Wednesday, February 1, 2006

One Nation Divided

I figured since I've launched unwilling-dystopia 2.0 that I should explain my choosing for the title.

We as Americans are part of a nation where each and every citizen is (supposed) to be allowed to agree with or disagree with political bodies without fear of reprisal. Because of this, we are one nation divided amongst ourselves. Except for a few short instances, we as Americans have chosen to proclaim our differences in the most vocal ways possible and as members of this country it is our right to do so.

Of course, there are things you can't say, because they are harmful to others. Slander is illegal, for good cause. As is libel. You can't yell bomb on an airplane and expect to get away with it, and for good reason too.

The biggest fear of those in power is to lose power. Of course, George Washington stepped down after two terms of his own free will. It just goes too show us that he was an exceptional and humble man. For the most part however, politicians like power, as does most everyone. And, a funny little thing happens when one sect of society or one group believes itself to be in a firm grasp of the majority, they make the minority opinion seem wrong, silly, impractical, pompous, vague, unstable, laughable, and immoral.

All of the sudden, opposing opinion is "ill-timed" or "insensitive". Anything that the party believes is the law of the land and anything said out against it will be seen as (in this country) unpatriotic. "You are not supporting your country," they say. "You have no pride in your nation." Then, all of the sudden, you are the bad guy. You are the enemy. If you don't like what they have to say, you must say nothing at all. There is no debate; our will is complete; our word is final. We are the majority; we are in charge; they voted for us; you do not matter. This is the way of things.

If democracy is majority rule and minority acceptance, then put me down for something else. If I was ever in charge, I'd redefine democracy. To me democracy is majority rule and minority challenge. It is politics at it's finest, where all sides debate issues and come to a compromise.

In a country where one rules all, ideas, in this case protectionism, are labeled as defeatist, that someone who believes in these concepts are weak and stupid. Let me tell you about a person who believed that "It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world..." He was our first president.

[To further concrete his credibility he also said: "...Avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments, which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to Republican Liberty." and "...Cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible...avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt....it is essential that you...bear in mind, that towards the payments of debts there must be Revenue, that to have Revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised, which are not...inconvenient and unpleasant..."]

He realized of course that a fledgling country is not safe on the world stage and indeed until WWII we remained very isolationist. But now, because members of our political process have an ear turned towards the special interests of overseas groups and conglomerate organizations, we are pressed into international situations. When these people might benefit economically from a war or conflict, we are told to fight for our country, in essence, to make those in power stronger and wealthier.

Republicans controlled Congress during the mid-20th century because if you were Democrat during this time, you were tossed aside, because they couldn't fight Communism the way Republican war hawks could. Though in the end, economic sanctions have worked when properly enacted by Democratic presidents, in Cuba, post-WWI Germany, post-WWII Japan, and others.

Protectionism = defeatism? Let's break down the word protectionism. It's root is "protect". To protect means to keep safe. Defeatism means to be defeated. Any way you swing it, safe does not equal defeated, rather quite the opposite. Of course, they are careful in choosing a word to describe protectionism. Defeatism is "un-manly" and weak. One with a defeatist attitude is doomed to failure. How many times must I ask why this even becomes a player in politics. It seems that some people need to have their egos deflated. Americans are not better than anyone else, we only have it better than many others.

Then they say that protectionism does not work. Actually, protectionism does not fail if one actually follows the definition correctly. To protect one's country they must provide job opportunities for every citizen. Products bought by it's citizens must be made in the country and those that make them must be able to afford them. Americans must travel abroad to learn. They must have an incentive to bring this knowledge back home with them. They will further succeed if they export goods to other countries. And, most importantly, maintain an education system second-to-none in the world. Then protectionism will work, as it did for 170 years.

Either that or we must force the rest of the world to be equal by our set standards (of course, still prosecuting homosexuals) and to enact labor laws, workers rights, and most importantly a minimum wage. Having such, products will not cost less for manufacturers if assembled in other countries. This is the path set before the Republican Party today. To succeed in strengthening this country they must control the rest of the world.

Personally, I believe that instead of pushing change off on other people, that it is time that we ourselves change, that to accomplish our goals we step back from traditional rules of I came, I saw, I conquered, and work internally to accomplish our goals. Liberals believe that the change must come from within.

Furthermore, I for one believe that until one path or another is followed through to completion, that we will remain one nation bitterly divided.

No comments: