Unity08
[Proposed] Political Platform
Billy Rojas, October 2006
________________________________________
Preamble :
America stands at a crossroads. The choice we make for the next President of the United States has the potential to give our nation new direction for an entire generation into the future, it is that important. Or we might, by default, elect someone who most represents politics as usual, who leads the country 3 steps forward and 2 steps back, which has been the rule for most of the past decade and more. Unity08 clearly favors the first alternative.
We offer a critique of both Democrats and Republicans, and sometimes of others, because it is obvious to all of us that the current political system is characterized by so many problems that drastic change is a necessity.
We are committed to new ideas that rest on a foundation of shared values that make us good and decent Americans. We seek serious reforms, not a political revolution, but reforms must be major, bold, and have real promise of fixing what is broken in our political system while protecting what works and not throwing anything away that has proven its value.
Make no mistake about a central factor of our motivation, however. We are seriously disappointed in the failures of leadership on the part of both Republicans and Democrats. We have many grievances that deserve to be redressed.
======================================================
Priority planks
1. Voting Reform
Ensure that the winner of the popular vote in presidential elections also wins in the Electoral College.
A very simple change can bring this about while preserving the advantages of the current system: Add one electoral vote per state to the total votes received by the candidate who receives the most popular votes, 50 at this time.
In close elections there would only be recounts in states where the margin of victory is less than 1/2 %. The huge disadvantage of a national popular vote system is that in a close contest it would require a costly, time consuming /national /recount that could take weeks to complete. Under the plan proposed here, the advantages of the current system would be preserved as intended by the Founders of our nation. There still would be election suspense, but the mountain to climb for anyone who does not receive a popular vote majority would be virtually insurmountable. If a Constitutional Amendment is necessary for this change it would be worth the effort in order to prevent future elections where the 2nd place candidate wins the presidency, something that must be regarded as undemocratic and extremely objectionable.
At Large Representatives.
Expand the membership of the US House of Representatives from 435 seats to 445 seats. The 10 additional seats would be awarded to the top 3 vote getting "other" political parties, proportional to their popular vote totals. This would ensure that a perennial source of new ideas and sometimes very necessary criticisms of the political process, our minor political parties, is institutionalized in government. This would also address the grievances of people who favor proportional representation while preserving our unique and very useful 2 party system.
Ranked Choice Voting.
We favor a modified system of ranked choice voting, sometimes called instant runoff voting, in which voters select their 2nd choice for an office as well as the candidate whom they most favor. This is intended to create a viable minor party system in the United States while preserving the basic structure of the 2 party system which generally serves us well. Obviously, one would think, a Democrat would probably not select a Republican as a second choice, and vice versa, in which case any of a number of "3rd party" candidates would doubtless receive votes to be awarded in races where there is no clear majority-winning candidate.
What is anticipated is that scattered 3rd party candidates would win seats in various states and be able to add new voices to Congress and state legislatures even if the great majority of elected officials would still be Democrats or Republicans. Such a new system is needed for the reason that a 2 party system is susceptible to large scale collusion and susceptible to ethical compromises of many kinds. A limited number of "others" in legislatures would keep everyone honest. Note: As conceived here, unlike most ranked voting systems where there are 3 preferences, there are only 2 so that non-serious 3rd party candidates do not receive more votes than is warranted. Also a voter would have the option of only voting for one (1) candidate for any office or all offices on the ballot, there would be no requirement to vote for a second choice.
An End to Gerrymandered Districts.
Require some version of the Iowa system when drawing district boundaries for the US House. The reason should be obvious, to ensure that the maximum of House seats are competitive in all, or nearly all, elections, so that voters have meaningful choices when they cast ballots. Competition would also help keep the political process honest. A similar plan was proposed in California by a Governor Schwarzenegger and supported by Senator Obama of Illinois, and even though this measure lost it remains an extremely good idea that deserves to be worked for by all responsible political leaders. Gerrymandering is inexcusable; it creates a fraudulent parody of democracy, and cannot be allowed to continue. A "Fair District" system can be implemented easily and should be one of our top priority goals. Central to each "balanced" district would be some clearly understood anchor area, a well known neighborhood or cluster of counties that share common characteristics. This is intended to give each such district character in the minds of voters.
A Choice between Instant Reporting of Campaign Funding -instead of funding limits- and Public Funding of Campaigns.
Some states already have such a mixed system, as does Arizona, where all candidates for local and state office receive limited public money when participating in elections.
The advantage of this is that, when elected, lawmakers have no obligations to special interests they feel no obligation to vote the way that financial backers wish them to vote. Meanwhile, in all national elections presidential candidates follow congressionally mandated rules for campaign funding. What we propose is that states should have freedom to choose a public funding plan for local offices OR the requirement that all candidates report all campaign contributions within 48 hours and make this information public knowledge. We support a plan for national elections in which any candidate for national office, for the presidency or vice presidency essentially, should report campaign contributions as just outlined.
____________________________________________________________
2. Tax Reform
Close Loopholes in the Federal Income Tax Code.
Require a 2/3rds vote for /any and all/ exceptions, with the proviso that such exceptions will be subject to public hearings before any Congressional vote.
Means Test for Social Security Payments.
This should be progressive, for example, those whose non-SS incomes are less than $10,000 would receive 100 % of benefits, those whose non-SS incomes from all sources are between $ 10,001 and $ 15,000 would receive 95 % of benefits, and so forth, until a level of $ 250,000 was reached, at which point no benefits would be paid. Social Security should be understood as insurance, NOT as an entitlement, and people without real need for payments should not receive them.
We should be grateful for the many advantages which come with American citizenship and the opportunities afforded by living in the United States. But let's not be greedy. If people do not really need the extra income, then that money would be better utilized by keeping the system solvent for those that do have this need. A corollary is that all SS income should be non-taxable.
"Fair Tax" System at the State Level.
The Fair Tax idea has serous merits and can work at the state level. As well, a double income tax system, as currently exists in many states (Federal + state), is an unnecessary complication that gets in the way of economic efficiency. However...
Progressive Taxation is needed throughout society for reasons of economic justice. Therefore, all states should be responsible for monitoring tax revenue sources to ensure that whatever system is used does, in fact, tax people who have higher incomes at greater rates than those at lower incomes. When discrepancies are identified, it should be mandatory to revise tax codes. Yet there are limits, also for reasons of economic fairness, on how far rates should go. Except in emergency situations for limited durations, the maximum tax on income from all sources should be 33 %. -25 % except in cases of extreme wealth. And except for micro tax revenues, which would be levied automatically as a revenue stream into the Federal Treasury, as explained in the following.
Micro Tax on securities sales and exchanges of all kinds.
This is the brainchild of economist James Tobin and is now being advanced as a campaign plank by Kevin Zeese, and Independent running for Congress in Maryland. The essence of the plan is to tax all sales or other transfers of stocks or similar financial instruments at a very small level each time there is a transfer. That is, the micro tax would be, for example, 1/10th of a percent, hardly noticeable.
But given the volume of shares traded on the NYSE and NASDAQ and other exchanges, in the many billions per day, the amount of revenue generated would be significant. This money would come from the wealthiest citizens without affecting their wealth in any serious way. Yet the amount would add up and could then be used to supplement government income. Indeed, if the plan is as successful as Zeese believes it would be, many Americans would not need to pay any income tax at all since micro-tax revenue would offset the income tax for people earning the least amount of money. His estimate seems excessive but it might be realistic to foresee a time when income taxes do not "kick in" until someone is earning more than $ 50,000 per year. OR it might be better to set the limit at $ 25,000 and mandate that the difference be used specifically to reduce the National Debt. In any case, this idea has enormous merit and is highly recommended in this platform.
________________________________________________________
3. Universal Heath Insurance
Create a Health Care System that safeguards the well-being of all American citizens.
There are many proposals for doing exactly this currently being advocated by people of different political persuasions. We do not champion one particular plan, but we recognize the urgent need for some workable plan so that all US citizens are covered by medical and dental insurance. We favor a moral requirement for the next Congress to reach agreement on some plan that meets this objective, preferably one that combines governmental assistance for those who want this option, with private care for those who prefer this choice. Congress should set a time limit for itself to pass a health care program and put it into effect within one fiscal year. Such a plan might be implemented in stages over a 4 year period if practical problems require such an approach, but beyond this outer limit there should be no further delay. Americans deserve the best heath care system in the world.
_______________________________________________________
4. Absolute Realism in Foreign Policy.
We are at war with Islamic-Fascism.
It is counter-productive to pretend anything else, and it does a great disservice to all Americans to play games of "let's pretend," when it is empirically obvious that normative "true believer" Islam is antithetical to nearly all important American values. As true as it may be that we still require oil from the Mid East, and as true as it also is that not all Muslims are serious believers since many are secular or mystical (or as in parts of South Asia, semi-Muslim at best), nonetheless it cannot be denied that any literal reading of the /Qur'an/ tells us that foundational Islam advocates many behaviors that are outright felony crimes by American standards. This cannot be tolerated and must be opposed with full moral and legal force.
Therefore, laws should be passed that take compete account of the nature of Quranic Islam. These should, include: A requirement for all Muslims who have entered the country legally and who seek citizenship, to publicly repudiate all those passages in the/
Qur'an/ that urge believers to carry out actions that would, if acted upon, constitute felony violations of American Law. All these passages, of which there are dozens, should be made known in an unequivocal manner to the US public.
A requirement that all foreign nations under whose aegis there is funding of religious institutions or programs in the USA, should allow the same freedoms to Americans to fund religious institutions or programs in those countries, and to enjoy the same religious freedoms they take advantage of in America. To cite a glaring example of where this is needed most, no additional funding from Saudi Arabian sources for religious purposes in the United States would be permitted unless the same freedoms were given to Americans inside of Saudi Arabia. This means ANY Americans associated with any legitimate religious faith, including Jews.
A requirement that all financial assistance to Muslim countries (needless to say the principle, even if it is largely moot, applies to other nations) where the government is a party to anti-Americanism in the public realm, should be discontinued entirely unless this problem is rectified in a reasonable time as stipulated by the US Senate, but not to exceed 1 year.
There needs to be a war of ideas against Quranic Islam. This recommendation is for government inititiative that encourages participation by NGOs and other organizations of many kinds. BECAUSE Islam is Anti-American in its core values we have no real choice but to confront Muslims with our point of view and seek to win them over, just as we should seek to win global public opinion to our side in the debate. This must be a war that uses TV, the Internet, radio, publications, education, and many other means in peaceful discussion and debate. However, what can be expected from such an exercise of free speech would be still more Muslim violence, more killings of innocent people, more beheadings, more kidnappings, and more paranoid conspiracy theories that seek to inflame others to violence. All of which should make the point in an unmistakable way and discredit everyone who currently favors appeasement as preferred policy toward Muslims.
A 5-state federal solution to the problem of Iraq
The country should be divided into the South, which currently is a Shi-ite area, a Kurdish area, a Sunni area, an Assyrian Christian area (which would be fairly small but nonetheless significant). and a "free city" state centered on Baghdad where secular law is strictly enforced under US administration. US bases would be maintained in Kurdistan, Baghdad, and on the tip of Al Faw Peninsula for use by the US Navy and Air Force. All US forces would reposition to these locations in an 18 month period after taking all necessary steps to implement this plan, at the same time safeguarding American interests at such places as world cultural sites, oil pipelines, business offices, and consulates. Shariah law would be prohibited any place in Iraq. While the USA would absent itself from most of the country it would reserve the right to intervene to defend American and allied interests. We would seek to reach agreement about Iraq with as many other nations as possible so that US policy reflects the interests of all allied nations.
Solution to the Problem of Israel and the Palestinians.
This is absolutely necessary for any kind of lasting peace in the Mid East. What seems to be the best available plan is to create two ( 2 ) Palestinian states, one in the West Bank and the other in Gaza, each of which have distinct and disparate interests. Land would be added to Gaza, preferably from both Israel and Egypt, to create a viable country, in Israel's case in exchange for territorial adjustments in Samaria, in Egypt's case as a fundamental gesture of good will and solidarity with the Arab people.
The US, in partnership with all interested nations, would help in the re-constriction of the economies of the 2 new Palestinian states-under the condition that Hamas or any other terrorist groups are disqualified from government. Israel would co-operate by removal of all impediments to commerce in the Palestinian areas under its control and withdraw its forces after new boundaries are agreed upon. Further expansion of settlements would completely cease and those within the new borders of the West Bank / Palestinian state would be turned over to that state upon removal of the inhabitants.
The new boundary, with some adjustments, would closely follow the fence now in place except with respect to Gaza, where expansion of that enclave would necessitate significant boundary changes and some sacrifice of land, primarily to the south of Gaza, by Israel. But should this plan start to be implemented and be met with violence, then this proposal would be regarded as null and void and the US would then act to create a stable system in consultations with Israel and other allies. In any case, whatever else is decided, there should also be two Christian autonomous cities under protection of Israel and the USA, Nazareth and Bethlehem.
Extend an Olive Branch to Syria.
Granted that the US has past grievances with the Assad regime, a far better course of action than continued hostility would be a new deal in relations with that country. The model for this is Libya.
The reward for Syrian would be economic development of the country and participation in trade agreements with the West. Syria would need to agree to meaningful; elections within 2 years, and to co-operate fully in eliminating terrorist organizations from its territory, but if this is done the US should persuade Israel to turn over approximately half of the Golan Heights to Syria as a permanent settlement agreement to lead to normalization of relations between the two neighbors. Syria cannot expect Israel to turn over more than that. At any rate, Syria, as a partner of America, could become a modern nation with a first class standard of living for its entire people, in a fairly short period of time, and benefit fully from high tech businesses, tourism, commodities trade, and many other things. Syria would also benefit from helping to create a stable Iraq and profit from trade with that federation / nation.
Redesigned United Nations -or a New Alternative to the U.N.
An end to US participation in a global organization that is not fully democratic. Either the UN reforms itself to allow only democracies as members, or the United States should take the lead in creation of a new international body comprised only of democracies, and withdraw from the UN. The new UN -or a new alternative to the UN- should be headquartered on Bermuda, and be built from scratch as a model community. The UN peacekeeping force would be the French Foreign Legion, augmented by the international body and constituted as a permanent strike force, with full support of the US Navy and Air Force, -and similar forces of allied nations.
Expansion of the United States.
American should seek to become a United States of the World by incorporating various nations as new states in the union on a voluntary basis. There are several candidates for new member states but clearly one highly desirable addition would be Cyprus, a development that if it could happen would also put an end to the division of that strategic island between Greeks and Turks, who would all, after a suitable period of time, become Americans. "Mainland Americans" could invest in Cyprus and help make the economy there comparable to that of any state in America today.
Fixing the Mess in Korea.
Enter into a pact with Russia, China, and South Korea to eliminate the regime of Kim Jong-Il in the North. There would be one pre-condition for China, agreement for a plebiscite in Tibet to determine the future of that land, otherwise China would he free to take over a full 1/3 rd of north Korea to administer as it sees fit, including Pyongyang. Russia would administer another 1/3rd and South Korea its own 1/3rd -in all cases with the goal of reunification of the peninsula in no less than 5 years The USA would provide logistical and other support as needed when these three nations move against the North Korean regime.
Isolation of Iran.
In effect create a wall of alliances around Iran which act to limit its powers to interfere in the affairs of other countries in the region. Any and all Iranian nuclear development which in any way suggests continuation of a program to build an A-bomb would be met with force, NOT to invade the country, but to destroy its nuclear bomb making facilities. However, if Iran seeks to negotiate and it can be verified that it does so in good faith, by all means such negotiations should be entered into.
Alliance with India -as well as with China, and if possible, Indonesia and Pakistan.
American needs to make it clear to the nations of South and East Asia that its interests are congruent with their interests and we seek long lasting alliances and agreements which, hopefully, can become permanent.
Replacement of the Castro regime in Cuba with a Democratic Government.
As a practical matter the best time to act might be at the time of Fidel Castro's death, but this should not be too long of a wait, and there should be a bipartisan plan which would be ready for implementation as soon as this occurs. Clearly this plan should be multi-lateral, created in consultation with as many of the nations of Latin America as feasible. The plan would become known to the public in all the nations of the Western Hemisphere, be publicized to the people of Cuba, and be made official policy by all nations involved. All such nations would be partners in the economic development of the region. Cuba, after replacement of Castro, with solid plans for a democratic government in place, would be economically re-developed by the USA and its Latin American allies.
____________________________________________________________
5. End Dependence on Foreign Oil in 10 Years.
Whatever it takes. We can no longer tolerate being held hostage to Mid East and other foreign oil supplies where anti-American politics threatens the energy security of the United States. Obviously such energy independence cannot be achieved quickly, but a 10 year bi-partisan plan should be practical. Alternative fuels development should be contracted to the major oil companies both so that they have incentives to create new fuels, and because they have infrastructure in place to merchandise new fuels. This assumes full co-operation, of course, not obstructionism and excuses. All new fuels, as much as humanly possible, should be clean and environmentally friendly. But this can and should include coal, which can be cleaned with scrubbers and other technologies. Coal is vital because we have vast reserves of it and its non-fuel uses in areas such as plastics and chemicals are resources we need to manage as carefully as conceivable. But what most needs to be done is to harness non-carbon energy sources, hydrogen, solar, geothermal, wind generated power, wave generated power, and the like, although there seems to be no realistic way to see such sources constitute more than 20 % of so of US energy needs even in 10 years. But that should be the goal -with all other energy sources made use of in such a way that they can mostly be phased out as new sources come on-line in the future. This plan foresees major use of ethanol as an "in the meantime" measure that may be made use of for several decades. Here is an opportunity to cement relations with Brazil and seek expert advice from engineers and others in that country where ethanol already is widely used as a fuel and energy independence is pretty much a reality.
___________________________________________________________
6. Development of Bioneering Practices to Expedite the Goal of a completely Clean Environment which also is Economically Practical and also permits Economic Growth.
In one sense we should seek a future where all states are "green" rather than red or blue. Environmental values already permeate our culture, with many or maybe most businesses currently seeking to make the best use of sound environmental practices. This should be a national goal with our government charged with the responsibility to see to it that this happens. Perhaps the best approach to innovation now available is found in the new field known as "Bioneering," using nature as a template to create new technologies, to develop new procedures, and to recondition damaged eco-systems such as that found in coastal Louisiana. The Bioneering movement seeks to work with businesses for the common good, it is NOT adversarial toward business, and this is exactly what we need for a sustainable future. This is not intended to mean giving the bioneers a blank check to determine American environmental policy, certainly each and every one of their proposals should be subject to informed criticism from others, especially including business people, but this does say that the bioneering approach offers great promise and might well be what is most necessary around which to construct long range public policy.
This plank HAS TO also mean, however:
Specific and major steps to reduce global warming,
Abolition of all coal surface mining in mountainous country,
a practice that is utterly devastating to the natural environment as well as to all communities in the area,
Greater emphasis on recycling of resources, especially metals
An end to scare tactics based on emotional appeals but that are excessive as environmental policy
in other words, rational environmental policy, not eco-hysteria, and Intelligent use of forest resources, for example, allowing logging in areas burned by forest fires; we need timber resources not only pristine forests.
________________________________________________________
7. Rational Immigration Policy.
There is no excuse for immigrants to violate American law. The issue is not immigration; it is ILLEGAL entry into the United States, which is a criminal act. And there is no reason why people seeking to live in the USA and become citizens should not obey American law, indeed, illegal immigrants should be put on notice that, henceforth, they will forfeit all chance to become US citizens unless they clear up their status legally, and no future illegals, immediately upon passage of enabling legislation, should be eligible for citizenship. This means we need:
Secure borders facilitated with a security fence at whatever length is required to substantially reduce or eliminate illegal immigration. While there is little problem to our North, we should consider at least the possibility that some wilderness areas along the Canadian border may need to be fenced in the future in order to try and prevent potential terrorists from entering our country. If at all possible such fences should be constructed in co-operation with our neighbors since they also have a stake in border control.
Preference for a policy in which families are re-united, in which people
with high order skills needed in the USA are given preferential status,
in which existing demographic groups are re-enforced to some practical
extent, and in which would-be immigrants are required to have sponsors
in-country who assume significant responsibilities for the acculturation
and employment of newcomers.
Limits on the numbers of new immigrants should be determined by Congress once every 4 years. It is wisdom based on the lessons of history that the United States can absorb only so many newcomers over any given period of time. The best recommendation for this time, for example, would seem to be about 500,000 per year, for at least a 10 year period before any readjustment. At other times the number may be higher or lower.
No amnesty for illegal immigrants -although the question of children of such people who were born here and raised as Americans needs a solution that takes into account the fact that these children did not violate the law.
An alternative for Mexico: It seems clear that Mexico is a only a semi-successful state. It shows considerable success in many areas while simultaneously being almost hopelessly inadequate to provide employment for many millions of its citizens. One solution to this serious problem would be for Mexico to petition to become part of the United States, perhaps as a dozen new states, in time, with its people then free to go wherever their resources allowed in America.
This would also mean that US business firms could invest freely in what is now Mexico, and every other form of private investment on the part of US citizens would also be possible. This should help what is now Mexico become as prosperous as the current United States. There would be no need for a fence, unless current Mexican policy seems advisable, in which case there might be a barrier along the border with Guatemala. In any case, Mexico as a new part of the USA, as 12 or 15 new territories prior to admission as states in the future, would benefit both lands and their peoples. Otherwise, the contiguous 48 states need a fence to limit illegal immigration, and stabilize population growth at a reasonable rate.
______________________________________________________
8. Rational Values-Issues Policy.
Legalization of victimless crimes. This means, for starters, a new kind of war on drugs where only seriously injurious substances (so-called "hard drugs") are regarded as major law enforcement targets, and these damaging substances should be targeted with the full resources of law enforcement agencies. This would mean legalization, regulation, and taxation of marijuana, a substance that is organic, not physically addictive, and even seems to have various medial uses.
In the process we could empty our jails and prisons of as many as a million people convicted for "crimes" where there are no victims -with some exceptions as spelled out in relevant legislation. Marijuana would become regarded as a mild euphoric on a par with alcohol. This would also mean legalization, regulation, and taxation of commercial sex involving consenting adults. This works in Nevada, with few problems, and it is a far better system for which there will be demand as long as there are men and women, than illegal prostitution organized by pimps and often under control of criminal gangs or the Mafia.
However, it must be said that the list of victimless crimes some people offer includes activities that, in fact, create victims, for example even some loitering laws that, if done way with, might make it needlessly difficult for police to keep a neighborhood safe. Obviously all so-called victimless or "consensual crimes" that are to be exempted must be subject to public scrutiny and the informed counsel of experts before being listed as actually victimless.
The argument for abolition is strong, nonetheless, as stated by Peter McWilliams in his book on the subject, namely, without such laws on the books, due to law enforcement costs and such things as lost wages on the part of those incarcerated, we would all benefit because the effect would be to:
An end to treatment of homosexuality as a "civil rights" issue.
It is no such thing. Current popular opinion on the matter is fundamentally uniformed and based on nothing so much as a series of fallacies that are promoted by the media and homosexual advocacy groups. As a matter of fact the American Psychiatric Association is incompetent to judge on the issue of the status of homosexuality since it has become, on this question, a homosexual advocacy organization. The APA has been widely criticized by psychology professionals for gross unprofessionalism, and its decisions to remove homosexuality from the DSM as a psychological disorder have close to zero empirical validity.
Before there can be any thought of treating homosexuality as a civil rights concern the impossible has to be established first, that it is not a mental illness. But the APA has, for more than 30 years, disregarded the testimony of experts in the field of the psychology of homosexuality, has refused to consider the research findings of professional groups like NARTH and the Institute of Sexology in Canada, as well as ignoring all the hard data collected by Masters and Johnson.
What many important studies do show, as conclusively as anyone could want, is that homosexuality is, indeed, a disorder of serious magnitude, with many adverse social consequences, all of which is being masked by the mass media and other opinion-leading organizations -none of whom do the least serious research in areas like psychoanalysis, social psychology, or sexology. Given that the overwhelming weight of evidence is clear that homosexuality is, as Anna Freud, Karen Horney, Irving Bieber,
Charles Socarides, Sandor Rado, Erich Fromm, and many other professionals have said, a psychological illness that can be treated with a good chance of recovery, just about the entire political debate on the subject of "gay rights" is a farce that does great disservice to us all. This must cease immediately. Any thought of extending "rights" to individuals to indulge in debilitating pathologies is ludicrous on the face of it.
Rather than more "rights" being granted to homosexuals, all pro-homosexual, legislation should be repealed. Homosexual practices themselves should be recriminalized-to send a message to homosexuals that their malady is unhealthy, has adverse effects on society and the family, and that they need to seek professional help in order to overcome their illness.
Public hearings into the professional incompetence of the APA are long overdue.
The government, which, after all, relies on the organization in courts of law, has every right to find out just how corrupt and unethical the APA has been ever since the mid 1970s.
Restrictions on abortion.
Professional and public opinion has converged on a position on this issue that can be recommended as the best public policy we might have in the real world. The rules are few and easy to remember:
As someone once said, "abortions should be safe, legal, and rare." This is optimal public policy in the imperfect world we live in.
Leadership in a war of ideas to change popular culture where change is needed most.
This must mean sustained criticism of Rap music and its derivatives, a form of "entertainment" that urges people to denigrate the value of education, that encourages men to commit violent acts against women, that tells women to regard themselves as commodities, that has no place for the wisdom of parents in raising families, and so forth.
This must also mean sustained criticism of atonal classical music and all related developments that over the past half century have nearly destroyed Classical music from within through the expedient of declaring war on melody. The result is a threat to our basic cultural institutions, to leading civic orchestras, opera companies, and to the Classical music recording industry, now in serious decline everywhere. Here the problem is an elite that has lost all touch with public good and musical rationality to pursue status and wealth regardless of long term effects generally. This elite is the enemy of everyone who cares about the worth of Classical music and high culture.
What is also needed is sustained criticism of Hollywood movies for their often mindless glorification of deviant behavior, of nihilistic values, and of stereotypes that misrepresent religion, the family, and the importance of critical mindedness.
There are many exceptions, for which we can be thankful, but these exceptions nonetheless are exceptions. The result is film entertainment that poisons our culture at home and creates a horrible impression of America and Americans in other nations around the world.
We also need sustained criticism of the juveniles (or juvenile minds) who write much of the material that is found on prime time network television. The "junk quotient" found on these shows surely is in the 80 % to 90 % range and has as its effect, valorization of stupidity, immaturity, and tastelessness, for many millions of people. Obviously many or most TV producers don't know what in the hell they are doing. While government should not –and cannot- tell them what to do, government has some responsibility to offer Informed criticism so that TV producers, who use public airwaves supposedly for the public good, /actually/ seek the public good.
_____________________________________________________
9. Quality Education for All Americans.
The problem of inner city schools is especially acute, indeed, in some districts it is of crisis proportions. At the opposite end of the spectrum there are major problems in secondary and higher education due to the near total absence of teaching about religion. We now have at least three generations of Americans who, on the subject of religion -except for whatever they may know about their own faith- are basically uneducated. Some resist the idea, despite vast amounts of data to the exact opposite effect, that religion is important in public life. In between are a range of other problems.Therefore we propose :
"Get tough measures" in all inner city schools where discipline problems and anti-education values predominate among students and in the local community.
A "military school" system should be introduced to such neighborhoods so that students are required to show respect to teachers and each other, so that students actually learn to read and solve math problems, and so that they are prepared to join a workforce that has less and less need for poorly educated semi-illiterates. Students who prove themselves capable of acting like students, who actually learn what is taught in the classes they attend, would be eligible for transfer to magnet and other schools within a reasonable length of time. More has to be done since many of the worst young anti-education offenders come from broken homes, or from dysfunctional communities where crime is endemic, but new values learned in highly disciplined schools ought to help set new standards for conduct in homes and the community, as well as help students turn their lives around..
Reward students who demonstrate proficiency in disciplines deemed essential for national well being. Incentivize education in the hard sciences, math, and the behavioral sciences. Other fields might be added upon review.
That is, give cash awards and scholarship debit accounts to students who do superior work in these areas as measured on objective tests and as evaluated by teacher boards.
Require a fixed ratio of administrative personnel to classroom teachers in all school districts. In some cities the ratio is close to 1 : 1. The ratio should never exceed 1 administrator per 10 teachers. The cost savings for running school systems would be significant and resources would be used where they are needed the most, teaching America's kids.
Merit pay for public school teachers.
An end to tenure for academics and substitution of a contract system based on objective performance criteria.
End Political Correctness in public schools and on college campuses.
Children cannot play tag because the game means that some will be "it" more than their peers? What idiot dreamed up this rule? What other idiots approved this rule as policy? But such nonsense is typical of the PC mindset that prevails ant many schools throughout the country, something caused by dysfunctional values promoted by several identifiable ideologies, starting with gender feminism and neo-Marxism, but by no means limited to these forms of thought. This is NOT to suggest that the remedy is a return to some form of traditionalism based on OTHER dysfunctional values often associated with the Religious Right, but it has to mean an end to Political Correctness values in the schools -at all levels.
You cannot demand that little boys should act the same as little girls because we should value peace and harmony when, as adults, men are expected to be defenders of women and to be the protectors of the nation in war.And to argue that women can be just as good as soldiers as men is completely preposterous. Even if a few women might qualify in that category they are anything but normative and anyone who is the least honest is well aware of this objective fact.
Political Correctness values are absurdities for the most part and do not deserve a place in serious discussion of educational policy. This applies doubly so in higher education where PC foolishness is rampant at the majority of universities and a large number of colleges. We do not need false information presented as true, it does everyone a huge
disservice.
For example, it often is regarded as a truism that women earn 76 cents for every dollar that men earn in the workplace -the assumption being that men are unfairly compensated for work they do that women perform equally well. But all relevant studies paint a very different picture since:
We need to be truthful, not promote a questionable ideology that is based on dishonest premises and utterly false expectations. If we want to be helpful to women then educate them about fields where they are competitive with men in terms of salaries, and sometimes receive better compensation for superior work : Physical therapy, optometry, accounting, dentistry, nursing, architecture, psychiatry, medical technology, computer programming, and so forth. Women who want to earn $ 1 for each dollar a man earns have every opportunity to do exactly that -IF this is what they actually want.
But many do not. Many prefer less financially rewarding jobs for the same reason that a good percentage of men prefer such work, because, for them, it is more self fulfilling and they simply don't value money above other things in life. Let's be honest about all such matters.
Require the teaching of Comparative Religion at all educational levels.
We live in a religiously pluralistic society and in a religiously pluralistic world. We NEED to understand the religions of others. Most Americans do not begin to understand other religions and tend to fall into two disparate but equally uninformed camps on the subject, those who insist that all human faiths are approximately the same once we subtract superficial differences, and those who tells us that all religions are systems of error except their own religion. To which we might add a third category, those who relegate religion to unimportance because they are ignorant of the subject, because they are too lazy to make the effort to become informed, and because they are so heavily invested in a secular worldview that even to admit that they ought to "re-tool" and learn useful facts about religion would be devastating to their egos. Yet at the same time these same people may tell us all that everyone else should learn what they have competence at, whether environmental research skills or stock value calculating skills or computer skills or anything else. Let's get real, shall we?
Religions are NOT all alike. Some are drastically different than others, so different that we need to distinguish between those that are morally incompatible, such as Islam and just about all other faiths, and not limit ourselves to the not-very-useful differentiation of Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic religions.
We also need to acknowledge that many assumptions we habitually make are extremely dubious even if we are clueless about any such thing.
In any case, while we may believe in the basic truthfulness of our own religion, all of us need to know ABOUT other religions and what they teach as true. Either that or forever be at a disadvantage in talking with others who follow some other religion, in business dealings with people from other cultures, in making public policy, and many other areas of life. But Comparative Religion must be taught critically, with freedom for all students to offer informed criticisms of various religions, and it mist be taught in such a way that students can recognize that self-criticism has real value since no religion, no matter how true on balance, can possibly be perfect.
Similarly, while criticism of Atheism is as valid as any other kind of criticism of religion, there is a strong argument that Atheism IS a religion and deserves some respect as such, even if some people who call themselves Atheists are simply ignorant /hoi polloi/ who don't know what they are talking about.
Harvard will begin the requisite a course for all undergraduates starting in 2007 on the subject of faith issues and religion. There finally is recognition by its faculty that religion is far too important to ignore. Religion is involved in questions of psychology, politics, the arts, demographics, consumer buying decisions, family values, international relations, and much else. It is high time that we become religiously informed as a nation.
There are all sorts of ancillary reasons, too. For example, consider what different visual symbols mean to people of different religions. Take swastikas, just about universally regarded in the USA and Europe as Nazi in meaning, a myth perpetrated by the mass media, year in and year out. But close to half the population on earth uses the swastika (often called by some local name) to signify altogether un-Nazi values like love, compassion, good fortune, and the like. Similarly, 6 pointed stars may have zero relevance to Judaism in India, and crosses may have little or no Christian meaning whatsoever in Japan or China. If we are serious about globalization we cannot afford to indulge our ignorance about such things. The study of Comparative Religion would go far towards making us prepared for the world of the 21st century in many, many ways that escape most of us now.
___________________________________________________________
10. Constitutional Convention
We need to convene a national convention at the earliest practical date
to propose, discuss, and pass for state action, a series of constitutional
amendments that speak directly to the modern world we live in.
There is no way to pretend that our Constitution, as good as it is, as good as existing amendments are, is adequate for the century ahead of us. For that matter it is inadequate for the current decade. There are way too many unresolved questions that judiciaries now seek to remedy by a system of Procrustean interpretation of the Law. A Constitutional Convention is intended to correct this problem and prepare us for the future we actually will live in, in a world filled with numerous uncertainties as well as incredible opportunities.
Examples:
Life tenure for Supreme Court Justices is an extremely bad idea. So is the method of selecting Justices in which past presidents determine court majorities long after their administrations have ended. We need an amendment that mandates election for justices to serve 10 year terms, with allowance for re-election to one additional term. Nominations for candidates for Justice could be under the auspices of the ABA, nominees to be suggested by the Senate based on merit. A president would only fill a vacant seat on the Court in case of the death of a Justice, resignation, or other such event. The new Justice would serve only until the next general election when he (or she) might seek election to a full 10 year term.
That is, voters would cast national ballots not only for the offices of president and vice-president, but for 2 or 3 candidates for Supreme Court Justice. These candidates would be entirely free to express their views on a host of issues -with the caveat that future evidence might cause them to change or modify their views. This way the public would become more informed about American Law and have a real stake in how decisions of Law that effect their lives are made.
Telecommunications regulation is urgently needed as we move into an era of extraordinary innovation and technology proliferation. Do we have all the answers? Of course we do not. But what we do have is the brainpower of our 'best and brightest" computer experts to draw upon in drafting an amendment that should have the potential to serve as the basis for law in this area for the indefinite future. This amendment should cover a host of probable contingencies in general terms so that its provisions are not time bound to state-of-the-art 2008, but are adaptable for 2020 or 2050 or the year 2100 or beyond.
The amendment might allow for the creation of an Internet Police Department, for instance, a suggestion now in circulation that seems to have real promise for finally bringing an end to some of the more obvious forms of criminal conduct on the Web for which there now is no recourse, such as various scams, unscrupulous businesses that infect computers with trojans, hackers who break through firewalls to access confidential information, and so forth, not to mention impersonation, defamation of character, or flaming of websites.How this police agency would work is simplicity itself: Go into action on the basis of complaints from certified users. It would not be a snooping organization that invades others' privacy to look for violators. But when law violations are brought to its attention it would have the obligation to investigate matters, make a determination about the validity of the complaint, and then be empowered to enforce the law. But this is only one -out of possibly thousands-of issues that a telecommunications amendment could address.
Reform of the Criminal Justice system. Actually what is meant is close to a complete overhaul. An amendment is needed that addresses the very logic on which our current system rests, a logic that, in many particulars, defies reason. For instance, how can we justify lifelong incarceration for convicted murderers at $ 40,000 or more per year when schools don't have enough money to provide children with textbooks or computers?
How can we justify spending $ 400,000 for ten years for the upkeep of a habitual thief when there is no money to fund rural hospitals in areas where there are no doctors? How can we justify spending a million dollars on a youthful 3-strikes petty criminal sentenced to life in prison when there is no money for shelters for battered women in many communities ?
Such things make no good sense at all, and what about judges who have deserved reputations for arbitrary sentencing? Who passes judgment on those members of the bench? And is it necessary for such a judge to go to extremes that no-one can ignore before he (or she) is removed from the bench? There are a host of such questions that cry out for answers and workable reforms. We don't have an amendment on the shelf that resolves all these matters but we know, perfectly well, that America has the thinkers and experts needed to develop and craft such an amendment.
__________________________________________________________
All of this is only the start. The preceding platform planks identify issues that in our judgment seem to be the most important at this time, and that call for political action in the next several years. But we are open to other suggestions for platform planks and, time permitting; we will add more planks for your consideration. Your feedback is welcome at any time. This is a first draft of a political platform for 2008 and is subject to revision.
=================================================
ADDENDUM
None-of-the-Above require a ballot category that allows voters to select "none of the above" when they are dissatisfied with the candidate choices offered to them. When "none" receives the most votes a special election to fill that office should be scheduled.
Local funding of campaigns. Require 80 % of funding for primary elections to originate within any state where such elections are held.
Disallow foreign funding for all elections in the United States.
Requirement for TV to provide free time for debates and other formats as decided upon by a non-partisan commission for the purpose of educating the public to election issues. The airwaves are a public resource and are licensed to the networks for nominal fees. Part of the terms of licensing should include provision for free time for public service and educational purposes, especially during election periods.
Require that provisions of all laws passed by Congress should apply to members of Congress, without exception.
Federal, state, and local government budgets should be accountable to the public. This means that strict accounting standards that are universal in corporate business should be applied to government budgets in such a way that they are transparent, can be accessed and easily understood by citizens and public interest groups, and not susceptible to partisan manipulation.
Funding Mandates should be realistic and consensual. All mandates that the Federal Government requires of the states should either be funded by the Congress OR the Congress should first be obliged to obtain agreement of the states before imposing new spending requirements on them.
Taxpayer Advocacy should become standard practice in Congressional deliberations. An office of Taxpayer Budget Concerns should be empowered to research and prepare the strongest possible case in opposition to every public expenditure or increase in expenditures to then be presented to Congressional committees for their consideration prior to legislative action.
Needless to say, it is anticipated that news organizations will have serious interest in these presentations and want to report on legislation that does not take account of TBC criticisms and recommendations.
Privatization Goals. Whenever it is practical and possible government functions should be privatized. While this cannot mean all or even most such functions it should mean a significant number -for reasons of efficiency, and cost control.
Therefore, all proposed relevant legislation should include discussion of privatization options. Those that are superior to what the government is able to provide ought to be preferred in determining final language of bills. Obviously the Congress reserves the right to rescind contracts in all cases when private business fails to live up to its obligations.
Quality Measurement. Require objective measurement of delivery of all services to the public on an annual basis, results of such measurement to be open for inspection by citizens and news organizations.
Civil Service Performance Standards. Employees in the Civil Service system should be responsible for competence in performing their work responsibilities. Those that do not perform at professional standards should be dismissed for cause -without superiors needing to fight through a welter of appeals , regulations, or other hindrances. Fair dismissals should be carried out upon objective review by a neutral fact finder who can make a professional determination based on merits of any complaint to the effect that an employee is not fulfilling his or her obligations.
Line Item Veto. Governors and the President should have the right to line item veto budget items.
Family Strengthening. Whenever appropriate tax codes or other revenue measures should be written in such a way that families with children receive special advantages.
No welfare assistance to anyone -without exception- who is an illegal alien.
School Facility Utilization. In all communities where it is appropriate, schools should be open after hours to provide space to community groups for purposes that are helpful to the public good -especially furtherance of education such as adult education programs, but including such things as temporary clinics for immunizations. Priority should be given to after-school and weekend programs that specifically benefit students at local schools.
Removal of Unruly Students from Schools. Expedite the ability of school authorities to remove any students with behavioral problems from schools. Children who seek to learn should never be required to put up with bad conduct from other students -whether that bad behavior is the result of psychological maladjustment or a broken home or anything else.
=================================================
DISCLAIMER
These platform planks intended for use by Unity08 are offered as suggestions to the organization. Unity08 has not had any part in writing these planks, all of which are the work of Billy Rojas at Avesland@AOL.com <mailto:Avesland@AOL.com>.
who is associated with RadicalCentrism.com.
These planks, or the platform as a whole, may be used for other purposes than those identified with Unity08 even if that group is the primary intended beneficiary. The platform and the planks in it reflect a Radical Centrist view of politics and should not be confused with any other political outlook or philosophy. Some of the ideas are Liberal, some are Conservative, while others are Libertarian, Democratic Socialist, Green, or something else. It is the nature of Radical Centrism to borrow freely from many political sources in creating statements of its own philosophy, which is syncretic in character and that seeks to combine the strongest possible positions of Left and Right (and sometimes "other") into a coherent whole.
Many of the proposals in the platform are original to Billy Rojas, but most reflect the ideas of others, too numerous to mention, but including Dr Ernest Prabhakar, Mark Satin, and -despite my disagreements with him, some of which are serious and some of which of date back many years-Newt Gingrich, who, no matter what anyone says, is one of America's smartest political minds. This said, almost every borrowed idea has been considerably modified here, in some cases drastically.
For your consideration.
Billy Rojas