Power of Principled People on the Left and Right

I continue to explore a subject that is summed up in the question,

"Do populists on the left and right have enough in common that they could join together and challenge the status quo establishment?"

I'm not talking about political party "bi-partisianship" in Washington. I'm referring to activists who advance positive change on the basis of promoting principled values and not necessarily through party politics.

The notion of "principled" seems to be a core concept that helps define what I'm talking about above. When I say "principled" I mean that they have consistent political views. Their ideology is consistent. Because, when somebody espouses what is supposed to be a core value, like saying that "freedom means minimal government intrusion in our lives," but then turns around and supports capital punishment at the hands of the same bumbling, corrupt, excessive government they want to limit.... I see it as inconsistent at best and perhaps even hypocritical.... they certainly aren't principled in their political views, because they are flip-flopping on their principles.

Since I come at this subject from the Left, my perspective is to ask the question,

"Which people on the right could be partners with people on the left?"

and up crops the answer,

"principled people who share common concerns about abuse of power in our country. People who are concerned that our democratic ideals are being subverted."

More on this:

Examples of Left/Right Collaboration to Secure Power for the People

Is Corporate Personhood Legitimate?

Most educated people have heard that "corporations are legally considered to be persons." Upon hearing it, most people take on the look of a dog with it's head tilted to the side. Here's one take on corporate "people".[1]

The watershed moment came in 1886 when the Supreme Court ruled on a case called Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. The case itself was not about corporate personhood, although many before it had been, and the Court had ruled that corporations were not persons under the 14th Amendment. Santa Clara, like many railroad cases, was about taxes. But before the Court delivered its decision, the following statement is attributed to Chief Justice Waite:

"The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."

The statement appeared in the header of the case in the published version, and the Court made its ruling on other grounds. How this statement appeared in the header of the case is a matter of some mystery and competing theories, but because it was later cited as precedent, corporate personhood became the accepted legal doctrine of the land.

Corporations acquired legal personhood at a time when all women, all Native Americans, and even most African American men were still denied the right to vote. And this was not an era of good feelings between the average person and corporations. It was the time of the robber barons, and the Supreme Court was filled with former railroad lawyers. It was the time of the Knights of Labor and the Populist movement. 1886 was the year of the Haymarket Massacre, the Great Southwestern Strike, and the next year the Pullman Strike. The people were struggling for real democracy and the wealthy ruling class did whatever it took to keep them down.

Great way to set Supreme Court precedent, eh? So, if the foundation of corporate personhood is... corrupt... established by a Supreme Court put in power by the corrupt corporations of the robber baron era, then we have to ask, "Is Corporate Personhood legitimate?"

Confused? You're not alone...









Sources:

1. Abolish Corporate Personhood, Jan Edwards and Molly Morgan, May 20, 2004.