How the American Voters Have Become Political Orphans

You don’t need a crystal ball to tell you that America is more divided than at any time in its history. More so than the decade leading up to the American Revolution. More than the decade preceding the Civil War. More than during Great Depression or the turbulent 1960's.

In fact, the division today may be so deep and the gulf so wide that it may never be bridged. We have become a nation of diverging ideals.  The recent elections (such as in New York City and Virginia as well as events in places like Dearborn Michigan) have served only to highlight our division. What have we've become?

One ideal our nation was founded on was the belief in a small or limited federal government. Low taxes, a level economic playing field, and government out of our private lives. However, now there are those who believed that government should be our primary source of our social and economic salvation. While our Founders believed that one succeeds or fails by their own efforts, we have those who think that government and by extension, society, “owes” for them simply for existing.

There are those who believe in entitlements, where all aren't just equal in the government's eyes, but some are more equal than others and should be given special consideration for some historical slight or another. Another group believe success comes from a good education and hard work, be it white collar, blue collar, pink collar or any other collar; that teachers are there to impart the skills one needs to succeed in society.

Meanwhile, others believe in downgrading the quality of education so that everyone "succeeds" or is a “winner”. As a result, society has to become a mediocrity. Meritocracy, where people are hired based on their skill and compatibility, is proclaimed “unfair” or “racist”. Successful people somehow "owe" those less successful because they spent their time skipping school or goofing off or thought that playing sports  was more important than studying English, math, science, or history; that they are owed a job just in the name of diversity or equity instead of knowledge or ability.

Our Founding Fathers envisioned a nation of "Yeoman farmers" and local merchants. We're a long way from that. They believed in the right to petition their elected representatives meant the right to question them, and if necessary, to recall them. They believed in transparency in government. They believed that no matter how well intended, government had no business in our private affairs. Individual privacy was essential as was freedom of speech, press, and association. With just five corporations controlling 96% of everything we watch, hear, or read, including the news, we no longer have those freedoms. We have a propaganda machine.

They believed America should look after America first and no “foreign entanglements”. Indeed, our Founders were ardent nationalists. They truly believed in "America First". They believed in the right to own arms. Not just for hunting or self-defense, but because recent events had proven to them that their mistrust government was justified. They understood that power, once obtained, is seldom willingly given up. They also knew, long before Lord Acton famously said it, that power corrupts and absolute power corrupted absolutely.

An armed citizenry was much harder to intimidate than an unarmed one (just look at England now). Most importantly, they believed in a small federal government with little taxation power because they knew they the way to destroy freedom can come from just as easily from the ability to tax as it can from the barrel of gun. Power should rest primarily in the hands of the States. Local control was the best control.

Most of our Founders opposed the creation of political parties as “cliques” who would, in time, seized power from ordinary citizens and use it to push their own agenda. They would be horrified by the control Big Business has over government.

Forty-three percent of registered voters now identify as Independent, and that doesn’t include members of third parties like the Libertarians or the Greens. That makes them the largest political bloc in the country. That also means that both of the two corporate owned parties, the Democrats and the Republicans, are in fact minority political parties. That also means that the majority of Americans are sick and tired of being sick and tired of the petty partisan bickering pushing their own agendas without public input or approval.

Our Founders also supported the concept of the “citizen legislator”, where a citizens would serve one or two terms in office and then return home and allow another citizen to do the same; a form of term limits. In this way, legislation would also stay relevant and reduce the chances of corruption.

What that absolutely disapproved of was notion of a “professional” politician, which was seen as little better than leach living off their fellow citizens. As an aside, these “citizen legislators” were only to be reimbursed for out of pocket expenses and not given a salary. Serving in government was seen as the civil duty of each citizen.

Personally, I believe that once a newly elected politician raises their hand to take the oath of office, they automatically end any political allegiance. They aren’t there to represent the agenda of some political  party or corporate clique. They are there to solely represent the American People and those of their district. Nothing more and nothing less.

We elect individuals to go to Washington, to our state capitols, or to City Hall and to work together to solve problems, but all too often those problems are the result of backroom dealing making or making unnecessary laws while We the People are left dealing with the mess and picking up the tab on something we had no say in.

We constantly hear how it's always the “other side” who won't cooperate. It's more like how one corporate clique wants more of our tax dollars. Playground antics and high school bullying instead of trying finding common ground is the rule in politics today and not the exception. They play economic chicken with the welfare of the people they were elected to serve. Anything goes as long as their master---big business--- profits.

Who is the "big business"? They are the ones who bankroll both political parties and pull their strings. They are the ones you rarely see at the national conventions. They are the ones who draft the laws with loopholes so they can make more money while avoiding taxes (or better yet, passing those taxes on to us). They are the ones who walk through the revolving doors of Wall Street boardrooms into cushy government appointments and back again. They are the corporate lobbyists and Beltway insiders.

They're the new and improved global military-industrial-technological complex President Eisenhower tried to warn us about. They are the exploiters of people and resources. Their goal is nothing less that control, be it of assets, market access, natural resources, and, of course, of us.

They know no national loyalties and are restricted by national boundaries. They have turned us from self-sufficient producers and proud citizens to mere global consumers “loyal” to one toilet paper brand, detergent or another product. If you carefully watch their programming, you’ll see just how interchangeable we're made to feel. We’ve become indentured economic serfs, hostages to credit ratings, manipulative consumption, and built in obsolescence.

They are the ultimate users and corruptors. We are artificially divided as every turn. We are pitted against each other in some way, be it work, entertainment, sports, and of course, gender, race, religion, and politics. As long as we’re divided, we aren’t focused on the real villains of our collective misery.

So, what are we to do? Can we mend this manufactured divide or is it too late? Frankly, I don't know. But this I do know. The system as envisioned by our Founding Fathers no longer exist. Returning to our constitutional republican government will require more mere tweaking.

Many already recognize this. Given the dominance of Independent voters, it’s obvious that many are finally waking up. Some, however, may never. They prefer to remain blissfully naive, while others couldn't care less as long as they're getting theirs and someone else is picking up the tab.

Lady Liberty has been prostituted out by Wall Street. Our freedoms, once guaranteed, are being usurped and sold to the highest bidder.  Uncle Sam is on life support while his two incompetent physicians, the Democrat and Republican parties, have their hands on the plug as they argue over the treatment for the disease they caused. Meanwhile, you and I are soon to become orphans. The only real question my dear readers, is what will you do? One thing is for certain. Inaction is not a choice. 

If you want to know more about this article's topic, please check out the links below. If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you! 

11 Reasons Why the American Middle Class is Doomed


11 Graphs that Allegedly Prove That the West Is Doomed


Does the US have a bubble economy and doomed to fail?

 

American Politics: A Reality Check

It seems we see almost all the the time on social media. Some group or another is trying to sell us on the concept that America is on the fast track toward socialism, fascism, communism, or some other "ism". They usually produce a list of greatly distorted "facts", coupled with a picture of Hitler, Marx, or some other nefarious "villain" from the authoritarian pantheon of history.

In truth, that's not "facts" they're peddling.  If you bother to look who's behind these sponsored posts, you'll usually find that they're some group looking to build support for some issue, bill, or agenda, or sell a book, and not uncommonly, looking to part you from some of your money.

Of course, social media being what it is, people tend to simply accept what they see on the surface without doing much (or any) research and pass it on. Their objective is to use our first impression and what we want to believe (actual facts aside) and to be "click bait". We do their marketing for them.  We've been conditioned to associate certain images, phrases, and images with particular emotions. We see a hammer and sickle, we automatically think Stalin or gulags. We see a swastika, and it's Hitler and concentration camps.

Today's political marketers have learned to link their message to those images. If you're conservative, an image of Obama or Hillary will almost automatically trigger an image of Hitler or Stalin. If you're liberal, that same image may make you think of the "Second Coming". It's all about controlling the message and as psychologists will tell you, as humans tend to react best to images.  

Nowadays, we're being conditioned (just like Pavlov's dog) to react a certain way every time we see or hear the terms "socialism", Communism, Nazism, or Fascism. If you're someone who's inquisitive and not willing to accept things at face value (as I am), you want to know why. You want to know who is behind the piece and what they're trying to gain.  

Of course, that requires some thinking for yourself, which, sadly, isn't as common as it once was. The main reason, as I'm sure you know,  is that education has repeatedly been dumbed down. Students are no longer taught critical thinking skills. Instead, they are taught to memorize what's presented to them and then to regurgitate it back in the form of a "standardized" test. It's no wonder students "graduate" from high school functionally two or three grades below where they should be!

It's not unusual for students with a high school diploma to be reading at a 10th grade level. Their math skills aren't much better. When it comes to their knowledge of history, civics, the sciences, or literature, it's pathetic  Surveys have repeatedly shown that the United States performs toward the bottom among industrialized nations when it comes to reading, math, and science. 

The world academic benchmark, set by the Programme for International Student Assessment (or PISA), ranks 30 of the 64 other industrial nations ahead of the U.S. academically, and this wasn't a one off. It's consistent.  "Why?" you might ask yourself.  Given the amount of money we spend on education and teachers, we shouldn't be ranked alongside second tier countries, and you would be right. 

In my opinion, it's because an ignorant populace is a populace easily led. We've often heard the old maxim that employers want employees just smart enough to the job but not smart enough to question their bosses. Well, imagine that from a political perspective--- creating voters just smart enough to follow along but not smart enough to question their leaders. 

People are usually so preoccupied just trying to get by in their increasingly chaotic "life" , they have no time or interest in researching what's actually happening (even if they knew where to look), not to mention confused, frustrated, or angry by the constant partisan bickering and crisis "de jure". 

Most just want to turn on some mindless "reality" show or watch a mediocre sitcom with its canned laughter track. Sadly, most individuals so brain numb from merely surviving the daily grind they fail to recognize all the subtle and not so subtle political and social messaging in the shows and commercials aimed directly at them. It's called "programming" for a reason you know.

America, as almost everyone knows, is no longer the "America" of their youth. It's changed, and not for the better. Corporations literally own both political parties and their politicians. While both operate behind a self-constructed image that they are the one and only "true" protectors of all that's good and righteous, they serve their corporate masters at our expense. 

In case you haven't noticed, the mindset in Washington, as well as in state capitals and city halls has changed. They no longer see themselves as our employees "hired" to represent our interests. They view themselves as our superiors; ours "betters". They represent themselves and their friends (who are their "friends"? We'll get to that shortly), but it will suffice to say that at this point, the relationship between (s)elected officials and us is akin to that of master and a serf with us playing the latter role. 

Their lobbyists openly write the legislation and shepherd it through committee after committee, until it finally becomes law. The only conflict, which is hidden behind partisan banners, is between competing corporate interests. These corporations fund their campaigns. Their fill the coffers of their so-called "leadership" PACs., create front groups to funnel money through, and underwrite hit pieces on their opponents. 

Corporations don't see nations. They see economic zones with governments serving as their managers. It doesn't matter if they wear blue ties or red ones as long as they do as they're told. They dictate domestic and foreign policy, which includes the use of the military to force open access to markets or gain control over resources and assets. Control is, after all, the name of the game. 

Corporations are not democracies, nor are they intended to be democracies. They are, by their very nature, a type of dictatorship. The workers don't get to vote on what they want to do, how much they get paid, or time off. You do the job or you either quit or get fired. Unions give you---the worker---a little more say in your job, but ultimately, it's do as you're told or leave.

The founder of modern Fascism, Italian dictator Benito Mussolini, described "Fascism" as a integration between government and big business; a hand-in-glove relationship (hand in mailed fist might be a better analogy). Fascism borrows from both the Left and Right, depending on a country's history, traditions, laws, and values.

This is why Italian Fascism was different from that of Hungary or Romania, which were different from the fascism of Germany (yes, Nazism is a form of fascism), which in turn differed from that of Spain or Argentina (or later, in various post-WWII South American, Asian, and Middle Eastern governments which we installed after overthrowing their elected governments). Remember, it's about control. 

Fascism can have a centralized leadership, as it did in Germany for instance, or it can have a broader committee style leadership as Italy or Spain did.  Under Communism, there is literally no private anything---homes, businesses, banks, energy; nothing.  The state controls all. Under 'socialism" (which, by the way, has never actually existed), the workers or public own the means of production and distribution. 

Under Fascism, private ownership exists despite social media posts to the contrary. However, wages are regulated. Unions are either eliminated, nationalized, or effectively assimilated by the company as they are now. The social safety net, interestingly, is often typically enhanced. The government may outsource functions it once handled, including social services, to some anonymous corporation which doesn't always have to follow the same rules. The police become militarized. There is also the deployment of a massive national surveillance system, which provides the framework for a eventual police state. 

Additionally, the government/corporate partnership seek to weaken the opposition. They do this by acquiring control of the media and fomenting distention. They use the media to introduce "acceptable" behavior or thought while vilifying others. This includes political parties, ideologies, and social movements or individuals they perceive as dangerous. They also infiltrate various groups and work to either weaken or destroy them. 

Along the same lines, they pit groups against each other through manufactured events. Using the media, they invent or play up stories to increase hostilities and suspension. The idea is to create a volatile social situation or crisis whereby the public will, at some point, demand martial law to restore order, which, naturally, they will be more than happy to do. 

With Communism, private ownership of guns aren't permitted except by special permission. Under Fascism, there is a tendency to restrict gun ownership (unless elimination is possible) such as through mandatory registration and restricting the type of guns an individual can own. Despite the urban myth to the contrary, the Nazis didn't strip guns from the population. In fact, it was the opposite.

The majority socialist Weimar government of Post-WWII Germany, with pressure from the powerful Communist faction, greatly curtailed the private ownership of guns after the "Great War". The Nazis, however, restored private ownership of guns to most Germans with the exception of criminals, Jews, Gypsies, and those deemed as "politically unreliable" such as Communists, anarchists, socialists, and pro-democracy individuals.

While I'm at it, let's dispel another popular myth. Fascism was never anti-Bible, anti-Christian or even anti-religion. In fact, they saw organized religion as another useful tool to  to control the population. The Nazis tried introducing something called they called "Positive Christianity" which purged or downplayed all Jewish references in the Bible. They even invented a "Aryan" Jesus complete with blonde hair and blue eyes. Nevertheless, it tended to meet with limited success by ordinary Germans.

The Nazis did, however, prohibit religions like Jehovah Witnesses, Quakers, Pentecostals because of their "anti-state" and/or pacifist beliefs. However, the average German continued on as before, with some being Protestant (mainly Lutheran) and others Catholic.  Even the belt buckle of German soldiers had the motto "Gott Mit Uns" (God is With Us) on it.  Communism, on the other hand, is officially atheist while democratic socialism is religion is considered a matter of personal choice. 

Since the 1930's, the United States has flirted with a limited form of "socialism" such as limited  regulation of businesses and a taxpayer sponsored public safety net like social security, unemployment, women's right to vote or own property, a safe work environment, the right to organize and strike, and imposing child labor laws, a standardized 40 hour work week. Although we take these for granted, all of these were actually once considered "socialist" by business leaders who aggressively campaigned against them.   

Since the 1950's, union membership has declined from 35% of the overall workforce in 1954 to 10% in 2024 as many of issues unions campaigned for became federal law and more states (especially in the South) adopted "Right to Work" laws as 25% of  Americans households live paycheck to paycheck (that figure is 29% for low income families) and 31% have no savings set aside for emergencies.44% can't cover a $1000 emergency. The two groups most affected were Millennials and GenZ at 34% each.  Employers  cut or eliminated benefits due to either rising costs or to improve profits margins while good paying jobs were sent overseas. As an aside, did you know that the United States is the only industrial nation without a dedicated Labor Party? 

We all know our Republic is all but a shell of its former self; an illusion. Most academics agree that we've become a Corporatocracy (a neo-fascist blending of state and big business), led by an elite group of very wealthy individuals and corporations. Some call them an oligarchy while others refer to them as a kleptocracy or plutocracy.  To the 99% on the bottom, it's all semantics. The top 10% control about 67% of household wealth in the United States. The top 1% of that control roughly 30%. 

The real question is what do you see? The strong vibrant America of your youth or an America becoming controlled more and more by an all powerful centralized state as it acquires private property and all manner of businesses, including banks, brokerages firms, the media, oil companies, and the collapse of Wall Street? If so, that could be Communism.

If you see an increase in government regulation or nationalization of key strategic businesses, an expanding social safety net, growing unions, worker co-ops, and more public input, then maybe you're seeing democratic socialism.

Perhaps you see a growing unregulated corporate control over government; a revolving door between government officials and big business; distrust of the media, faith in elections; a weakening public impact on government, and the growth of a surveillance state, that could be neo Fascist Corporatocracy. As for me, I see an America in serious trouble and in desperate need of patriots.

If you want to know more about this article's topic, please check out the links below. If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!

 . 

As Union membership has fallen, the top 10% have beengetting a larger share of income

Labor Unions in the United States

Corporatocracy

Wealth inequality in the United States

Bankrate's 2025 Annual Emergency Savings Report

Nearly a quarter of U.S. households live paycheck to paycheck, report finds

Is Civil War on the Horizon?

 

You don’t need a crystal ball to tell you that America is more divided than at any time in its history. More so than years leading up to the American Revolution. More than the decade preceding the Civil War. More than during the era of Women's Suffrage, Prohibition, or the Great Depression. Even more so than the turbulent 1960's.

In fact, the division may be so deep and the gulf so wide that it may never be bridged. We have become a nation of diverging ideals.  The recent presidential and national elections (such as in New York and Virginia) has served only as dark mirrors of our division. What have we've become?

One ideal is in the belief of a small or limited federal government. Low taxes, a level economic playing field, and government our of our private lives. The other ideal is one where government is the sole source of our social and economic salvation. The first believes in opportunities where one succeeds or fails by their  own efforts.  Neither the government or society  owes you anything.

The other believes in entitlements, where all aren't just equal in the government's eyes, but some are more equal and should be given special consideration for one historical slight or another.  One believes success comes from a good education and hard work, be it white collar, blue collar, pink collar or any other collar; that teachers are there to teach the skills one needs to survive in society, not to babysit. They believe everyone needs a helping hand from time to time.

The later believes in downgrading the quality of education so that everyone "succeeds" or is a “winner”. A society  where mediocrity is superior to a society of meritocracy; that successful people "owe" those who aren't as successful because they spent their time skipping school or goofing off or playing sports is more important than studying English, math, science, or history; that they are owed a living just for showing.

They believe they should be "forgiven" of their school debt because they received degrees which aren't marketable but fail to explain how taxpayers, who must pick up their defaulted debt, are responsible for their bad decision making. 

Our Founding Fathers envisioned a nation of "Yeoman farmers" and local merchants. We're a long way from that. They envisioned a nation free to believe what they wanted without being manipulated. They believed that the right to petition their representatives meant the right to question them and if necessary recall them. They believed in transparency in government. They believed that no matter how well intended, government had no business in our personal business. There's’ no doubt this belief would extend to corporations as well.

They believed America should look after America first and no “foreign entanglements”.  Indeed, our Founders were ardent nationalists. They believed in the right to own arms. Not just for hunting or self-defense, but because recent events had proved their mistrust government.

An armed citizenry was much harder to intimidate than an unarmed one (just look at England now). Most importantly, they believed in a small federal government with little taxation power because they knew they the way to destroy freedom can come from just as easily from the ability to tax as surely as it can from the barrel of gun. Power should rest primarily in the hands of the States. Local control was the best control.

Forty-three percent of registered voters now identify as Independent, and that doesn’t include those who are members of third parties like the Libertarians or the Greens. That means that both of the two corporate owned parties, the Democrats and the Republicans, are minority political parties. That also means that the majority of Americans are sick and tired of being sick and tired of the petty partisan bickering and legacy media propaganda.

We elect individuals to go to Washington, to our state capitols, or to City Hall and to work together to solve problems, but all too often those problems are the result of backroom dealing making or making unnecessary laws while we are left dealing with the mess. 

We constantly hear how it's always the “other side” who won't cooperate. It's more like how the other side won't simply roll over and let them have their way. Playground antics and high school bullying instead of trying finding common ground is the rule, not the exception. They play economic chicken with the welfare of the people they were elected to serve. Anything goes as long as their master---big business--- profits.

Who is the "big business"? They are the ones who bankroll both political parties and pull their strings. They are the ones you are never allowed to see at the national conventions. They are the ones who draft the laws to allow them to make more money while avoiding taxes. They are the ones who walk through the revolving doors of Wall Street boardrooms to government bureaucracy and back again. They are the corporate lobbyist and Beltway insider.

They're the new and improved global military-industrial-technological complex President Eisenhower tried to warn us about. They are the exploiters of people and resources while selling us illusions of how our lives could be in ten second TV spots or 8 x 10 retouched glossy magazine photos if we only bought their product.

They know no national loyalties and are restricted by no boundaries. They have turned us from self-sufficient producers and citizens to mere global consumers. We’ve become indentured economic serfs and captives to credit ratings, manipulative consumption, and built in obsolescence. They are the ultimate users and corruptors.

So, what are we to do? Can we mend this divide or is it too late? Frankly, I don't know. But this I do know. The system as envisioned by our Founding Fathers no longer exist. Our constitutional republican government is beyond mere reform. Many already recognize this. A few more are finally waking up. Some, however,  may never. They prefer to remain blissfully naive, while others couldn't care less as long as the they're getting theirs and someone else is picking up the tab.

Uncle Sam is on life support while his two hopeful murders, the Democrat and Republican parties, have their hands on the plug as they argue over the treatment, Meanwhile, you and I are soon to become orphans. The only real question my dear readers, is what will you do? One thing is for certain. Inaction is not a choice any longer. 

If you want to know more about this article's topic, please check out the links below. If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!

11 Reasons Why the American Middle Class is Doomed


11 Graphs that Allegedly Prove That the West Is Doomed


Does the US have a bubble economy and doomed to fail?

Can We Restore Our Republic?

 

The Ancient Romans had an expression which said that “time was fleeting’. The "Eternal Empire" as Rome was called existed little more than the proverbial blink of an eye in retrospect despite lasting well over a thousand years. One thing for sure is that time is fluid. It has a nasty habit of becoming the past before we've had the opportunity to reflect on its present. 

Perhaps America's fate will be similar to Ancient Rome's. It too was ruled by two powerful political blocs --- the Optimates and the Populates --- which were the approximate equivalent of the Republicans and Democrats respectively, and in turn were dominated by Rome's powerful and wealthy elites. But, after 482 years, the Republic fell and Rome became a dictatorship although the facade of a Republic was allowed to continue for a few more decades. 

What happened to Rome (and indeed, to most of History's republics) was not so much the result of an external threat, although that also happened, be it in the form of "illegal migration" or the near perpetual wars Rome fought throughout its history. Rome's fatal weakness , however, was internal. It was the corruption, greed, arrogance and incompetence of its ruling class, which by definition, shouldn't have existed in a Republic had it functioned properly as ours once did. 

It was partly the diversion of resources to serve the needs of the wealthy rather than the poor. It was the undermining of Rome's middle class, the backbone of the Republic, through over taxation. It was Rome's slowly decaying infrastructure as its attention focused on putting out fires throughout the edges of its empire. Even Rome's social safety net became too great of a burden. Rome also suffered under the weight of slavery while we bear the weight of a different form of slavery --- economic debt. 

Eventually, even the old maxim attributed to the poet Juvenal about keeping the populace occupied with "bread and circuses" to avoid civil revolt could no longer hold the empire together (Emperor Trajan exiled Juvenal for his comment. Apparently speaking truth to power was just as dangerous then as now). The idea was to keep the masses fed and pre-occupied in order to maintain power. 

Of course, our modern equivalent of "bread and circuses" being entertainment (includes sports, video games, movies, the internet, etc.) and consumerism with just enough media propaganda to keep the masses frustrated and confused. We’ve been transformed from citizens into consumers whose “loyalties” are to products. 

For the average Roman, there was no sudden "thud" as the Republic collapsed. The fall of nations are rarely sudden or dramatic except in time of war or some unexpected economic implosion (unexpected to all but those paying attention). The fall is typically gradual with growing peaks and valleys. Roads or bridges aren't repaired timely, or the repairs are of inferior quality. 

The quality of education becomes worse. In place of innovation, a mentality of "good enough" develops. Goods seem often shoddy quality. Crime is increasingly out of control. Taxes seem to spiral ever upward but with less and less to show for it. The last thing to be affected, however, is almost always the military. Even when Soviet Russia imploded, its military remained strong to the last. 

Ironically, the last to experience the collapse are those at the top. They're so insulated from reality they have little concept of the seismic political shift occurring under their feet. They believe that the same old platitudes and appeasements will keep working (ie: "let them eat cake") and allow them weather out the storms. They construct structures to protect them and to keep power in their hands while we’re left feigning for ourselves. 

America is no longer a Republic. Like ancient Rome, the myth is still being perpetuated by the elites to keep the masses pacified. They believe that if the illusion is allowed to continued, they can hang onto power (and wealth) a little longer. They know intuitively that at some point the masses will wake up to the scam being played out under their noses, but hope they'll be long gone or fully insulated by then. 

Unlike Rome which, after a series of social upheavals, transformed from a Republic into a militaristic dictatorship under a single powerful leader, America has turned into an Oligarchy pretty peacefully. But to be more specific, we've become a Corporatocracy, which I suspect is a term that some of you have never heard of before (unless you’re regular readers of A/O). 

A Corporatocracy is quite simply a form of government controlled by either corporations or corporate interests, which, in turn, is a type of plutocracy or rule by the wealthy. Who in their right mind can deny that Washington, as well as every state capitol or local city hall isn't dominate by a wealthy few? Money buys power. Power makes money. 

Washington has near 15,000 lobbyists representing corporate interests. These lobbyists provide the money (and perks) needed to make elections happen. They ensure that those who cooperate remain in office and those who don't are defeated. These same lobbyists "help" write legislation either directly or through so-called experts they retain. In a nutshell we actually have are two political cliques who are beholden to competing corporate interests (think of it as Coke vs Pepsi arrangement but cooperate to keep out any competitors). 

Under a Corporatocracy, which literally owns both parties, political outsiders such as third parties or Independents (who, by the way, are the country's largest political bloc) are keep out of any debates and off ballots whenever possible. They also use the media, which they own, to degrade, humiliate, or simply ignore any challenger. Thus, voters are virtually forced to pick between one of two pre-determined and pre-approved choices. 

The goal of a Corporatocracy is to remove any and all barriers which interfere with corporate profits. Through their control of government which includes not just those selected (err, I mean "elected") but also the governmental bureaucracy itself via appointments and the judicial system to provide the appearance of legitimacy. They  use "think tanks" to direct domestic and foreign policy and the media to manipulate public opinion. 

Domestically, the only acceptable form of chaos is the one which is managed. Take for example what's currently happening here in States. In addition to the COVID virus, we're witnessing BLM and Antifa running amuck. We're subtly being encouraged to be "afraid". 

The COVID virus was sold as some amorphous death cloud lingering around the next corner while neo-Marxist BLM and Antifa anarchists are planning to impose Communism (or worse, “socialism”) on unsuspecting Americans. Meanwhile, Trump and his supporters are nothing more than better dressed versions of Nazis and Fascist! 

The truth of matter is that both BLM and Antifa has used high profile incidents which should never have happened and turned them into political events. It's also true that BLM has a strong racist bent to it and Antifa behaves more like the old Nazi "Brownshirts" they allegedly opposed (as an aside, the Communists of that era had their own group of thugs known as the "Red Front". They fought the Brownshirts blow for blow). 

Social order is a precondition for capitalism and democracy to function properly, and that includes Corporate capitalism. Normally, the type of chaos we experienced from Antifa and BLM would have the ruling class quaking in their Gucci's, but it's not and I'll tell you why. 

First, there will be no "socialism" or "Communism" takeover despite what political front groups tell us on social media. Neither are conducive to the neo-fascist environment that a Corporatocracy needs to operate in. Both Communism and socialism require total government ownership of everything, and that ain't gonna happen. 

The elites will never willingly surrender their wealth or control over government and the economy, but they will use the fear of these political system as a bogeymen to scare the people into demanding that the government "do something" to protect them. Historically, people have always been willing to sacrifice freedom for security. 

In 1933, it was the Reichstag fire which Hitler used to push through the "Enabling Act" which ultimately gave him near absolute power in Germany. But before that it took a volatile economy, a political climate where the use of scapegoats were plausible, a series of assassinations, a high crime rate, mounting external threats and finally the fire itself to make the Enabling Act possible (not to mention the subsequent trial of three Bulgarian communists and a 24 year old Jewish Dutch Communist willing to admit to setting the fire to bring it to a head). They each played their part of (to borrow from Lenin) "useful idiots" just as BLM , Antifa, and their supporters are now playing their part. 

America is being transformed. There is absolutely no doubt about it. That transformation is as profound as Rome's was from a Republic to a militaristic dictatorship. There will be no socialism or Communism in our future nor a return of our cherish democratic and Constitutional Republic, at least not in the near term, and not as long as the Oligarchy remains in power. Our best hope is to demand changes which transfers the balance of power back to the people. 

How? I talking about term limits; a level political playing field that allows all parties and individuals the same ballot access and inclusion in debates; ending Citizens United and taking unlimited corporate money out of politics; ending corporate participation in writing legislation; allowing nationwide voter referendums; ranked choice voting; equal ballot access; mandating the former government officials not be allowed to engage in lobbying directly or indirectly for a minimum of ten years after they leave office; voter approval for tax, fee, rate, or salary increases of elected officials. 

Lastly, require that all elected officials resign from whatever party they're a member of once they are sworn in. The only loyalty should be to the people they were elected to represent. Only then can we restore America back to the People.

If you want to know more about this article's topic, please check out the links below. If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you! 

Corporatocracy


The U.S. is an Oligarchy? The Research, Explained


Lobbying Data Summary


The 20 companies and groups that spent the most money to influence lawmakers

 

 

The Case of the Vanishing Republic: The Morphing of America’s Democracy

 

It seems that the Right is perpetually speaking about Democrats leading us down the road to socialism's perdition. With Donald Trump in office, the Democrats and those on the Left kept comparing "The Donald"  with Hitler and Republicans with fascists (hence the thinly vailed “No King” protests). It seems that neither side is familiar with history.

First off, there's no way those in power on the Left or Right would allow this country to become "socialist", Communist or anything else that requires them to surrender their wealth or power to the State. Secondly, the two party system is a farce. Wall Street owns both parties and they make no secret of it. What we see on a daily basis is political “kabuki” theater.  

The only real difference between the two parties is the two competing corporate cliques. Citizens United has ensured corporate control of the political system. It has put political reform all but out of reach of the average American. Corporate lobbyists write the laws, leaving voters with the illusion of choice. 

As for fascism, it was (and remains) a partnership of sorts between the government and Big Business. In the past, the latter assumed a junior role, but nowadays, we all know Wall Street wouldn’t go for that.  

Actual socialism, which remains an abstract idea since it has never actually been implemented, means that the people essentially own everything. Under actual socialism  political power and the control of wealth would be in the hands of the working class. Businesses would be typically employee owned and run while others, particularly essential businesses, would be controlled or heavily regulated by the State.

Nevertheless, I don't see Wall Street or their K Street lobbyists allowing anything like that to happen do you? Certainly not after the "Citizens United" or "McCutcheon's" decisions by the Supreme Court which gave them carte blanche to the halls of power and the public trough! 

What passes for "socialism" today is an admixture of capitalism, democracy, and a welfare state comprised of social programs  under the heading of "Democratic Socialism", which is common in Scandinavia and places like Germany and Netherlands. Think of it as "capitalism with a friendly face".  Of course, that hasn’t kept some authoritarian states from usurping the term. It’s like North Korea calling itself the “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea”.

Nevertheless, despite high taxes (especially on the wealthy and corporations), the democratic socialist form of government have proven to be quite popular with the masses, with practically everything being subsidized. However, it requires everyone to pitch in and contribute back into the system. But when you have a mass of people who draw on the system without contributing to it, it fails, which is what seems to be happening in Scandinavia and other parts of Europe.  

Under Communism, which is often---though incorrectly--- used interchangeably with socialism, there are again no privately own properties, businesses or corporations. The State owns everything. Everyone works for the State. The State is everything. Do you see corporations like Google, Lockheed Martin, Exxon or people like Zuckerman, Musk, Bezos, or Buffett  surrendering their power and wealth to Washington? So, what is America is morphing into? The answer is a Corporatocracy, which is a de facto form of neo-fascism.

Fascism is, as its founder Benito Mussolini said, was more accurately described as "corporatism". Specifically, Mussolini said "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power". Novelist Upton Sinclair called fascism "capitalism plus murder" while Bolshevik leader Vladimir Lenin referred to fascism as "capitalism in decay".

Politically speaking, fascism isn’t stagnant. It borrows some of its goals and techniques from the Left and some from the conservative Right, including militarism. It grafts various national traditions and values to its cause as needed and jettisons whatever is no longer of use.  Corporatism is, if nothing else, adaptable. It's objective, however, is always corporate control plain and simple. The role of government is to serve as the lesser partner and "middleman" between the "elites" and masses. It's objective is to serve the rich.

Under a Corporatocracy, there is little to no strong middle class; certainly not in the way we're used to. There's the insanely rich and then there's everybody else. There is a two tier justice system. One for us and another for the elites. Sound familiar? Can you see the one percenters giving up their money; their penthouses; their private planes and yachts if we were truly becoming “socialist”?  

As an aside, some less informed individuals and groups (and few who should know better) want to convince you that Nazism was a Leftwing “socialist” movement because they used the term “socialist” in their name. Hitler’s definition of the term was that of a community of likeminded Germanic people (aka “Volk”) with a shared culture, values, and heritage. Also, unlike communism or socialism, it was strictly nationalistic, not international.

Consider this too, while unions exist in a Corporatocracy, they are weak and fairly ineffective. A far cry from the unions of old. Their primary purpose is to keep the masses in their place---on the job and off the strike line---while generally backing the decisions of the corporate bosses.  They serve the interests of the corporation, even if it means cutting benefits, pensions, and hours.  

So, in reality, we are morphing into something akin to a neo-fascist corporate State where we see the top 10% owning 52% of all wealth. The ultimate goal is to diminish the autonomy of the individual, as well as our economic and political power, while increasing our dependence on the State, which in turn, is controlled by Wallstreet and the corporate elite. 

In short, we're to become economic serfs with the government serving as our overseer and corporations as our masters. Of course, the "big prize" is the creation of a single interlocking global corporation with a single government. A digital ID will serve as our chains. That means creating and using global organizations to serve as the intermediaries on global projects and national one's on more regional projects with the legacy media selling a siren’s song.  

Under corporatocracy we can expect national governments become ever more pervasive in their role of overseer while local and state governments become weaker and more dependent on the federal government.  This role also enables corporations an ever growing access to taxpayer money to acquire resources domestically and globally while at the same time shielding their intentions behind the illusion of a sovereign government.  

They can also use the national government take other actions on their behalf, like wars, trade agreements, or treaties, to enhance their wealth and power on the taxpayer's dollar.  In further defining corporatism, its founder, Benito Mussolini said, “Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity, quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace.”. In short, war and the threat of war is good for business.

Il Duce was also talked about was the concept (novel for his time) of what we're now experiencing, that of perpetual war---like the "war on terrorism"---to maintain control over the population and the exploitation of resources by corporations, be they natural resources or national resources for the sake of the bottom line. It artificially stimulates the economy, masks actual unemployment numbers, and allows for near unlimited deficit spending. Sound familiar? We get crumbs and they call it a “victory”.

As an aside, what did Mussolini think of socialism? After all, his father, Alessandro,  was a prominent Italian socialist and Benito started off his political career as a socialist. This was his opinion, "Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail".

So, when someone starts complaining about America becoming "socialist" or "Communist", remember that famous line from movie "The Princess Bride" as uttered by the swordsman Inigo Montoya (played brilliantly by Mandy Patinkin), "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means".  

If you want to know more about this article's topic, please check out the links below. If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you! 

 

Eight Billionaires Own asMuch as the Poorest Half of Global Population

 

The Rich 1% Own Almost Half the World's Wealth & 9 Other Mind Blowing Facts About Wealth Inequality

 

The Time for Political Change is Now: Term Limits, Transparency, and Partisan Gerrymandering

 

When our Founding Fathers embarked on this unique experiment we called the United States of America, they drew on many sources ranging from ancient Greece, the Roman Republic, the ideals of the Enlightenment, and even Judeo-Christian traditions. Their hope was to create a Constitutional Republic which provided just enough government to enable society to flourish with a bare minimum of political interference.

In doing so they opposed the creation of political parties (what they called "factionalism") which they believed would divide Americans and eventually usurp political power from the citizenry and encourage the creation of special interests groups which would, in time, come to control political agenda and the levers of power which rightfully belong to the American citizen. 

They hoped that this new form of government would encourage the development of the "citizen legislator". That is, ordinary citizens from all walks of life who would take their turn in coming to Washington, local councils, and state government, serve a term or two, and then return home. Thus, allowing most everyone an opportunity to participate in controlling their own destiny.

The Founders never intended on the creation of political factions as mentioned above. They opposed the creation of another professional political class like the one they had just thrown off; one comprised of  wealthy upper crust aristocrats. They viewed these individuals as having no connection with the ordinary colonist. They were considered haughty and elitist. They were too inclined to tax ordinary citizens while exempting themselves and their cronies. Laws which applied to the common farmer or business owner didn't apply to them.

In short, our Founders wanted to avoid what we have today---a professional political class of wealthy individuals belonging to competing political factions controlled by powerful special interests groups who've made it all but impossible for the average citizen to participate in the election process. This is thanks mainly to partisan gerrymandering of districts which all but guarantees no party turnover; unlimited financing of not just campaigns, but of legalized bribery through so-called "leadership PACs" which serve as a near bottomless source of funds for the officeholder thanks to Citizens United; the co-opting of the legislative process by very well paid lobbyists (many of whom are former politicians or staffers) who "help" write legislation and then ensure its passage through the maze of committee chairmen "gatekeepers" who get their cut at each stage of the process; and, of course, unlimited terms which means that a well funded politician can hold onto an office virtually for life, just like those old aristocrats. In fact, it's not uncommon for their children, relative, or close friend to pick up the seat after they retire with a full salary and benefits for life---all paid for by you and me.

It's the latter issue, unlimited terms, that I want to briefly discuss. Prior to 1947, the President of the United States could serve indefinitely. However, almost all had previously self-limited themselves to two four year terms out of tradition based on George Washington's example. The one exception was the 32nd President, Franklin D. Roosevelt (aka "FDR"). Roosevelt, a Democrat, was elected in 1933 amid the Great Depression. Through essentially a reworking of government regulations and a series of economic measures and public work projects, he staved off the collapse of the economy, at least for awhile.

However, by 1941, it was beginning to appear that the country might be starting to slip back into, at the very minimum, a recession, if not another depression when the Imperial Japanese Navy struck Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. The next day America was at war with Japan and a few days later, with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy and their combined allies. Although Roosevelt faced elections every four years, the American People believed that wartime was no time to change leaders. Unfortunately, he never saw the war conclusion. He died just a month shy of Germany's capitulation and four months shy of Japan's surrender.

Nevertheless, the American People seemed to agree, perhaps after seeing the toll that 12 years in office took on their beloved president. It was decided that two four years in Washington's tradition were enough. So, on February 27, 1947, the Twenty-second Amendment was ratified limiting the presidency to eight years. What was not changed, however, was the tenure of Congress. The Senate tenure remained six years per term while the House stayed at two years per term. However, there was no cap placed on how many terms they could serve.

In those days there was more participation in politics. People trusted their government (and the media).  Gerrymandering hadn't quite become the science it is now, and special interests hadn't yet seized total control of the political process. People voted (61.4% in 1964 vs.55.7% in 2016). It was still possible for a "Mr. Smith" to afford to run for office and go to Washington. Compromise and civility was more the norm than the visceral extremism of today.

Of course, that's all changed now. Today, the average cost to run for a U.S. Senate seat is approximately $15 million dollars. To run for a House seat, the average cost is (ready for this?)...$2 million dollars. The reelection percentage of incumbents range from 91% in the House to 84% in the Senate and has been that way (or higher) for a very long while now, and yet the approval rating of Congress (as of February 2020) is only 23% (it's been as low as 9%). To put it another way, 77% of your employers think you're doing a lousy job and yet you're rehired almost 100% of the time. I don't know about you, but I find something very unsettling about this.

As everyone knows (or should know), the U.S. has become what our Founders feared---an oligarchy. We have a professional class of plutocrats who think they know better they we know about how to run our lives. They've created a system which makes us dependent on them. They even bribe us with our own tax dollars. They've created a surveillance state within a neo-fascist corporatocracy, and are awaiting the opportunity, be it real or manufactured, to impose a police state (the so-called "digital ID" being rolled out in Europe and Canada may be the opening salvo). 

Here's another way for you to think about it. During its heyday, the central governing body of the USSR (or the "Axis of Evil" as President Ronald Reagan called it), the Soviet Politburo, had a higher turnover rate of its members (all of whom belonged to just one party---the Communist) than the members of Congress with their two parties. Of course, nowadays have a single political party too. It's the corporate party, with a Left and Right wing. It kind of makes you wonder who provided the best representation to its citizenry doesn't it? So then, what are some of the pros and cons of term limits?

First, by establishing term limits it would restrict the amount of time an individual has to spend on raising money. Right now the average politician has to raise at least $18,000 every single day for themselves plus at least that for party leadership. On average, a politician will spend six hours of their day just on raising money. That's six hours every day not working on issues. That's six hours per day of not working for us. If their terms are limited they would be more willing to take a stand on key issues rather than hedge their bets in order not to offend some powerful special interest.

It's no secret that the very nature of politics corrupts. Even a person with the best intentions will get "dirty" sooner or later. The longer you're in office the more likely the chances. By limiting terms, it would limit the corruption. Of course, if you're dirty going in or lean that way, limiting the term won't change a thing. A limited term would also reduce the time powerful corporate interests have in gaining control over you. However, given the costs of running for office, unless you're super rich, the chances are pretty good that a least a few have already got their hooks into you.

Congress (or even state or local legislatures), ironically, don't function much like a democracy. They are seniority based with committee leaders and party whips (who ensure you vote the way you're told), and so forth. By restricting tenure, it would increase turnover of these committees and thus by necessity make them more democratic. It might also cut back on a lot of the political shenanigans played out daily behind closed doors. It forces politicians to focus on three or four key issues they intend to accomplish.

By increasing the turnover in Congress you would obviously bring in fresh blood. That means Congress would react faster to changes taking place in society. It would automatically create a closer connection between representatives and those they're supposed to represent. At the same time, by removing individuals long disconnected from their districts (many don't even return home until nearing election time) it would bring in a plethora of new ideas.

Increased turnover too would force members of Congress back to the political center (where the overwhelming majority of Americans are) and to learn once again how to compromise in a true bipartisan manner. Wouldn't a Congress without all the viral hatred and bickering be a good thing for this country? Just think of how much more could get accomplished. It could also increase the need to streamline how things are done, which just might force Congress to cut back in their involvement in our lives.

Term limits do have some drawbacks to consider too. In the process, we could lose some of very few "good" politicians as well as reduce the level of experience level of those who know how to get things done. It could also impact the working relationships which exist between politicians. Given that their time is limited, it could produce a "don't care" attitude among some. However, that would soon be thinned out by voters. 

Nevertheless, despite the negatives, 84% of Americans would like to see form of term limits. So, with a majority like that, why are we still tolerating unlimited terms?  Perhaps limit the Senate to a maximum of three six year terms which would be 12 years. The House could serve the same through six two year terms and expand the presidency to three four years terms. That way, everyone served equally with no more than 12 years max.  If you are one of the "good" ones, that would be enough to get things done. Lastly, I would go one step further by limiting federal judges (including the Supreme Court) to 12 years as well. Too many times, they has proven to be out of touch with society. 

Of course, term limits by themselves won't be enough to retake the government from the ruling Oligarchy. We need to remove Citizens United and cut unlimited corporate money out of politics. We've got to prevent lobbyists from writing legislation in the name of elected officials. We need to given the president and the governors line item veto authority in order to cut out bad projects and special perks tacked onto bills. At the state and local levels, we need to have the final say on all tax, rate and salary increases for elected officials. In addition, we need citizen directed referendums and initiatives.

Speaking of which, no more salaries and benefits for life. Any and all legislation must apply to elected officials, not just us. Government must also become more transparent. Partisan gerrymandering must stop. Instead, turn over redistricting to a non-partisan agency like the Federal Defense Mapping Agency or to local universities on a rotating basis. Currently districts are drawn to benefit parties, not voters. That must change.

Lastly, and this a pet peeve of mine, I'm tired of all the partisan bickering. Next to nothing gets done for the American People. Regardless of their political party, I would like to see everyone elected to office resign from the party upon their election. They are there to represent all voters, not just their political clique. In addition to their oath of office, they need to take an oath to represent their districts, their state, and the American People irrespective of any partisanship. 

At present, over 43% of voters are registered Independent, and that number is growing while the number of registered Democrats and Republicans are continuing to shrink. It's time for both parties to accept the fact that their days of "divide and conquer" are over.  Additionally, with our "winner-take-all" political system, when one party wins, all those on the other side are left unrepresented. That needs to end. It's time that every American should be represented...just as our Founders intended. What do you think?

 Thank you for reading "Another Opinion", the Op/Ed blog page for the "militant middle".  Here at "A/O" we truly value our readers. At A/O we seek the facts as they exist, not partisan talking points.  We hope you find our articles informative and engaging. Comments are welcome, provided they are not vulgar, insulting or demeaning.  Another Opinion is offered without charge and is directed toward all independent and free-thinking individuals. We ask, however, that you "like" us on whatever platform you found us on in order to keep our articles available for free to others. Lastly, in order to keep costs down, we depend on passive marketing, and therefore, depend on our readers to please forward our posts along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this article. Thank you. 


Voting in Early America

Statistical Summary of 18 Month Campaign Activity of the 2017-2018 Election Cycle

OpenSecrets: Costs of Election

OpenSecrets: Election Trends

Gallup: Congress and the Public

OpenSecrets: Reelection Rates Over The Years

Congress Spends More Time Dialing for Dollars Than Legislative Work