Disruptive Technological Innovation meets State Government

The speed of change in America is rapidly increasing.

On March 13, responding to the Covid-19 pandemic, the Arizona Legislature closed the public galleries in both chambers to the public. Ten days later, lawmakers recessed with "tentative plans to return April 13."

Now, from the Yellow Sheet Report (3/31/2020),

As coronavirus cases continue to grow, lawmakers are rethinking their April 13 date to reconvene. “Based on the latest info that we have, I’m going to guess that April 13 is probably a little too early,” Fann told our reporter. Shope said he, too, is skeptical of the April 13 return date. “If the president says we shouldn’t be doing crowds until April 30, I think we should be following that,” he said, noting he doesn’t speak for Bowers, who didn’t return a call for comment... 

Senate GOP leadership plans to meet about once a week at the Capitol to talk through the latest changes, and Fann, for example, was driving away from the Capitol when she spoke to our reporter. Lawmakers are staying in touch through calls and emails, but meeting in person helps leaders keep on top of everything they need to consider, she said, adding they’re careful to sit 6 feet apart. Gowan, Gray and Leach attended today’s meeting, while Borrelli called in from Lake Havasu. 

Both chambers have changed their rules to allow members to vote remotely if needed, but Fann said many of her senators don’t like that idea and would prefer to meet, debate and vote in person. “We have said that if we do that, it’s going to be a last resort,” she said. Meanwhile, House leadership has insisted throughout the process that a full-remote Legislature is off the table.

It's really no wonder to me that those people are reluctant to vote remotely or conduct their business, "full-remote." 

But the cat may already be out of the bag.

*****

Consider this question. Did Abraham Lincoln envision the oligarchical system that controls government in Washington, DC and all 50 states today? Did he describe a government in which the citizens should have statistically non-significant impact on lawmaking and how those laws are carried out?

I don't think so.

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

How ironic must it be that President Lincoln, the first Republican president of our country, marked this sacred occasion, the dedication of the Soldiers' National Cemetery at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania with this most succinct and poignant declaration -- "that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people and for the people, shall not perish from the earth." 

Rather than continue to expound on the terrible condition of government in America, at any or all levels, I call your attention to the fact that during times of national (world-wide) stress, major change can happen, sometimes quite quickly.

Direct democracy has been on my personal radar since the mid-1990s.

But the subject has been on the minds of thinkers and political theorists such as Jean Jacques Rousseau, author of The Social Contract, for centuries.

Although Rousseau argues that sovereignty (or the power to make the laws) should be in the hands of the people, he also makes a sharp distinction between the sovereign and the government. The government is composed of magistrates, charged with implementing and enforcing the general will. The "sovereign" is the rule of law, ideally decided on by direct democracy in an assembly.

The moment may be soon upon us.

The speed of change in America is rapidly increasing.