Those Who Seek To Divide Us...

I have long believed that deep in her heart, America is not as divided as the media, career politicians, and other power seekers would like us to think. I believe that deep down, most Americans want a better life for their families, want to be left alone to pursue their dreams, and wish to simply live life as they see fit. I know that is all I want – to be left alone, to be allowed to keep the fruits of my labor, and to live life as I see fit according to my beliefs.

Naturally, while I do believe these are the things we all want in life here in America, I do recognize that we currently have differences in opinion about how we can obtain these dreams. I would argue, however, that the dividers like the media, politicians, and other power seekers, for their own benefit and to the detriment of the rest of us, have created these differences in opinion by continuing to divide us into pre-defined groups. The side effect of which, has been the distraction of far too many Americans from attaining their dreams, and instead, an unnecessary, continued concentration on the overly inflated differences between us.

Those who seek to divide us for their own prosperity and continued existence, seek to divide us according to things like gender, race, career choice, and net worth, when instead they should be using their voices to unite us as a nation. They should be using their voices to bridge the real gap between us – those who see America as the land of opportunity where anything can be achieved regardless of those very things the dividers use to divide us, and those who have been so pummeled with the divisive message that they have come to believe it, and wrongly, now live their very lives by it instead of fighting against it.

Here is an example of how these dividers quietly accomplish this goal, which also leads to the revelation that this divisiveness is what has put us into the two camps that, in turn, the dividers point to and say is the reason we are divided, instead of admitting that, in fact, they are the source of our divisiveness.

Each year, Time magazine selects a person of the year that they claim, for better or worse, has been the most influential person in the world. This time around, they naturally have chosen Donald Trump. In the video in which Time Editor-in-Chief, Nancy Gibbs, explains why they chose Trump, she states: 

“One of the things that was remarkable in going to see him to interview him is to be in that penthouse, which is the most ostentatious imaginable marble and mirrors and gold, and see him in the suit and the diamond cufflinks. There’s a kind of dissidence that we pressed him about of how is it that the billionaire is the tribune of the working man? He said he thought that it had to do with that he wasn’t a phony – that there have certainly been wealthy politicians before who in some cases would bend over backwards to make themselves appear like the common man, or do anything that they could, eating the corn dog at the Iowa state fair, and wearing a flannel shirt in New Hampshire. I think he had a very strong instinct that his wealth and the flamboyant display of his wealth was not a liability, that it was actually an asset.”

This statement got me thinking about one of the most staunch and apparent differences in what the Time magazine cover calls “The Divided States of America”, as well as the root cause of this difference. I agree that we are a nation divided – a nation divided in principles and a nation divided in hopes and aspirations. And while I agree there are racists and homophobes and all sorts of others –ists –isms and –phobes living out there on the fringe ends of the political spectrum in this country, I also believe that a large majority of Americans are actually none of these things that the dividers use to steer us to their desired end through fear.

I do, however, believe there is a very real chasm between two sides in this country, and it is one that we must address – one that is clearly pointed out in Nancy Gibbs’ statements about how a billionaire could possibly serve as the tribune of the hard working people of America, and we can explain this phenomenon in two words: aspiration and perspective.

Ask a conservative who they blame for their plight in America today and they will say the government. Ask that same conservative what the key is to prosperity and they will tell you business. Ask a liberal who they blame for their plight in America today, and they will say business. Ask that same liberal what the key is to prosperity and they will tell you government. Granted, reality is not as clearly defined as this example, but you can easily see the relevance of this take on the American political spectrum today.

If you do not believe that you can achieve anything in this country because there is an entire group of people – business people – holding you back, then you see a successful businessman like Trump as an embodiment of the evil that is conspiring against you. If you believe that you can achieve anything in this country because those business people build companies and provide jobs, then you see a successful businessman like Trump and the embodiment of hope and aspiration.

If you believe that the entire corporate structure in America has been stacked against you, then you look to the government for salvation. If you believe that the entire government superstructure in America has been created to steal the fruits of your labor, then you look to business for salvation.

And this is why you can pluck one working man off of the street – one who has bought into the liberal idea that the cards in America are stacked against him and that there is this mythical group of –ists, -isms, and –phobes constantly working against him – and have that working man tell you that Trump is history’s greatest monster, yet can pluck another working man off the street – one who has bought into the conservative idea that America is the land of opportunity and anything can be achieved if he plays by the rules and works hard, and that there is no mythical group of –ists, -isms, and –phobes, only a bloated government that needs his hard-earned money to survive and perpetuate itself – and have that working man tell you that Trump is an aspirational figure that represents that working man’s own potential for success in America today.

I hate to continue to narrow the differences caused by the divisiveness perpetuated by the media, politicians, and power seekers down to such a clearly defined line, but let me give you one more example. You take a young person in their early 20s who has just started their career and you show them a picture of what embodies success to them, and then ask if they too can achieve that success, and you will get one of two responses.

I believe the person who was raised on the idea that they were born in the greatest country in the world that provides people with the greatest opportunity to make something of their lives will tell you that they most definitely aspire to the success in the picture, and that their aspirations of success are achievable.

I also believe the person who was raised on the idea that they were born in an oppressive country that is filled with –ists, –isms, and -phobes that are constantly working against them will tell you that the type of success in the picture can only make someone miserable, that success of that type can only be achieved on the backs of others, and that not only is the scene in the picture not attainable for them, but in fact, is the last thing that they would want for their life, even though the image actually and truly embodies that person’s very definition of success.

And this is where the dividers have left us. They have successfully used their voice to classify us into every category under the sun and divide us into all these tiny little groups, which have led us to unite these groups into two camps – the so-called haves, and the so-called have-nots – even though each one of us has the same opportunities in life here in America. Yes, not entirely exactly the same, but still, the best opportunity of anyone else in any other time on this planet. Then, we all fight amongst each other while the dividers perpetuate their message of division, further solidifying their own existence in this world by point to us and blaming us for the divisions they have created.

I propose that the time has come for those of us that the dividers have divided to no longer allow them to divide us. We should hold journalists to what they call themselves – being journalists. We should also hold the elected representatives of the people to what they call themselves as well. And lastly, we, the divided, should come together to remove the division that is being imposed on us by no longer allowing the dividers to classify, categorize, and split us apart.

Photo by Ingo Joseph via Pexels

Remember That America Is Bigger Than Any One Person

When an election does not go your way, it can definitely create an aura of uneasiness and uncertainty. This can especially be the case with a presidential election, and more so when it is an election that will not only change the party of the sitting president, but place into power a new president with some pretty different views than the sitting president. As someone who tends to not be a fan of change, I can definitely understand how people on the losing side of this election are feeling right now.

What can be even scarier about the outcome of a presidential election is if the two-term president that is outgoing is the only president you have ever known or can remember. Such was the case for me when Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush’s three-term Republican presidency changed hands to Willy Jeff Clinton. Yes, I know that seems nothing like what the youth of today in America are facing now, but at the same time, hind-sight definitely eases in your mind today about what may have been perceived at the time as the potential for uncertain, drastic change.

But what has made this country the greatest democracy in the history of this planet is its ability to be pulled in different directions across the political spectrum and still bounce back, only to pulled the other way again, back and forth, back and forth, for generations, and still remain the most solid democracy in the history of our species.

With the exception of the War Between the States, following every presidential election, the fabric of our society has endured, and the framework of our democracy and the peaceful transition of power have remained. We may be a nation divided in principle, but our similarities still outweigh our differences, and with the exception of the most extreme on both ends of the political spectrum, to paraphrase our sitting president, we are all still on the same team.

Keep in mind that had this election gone the other way, the supporters on the opposite side of the fence from you would be feeling the same uncertainty that you are, which is also the same uncertainty that the losing side of the presidential elections in America have been feeling for 240 years. Yet, here we are, still the greatest democracy in the world. There will be another presidential election in four years, and then again, four years after that, and so on.

While you may not have experienced it personally, these presidential elections have occurred 60 times. 59 of those times, people on the losing side have been faced with uneasiness and uncertainty, yet the nation and society have prevailed, democracy has won out, and four years later, another election was held. Sometimes, the sitting president who caused all that uncertainty and uneasiness remained in power, and other times, that president was voted out of office.

The extreme fringes of society have been there over the course of those 240 years, and they will always be there, but remember all you have been taught about this country, its framework, its checks and balances, and its rule of law. This will mark the 27th two-year period since 1901 that the presidency and both houses of congress have been controlled by one party, yet, we’re still here. We got through two world wars, the Great Depression, the Great Recession, and the Cold War, and yet, we’re still here.

As Donald Trump takes office, just like every single president in the history of this country, he will be subject to a system of checks and balances that will keep him from unilaterally imposing his will on the people of this country. Now, I understand that a lot of you worry about things like gay marriage, legalized marijuana use, and immigration, but keep in mind that one thing the President of the United States cannot do, despite being the single most powerful person on the planet, is circumvent the law. He cannot wake up one morning and decide that a particular group of people, or activity is illegal. He must work within the legal system and our government’s framework to change the law if he wants to accomplish any single act on his agenda.

And that is exactly how it should be – as the constitution was designed – is it not?

Now, I know you are saying to yourself, what about all of those presidential orders that Obama signed that Trump can overturn? Well, that is the problem with a president acting unilaterally, isn’t it? That is the problem with a president deciding that something should be and then acting outside of the congress and the will of the people and just making something so. Because they are not laws passed by congress, they can be overturned. This is why you should have opposed presidential orders, even when the guy issuing them was someone you agreed with, because as we have now seen, maybe one day the guy issuing the presidential orders will NOT be someone you agree with.

But, as scary as this power Trump has to overturn Obama’s presidential orders might be, this is exactly how it should be. This is why laws need to be passed instead of presidential orders being signed. This is why Obama should not have taken the easy route and ruled by decree, but in fact, sought to work with members of congress from both parties to pass laws instead. This is also why we should, as a nation, come together to ban the presidential order. Maybe now that Trump’s the one issuing them, all of you more liberal leaning folks will join me in that feeling.

And while Trump can walk into office on that very first day and rip up each one of those presidential orders issued by presidents past, what he cannot do is walk into office and start ripping up laws that have been passed by congress.

With all of that being said, there is also another check and balance in place that you might not be thinking about, the career politician. Despite the presidency and both houses of congress being controlled by one party, as you saw in the Republican primary process, not everyone within the Republican Party is 100% in agreement with Trump on everything. Embedded, entrenched career politicians like McConnell are going to fight Trump on things like term limits because they want to remain career politicians. This will give them leverage to work against our incoming president and to keep him in check. People like Paul Ryan and John McCain, just to name a couple, will fight Trump when they know it is the right thing to do. I, for one, will do the same. And I know there are millions of conservatives out there who will also do the same.

Just because there are Republican majorities in both houses of congress, you will not see all of the members of both those houses of congress throw their hands up and not stick to the political process. This has never happened before, and it will not happen this time, either.

Everyone in office, every Republican, every Democrat, every Independent, is bound by the constitution, and that has not changed. Trump does not have the power to change that, either.

Also, Trump is going to be surrounded by cabinet members that, despite being chosen by him, still have a duty and an obligation to uphold the constitution. Trump will appoint people that will be the best suited to serve in these positions, and they will also serve as another check and balance.

And finally, while yes, there are some crazy extremists nut-jobs out there who voted for Trump because of their own agendas, most of the people who voted for Trump are extremely reasonable people, and while they were very supportive of Trump against Hillary Clinton, they will also be just as critical of President Trump. I count myself among those people.

And, I imagine that a lot of you who are die hard Hillary and Obama supporters, or are perhaps even further to the left than that, were raised by some really amazing people who are Trump supporters. Do you think that those people would allow things to get so far out of hand that the very fabric of our democracy and society would be threatened?

All I am saying is that while we are most definitely faced with uncertainty and uneasiness about our next president, it is no different than the uncertainty and uneasiness that the country faced 44 other times in our history. Stay aware, stay vigilant, and stick to your principles, but also, have faith in the 240 year history of the greatest democracy on the face of this planet which has proven time and time again that our system of government is far stronger than the person sitting at that big desk in the Oval Office.

Photo via Pixabay

"If You're Not First, You're Last..."

“If you’re not first, you’re last…”

These immortal words, handed down from his estranged father to race car driver extraordinaire Ricky Bobby instilled in him a drive to win because they embody a stark truth about competition – if you are first, you have won, and if you are anything but first, no matter where you place in the field, you have lost.

So, in that context of stark contrast, I have a message for every conservative out there, be you a social conservative, fiscal conservative, or whatever brand of conservative you may label yourself – as it stands right now, if you are not voting for Donald Trump this November, then you are voting for Hillary Clinton.

Sorry, folks! I know you might not want to hear it, and I know you are doing everything you possibly can to justify in your heart and in your mind that this is not the case. Believe me, I am not faulting you for that at all, but whatever your reason for not voting for Trump, when you cast that ballot for the presidential election in November, no matter what box you check instead of Donald Trump, like it or not, you might as well just be checking the box next to Hillary Clinton.

No matter your reason for not physically checking Hillary Clinton on your ballot – the fact that she will never be held accountable for the deaths of four of her operators as Secretary of State during the attack in Benghazi – the fact that she flat out lied to the American people about the reason for that attack – the fact that she lied right to the faces of the families of those four men about the circumstances surrounding their deaths – the fact that she lied to the American people and to the FBI about her email server – the fact that she maintained that personal email server so she could delete and remove from public record any emails she desired – the fact that she lied to us that one time about her landing while her official government plane was taking gunfire. Or, if you want to go with some of the historical facts – the fact that she paid off woman after woman that her husband had either accosted or mistreated with his sexual advances while in office – the fact that her ultra-liberal operations long before her husband ever took office helped to advance the ultra-liberal agenda that has helped lead to so many of the issues that you, as a conservative, probably take issue with today – ALL those backroom deals like Whitewater – and let us not forget about the time that she told us that her and Willy Jeff left the White House poor and penniless, though now they are quite admittedly flush with cash after starting that crooked foundation that has taken in billions of dollars from governments that treat anyone that is not a straight male horribly, even flat out killing them for existing, and taken in millions from pay to play deals that exchanged foundation donations for State Department sitdowns, deals, jobs, and favors.

Geez, that is such a long list! I don’t see how any American could see that list, completely dismiss every single one of those things as being some conspiracy theory or orchestrated attack, then still somehow walk into that voting booth and vote for someone with that kind of track record. I do not see how someone could not see that every single move this woman has made in her life has been an orchestrated effort to end up exactly where she is today – all of the lies and all of the cover-ups, and all of the silence while her husband took blowjobs from interns and other women he manipulated through his positions of power – just so she could end up exactly where she is today – standing a real chance of becoming the first female president of the United States – the most powerful person in the world, most likely for eight years.

Make no mistake, my conservative friends, Hillar-ious losing the election in November becomes more impossible with each passing day. While third party candidates are going to abound by the time November rolls around, unless Donald Trump ultimately drops out of the race, every vote that is not cast for Trump is going to be a vote for Hillary Clinton. I’m not saying you should vote for Trump if you are not. Vote your conscience, but don’t kid yourself about what your vote means to Hillary Clinton when it is not cast for Donald Trump. No matter how much you tell yourself and everyone around you that you didn’t actually check that box, endorsing the track record of our soon-to-be queen, that it wasn’t your fault, that you had nothing to do with it, you and I both know deep down that it is just not the case.

So, please, keep doing what you are doing, working hard to promote your third party candidate and trying to convince Donald Trump to drop out of the race, but if Trump’s still in the race on election day, just remember who you will be helping win the election when you don’t vote for Trump.

As those immortal words, “If you’re not first, your last,” capture so well, all that is going to matter in November is who comes in first – who wins. Let’s hope you are not among those who will have helped elect our new queen.

Photo by Jiri Rotrekl via Pixabay

3 Things We Need To Eliminate From Political Discourse Immediately

As we look back on history, there have always been conflicts and at least two sides to every story. If we all agreed on everything every time, there would be no conflict. Therefore, the fact that there has been so much conflict in human history serves to demonstrate our lack of agreement on just about everything over the centuries.

And while conflict can sometimes be deadly, it is our diversity in opinion that is what proves we are alive and have our own free will. And what makes humans human is the ability to disagree and maintain civility and society through those disagreements, though on many occasions, being human has also resulted in the exact opposite.

But there is a constant throughout the history of human conflict and it is that conflict has remained civil as long as one side has respected the other side’s right to disagree with them, and once that respect to disagree disappears, conflicts spiral out of hand, civility goes out the window, and things get very, very messy until that respect to disagree returns.

Far too often political content published in America today immediately marginalizes the emotions and beliefs of detractors to the author’s point of view. While the author may not agree with the opposing view, and obviously has a right to disagree, to simply come back and say that those emotions and beliefs should not exist, regardless of how misguided the author may feel they are, is, at best, impractical, because those emotions and beliefs do exist, otherwise, there would be no need for the article to have been written in the first place. Right or wrong in one person’s view, someone’s emotions and beliefs exist – despite how much the opposing side may wish to marginalize them.

American political content also far too often is written with the notion that somehow a person who believes things the author opposes is somehow responsible for actions other than their own. A case in point is when someone asks why there is no white history month and is immediately classified as racist and held accountable for the sins of an entire race of people, even though he himself may never have actually done anything other than have a simple curiosity about the fairness of a race not having a history month.

Thirdly, there is a very disturbing trend in political content in which content creators are assuming certain individuals have enjoyed a much easier life because of their present circumstances, or worse, because of the color of their skin or their heritage. Case in point is this line I pulled directly from an article: “Certain people have the social and economic world constantly working in their favor.” This would mean that this group of people have to work less hard in school, have to work less hard to get ahead in the world, and have some sort of minimum safety net guaranteed by their race. This notion of privilege that is becoming more prominent in America with each passing day promotes the belief that a person of a particular race who continually messes up at work, doesn’t have the skills to hold down a job, or simply stands on a street corner and puts their hand out, will automatically have more than a person of another race who is dedicated to their career and works hard everyday.

While I understand that America’s struggle with racism and fair treatment regardless of skin color may be far from over, and while I also believe that continual race baiting by politicians and activists is actually prolonging racism is this country, I also believe that this notion that the lighter your skin, the more people hand you things – the less that you have to work for what you have – is completely and totally ridiculous. This notion of privilege and forcing people to feel guilty for the color of their skin is as completely ridiculous as the view that someone is less of a person or somehow inadequate because of the color of their skin. These two concepts go hand in hand and are equally as incorrect and wrong.

Rather then finger pointing and declaring that some people simply have things handed to them while others have an entire system of government and society stacked against them, we should take to heart the notion that we were all created equal and that we are all equally abled regardless of the color of our skin. Instead of this notion of privilege, we should return to promoting self-reliance, self-worth, opportunity, personal responsibility and personal accountability.

I, for one, believe whole-heartedly that the color of one’s skin truly has no bearing on their ability to accomplish goals, no bearing on the limit of their imagination, or on the success that they can have in this country. I believe our own self-doubts and the acceptance of victimization by society is a far bigger culprit. Once society starts expecting less of some than others, we see this horrible pattern where those who are expected to do less start to fulfill that prophecy.

I believe we should teach every child in America that their opportunities are limitless and that they can achieve any goal they set out accomplish, not that these kids over here are going to breeze through life, and these kids over here are never going to amount to anything because of the color of their skin. We can do better than this, America.

I grew up in one of the poorer neighborhoods in our town and I went to a public school in that neighborhood. I struggled with authority in high school and I struggled with paying for college. I have been pulled over by the police for fitting a profile and I can show you the tickets I received from those police officers that during the same month cited my race as Hispanic when I was driving my Volkswagen Jetta and cited my race as White when I was driving my Mercedes-Benz 190E. But one thing remained constant throughout all of this time during my upbringing, and that was the fact that the people around me continually told me that I could accomplish anything, and that the limits of my American dream were only up to one person – that only one person controlled my destiny – me. No one told me because of the neighborhood I grew up in, or because of my appearance, or regardless of how poorly I was doing in school at the time that the cards were stacked against me, that I was unprivileged, and that I had to accept anything other than a destiny I created for myself.

I was taught to be respectful. I was taught right from wrong. I was taught the importance of education. I was taught that if I wanted something, I needed to work for it. I was taught that there were no handouts and that life is what you make of it. When we teach kids that these things are all predetermined and out of their control, we are teaching them a horrible lesson.

We need to do better as a society and a people in the lessons we are teaching and the realities we accept. We need to no longer marginalize the beliefs of others that may not align with our beliefs. We need to stop blaming an entire race or group of people for the actions of a few. And most importantly, we need to stop channeling these two horrible habits into teaching our kids that some of them are inherently better than others – that some are more privileged than others – and go back to teaching them that each and every one of them can accomplish anything they set their minds to – that they are equally worthy to every other single person out there – and that they can accomplish anything that any other person can accomplish.

Photo by Gratisography via Pexels

By Definition: A Capitalist Democracy

I was recently asked by a long-time friend to clarify what I understand to be each of these three things: capitalism, communism, and socialism. Let's go to wikipedia, like any lazy capitalist would:

Capitalism: Capitalism is an economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are privately owned and controlled rather than state owned and controlled. Through capitalism, the land, labor, and capital are owned, operated, and traded by private individuals either singly or jointly, and investments, distribution, income, production, pricing and supply of goods, commodities and services are determined by voluntary private decision in a market economy. A distinguishing feature of capitalism is that each person owns his or her own labor and therefore is allowed to sell the use of it to employers. In a "capitalist state", private rights and property relations are protected by the rule of law of a limited regulatory framework. In the modern capitalist state, legislative action is confined to defining and enforcing the basic rules of the market, though the state may provide some public goods and infrastructure.

Communism: Communism is a socioeconomic structure and political ideology that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general. Karl Marx posited that communism would be the final stage in human society, which would be achieved through a proletarian revolution. "Pure communism" in the Marxian sense refers to a classless, stateless and oppression-free society where decisions on what to produce and what policies to pursue are made democratically, allowing every member of society to participate in the decision-making process in both the political and economic spheres of life. As a political ideology, communism is usually considered to be a branch of socialism; a broad group of economic and political philosophies that draw on the various political and intellectual movements with origins in the work of theorists of the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution. Communism attempts to offer an alternative to the problems with the capitalist market economy and the legacy of imperialism and nationalism. Marx states that the only way to solve these problems is for the working class (proletariat), who according to Marx are the main producers of wealth in society and are exploited by the Capitalist-class (bourgeoisie), to replace the bourgeoisie as the ruling class in order to establish a free society, without class or racial divisions.

Socialism: Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equality for all individuals, with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation. Modern socialism originated in the late 19th-century intellectual and working class political movement that criticized the effects of industrialization and private ownership on society. Karl Marx posited that socialism (the disappearance of class and therefore state) would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution after a long transitional stage from capitalism called the Dictatorship of the proletariat. Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital, creates an unequal society, and does not provide equal opportunities for everyone in society. Therefore socialists advocate the creation of a society in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly based on the amount of work expended in production, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.

By these definitions, I am a capitalist who believes that the capitalist system is by far the very best system of these three. I believe that my country, the United States of America was founded to be a capitalist state, and while not a pure capitalist state, even on day one, was designed to follow the capitalist model as closely as possible. What has occurred since then is that our politicians have continually been moving this country further and further away from capitalism, closer to communism and/or socialism. I am very much against communism and socialism as I feel that your reward should be relative to your efforts. Those who work harder and take risks should earn more. The government has a role to referee the game, but should not have the right to take away points from the winning team and give them to the losing team just so that things are fair. Hard working capitalists should not be taxed just so that their money can go to sustain the lives and livelihood of those who do not want to work. Plain and simple. As a state, we should care for those who are truly unable to provide for themselves, but we should not allow those who are able to work to simply sit back and do nothing yet receive government provided shelter and food.

I do realize that capitalism does allow for tiers to be created in our society, yet I believe that a true form of capitalism where people are not barred from rising up through those tiers based on race, religion, politcal affiliation, etc. is possible, though I am also aware that my country has not adhered to that idea in the past. I do also believe, however, that we are working towards an America that is more equal in this regards. In a capitalist societly, like ours, some will have more than others, but in most cases, what you have is a result of the hard work and dedication of yourself, those around you, and in some cases, those who came before you. In a communist or socialist society, no matter how hard you work, no matter what you do, you can never rise above your current cirumstances. In a capitalist society, anyone can achieve anything. I think one of these paths is far better than the other.

If you look at the socialist and communist governments that have plagued the Earth, you will also find a very flawed and inaccurate deployment of the ideals of those systems. While everyone is supposed to be equal in those systems, you will find, in fact, a group of core leadership at the center of those governments, who were, somehow, mysteriously much more wealthy and well-off than their equals who were the back-breaking laborers of the government-led businesses of the state. A small powerful, wealthy group at the top with a large labor force supporting them? Sounds like a twisted version of capitalism to me.

I believe in democracy and I believe in capitalism. I believe that a capitalist state cannot exist without government, but that government should serve the capitalist state, not the other way around, which is where America is heading. I believe in a pure democracy. Literally, one vote for each person and the side with the most votes wins. No court oversight, no electoral college. We have the technology and ability to have a pure democracy here in America and I think that it is time. Any and all social and economic issues should be decided by ballot, not by courts, and not by government, but by the people of the capitalist democracy.

"How Long Do We Have?" - A Follow Up...

You may recall my article from November 5, “How Long Do We Have?” in which I wrote and cited the following:

“According to Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, the United States of America has already outlived its expiration date. About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, who was studying the rise and fall of democracies wrote:

‘A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years.’”

I would like to add to my article of November 5th, the following additional facts that were pointed out in an email I received, which cited a recent BusinessWeek Magazine article:

"Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2008 Presidential election:

-Number of States won by: Democrats: 20; Republicans: 30
-Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000; Republicans: 2,427,000
-Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million; Republicans: 143 million
-Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats: 13.2; Republicans: 2.1"

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Republicans won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens. Democratic territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in rented or government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare...

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the ‘complacency and apathy’ phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the ‘governmental dependency’ phase.”

These election results are further proof that not only is our democracy over the hill, we are continuing to accelerate down the other side. I stress again today, as I did on November 5th, that this process is reversible and that we can turn this country back around, but it would be one of the few times in history where a democracy has succeeded in doing so.

How Long Do We Have?

There is one thing that we in the business community need to clearly worry about as a result of last night's election, and that is whether or not we are going to be seeing an increase in our business taxes. According to the Wall Street Journal, 50% of small businesses could now see their taxes increase in the next four years.

While we would like it to not be the case, when business taxes increase, we need to either cover the additional expense by growing our business, or cutting back on essential spending.

For many businesses, economic conditions like the ones we are facing today make it very difficult to create business growth. Despite the best intentions of politicians, when businesses have to cut back spending, the chances that business will have to reduce work forces greatly increase.

As we take stock of last night's results and take a posture of waiting to see, let me share something with you that made its way to my email inbox this morning:

According to Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, the United States of America has already outlived its expiration date. About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, who was studying the rise and fall of democracies wrote:

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years.

Is Democracy Temporary?

You may recall hearing a quote from Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at The University of Edinburgh, about “The Fall of The Athenian Republic” some 2,000 years prior. It was written about the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution in the year 1787.

Here’s what he had to say: “A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship.”

The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence: From Bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to complacency; From complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.

More recently, Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning our 2000 Presidential election:

Population of counties won by:
Gore = 127 million
Bush = 143 million

Square miles of land won by:
Gore = 580,000
Bush = 2,427,000

States Won By
Gore = 19
Bush = 29

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
Gore = 13.2
Bush = 2.1

Professor Olson adds: “In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the tax-paying citizens of this great country. Gore’s territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off government welfare...”

Olson believes the U.S. is now somewhere between the “complacency and “apathy” phase of Professor Tyler’s definition of democracy; with some 40 percent of the nation’s population already having reached the “governmental dependency” phase. It comes as no surprise that the team of Kerry/Edwards is appealing to the same electorate. There’s a lot at stake in this Election Year and apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.