The Republicans have won two elections despite scandal, weak ideas, blatant dishonesty, etceteras... Why have they been able to do this?
The reason appears to be that they are systematically using the tools of project management, management science, and marketing to run the country and run their campaigns. As a result Our country is facing an "anti-democracy" project compoased of the K. Street Project, the "Contract on America", and the effort to create a "unitary" executive backed by rubber stamp Congress and Judiciary. All these if they succeed threaten the values that all American's have, and paradoxically threaten the values that the Republicans are trying to promote.
But the reason they are succeeding is that they are using an organized rational "project" approach -- and Democrats are not.
In analyzing the issues that are threatening our country, I realized there were two dimensions of problems. One requires "bi-partisan" efforts, or at least could be supported by people from multiple parties; better and cleaner elections, remedies for bribery, extortion, influence pedalling, racketeering and mail fraud. This first set of problems could most effectively be addressed by a group with a name like "Democracy Project." It seemed like a good idea so I started to see if the idea was already in motion.
I looked for an already existing "Democracy Project." I was hoping for something that already existing that would embody the ideals of Democracy and promote them. And indeed I found a promising candidate for the project. Indeed the front page was encouraging. I thought "hey this is what our Country needs."
Unfortunately what I found was a project being pursued by the Republicans:
So Tantillo started as a lobbyist, worked as a political consultant and now runs the "freedom project". Not a bad resume for a lawyer. The trouble is that this group epitomizes one of the set of problems that any "Democracy Project" I'd be interested in would want to address. This guy was a lobbyist for a mining company, went on to write public policy, and now is presumably still representing the mining concerns as part of his Democracy project. I can't rationally prejudge his intentions, I'm sure he's very honorable, but I can be suspicious of them.
I mostly agree with their mission statement:
"America today faces unique threats to her continued internal stability and prosperity because of a failure to defend and pass on a civic spirit based on patriotism, education, obligation, and opportunity. Confidence in the institutions that support democracy and the rule of law has eroded among elites and institutions which once buttressed a common civil society."
It is true that one of the things that the civic spirit needs to be bolstered. I'm not sure I agree on the causes of this current state however.
However, having gone through the immigration process with my wife, I can attest that the problem is not in the following:
"Nowhere is this failure starker than in the abandonment of assimilation programs for newly arrived immigrants"
I have no idea what this means. My wife, and every other immigrant, has a better idea of what US civics is than many people who grow up in this country. Passing a test on US history and civics was a mandatory requirement for getting citizenship -- something not even true for people born here. Worse there is something uggly concealed in the term "assimilation programs." What do they mean?
The author is closer to point here:
"and the weakening and politicization of civics education among secondary and college students. By shortchanging these groups upon whom the future of our nation rests, we dilute our identity as a people bound not by race or ethnicity but by a common love of liberty. We risk our future as a nation of free men and women who, within a pluralistic society, exercise our individual pursuits within the parameters of a common culture and state."
This guys resume looks similar to that of dozens of other activists, business partisans and party loyalists, like of course Abramoff:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2006/01/10/AR2006011001612.html
On the other hand, all this background represents the kinds of behavior I'd like to see mitigated. Worse, browsing the site, the issues they consider important for Democracy aren't the ones I or the other half of the country consider important. After looking at them carefully I came to the conclusion that as it's currently constituted there is nothing bi-partisan about the Democracy project. It's a Republican front organization pure and simple. And as with Most Republican organizations they claim a monopoly on Democratic ideas and seem to exclude the concerns of "my half" of the country from even being considered.
"Democracy Project" is a project -- and having defined it's mission statement, it's projects and activities flow from that. Maybe the problem is that they are identifying the wrong gaps. Maybe talking to them might be profitable. I'll try to do that offline. But i suspect that this is just a front organization and isn't serious about democracy at all.
Posted by cholte at January 22, 2006 09:55 PMMr. Holte,
You get a lot wrong in your post, and as the subject of it, I feel compelled to comment. First off, Congressman Todd Akin has nothing to do with the Democracy Project, it's a project of its board, of which I am Chief Executive Officer.
As Congressman Akin's Counsel and Legislative Assistant, I want to make clear that he has not endorsed nor is involved in any aspect of our efforts. My work for the Democracy Project is pursued on my own time.
Now to the substance of your post: I don't appreciate your implication that the Democracy Project's efforts are akin or similar in any way to Jack Abramoff. You claim my resume is similar to his, how so? Or that I am working for my former employer's interests in my work for Democracy Project? First off, neither are true.
Jack Abramoff was a lobbyist on a level much greater than I, raking in millions upon millions of dollars by defrauding Indian tribes and other clients. I live a much more humble existence as a congressional staffer. Second, my former employer hasn't given Democracy Project one cent, and our efforts our strickly focused on the area you excerpted in the above post.
You claimed you might try to engage me in dialogue -- I haven't heard from you yet. Afraid to reach across the aisle and work with Republicans? I invite you to find out what we're about before you rope me in with a convicted felon. Isn't democracy about the exchange and debate of ideas? Let's have that debate.
Posted by: Brent Tantillo at February 28, 2006 12:20 PMThanks for your comments. I wish I had more time to pursue these things, but I too have a day job.
Let's start at the most important point:
> You claimed you might try to engage me in dialogue -- I haven't heard from you yet. > Afraid to reach across the aisle and work with Republicans?
This was actually the most intriquing (and encouraging) part of your email. Sure I'd love to engage you in dialogue. I'm not a lawyer by training so I don't know how much I could help. But I'd love to help with a genuine "Democracy Project." One that doesn't reflect the views of the worst of us or of one party only.
>You get a lot wrong in your post, and as the subject of it, I feel compelled to >comment.
I appreciate any comments which would improve my understanding of the facts, allay my deepening fears about our country, and would move us all towards a better Democratic Republic that is more representative of the people and does a better job of communicating issues, facts and information to the people so we can all make better decisions and be involved in our Democracy. We should be able to identify and throw all the rats out -- not just the ones in the "opposing party." And more important we need a system where there is less incentive to ratlike behavior.
> First off, Congressman Todd Akin has nothing to do with the Democracy Project,
> it's a project of its board, of which I am Chief Executive Officer.
So he had nothing to do with it's creation? This is entirely your brainchild? That is good news.
> As Congressman Akin's Counsel and Legislative Assistant, I want to make clear
> that he has not endorsed nor is involved in any aspect of our efforts. My work for
> the Democracy Project is pursued on my own time.
I know how that feels.
> Now to the substance of your post: I don't appreciate your implication that the
> Democracy Project's efforts are akin or similar in any way to Jack Abramoff.
> You claim my resume is similar to his, how so?
Are you not: an "activists, business partisans and party loyalist?" There's nothing wrong with being a lawyer or a lobbyist or even a party loyalist, but that makes you part of the system that needs to be changed.
> Or that I am working for my former employer's interests in my work for Democracy
> Project?
Well I'm glad to be apprised that my worries are wrong.
> First off, neither are true.
>Jack Abramoff was a lobbyist on a level much greater than I, raking in millions upon
> millions of dollars by defrauding Indian tribes and other clients.
True. Abramoff may indeed represent the worst of that system, but he's only the one who illustrates the systemic corruption because of his willful flouting of the rules. He saw the influence of money and decided to hell with the rules. He ran things, allegedly, without worrying about paper trails and the appearance of the quid pro quo relationships that signal that there has been bribery. And it isn't just Indians he has defrauded -- but the rest of us too.
Yet,the whole current lobbying system gives the appearance of such relationships -- though none of them are direct. Sure most lobbyists are ethical people, but when so much money is needed to win elections that Congressmen spend all their time raising funds and begging for money -- their staffers work directly with lobbyists who often end up writing legistlation as a consequence -- and this influence is no longer merely at the national level but is also felt at the local level -- there is something seriously wrong with the system.
> I live a much more humble existence as a congressional staffer. Second, my former
> employer hasn't given Democracy Project one cent, and our efforts our strickly
> focused on the area you excerpted in the above post.
Again that is good to hear.
>You claimed you might try to engage me in dialogue -- I haven't heard from you yet.
> Afraid to reach across the aisle and work with Republicans? I invite you to find out >what we're about before you rope me in with a convicted felon. Isn't democracy about > the exchange and debate of ideas? Let's have that debate.
Sounds good to me. The Democrats have suffered from the same system, though I think since DeLay and Company things have gotten systemically much worse. Good people are afraid to run for office out of fear of having their personal lives flayed and displayed for all to see while crooks regularly display the worst of our system for all to see. There has to be a better way to get things done, and I agree that part of the solution starts with better education, expecially in secondary school and College.
However, we have to find some way to agree on a common narrative or else we aren't going to have much fun in any debate. I took issue with some of your comments on the mission page. I'll deal with them in a further email if you don't mind.
Christopher H. Holte
chris_holte@yahoo.com
My Email to the guy hit a "message box full" error.
Posted by: Chris at March 15, 2006 03:55 PM