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?

 

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

The Great Swift & Trump Dustup: The Impact of Celebrity Endorsements

Celebrates have long sought to use their fame (or at least perceived fame) to push every type of product there is, from video games and deodorant to restaurants to clothes. Back in the days of radio and early television, it wasn't uncommon to see some of your favorite movies stars hawking "Chesterfield" cigarettes, Colgate toothpaste, or some perfume. It seems like everything and everyone had a sponsor.

It's not much difference when it comes to politics which is, after all, nothing more than a popularity contest that much different from the ones you had in Junior high school when running for school council or class president, talent contests, or the glitzy high budgeted "Miss America". pageant. Always with the contestants trying to be everything to everyone while promising the moon. The only real difference is that with political races the outcomes are actually matter.

These celebrities (which includes athletes, television and radio "personalities" and entertainers)  are often treated as a sort of royalty, as if their opinions were somehow gospel. They get asked  by the media about world affairs, the economy, national policy, and so forth as if they're are experts. Now, why everyone is entitled to an opinion, the majority of these folks known little and the topics they're speaking. They tend to exist in a make believe world, which may be why they also tend to be highly liberal. It's only in a highly liberal world that they are allowed to fully express themselves.

When it comes to performers and politics, endorsing candidates is nothing new. The famous Al Jolson endorsed  the Republican Warren G. Harding for President in 1927 (including writing and performing a song for the campaign at campaign stops). The "Chairman of the Board", Frank Sentara, joined with Humphrey Bogart, Rita Hayworth, Orson Wells, and other notables endorsed Franklin D. Roosevelt of President, including holding several fundraisers.

Meanwhile, Bob Hope and Bing Crosby backed Thomas E. Dewey. Sammy Davis Jr and football legend, Jim Brown, Ronald Reagan,  John Wayne, and "The King", Elvis Presley, were Nixon supporters while "Babs" (aka Barbara Streisand) openly helped both Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Fast forward to 2024, and we find former President Trump with the likes of Rosanna Barr, Kid Rock, Hulk Hogan, 50 Cents, Ted Nugent, Elon Musk, and Mike Tyson are among a great number of other popular individuals in his corner. On the other hand, Vice President Kamala Harris has the majority of the wealthy "Limousine Liberals" working it for her, with names such as  Spike Lee, Oprah Winfrey, Mark Hamill, Beyonce',  Mark Cuban,  Jane Fonda, and George Clooney (historically, they've always supported liberal Democrats). However, the biggest name to come out of in support of Harris was that of billionaire pop performer Taylor Swift.

Following the recent debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris on September 11th, Swift issued a statement (signed "Childless Cat Lady") via the social media platform, Instagram, to her approximately 283 million Instagram followers announcing her support for Harris. Nevertheless, following Swift's Instagram post, musical legend Stevie Nicks, Aubrey Plaza, Dan Levy, and "Lil Nas X" (aka Montero Lamar Hill) all followed suit.

This apparently resulted  in some 406,000 individuals visiting the Votegov.com site to register to vote (presumably Democrat and again, presumably for Harris).  Many of these are part of the new wave voters comprised of Millennials, Gen Y, which will eventually replace  Gen X and Babyboomers.

Somewhat amusingly, the former president responded that he hated Taylor Swift  (presumably referring to Swift's music) and add that he liked "Mrs. (Brittney) Mahomes better" Mahomes is a former professional soccer player and co-owner the Kansas City Current soccer team. As a side note, I have to admit that I'm not a fan of Swift or Pop music in general). Brittney is also married to Kansas City Chiefs quarterback, Patrick Mahomes.  Ironically, Mahomes came out in support of Taylor Swift shortly after his comment.

Taylor Swift is the first ever musical performer to occupy the Hot 100's top ten records and end up as Billboard's year-end number one performing artist (male or female) in three decades---2009, 2015, and 2023. At 34 years old and with an estimated net worth of $1.3 billion dollars, Taylor Swift has sold an estimated 114 million albums (11 albums certified platinum) and has received more awards than any other artist. 

What kind of impact could Taylor Swift potentially have in the election? A recent survey by Statista indicated that 22.56% of adults identified themselves as fans of the performer (they self-identify as "Swifties"). Digging further into the demographics of her fanbase, we find that 41% of her fans are between ages 18 and 24, making them members of Gen Z.  If that age bracket is expanded to age 34, then we find that the personage of fans jumps to 78% (the difference is comprised mostly of males). 

Looking at gender, 61.5% of "Swifties" are female. As an aside, the data shows that the older the age bracket (up to age 44), the more likely the fanbase will be comprised of males. Over the last 12 months, Swift has seen a growth in her overall fanbase of 25% on Instagram and 75% on TikTok. Swift is seen as the quintessential social media super star.

On YouTube, she as 50.3 million followers. On Facebook and Twitter (aka "X") it's 76.9 and 92 million respectively. Instagram shows 232.9 million fans. TikTok show her having 92 million followers while Soundcloud has 428,500.  There are 62.5 million followers on Spotify. Deezer has 9.4 million "Swifties".

 By comparison, former Beatle and musical legend, Paul McCarthy, has "just" 4.5 million on Instagram. Black Sabbath front man and bat connoisseur, Ozzy Osborne has 75.8 million follower on TikTok. Rock masters, Queen has only 3.3 million on TikTok.  On Twitter/X, Led Zeppelin reaches 721.2,000.  Lastly, the greatest band of all time, The Beatles, have 8.5 million fans on YouTube.

Given the ages, gender, and active  engagement of her  fanbase, there's little question that her support of Kamala Harris can have a substantial impact. None of Trump's celebrity backers can come close to matching Taylor Swift and her "Swifties". Should Harris win her race for president, she'll owe a huge debt to "The Childless Cat Lady".

So, if we go by the what we see here, Taylor Swift's endorsement of Kamala Harris could have a serious impact on the outcome of the race. Celebrity endorsement can give a candidate access to an entire base of potential voters they may otherwise not have access to. They also raise the prospects of more financial donations coming into the coffers.

However, celebrity endorsements are a double edge sword. Not everyone likes a given celebrity or their opinion for whatever reason. As such, their endorsement may bring out that "anti-celebrity" crowd, and with it, their vote and possible donations. Secondly, many voters see celebrity endorsements as nothing more than an attempt to bring attention to themselves, especially if their career is sagging or passé (such as can be said of Roseanne Barr or Kathy Griffin). Media endorsements can be seen as just as useless since they tend to promote their own agendas, which rarely benefits the people.

Taylor Swift's endorsement of Kamala Harris, the Vice President with the longest and worst approval rating in U.S. history, has breathed new life in her campaign. It has also diverted attention from the particulars of the race to the sideshow. Untimely, how much will it impact the race? I guess we'll know in just two months. Hopefully, however, the American People will stay focused on the issues and not on the circus performers.

 

 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 beat the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!

 

From Sinatra to Streisand: 100 Years of Celebrity PoliticalEndorsements

Trump Celebrity Endorsements: A Full List of Celebrities  Supporting the Ex-POTUS

Celebrates who Support Trump

These celebrates have endorsed either Harris or Trump forpresident

All the Musicians Supporting Kamala Harris  in the 2024  Presidential Election

Lists of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift

How to Build a Fanbase That Can Break Ticketmaster

 

Let Them Eat Cake! The Decline of the American Voter

We're all familiar with the phrase "let them eat cake". Legend has it that French Queen Marie Antoinette was said to have uttered as she looked out over her balcony at Versailles Palace and watched the revolution unfold.  Of course, historians debate to this day whether or not she actually said those words or something similar.

But, nevertheless, what has never been in doubt was her attitude toward the masses (along with the rest of the ruling elite), nor its outcome, the loss of her head along with that of her husband, King Louis XVI and hundreds of exceedingly wealthy aristocrats.

By the time the "Reign of Terror" was over,  almost four hundred thousand were dead, exiled, or imprisoned. Some were part of the upper crust, including members of the clergy. However, many hundreds of others were simply caught up on the wrong side of "Monsieur Guillotine".  

The French Revolution represented a seismic shift in French society, born out of many of the same ideals which prompted our own revolution just a few years before such as the notion equality under a common law, taxation with representation and, of course, the impact of the Enlightenment.

The America which came out of our little "dust up" with Great Britain in 1783 was intended to be a democratic Republic based on a written Constitution and  backed by a Bill of Rights. It replaced the Articles of Confederation which was seen as to weak. It served as the first constitution from 1781 until 1789.

France adopted their constitution in 1791, which created a constitutional monarchy. In 1789, France ratified the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, which served as its national Bill of Rights and served as the preamble to their constitution. Nevertheless, the damage was done and a dictator, Napoleon Bonaparte, waited in the wings for his moment to arrive.

As an aside,  while the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1788, it wasn't the oldest constitution. That honor belongs to San Marino, a tiny country in northwestern Italy. Their constitution was ratified in 1600. Poland's constitution was ratified shortly after ours in 1791. England had the first Bill of Right, which was signed into law in 1689 following the "Glorious Revolution" which ousted King James II. Ours was adopted in 1791. 

America  also differed from other nations in that its creation was organic, meaning that instead of evolving into a nation over time, as other countries had, America, like the mythical Athena who was born fully formed from the brow of Zeus, burst into existence as a wholly formed nation based on the lessons gleaned from ancient Greece and Rome, the indigenous Algonquin Federation, and the ideals of the Enlightenment. 

Today, America is no longer a democratic Republic. It's a neo-fascist Corporatocracy under the leadership of a handful of mega rich Oligarchs. Congress no longer represents the average citizen. It serves the needs of Wall Street. What the average citizen want or need is of little interest to Congress. Academic research has shown that ordinary citizens have virtually zero impact on issues as far as Congress is concerned while the elites have significant input on issues they regard as important.

 Corporate money openly fund both political parties and their candidates. They sponsor getaways, hold fundraisers which regularly raise millions of dollars.  Corporate lobbyists routinely write or help write legislation while federal contracts worth billions are awarded with alarming regularity. The government is no longer our own.

The media is controlled by just five corporations. Worse, they've come to operate more as propaganda machines whose aim is to frustrate, confuse, and manipulate the masses. They distract us from the real issues with manufactured news and mindless entertainment. Once upon a time, the media was seen as the purveyors of truth. Today the media has become the profaners of truth. 

So, what do you suppose our "overseers" think of us (not that it really matters)? According to a recent Scott Rasmussen survey conducted (ironically) on behalf of the "Committee to Unleash Prosperity", a conservative " economic supply-side" think tank with close ties to a number of libertarian leaning organizations as well as the Koch Brothers, Steve Forbes, Arthur Laffer, and Steve Moore,  the ruling elites don't think much of us.

The report starts out be defining who the "elites" and "super elites" are based on their incomes, zip code, and academics. It should be pointed out that the report erroneously classifies the "elite" as those making over $150,000 annually, having at least one post-graduate degree from a leading college like Columbia or Harvard, and living in a zip code where the population density exceeds 10,000 per square mile.

A majority of other studies identify "elites" as those with income levels of at least $600,000 and a net worth of $10 million or more (compare that to a median U.S. household income of $55,000 and a net worth of about $70,000).  Those in the top 5% tend to have annual incomes of $335,000, while the top 1% pull down around $820,000 a year and those at the apex---the 0.1%---bring in over $3 million annually.

Nevertheless, according to the Scott Rasmussen survey, the elites  or top 10% are seeing their earnings grow. They are also happy with the performance of economy and Biden. Meanwhile, roughly 40% of average Americans report that they are financially struggling. An article by Business Insider takes it further by saying that by mid-2024, 99% of Americans will be financially worse off than they were pre-Covid.-19.

The article, written in conjunction with JP Morgan, added that most Americans have already gone through most of their savings.  22% of Americans don't have enough money for emergencies.  43% couldn't cover an emergency over $1000. Bloomberg backed that up by pointing out that as of November 2023, 80% of Americans were already worse off than they were pre-Covid-19.

The article pointed out that only the top 20% were doing well financially. It should be mentioned that according to a October 2023 Harris Poll, 65% of Americans acknowledged living paycheck to paycheck. 35% regularly have more month than money!

The Rasmussen report goes on to point out that 77% of the top 10% and 89% of the top 1% believe that there should be "strict rationing of meat, gas, and electricity" for the average American family.  Approximately 81% would ban the use of gas power cars, forcing the "masses" to use battery powered vehicles, but that's not all. 55% of the top 10% "elites" and 70% of the "super elites" would restrict non-essential travel for average Americans. I guess that keeps them from having to rub elbows with the "unwashed masses" at all the resorts.

When it came to politics, it shouldn't come as a surprise that to learn that over half of the elites believe that government affords average Americans "too much freedom". Their solution? Some surveys suggest increased usage of surveillance cameras, increased use of facial recognition software, improved tracking devices on cell phones and cars,

Many favor tighter internet access such as limiting search engines, greater restrictions on gun/ammo ownership, further restrictions on freedom of speech and expression, and of course, closer "cooperation" between Big Business and government (which is the definition of fascism). Although often overlooked, we can't forget eliminating the use of cash in favor of electronic accounting.

Perhaps we'll soon see a day where government will electronically take out its estimated taxes and fees before you ever received your electronic paycheck. Utility and credit card companies will require payments be automatically deducted along with your rent or house payments and insurance. What's left (if anything) is what you'll use to buy groceries, clothes and whatever...all electronically so it can be tracked, recorded, and anticipated.

Your medical, financial, and employment history will all be collected and stored in a "super cloud". Businesses will know your medical and credit history before deciding to hire, promote, or retain you. Even your school grades will be recorded, along with what clubs you belonged to. No doubt your aptitude scores will be kept with your actual or estimated IQ score, Myers Briggs profile, or Enneagram.  

Every late payment, work infraction, and traffic ticket will be linked to your "national security data"  on the super cloud, which will monitor the sites you visit, the books or magazines you read, comments you made online, and even your buying preferences.  

These are just a few of the ways your freedoms can curtailed with you barely noticing if the elites have their way. Scary isn't it?  Yet the technology is already there, and in many instances, already being employed. Welcome to the machine.

We also need to bear in mind that the top 1% ---or about 735 billionaires--- have more money than the entire bottom half of American households. That's about $43.45 trillion dollars. According to a 2021 Credit Suisse report, the top 1% globally controlled nearly half of all the wealth on the planet or roughly 46% while one in ten individuals globally get by on just $2 dollars a day.

As for Congress, its job is to represent the American People, and yet numerous surveys show that Congress regularly vote in favor of what various organized special interest groups and the wealthiest top 10% want while the interests of the remaining 90% are typically ignored. Surprised? You shouldn't be.

The majority of Congress---50%---are millionaires (compared to only 5% of Americans in general). Even those who aren't millionaires when they enter Congress, nearly all are by the time they leave despite a annual salary of just $174,000. Both political parties are heavily funded by Big Business. 

Political campaigns, "leadership" PACs, "educational" junkets, and so forth receive nearly unlimited funding by Big Business thanks to the Supreme Court's 2010 "Citizens United" blunder; a decision which gave corporations nearly unlimited financial influence over government.

In 2022, both parties received a combined $8.9 billion dollars from Wall Street for midterm congressional races. About 45% went to Democrats while 55% went to Republicans (the National Association of Realtors was the largest donor at $36. 4 million).

Legislation is often written entirety or at least partially by corporate lobbyists. These same lobbyists help navigate bills through the maze of committees, often chaired by members whose campaigns they funded. As an aside, these lobbyists typically provide members of Congress (or their staff) with bill summaries and "recommendations" on which bill to support. They also help legislators with a little "under the table" wheeling and dealing, which gives them firsthand knowledge on all the dirt.

When members of the 115th Congress (or key staffers) decided to leave office in 2019, over 59% took a short drive over to "K" Street and signed on as a corporate lobbyist (some making three times what they did in Congress). Some become a consultant or adviser while others land very lucrative positions on various boards of directors or as senior partners in  high dollar law firms. This is the nefarious revolving door of politics, and it's why government serves the interests of Wall Street, not Main Street.

We have more wealth and income inequality than at any time over the last one hundred years. Company CEO's are making 350 times more than their average employee earns, and nearly 50% of all new wealth goes to the top 1%. The top three richest individuals in America have more wealth than the entire bottom half of America households, which adds up to over 160 million Americans.

Washington D.C.  bears a striking resemblance to the politically decadent and corrupt world of the ill fated Queen of France,  Marie Antoinette, and her husband, King Louis XV. Like the elites of her time, 72% of elites  today say they are superior to average Americans. Washington has developed a presumptive "ruling class" mentality by virtue of their education, family connections, and access to immense wealth, but are they our "betters"?

When we see the likes of a Barack Obama, Joe Biden, George W. Bush, Bill or Hillary Clinton, do we honestly believe these are the best America can produce to guide our nation? Given that the approval rating for Congress  is in low 30's and Biden's approval rating is lowest of any president in 15 years, the obvious answer is "no", and yet Congress has a 98% reelection rate. Do you think that's by accident?

Our political system isn't broken, it's been changed to suit the needs of a ruling class; an oligarchy which has substituted our democratic Republic for a neo-fascist corporatocracy. It's past time that the American People embrace the strength and courage of our Founding Fathers and do something about it.

 

  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 beat the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!

 

The Real Story of Two Americas

New York Post: Shocking survey reveals the reason elites are out of touch---and it isn't what you think

Committee to Unleash Prosperity

Committee to Unleash Prosperity

American Upper Class

A staggering 80% of American households are worse off...

Internet Censorship in China

Living Paycheck to Paycheck is Common, Even Among Those WhoMake More Than $100,000

OpenSecrets: Which Party Receives MoreCorporate Donations

Breaking Our Faustian Bargain With Partisan Politics

Would it surprise you to know that many of the Founding Fathers opposed the creation of political parties? They feared that partisan politics would tear the nation apart, creating separate cliques of special interests whose only commonality would be to strip the citizens of their natural sovereignty.  Even the poster boy for Federalism, Alexander Hamilton, called political parties "the most fatal disease" of populist governments.

James Madison, the man considered the "Father of the Constitution", thought that if not for a strong Constitution, political parties could rip the nation apart. Thomas Jefferson, perhaps the most intelligent man ever to occupy the presidency, strongly opposed partisan parties. He thought it was a mistake not to make some provision for the regulation of parties in the Constitution to keep them in check. I suspect he was right.

Our first and arguably greatest president, George Washington, even warned us against the dangers of political parties in his farewell address. But he did more than just warn the nation, he showed us how we could work around our political differences.

President Washington (who, by the way, was a defacto Independent), recognized that differing political opinions were the norm, not the exception, choose to put men of competing political opinion in offices in order to force them to compromise for the sake the nation.

Washington understood that while it may make for a rocky administration, it would benefit the nation and its citizens in the long run by seeking middle ground in lieu of narrow minded partisan conformity, such as what we have now.  For example, Washington appointed Federalist, Alexander Hamilton, who wanted a strong central government and was supported by Northern business interests which wanted to rekindle trade with England, as his Treasury Secretary.

Meanwhile, Washington appointed Thomas Jefferson, who wanted a small limited government and had the support of mostly Southern farmers and tradesmen as his Secretary of State. Jefferson was also a supporter of the French, who came to our aid in our war for independence, and were a long standing enemy of England.  The result was finding a common middle ground that was best for the country and not necessarily for either political clique.

All this begs the question about the need or importance of political parties today, especially given their ownership by Wall Street and cliques of the super wealthy. As most (hopefully) Americans now know, we're no longer a Constitutional or democratic Republic with a free and non-partisan press.

We've become a Corporatocracy under the control of a group of wealthy elites whose only interest is in acquiring control, be it control over assets, resources, or us. The media serves as their propaganda arm; to manufacture news to influence our opinions and divert our attention from the real issues. Heck, we can no longer trust our votes to count! It seems like it's all a nightmare doesn't it?

Apparently the majority of Americans agree since both of the two corporate parties are in decline. They've been in decline for around 20 years. The largest political bloc, with 42% of registered voters, is Independents. A growing number of political scientists even predict that within the next 20 years, one or both of the two corporate parties could likely cease to exist (the money is on the Republicans going extinct). So, what can we do to restore the balance of political power? 

President George Washington took the high road. He did his upmost to stay above the political mudslinging (which may be one reason he's so revered over 200 years later). Washington believed that once someone took office that regardless of which "faction" they adhered to, their role was to serve all the people, not just their side.

Most Americans don't realize that when their candidate loses, in our "winner-take-all" political system, they are no longer represented for the duration of that term, be it two, four, or six years. Without term limits or ending partisan gerrymandering, it could be as long as 30 or 40 years if not longer! Imagine that. Paying taxes without anyone from your district to champion your political interest.

True, you might still be able to get a hole filled or a tree trimmed, but that's a big difference from getting support on specific piece of legislation. Of course, you could always go to the time and expense of moving and leaving your home and neighborhood. But on the other hand, why should you? Aren't these people elected to office your representative?

We know that the two parties are corrupt. We know whose interests they serve, and it isn't ours. We know that candidates of both parties tend to lie or distort what they'll do "for" us (actually "to us") if elected. First off, no one person can successfully "stand up" to special interest when that special interest finances their party and probably their campaign.

Besides, we aren't fools. We know that no single individual can do anything. Everything is run by and through committees, which are party controlled, which means ultimately corporate controlled. Legislation is even written and reviewed by corporate lobbyists. All we end up doing is making a Faustian bargain; a deal with the devil to be burned last, but there are some things we can do. 

The principal reason for partisan elections is to ensure the continuity of a specific ideologically and maintain political control for the financial benefit of the party's corporate sponsors. It's the same reason sports teams try to win races. It looks good for the team and it makes everyone money (except the fans. They pay the money). But what if a political office doesn't do either? What if it just enforces existing laws. What if its partisan leaning unintentionally implies partiality and bias?

The State Office of Attorney General is the chief lawyer for the people.  They are also the chief legal adviser to the governor, the state legislature, and the state's various agencies. In the United States, attorney generals are elected in 43 states (not including territories) and appointed in the remaining seven.

In every single instance they are partisan. They are either Democrat or Republican. In fact, there are 27 Republican and 23 Democrat Attorneys General. The only non-partisan Attorney Generals are found in the Territory of the Northern Mariana Islands and the Territory of Guam, both of which are in the South Pacific.

Now, I don't know about you, but I prefer to get my legal advice from someone who's impartial. Since an Attorney General's job is simply a legal function, and doesn't make laws (although they are supposed to provide a non-bias legal opinion on various laws proposed by the partisan legislature), wouldn't you want someone without a dog in the fight? It's like the coach of the Chicago Bears calling plays for the Green bay Packers. Why then isn't the Attorney General's Office non-partisan?

Staying on the legal topic, the same can be asked of city or county attorney generals. Why are these offices partisan? Judges have their own personal political opinions, yet are elected in non-partisan races. Why wouldn't we want the same of an attorney elected to represent the community and it citizens? Their partisanship by definition presumes a political prejudice. 

Another key political office is Secretary of State. There are 47 Secretary of States, of which 35 are elected by voters while the remaining 12 are appointed by a partisan governor. Of the 47, 27 are currently Republican and the other 20 are Democrat. None are non-partisan. Why?

The Secretary of State is charged by the state constitution with maintaining business records for the state, commissioning and regulating notaries public, keeping official records, and in most cases, maintaining the state seal. However, its most important job is as chief election officer. They administer elections, oversee and report official election results and voter registration, which is locally managed by a local clerk for the Board of Elections (sometimes called the County Clerk or County Elections Clerk), another elected partisan office.

In most states, County Clerks also oversee registration and licensing of boats, trailers, and vehicles, marriages licenses, issue permits, title transfers, delinquent property taxes, recording legal documents, maintain deed records, and handle voter registration. They are also tasked with the retaining and training election officers (who are paid with public tax dollars) to work the polls.

However, did you know that only Democrats and Republicans can be election officers? Yelp. State law in some places (like Kentucky) say that registered non-partisan voters like Independents and third parties can't serve, but their taxes still go to pay for partisan only election officers. Sounds shady to me!

The Office of Secretary of State passes no laws. It votes on no legislation. It's strictly an administrative office, so why is it partisan? Why would anyone trust an office run by partisan politician who is charge election results, voter registration or hiring election officers? As an aside, the County Clerk also appoints individuals to oversee election matters pertaining to Republicans and Democrats. No one oversees Independents or third parties. So what happens to the nation's largest political bloc?

In each state, the corporate party with the least number of registered voters is assigned Independent, third party, and "No preference" voters. Naturally, they couldn't care less about those individuals, but someone has to get stuck with them right? In short, they are ignored. The corporate party with the largest number of voters also gets the lion's share of board and commission appointments. That means the largest voter demographic and third parties are simply ignored by the political system.

Several other elected state offices are just as guilty of playing partisan politics with voters such as the Auditor, Treasurer, Transportation, Agriculture, and Commerce equally all have no law making capabilities. Collectively, these offices are referred to as Constitutional offices. They exist by virtue of the state's constitution and are strictly administrative in their function, yet they're partisan.  

Other offices, not elected, are just as important, such as Commissioner of Insurance, Labor, or Public Education. These administrative offices are appointed by the governor primarily based on party affiliation, and not solely on qualifications (in a few states, the Office of Lt. Governor is also appointed, while in other states they may run as a single ticket or independently).

In none of our state constitutions (nor in the federal constitution), does the chief executive make laws. That role is designated solely for the state legislature(as an aside, Nebraska is the only state with a non-partisan state legislature). The governor, however, does sign or reject bills which comes before them. Obviously, a partisan governor is more likely to sign (and promote) bills passed by their corporate party and reject those by the opposition instead of evaluating them based solely on their merit and benefit to the citizens of the state, which makes much better sense. The same holds true for mayors or county commissioners.

We also shouldn't forget the County Court Clerk, Property Valuation Administrator, City Tax Assessor, County Sheriff, County Constable and/or Magistrate, or County Judge. These are almost always partisan offices. Tell me, why would you want a partisan sheriff, tax assessor, or County Court Clerk?  None of these publicly elected offices should be politically biased. None.

The only elected partisan offices should be those which write laws or establish policy along ideological lines (and even that's questionable). Increasingly, some municipalities have gone to all non-partisan metro councils and assemblies, which only makes sense. Their job is to serve the residents as impartially as possible, not dictate lifestyles. You can't do that when you're serving a political party which is owned by a conglomerate of corporations and special interest groups.

So what do you think? Should elected administrative and appointed offices which don't make laws or establish policies be partisan or should they retain their administrative function as established by constitution or law and serve everyone equally?  Personally, I think President Washington had it right.

 

If you want to know more, please take a look at 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 A/O. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you! 

 

George Washington's Mt. Vernon: Political Parties

George Washington Warned About Political Infighting in HisFarewell Address

Jefferson County Clerk's Office: Election Officer Information

Ballotpedia: Attorney General (state executive office)

Ballotpedia: Secretary of State (state executive office)

Gallup: Party Affiliation Trend Since 2004

Partisan vs. Nonpartisan Elections

Non-partisan Democracy