What is "best practice" in constitutional democracy?

[sweetheart]

Both the neocons and the islamists are antiliberalism, as they believe
that there is a moral decay. Both use antidemocratic means to subvert
constitutional powers to theoretically restore that moral value.
Yet in order to have "freedom", functional (unsubverted) democracy is
required, one with an informed public, and a way of checkpointing
radical usurpers in the executive. This is the very thing the neocriminals
are fighting. So what gives?

One of the problems in a secular democracy is that the only pole of
authority is the elected government. Both the islamists and the neocons
promote a second pole, in a metaphorical throwback to the tensions
between pharoe and karnak. The king would share authority with the
religious leaders, and between them produce the power of government.

British democracy has survived a long time, partly by doing this very
thing, and keeping some unelected ayatollahs in the house of lords
and the palaces, who are in "values" opposition to a purely elected
democracy. Many in britain call for a more elected government, if not
totally elected. These are the same lines of thought as the
american DU left belief in secular democracy... yet one must admit
that there is very little proof on the ground, in terms of longevity,
that purely secular democracy can last.

That the most warlike imperial nations like nazi germany and bush
amerika rise out of secular democracy, seems when the leaders step
in to this alternate pole of authority and occupy both chairs of
palace and temple (pharoe and karnak). In iran, the constitution
actually recognizes both poles, in an attempt to create some sort
of balance. This is flawed due to the wrongful attempt to use sharia
to repress womens rights and civil rights.

China, has pursued the american way, of a purely secular system and
this has indeed produced a horrible ugly litany of crimes. So
perhaps best practice must come forward to fill this unwritten vacuum
where an official constitutional second pole of authority is admitted
to the system of governance.

For anti-religious persons, to say that there is no second authority
is disengenuous, as universities have been that second pole of
unofficial government in their world, and this has indeed served as
the "karnak", where ideology is refined and reflected back at the
palace. The neocons have set about to subvert this by creating their
own fantasy knowledge and denying the authority of what has been
the american second pole for several decades. Perhaps the problem
is that it is not written in to the constitution, and that we have
not formally made a place for an "ethical" or "moral" opposite.

How do we look at the flaws that are being exploited by the neocons
and the islamists in the light of preventive constitutional maintenance?

[FreepFryer]

1. Here's one, The argument for religious statism is anti-conservative.

Off the top of my head, that's one underlying flaw.

The argument by the neo-cons is that liberalism has subverted the core values that bind a society together. This I think stems from a subtle form of paternalism, combined with classism.

To address this, they construct the image of 'Our Leader', and overtly undermine separation of church and state. They simultaneously do everything in their power to reinforce a lack of national accountability in the upper class, moving them further into a brahmin status.

Traditional conservative values are largely ignored, most of all the traditional distrust of omnipresent government.

To propose an offical 'fifth estate' of faith is directly opposed to the core conservative base that, in my opinion, still makes up the vast majority of the Republican base. The Establishment and Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment is what applies here, and two centuries of precedent should be rigidly, massively defended.

[sweetheart]

3. Defining the "fifth estate"

Perhaps as you say, the "answer" is already in the first amendment,
and that the "corporate media" bear no resemblance to what the
framers meant by not having the freedom of the press abridged.
Possibly that fifth estate in a secular republic must be occupied
by a protected authority of the press to act in the public behalf,
that the first amendment be "beefed up" and empowered to fill the
moral vacuum by promoting a serious press by the people, that each
of the temples, from falwell's house of cards, to DU have its
authority equally represented in the public media.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The churches, secular and religious, of the fifth estate are in all
truth publishing houses, propagandists... and that does indeed make
them all media. That the present system has elevated only corporate
media seems the root failure then... and corporate personhood is
the real corruption.

A conservative (small "c") must recognize that this government
is anything but, and is equally interested as with liberals in
reigning in the power of radical militants. Don't they?

[FreepFryer]

4. The media is already generally known in that role as the 'fourth estate'..

...that's why I chose 'fifth' for religious groups, etc. Not sure if you knew that already.

Nevertheless, your conclusion is completely dead-on correct. It is the media's utter conglomeration and subversion by corporate/government control that has opened the way for this vacuum.

That, and the systematic defunding of public education, have effectively shredded the American peoples' capacity for 'public opinion' into little more than amnesiac tantrums.

That has changed, in a way, in that it has undone itself - more any more of the population is rejecting the MSM (mainstream media) in favor of more objective or international perspectives.

Control itself causes rebellion. The center cannot hold. Fascism causes resistance.

[sweetheart]

6. did not know about the 4th estate

I'm a computer scientist, and i see the constitution much like a
massive computer program, with each individual citizen a logical element
in that system.

My view then, is wholistic, as my computer program has 6+ billion
people in it, not just 300m... and i'm struggling with the whole, where
the innovation vacuum is being filled by radicals, who, in their own
way recognize the same failings we all observe...

Filling the vacuum with straussian myths of fascist bullshit is
certainly no solution. That academia rejected the wolfowitz and his
nutty clan is no suprise.

Republicans are tribal, and with their narrow tribal definition could
give a toss about the whole, only their own. As much as i'm a fan of
enlightened self interest, to define a "moral values" based on a few
neocrackpot's fantasy myths is heinous... and the corporate media have
towed the line totally.

You mention that the pressure cooker is forcing the body poltic to
look outside the bullshit-myths... then it is incumbent on us to
have a contrarian way to not only prick the neocon bubble to return
decency to power, but to permanently enshrine that first amendment..
as indeed it has been, and will be permanently tampered with unless
we can protect it better.

[FreepFryer]

7. I would suggest the solution may in part lie in adjusting the current...

...balance between the 'first Three estates'- the Legislature, the Judiciary and the Executive.

It is massive abuses by the Executive Branch on the other two, in my opinion, that sets the whole 'formula' out of whack. Two ways to counter this: abolish the line-item veto, and abolish omnibus spending bills.

Our Constitution is a brilliant human achievement - not only for what it says, but for what it does not. Most of all, for what it says about us, the People.

[sweetheart]

8. As well, we must adress the 5th estate

The islamists make the criticism that the kind of democracy that they're
expected to adopt (and hence all the resistance), only celibrates
power that is elected... and that spiritual power is subverted by this
monopolar system. Even though there might be 3 estates in that pole,
it is still singular in its source of power.

1st estate enshrines patriarchy, the father figure ordering people
about.

2nd estate enshrines corporate interests if we're honest, but perhaps
not, if we presume that it is not corrupted. Its power is the ballot
box, house of commons, the regular persons legislature. The function
of all these estates in proper health is critical.

Ending corporate personhood is my singular recommendation to sorting
out these "lower" 3 estates.

Even the media with its public opinion biase, changes like the weather
and cannot be relied on for the moral values 5th estate.

Even with them sorted, there is a vacuum for a council of elders that
is not being addressed, and if we don't address it, then lots of folks
are getting killed in a civil war for no lesson, no evolution.. .and
the islamists will make it by default.

Perhaps that brilliant constitution needs to enshrine a 5th estate,
for export purposes... as it seems that without it, it is rejected
and we get wholly less desireable results like iran, china, russia
and north korea. Only iran of the 4 has enschrined its 5th estate...
and for all the criticism of the place... has started no wars.
Whilst i fault their feminism, what moral franchise have i to speak
from the western barbarian warmonger culture.

[Stevepol]

9. It shd be kept in mind that none of this adujustment is possible as long

as the voting machines are determining the winners in all elections. All these arguments require as a premise that we have a democracy that responds to idiots by voting them out of office. That's not possible in the US at present. Right now, all that can be done is to do everything possible to get a voter-verified paper ballot and audits for all elections.

[sweetheart]

17. point accepted

Obviously this is theoretical, and that the presumptions of liberal
democracy we're taking for granted, have already been usurped by
the corporate congress. In the most pragmatic terms, simply
ending corporate personhood by a 1 line constitutional amendment,
would be the fastest return to some semblance of what you're
shooting for... then the voting machine companies won't have the
right to be above public scrutiny.

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. Since I am a strong supporter of the long-time 2nd pole of the

university, and reject the new 2nd pole, does that make me a conservative?

Sometimes I get so confused.
:dunce:

[sweetheart]

5. Does it make you a conservative

Perhaps our error is in not making the authority of the second pole
inclusive and universal. That each party has its own church, the
democrats the universities, and the republicans their evanglist
neochristians... and neither is universal and able to speak for all the
people, but rather only their brehteren... so the moral pole flops
back and forth, that it is weak in effect, a form of institutional
moral psychosis. If the churches and the universities were all promoted
in some formal way to be equal and opposite to the elected
government, then at least the moral pole would be better empowered to
keep the country from this psychosis.

The concept of a single party state, is appropriate in one sense, that
there is 1 state, and 1 people, no matter their diversity... and that
the house is s divided is a serious serious problem, a gross failure
that will destroy the whole constitutional project. Where does that
voice and authority of ALL the people come from, when it cannot be
trusted to emerge from the flipp flopping of these moral poles.

I'm not sure myself... i'm merely postulating that the country is
all on about fighting wars and whatnot, when it seems the problem
globally that is being worked out, is a civil war on the nature of
what form of constitutional democratic system is best... And that
said, since they all want to have a second pole, perhaps rather than
fighting it, we should accept that the absence of its formal recognition
is our problem.

[klyon]

10. good argument for separation of church and state

but to assume secular democracy can have no ethics without your "opposite pole" is groundless

KL

[sweetheart]

11. Longevity is not yet proven

The US democracy has only lasted 200 some years, and in one sense what
was once "the experiment" is now quite old, with many others truly
experimenting with even newer expolorations in liberal democracy.

To say that it is groundless is not being true either, or the last
election would not have been fought on "moral values" grounds with
all 3 branches of government hyjakked by straussian liars... claiming
to be restoring our moral values through mythical means.

There is something missing, or so many people would not be trying to
restore something not broken. Even the most ardent secularist will
uphold education and an educated public as core to a functional democratic
republic.... and has in effect elevated the elitism of the school
and university as i mentioned.... giving us ethical ground.

The separation of church and state has been violated much more by
denying it than formall enfranchising it. Nazi germany, bush amerika,
communist russia, communist china, communist north korea... all of
these nation have started wars and mass murders of awesome proportions
guided out of secular governance. It seems that some moral values
acting as a checkpoint make as well a good argument for enfranchising
the 5th estate at an arms length... and giving the "moral church"
its franchise with formal definition and limits.

[klyon]

13. what I was trying to say is

It is possible to have ethical values and not be apart of any religion or even to believe in the existence of god.

If elected officials use god to promote war that does not effect the accuracy of my statement. When I see public officials using god and religion to further their goals I become very suspicious of them and I think we all should watch them very closely to see it they truly are religious or just play us.

I would never say people should not hold and practice religious values. I believe as you said they can be used to unethical ends. When government is promoting religious doctrines we have a big problem. I think it would be better for all concerned that religion remain separate from government for obvious reasons.

KL

[sweetheart]

14. Isn't that an outgrowth of there being no franchise?

That a secular leader has any franchise at all to speak as a religious
leader is the point i'm making that the lack of defining this franchise
is allowing it to be usurped.

Were there a "council of elders" who's job it was to serve as the moral
leadership, outside of secular government, to speak on behalf of the
clergy, universities and the people... perhaps given franchise by
religions, that as much as pat robertson would be on this council,
a zen master would be there as well, and a university emeritus professor
and amongst this group, the right to speak on behalf of the morals
and ethics of the american people.... and that this group have a
universal VETO on the secular agents... no ability to act, simply
a veto.

Then when bush attempted to use the rhetoric of the evangelists to
drive his war machine, an outside moral agent could veto the action.

Religion will attempt to usurp government inevitably and by denying it
any franchise, we give it much more power than if we simply gave them
a veto and told all the other guys to shut up about religion, as they
would be formally charged with being secular.

[klyon]

15. that is a very interesting concept

I have been waiting for religious people to speak out on the war and other things but all we get is Falwell and Robertson who really do not represent any "mainstream" religion. The Pope has spoken but know one seem to listen not even Kerry.

Veto power would need a constitutional amendment which would be impossible to get. Also how would these representatives be chosen, election and who would decide who was the ballot. Completely unworkable to my mind. So lets encourage religious leaders to speak-out invite them to be on TV talk shows and "news broadcasts". I do not support federal funds going to any religion, they already are tax exempt that should be enough support.

KL

[sweetheart]

16. Considering the appointments to a council of elders.

I would consider a procedure like they use for the house of lords.
It would be a body politic of say 100 wise elders, and people from
across the land would be able to nominate and be nominated. Likely
this would be similar to the supreme court, as the body would have to
be beyond being swayed by electoral whim, even if 1 party dominated
all 3 branches of government... this body would be the agency to
check the balance where the first 3 franchise's have failed to do so.

Since it is not debating bills and whatnot, the elders need not meet a
whole lot, rather they can get together occasionally and hear the
concerns of the people directly, on direct appeal.

Then they would have the power to veto any peice of legislation,
including the spending bills for going to war, and as well to veto
a court decision. This would still allow the executive its priviledge,
but provide a heavy hammer to stop wanton actions.. and obviously such
thinking will be evident in advance, so a president facing an elders
veto would have to rethink war plans.

The cost would probably be to build them a building somewhere, not in
wasthington... and geesh, the public builds a lotta baseball stadiums
so one would think this is a trivial expense relatively. Otherwise
there need be no "support" of religion.. Many of these elders may
indeeed be rather wise and very respected members of society from
all walks, not necessarily religion.

Frankly, i don't know if this would ever work in america until the
constitutional system as we know it fails totally (and bush is close
to that!... we're 1 bankruptcy and 1 nuclear attack away from the
end of the first republic). The consideration is when positing
systems of government for people who are not happy with ameircan
demoracy... critical of it, in the very way the neocons and islamists
are... then fix it so that it takes all the wind out of their sails.

[sweetheart]

12. Suprising so few on DU have opinions on this

This is the crux of the last election, the basis on which the neocons
are doing their actions, and as well the basis of the islamists. Yet
it seems that DU has become populated with small "c" conservatives who
would wish a way that magically the constitution could be restored
from people who are going to do nothing of the sort.

So, rather than wishing things to go backwards, or to restore the
FDR dream of times past, we need to be forward looking about this.

[sweetheart]

18. kick for a weekday

anyone... anyone.... Bueller! :-)