Democracy's Future

 

Thomas Jefferson once said: “I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.” From wasting the labors of the people....All around us the government has made promises for our well being.  Many of those promises have not been followed through, it was more like an effect of "thank god the government cares." Fake.  There is other examples to back up this opinion:"The Bush administration made no secret of its intention to deal harshly with individuals, groups, or states who challenged U.S. global dominance"(p.325). I am so over this world dominance stuff. Sorry I will be blunt this time in my blog. I don't have any religious basis, but the government apparently is supposed to. Did the bible not thump that equility is a virtue? Why does the U.S. have to be dominant? Why can we not work with the better sources of life to create a better world? Unanswered questioned. Do not tell me its politics. The people running our politics are only people. Same Ivy league school as any doctor or lawyer, why can they not think for the better?  The media entirely plays into it as well:

"...The media and corporate interests more generally have vigorously tried to shape public opinion"(p.327).  Now we touch on the sense of greed. The president is a human. He is not all forbidding god or such. They are becoming greedy of their power as of the blogs I have previously posted show proof. I am both scared and disgusted by how "the people" have let things get this far. "Critical engagement can be both politically effective and politically infectious"(p.328) EVERYONE if you want your life to be the better and the best for your children then please vote. Go to conferences. Attend Colorado One. Talk to the people who control our government face to face.  I hope I live to see the day we become a whole nation once more.

Economic Policy

This week I want to take a more humorous look since we are talking about the economic policy.  John Vaillant can help me there: "Our listeners asked us: 'What is chaos?' We're answering: 'We do not comment on economic policy.'  Economic policy is hard to bring into a good light especially after the well known spoils of President Bush.  Fiscal policy is a major factor of the economic policy.  "Fiscal policy envisions government budgets as thermostats, adjusting automatically to counteract the economy's ups and downs...It also establishes the priorities and values of the government"(p. 302). Through fiscal policy I believe we can make a judgment on how the government operates.  Fiscal policy shows exactly what the government prefers to value even when they make promises on many fields and don't follow through. "President Bush offered the largest tax breaks to the rich and provided only modest relief to working the middle-class families who were most likely to spend it"(p.305).  Again I ask the question of why the heck did the American people vote bush in for two terms?  I can't even answer that myself.  Bush placed our economy into major debt in deficits.  It's sad to think that a student can take courses in micro and macro economics to understand the supply and demand base of the market and better understand how the system works more than the president and other officials. Along with this issue: "Firms must comply with fewer regulations, and those regulations that exist are not often vigorously enforced"(p.318).  There are not enough regulations on firms to restrict their doings. Placing us in further ground of no control. 

The Welfare State

"The welfare state is not really about the welfare of the masses. It is about the egos of the elites."  The previous quote made by Thomas Sowell known as an American economist and social critic, makes a point in how Welfare is a control of the government. Through the reading there are points made at the start of how low American welfare percentages are.  Almost like a race to be better in one more thing.  However, when welfare becomes a problem and taxes are raised and the domino effect of the economy starts, employers will find a new means to meet their end. "Employers are tempted to move their investments to locations where tax rates are relatively low and welfare states are relatively small"(p.273).   This causes jobs to move out of our economy, making the unemployment rate sky rocket. With unemployment comes more need for welfare to support those who have lost their jobs. "Poverty rates are sensitive to political choices governments make about the welfare state"(p.294).  Can I blame the government then?  Every election year we come across the same talk such as lowering welfare and bringing jobs to the country.  Then once the president is placed in office they are distracted by all the other things that are required of him then to keeping their word from their campaign's.
"The economic boom of the 1990s has been replaced with stubborn unemployment...Where the opposite, states are eliminating programs, making eligibility requirements stricter, cutting benefits, and enforcing administrative rules more strictly in an effort to reduce spending"(p.291). During the age of Clinton, our economy was at its best. Then when hands where changed over to  Bush everything came falling down on our heads.  Is it poor government that holds us back? I believe so, the first time Bush stepped into office the economy began to fall. Then we vote him into office again? Are you kidding me? Did we not learn the first time?

Foreign Policy

There are two major forms of foreign policy taken to American expansion abroad: "economic penetration by multinational corporations into Europe and the  developing world, and political and military influence exercised by the American government" (p.246).  Through the American timeline, foreign policy has been growing and growing to create and American superiority.  "The goal of American policymakers for well over half a century has been to maintain U.S. global superiority" (p. 259).  There is some major problems with keeping this thought process. One is that many nations do not like the fact that the United States has held such a strong hand in military and economic welfare such as imports and exports, controlling a major amount of the worlds supply.  This led to a major mistake by a power hungry President, this mistake is known as Unilateralism. "The president [Bush] also decided that the United States would reject a UN treaty banning land mines, despite its upport by most nations of the world.  Another example of unilateralizm was the Bush administration's decision to reject the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, a tribunal created to try cases involving genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity" (p.260) By rejecting these courts, Bush put the American people in a horrible position of losing popularity.  It made us seem like a godly country instead of taking aid from the nations we considered to be allies.  Now the Allies are not very happy with our actions especially with the facts of us posting camp in Iraq's backyard.  American's are now more despised more than ever in mostly every country. William G. Hyland, the deputy national security adviser to President Gerald Ford states: “Protectionism is the ally of isolationism, and isolationism is the Dracula of American foreign policy.” The following statement is only a mere metaphor of Foreign policy but I felt it fit because America has isolated itself, which to me is a very big mistake.
My question: what was Bush trying to make a point of by throwing the American people into isolation instead of at least establishing a hand of help with allies? We are not a godly country, that is not why we fought the revolutionary war or the civil war. We wanted to create our own state of freedom and we did, getting help from Allies is not a contradiction to what this country is about. Actually denying the help is more disasterous than accepting.

Taking the Justice system as a whole and defining the near quality of it goes as follows:"The justice system is a system of written laws, legal procedures, and courts that resolve disputes and punish the guilty"(p.205).  Some say that the Judiciary System is a support of freedom.  In some ways it is, in others I beg to question some concerning differences that follow an iron hand rather than the thought of freedom.
Equality for instance. Judge Sturgess made a quote that hits it on the dot: "Justice is open to everyone in the same way as the Ritz Hotel."  As in other blogs, I have expressed the lack of equality between the rich and the poor.  In a sociology class for instance I learned that if you are dressed nicely with a prestigous lawyer, you are more likely to get off easier than a person doing less but does not have a lawyer. "...The law can mask inequality by giving the impression that all citizens stand before the law as equals"(p.206).  The only way it seems that inequality can be abolished is if people were to become robots, with the constitutional rights written into the formula that maps their mind.  But we are only human, and humans are biased even if they think they are not.
Through the reading I also found an interesting fact: "Their [the courts] decisions usually follow and confirm reforms rather then cause them"(p.235).  It is the impression that the Judiciary system is more of a follower than a leader.  Laws are passed down from one level to the next until it gets to this system in which the appointed life term judges have to uphold those laws.
Now on to my critical question of the week:
How can the Judiciary system support freedom when it is not in control?
From everything that I have read so far on this system, I find the Judiciary system holds barely any control except to pass the law that was given to them and see it practiced accordingly. Still there are inequalities that are bothersome.

Congress

The guidelines of what congress is supposed to be about goes as follows: "Article I, section 8 enumerates Congress's powers to levy taxes, borrow and spend money, regulate interstate and foreign commerce, declare war, support the armed forces, create cours inferior to the Supreme Court, and, more generally, 'make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other power vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or any department or officer thereof'"(p.174).  Overall Congress has held up to the majority of their Constitutional rights and laws.  Congress is the one that passes those acts proposed by the president and the people, however the question of influence is a forbidding factor.  "Those with the most political resources outside of Congress are in the best position to take advantage of Congress's accessibility, to cultivate relationships with its members, committee and subcommittee chairs, and party leaders" (p.201).  In respect to this factor, influencing Congress and Presidential matters shifts the judgment from one side to another to create acts that might not need to be placed. This leads me to a cousin side note.  My mother, Jayne Bail is a member of the Colorado Association of Mortgage Professionals.  She currently is on a trip to Washington D.C. for a legislation day where state affiliates get together to see Congressmen.  This may not be an area of interest to most but the view she expresses in her interview is just an example of how this system works.
Currently the mortgage industry is having major issues about the structure of their pay.  She and others in the committee set out to D.C. to stop section 14-01 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which regulates how a loan originator can be paid from a transaction.  They will ask Congress to impead the federal reserve board from trying to implement the regulation.  Under her perception, the act should not include the section because the act was passed without proof that there was abuse or dishonesty in the first place.
 "Congress is usually quite vague in its legislative instructions for agencies because it cannot anticipate all the contingencies and agency might encounter and because Congress hopes to avoid criticism and controversy by being too specific"(p.197).  The previous quote illustrates that it may seem that Congress is more worried about its own reputation then setting down clear stated rules. In addition the Federal Reserve Board has not provided clear regulations and procedures of how mortgage loan orginaters are supposed to be paid or structured. Ms. Bail's hope is to get Congress involved, especially those part of Congress that don't want to get involved and would rather avoid the subject and move on. (Jayne Bail)


References: "The Politics of Power," Katznelson
Interview with Jayne Bail, Main Street Lending Corp., Secretary of Colorado Association of Mortgage Professionals.

U.S. Presidency support and limit an ideal democracy.

 "When discontented groups express grievances, presidents often take to the media to mollify them"(p.163).   One way that the U.S. Presidency is known to support an ideal democracy is through sympathy.  Clinton was well known for his sympathetic ways which kept the peace of the public because they were under belief that it would be taken care of.  After sympathetically agreeing with groups to search into the problem, commissions are formulated  such as the Commission on Race. However, "after one year and many public meetings, the commission's report was ignored and quickly forgotten, like countless presidential commissions preceding it"(p.163).  So we can certainly say that the Presidency attempts to support an ideal democracy, but it seems that the majority of the time it reverts back to its own power of presidency as those groups are forgotten.
The limitations of the U.S. Presidency on an ideal democracy comes at a much heavier hand of information. "Presidents have expanded the power of the presidency by interpreting broadly their authority as commander and chief"(p.154). Through and through the presidents seem to limit themselves as they get almost power hungry, side stepping what a democracy is supposed to be rather and creating this mirage of a government rather than actually meeting it head on as was their assigned position. "They [the Founders] used the Constitution itself to expressly limit the powers of their own government officials"(Hornberger). These rules were set down for a reason. One because the population has never trusted a one supreme person making all the decisions, and two because democracy in any way that you look at it is a threat to freedom. 
Why do we allow the president to take more and more power away from the people?
My answer?....because the presidents one after the other have been able to increase their power without the people realizing.  Until now when the last two presidents are patronized for the way they handle the government. But nothing is being done to stop their power. They even have the ability to send troops across seas without congress conformation, although they do anyways but it seems like a show now instead of a need. 

http://www.fff.org/freedom/0100a.asp (Jacob Hornberger)

Democracy, wealth, and the People

It is a well known fact that those who have money, gain power.  "Contributors to both major parties were given special privileges depending upon how much money they raised..." (p. 113).  Through the chapter it illustrates the hard money restricted by the government that is allowed to be given directly to the candidates as to soft money made for advertising.  We have all seen the works of soft money, especially when one president is exposing the others flaws through commercials on the television, radio, and newspapers.  I relate democracy to a broadway show.  The wealthy sit up front where they can see the flaws of the show and the thrills, while the poor must sit in back and only catch the overall jist of the show.  "Rather than the party system acting as an engine of democracy, the unquenchable thirst for money skews the political system toward the interests and preferences of affluent American's"(p.117).  This fact is almost scary in a sense.  The wealthy do not always have the best interest in the country but rather the better interest is in themselves and their fame or rise in the political system.   "Not only is participation slanted toward the wealthy in terms of interest group membership but also in terms of who votes, who contributes to political campaigns, who runs for office, and who engages in political activism"(p.129).  I am flouted by people of my age and lower class that I have experienced have very practical ideas and understanding in the voting system.  It is almost a let down in every election because in the back of my mind I feel no matter how many of those sensible people voting, due to lower class they are not being heard.  The working class knows perfectly well what they need to open jobs and hold a good economy.  However it seems we are promised one thing after another but once these politicians are in service they pay their debt to the wealthy demands instead of the peoples.  I found a very interesting quote from Aristotle, when democracy was a developing form.  I have much respect for the likes of Aristotle because those people saw policies and government as it should be: "The real difference between democracy and oligarchy is poverty and wealth. Wherever men rule by reason of their wealth, whether they be few of many, that is an oligarchy, and where the poor rule, that is democracy"(Aristotle).  Bringing me to my question: Can the poor truly ever make a democracy or will the wealthy always overcome us to their oligarchy, even if that is not what they claim it to be?  I would enjoy anyone's response to this question or post.  My answer is that until the poor stop relying on the wealthy to make their decisions, in otherwise they just get fed up with it, then they will rise up and bring a solution that our for-fathers would be proud of to set this democracy right.

The Power of Opinion

It is much easier to side with an opinion of a group then to take knowledge into your own hands to make a drastic decision that in foresight will effect you and the people around you. However, the reading suggests that knowledge and ignorance go hand in hand in a lot of ways.  This is an agreeable statement.  "Americans may know a little or a lot about any particular area, but they tend to have clear and coherent thoughts about the scope of what the national government should be doing"(p.81).  This statement is a clear definition of how ignorance and knowledge go hand in hand.  The people are mostly inclined to be aware of certain issues that the government need to improve on such as taxes, education, and employment.  However it is the details that Americans seem to lack on.

"We are all captives of the picture in our head - our belief that the world we have experienced is the world that really exists"(Walter Lipperman).  The public is captive to its opinion, especially by location.  "They [Americans] are anchored to particular experiences that come from how, and where, individuals and families live, work, and worship" (p.83).  For instance, if one town has a strong belief in one area of democracy, it is more likely that the majority of that town will not revolt against that ideal.  

"...Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition, have played a growing role in mobilizing public opinion" (p. 91).  Personal discovery has brought me to believe this point.  Taking it as a state-side quote, there is a major difference from the world as we know it in Denver to the way things work in Virginia.  Denver is full of liberal and open views from experience. Whereas in Virginia they ride on a more military and conservative point of view especially with race and sexuality.

So I ask you this: Is it better to have knowledge or personal opinion at this point? My answer would be personal opinion because the knowledge that seems to feed into our society today is influenced by what the government wants us to believe and the next campaign to win.

American State and Corporate Capitalism

The private sector and the government must intersect.  The government must intersect in pretty much everything because it seems to want to hold a dominating hand over everything including the private sector.  Bush is a prime example of distorting means for the private sector to flourish, in a way through taxes.  "Tax policy under Bush became a form of Robin Hood in reverse, giving to the rich and taking from the poor" (p.70).  The push on tax policies effects everyone, including the private sector.  Politically it made sense but what happens to the little guys? If everything became a huge governmental corporation, I believe there would be chaos economically.  Another point made is through the Clintonomics which I believe we have lost sight of.  Its states on page 69: "They would have to acknowledge that the market cannot do everything and that government is sometimes necessary to assist those whom markets have left behind." To me this shows an explosion of "hey don't forget the private sector we need them!"  However through Clinton it was seen that the government was supposed to help the private sector as the big guys brought out the guns.  Today there is a bill being passed called the Wall Street Reform Act that will bend banks to close up their availability to lend out to borrowers, causing problems for the private sector of real estate, mortgage brokers, lending officers, even smaller banks since banks rely on a flow of money to stay afloat.  To me this is almost like the Walmart scenerio. Walmart comes to a town or city and puts up shop with lower prices and more products of all different kinds available.  This causes many "mom and pop" shops in the local area to close making Walmart, and yes I am referring to Walmart metaphorically as the government, then becomes the sole money source for the town allowing it to make the rules that define the town's economy.  That may be a little left side view but I think it brings some worry out.  Any thoughts?

Power!

I believe we can safely pronounce that Politics, Government, and Economy are all means to a Power one way or another. "Capitalism is commonly defined as a system in which production is privately controlled and carried on for sale or profit rather than directly for consumption and use" (p. 20).  Chapter 2 illustrates in great detail how Capitalism effects our economy and government.  Arguing fact against situation is what seems to be the hardest to understand in the economic market: "One reason we need government is that the invisible hand can work its magic only if the government enforces the rules and maintains the institutions that are key to a market economy" (Mankiw).  The previous passage is out of a microeconomics book which in detail describes how the economy is "supposed" to work. However in the chapter reading this is how the economy is currently working: "When the government plays such a small role in the economy, who gets what, where and how is left to the market to determine.  This permits those with power in the market, those who own and control the means of production, to influence critical decisions that affect the general welfare" (p.47).    Many today consider our economy to be a Consumer Capitalist America.  This concludes that, "Capitalism does not simply distribute money and wealth unequally.  It also distributes economic power unequally" (p. 49). 

Katznelson, Ira, Mark Kesselman, and Alan Draper. The Politics of Power: a Critical Introduction to American Government. 5th ed. Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Education, 2006. Print.

Mankiw, N. Gregory. Principles of Microeconomics. 5th ed. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning, 2009. Print.

Democracy's Challenge

In the present age, American's find themselves in a desperation of torn ideals.  Some are happy the way things are and would rather turn a blind eye to the more explicit facts. Others have developed a sense that something is very wrong with politics today.  This is one of Democracy's Challenges: The people and how much they are allowed to know. "Gone is the popularity of the unbiased news anchor, replaced by the outspoken commentator who not only presents the news, but influences our understanding of it through commentary, supported by a cast of carefully chosen pundits. Some of these presentations digress into petty, self-serving behavior" (Fogarty).  So here stands the question, are American's allowing to turn a blind eye or should the information be more available to those who seek it?
Another challenge is more inner related to the politicians themselves. Greed.  "Politicians spend more time raising more money than ever before...Running for office is increasingly reserved for those with money or those who know people who have it" (p.12).  This gives the perception that people who have money and power are the true running hearts of this nation.  But what about the bleeding heart, sweating young american pulling two jobs and going to full time school. Why aren't they being heard? Why aren't they the ones being interviewed. "The culture of money has even seeped into the way ordinary citizens behave politically...Citizens now perform their civic duty by contributing money as opposed to working on a campaign or writing a letter to their representative" (p.13).  So it seems that the more money a person has the better chances that person has of winning an election or at least that is what it seems like in the broad view.
"The opulence on board ship [Titanic] while the owners skimped on lifeboats is all too reminiscent of the immense resources society devotes to satisfying extravagand consumer desires while investments in the public sector...are underfunded" (p.4).  The example of the Titanic compared to democracy hit a hard note, the wealthy are percieved to be more important then the peasants.  We could break down the ship part by part for how it related classes from top to bottom deck but I think the point is clear. When in trouble, politicians like to jump ship and leave the problems for the poorer citizen to handle. 

Fogarty, Jim. "Titanic Twist and the Road to Truth | United States | Epoch Times." Epoch Times | National, World, China, Sports, Entertainment News | Epoch Times. 28 Sept. 2010. Web. 31 Jan. 2011. http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/43347/.

 "The Politics of Power" by Ira Katznelson, Mark Kesselman, and Alan Draper

American National Government

"For time and the world do not stand still. Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or the present are certain to miss the future." - JFK

"I'm tired of hearing it said that democracy doesn't work. Of course it doesn't work. We are supposed to work it."  - Alexander Woollcott

"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."  - Thomas Paine

At first when I thought of American National Government, I thought of the current standings of the government system.  So I decided to back track a little to a well known president in a "better" time period.  I believe that the past is a lesson to be learned.  I also believe that politics today as well as media has become a power hungry central beast of control.  I'm pretty sure that if our fore fathers who INVENTED this government system could come back from the grave they would walk up to most of congress and a couple of ex-presidents as well as the current staff in the white house and smack them.