Exploited Class
17th September 2002, 06:48
Americans will state that they love their country for numerous reasons, but the leading argument that most Americans favor to claim for loving America is the freedoms provided within its borders. The freedom guaranteed in their constitution and protected by a 200 plus year old government system established with that intended goal. The question that most American citizens never ask is, “Is that system created so many years back, which has gone under no fundamental core changes since its inception, really a system for freedom anymore?” It is undoubtedly a very large question for the modern citizen to ask and to expect an answer for.
It has become apparent to some that the American government’s chief goal is no longer intended to protect those freedoms nor represent those freedoms to its citizens. The sole reason being, it is no longer structured in a way to be able to. Freedom is a painter’s pallet and on it are its colors too vast to imagine. In most evolutionary strides of accomplishments, more is the outcome. For instance, we went from black and white silent films to black and white films with sounds called talkies. We eventually added some basic colors which later upgraded to Technicolor and then quickly climbed up to today’s digital presentations of HDTV. Always we get more, AM became FM stereo, fire begot gas which later became better with electric at which some point gave us the ability to cook a potato in 3 minutes in a microwave. Sadly however, America’s political system has gone in a completely different direction of evolution, starting out with 16 colors and ending up in a stale state of only black and white.
What are the reasons behind this de-evolution of the American governmental systems in which a country growing rapidly from its birth should shrink in a freedom of choice at the ballot box? Perhaps the very system created to protect the freedoms of its citizens, given birth with the very best of intentions by its designers, was marred with potholes and mistakes. These weaknesses in the design have unintentionally left the very system designed to protect and provide freedoms vulnerable to a lack of freedom within it.
In 1790, just a few short years after the birth of the United States, there were only 15 states and a little fewer than four million people. By 1920 the number of states grew to 48 and the population sat at a large 105 million. Today the number of states has only grown by 2 and the population is now almost 400 million. It should be noted however, that with the expansion of the borders, a much larger population, a more diversified origin of people and a greater and more sufficient ability to communicate has lead to only a small choice in political parties, down to the smallest possible of only 2.
A thoughtful reflection of a two party system brings up only one possible reason for this, a controlling government. A two party system is the best choice for a long term desire goal of control. With only two parties everything becomes a flip of a coin, with only a very small percentage of difference. If you flip a coin 400 million times you will invariably almost always end up 49/51 with only a slight difference between the two. Flip this coin 400 million times 40 times, and you will get a 49/51 on which side won. Neither side will ever have the upper hand for very long before the other side wins by just a few the next flip. The Senate is a perfect example of this which always mulls around in the 49/51 48/52 and 50/50 area consistently. Good example would be the total votes that were cast in America’s last presidential election. A. received a total of 50,456,062 and B. receiving a total of 50,996,582. The senate was also very close, 50/50 till one left and made a 50/49/1 in the senate, neither side ever having control. It becomes two sides always battling back and forth with no clear advancement for any side.
What favorable purpose could it serve to have the freedom to choose between only two systems? In many other societies that also tote the term democratic, have evolved to make their body of representatives reflect the percentage of votes a party receives and filling the seats accordingly, giving the general floor a plethora of ideals to contend with. Although not a perfect system by far, it does give a chance for more diverse voices to be heard and more freedom of choice when voting with the actual chance to have somebody represent one’s ideas. It would be ridiculous to think that having only two ideas present at a time of conference would give all options available. Somehow however, this is how the American Government system works.
Taking a look at Americans in general, they expect 31 flavors at Baskin Robins, 30 different choices of coffee, 15 different choices of SUV’s but only two flavors of a political system. The funniest part about this, when presented with the idea behind communism most Americans will say they dislike it because they think it removes freedom of choice, or doesn’t produce diversity. Are they only worried about diversity in the market place, because it is growing very apparent that there is no diversity in their political structure. So if we know that they lack the political diversity deserved to them, the question is why?
We know that with only a two party system, only two ideas are shown, limiting freedom of choice on any subject. Also with only two parties it is a flip of coin and no clear victor for either party, a continuous and endless battle back and forth. Now with that knowledge let’s say you to control just a person and that were all. You can control that person by telling them to do one solitary thing. You will do this! We can say, clean the whole bathroom. They will do it, but after a while just giving them one direction, one order will get old and they will rebel on your orders.
Now, let’s look at it a different way. We want to control that same individual, we have the same goal – to get that bathroom clean, but we want to give them choices this time. I might say, “you can either clean the dreaded bathtub or just the toilet”. Both are equally bad, but the individual has already been sold on the idea and made a choice. They might not fully like it, but they made it not you for them. Later you can approach them and say, “We need the necessary bathtub cleaned or we can let it go and just do the sink.” You have made the bathtub an important issue, the person will clean the easier sink but know that eventually that, that bathtub is going to have to be tackled sooner or later.” Eventually the need for the bathroom to be cleaned will arise, selling it this time will require a different touch and less choices. “We have no choice at this time but to get the bathtub cleaned, it is a necessary job, but once done we can move on to more important agendas.” The bathroom has been cleaned, and the slave has made choices all along the way.
If we step back and look at American Politics, we that this is very much how things are done. With Reagan we had to push up the military all the time, Bush followed the same steps, we had a choice mind you but a limited choice. Eventually Clinton was elected and gave us the choice to stop building up a military force, after him Bush came back with an almost 400 Billion dollar Military budget. It was necessary, we need it to be done, we have put it off too long and our military is in poor shape because of it. With the two party system, the same direction of control is pushed on to the American people with the illusion of a freedom of choice. Is this what America was about?
If America is not careful, it is going to be going down history with two leashes wrapped around its neck pulled by one owner. The same ruling class that owns the media outlets, invest in the production of military weapons, has powerful lobbyists, can afford to purchase advertisements, set the agenda on talk shows, editorials papers and trades with entire countries across seas. It isn’t so much amazing that the American People are being pulled by a leash; what is amazing is that they aren’t tugging harder on that leash. I suppose that is recognized by some people in other countries, “Americans have freedom, the freedom to keep repeating the same mistakes so long as it is the easy and lazy way to go about it.”
It has become apparent to some that the American government’s chief goal is no longer intended to protect those freedoms nor represent those freedoms to its citizens. The sole reason being, it is no longer structured in a way to be able to. Freedom is a painter’s pallet and on it are its colors too vast to imagine. In most evolutionary strides of accomplishments, more is the outcome. For instance, we went from black and white silent films to black and white films with sounds called talkies. We eventually added some basic colors which later upgraded to Technicolor and then quickly climbed up to today’s digital presentations of HDTV. Always we get more, AM became FM stereo, fire begot gas which later became better with electric at which some point gave us the ability to cook a potato in 3 minutes in a microwave. Sadly however, America’s political system has gone in a completely different direction of evolution, starting out with 16 colors and ending up in a stale state of only black and white.
What are the reasons behind this de-evolution of the American governmental systems in which a country growing rapidly from its birth should shrink in a freedom of choice at the ballot box? Perhaps the very system created to protect the freedoms of its citizens, given birth with the very best of intentions by its designers, was marred with potholes and mistakes. These weaknesses in the design have unintentionally left the very system designed to protect and provide freedoms vulnerable to a lack of freedom within it.
In 1790, just a few short years after the birth of the United States, there were only 15 states and a little fewer than four million people. By 1920 the number of states grew to 48 and the population sat at a large 105 million. Today the number of states has only grown by 2 and the population is now almost 400 million. It should be noted however, that with the expansion of the borders, a much larger population, a more diversified origin of people and a greater and more sufficient ability to communicate has lead to only a small choice in political parties, down to the smallest possible of only 2.
A thoughtful reflection of a two party system brings up only one possible reason for this, a controlling government. A two party system is the best choice for a long term desire goal of control. With only two parties everything becomes a flip of a coin, with only a very small percentage of difference. If you flip a coin 400 million times you will invariably almost always end up 49/51 with only a slight difference between the two. Flip this coin 400 million times 40 times, and you will get a 49/51 on which side won. Neither side will ever have the upper hand for very long before the other side wins by just a few the next flip. The Senate is a perfect example of this which always mulls around in the 49/51 48/52 and 50/50 area consistently. Good example would be the total votes that were cast in America’s last presidential election. A. received a total of 50,456,062 and B. receiving a total of 50,996,582. The senate was also very close, 50/50 till one left and made a 50/49/1 in the senate, neither side ever having control. It becomes two sides always battling back and forth with no clear advancement for any side.
What favorable purpose could it serve to have the freedom to choose between only two systems? In many other societies that also tote the term democratic, have evolved to make their body of representatives reflect the percentage of votes a party receives and filling the seats accordingly, giving the general floor a plethora of ideals to contend with. Although not a perfect system by far, it does give a chance for more diverse voices to be heard and more freedom of choice when voting with the actual chance to have somebody represent one’s ideas. It would be ridiculous to think that having only two ideas present at a time of conference would give all options available. Somehow however, this is how the American Government system works.
Taking a look at Americans in general, they expect 31 flavors at Baskin Robins, 30 different choices of coffee, 15 different choices of SUV’s but only two flavors of a political system. The funniest part about this, when presented with the idea behind communism most Americans will say they dislike it because they think it removes freedom of choice, or doesn’t produce diversity. Are they only worried about diversity in the market place, because it is growing very apparent that there is no diversity in their political structure. So if we know that they lack the political diversity deserved to them, the question is why?
We know that with only a two party system, only two ideas are shown, limiting freedom of choice on any subject. Also with only two parties it is a flip of coin and no clear victor for either party, a continuous and endless battle back and forth. Now with that knowledge let’s say you to control just a person and that were all. You can control that person by telling them to do one solitary thing. You will do this! We can say, clean the whole bathroom. They will do it, but after a while just giving them one direction, one order will get old and they will rebel on your orders.
Now, let’s look at it a different way. We want to control that same individual, we have the same goal – to get that bathroom clean, but we want to give them choices this time. I might say, “you can either clean the dreaded bathtub or just the toilet”. Both are equally bad, but the individual has already been sold on the idea and made a choice. They might not fully like it, but they made it not you for them. Later you can approach them and say, “We need the necessary bathtub cleaned or we can let it go and just do the sink.” You have made the bathtub an important issue, the person will clean the easier sink but know that eventually that, that bathtub is going to have to be tackled sooner or later.” Eventually the need for the bathroom to be cleaned will arise, selling it this time will require a different touch and less choices. “We have no choice at this time but to get the bathtub cleaned, it is a necessary job, but once done we can move on to more important agendas.” The bathroom has been cleaned, and the slave has made choices all along the way.
If we step back and look at American Politics, we that this is very much how things are done. With Reagan we had to push up the military all the time, Bush followed the same steps, we had a choice mind you but a limited choice. Eventually Clinton was elected and gave us the choice to stop building up a military force, after him Bush came back with an almost 400 Billion dollar Military budget. It was necessary, we need it to be done, we have put it off too long and our military is in poor shape because of it. With the two party system, the same direction of control is pushed on to the American people with the illusion of a freedom of choice. Is this what America was about?
If America is not careful, it is going to be going down history with two leashes wrapped around its neck pulled by one owner. The same ruling class that owns the media outlets, invest in the production of military weapons, has powerful lobbyists, can afford to purchase advertisements, set the agenda on talk shows, editorials papers and trades with entire countries across seas. It isn’t so much amazing that the American People are being pulled by a leash; what is amazing is that they aren’t tugging harder on that leash. I suppose that is recognized by some people in other countries, “Americans have freedom, the freedom to keep repeating the same mistakes so long as it is the easy and lazy way to go about it.”