Saturday, December 8, 2012

lexicon and democracy

I'm watching a documentary about small farms and government, "Farmageddon." It basically focuses on the mountains paperwork, questionably legal raids on,  and government intervention forced onto small farms.

Before I dive into any details i must say it continues too leave me speechless when I consider how far from the founding ideologies of this country we have aloud ourselves, and more importantly our leadership, to stray from those competing but not mutually exclusive ideas; pragmatism and puritanism.

JFC, the key framer of our most highly revered political statements (Tomas Jefferson) envisioned a nation of independent small farms, which we had managed to support (by way of not regulating them heavily through policy designed to manage large corporations) until the post World War II era of mechanization and corporations and "policy"and eventually lobbying. There was a little bit of trouble during reconstruction and the industrial revolution but that only resulted in the dust bowl. Large industry found a financial incentive in convincing small farms to change their policies of planting and grazing, which was detrimental to the integrity of the native prairie grasses, which kept the top soil in place, and when that natural mechanism was disturbed the top soil dried up and blew away and... bam. The dust bowl was the immediate result, and then the following breakdown of agrarian society and economy in the middle of the country... not soon afterwards the country has some financial troubles that started in 1929, and it's hard to imagine how the two events are non-causally related. Kind of like how that tech bubble of the 90's created the finical landscape for the credit/ housing bubble, and well, we're living in the fallout from that one.

BTW, this whole lobbying shit is so morally egregious to our concept of democracy it is almost laughable. Remember back to like 8th or 9th grade Social Studies class, when we learned about different forms of government? When I was taught this, there were essentially three flavors of government: Democracies, degrees of Communism, and the third group "Monarchies & Others." In current political discussion, I would assert that true forms of that third group are rarely considered equal in stature to the first two. (England has a Parliament, and so therefor is more of a democratic state than a monarchy)

So, concerning the functional characteristics of Democracies vs. Communism(s); I would say an accurate distinction is that Communist/ Socialist styles of government seek to consolidate power and decision making ability toward a smaller representative group of the population at the "top," whereas in Democracies or Republics the goal is to proliferate decision making ability to as many people at the "bottom"is as possible while still managing to be deemed efficient.

So when you have a trend towards growing influence of a minority of big business and industries being able to disproportionately (in comparison to the sum tally of individuals' concerns) influence policy and practice of the elected officials.....

...that, to me, is more by definition an oligarchy instead of a democracy.

And those are scary situations because when the individual is playing against a rigged game of governance, their government is less and less inclined to listen to the individual as he/she is so disempowered by that new reality, that they (the individuals) are less inclined to fight for their rights on as an individual, thus less of a threat/ concern to those in power - from both ends; top down and bottom up - the system reinforces itself.

And what the hell is this concept of the government "saving face" vs. changing a failing program that is has been "put on track" by the federal government? Clearly this ideology failed the government miserably in "the war on drugs."

And this concept of "the war on terror," when do we finish tracking down all those damn red haird bastards from the IRA? but i digress.

Somebody please tell me how is the popular bureaucratic phrase, a "one size fits all" policy, different than true Marxist communism? I thought that the whole point of this little social experiment we have here is along the lines of "no taxation without representation." Well, I historically cannot vote because, even of the little parties (which 9 out of 10, is a wasted vote anyway), I don't have anyone to vote for...

No one is on the ballots who represents my interests. The two party system is in itself a threat to the principals of the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution because the two party system inherently marginalizes and dispels any independent thought or dissenting opinion. And since the two parties agree on so many principals of government you don't even have a vote on many of the most important social and economic issues. I can't think of anything less democratic than a government that lies about being so. Give me a dictator over that shit. Then I at least know what to expect, instead of this state and federal institution of Terror and Indian Giving.

For example, there wasn't a candidate in the presidential election that stood a chance at winning that gave the option of ending wars we are in, NOW. Not some gradual withdrawal from a the same war that financially crippled the U.S.S.R., but fist act as Commander and Chief -
"we're done. we're broke and we're done. Come on home."
"Oh. And that money we were spending to fight the war, we're going to take just half of that, and pour that into the VA (not into administrative costs, but on actual care) and fix up all our men and women of service who, since coming home haven't been able to have the quality of care and life someone who risked their life for their country should have." But i realize the last concern of the military is caring for it's veterans. If you put your money where your mouth is, the VA has probably the lowest most neglected finances of any aspect of the defense budget.

In the last election, there was not a specific policy on much of anything, really. other than "the people of this country are good and we need to help them." No shit. How, other than taxes (which is a ridiculous platform to run on; tax law and policy is so insanely complicated that only a few people could even make an informed vote on) was there really any differing opinion at the end of it all? Oh, health care... but again so bloody complicated, other than some of the people who work in insurance, I haven't heard any real consensus on how any of all these proposal will actually work because nobodies plan is final, they are all still on some level of "fact finding," so how do you vote on a plan that isn't finished being written yet?

And the cronyism of either party is basically equal. Look up the resumes of most of Obama's cabinet. Still the same connection of CEO's and such that we saw under Bush. So WTF?

How can you say this is a democracy when there are so few things to vote on? and so few options when it comes to how to vote on something?

I am not anti-government in any way. Governments are good; people need laws and leadership. I just want a government that acts in the ways that it claims to.

And the sad thing is, I realize what a ridiculous request this is.

No comments:

Post a Comment