Sunday, June 11, 2006
Talking Points Memo On Elections (for Progressive media)
Since the start of this month there has been more high profile, corporate media coverage of our "election" charades than perhaps any other period during the Bush regime. Could this be a sign we are approaching a bona fide tipping point, after which things will be totally different? Well, I want to believe it, but I think we first need the progressive media to get on the same page about some talking points.1. Secret vote counting guarantees inconclusive outcomes. Whether it is paperless DREs or optical scanners with interpreted or proprietary code, votes are being "counted" in secret, without even a chance for voters, elections officials or the media to examine the process or verify the results.
The larger question that should emerge from these talking points is: Has the Consent of the Governed been withdrawn, YET? Presented this way the question takes a tone of inevitability - not if, but when! This is how we pave a path to a tipping point.
2. Unverified voting means there is NO BASIS for confidence in the results reported. Blind trust is required to accept current election results.
3. The media should not report what it cannot prove or independently verify. We now have faith-based reporting about faith-based elections.
4. The Consent of the Governed is being assumed, not sought, under current election conditions. According to the Declaration of Independence, the "just Power" of government derives from the Consent of the Governed.
5. Here is a partial list (in no particular order) of additional items to which we must say: We Do Not Consent.a) The lost presumption of innocence;
b) Spying on Americans and an overall loss of privacy;
c) Government lawlessness;
d) Destruction of our environment;
e) The promise of endless war;
f) Free speech zones;
g) Depleted Uranium (Mr. Bush's slow-motion holocaust);
h) Government run media;
i) Secret prisons, torture and war crimes;
j) and We Do Not Consent to secret vote counting machines.
This set of points varies in at least one very dramatic way from the high profile corporate coverage recently given to election integrity. For examples, start with Rolling Stone publishing Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s hefty recitation of the of the travesty of the 2004 "election" in Ohio, plus the ensuing TV appearances (CNN, Fox, MSNBC - all .wmv videos), and the online rebuttals and rejoinders (Farhad Manjoo at Salon.com, Paul Lehto, Bob Fitrakis, and even Bobby Kennedy himself). In all cases, progressive people are arguing over past events that can't be changed with people who are not even open to having their minds changed.
What would be better is educating progressive media about these powerful forward-looking arguments. Icons such as Thom Hartmann, Peter B. Collins (.mp3 of my interview last week), and Randi Rhodes can help us teach the public at large in a way that enables understanding of our current condition while fostering an appropriately strong and unified response. The talking points above allow us to discuss that which can be agreed upon, namely, what are the conditions for the elections we're about to have. The lesson, however, is that such conditions ensure inconclusive outcomes which should never be expected to produce unanimous acceptance. By narrowly defining a common view of the problem we become poised to take united action.
The Voter Confidence Resolution (VCR) is a document reflecting all the talking points above. The City Council of Arcata, CA was the first to adopt the VCR, and Palo Alto, CA will soon be considering its own version. Each community is encouraged to use Arcata's language as a template, keeping the main talking points and customizing other areas, including an election reform platform. This inspires local debate about sensible standards that should aim at delivering conclusive election outcomes and creating a basis for confidence in the results reported.
In Hartmann's recent AlterNet article about the RFK piece, he very bluntly says: "George W. Bush is not the legitimate president of the United States." But Hartmann doesn't go much beyond encouraging us to "speak out" in response. There is no doubt that Hartmann personally knows many people who have already been among the most outspoken. Our efforts have not been in vain, but they could be more successful with a common message and call to action. And it was with this in mind that I saw the need for this talking points memo. It is worth noting that when I recently discussed these same ideas with Brother Thom on his radio show, this is what he said:"Its a great start getting out there and saying, 'Nope, sorry, we're not going to play this game.' I think we need to do more of that.
Read or Post a Comment
great job, great post. Just a couple of thoughts:
to rag on government lawlessness and government run media is going to sour people on government...when government is run of, by, and for the people, it can be a good thing
it's the corporate schills who have installed themselves and are working of, by, and for the corporations that are instituting the lawlessness and running the media (could work this into talking pt. 5h, for example)
I was hoping you would allude to dangerous and all-pervasive privatization that has occurred during the illegitimate Bush Administration --
but I'm not sayin' anything you didn't already know, and haven't thought of...
Permalink to comment | Top of Page | WDNC Main Page
Yes indeed, we do want to get back to government of, by and for the people. But can this be done without the masses first souring on the government? Seems we're already a long way toward that end anyway.
One of our chief aims now, as outlined in Blueprint For Peaceful Revolution, needs to be rejecting the government's intentional divisiveness. Of the many ways society is split, the one I am most focused on is the rift in the perception of reality. Folks who are still buying the official line can be helped by listening to them, and asking them probing questions, until they inevitably admit to believing contradictory things. To win them over, that is, to unite and overcome the divisiveness, we do well to help them confront their own cognitive dissonance.
You are spot on, of course, about the lawlessness depending heavily on corporate media. I mentioned "Government run media" in point 5-h. A more thorough phrase I've used previously is the corporate-military-government-media juggernaut. This reflects the nature of the fascist nucleus at the core of the American power structure today. Inherent in this is the privatization you mention too.
Basically, it sounds like you got it down and if I were a guest on a radio show, for example, talking about these points, you would make a great caller to flesh out the outline some more. Thanks for posting!
Permalink to comment | Top of Page | WDNC Main Page