Pax Gaea Human Rights World Post

An American Rocks The Boat On a Mexican Lake

It finally dawned on me that it has been five days since I’ve updated my postings. We have been trying to fall into a routine of sorts so as to maximize our time here, and it has been difficult striking a balance. While writing this novel was the inspiration for pulling up stakes and heading 3,000 miles south, the many items on our agenda include getting back in shape, making dramatic changes to our diet, crafting an effective home school program for the girls, immersing them into a new language and culture plus attempting to take in the sights of this beautiful place. We also have a goal of documenting this process, not only to keep family and friends up to date but in essence to serve as an inspiration for those who, like us, aren’t quite prepared to surrender to the dictum and regimens of American middle class existence. I have been pleased to discover that there are many more like us who either have or are abandoning the myth of the American dream that hard work and dedication to your employers, faithful voting and tax paying support to your country and devout submission to a bearded middle eastern religious construct will somehow leave you healthy, wealthy and wise.

Let’s confront the awful truth. American corporation scare nothing for the people who toil away their lives in a quest to meet the company’s goals. Their very construct -- soulless, faceless entities breathed to live by individuals who wish to divest personal responsibility for the sake of ruthless accumulation -- isn’t something new or a "changing paradigm" of corporate America. This has always been the case since the very first corporations were set up for the purposes of exploration and trade by the European powers over 500 years ago. With the blessing of crown and cross, they ventured to all points of the compass in search of vast tracts of land of which to claim possession, to render the inhabitants into supplication and to recruit mass numbers of the powerless and weak, to uproot and toil with little or no reward to fatten the wallets of their task masters. While there may be a rainbow of colors and shapes presented in the cavalcade of the world’s flags and official standards represent the corralling of some six billion of us, In truth, every one of those flags have only one color and one symbol behind their motivation... a twice vertically crucified green "S." We may not see that in the forefront, but look closely. Buried deep within that cavalcade of color and shapes, your magic eye will see the true reason for any nation’s existence.

What the United States model did was not to give power to the masses but to build into the system that, provided you give reverence and worship to the true symbol of our nation and proper supplication to those who dwell closer to it, perhaps you can, too, will sup from that one true tree of life ... the money tree. Likewise, as America loves to boast its being a beacon of freedom to all the world, in truth what freedoms and powers we do have were carefully crafted to be kept in check by those whom we elected or allowed to be appointed before us. While I have always been a huge fan of American history and have always tried to put in perspective how that history affected my pre-Columbian ancestors who got along just fine without European influence, the reality of our system came into sharp focus for me last night as I was devising Abi’s and Elea’s geography and history courses. I devised both as a kind of game, creating a randomizer to direct the focus of each day’s studies to a different part of the world. We began with the United States so I could show them how their research of the internet and the thousand pounds or so of books we toted down here can help them find the answers. As I was explaining our federal electoral system to the girls, it hit me like a ton of bricks how truly limited in power the people of the United States are, how we have accepted as our role in government.

Take the electoral college system. Now, I have justified repeatedly why such a system may have been necessary some two hundred years hence But, really, when you think about it, why did we allow a system that immediately dismissed the "one man, one vote" notion of democracy and instead give all the power to our states, who can decide to dismiss the aspiration of 49.9% of its citizens and give all votes from that state to someone whom the 49.9% deem not only an unworthy choice but also absolutely wrong and bad for the perpetuation of our freedoms? Why should my mere geographic choice of home immediately amplify or dismiss my vote? Why should I, we, give up that much power to our elected representatives when the one who casts the vote may likewise enjoy their position of power by an equally slim margin?

While I and my fellow Americans may be free to address this topic and while it may serve as effective polemic fodder in the back and forth of pundit talk shows, what likelihood would success be if someone started a campaign to abolish the electoral college? Probably none. As much as the conservative side of the aisle likes to brand the media as "liberal," it is highly unlikely that any holder of a broadcast license would dare tell the government that it has given itself too much power and it is supporting a campaign to abolish the electoral college system. Such a campaign, you see, would not take hold overnight and, somewhere in the process, it is to be certain that said license would come up for review by the Federal Communication Commission whose rulers are, more often then not, arbitrary political appointees, and the Damocles Sword dangles precariously over the thin thread that connects the broadcaster to their license would be incentive enough to force them to tamp down the rhetoric and quash the campaign. Likewise, the print media, who is fortunate not to suffer such a regulatory oversight, is also highly unlikely to support a campaign that moves to forever check the power of the government simply because access to sources is the name of the game. It’s not just the publicly elected or appointed faces who go on the record with their statements, it is the legion of low level functionaries who serve all three branches of government and who owe their livelihoods to those who are appointed or elected to supervise them. Should any major media outlet seriously broach the question of the electoral college and campaign for its abolition, you can guarantee that directives would go out to every member of every department of every branch of government, federal, state and local, that that outlet is officially persona non grata in the eyes of the government. It is likewise assured that the multi-national corporations whose products make up the vast array of advertising dollars accounting for the lion’s share of media corporation profits would distance themselves from supporting such a radical notion as empowering the individual American with the right to have his vote cast for the person he feels best represents his views without passing through the filter of his state’s viewpoint. Even if they were to support the notion of one man one vote, every corporation is subjected to some degree of regulatory oversight by the government, and that degree is wholly dependent on how effectively they have curried favor in the eyes of that overseeing body. As such a notion, like the abolition of the electoral college, directly challenges their power to select the president, you can rest assured that, quite coincidentally, those respective branches and committees would immediately discover a need to convene and discuss regulatory issues that will directly and dramatically effect the bottom line of that industry which dares to challenge their power.

As we see that for-profit mainstream media is highly unlikely to throw their support behind this cause, the best any of us can hope for is that such a campaign be organized on the grassroots level, either here in the media or via the so-called "underground" media of the free weeklies that stuff the stands of every major metropolis. As they have neither dollars to lose nor enjoy the type of prominence necessary to lose an official inside source, they can afford to be a bit bolder in those causes they choose to embrace. But who would read them? Unfortunately, it’s back to the choir who, as sheer numbers go, are so small that to mount an effective campaign it may actually require them to get off their butts and into the streets to demand that each person have their individual voted counted. Unfortunately, this generation lacks a leader strong, committed and dynamic enough to get those who care in the streets in the kinds of numbers that can’t be ignored. This type of campaign requires not a Saturday march down main street and a roster of speeches from a stage before the parade permits end at sundown. It requires a commitment that directly confronts and effects the centers of profit, who can rest assured that the outraged will be back in their cubicles on Monday morning, pounding away at their keyboards and tackling those vast piles of data that will shackle them to their desks for 8, 10, 12, 14 hours a day, rob them of their weekends and vacation time in order to keep up with the endless flow of work and make them way too tired or busy to commit themselves to taking back the power that rightfully belongs to them as the true owners of this idea we call America.
What about the church? Surely, this message of the rights of man and its providential source runs to the core of the fundamental religious freedoms that so many of our predecessors embraced as a reason to flee the oppressive regimes that stifled them. Certainly, this notion of liberation philosophy, the rights of free people, is perfectly in line with the teaching of all the great prophets around which these religions were created. Would the pulpit likewise be the perfect setting for communicating this message of man’s God-given right to be free? Well, not if they intend to hold on to their tax exempt status. Let’s be honest, the biggest recipient of untaxed dollars aren’t drug dealers or on-line gambling sites. That dubious distinction belongs to the Church itself. It is no surprise that the American landscape is quickly being dominated by oversized steeples standing watch over mega-churches, packed to the rafters with faithful adherents of feel-good evangelism. World politics give much more credence these days to end times philosophy, and the scared and confused are happy to part with as many tax deductible dollars as are necessary to make themselves feel better. And the churches are happily telling them that the red, white and blue and the old rugged cross are their only salvation.

You can see the genius that was put into play when our founders devised the Constitution. It was innovative in that it very specifically detailed and separated the powers of the three branches of government. It devised a system that assured that the three branches kept each other in check so that no one branch held all the power. It devised a method of regular election and appointment so that the voter felt confident that periodically they had a chance to weigh in as to the general direction of the country. They even devised a system that allowed for modifying the Constitution should the times require a rethinking of key rights and limitations without having to completely re-write the entire document. It even made the point of saying that any power not specifically enumerated by that document was a power reserved for the states.

The states. In 1787, a state actually represented something. The pre-revolutionary makeup of states were fairly predictable and representative as each colony, for the most part, represented distinctive ethnic and religious groups of people. But what relevance do states hold today? It may be true that the south and midwest are decidedly more conservative and the metropolitan corridors of the seaboards are predictably more liberal, but are those two broad categories as easily defined as red and blue? Is everyone in North Carolina really a born-again evangelical Christian with a passion for NASCAR, an armory of guns and a firm commitment that Liddy Dole and Richard Burr are the poster boy and girl for the people of North Carolina, as its red state designation suggests? And is everyone in California really a latte sipping, tree hugging, gay marriage supporting grandmotherly female as embodied in Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein and the blue banner they likewise wave? Of course not. So why do we let 55 people in California and 15 people in North Carolina gather in a room and cast one big vote on behalf of us all?

Because they have rigged the system to keep the power in their hands. They have devised a pseudo-polemic defined as Democrat and Republican, two primary colors to paint everyone in any given states. And they have made a deal, that only the states and these two parties will ever truly get the chance to determine who leads our country. And even if they can’t come to a final conclusion by reaching agreement of the elector count, do they return that power back to the people? Heavens to betsy, golly gee, no. They kick that responsibility to a panel of nine, black robed individuals who owe their lifetime jobs to previous presidents, and they get to determine who will lead us based solely upon the premise of which party held the power when they got their job.

Think about that. Rather than letting the 300 million of us cast the deciding votes that 538 people couldn’t resolve, that power is put into the hands of ... nine people. While that may not be an attractive proposition to the 300 million, you can imagine how attractive such a notion would be to the few hundred or thousand that make up the ruling class of the rest of the world. Our revolution and republican model of government was inspirational and, over the next two hundred years, nation after nation cast off their old crown-centric models to design similar Constitutionally based systems of representative government. While some gave great power to democracy, the vast majority adopted the republican model which vest the power in the hands of the elected and the parties they serve rather then the electorate. The veneer of democracy is just thick enough to allow the republican models to condemn the absolute monarchic, communistic or dictatorial as omni-present overlords, providing just enough cover to make their version of absolute totalitarianism much more palatable.

Is this what our ancestors fought and died for in 1776? Would they have willingly picked up arms to fight King George if they had known that they were supplanting one big dictatorship for 51 smaller ones? Would they have bled and sacrificed if they knew that, in the end, the individual would not freely and importantly choose whom they feel best represents them? And would they be happy to know that this vast beautiful country they escaped to was now owned lock, stock and barrel by petty corporate tyrannies who exploit their descendents to sacrifice time with their children, not to mention life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, so a few thousand people can control our fates?

So is it too late? Is democracy a fancified notion that we promote worldwide to make ourselves look better in our republican reality? Not so to the people who’ve taken to the streets in Mexico. As many of you may know, the presidential election here harks back to the much contested U.S. presidential election of 2000. While most of us are ignorant to Mexican politics, the last two elections have been absolute models of democracy, as power has been wrested from a party who ruled exclusively for over 70 years. The victory of Vincente Fox energized the populace on both the left and the right, with record numbers in the most recent election of the modern and monied as well as the poor and the trampled on turning out to give the narrowest of margins ever in a free election -- by some estimates, as low as 0.3% of the vote. The party in power wants to certify the vote and allow the courts and the election commission to stamp their approval on their very tiny victory. The people that challenged that power want every vote recounted. Sound familiar? The difference between the emerging Mexican democracy and the centuries-old American republic is that those who have been labeled as losers refuse to cavalierly accept that loss, lick their wounds and allow those elected and appointed above them to tell them they are powerless. Millions have taken to the streets, not just to stroll and shout in the Saturday sun, but to use the boulevards of political and economic power as literal campsites until their demand of a full recount is met.

It is hard to say whether or not their demand will win the day. But it is heartening to know that there are those who are willing to sacrifice life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in order to have their voices heard and their votes counted.

It’s too bad that this most American of activities has to be exemplified south of the United States border. Perhaps as neither the media, the government, the churches or the electorate have the will or courage to exemplify the meaning of democracy, we’ll take heart that at least somewhere in the world, democracy still exists. And perhaps, if we can set aside our lattes and Budweiser, get off our oversized backsides and demand our voices be heard rather than allowing suit-wearing sycophants to speak for us, we might one day prove we are worthy of the slogan "the land of the free and the home of the brave."

You may wonder what this has to do with my novel. While many of you may know that this is a work of historical fiction rooted in the Golden Age of Piracy, it goes to core of the notion of what happens when rugged individualism goes loggerheads with institutional power. It addresses the notion that an act is only illegal and piratical if the action is not sanctified by the royal seal of power. And it confronts the reality of exactly what freedom is. It demonstrates one of the truly democratic institutions ever to exist in the most unlikely of settings. It shows to what depths of deception the powerful will descend to maintain a firm grasp on the reins of control, even if it means creating an illusion of freedom for those whom they dominate and own.

It may not have made sense to many for me to pen this story centered upon the high seas from a mountaintop lakeside perch in Mexico. But, given this desperate struggle for democracy and freedom taking part in the town squares of thousands of Mexican villages, it really is the most inspirational place to do so.

Next time, I’ll spare the preaching and focus on the travelogue and cultural acclimation we are undergoing. For the time being, please enjoy the pictures of our trip to Mexico at http://www.paxgaea.com and peruse the blog entries from Abi and Pen. We have undergone an extensive rewrite of the Prologue and finally completed Chapter One. We launch into Chapter Two this evening. We are inspired, focused and targeted to finish the first draft by Dia de la Muerta.

On the Day Of the Dead, Thatcher will finally be fully brought to life. At least, that is, until we rewrite him again.

posted by Dave Carroll @ 8/22/2006 01:31:00 PM