There is a critical error in our system of government that, until we correct it, will continue to make our country inhospitable toward well-tempered folk and further hamper individuals from becoming self-sufficient. Now, I do not mean self-sufficiency in the staunch-republican terminology insinuating that you need to get off the welfare and into a corporate high-paying job; my definition of self-sufficiency is working to be the person that, if society didn't exist, wouldn't be 'chosen' by natural selection. Back to topic. One problem, a huge problem, is how people view their president. I don't know where it started, perhaps with Ronald Reagan, maybe it goes as far back as the supple womb of Abraham Lincoln delivering us from the miscarriage of separatism (note: sarcasm, see my Cascadia post). Regardless, we have failed to elect civil servants and in their stead we have appointed leaders. I suppose nothing has changed since even George Washington, yet at the very least Washington had the sensibility to not take advantage of the American public (only slaves). The people I speak of are people whose rhetoric is a mechanism of their predatorial instincts. People who emulate Sir Edmund Hillary in ascent of the American Government power-structure. We've completely obscured our logical vision on the issue of the American presidency, and in some instances have had our vision obscured.
For example, look at the religious right movement and what it stands for. You can feel the tension in the atmosphere like the crystalline twitch on the air that tells you snow's gonna fall. It's like a cigarette ad telling you that religious politics will kill you, but the people on the poster are having just so much fun doing it. And you have to ask yourself, "does anyone really believe this?" I mean, honestly believe it. The religious-right belief system is one so fundamentally flawed that it threatens to paradoxically collapse under its own hypocrisy. Take the ten commandments: Love thy neighbor as you would love thyself. That means you are to treat others with the same respect you give yourself, honor their thoughts and beliefs as you would your own. Judge not lest ye be judged. Do not throw false convictions on those who have performed no sin other than they are different from you. This means homosexuality, racism, sexism, etc. Then there's the issue of amassing wealth: "Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." - Matthew 19:23-24. This republican party has created more billionaires than any other in its history, and while amassing such wealth in such limited concentrations the rest of us are suffering. Not just those below the poverty line, those who fail to qualify as wealthy, meaning an entirely neglected middle class. Of course wealth is a perspective the entirety of this country utterly lacks, but for our intents and purposes the American model is failing the middle sector. In that sense, perhaps Barack Obama wouldn't be such a bad candidate, as he seems to have his interests aligned with those less fortunate (it's too bad we're now recognizing there was a candidate who stood up for some of these issues, yet we've forgotten to invite him to the party).
We need to cease these power structures, and forgive me, I don't want to tell anyone how to vote, but a vote for Hillary is just re-enforcing the same cycle. Keep in mind I'm not honing my thought to the microcosm of individual issues, rather I'm looking at a broad perspective of fundamentals. There's a saying that power corrupts, and that absolute power corrupts absolutely. How are we supporting a regenerative system of government when we've managed to keep the same two families in control of our nation for over two decades? Consider George H.W. Bush's influence as Reagan's Vice President since 1981 and extend that timeline to the worst-case scenario of 8 years of Hillary Clinton and you have 36 years of two families in control, then consider what happens if you follow Hillary with Jeb Bush and Jeb with Chelsea. This is the potential for a dynasty. Zach published an article about George Dubya's inferiority complex in comparison to his father. In the article he talks about Dubya's aggressive presidency serving as an over-compensation for years of failure in the shadow of his father's achievements. What if Hillary over-compensates her White House tenure by overcoming her husband's fame as a president mired in amorality? Will she instigate the religious left? Granted, this is all a panic-induced meandering of the mind through worst-case scenarios, but it doesn't hurt anyone to think about the consequences. Another thing to consider, while on the topic of Hillary, is she didn't come out of the White House without scandal. Don't forget the Vince Foster scandal, and while nothing was proven, there was plenty implicated that requires you to consider your choices. Remember Hillary's closed-door meetings that were constitutionally open-door and that she, as first lady, had no business being a part of.
The point is there is too much power associated with the position of President of the United States. If you look back at the founding of the government and the associated privileges & powers of the president you'll find that the presidency we know today is vastly bloated in its influence. Nothing has changed in its basic architecture, and from what we can tell checks & balances are still in place, but the climate surrounding the executive branch is different. President George W. Bush has managed to strafe his authoritative threshold with religious propaganda and the unwavering support of big business and their affiliated lobbyists. Panic tactics in the post 9/11 climate managed to allow him to push a piece of legislation that threatened to dismantle 225 years of constitutional construction. And the best part is America has become so complacent that, unless people learn, become offended, and once again fight for their democracy, this world will come crashing down around them. This is not a call to arms, this is a call to minds.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
You bring up some very good points, Ruxton. Compared to most industrialized nations, the US likes top-down organizations of power, from the government to the corporation, wherein a few people call the shots for the many. Compare this to, say, Japan, where the Diet has most of the real power and the prime minister is just the ring leader of that legislative body. All the major European nations follow a similar balance of power: can you imagine Angela Merkel giving herself virtually unchecked power over German policy, a la Dubya? It's inconceivable.
As a nation founded on the principle of individualism, perhaps it can be expected that strong individuals will yield more power here than in collective-minded Japan. However, the costs for this system of social management are extreme when the leadership is poor. Our newspapers are littered with examples of greedy CEOs ruining their companies; the secretive, corrupt Bush administration wasting tax payer dollars frivolously, etc. When a few bad seeds take root in our system, they can do a lot more damage than in France. Conversely, however, strong and genuine leadership in America is rewarded with an order of money and power that is difficult to imagine in some of our more egalitarian neighbors.
Post a Comment