Also due out later this month, a revised edition of 2014's Agent of Orange:
Look for my book, To the Front of the Bus: Movement toward a Fair Democracy, available later in may. This reconstruction of the facts, the gigantic initial gaps, the hard won battles for a sufficient amount of Democracy, was motivated by the current malaise, if not critical deterioration of any precepts of the United States Constitution. I start with the bloody invasion of the American continent by Spanish conquistadors, their decimation and enslavement of centuries old native tribes by atrocities and disease. I look at how the American slave trade began and ended, how the British, who bought America from Spain, was a benchmark in both government and social justice.
To the Front of the Bus is a hope. It is a reality. It serves as a medium of social transport, people's movement and advances to and from equality. It refers to the slave trade, the freedom rides, the myriad movements, juxtapositions and elevations through history. It refers to Black Americans having the freedom to sit anywhere on a bus, it refers to the disabled individual being able to sit at the front of a bus or paratransit vehicle is they need to.
To the Front of the Bus: Movement toward a Fair Democracy takes a comprehensive look at how America came to be, its violent, racist and self-centered history. It argues how past and current unregulated and unfair capitalism has hindered, even stymied, any sense of a fair Democracy. This book suggests a basic precept of self-governance, of due process and law applicable to anyone was posed from the beginning. “We hold these truths to be self-evident. . .” was destined to be come hyperbole. It is a myth, a legend, an eternal carrot a majority follows. Never, in the entire history of America, has the concept of a man being created equal applied.
To the Front of the Bus: Movement toward a Fair Democracy follows the transports of three major groups who were denied basic rights as Americans. Their evolutions, their respective revolutions' order was left to be written in history as having been subconsciously prioritized. It was pre-destined, each having made a fluent transition, a natural selection, a humanely appropriate ascension, to the next. First came the removal of chains, the freeing of feet and minds, to fighting a Civil War and decades to win civil rights. Then came the women in their defined movements through decades for suffrage and equal rights. Time had come to pass. The abrogation of blacks and women's injustices readied the minds and streets for the disabled. Both cleared the way (as people on buses often do), expanded human consciousness enough, removed guilt of oppressing the prior groups enough, for the disabled to come out of the institutions and almshouses, to be accepted in society, to speak out for certain rights, and to be able to sit to the front of the bus.
Raised in the suburbs close to Minneapolis, I saw the middle and lower class. The upper, not so much. Although in Richfield our rivals were Edina and Minnetonka, so maybe a little. I grew up in a very mono-chromatic residential neighborhood beginning in 1965. I write about my life then, my political influences, my adoption and prospects of being biracial in Ten Years and Change: A Liberal Boyhood in Minnesota. I write of the impact on me and my family, how it may have indicted their level of progressiveness. Each had come to Minnesota at the start of the heightening of opposition to the war in Vietnam, in the heat of the Civil Rights Movement. My parents each had their own story, what incensed them to be inordinately vocal in their concerns for human rights. I was infused with those views, the milieu they provided, lived, in the house where I grew up. My book can't help itself from being a memoir. It is a history lesson told from the perspective of a gen Xer who sits on the sidelines watching the DFL (Democratic Farmer-Labor) Party splinter in opposing a war. He sees family and their friends, names he comes to know indelibly, support the presidential candidate Minnesota Senator Eugene McCarthy. What begins as an unprecedented movement to “dump Johnson,” ends in the ignominious defeat of McCarthy, and the very undemocratic victory of Hubert Humphrey, at the 1968 Democratic National Convention.
Manifestos. Ways to take back what is right. Ways not to ask, or demand, but take back what's been the consensus for years. Dissidents of Anarchy is not a political party, it's not a new corner on the market strategy to take American middle-class workers for a ride. It represents a descent into anarchy, by descendants of that anarchy. It is a breaking away, a refusal to descend into anarchy, which is exactly where America is headed. We are left teetering on the edge of a unicameral cliff, nurturing decorum, protocol, and playing the game with no end in sight. Dissidents of Anarchy is a-political, it is a philosophy, a calling in the cycle that ignores its own reality.
In 1948 and 1968 we saw similar manifestations. First during the final years of the polarization of parties, when parties reversed purposes, when southern Democrats (Dixiecrats) became the last Democrats not to support Civil Rights. This is an important period of history to learn, one that will explain to hard right Republicans that they have long been to hindrance to Civil Rights issues. In 1967 Allan Lowenstein launched a campaign to dump LBJ. The following year the sitting president withdrew his bid for a second term. It was simple, the Vietnam War showed no end in sight with Johnson running things, having fallen victim to the myopic views of hawks, the ego and paranoia, the game with N. Vietnam to blink. Minnesota Senator Gene McCarthy saw that the only hope of ending the war was to make it the center—point of his campaign. We all know how that played out. The point is the people, the majority of whom were against the war and Johnson by '68, rose up and got him to walk away from the race. Such a disembowelment is possible.
Dissidents of Anarchy is a mentality. It asks a paradigm to be changed, of the 98% who has kow-towed to a slim minority of capitalists who have one wish in America, and one wish only; to make themselves wealthy on the backs of the middle-class, the vast majority of America. In seven elections since 1992, the Republican candidate for president has won the popular vote only once. They have, however, won the electoral vote three times. This is not representative of the majority.
- Dissidents of Anarchy promotes a shift to direct elections where the candidate with the least amount of votes will lose, every time.
- DOA promotes a progressive, if not radical, attitude
- DOA does not promote gratuitous or unnecessary violence
- DOA promotes the passive, but assertive, negotiation against the underpinnings of society
- DOA promotes the abolishment of the Electoral College, realizing that this is the single most reason the GOP succeeds in maintaining wealth inequality
- DOA promotes a willingness for violent revolution if necessary
These are the six precepts of Dissidents of Anarchy. It is existential to most things; to racial equality, to economic equality, to the future of America, to the future of the planet. It is not a radical leftist entity, with an intent to “shake things up” in Washington. It is a compromise, hopefully a treatise designed to come up from the grassy roots of the tallest trees, from the outside of a corrupt government. Designed to track the rabbits already down holes, to catch the canary who's living as decades have been mined from the 98%. It is a government who refuses to realize the time's up, that America is causing misery at our border and around the world, that millions struggle to make ends meet, that people are dying.