Russell Brand Revolution

[Mighty AC]

Russell Brand is such a smart, funny and well spoken individual that I will take the time to listen to anything he has to say; even if I don't agree with it. Russel has gone political while guest editing an edition of the New Statesman magazine. Russell Brand on revolution: “We no longer have the luxury of tradition”

I encourage you to read the article and watch this interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YR4CseY9pk

After watching the interview I was struck by two things. One, even if I had a week to write, tweak and rehearse all of my responses I could not come off as sounding one tenth as eloquent as Russell does on the fly. Two, he has a very good effn' point!

I have never voted. Like most people I am utterly disenchanted by politics. Like most people I regard politicians as frauds and liars and the current political system as nothing more than a bureaucratic means for furthering the augmentation and advantages of economic elites. Billy Connolly said: “Don’t vote, it encourages them,” and, “The desire to be a politician should bar you for life from ever being one.”

I don’t vote because to me it seems like a tacit act of compliance; I know, I know my grandparents fought in two world wars (and one World Cup) so that I’d have the right to vote. Well, they were conned. As far as I’m concerned there is nothing to vote for. I feel it is a far more potent political act to completely renounce the current paradigm than to participate in even the most trivial and tokenistic manner, by obediently X-ing a little box.

Is there any point to voting? Does money, and the expense of political ads, place all politicians with a hope of leading in the pockets of corporations? Is their only real job to placate the public while they carry out the wishes of their backers? Is it time for a revolution?

While I read the article I kept thinking about how our current government has exempted oilsands projects from environmental reviews, attacked environmental charities, completely gutted environmental acts with a budget bill and turned the scientific research budget into an industry subsidy. I think Russell is spot on here.

What can be done to free politicians from the shackles of corporate demands? What can be done to make our 'democracy' more representative of and responsive to the actual population? If we were to design an electoral and governance system today, to best represent the people in these times, what would it look like?

Edited October 26, 2013 by Mighty AC

[TimG]

Is there any point to voting? Does money, and the expense of political ads, place all politicians with a hope of leading in the pockets of corporations? Is their only real job to placate the public while they carry out the wishes of their backers? Is it time for a revolution?

So lets get this straight. You choose not participate in the democratic process because it does not produce outcomes that you like and your solution is to destroy those processes? Why do you presume your POV is so important that it should be imposed by violence on people who disagree?

What can be done to free politicians from the shackles of corporate demands?

What basis do you have for such a claim? Did you ever stop to consider the possibility that vast majority of Canadians who vote understand that corporations are a vital part of a successful society and the incessant attempts to paint them as villains are counter productive? Edited October 26, 2013 by TimG

[Guest Derek L]

Is there any point to voting? Does money, and the expense of political ads, place all politicians with a hope of leading in the pockets of corporations? Is their only real job to placate the public while they carry out the wishes of their backers? Is it time for a revolution?

I actually saw the interview rebroadcast on Fox’s Redeye the other night……..I thought it to be a joke, was he actually serious?

If so, I’d suggest people of his shared views and generation learn to walk first……..They couldn’t even manage camping in numerous city parks or “effecting change” at various G8/20 summits…….They cry “Fascist” when a few of their number get pepper sprayed and thrown in jail overnight, what will they do when the State’s police and military forces start sending jacketed rounds down range opening up their “comrades” noggins like pumpkins? I’d say to them, put down the Che books and give your head a shake.

[Shady]

Brand is neither smart or funny, and seems like a real egotistical d-bag.

[cybercoma]

Neither smart *nor funny...

[dre]

So lets get this straight. You choose not participate in the democratic process because it does not produce outcomes that you like and your solution is to destroy those processes? Why do you presume your POV is so important that it should be imposed by violence on people who disagree?

What basis do you have for such a claim? Did you ever stop to consider the possibility that vast majority of Canadians who vote understand that corporations are a vital part of a successful society and the incessant attempts to paint them as villains are counter productive?

I dont think that suggesting that corporate interests have too much political power is necessarily painting them all as villains.

[jacee]

..They couldnt even manage camping in numerous city parks or effecting change at various G8/20 summits.They cry Fascist when a few of their number get pepper sprayed and thrown in jail overnight, what will they do when the States police and military forces start sending jacketed rounds down range opening up their comrades noggins like pumpkins?

Have you never heard of a revolution of thought?

Cool your jets, hotshot.

If we ever need murderous thugs to kill innocent people, we'll be sure to give you a call.

[TimG]

I dont think that suggesting that corporate interests have too much political power is necessarily painting them all as villains.

The entire 'corporate interests have too much power' narrative is a myth designed to vilify political views that the speaker dislikes. For example, there are plenty of voters in this country that think that too much regulation on corporations is bad for the country. Yet if politicians listen to these voters they are accused of 'pandering to corporations' when they are really simply listening to a different set of voters.

Can you give me an example of a major policy decision in this country that was not based an a belief that it would make the country a better place even if you think the belief was misguided?

Edited October 27, 2013 by TimG

[Guest Derek L]

The entire 'corporate interests have too much power' narrative is a myth designed to vilify political views that the speaker dislikes. For example, there are plenty of voters in this country that think that too much regulation on corporations is bad for the country. Yet if politicians listen to these voters they are accused of 'pandering to corporations' when they are really simply listening to a different set of voters.

Exactly…….makes no sense. I think though that many of these “collective views” are fostered among 20 something’s that are half way through an Arts degree in French Literature or 20th century Women Studies…….Thankfully most later mature and enter the real world.

[waldo]

Exactly…….makes no sense. I think though that many of these “collective views” are fostered among 20 something’s that are half way through an Arts degree in French Literature or 20th century Women Studies…….Thankfully most later mature and enter the real world.

wow! An Arts slam doubled down with a Women's Studies hit... well done! Where do Philosophy, Sociology, Psychology, Modern Languages, History, Communications & Media... fit within your personal maturity meter rankings?

[GostHacked]

So lets get this straight. You choose not participate in the democratic process because it does not produce outcomes that you like and your solution is to destroy those processes? Why do you presume your POV is so important that it should be imposed by violence on people who disagree?

The process is broken. Democracy is broken and does not work. We can no longer simply go with 51% being the majority. Even with current elections a person with less than 50% of the popular vote can still be 'elected' as a leader. Not to mention you don't get to chose who to vote for. The parties elect a person as their leader, then you can vote on him/her.

I'd want a more republic type of government. But one change where I would require 65% to 75% approval for any legislation brought in. The higher the approval rating, the more it is in line with the population of the country. Besides we no longer have representatives that represent us. They represent themselves and are out for themselves (for the most part anyways)

I have not voted in about a decade. I am disenfranchised as well. All of them have something I like. None of them have a majority of what I like/want. So no matter if I am voting for someone less than what I want, I am tossing my vote away. If I am voting simply to take votes away from someone else, I am tossing my vote away.

Sure every vote counts, but not in the way we generally think. The votes in the end, don't matter for us. It matters for them.

And in many cases, the leaders cannot even produce the outcome they want.

What basis do you have for such a claim? Did you ever stop to consider the possibility that vast majority of Canadians who vote understand that corporations are a vital part of a successful society and the incessant attempts to paint them as villains are counter productive?

Corps may be a vital part, but when they lobby to change the rules in their favor, then you have a problem. Which we do. On a large scale. It's a very very big problem.

Edited October 27, 2013 by GostHacked

[Guest]

The process is broken. Democracy is broken and does not work. We can no longer simply go with 51% being the majority. Even with current elections a person with less than 50% of the popular vote can still be 'elected' as a leader. Not to mention you don't get to chose who to vote for. The parties elect a person as their leader, then you can vote on him/her.

I'd want a more republic type of government. But one change where I would require 65% to 75% approval for any legislation brought in. The higher the approval rating, the more it is in line with the population of the country. Besides we no longer have representatives that represent us. They represent themselves and are out for themselves (for the most part anyways)

I have not voted in about a decade. I am disenfranchised as well. All of them have something I like. None of them have a majority of what I like/want. So no matter if I am voting for someone less than what I want, I am tossing my vote away. If I am voting simply to take votes away from someone else, I am tossing my vote away.

Sure every vote counts, but not in the way we generally think. The votes in the end, don't matter for us. It matters for them.

And in many cases, the leaders cannot even produce the outcome they want.

Corps may be a vital part, but when they lobby to change the rules in their favor, then you have a problem. Which we do. On a large scale. It's a very very big problem.

If 51% isn't the majority, then 49% is. 75% approval means that 26% of the voters get their way.

The system isn't perfect, but it's difficult to see how allowing minority rule would improve matters.

I generally don't vote for my MP. I vote for the party to which they belong. And it's never easy. I'll still vote PC next election, but that doesn't mean I think they are doing a wonderful job. I just think they'll do a better job than the alternative.

[GostHacked]

If 51% isn't the majority, then 49% is. 75% approval means that 26% of the voters get their way.

It means, 25% don't get their way. I would prefer to vote on issues instead of leaders.

[TimG]

I'd want a more republic type of government. But one change where I would require 65% to 75% approval for any legislation brought in.

In other words you want a system where no new legislation is ever passed. In our fractious society a consensus of 50%+1 is extremely rare. 75% would never happen.

[Michael Hardner]

GH - I don't think Democracy is broken, per se, I just think it wasn't designed to work with a 'public' that is only informed by mass media. You wouldn't have to change much to improve things, in fact people on the left and right would probably agree that a more informed public would support "better" [for lack of a better word] decisions on either side of the political divide.

But you'd have to identify a new public that is interested in the issues, and engage them somehow. To my mind, I believe that part of that is naturally happening as voter participation rates drop. It seems to me that those who don't want to bother with taking time to understand issues are letting others decide for them how things should be. Those others are likely more interested in engaging with our system.

[Topaz]

The Corp world is running all the governments except maybe the Middle-Eastern countries and perhaps that why we have wars. All these free trade deals is to links all countries into one another and I do thinks some countries won't benefit from these trade deals. When a country that has a leader that supports business 1000% and those companies are setting on Billions in cash reserves and workers are either not finding good paying jobs or just 20 hours a week jobs, Alberta is not included , of course, then yeah people lose faith in voting but on the other hand , maybe all those people who never voted will get a fire under them and go vote next time to toss the government out. We can do better.

[Guest]

It means, 25% don't get their way. I would prefer to vote on issues instead of leaders.

I meant, requiring 75% approval means that 26% get to keep the status quo.

[Argus]

The entire 'corporate interests have too much power' narrative is a myth designed to vilify political views that the speaker dislikes. For example, there are plenty of voters in this country that think that too much regulation on corporations is bad for the country. Yet if politicians listen to these voters they are accused of 'pandering to corporations' when they are really simply listening to a different set of voters.

Brand is speaking about the US, not Canada. I agree that corporate power is much less here, but in the US it is indeed far too powerful and growing year by year. Congressmen spend about half their time every day soliciting donations for the next campaign. As the amount of funding coming from super PACs and the like has grown, more money is being spent on elections, which in turn means yet more increases in funding are required. Its a spiralling death circle which consumes ever growing amounts of time and puts them even more in debt (so to speak) to those with the big wallets.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/08/call-time-congressional-fundraising_n_2427291.html

I think Michael Moore had a pretty glaring example in his docufarce Sicco, where he showed that the pharmaceutical bill was actually written by the pharmaceutical industry. Among its requirements was that it forbad Medicair from negotiating prices with the pharmaceutical industry in the way other big time consumers did. The congressman who spearheaded the bill quit soon after to go work (directly) for the pharmaceutical industry at a million plus per year.

[GostHacked]

Argus, kind of like the rules of insurance being written,.... by insurance companies!

[Mighty AC]

So lets get this straight. You choose not participate in the democratic process because it does not produce outcomes that you like and your solution is to destroy those processes? Why do you presume your POV is so important that it should be imposed by violence on people who disagree?

Are you asking me or Russell Brand? I personally participate in the democratic process while acknowledging its flaws and spend some of my time and money in an effort to improve it. Still, I see Brand's point. The system is dysfunctional and needs to be improved. The problem is, the people who benefit from the flaws are the ones with the power to change it. At some point we have to accept that this has gone on long enough and demand change. You seem to be a status quo guy on most topics, but maybe you have a few ideas that could improve democracy here.

What basis do you have for such a claim? Did you ever stop to consider the possibility that vast majority of Canadians who vote understand that corporations are a vital part of a successful society and the incessant attempts to paint them as villains are counter productive?

I see corporate influence especially in the US but also in Canada. Do the Conservatives here at MLW honestly think the oil industry isn't swaying government decisions in Canada? I don't blame big business for trying to changes the rules in their favour, I blame governments for putting corporations ahead of we, the people.

The “world class” project is a perfect example of this. After gutting science funding for climate, freshwater research, ozone depletion, marine mammals, observatories, etc. the Harper government found $100M to research Enbridge specific interests. The public sector will now model waterways in the Kitimat region and test the effects of chemical dispersants on bitumen in marine environments. This is research that industry should be carrying out. Using the science budget to subsidize industry specific projects is exactly opposite of what we should be doing.

Additionally, Oilsands projects will no longer be required to undergo environmental assessments.

[Mighty AC]

So what, if anything, needs to be changed either here or in the US to improve democracy? Also, what is the best way to achieve the kind of support necessary for to get it done?

Do we need to tweak the electoral system or the parliamentary system? Do we need more checks and balances? Do we need more transparency and ways to shield policy makers from influence?

[TimG]

Do the Conservatives here at MLW honestly think the oil industry isn't swaying government decisions in Canada?

You are mixing up cause and effect. Conservatives understand the importance of resource extraction to the economy and try to pass laws that encourage economic development that also happen to be good for oil corporations. If the conservatives were really motivated by the what the oil industry wants they would not be discouraging Chinese takeovers of Canadian corporations.

After gutting science funding for climate, freshwater research, ozone depletion, marine mammals, observatories, etc. the Harper government found $100M to research Enbridge specific interests.

Again - given the desire of conservative voters to see economic development it makes sense to focus research money on things that promote these objectives.

Your own arguments prove my point: instead of accepting that a large block of voters in the country want policies that you disagree with you try to denigrate these policies by claiming governments that listen to these voters are in the pockets of corporations.

Edited October 27, 2013 by TimG

[TimG]

So what, if anything, needs to be changed either here or in the US to improve democracy? Also, what is the best way to achieve the kind of support necessary for to get it done?

The US is an example of why our system - with all of its flaws - works reasonably well.

California's proposition system demonstrates that direct democracy is a joke that is easily manipulated by organizations with money. The US congress illustrates what happens when politicians are complete free agents that can withhold support unless the bills are laden with pork that helps them get re-elected.

A system that puts one group of people in charge that represents a broad slice of the centrist voters for 4 years is not so bad in comparison. The only thing that could improve it would eliminate the senate.

The one other reform I would like to see would be to prohibit party constitutions that prevent elected MPs from getting rid of a party leader. This would stop the centralization of power in the PMO and put it back into the hands of elected MPs.

Edited October 27, 2013 by TimG

[GostHacked]

Do we need to tweak the electoral system or the parliamentary system? Do we need more checks and balances? Do we need more transparency and ways to shield policy makers from influence?

Transparency would be awesome. But each time they make the claim to make government more open and transparent, we see the opposite most of the time. And transparency only comes out when they have been caught with doing something wrong.

[kimmy]

The entire 'corporate interests have too much power' narrative is a myth designed to vilify political views that the speaker dislikes. For example, there are plenty of voters in this country that think that too much regulation on corporations is bad for the country. Yet if politicians listen to these voters they are accused of 'pandering to corporations' when they are really simply listening to a different set of voters.

Can you give me an example of a major policy decision in this country that was not based an a belief that it would make the country a better place even if you think the belief was misguided?

"Let's scrap these job-killing regulations!" and "Let's unshackle our job-creators!" are good slogans. They appeal to regular folks who think "Yeah, if it wasn't for all these stupid laws about protecting spotted owls and quotas for hiring wheelchair people, companies could create more jobs for guys like me!"

But the regulations that the corporations are concerned with aren't about protecting spotted owls or quotas on wheelchair people, they're rules about getting more money out of the country without paying taxes on it and rules that are supposed to the finance industry from screwing up the economy like they did last time.

I think that if you asked most supporters of scrapping regulations what regulations they actually want scrapped, the only answer they'd have for you is "whichever ones prevent companies from hiring more people." Ask them about a specific regulation, whether it be rules for banks and finance, or workplace standards, or environmental standards, or whatever, and they'll probably think the regulation is actually a good idea.

-k