This essay is adapted from The Legacy, an action oriented novel I am in the process of writing that is based on current world events
In the context of politics, differences of opinion are generally a good thing. Freedom of speech and the ability to discuss ideas and opinions among ourselves is why the Free World has led the development of modern, prosperous societies. Rational discussion and debate is necessary for decision makers to arrive at optimal solutions to the issues that challenge them. Closing our minds to alternative courses of action because of blind faith in a particular ideology, a specific cause or a charismatic leader often leads to disaster, as we have seen many times throughout history.
I am politically independent. I prefer to consider myself an American who supports leaders that actively work to maintain the founding principles that produced the greatest country in the history of the world, whether they be Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or Martian. I believe that government should exist solely to ensure justice, protect individual rights, preserve freedom, and create an environment that allows private enterprise to flourish. In other words, to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility and provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Most of us should remember those words from the preamble to the Constitution.
Unfortunately, the United States of America is currently undergoing radical, unprecedented changes in our culture, our economic system and our philosophy of government. Democracy, freedom and capitalism in America are under attack, and the issues Americans face are a real threat to our way of life and long term survival. These issues must be discussed openly and constructively among our citizens and political leaders, because in the not too distant future we may end up with a country that is much different than the one we inherited from our forefathers. If we continue to blindly pursue our present course we are likely to evolve into a polarized, violent, economically stagnant society with limited liberties and minimal ability to defend ourselves from foreign adversaries.
Nearly all of us have been blessed to live and work in a Western society and enjoy the good fortune of individual freedom and the opportunities created by free markets. That is because the founding fathers of this great nation conceived a constitution that for over 220 years has allowed us to live free, pursue our personal interests, and participate in selecting our political leaders.
Freedom for Americans has meant the right to engage in the occupation of our choice in free and open markets, and to be compensated well enough to enjoy the lifestyle we choose. Capitalism has allowed the innovative and entrepreneurial among us to generate standards of living for all that were incomprehensible just a few generations ago.
But despite the unprecedented prosperity and freedom we have achieved in America, many people in our society don't seem to acknowledge or appreciate it. It seems that many among us believe our country is an evil and imperialistic bully, controlled by greedy businessmen intent on destroying the environment and exploiting the world's resources. Others are convinced we have become an immoral, decadent society that must be purified and taken back from the control of contemptible, Godless perverts. Somehow we evolved into an America that has become angry, hateful and intolerant of those who do not agree with us.
This polarization of society is like a deadly virus that threatens the future of our country. The individual rights challenged authoritarians on the right and the common sense challenged socialists on the left have no respect for differences of opinion, and are both completely convinced they are one hundred percent right while those who disagree are uneducated idiots or vile, conspiratorial pawns of some special interest group. Actually, both are right. The other side is the problem.
Unfortunately, even though the extreme elements are a minority within their respective political parties they are the most influential because they scream the loudest and are the most committed. And the leaders and elected representatives of each party often tend to come from their radical activist wings. Once elected, these extremists have a much bigger soapbox from which to polarize the country further, and they do. Politicians today do not use their status to reconcile Americans and promote unity, but use these differences to create even more animosity in our culture in order to solidify their power.
The continued expansion of the welfare state has resulted in open warfare between those who are beneficiaries of government entitlements and those who pay for them. The two opposing forces are nearing equilibrium, and those who pay for it all are not happy about government confiscating their hard earned dollars to redistribute to others. The rise of the victim mentality and the outrageous transfer of money to them from those who have victimized no one has resulted in escalating partisan animosity.
There is no question that the United States, through the economic growth engine of capitalism, has achieved a remarkably high standard of living. At the same time we have created a disparity of wealth and income among our citizens that needs to be addressed. In a society of abundance there is no legitimate reason for those at the bottom to be left out. If future economic growth has to be marginally sacrificed through higher taxes on the wealthy in order to provide support for the disadvantaged, disabled and dispossessed, then a society of advanced affluence can certainly afford it.
But in order to actually accomplish the objective of providing assistance to the unfortunate, the resources of our country need to be spent wisely, not thrown away to some favored interest group, politically correct crusade, or government program that never produces results. The preamble to the Constitution says the government should promote the general welfare, not supply it. The best way to do that is by supporting capitalism, open markets and equal opportunity, not redistribution of income. In order to maintain the ability to generate the resources that provide for public assistance, government should never cripple the engine of economic growth by interfering in private enterprise.
The last election in the United States resulted in monumental change to our culture and economic system. The winners campaigned on a slogan of change, as many challengers often do. Obviously they did not use the word as an empty political slogan. They produced more change in their first months in office than ever seen before in American history. But is this the kind of change Americans who voted for them expected? Enough time has now passed for those who voted for the new leaders to ask themselves if the new administration and legislature really represent their views and opinions?
For example, regarding capitalism, does anyone really believe that government can allocate investment capital more effectively and operate commercial and industrial organizations more efficiently than private enterprise? Does anyone believe the productive members of our economy will remain motivated to produce more goods and services and that government revenues will increase if taxes are raised, despite strong historical evidence to the contrary? Do some believe that American workers should be bullied into joining a corrupt, autocratic, competitiveness killing labor union, and then be required to contribute a portion of their earnings to overpay its leaders? By their actions to date, this administration and Congress does.
Is it justice for all if the government bails out the billionaires and mega-millionaires responsible for the financial meltdown from their stupid investment gambles with middle class taxpayers money while unemployment rises to double digits? Does anyone actually believe in leaving our children with the burden of insurmountable debts by creating even more social programs that never accomplish their objectives? Do some people really think multiculturalism is helping to assimilate immigrants into American society, and do they support illegals unlimited access to education and health care paid for by legal citizens? Our current leaders obviously do.
Are our liberties and individual rights being infringed upon when our government dictates that Americans should be forced to drive small death traps and be required to freeze or melt in the dark rather than develop new supplies of energy that might inconvenience some polar bear or caribou? Do we really think we must not use scientific analysis to challenge the environmentalist theocrats who are 100% certain humans are the cause of global warming and are mandating that we drastically change our lifestyles, even though a generation ago the same folks were frightening the public about global cooling? Should talk shows with political viewpoints opposing the policies of the government in power be shut down and silenced? Those are policies our current leaders support.
And perhaps most logic defying of all, do the majority of Americans really think America is an evil and imperialistic country that should apologize to the rest of the world for our behavior despite providing the economic engine generating global prosperity and twice saving the world from mass murderers and unspeakable tyranny? Do some people actually think negotiating with terrorists whose religious duty is to eliminate us from the face of the earth will make the bad men go away? Or that interrogation techniques such as waterboarding that resulted in saving American lives from planned terrorist attacks is the moral equivalent of cutting off heads and setting off car bombs that kill dozens of innocent women and children? Does anyone truly believe eliminating cutting edge defense programs is a good idea in the face of increasing global threats? How about negotiating arms control treaties with strategic opponents where we concede everything and the other side gives up nothing?
It is one thing to oppose participation in wars in Iraq or Afghanistan based on differences of opinion over the actual identity of those who attacked us, or questions about the propriety of attempting to force democracy on sovereign countries. It is another thing entirely to ignore responding to those who are responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans on our own soil, and to unilaterally disarm our military based on naive or outright false understanding of global relationships, ignorance of world history or a dangerously optimistic concept of the nature of man. That is suicidal lunacy.
These are all actions taken or policies advocated by the folks now running the American government. The actions and policies all violate the fundamental principles of liberty, individual rights, security, justice and limited government as embodied in the U.S. Constitution. Are such radical policy changes really what Americans wanted when they voted in the last election?
Traditionally, the majority of Americans have been in general agreement regarding our basic principles. I would like to think they still are. But who today represents those who believe in limited government, capitalism and free markets, individual freedom, personal responsibility, impartial justice, reward based on merit, punishment for wrongdoing, and a strong defense to protect us against foreign adversaries and terrorist organizations who want to dominate or exterminate us? The answer is no one. No such party exists any longer in America. Based on their performance while they controlled Congress, the Republicans did not stand for many of those ideals either. The principles that formed the foundation of our country are now nothing more than buzzwords used by corrupt politicians to get elected and then ignored.
The solution provided by the Constitution for Americans to remedy misrepresentation by politicians is to throw the bastards out at election time. At the presidential level, we often do. Unfortunately, it seems that every new president proclaims he was overwhelmingly elected with a mandate to immediately employ his policies. In 2008, only 62% of eligible voters in the United States voted. Our new president won 53% of the vote. That means less than one out of every three Americans who could have voted actually did vote for the new administration. Despite that fact, the new president is totally ignoring the two-thirds of Americans who don't necessarily agree with his agenda, as if they don't exist, and implementing his policies with no discussion and no compromise.
And what about Congress, where the true power lies? Do the majority of American citizens have a vote in selecting these legislators? Basically, the Senate Majority Leader, the Speaker of the House, and the Chairmen of the Congressional Committees run this country. In the senate there are sixteen standing committees, four special committees and four joint committees. Arguably, only four or five of these committees really have any significant impact on the average American. The House of Representatives has 25 committees, with only five or six of major importance.
How many of us actually voted for these dozen or so congressional leaders that rule over the two houses of Congress and control these committees? I will tell you. The last time he was up for reelection, less than 500,000 people voted for the Senate Majority Leader, and no one outside his home state of Nevada unless ACORN had something to do with it. That is less than one-half of one percent of Americans who voted nationally, and less than one-quarter of one percent of eligible voters in the United States.
205,000 people in her home state of California voted for the Speaker of the House, or 0.16% of voters and 0.10% of eligible voters. 203,000 voters in Massachussetts elected the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, arguably the one man most responsible for the collapse of the sub-prime mortgage market and global financial crisis that erupted in 2008. Each of these folks have been in Congress more than twenty years, and they control our lives as they see fit.
In effect, about a dozen people in Congress plus the President determine the policies of our government. They are typically career politicians, and today they are all members of the same political party. Yes, the Republicans held the presidency and both houses of Congress less than five years ago, but they did not have the inclination or the audacity to completely overhaul America's cultural foundation and economic system. But when one party controls the government and is willing to ignore the constitution and the general public to radically change two hundred and thirty years of unprecedented progress and social tradition, then society and the nation's culture is fundamentally transformed. With negligible opposition, such a government can violate laws with impunity, particularly when they appoint like minded judges to the judicial system. And they can reward their supporters and disenfranchise their opponents to maintain control.
This couldn't happen in America, could it? Unfortunately, it is happening in America. The sanctity of the law of contracts is viewed by many as the foundation of the American legal system. But the new administration apparently doesn't think so. The financial system bail-outs and nationalizations as well as the General Motors and Chrysler government directed rescues involved wholesale violations of legal contracts. Bankruptcy laws and established banking system procedures are the legally prescribed methods providing for remedies of non-fulfillment of contracts, and they have worked quite well throughout our nation's history. But this government chose not to use them. Their actions indicate they do not respect the law or the rights of American citizens, principles that form the very foundation of the Constitution.
In the United States of America, the public tends to credit or blame the president for implementing government policies that affect us. But he cannot execute those policies without the permission of Congress. It is Congress that makes the laws. It is Congress that controls federal spending. It is Congress that declares war. Presidential appointees and Supreme Court Justices must be approved by the Senate. The point that we all need to understand is that how we vote for Congress is just as important as who we vote for president.
As we know, there are standard stereotypes attached to each political camp. Democrats are identified as supporting big government, redistribution of income, high taxes, maintenance of a minimal national defense, central government mandated economic policies, more public assistance for the disadvantaged, and, shall we say, 'new' moral standards. I seriously doubt if everyone who voted for the Democratic Party candidate in the last election supports every one of those positions. Does the Democratic Party really represent those who were just voting against the other guy?
Republicans supposedly support limited government, low tax rates, a strong defense, private enterprise, and traditional moral standards. But that often hasn't been the case when they were in charge. Some Republican legislators hypocritically displayed questionable personal moral standards despite proclaiming their ethical purity. And the majority of them seem to like spending the public's money and using the tax code to conduct industrial and financial engineering as much as the Democrats. I would bet money that many folks who voted for Republicans were not too impressed with their performance while in office, either.
Half a century ago the two political parties had their differences but generally seemed to be on the same page regarding the relationship between government and private enterprise. Unfortunately, society has now degenerated into separate camps where conservatives seem to think that everyone in government is a corrupt, totalitarian socialist while those in private enterprise are all honest, hard-working capitalists. Contrarily, liberals are convinced that all those involved in private enterprise are selfish, greedy crooks while everyone in government is an altruistic, compassionate angel.
I am compelled to ask why the self-assured activists on either side always believe their opponents have evil ulterior motives, as if they alone have a monopoly on compassion, righteousness and good intentions. Isn't it plausible that people on both sides have similar objectives but just disagree on the course of action to achieve them? Wouldn't the probability of mutual objectives being accomplished be higher if each side would now and then shut up and listen to the other? Demonization of political adversaries is a poor substitute for rational debate, and is a sign of supporting policies that lack real substance or viable solutions. It is past time for Americans to start acting like adults and realize the other side is not evil or ignorant, and begin to understand that legitimate differences of opinion in political discourse do exist.
But we are a long way from that understanding now? This government that is radically changing our economic structure and the lifestyle of future generations was elected because the last government did not do its job either. We now have a political system where neither party displays any sense of responsibility. They spend their time promising everything they know they have no intention of delivering and denigrating their opponents in order to accomplish their one objective of getting re-elected. We end up with career politicians who establish dynasties that preclude the election of citizen legislators as intended by our country's founders, and they ignore the real issues that confront the country. Their primary objective is to buy our votes with our own money. They proclaim their policies will greatly benefit the American people, but are sure not to apply those policies to themselves. They cannot possibly represent the American people in a responsible manner.
In 1776 we rebelled against a tyrant who demanded taxation without representation. Today, nearly half the voters pay no taxes or are beneficiaries of government programs. This segment of our population now has representation without taxation, a very good deal for them indeed. Meanwhile, those who pay the freight have returned to the status of taxation without representation. That is an untenable situation.
When a very small number of politicians who wield the most power in government become entrenched in their positions for long periods of time, we no longer have a democracy. We have an oligarchy, run by a politburo. And when a president is elected who is either in complete agreement with the Congressional leaders' agenda, too weak to over-ride them or too busy promoting himself to get involved, then there is no functional system of checks and balances. The ruling politburo does anything it damn well pleases.
How did we regress to the point where our freedoms, rights and prosperity are threatened by internal forces. In my personal opinion there are two primary factors that allowed this transformation to take place. One is the dysfunctional nature of our current two party system of politics.
It is clear the United States did not transform its political and economic system overnight. It took gradually increasing intellectual arrogance and cumulative failures of competence, integrity and moral courage over time by members of both dominant political parties. The fact is that Americans in general are compassionate and willing to provide assistance to those who genuinely need it, but they are not in favor of the government spending money beyond its means. Never-the-less, over the years' government expenditures continued to grow for expanding entitlements, new social programs, new bureaucracies and the unnecessary earmarks thrown in by most congressmen to provide goodies to their benefactors.
By its very nature, politics always involves corruption. It involves money, and it involves favoritism. Powerful people always attract folks willing to provide enticement and indulgences in order to gain influence on decisions that affect their interests. Special interest lobbying firms have grown to immense proportions, and their ability to influence legislation has become enormous. The interaction between lobbyists and legislative staffs is often the determining factor in legislative decisions, irregardless of the will of the American people.
American International Group, or AIG as they have become notoriously known, General Motors, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and even Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had some of the largest lobbying organizations in existence. It is not surprising that these enterprises were at the heart of the economic and financial meltdown. In fact, one has to question why quasi-governmental entities such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were even engaged in spending millions of dollars to lobby Congress.
Given the money involved and the way political campaigns are conducted today, it is difficult to attract honest, qualified people to run for public office. With a vast number of interest groups to deal with and each offering campaign backing for legislative favors, a candidate who is not willing to compromise his integrity or principles has little chance of winning. Only the candidate that satisfies the most powerful and wealthy lobbyists has a chance. Unfortunately, there are many candidates who are willing to do anything to gain the power and the limelight, and they will sell their souls to the special interest groups. This results in government for the benefit of those who provide the cash. Money talks, and the average citizen is ignored.
Furthermore, incumbency strongly favors the office holder in local elections. Public office has become a full time career. The incumbent has strong advantages in name recognition and funding support from their supporting interest groups and national party organizations. They also have access to their public relations and advertising professionals, who are experienced at designing winning campaigns. Once a congressman is in office, they are tough to get rid of.
In order to make their tenure permanent, politicians have adopted the strategy of totally destroying their opponents through character assassination and bogus indictments for alleged misdeeds. They conduct politically partisan witch hunts against their opposition whenever they assume power, as if nothing the other party did in office was ever right. The timing of the allegations is often used to deflect public attention away from serious misdeeds of senior members of their own party. Politics has become personal combat, with the primary strategy of demonizing and criminalizing opponents. Politicians who contrive the most creative lies about their opponents win elections. Experience, track records and actual accomplishments have become irrelevant.
In the rare occasions politicians and top bureaucrats do lose an election or influential government office, they seldom retire or return home to resume their prior careers. They are hired by Wall Street investment houses, Ivy League academic institutions, or Washington "think tanks" for lucrative salaries to bide their time until their party returns to power and they rotate back into government. Consequently, very little new blood or new ideas ever make it to positions of influence in our nations leadership.
The Founders strived to create a government that served the people, not one that evolved into a giant black hole that sucks the life out of its citizens. Today, following years of spending money that it doesn't have and putting Americans in debt beyond our capacity to repay, America revolves around Washington, D.C. The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis reports the average compensation for federal employees is now more than double the average in the private sector. Seven of the ten richest counties in America surround Washington, D.C. Is that indicative of a government that serves the people, or one that exploits them?
There has to be a better way to ensure that Americans elect leaders who are honest, diligent, competent, and focused on working for the people who elect them, not themselves and their lobbyist benefactors. The United States, in order to return to the country our founders envisioned and our predecessors created, must have a federal legislature and administration that represents the American people rather than the vocal lunatic fringes of our society, wealthy benefactors and politically connected special interest lobbyists. We need leadership that is socially compassionate, fiscally prudent, worldly wise and administratively competent. Our current leaders are none of those. They are not even socially compassionate as they proclaim since they have no empathy for the vast middle class that comprises the majority of Americans, fuels the American economic engine and pays the taxes that government lives on. It may be an old cliche, but money is the root of this evil. Changes need to be made in the election process and limits placed on terms in office.
The second factor leading to the polarization of American society is the bias and misinformation produced by the various providers of information to the public. It is unfortunate that people cannot believe anything they read anymore. Depending on the source, one gets a completely different understanding of issues that should be straight-forward. This includes issues such as whether a health care bill contains certain clauses or it doesn't, whether methods of interrogation produced information that saved lives or it didn't, and even whether polls indicate a majority support a particular issue or they don't. Obviously, one or both sides are playing fast and loose with the facts and the truth in order to convey the message they want. People are going to believe the side they are pre-disposed to believe. News reporting has become so slanted and biased it has become useless.
The traditional sources of communication and information - newspapers, magazines, radio and television news programs, and particularly opinion oriented books and movies - have always displayed a certain bias depending on the political leanings of the producer. Realistically, complete objectivity is probably an unattainable goal. But bias has become so prevalent in the mass media that Americans have developed adversarial positions on the issues they are unable to compromise.
Many may strongly disagree, but it is really undeniable that the so-called mainstream media is biased toward the liberal agenda. It is on public record that journalists overwhelmingly vote for Democrats, the party that markets itself as the one with human compassion even though the reality of that contention is debatable. Perhaps there is a reason journalists try to identify themselves with compassion. Those who make a career of journalism often tend to be the altruistic types who want to expose the suffering and misery of the poor and the hungry, or root out corruption wherever it may be found. They are often on the front lines of the wars and conflicts and witness first hand the brutality and senselessness. The world needs these stories to be reported.
But perhaps journalists sometimes are too close to the story, which may limit their objectivity and ability to see the big picture. Socially speaking, what if there are limits on what government can do to assist the poor or feed the hungry? What if the best course of action for the less fortunate would be to put limits or stipulations on government assistance and strongly encourage them to become more self-sufficient? What if throwing money at the social problems really only ends up making them worse? What if we embark on uncertain quests to solve problems we are certain exist but end up creating even more damaging unintended consequences?
Regarding national security, what if we never did anything to assist those persecuted and terrorized by genocidal dictators? What if we didn't build and maintain the capacity to defend ourselves against foreign adversaries? What happens if we don't pursue terrorists who are committed to killing Americans? These are questions journalists need to consider before berating those who may believe in a different approach to solving the world's problems.
But journalists refuse to believe they are biased in reporting the news. They ask the accusers to provide evidence. That is not too difficult, since the evidence hides in plain sight. It is in the adverbs, adjectives, suggestive phrases and unsubstantiated innuendoes. It is in the routinely used descriptive terms that are either praiseworthy or derogatory in order to paint the picture the journalist wants. The evidence is also in the customary 'authoritative' statements declared as truth or fact without providing any proof, or assertions that cannot be proven or disproven. If 'sources' are quoted, they are typically only from one side of the story rather than from multiple sources that may provide more fair and balanced information. Journalists may not even do this intentionally. It may be just a product of their ingrained mindset.
The controversy over National Security Agency monitoring of telephone calls and emails in order to identify terrorist cells and potential plots to attack Americans is another prime example of media bias. When this happened under the Republican administration the mainstream media and various civil rights groups went ballistic and claimed it was illegal violations of citizens rights to privacy. But when it continued under the current Democrat administration, the news organization spun it by reporting it was believed to be unintentional and that steps had been taken to correct the situation, without offering any proof that they had. One administration is automatically labeled as violators of civil rights while the other is summarily excused. Is that balanced reporting?
Many editors, publishers and producers will admit their product is opinionated. They say that is what the public wants. Maybe they are right. A reader can buy either the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal and know what kind of slant to the news he is getting. The expectation of opinions must be why so-called newsmagazines such as Time carry feature articles by unelected and uncredentialed writers that arrogantly second guess elected Republican officials by questioning or ridiculing their decisions, as if the world would be a better place if the writer was in charge. It also explains why they have the audacity to publish a cover story by a staff reporter that tells us all how a president can fix the economy, which assumes the writer is an expert on subjects that are extremely complicated and consume the full time of thousands of highly educated professionals whose viewpoints and opinions differ greatly. Most of Time's articles suggest the solution to all of America's problems would be simple if only Republicans would disappear.
Do editors and producers have the right to make their own editorial decisions when reporting a story? Certainly. Do they have the right to intentionally mislead and create false representations? Unfortunately, yes. Is that ethical and responsible journalism? Certainly not. Americans have had enough of journalists' telling them what to believe and what to think. They are tired of the arrogance, condescension and pretensions of intellectual superiority. Americans want real, honest, unbiased news so they can educate themselves and form their own opinions. They know they are not getting it from the mainstream media. That is why newspapers are shutting down across the country and broadcast media is losing its audience.
The entertainment industry is another source of propaganda indoctrinating the American public with the liberal agenda. So-called documentaries 'exposing' scheming Republicans marketed as factual contain few grains of truth. Over-promoted films depict American businessmen and intelligence operatives as evil villains. Industry ceremonies award prizes to those productions that are the most politically correct.
For example, our current president won a Grammy in 2008 for Best Spoken Word Album for a recording of his book 'The Audacity of Hope: Reclaiming the American Dream.' The year before the award was given to Jimmy Carter, the one-term Democrat president of the late 70's. The year before that the award was again given to our current president, and the year before that to Bill Clinton, the previous Democrat in the oval office. In 2004 it was given to truth-challenged, manure-flinging clown Al Franken for a completely unintelligible and fictional bashing of Republicans labeled 'A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right'. I am not making this up. Look it up yourself. Perhaps a better name for the self-righteous, self-indulgent orgy of an awards ceremony would be 'The Audacity of the Entertainment Industry'.
You often hear from the Democrats, and consequently the media, how America has alienated people in other countries around the world. Although there is certainly room to dispute that, particularly in view of the fact that immigrants keep showing up at our door, it would be a wonder if foreigners had not lost some respect for us. Foreign news organizations, particularly in the Middle East, report nothing but slanted and outright false information that paints the U.S. as a mean and evil monster. Unfortunately, our own media does the same thing. There is often little difference between the New York Times and al-Jazeera.
We now live in a world where deeds no longer speak louder than words. Deeds are ignored while words are used to deceive, mislead, misrepresent, misinform and lie. They are used this way to vilify, demonize, denigrate and defame those who do not agree with the politically correct viewpoint. The result is dangerous polarization of society.
Earlier I mentioned I am politically independent, neither a Republican nor a Democrat. One could ask if I am supposedly independent of either party, why have I spent most of this essay bashing the Democrats. Good question. The answer is because Democrats are the ones who dominate the mainstream media, therefore the ones responsible for the majority of the biased, misleading, often fabricated information that is disseminated to the public.
Democrats are the ones who initiated the strategy of legal harassment against their opponents - generating indictments of members of the opposite party's staffs for just doing their jobs, and filing numerous bogus ethics complaints against their challengers, including vice-presidential candidates, to bog them down in legal proceedings and raise unsubstantiated questions about their character.
The Democrats are the ones who cried political partisanship when Gorge W. Bush dismissed seven U.S. Attorneys, who by law serve at the pleasure of the President, while completely ignoring the fact that Bill Clinton fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys at the beginning of his first term. They are the ones that escalate non-events into major scandals and turn routine actions of government into criminal behavior. They intentionally create negative character assassinations out of nothing. No administration in history has had to withstand the degree of unsubstantiated, unwarranted and untruthful accusations of transgressions and misconduct as the last Republican one. This political character assassination is what has polarized the country.
It is the Democrats who belittle the average American citizens who gather at town hall meetings to register their concern and exercise their political voices that the Democrats do not want to hear. The Democrats declared war with no ethical limits or rules. And because they started it, they are responsible for the backlash of the out of control reactionary invective that now consumes the internet, where the public has turned its attention to get the information they can't get from the mainstream media.
The internet, with its emails, blogs, twitters and whatever other forms of communication derive from it, has the capacity to be the most instructive and enlightening source of communication ever created. Unfortunately, it has also proved to be one of the most destructive. There has been a generational change in the way people obtain information. The younger generation does not watch television news or read newspapers. They get their information from the internet, much of it from extremely one-sided blogs that are filled with fabricated, misleading and false claims. This is happening not only in the United States, but around the world. These blogs are the madrassahs' of Western Civilization, filled with hate and venom for those with opposing opinions. Reasonable and rational debate has been replaced with intolerant, unaccountable personal opinion.
The internet has arguably become the primary accelerator of polarization in America. Blogs have overtaken the traditional sources of information from newspaper reporters and editorials, television talking heads and radio talk shows. Unfortunately, they are becoming even more vitriolic and socially destabilizing. The internet gives the bitter, hate-filled, uninformed members of our society a forum, and it is easy for the like-minded to tune them in, dividing the citizens of the country further into fanatical opposing camps.
Despite the widespread hate-mongering, it is still possible the eventual impact of the internet will prove to be positive. It allows information about important issues to be disseminated more widely among the public, often informing people who would otherwise not take the time to learn anything about the issues. It can serve to offset the money and influence of the powerful special interest groups as the public becomes more aware of public policies and their effect. Over time the misinformation and lies generated by both opposing sides can become exposed and diminished, hopefully leading to better understanding and rational compromise. But we are a long way from that now.
At the present time, dysfunctional government, divisive journalism and internet driven sectarianism is driving a wedge between various segments of American society. The country is no longer a vibrant, ambitious, progressive, ethnic assimilating frontier society of enterprising entrepreneurs and aggressive builders of a better life. Large segments of the population believe they are entitled to all the good life has to offer for little or no effort on their part. They believe that when things go wrong it is the government's job to bail them out. This attitude is causing the United States to devolve into a moribund, selfish, entitlement expecting welfare state. The heavy hand of government and acrimonious discord between people of differing opinions is destroying the country.
I admit I have painted a very dark picture of America's future. We have suffered hard times and political acrimony in the past, and have always recovered and moved forward with renewed societal and economic progress. But the United States faces challenges today that did not exist in the past, challenges that will require changes in our political structure for us to maintain our standard of living and national security. Mountains of debt, growing threats from weapons of mass destruction, and a society that has evolved into one where more people are dependent on the government for their means of support than pay taxes to provide it has dug Americans a deep hole that will be difficult to escape.
What can be done to reverse this destructive polarization of American society. What can we do to restore our country to a true democracy and our traditional culture of personal responsibility, self-reliance, national unity, tolerance, and compromise for the greater good? Obviously a good start would be to elect more responsible political leaders, who would understand their job is to serve the people and try to unite us rather than divide and conquer. But how is that going to happen when our political leaders are primarily engaged in expanding and securing their power and influence rather than performing their public duties? Who is going to challenge the institutions that run the country to do the right thing when they are all involved in feathering their nest?
Who is going to force journalists to report real, unbiased news rather than slanted, partisan essays designed to influence public opinion? And who could possibly convince the rabid bloggers to tone it down before they cause a civil war? Practically speaking, since free speech is a basic fundamental right of our constitutional republic there is not much we can do about published and broadcast bias and incendiary opinions. Hopefully, Americans will come to realize these sources report inaccurate, provocative, malicious information that misrepresent reality.
Unfortunately, America is unlikely to reverse its downward spiral until it recognizes its underlying cause. We cannot, and should not, restrict the right to free speech. But we can improve our political system. Politics is the art of a politician having the ability to make people believe he will make their lives better than his opponent will. And the best politicians are adept at convincing the people someone else will pay for making their lives better. Unfortunately, the better liar usually wins.
It can be argued that American society's polarization began with the government gradually granting political empowerment to those receiving entitlements. Charity to the poor and support of the underprivileged is a necessary and required duty in civilized society. But when income is distributed by government in order to generate votes for incumbents rather than to provide for the sustenance of those who need it, then that society becomes corrupt and illegitimate. Eventually government officials entrench themselves in office by buying votes with taxpayer dollars. That is where we are today. Consequently, the only viable course to the restoration of true democracy, genuine liberty and equal justice in the United States of America is to completely reform the American electoral system.
Many will consider this blasphemous, but there are legitimate questions about the relevancy of the U.S. Constitution to a nation that has evolved over more than 200 years. The founders could not possibly have anticipated everything that has transpired in the development of our country. We have grown to a population of over 300 million people compared to a population of three million in 1787 when the Constitution was ratified. And the nature of our government has changed dramatically since then. It is now an enormous administrative bureaucracy with two dominant political parties. Today, large corporations, wealthy individuals and special interest groups finance candidates and lobby elected officials, thereby buying the influence to shape public policies.
Furthermore, technology has produced communications systems that disseminate information instantaneously, and the sources of information and opinion have become practically infinite. Transportation has been revolutionized as people can now travel halfway around the world in less than a day. Health care has improved exponentially and people are living longer. And weapons of mass destruction can destroy a nation and kill millions in less than a second. We live in a different world from that of 230 years ago.
Unfortunately, our system of choosing our leaders has not progressed to accommodate a changing society. The result is we now have a government that is no longer functional. In fact, it can be argued that our government is now regressing to the type of autocratic oligarchy or monarchy that our founders rebelled against.
Our system of electing government officials needs to be updated. We must take money and tenure out of government and put knowledge, integrity and competence in. In order to accomplish that, I have seven recommendations regarding reform of the electoral process. The first six are reforms that definitely must be considered. The seventh would be a significant change that could at least begin discussions to create a more sustainable national environment that rewards hard work and productivity.
One - The most obvious and important reform is the implementation of term limits. Everyone knows the majority of the American public is in favor of term limits. The current system of unlimited terms for both the Senate and the House allows congressmen and women to spend their entire time in office campaigning for the next election rather than doing the jobs they were elected to do. They generally do not read the legislation they vote on and depend on their huge staffs and lobbyists to determine which way to vote to further their best interests, not their constituents.
In recent years over 90% of incumbents in the House of Representatives are re-elected to their seats. In many cases, the incumbents run unchallenged. In others, the challenger cannot raise anywhere near the amount of campaign funds as the current seat holder since special interests prefer to keep the devil they know in office. Qualified, capable and honest candidates know they do not stand a chance, so they don't run. That leaves voters with no choices that will dutifully represent their interests.
Unfortunately, setting term limits on members of Congress requires an amendment to the Constitution. Initiative and referendum are not available to American citizens at the national level. And of course politicians will never vote themselves out of office by approving term limits. But there are a couple of ways Americans can flex their Constitutional muscles and set the process in motion.
Perhaps the easiest approach, particularly in today's world of the internet, would be a grass roots initiative to start a petition among the voting public demanding that each candidate for the Senate or the House supply a signed pledge to introduce, sponsor or support legislation to enact a term limit amendment to the Constitution, and promise to work aggressively to ensure enactment. If a majority of constituents sign the petition, the candidate can not fail to understand the will of the people. If the candidate signs the pledge, is elected and fails to perform, he knows his political career is over after just one term.
The other approach would be based on the Constitution itself. Article V provides for the right of the legislatures of two-thirds of the states to call a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution. Amendments produced at the convention would become law if ratified by three-quarters of the states. This course of action can be implemented through the process of initiative and referendum in each state, which is based on a direct vote of the registered voters of each state. This would probably be a more difficult and complicated route to term limits since congressional incumbents, experienced political attack dogs and their friends in the media would certainly muster all their ammunition to propagandize and fight the amendment to the death. But if enough Americans become thoroughly disgusted with the way Congress conducts itself, as mounting evidence seems to suggest, it could possibly work since it actually bypasses the inert and irresponsible members of the congressional club.
I would propose that each elected official of our government, including the president, by limited to one term in the office he was elected to serve. Six years for the president, eight years in the Senate and four years in the House of Representatives would give each elected official enough time to influence legislation and provide the proper representation for his constituents rather than wasting their time and money by constantly campaigning for re-election. In fact, I can't see how it would hurt to limit Supreme Court Justices to twenty year terms. They are not infallible, either.
Two - Amend the Constitution to establish certain requirements to be eligible to vote in national elections. Democracy works only when the people voting for their representatives in government possess a basic education, an understanding of our system of government and the ramifications of the important issues those elected officials will be debating. Perhaps folks who have no idea who or what they are voting for other than what a favorite television talking head tells them should not be voting. People who do not take the time to educate themselves on the issues and each candidate's position are doing the country a great disservice if they step into the voting booth. Voters should focus on the substance of a candidate's knowledge, competence, experience and platform, not personal popularity or skill in reading from a teleprompter.
Consequently, basic voting requirements should be implemented to improve the quality of the electoral process. One, a diploma from an accredited American high school or the equivalent would not be too much to ask in order to be eligible to vote. Two, requiring a voter to be a U.S. citizen for a minimum of five years and to maintain residence during that time would assure that only those who have a genuine and vested interest in the policies of our national government are allowed to influence it. And three, how anyone could oppose a national photo ID voter card is beyond my comprehension, unless they are a member of ACORN.
Three - Campaign finance reform is a must if Americans are to have free and fair elections. Disclosure of contributions is not enough. The underlying principle of democracy is that no one should be able to buy an election. Buying an election is what happens when special interest groups are allowed to spend unlimited amounts to promote their narrow, selfish interests at the expense of the general public. Money should not be the determining factor in public policy. Past efforts to address this problem, usually designed to accommodate some concept of free speech, have not worked.
Campaign financing is not an issue of free speech. It is bribery, plain and simple. Those who argue that it is an issue of free speech imply that some people's speech is more important and free than others, because they have more money. In the public arena there is no reason legislators should be allowed to accept gifts, free entertainment, rides on corporate aircraft, money in campaign funding or any other potentially compromising situation from those who benefit from a legislators position. In order for congressmen to do their job effectively, they should get information regarding every issue from as many sources as possible, and definitely from each opposing side.
Campaigns should be funded with public funds, with the government setting aside a limited amount to be equally distributed to the candidates running for office. Obviously, more money would be allocated to the presidential candidates and the Senate races than the House campaigns. Public financing with equal amounts provided to each candidate for a particular office will level the playing field and allow them to get their message across, if they have one.
Four - The state primary system in America is an absurd travesty. Usually only a small percentage of eligible voters participate, typically the most extreme and radical from each party. That means the nut cases are determining who the party's standard bearers will be. At the national level, due to the large influence of super delegates, the Democratic Party's nominating convention defies the concept of democracy. One in five delegates is a super delegate, who are in fact the liberal party leaders, current office holders and others who can vote for the candidate they please regardless of state primary and caucus results. In other words, one candidate may win a substantial majority of state delegates, but lose the nomination if the party leaders so choose. Where is democracy in that?
Instead of being ultra-expensive, over-indulged, gluttonous, drunken orgies that cater to incumbents and national leaders, the party conventions should be low key affairs focusing on the job at hand - combining the outcomes of the individual states results to select a presidential candidate, and formulating the platform on which the candidate will agree to govern. Concentrating on policy rather than pomp and propaganda would be extremely beneficial to the election process.
Five - A key issue in generating a more representative republic responsible to the people is to move beyond the dominance of two political parties. Voters need to have multiple choices to choose from, not just between bad and worse. It is interesting to note that the United States and Spain are the only two countries in the developed world that do not have more than two parties comprise more than five percent of their senior legislature. This is true regardless of whether the countries are a federal republic, constitutional democracy or parliamentary monarchy. In fact, the majority of developed countries have four or more parties that have meaningful representation in government. The same is true in most of the developing countries of the world that have democratically elected governments.
Reform providing equal funding and more emphasis on policy would open up the American electoral process to more candidates, giving voters a better opportunity to identify candidates that represent their views. The more viewpoints participating in political debates would create more responsive and effective government. No one party could dominate the debate and railroad their agenda into law. Rational discussion and compromise would result in coalitions between parties forming on each individual issue to produce legislation more in the interests of the general public.
Six - Another obvious change in the election process that can be covered in one short paragraph without much debate is the issue of gerrymandering. The concept is ridiculous, and serves no purpose other than to create safe seats for particular parties. Gerrymandering should be eliminated, and representation should be re-instituted on the basis of recognizable districts, cities or counties.
Seven - Perhaps we should even consider something sure to be more controversial, such as a proposal to amend the Constitution to ensure that those who depend on government for their livelihood do not determine public policy. A Constitutional Convention could be convened to consider the concept of alternative rules for electing representatives in the House and Senate. For the House of Representatives, the rules would not change. The popular vote in each district where each eligible voter gets one vote would continue to apply.
As regards the Senate, votes would be based on the amount of taxes paid. In effect, those Americans who contribute to the functioning of our government would have a greater voice in choosing senators. If a citizen doesn't pay taxes, then he or she does not have a vote for their senator. Votes would accrue to individual voters based on one vote for each $10,000 paid in federal taxes, starting with one vote for taxes paid up to $10,000, two votes for taxes paid up to $20,000, and a maximum of three votes for taxes paid up to $30,000. If a taxpayer paid $250,000 in taxes they would still only receive three votes. This method of bicameral voting rules would allow those Americans who are productive and contribute to a more prosperous society to have a strong say in the legislation that affects their ability to continue to generate rising living standards.
The political reforms discussed above could go a long way towards returning America to its traditional values and restore the magnificent vision of our founders. At the very least they present issues for discussion that could most likely be improved upon. But there is one other issue that remains troubling and needs to be investigated by folks with more knowledge of the subject than I.
It is truly frightening that a large segment of the population seems to be in favor of an all-powerful central government. The fact is that socialism is making a strong push in America. Recognizing that polls can be and are manipulated, it is interesting to note that a Rasmussen poll released last April reported that only 53% of Americans believe capitalism is superior to socialism. 20% favored socialism while 27% had no clue. Of those under 30, a staggering 33% said they preferred socialism according to the poll. Does this represent an indictment of the American educational system as the teachers unions dumb down and propagandize the politically correct agenda in the public schools and the ubiquitous socialist college professors brain-wash the malleable in university lecture halls?
We need to know if it is possible that as a country we have been asleep at the switch while left leaning socialists permeate the elementary and secondary education system and design curriculums intent on teaching their version of American history, social and industrial development, and current events. We need to know if our children are learning the facts about how the United States of America became the leader of the free world or if they are just being taught the politically correct rendition of environmentalism, gender and racial inequality, and evils of capitalism. It is no secret that 60's and 70's radicals such as our current president's buddy William Ayres have curriculum determining positions at such organizations as The American Educational Research Association. How much influence do people such as Ayres have on setting curriculums?
Our children need to learn about the United States that we know, the one that began with the powerful ideals and bold courage of the American Revolution; that created a society based on the principles of democracy, liberty and justice; that struggled to grow with the pioneer spirit of opportunity and hard work; that suffered great sacrifice to prove that all men were created equal; that came to the aid of freedom loving countries threatened by murderous dictators; and that achieved levels of technological, economic and social progress never before imagined, bringing the rest of the developed countries of the world with it and providing a model for the developing world to follow. But evidently they are not.
Is it possible that socialism is growing in acceptance in America because our schools are emphasizing liberal philosophy? The vast majority of Americans do not identify with either the extreme left or right, but are radical liberals in charge of our educational system? Of course our schools should teach our children about Martin Luther King and his non-violent campaign to overcome racism and inequality. He was a great man and a major positive influence on American culture. But kids also need to learn more than they do about the ideals, courage and sacrifice of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, too. It would also be good if the schools would provide a dose of a Thomas Sowell for each reference to a Jesse Jackson.
The constitution begins with 'We the People', not we the liberal, we the conservative, we the privileged, we the wealthy, we the college professors, we the news media, we the lawyers, or we the Hollywood celebrities. Elected officials are supposed to represent the people, not those who stuff their pockets full of money with bribes for special favors.
It is not supposed to be about left versus right, or liberal versus conservative. It is about right and wrong. It is not about socialism versus capitalism. It is about what works and what doesn't. It isn't even about democracy versus oligarchy versus dictatorship. It is about government being for the people or against the people. It is about freedom and individual rights versus arbitrary laws and state control. And it is about progress and preservation versus stagnation and decline.
The founding fathers, and historically most Americans, fiercely believe in liberty, justice, security and capitalism. Government requiring us to live our lives as it demands and taxing us to implement unworkable programs and policies that we don't want is not liberty. Bailing out those who are responsible for financial and economic collapse at the expense of those who suffered the consequences is not justice. Unilateral disarmament while our adversaries grow stronger is not security. Government take-over of commerce and industry is not capitalism. America is headed in the wrong direction.
It is time for us to realize America is not a greedy, evil, imperialistic predator as some of our politicians try to tell us. The United States has been the guiding light and incarnation of freedom, justice and democracy for over two hundred years. We have lived our ideals and served as the beacon of hope for all those that reject the bonds of tyranny and aspire to claim their individual rights and pursue their potential destinies. We have produced standards of living beyond our ancestors' imagination and shared it with the rest of the world. We have come to the aid of fellow democracies threatened by brutal tyrants and suffered great sacrifice to help them preserve their freedom. We have accomplished this by relying on the collective wisdom of our people and the power of private enterprise rather than unproductive bureaucrats and a government controlled economy.
We don't need and cannot afford change that destroys our fundamental principles. We must reverse our slide down the slippery slope toward the virtual imprisonment of socialism and return to the selfless values and strength of character that created the great nation we became, and can remain. We are at the crossroads. Let us not pursue the wrong course.
