In Chase Carney's article, "Chase's Chasm," I must say while I read it, I felt like he had taken my exact thoughts and rewrote them in this beautifully-written article. The two-party system we currently have ruined Americans and therefore America. As Chase points out, our Founding Fathers knew ahead of time that the parties would put a cruel divide between Americans.
I understand that it's part of our wonderful democracy that people can peacefully disagree with each other. However, I'm not sure if Republicans really disagree with Democrats, or vice versa. Citizens now just use their party as a crutch to their own opinions and use the party to voice their personal opinions. That is a counterproductive part of our democracy. There are so many uneducated Americans. Just look at the polls and the general political knowledge of the American citizens. It is extremely low. Then look at party affiliation and it is disproportionately high. What that says to me is that these uneducated people just follow their family or friends, join a party, and neglect to ever really think for themselves.
There are so many different issues: social, economic, domestic, foreign affairs, etc. How can a single party possibly cater to an individual's every opinion???
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Monday, August 10, 2009
Left, Right. How about neither
I am currently enrolled in two classes. United States Government – for which I am writing this editorial, and United States History Pre Civil War. While it is very easy to confuse which specific content belongs to which class, it has made it very clear why the United States government faces the issues it is facing today. Ever since the days of our founding fathers, Jefferson and his followers believed in a weak national government with strong states’ rights while Alexander Hamilton and his followers promoted a strong central government. Both of these men had good reasons for their beliefs.
We often find ourselves fighting the same battle today. Should we let the national government interfere in our domestic, social lives, foreign affairs and economy? Strangely enough, while we face those same questions that Jefferson and Hamilton faced, our parties are not split down that clear line that distinguishes central government intervention and government nonintervention. Instead, today’s Republicans favor government’s intervention on foreign affairs and certain social issues, but not our economy and other social issues. Meanwhile today’s Democrats favor government intervention on the issues opposite from what the Republicans favor. Republicans want the United States Army to interfere with international warfare; they want the government to be able to outlaw gay marriage; but they don’t want the government to intervene with the economy or raise high taxes. Democrats want the government to intervene with the economy by raising taxes to finance national financial aid systems; but they don’t want the government to interfere with their choice for an abortion.
It seems to be a very ambiguous political party system, which may explain why so many Americans are scared to completely devote their allegiances to either of these confused parties.
We often find ourselves fighting the same battle today. Should we let the national government interfere in our domestic, social lives, foreign affairs and economy? Strangely enough, while we face those same questions that Jefferson and Hamilton faced, our parties are not split down that clear line that distinguishes central government intervention and government nonintervention. Instead, today’s Republicans favor government’s intervention on foreign affairs and certain social issues, but not our economy and other social issues. Meanwhile today’s Democrats favor government intervention on the issues opposite from what the Republicans favor. Republicans want the United States Army to interfere with international warfare; they want the government to be able to outlaw gay marriage; but they don’t want the government to intervene with the economy or raise high taxes. Democrats want the government to intervene with the economy by raising taxes to finance national financial aid systems; but they don’t want the government to interfere with their choice for an abortion.
It seems to be a very ambiguous political party system, which may explain why so many Americans are scared to completely devote their allegiances to either of these confused parties.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Socialism: AKA the Darkside
In the third Star Wars Movie, just before Obi Wan Kenobi and Anikin Skywalker fight for the first time, Anikin tells Obi Wan that since he is not with him, he is instead his enemy. Obi Wan responds: "Only the syth think in absolutes." Socialism is an extreme solution, and its promoters are only thinking in absolutes.
Now in no way am I saying that Socialists truly represent the dark side and are bad people, but I must Jameson Lebreton's perspective in his article, Loaded Words.
While I wholeheartedly agree that Americans unfairly reject those with socialist ideas, I must disagree with Jameson's view that socialism is not a threat to democracy. A democracy is a government in which the power is primarily vested in the people.
In socialism, the government officials are absolutely in primary control. They divvy up property and money and protections to all the people in an radically simplified way. Jameson is correct in saying that aspects of America already are run in a socialist way - like roads and public schools. But that's what makes democracy a democracy. It is not an absolute. It makes certain institutions private, while other sects of those institutions remain private. A socialist government is too radical and would give too much power to the government too choose how much different amenities cost and how to allocate them. The people lose their say when this happens, and therefore it is without a doubt a threat to democracy.
We, the people, must "use the force," instead of relinquishing it to a fallible government.
Now in no way am I saying that Socialists truly represent the dark side and are bad people, but I must Jameson Lebreton's perspective in his article, Loaded Words.
While I wholeheartedly agree that Americans unfairly reject those with socialist ideas, I must disagree with Jameson's view that socialism is not a threat to democracy. A democracy is a government in which the power is primarily vested in the people.
In socialism, the government officials are absolutely in primary control. They divvy up property and money and protections to all the people in an radically simplified way. Jameson is correct in saying that aspects of America already are run in a socialist way - like roads and public schools. But that's what makes democracy a democracy. It is not an absolute. It makes certain institutions private, while other sects of those institutions remain private. A socialist government is too radical and would give too much power to the government too choose how much different amenities cost and how to allocate them. The people lose their say when this happens, and therefore it is without a doubt a threat to democracy.
We, the people, must "use the force," instead of relinquishing it to a fallible government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)