With the push to eliminate the debt by Republicans, they have failed to realize where our true debt comes from. It's fairly simple: it comes from ongoing wars, and subsidies given to the very companies who ship our jobs overseas.
Instead the Republicans are trying to end our grandparents' medical funding, privatize social security, and give even more money to the job-exporting companies, who line their pockets with taxpayer money. However, we, the people, have the power to rise up against those who have stolen our jobs, increased joblessness, and forced our young to take jobs that cannot pay the loans they took for college.
It's time to end this reign of terror by making sure that no Republicans are elected to office ever again. They have destroyed this country piece by piece. It's time to revolutionize the workers. It's time to create a world in which we can live peacefully and not be dragged into armed conflict every 10 years. That world is possible with socialism.
This revolution comes from within and from the bottom up. Violence is not necessarily the answer. We can do this by helping our neighbors, by fighting for what is right, and by joining in the fight against austerity measures that only benefit the wealthy and corporations. These leeches have stolen the lifeblood of this country, and it's time we say no more.
Join us in the fight for equality. Join the Communist Party today!
Monday, April 11, 2011
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
The New Pledge of Allegiance
I pledge allegiance to the flag and of the Corporate States of American.
And for the profit, under which it stands, one nation ruled by greed,
destitution ridden, for slavery and capitalist injustice for all.
This is the new loyalty oath of the United States. We have truly become an oligarchy of professional politicians controlled by corporate interest without any interest in protecting the people. The time is now to rise up against this tyranny, to fight oppression, and to stand for liberty and justice for all, not just for a few super-wealthy elites.
If you have seen your future snatched away from you by corporate greed, your job shipped overseas to exploited countries, or your retirement destroyed because of poor investments, after you paid into a system for years to get nothing, then you are one of us. If you make under $250,000 a year, then you are one of us. And if you are one of the millions who is sick of the constant greed of politicians and corporations, then join us. Organize your churches, your atheist meeting groups, your social groups, your fellow co-workers. Get out the vote to eliminate the Republicans who are more interested in lining their pockets with YOUR money, than they are about standing for the people.
This is bigger than abortion, this is bigger than guns, this is bigger than fighting an enemy that is constructed only from fear. Fear is currently our biggest adversary. I say to hell with fear! To hell with our jobs being shipped over seas! To hell with our true enemies, the corporate elites! They send our friends, our relatives, our children, our fathers, and our mothers to die for political gain. They are worth more than that. Their lives mean more than that.
They want to divide us from our neighbors and relatives, so that they can control us. A divided people is easier to conquer than a united one. We all bleed red. We may dress differently, we may wear different clothes, and we may even have different languages, but the one thing that unites us is our humanity and our class. We may be middle or working class, but in the end, we are not enemies. We may think differently and have different goals, but in the end, we are no different from one another. Besides, the middle class is a rare beast these days. The majority of us have become working class, and it's our time to rise against this beast and slay it once and for all time!
End the corporate menance, by voting for candidates who want to put restrictions on businesses that hurt our families and our communities. End the administrative monsters and the wealthy elites who destroy our public schools. End the 2% majority by making your voice heard. Join in unison with your neighbors, your communities, and tell them that we are mad as hell and that we are not going to take it anymore!
We are human beings goddammit! We don't deserve to be treated like cattle!
Collectivize your workplace now, and stand for true democracy!
Monday, March 21, 2011
The Future of Politics
Here's the deal, we are in the throws of political warfare. Before everyone has had a chance to gear up for the 2012 presidential election, the Republicans are already on the attack. Now this may not seem like an important factor in our presidential race. Candidates often prepare early in order to gather momentum for their bids for the top spot in Washington. However, what marks this political maneuver differently, is that everything the Republicans are targeting are Democratic strongholds.
First came the attack on immigrants, with the passing of SB1070 in Arizona and attempted other legislation, then came the attack on our collective bargaining rights in numerous states that hold Republican majorities, after that came the attacks on Planned Parenthood. So what does this mean? Are these really ways to solve the budget deficits in other states.
The Rationale
Republicans have told the press that they are stuck with large deficits, and they need to cut public sector jobs in order to do this. However, this does not justify the attacks on collective bargaining. Collective bargaining, whether in the public or private sector, allows for workers to manage the output of their own work, while guaranteeing certain rights, such as a fair wage, decent retirement, and due process under management. Furthermore, unions allow the workers to have a voice, allowing them to bargain with companies for better wages, working conditions, etc. However, this does not impact the state budget in any way besides allowing public workers to have a dialogue. Sure, they will take a pay decrease and hikes in their retirement and pension payments if it helps the state, but to destroy the power of unions is another thing altogether.
Destroying unions will not solve the budget deficit. If anything, it will put workers out of work, negatively impacting the net economy in these states. Public sector jobs are jobs, just like the private sector jobs. A loss in the public sector also means a loss in the private sector. However, what this shows is that this is a political, rather than economic move by the Republicans. Economically speaking, jobs are jobs, and they generate income. The difference, in terms of pay, are not that much. In fact, public sector workers make less than their private sector counterparts on average.
First came the attack on immigrants, with the passing of SB1070 in Arizona and attempted other legislation, then came the attack on our collective bargaining rights in numerous states that hold Republican majorities, after that came the attacks on Planned Parenthood. So what does this mean? Are these really ways to solve the budget deficits in other states.
The Rationale
Republicans have told the press that they are stuck with large deficits, and they need to cut public sector jobs in order to do this. However, this does not justify the attacks on collective bargaining. Collective bargaining, whether in the public or private sector, allows for workers to manage the output of their own work, while guaranteeing certain rights, such as a fair wage, decent retirement, and due process under management. Furthermore, unions allow the workers to have a voice, allowing them to bargain with companies for better wages, working conditions, etc. However, this does not impact the state budget in any way besides allowing public workers to have a dialogue. Sure, they will take a pay decrease and hikes in their retirement and pension payments if it helps the state, but to destroy the power of unions is another thing altogether.
Destroying unions will not solve the budget deficit. If anything, it will put workers out of work, negatively impacting the net economy in these states. Public sector jobs are jobs, just like the private sector jobs. A loss in the public sector also means a loss in the private sector. However, what this shows is that this is a political, rather than economic move by the Republicans. Economically speaking, jobs are jobs, and they generate income. The difference, in terms of pay, are not that much. In fact, public sector workers make less than their private sector counterparts on average.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Defunding NPR is Asinine
Of all the things to defund, this seems to me to be the most asinine. Why are we not bringing home ALL of our troops and end all wars and hostilities?!?!?! It's easy to do, and it saves a huge draw on our budget. This current bill won't even save us any money! It started with trying to end collective bargaining, trying to end funding for Planned Parenthood, and now trying to cut funding for something that won't even save us money. This is a political attempt by the right wing to crush anything that does not explicitly agree with their party line. Lets get rid of these bastards entirely in 2012. It's time to end the right wing in the United States. Cut funding for their privatization efforts, nationalize as much as we can, vote them all out, and make all of their past, constitutional violations as grounds to arrest its leadership and end their party.
Monday, March 14, 2011
Can Someone Be Apolitical?
"Apolitical"
We hear it often. Someone espouses the view that they don't like "politics" or they are "apolitical." However, we all know that that person MUST have a political view. Everyone does. They can certainly be indifferent to certain political goals, but everyone has an opinion, a viewpoint, an idea about politics. Are these people lying?
Well, no. These people just are trying to say something based on their feelings of frustration with arguing (i.e. defending their political positions) or having someone else force their political views down said person's throat (i.e. apolitical). So they are not lying, but they certainly misunderstand what politics is. Politics is essentially how our world-views shape our actions and decisions. This inevitably has an effect on the people around us. Therefore trying to be apolitical is false proposition, but in the United States we don't understand the difference between having a political conversation and hurting each others' feelings. So we close up and try to say things like, "I don't talk politics" or "I'm just apolitical." Sorry, but that doesn't fly.
The truth is that we, as Americans, have a really thin skin when it comes to discussing politics. This is understandable when considering how personal political viewpoints are, but they should never stop us from trying to discuss our differences. Sometimes however, people calling themselves apolitical are just trying to force a shield against those who would disagree with their own. So while they claim an "apolitical" stance, they put it up as a barrier against people who do not share their own viewpoint. This forces the other person into a state of constant awareness about what they say and do. Frankly, it becomes an act of trying to mitigate what we say and do.
In this case, "apolitical" is just a cover so people don't have to expose their own views. This way, they never have to defend their position, or have to think about why they hold the views that they do. They can just sit back and relax in their own ignorance. To further the problem, then. These "apolitical" types like to hide in their own "apolitical" narrative, which they have deluded themselves into believing, and then they attack anyone with an opposing viewpoint from their "apolitical" stance. In other words, they are political cowards or fence-sitters, who either refuse to expose their views because they fear actually having to talk about them. This fear needs to be conquered if we are to move forward.
Why is this important?
There is a great article about this on Electric-Revival. So I won't go into too much detail, but the author talks about the hurt-locker as an apolitical movie. However, the author counters with the fact that no matter who makes the movie, what that person's views are, or how they view the subjects in question, their viewpoint will inevitably show through based on their content and delivery. The difference, however, is that "[w]hen we praise the film’s apoliticism what we might really be doing is praising its subtlety." This is the case in point. When we talk politics, bashing someone over the head with our point of view is unnecessary. We should rather use subtelty to make our points clear, and eliminate issues of communication. A heavy-handed response may make the audience withdraw, while the subtle use of voice, tone, and how we define our points may, in fact, be the best course of action.
This is important because many times in politics, people disagree on minor points, but when it comes to major premises we fail only based on definition. An example of this is where I talked about the immigration issue with a Republican. The Republican in question agreed to my points that we needed to lax our policies on immigration, while maintaining his position on illegal immigrants. I used the case that immigrants do not, in fact, hurt our economy. I was able to use this argument because I connected it to his personal family history.
His family arrived from Italy at Ellis Island and were allowed to gain entrance very easily. However, today, our immigration policies are much more strict and needlessly difficult. Therefore many people skirt the system in order to gain faster entrance. The use of quotas is stupid in that it actually hurts the folks who want to enter legally, but can't. And it hurts the people who entered illegally because they don't have the same protections as other people, driving down the cost of their combined labor. Employers can then charge them much less than they should make in wages, exploiting them at their will. However, we need immigrants in order to grow economically because they also pay taxes, and they inevitably need to buy goods and services, paying taxes in doing so.
He agreed to all of these points because I connected them to his goals: economic growth, job protection, and equal taxation. I dispelled the myths, but because I was able to connect to his family history and unite our goals, immigration reform and reducing the number of illegal immigrants, we were able to come to a mutual consensus.
This is why it's important. Without talking with one another, we allow our use of words to get in the way, while our pundits use us to win another election. Our viewpoints are not inseparable, and no one is truly apolitical. The truth is that we are not as different as we make ourselves out to be, and we need to quit hiding behind the wall of "apoliticism." It is divisive, and that is exactly what politicians want. When we don't talk about issues, they can use or own language and ideas against us, stopping us from enacting real change in our political landscape. They do it to further their own careers, rather than benefit the rest of us, and their greed, their tactics of fear, and their use of rhetoric are our greatest enemies.
We hear it often. Someone espouses the view that they don't like "politics" or they are "apolitical." However, we all know that that person MUST have a political view. Everyone does. They can certainly be indifferent to certain political goals, but everyone has an opinion, a viewpoint, an idea about politics. Are these people lying?
Well, no. These people just are trying to say something based on their feelings of frustration with arguing (i.e. defending their political positions) or having someone else force their political views down said person's throat (i.e. apolitical). So they are not lying, but they certainly misunderstand what politics is. Politics is essentially how our world-views shape our actions and decisions. This inevitably has an effect on the people around us. Therefore trying to be apolitical is false proposition, but in the United States we don't understand the difference between having a political conversation and hurting each others' feelings. So we close up and try to say things like, "I don't talk politics" or "I'm just apolitical." Sorry, but that doesn't fly.
The truth is that we, as Americans, have a really thin skin when it comes to discussing politics. This is understandable when considering how personal political viewpoints are, but they should never stop us from trying to discuss our differences. Sometimes however, people calling themselves apolitical are just trying to force a shield against those who would disagree with their own. So while they claim an "apolitical" stance, they put it up as a barrier against people who do not share their own viewpoint. This forces the other person into a state of constant awareness about what they say and do. Frankly, it becomes an act of trying to mitigate what we say and do.
In this case, "apolitical" is just a cover so people don't have to expose their own views. This way, they never have to defend their position, or have to think about why they hold the views that they do. They can just sit back and relax in their own ignorance. To further the problem, then. These "apolitical" types like to hide in their own "apolitical" narrative, which they have deluded themselves into believing, and then they attack anyone with an opposing viewpoint from their "apolitical" stance. In other words, they are political cowards or fence-sitters, who either refuse to expose their views because they fear actually having to talk about them. This fear needs to be conquered if we are to move forward.
Why is this important?
There is a great article about this on Electric-Revival. So I won't go into too much detail, but the author talks about the hurt-locker as an apolitical movie. However, the author counters with the fact that no matter who makes the movie, what that person's views are, or how they view the subjects in question, their viewpoint will inevitably show through based on their content and delivery. The difference, however, is that "[w]hen we praise the film’s apoliticism what we might really be doing is praising its subtlety." This is the case in point. When we talk politics, bashing someone over the head with our point of view is unnecessary. We should rather use subtelty to make our points clear, and eliminate issues of communication. A heavy-handed response may make the audience withdraw, while the subtle use of voice, tone, and how we define our points may, in fact, be the best course of action.
This is important because many times in politics, people disagree on minor points, but when it comes to major premises we fail only based on definition. An example of this is where I talked about the immigration issue with a Republican. The Republican in question agreed to my points that we needed to lax our policies on immigration, while maintaining his position on illegal immigrants. I used the case that immigrants do not, in fact, hurt our economy. I was able to use this argument because I connected it to his personal family history.
His family arrived from Italy at Ellis Island and were allowed to gain entrance very easily. However, today, our immigration policies are much more strict and needlessly difficult. Therefore many people skirt the system in order to gain faster entrance. The use of quotas is stupid in that it actually hurts the folks who want to enter legally, but can't. And it hurts the people who entered illegally because they don't have the same protections as other people, driving down the cost of their combined labor. Employers can then charge them much less than they should make in wages, exploiting them at their will. However, we need immigrants in order to grow economically because they also pay taxes, and they inevitably need to buy goods and services, paying taxes in doing so.
He agreed to all of these points because I connected them to his goals: economic growth, job protection, and equal taxation. I dispelled the myths, but because I was able to connect to his family history and unite our goals, immigration reform and reducing the number of illegal immigrants, we were able to come to a mutual consensus.
This is why it's important. Without talking with one another, we allow our use of words to get in the way, while our pundits use us to win another election. Our viewpoints are not inseparable, and no one is truly apolitical. The truth is that we are not as different as we make ourselves out to be, and we need to quit hiding behind the wall of "apoliticism." It is divisive, and that is exactly what politicians want. When we don't talk about issues, they can use or own language and ideas against us, stopping us from enacting real change in our political landscape. They do it to further their own careers, rather than benefit the rest of us, and their greed, their tactics of fear, and their use of rhetoric are our greatest enemies.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Redefining How We Do Politics
Politics is what I do and love. One of my laments is the fracturing of the Left in the United States. What we really need is much more adequate representation. The way to do this is to form a left coalition, such as Die Linke. "The Left" was formed as a response to their own political fracturing. Since uniting, they have become a force in Germany.
However, I do recognize the problematic nature of doing this in the United States, as a strong socialist organization would be near to impossible to create given our political situation and respective media issues. Whatever it is called, I have created a manifesto for ths new political organization.
The Party for Universal Democracy: Advocating Universal Democracy for All
Here is what needs to be done:
#1 Join forces with progressives, Greens, Socialists, Reds, etc.
#2 Show them the power of a united coalition with left-leaning Democrats in a united voting block
#3 Form "Get-Out-The-Vote" style of organizing. If you are a citizen you must vote for your rights!
#4 Form a national coalition and hierarchy based on the following principles.
Our enemy is the wealthy elite (2%-ers), corporate-welfare queens (Wal-Mart, Goldman Sachs), and unfair taxation. We must all pay our way.
FAIR Taxation: Federal Allowance for Income Reduction (taxation system that reduces taxes for those that make under $250,000 a year.
"Road to Recovery"
Goals:
1. Build Infrastructure
- Maintain existing Infrastructure
- Set aside maintenance funds
- research and development of existing and future infrastructure
2. Creates a taxation system that benefits all, not just a few
- Tax Reform that generates "economic independence"
3. Democracy in the workplace
- Create an environment of concensus (i.e. Workers vote for a council that specifies production)
- "Working together to make America strong."
- Pro-Union, Anti-Corruption
4. Build international ties
- Pay off our debt by increasing taxation for those who make over $250,000.
- Organize a new NAFTA. Call it the "North American Fair Trade Agreement"
- Invest in democracy in other countries by supporting truly democratic organizations, rather than our rampant imperialism,which just gives us a bad name.
- Immediate withdrawal and draw down of ALL of our troops. Costs too much to maintain.
- Cut military expenditures and reinvest in our economy and security forces.
5. Free US from foreign energy dependence
- Invest heavily in scientifically-approved means, such as bio-diesel, and "locally grown fuels"
- Eliminate taxes for those interested in solar and wind as home-energy sources.
- Complete transparency of our environmental situation
6. Improve our nation's health
- create "Medicare Part-E"
- Reform the FDA, and eliminate prohibition
- Use tax money generated from legal drugs in order to finance rehabilitation programs
- Remove "conflicts of interest" from the medical profession
- Sponsor "preventative healthcare" measures, so that we can catch diseases before they get bad
- Improve our V.A. Hospitals with money saved by withdrawing our troops from unnecessary wars
7. Universal Education, "Educate America"
- Democracy in the school system
a. teachers vote on the annual budget for principles and administrators
b. teacher boards become the administrative body, and are voted for every year
c. teachers have to re-qualify for teacher certification every 5-years
- Create universal education
a. eliminate schools for the rich (cumpulsory public education)
b. free public education
- Eliminate "No Child Left Behind"
a. form a national committee that oversees public education and initiates reforms
b. representatives based on school districts, and chosen by the teachers themselves
- Eliminate barriers to higher education
- Reform "sex eduation"
a. only qualified sexual education counts
b. no more "abstinence-only" education
c. remove repressive, religious counter-education
8. Balance the Budget
- By using the F.A.I.R. Taxes system, we can rebuild our financial trust
- Elimate the idea that banks are "too-big" to fail.
- Make private, military expenditures transparent
- Recreate a national bank with qualified individuals to strengthen our currency, and eliminate the threat of corruption by removing the "banking elite"
9. Reform Welfare
- We have created a system of dependency
- No one wants to be on welfare
a. invest in our people
b. give the unemployed jobs, benefits, and housing based upon their skills
c. create a "living wage" for the working class and poor
d. create education programs for these unemployed citizens to be able to build a new skill-set
- End predatory welfare
a. make sure that people can ween themselves off welfare gradually
b. no one should live like a king on welfare
c. make sure that welfare is distributed well
- Create "independent individuals"
a. by sponsoring our unemployed, we create qualified professionals
b. by making sure that these unemployed people are working, they aren't just living off other people
c. by giving them a fair chance, we eliminate those on welfare by allowing them to slowly get off of it
d. we can eliminate welfare entirely and put Americans to work creating economic independence
10. Reform Immigration
- Illegal immigration poses security threats
a. make immigration to the U.S. easier and safer
- Make sure they can speak the language
a. teach new immigrants English in mandatory ESL courses
b. ESL courses created by the Immigration Service and employing American citizens
c. by employing American citizens, boost economic situation in the United States
However, I do recognize the problematic nature of doing this in the United States, as a strong socialist organization would be near to impossible to create given our political situation and respective media issues. Whatever it is called, I have created a manifesto for ths new political organization.
The Party for Universal Democracy: Advocating Universal Democracy for All
Here is what needs to be done:
#1 Join forces with progressives, Greens, Socialists, Reds, etc.
#2 Show them the power of a united coalition with left-leaning Democrats in a united voting block
#3 Form "Get-Out-The-Vote" style of organizing. If you are a citizen you must vote for your rights!
#4 Form a national coalition and hierarchy based on the following principles.
Our enemy is the wealthy elite (2%-ers), corporate-welfare queens (Wal-Mart, Goldman Sachs), and unfair taxation. We must all pay our way.
FAIR Taxation: Federal Allowance for Income Reduction (taxation system that reduces taxes for those that make under $250,000 a year.
"Road to Recovery"
Goals:
1. Build Infrastructure
- Maintain existing Infrastructure
- Set aside maintenance funds
- research and development of existing and future infrastructure
2. Creates a taxation system that benefits all, not just a few
- Tax Reform that generates "economic independence"
3. Democracy in the workplace
- Create an environment of concensus (i.e. Workers vote for a council that specifies production)
- "Working together to make America strong."
- Pro-Union, Anti-Corruption
4. Build international ties
- Pay off our debt by increasing taxation for those who make over $250,000.
- Organize a new NAFTA. Call it the "North American Fair Trade Agreement"
- Invest in democracy in other countries by supporting truly democratic organizations, rather than our rampant imperialism,which just gives us a bad name.
- Immediate withdrawal and draw down of ALL of our troops. Costs too much to maintain.
- Cut military expenditures and reinvest in our economy and security forces.
5. Free US from foreign energy dependence
- Invest heavily in scientifically-approved means, such as bio-diesel, and "locally grown fuels"
- Eliminate taxes for those interested in solar and wind as home-energy sources.
- Complete transparency of our environmental situation
6. Improve our nation's health
- create "Medicare Part-E"
- Reform the FDA, and eliminate prohibition
- Use tax money generated from legal drugs in order to finance rehabilitation programs
- Remove "conflicts of interest" from the medical profession
- Sponsor "preventative healthcare" measures, so that we can catch diseases before they get bad
- Improve our V.A. Hospitals with money saved by withdrawing our troops from unnecessary wars
7. Universal Education, "Educate America"
- Democracy in the school system
a. teachers vote on the annual budget for principles and administrators
b. teacher boards become the administrative body, and are voted for every year
c. teachers have to re-qualify for teacher certification every 5-years
- Create universal education
a. eliminate schools for the rich (cumpulsory public education)
b. free public education
- Eliminate "No Child Left Behind"
a. form a national committee that oversees public education and initiates reforms
b. representatives based on school districts, and chosen by the teachers themselves
- Eliminate barriers to higher education
- Reform "sex eduation"
a. only qualified sexual education counts
b. no more "abstinence-only" education
c. remove repressive, religious counter-education
8. Balance the Budget
- By using the F.A.I.R. Taxes system, we can rebuild our financial trust
- Elimate the idea that banks are "too-big" to fail.
- Make private, military expenditures transparent
- Recreate a national bank with qualified individuals to strengthen our currency, and eliminate the threat of corruption by removing the "banking elite"
9. Reform Welfare
- We have created a system of dependency
- No one wants to be on welfare
a. invest in our people
b. give the unemployed jobs, benefits, and housing based upon their skills
c. create a "living wage" for the working class and poor
d. create education programs for these unemployed citizens to be able to build a new skill-set
- End predatory welfare
a. make sure that people can ween themselves off welfare gradually
b. no one should live like a king on welfare
c. make sure that welfare is distributed well
- Create "independent individuals"
a. by sponsoring our unemployed, we create qualified professionals
b. by making sure that these unemployed people are working, they aren't just living off other people
c. by giving them a fair chance, we eliminate those on welfare by allowing them to slowly get off of it
d. we can eliminate welfare entirely and put Americans to work creating economic independence
10. Reform Immigration
- Illegal immigration poses security threats
a. make immigration to the U.S. easier and safer
- Make sure they can speak the language
a. teach new immigrants English in mandatory ESL courses
b. ESL courses created by the Immigration Service and employing American citizens
c. by employing American citizens, boost economic situation in the United States
Monday, February 21, 2011
The Constitution
The Constitution of the United States is probably one of the most valued documents in all of U.S. history. However, it is also one of the most misused, underused, and misrepresented documents. Each political side claims its own take on what the constitution means and how the goals of each are more reflected in its framework. However, the truth is that the constitution belongs not to a political party, but to the people. This is why.
The issue of states' rights has plagued the United States of America since its inception. This can be seen, most notably, between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists during the late eighteenth century. The Federalists, who supported a strong central government, wanted to quickly ratify the constitution in order to preserve the "fledgling republic." The Anti-Federalists feared that a strong, central government would overpower local state authority, and they were right to fear too much power invested in the hands of the few. However, the constitution represents, perhaps, the best and worst desires of the U.S. and its citizens.
Under the constitution, white, landed males pushed for their own rights, while denying the rights of slaves, denied women the right to vote, and for many years, disallowed non-landed and working-class people the ability to espouse their views in the form of political will.
The truth is that the constitution is also our greatest success, but we must be ever weary that it was created by and for a small elite, whose wealth and power went unrivaled until someone stood up against them. The past should not be exalted as a glorious time of freedom and civility, but a time of division, poverty, and oppression. Surely, the constitution, even without its Bill of Rights which were added after the initial document, can be praised for its forward-thinking ideas, but we must not delude ourselves into thinking that this time period was some sort of amazing paradise with freedoms that do not exist today. The reality is that we must view the past with the same criticisms that we view our politicians and wealthy elite that we do today. They were not perfect heroes or uncanny villains, they were people with self-serving motives, espoused hateful rhetoric, and were pawns of corporate interest.
So the next time someone would like to remind you of our "perfect" constitution, remember that any "freedom" we have today, was wrested from the cold, deathly grasp of a small and powerful elite. There are no national heroes, there are only people.
The issue of states' rights has plagued the United States of America since its inception. This can be seen, most notably, between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists during the late eighteenth century. The Federalists, who supported a strong central government, wanted to quickly ratify the constitution in order to preserve the "fledgling republic." The Anti-Federalists feared that a strong, central government would overpower local state authority, and they were right to fear too much power invested in the hands of the few. However, the constitution represents, perhaps, the best and worst desires of the U.S. and its citizens.
Under the constitution, white, landed males pushed for their own rights, while denying the rights of slaves, denied women the right to vote, and for many years, disallowed non-landed and working-class people the ability to espouse their views in the form of political will.
The truth is that the constitution is also our greatest success, but we must be ever weary that it was created by and for a small elite, whose wealth and power went unrivaled until someone stood up against them. The past should not be exalted as a glorious time of freedom and civility, but a time of division, poverty, and oppression. Surely, the constitution, even without its Bill of Rights which were added after the initial document, can be praised for its forward-thinking ideas, but we must not delude ourselves into thinking that this time period was some sort of amazing paradise with freedoms that do not exist today. The reality is that we must view the past with the same criticisms that we view our politicians and wealthy elite that we do today. They were not perfect heroes or uncanny villains, they were people with self-serving motives, espoused hateful rhetoric, and were pawns of corporate interest.
So the next time someone would like to remind you of our "perfect" constitution, remember that any "freedom" we have today, was wrested from the cold, deathly grasp of a small and powerful elite. There are no national heroes, there are only people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)