COMMON LAW APPROACHES TO REFORMING AMERICA, LIKE

NATIONAL LIBERTY ALLIANCE

SUPPORTS, ILLUSTRATES BOTH THE POSSIBILITIES AND PROBLEMS WITH SUCH ADVOCACY

AND RAISES A CRUCIAL QUESTION

WHY IS THERE A SO FRACTIOUS, YET PASSIVE, AMERICAN CITIZENRY AT A TIME WHEN:

More American citizens are concerned about, and interested in, public affairs than ever
There is more professional activism than ever; that National Liberty Alliance is emblematic of
There is more information and media content available to the American people than ever
There is more unhappiness, mistrust, and grave concerns being expressed by more Americans than ever
The citizens access network

SERIOUS CONTRADICTIONS DEMAND REFLECTION

TO ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION WE NEED TO START BY ASKING WHY SO LITTLE OF SUBSTANCE (FOR THE BETTER) CHANGES; DESPITE ALL THE MANY, AND LONG ESTABLISHED REMEDIES WE CONSTANTLY PURSUE:

In fact, whether it is the concerned citizen or the public activist, people and groups across the nation share many interests and concerns
Yet, nothing coherent has emerged from all these parties; despite the common ground they share
This is because no commitment is made by the advocates - or citizens - to cooperatively study these experiences and seek the lessons and guidance they can offer
Of course under such haphazard circumstances, no deeper commitment for taking cooperative, cohesive action is possible

IF SUCH A COMMITMENT TO STUDY ALL THIS EXPERIENCE WERE MADE

WE WOULD SEE THESE PROBLEMS:

The neutralizing and fracturing effects caused by too many advocates, with too many issues and reforms; that have not been properly examined in the first place
Concerned citizens placing too great a focus on “major” personalities, intrigues and events beyond their influence
The misuse of modern citizen-based media that has enabled, and encouraged, an unchanging media-model to reinforce these mistakes; making it impossible to challenge them
“Answers” that always focus on the soft ideals of the quantitative and distant; NOT the hard, qualitative ideals of citizen-engagement based on proximity and power

Like all the other problems we face: electoral dysfunctions, the threat of economic decline, or assaults on civic freedoms, valuable, but incomplete ideas and caring people are not being connected to that which could create a more cogent, integrated and powerful strategy.

One that would, in contrast to what National Liberty Alliance suggests, fuse legal remedies to:

Indisputable electoral authority
Powerful, yet simple, organic and undemanding civic organization
A model for genuine "new media" that can penetrate and unravel the unnecessary and intimidating complexities our system create

An irrational attachment to the limited and fragmented is not helpful.

It ensures that people will disregard, and even deny, the great potential for freedom, prosperity, and human development this country has offered; and still does
Despite what is necessary to achieve that being very clear and feasible

However, that is a process; one that must leverage the thoughtful, civic-minded portion of the public who are free of binding ideologies and personal interests.

DEFINITIONS AND CONTEXT PRODUCE STANDARDS; AND COMMAND

It is emphasized on this page and throughout this work how it is crucial to understand why NO effective remedy for our public decline has been formulated.

No effort has worked; and none will work unless many crucial aspects that go consistently unaccounted for get an accounting!

There are many intersections where this failure is concerned, but there are two essential constants: the absence of situational context and definitions in any public discussion on the topic.

Without the parameters and balance appropriate definitions and context provides, virtually anything can be said - and gotten away with. As a result, nothing is learned or made actionable. Moreover, confusion and opposition will reign and then simplistically be labeled “division”.

Within the example presented here regarding “the people”, and the one further down this page concerning “democracy”, the discerning reader will see the problem clearly.

Though a fundamental concept of nationhood, the people are rarely if ever defined within a proper context. This leaves a lot of room for misunderstanding and mischief which, if not carefully resolved will prove fatal.

So, who are the people?

The people might be those in a general population accounted for in a census say. One might call these the “masses”

The people might be those in a specific population, within certain demographics (age, income, zip code, hobbies etc.); of interest to advertisers say

The people might be those in a specific geographical area; say a voting district of interest to incumbent or aspiring elected officials

There would be many such examples. However, in the context of The WeLeadUSA message and mission, the peoplemust have a very precise definition because the characteristics of a population willing to hear such a message, and take on such a mission, would necessarily be very particular.

Therefore for our purposes we can define what “the people” actually means by considering what qualities would have to be present in such a population: As stated, the people would be the responsible, civic minded portion of the population.

We must accept that most people do not concern themselves with political or civic concepts like self-government/freedom and the relationship between those things and their own self-interest.

So here we could only be addressing that segment of the population that does, or wants to, concern themselves with such matters. Any suggestion that those who are disinterested must be converted— “woken up” — is just plain silly!

As also stated, the people would have to be free of any binding ideologies

We must also accept that many who would claim civic interest do so only in the context of a binding ideology. Always a typical dynamic, this may take form as single issue advocacy, or a religious, social or economic doctrine pursued to the exclusion of all else.

Such belief systems can be anything from understandable to venal so dealing with this requires good judgment and a process. We would say the problem exists where there is no desire to transcend the ideology and act constructively to find what works. Success in a civic-political context should be defined (and is within the WeLeadUSA message) as what works and what is possible to achieve.

When one crosses that border in pursuit of their “perfect dream” we cannot have a the people.

As also stated, conflicts of personal interest must be accounted for

Here we are pointing to those who claim civic interest but in some way are “in business”. Chiefly, these are 501© funded agents: voting/political money/transparency/reform advocates or, media figures: bloggers/pundits/content creators/academics providing their audiences with “truth”.

These are activists who are in some way deriving personal benefit — financial, psychic, or both — from their efforts.

To understand that if peoples’ status or livelihoods are at stake it’d be unlikely they would truly want change — even for the better — is not to cast aspersions. It would be to exercise strategic wisdom!

For a brief but concluding explanation and definition of the people in the context established here, please visit https://www.weleadusa.org/for-who.html

To identify a realistic strategy and plan of action
Based on familiar, safe and simple precepts
That will make immediate impact on the many barriers the concerned citizen now faces

Too Easily Discounted: There Is Extensive Agreement

This is true whether one’s point of view focuses more on the problems of:

Economics
The social fabric
Political dysfunction
Conspiracy
External threats

But, the quick dismissal of agreement lends credence to, and serves to intensify these concerns; clear to anyone paying attention:

Supposed partisan rancor
Supposed divisions of race, gender, sexual orientation etc.
Supposed deep states
Supposed civil strife

Hiding in plain sight, but misssed:

Power is not a very much discussed topic despite it being the basis of all civic-political functions and interactions; not to mention the subject of a great deal of our entertainment.

If there are major imbalances in power structures, there will be problems
And these problems cannot be solved without accounting for power in our system: how it works, where it sits, how it flows etc.

An important misnomer: knowledge is not power. Knowledge, wisely acted upon is:

Separating the inseparable fuels the error; preventing substantive action
The origin of this problem lies in our confusing the amount and scope of media content (access to information) with the ability to act on it (wisely)
Smoothly connecting civic knowledge to civic action must be a central objective. Without that, no progress is possible

The first step in that process of achievement is to seek clarity

And establishing sensible criteria allows us to quickly extract from vast experience what we already have learned (but failed to recognize or apply) so we can:

Carefully define

DEFINITIONS AND CONTEXT PRODUCE STANDARDS; AND COMMAND (CONTINUED)

It wouldn’t be possible to design any kind of system without describing what input that system should receive and the results it would be expected to achieve.

However, when that system is public in nature, intended to be national yet decentralized, and develops in an ad hoc fashion over decades and even centuries, its basic precepts might become muddled and subject to mischief.

Making matters worse, we’re talking about a civic-political system here; where muddled mischief is the order of the day!

Now, consider that the civic-political system we are concerned with belongs to one of the most complex (now totaling some 88,000 governments nationally) and powerful of nations; one that has been historically designated as the world’s foremost protector of individual rights, justice and human freedom.

Already there’s a lot to worry about!

Now, add to that our theme; the absence of situational context and precise definitions. And in the same fashion as our examination of the “the people” above, let’s apply another foundational concept — “democracy” — and see what comes out in the wash.

Calling the United States a democracy in the absence of context will quickly prove problematic. The expression “republic” will officiously be demanded by some as proper. However, no context will be offered by the proponents of either term.

Lacking substance, the obvious problem cannot be seen and even simple clarifications are beyond reach…division!!

If we resort to dictionary definitions, we can see the vagaries leaving plenty of room for muddle, mischief and dispute:

re-pub-lic | \ ri-pe-blik

Definition of republic

- (1):
  a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president
  (2):
  a political unit(such as a nation)having such a form of government
- (1):
  a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law

de-moc-ra-cy | \di-'ma-Kra-se

Definition of democracy

- a government by the people especially: rule of the majority
- a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
a political unit that has a democratic goverment
Capitalized: the principles and policles of the Demorcratic party in the U.S.

While the absence of a monarch is spelled out in the definition of a republic, it’s certainly is indicated in the definition of democracy. Both agree that supreme power is invested in the citizenry which is (usually?) channeled through elections.

Distinctions are hard to find here. Potato, potahto/Tomato, tomahto? Let's call the whole thing off?

No, this is too important! We will just have to do better than this and we can; by demanding situational context in the public sphere when using these terms/ideas (and many others).

Consider the absurdities if we don’t:

Does it make sense to rail against censorship and demand free speech when the speech cannot even be comprehended; all while there’s absolutely no awareness of that fact?! No, it doesn’t; because obviously critical thinking is impossible in the absence of such discipline. As a result, free speech can never inform considered action. This is why free speech is enshrined as an endowed right; not to guarantee amusements.

By creating this discipline the simple goal must be to limit wiggle room and seek clarity. People, in all their roles and strata’s, will know their own minds and be clearly on the record.

Here with these two descriptive definitions of democracy — or a republic — we can see how this might work:

Option 1

PoliticalPolitical participation ought to be direct, not simply representative; that democracy means people should be actively engaged in the process of government

Amplification: people have the right and must have the means to actively and powerfully intercede in the policy-making and direction of their nation

Option 2

That people in democratic systems should act as a critical judge of the political process, entitled to vote out the government if it fails to do its job

Amplification: through the processes of a mass vote, people should have only the means and right to replace one government or leadership with another

So, within this example we can see a narrowing; from the elastic and all-encompassing to something more specific and conclusive.

One can see how crucial this exercise is when they are educated to understand that the current American civic-political system is very much built for one of these arrangements and not at all for the other.

Can the reader determine which is which? (spoiler alert)

An essential element of this work is dedicated to proving that, over the course of its history, the American system developed in a manner where the qualitative engagement of its people became an absolute necessity.

This is not soaring rhetoric; it is fact, a fact that is never meaningfully explored, only occasionally mentioned; and always in ineffectual, abstract terms.

By design and like it or not, option 1 is the basis of the American arrangement which means the system cannot work without the active presence of a coherent, powerful, the people.

Moreover, we have been conditioned to believe exactly the opposite is true; that option 2 is the basis of our civic-political organization. This is a falsehood, crucial to understand (also demonstrated throughout). Not only because it confuses our reality, but because major reforms would be necessary if option two were our true ideal; where option one is our existing system and only requires its competent and strategic use.

We will also establish that the problem does not come from the top down as so many simplistically believe. On the contrary; it starts at the bottom; with the citizenry.

By foolishly going along as a square peg in a round hole, believing we are powerless and victimized, when nothing could be further from the truth, we remain ignorant and idle; thus disdained by “the system” and its controllers. It should be plain to see that destructive forces will rule where there is no respect. And there will be none as long as situational context and definition is lacking.

This is not to say that foundational concepts like constitutions, politics, laws or public proposals etc. don’t require some ambiguities and breathing room. They do!

However, it will take good judgment and a disciplined process — WeLeadUSA’s message and mission — on the part of the people to determine when/where/how it should be applied!

Reject what will fail
Focus on effective dialogue and action; not distractions

AND THEN IDENTIFY EXACTLY WHAT CRITERIA IS ESSENTIAL AND WHY

It will enable a powerful yet easy organizing of the participating public
It will have immediate and unquestionable impact; it’ll work fast
Therefore, it will be based on what exists; with no dependence on laws, reforms or amendments to the Constitution and such
It will immediately make visible and unquestionable the electoral power of the people to grant or deny any office sought by incumbent or aspiring elected officials
It will get immediate and unquestionable results; with very small numbers of people
It will work at all levels of government, in all geographies; equally well and fast
It will fuse immediate and powerful civic action to our media and learning systems
In civic and electoral affairs, it will sideline a chaotic media feeder system and in its place create a powerful, deliberative place of qualitative civic engagement
It will instill confidence and create safety for all participants

KEY CALCULATION : NO MARGIN FOR ERROR

Why is it essential that each and every element here be present in any proposal that purports to offer a solution?

IT WILL MISS!

BECAUSE IF ANYTHING IS MISSING!

PROOF WITH A SIMPLE THOUGHT EXPERIMENT

Could any positive and intentional change ever be achieved with even one criteria item absent?

It will enable a powerful yet easy organizing of the participating public.
- What could ever be achieved without people being organized i.e. coherent ?
- Would, or could, people ever get themselves organized if it were complicated and onerous to do so
It will immediately make visible and unquestionable the electoral power of the people to grant or deny any office sought by incumbent or aspiring elected officials
- For the citizenry, the only realistic means for controlling their civic-political sphere is through their electoral authority. And the gateway to that control necessarily begins with the elected official. These are political figures and so must answer to someone. By default and design, that will be those who are most clearly responsible for their being elected
- Therefore, could any intentional and positive change ever be achieved if there was doubt as to who was exercising that electoral power and so, to whom they owe their allegiance