional republic" game
     > comes in -- the Republicans argue that they are doing their
     > "constitutional duty," and indicate that America is a
     > "constitutional republic," and not a "democracy." Although
     > poles -- or popular vote at election time -- may indicate
     > the will of the people, the Republican Party's position
     > during the Lewinsky hearings was "to hell with the will of
     > the people," we have the power and the constitutional right
     > and we intend to use it. Similarly, during Election 2000,
     > the Republican Party said "to hell with the will of the
     > people" (the popular vote), and "constitutionally" relied
     > upon its Supreme Court partisans to render a judicial
     > decision that secured the presidential election for
     > George Bush.
     > So much for American "democracy," and majority decision-
     > making.
     > Election 2000 has exposed that America is not the
     > representative democratic nation of the world. It has been
     > exposed as a fake and a fraud, where power relations are the
     > motivating force in the legislative, executive and judiciary
     > "branches," and class interests are the glue that solidify
     > the Republican and Democratic parties into one. Hence, all
     > the talk about "bi-partisanship" today.
     > But, has the American working class seen enough in Election
     > 2000 to understand that this is not "our" government -- that
     > this is not a "democracy" whereby the "people" elect the
     > representatives who will govern?
     > Let's not be quick to forget all that was exposed in
     > Election 2000.
     > During Election 2000, the American electorate continued to
     > protest the choices offered in "the race for the presidency."
     > Approximately 52% of the American electorate did not vote
     > for president or voted for a third party candidate.
     > Additionally, and most importantly, -- 2.5 million American
     > voters were considered the "under vote," which are those
     > ballots on which the voter did not indicate a presidential
     > choice. These "under vote" ballots represent those voters
     > whom I believe chose "none of the above" for president, but
     > took the time to vote for initiatives they wanted passed,
     > and for local or national legislative candidates. Where in
     > America's Constitution does it state that voters not voting
     > for president would have their ballots "kicked out"? The
     > American electorate should have known about this practice
     > before going to the polls. This protesting American
     > electorate clearly showed that their interests are
     > not being represented in the choices presented at
     > election time.
     > Some have presented the initiative/proposition process as a
     > beginning for direct democracy in this country: the "masses"
     > of people would not have to get the legislature to pass a
     > bill, but could utilize this process for legislation in the
     > interests of the masses of people -- albeit this process is
     > currently dominated by money, big business and ruling class
     > lobbyist interests. The fact that 2.5 million "under votes"
     > were thrown out nationally without the American electorate's
     > knowledge or approval exposes the initiative/proposition
     > arena as an illusion of power -- the working class does not
     > control the election processes in any of its manifestations.
     > These election processes are controlled by the ruling class
     > and its representatives.
     > Power in America will not concede unless confronted from a
     > position of power. It has been said that classes rule and
     > parties govern. Our (working class labor) party must be at
     > the seat of power -- in Congress confronting the power of
     > the ruling class parties.
     > During Election 2000, the Electoral College was also exposed
     > as being partisan, and not based in the popular vote. During
     > the aftermath of November 7, 2000, the Electoral College was
     > a heavy topic of discussion. Many of these discussions high-
     > lighted the fact that electors are usually selected by the
     > national conventions of the two-party system, as well as
     > that electors are the ones responsible for "electing" the
     > president. Election 2000 has reminded some, and exposed for
     > others, that America's president is elected by 270 electors
     > who are selected by the Democratic and/or Republican parties.
     > So much for majority decision-making in America.
     > Election 2000 reminded some, and exposed for others that the
     > American president is not elected by "popular vote." This
     > was clearly reinforced by the U.S. Supreme Court decision
     > to stop re-counting ballots in Florida. The U.S. judicial
     > system is supposed to be non-partisan. Constitutionally, the
     > Supreme Court is an appointed and unelected lifetime office
     > so that, presumably, appointees would not need to be concerned
     > with reelection and, thereby, free to make judicial decisions
     > based on the best interests of the country rather than to
     > cater to a particular party or interest group.
     > Supposedly, the justices of the Supreme Court have no
     > respect of persons, and they are "sworn in" declaring those
     > exact words. The partisanship shown by the judicial system
     > -- and especially that shown by the Supreme Court during the
     > aftermath of November 7, 2000 -- exposed this non-partisan
     > judicial system for the lie that it is. During prime time
     > television and radio in the aftermath of Election 2000, we
     > had elected officials fighting it out with and before the
     > State Court system, while the political parties called upon
     > their "partisan" judges to decide issues surrounding the
     > counting of votes in its/ their partisan favor Election
     > 2000 has reminded some, and exposed for others that these
     > appointed judges -- even those appointed for a lifetime to
     > the "highest court of the land" -- are there to represent
     > the interests of a political party of the ruling class, and
     > most definitely to uphold the class biases of the American
     > Constitution against the "will of the people," and the
     > working class as a whole, (See Beard's "An Economic
     > Interpretation of the Constitution of the United
     > States.")
     > Election 2000 is not just about exposing contradictions, but
     > has presented us with yet another opportunity to consider
     > our solutions. My hope is that the American working class
     > has turned from its class-less consciousness, and turned
     > toward looking to its interests. My hope is that American
     > labor has turned from believing that its interests would
     > ever be represented by the Democratic Party. My hope is that
     > what is called the "left" in this country -- the "left" of
     > all colors, ideologies and political perspectives -- will
     > turn toward building a labor party to represent the
     > political interests of our class (the working class).
     > My hope is that the American working class will see the
     > necessity to function as a class for itself, and to
     > confront power with power.
     > Copyleft (c) 2000 Connie White. Redistribute Freely.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 01/09/01 EST