Superb Sunday commentary from Glynn. As many may suspect by now, the Democrats who've grown roots in Washington, like the Republicans who've grown roots there, are pretty much the same species of shrub - I am resisting the bush pun here - with perhaps a slight varietal difference.

C. Northcote Parkinson, in a brillant book written 50 years ago called "Parkinson's Law," suggested one way to encourage frequent turnover in elected offices would be to provide for the immediate execution of incumbents who run for re-election and fail.

Adoption of Dr. Parkinson's proposal would go a long way toward cleaning up, and cleaning out, Babylon-by-the-Potomac. Electing new leaders from the same old bunch of Demopublicans, or Republicrats, won't.

Again, great commentary from Glynn. Let's get some discussion going here, guys.

In case there is any confusion about the meaning of my previous Comment, citing Dr. Parkison: this was my humorous way of advocating term limits, not the actual execution of defeated incumbents.

Obviously, a legal provision such as Dr. Parkinson's would result in no one, except the hopelessly power-addicted, standing for re-election, a draconian approach to term limits.

On occasion, I've held that a better way to elect Congress, for at least a few terms, would be to pick names at random from jury pools. We could certainly do no worse that way than we have done in recent elections, and the odds might be that we'd have some of the best Congresses on record.

In the real world, term limits will go a long way toward reforming and cleaning up Congress.

Thanks Yana. And thanks for the plug for more discussion.

But you should understand a couple of things. Alabama is still behind the technological times, so much of the discussion here still goes on via e-mail lists. And, people are either shy or afraid of the spying eyes of the Bush administration.

Plus, blogging has not really caught on here yet, and the software we are using causes some people problems. We are on the verge of switching everything over to Word Press, which might make it easier for people to comment.

Also note that I have shut down discussions when they become partisan hack fights. I'm not interested in that sort of thing, so the people who are tend to go away and find somebody else to harass. That's fine with me. I don't have time to constantly moderate a food fight.

We have had a number of substantive discussions on a few issues, and I plan on organizing more of that in the future. You are welcome to join, because I think you may be part of the coalition that could turn this country around.

We need progressive Democrats and independents and libertarians to get into bed together to stop corporate fascism and religious monarchy from ruining the American experiment in democracy.

Where you and I will disagree is on privatizing everything from water companies to jails, mental hospitals, even spying.

I believe there are some things only government can and should do, and it goes beyond delivering the mail and protecting our borders. We live in a different world now.

The abuse of capitalism by the mega-corporations has shown me this: If they do not back off on mergers and executive salaries and agree to provide health care and higher wages for everyone, we should at least threaten to nationalize some industries, especially energy-related industries such as oil and power generation.

By refusing to use their massive profits to develop alternatives to fossil fuels, companies like Southern Company are killing more people than the U.S. is killing in Iraq, and the latest figure I saw was 1 million Iraqis dead.

Alabama Power has a quasi-public/private monopoly, but they just pay their executives more, their workers less, and refuse to invest in pollution controls or alternative sources of energy, except for the unviable nuclear option.

And then there's TVA.

Browns Ferry Shutdown Stirs Nuke Debate

Thanks, Glynn, and I’ll be happy to participate in the dialog.

In Oriental philosophy, the function of the “sovereign” is to “protect the people.” Today, in theory at least, we the people are sovereign but have done a poor job selecting the political leaders who are supposed to protect, and not abuse, us and others.

At the root of the mess is, I believe, a cultural dysfunction. Our culture, in many ways so subtle it’s usually not even noticed, teaches us to seek fulfillment outside our own lives, and concurrently to place blame on others when things do not go as we wish.

There are a whole host of results from this basic dysfunctional “meme,” none of them good, leading to the ultimate blame activity – violence, both on a personal level, and ultimately institutionalized violence, the worst form of which is war.

My thought is that “politics” itself is institutionalized violence, sometimes physical, sometimes emotional or psychological. It’s played like war, with “sides” who engage in “campaigns.” In our legislative bodies, and appeals-level courts, we have votes on bills and decisions which are “won” by the majority and lost by the minority.

I propose we replace “politics” with “concentrics,” which is a word I haven’t been able to find in a dictionary. It’s based on the word “consensus.”

Many Native American peoples – the Iroquoian family of nations, for instance – conducted governance through consensus. Aside from instances in which one could not delay, they would deliberate as long as necessary over important decisions until everyone was “on board” for the decision. (Notably, among the Iroquoians, councils of elder women had the final say.)

And, the lengthy process insured that all possible consequences of a decision, at least all those which could be reasonably foreseen, were considered.

This “concentrics” approach to governance would take much longer than the current warlike “political” approach. But I think it has much to recommend it.

Comments?

Concentrics sounds interesting, Yana. I know I've heard the word. The first thing that comes up in Google is a beer company in Atlanta, so you may be onto something : )

Atlanta Brewing Company

There is a Website for Concentrics.Com, although I'm not sure that's what you had in mind.

There is a theory I'm familiar with from Alabama native E.O. Wilson called Consilience, more akin to bringing together the academic disciplines than political peoples. But hey, I'm open to anything as long as it involves Bush and co. leaving Washington in disgrace forever. As a close friend in Washington who watches politics closely said today, "These Republicans have to go."

So maybe the word should be "consensics," although that's hard to pronounce. That would be more or less parallel to "politics," I think.

Anyway, I am working on a more elaborate theory of how a "consensics" based system of governance would work as opposed to our present "politics" based system.

The key component will be a reliance on non-violence and respect for the dignity and value of each human being.

In other words, it will be a system which folks in Washington and Montgomery will mostly be completely unable to grasp. Add in those other national and local capitals around the globe, as well.

An essay is forthcoming, Glynn. Meantime, how about Larry Craig retracting his resignation? Yet another proof we need term limits for the U. S. House and Senate. Bush has to go in January 2009, but Craig might just still be legislating away.

LOL!

Ha!

Thinking outside the box?

You gotta love what Bill Maher said about Bush trying to think outside the box? The box was made for guys like Bush, C-student frat boys. Please, George, stay inside the box : )

I think it is hard to come up with a new overarching theory in communications or political science, and new words may or may not catch on. Maybe the simpler the better.

But we do need to somehow think through the split dynamics in our current political system and look for common ground, or we are doomed.

Bush thinks his line about "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" was clever, or at least Karl Rove did, but he has made so many enemies "over there" now that it seems even more inevitable that they will "hit us here." Whatever happened to trying to make friends of the people of the world, rather than grabbing their oil and inhabitating their ground with American troops? It was a policy doomed to fail.

But if we are to be saved, it will take a coalition of educated, liberal, progressive democrats, plus independents - and libertarians. The most recent Russian Revolution, the one for which the GOP tries to take credit for ending the Cold War, was actually a Revolution of the Intelligentsia, not so much the working class, if my understanding is correct.

That means professors, teachers, lawyers, artists, and yes writers, journalists and actors.