What's Really Important What Of Our "Republic?"
The founding fathers set up the United States of America as a Republic, a government in which the people (us) are represented by those elected to run things. The President and the members of Congress are such representatives. I’m not exactly sure when the US started being referred to as a democracy, but I know the founding fathers did not trust to that form of government. Basically, it was deemed the general population is neither educated or involved enough to be responsible for actually governing. Thus, the pledge of allegiance states, “to the republic for which it stands,” when referring to our flag.
That being said, it is presently very questionable whether or not the government is even a republic, or if so, whether it is in any way an even moderately good one. It would appear that our representatives in the White House as well as in the Congress appear more focused along party lines than the actual will of their electorate. It is also questionable whether the Executive branch itself even concerns itself with their party, considering how many decisions it has made that have hurt that party, and how many within the party are rapidly distancing themselves from the President himself.
Many insist the US is now an oligarchy, a government ruled by a small group of people. This would be the very wealthy and powerful, as well as the big corporations. Certainly, due to the present practice of candidates running campaigns almost totally dependent on very expensive TV spots, money has become a huge factor in politics. In order to persuade voters, a large percentage of whom seem to get most all their information about a candidate from TV commercials (I know that seems incredibly inane), it is required that a candidate either be extremely wealthy or some how be able to raise large sums of money, which regrettably puts them in the debt of lobbyists and large corporate special interests.
And guess what? When elected, the primary concern of these individuals is to make more money for themselves, and for those who bought them during the campaign. The vast majority of the population, those neither rich or with powerful and wealthy friends, become secondary. Thus, they are not represented very well by those who have sworn to do so.
Election promises have become a joke. Even the far religious right, a group that just might be pandered to more than any other large voting block, is becoming wise to the fact they have been used by those they have supported. The only reason they continue to support those who make them empty promises is because they have allowed themselves to be brainwashed into believing those on the left are evil Godless people who might eat their children if elected, and that the term “liberal” applies only to “those who must not be named.”
This brings us to one more possibility as to where our government is headed -- a theocracy, government by those who claim to rule in the name of God or a god. Our present “leader,” George Bush for example, claims he speaks to God, and is thus aided in determining policy. Ironically, it is theocracies in the Middle East that our present government labels as evil, by the very nature of how they are not separating church and state.
Personally, I believe any attempts at a theocracy in the US would instead end up as a new form of government, a Theo-Oligarchy, one that claims to be responsive to the covenants of God, but which would only do so when this leads to greater wealth for a few. It is interesting of late that seemingly unbeknownst to many, in or out of government, they have fallen into the old trap (from the old ten commandment days) of confusing gold and God. Perhaps, it is the G that has them befuddled. Many talk of faith, as in “faith in the lord,” or in some divine rule or destiny, and at the same time seem to put their real faith in money instead. It might be no coincidence that “in God we trust” appears on our money.
The golden idol is alive and well, just as the Old Testament law “thou shalt have no other God before me” seems forgotten or somehow misinterpreted. One who believes the acquisition of money keeps them safer than their religious or spiritual faith, has either fallen into a hypnotic state of denial, or is plainly lying about what they actually believe. Thus, the rich seek security in becoming richer, and the poor live in constant fear of not having enough money (the same focus in reverse).
So, the question remains. What of our Republic? How close are we to losing the liberty and freedoms, checks and balances, and representative government so thoughtfully created by the founding fathers? And if we are at risk, what do we now do about it?
Comments
In my opinion:
Powers and superpowers come and powers and superpowers go. Our is on the precipice, not so much because of ideology and/or partisanship, but because of the economy.
You are correct when you criticize extreme greed. There's nothing wrong when one tries to do better for oneself and family, but when it's at the expense of others and their families, it becomes a problem. And that, it seems, with the widening gap between the wealthy and the poor and the waning of the middle class...is where we are.
I only hope that we wake up soon enough to save some of what has always been good about this country. Things like self-determination and an access to an education, the right to speak one's thoughts (in peril under Bush, of course) and being on the cutting edge of advances in medicine and technology, among other things.
IMO, there is still time to save it, but we do need to act quickly. We must get a fiscally responsible government that taxes its citizens fairly and disburses the money in ways that benefit the country. We need to pay attention to what politicians promise and to start holding them to their promises...or vote them out of office the next time. Can we do that?
Dunno....
Posted by: mary^ | July 28, 2007 09:19 PM
I think we might be developing a new "...archy" - rule by huge corporations. I don't know the name it will have, but there is a pretty good description of the workings of such a system in George Orwell's "1984".
Posted by: Louise Casey | July 29, 2007 08:08 AM
Stephen, I agree with your analysis of our so called goverment. Your final question, "What can we do about it" is a big concern to me. Congress, republicans and democrats, are owned by the special interest groups, the supreme court is controlled, and the executive branch is not interested in the public interest. Thanks for the article.
Posted by: Carl Cheney | July 29, 2007 08:19 AM
I've not felt "represented" by my representatives for quite some time, except for maybe by Barbara Boxer. Somehow we have lost the idea.... if we ever had it.... that our leaders work for *us* rather than for themselves. As for a Theo-oligarchy, it seems like that's where we are right now. There is so much attention given to peoples' religious affiliations, and they all seem to be held up to some so-called "Christian Standard" as set by the right-wing extremists, who are hardly qualified to set such standards.
Posted by: Renee | July 29, 2007 09:45 AM
I agree with the idea of the corporate-ocracy as the ruling force in our country, and world wide, beyond the reach of our laws and Constitution. The mask of relgion, which trumps questioning and outlaws any opposition is the most fearsome aspect of our current state. The only saving grace, as it were, about this that keeps me from going more insane than I am is the belief in, as Arundanti Roy said, "The God of Small Things".... My actions, my voice, my individual efforts every day to leave as small a footprint as I can on the planet and not to hate. It's all I've got to go on. The electoral process has sold out to the corporatocracy.
Posted by: beanie | August 1, 2007 03:38 PM
Hi Stephen and All,
You brought a very good question here Stephen. In southern terms, I believe our government is going to hell in a handbasket.. !
I have to state though that our founding fathers were not all that free thinking as far as giving some control over the presidential elections to the average "people". Come to find out, they put provisions in the Constitution to protect themselves from Monarchies and others who would seek to rule over them, and to give new freedoms they had never had. But, when it came to the election of the president, they didn't trust the average american citizen to vote "correctly" and insure a good president. So, those wonderful founding fathers created the electoral college. Many think this came about to insure that everyone was represented fairly, but in actuality it was to insure the so-called integrity of the "right" president. Also, Our founding fathers NEVER invisioned a two party system, they never wanted that. It was supposed to not be any Parties at all. But a few couldn't agree and despite their best efforts, people began clumping together in their own little groups and creating parties. One of the things I learned last year.
I honestly believe our govt needs a total re-vamping. My ideas are these,. One, we have to get rid of the extraodinary power lobbyists have... its unreal... they are the ones that seem to fund and control our leaders. It should be law, that lobbyists must present their request in writing to the entire congress, that congress then deliberates on the merits of the request. Everything to be recorded for reviewing and legal purposes, from the delivery of the request to the final decision. ANYONE who meets in secret or receives and type of gratuity from a lobbyist should face a mandatory 10 years in prison., the lobbyist is no longer allowed to lobby for anyone or anything,,..ever. And heavy fines.
Our campaign funding needs overhauling also for the same reasons as the lobbyists. They have too much power over our leaders, the only people that should have that much power are the american people.
TV time for campaigners should be given a certain amount of hours between the beginning of the campaign til the election. Like 50 hours for one year., and its FREE but with a limit on how much you can spend on tv ads, This goes for newspapers, the internet, or anything else they use for advertisement. Secondly, the politicians are given a certain amount of monies to use for the campaign and nothing more. They are all given the same amount of monies and advertising and no one is allowed to accept any contributions from anywhere outside of what their parties give to them or the govt. Anyone who attempts to break this law, should receive 5 years jail time and forever be banned from any political activities. IF people want to donate funds to their party, thats fine, but it must be reported and even then a cap should be put on individual party donations.
And because anyone who wants to be a president and can show education and experience, whether they are rich or just middle class, should be able to receive campaign funds from a national campaign fund department. Where everything from the books to the computer is reviewed for any thing improper. If our government wants to "watch" its citizens and listen and read their private conversations, then I think its about time that the citizens start keeping an eye on our govt and making them accountable to us, their employers.
Just my thought.
Kat
Posted by: Katerina | August 12, 2007 02:18 PM
Some great thoughts there Kat concerning campaign financing and lobbyists. I agree on both accounts.
Lobbying began as a vehicle for informing those in government about products and services, and somewhere along the line went from the diseminating of information to that of bribes instead. It's shameless to hear Congress people speaking about the evils of lobbyists, while still taking their money. They must believe nobody notices.
Campaign finance reform is the first key to changing things. I agree it should come from public funding alotted to each candidate equally. That's the only way to get the influence of special interests out of the equation.
This assumes that they aren't also being bribed on the side, as I feel so many in Congress are, to insure "right" voting on specific bills once a person is elected. The recent prescription drug bill is such an instance. Once again, this addresses the issue of lobbying.
Personally, I wouldn't even allow private donations to campaigns even in small increments. I see no need for candidates to receive any monies from the private sector at all. Perhaps this would help curtail all the ludicrous TV advertising, and force candidates to find more honest and pertinent messages to send to the electorate by other means.
A little bit of reform is also in order for the Executive branch. No more secret meetings of special interests to set policies (such as the energy program) and the invoking of "executive privilege to cover up same.
It's time to get the temptation to be dishonest out of the political arena, along with the crooks that only joined in to feed off the public trough in the first place. It's time to allow people to serve the nation as their only focus, and not be concerned with how they will get the funding to run for the next term!
Posted by: Stephen | August 12, 2007 05:16 PM