My apologies. While I was writing my response to You last night, our power failed due to a heavy rain storm. Since I live in the rain forest with lots of Albesia trees, when it rains heavy, the branches snap and cut the power lines. Power came back this morning and I would like to continue now.
What a delight to receive such an intelligent and relevant response.
Of course, by design, the whole concept of governance in the 21st Century is based on a world view that is no longer valid, a projection of what was supposed to work at the time of its coming about. As You mentioned, the advent of electronic communications and electronic emanations has had a profound impact on our lives for more than the obvious reasons.
There is a disconnect between the principles, the so called democratic Republic was designed under and the necessities of a people in the 21st century, that are no longer part of the process that could be titled “The Pursuit of Happiness and Common Wealth”, as laid out in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
Both frame works have been subject to “interpretation”, by often partisan constitutional scholars, never really understanding that the original framework should not be the focus of subjective interpretation as much as its “Implementation”.
“Interpretation” has long trumped “Implementation”. That pun was not intended, but is very fitting. For those who take a deeper and truly non-partisan look at the original framework of the American Republic, will very quickly find out, that it was never intended, nor could it ever have foreseen, to deal with Life/Society, over two hundred years after the living and political conditions at its inception.
It is akin to take a look at the world view of people in general around that time. Without “walking in the shoes for some miles” of “The People” that lived 250 years ago, one will never be able to understand the context of that time. There is a disconnect based on 250 years of evolution — both of humans and of the society they are living in/under.
As You can imagine, I have already spent significant amounts of time searching for alternatives to the political ‘Flat Earth model’, called ‘Democratic Republic’, ‘administered Democracy’, or ‘representative Democracy’, through institutions that were never meant to be able to cope with our ‘Modern Life’.
For that very reason, I wrote a paper, roughly 30 years ago, dealing with the challenges of the implementation of a more just and inclusive Democracy — actually the opposite of what the framers of the Republic had in mind. “Protectionism” was integral part of that framework, the protection of the status, that the owners of the Republic had deemed as de riguer, essential to the policies and administration of dealing with the masses.
The title of my paper (the manuscript is still alive in one of many boxes in storage, that contain my library and art collection back in the stone age old Europe) was:
“Parliamentary Duty as an All-Inclusive Upgrade of Democracy in the 20th Century.”
Please allow me to continue this discourse later on. The Farmer’s Market is calling me and I have ordered delicious eggs — the kind with orange yolks.
It will also allow me to separate the paper of “Parliamentary Duty” from the original context of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence.
Before I leave, just this little gem:
If the framers of the “Declaration of Independence” and “The Constitution of the United States of America” would have known the difference between “Independence” and “Interdependence”, these “goddamn pieces of paper” would incorporate “participation” that goes far beyond the rather lapidary notion of “Of the People, By the People, For the People”, that, in reality means Nothing, absolute Nothing. A worthless, populist notion serving the owners of the corporate Republic.
Thank You from the bottom of my heart for willingness to share Your exquisite take on our mutual challenges and solvable problems.