Friday, June 29, 2007

HCPBs are ON the table (Guest Blogged by Rady Ananda)

One of my most durable allies, based a world away in Columbus, OH, Rady Ananda has sent me an essay that I knew right away belongs at WDNC. Naturally I was drawn right in by her title, which builds off of words I've used in several places this week to promote the release of the Voter Confidence Committee Report on Election Conditions in Humboldt County, California. Note that I only learned later she has posted the same essay with a different title at

Anyway, what I love about this essay is its ruthless honesty - its effort to move us all to act in a way that is consistent with the information we know we have. I have often said this is the way to conquer cognitive dissonance. This theme runs strongly through my fifth annual Reflections On Independence, due out early next week. For now, challenge yourself and read on...

* * *

HCPBs are ON the table
By Rady Ananda

I must be experiencing "cognitive dissonance" with our peaceful revolutionary leaders. If we agree that "government IS the problem" then why do we bother even talking to them? Why debate them, why respond to them, why acknowledge them? They cannot prove they were elected, and we can prove they do not vote in accordance with the majority of the populace (92% Zogby poll on transparent vote counting; 19% approval rating of Congress, etc.)

Since the government so clearly and consistently ignores us, why not ignore them? Isn't it premature to meet with them now, before the bulk of the people have decided how to proceed?

If we agree that secret vote counts (as conducted on machines) are anathema to democracy, and we believe in democracy, then why do we vote? Doesn't that legitimize secret vote counting?

If we agree that hand-counted paper ballots, without media reform, without an informed electorate, without viable choices on the ballot who represent the interests and concerns of the people, are irrelevant, then why do we continue to vote?

Are we not long past time to withdraw our consent? Isn't it long past time to withhold our taxes? To withhold our vote? To withhold our attention from elites?

I've been reading Paulo Freire (Pedagogy of the Oppressed; Pedagogy of Hope; Pedagogy of Freedom), George Monbiot's Age of Consent: Manifesto for a New World Order; and both volumes of Derrick Jensen's Endgame. I am desperate to find winnable strategies to implement democracy and take back our world from the rich (whose social and environmental practices look insane, to me).

Freire thinks we should start at the bottom – not the top. Engage in dialogue with the oppressed, and move forward at THEIR level of awareness. Here's how he puts it: "Leaders cannot treat the oppressed as mere activists to be denied the opportunity of reflection and allowed merely the illusion of acting, whereas in fact they would continue to be manipulated – and in this case by the presumed foes of manipulation."

Isaiah Berlin agrees: "But to manipulate (people), to propel them toward goals which you -- the social reformers -- see, but they may not, is to deny their human essence, to treat them as objects without wills of their own, and therefore to degrade them." Source: Two Concepts of Liberty, 1958 (thanks to Tom Feeley).

Freire characterizers our would-be revolutionary leaders who would develop the platform of change without our input and consent as merely asking us to exchange one set of oppressive rulers for another. He believes that when we use the tools of oppression – in this case manipulation thru "sloganizing" – we are oppressors. We are what we do.

Monbiot, interestingly, does not believe that localization will lead to a successful revolution. Instead, he argues that a global world parliament (similar to the World Social Forum, and to the US Social Forum in Atlanta this weekend) will be what leads us to victory. He makes a strong case. The basic premise of his argument is world government by elites is a given – whether we like it or not. Our only hope, then, is to develop a people's forum that holds global government to account.

But all agree that the oppressed must be given voice. While our revolutionary leaders are off in the halls of power debating, cajoling, discussing with elites, the oppressed continues to be ignored.

My question goes to this. How do we engage the populace? Isn't that where our strength really lies? What would get those teens at the public library to read our blogs, to post their own, to posit their own solutions, instead of playing video games on library computers?

What would make 20-somethings more interested in social justice? In fair elections? In peace and a living wage, or universal health care?

I agree with Digby that bloggers are part of a revolutionary participatory democracy. I see journalism as recording history according to elites, and bloggers as recording history according to the people. But obviously, we cannot limit ourselves to the internet – where only a small fraction participates.

Do we follow Che Guevara's (and Paulo Freire's) example and travel from town to town in dialogue with the oppressed? My experience with this is that without offering an alternative that seems reasonable to the people, they don't even want to talk about the sorry state of affairs.

Where we do agree is that before we can have a meeting of the minds between social justice activists and elites, we must first have a meeting of the minds among ourselves. If I could travel to Atlanta this weekend, I would; and I would be speaking for a living wage, hand-counted paper ballots, civil unions for the GLBT community, and peace (for starters).

I sincerely look forward to reading the reports from the US Social Forum, and hope that some of my questions are addressed.

(I published this at

* * *


Labels: , , , , ,

Posted by Dave Berman - 11:43 PM | Permalink
Comments (0 So Far) | Top of Page | WDNC Main Page
As shown on
Dave's new blog,
Manifest Positivity

We Do Not Consent, Volume 1 (left) and Volume 2 (right), feature essays from Dave Berman's previous blogs, GuvWurld and We Do Not Consent, respectively. Click the covers for FREE e-book versions (.pdf). As of April 2010, paperbacks are temporarily out of print. Click here for the author's bio.

Back Page Quotes

"Give a damn about the world you live in? Give a damn about what you and I both know is one of the most shameful and destructive periods in American history? If so, do something about it. You can start by reading We Do Not Consent."

— Brad Friedman, Creator/Editor,; Co-Founder,

"If in the future we have vital elections, the "no basis for confidence" formulation that GuvWurld is popularizing will have been a historically important development. This is true because by implicitly insisting on verification and checks and balances instead of faith or trust in elections officials or machines as a basis for legitimacy, it encourages healthy transparent elections. It’s also rare that a political formulation approaches scientific certainty, but this formulation is backed up by scientific principles that teach that if you can’t repeat something (such as an election) and verify it by independent means, it doesn’t exist within the realm of what science will accept as established or proven truth."

— Paul Lehto, Attorney at Law, Everett, WA

"Dave Berman has been candid and confrontational in challenging all of us to be "ruthlessly honest" in answering his question, "What would be better?" He encourages us to build consensus definitions of "better," and to match our words with actions every day, even if we do only "the least we can do." Cumulatively and collectively, our actions will bring truth to light."

— Nezzie Wade, Sociology Professor, Humboldt State University and College of the Redwoods

"Dave Berman's work is quietly brilliant and powerfully utilitarian. His Voter Confidence Resolution provides a fine, flexible tool whereby any community can reclaim and affirm a right relation to its franchise as a community of voters."

— Elizabeth Ferrari, San Francisco, Green Party of California

"This is an important collection of essays with a strong unitary theme: if you can't prove that you were elected, we can't take you seriously as elected officials. Simple, logical, comprehensive. 'Management' (aka, the 'powers that be') needs to get the message. 'The machines' are not legitimizers, they're an artful dodge and a path to deception. We've had enough...and we most certainly DO NOT consent."

— Michael Collins covers the election fraud beat for "Scoop" Independent Media

"What's special about this book (and it fits because there's nothing more fundamental to Democracy than our vote) is the raising of consciousness. Someone recognizing they have no basis for trusting elections may well ask what else is being taken for granted."

— Eddie Ajamian, Los Angeles, CA

"I urge everyone to read "We Do Not Consent", and distribute it as widely as possible."

— B Robert Franza MD, author of We the People ... Have No Clothes: A Pamphlet for every American