Freedom and Democracy: How Do They Stack Up Globally?

We’ve all heard that America is the home of democracy. The land of free and home of the brave. We hear it every time our National Anthem is sung. There’s few things which make us feel more secure and proud than watching Old Glory gently blowing in the breeze on a sunny day or watching a military parade rolls down the street. While there’s no questioning our military strength or the dedication of our men and women in uniform, have you ever wondered just how free we really are?

America was founded on the concept of individual freedom. We took on the world’s greatest superpower of the time over freedom and the notion of issues like taxation without proper representation, and yet here we are, some 250 years, and our Founding Fathers wouldn’t recognize the nation they fought to hard to create.

Most of our freedoms, even the most basic ones likes speech, expression, or right to bear arms are challenged on a daily basis And what about taxation without representation, the core reason we fought the British? How often do you get to vote on a tax or rate increase? Many of these are decided by some appointed committee, not by anyone you voted for. Some have built-in increases that don’t even require public debate.

 Partisan political primaries are taxpayer funded by state legislation. But what if you don’t belong to one of the two corporate owned and controlled political parties? Well, too bad.  Independents, who are the nation’s largest political bloc, and people who’ve joined a third party for whatever reason, are still required to pay for the Democratic and Republican primaries, and it gets worse.

While they are involuntarily taxed, they are legally prohibited from participating in their primaries (as an aside third party primaries are strictly self-funded. No taxpayer support)  Fair? No. Legal? Questionable. Democratic? Hardly. In keeping with the founding tradition of “no taxation without representation”? Hell no! So, I can almost hear you ask “well, if you don’t like it, why don’t you just vote them out?”. That’s a great question. Very logical, but the answer is, sadly, not quite so clear cut.

The reason is that both parties, in the spirit of bipartisanship (some might call it “collusion”) have made it nearly impossible for them to be voted out of office. Briefly, the 2010 Citizens United and the 2014 McCutcheon rulings, declared that corporations, which are actually artificial legal fictions, are now “people” with the same rights as ordinary flesh and blood humans, with one key exception, and that concerns “free speech”.

According to the (un)Supreme Court, declared that money is now the same as “free speech”.  And while we are free to voice our opinions via donations to political campaigns, we are capped in what we can give. Corporations, on the other hand, are not. Apparently they have more “free speech” than you or me, and that means more influence.  They can give essentially as much as they want (not that we have a spare $10 million laying around to give to some candidate). As a result, they finance not just campaigns and political parties but also fund so-called “leadership funds” (which are basically political “slush funds”), and through various legal loopholes run commercials and ads on behalf of a candidate or issue supported by that candidate. Independents and third parties typically don’t get a dime.

Through state legislation, unequal ballot access is the norm. That means there are one set of rules and requirements for Independents and third parties and another set for the two corporate owned parties. They don’t even have their own election representative to protect their interests! As a rule, they are lumped in with whichever party has the smallest voter numbers and forgotten.

Other issues, such a partisan gerrymandering all but guarantees control of a district by the majority party. It allows districts to be drawn to ensure they retain control of it. It’s a case of a party choosing the voters instead of voters choosing their representatives. This is why gerrymandered districts have reelection rates in the high 90% range.

Also, despite approval ratings in the upper 20% or low 30% range (and occasionally as low as 9%), Congress has a reelection rate of 97%. Do you think that’s by coincidence?  Corporate lobbyists help write (or write altogether) legislation as well as review bills, provide summaries, and so forth. Do you think any of this is for our benefit? Don’t bet on it.  So, I will again ask you, do you think we are free? How do compare with the rest of the world?

According to the 2024 “Freedom Index”, published by the CATO Institute, the freest country in the world in terms of personal and economic freedom, is Switzerland, followed by New Zealand and Denmark. The next three are Luxembourg, Ireland, and Finland. Seventh place is a three way tie between Australia, Iceland, and Sweden. Then comes Estonia, Canada, and Japan. Rounding out the top 15 economically and personally freest nations are Norway, Germany, and the Czech Republic.

Did you notice anything particular here? Who is missing? That’s right, the United States. We are not only not in the top five, we’re not in the top ten or even the top 15! What the hell? If we’re supposed to be the “home of the free”, why is nobody at home? Where are we?

Before getting to the U.S., I’d like to mention that according to the Freedom Index, of the top 15 freest country, the index points out that 13 of those 15 countries have seen a decline in their ratings. Just two saw improvements. The nation which has seen the greatest loss of personal and economic freedom was the Czech Republic with Finland and Canada close behind. Only Japan and Denmark have both experienced slight improvements at 0.07 and 0.02 respectively in personal and economic freedom.

As for the United States, we ranked 17^th of the 165 countries on the Freedom Index. For the record, Mexico was 94^th overall. India was 110^th. Russia was 139^th. Taiwan was 19^th. Brazil was 70^th, South Korea was 32^nd, and China was 150^th. The freest regions were North America, Western Europe, and Oceania. The least freest was the Middle East, Northern and Sub Saharan Africa, and South Asia. In terms of freedom for women, the top regions were North America, Western Europe, and East Asia. The worst areas for women were the Middle East, Northern and Sub Saharan  Africa, and South Asia.

When it comes to democracy, representative governments, political participation, civil liberties, and electoral pluralism, we need to turn to the Democracy Index compiled by the Economic Intelligence Unit of The Economist publication. They looked at various factors, such as to those just mentioned,  to determine just how effective the political system is in a given country. Countries were ranked as “Full Democracies” (10.00 – 8.99), “Flawed Democracies” (7.99 – 6.99), “Mixed” (5.99 – 4.99) and “Authoritarian” (3.99 - .99).

The chart rates each of the 165 countries surveyed on a scale of 0 to 10 with zero being the most authoritarian and ten being the most democratic. At the top of the list are Norway (9.81), New Zealand (9.61), Sweden (9.39), Iceland (9.38). and Switzerland (9.32) rounding out the top five democratic countries in the world.

These were followed by Finland (9.3), Ireland (9.19), Netherlands (9.0), Luxembourg (8.98), and Australia (8.85) finishing the top ten. Honorable mention goes to Taiwan (8.78), Germany (8.73), Canada (8.69), and finally Uruguay (8.67).  

As for the United States, we are ranked 28^th of the 165 surveyed with a democracy rating 7.85. Again, not a real good selling point as the “home of the free”. In fact, the U.S. is actually listed as a “flawed democracy” and may be teetering on becoming a failing democracy.  Some of the main reasons for why are mentioned at the beginning of this article.

In fact, countries like Costa Rica (8.29), Mauritius (8.23), Estonia (8.13), and Malta (7.93) are more democratic than the United States. As if that’s not bad enough, we barely beat out Chile (7.83) and Slovenia (7.82). That’s not good people. Of course, there’s nothing wrong or negative about these countries. In fact, good on them for doing a great job representing their people. However, the United States can and should be doing a much better job serving the people and not on Wall Street executives.

Out of curiosity, I wanted to know what the least democratic nations on the planet were so that I could go ahead and mark them off any future itineraries should the occasion arise. Liberia was 5.57. Mexico was 5.32.  Palestine (West Bank) has a rating of 3.44, while Nepal was 4.6 (so much for Buddhist enlightenment). The North African nations of Morocco,  Tunisia, and Algeria  were 4.97, 4.71, and 3.55 respectively. Egypt was 2.79. The Democratic Republic of the Congo was 1.78, making it sound neither democratic or a republic.  

Saudi Arabia, a Sunni monarchy, was only 2.08. Yemen, home of the Houthi which keeps attacking Israel amid its claims of Israeli brutality in Gaza, has a 1.95 on the Democracy Index. Syria, which is still dealing with a civil war, was 1.32. Iran, an Islamic theocracy, was 1.96. Iraq was only a little better at 2.8. Jordan, another Sunni kingdom, was 3.28. Kuwait, also a Sunni monarchy, where we fought a war to liberate Kuwaiti oil under the guise of “restoring democracy”, has democracy rating of 2.78. South Africa was 7.16 and India was 7.29.

 Turkey, whose government is secular despite a 98% majority Muslim population, was a notable 4.6. The highest rated nation in the region was, not unexpectedly, Israel, the only parliamentarian democracy in the region. It’s democracy rating was 7.8 (remember, America’s was just 7.85). Russia was 2.03 while China was 2.11. Ukraine was 4.9 and Belarus was 1.99.  However, the worst places to be if you’re looking a democratic government were the Central African Republic (1.18), North Korea (1.08), Myanmar (0.96) and Afghanistan (0.25).

Finally, in terms of regions, Africa was 3.92 overall. Asia was 4.06. North America was 5.64. South America was 6.01. Europe was 7.41 and Oceania was rated 7.46. The Middle East as a region wasn’t specifically mentioned, but averaging the numbers would be approximately 2.11 (excluding Israel) on the Democracy Index.

Additionally, did you know that there are only 25 “full democracies” in the world today? There are 46 “flawed democracies” (of which the U.S. is one), 36 so-called “hybrid” governments or that global democracy had been declining for 19 years straight?  Just 20% of the world lives in a “free country”. 42% live in a “partly free” nation, and 38% live under some form of authoritarianism, all according to the Freedom House.

It’s bears mentioning that most of the nations facing the worse influx from migration from countries with little or no tradition of freedom or democratic governments are the ones highest on both the Freedom Index and the Democracy Index lists. This begs the question of what happens when a country or region with a history of personal liberty and economic freedom is overrun by peoples with a history and culture based on oppression?

Well, historically speaking, the latter will almost always win out unless the former has the will to either enforce assimilation through regulation and legislation or expels the latte by whatever means necessary. If you’re looking to create a society of compliance and blind obedience, then you do exactly what the West is doing now. There is no middle ground.

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. 

 

Human Freedom Index

Democracy Index

Freedom House: Marking 50 Years in the Struggle ForDemocracy

Why is the Trump Administration Refusing to Release Jeffery Epstein’s Client List?

History is full of “what ifs” and other assorted murder mysteries like what happened to the bodies of Cleopatra and Marc Anthony, Alexander the Great, and of course, where is Jimmy Hoffa? Did Hitler survive death in the bunker and escape? Who actually ordered the killings of Martin Luther King Jr, John Kennedy or his brother, Robert F. Kennedy? What became of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid? 

It appears that another mystery will be added to that long list for future historians and conspiracy buffs to ponder---who was actually responsible of the death of Jeffery Epstein and what of his unredacted list of clients? Even the famous “Hollywood madam”, Heidi Fleiss, allegedly kept a private black book full of clients and notes, so why wouldn’t someone like Epstein?  It’s good insurance.

Well, apparently not if Attorney General Pam Bondi if she has her way. She originally denied the existence of any list but now admits it does exist but won’t be released. Given that the names of some very wealthy and powerful people are supposedly on the list, it’s easy to see why some very powerful people want it buried along with Epstein.

President Trump agrees with his AG, having said that he doesn’t understand the public’s interest in the list, calling it “sordid” and “fake news”. Given Epstein’s reputation, it’s not hard to understand actually. The public wants to know who participated in the assorted escapades on Epstein’s island getaway, especially if the stories of alleged prostitution, drug use, and pedophilia are true (the locals called his private plane the “Lolita Express” for all the underage girls it carried).    

A former top Colombo mobster, Michael Franzese, who at one time was held for seven months in the same cell as Epstein in New York City’s Metropolitan Corrections Center said that with all the security, suicide would be “impossible” (especially given that Epstein was supposedly on “suicide watch” to begin with).  

Then there is the fact that all the security camaras malfunctioned at once (including two which were aimed directly into his cell resulting in missing footage) or that the two security guards sitting 15 feet from Epstein’s cell whose job was to constantly monitor the prisoner, admitted to have “fallen asleep”, spent time shopping online, and going for walks instead of checking on Epstein every 30 minutes as required (they later admitted to doctoring the log book but didn’t face any charges as part of a plea deal) seems a little odd too.  

Other guards who regularly patrol the halls also failed to notice anything out of the ordinary at the same time certainly stretches the credibility of a suicide claim. It’s also worth mentioning that the Metropolitan Correctional Center where both Jeffery Epstein and Michael Franzese were imprisoned is now closed and stripped of all security cameras, etc. 

In addition, Franzese pointed out that the cell was specifically designed to prevent successful suicide attempts (hence being in the suicide watch section of the jail). It seems that to many things simply don’t add up.  So, what’s the official timeline of events leading up to Epstein's death and do they make any more sense?

According to official records, Jeffery Epstein had been arrested on July 6, 2019 on charges of having sex with minors and running a pedophile sex ring operation. The following day he was moved from general population to a Special Housing Unit and placed on observation on July 9^th.

On July 18^th, U.S. District Judge Richard M. Berman denied bail, citing Epstein as a “flight risk” and a “danger to the community” despite having not committed or charged with any violent crimes. And no longer possessed a passport. It bears mentioning that just a few weeks before his death, Epstein had met with a prison psychologist and stated (apparently convincingly) that he wasn’t suicidal and that he had a “pretty wonderful life”… thus far.

Then on July 23^rd, he was found unconscious with a bed sheet around his neck in an apparent suicide attempt, after which he was placed on suicide watch. Curiously, I’ve been unable to find any statements from Epstein or prison authorities about the incident. More oddly, at the end of July, Epstein was removed from suicide watch by Bureau of Prison psychologists. Why? 

On August 9^th, some 2000 documents were unveiled about his alleged pedophile ring activities. Nevertheless, it wasn’t going to be a slam dunk for the Feds and they knew it. Then, his cellmate was suddenly transferred out and strangely, no new cellmate was assigned, thus leaving Epstein, a supposed suicide risk, strangely alone.  The following morning, Epstein was found dead, having allegedly hung himself.

A review of Jeffery Epstein’s autopsy report appeared to show that he most likely died from a frontal strangulation and claimed that there were signs of a struggled according to some forensic experts, including three neck fractures, a broken hyoid in the neck not normally found in an intentional self-inflicted hanging. There were also ligature marks in the center of his neck, which are more common with strangulation and there was no blood on the noose. 

Dr. Michael Biden, a noted forensic pathologist hired by Jeffery Epstein’s brother, agreed and said that the findings were consistent with strangulation by a wire or cord than by hanging with a bed sheet. He added that in reviewing thousands of suicide and jail hanging photos over the last "40 or 50 years", none had similar injuries as Jeffery Epstein's.  

Dr. Biden was the chief medical examiner for New York City from 1978 to 1979 and hosted “Autopsy” on HBO. He additionally served as the chairman of the House Select Committee on Assassination’s Forensic Panel. He was involved in a number of high profile cases including that of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown, Phil Spector, Michael Brown, and George Floyd.

Epstein knew that if convicted on all charges (which was unlikely), he could potentially spend up to 45 years in prison. Certainly, there was no guarantee the FBI could prove all the charges. There was also the likelihood he could get sentenced to one of those minimum federal “resort” facilities like the kind politicians get sent to. Epstein did, after all, have money and connections, the two main ingredients needed to grease the legal system.

But perhaps that one thing which could hurt him the most is the fear by some that he would talk to save himself. Organized crime is littered with bodies of individuals who were silenced for the same reason. Why should this, if the allegations were true,  be any different? I think Epstein knew and understood that.

If so, where they responsible for Epstein’s death or did Epstein actually hang himself to protect his clients or out of fear of prison? What about the failure of the security cameras or the guards mysteriously disappearing just at the right time? Why would Epstein be denied bail? Why was he left alone in his cell? Was his death an unfortunate nexus of incompetence, apathy, personnel shortages, and budget cuts or just a pure coincidence?

According to a CNN/SSRS poll, 50% of Americans believe there is more to the story regarding Epstein’s death than we’ve been told. 17% said they’re unsure and need to hear more. Meanwhile, just a mere 3% are satisfied with the government’s explanation.

Along political lines, 52% of Independents, the nation’s largest political demographic, are unsatisfied with the government’s take on Epstein’s death.  56% of Democrats agree that there is more to the story. 40% of Republicans agree. Just 3% of Democrats and Independents believe the government’s explanation of events along with just 4% of Republicans.

When it came to the amount of information thus far released by the attorney general’s office, 66% of liberals want more information to be made available. 48% of moderates and 42% of conservatives agree. However, 18% of liberals said that it didn’t matter one way or the other. 32% of conservatives and moderates agreed.

In another survey published by the Miami Herald,  67% of respondents believed the government was engaged in a coverup when it came to Epstein. 69% of Independents said they thought that the government was intentionally withholding information. 82% of Democrats agreed as did half of the Republicans surveyed.

The same poll indicated that 79% of respondents want the Trump Administration to keep its campaign promise to release all of the information regarding Epstein (including his client list). 17% said they were unsure and 5% were satisfied with things as they are. When broken down along partisan lines, 85% of Democrats said that everything needed to be made public. 76% of Independents agreed. So did 75% of the Republicans surveyed.

Another poll, this one released by Quinnipiac University, showed that 63% of Americans disapprove of Trump’s handling of the Epstein files while 20% had no opinion and 17% was satisfied with Trump’s handling of the matter. 40% of Republicans approved, however, 36%  didn’t. Among Democrats, 83% disapproved of the lack of transparency by the White House along with 71% of Independents.

So, what do you think? Did Jeffery Epstein hang himself? Is there an actual list of clients or some other “black book”, perhaps containing some very personal information? Supposedly Epstein's close associate, Ghislaine Maxwell, has a little black book of her own containing over 2000 names of alleged clients; a book which by the way has been sealed by the court while she sits in prison. Why? Was it to protect to those mentioned in the book? Did the guards disable the security cameras and take a walk in order to enable Epstein to hang himself or was there something more? 

 Attorney General Pam Bondi’s recent action to deny and then admit but withhold further information only adds credence to the so-called “conspiracy theory” of a massive coverup. It also potentially hurts President Trump who promised government transparency, but bear in mind too that this has also moved from a simple judicial or political matter into a intelligence coup for government intelligence agencies. There's a lot of very powerful names in those books that can be leveraged. 

For those who say, “who cares?”, I have to respond that we all should. This was allegedly a huge, perhaps global, sex ring involving some of the world’s richest and most powerful men and women, including those in government, finance, military, and business. To say that it’s unimportant or their "personal business" is to say that pedophilia and sex with minors is acceptable.  

It is also to say that government coverup of such crimes are also acceptable. It is not. We are tired of coverups and the corruption with accompanies them. We are just as tired of the two tier justice system, one for the wealthy and powerful and another for us. We’d like some honesty and transparency for a change, regardless of whether a client list or black book exists or not. To borrow from the title of a John Lennon song,  how about giving us some truth for a change?

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. 

 

Jeffery Epstein died by suicide and there’s no ‘client list’,Justice Department says

Epstein didn’t kill himself

Trump says US attorney general should release any ‘credible’information on Epstein

Trump acknowledges receiving briefing on Jeffery Epsteincase from AG Pam Bondi

 

Jeffery Epsteins Death: A Timeline of His final Weeks

Just 3% satisfied with amount of Epstein informationreleased: Survey

Is Trump administration covering up Epstein evidence? WhatAmericans say in poll

63% Of Voters Disapprove of Trump Administration’s Handingof the Jeffery Epstein Files….

Jeffery Epstein client list

How Jeffery Epstein Got Paid

Jeffery Epstein

 

Where Has the Love Gone? The Future of the American Political Duopoly

 America’s love affair with partisan politics (if there really was one) appears to be over for good. The Democrats, once the harbinger of inclusivity, has found itself mired in mediocrity and lacking in leadership, is able to maintain relevance through Identity politics.  I guess that’s what happens when you run out of ideas and don’t have a very deep bench.

The Republican Party, as a result has benefited, especially in America’s heartland and  in particular, at state and local levels. Yet, its support seems to rest on the last vestiges of a fading demographic white, mostly male, middle class voters, and there is a subtle cold and callous undertone to their call for austerity and “making America great again” by cutting back on social security and the public social safety net but continuing to spend more money on the military than the next ten nations (including China, UK, India, France, and Russia) combined!   

However, neither those who agitate on the Left or Right are satisfied with what their side is offering. The result is an America more deeply and widely divided than at any time since the years proceeding the Civil War.  Some ominously predict a pending revolution while others anticipate a second civil war at any moment, and still others foresee for a “civil divorce”.

Even during our formative years as a nation there were those among our Founding Fathers who questioned whether we were or could ever become a truly “United States” of America. We were fundamentally too different; a multitude of nations.  Over the subsequent decades and centuries, as millions came to our shores, those divisions have only intensified. Regardless, one thing is for sure. This is not the America our Founders intended. So, lets take a look at our political landscape. Perhaps we can even predict an America just a few years or a decade or two down the road.

First, despite the popular belief that America is a “two party” nation, the truth is that it was never established that way. In fact, the majority of the Founders opposed the creation of political parties, fearing that they could become powerful special interest cliques which would in time weaken the political power of the average citizen through deception and corruption and eventually dominate government (nah. That could never happen…could it?).

Secondly, that we’re only limited to just two parties. In fact, we’ve have numerous political parties. Most have either merged with other parties or simply faded away with whatever particular issues they supported. Today, we have two primary parties---Democrat and Republican, although the Libertarian, Green, and Constitutional parties are formable.

 However, despite their public perception of two differing parties, the fact is they’re more similar than not.  For example, they’re both owned by special interests from Wall Street. Wall Street controls the finances of both parties. It funds their campaigns, their leadership PACs, and sets their agenda. It dictates their domestic and foreign policies (which are not overly dissimilar). The corporate media defines their public persona and influences their political message. Both are legal fictions given the rights of the average citizen…and then some.  They are, in fact, a duopoly of Wall Street. Another thing they have in common is that both are actually minority parties.

According to the most recent polling, Independents are the largest political demographic in the United States with just over 43% of all registered voters not aligning with either the Democrats or Republicans. As an aside, did you know that Independents have been the dominate political demographic since 2011? Meanwhile, the two corporate owned parties are roughly equal with 28% each of the electorate making Independents (erroneously called “swing voters” by some) the literal “kingmakers” of today’s politics.

Something else the Democrats and Republicans have in common is that not many people like them. According to a Pew poll, 65% of registered voters, irrespective of registration, disliked Republican polices. 56% felt the same way about Democrat policies.

A 2025 NBC News Stay Tuned Poll, showed that 71% of Independents disapproved of the direction the Republican Party was going. 91% of Democrats agreed as did 13% of Republicans (could they be the nefarious “RINOs” so hated by GOP hardliners?).

When it came to Democrats, 64% of Independents disapproved of where the Democratic Party was wanting to take the country. 93% of Republicans concurred. Interestingly, so did 22% of Democrats (those nefarious “DINOs” this time).  In short, an overwhelming majority of Americans disapproved of both Democrat and Republican policies.

Amusingly, in 1960, 4% of Democrats and 4% of Republicans said they’d be unhappy if their son or daughter married someone outside of their party affiliation. In 2019, nearly half---45%---of Democrats said they’d be unhappy if their child married someone from a different party. Republicans were apparently a little more open minded. Just 35% said they would object. Today, I suspect they’d be disowned.

Another factor affecting both parties is that they’re losing their base. Demographics in America are constantly changing. Historically, America has been a predominate white European nation since its founding while blacks were considered the largest minority, As a result, legislation and funding was directed accordingly. But that’s all changing.

Today, whites are still the largest racial demographic at 58.4% (white males, often viewed as America's political, social, and economic “powerbrokers” are projected by the Census Bureau to become a de facto minority by the early 2040's).  The second largest population are Hispanics, who comprise 19.5% of the population (that number would likely be higher if all illegal immigrates were included. However, it's  only as an estimate). Black Americans make up just 13.7% of the population. Asians are 6.4%. Those claiming two or more races make up about 3.1% of the population (and growing). Native Americans, Pacific Islanders, and others make up under 2%.

Based on projections, sometime in the next 25 years, America will no longer have a majority racial population. Whites and Hispanics are expected to have a near parity. Black percentages are expected to drop while Asians are anticipated to increase along with the number of those of mixed racial ancestry. So, what does that mean?

Well, for starters, it means that limited federal tax dollars are going to be redirected to the group with the most mouths to feed, and that’s going to be Hispanics. So, expect future federal (and likely state) programs will cater more to Hispanics which could increase competition between blacks and Hispanics for federal dollars.

Secondly, there will be an increase in the number of people of Hispanic ancestry being elected to office at all levels as a result of both a growing population and an increased concentration in key districts or dominate state with high electoral votes. So, don’t be surprised to see a Hispanic president in the next 25 years. Also, although historically, there’s been a decrease in ancestral allegiance over generations, that doesn’t seem to be the case when it comes to Hispanics.

 The reason is that historically, immigration came in waves, thus giving time to integrate into American society, aka the proverbial “melting pot”. Note too, this “absorption” was also encouraged by previous immigrants and society in general as well as newly arriving immigrants had a strong desire to become “Americans” as quickly as possible.

That’s no longer the case. First, the arrival of Hispanic immigrants (legal and illegal) are occurring as such regular rate and volume that there’s little time or opportunity to integrate. Secondly, many have no intention or desire in becoming “Americans”. They are here solely for a payday.  These are economic migrations. As a result, few bother to learn English, the laws, or adopt to customs, values, or traditions. They tend to congregate in their own ethnic enclaves. Many regularly support family back home. Therefore, nearly everything about them remain tied to their native country.

Black Americans have faced a series of serious issues since emancipation which the federal government has attempted to correct through legislation and various taxpayer based programs with varying degrees of success. As federal funding for programs and services are reduced or redirected, along with competition for jobs now being taken by Hispanics, black Americans are going to be forced to struggle harder.

Lastly, the percentage of Asians are growing more rapidly than previously. This is due to the influx of Asians from places like China, Philippines, South Korea, Taiwan,  Vietnam, and elsewhere. Another factor is that Asians tend to have large families (as do Hispanics). Thus, in certain areas, especially along the West Coast, Asians could come to represent minority majorities.

This brings us to an interesting question. With Democrats and Republicans shrinking in number, generational dissatisfaction with existing partisan politics (especially among Millennials, Gen Z and facing a declining number of Babyboomers and aging Gen X), what does our political, economic, and social future look like?  Cities, starving for economic  resources, are gobbling up smaller surrounding communities. Corporations are also continuing to gobble up everything they can, thus eliminating or consolidating competition. It already controls the government, and with it, controls funding as well as domestic and foreign policy.

 Technology, especially AI, is already proving to be a double edge sword. It’s provided opportunities for a few while reducing or eliminating jobs thus contributing to the already enormous gulf between the rich and the rest of us. It is also the tool behind our evaporating personal privacy and becoming the ever watchful eye of our emerging surveillance state. It bears mentioning that Millennials and Gen Z, both raised on technology, don’t appear to have the same regard toward privacy as older generations.

As I briefly touched on, the wage/income gap between the elites and the rest of society (which also benefits Congress and others in power) is widening. For instance, did you know that the top 1% control 31% of the nation’s wealth compared to the bottom 50% which controls just 2.6%? From 1979 to 2023, the top 1% saw their wealth grow 182% while the bottom 90% had a growth of 44%. The average CEO makes roughly 334 times that of the average employee.  

Are either of the two corporate owned parties equipped to deal with issues like these over the long term? The Democrats try to maintain power by never saying “no” and kicking the debt can down a short dead end road without a worry about who’s going to pick up the tab. The Republicans hope they can prolong the inevitable by cutting programs affecting the politically weakest and forcing open foreign markets by rook, crook, or rocket. They believe cutting taxes on mega corporations and the wealthy will improve the lot for everyone else.

Neither party are willing or able to make the changes which we need. Besides, it’s not in their vested interests to do so. It’s taken decades crafting the perfect scam. The tune they dance to isn’t the voice of the American voter. It’s sound of vast sums of money played by Wall Street. Corporatism, as under Fascism or Communism, requires a compliant citizenry convinced into surrendering their integrity and wellbeing to a state absent any real accountability, which to me is a lot like an alley cat telling a mouse to “trust me”.  Bon Appetit anybody?

 

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. 

 

Political Polarization in the United States

Digging into America’s sour views on both political parties:From the Politics Desk

GOP Holds the Edge in Party Affiliation for Third StraightYear

Wage inequality fell in 2023 amid a strong labor market,bucking long term trends

Corporatism

U.S. Census Bureau: Quick Facts

Partisan Politics drags U.S. towards failed-state status

 

The "Gospel" of Partisan Politics

I am a frequent and often requested respondent on the site "Quora". Over the past 5 or so years, I've had somewhere in the neighbor of 10 million viewers and have my answers included in a number of dedicated spaces which are similar to encyclopedia entries. My specialties are history (especially military history and WWII in particular), economics, theology, humanities, community organizing and activism, management/employee relations, sociology, and of course, politics. 

Recently I was asked a rather unusual political question. The individual wanted to know which of the two corporate controlled parties (the Democrats or the Republicans) considered their particular brand of political dogma to be "gospel", which I took to mean as not based on their professed "ideal", but on their reality. Below is my answer. How would you have answered?  Does either party govern the way they claim to do? 

Which party sees its dogma as political “gospel”? Simple. They both do. That’s why we have such a wide and deep partisan divide. Each believe they know what’s best for the country and the American People. Each has a nearly inflexible political dogma which has lead to intolerance for anyone who isn’t as “pure” as they are. Compromise, which used to be considered the hallmark of modern politics , is now viewed with contempt.

The only thing the two corporate owned parties seem to agree on is their opposition to third parties and Independents (who happen to the nation’s majority voters) because they represent a threat to their control and power. Independence of thought or the development of critical thinking skills are to be discouraged and ridiculed.

Secondly, both agree on pursuing every means of self-enrichment, primarily for the benefit of their controlling corporate clique. It’s not by chance that power doesn’t rest in the hands of the voters, but boardrooms. There’s a reason why we’ve transitioned from a Republic to a corporatocracy and why we’re led by an oligarchy of very wealthy individuals.

As long as we remain divided, we are easier to control and manipulate, which is why both parties have largely purged moderates/centrists for their ranks. It’s why money is “free speech”. It’s why corporations, those legal fictions, have not just the same rights as people, but in many cases, have rights that exceed flesh and blood citizens. So, which party sees its ideology as “gospel”? The answer is that both do, and their gospel was written on Wall Street and their prophets can be found on “K” Street. 

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. 

Understanding the Role of Religion in Today’s World of Power Politics: Are We the Player or the Played?

Religion, in its various manifestations, is supposed to bring us a measure of comfort and reassurance. It was also intended to explain essentially everything such as the stars, how we got here, why life is so tough, and so forth.  However, it’s institutionalization has simply provided a degree of control and ability of manipulation, promising something which is unmeasurable and illusionary in the “hereafter” for you obedience in the here and now for a handful of individuals.

 Of course, what’s a system of rewards---eternal happiness, meeting up with departed friends and family, singing hymns and playing harps ad nauseum, 72 virgins, and so on without a corresponding systems of punishments---a lake of fire, the smell of sulfur,  eternal torment by demons and pitchforks, endless reruns of “I Love Lucy”, those hymns and harps ad nauseum again, and having to put up with 72 virgins?

It’s always about rewards and punishments. The stick and carrot (or apple I suppose in this case). Countless institutions and individuals have made a pretty good living as this. The Vatican for instance, is one of the richest and most powerful corporations on the planet.  They’ve amassed a level of wealth that would have Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Exxon, and Google look like paupers. Most estimates put its wealth at around $10 to $15 billion dollars, plus they pay no---zero---taxes on that wealth, not to mention priceless artifacts and documents. For centuries it’s also been the great keeper of secrets.

This has ranged for the ordinary peasant confessing his or her lust for the neighbor’s crops, cows, or son/daughter all the way up to the plans of princes and princess. Kings and queens have been made to grovel on the bellies to the papal throne. It’s been the power mover behind the scenes in global politics for over 2000 years.

It’s given legitimacy to kings and governments for thousands of years, raising some up and bringing many down. No other institution has welded such power over its fellow human beings.  Of course, that doesn’t mean it hasn’t gone unchallenged. There has been numerous political ideologies which has tried to supplant religion down through the centuries.

Take the Greek Empire under Alexander the Great for instance. He conquered hundreds of nation-states, empires, and tribes during his brief reign. In each instance, he would often leave much of the old government and religion in place with only minor changes. The Roman Empire did much the same, asking only that the Emperor be acknowledged as the supreme secular power. Genghis Khan, who amassed the largest land empire in history, followed pretty much the same political philosophy.

However, there has been numerous schisms, reformations, separatist movements, protests, and so forth which has rejected the institutional power of organized religion such as the “Great Schism” (aka “The East-West Schism”) of 1054, separating the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church (a fight essentially over power, giving a “holier than thou”  authority of the Bishop of Rome over other Bishops), Martin Luther’s Reformation of 1517, King Henry VIII’s Reformation of 1527 (aka “The English Reformation”), and countless others, There’s the Sunni and Shia split of 632 CE which is still being battled everyday on TV screens and across the internet.

 Hinduism, the third largest religion behind Christianity and Islam, dates back some 4000 years, has experienced four major internal breaks with dozens of subsets. Buddhism, known for its peaceful philosophical doctrine, had its first schism just one hundred years after Buddha died in 483 BC. Christianity at least waited three hundred years before it began purging competing ideologies like the Arians, Gnostics, and so forth.

So, with all the reformations, schisms, and other breaks, how many religions are there today? Although no exact number is possible, there’s an estimated 10,000 distinct religions in the world today. They range from having thousands of deities to alleged having one (or is it three with a subset of hundreds of the lesser divine?) while others have no specific entities, preferring nature or the natural world. Most (though not necessary all) have their sacred texts or spoken traditions, holidays/festivals, morals, values, and mythologies.

Of all of them, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism are the largest, representing 77% of all religious followers. Broken down by the numbers, Christianity, which represents about 32% of the world’s population, has 2.2 billion adherents. Islam, which has 23% of the global population, has roughly 1.6 billion followers, and is the fastest growing organized religion in the world outside of the Middle East.

Hinduism has about 1 billion followers and makes up 15% of the world’s population. Buddhism has about 500 million followers although the number may be higher since adherents may follow Buddhist teaching as either a religion or as a philosophy.  Lastly, Judaism, which is the smallest of the so-called “Great Religions” and certainly one of the most influential, has about 14 million adherents although many consider themselves as “non-religious” or “not practicing”.  Just 0.2% of the world’s population are Jewish.

It bears mentioning that historically, more people have died in the name of religion than any other cause. So, how many people are we talking about? While there’s no way to provide an exact number of deaths, conservative estimates put the number of dead at over 195 billion in deciding who God loves the most. A few examples include the Crusades which killed an estimated 6 million Muslims and Jews. The Thirty Years War killed some 11 million men, women, and children.

The Congolese Genocide (led by King Leopold II of Belgium) resulted in the deaths of 13 million. The ongoing Islamic War has murdered (since 2000) approximately 150,000 and thousands condemned to slavery (mostly Shia’s, Kurds, Yazidis, and Coptic Christians). About 20 million Native Americans died as a result of continental expansion in the name of “Manifest Destiny” (and disease). The Muslim conquest of India took somewhere around 80 million lives. In Africa, due to Church prohibition of birth control (including condoms), some 30 million Africans died of AIDs.

Of course, about 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust.   The French War of Religion killed some 4 million French Protestants and led to exodus of tens of thousands so-called “Huguenots”. By comparison, 5000 Jews were killed during the Spanish Inquisition (although almost every Catholic country carried out its own inquisition), and these are but a few example.

It bears mentioning that there’s been other, more lethal, causes of human death down through history such as malaria (which is the single cause most responsible for human death), the Black Plague, starvation due to crop failure, drought, and other forms of natural disasters (earthquakes, volcanos, tornados, hurricanes, storms, etc.).  The Spanish Flu of 1918/19 killed over 500 million people worldwide. That’s roughly 1/3 of the global population at the time, making it the deadliest pandemic in recorded human history.

These, however, were largely outside of our control. At best, we could only take precautions. Economic wars, fought for the control of land or resources, are the ones we’re most familiar with (ie: Kuwait or Iraq were fought mainly over the control of oil production) and they often go hand in hand with religious war, which both go to control---political, economic, and social compliance.

According to a 2024 Pew report, religious freedom is in decline. 92% of the 190 countries looked at---183---restricted religious freedom in one way or another. In the 20 countries comprising the Middle East and Northern Africa, there was at least one instance each of religious harassment. The same was true for 43 of 45 European countries as well as 33 of the 35 nations in the Americas, 44 of 48 sub-Saharan African nations, and 43 of 50 Asian/Pacific countries.

The decline of religious freedom was, in fact, the lowest recorded since 2007, when Pew began tracking religious freedom. 55% (or 29% of the total) had “high” or “very high” levels of government imposed restrictions on religious freedom (most of these were in the Middle East and China).  

The countries with the highest rates of religious freedom included Australia, Canada, Japan, Finland, South Africa, and along the western coast of South America such as Peru, Chile, Columbia, Bolivia, Paraguay, and Ecuador and Honduras in Central America.  The United States was listed as being a “moderate” when it came restricting religious freedom.

43% (or 22% of the countries studied) had “high” or “very high” levels of social hostilities against minority religions. These “hostilities” included violence against private individuals and groups, religiously affiliated organizations including schools, as well as religious places of worship. The worst offenders were Egypt, Pakistan, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan due to the very high level of religious persecution socially and governmentally imposed.  So, what religious groups were most affected?

According to the 2024 Pew survey, Christians were the most heavily persecuted religious group, despite being the world’s largest faith. Persecution was the worse in predominantly Muslim nations, and in areas where Muslims were in the majority , including in the UK and Europe, which have been historically Christian.

Muslims, the second largest religion in the world, were also the second most religiously harassed population. However, most of that harassment came from other Muslims (such as Sunni vs Shia) or more accurately, Muslims vs. Islamists.

Muslims tend to follow the Koran or teachings of Muhammad while Islamists tend to promote a radicalized political philosophy using the corrupted version of the Koran’s teachings. Islamists tend to not only oppose other Muslims, they oppose Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and especially Jews. In fact, Islamists pretty much oppose anyone who isn’t them.

The third most harassed group, and the smallest of the “Great Religions”, was Judaism. Jews have long been one of the most hated religious groups in history, regardless of where they live or how much they’ve tried to integrate. Fourth were largely the much smaller religions such as Zoroastrianism (which is the common “grandparent” of most religions including the three Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), the Sikhs, Baha’i, etc.  

They are closely followed the fifth most harassed group, the traditional Chinese and Japanese folk religions such as Confucianism, Shintoism, Taoism, Tengrism, Native American spiritualism,  Australian Aboriginal spiritualism, Wicca and paganism.

The last two most harassed religions were the Hindus and the Buddhists, which, despite their size (third and fourth largest religions respectively), tend to be relatively unbothered, but when they are, it’s mostly in countries with large Muslim populations. Finally, the least harassed group are the non-affiliated. While as a group they tend to be largely left alone, But when they are harassed, it has tended to be by those who are most strongly affiliated with a religion in general rather than any one specific religious group.

Religion, especially organized or “dogmatic” religion, is a fickle thing.  Historically, it has usually sought to justify its existence by claiming or doing one thing while seeking another. I cannot imagine a benevolent deity sanctioning intolerance, hatred, or the horrific acts mentioned above to be committed in their name, nor can I imagine such an entity even creating a species with those attributes. 

Mankind has changed little over time, and like little children, we tend to blame someone else (“I don’t know” did it) rather than except responsibility for our actions. In this case, we blame some invisible entity who we know won’t contradict us, especially if we’ve imbued it with inordinate power. All we have to do is shift the blame when things go bad or take the credit when things work out.

Then again, what if all these wars and atrocities were indeed the wish of some deity? What if Humanity was convinced to play “Risk”  while this entity or entities play a cosmic game of chess and Humanity is their pawn?  What, when the game is over and we exist no more, the deity (or deities) simply moves on to the naïve species somewhere in the galaxy to start a new game? Either way, I don’t care much for either scenario. For some reason, I think it’s time we should light a candle for Mankind.

 

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. 

 

Religious Hostilities Hit Six-Year High

Religion

The East-West Schism

Schism

How Many People Have Been Killed in the Name of Religion

Spanish Flu

Muslims vs Islamists

Pew Global Survey Shows Rising Religious Restrictions

Religious Restrictions Around the World

The Global Religious Landscape

What Would Our Founding Fathers Think of Us Today?

What do you think our Founding Fathers would think about today’s political situation?  Did you know political parties weren’t around during the founding of our nation? They first arose in the United States in the early 1800’s. At the time we had the Democratic-Republican and Federalist parties which were based mainly on the notion of federalism and anti-federalism.

Those two concepts were political philosophies and centered on whether you believed in a large, mostly centralized, government with states having relatively weak authority or a small and primarily decentralized government with most of the power and taxing authority based in the individual states.  Federalist preferred the former and anti-federalist the latter.

Key federalists included individuals like Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, and John Madison (George Washington is sometimes lumped in with federalists). Anti-federalists included people like Patrick Henry, John Hancock, Thomas Paine, and George Mason.

Federalists were strict constitutionalists. Their base of support was centered mainly in urban centers and among larger types of businesses. They also supported commercial trade and renewed diplomatic relations with the British. Anti-federalist on the other hand, backed the Articles of Confederation. Much of their support came from rural areas and farmers.

Federalists tended to downplay or oppose the Bill of Rights whereas Anti-federalists strongly supported the Bill of Rights.  It was from these two groups that partisan political parties would later form.  The two parties would split into the Democratic and Whig parties by the 1820’s.

I should mention at this point that many of the early Founding Fathers opposed the notion of partisan political groups. In fact, in 1787, when they gathered in Philadelphia to hash out what would become our new government, political parties weren’t even mentioned. Why?

Because they had witnessed firsthand the destructive power political parties (or “factions” as they called them) could bring. Factions had nearly torn England apart in the form of civil wars and would do the same to France and elsewhere within their lifetimes in many cases.

George Washington, who opposed political parties, knew that his family was forced to flee England because of these partisan civil wars. Thomas Paine, the author of “Common Sense” and “The Rights of Man”, though these “factions” could destroy the nation or at the very least, make ordinary citizens vulnerable to the power of the wealthy elites.

When Washington left office in 1796, he warned the country of the dangers of political parties in his Farewell Address (not unlike President Eisenhower did in his 1960 Farwell Address). He warned of the dangers these “factions” would have on democracy when he said, “The common and continued mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it”.  

Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury, said that political parties were the “most fatal of diseases” of a popular government. James Madison wrote in Federalist #10, that one of the duties of a “well-constructed union” should be to manage the “tendency to break and control the violence of faction”. In other words, to keep “factions” or political parties from becoming to powerful.

Several of the Founders saw these “factions” as dangerous.  They would ultimately divide and strip citizens of their political influence leaving a handful of monied elites controlling the political system. What the Founders had hoped to do was to create a new system of government based on the concept of the “citizen legislator”. The last thing they wanted was a professional political class.

Nevertheless, political “factions” happened anyway. Apparently, we weren’t the “wise people” Washington had hoped we would be. By 1860, the two party “winner-take-all” system was firmly entrenched. Corporate influence was even then making itself felt. President Ulysses Grant’s administration in the 1870s was known for its corruption, mainly by banks, financiers, and railroad barons.

Corporate control peaked in 1896 when the robber barons, men like Rockefeller, Hearst, Fisk, Gould, Vanderbilt, and Mellon, brazenly “bought” the presidency for William McKinley, defeating reformer William Jennings Bryan. Ultimately their clout would be dismantled by President “Teddy” Roosevelt following McKinley’s assassination in 1901.  

Wounded though they be it, it was far from dead. By the 1920’s they were back in business, and they’ve never looked back, playing one political party off the other and using shell organizations and “straw men” to influence elections, laws, and policies.

They received a lot of corporate and union money, which was used to buy influence for certain pieces of legislation, direct government contracts their way, or impact policies, voters and communities could still count on their legislators. Party delegates had a say in establishing the party’s platform at conventions (with some having more clout than others) while locally political bosses, such as Tammany Hall, controlled state politics and graft.  

The 2010 “Citizens United v FEC” ruling by the Supreme Court changed all that. The ruling (or more accurately, “mistake”) gave corporations “personhood”. That is, these artificial legal fictions now had the same rights as any ordinary human being, but with one key difference.

The court decided that money was now the same thing as free speech. However, while you and I are capped in the amount of “free speech” we could give, corporations weren’t, and they could give millions. If fact, they could literally buy elections out in the open, they made the impact of ordinary voters almost worthless just as our Founders had warned. Wall Street, not the membership, established the party platform.

As an aside, it isn’t only money politicians receive from deep pocket corporations and the well-heeled. Corporate lobbyists also review bills and make recommendations on how to vote (at least to committee chairs and the party whip). They even help write (or actually write) legislation and chaperone them through the maze of committees. They write news releases and speeches, provide some very expensive junkets, and arranged for some very well paying speaking engagements ($2000 per speech isn’t uncommon).

Corporate influence extended to the media and how politics are reported too. Elections were no longer just reported with commentators making subtle innuendos one way or another. Now, with just six corporations controlling 96%+ of all media, they could be as open as they liked.

Instead of merely reporting the news as the media  had once done, buyouts and consolidations gave corporations unprecedented influence over what the public read, heard, and saw. Now they could manufacture the news and slant it however they wanted.

But that’s not the worst of it. With unlimited financial support, Congress has been to virtually isolated itself from voters (and thus, responsibility for their actions) when you consider that the absence of term limits an almost unlimited tenure in office (something many of the Founders opposed) with a 95% reelection percentage despite an approval rating consistently in the teens.

 Founding Father George Mason was a vocal proponent for “rotations” (as term limits were called then), referring to unrestricted terms in a democracy as “oppression”. In fact, term limits had originally been apart of the Articles Confederation, keeping them to no more than three terms over a six year period. 

The thinking was that legislators who weren't restricted by term limits were prone to become “inattentive to the public good, callous, selfish, and the fountain of corruption” as stated by anti-federalist, lawyer, merchant, and delegate to the Continental Congress, Melancton Smith in 1789.

In addition, partisan gerrymandering ensures that the party in control of the district stays in control of the district although gerrymandering itself was intended to give Congress a ”reflection” of the voter demographic for that area. As a result, partisan gerrymandering allows Congress to select its constituents instead of constituents selecting their representative.  

In fact, in 1891, President Benjamin Harrison called partisan gerrymandering “political robbery”. He went on to say that its “overthrow of majority control by the suppression or perversion of the popular suffrage represented our chief national danger”.  Partisan gerrymandering represents a de facto “taxation with representation” no different than our “winner-take-all” system where voters on the losing side remained taxed without the benefit of being represented in office.

Even running for office is rigged. Shouldn't that, at least, be open to everyone equally? The nation’s largest political demographic, Independents, as well as third parties are required to jump through hoops the two minority parties---the Democrats and Republicans---don’t have to. Should this be legal? Probably not. Even public referendums, the right of voters to have a direct say, are prohibited in half of all states.

Such is the state of our partisan controlled political system. What would our Founder’s think of their little experiment? Bear in mind that our Founders weren’t entirely as benevolent as we were taught in high school. There were the elites of their day or that they feared direct democracy or “mob rule” as they called it, preferring that the citizenry elect their “betters” to govern the country which is how we arrived at a Republic instead of a democracy.  

And you dear reader, what do you think of our current political situation? Do you approve of corporate control of Congress, the Presidency, and the Judicial system? What about unlimited terms of office or partisan control of districts to ensure their complete control by one party or the other? What do you think about our “winner-take-all” system where if your side loses, you aren't represented for the duration of the term, but you still get taxed? Sound fair? 

Finally, shouldn’t the pollical playing field be level in order to allow everyone equal ballot access?  In the end, regardless of what the media or anyone tells you, it is us---the voters---who still have the final say about our nation….at least for now.

 

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. 

 

The Founding Fathers Feared Political Factions Would Tearthe Nation Apart

First Party System

James Madison and the Origins of Partisanship

 

Political Parties

 

How Big Money in Politics Bought a Presidential Election in1896

Here’s What the Founders Thought About Term Limits

History Frowns on Partisan Gerrymandering

Members of Congress Get What!?

A Promise From the Founder