A Modern Def'n of Equality - Access is a Better Determinant than Biology

An excerpt from "ff21st" Chapter 12 pps. 277-278

---------------------------

Up until the attempt on my life, I more or less proposed the thinking that humanity was equal by the standards of the United Nations.  I did, however, hold some deep reservations that everyone was actually equal in terms of contribution to society, and of value to others on an individual level.

To me the sole determinant of equality should simply not be the fact that you biologically exist.  Not to create a lousy analogy, but there is still a common phrase in use, which people who have contributed little use in terms of validation, in comparison with those who have contributed significantly more.  That phrase is:  “their shit stinks the same as mine.”  My typical response to this assertion is to say “if your sole criterion for valuing another human’s relevance is the smell of their excrement, then you are right.”

The one area where I do fully believe there should be equality is in terms of “equality of access” and this principle I hold dear.  Every individual should have access to the ability to earn a living.  Every individual should have access to basic healthcare and medicine.  Every individual should have access to clean water, food and shelter.  Every individual should have access to free movement around the globe.

I do not look at these as innate rights, rather ones that we as evolved citizens of the US should strive for, not only for our fellow Americans, but for people around the globe.  I don’t consider there to be any other equality claim other than the access points.  Every individual with their basic needs taken care of, now has the ability to live where they want, earn a living, choose how to live their life.  They must find their own way which to me is the true life experience.  Of course, even now as we approach 2050 there are still many parts of the world that have to improve in all of these areas.

Two New States -- Kennedy and Newfoundland

Chapter 8  --  Kennedy and Newfoundland join the United States as the 51st and 52 states

The creation of two new US states on July 4^th, 2016 was probably the single greatest legacy economically and militarily of my term as president.  With the purchase from Canada of the eastern portion of their country, which included Eastern Quebec, the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and the island portion of Newfoundland the USA headed into a period of growth and prosperity due to the expansion of American businesses, expansion of military resources, securement of natural resources, increased shipping capabilities and the ingenuity and passion of the new Americans who lived in the regions.

In hindsight, it seems ridiculous how easy the purchase of foreign lands were for the US and especially with so little fanfare and resentment of the international community.  I think this was the result of two very important, but different factors.  The first was that the area we were purchasing was of little consequence on the international stage such that no one cared all that much, and secondly that the Provincial governments and the citizens who lived in the Eastern region of Quebec and the Maritimes were so disillusioned with their Canadian federal government that they were over-whelmingly in favor of the purchase. 

Just as a quick recap, the states that we all now know as New York, Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, Kennedy and Newfoundland were all different prior to July 4^th, 2016.  New York State was extended on its eastern border to include the city of East Montreal.  Vermont was extended north to the area across from Quebec City while New Hampshire’s borders were extended following the border with Maine to Riviere du Loup.  Maine received a tremendous benefit by receiving all the land north of Kennedy to the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway.

The region that was formerly referred to as the Maritime Provinces (New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island) became one all-new American state known as Kennedy.  The island portion of the former province of Newfoundland and Labrador became the state of Newfoundland.  Labrador became part of Quebec.  The island known as Anticosti which sits at the entrance to the St. Lawrence River was split evenly with the northern part staying as part of Canada and the southern portion becoming US territory as part of Maine.  Maine became the primary area for investment and shipping routes for the St. Lawrence which was shared fairly and equally with Canada.

Even to this day, the fact that we purchased these areas for three hundred billion dollars still amazes me considering the prosperity and ingenuity that the region has shown.  The Newfoundlanders and Kenndyites, as new American citizens, have become role models for the rest of Americans on how to live in a peaceful and orderly manner.  They demonstrate an unforeseen hospitality and demonstrate to the world a fair amount of empathy for the overall society at large.  The 51^st and 52^nd states of the United States of America have become not only stellar examples of US society, but have also been recognized as ideal societies around the world.

excerpt from chapter 9 - female sexuality in the media

Chapter 9 - pages 204-205

-------------------------------------

What I had a severe disagreement with in 2012, was that sexuality had become the dominant cultural attribute that women have in the world in order to live their life and to achieve what they want.  This very much is the result of media influence and the resultant obsession with female appearance as the defining characteristic of a woman’s value.  This to me was abhorrent.  Too many girls were content with just being recognized for being attractive or sexual, and used this as their sole criteria for their position in the world.  Before continuing, let me take a moment to point out that I am not above admiring a beautiful woman and I ended up marrying one of the most beautiful, but in Natalie’s case, there was an abundance of other attributes that affirmed the original attraction and the fact that we were in love was predicated on many other aspects of her talent, intelligence, character and personality. 

I distinctly remember that I was at a coffee shop in Seattle back around 2002, and there was a magazine rack.  While I waiting for my coffee, I was looking at the magazine covers and I noticed one magazine specifically called “Complete Woman.”  I smiled to myself as I read the content headlines on the cover of the magazine.  They comprised two articles on satisfying their men in bed, two on hair and make-up tips, one on losing their winter weight and one on fashions for spring.  I remember openly chuckling to myself that the magazine was called “Complete Woman.”  Even Cosmopolitan magazine didn’t simplify women to this standard of being just attractive and a sexual object for men’s benefit.  It turned out, however, that this was exactly what was happening and girls were being influenced into adopting this self-image.

I started asking myself what was behind all this at the time and I came to realize that it was the Mom’s who were encouraging this notion and allowing their daughters to focus on their female sexuality as the core of their femininity.  This contention goes back to the notion I referred to earlier, as an entire generation of girls had been raised with the influence of Madonna in the 1980s and embraced the desire to be sexual.

excerpt for Chapter 2 - election results

excerpt from Chapter 2 page 37

-----------------------------------

Henderson West was elected with 55.1% of the popular vote and received the highest number of individual votes ever in the history of presidential elections in the USA. That 55.1% of the popular vote represented over eighty million American citizens. This represented a tremendous mandate and an over-whelming personal vote of confidence from the American electorate.

excerpt from Chapter 10 - foreign relations

Chapter 10 - pps. 230-231

------------------

One of my key tenets of being an American is that we as Americans are the thought leaders for the modern world.  We can use this leadership to take the actions and create the strategy and platform to deliver a world in which everyone has the ability to exist in a peaceful manner and to pursue their own life objectives.  That is, if we choose to be tolerant of other systems.  Whether they be managing a farm for the state, creating the biggest company ever known to man or pursuing the word of Allah.  All to me are valuable contributions to society and should be acknowledged and respected.

In order to be a thoughtful leader for the world, however, you have to have respect for the views of others, rather than hold an overt contempt for how the rest of the world lives.  Think about it this way, how often in your life have you as an individual done something because someone forced you too?  Probably not too often, or if you did end up doing it you did it begrudgingly, the results were likely not as good as they could have been.  I always found that if you could get people to do things because they wanted to contribute and feel that they mattered, then the results will be substantially better and result in dramatic successes and exponential improvement for whatever area you are focusing on.  Once you have people motivated for success and working to the best of their abilities, then you can propose new thoughts and methodologies and philosophies to attain even higher goals.

Now, with all that being said, quite often it is advantageous for your counter-parts to know you are serious about your capabilities and your desires.  This does not mean strong-armed approaches to negotiations and conflict resolution, but rather that the inherent knowledge should be that your opponent is truly aware of your objectives.  This all sounds like threatening behavior but utilized correctly it is not.  Being number one gives you a distinct advantage.  No one ever said that everything had to have an equal result, rather just an amicable one, and one that everyone can walk away from with some level of positivity and know their role.

Following the financial collapse of Greece and the attempts by the EU to save it, Greece’s internal politics became a shambles and its people were crushed in spirit.  Greeks had been quite used to prosperity and what I will call a “relaxed work ethic” coupled with extremely generous social policies.  When the Greek government could no longer afford to keep up the social policies for the nation, there was nothing to fall back on, and the bottom fell out of the economy.  Even at the end, and with generous offers from Germany and the EU, sadly there was an unwillingness on the part of the Greek population to accept much in the way of austerity measures.  Therefore, Greece declared bankruptcy at the end of 2013.

With nowhere left to turn, the monarchy of Saudi Arabia arrived with the offer of billions in support.  In exchange, they asked for a prominent seat within the future government of Greece.  This in and of itself was not necessarily such a horrific thing on its own, but what was most troubling for people was that the Saudi’s were offering a direct cash payment and jobs to individual citizens if they converted to Islam.  

excerpt from Chapter 6 - flood example

Chapter 6 - page 102

-----------------------------

One excellent example of “Constructive Capitalism” came from Home Depot who shut all their stores in the Southwest US during the Austin, Texas floods in late 2013.  As part of their relief effort, the Home Depot shipped warehouses full of supplies and sent their staff to the flooded area to immediately start rebuilding the damaged communities.  The employees were paid in full their regular salary and all their travelling expenses.

Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans (August 2005) was still a fresh memory in 2013, and no one wanted to see the same thing happening in the city of Austin, so Home Depot mobilized almost five thousand employees, delivered untold truck loads of supplies and utilized their management skills to deliver on-ground support to those affected by the floods.  Just to be clear, the Home Depot was not involved at all in the initial rescue or relief effort but rather the rebuilding efforts that followed.  Fortunately, the rescue and relief efforts were pretty well managed as opposed to Katrina, so the rebuilding process could start right away.  The Home Depot did not wait for insurance issues, local zoning discussions or the media.  They just started rebuilding and repairing people’s homes so the owners could move back in.

The effect was immediate and astounding for Home Depot.  Home Depot had forfeited a sizable portion of their marketing budget to fund this effort but certainly reaped the rewards from a business standpoint.  Their brand value sky-rocketed as did their stock price following the Austin floods.  By March of 2015, Home Depot’s stock price had almost tripled to just under $200.  When asked about their efforts at the time to make such a large commitment, the CEO said that he just could not sit back and watch people in trouble when he knew he had the resources at his finger tips to do something about it.  He pointed out that Home Depot was monstrously successful in the South Texas area and that he felt that they should contribute as much as possible.  Many share holders at the time questioned his decision as they felt that the Home Depot was going to potentially forego billions in sales as a result of the rebuilding effort and that the materials should not have been just “given-away”.  Home Depot at the time made it clear to the stock-holders, that as a part of the local business community, they had an obligation to be involved in the rebuilding of its communities whenever required.  It is not moral to profit from the suffering of its customers.  This was revolutionary corporate thinking.

Today, the Home Depot has a regular rebuilding program that goes to disaster areas all over the world and pitches in “on-ground” as required.  They are under no obligation to wait for governmental efforts other than not to interfere with rescue efforts.  

Excerpt from Chapter 1 - changing perspective towards wealth

Chapter 1 -  Pages 8 & 9

---------------------------

Historically, where the personal valuation had gone awry, however, was in terms of the origin of one's individual wealth.  The mere possession of money had come to supersede the means of accumulating it.  In the early twenty-first century, any individual could accumulate wealth with no regard to the impact one made on other individuals or society. The worst aspect of that system, however, is that one could accumulate wealth at the expense of others.  This was a flawed model, as the most aggressive people and organizations, that seemingly prioritized wealth and power, ended up accumulating a disproportionate amount of both and subsequently started persecuting and taking an authoritative position in relation to those who had less.  This ultimately led to the “Occupy Movement” in 2011 and 2012.

America fortunately came to realize that accumulation of wealth at the expense of others is not wealth that should be judged as valuable or honorable. Through the “New Freedom Initiative” (NFI), wealth that was accumulated without adding value to individuals or society, started to become less respected or desired, and per my initial point regarding human judgment, “unsavory money” actually became judged as negative by a great majority of Americans.  Just as an easy example, banks in America came to refuse drug money out right by 2015.

The effect of this unsavory label was to encourage individual and corporate wealth-building as a result of benefiting a wider group of society.  It would also serve to keep those who had amassed their fortunes in a less than honorable manner from having personal influence or access to broader political, business or social institutions.  No one ever argued that any individual could not make money in America any way they liked.  What came to pass, however, was that the holding of that money did not automatically include power and influence along with it.

By the mid-2030s, ethics have since returned and are now a key component to wealth-building such that the amount of money that one accumulates is reasonably proportionate to the contribution one makes throughout that process.

In today’s world, those individuals that provide the greatest benefit to society receive the greatest return in terms of money, property, power and authority.  As a result, most people can claim a higher level of happiness and stability in 2043 than they ever could in 2013.  This claim to happiness extends well beyond American borders into parts of the world where in 2013 even having a claim on clean water was rare.  The world genuinely has improved significantly as a result of changed attitudes toward money.

Excerpt from Chapter 7 -- Reforming the Legal System

Chapter 7 -- Pages 139-140

Let’s get back to the legal system reforms.  Lawyers in general, had allowed their industry to get completely out of hand in the late twentieth century.  There was no sense of law in what they did and ultimately there was a distinct lack of contribution, and I’ll go as far as to say ethics in their actions.  Lawyers were in my mind in the early twenty-first century, the biggest sponges on society and sucked more value and goodness out of American culture than any other group or professional sector in history.

Lawyers had taken the concept of right to defense and due diligence to overshadow any other aspect of their being.  Right to defense meant doing anything and everything possible to create a measure of doubt in the minds of the jury.  In worst case scenarios, they went as far as to corrupt the entire spirit of the legal system.  This situation of course was vehemently opposed by me personally as I could never see the value of taking advantage of weaknesses in the system and then to utilize that as a defense.  Also, there was the need for judges and government to correct the weaknesses in the system, rather than just exacerbating them and making the weaknesses even more pronounced, such that it became an open flood gate for inequity.

The premise of defendant’s rights was way more important than the victim’s rights.  I always thought this was a gross betrayal of the American legal system that the upstanding citizen that has been hurt by some part of society is not protected at a minimum as much as the defendant.  I fully support the notion that all people are equal before the law, but the victims have already suffered some type of injury and, as a result, should not be subject to increased subjugation during the trial phase.  Hence the emphasis on punishment and retribution for crimes committed.  The victim should always have a sense of justice and compensation upon a guilty finding.

As with the deterrence for frivolous lawsuits by citizens, lawyers who participated in bringing forth a frivolous lawsuit were penalized within the context of the legal system itself.  The legal group responsible for regulating the conduct of its own members embraced a position of contribution over time when they put in place a scholarly and principled type of person to deliver this mandate.  He devised a system whereby contribution was a measured quality.  Along with the new measurement criteria, lawyers were graded as to their competency across certain areas of expertise.  This ultimately led to the legal standards for compensation as well as an access point for people who had been the victim of criminal activity.

This point system was developed so that lawyers who brought forward legitimate cases, argued them in the context of the law and instituted new thinking in terms of the statutes were graded the highest.  Lawyers who brought forward frivolous lawsuits, argued them in context of non-legal issues and relied on precedent, were summarily given lower scores.  

Henderson West's Campaign Platform

Excerpt from Chapter 2...pages 30, 31

------------

As part of my formal announcement, the very first thing I did was state clearly and publicly that I would propose no policy platforms.  What I did actually state at the time was the following:

•  I will deal with each issue separately or as it materializes;

•  I will think and work in the best interests of America;

• The American public will be more involved in government;

• Employment in the public service will be effective and considered a privilege.

These four items were all I ever promised to do if I were elected president.

The reality of the world in 2012 was that it was just too complex and too varied to have any type of formal agenda or ideology to rely upon.  Most issues and events materialize out of nowhere and have no historical context (or in some instances too much) and are completely inharmonious with doctrines or previous legislation.  Further, most modern issues had too broad an application to generate a lot of interest by the American public.

Therefore, I decided to make no claims that “I would create jobs, institute health care, would democratize the world, no opinions of foreign issues” etc.  The people at the time were astounded that I made no election type promises, but I knew from my own observations that making promises based on a future situation that I did not have any first hand facts on was ridiculous.  For example, every American politician in the previous forty or fifty years had indicated that they would balance the budget but as soon as they get into power they have found a reason to suggest why they can’t do it.  I just didn’t see the point in what I considered pandering to the American public.

I sensed that most Americans had so little faith in political promises that I was simply asking US citizens to trust me based on my business record and the fact that they liked and respected me.  I did not want to appear to be a traditional politician and, to be honest, it was not in my nature to act like that anyway.  I just wanted people to feel that they were voting for someone who would do his best to do the right thing by America rather than just another person in the role for theie own personal benefit and power and was a puppet to their party.

ff21st -- Excerpt from Chapter 10

Excerpt from Chapter 10...page 235

------------

In our modern time, there is no reason for America to ever start a war of any kind.  Period.  I have stated this numerous times and many people consider me to be a bit soft as a result of this pronunciation.

However, I do see the need to maintain a military and I do see the need on occasion to step in to rectify a situation that is out of hand though we look at that as our normal doctrine of “defend, free, enforce”.

The only reason in this era that America would initiate a military action that some might consider proactive is in terms of wars of conquest.  Whether based on historical territorial disputes, or simply a desire by one country to expand its territory, this will never be tolerated by military means. 

As was initiated with the US purchase of Kennedy and Newfoundland, growth can now be obtained by mutual negotiation and or legal claims by the newly established global courts of geography.  As nationalism has become less and less of a driving force in the world, land transfers have become more and more a common occurrence and have rectified the situation whereby one region feels the need to invade another.

Finally, since the peace amnesty signed in Bangkok in 2030 regarding conflicts of this nature, land disputes have virtually dwindled away.  Countries have accepted their territorial boundaries and now more or less peacefully operate within them.

Money As A Measure of Individual Value

Money is a great development to humanity.

Humanity by nature is extremely judgmental and money at least is not personal. Utilizing money and wealth as a criteria for human judgement eliminates prejudices based on skin color, religion, geography, gender and this is a great thing. In our modern world, money trumps all else in terms of valuing people's worth and is a wonderful comparative tool such that we can individually get a sense of our worth and our placement in society.

Where this personal valuation has gone awry however is in terms of the origin of one's individual wealth. The mere possession of money has come to supersede the means of accumulating it. In our modern world any single person can accumulate wealth with no regard to the impact one makes on other individuals or society. The worst aspect of our current system though, is that one can accumulate wealth at the expense of others.

In my eyes, accumulation of wealth at the expense of others is not wealth that should be judged as valuable or honorable. I suggest, that wealth that is accumulated without adding value to individuals or society should be shunned and per my initial point regarding human judgment, should actually be judged as negative.

The effect of this negative label would be to encourage individual wealth-building as a result of benefiting a wider group of persons. It would also serve to keep those who have amassed their fortunes in a less than savory manner from having personal influence or access to broader political, business or social institutions.

Unsavory then becomes the criteria for valuation at this stage. Unsavory needs to defined as wealth-accumulation that derives from 1) illegal actions, 2) curtailing production, 3) reducing societal economic conditions or 4) detracting from the human condition. Recent examples of each would be as follows: 1) Bernie Madoff's 25 years of fraud, 2) stock market speculation, 3) Wall Streets debt mortgage products and 4) pornography. This is just a quick list.

Let me state clearly that anyone is still free to amass as large a fortune as they may want.

Ethics though need to be re instituted into wealth-building such that the amount of money that one accumulates is proportionate to that contribution that is made throughout that process.

The Presidency is Undemocratic

Obama or Romney.  It won't matter in the least.

Once again the lack of choice is testament to the undemocratic nature of the American political system.  On one hand you have a candidate who has failed miserably to inspire America and stem the downfall of the economic system and on the other hand you have a candidate who is an opportunist who has zero credibility in terms of leadership.  There really is no preferred choice.

The Presidency was designed to be a powerful leadership position for the entirety of the USA.  It was to be a position of intelligence, might, and most of all a defender of the Constitution and the multitude of freedoms that the USA was trying to establish in the world.  In our current era, the Presidency should be the number one defender of these same liberties.

The oath of office makes the Presidents role extremely clear.  


"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Over the years this oath has essentially been abandoned by the office of the President.  The Presidency has devolved into being merely a position for the top party representative.  This person ultimately is beholding and controlled by the parties themselves and the Constitution has been forsaken.  Therefore, the President does not represent America.

The democratic ideals and principals of the US have been completely usurped.

The Party System Has To Go

The Democrats and Republicans have to go. The party system has fundamentally crippled government and stymied any type of effective debate in the nation.

The fundamental flaw in party ideology is that it assumes a predetermined response to any issue that might arise. These responses sadly just fall into the black or white, right or left typical responses and as a result no enlightened dialogue is generated. The result is that the government becomes just an organization that recycles the same old policies and innovation becomes stagnant.

Secondly, the party system dissuades most talented people who have their own opinions from participating in the political process. Very few individuals who are self-determined and hold their own views are willing to subjugate those views for the acceptance of a party. Therefore, the party tends to attract only individuals who are concerned with power, wealth or recognition rather than those who can generate solutions in a complex modern world.

Thirdly, party politics dismisses the democratic process. Though the process of becoming a member of a party or its leader might appear democratic the result is not so. The individual whom ultimately makes it to power becomes a party representative first and foremost and that loyalty is the priority.  Toeing the party line is fundamentally more important than representing your constituents and infinitely more important than putting your own opinion into the debate.  America suffers greatly as a result.

Finally, the party system has simply fallen into a mindset of opposition whereby any and all actions initiated by the other party is inherently wrong.  This in and of itself is not necessarily bad as opposition can be effective, but it has gone so far that opposition has become synonymous with skewering the opposition as evil or un-American.  This is unacceptable practice in a democratic environment adn really serves no purpose other than alienating Americans against each other.

The party system needs to be 100% replaced so that those elected to office are able to perform their role in a free manner unencumbered by party pressure.

Myanmar: How To Help Emerging Democratic Nations

The election of Suu Kyi yesterday in Myanmar is a great opportunity for US foreign relations in terms of assisting the evolution of democracy in a new part of the world.

The traditional USA role of "all or nothing" support for the pro-democracy forces has to be abandoned by a willingness to work with the entirety of the Myanmar government, including President Thien's ruling party in spite of it's human rights history.

America has the opportunity now due to softening hard-line domestic policies there to act as a consultant along with other foreign powers rather than as an unilateral force which imposes it's will. The best way to lay a foundation for a free and democratic future in Myanmar is to offer expertise and infrastructure and not militant rules and threats.

As many more emerging countries enter the global economic community, I would suggest that an advisory group be established that represents many national and private interests such that Myanmar and others avoid many of the democratic failures which ultimately end up no further ahead in the long run (look to just about every country in Africa for examples).

The advisory panel goals should be to stabilize the country, encourage and protect foreign investment, educate the citizens on democratic principals and support the ruling party. The advisory board needs to be collaborative rather than punitive such that the nation can move forward in the right direction and will also help to avoid the attempted coup's and public rebellion which seem to be inevitable in the 21st century.

A democratic and economically focused international advisory board would be a first step in assisting emerging countries cope while maintaining their sovereignty through non-political or military intervention.

Awareness is Pretty Meaningless

Awareness is never effective.

The recent KONY 2012 campaign is a very good example.  Yes, now a whole lot more people know about the situation in Uganda but nothing will change just because of this.  Lets face it, a genocidal tyrant will not disappear just because a bunch of people have tweeted, shared and hit the like button on Facebook.

In the new world of engaged democracy people must get more involved first-hand and on-ground rather than just spreading the word.  Sharing and being involved is now the easiest thing in the world.  However, it is completely useless at this point in time.  Genuine and personal on-ground action, funds and commitment are required.

The fundamental flaw with awareness is that it assumes that there is strength in numbers which we know is not an effective way to get anything done.  A few individuals that are passionate, action-oriented and well-funded have a better chance of reaching good solutions or solving problems than many "concerned and well-intentioned" citizens of the world regardless of how upset they are over the specific issues at hand.

The bottom-line for democracy and to try to really solve the world problems is to have the concept of majority rules abandoned.  Less people should be involved but they have to have more knowledge, be a financial stake-holder, an international organization, a corporation or hold a "significant" interest.  These should be the only people involved.

This approach should lead to institutional reform for our national democratic evolution.  Congress should be repurposed to oversee the process rather than be the involved in making the policies or taking action.  "Engaged democracy" works best when only those who know what is actually happening are involved and the rest of the population are left out...no matter how well-intentioned or aware.

"Engaged Democracy" - The Way Forward

Representative democracy is dead.

What needs to evolve is a spirit of "engaged democracy" whereby individuals have the ability to contribute to the democratic process in whatever areas of the public domain that interest them.

Individuals should have the ability to contribute not only input but also in the formulation of legislation.  Expertise exists in volumes in the modern world across America and this brain pool needs to be included in the legislative process so that greater and more effective solutions are reached.  Through "engaged democracy" differing opinions and agendas can be included in the public debate so that the legislation that is reached is broader in consideration than it currently is today.

Non-partisan solutions should be the goal in the "engaged democracy" process so that fair and equitable information is collected and considered with the objective that America moves down a forward-thinking path.  Party politics has lead to way too much emphasis being put on all-or-nothing style legislation that pushes a philosophy, which unfortunately usually comes at the expense of good government.

In today's world of technology and communication, collecting opinion and expertise should be simple so that the social divides are considered and mutually beneficial policies are arrived at.

In the new system of "engaged democracy", the Congress would become a managerial institution designed to oversee the process of developing legislation and would abandon it's role as a legislator itself.  Only in this way can agenda-driven partisanship be left behind such that America can reclaim it's democratic roots.

Representative Democracy is not Democratic

America is free, but is no longer a democratic country.

Representative democracy is fundamentally defined as representation of individual citizens segmented into constituencies. The party system however, has become so prevalent and powerful that elected officials are now representative of the party platform rather than constituent concerns. This obvious situation is clearly not democracy.

The all-pervasiveness of party politics also means that the original intent of the House of Representatives which was to serve as a governing and legislative body is more often that not merely a conduit for confrontation and negativity. The goal of many party members is simply to besmirch the governing body and the President's office such that their party position appears more favorable and increases the power base and the chance of winning elections in the future.

Finally, representative democracy was a concept invented hundreds of years ago and has ultimately lost the ability to deal in an efficient and timely manner in regard to most of the issues of the modern world that have become much more complex. Even under freer circumstances for choice and direction and with the right-minded members, no single individual representative can propose intelligent and appropriate direction on every issue thus further making the case that representative democracy is non-existent. Even with ideal members, they still only have a limited range of knowledge and cannot therefore represent the entirety of the their constituency on every issue.

Good governance and fiduciary duty to constituents has to come back to the forefront as the primary role of any elected representative. Increased access points for the general population and specific expertise must be increased such that intelligence is brought to the table, common and differing opinions are debated openly and fairly and most importantly that non-agenda driven conclusions are arrived at.

Hence a "new way" is required to replace representative democracy.