Most Vermonters sincerely believe they live in a democracy. Asked to define democracy, few can respond meaningfully. Wilkipedia, the Internet encyclopedia, says it is "rule by the people," from the Greek demos, people, and kratos, rule, and is a form of government for a nation state, or for an organization in which all the citizens have an equal vote or voice in shaping policy. According to Webster's Collegiate dictionary, the word entered the English language in 1576. Webster's offers these definitions: 1a. Government by the people, especially rule of the majority, 1b. 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.
President George W. Pinocchio believes democracy means "regime change" which is the violent removal of an uncooperative head of state, and his replacement by a pro-U.S. expatriate to represent U.S. Big Business interests. After invasion and occupation, "free" elections are held and the new U.S. puppet always wins. Dissent is violently suppressed and kangaroo "courts" try and do away with the uncooperative head of state usually denigrated as dictator, war lord, or thug. To me, that's bushmocracy, pronounced boo-schmuck-racee, not democracy. ("schmuck" is in Webster's)
Neither the Wilkipedia, nor Webster's define moneyocracy. The Oxford Dictionary of the English Language defines it as "The moneyed class as a ruling power." The word first appeared in print in 1834 in Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine. One of my plans is to popularize the word moneyocracy because as long as so many people believe we live in a democracy, we will continue to bleed and die and suffer from the moneyocrats: a few thousand self-interested power mongers in Big Business, in the regime, and in the law business including the courts. Not to blame the Founding Fathers, but as a historical note, they brought upon us moneyocracy to fill the vacuum left by abolishing the aristocracy (Constitution, Article I, Sec. 9 sub.8). Other developed countries are suffering from moneyocracy, but to a lesser extent.
In 1926, then-Senator William E. Borah of Idaho said: "Money has come to be the moving power in American politics ... Some years ago, politicians got into the habit of seeking contributions from men of great wealth ... it was inevitable, if large sums were to be given, that large sums would have to be returned in some way. Hence, money and politicians joined forces, and money has its say in shaping legislation and in administering the laws of the country ... It is a fearful national evil and will in the end, if not controlled, destroy the government of the people and substitute therefor, a government of the few -- the few who have sufficient money to buy the government." [p.71 in "If the Gods Had Meant Us to Vote They Would Have Given Us Candidates" by Jim Hightower, © 2000]. Now, 80 years later, we know that "the fearful national evil" has not been controlled.
In the U.S. as in Vermont, the moneyocrats continue to exercise power by deceit, carefully protected by the Big Media. Our moneyocratic rulers control U.S. politics by calling the Republicans and Democrats "the major parties" and financing only major party candidates who then become "frontrunners." In turn, the Big Media give free publicity only to "frontrunners" as if there were no other, worthier candidates. In turn, "neutral" sponsors (e.g.goodie-two-shoes AARP, WCAX, The Vermont Times, etc.) don't invite third-party and independent candidates "since they have no chance anyway" and thereby create a self-fulfilling prophecy. Frontrunners are obedient and docile because any indiscretion giving away the game would result in loss of moneyocratic funding for their name recognition re-election campaign. Since the moneyocrats alone have the money to finance name recognition politics (as opposed to issue politics), they alone control what the issues are and what solutions may be considered.
Comes now South Burlington Senator Jim Condos and promotes four year terms for Constitutional officers, very likely to be followed by four year terms for all 180 representatives and senators. This is a significant self-revelation by the self-interested, moneyocratic, unrepresentative Vermont regime that has been re-electing itself every two years, with name recognition financed by special interest lobbies fronting for the moneyocrats, and now wants four years of job security where the majority don't even deserve two years. I plan to organize sufficient resistance and will promote single two year terms. The four year term for an unlimited number of temrs, is another step away from a citizen legislature which Vermonters like to believe we have. It converts Vermont's governor into a unitary executive, just when Vermonters really need a solitary executive whose veto can be overriden and who can be recalled by a majority of voters, without any stated reason or need to prove a reason.
If you are opposed to a unitary executive and unlimited 4-year terms, please e-mail me:
peter28moss@yahoo.com
phone me 802-849-2108
or write to me: P.O.Box 413, Fairfax, VT 05454 today.
Thank you.
Peter Moss, a proservative candidate, does not raise or spend money on name recognition ads.
He has declared his candidacy for U.S. and Vermont House of Representatives for 2008.