Category Archives: political discourse

Shall We Fix Politics or Complain?

Posted on by
Reply

Shall we fix politics or complain?

On December 8th, Gavin Newsom posted a link to a poll – Do you approve of Trump? Above it he wrote:

With President-elect Trump announcing new cabinet appointments each day, we’re all worried about what’s in store with a Trump administration. Now more than ever, California has to lead the country forward and stand up against racism, bigotry, misogyny and hate.

That’s why I need to hear from 50,000 people before the end of the month: Do you approve of Trump?

I missed the reason- why does he need to hear from 50,000 people? How is that going to help? So I added a comment (I posted it on his page, and his people will review it…)

My reply: Do you want to fix politics or complain?

Here’s my reply:

The system is broken. Trump is not a new problem- we’ve got lots of crackpots in office. And corruption. And worse. But people like you, Gavin, think we just need to fight harder to fix it.

That’s nonsense. It’s nonsense like that which has kept us from doing anything about it for decades. All the fixes- overturning Citizens United, passing the AACA, ending gerrymandering, using IRV- are good, but they’re tiny improvements that won’t solve the problem. They don’t fix the underlying problem, the real cause.

The real cause isn’t that hard to fix, but it’ll take a few million dollars and 12-24 months. Do you want to fix it, or do you just want to complain?

The real cause

If you’ve been reading my blog, you know the real cause. Do you believe it? Probably not. Few people understand it from reading. It flies in the face of so many of our cultural myths. And those myths make up the bulk of our “understanding” of politics. Very, very few people are open-minded enough to withstand the cognitive dissonance of these new ideas.

The real cause is that our system was never designed for a world that contained big media, corporations, lobbying, nor political parties. It was never designed to deliver political accountability. Big media as well as non-print media was unknown to our founders. Corporations and lobbying were taboo. Political parties were either overlooked, or they simply had no ideas of how to quell their power, but George Washington warned politicians not to form them.

The fix is not “politics as usual”

The fix is to supply the missing piece of the design. It’s not that hard, but it’ll take a team and some funding.

Fix politics or complain? I suggest we start fixing. If you want to make this happen, start sharing about PeopleCount in social media. Like our Facebook page. Follow us on twitter. Email your representative and senators in Congress. And join our announcement list.

Why it’s Dumb to Say Blue Lives Matter

Posted on by
Reply

It’s dumb to say Blue Lives Matter, as if it’s a meaningful slogan. I write this in response to a blog, ‘Blue Lives’ Don’t Matter Because Blue Lives Don’t Exist. The author makes some decent points, but misses the most important one.

I wrote this because I’m all about accountability. I propose we stop saying “Blue Lives Matter.” But I don’t just propose it. I’m accountable for why.

The author made three points:

His point: It’s a logical error: a false equivalence

This is a good point. “Black” has to do with the color of skin, not the color of a uniform. The phrase is setting up a false equivalence between skin color, or race, and an occupation.

For instance, when a police officer takes off the uniform in the evening and goes out, he or she looks like anyone else. They blend into society. But if a black person goes out for an evening, they are still identifiable by race. They are still subject to increased surveillance. They are more likely to be stopped by, hassled by, and hurt or killed by police.

His point: You sound racist

That varies from listener to listener. You sound racist to me. His point is that by saying this unnecessary phrase, you’re taking attention from the very real problem of abuse of people of color.

His point: There’s no such thing as a “blue life”

I disagree with him on this one. Police are hardworking, often low-paid public servants who mostly keep us civilized. They do this by their mere presence, adding risk to law-breaking. And they do this by apprehending some of us who stray. They have higher suicide rates and other health risks. And their average life expectancy is much shorter. Black life expectancy is 3-5 years less than whites’. Police life expectancy is much shorter.

But these differences are another false equivalence. Joining the police is a choice.

My point: Blue (and white) lives already matter

The whole point of the Black Lives Matter movement is that in our society, white lives and the lives of police in general already matter. They’re of the highest priority. But often other actions say black lives don’t matter.

Police are given training, guns and equipment. They are usually featured as heroes in stories, television and movies. They are paid full salaries plus benefits and retirement. If they are injured, they still get a large fraction of their salary from disability benefits. When a police officer dies, it’s a big deal.

They are given power to manhandle others, almost without impunity. We appreciate how they often put themselves in dangerous situations. The legal system favors them. Everything about how we treat them says they matter.

Black Lives Matter

Certainly all lives matter when ethical people are consciously involved. The problem is that some of us are unethical, and almost all of us are unconsciously biased.

We’re inculcated by the biased portrayals from Hollywood. And by how our society has allowed widespread discrimination for most of the last two centuries. And how the media has often let it go unreported.

When we, or the police, are surprised and feel fear, most of us instantly feel blacks are more dangerous, less peaceful, less rational, educated or civilized than whites. It’s not true. It’s really not. Most of us don’t feel this way on purpose. Many are ashamed of it, later. But in the moment of reaction, the brainwashing of our culture often wins out. And it tells us to act as if black lives don’t matter. This probably happens much more than we know. Most of the time we let it go and take the high road. But all too often, we don’t.

That’s why we’re calling on ourselves to say Black Lives Matter. I say this for me. I say it to consciously admit that I’m not perfect. I, too, am a product of my culture. We can be more than that. We can be conscious beings. We can create our culture intentionally. We can say with our own voices a new culture. One in which Black Lives Matter.

 

Political Correctness makes America Strong

Posted on by
1

During this campaign season, political correctness has remained a hot topic. Donald Trump has repeatedly criticized those who err on the side of political correctness. He has taken pride in being a candidate who doesn’t abide by those rules. In fact, his speeches and comments are almost designed to illustrate why we need it.

Why do we need Political Correctness?

As Steve Hughes explains above, being offended is indeed an individual experience. We all come from different backgrounds, neighborhoods, societies, and cultures. So what’s deemed offensive to one person may easily roll off the back of another.

But this shouldn’t be a free-for-all to say whatever we want. Though political correctness may not be a law on the books, it is an important part of civility. There are many things that most people agree are offensive. Though Donald Trump‘s statements have challenged where we draw that line.

Where is “the line” that should not be crossed?

We believe it’s inappropriate to discriminate against someone because of their race. A racist person is free to harbor socially unacceptable thoughts. But he or she understands that it’s not okay to voice them out loud.

But what if we intend no racism, yet a racist interpretation is easy to hear, even hard to miss? And what if the racism is obvious? One of the quotes in the article above is of Trump saying, “Laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that.” To me, that’s a purely racist thing to say.

To me, every (or almost every?) human is lazy at times, so there’s a grain of truth in it. I can picture a scene of Chicago on a humid summer day, and a bunch of people hanging around outside, shooting the breeze, not working, being “lazy.” Should we hang Trump if he imagines, in his mind’s eye, that they’re black and then give words to it?

What happens without Political Correctness?

Trump has thrown politeness and consideration to the wayside.  Whether it’s his negative generalizations of Mexican immigrants, disrespectful remarks about women, or stereotyping of Jewish people, he has navigated political waters in a tumultuous manner.

On the one hand, it’s not evil to make a mistake, to say something politically incorrect. We shouldn’t damn someone for it. It’s just a mistake, an imperfection. Apologize for the slip and move on.

Ignoring Political Correctness is bad

On the other hand, Trump doesn’t apologize. He rarely admits to mistakes. Like Bush in Iraq. Like Johnson and Nixon in Viet Nam. Like the American South during slavery. Like Christians during the Salem Witch Trials. Like Catholics during the Inquisitions and the Crusades. Like radical Muslims today in Al Qaeda and the Taliban, in Isis, in Saudi Arabia and many more places. Trumpeting his own righteousness and not admitting mistakes is pride, a sin. It opens the door to evil.

A candidate that’s offended by political correctness is dangerous. With their offensive language, they can stir up ill-will toward a minority. That can be dangerous, like we saw when a Trump supporter sucker-punched a black protestor at a rally. And it can motivate some of them to fight back, becoming dangerous to others, as we saw when some anti-Trump demonstrators turned violent in San Jose, California.

Political Correctness Is part of America’s strength

Political correctness doesn’t exist to mute opinions or censor people. It exists to forge good will and maintain harmony. It exists to cast people and organizations in a positive light. It exists to build trust. These are all important goals for political candidates.

We need political candidates who understand and represent all of us. He or she needs to elevate every American citizen. Politicians shouldn’t seek to enhance the lives of particular groups at the expense of others.

The bottom line: Political correctness exists in order for us to respect each other. One of the things that makes America great is our embrace of all kinds of people. We exhibit a mutual respect for our differences. Political correctness isn’t just a simple courtesy. It unites us and makes our nation stronger.

Unfair Criticism Of Hillary Clinton’s saying a Woman is an Outsider

Posted on by
Reply

This short video criticizes Hillary Clinton for answering two questions with references to her being a woman. I say the criticism is shallow and unfair.

More of Obama?

The second question, starting at 36 seconds into the video, was, “How would you not be a third term of President Obama?” She answered that “Being the first woman president would be quite a change from the presidents we’ve had up till now.”

This is a fine answer. And if the interviewer wanted to hear about policy differences, they can clarify, as one does at 54 seconds in, but the editor of the clip cut off her answer to artificially support his or her point. At other times, she has pointed to policy differences. In fact, at 3 minutes and 10 seconds into the clip, they show a shot from Cheers and then show Hillary answering the same question referring to policy.

But it’s a fine answer because we’ve never had a female president and we have plenty of cultural stories about Congress being an “old boys club”. While there’s nothing inherently different about the views and policies of women and men, there are huge cultural differences, including our prejudices.

Is a Woman an Outsider?

Let’s now look at the first question, starting at 24 seconds about this being the year of outsiders, “Why should Democrats embrace an insider like yourself?” She replied, “I can’t think of anything more like an outsider than electing the first woman president.”

Voting for someone because they’re a woman or a black is just as good a reason as voting for them because they’re an insider or an outsider. NEITHER of these are about policy. They’re all about point of view. It’s clear to me that we live in a sexist culture. It seems to me that it’s both discriminatory against those with more feminine personality attributes as well as unequal in how most people treat men and women. In that sense, she’s an outsider.

And as with the other question, if the interviewer wanted to clarify and ask, “What if voters want a Washington outsider?” She could say that may or may not be true. Each person brings fresh a new perspective and new strengths. The basic criticism in this video is unfair.

I say what people want is a real difference in Washington. They want problem solving and compromise. They want an end to gridlock and partisan divisiveness. They want solutions and responsible legislation. They want political reform. Instead of focusing on “a third term of President Obama” or on being an “outsider”, they should ask about solutions to those problems.

Political reform is at the heart of what PeopleCount is designed to deliver. Please add your name to email list and support us.

Name-calling in Politics Should Stop- PeopleCount can Help

Posted on by
Reply

Name-calling in politics should stop. PeopleCount can help.

In the conservative site David Risselada posted an article, “Liberals Fear the Gun Because Liberals Fear Themselves“. The article is garbage.

How many ways can a conservative fully misunderstand liberals?

It’s full of ways in which liberals are wrong. He says:

  • “Liberals tend to be very emotional”
  • “their alleged empathy”
  • “individual liberty, personal responsibility, and self-governance are abstract”
  • “they fear their own lack of self-control (not guns)”
  • “Liberals simply do not believe that the average man is capable of making the”correct decisions, or acting in the interest of anything but his own selfish ends.”
  • “the hate they feel burning through their veins towards conservatives is actually hatred they feel for themselves”
  • “Liberals are repeating one lie after another with the belief that if they tell it enough, people will believe it”

Let’s tell the truth about political groups:

Many people tend to be emotional at times. We tend to hear and remember people who are more emotional.

When people display empathy, it’s almost always real. It takes a lot of work to fake emotion. Politicians and actors do it- they’re on a high-stakes stage. Most people are real most of the time.

Most liberals take liberty, responsibility and self-governance as real guiding principles.

Anti-gun liberals (not all are anti-gun) see news reports of accidental and intentional shooting. They believe a few people can’t be trusted occasionally and the danger is real. They believe too many too young children have access to guns. Many believe in child-proofing homes that have young children.

Liberals that I’ve met don’t hate conservatives. Many dislike or hate some of the oft-state conservative arguments and rants. Many hate the frequent name-calling and generalization like the ones in the above article. It’s easy to generalize the hatred to be against conservatives, but I find most liberals either don’t go there or realize it’s a logical mistake.

The last one is the worst, pretending to have a clue about what liberals believe, and then making up that they believe lying is productive.

People are people. Each has a view, including about politics

I’ve seen similar generalizations from liberals who try to make sense of conservatives.

The truth about liberals and conservatives is that they see from their own points of view. And people who invent generalizations like Risselada does try to make sense of another point of view from their own. That’s great that he’s trying to make sense of it, but the lack of respect in his conclusions should give him a clue that he has failed.

Many conservatives believe in absolute morality because in their view it’s true- it looks true. Most can see that relative morality has some merits and looks a bit true at times, but absolute good and absolute bad seem to exist to them.

Many liberals believe in relative morality because in their view it’s true- it looks true. Most can see that absolute morality has some merits and looks a bit true at times, but good and bad seem to be relative to points of view. Even different Christians differ in what they think is good and bad.

In general, if your view of someone’s actions make them wrong or bad or lesser, you’re not really understanding them. And your explanation isn’t a contribution to others. Think about it more. Discuss one of the points with a liberal to try to get a better understanding, or agree to disagree. Dumping your disrespect onto others is a disservice to us all.

There are fruitful discussions, too

At the same time, it’s good to voice that you can’t understand them, or that the only understanding you’ve managed to come up with is disrespectful. But voice it as this is the way they seem to you, rather than asserting that your theories are true. And at least, always add quantifiers. Many conservatives do X. Lots of liberals think Y. Even better, make it clear that you know it’s your perspective: I think many conservatives think X. It seems to me that many liberals think Y.

You can call it “political correctness” if you want. It’s also accurate to call it “correctness” or “avoiding lying.” It’s also accurate to call it “having manners”, “avoiding rudeness” or “being polite”.

This is why PeopleCount proposes to let people vote on issues. It’s polite. We’ll aggregate what people want aside from all the name-calling. You’ll still be able to do that on other sites, but PeopleCount.org will be a foundation that helps us work together. Please add your name to our mailing list to be notified when we go live.

You make Politics Hard

Posted on by
Reply

Today Al Franken’s office sent out a note that started:

If there were an easy way to fix everything that’s wrong with Washington, I’d be emailing you about that.

But there’s no easy way. Only a hard way. The hard way involves organizing. It involves patiently building a grassroots coalition capable of taking on powerful special interests. It involves making just a little bit of progress every day until we get the country we want.

And it involves fundraising.

It doesn’t matter whether there’s an easy way or not.  Al, like almost all of us, has already decided that politics is hard.  If an easy way presents itself, he’ll argue with it.

And so do most of you.  You make politics hard.  You and you and you and you.  I used to, too.  But I’ve given it up.  I’ve joined PeopleCount.org in the solution.

People argue with me all the time.  About 95% of the people I talk to, instead of listening, insist on saying why no solution will work, why politicians will never be accountable to the people.  Many feel sure that politicians are corrupt, or that we’ll never agree on things, there’ll always be a stalemate, we’ll always run a deficit and never retire the debt.  People feel that changing the constitution is impossible, whether to limit campaign contributions, impose term limits, clarify gun rights or change from plurality voting to approval voting.

Someone just yesterday argued that almost all members of Congress and the Senate are in it for the “fat paychecks” rather than to be of service.  And those who are already rich or made more money in the private sector are in it for the power, the control.

Then I asked, “Do they really want to control things, or just avoid the control of others?”  That made him stop and think.

Above, I said “many feel…” and “people feel…”  We’re emotion-based creatures.  While we can reason, mostly our brains manufacture reasons that support our feelings.  We “feel certain”, we “feel a position is correct.”  When someone arguing with us makes us feel that perhaps there’s a possibility that an opposing view is correct, our brains usually go into overdrive until they create some arguments that can get us back onto our familiar track of feeling we’re right.

People argue with me.  Within about 15 minutes most run out of steam and start listening.  Within about 20 they see not possibility, workability and promise.

Al Franken can’t find an easy way to change government because he isn’t looking. His thoughts insist it’s impossible.  Most others in Congress and most Americans, agree with him without even giving it serious thought.

At PeopleCount.org we offer an easy way to get government on track.  Support us by registering, and especially filling out the Demographics profile, telling your friends about us and asking them to sign up, and donating at least the cost of a lunch.

In my view, we’re the only organization providing a clear path to political transformation, to all Americans communicating effectively to design the future we want and empower government to lead us to build it.  We’re the only organization with no enemies.  Our challenges are resignation and lazy thinking.

Do you want the America of your complaints, or the America of your dreams?  Join us.

Oil companies: We should combat global warming

Posted on by
Reply

Oil companies agree we should combat global warming

The media still portrays environmentalists and oil companies as having opposing positions on global warming.  Below are quotes from oil company web sites that show they’re not so different.

Most major oil companies express concern on their web pages about the risks of climate change which they link to greenhouse gas emissions.

  1. BP says: “According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), warming of the climate system is happening, and it is in large part the result of an increase in greenhouse gas emissions and their concentrations in the atmosphere. The IPCC believes that warming of the climate is likely to lead to extreme weather events becoming more frequent and unpredictable. Results from models assessed by the IPCC suggest that to stand a reasonable chance of limiting warming to no more than 2°C, global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions need to peak before 2020 and be cut by between 50-85% by 2050.”
  2. Chevron says: “we recognize and share the concerns of governments and the public about climate change. There is a widespread view that the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs) is a contributor to climate change, with adverse effects on the environment.”
  3. ConocoPhillips says:  “We recognize that human activity, including the burning of fossil fuels, is contributing to increased concentrations of greenhouse gas (GHG) in the atmosphere that can lead to adverse changes in global climate.”
  4. And ConocoPhillips CEO said at a shareholder meeting: “As a company we recognize the impact that humans are having on the environment and that CO2 is having an impact on what’s happening in the climate.”
  5. ExxonMobil says: “Rising greenhouse gas emissions pose significant risks to society and ecosystems.”
  6. Shell says:  “CO2 emissions must be reduced to avoid serious climate change.
  7. Total.com says: “The consensus in the scientific community, especially the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is that greenhouse gas emissions have an impact on climate and that an international effort is necessary to keep the resultant temperature increase to 2°C to 2100.”

Many of the major oil companies identify the type of policy they think Congress should enact.

  1. BP favors: a price on carbon that is economy-wide, “We believe that the most effective way to encourage companies to find, produce and distribute diverse forms of energy sustainably is to foster the use of markets that are open and competitive, and in which carbon has a price.Our view is that putting a price on carbon – one that applies economy-wide and treats all carbon equally, whether it comes out of an industrial smokestack or a car exhaust – will make energy efficiency and conservation more attractive to businesses and individuals, and help lower-carbon energy sources become more cost competitive within the energy mix. While a global price would be most economically efficient, regional and national approaches are a necessary first step, provided temporary financial relief is given to domestic industrial sectors that are trade exposed.
  2. Hess says: “Hess supports U.S. climate change legislation that treats all affected parties equitably and cost effectively. Recent U.S. legislative action on energy efficiency and climate change mitigation have the potential to encourage innovation, enhance energy security, foster economic growth, improve the balance of trade and set an example for other countries.”
  3. Shell says: “To manage CO2, governments and industry must work together. Government action is needed and we support an international framework that puts a price on CO2… .”
  4. ExxonMobil says: focus on cost of carbon that is predictable, market driven, transparent”. . . we analyze and compare the various policy options by evaluating the degree to which they meet the following principles:
    1. Ensure that any cost of carbon is uniform and predictable across the economy
    2. Let market prices drive the selection of solutions
    3. Promote global participation
    4. – Consider priorities of the developing world
    5. – Recognize the impacts of imbalances among national policies
    6. Minimize complexity to reduce administrative costs
    7. Maximize transparency to companies and consumers
    8. Adjust in the future to developments in climate science and the economic impacts of climate policies”

And EXXON is concerned about regressive taxation saying: “And to ensure revenues raised from such a tax are indeed directed to investment, and to assist those on lower incomes who spend a higher proportion of their income on energy, a carbon tax should be offset by tax reductions in other areas to become revenue neutral for government.”

And EXXON speaks to the notion that business would support a new tax saying: “It is rare that a business lends its support to new taxes. But in this case, given the risk-management challenges we face and the policy alternatives under consideration, it is our judgment that a carbon tax is a preferred course of public policy action versus cap and trade approaches.”

6. ConocoPhillips wants a market-based system to level the playing field, providing certainty for investors.

“We believe that effective climate change policy must be aligned with the following principles: …

    1. Utilize market-based mechanisms rather than technology mandates
    2. Create a level competitive playing field among energy sources and between countries
    3. Avoid overlapping or duplicating existing energy and climate change programs
    4. Provide long-term certainty for investment decisions
    5. Promote government and private sector investment in energy research and development
    6. Match the pace at which new technology can be developed and deployed
    7. Encourage efficient use of energy
    8. Foster resiliency to the impacts of a changing climate
    9. Avoid undue harm to the economy.

See more

7. Total.com says: “The oil and gas industry has a direct stake in the problem and possible solutions for curbing global emissions… .”

April Gallup and June Pew polls found that 60-70% of Americans believe global warming is real, but much smaller numbers thought we should do something about it.  Would more people want to take action if they knew the oil companies would support a carbon tax?

What it’ll be like 50 years from now?  Will we still be muddling along with our confused notions of public opinion?  Or will we all be able to clearly and easily express, know and act on what we collectively want?

There’s no respect, only listening.

Posted on by
Reply

In a Linked-In group, someone posted a link to an article about listening to youth, asking, “Do young people’s opinions deserve the same respect as old people’s?”

Yes, we shouldn’t be prejudiced against any person, due to age or anything else, when we start listening.  Yes, if their story gets strange it’s great to remember this person has a history and a limited experience.  Especially if there’s a strange invitation, it’s great to beware of their agenda.

And, opportunities abound. Some older people have perspectives informed by years of experience filled with amazing insights and wisdom. Some young people have fascinating experiences as well, unencumbered by years of trying to survive in the culture and its effects on personality. Younger people were raised in an age that has amazingly higher levels of communication and tons of new tools. But older people have lived through these times as well and saw their worlds blossom with new inputs, connections and abilities. And all of us have plenty of shallow thoughts to share, complaints and the echoes of others’ words rattling around in our often-self-absorbed minds.

All these perspectives can help shake up how we listen. We listen so often from our automatic patterns of thinking and feeling, and from our expectations. Upon reflection, most people say they know a tiny fraction of what there is to know, and believe “to err is human”, yet our automatic way of listening is from our knowledge, believing whatever our brains tell us, whatever we feel is true.

My take-away is to stop judging. Sure, the mind will. I should listen to the content and try on the perspective and see what new sights I can see, what value there is. I should notice what my mind thinks it knows, what prejudices it brings, what judgments it’s dropping in as filters, blocking my openness, dimming my mood.

What if every person can be new in every moment.  What if the value of their words has much more to do with how I listen than what they say?  What if my mind’s protective filtering mechanisms are overkill? I read about a commencement speech which seemed to be a downer, a complaint, so people heckled. Did they catch the wisdom at the end, the opportunity? How much do we miss?

We turn people into objects with attributes, like “age” or “freshness”.  We do the same with “respect”.  What is it?  Is it really a thing?  We invent “deserving” and then ask, “Do opinions deserve respect?”  Consider for a moment that all this may not be valuable.

Yes, it’s valuable to catch myself when I’m disrespecting, and give it up. It means I’m lost in my own thoughts, my own superiority, my own ego. Giving that up is a great aid to listening. But if I suddenly am captivated with the thought that I “should be respecting more people” it’s just the flip-side, again I’m lost in my own ego-centered thoughts.  I’m “in my head” instead of listening.

Perhaps respect is never, ever something we give. Perhaps it’s simply a story we tell ourselves about people who listen.

 

PeopleCount: being Non-Partisan supports Truth

Posted on by
1

A member of a certain political party sent me a long, highly partisan, blog response.  My reply is that the truth is best served by staying non-partisan.

Consider the following assertion:

We can have whatever government and politics we’re willing to create, once we’re able to communicate effectively with each other and with our politicians.

The first 11 words seem false.  We seem stuck with our current government and political situations.  But, read on.  The rest says it can be true once we’re able to communicate effectively.

It’s possible to start communicating effectively now.  PeopleCount.org is the beginning of a way for all of America, hundreds of millions of people, to communicate effectively in designing our future.

Thanks for sharing with me all your judgements about our leaders, the military-industrial cabal and the “imminent war”.  In my view is a different America.

Why would I want to adopt your view?  It creates an America where our leaders are short-sighted and fearful and our citizens are willing to let their rights be lost.  It’s an ugly world, and needs a lot of remedies.

And then you say your party is s “natural force for good”.  Every party is composed of supporters wedded to that view.  And, to err is human.  Every view is narrow.  What matters are principles and promises and solutions.  Your message seemed mired in negativity, willing to denigrate American government and leaders, painting them as not just not respecting our constitution, but being evil!  Instead of challenging them to uphold our rights, you clumsily force them to dismiss you as a radical enemy.  There might be value in some of your insights about what’s happening in our country and the world, but I’m not impressed by your emotional presentation.  Your words aren’t so different from those of other parties.  I’m not willing to trust a party, a view, with the responsibility of leadership.

Besides, my promise is that government will be responsive and accountable.  To do that requires I stay non-partisan, above the fray, so that’s part of my promise.

What’s in it for you to believe my truth?   Lots.  You get to vote your truths, showing them to everyone else, and you get to see theirs.  Instead of communicating to one person at a time, you get to have your votes sway your district, state and national tallies.  And once many of us are participating, we can take the next step, effective communication with our officials and politicians, creating real choice in elections and real accountability.

I apologize that currently PeopleCount.org currently has few “truths” to vote on, but let’s start somewhere.  And, I’d be happy to accept your help on new political profiles.

Please, get your fellow tea partiers and their friends and families to vote on PeopleCount.  I promise you: if we can grow PeopleCount, we can build a government that is truly responsive and accountable, we can build the country of our dreams.  Our American government can be as constitution-respecting and as good as the American people.  Better actually, because we can support each others’ better natures.  Instead of parties battling parties, we can work all together.