Monday, October 31, 2011

Direct Democracy at Work

Direct democracy at work

In the waning hours of Sunday October 30th, the Support Occupy Wall Street group met to start dialogue for the future of the movement and the future of the country. Concerned citizens from all walks of life voiced their opinions freely and openly. The aim of this meeting was to start forming a cohesive focus on objectives that the movement can accomplish. It quickly became evident that one objective outweighed all others. Despite many different opinions and lifestyles the one thing that nearly everyone in the room agreed to was a constitutional amendment separating moneyed interests from politics.

Much of the criticism on the movement has to do with the lack of a single focus or goal, but in the meetings that are happening all over the country, this is not the case. There are a growing number of people that are fed up with crony capitalism and ready for a drastic change in the way our government is functioning. One of the many complaints by those entrenched in the two party system has to do with the location of the protests. The reason the protest started in Wall Street and not in Washington is the understanding that those who have the money control the outcome of our government regardless of the party that holds office. A constitutional amendment would cut the ropes that bind our now complicit politicians and deliver our government to its rightful owner, the people.

The money involved in politics is a cancer that we can cure, but like all cancers it will be a tough battle. Those that have benefited from the disease will fight tooth and nail to hold on to their beloved tumor despite the biopsy showing it is fatal. In next year's Presidential election billions of dollars will be wasted on advertising to convince the voters that the cancer is only on the other side of the coin. The Occupy Wall Street group understands that it has infected both sides of the coin but with aggressive therapy all of the cancer can be removed. The question is, do we treat the 1% to save the other 99% or do we accept our fate and pine for a slow methodical death just like all other civilizations that came before us.

The message couldn't be any simpler; the country needs a constitutional amendment that limits the ability of those with money to influence our policy decisions. Once politicians and Supreme Court justices are no longer obligated to compensate their highest paid political donors and backers, we will have a system that works for all of the people and not just the 1%.

Duke M Kell

No comments:

Post a Comment