The Death of Democracy

My problem with this Wall Street bail out bill is that it has stolen the very heart of democracy. Abraham Lincoln defined democracy as: "the government of the people, by the people, for the people." Democracy, as a political philosophy, has long been debatable in this country. At best, we've only had a representative democracy, not a pure democracy, and as long as political candidates are allowed to accept donations from powerful corporations to fuel their campaigns, to what extent they truly represent the American people is question-able. But this decision to bail out Wall Street calls our broken democracy into further question.

Capitalism is the economic philosophy that drives the West. I'm not a proponent of free market capitalism, but I find it superior to what we have now: corporate welfare. Those who support free market capitalism argue that it encourages competition and innovation. In a capitalist society, any individual should have the potential to reach the top, through competitive means. This doesn't mean that every individual will reach the top. Most won't. But competition drives the market. Jim Bob's local hardware store might sell quality tools, but if Toolmart opens a store down the street and sells the same or similar products for less because they're larger and their tools are mass-produced, Jim Bob's may find themselves out of business. They can't compete.

Those who support capitalism argue that there are inherent checks and balances within the system. Risk-taking is necessary, but the riskier the business practice, the likelier the business is to fail. Extreme risk-taking is, therefore, naturally limited. Of those who take extreme risks, a few may succeed, but the majority will not. The self-limiting aspects of capitalism have been rendered impotent by the government's decision to bail out those corporations who have taken extreme risks, and who consequently failed as a result. What kind of a message does this send to large corporations? What kind of message does it send to small businesses? If you're a big enough corporation, regardless of how reckless and irresponsible your are, you're immune to failure. And if you're a small business, there is no fair competition, because while the government doesn't give a shit about you (because your monetary contributions are meager), it has the back of large corporations.

The fundamentals of capitalism have been completely ignored. Small business owners are allowed to fail. Individuals and families can struggle and file bankruptcy if they make poor decisions, but large corporations are immune from the consequences. Free market capitalism is dead, and now we have a corporate welfare system, where the tax payers must support the greedy, irresponsible risk-takers on Wall Street. Americans spoke out against this bill nationwide, but did the government listen? Democracy is dead as well.

At this point, we basically have an oligarchy in America. This country is not run by the president, congress, or the senate. It's run by the corporate elite who pull the strings. Bush is a glaring example. He is as dumb as a rock, a total buffoon. Everyone can see it. He doesn't even pretend to have a clue. He's simply the mouthpiece for the corporations he works for. The same is true for both McCain and Obama. Obama targets liberal-minded and lower to middle class Americans with his speeches, but I see no sincerity in him. He plays within the system. He says whatever he has to to get as many people as possible to join him. Out of one side of his mouth, he acknowledges that corporate funding for political campaigning needs to stop, yet he accepts corporate funds just like McCain.

There's a reason why the election comes down to two parties; it's because both are controlled by Corporate America. Why are there no other serious candidates running for president? It's not because nobody else is interested. It's because nobody else can raise the kind of money needed to campaign along side them. Why are independent candidates like Ralph Nader kept out of the debates? He's anti-corporation, so he receives no corporate funding. He also can't get much air time because the news media is also owned by corporations. In a true representative democracy, shouldn't every presidential candidate be given a fair chance to argue his/her position?

Our government has strayed so far from the ideals upon which this country's constitution was built. It's not a democracy "of the people, by the people, and for the people." It's an oligarchy of wealthy rulers who use the media and charismatic candidates to keep people deluded. In my opinion, the American political and economic systems are total crap as they function today. I want to see a return to democratic ideals and socialization of wealth for the people. That's not going to happen by supporting either of these presidential cronies.

Naddia