Democracy can be messy. The American experience is no exception. From the start, our founding fathers called each other names, warned of opposing positions’ dire consequences, and fought fiercely for their strongly held beliefs. What united them was the spirit of revolution from tyranny and from the prospect of a failed state. That spirit found its ultimate expression in our Constitution which states its purpose “to form a more perfect union . . . promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty” for all. Its preamble not only defines the collective vision for America but precipitated many other highly charged contests born of the same revolutionary fervor: the Civil War, the women’s suffrage movement, the New Deal, and later the civil rights and social legislation of the 1960’s. These change revolutions churn under the surface for decades until abruptly exploding into our history.

Since the 1960’s, by contrast, we have had the Vietnam War, Watergate, the Iran/Contra affair, a failed trillion dollar war venture in Iraq, and the Great Recession, but no effective counter or change revolution. The only “revolution” has been against big government, beginning in the 1980’s. The odd thing about this “revolution” is that it reverses 200 years of the American tradition of empowering our government to right social injustice, enhance our union, and introduce needed systemic change. Americans historically did not want their government to shrink, but to serve their interests more effectively. The idea that government services should diminish so that American business might flourish or American military might dominate the world stage is completely alien to our founding principles.

Alexander Hamilton, the architect of the American financial system, projected a government secured from overthrow by a wealthy aristocracy and managed for the economic benefit of all. Thomas Jefferson was not disinclined to use military power, but only in defense of the American continent and citizenry. They did not consider the Federal government as the enemy, but as the protector of the American way of life. For nearly all of our history, our Presidents have followed this same course—until the aftermath of World War II. America, emerging as the sole world power, has since increasingly focused its domestic policy on accumulating wealth in the business community and its foreign policy on expanding economic and military influence overseas. This focus has marginalized the spirit of 1776 and exposes America to a not uncommon fate for a world power. Although the siren call of power has created the great empires of history, it has also hastened their demise.

Perhaps we are beginning to learn the lesson of this history as we turn more towards diplomacy instead of war, towards regional solutions to endemic problems instead of weaponized proxies. The latter, it should be noted, have never served our interests in the long term—witness the South Vietnamese army, the mujahedeen of Russia’s Afghanistan, and the Iraqi military. But even if we soften our military imprint on the international stage, we continue to advance the hegemony of the American dollar and business acumen. In terms of international influence, this expansion of American investment banking and international corporations would seem most beneficial. But this benefit is severely weakened when the resultant wealth is accumulated almost exclusively in the coffers of a few Americans. Power and wealth are the natural goals of all nation states, but their value is conditional. Their pursuit can never be exclusive of those they serve and of our founding values. Has America been detoured from its original vision and can we find our way back? Can the coming election in 2016 be our turnaround? Perhaps we are at the threshold of a new American revolution, circa 2016.

Unfortunately, the premature beginning for the 2016 campaign season currently seems to be on a track to nowhere. What explains the recent success of an avowed socialist to attract enormous crowds to his presidential campaign? And, likewise, how does one explain the media attention expended upon a billionaire who is funding his own campaign for the presidency? On the one hand, we have a campaign against unfettered capitalism that creates income inequality at home and pursues global economic hegemony abroad in lieu of neglected domestic social programs. On the other hand, we have a member of the privileged class, tired of buying political influence through surrogates, advancing himself as the only one capable of making America great again—meaning more wealth for American businesses, greater international influence, and an interventionist military abroad.

Here we have two adverse movements heading for a collision. What both of these candidates have tapped into, however, is the enormous dissatisfaction Americans have with their political system, whether on the left or the right. Military misadventures, income inequality, and a dysfunctional Federal government have brought Americans to a point of disillusionment. Those elected to right the ship have been more concerned with rigging its direction towards their respective hold on office and power. The media, or so-called “fourth estate,” has become more invested in soap opera preoccupations with style and tone and in the slightest intimation of alleged scandal than in either realpolitik or American values. In my humble estimate, our current media circus does not educate the electorate or serve the political interests of Americans. More significantly, the Political Parties’ deference to fundraising and to manipulation of the election process make questionable whether their priorities favor public service over title and power. Indeed, I think it is time for the American electorate to take back its power: to eliminate the media circus; to remove the influence of money from federal campaigns; to restore the power of the vote to all Americans; and to redeem the American values upon which this nation is founded. Towards this end, I’m recommending that every eligible voter participate in a new American revolution by taking the following pledge:

I pledge to vote for candidates who promise to support voting rights legislation consisting of universal voter registration, Federal fair election guidelines, and populist regulations governing Federal campaign funding and candidate debates. The following further specifies this proposed legislation:
• Universal voting registration requires all citizens to be automatically registered to vote when they reach age eligibility and identify residency;
• Federal election guidelines shall require all States to provide voters with absentee ballots and at least three weekends of precinct voting before Election Day. Further, candidates for national office may not commence campaigns sooner than six months before Election Day;
• Campaign funds will consist of public funds drawn from .01% of all collected income tax returns (approximately 200 million dollars in 2014). For each biannual Federal election cycle, the IRS will collect and apportion these funds equally for each branch of Congress and an accumulated Presidential campaign fund. The established Political Parties will be responsible for the distribution of these funds to respective congressional candidates and to their respective nominees for presidential election campaigns. Private campaign contributions will be limited exclusively to primary elections, will not exceed $2,500 for each individual or corporate entity, and will be restricted to Political Parties with officially registered candidates for Federal offices. These Parties will be the only organizations permitted to raise campaign funds and to administer those funds solely for the purpose of primary campaigns for Federal office.
• And, finally, the government will manage all televised political debates between candidates for national office by providing the C-Span network and equipping moderators chosen in equal numbers by each Political Party from the academic community.