MANIFESTO

TOWARD A
BETTER
DEMOCRACY
© 2011 Nathan Gehring
 Manifesto Toward A Better
Democracy

“If by the liberty of the press were

understood merely the liberty of discussing
the propriety of public measures and
political opinions, let us have as much of it
as you please: But if it means the liberty of
affronting, calumniating and defaming one
another, I, for my part, own myself willing
to part with my share of it, whenever our
legislators shall please so to alter the law
and shall chearfully consent to exchange
my liberty of abusing others for the
privilege of not being abused myself.” –
Benjamin Franklin

“The greatest good we can do our

country is to heal its party divisions and
make them one people.” - Thomas Jefferson

1
 Nathan Gehring

INTRODUCTION

If you're an idealist, a dreamer & an

optimist and you want to change the way
our government is functioning; then this
manifesto may appeal to you. If not, I
encourage you to read anyway. I may
challenge some of your thinking, and in
return, you can certainly contact me to
challenge mine.

Consider this writing nothing more than

the ramblings of an unusual, eccentric and
highly impulsive man. I hope they can bring
some value to you.

I begin with my manifesto – my view on

our current governmental system and then
my view of the way forward. I follow with
the personal story that led me to need to
write this.

2
 Manifesto Toward A Better
Democracy

MY POLITICAL MANIFESTO

I believe there are several pieces of our

governance that have been forgotten,
misinterpreted or intentionally perverted for
personal gain. Further, I believe there has
been a fundamental loss of respect and
concern for one another as humans, as
equals and as connected people. This
manifesto will outline the steps I believe are
necessary to restore our government and
people to a place of harmony.

FREEDOM OF
SPEECH AND
PRESS
The Benjamin Franklin quote at the
beginning of this writing displays both
Franklin’s belief in the importance of
Freedom of Press to a democracy, and that
this freedom is not an absolute. I further
believe Franklin would extend these same
comments to freedom of speech.

3
 Nathan Gehring

Freedom of speech and press are vital to

a functioning democracy. But these
freedoms do not extend to speech made
with the goal of being harmful and hurtful
toward others. Beliefs and ideas can be
freely expressed in our country, so long as
they are expressed in a respectful and
productive manner.

For freedom of speech and press to

extend to you, you must recognize that
each of us is a human and deserves to be
treated as such. We are each flawed, we all
have different opinions. None of our
opinions are absolute truth. We can offer
each other these freedoms only if we
acknowledge one another’s humanity.

We have clearly lost sight of this. Ugly,

reprehensible, harmful comments are often
justified by invoking the freedom of speech
and freedom of press. We seem to have
become convinced that these freedoms are
absolute, that they allow us to say anything
we please and that the consequences of our
comments have no bearing on the
freedoms.

Clearly this was not Benjamin Franklin’s

belief. And who are we to claim to know the
intentions of our founding fathers than one
of the most critical members of that group.
The way forward is to remember that these

4
 Manifesto Toward A Better
Democracy

freedoms come with responsibilities. If you

are unwilling to accept the responsibilities,
you are also not offered the freedoms.

NO TAXATION
WITHOUT
REPRESENTATION
“As to Taxes, they are evidently
inseparable from Government. It is
impossible without them to pay the debts
of the nation, to protect it from foreign
danger, or to secure individuals from
lawless violence and rapine.” -Alexander
Hamilton

In the annals of U.S. history, the phrase

“no taxation without representation” has
come to represent the call of one of the
most defining moments in our country’s
fight for Independence, the Boston Tea
Party. Some have considered this uprising
the symbolic beginning of our country’s
revolution against English rule.

5
 Nathan Gehring

“No taxation without representation”

was the cry of colonists who had to pay
taxes to England, but had virtually no
representation in English governance.
Colonists were seeking a voice in the
political discussion and the policies that
impacted them. They were not arguing for
or against taxation, but simply some form
of say in how tax policy was created.

Through the filter of time, the message

of “no taxation without representation” has
been perverted by some to mean simply
“no taxation.” When groups of people feel
they are being taxed higher than they
believe is right, they invoke “no taxation
without representation” to make their
argument. Yet this people are represented
in our government, at least theoretically
(more on that below.)

Our country was not built on an ideal

that there should be no taxation. In fact,
our founding fathers recognized that
taxation was a necessary part to self-
governance. Certain vital services need to
be carried out by a representative
government. These services require
revenue to be generated. The services are
intended to increase to good-fortune of all.

We each benefit from the services our

taxes make possible. Our quality of lives is

6
 Manifesto Toward A Better
Democracy

improved because of the services offered to

us. Certainly government often
mismanages finances and can create layers
of waste that are almost incomprehensible.
I would argue the same holds true in the
private sector, both in business and private
lives. Government bureaucracy may
increase this waste, but the degree of
ineptitude around fiscal responsibility is a
human problem, not a government
problem.

THE ROLE OF
GOVERNMENT
“Government is instituted for the
common good; for the protection, safety,
prosperity, and happiness of the people;
and not for profit, honor, or private interest
of any one man, family, or class of men;
therefore, the people alone have an
incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible
right to institute government; and to
reform, alter, or totally change the same,
when their protection, safety, prosperity,
and happiness require it.” - John Adams

7
 Nathan Gehring

“The freedom and happiness of man...

[are] the sole objects of all legitimate
government.” -Thomas Jefferson

In the above quote, John Adams is quite

clear about the role of government. There is
little ambivalence and little room for
interpretation. Our government was
established for the “common good.” Our
government is meant to rise all ships. Our
government is not intended to benefit one
group over another.

Why then has our government become

predominantly an institution shaped by
corporate influence with the design to
increase corporate profits? Why have the
people been forgotten for the pursuit of
economic superiority? Adams indicated
prosperity as one of four roles of
government, not as the sole purpose.

I believe he intentionally left

“happiness” for last to allow this to be the
final impression of the government’s role.
Happiness is, after all, what we pursue at
the most basic, primal level. Protection,
safety and prosperity are necessary steps
on the road to happiness.

The pursuit of happiness has been lost

8
 Manifesto Toward A Better
Democracy

in our governance replaced by anger,

conflict and harmful discourse. In the 1970s
and 1980s, government focused on
protection and safety without a pursuit of
happiness. In the 1990s and 2000s,
government focused on economic
prosperity (at which they failed quite
miserably.) In the current decade, none of
these roles is actively being pursued.

Instead, our government and politicians

have decided to push party agendas and
dogma. They have become more concerned
with strengthening their position by making
citizenry choose sides than the actual role
of government.

Our government has divided the country

and created anger, disenchantment and
depression. Unhappiness is the default
emotion for a large portion of our
population. Nothing exemplifies the
dysfunction of our government more clearly
than this national unhappiness. Nothing
makes it more clear that our government
has lost its way and lost understanding of
its purpose.

REPRESENTATION

9
 Nathan Gehring

FOR ALL
CONSTITUENTS
“All, too, will bear in mind this sacred
principle, that though the will of the
majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to
be rightful must be reasonable; that the
minority possess their equal rights, which
equal law must protect, and to violate
would be oppression.” -Thomas Jefferson

Recent political rhetoric has included the

word “mandate” heavily after an election.
In 2008, Democrats claimed they had a
mandate by the people to enact legislation
they had promised during the electoral
campaign process. In 2010, Republicans
laid claim to a mandate to reverse
legislation and set the country on a new
course following elections that gave them
control of the House of Representatives.

This idea of mandate runs counter to the

very idea of democracy. As Thomas
Jefferson’s quote makes clear, elected
representatives have a duty to represent
not only those who voted for them, but also
those who did not. Does this happen in our

10
 Manifesto Toward A Better
Democracy

current governance? The invocation of the

mandate makes it clear that this is not
happening.

Jefferson’s quote is clear. The majority

rules, but the minority should be given
equal voice. Our government is not doing
this. Our representatives should bring their
policy initiatives to the table as expressed
by the majority. But once at the table, the
minority is to have equal voice in the
shaping of this legislation. All positions
have a right to a seat at the table.

Unfortunately our politicians no longer

govern in this manner. They instead
staunchly stick their heels in tar and fight
for their position with resolute firmness.
The majority party speaks of bipartisanship
in creating legislation, and then proceeds to
burn the minority’s position to the ground.
The minority party chooses to not sit at the
table, instead screaming party dogma from
every platform afforded them.

Neither party is representing the people.

They have chosen their positions over
governance and representation. They
choose to govern based on ideals and
opposition, not in the best interest of their
constituency.

11
 Nathan Gehring

AN END TO
ABSOLUTES
“This I hope will be the age of
experiments in government, and that their
basis will be founded in principles of
honesty, not of mere force.” - Thomas
Jefferson

One of the most toxic elements to

reasonable, productive debate and
discourse is the use of absolutes. Terms
such as “must” and “can’t” and “won’t”
immediately end debate. These are terms
used by someone who has already made
their decisions and who is not open to
meaningful discourse.

Yet our politicians have grown very fond

of using these absolutes to argue their
positions. They will tell us that our
government must do this or that. They will
tell us that we cannot do other things. They
tell us with conviction what will and won’t
work.

Our politicians and legislators have

grown so certain of their convictions that

12
 Manifesto Toward A Better
Democracy

they have lost sight of what governance is.

They have lost the ability to view the world
with an open-mind. They do not welcome
challenges to their thinking, instead
electing to judge those with different views
as wrong.

Those who are to represent us have

given up their own freedom to think freely
and thereby also given away our freedom
to do so. We must choose a side that most
closely matches our values, then sit by and
recognize that no alternative thinking will
occur in our government.

Debate and discourse are dead in our

government. Problem solving does not
exist.

PEOPLE VERSUS
PROFITS
“The Sun never shined on a cause of
greater worth.” - Thomas Paine

Our government, and country in general,

have come to believe that economic

13
 Nathan Gehring

prosperity is the singular purpose of life and

happiness. Despite assertions by many of
our founding fathers, and research that
suggests otherwise, this profiteering has
become the focus of legislation supported
by either parties.

The arguments around policy are rarely

about offering the people happiness.
Instead each argument is framed in terms
of the economic impact a policy will have.
Does this legislation project to increase or
decrease Gross Domestic Product? Will our
businesses become more profitable and
competitive?

Our individual, state & national

prosperity and fiscal responsibility should
certainly be considered when forming
policy and legislation. They should not,
however, be the sole consideration or even
the most important. The important
questions to be asked are how does this
legislation support our liberty, the common
good and our pursuit of happiness. If
legislation harms one group while helping
another become more profitable, this
legislation is poorly designed and not what
our government should pursue.

“Greater worth” is not the goal of our

government. Greater happiness for all is.

14
 Manifesto Toward A Better
Democracy

REASONABLE
DISCOURSE &
DEBATE
“In a society under the forms of which
the stronger faction can readily unite and
oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly
be said to reign as in a state of nature.” -
James Madison

Our political discourse has fallen into

near disrepair, highlighted by politicians
and supporters often spewing hateful,
harmful rhetoric. Both major parties have
fallen into this mode of operation.

Instead of providing productive

discussion, representatives have decided to
attack opposition. Instead of engaging in
meaningful discourse and debate,
representatives have chosen to vehemently
fight for their positions.

Mutual respect and civility have been

driven out of our government. Reasonable
debate has been replaced with
stubbornness and dogma.

15
 Nathan Gehring

These are not the elements that lead to

strong, meaningful, representative
governance. These are not the pieces to
move a country forward, to serve the
common good and to reach agreed upon
values and policy.

Governance requires cooperation,

respect for alternative values and ideas and
an openness to give up one’s dogma for the
common good.

HISTORY STANDS
WITH WORKERS
"Truth and love must prevail over lies
and hate." - Vaclav Havel

“Solidarity will not be divided or

destroyed.” - Lech Walesa

History, while subjective and written by

the victors, includes countless examples of
the working and middle classes overcoming
obstacles put in place by the upper class.
History stands with workers. The working
class has often been put at a disadvantage
in their pursuit of happiness, oppressed by

16
 Manifesto Toward A Better
Democracy

profiteering business owners.

These workers and middle class have

had to fight for a right to a safe and
respectful workplace. Our country was built
on the ideals of equality among all men,
regardless of class. Yet the fight continues.
I stand strongly with workers, with the
middle class and with organized labor.

Unfortunately, many in our government

do not. They would put personal wealth and
gain ahead of collective rights and the
common good. They put corporations profit
considerations ahead of providing
education to our children. They vilify a
public sector that gives up the opportunity
for personal wealth in order to act as public
servants. In return, they ask for a bit of
security.

These politicians instead choose to pick

a fight between the public and private
sectors, highlighting the differences in
compensation and pointing to a few bad
public employees as a representation of all
public employees. They are waging a class
war, exactly the type of war our founding
fathers warned against.

This focus on public employee

compensation compared to private

17
 Nathan Gehring

employee compensation is a dramatic

misunderstanding of the issue. The
question is not whether public employees
are over compensated relative to the
average private employee. The question
that needs to be answered is how much we
value the role each public employee fills,
and then compensate them according to
that value.

History has shown us that workers

eventually win a class war and generally do
so in a fashion that rips apart a country.
Our politicians who encourage this war are
very misguided.

THE WAY FORWARD

The fortunate thing about the

dysfunction of our government is that we
have the opportunity and ability to affect a
change of course. We have the right to
make our voices heard and to elect
individuals who we will believe can set us
on the correct path. We can, in many cases,
even remove those officials who are
contributing to the dysfunction.

There are concrete steps we as a

citizenry can follow to take back our
government and make it represent the
people again. We can refocus our country

18
 Manifesto Toward A Better
Democracy

on the values it was established upon and

make it a place to pursue happiness for all.

The first step toward this reshaping of

our government asks each of us to make a
choice. We should choose to make this goal
a priority in our lives. We will recognize that
we are putting the future of our country
ahead of our personal fortune.

A RETURN TO
CIVILITY
Our freedoms of speech and press are
being put at risk by those who abuse these
freedoms. Those that make hateful,
intolerant comments should not be
extended these freedoms until they are
able to recognize the limits. Those who
choose to use these freedoms to spread
messages designed to harm others should
be called out by everyone who has chosen
to be a statesman.

News organization that spread untruths

and harmful information should no longer
receive the support of those hoping to
effect change to our government. News

19
 Nathan Gehring

organizations that act responsibly and fairly

should be offered all the space and freedom
necessary to continue their work.

These freedoms are central to a

functioning, representative democracy. It is
critical that freedom of speech and freedom
of the press continues to be viable. It is
important that we support those who would
not misuse and pervert these freedoms.

The maintenance of these freedoms also

asks the citizenry to become more civil
toward one another. We should respect
alternate opinions, theories and ideas and
allow ourselves to challenge our own ideas.
We can be tolerant and even accepting of
other people, other cultural norms and
other belief-sets. We can be respectful
toward one another regardless of
differences.

We should also ask our politicians to

give up the political rhetoric and the
dogmatic attacks against opposing views.
We can lend our support to those politicians
who are committed to reasonable, civil
debate. We can encourage those politicians
who are open to alternate ideas and views,
whether those come from the opposition
party or outside the two party system.

We can work to remove the politicians

20
 Manifesto Toward A Better
Democracy

who try to subvert the debate and who

choose to divide our country. We can do
this both through elections and through
recall processes. We should highlight those
representatives who use the debate killing
“mandate” argument. We should look to
put in place representatives who are
working for the people and who want to find
solutions regardless of positions.

THE COMMON
GOOD
Another step forward will be a return to
focusing on the common good in place of
personal fortune, both in our own lives and
in our governance. This ideal is
fundamental to the founding of our country
and a value that should be instilled in our
government.

The common good was clearly a

foundational element of our government
according to the founding fathers. Yet it has
become a lost concepts instead replaced by
absolute focus on personal liberty and
freedom. Will those are both
unquestionably important values and

21
 Nathan Gehring

concepts in our national value-set, they

should not come at the expense of others
and of the common good.

We should hold our representatives

accountable for the common good. This
means they should represent their entire
constituency, not only those who support
their views. They should make decisions on
what is best for all, not only those in their
political party. Those representatives who
decide that they will not do this and that
they must recognize only the opinion of
those who voted for them should be called
out and have demands placed on them to
change.

Our representatives are not elected to

be arbiters of right and wrong. Their role is
solely to act on our behalf, all of our
behalves. It is not their role to assume an
election is a mandate that they must
adhere to and must defend with great vigor
and venom. Our representatives are to act
for the common good.

FREE THINKING
It is time for our representatives to open
themselves to free thinking, to ideas other

22
 Manifesto Toward A Better
Democracy

than their own, to concepts they have not

considered before. It is time for our
representatives to work for solutions, not to
defend their dogmatic views.

We are unable to predict the future

accurately, and are unable to predict the
outcome of legislation as well. Therefore,
our representatives should stop believing
they know the only truth. There are no right
answers and no absolutes. Our
representatives should come to understand
this. Certainly they can use the values and
beliefs they have portrayed to citizens as
guides in decision-making, but these are
only guides not rules.

I have chosen to hitch my horse to one

politician whom I view to be a true free
thinker; former U.S. Senator Russ Feingold.
He has shown time and again that his focus
is solely on representing the people without
influence from corporate and lobby
pressure. He has proven to be a true
representative of the people even to his
own peril.

It is not my goal to convince you to

support Russ Feingold (although I would be
happy if you joined the Progressives United
movement.) It is my goal to put Feingold
out as an example of what a politician in

23
 Nathan Gehring

our new government should look like.

Feingold can stand as a model of exemplary
representative.

HAPPINESS
Finally, let us make the pursuit of
happiness the ultimate guide in all policy-
making decisions. Let’s view each piece of
legislation based on whether it will increase
or decrease the ability to pursue happiness.
This, after all, is the primary role of
government. This is why our Constitution
was written, why a war was waged for
independence and why each of us wakes up
each morning.

Happiness is what living life is made of.

Let happiness be our decision-making
guide.

24
 Manifesto Toward A Better
Democracy

MY POLITICAL STORY

SETTING THE
STAGE
I have never been a very politically
motivated individual.

I was raised by liberal parents and

taught very liberal beliefs. I continue to
harbor strong pro-social values. I earned a
degree from the University of Wisconsin –
Madison in International Relations. This
course work involved significant study into
political science. Yet I would not consider
myself in any way a scholar or expert in
matters of politics. I certainly did not study
hard enough or challenge myself deeply
enough to be able to deliver any profound
professorial insight. In fact, I nearly flunked
out of the University as a freshman, but
was blessed with a true talent at test-taking
that, combined with a small degree of
effort, allowed me to complete my degree
in relatively average standing and with very
good marks in upper class courses.

25
 Nathan Gehring

Despite this fairly political upbringing

and education, I have never been drawn to
think too much about politics. I thought
myself a liberal (a democrat, you might
say) and showed up to vote on election
days. I felt I had done my civic duty, yet
voted always voted exclusively down party
lines. I told myself I was making informed
decisions because I did not vote for
Democratic names I did not recognize.

But this manifesto is not about my life.

This manifesto is about what I think I have
learned the past the years in politics and
beliefs I would like to share with you.
Maybe I will even take a stab at a model for
a way forward in the current political
quagmire the United States of America now
finds itself in. This learning and the catalyst
to my writing this short bit of nonsense is
the current state of politics in Wisconsin
and the protests and rallies being held by
Wisconsin citizens at the state Capitol
building in Madison.

POLITICS TODAY
(THROUGH MY
LENS)

26
 Manifesto Toward A Better
Democracy

Our political and governmental system

is broken. Our system has become nothing
more than a battle between two dogmatic
views about how to govern. Unfortunately,
neither of these tar-heeled positions and
parties actually do much governing. Instead
of recognizing and representing their entire
constituency, both those who voted for
them and those who did not, they focus on
defending their positions and belief set.
Instead of governing to benefit the people
of the United States of America, they spew
rhetoric in an order to vilify the other’s
beliefs.

The people tasked with governing and

leading our country have instead created a
country deeply divided, a country at class
war and a country that views businesses as
individuals and places the needs of
businesses ahead of citizens. These people
entrusted to lead our country have failed in
dramatic fashion and have left our country
deeply lacking in direction.

There are exceptions to this lack of

leadership, of course. Former U.S. Senator
Russ Feingold was one of the few free
thinkers and truly committed politicians in
Congress. His focus was on the people and
creating a government of the people and by

27
 Nathan Gehring

the people. The loss of him in the Senate

was a major blow to creating a government
actually recognizing its duty to govern and
lead.

Unfortunately, politicians in the cloth of

Feingold are rare exceptions to the
politicians focused on dogma, on
representing only the constituency that
voted for them and all too often on self-
benefit. Occasionally, a legislator speaks his
or her true mind, only to capitulate to party
rhetoric within a short amount of time.

Worse yet is the belief by politicians that

when they win an election, they have been
given a mandate to enact some form of
legislation or other action. Examples of this
can be found along the entire political
spectrum. Open any newspaper or turn on
any news network and you will invariable
hear a politician discussing the mandate
their constituency has given them. This
belief in mandate runs strongly counter to
democratic ideals. Yes, these politicians
won their elections and represent the
people who supported them. However, they
also represent those who did not vote for
them and must recognize and respect those
people’s views and beliefs when setting
policy.

Clearly our political and governmental

28
 Manifesto Toward A Better
Democracy

system is not functioning as a

representative democracy.

2008 JUBILATION
2008 was a year of tremendous
excitement for me about politics. Having
always considered myself liberal and a
democrat (always with a lowercase “d”), I
had been frustrated by the George W. Bush
presidency. Sometimes this frustration was
due to a bona fide belief that the President
was making poor decisions and errors of
judgment. Other times it was about
belonging to the group, and being a part of
“liberal and a democrat.”

But in 2008 came the opportunity for a

new direction. A woman and a black man
were both trying to secure the presidential
nomination for the party I would eventually
vote for. The woman represented a well-
established figure that I could greatly
respect and see as a wonderful first woman
President. The man was someone I had
heard of briefly some time before and knew
he was believed to be a rising force. It was

29
 Nathan Gehring

exciting to see a new direction for politics

and the potential for to navigate uncharted
waters in terms of who could be President.

The message delivered by Barack

Obama, the message of change and hope
struck a deep chord with me. He was the
embodiment of change. A black man
ascending to the Presidency carrying with
him a message that it was time to change
how Washington governed. It spoke to me
and my political views at a fundamental
level. Even the policy initiatives he outlined
aligned with my own beliefs extremely
closely. There was no question I would vote
for this man.

Then the 2008 elections came and we

had elected a black man with a message of
hope and change to become our President.
I was jubilant. I believed we were on the
verge of dramatic change in the way
politics in this country was undertaken. I
knew that governance of the USA would be
improved for the better.

And even better, beaten in this election

was an old out-of-touch man and an
absolutely unqualified, unprepared vice
presidential candidate who spewed vitriol
and destructive dogma. The Senate &
House belonged to Democrats. A new way
to govern was about to emerge.

30
 Manifesto Toward A Better
Democracy

2009
HOPEFULNESS
DROWNING
Barack Obama became President of the
United States to great fanfare and
excitement. A new day had dawned. Our
government would focus on social issues
and helping lift all people and the entire
country. Bipartisanship would rule the day
and eventually be replaced by
nonpartisanship.

That excitement and hopefulness slowly

began to drown, so slowly that I did not
realize it was happening. The political
rhetoric intensified. Both parties dug their
heels in. The President extolled
bipartisanship while not practicing it.
Republicans refused to participate in
debate entirely simply repeating party
mantra.

Change and bipartisanship was nowhere

on the horizon. Democrats then decided to
use their overwhelming majority to force
legislation, an action which I supported. I
agreed, and still do, with these policies and

31
 Nathan Gehring

initiatives. I did not realize what was

actually happening in our government, and
had been happening far before this very
slowly.

By the end of 2009 I had grown tired of

the political and legislative nonsense and
declared myself to be politically agnostic.
My belief-set remained liberal and socially
focused, but I believed both sides to be
corrupt and self-serving. I believed neither
side had the interests of the citizenry at the
forefront of their positions. In many ways
this was a return to my earlier lack of
interest in politics, although now I was
interested and totally disenchanted with
the process.

2010
AGNOSTICISM
AND DISGUST
Throughout 2010, not much changed. I
remained uninvolved in defending a party
or position. Generally I supported
democratic initiatives, but had no
compulsion to believe the politicians
involved really cared about the people.

32
 Manifesto Toward A Better
Democracy

They were fighting for policies based almost

entirely on party ideals, and not on what
was in the best interest of the citizenry.

Another force was working to increase

my agnosticism and disdain for our political
system. The Tea Party movement began to
gain steam, spewing hatred and intolerance
at every opportunity possible. These
people compared the President to Hitler
and his policies to fascism. Ignoring the fact
that fascism is on the far right of the
political spectrum and much closer to Tea
Party politics, I was absolutely disgusted by
these comparisons.

I grew up in Germany and had often

visited the Dachau Concentration Camp
Memorial; seen the ovens used to burn
bodies, walked through the gas showers,
seen photos of the revolting experiments
performed on people. I had on many
occasions walked the streets of Berlin
where the bullet holes have been left in
some buildings as reminders of what
fascism brought. I had recognized that an
entire generation of German men simply
did not exist having been killed by Hitler’s
quest for power.

I knew deeply that nothing we were

experiencing in the United States had

33
 Nathan Gehring

anything to do with Hitler and fascism. I

found it entirely disrespectful to Jewish
people and to others that had suffered
because of Hitler. I was disgusted and my
hope for improved government was
drowning.

Then another blow struck. While I had

been mostly able to remain indifferent to
political candidates, I had continued to
believe in Russ Feingold. Here was a man
that truly stood for the people and did what
was right instead of what was expected. He
was a true representative of his
constituency. And in the mid-term
elections, he lost his Senate seat. He did
not lose because of his political views nor
his body of work. He lost because he was a
Democrat and the divisiveness had become
so strong that an entire election swept up
one fine politician. Both Democrats and
Republicans in the U.S. Senate publicly
acknowledged the tremendous loss it was
not to have Feingold sitting in the chamber.

So 2010 ended with my agnosticism

about politics deeply entrenched. I cared
about the direction the country headed, but
was entirely indifferent to who the players
were once the last politician I believed in
had lost. I was disgusted by the intolerance
and nastiness being displayed by

34
 Manifesto Toward A Better
Democracy

predominantly the Tea Party, although

some liberal media was equally nasty.

(MY) LIBERATION
The fire is lit.

February 11, 2011, my wife came home

from work with news that it was very likely
her school district would be receiving
significant less state funding and layoffs
were imminent. In her department, she is
the most junior professional; putting her
first in line should layoffs be necessary in
the department.

Later that day, news about Wisconsin

Governor Scott Walker’s proposed “Budget
Repair Bill” is reported on by various media
outlets. The bill, if passed, will require
several things of public employees
including increased health insurance costs,
requirement to partially self-fund pensions
and other financial costs. These were the
first reported elements of the bill. A short
while later, it was reported that the bill
would also abolish 50+ years of established
Wisconsin labor law and remove most
collective bargaining rights for most public

35
 Nathan Gehring

employees.

Facebook and Twitter exploded. While

the bill was proposed as necessary to fix
Wisconsin fiscal problems, the fight quickly
became about public versus private
employees. The Governor discussed the
imbalance in compensation between the
public and private workplaces. Public
employees shouted back that even
considering benefits, they were underpaid
relative to the private workplace. Private
employees began spewing obscenities and
vitriol at the public sector. The environment
turned into an ugly public versus private
sector battle very quickly. No longer was
this about balancing a budget, but it was a
class war.

I didn’t see it at first. I continued to state

my position, which was that the fight was
not about whether public and private
sectors were equally compensated on
average. My belief was that the discussion
needed to be about what we valued as a
state and then to choose to fund things
according to that value, and do so in a way
that was fiscally responsible. I wanted to
see a reasonable discussion about how to
balance the budget, while an ugly fight was
occurring that had little to do with budget
balancing.

36
 Manifesto Toward A Better
Democracy

My political agnosticism had caused me

to fail to see what was really happening.
The bill was not about balancing a budget;
that could have been accomplished by
asking public employees for some financial
concessions. Castrating a long-standing
history of labor cooperation was not a
budget matter. Removing the right for
teachers to have input into curriculum
discussions had nothing to do with fiscal
responsibility. A war had been declared by
the Governor on all union-cover employees
and on the working, middle class. The
political wedge that had been forming in
the citizenry of the United States had fully
cracked.

I spent the weekend continuing to

believe that the budget was the issue. I
began a Facebook “Cause” named “Support
Reasonable Discussion on Scott Walker’s
Budget Bill & Fixing Wisconsin’s Finances.” I
continued to remain agnostic and neutral
and hoping reason would overcome
emotion.

PROTEST
The following week a small contingent of

37
 Nathan Gehring

teachers and other public employees

arrived at the Wisconsin Capitol Building
and began protesting Walker’s bill. The
numbers were small, but it garnered
significant media attention. The protests
also garnered significant reaction from
people in favor of the bill.

Within hours, teachers had been vilified

as not caring for children and only
concerned with their paychecks. And it was
my sense from those few public employees
I had contact with that the first concern was
the financial impact. It makes sense that
this would be the case. Money impacts us
on a very primal level and can create
significant fear. These public employees
were concerned with what the financial
impact would be on their lives, no
differently than anyone else would be. But
this focus on the financial aspect was only
an immediate, short-term state.

Each day throughout that week, the

protests gained more and more participants
rising from a few thousand to somewhere
around 80,000 on Saturday, February 19th.
Finally, as these protests gained in intensity
and the battle and vitriol being shouted
increased in nastiness, I became aware that
there truly was a war. The Governor had
chosen to push his party dogma, that

38
 Manifesto Toward A Better
Democracy

unions are bad, instead of focusing on

helping his citizens. He had veiled this
attack in a reasonable cause, fixing the
Wisconsin budget shortfall. His ruse would
quickly be exposed.

The first clue to indicate this bill was not

about balancing a budget was the timeline
for passage. The bill was introduced on a
Friday and scheduled to be voted on the
following Thursday. One week to read,
consider and debate legislation that
fundamentally changed a public institution
seemed a bit heavy-handed.

During the first week of protests, the

unions acknowledged that they should
make some financial concessions to have a
reasonable discourse at the bargaining
table. The unions stated that they would
agree to all financial concessions in the bill
with the provision that collective bargaining
rights remained untouched. Governor
Walker promptly released a statement that
he would not consider any compromise and
was not open to debate. He had shown his
true colors. He was representing only the
constituency that had voted for him, those
who had made campaign contributions to
him and those whom he considered worthy
of consideration.

39
 Nathan Gehring

The lines had been drawn and the battle

was in full swing.

PROGRESSIVES
UNITED
During this week, Russ Feingold
returned to the political scene with the
announcement that he had founded a
political action committee (PAC) named
Progressives United. This PACs mission was
simple:

In January of 2010, the Supreme Court's

Citizens United decision greatly expanded
the corrupting influence of corporate
special interests. It's time we fought back.
Launched one year after that decision,
Progressives United will:

1. Empower Americans to stand up

against the exploding corporate influence in
Washington, especially since the Citizens
United decision.

2. Hold our representatives accountable

40
 Manifesto Toward A Better
Democracy

to every constituent, regardless of

economic class or insider access.

3. Support national, state, and local

candidates who stand up for our
progressive ideals.

I was immediately drawn to this cause,

first by Feingold’s name as the founder and
then by the mission. Here was an
organization with a focus on people and
nothing more, an organization that held the
same values I did without deeply
entrenched political agendas. My
agnosticism evaporated. I was highly
engaged in this cause.

On the Thursday of this week, a vote

was to be taken on the bill. The vote never
happened, however. In order for a fiscal bill
to be taken up in the Wisconsin Senate a
quorum of 2/3 of the Senate members must
be present. Shortly before the vote was to
be held, all 14 Democratic Senators left the
Capitol and traveled out of state. With only
19 Republican Senators left, a quorum
could not be formed and no vote could be
held. This standoff continues today and the
Democratic contingent have vowed not to
return until real debate and compromise is
guaranteed.

41
 Nathan Gehring

My wife and I decided to join the

protests on Saturday, February 19th. That
morning we made picket signs with our
children, and then hit the road to Madison.
My wife’s sign simply read “Kill The Bill”
while mine read “History Stands With
Workers.” My daughter (5) made a sign
without direction from us that read “Go
Teachers” and my son (3) scribbled a
picture on his sign. We were on the way to
a city we had lived in for a long time to
participate in one of Madison’s greatest
traditions, acts of peaceful civil
disobedience.

Being among the throng of 80,000+

protesters was an awesome experience.
These protesters were friendly, peaceful,
helpful and joyful. People played drums and
other instruments. Music played. People
danced and sang. The protesters for the
most part were also respectful of other
ideas.

On this day of the protest, the first

counter-protest was held at the Capitol. A
contingent of Tea Party members held a
rally on one corner of the Capitol building.
As the marching crowd of protesters passed
this corner, the discourse certainly became
more heated and venomous. However, it
remained surprising civil and respectful

42
 Manifesto Toward A Better
Democracy

with only occasional mean-spirited verbal

attacks. Both groups displayed remarkable
restraint despite high emotions and tension
and gave me hope that the divisiveness in
our country might be repairable.

There were, however, a few cases of

repulsive nastiness at the rally. A few
people had made signs comparing
Governor Walker to Hitler. I was as
disgusted by these signs as by the
assertions of Tea Party members that
compared President Obama to Hitler.
Governor Walker may have been
misguided, autocratic and a profiteer, but
he was not the embodiment of evil. He was
threatening the security of people’s
financial lives, but he was not threatening
to exterminate an entire race.

Being a part of this day will be included

among the most memorable days of my
life. While I don’t think it is at the top of
that list, it was certainly a powerful and
awesome experience. During the five hours
my family spent outside in sub-freezing
temperatures, I formed several political
thoughts and beliefs. These beliefs are what
this foolish endeavor is all about.

43
Nathan Gehring

44