Alternatives to the Fourth Reich

Reference: The Rise of the Fourth Reich by Jim Marrs, who argues that America is becoming the Fourth Reich, which is meant to continue the legacy of the Third Reich.

The Fourth versus the Third Reich

In his book – highly recommended reading by the way – Marrs contrasts the Third vs. the Fourth Reich in this way [in my words]:

Whereas the Third Reich came into power by means of the state exerting greater control over business; the Fourth Reich will accomplish the same outcome in the opposite way – by means of the corporations taking over the state.

There is a lot of fascism in the USA, which too many good people are embracing as a necessary evil in the fight against global terrorism. However, there are better ways to fight terrorism even though our corporate elite would still love us to give up our freedoms anyway.

We don’t have to become the Fourth Reich; we’re better than that. I hope the following bit shows how we can turn the tide and create that better world we all yearn for.

Taking this to a personal level

I’ve made a number of proposals on this blog, trying to describe what an ideal US governing system might look like. However, it might be useful to try a first-person narrative. So, what follows is a future diary entry made by one US voter, which I hope will make the point:

Dear Diary

Voting is so much easier these days, and so is being a Congressman. Well, that last is never really easy, but things are better now since campaign financing was illegalized years ago. The greatest motivation to change came from the outrageous amounts presidential candidates had to raise. But that’s not a problem anymore, since we no longer have a president (more on that, in a bit).

These days, lawmakers in office don’t have to worry about raising enough money to get re-elected, which most had to do beginning on Day One in office under the old system. Challengers to incumbents also have it easier, since the incumbents’ advantage has been significantly reduced.

Isn’t that great? No more TV ads, no more radio spots, and no more political junk mail. The only way to campaign for office is on-line. But this is strictly regulated and formatted. Each candidate must maintain one – and only one – campaign website. On it, he can list his biographical info – including his accomplishments, legislative and otherwise. Also posted will be a list of endorsers – those groups and individuals who support him. Each candidate is free to list on his website lists of those who oppose his opponents.

Also included are campaign statements, promises, self-promotions, and “analyses” of opponents.

Me, personally? Hate to admit it, but I’m kind of a slacker. Policy wonking isn’t my thing. So I tend to follow the endorsements of groups and persons I trust. And I know all endorsements/detractions are on a general, all-purpose site in addition to the various candidates’ sites. So I could check that out, if I ever really felt the need.

I’m kind of glad they got rid of the US Senate – what a bunch of puffed up blowhards! So much good stuff got filibustered to death. And besides, under our new system of CSR: Cross-Sectional Representation, who would miss that second house of Congress anyway?

All we have now is a House of Representatives and a figurehead president. To be sure, we still have a Supreme Court and a variety of federal courts. But all judges’ decisions can be overturned in the House. It rarely happens, but a simple majority would serve to overturn a judge’s verdict.

And what’s not to like about “a simple majority,” especially since the committee system was abandoned years ago? That had served only to stymie progress – since an awful lot of good ideas ended up dying in committee. These days, few even remember what that expression means. Thank God!

I remember people worrying about the loss of the checks-and-balances system. They asked, “If one House makes all of our laws and isn’t reigned in by another chamber, the courts, or a strong president, won’t we have to worry about abuse of power?”

Not to worry, as things turned out. Since all Congressmen were subject to instant on-line recall (24/7), it turned out We-the-People were all the check-and-balance needed. As for the presidency, one of CSR’s best innovations was to simply get rid of that branch of government. To be sure, a president still serves, but in order to serve, he has to be elected by his peers in the House. That’s right – he himself has to be a Congressman who is chosen by his fellow reps. He is no longer popularly elected and he is no longer a one-man branch of government – not the world’s greatest idea in the first place.

Our current president is a figurehead without any more power or authority than the House cares to bestow upon him at any one time. And, believe me, that’s not much these days. He receives foreign dignitaries, and serves in the old-style presidents' role as far as our nuclear response is concerned. But the other powers? Gone. Even as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Turns out, the military brass being directly responsible to the Congress was the best option after all.

The only way we could get rid of the imperial presidency was to empower each of our Congressmen to be as powerful as any other Congressman. No more seniority system. No more committees. No more filibustering. Each representative was given access to great resources of staff and research capability, since each was expected to be conversant on all major legislation. And why not? Wasn’t that expected of the president?

Of course, there are many reps who defer to colleagues or others whom they trust as experts before casting votes on certain types of  bills.

The upshot? Each Congressman was elevated, so to speak. He was no longer just a cog in a political party’s machine – mostly because political parties could not exist under a Cross-Sectional Representation system governed by our new campaign laws. Reps didn’t have to worry about pleasing a party boss or trading favors with peers or, worse, trying to bring pork back to his home district.

After CSR became fully operational, we quickly saw the wisdom of disbanding the old Congressional Districts and replacing them with Cross-Sections. In the old days, a rep was linked to a geographical district. To get reelected, he had to show his constituents he was doing good for them. “For them” – that was always the drawback. What was good for a District might not be good for the United States as a whole.

Hence, the beauty of the Cross-Section. Basically, in the beginning, the Senate was disbanded and the entire list of registered voters, nationwide, was pooled. This was divided randomly into 435 units called Cross-Sections, since cross-sectioning would be the effect of such a random division. A Congressman representing Cross-Section 14 would know his constituents could be living anywhere in the country. So he was obliged to pass legislation good for the country as a whole, instead of (as in the past) his geographically-based Congressional District.

Basically, Cross-Section 14 would have (on average) the same composition as Cross-Section 15 or 16 or…any of them. Same average income, same ethnic/racial distribution, same percentage of Blue and Red ideologues. Therefore, we saw a sharp reduction in conflicts based on one district trying to obtain advantages in Congress at the expense of another district or of the national good. Or with reps pandering to certain dominant ethnicities or races or income levels residing in their districts.

What about state and local governments and courts? Oh, they still exist but they’re subordinate to the House since the House, as it now exists, is really the purest manifestation of We-the-People. For instance, if one state would try to lure industry by offering tax breaks, the House could say “no.” And you know what? States for the most part were glad to be rid of this cut-throat competition with other states.

What became important was the health of the United States as a whole. So if the actions of one state government would impact other states negatively, or even its own people (tax breaks for some mean increased tax burdens for others), the House could step in and stop that nonsense.

Of course the newly-leveled playing field was irksome for states like Texas and Alaska which hadn’t needed to impose individual income taxes. Alaska, since it had so much oil wealth, was actually able to pay its citizens a dividend. But then a wise man asked, “When are we going to become one country – a United States as a whole (which required a name change as things turned out) – instead of a collection of 50 competing, pretending-to-be-autonomous fiefs?”

So state revenues were pooled and divided.

The thinking went something like this: “Just because someone is born in a state that is so well-endowed with natural resources it can actually pay its citizens rather than tax them, why should that person enjoy any special advantage over someone born into a poverty-stricken area?” At first blush, it seems unfair to take from one to give to another. But that well-endowed state might suffer a future reversal of fortune, for which this type of insurance policy would then be appreciated. Yes, let’s call it that – an insurance policy.

Anyway, most folks realized that the individual state entities were just a fiction anyway. After the Fourteen Amendment was passed, states couldn’t even define what is was to be a citizen within their own borders. And a state which can’t define the terms of its own citizenship isn’t really a state any longer. It’s lost its sovereignty. That, plus the fact that national corporations and the corrupt central government were reducing the power of the states anyway were arguments that won the day.

* * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Today, I’m going to vote. I’ll just go on-line, log-in and cast my ballot.

Tell you what…I love this particular feature of CSR: Staggered elections. We used to vote every two years for US Congressmen – with all 435 seats in the House up for grabs at once. Not to mention, every four years, when a president was voted for. All of these elections being held at once was really nothing more than political theater. Just a way to whip up excitement – most of it media-induced and quite artificial, and most not issues-driven in any deep way.

These days, there’s an election every third day – that’s when one Cross-Section’s seat goes up before the voters. One and only one. And then, during the next three days, another seat goes up…and on and on.

When Cross-Sections first replaced Congressional Districts, all of the seats went up for election at once. And all of the reps were allowed to serve 1305 days. After that, on day 1308, we had our first Cross-Sectional election with only one seat on the block. On day 1311, another seat went up, as did yet another on day 1314. This meant that, of the original 435 elected members, all would get to serve at least 1305 days in office, but most would serve more, with one actually serving for 2610 days – in effect, a double term.

After this transition period, the die was cast and all House members thereafter got to serve only 1305 days in office. Oh, about the oddity of the number – why 1305 days? That’s a little more than three-and-a-half years, but that number was chosen based on this equation:

1305 divided by 435 = 3.0

That is, if the ultimate plan was to have each Cross-Section’s constituency vote for a (possibly) new Rep every three days (an easy number to remember), this equation tells you how long the overall term of office has to be for that to happen.

Voting these days is easy. No muss, no fuss, no solicitation for campaign contributions, no media circus every two and four years as the press and candidates indulge in a feeding frenzy of attention grabbing antics. All I need to know is on-line. Yes, of course political analysts still offer their say, but that’s only within the context of their particular media, with blitzing and endless message repetition disallowed by law.

As for the primaries? If someone wants to run for office, they pay a modest application fee which allows their name to be listed on the website of the Cross-Section they wish to represent. They are allowed folder space on that website to make their pitch, and then a primary is held with members of that Cross-Section going on line and making a choice. The top five choices appear on the ballot two months later, with voters instructed to make two choices: If your first choice doesn’t win, who would you switch your vote to? Simple majority wins with this automatic run-off system.

There were romantics who missed the old days of gritty, in-your-face campaigning featuring babies being kissed, mud being flung, and lots of flesh-pressing in Town Hall meetings, and lots of yelling and screaming. These romantics complained, “Under CSR, you don’t even have a chance to meet the candidates, since there’s no way to gather all (or even any appreciable fraction of) constituents under one roof. We don’t really get to know these guys at all.”

The answer to that one: “How well did you get to know them under the old system? You never really knew them either, in any meaningful, intimate way.”

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Conclusion

Cross-Sectional Representation – CSR, for short – is my vision of how America can be made to work. The old Constitution was a very flawed instrument that served a practical function. That document can no longer do so; it cannot see us into the future. I am working toward establishing a Constitutional Convention that will give us a new Constitution – hopefully, one based on CSR but, if not, at least something that will remedy the shortcomings of the old system.

We can insist on such a Convention even if Congress won’t authorize one. We can insist by means of a rolling-economic boycott. And insist is exactly what we must and should do. Believe me, if even a small fraction of us boycotted the nation’s seven largest banks by means of a coordinated, rolling-economic boycott, the Powers-that-Be would let us have our Constitutional Convention.

And the rest, as they say, shall become history.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“Real change is just a slight change of will power away.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com