In a nation governed of, by and for the people, I fully understand and appreciate the fact that everybody wants to be in charge. americans are nothing if not opinionated. Of course, like the old adage goes, opinions are like butts, everybody has one and most of them stink! When 70% of americans disapprove of the military plan in Iraq, does it mean anything when coming from a group 99% of which have no combat, war planning, or international conflict management experience at all? Why should it?
I have often referred to the subject question as "the founder's fatal flaw", the notion that average people without necessary experience, unable to manage their own lives, could somehow manage to run their entire country successfully. But the truth is--this flaw in our system of self-governance can not be blamed on the founders. They actually had it right originally, limiting voting rights at least to land owners, specifically, those who had demonstrated the ability to successfully manage their own affairs first, before asking them to manage the affairs of others.
Marx taught his "proletariat class" to hate the so-called elite capitalist "ruling class", while in fact developing an elite socialist "ruling class" who would become chosen by the proletariat to manage their every need through a central power. Both communism and communism-lite (socialism), sought central power over the people (and private assets) by way of national dependency upon a central government which promised to provide for every citizen equally, without concern for individual merit. "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." Karl Marx.
Marx was completely un-american in his ideas though. The land of opportunity promised "to each according to his ability, imagination, determination, sweat and sacrifice." anyone determined to make it, could make it in america and millions have lived that promise since. This promise still exists today, but it is under constant attack and losing its power.
Marx's ideas are alive and well today, though referred to as the "labor movement". In other nations such as England, this movement has a political party of its own, the Labor Party. In america, this movement has seized control of the Democratic Party, funded largely by labor unions (the proletariat), though this wasn't always the case. (Read Communism is alive and Well).
Though the fundamental question is unsavory and even offensive to many, it is no less valid and reasonable. Such illogical ideas are usually promoted as some form of a "right", because they would otherwise be obviously wrong. The proletariat demanded their "right" to vote, to have a say in the running of their country and they have it now. Though this is certainly a well understood and reasonable demand--is it logical and can any nation survive such an idea long term?
We americans have many rights. We have the right to point a loaded gun at our own head and pull the trigger. But would it be wise to exercise that right?
Likewise, would we hand our personal finances over to someone who has bankrupted themselves numerous times? Would we ask the local TV repairman to perform our much needed brain surgery? Should we seek marriage counseling from someone divorced three or more times, or people who have never been married at all? People all over the world, who have never known freedom, liberty or self-governance, have all kinds of strange opinions about how america should function. Do any of these un-american opinions count for anything in america?
We have a right to do all of these things, but would we, should we do them? We even have the right to commit complete national suicide though poor decisions made on the basis of poor information, but why would we, on purpose?
Do we really expect people personally economically dependent upon our federal government for their every meal, to ever vote for anything other than a better free meal? Why do we want convicted felons to have a vote? Have they not demonstrated the very worst of decision making abilities? These ideas might be nice, in a politically correct but nationally suicidal sort of way… But are they wise?
I've done my time in corporate board meetings, so I tend to think in these terms. It is common for upper level management to seek a boardroom full of unqualified yes men. Why? Because management can hand them their opinion before taking any votes on operational decisions and miraculously, the board always agrees with management. If not, keep finding new unqualified board members until they do.
Why do political leaders seek to represent only people who are unqualified to have an opinion of their own? For the same reason management seeks a boardroom full of yes men.
Why should america (the land of opportunity) even have a proletariat class, let alone rely upon the counsel and advice of such a group for complex national and international decisions? The record shows unequivocally that anyone unable to manage their own lives, shouldn't be managing the lives of others.
This applies to many politicians as well. I recently wrote a column titled are americans Too Stupid to run their own Country? In that column I quote 1999 research that documented just how unqualified too many elected officials are. I'll show you the list of results again…
· Members who avoided driving violation via Congressional immunity 217 (40.5%)
· Members who filed bankruptcy on TWO or more businesses 117 (21.8%)
· Members picked up for DUI, but let go via Congressional immunity 84 (15.7%)
· Members with too bad of credit to get a credit card 71 (13.3%)
· Members who can't pass DOD or DOE security clearance 53 (10%)
· Members accused of spousal abuse 29 (5.4%)
· Members with DUI records (despite congressional immunity) 27 (5%)
· Members sued by personal creditors 21 (3.9%)
· Members who write bad checks (3.5% even after closing the House Bank) 19
· Members with drug related arrests 14 (2.6%)
· eight were arrested for shoplifting, seven for fraud, four for theft, three for assault and one for criminal trespass
Exactly how well do we expect a group like this to lead our nation? and who do you think voted these people into power? Why would any sane intelligent individual elect (or re-elect) such people to run their nations business? and why would anyone be shocked at the horrible outcome?
I'm not looking for a show of hands here. americans need to ask themselves these somewhat uncomfortable questions, at least in the privacy of their own heads and hearts, before they suffer the ultimate consequences of not asking them.
Today, the same political party that has worked to develop a proletariat class and pit them against the pro-american self reliant class, works to install voting rights for convicted felons and even "undocumented immigrants" (also known as "illegal aliens" and "non-citizens") of the United States.
The party promotes these ideas as "rights", which of course they are not. american "rights" apply to american citizens, furthermore, who have not been convicted of committing crimes in or against america. Felons and illegal aliens have no such rights, nor should they ever.
and while all american citizens above the age of eighteen now have the legal/constitutional "right" to vote, how wise is it to place equal power over our nation's future in the hands of people not yet able to support themselves, much less anyone else? How do you think we ended up with the panty-raid administration of the 90's, elected largely by the MTV generation still living on mom and dad's nickel?
Just because we have the right to do wrong, doesn't mean it is in our best interest to do it. Does it?
Since the decision to allow unqualified people to make important national decisions was made long ago, we will never get that genie back in the bottle. But we must insist that people, who have the power, use it wisely and that starts with properly educating ourselves with real facts, not political campaign hogwash, real american history, not NEa mandated nonsense and real american principles, not international socialist drivel spoon fed to young minds on every college campus today.
We have the right, but we must get it right!
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement