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.