This year's mid-term elections very likely were the most crucial elections in American history. The American people were faced with the need for earth-shaking reforms, from very complex survival needs to the very daunting needs to adjust to a new economic reality in America. Voters had to determine whether America would become a place where "survival of the fittest" prevailed, or where no group of human beings was considered dispensable, and none was deemed indispensable. As was the case with the founding of the nation, however, solutions would only be provided by our brightest Americans who are also among our most moral, ethical and empathetic Americans.
Someone said that democracy requires and moral ethical majority. "Survival of the fittest" with a moral, ethical and empathetic foundation both prepares and enables the strongest, brightest and wealthiest to then provide the means for maximum opportunities and preparation of those of lesser attributes so they, too, can make their maximum contribution to society. But where conscience is no longer a factor in decision-making, "survival of the fittest" leads to domination rather than support of those less fit.
Someone else has said that the test of a nation's character is how well it treats its poor.
And as the American people have become wealthier, we are becoming less willing to share that wealth with those who are less fortunate. This attitude eventually impoverishes the middle class. Increasingly more American families have children in poor schools than in good schools, guaranteeing to grow that pool of needy Americans who either don't know or can't control what is best for them.
Strangely on Nov. 2, American families, most of whose children attend poorer schools, expressed a belief that Republicans offered their children a better chance for a quality education--despite there being no evidence of this. Thomas Jefferson said that democracy cannot survive with an uninformed, poorly educated electorate.
But instead of providing quality education for all children, too many parents have succeeded in providing the best schools, courses, teachers and classmates for our own children so they will be among the "fittest" to survive. But they do this with no intention that their children be among the "fittest" so they can then help those who are less "fit."
Someone said that democracy requires a moral, rational majority. We need to be able to trust those with whom we survive. But we can't continue to elect people we don't trust, for the wrong reasons, and expect honest government. What we are to become as a nation, we are now becoming. We can only hope that the last election results is not evidence that we are already there. It certainly will be difficult to elect people who are better than we are ourselves. And we cannot care more for other people than our minds have been taught and our hearts will allow. Those who lie most, deceive most, and care less about those of us who have come upon hard times have been able to convince a majority of "the American people" that their successful war against the poor is due to God's being on their side.
These are confusing times, indeed, when people think that those who got them into trouble are more likely to lead them out, and those who cost them jobs are more likely to bring those jobs back.
During this campaign, Tea Party participants depicted President Obama as a socialist--and as a nation we are socialistic: Social Security, Medicare, public schools, public universities, public highways, public support for medical research. public financing of the military, public judicial systems, public police and fire services, etc. Little did voters realize, though, the kind of political system they were making possible. Even in communist China the government determines the parameters within which businesses operate, and establishes people-friendly ends that business must pursue. In the end, the success of political and economic systems does not rest in what the system is called but in the results it achieves--its ability "to do the most good for the most people."
But America in the process of doing the most good for the fewest people, and we are finding ourselves operating contrary to all the words of wisdom that have been spoken and guided the behavior of mankind for thousands of years. Even "do unto other as you would have them do unto you" is beginning to be treated as a joke.
Whether it sought it or not, big business has been handed control of both elections and the Supreme Court, and a return to little regulations, no oversight, and no obligation to be people-friendly in its behavior. It can reduce workforce or what workers are paid at will. They can cut work time and workers would have to accept it because there would be no better paying jobs elsewhere. Judging from the unidentified financial contributions given to the Republican party during the last election, there are more corporate bad guys than good guys.
In the past, businesses made money off middle-class and the working poor who both spent more and accumulated more debt than they could afford. Not being paid what their labor was worth, too often these Americans used credit and credit cards to cover financial shortfalls. That money bought things and activities (and paid interest on debt) that enabled businesses, both the lenders and the sellers of goods and services, to generate more profits. These profits exceeded what business should have expected (or even would have been possible) had workers lived within their means and saved according to their future needs. But this allowed investors at the top of wealth ladder to further enriched themselves by climbing on the backs of those working Americans who were doing the ground-level work for both businesses and this society.
The fact that the rule of big business is not only conceivable but, with the help of the Supreme Court, quite achievable should ring a alert bell and be cause for great concern by moral and rational voters on whose wisdom and actions survival of our democracy depends.
Ronald
No comments:
Post a Comment