This is so cool. I like to think we'll have reformed campaign finance/ ditched Citizens United by 2076 (some great progress toward this in the states right now!). But by the end of many of the Founder's lives, they expressed regret that the Constitution didn't explicitly include corporate power in its checks and balances scheme. We need an eighth Article doing exactly this -- it'll take more than an amendment to reimagine and redefine the relationship between private wealth and power and the state. (Those tentacles go way beyond just money in politics!)
You know, I know some historians emphasize how wealthy founders like Hancock, Washington, Jefferson, and Madison were, and how much that influenced their view of just government -- and to what degree their interests drove the Revolution in the first place. So it's not surprising that there have been many struggles throughout American history to curtail the influence of corporate interests, and that there's still work to do.
I seriously doubt that just one Constitutional Amendment would do the trick. There are many reforms that are needed. But if we could have only a single amendment, the reform I'd like to have is one that requires Balanced Approval Voting to be used in elections of federal officials.
Require redistricting at all levels to be carried out by citizen redistricting commissions that broadly reflect the underlying population. The selection process should include the growing proportion of Americans who do not identify with either major party.
Thanks for the story, it’s always interesting to look at people who are creating a positive vision of the future. I’m really curious about democracy renovation—do you all think a lot about what that means for the economy? I know people are afraid of words like socialism, and I have read Daniel Allen’s Justice by Means of Democracy, and I am really intrigued by the idea of democracy supporting firms. But I think the thing that is really ripping at the heart of America is that we have an authoritarian economy that is relatively monopolist, ruled by a few small elites. And while we ostensibly live in a society that is a democracy legally, economically there’s not even the pretext towards equality and empowerment for all. So if you all have any writing about economic democracy or if you have any thoughts about economic democracy, I’d love to read more and hear what you think. Thanks again for writing! I hope we all make it to 2076 lol
Great question - @Malcolm Salter has been writing quite a bit about this for us, because we all agree it’s crucial. Mal recently wrote about how many of us seem to check our freedoms at the door and start feeling more like subjects at work. I’m personally more in favor of regulation of corporations to protect workers, but it’s also a matter of executives and employers choosing to open up decision-making processes up to be more collaborative.
Thanks for pointing me his way! Just read his piece “Pro-Business Should Mean Pro-Democracy." Do you ever feel troubled by the case for “democratic capitalism”? As Salter puts it in the piece, many capitalists fear “that a strong democracy may increase the chances of a redistribution of wealth away from people like them and constrain their ability to extract special favors from Congress and the White House through their campaign finance and lobbying activities.”
Democratic capitalism often feels oxymoronic because many capitalists equate wider participation with diminished power. Democracy feels like a dilution of your power if you’re a capitalist. Many of them have no intention of giving up that power. It just feels like democracy, a system where everybody has a seat at the decision-making table, and capitalism, a system where a tiny group of capital holders makes decisions impacting millions, feel like opposite systems.
It is exciting to read about Democracy 2076’s national convenings and the popularity of collective bargaining rights and universal basic income during the sessions. If our economy were democratic, those are the kinds of policies it would produce. I'm just not sure if that economy would be called capitalism. Also, not sure whether the “democracy” in democratic capitalism applies to decisions about wages, pensions, benefits, and investment, or if it only supports democracy insofar as it means free and fair elections, a regulatory state, and the enforcement of contracts, but nothing else.
It's dead wrong to think that amending an existing state or federal constitution could produce participatory democracy because your focus is on the constitution and not the people. One constitution alone is not enough to run a liberal democracy and change must come from the people....
So, we need a 4th branch of government which needs to be organized by a new type of civic constitution more structurally similar to an open-sourced list of Wikipedia articles than a traditional constitution. Our thinking on constitutionalism itself is outdated: liberal democracies need a system of dual constitutionalism with a civic-epistemic 4th branch of government. Accordingly, our views on political parties, universities, news media, and the deliberative role of parliaments and legislatures are all outdated.
Political parties are more part of the problem than the solution, so we need a civic paradigm that moves beyond parties. The model of the research university we're all familiar with is outdated and lacks a civic mission altogether. Adding civics to the curriculum won't cut it because the university needs to become the the core of the 4th branch of government. The Wisconsin Idea was thought of as a 4th branch during Robert La Follette's governorship of Wisconsin, but even that idea is outdated today. Nobody at the university of Wisconsin could tell you that the mission of a 4th branch of government is to define and report daily on the general will. That's the precise civic mission of public institutions.
Defining the general will can be done without any acts of Congress or constitutional amendments through a system of dual, real-ideal constitutionalism. In such a system the open-sourced civic constitution would be an "ideal" constitution, whereas the traditional constitutions we're all familiar with are realist constitutions based at the core on the separation of powers and regular elections. That (old) realist constitutional system is not designed to accommodate the idealism of mass deliberation and public inclusion. The idealism of egalitarian democracy, therefore, requires a civic 4th branch of government and a new conception of constitutionalism. The job of news media is to report daily on the general will(s) and ideal constitution(s) at both state and national levels. The core mission of news media, in other words, should be to report on the "voice" and the "will" of the people in relation to current events.
The preamble of the US Constitution begins with "We the People of the United States." Despite what it implies, the We was written by the Framers of the Constitution, not the people. To this day the We has never been defined with precision and, thus, the People the We refers to cannot be said to govern themselves for they lack a unified "will" with which to govern. Real self-government happens when the people define their general will. Amending a constitution gets this exactly backwards.
This is so cool. I like to think we'll have reformed campaign finance/ ditched Citizens United by 2076 (some great progress toward this in the states right now!). But by the end of many of the Founder's lives, they expressed regret that the Constitution didn't explicitly include corporate power in its checks and balances scheme. We need an eighth Article doing exactly this -- it'll take more than an amendment to reimagine and redefine the relationship between private wealth and power and the state. (Those tentacles go way beyond just money in politics!)
You know, I know some historians emphasize how wealthy founders like Hancock, Washington, Jefferson, and Madison were, and how much that influenced their view of just government -- and to what degree their interests drove the Revolution in the first place. So it's not surprising that there have been many struggles throughout American history to curtail the influence of corporate interests, and that there's still work to do.
I seriously doubt that just one Constitutional Amendment would do the trick. There are many reforms that are needed. But if we could have only a single amendment, the reform I'd like to have is one that requires Balanced Approval Voting to be used in elections of federal officials.
https://www.opednews.com/articles/What-is-so-Special-about-B-Approval_Balanced-Voting_Voting_Voting-Machines-241208-232.html
Yes! Our work is to advance a package!
Require redistricting at all levels to be carried out by citizen redistricting commissions that broadly reflect the underlying population. The selection process should include the growing proportion of Americans who do not identify with either major party.
Thanks for the story, it’s always interesting to look at people who are creating a positive vision of the future. I’m really curious about democracy renovation—do you all think a lot about what that means for the economy? I know people are afraid of words like socialism, and I have read Daniel Allen’s Justice by Means of Democracy, and I am really intrigued by the idea of democracy supporting firms. But I think the thing that is really ripping at the heart of America is that we have an authoritarian economy that is relatively monopolist, ruled by a few small elites. And while we ostensibly live in a society that is a democracy legally, economically there’s not even the pretext towards equality and empowerment for all. So if you all have any writing about economic democracy or if you have any thoughts about economic democracy, I’d love to read more and hear what you think. Thanks again for writing! I hope we all make it to 2076 lol
Great question - @Malcolm Salter has been writing quite a bit about this for us, because we all agree it’s crucial. Mal recently wrote about how many of us seem to check our freedoms at the door and start feeling more like subjects at work. I’m personally more in favor of regulation of corporations to protect workers, but it’s also a matter of executives and employers choosing to open up decision-making processes up to be more collaborative.
Thanks for pointing me his way! Just read his piece “Pro-Business Should Mean Pro-Democracy." Do you ever feel troubled by the case for “democratic capitalism”? As Salter puts it in the piece, many capitalists fear “that a strong democracy may increase the chances of a redistribution of wealth away from people like them and constrain their ability to extract special favors from Congress and the White House through their campaign finance and lobbying activities.”
Democratic capitalism often feels oxymoronic because many capitalists equate wider participation with diminished power. Democracy feels like a dilution of your power if you’re a capitalist. Many of them have no intention of giving up that power. It just feels like democracy, a system where everybody has a seat at the decision-making table, and capitalism, a system where a tiny group of capital holders makes decisions impacting millions, feel like opposite systems.
It is exciting to read about Democracy 2076’s national convenings and the popularity of collective bargaining rights and universal basic income during the sessions. If our economy were democratic, those are the kinds of policies it would produce. I'm just not sure if that economy would be called capitalism. Also, not sure whether the “democracy” in democratic capitalism applies to decisions about wages, pensions, benefits, and investment, or if it only supports democracy insofar as it means free and fair elections, a regulatory state, and the enforcement of contracts, but nothing else.
It's dead wrong to think that amending an existing state or federal constitution could produce participatory democracy because your focus is on the constitution and not the people. One constitution alone is not enough to run a liberal democracy and change must come from the people....
So, we need a 4th branch of government which needs to be organized by a new type of civic constitution more structurally similar to an open-sourced list of Wikipedia articles than a traditional constitution. Our thinking on constitutionalism itself is outdated: liberal democracies need a system of dual constitutionalism with a civic-epistemic 4th branch of government. Accordingly, our views on political parties, universities, news media, and the deliberative role of parliaments and legislatures are all outdated.
Political parties are more part of the problem than the solution, so we need a civic paradigm that moves beyond parties. The model of the research university we're all familiar with is outdated and lacks a civic mission altogether. Adding civics to the curriculum won't cut it because the university needs to become the the core of the 4th branch of government. The Wisconsin Idea was thought of as a 4th branch during Robert La Follette's governorship of Wisconsin, but even that idea is outdated today. Nobody at the university of Wisconsin could tell you that the mission of a 4th branch of government is to define and report daily on the general will. That's the precise civic mission of public institutions.
Defining the general will can be done without any acts of Congress or constitutional amendments through a system of dual, real-ideal constitutionalism. In such a system the open-sourced civic constitution would be an "ideal" constitution, whereas the traditional constitutions we're all familiar with are realist constitutions based at the core on the separation of powers and regular elections. That (old) realist constitutional system is not designed to accommodate the idealism of mass deliberation and public inclusion. The idealism of egalitarian democracy, therefore, requires a civic 4th branch of government and a new conception of constitutionalism. The job of news media is to report daily on the general will(s) and ideal constitution(s) at both state and national levels. The core mission of news media, in other words, should be to report on the "voice" and the "will" of the people in relation to current events.
The preamble of the US Constitution begins with "We the People of the United States." Despite what it implies, the We was written by the Framers of the Constitution, not the people. To this day the We has never been defined with precision and, thus, the People the We refers to cannot be said to govern themselves for they lack a unified "will" with which to govern. Real self-government happens when the people define their general will. Amending a constitution gets this exactly backwards.