No Confidence

Blog entries like this one over at Chicken or Beef? (do read it and the referenced Talking Points Memo article), have me thinking that maybe the No Confidence movement is perhaps not such a bad idea.

Personally I've grown tired of government's adamance that the only way to proceed is to just fix infractions of the law instead of trying to solve the systemic problems that cause those laws to be broken over and over again. To compound the problem those law breakers have managed to become the ones redefining laws behind our backs to suit their needs.

For example I once heard that more than 90% of the US tax code (a multi-thousand page tome) is based on loopholes introduced for special interests that have lobbied their representatives for a tax break, and fixes for the loopholes introduced by those loopholes. Another example closer to my heart would be the legal precedents set by the supreme court that have given corporations the power to directly intervene in the democratic process, usurping the American people's sovereignty over themselves.

All these things and many more make me sick.

So I thought the solution might be a constitutional amendment or two. An amendment to explicitly ban corporations from meddling in government. An amendment to restate the 14th amendment and explicitly recognize the international declaration of human rights applying to all people regardless of their sex, color, creed, believes, sexual preferences etc. etc. etc. An amendment to ban participation in global trade organizations that delegate our power to govern ourselves to a bunch of executives in a closed-door tribunal somewhere with no appeal or recourse open to the people of the country.

But now along comes Dave Berman and his No Confidence movement which seeks to have communities across the United States pass "No Confidence" resolutions. At first glance the resolution looks like a simple appeal to express discontent with the ability of the government to accurately and fairly asses the will of its people, and indeed its efforts thus far that are further compounding the problem.

However as you get to the bottom of the "whereas" list you find that Berman is actually calling for a much more substantial resolution of the problem:

Be it ultimately resolved that when a sufficient number of No Confidence resolutions have passed, and the domino effect hereby triggered has reached its tipping point, the Right of the People to abolish its Government shall be accepted as decreed by our nationÂ’s Founding Fathers. To implement a new democracy in America which encourages competition in "the free market-place of ideas," the following should be enacted: designation of Election Day as a national holiday, elimination of the Electoral College, instant runoff voting (IRV), proportional representation, public campaign financing, national standards for uniform election machines (or no machines at all), and an explicit determination that money does not equal speech and that corporations do not have the same rights as humans.

Initially I felt like adding such a finale to a call to reform voting was somewhat disingenuous. While I am certainly in favour of all the suggested remedies - making voting a day a holiday seemed a particularly inspired celebration of peoples sovereignty - I didn't think it would help the cause to get reform by asking for abolotion of the government itself. Indeed such calls would be exactly the thing to get its advocates labeled domestic terrorists. That in itself is not a reason to withdraw support, its just an indication of how pathetically fucked up the democratic process and rule of law has become. Indeed to withdraw support based on the fear of consequences is completely playing into fear based society we are being corralled into.

So I found myself wondering if I should support No Confidence when it mixes up lack of confidence in election results with a complete lack of confidence in the government, period. Surely the former can fixed by some laws to cure systemic problems in vote counting and such?

Eventually I realized that by calling to replace the system completely, Berman is just taking the solution "all the way to the top". Its an expression of a lack of faith in the system to heal itself voluntarily. So when punishing infractions of laws don't work, when introducing new laws to fix problems don't work, then perhaps there is a systemic problem that has been built into, or leaked into, the system that can't be fixed without tearing it all down and starting again.

After all if a loophole has allowed a criminal to be in charge of the country you don't expect him to introduce legislation to prevent such a thing, or to send himself to jail. That's exactly the situation in many countries ruled by dictators - its up to the people to kick him out, or outside forces to push him out. But what if the people are so cowed, stupid or afraid to do so from within, and there is no "higher power" with clout to force the change from without?

So I see the final clause of Berman's resolution as one that simply says "If the government in place now has been elected by a system we have no confidence in, then we have no confidence in the government itself to fix the problem". As Berman points out, that's basically what the people of the United States said with their Declaration of Independence, they had no confidence in the British government's desire or ability to give them just rule so it was time to start again and get it right. Of course the government may have time to prove the people wrong and reform itself, but if Bush gets re-elected in November then the writing is on the wall that it will not happen any time soon. A bottom-up people's revolt via a vote of no confidence may be all that can save us from a top-down tyranny of government.

It also seems to me that the benefit of a No Confidence vote is that it can mobilize those traditional non-voters who just plain think the entire system is broken so why bother. This can help break the 50:50 "left"-"right" deadlock that seems to have set in across the country caused by the rise in numbers of consenting voters and dissenting non-voters. That deadlock has now paralyzed the governments ability to move forward and has locked it in a sesspool of medicority.

If there is one problem in Berman's current resolution I'd like to see fixed, it would be to add some additional "whereas" explanations of why we need some of the things he mentions such as: elimination of the Electoral College, instant runoff voting (IRV), proportional representation, public campaign financing, and an explicit determination that money does not equal speech and that corporations do not have the same rights as humans. The benefits of such things should be self evident but are clearly not and should be cited in support for the final reoslution. Otherwise they look like those pesky "riders" that get added to government bills at the last minute that have nothing to do with the original topic.