The Evils of Racism, Poverty, and Militarism

Martin Luther King Jr. (MLK) was always an important historical figure when I was in grade school. We certainly talked about him and the history of the civil rights movement, and I began to get this mental image of a great community leader that lead marches for civil rights, for the fair and equal treatment of black people. The famous "I have a dream" speech was emphasized, with his vision of black children living with white children in an integrated world.

However, when you start listening to the full speeches and not simply the snippets they play in school and documentaries, you catch glimpses of a wider philosophy. Sure, equality was a huge part of MLK's dream, he was indeed fighting for racial equality and a just system. However, MLK himself admitted that racial inequality was not the whole story; there was also a huge economic inequality component. He spoke of the need to address poverty before we could really tackle racial inequality. He also spoke of the need to establish democracy with real representation to address inequality, and how militarism and colonialism around the world was both a threat to democracy and allowed the cycle of poverty to continue. Those were dimensions of the argument that I was not as familiar with.

After seeing references to this on social media, it became clear I needed to go to the source and learn as much as I could about what MLK actually stood for, and not simply the media-friendly narrative. I picked up a copy of "Where Do We Go From Here?: Chaos or Community", which was published in 1968 as the last book written by MLK before his assassination. It's not a very long read (about 200 pages), but really shows just how eloquent MLK was and how much he believed in nonviolent resistance as a way to influence society.

While MLK's first goal is obviously to end racial inequality, he quickly moves into the need to address economic inequality. He saw economic inequality and militarism as a root cause of racism, that the three were inseparably related and so must be tackled together by coalitions of both blacks and whites in order to effect real long-lasting change.

He spent a significant amount of time in the early chapters outlining how the economic system and the government works against black people. He described how more blacks were deployed to war in Vietnam than whites, how blacks were denied access to higher education because it wasn't affordable, how blacks paid higher rent for subpar housing compared to whites, how most blacks held "menial" low-paying jobs, the unemployment rate was nearly twice what it was for whites, and few elected officials were black. He felt that much of the racism was actually economic racism, that many whites had poor opinions of blacks because of a conception that blacks were poor and uneducated. He was convinced that tackling the sources of economic inequality would go a long way to elevating the status of blacks in society and countering such racial stereotypes, and that more blacks needed to be involved in the political system.

He described that blacks since the end of slavery faced economic disadvantage in the US. As he put it on page 84:

It was like freeing a man who had been unjustly imprisoned for years, and on discovering his innocence sending him out with no bus fare to get home, no suit to cover his body, no financial compensation to atone for his long years of incarceration and to help him get a sound footing in society; sending him out only with the assertion: "Now you are free". What greater injustice could society perpetrate?

He describes poverty as "white America's most urgent challenge today", and describes how we spend so much money on warfare and exploring space but cannot commit even a small fraction of it to eradicating poverty and blight in the poverty-stricken areas of cities. In fact, MLK is very explicit about what he wants on page 95:

The white liberal must affirm that absolute justice for the Negro simply means, in an Aristotelian sense, that the Negro must have "his due". There is nothing abstract about this. It is as concrete as having a good job, a good education, a decent house and a share of power.

What struck me as interesting about this excerpt and the surrounding text was how long MLK talked about the "white liberal". He specifically complained that many white liberals that considered themselves allies of the civil rights movement would support only gradual change for blacks (gradually increasing wages, gradually integrating the schools, gradually improving housing, etc.), and he was concerned that these white liberals did not truly understand the plight of black people. They cannot wait for things to be gradually phased in; asking for the poor to wait a bit longer to afford food or decent housing or an affordable education shows either a lack of understanding of how serious the problem is, or exposes the apathy at creating a truly just society. Either way, such "allies" were not true allies and in many cases were hindrances to the movement.

This argument reminds me a lot of today's Democratic party that on the surface says it is for all of these wonderful liberal progressive ideas, but then doesn't back them up. They support universal access to healthcare, except only as expensive employer-provided insurance (leaving out those between jobs, or not working full time, and having expensive premiums and copays and deductibles even if you do) and not as a national single payer system that establishes it as a right. They support a $15 minimum wage, but want to phase it in slowly in the year 2025 so as not to "hurt" business owners. You can vote and have democracy, but only if Democrats continue to have "super-delegates" that overrule your vote. They are afraid Trump will start war and yet overwhelming vote for increased military spending. MLK considered this type of "white liberal" to be his worst opponent, because they would smile and shake your hand as they stabbed you in the back; at least you knew that the conservatives didn't like you, whereas Democrats would work with you on developing policy only to back out last minute once elected and expected to follow through.

The cost of housing and basic needs like food were a particularly strong concern for MLK, and those costs provide a great example of how the economic system disadvantages blacks and keeps them in poverty. On page 123 he describes how the system works:

... my neighbors pay more rent in the substandard slums of Lawndale than the whites must pay for modern apartments in the suburbs. ... The situation is much the same for consumer goods, purchase prices on homes and a variety of other services. Consumer items range from five to twelve cents higher in the ghetto stores than in the suburban stores, both run by the same supermarket chains; and numerous stores in the ghetto have been the subject of community protests against the sale of spoiled meats and vegetables. This exploitation is possible because so many of the residents of the ghetto have no personal means of transportation. It is a vicious cycle. You can't get a job because you are poorly educated, and you must depend on public welfare to feed your children; but if you receive public aid in Chicago,  you cannot own property, not even an automobile, so you are condemned to the jobs and shops which are closest to your home. Once confined to this isolated community, one no longer participates in a free economy, but is subject to price-fixing and wholesale robbery by many of the merchants of the area.

I think this is a very insightful paragraph that illustrates how capitalism works against the poor. Essentially, the "free market" people like to go on about collapses in poor areas. If you cannot afford a car and there is no good public transportation system, you must find a job nearby and shop at stores nearby. When the owners realize you have no other choices, they can price gouge (that "12 cents higher" translates to around $1 more per item in 2017 dollars due to inflation; so imagine every item in the store being $1 more than they are now, it adds up! especially when you are on minimum wage and every dollar counts), leading to much larger prices in the poor areas than surrounding areas. If you cannot afford transportation, then you must rent or buy a house near your job, and again you will be price gouged and pay a higher rent or higher sale price than suburban whites that can "shop around". Add on top of it that banks often charge much higher interest rates on loans for poorer people with lower wages, and poor blacks end up paying much much higher rates than whites for much lower quality products. It is also true that welfare and other programs require you to own very little; I was briefly on Medicaid and was required to submit information about my bank accounts and value of any property including a car; if the total was above a certain small amount, you were denied assistance. If you save up at all when you don't have a good job, you stop qualifying for aid and fall right back into poverty, keeping up the cycle. For suburban whites that don't understand these problems, it is easy for these economic problems to develop into a racial stereotype and feed racism.

These economic problems only serve to create a cycle that keeps the poor in a state of poverty with little hope of getting out, which further feeds racism. MLK argued that a radical transformation of society was required for us to break this cycle. As he says in his book (page 142):

For the evils of racism, poverty and militarism to die, a new set of values must be born. Our economy must become more person-centered than property- or profit-centered. Our government must depend more on its moral power than on its military power. Let us, therefore, not think of our movement as one that that seeks to integrate the Negro into all the existing values of American society. Let us be those creative dissenters who will call our beloved nation to a higher destiny...

In other words, we shouldn't seek to be part of a morally corrupt system, but work to reform and overthrow such a system in favor of one that puts people first. He specifically calls for the development of economic power among the poor via nonviolent resistance in order to force the system to change. The Green Party's slogan of "people and planet over profits" is an echo of what MLK says here, and it is no coincidence that the Green Party's Green New Deal includes an economic bill of rights to tackle poverty while also including provisions to end militarism by cutting our bloated imperialistic military budget. Some of the early state Green Parties (before the national Green Party US was founded) were founded by veterans of the civil rights movement, and so in a real way I think the Green Party is a political successor to MLK's vision.

Is there evidence that MLK would support a Green Party, or some type of "third party" political solution? MLK points out there are several paths to currently-untapped economic power, and lists that workers' unions and community organizations including churches are important allies. However, he also points out that being involved in politics is another source of power in the community and that it is important for poverty activists to be involved in democracy and bringing attention to issues. On page 158, he specifically endorses independent parties:

We will have to learn to refuse crumbs from the big-city machines and steadfastly demand a fair share of the loaf. When the machine politicians demur, we must be prepared to act in unity and throw our support to such independent parties or reform wings of the major parties as are prepared to take our demands seriously and fight for them vigorously. This is political freedom; this is political maturity expressing our aroused and determined new spirit to be treated as equals in all aspects of life. The future of the deep structural changes we seek will not be found in the decaying political machines.

MLK was not only supportive but encouraged people to stand together unified behind new alliances to break the "decaying political machines". While some today might say the reform wings could work, we've seen in the 50 years since MLK that reform efforts in the major parties consistently fail (in fact, such reform efforts have been unable to even slow the rightward drift of both parties, much less pull them to the left on policy), and MLK himself even expresses disappointment at the number of Democratic politicians that attended the marches with him saying they supported civil rights that then later turned against political movements once elected and voted against putting civil rights into law. Based on his statements in this chapter, I believe MLK would warn us to be wary of establishment "machine" politicians pretending to be our friends, and encourage us to support "independent parties" like the Green Party to demand changes rather than continuing to support major party "machines" that resist reform.

So what does MLK's political vision look like? His goal is to end poverty, so what policies are best to support that vision? We see elements of more leftist ideology in his statements about an economy that puts people over profits. Right-wing ideology generally assumes that the profit motive is the most powerful engine of change and therefore puts trust in the "free market" as the goal. Everything is about small government, minimal regulations in order to "encourage competition" in the market, which is really just individuals competing for profits. MLK however sees a vision where we democratically control our economy and put taking care of people as our primary goal rather than obtaining profits. MLK quotes on page 172 from Henry George's 1879 book "Progress and Poverty" (a national bestseller at the time it was published that heavily influenced the later progressive and socialist movements in America, and a book on my todo list to read eventually):

The fact is that the work which improves the condition of mankind, the work which extends knowledge and increases power and enriches literature, and elevates thought, is not done to secure a living. It is not the work of slaves, driven to their task either by the lash of a master or by animal necessities. It is the work of men who perform it for their own sake, and not that they get more to eat or drink, or wear, or display. In a state of society where want is abolished, work of this sort could be enormously increased.

In other words, the creative work that improves our lives and improves civilization cannot be done by economic slaves struggling to have their basic needs met. We could all have much more fulfilling jobs and lives in general if we weren't under the constant stress of poverty. To illustrate the problem, he also quotes an Asian writer on page 182:

You call your thousand material devices "labor-saving machinery", yet you are forever "busy". With the multiplying of your machinery you grow increasingly fatigued, anxious, nervous, dissatisfied. Whatever you have, you want more; and wherever you are you want to go somewhere else... your devices are neither time-saving nor soul-saving machinery. They are so many sharp spurs which urge you to invent more machinery and to do more business.

If we want to work toward a better society, we must first end "want", or poverty, and begin to use science and technology to improve the human condition rather than improve profits. To this end, MLK describes a number of policies to combat poverty. Perhaps most surprisingly, after an analysis on how piecemeal social programs (housing programs, educational spending, etc.) have not been successful because of a lack of integration among the programs and a lack of government funding support, MLK makes the following statement on page 171:

I am now convinced that the simplest approach will prove to be the most effective -- the solution to poverty is to abolish it directly by a now widely-discussed measure: the guaranteed income.

The guaranteed income is today sometimes known by the term "universal basic income" (UBI), but the goal is the same. We guarantee every American, regardless social or economic status, a basic fixed income. The income can be given directly to Americans (either as a so-called "negative income tax" or via a check similar to social security), or it can come in the form of a "jobs program" that ensures full employment, but either way, we guarantee every American has enough income to end poverty. It isn't hard to imagine this with modern technology; money is a proxy for distributing goods we produce (such as food and clothing), and if technology allows us to produce more than enough for every American (which it certainly does! I have read estimates that 40% of the food grown in American is thrown away; we're producing more than enough food, it's just not making its way to all Americans due to inefficient capitalist pursuit of profits), the problem is more of distribution than production. MLK argues exactly this: we must fix our economic system to improve distribution of supplies to people, and that in itself will put more money into the system and grow the economy toward more and better jobs that are more fulfilling than today's poverty work. As he writes, "The curse of poverty has no justification in our age... The time has come for us to civilize ourselves by the total, direct and immediate abolition of poverty." On page 199, he reiterates: "There is nothing except shortsightedness to prevent us from guaranteeing an annual minimum -- and livable -- income for every American family."

UBI has a complex history, but interestingly enough there was one point in time in the 1960s where it seemed almost inevitable. Even conservatives like Nixon initially supported a UBI as a way of "fixing" capitalism, and from what I understand was on the verge of supporting it in Congress. However, an adviser talked him out of it until more research was done, and Watergate was to follow shortly afterward, and so the issue was unfortunately never revisited. The fact that Nixon and many politicians were supportive (or at least entertained the idea of supporting) UBI shows how far right-ward both major parties have drifted. However, the movement for UBI does seem to be increasing in recent years.

The Green platform (Section IV.D) calls for universal basic income:

We call for a universal basic income (sometimes called a guaranteed income, negative income tax, citizen's income, or citizen dividend). This would go to every adult regardless of health, employment, or marital status, in order to minimize government bureaucracy and intrusiveness into people's lives. The amount should be sufficient so that anyone who is unemployed can afford basic food and shelter. State or local governments should supplement that amount from local revenues where the cost of living is high.

Note that Greens also support public works programs that would provide full employment. There is must to do in overhauling and updating our infrastructure: transitioning to renewable energy sources, rebuilding roads, water systems, etc., so there are plenty of jobs available. No one should be unable to find some type of useful work, and we can guarantee that with a public jobs program if the private sector cannot create such useful jobs.

Ultimately, MLK argues that since we now live in the "world house" (the global economy), we must recognize that the fate of all nations are now intertwined and we must also combat racism, poverty, and militarism abroad and not just at home. He argues we should spend some of our vast resources at raising other nations out of poverty, that we should withdraw our support and capital from nations and governments that continue to push racism (such as South Africa's apartheid system that existed at the time), and investigate how to use nonviolent methods at a global level to end warfare.

We have ancient habits to deal with, vast structures of power, indescribably complicated problems to solve. But unless we abdicate our humanity altogether and succumb to fear and impotence in the presence of the weapons we have ourselves created, it is as possible and as urgent to put an end to war and violence between nations as it is to put an end to poverty and racial injustice. ... We must shift the arms race into a 'peace race'. If we have the will and determination to mount such a peace offensive...

MLK sees the problems of racism, poverty, and warfare as all stemming from an attitude of military and economic colonialism. Colonialism - and really capitalism in general - sees the world in terms of classes, of groups of people that are somehow "better" or "superior" than others, whether it be because of race, religion, or some other reason. We cannot end racism and poverty fully without confronting the reasons for violence and warfare. They must all be solved together for a real solution.

One of the Green Party's "Four Pillars" is Peace. Greens support ending wars, ending weapons arms races, and working toward diplomatic solutions when at all possible. The Green New Deal calls for drastic reductions in military spending (particularly by closing military bases throughout the world, many of which exist in allied countries far from warzones that are unnecessary for defense and serve only to occupy countries as if they were colonies and prop up the military-industrial complex) in favor of spending the money at home on social programs and infrastructure.

MLK says on page 196-197:

We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing"-oriented society to a "person"-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

He is advocating for a new economic system that realizes the promise of democracy, and rejects more "classical" views of government, in particular, the struggle of capitalism versus communism. On page 197, he goes into more detail:

We must honestly admit capitalism has often left a gulf between superfluous wealth and abject poverty, has created conditions permitting necessities to be taken from the many to give luxuries to the few, and has encouraged smallhearted men to become cold and conscienceless so that ... they are unmoved by suffering, poverty-stricken humanity. The profit motive, when it is the sole basis of an economic system, encourages a cutthroat competition and selfish ambition that inspire men to be more I-centered than thou-centered. Equally, communism reduces men to a cog in the wheel of the state. The communist may object, saying that in Marxian theory the state is an "interim reality" that will "wither away" when the classless society emerges. True -- in theory; but it is also true that, while the state lasts, it is an end to itself. Man is a means to that end. He has no inalienable rights... [traditional capitalism and classical communism] Each represents a partial truth. Capitalism fails to see the truth in collectivism.  Communism fails to see the truth in individualism. Capitalism fails to realize that life is social. Communism fails to realize that life is personal. The good and just society is neither the thesis of capitalism or the antithesis of communism, but a socially conscious democracy which reconciles the truths of individualism and collectivism.

A true democracy that shares power equally among all its citizens is the most good and just society; any other form of government provides an unequal power distribution (either putting too much power into private business or the state government) and leads to the economic and racial inequality we see. It is more democracy that we should be advocating for, rather than being specifically anti-capitalist or anti-communist.

Compare this vision with the Green Party's economic vision from the 2016 Green platform:

The Green Party seeks to build an alternative economic system based on ecology and decentralization of power, an alternative that rejects both the capitalist system that maintains private ownership over almost all production as well as the state-socialist system that assumes control over industries without democratic, local decision making. We believe the old models of capitalism (private ownership of production) and state socialism (state ownership of production) are not ecologically sound, socially just, or democratic and that both contain built-in structures that advance injustices. 

Instead we will build an economy based on large-scale green public works, municipalization, and workplace and community democracy. Some call this decentralized system 'ecological socialism,' 'communalism,' or the 'cooperative commonwealth,' but whatever the terminology, we believe it will help end labor exploitation, environmental exploitation, and racial, gender, and wealth inequality and bring about economic and social justice due to the positive effects of democratic decision making. 

Production is best for people and planet when democratically owned and operated by those who do the work and those most affected by production decisions. This model of worker and community empowerment will ensure that decisions that greatly affect our lives are made in the interests of our communities, not at the whim of centralized power structures of state administrators or of capitalist CEOs and distant boards of directors. Small, democratically run enterprises, when embedded in and accountable to our communities, will make more ecologically sound decisions in materials sourcing, waste disposal, recycling, reuse, and more. Democratic, diverse ownership of production would decentralize power in the workplace, which would in turn decentralize economic power more broadly.

The Green platform echoes MLK's visions for a more good and just society based on democracy in government and business, and I believe he would highly approve of it.

In order to switch to that democratic system that is more just, MLK describes the need to expand our rights as citizens to the economic domain, as history has shown political rights alone are insufficient to fight poverty due to inequality of power.

...the concept is emerging that beneficiaries of welfare measures are not beggars but citizens endowed with rights defined by law. ... From a variety of different directions, the strands are drawing together for a contemporary social and economic Bill of Rights to supplement the Constitution's political Bill of Rights.

The Green Party's Green New Deal actually calls it's first pillar an "Economic Bill of Rights", which includes a right to full employment for all that want a job (via a green jobs program), a living wage, affordable housing, democratically-run public utilities, single payer healthcare, tuition-free public education, and more, most of which MLK had cited at one point or another in the book as being important goals to end poverty. In particular, MLK wrote that affordable housing and education likely must be addressed first before poverty can end, and in fact on page 214 says:

Housing is too important to be left to private enterprise with only minor government effort to shape policy. We need the equivalent of a Medicare for housing. 

A "Medicare for housing" is an interesting phrase I've never heard before. He doesn't explain what is meant by this term in much detail, but since Medicare ensures the elderly all have access to healthcare, I assume he means an assurance that all poor have access to housing, either via vouchers (like Section 8 housing) or public housing projects.

Having read the book, I was surprised to see how much MLK talked about poverty and war since that wasn't emphasized in my classes growing up. I especially was not exposed to MLK's proposed solutions to the problems such as universal basic income and more spending on housing and education programs beyond simple racial integration. MLK was essentially a democratic socialist in philosophy, though I'm not sure he used that term directly. Given the legacy of the "Red Scare" and any discussion of socialism and communism, and an almost patriotic support of unfettered capitalism, it isn't entirely surprising to me that this aspect of MLK has been suppressed in our public discourse.

So I described a lot of MLK's philosophy on racism and poverty, and how much of what he says overlaps with Green Party values. But how do we put those ideas into action? MLK described the action as nonviolent resistance, and used it with great success in the 1960s. I'll look more at nonviolent resistance in my next blog post.

The Cult-like Behavior of Corporate Jobs

Following a conversation I recently had with my spouse, we started wondering if corporations actually require cult-like behavior. That is, do workers trapped in a capitalist corporate job act like members of a cult?

We stumbled on this idea after discussing the many ways the corporations expect you to fall in-line for a job. You must dress in a suit or dress - expensive! - for interviews, and come with a resume in a certain format. You're expected to work the same hours as everyone else (for white-collar office work, typically 8am-5pm). You're expected to never take a day off except if you're lucky enough to have paid leave, and even then there is immense pressure to return to work as soon as possible, even if feeling sick.

There's many rules on the employees, but unless you have a union backing you, it's very hard to put such stipulations on the employer. And despite the huge amount of rules that make me feel sub-human, many other employees I've met at least avoid criticizing it, if not outright claim to enjoy it!

Are they lying? Are they in denial? Does the work environment indoctrinate you into some weird workaholic cult?

I found an interesting article on cults and how to avoid "unhealthy groups". The author essentially outlines a top ten list of signs that you are involved with a cult. Let's review those signs, and see if the work environment fits. I don't claim to represent every job below -- every workplace and boss is different -- but I am speaking from personal experience and experiences of my spouse, and friends and family.

1. The leader and group are always correct and anything the leader does can be justified.

This is pretty clearly true, as one's manager (or particularly the CEO) can do no wrong. Businessmen are just smart like that and know what's best. (I'm not even making that comment up, I've heard many people claim someone was smart solely because they were a manager or owned a business. In fact, my old university had promoted a businessman to run the university despite the fact that this particular guy had previously run six different failed businesses. Despite evidence to the contrary, he was still considered a very smart person until he messed up the university budget so badly that he was finally ousted, but not until after damage was done. There was a cult that insisted "running it like a business" was the best way to tackle the university's problems.)

2. Questions, suggestions, or critical inquiry are forbidden.

Again, questioning your boss is a great way to get yourself fired in most environments. But even if you make simple suggestions, often the answer I heard in the corporate environment was "Well it costs money to change so just do it the way we've always done it". There's a huge collective inertia to never question, never change direction, and simply keep working as we've always done it, regardless whether it makes sense or not anymore.

3. Members incessantly scramble with cramped schedules and activities full of largely meaningless work based on the leader’s agenda.

This one is amazingly true. From my experience, many jobs in the corporate world are "paper-pusher" type jobs -- people filing paperwork that is general meaningless other than to have a paper trail that makes the CEO or lawyers or whatever happy. While I understand some paperwork is necessary to comply with laws and be transparent to the public, firstly, much paperwork I saw was internally required and not due to any law, and, second, being required by law doesn't make it automatically meaningful either.

Life in a corporate job starts to quickly feel like such a long slog, every day you wake up and follow the same cramped, boring schedule. It psychologically drains you, making you more prone to just accepting it to get through it (questions will slow you down and cause trouble!).

It makes complete sense why cults tend to encourage non-stop work to prevent you from thinking too deeply. If you are always too busy or too exhausted, you're less likely to have the energy to challenge the system. We see this in politics pretty often, which is partly why I advocate for building a new system with the Greens rather than trying to keep up with every minutae of the major parties. They are purposely trying to exhaust grassroots movements, don't let them. Similarly, we need to be aware of our jobs doing this to us, and refuse as much pointless work as possible to focus on work that actually improves our lives.

4. Followers are meant to believe that they are never good enough.

Typically speaking, corporate jobs have a good way of putting into you that you are "trash". Between the big set of rules that control your work life (and sometimes your home life, depending on your job!), lack of raises, bonuses, or any other encouragement, it's easy to start thinking of yourself as just a lame cog in the wheel. Toss in that society immediately labels you a "bum" if you ask for anything outside of the typical checklist (such as requesting different work hours, or time off, or even a raise), and you find yourself feeling very down about yourself just for wanting a normal human life.

Again, that "business owners are superheroes" mentality seeps in here. You're not good enough because you don't own your own business, and you never will, is basically the attitude management tends to exude. It is a very much a feudal class-based hierarchy where some low-level workers are practically "untouchables".

5. Required dependency upon the leader and group for even the most basic problem-solving.

Fairly often have I run into simple "problems" where everyone in the office starts throwing their hands up, saying "Oh I don't know, I have to ask my manager". Not everything requires a manager, sometimes you just make a quick decision and it's over because it was not a serious problem and doesn't really matter, but many jobs drill into you that you should never think or ask questions and instead wait for a directive from management. When thinking and deciding might get you fired, most decide to wait, which of course holds up the work and meaningful progress while everyone waits for a decision.

6. Reporting on members for disobedient actions or thoughts is mandated and rewarded.

I don't know how often workers are rewarded, but certainly disobedience is to be reported. I once worked a teaching job where I was technically required to wear a tie. I HATE ties (it feels like it is choking me, it is a pointless expensive piece of clothing, sets up a class hierarchy in the classroom, etc.), and so I stopped wearing it. A few days later, my boss called me into a meeting to say that someone had seen me without a tie and told Human Resources that I wasn't wearing a tie. HR then contacted my boss and was told to talk to me about it.

I'm not sure why whoever that person was reported me. Perhaps a twinge of jealousy that he was suffering with a tie, when I wasn't? The corporate workplace focuses on punishing those that do no obey, and unfortunately many would rather punish than ask "Well, maybe NO ONE needs to wear a tie?". My students told me privately that they enjoyed the fact that I was more "down to earth", treated them as peers with respect and didn't dress fancy, and they wished other instructors did the same. Naturally my boss was not interested in that viewpoint when I tried to bring it up, only that HR required ties and I was in trouble.

Needless to say, I quit that job shortly afterward once I was able to secure other work. I knew I wasn't going to last long in that work environment. I know that many do not have luxury and are stuck in the job, however.

7. Monetary, sexual, or servile labor is expected to gain promotion.

All of these are possibilities. The typical person "worthy" of a promotion is painted as someone that works very hard, works overtime on weekends, and brings in more money to the company. Plus, higher positions typically require more expensive clothing -- rarely have I seen management not in a suit! -- and so spending money is also often a requirement of gaining promotion just as much as working hard and making money for the company.

While illegal, no doubt some management also settle for sexual favors. Not even for the sex itself, but for the feeling of power and control that goes with it.

8. The ‘outside’ world — often including family and friends — is presented as rife with impending catastrophe, evil, and temptations.

While stretching a little bit, I think this one can and does exist.

Firstly is the fear that the outside world is tough. I've heard managers that basically threaten that people will never find another job out in the world, the job market is too scary (especially right after the 2008 crash!), so might as well put up with this job despite being terrible. Some industries are smaller and more tight-knit (i.e., management of the companies all know each other and go golfing together), so I know of people that were threatened to be "black-balled" so they would never find a job in that industry again.

Secondly, family and friends can sometimes be labeled temptations. Think how often you are guilted or ordered to stay in the office on nights or weekends; saying you want to go home at a regular time (heaven forbid requesting time off to go home early!) to see your family is seen as "weak".

I once interviewed for a job that would have required me to travel regularly -- a few weeks a month! -- and for not even a very great salary. When I said I wanted to stay home and see my family, the men on the interview panel made faces and laughed, with one of them saying something to the effect of "Well I never see my daughter, but that's just how work is", sort of implying that it wasn't a good excuse, and that I was lazy for not accepting it too. Needless to say I was not offered the position, but I wasn't going to take it even if they did offer.

9. Recruitment of new members is designed to be purposefully upbeat and vague about the actual operations of the leader and group.

Getting Human Resources to tell you anything about the job before the interview or even on your first day of the job is often like pulling teeth. Lots of talk about it being a great company and great people and great benefits, but very little talk about what you'll actually be doing once you start working. Job ads these days are so vague as to be nearly worthless.

Plus, the interview might send you to lunch with the team, or some other nice event, as if the company will everyday pay for you and the team to get pizza for two hours. Nope, upbeat to lure you in, then it's the daily grind. I think this one does often apply to corporate positions.

10. Former members are shunned and perceived as hostile.

It depends a bit on your industry and manager, but people that leave jobs (especially if they leave to go to a competitor) are often treated as traitors and "black-balled" in the industry, making it difficult to find jobs ever again, as I mentioned earlier. This has happened to family members of mine in smaller specialized industries.

Conclusion

Having answered all of the questions, I think at least 8 or 9 strongly apply, and honestly, all 10 sound like they apply in at least some manner. So I'm going to call it that your typical white-collar office job very strongly resembles a cult trying to indoctrinate you. Which makes sense: the typical corporate job, to be able to turn maximum profit on you, has to ensure you will never leave the system and continue generating money for them even though it is a losing proposition for you. Almost by definition, the capitalist cannot make money without exploiting someone, without paying someone less than they are worth to generate a profit, and guess who that is? You. A cult mentality is required to get workers to accept the exploitation.

Keep that in mind next time you apply for a job. I don't want to join a cult, I want to do meaningful work for the community while retaining a personal identity and life. The Green philosophy is exactly that: people and planet over profits. We can create a better world. It is important that we reach out to our brothers and sisters stuck in this capitalist cult, educate and support them as much as possible. I believe part of the Green Party's role is to do that education and provide that vision for a better world.

Neoliberalism and why Republicans and Democrats are so similar

A world where profit is more important than people, where the rights of corporations trump the rights of individuals, where corporations use their influence on government to turn police forces into private security that focuses on protecting corporate assets. While I've long suspected these things were true, I didn't understand these are the results of neoliberalism until I read Noam Chomsky's "Profit Over People: Neoliberalism and Global Order".

When commentators refer to "neoliberalism" they are referring to the idea that corporations are the most important aspect of society. The word comes from "liberalism" (or more specifically "classical liberalism") which is the set of economic ideas perhaps best articulated by Adam Smith in "The Wealth of Nations", a book widely viewed as a classic on how free markets and capitalism work. Smith's work is where terms like "the invisible hand" come from; Smith argued that truly free markets were able to regulate themselves and would always bend toward correct actions. Smith however did acknowledge that monopolies and other economic conditions would prevent truly free markets and some limited government to protect against that was necessary, which most proponents conveniently leave off.

"Neoliberalism", with neo being a prefix that means "new", is literally the "new liberalism", a modern offshoot of those ideas. Government is seen as a necessary evil that must be kept minimal, taxes must all be kept minimal and never applied to capital, and the private sector and "invisible hand" of the market are the most powerful forces that must be trusted to work out in the long run. In other words, the role of government is to protect the rights of business in order to maintain a free market that is safe for capital to invest. The theory is that a free market full of competition will eventually stabilize and bring valuable goods at reasonable prices and pay reasonable wages, and this free market process is "automatic", meaning that government need not and should not ever intervene. Smith's work was in the late 1700s, a very different world before industrial automation when most of the world's population were farmers. Neoliberalism is effectively the attempt at carrying his ideas into the new industrialized (and now global) economy, and Chomsky's book does a great job at showing how this policy has been disastrous and counter to democratic ideals.

Neoliberalism has been on the upswing in the United States for decades, but probably most noticeably became public policy during the Reagan era. The Adam Smith Institute proudly provides both a good description of neoliberal policy and a boast that they have influenced such policy decisions since the 1970s, to give an example. Since then, Republican and Democratic presidents and Congresses have pushed for free market "invisible hand" solutions to problems. The parties disagree slightly on implementation -- with Republicans tending to lean completely toward "market-based solutions" while Democrats acknowledge some small "safety nets" might be necessary -- but both overwhelmingly agree that private business and not government needs to fix problems. We see this as members of both political parties have de-regulated banks and businesses (they call it "red tape"), cut funding for social programs and benefits, and pushed to privatize many services including utilities like water and even social security. This idea that capital -- investing in privately-owned businesses that control resources and sell to others for profit -- is superior to any other economic model and will always automatically lead to solutions of public problems is exactly the definition of capitalism.

If you don't believe how similar the two major parties are on neoliberalism, try to ask most politicians on either side about the free market or capitalism. Both Republicans and Democrats loudly trumpet private for-profit insurances as the model for healthcare, and reject any sort of publicly-funded model like single payer medicare for all, or even simply a public option to compete with private insurance. (Their differences on healthcare really only come down to whether government can require by law people to buy insurance, otherwise their plans are effectively the same). Nancy Pelosi, Democratic House leader, loudly proclaimed "we're capitalists, and that's just the way it is" when asked at a recent town hall. Bill Clinton worked with Republicans on many reforms during the 1990s, including de-regulation of banks and capital as well as "reform" of social programs like welfare (that lead to those programs being ineffective, allowing politicians to later use that as "evidence" the programs don't work and scrap them all-together). Even today, Democrats' arguments the GOP tax reform plan are mostly about not following proper Senate procedure.. We have to make taxes lower for business and capital to let the free market, is what the GOP argues, and Democrats largely agree with them. Notice how much even Democrats scream "It will raise your taxes!" -- further promoting "tax phobia", teaching citizens to be afraid of taxes and treat them as "theft" -- rather than fighting for a program that raises taxes on the wealthy to ensure a fair and just economic system for all. They're not arguing for a fair system, they're arguing that Republican voters and donors are reaping the benefits instead of their own Democratic voters and donors. Either way, it is unjust since someone most "lose" in order for another to "win" and make profits in such a "free market" capitalist system.

The "invisible hand" of the market will fix everything and government should keep interference to a minimum, according to both major parties. They only disagree on the best way to encourage a free market, not the concept of a market-based solution itself. Contrast the Green Party's platform that explicitly says:

The Green Party seeks to build an alternative economic system based on ecology and decentralization of power, an alternative that rejects both the capitalist system that maintains private ownership over almost all production as well as the state-socialist system that assumes control over industries without democratic, local decision making. We believe the old models of capitalism (private ownership of production) and state socialism (state ownership of production) are not ecologically sound, socially just, or democratic and that both contain built-in structures that advance injustices.

When was the last time you saw a politician saying natural resources and industry should be democratically-controlled by communities rather than owned and operated by capitalists? Unless you've seen a Green Party candidate speaking recently (or maybe a DSA-backed candidate), you probably have never seen this from major party candidates. We don't have a real debate on economic policy in this country because leaders and most establishment candidates of both parties are largely in agreement on such issues. Neoliberalism has infiltrated most of our discussion to the point that many accept its tenants as "common sense" or "obvious" because they've never heard an alternative. They almost treat the "invisible hand" and "free market" as a religion, that "free market competition" doctrine cannot be wrong and any questioning of it is blasphemy.

So neoliberalism has as its base a very capitalist-focused, free market economy with minimal government and taxes. But that isn't all. This focus on capitalism and privately-held resources has led to the problems we see in our government and foreign policy.

In order to expand profits and capital, businesses must continue to expand claim more resources (buy more private property). Naturally, this leads to businesses buying other businesses to get their resources, and leads to monopolies. Of course, in today's world, it is easy to hop on a plane or set up an electronic bank account around the world, so monopolies are not restricted to their home country. It is now easy for big business to "invade" other countries and attempt to gain private control of the resources of that country as well as the home country. They can do so economically, but it's really easy if they can use another source of power: military.

Viewed through this lens, United States intervention in other countries since World War 2 makes much more sense. George W. Bush is famous for describing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as "bringing democracy" to the people, but that never entirely made sense as presidents for decades have been close allies with very authoritarian regimes. We fund and provide weapons to Saudi Arabia, for example, despite the country being a royal dictatorship with some of the worst civil rights violations in the world. Why?

"Democracy" is a euphemism for neoliberals. They don't mean to bring literal democracy -- as in people directly governing themselves through popular vote -- or freedom, but rather to import American-style neoliberal free markets. As Chomsky put it, we're not making the world safe for democracy but making the world safe for capital, much as Adam Smith argued in his book that capital needed to be safe for a free market to continue to function. In some sense, the fight was for freedom, but freedom of business capital, not individual freedoms. When you see that, it becomes clear why many "allies" of the United States are among the worst human rights offenders in the world while we demonize other countries. Our "allies" are ones willing to do business with us (like Saudi Arabia selling us our oil addiction), while our "enemies" are ones that are economic rivals (or simply more socialist states uninterested in cooperating with privately-controlled American corporations). Notice tensions are cooling with rival countries like Russia as they become more capitalist and open to American businesses and capital, incidentally. Of course, we utilize any economic rivals as a source of anxiety to push for more military and defense spending, which itself is typically handled by privately-owned military industrial "contractors that profit from further spending. The spending that generates military profits must come from somewhere, and so taxes are raised, wages are lowered, to ensure the nation keeps spending while the capitalists continue to profit.

"Free trade agreements" are all about securing favorable conditions for corporations and capital. Since agreements like NAFTA have been signed, we've seen a shrinking middle class with lower salaries and benefits, and a growing poverty class with no safety net, as corporate taxes are cut to help fund offshoring of those corporations to generate even larger capital and profits. Not only that, but in the process, we've granted corporation more and more "human rights", allowing corporations to sue governments for profit loss (arguing for example that social programs prevent them from making as much profit as they could have) and further weaken our social safety nets. We've also empowered the president to make such binding agreements without consulting Congress, further centralizing economic power in the hands of a few individuals rather than the people. De-regulation and trade agreements have effectively left corporations with more rights than individuals. Again, leaders of both parties have generally championed free trade agreements and their effects, with only a few such as Bernie Sanders speaking out against them.

To enforce trade agreements and business property rights, we see our police forces drift toward "police states" that become more concerned with protecting private property than actually defending citizens against injustice. A well-known recent event was the DAPL protests, in which peaceful protesters were violently attacked by police forces who considered themselves "defending" the property on behalf of the pipeline that supposedly owned the land (nevermind that the protesters were largely Native Americans that had rightful ownership of that land under treaties with the United States - again, our police and military make the world safe for business and capital, not individual human rights).

While Republicans are often detestable for socially-backwards views, we must remember that Democrats usually support the same neoliberal policies Republicans do. Such policies lead to massive wealth inequalities that elevate a select few into "rich" status at the expense of pushing large amounts of Americans down into poverty, all while reducing our individual freedoms, weakening our democracy, and transforming our country into a police state more interested in protecting capital than human civil rights. Unfortunately Republicans winning elections is often a backlash to such policies hurting the average American, much like how Democrats win after average Americans continue to suffer under the same neoliberal Republican policies. Both sides get to bash each other over the head with the negative effects every 4-8 years and win in landslides because people are angry and yet feel trapped in the two party system. In effect, both parties get to "have their cake and eat it too" as they implement neoliberal policies that profit themselves and simply wait for the next cycle to sweep them into power for even more profits.

The way to combat this is not to support either major party, but to fight the entire neoliberal establishment as a whole. I believe the best way to do so is build a new political party and movement that focuses on people and planet over profits, that values human and individual rights, that believes corporations are not entitled to make money no matter what. A party that acknowledges that natural resources are precious, and their extraction and use deeply impacts the entire community if not region or whole world, and so we need more bottom-up democratic structures managing those resources rather than top-down corporate dictatorships. The Green Party is exactly that party, and I invite you to join in building the party rather than propping up either of our current major neoliberal parties. And if you want to learn more about neoliberalism and how today's world was built by both major parties, Chomsky's book is an excellent introduction to the subject.

Anatomy of Democrats' Meaningless Statements

This recent piece of fluff written by current Democratic National Committee (DNC) chair Tom Perez perfectly sums up how the Democratic Party still resists change while pretending to stand up for progressive values. They've done a pretty good job at mastering doublespeak, on the one hand saying the words that make people feel comfortable while on the other doing so in a way that is so vague that it is meaningless. Certainly, continuing actions by the Democrats speak louder than words: the DNC has recently purged progressives from top leadership roles, Democratic leaders in Congress have supported Donald Trump's plans for increased war and military spending and were even urging Trump to change the Israeli embassy to Jerusalem, all while resisting Bernie Sanders' calls for single payer medicare for all, tuition-free college, and other domestic programs.

The CNN article above continues the trend of saying words that sound nice on the surface but are not backed up by anything when you read into it. Let's go through and see exactly how weak and uninspiring this article really is.

...we must focus on ensuring that voters across the nation trust our party...

...rebuilding trust with those who share our progressive vision for America and by addressing concerns many have raised in recent years...

Notice not once in these opening paragraphs do they acknowledge what the complaints actually are. The accusations -- first released by Wikileaks more than a year ago and later confirmed by several sources, most recently Donna Brazile in her book -- were that the primary was rigged by allowing Hillary Clinton and her campaign to control the Democratic party and effectively lock out challengers. That arcane election laws made it difficult or impossible for voters to register in time to participate in closed primaries. That state party funding was siphoned to Clinton's campaign rather than supporting down-ballot candidates.

An "apology" is not an apology if you can't own up to what you did wrong. These words are meaningless.

Democrats can win big if we're united, and we know that can only happen by healing divisions that still linger from last year's bruising presidential nominating contest. 

...

Republicans are leading a coordinated, nationwide effort of voter suppression and partisan gerrymandering...

Also notice that jab about remaining "united" at the end there, followed by a quick segue into the bad things Republicans are doing. Again, rather than admitting wrongdoing, they're talking down to progressives and treating their legitimate grievances as overreaction. "You have complaints, but does that really matter when Republicans are also bad?". It's lesser-evil-ism all over again. Yes, Republicans are doing bad things, but what are YOU going to do to fix it? Trading one evil for another isn't much of a win.

We believe Democrats can win everywhere if we organize and lead with our values.

Again, no apology, more generic words about unity. They're more interested in winning elections to retain power rather than standing up for what's right, and implying if they don't win, it's because *YOU* didn't organize and work hard enough for them. They push any blame onto progressives rather than acting like leaders and owning up to problems.

We made historic investments in Virginia, New Jersey, and in mayoral and legislative races that helped pay big dividends with our major victories last month

What they leave out is that Democrats have continued for the past year to ignore progressive candidates and races. Some of those wins were due to DSA support, not the Democratic Party, but they are of course perfectly happy to take credit for the wins (this is one of many reasons I encourage DSA members to put that effort into building the Green Party, not giving Democrats a free ride!). Democrats still support establishment candidates and races. Of course they do. This isn't new and not unexpected. What's needed is evidence that they will support progressive candidates, which they're not providing.

We will not win the future by re-litigating the past. But we do have to learn from our past mistakes.

Up to this point they still have not owned up to any wrongdoing or given specifics. And "re-litigating the past" is another jab at progressives that have still not received answers for the problems with the 2016 elections. Of course they want to move on from the past and cover it up.

But maybe I'm being too harsh. Let's see if the second half of the article has more specifics, now that they want to talk about particular proposals.

No party officer should be allowed to support, endorse or favor any candidate in the primary process.

Good sentiment, but how do you ensure this? No specifics. If they can't even discipline the last DNC chair that was strongly biased -- in fact, they defended her as Clinton made her an honorary chair of her campaign once she resigned from DNC chair -- what evidence do we have that it will change? Also, while it sort of implies that past officers weren't neutral, it does not come out and say it or apologize. This is a sentence specifically constructed as a sort of a "dog whistle" politics, designed to get a message to progressives without admitting any problems for people that don't know the story. It's a way of covering up what happened from the general public without being too obvious.

The debate schedule is decided in advance, instead of negotiating it after all our candidates have entered the race.

The debates were mostly scheduled in advance in 2016 already, problem was Clinton's campaign was allowed to direct DNC decisions way back in 2015 and so Clinton was the one deciding the debate schedule in advance! So this proposal is completely worthless and doesn't fix anything.

Any and all joint fundraising agreements will be transparent and available to all official campaigns.

This is implicitly referring to the joint agreement with the Clinton campaign that allowed her campaign to secretly work with DNC and appoint her campaign staff to DNC leadership positions. Again, not admitting that or apologizing.

However, the deep root of the problem here isn't transparency -- though transparency is of course very important for any democratic organization -- but rather the content of those agreements. The DNC used this agreement to siphon money through state parties to Clinton's campaign, which made it easier for DNC to collect money around campaign finance laws. It broke the spirit of the law if not the letter of the law. Nothing here admits to that or describes how they are against it. So I read it as "I guess we'd be OK with making agreements with ANY candidate willing to help skirt campaign finance laws".

Notice also they say the agreements are available to all "official campaigns". What is an "official" campaign? That's a weasel word there. DNC can define what they mean by "official", and they can make it so that Bernie's campaign doesn't count as "official" if they want to. But even if they don't directly exclude Bernie, it only says such agreements will be transparent and available to campaigns, not the general public.

If they really wanted transparency, they'd put all of this out in the public eye. But that's not what they want. My guess is that they'll set a rule that the DNC only recognizes a campaign as "official" if you sign non-disclosure agreements and what not, so they can use legal pressure to keep details of agreements secret in future. It's an attempt at strong-arming candidates and campaigns, not really about being transparent.

we must work with states to implement policies that make it easier to vote, including vote-by-mail laws, automatic voter registration, same-day voter registration, expanded access to the polls and more robust voter protection efforts

These are good steps mostly, but the elephant in the room is the closed primary process itself. Having a commitment to open primaries would be better. A commitment to ranked choice voting or proportional representation would be even better.

But it's also vague. What is "more robust voter protection efforts"? They don't have any specific ideas or stories to share?

it's critical that the Unity Reform Commission provide recommendations that acknowledge the grass-roots benefit of the caucus process while also finding ways for those who have been excluded on caucus nights to have their votes counted

What does this even mean? What do they propose to do to fix it? If they can't articulate a plan here, I very much doubt they have one. A statement just for show. Likely nothing will change.

The real solution is to establish voting holidays and ranked choice voting so everyone has a chance to vote and their vote actually matters in the process. This is what Greens support.

provide for a significant reduction in the number of unpledged delegates

So in other words, they'll reduce it a bit to seem like they're doing something, but they will ultimately retain superdelegates that are unbound to votes and can vote as they please. Without a strong commitment to grassroots democracy and complete elimination of superdelegates, this is a worthless gesture. It says they still want to retain top-down control over the party as much as possible.

Greens do not have superdelegates, we believe in participatory democracy, not top-down party leadership dictating views. Why is it so hard for Democrats to say that? We know why, which is why this action means nothing. They haven't change their opinion, just trying to hide it better.

If we want Democrats to win and stay in power, we have to reform our party in ways that rebuild it from the ground up. A unified Democratic Party is a party that understands that every ZIP code counts and there's no such thing as an off-year. We've already begun making new investments in our state parties and down-ballot races

Oh, is that all of their policy proposals already? That was pretty weak and non-specific. They're just back to repeating themselves on talking points now. Yet again, pushing "unified" without addressing the concerns is an insult to progressives. Also again, investing in state parties and down-ballot races is meaningless, of course they're going to do that for establishment candidates they back, what we want to see is reform that doesn't shut progressives out of the process.

we changed our rules in October to ban corporate donations from political action committees whose goals conflict with our platform

So they still accept super PAC money, just as long as it matches their platform. What's in the platform? Read it yourself. But I can tell you what's missing from the platform: most progressive requirements, such as single payer healthcare, tuition-free college and student debt relief, ending the wars and reducing defense spending. Even when they sort of adopt progressive principles like a living wage, they do what they're doing in Pittsburgh -- slowly phase in $15/hr over the next *7* years. Families can't wait 7 years for better wages, and by then, inflation will make $15 worth less and still be a poverty wage. Democrats platform puts rights of business and corporations over people. Only accepting money from people they agree with will only exacerbate that problem, not fix it.

Plus, from their very own platform: "Big money is drowning out the voices of everyday Americans, and we must have the necessary tools to fight back and safeguard our electoral and political integrity.... We need to end secret, unaccountable money in politics by requiring, through executive order or legislation, significantly more disclosure and transparency—by outside groups, federal contractors, and public corporations to their shareholders. We need to amplify the voices of the American people through a small donor matching public financing system. We need to overhaul and strengthen the Federal Election Commission so that there is real enforcement of campaign finance laws. And we need to fight to eliminate super PACs and outside spending abuses."

I don't have a lot of hope they will even honor this rule when their platform says they want to eliminate big money and super PACs, and yet never talk about that. Their platform is just words to them, not a code of conduct to live by. Actions speaker louder than words. They're not even trying to work toward these goals within their own party, what evidence do we have they'd actually push for it in government?

Contrast with the Green Party, which already today requires that ALL of its candidates refuse all corporate and super PAC money. We walk the walk because we believe strongly in it.

The DNC has come a long way since the 2016 election, but we know we have much further to go to earn the trust of voters and bring more people into the electoral process. We have our values and the support of the vast majority of the American people by our side. And when we lead with those values, we win.

Actually nearly half of all Americans are registered independents. Independents make the majority of Americans. They're fed up with the two party system. If you really wanted to earn the trust of voters, you'd talk about why the Democratic party has lost millions of voters, why the independents are growing, and what you'd do to win them back. But not a peep.

But aside from that, what has the DNC done to earn the description of "come a long way"? They certainly didn't provide any specific policies or evidence in this article. They didn't even do a great job explaining their values, even though they supposedly "lead" with those values.

Hopefully this deconstruction of their statement has been helpful. Democrats continue to play this game, saying just enough to convince people to stay in the party but never producing real meaningful change. Democrats hate their progressive base, but sort of know they need them to win, so use this doublespeak to keep the party together. But they have no interest in becoming progressive, or letting progressives win. Their goal is to retain control of the Democratic party as a major political party, and control as much as government as possible to enrich their checkbooks.

The Green Party meanwhile has been a progressive party since its very inception. So why are you donating your money, time, and effort to a party that has done everything it can to lessen your voice while still demanding your vote? I invite you to put that energy toward building the Green Party instead. We win when we have candidates, we just need more to join the cause and run for office as a Green. I've spoken with many voters that are Democrats only because they don't feel they have an option yet, but spoke highly of Greens and said they'd switch in a heartbeat if Greens ran more candidates.

We have the support of many Americans behind us, we just need to continue to grow. Remember that statistics about nearly half of voters being independents: there are way more of us than corporate establishment Democrats. They control the party structure and can squelch progressive voices within their party organization easily and legally. But they cannot stop progressives coming together outside the system. They cannot stop a strong Green Party. A strong Green coalition could easily overtake the Democratic party in terms of size, because their membership is 22% of voters and falling. That's not an impossible climb to reach 10-15% of voters and challenge the size of Democrats if we keep spreading the message and stop falling for Democrats' tactics designed to "keep us in line" rather than reform. At that point, with a strong Green challenger, Democrats MUST reform or be replaced. Working outside the system rather than in it is, in my opinion, the best and only way forward.

The STV proportional representation voting method

In the last post, I described the need for proportional representation to establish a more democratic and fair system for electing our representatives. I originally began thinking of the topic when I recently was browsing in the library and came across a short book entitled "Proportional Representation: The Key to Democracy" by George H. Hallett, Jr. The book was originally published in 1937, and is a short read at just a touch over 100 pages (on small size paper, so could be easily read in an afternoon).

What caught my interest was that there were several books in the library around that time period advocating for PR, and while casually flipping through the book, I saw references to the fact that cities like Cincinnati were using PR at the time. Is that still true today?, I thought. (Incidentally, Cincinnati used PR from 1925 until 1957; there have been attempts to bring it back since then that have lost by very close margins). FairVote actually provides an excellent brief history of proportional representation, which helps answer those questions. I'll provide some of those responses below, which actually echo most of Hallet's arguments for PR.

So I spent the last post talking about the high-levels of why we needed PR. Today, I thought I'd go through Hallet's small book and discuss exactly what STV PR is, and list the advantages and arguments for PR that it lists. I think all of them are good arguments just as applicable today as back then, and considering the book's age, I feel like it is worthwhile documenting older texts before they are lost to history.

First, the single transferrable vote (STV) method of proportional representation is a very straightforward name for the process. Voters are presented with the entire list of all candidates, and voters choose the candidate that they feel best represents them. As we will see, STV does away with the need for primaries, so voters can select from all available candidates and not just the single nominees of each party. However, unlikely plurality voting, voters can choose to rank the candidates in order from who is the first choice for their vote down to last choice. Voters are not required to rank all candidates; voters can pick only their top two favorites, or four, or any possibility. Voters therefore only vote for candidates they find acceptable, and are not required to pick any candidate they do not want.

When the votes are counted to determine the winners, we follow slightly different practices. A few alternatives exist, all roughly the same, so I'll explain the one that seems most common. The city sets a threshold for the number of votes needed to win a seat on the legislative body (city or county council, etc.). It might be say 1500 votes, or more, depending on the population of the city; the board of elections would set this number in advance. This means that ANY candidate that receives at least 1500 votes is on the council; the number of seats is therefore dynamic and depends on how many people turn out to vote. As the population for the city grows and more voters turn out, the council will automatically be expanded to ensure proper representation of all groups in the city. If population goes down and there are less candidates, the size of the council adjusts downward as well. (An alternative is to set a constant number of members on the council, and adjust the winning threshold based on the voter turnout, but I personally like the variable council size method better).

The tallying of votes is where the process is most significantly different. The votes are counted and sorted based on their rankings. First, everyone's first choice is counted and tallied. If there are any candidates that receive over the threshold (say, over 1500) votes, those candidates are declared immediate winners. Other candidates may not have received the full 1500, but are reasonably close. Other can be mathematically shown they will never win 1500 votes (because perhaps less than 1500 people chose that candidate in their rankings!). The candidates that cannot win are eliminated, and their votes are transferred to the second choice candidates. Simultaneously, candidates that received more than 1500 votes don't need more votes (they've already won! doesn't do any good to have more), so in order to try to balance out the minority votes from losing candidates, we also transfer the votes of the excess votes (over 1500) to the second choice candidates. In this way, both the majority and minority are represented and have their votes counted toward a candidate; no vote is wasted! We continue this process of transferring votes until there are no more candidates to transfer votes from. Then, ALL candidates over the threshold are winners. While slightly complicated in vote counting, the process is fairly intuitive and transparent (since the method of transferring votes can be calculated much like one balances a checkbook, anyone can confirm the arithmetic is correct) and ensures a council that represents the views of its citizens proportionally, ensuring everyone has a fair representation and a voice on the council.

This is only a brief overview of the method. We'll discuss how and why this works more as we review Hallet's arguments for PR below.

Specifically, Hallet points out the following advantages of STV PR:

• Effective voting, meaning that nearly everyone that votes will have at least someone from their list chosen to represent them. Even if it is not their top choice, nearly everyone will have their number two or three elected, and so most voters will feel comfortable with the results.
• Unanimous constituencies, meaning each representative is elected from a block of voters that agree on some issue and not simply voters that live in the same ward (as we do with our current single-member districts). Representatives can focus on issues that get them elected and not "straddling the line" in a district (in other words, the typical "I'm a centrist" that stands for nothing so as not to offend and get elected, as we hear today).
• Minority representation, meaning voters group themselves into minority "parties" based on important issues and can elect a representative even with a small group. They get some small representation rather than never having a voice in government under single-member districts and a two-party system. These minority groups can be "single issue" parties that feel shut out by the major parties, for example, by focusing things like fracking or single payer healthcare.
• Majority rule, meaning that while minority groups are represented, no minority group can force through their agenda without building a majority coalition with the other elected representatives that were elected on perhaps other issues. Most decisions made by the group will represent the will of the majority, whereas under single-member districting and two-party rule it is easy for a larger minority to take complete control despite up to half of voters completely disagreeing with the proposal. See Pennsylvania, where a majority of voters voted for Democratic candidates and yet Republicans control the state assembly with a 60% supermajority.
• New freedom in voting, meaning voters can worry less about "tactical voting" and vote for the candidate(s) and platform(s) they truly believe in. There is no concern about splitting the vote; one can rest safely knowing that if the first choice cannot win, the vote will be transferred to a second preferred choice rather than the last hated choice.
• A check to machine rule, meaning that the freedom to vote for any candidate typically means voters choose better candidates rather than settling on the establishment "political machine" candidates. It becomes harder for establishment candidates to win unless they truly represent the interests of the people, which leads to the next point.
• The transformation of machines, meaning that establishment political parties must bend their will to the will of the people and support popular policy or they won't be elected. There cannot be a lesser evil argument when your votes can be transferred. Establishment must adopt popular policy or will lose to another group that does.
• The gerrymander killed, since PR is applied to entire municipalities or to large permanent "super-districts", which completely kills the need for re-districting and hence partisan re-districting ("gerrymandering").
• A solution for reapportionment, making it easy to vary the number of representatives in the legislative body by simply requiring one representative for every set number of votes (for example, 75,000 votes). In this way, the number of representatives changes with the population automatically each election, and there is no need for reapportionment and re-districting after each census as we do now.
• Continuity, meaning that PR prevents sudden "landslides" that can push a minority into majority rule as under our current system. PR simply increases or decreases representation proportional to the votes, and popular leaders will remain elected, with only the unpopular ones losing their seats. Going from 49% of the vote to 51% means only an extra seat or two in PR, with each side retaining roughly equal control, while under plurality might mean the difference between total defeat or total victory.
• The development of leadership, allowing representatives to be independent leaders rather than "rubber stamp" the political party's goals. The party cannot threaten "losing endorsement" and ballot access, as happens under today's system. Anyone can be on the ballot regardless of party endorsement and still win, since voters can choose the best platform and not simply tactical voting.
• Development of interest, meaning that as the conversation changes from "lesser evil" to choosing the best platform, more voters will become interested in politics and elections and join the conversation. Many voters are today turned off by the angry discourse that results from a two-party system that pushes voting for a "lesser evil" that is still unacceptable. Why participate in a system where all of your options are ones you hate? With better options, we see more civic engagement, which is good for democracy.
• Reduction of fraud, as one would need to stuff a ballot with A LOT of votes under a PR system to get all of the candidates you want elected, and such a massive "landslide" would be immediately suspicious and investigated. There's less payoff for small fraud under PR, so less will even bother to attempt it.
• Elimination of primaries, since voters can simply pick their favorite candidates at once and have their votes transferred. There is no need to hold a separate, expensive election just for party nominees, especially when such primaries operate under party rules and can be manipulated. Parties are free to endorse as many candidates in the election as they wish, but they cannot prevent candidates from appearing on the general election ballot as they do with primaries.
• Cooperation and good feeling, since all of the above reasons contribute to campaigns focused on issues rather than simply attacking and trying to beat a particular candidate. Talking about issues wins votes as people find they agree with your platform, but there is little advantage to attacking an opponent when it might alienate voters and they'll simply pick some instead of you or the opponent.

Anticipating questions and retorts, Hallet's book provides a chapter on answers to common objections to PR:

• Does PR promote racial and religious blocs? While some voters may vote strictly along racial, religious, or other lines, most voters focus on issues important to them. Should some voters stick to small groups, even then the proportionality of PR means that they would not get a majority of elected officials and would not be able to pass legislation on their own if they are too radical. The book points out Cincinnati and other cities that used PR in the early 1900s held several successful elections and never saw evidence of this happening.
• Does PR deprive localities of representation? If we don't have districts, do the representatives really represent each neighborhood or locality? This is sort of the inverse question of promoting blocs as above, and has a similar answer. In order for each locality to NOT be represented, a different locality would have to form a voting bloc and win more seats. Since the seats are chosen proportionally, it is very difficult to imagine any scenario where voters in a locality would rank candidates from other localities that did not have their best interests in mind above candidates from their own area. In practice, this issue was not seen either, since voters focused on issues which tended to benefit their locality or the entire area as a whole.
• Does PR help extremists? Some worry that extremist groups may win seats in PR. For example, a Nazi may try to win a seat. But this fear is again unfounded because of proportionality. A small extremist minority is unlikely to have votes to win even one seat, and even if they did, would not have majority rule to pass any extremist agenda. Any such risk under PR is overblown, as it is much easier for an extremist party to take advantage of our current system's unfair districts and two-party primary process to take majority rule. Consider that the "Tea Party" of 2009 was a very small group of Republicans but was able to target certain districts and win a large amount of seats in Congress, and influence the entire Republican party, whereas such a win would not have been possible under PR since the Tea Party was clearly not endorsed by a majority of Americans (or even a majority of Republicans). Tea Party would have at best won a couple seats in PR, not a takeover of party goals as was what happened under our current system. You need majority backing in PR to win a majority, but that's not true under the current system.
• Does PR increase the bargaining power of minorities? Certainly minorities would have representation in PR and so a bargain or compromise would sometimes be needed to win a majority vote, depending on the proportions involved. But again the issue is overblown, as any "risk" of needing to bargain with a minority is much less than our current system which can give minority parties outright control to do completely as they wish.
• Does PR make legislation harder? Since PR focuses on issues that affect the community, in most circumstances the representatives would all be focused on the same or similar issues affecting the whole community, and can make compromises to ensure it happens. Our current system focuses on winning elections only, leading to two major parties that constantly flip flop, getting nothing done. PR actually would make the system work more efficiently for things we all agree on instead of focusing on the "horse race" of who is "winning".
• Does PR break down one-party government? Effectively, PR allows for a one-party (effectively: no parties), two-party, or multi-party government, so if you feel on one side of spectrum or other, PR is neutral. PR chooses the best candidates based on the issues, and so will reflect the will of the people. If there are many important issues, there will be many parties. History has shown some cities to be satisfied with two parties, while others like New York saw a vibrant multiparty system form due to the large amount of issues for a city of such large size. It is up to the voters that live in the area to determine how best to structure politics, and PR works with any choice.
• Is PR hard to understand? For voters, it is easy to understand that you simply number the candidates in order from favorite to least favorite. The counting process is a little more complex, but most voters already don't know the process of handling votes under today's system, so not much would change in terms of what voters need to know. PR does open up the ability to monitor and challenge elections since the votes are centrally counted and the arithmetic easily verified, which would actually make elections more transparent than they are today.
• Does the PR count take too much time? People are used to hearing the preliminary results immediately on election night. PR would take a bit longer to go through and transfer votes to second choice, etc., but election workers can do this over the course of only a couple days. We can allow a day or two to ensure a correct count when we're choosing leaders for the next 2-4 years. And if you want a preliminary estimate, exit polls might help.
• Does PR lend itself to manipulation? Since PR requires several vote counts, during which we transfer votes from losing to winning candidates, the ballots will be counted several times by many poll workers with many poll watchers monitoring the entirely process. Thus, fraud and manipulation are actually harder to pull off and the system is much more transparent. More than worrying about PR or voting method, if we are concerned about manipulation, we should focus on electronic voting machines currently in use in Pennsylvania. Such machines have no audit trail and may be easily manipulated. We should use paper ballots with PR for maximum transparency.
• Does PR cost too much? While PR would likely require hiring extra workers to count votes in a timely manner, the cost is much less than the costs of a primary and a potential run-off vote. PR replaces the need for these extra elections since votes are transferred automatically during the count. The net cost historically has been much lower in cities that moved to PR.
• Does PR make the ballot too long? In most cases the ballot won't be too long because there is no need to artificial raise the number of candidates to "split the vote" as is sometimes done in today's primaries and general elections. Even if there are many candidates, voters need not rank EVERY candidate, but only their favorites or the ones they know well. Even if the ballot has 30 candidates, voters can rank their top 5. In practice in cities that moved to PR, this was not an issue.
• Does PR make it harder to know the candidates? While there are potentially more candidates, most voters will find it easier to learn about candidates and their choices. Under today's system, most voters are not sure which district they are in, and media (newspapers, etc.) tend to devote their resources to top races like mayor or governor and less resources to every small district. The effect being that many voters don't have any idea about who the candidates are in their local races. If there are no districts, coverage must be more fair for all candidates rather than only the larger races and districts, if for no other reason than any candidate a voter hears about is someone that the voter can choose (since districts no longer restrict choice).
• Does PR make campaigning harder? While it is true the campaign area can be larger since there are no more districts, the flip-side is that candidates are no longer competing for a majority of votes, just the amount of votes necessary to win a seat. Therefore candidates can customize their campaign to reach the constituency they want: focus on a certain neighborhood or group to win the voters needed or a seat. Campaigning in every neighborhood in the whole city is therefore not strictly required to win. Since PR removes the need for primaries, this also frees up more time and money for the general election.
• Does PR decrease interest in elections? Since PR elections tend to focus on issues, more citizens tend to become interested. Historically, cities that used PR saw increased voter turnout.
• Does PR mean minority rule? This is an objection already seen and answered, basically. PR allows for some minority representation, but ultimately the majority of elected representatives set the agenda. Majority rule does not require that each representative strictly represent the majority, it requires a majority of representatives that decide a question to represent a majority of voters, via coalition and agreement.
• Does PR infringe the rights of the voter? The PR system presented allows for a single transferable vote (STV), such that you get a single vote that is transferred to your next choice should your top choice not be able to win a seat. This system is the most fair because if you give everyone multiple votes (say, 7 votes for 7 seats), the tendency will be that the largest group will elect its 7 candidates (Democrats will vote for the 7 Democrats on the ballot, for example) and the resulting election will not proportionally represent all voters. Each person choose a single representative that best represents them, regardless of party affiliation or district.
• Does PR leave elections to chance? This is an objection based on the method of counting votes described in Hallet's book. Specifically, the objection is to the idea that votes for a winning candidate over the threshold are also transferred to second choice candidates; essentially, how do you choose which votes are transferred and which stay with the first choice? I'll leave the full details to the book, but effectively PR's method of counting is so fair and accurate that randomly choosing ballots to transfer and which to not still accurately represents the whole (because of statistics over a large group of people). And if one is not convinced by mathematics, there are ways to more deterministically decide the question (although they are a bit more complex). The winners are not left to chance in either method.
• Is PR "un-American"? PR carries out the American principles of majority rule and equality of voting power better than any other system.
• Is PR unimportant? Some object to a campaign for PR, because there are "more important things" to focus on than PR and we just need to "elect the right people" to get it done. However, focusing on "electing the right people" to accomplish the will of the people is much more difficult under today's system. PR makes it easy to stick to the issues and elect the right people, so PR needs to be a top priority reform before we can focus on other issues.
• Has PR failed where it has been tried? Many cities have moved to use PR successfully, producing the most balanced and issues-focused budgets in recent history. Where the establishment has attempted to repeal PR, voters historically soundly rejected it. (There were cases of PR being removed due to changes in state governance, and racism as we'll see, but most voters that tried PR were extremely satisfied with the results). In a nutshell, nearly everyone that tries it prefers it and sees immediate results.

Hallet's book was published in 1937 as PR was becoming very popular; unfortunately, many cities and counties that adopted PR would see it phased out later in the 1950's and '60s. So I would like to add one more "modern" bullet point to the previous list of objections:

• If PR has obvious advantages, why did cities that used it in the past almost completely abandoned the method in the 1950s and '60s? As FairVote's brief history of PR discusses, PR worked almost too well. PR was incredibly successful at breaking down party machines and including minority representation in government, and Hallet's points above have proven to be true across the country in all municipalities that adopted PR. However, during the civil rights movement era and the "red scare", leaders from the two major parties -- angry at being unable to control elections and therefore government like they used to -- used racist appeals to fear of "Negro mayors" or fear of Communists winning elections under PR in order to convince the population to vote to repeal PR and move back to the older plurality systems. Unfortunately, the scare tactics were successful in most places, with white voters voting 2:1 to repeal PR due to those fears. So after decades of successful use of PR, many cities votes to scrap it, not for any problem with PR itself (as said above, previous repeal attempts were unsuccessful due to huge satisfaction with the system) but fear-mongering from the major parties. To me, this is actually all the more reason and evidence that PR is successful and a worthwhile goal, and that we need to fight to educate voters and establish PR in the US once again!

In light of the history of the PR movement and the points above, one final question comes to mind. If we want to implement PR today, how do we actually get it implemented around our current corrupt system that will not support PR for fear of losing power? If the Green Party would like to address concerns of "splitting the vote" and gerrymandering, what can it do aside from running more candidates in an unfair election system?

Hallet's book and FairVote's article actually provide historical evidence of one path to victory: utilize the voter referendum. What does that mean, though? I will post a follow-up blog post where I will discuss referenda at length, and I will review my research on whether this is feasible soon.