Effective?

So much of the information and suggestions for action to reform politics and such seems to be good stuff. However, it's still not addressing the cause of all the problems - the people responsible for creating, implementing, enforcing, and perpetuating the current system. It's true that issues like campaign reform, voting reform, globalization, environmental protection, and a huge variety of social issues all need to be addressed but it seems like there is no discussion around closely investigating the source of the problems.

It's the men & women who have run our country and are currently running our country who have been key players in putting today's problems into place. On a larger scale, it's everyone in country but I'm going to narrow it down and look at our 'leaders' only. One thing I see as a problem is the definition of leadership. It seems that the people being led define leadership one way while the people leading define it differently. What's interesting is that leaders probably had a different definition before they took office. So what changes when someone becomes a leader? What happens that is so powerful that they would slowly (but surely) change their thougts and actions around the idea of leadership?

We hear 'leaders' talking all the time about what they want to do but they so rarely seem to make it happen. Politicians run on platforms that, while wonderful to imagine, seem impossible on a practical level. Yet we listen to them. So there has to be something there - they truly believe they can do what they say and they're able to convince large numbers of people of the same. So what happens after they get into office? Is it true that there is no honest politician? Is it true that our entire political system is completely corrupted and that no one can do anything that's truly for the good of the constituents? I find it hard to believe that our political system is as corrupt as that in some other countries. We still have huge advantages over countries that are ruled by dictators, military factions, or outright bribery & graft. There are still some checks and balances, weak though they might be.

Lately I've been reading Howard Zinn's "People's History of America" and it is some fascinating stuff. With all the recent talk about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, it seems that we should take a MUCH closer look at what was really intended with the creation of these documents. As Zinn notes, even though there has been an incredible amount of good progress that's come from these ideas, the basic premise for both of them was to keep certain portions of the population in check so that the people in power could remain in power.

Interesting. Especially since the men who created the framework for the US as a nation have almost been granted godhood despite all the evidence to the contrary. I should note, however, that the same institution that has promoted them as sterling & selfless examples of perfect citizens is also the institution that they worked so hard to protect. Obviously, that institution worships these men and will do what it has to do to protect and promote the idea that they & their creations were above reproach.

But I want to look at this from a different perspective. From a more 'energy follows intent and we create our own reality' perspective. If the intent behind these powerful documents was to subtly promote one set of citizens while keeping another set intact, how could the manifestation of that intent be any different than what we're seeing today? If only one sector of society was intended to ultimately benefit from what our founding fathers created, how could the results be different than what we're seeing? It's becoming more and more obvious that the Constitution and Bill of Right, outstandingly progressive creations though they may be, are inherently flawed. They were written from a paradigm that was wealthy, white, patriarchial, racist, classist, and all the other 'ists' that we're now seeing.

Although they used langauge that would suggest concepts such as freedom for all, equality, and justice, this language was backed by extremely strong feelings of those concepts applying only to certain groups. Since energy follows intent and we create energetically, we've created (all of us, every one who has ever considered themselves American or on American soil) a fantastic contradiction. We look at the words and see this wonderful statement of freedom and justice. We look at America and see that those words aren't manifested except in some fairly narrowly defined circumstances. And we're enraged - rightly so.

I believe part of the problem is in the way we've been taught to think about the 'founding fathers', the government they created, the ideas they pioneered, and the reason they began even looking to form a government. Actually, we're not taught anything about them at all except that they were one step down from god and that nothing they said or did should be questioned. My big question would be "Why, if they were all well off, did they even look to start forming a centralized government?" No one, I repeat, no one is ever that altruistic. To say that all these men stood to gain nothing from this exercise - that all they were interested in was the good of their fellow man is just idiotic. Of course there was something in it for them, the question is - what what it?

I'm not advocating that we revisit everything that happened and scrounge around for dirt on these guys. Obviously, they were part of an incredibly successful (in certain ways) and wonderful, exciting experiment. I do not intend to denigrate their efforts or scorn what has been accomplished. It is obvious that the American experience of democratic government (as far as we can call it that) has affected our world in an infinite number of ways - many of them good, demonstrating that rule by force isn't the only choice. But our world is starting to look for even more than that. We're starting to look at the rule of force as completely unacceptable but we're also starting to look at rule by the very very few (to their own advantage) as wrong also - no matter how prettily it's cloaked.

In essence, we're starting to look for ways to fine tune the democratic process and make it truly democratic. My feeling is that we need to understand WHY it's not working right now in order to move forward. Back to energetic communication and energy following intent. If the intent of the document & government creators was to create something to protect their own standing, it's only sensible that it's manifested itself that way. But that way isn't acceptable any more so what's the answer?

My thought - we should revisit these documents (and others perhaps) and take a close look at the language that was used to shape them. The people who would be chosen to do such a review, however, would be the key. They would be people with a strong intent to revisit these issues for the betterment of all people, not just Americans and not just wealthy white male Americans. I also don't know how they would be chosen. We wouldn't want the current people in power to choose b/c they would choose people likely to continue things as they are.

How to choose a Constitutional review council would be an interesting challenge. There has obviously been a lot of work done on this already but is it valid work? Is work done by privileged white male scholars work that could be used or work that inherently furthers the current status quo? Does that mean white males would be left out of the council? This type of challenge is MUCh bigger than it appears at first glance. We would need to completely revisit our definition of equality and change our perspective on what are considered valuable traits in a human being. I say this because if we choose people who are 'appropriate' based on our current definition of leader, we are keeping ourselves in the box of the current framework.

Much of the value that women and other marginalized groups bring are values entirely separate and different than those favored by the current societal structure. For example - the way women make decisions (more intuitive and less logical) is almost completely devalued by our society. Although that's changed slightly in the past few years, it's still scorned and seen as a weak and feminine trait (unless your a corporate CEO/raider type who 'gut jumps' into success). The truth is, that type of decision making has HUGE value and is a much more accurate way to make a decision based on the current moment's needs. And that's only one example.

I realize that an undertaking like this - revisiting the documents that were used to found our country and our government - is almost off the scale of what we consider doable but I think it's becoming more and more necessary. We can keep trying to patch the existing ideas with new ideas but, as the ideas are flawed at such a fundamental level, I have to wonder how long they (and the people marginalized by them) can withstand the strain. Americans are only governed by law because they have, so far, maintained a social contract with state and federal governments. What will it take for them to break that contract? If a contract doesn't serve the people who agreed to abide by it, should we not find a way to revisit that contract?