QuestionAuthority: A Proposal

[MondoGlobo]

During a period of creative ferment brought on by the loss of a job, I found myself brainstorming lots of ideas — some of them commercial and some of them presumably non-profit. A couple of ideas I had were for political organizations. I decided that the best way to draw some creative energy and interest for these projects was simply to publish the proposals and invite people to get involved and make either or both of them happen.

These are not currently extant organizations. May the best idea win, or may both come to fruition.

I. QuestionAuthority: A Coalition

A dark cloud is passing over America. We have witnessed, in recent years, the death of many of our constitutional rights and liberties. We have also seen increasingly authoritarian trends in daily life and culture. Those of us who would prefer to keep our freedoms have been relatively powerless as the events of 9/11 have created an atmosphere of fear and acquiescence. Everybody knows the litany: the virtual death of habeas corpus, the legalization of surveillance against all Americans, the lawlessness and usurpation of powers by the executive branch, ad infinitum.

It is time for all those who oppose this gathering trend towards the worst type of authoritarian governance and culture to put aside their differences and join together in a coalition that can act as a counterforce to this gathering threat to our liberties. It is time for QuestionAuthority (QA).

QuestionAuthority is an educational and advocacy project dedicated to defending and extending personal and civil liberties and encouraging free expression. Our goal is to create a broad-based coalition of non-authoritarian groups and individuals who may currently be working in relative isolation on single issues, for political organizations and candidates, or in relatively isolated ideological cohort groups. As a cohesive force, we can do more than just stem the tide one issue -- or one court case -- at a time. We can exercise political and cultural influence by uniting the vast numbers of Americans who believe that the country has taken a radical turn in an authoritarian direction.

II: QA Platform

We ask you to please endorse the QA Platform below. Simply by endorsing the platform, and by joining the QA, you send a message to the nation and the world.

The Platform

1. We call for the resurrection of all basic liberties and protections – including protections against pervasive surveillance – taken away by the federal government and by the executive branch of the Federal Government resulting directly -- or obviously – as the result of reactions to the events of 9/11

2. We call for maximum state transparency (an end to excesses in state secrecy). This would include a generous and resilient usage of the Freedom of Information Act; procedural oversight that can bring sane boundaries into the process of classifying materials; and a movement towards the greatest possible realistic use of open source information-sharing and problem-solving in areas related to defense and intelligence.

3. We call for the restoration of a robust system of checks and balances and separation of powers, meant by the Founders to keep concentrated growths of political malfeasance shaken and unable to take root. We are particularly concerned about centralized power within the Executive Branch of government. In this context, we emphasize a return to active use of "The War Powers Act" in which substantive military campaigns have to be approved by the US Congress.

4. We call for an end to the so-called "war on drugs." This drug war has resulted in frequent violations of limits against search and seizure and an abhorrently large prison population, among other forms of abuse by authorities. (There is room within QA for those who would like an outright end to prohibition as well as for those who prefer more cautious approaches like reform and medicalization to bring to an end the more draconian aspects of the "drug war.")

5. We call for continued vigilance in the defense of free expression, both in the technical legal sense and in a broader socio-cultural sense. There must be a vibrant, vital dialogue around possible contemporary threats to free expression that might not strictly fall under the rubric of censorship. Issues worthy of dialogue and debate include excesses in copyright, hypersensitivity, pressures wrought by corporate media consolidation, state intimidation (such as Congressional hearings) and intimidation of discourse during times of war or during the buildup towards war.

III: Action Agenda for QuestionAuthoority

1a. We will monitor, inform about, and coordinate public educational responses against any further assaults on the basic constitutional liberties of Americans, and will organize information and educational responses to civil liberties already lost to the "war on terror."

1b. Imagine every authoritarian absurdity and outrage carefully explored and catalogued on a single website. Imagine networked groups that can spring into action to alert and educate the public the next time authorities savage the Bill of Rights

2a. We will do everything in our power to bring non-authoritarian and anti-authoritarian thinkers and speakers before the public and particularly before youth.

2b. Imagine a QA publicity/speakers bureau that would get a wide variety of QA types onto college campuses, on the various media talk shows (let's change the dialogue from Right v. Left to Authoritarian v. Non-Authoritarian) and before various civic groups.

3. We will encourage, initiate, and provide an online place for a wide-ranging discussion among supporters of the QA principles. We envision a QA website complete with a virtual library of various "Question Authority" texts, videos, audio files, blogs and other media forms that give expression to diverse non-authoritarian and anti-authoritarian views. We envision QA members organizing meetups, regional meetings, local forums and perhaps an annual or semi-annual QA conference We envision QA members and supporters expressing these concepts in their own style through their own websites, wikis, blogs, videos, podcasts, and through other forms of communication directed towards those who are not online, ad infinitum.

IV: QA FAQ

Q: What is the difference between QA and other organizations and candidates that fight for our rights?

A: First of all, our goal is to create a broad-based coalition of non-authoritarian groups and individuals who may currently be working in relative isolation on single issues, for political organizations and candidates, or in relatively isolated ideological cohort groups. Also, in cases where civil liberty types of issues are involved, people tend to sit back and let them be fought out in the court. As a cohesive force, we can do more than just stem the tide one issue -- or one court case -- at a time. We can exercise political and cultural influence by uniting the vast numbers of Americans who believe that the country has taken a radical turn in an authoritarian direction.

Secondly, look again at what we promise to do in terms of organizing informational and educational materials. If these things were being done by anyone else, we wouldn't need to do them. QA proposes to be dynamic and participatory in ways that other organizations are not.

Q: Why should non-authoritarians want to unite in a big centralized organization?

A: They should unite only to the extent that it's necessary to show our numbers to the nation and amplify our influence as a way to counteract the influence of well-organized authoritarians. How many times, in recent years, have you heard folks wonder why people don't "do something" when major, fundamental outrages against basic constitutional liberties are committed by the state? Now imagine a large, networked group of "Question Authority" types who can spring into action the next time something of this sort occurs to educate and advocate. Next time, do something! Additionally, the "myth" of a grand QA with a large membership filled with both influential and diverse people could have power to influence media and political discourse.

Q: How will the QA be organized?

A: QA will seek tax-deductible non-profit status. We imagine a very minimal centralized "bureaucracy." Everything about the actions of the QA as an organization, including its use of funds, will be open and transparent. For a brief period, QA decisions will be made by a Board of Directors. It will be comprised of people representing a wide variety of political (and perhaps "anti-political") views. We would hope to move quickly towards making decisions via open source, democratic processes. We also imagine that many QA activities, right from the start, will be decentralized and taken by local and cohort groups.

Q: This document calls for action to educate and alert the pubic about basic losses of essential liberties. Isn't it time to move beyond education and into activism?

A: The rules guiding the creation of an educational organization and the rules around activism are subtly different. There is room for activist types of activities in an educational context, and those kinds of responses can be discussed and debated by the group. Also, some people will be more comfortable joining an informational/educational project than an activist project and we want a big fat sassy coalition.

Q: Who will join the QA?

A: We hope everybody who agrees with our platform (or who agrees, but with minor quibbles) will join us, so that our numbers and influence will act as a powerful counterforce against the authoritarian activists. Let's let them know we're here.

But let's be blunt. It's obvious that many of those who agree with this platform will tend to be people who are labeled "liberal" and "libertarian." Beyond that, we believe that this coalition will appeal to an even larger disenfranchised group of Americans who believe in Questioning Authority, but who have very few ideological certainties.

Finally, let's be excessively blunt. We want all the nation's most influential anti-authoritarian individuals and organizations to join in this coalition. We want the ACLU and the Cato Institute; Bob Barr and Mos Def; the EFF and the People for the American Way; MoveOn.org and AntiWar.com,; Hitchens and Chomsky; Penn Jillette and George Carlin, Reason magazine and Harpers Magazine, Howard Stern and Amy Goodman; Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, Paris and Nicole… (OK, maybe not.) Anyway, by now, you get the point.

V: Coda

These days, those of us who Question Authority find ourselves shocked and astonished by the actions of the state – both small and large – on nearly a daily basis. As individuals, we find ourselves wondering, "Why isn't there mass outrage?" Of course, there is quite a bit of outrage. It's distributed all over the web and all over the culture, but this sense of outrage does not have the coherence it needs to be perceived as a player on America's political stage. We can no longer afford to let that be the case. We need to act now.

— RU Sirius, November 2007

[steve]

cool, so i can still be pro-death sentence. :)

[First Little Pig]

And I can remain opposed, Steve.

The real question I have about QA is how to get the idea into the hands of opinion makers like those listed in the penultimate paragraph. Given the dominance of the two-party system, the state of mass media (traditional media at least) and the general ignorance on the part of the vast majority of everyone that there might be more than two sides of popular debates (not to mention that there are debates that are not even being held but should) .... how can this really get on the map.?

Here's my personal take on how hard this will be (not that I would give up): I have a tendency to challenge my friends and neighbors on their conventional conservative/liberal take on current policy ... usually from an anarcho-libertarian direction and what I usually get in return is a blank stare. As if the only choices are A or B and not A through Z through Omega and on. And always I am met with astonishment that public policy for coping with perceived problems may very well be the worst way to go, as if the choice for problem x is either public policy 1 or public policy 2.

How do we reach the 98% of America that Embraces Authority?

[Advocate]

The death sentence is all well and good but entirely misused.
First of all, this government certainly has no authority or mandate to use it, and even if they did they're likely more often wrong than right about who they choose to use it on, and for what reasons.
Life in prison is, by any reasonable measure, a far harsher sentence than the removal of that life. It's torture vs. ultimate relief.
The death penalty should be used not as a punishment but as a preventative measure for habitual violent offenders and general assholes.

[e-mail].

[Phil Leggiere]

Glad to see QA introduced again as the need for a national civil liberties organization with some populist, activist, monkey-wrenching energy keeps growing. AFC is OK but seems very one-dimensional in its lobbying approach to national DC pols. Not really devoted or set up to stirring up the grass-roots.
b
Platform items all look good. But I think Bill of Rights should be mentioned explicitly in point 1. Also mention of how freedom of assembly as well as speech under attack (protest zones, cages, pens etc.)


And I agree with the action focus on educational outreach. The in your face legal-political assaults of the past 6 years are so outrageous it’s become hard for many of us to keep focus or sustain and channel outrage. Consequently I think many people who are news and politics junkies get overwhelmed and then numbed out, while many others who are too alienated from politics (or just too sensible to invest too much psychic energy on the “news”) know what’s going on is profoundly fucked up but don’t want to think about it.

A couple of things that would be good to include-
Some graphic way of showing the time line of creeping authoritarianism in an accessible way, a “time line” showing what’s been going on since the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and control Act ( No Knock provisions) in 1970 to the present.

In addition to documenting authoritarian abuses a section on local revolts against federal assaults on freedoms would be good to have, and unique. Over the past 5 years there have been major mostly unreported or only superficially, sporadically reported upsurges (many spearheaded by local governments) against not only the Patriot Act but Real ID, the Military Commissions Act, No Child Left Behind national testing, the federal war on drugs and Border Patrol Sweeps. In many ways these movements represent a revival of the kind of local power local rights defiance of the federal government (aka nullification)seen in many states and locales who refused to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act during the 1850s and before that the Alien and Sedition Acts. This is a form of “check and balance”, Jefferson and the more radical founders counted on in the absence of an strong and effective national legislature, and guess what, here we are. It’d be cool if QA could become the online clearinghouse and journalistic source of record on these. (I’ve got lots of material to help kick start it.

[kerMingle]

Hello World,

I think the QA question is good and well overdue. However, I feel it may fall short of addressing some our nations biggest concerns. I like to use the analogy of Karma to develop my view of the world. Karma teaches that
there is a tendency in nature for there to be be two opposite extremes and that the question is not which extreme is best but what balance between the extremes is best.

To tie this into politics I like to use the example of a version of the definitions of conservative and liberal. If conservative means keeping the traditions of our past generations and liberal means letting go of the traditions of our past generations ... neither option by itself will be the best possible action. Therefore, we need liberals to help us progress towards a new better future and conservatives to help us remember where we came from. It is that balance which holds use back from rushing into change and prevents us from holding onto outdated ideals.

I agree that in the recent past there have been a great number of our liberties which have been trampled upon. While I agree that there is a need for change ... what is it that needs to be fixed? Or maybe better put, What
in our current system is broken?

I would say that the balance of too many factors have flopped into one side. This may be because of a lack of power on the other side or that both sides have become two different wings of the same bird of prey. If you follow what I have been saying and feel the Karma analogy has a strong foundation, then you may have some concerns with the QA proposal. One concern that arises in my mind is the question of balance between what the government can call top secret and that which the public has has the right to know.

One extreme is to say that there is nothing too sensitive for the public to know. The other side of the extreme is ore like a dictatorship in that the public has no rights to any knowledge of government activities. The latter I don't think needs any justification of opposition. However, the former is something that I battle with. Where do you draw the line between critical data that is protecting the lives of our troops and secrets used by the government to keep people uninformed?

I think I have a good start to the solution but it has not been tested against the reason of others. I can imagine a necessity to keep the location of our troops on a secret mission top secret in order to protect our troops
and make the mission a success. I think that this is generally accepted by both sides of the balance. However, the question is how long does that top secret mission stay classified? From what I can gather, the mission
stays secret for about 20 years. The problem is that over this period of time the public has lost its ability to hold the powers accountable.

Therefore, I would put a much shorter time period for which something can classified. After the period of time has passed, if it is still necessary for classification, it must go before a panel which will critically analyze
the reasons why it needs to be classified. Otherwise it will automatically become declassified information.

As a shot in the dark, the standard period might be 90 days. This makes it difficult for the government to keep large amounts of our public data classified. Eventually the government will need to change the emphasis of what it calls "sensitive" data because there are only so many secret documents that are
maintainable in front of a panel of people. However, extremely important and ongoing sensitive data can remain sensitive until it is no longer needed.

I feel that this type of balance allows our nation to protect its people from physical harm and liberty violations at the same time.

[Brian D]

Another great idea from RU Sirius. We need it in the UK too, with compulsory biometric ID cards currently being developed at a cost of billions to the taxpayers. I've given it a plug on my website, Media Hell

[Corn-Fed]

QuestionAuthority is a great idea.
Its the implementation of thoughts outside websites, wikis, and meetups that I find troubling.... To fight fire in todays political arena does QuestionAuthority need a lobbyist and PAC to initiate change from within the beast?

[Gary F. Moraco]

Yes but dont even think about electing me.Unless of course i can be in a huge scandal and thumb my nose at the Citizens of this great democracy.and what exactly are you feeding all this corn?Will it give me whiskey farts?

[Advocate]

Ahh, democracy. I agree with everything else on mondoglobo that I've seen so far but for that.
Although it is perhaps a necessary first step, how can any thinking person think that to let the NON-thinking ones (the majority) make decisions is a good idea?! It is by definition rule by might over right. Then there's the side issue that the minority NEVER get what they want...
There have been a vast array of political systems through time that have worked far better than what we have now. Let's try something that doesn't have such a ridiculously obvious critical flaw.
Representative government seems reasonable but that the people doing the representing are no different, in fact mirror in most respect the ignorant majority. Mix in a dose of capitalist aristocracy and well...
Things are not looking good and I believe democracy shares a large portion of the blame.

[Gary F. Moraco]

Looks like the pranks never end here.Someone made this elaborate page just to validate my insane,paranoia knowing I would say "Just a coincidence huh"Well you got me again.I'll shut up now.March 18,2008 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2...