The "One-Finger Revolution" will be the easiest thing you will ever do in your life, other than pushing the "delete" button on your computer, occasionally - and it will be just as effective.
How?
All it requires of any American voter is to lift a single finger - and let it come down on the button that's next to the name of anyone other than the current incumbent in Congress, in your state legislature, in either federal or state senates, and in just about any other elective office whose incumbent has a challenger on the ballot.
Imagine if you were to find out on the morning of November 5th that Congress has 434 freshmen, that the US Senate lost 1/3 of its incumbents, and that 90 percent of every state's incumbent office holders were simply and unceremoniously fired!
That's what I call effective change.
Imagine what Ron Paul could do in Congress if he is the only incumbent left. He would be speaker of the house and all the freshmen would be looking to him for guidance!
And all it takes for that to occur is for 100 million or so voters to let their finger come down on THE OTHER button when they go vote in November.
McCain as president? Obama as president? So what?
It will be meaningless if they don't have the power machinery of their party to go work on Congress to push through their proposals - and their respective parties will lie prostrate when they discover that the entire electorate has shed its former party loyalties, in utter disgust.
How do we achieve this?
Locally, of course, by going door to door in our precincts, and by setting up FIRE CONGRESS! Meetups in every congressional district in the country.
There are only 435 congressional districts in the country - but there are 1,500 Ron Paul Meetups!
Then, we get our equally disgusted democratic brethren to join our cause, and we will have gotten all of the congressional districts manned and will be ready to go, door to door, locally, precinct by precinct.
Hillary said on April 30th that she'll attack Iran and Obama said he will support Gen."Betrayus". These guys have no credibility, but their party is dishing them up for anti-war Democrats to vote for. It's the same in Congress. People are fed up with being presented with only sell-outs to vote for. The Dems in Congress have voted for both the war AND the Patriot Act!
Real Democrats won't go for it after they understand what an awesome power they really have - and that power is concentrated in one single finger.
Exercise your voting finger.
Visualie yourself letting it come down only on the buttons that are next to any challngers' names.
It will be the easiest - and the most powerful - political campaign that was ever waged in the history of this country.
Nothing will be required of anyone, except one simple thing: Lift one of your fingers - and push THE OTHER BUTTON!!
It will be the one-finger revolution. (Those who are really upset can even - quite literally - vote with their middle finger, if they are so inclined!)
Can you do it?
Yes. Absolutely. You can even leverage yourself a hundred-fold by starting your own Meetup in your congressional district.
Should you do it?
Yes. It is our patriotic duty to rid Congress, both House and Senate, from all of these traitors - and we can fire all of the sell-outs in our state legislatures at the same time, without any additional effort. Who or what could stop us?
Even the neo-con and neo-dem party machineries can't stop us. No Robert's Rules, no convention-shenanigans, no illegal walk-outs, nothing!
All they can do is dish up more of the same garbage about "party loyalty", how "evil" the other candidate is, etc., etc., blah, blah. We've already heard it all. We're already immune to it.
It is a Revolution of Conscience!
So - which button are you going to push in the fall?
©2008 Alex Wallenwein, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Friday, May 2, 2008
Last modified: Friday, May 2, 2008
The views expressed in this article are those of Alex Wallenwein only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Alex Wallenwein is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Report violation by Alex Wallenwein of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.
| More Articles By Alex Wallenwein |
Reader Comments:
Posted By: SwampFox
Date: 2008-05-02 11:58:30
Amen Brother! Kick the Bastards Out!
Posted By: Dennis Morrisseau
Date: 2008-05-02 14:05:38
Your vote against an incumbent is TWICE as powerful if you AIM IT instead of just scattering it for anybody else.
Always vote FOR the strongest challenger (who is the one person who can defeat the incumbent) because defeating the incumbent and replacing him or her is the whole point.
When you do it this way you cause a TWO-VOTE SHIFT between these two people......by removing one vote from the incumbent PLUS adding one vote to the guy who is likliest to beat him. See?
Posted By: Spence
Date: 2008-05-02 21:56:11
I'm not sure this topic is deserving of a second article. I'm sorry if a few of us spoiled it for you by shedding some light on the subject, but this article seems to have slightly better contents. See? I'm a reasonable guy. I never objected to the plan wholeheartedly, but still... two criticisms still remain.
One I already touched on and Dennis Morrisseau also stated well: it's up to you to decide when the incumbent is truly better than the challenger. And inevitably, these scatter-votes will come to fruition if this plan is mass-implemented. A more effective time to implement this idea would have been in the primaries, though...due to the first-past-the-post system we have here. Imagine several incumbents LOSING in the primary! Wait a second, this would require incumbents to be challenged by their own party, right? Of course, whoever thought that the party members, not masters, dictated their policies and representatives? ...
Secondly, this still does nothing to attack the interests that corrupt good politicians in the first place. Of course, there will always be a special interest involved, but it should be minimalized to the extent that the primary one is executing the public's will. Not all politicians are as principled as Paul. If anything, this plan would at best convey a solemn referendum, conferring more pride and power to our newly elected representatives. More needs to be done than just FIRE CONGRESS. It is not the end-all-be-all of our woes, nor does it start at the beginning.
1. You treat the wound.
2. THEN you change the bandage.
3. Then, the wound heals.
Posted By: Nickalis Tower
Date: 2008-05-03 10:57:47
You don't vote for the strongest challenger, you vote for the best challenger. It's up to each of us who desire to voice our values through the vote to educate ourselves on the candidates for the elections in which we participate.
Voting out the incumbants isn't a 2008 strategy, it's a lifetime strategy. Do it in all union, educational, judicial, local, state, and national elections you participate in.
Posted By: Alex Wallenwein
Date: 2008-05-03 11:58:46
Nice analogy, spence, and under normal circumstances, you would be right.
BUT:
To stay with your analogy, we are not dealing with a fresh cut, here. The wound is old and has been festering for a long time, and somebody has wrapped it with a dirty infested rag,
SO,
we tear the dirty rag (current incumbents) off now, then debride the festering, (lobbyist)-infected wound, and apply a fresh new bandage (new Congress composed of as many challengers as we can elect). Then we keep changing the bandage frequently to promote healing.
And at that point, the analogy starts to break down.
Our government needs constant supervision. There is no "healing of the wound" after which it can be left unattended.
The main point is to prove to people - and to the incumbent-coddling lobbyist - that the people absolutely do have that power to remove the entire slate of incumbents.
The idea is simple, eminently doable for every individual involved, and super-effective as long as sufficient numbers are reached.
There is no time for picking and choosing along issue, personality, or party lines. The real heros like Ron Paul are naturally insulated from this because nobody in this movement will WANT to fire them, so they are nothing to worry about. I don't even know if "they" is the correct pronoun here. I can't think of anyone besides him, really).
As to the rest of them, better toss out a few "good ones" accidentally than to fret about it and try to guess who is in that category and who isn't.
Finally, I don't think you are one who gets to judge what topic deserves a "second airing" here or not. This topic is deserving of many airings because it is so important and the time is so critical. And there will be many airings, from different angles, dealing with different arguments against it, for as long as I am allowed topost here.
We absolutely must show the two parties that they don't hold sway over our voting fingers anymore. We also must show incumbents they can't woo us with promises of "this or that" anymore. Only a consistent actual voting record that shows ultimate respect for the law, the Constitution, will make a difference.
If we don;t even try this, we are lost. It's not like there are too many options left anymore, and there certainly is no time to waste.
This year's elections will change America forever. We will either go the way of utter tyranny, or we will find our way forward to the direction in which the founders pointed us. America will no longer dwell in this current state of illusory quasi-freedom and virtual enslavement that we all have become so accustomed to.
We will either be free people - or utter serfs.
So, come on guys. This is no time for rationalizations. Boot the bastards out. Fumigate Congress so real people will want to use that building again.
We may or may not get Ron Paul nomnated and elected, but either way, Congress is where the laws that oppress us are made. To be successfulwith his agenda, he needs a Congress that respects the people. The current Congress certainly does not, and since it's SO EASY to vote for the challenger, there is simply no reason not to do it.
Unless you want to live under tyranny, that is.
.
Posted By: Spence
Date: 2008-05-03 16:08:13
If we lose all rationality, we are no better than the extinct behemoths that once ruled this earth in a prehistoric age. We mes well gut them, crucify them on stakes, and have our own bloody revolution now as that would be the only guaranteeable way to demonstrate our power... at least for a few years or so. Remember the French Revolution? Then again, they were more elegant- they had guillotines.
I don't see how my analogy doesn't apply to an old wound. The fact remains that people are slow to learn, but wounds are quick to heal. What you are suggesting is basically to use expired medicine on an equally old wound. Attack the interests, THEN you can put in a new Congress to do the rest of the work.
There is no sure outcome of this plan once it comes to fruition. Not even the guarantee that the interests will be the first thing this new Congress attacks. After all, this problem has been deeply embedded in politics even on the local scene for years now. You even regress back to your old argument to purge Congress entirely and let them worry about how to rebuild themselves, while letting the forces of human nature work them over. If there's no "principled" presence in Congress, how can we be so sure this is what dominates?
Also, I believe there is some extreme hostility in you, as you pre-emptively bash me over "judgements" of what topic deserves a "second airing" (your phrase, not mine, so we're clear, BTW). This would be my personal opinion that you could have simply revised your sensationalist tripe in your other article and made it much more plausible. A new article is expected to contain new content. For instance, how would you feel if I, as many people do nowadays here, posted the same "Ron Paul XX% in YY State" each day until the primary?
Also, issues like these are the MOST important time for rationalizations. You think the original Revolution was carried out on a whim? No, there was a philosophical breeding ground in place way before it, as well as rational minds leading the endeavor.
How much exactly has been accomplished in the course of history by spontaneous action? Aside from ageless dictators of the past deciding to randomly invade a nation and such... but you are talking about a brute force action of the mob, one with little coordination, if any- which is surely destined to fail.
And as such, you set yourself up against your own argument, even if you were to revise this stance. Because then you drift from decentralization and chaotic participation, to coordinated efforts, which seem to be the very thing you oppose.
Posted By: Alex Wallenwein
Date: 2008-05-03 16:54:06
Rationalization is not the same as deliberation.
Deliberation is the application of clear thinking to solve a difficult problem. Rationalization is the mental process of making excuses for past failures. deliberation is clearly desirable. Rationaliation clearly is not.
Organization and coordination of efforts is good. Centralization of power and controlof the freeflow of information is not. That's what this is all about.
Quote: "We mes [sic] well gut them, crucify them on stakes, and have our own bloody revolution now as that would be the only guaranteeable way to demonstrate our power... at least for a few years or so"
That is a complete non-sequitur and doesn't warrant any comment. The fact remains, though, that the time for "dialogue" with the current crop is over. No one advocates "gutting" orcrucifying anyone. What we do propose is to terminate the current crop's employment contract. They are of course free to find more suitable employment elsewhere. (Maybe in Russia?)
If you know of an effective way of attacking the interests first, let's hear it. Corporate leaders do not have to run fro reelection, so the people have far les to say there than here in the political process.
Gettng people to toss out the current, rotten crop to make room for a fresh new one is a very far cry indeed from "sponaneous action". To be successful, it will require the utmost in planning, promoting, coordinating, and executing, from the block and neighborhood to the precinct level all the way up to the congressional district level,and than among all CDs in the entire country. That is not a "whim". Besides, remember Thomas Jefferson's admonishment that we may need a revolution every few years or so to keep those in power straight?
This one is long, long, overdue - and it will be the easiest and the most painless, yet at the same time the most effective one for each individual involved that has ever been faought in the history of the country, if not the world.
Thanks to our founders, we still have the ability to do it this way. If we don't use that ability this time, we may lose it forever.
It is time.
Posted By: Swamp Fox
Date: 2008-05-03 17:21:02
Spence- Me thinks you protest too much. Tell your handlers at CENTCOM we found you out and go crawl back under your rock.
Posted By: Bruce McDonald
Date: 2008-05-03 17:22:35
There is no shortage of people who will spend endless hours typing into comment systems and message boards with all the reasons why nothing will work and why everyone who is working their hardest to create some "real" change in this country should be doing something else. It just make me want to scream.
If you own a company and you find out your employees are not doing the job you hired them to do, they don't listen to you, and in fact are working for the competition to run you out of business, what do you do? It's a friggin no brainer. YOU FIRE THEM!! Anything less than that is totally, absolutely insane. It makes absolutely no sense to keep electing the same people we know darn well are lying, cheating, traitorous criminals.
The only direct power we have over our representatives is the power to hire and fire them. That's it. Everything else amounts to nothing more than appeals for them to do the right thing. They clearly aren't doing the right thing. They clearly don't care what we think. So we vote them out of office. In mass. Anything less is no different than keeping employees that you know are stealing you blind and driving your company into the ground.
Well, it's a little different. Our government employees have the power to not only screw us, they can give themselves raises for doing such a good job of it.
This idea is by far the only idea out there will create enough change quickly enough to at least slam the breaks on the insanity that grips our nation. It would be totally stunning to wake up the day after the election to find virtually the entire house and 1/3 of the Senate issued pink slips! Anyone that can think of something better and more doable than that, I'm all ears.
Posted By: Spence
Date: 2008-05-03 22:29:49
Ok, let's hit the ground running. First, Swamp Fox. You're absolutely right. I'm a gov't shill. Please go back to wearing your tin foil hats and sealing your doors up with duct tape. The world won't miss you. But you will make a great news item on Faux News.
Next, Bruce. Let's try a simple substitution:
"There is no shortage of people who will spend endless hours typing into comment systems and message boards defending reasons why something will work and why everyone who is working their hardest to create some "real" change in this country should be doing something else. It just makes me want to scream."
There, fixed that for you.
Before we go on, I'd just like to say that many of you seem to struggle with something called reading comprehension. I wouldn't blame you. Public schools do a horrible job teaching it. So let me just state for the umpteenth time that the idea is good, the execution terrible. Not that I should bother, when some retard will probably follow this up with "OMG! TR0LL HATES GENIUS PLAN!!!11"
"Rationalization is not the same as deliberation."
Go back to your first reply. This was your assumption; not mine. And the relevance of what I said still stands. It's important to justify actions such as these, not as you put it "excuse failures". Rationalization involves PAST DELIBERATION as well as FIRM JUSTIFICATION.
"That is a complete non-sequitur and doesn't warrant any comment. The fact remains, though, that the time for "dialogue" with the current crop is over. No one advocates "gutting" (sic) orcrucifying anyone. What we do propose is to terminate the current crop's employment contract. They are of course free to find more suitable employment elsewhere. (Maybe in Russia?)"
Again, at what point did I say that this is a bad idea? You have STILL failed to respond to a criticism which others share with me, between this and your first thread. You have no way of guaranteeing that the replacements are just as bad. You have so far also failed to argue the extent of the corruption in our local politics, so that any ascension or any new standard-bearer will be instantly brought under this fold of greed.You are not ready to go in and fire Congress. It's like cutting an inch off a weed. The problem has deeper roots than you think.
I"f you know of an effective way of attacking the interests first, let's hear it. Corporate leaders do not have to run fro reelection, so the people have far les to say there than here in the political process."
That is naivete at best. Corporations are put in power by the money WE give them! Our concept of money, and through it, our concept of power and worth is above all the primary problem and solution to all of our problems! If you fail to mention this area, it doesn't how well you are prepared in the political arena. Your freshmen will be bought and sold just as the incumbents were.
The economic sector is more vast and corrupt than our political one is, and through their unholy union of corporatism, have drove this country to war and treason for their own benefits.
How ironic that for all the hissing and spitting you guys are doing about Congress, that you fail to include this area in your plans. Your purchase is a vote. Your call is a vote. It's as simple as that. Will that take more energy than grassroots infrastructure can currently handle? Absolutely! Is it possible to achieve it, though? Yes, but this coordination you speak of is a double-edged sword to your own movement, and it is this realization that you fear consolidation of power. But it's certainly doable to achieve organization and fight the lobbyists this way.
"Gettng people to toss out the current, rotten crop to make room for a fresh new one is a very far cry indeed from "sponaneous action". To be successful, it will require the utmost in planning, promoting, coordinating, and executing, from the block and neighborhood to the precinct level all the way up to the congressional district level,and than among all CDs in the entire country. That is not a "whim"."
Well, obviously not. But what's to say that these groups won't consolidate their power afterwards for their own gain? Behold the double-edged sword. Your conumdrum. And apparently, more than half the RP supporters who fear any centralization of power. You cannot avoid the spontaneous action without any coordination on one end, but on the other, you'll have a centralized effort. Either way is doomed to failure. Spontaneity will not motivate anyone, but coordination may as well lead to a new political party.
"Besides, remember Thomas Jefferson's admonishment that we may need a revolution every few years or so to keep those in power straight?"
It is your quote of Jefferson here that strikes me as odd when you didn't even mention that Jefferson didn't even want ordinary people to have a say or vote in national matters. The Senate was formed FOR the elite in the first place. This is why they are considered the upper house. They are supposed to be voting on their own accord and have their own stake and interests in the future. It was argued that this, in competition with the will of the people (the House) would balance out and produce decent gridlock. This was before the advent of political parties.
Second of all, Jefferson also never envisioned massive corporate bureacracies such as we have today. Well, that's not entirely true. He did see them coming, even in his day, and warned of them: "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." No, this doesn't only include banks. Jefferson wanted an agrarian republic, a culturally-diversified, heterogenous business society. To any Jefferson scholar, the way of attacking the interests is obvious.
"This one is long, long, overdue - and it will be the easiest and the most painless, yet at the same time the most effective one for each individual involved that has ever been faought in the history of the country, if not the world."
Furthemore, in the quote you listed, Jefferson didn't mean an actual revolution each time. Jefferson was speaking of philosphical and educational revolutions. He also said that we should revise the constitution and debate the amendments every 20 years...
"Thanks to our founders, we still have the ability to do it this way. If we don't use that ability this time, we may lose it forever.
It is time."
I am perfectly aware at what's at stake, but I still stand by my earlier statements: the idea is good, the execution critically flawed.
Posted By: Alex Wallenwein
Date: 2008-05-04 07:38:41
Care to share a better way to "execute"?
You seem to have much time, judging from the length of your posts.
Posted By: Spence
Date: 2008-05-04 15:10:59
Me? Time? Hah, no, I don't have any time on weekends, you know- since I'm not at work or school- that means I have even more errands to do, places to go.
And the length of my posts is totally not affected by how fast I can type in said "limited" amounts of time, or the means through which I read several articles at the same time, something that used to be known as multi-tasking.
But do keep painting me as a political idiot-savant, starving for attention ever since he's been locked in the basement. It makes you seem all the more superior and witty!
Posted By: Alex Wallenwein
Date: 2008-05-04 21:03:12
You say so.