I'd like to put two items on the table for discussion today. First is the origin of my screen name, not only where it comes from (I think most of you know already) but why did I choose it. Second is this idea I have about how to make this great country of ours even better. After being on call and losing about 20+ hours of sleep this week, I suddenly have epiphanies, a la Jerry Maguire. 
On "Rorschach"
As you can see, my journal is a neat little "homage" to the similarly-named character of the epic Alan Moore graphic novel, Watchmen. Watchmen is special to a lot of geeks and SGers because it simply takes a beloved, commercial artistic medium and raises the bar so very high in terms of the finest qualities of classic literature. And as a big-time comic book fan and sometime dealer, it was my favorite book for a long time. (It still is one of the very top ones and still is the top English one. ) And for fun, I've kind of made my journal into the iconic "Rorschach's Journal" from the book, along with profile pics of him and adding a few comments here and there. I don't think I'm him and I don't roleplay him either on SG or anywhere else...well, I do once in a blue moon but I definitely don't think I'm him.
I've chosen this name and continue to use it for two reasons. Two reminders...one motivational and one cautionary.
If you know anything about the character and the plot of Watchmen, none of the "super heroes" in the book have any super powers except for only one, Dr. Manhattan. All of the rest of the other caped heroes, masked crusaders, have some sort of other plot device that let them do what they do. Nite Owl II is like the Bruce Wayne persona of Batman, with a fine intellect and vast wealth to fund his adventuring. Silk Spectre II comes from a well-off family and receives training and mentoring from her mother, the original Silk Spectre. The Comedian is a government-sanctioned one-man war machine. And Ozymandias is a genius and also has a vast, self-made fortune.
By the present day of the story, all of the heroes have retired from vigiliante-ism except for one, Rorschach, who goes it completely alone. And he has no resources except for one device, a grappling hook gun given to him by his ex-partner Nite Owl II. He has no money, no secret hideout, no superior intellect, no exceptional training. Add on top of that, he's a scrawny little man who all his life has been mentally and physically abused all of his life. Yet he is the "terror of the underworld," feared by all criminals and those individuals in society who don't play by the common sense rules. In a way he personifies everything that comic fans find so alluring in Batman, the other side of his persona that relentlessly seeks justice and accomplishes so much by sheer will.
When I was younger, I always thought I was such a bad ass in terms of intellect and potential. But through a series of circumstances and events that occurred when I was in college, I found out that really I was a very complacent and self-addled. Any given complex problem, I could only see maybe two solutions and usually only one. In other words, I was an opinionated jerk! So when I had this "enlightenment" it was about the same time I started to have an internet persona and so I chose the name to first remind myself what I could accomplish by my own sheer will.
Secondly, as you all know, the character Rorschach is the one character that by the end of the book is unchanged, which leads to his destruction in the end at the hands of Dr. Manhattan. Nite Owl II and Silk Spectre II both find hope in each other, Dr. Manhattan learns to cherish human life again (and ironically his first act is to take a life) and Ozymandias learns self-doubt. But Rorschach sees everything in symmetrical black and white, shadow reflecting shadow, and can not change. So the second reminder to myself is to always try and see things from other perspectives and be flexible if possible. I've learned and realized so many new things that...that...well, lets just say that I've passed the stage of thinking that I know it all and have come to the point where I now know that there's so much that I don't know.
So, there it is if you've ever been curious.
Fixing American Politics
I have this idea...
I really don't believe in our current two party-dominant system. That type of dynamic may be fine in sports where cities teams do proxy battles for the enjoyment of all, where winning and losing becomes the stuff of stories and gaudy legends. I don't believe that one side should win and one side should lose in politics where we're talking about lives affected. And this being the US, what happens here has repercussions all around the world. So, I have this idea, this possible future goal in my life, if I live that long. I hesitate to call it a dream because it's something that I think can really be achieved.
All of the non-political Republicans and the free-thinking Democrats along with many independents in other parties should form one new third party. It doesn't need to be big enough to take on head-to-head either of the two current parties. It just needs to be large enough swing any vote one way or another. Most of the controversial topics and biggest elections, the votes are all heavily divided by party lines and often the margins of victory are only a few percentage points. If the party was about 10 to 15% of the voting public, it could rule as both parties clamor to make their case to those "swing" votes.
The problem with the current state of affairs is almost totally directly related to the accountability of our policy makers/enforcers along with our flawed election processes. Don't get me wrong, I love this country. I think the democratic elements of our government are good and I like the fact that we have representatives making decisions instead of regular lay people. But, like a wonderful garden that isn't constantly tended to, everything is overgrown with weeds and there is plenty of room for snakes and other undesirables to thrive in. (And by "undesirables" I'm talking about people who make money without creating wealth, who get rich by cheating other people. I'm not talking about other races or lifestyles. If you consider those as your "undesirables" then SHOO, America no longer needs you. )
I propose the following steps to get this rolling:
1) The economically and financially educated, the clear thinkers, the activists and the politically savvy who care about the present and future should get together and organize into a new party.
Those who are welcome are:
If you are independent and scrutinize both candidates before making a decision;
If you belong to one of the two parties but scrutinize your own party's policies and politicians more than the other party's;
If you are successful financially by your own hand;
If you are well educated in economics;
If you are an everyday leader in some way, shape or form (business, military, household);
If you are well read in The Art Of War and other military and political classics;
If you often find yourself voting mixed and in no recognizable pattern, purely based on merits;
If you don't vote at all because you're disillusioned with politics due to the lack of viable choices given;
If you have West Point military training...
...and I'm sure there are a ton more that if I had more fine minds on it, we could come up with something great. Essentially, we need a party full of members who can judge issues based on merit. This party would also contain experts in all major fields that successful political leaders need to be proficient in.
2) The first agenda would be to make lawmakers more accountable in their lawmaking. The party itself could swing their votes enough to pass most of the serious issues of the day. Then, most of the politicking would be to cater to those votes. And if these votes had to be acquired by convicing those voters wtih valid, reasonable and well-scrutinized arguements, then suddenly the political air would become much clearer.
In the next wave of voting, the parties would realize that the current political bases they have become built on are now not enough to achieve political power through electoral victories. Currently these power bases, for both parties, are based on catering to special interests. One side wants to unnaturally and unjustifiably pass money from the financially successful haves to the financially inept have-nots without creating wealth in the process. While the other party has gathered its strength from zealots who base their decision making not on reason but on ancient texts and a few non-elected leaders with little accountability. And both sides are being very politically liberal, attempting to pass law after law that satisfy their special interest masters, with each law disguised as some sort of "help" for the people in their name. For those of you who know a bit about politics, you know that almost none of these laws have expiration dates. Plus in our political system, not only is it extremely difficult to repeal a law, almost no competent politician wants to lead any effort to do so. As a major elected politician, you gain fame and political power by passing laws and the effects of these laws make money for your special interest. With a percentage of those profits, they continue to fund those politicians' campaigns. This is the cycle we have to break.
Plus, if you think the lawmaking side is messed up, think about how scary this idea is. Our Supreme Court justices have open political party affiliations! How can you judge clearly and arbitrarily if you've already declared a way of thinking? And you're appointed by another politician with similar affiliation? WTB checks and balances plz, PST! ...and don't even get me started on how little they are paid and thus how potentially vulnerable they are to outside financial influences. The two parties need to be more accountable to those who can judge them because our judges can't be trusted to do so.
3) The next agenda would be to fix the election process. Democracy is good and all because it gives the illusion to the public that they control the government. But in reality, other than a few speeches, maybe some debates and some TV face time, what do voters really know about their politicians? Lets go with the most extreme example, the ineptness of voters in electing the most powerful and influential elected official in the world: the president of the United States. First lets cover the "jobs" the president is expected to perform.
Commander In Chief of all armed forces, the most powerful military force in the history of the world, capable of killing nearly 100% of the humans on earth;
Leader in the legislative arm of the government, the domestic lawmaking body made up of the Cabinet, the House and the president her/himself who can sign bills into laws and thus is a leader in shaping economic policy domestic and foreign;
Appointer of chief justices of the Supreme Court;
Chief executor of foreign policy;
The top representative and figurehead of the American public;
Appointer of the cabinet, which includes all sorts of other major leaders from Secretary Of State to Treasurer to Chief Of Staff.
Yet we can elect (that second time) George W. Bush who doesn't grasp the basic principles of warfare enough not to start a second major front. We can elect George H. W. Bush who knows his foreign policy well but couldn't form a domestic policy to save his political life. We have Bill Clinton who made our military look like fools in all sorts of hot zones from Somalia to Bosnia (see the movie Three Kings and read Joe Sacco's documentary comic, Safe Area Gorazde for some eye-witness accounts for more info) while cutting military intelligence and provoking Osama Bin Laden at the same time. Our beloved Ronald Reagan could make a successful economic domestic policy by spending more tax dollars on high tech equipment, causing those companies to spend more on the job market and encouraging more students to study more high-tech majors. He was able to destroy the Soviet Union without a single shot fired. Yet he didn't even grasp the basics of economics enough to avoid escalating the drug wars, nurturing the environment that feeds the black market with ridiculous campaigns such as "Just say no." (I have to scrutinize him the most, he was my favorite president when growing up. ) You have Jimmy Carter who failed on both economic AND military fronts. And Barack Obama, who is so inept in creating real political policy, it was heavily in question whether or not he would have even been re-elected in his own state of Illinois as Senator due to that state's dissatisfaction with him (luckily he won that state in the end in the bigger election, possibly because he had five times more funding than his opponent for that state and visited the state eleven occasions more).
Lets face it, when most people vote, they really don't know who they're voting for. They have two to choose from and most of what they know is summed up by a color, red or blue, along with a picture. How many people who voted for Obama actually knew who he was three years ago? How many people who voted for McCain actually wanted him to be president as their first choice? I bet that guy wasn't even most of his voters' second choice...he simply was the not-Obama choice. It would be funny if it weren't so tragic.
Simply put, the voters don't have an easy time making a good choice. They get two candidates, maybe three at the most. They don't have any way to judge them on any meritorious basis in terms of leadership skill for the position. And what about the very few individuals who have thought about the issues, educated themselves and know their stuff a bit? They are a small minority and a few politically ignorant people who go out and vote simply because they were encouraged to do so by their favorite entertainment star or their religious leader! (And while that message may sound fine and magnanimous, you know the person speaking is inferring that you vote their way because they know the audience they're addressing has a certain political slant. ) An ignorant vote counts just as much as an informed one in our current system and that's not going to change. And thus many voters stay home on election days, which gives even more power to the organized voting blocks. The most effective thing to do would be to screen candidates better and thus give us better choices. Right now, we vote on the "lesser of two evils." Why not vote on the better of two qualified candidates?
Sprinkling a bit of meritocracy into our democratic republic, the first thing we should try is to have this new political party come up with a series of tests, written, oral or some other kind, where each candidate is examined and then scored. The test could be voluntary at first with confident candidates getting examed periodically and the topics would cover everything from the candidate's physical fitness for the office, their knowledge in military tactics, their general knowledge of economics, knowing where India and Pakistan are, knowing the history of why those two countries are mortal enemies, and knowing why that area is a potential flashpoint for nuclear war. That would be some sample things a viable presidential candidate would need to know. And the arbitrary body would publish these scores as part of that candidate's political record. Each candidate can then gauge somewhat their level of knowledge and *gasp* go out and learn more about what they need to know. Perhaps they find a "guru" type to become their advisor for this weakness. But in the end, the public knows a bit more about each candidate.
At first, only a few candidates, the ones who are not leading candidates but are confident they will score well will try the testing. And when that candidate inevitably gains more votes due to scoring well and thus clearly defining her/himself as a more qualified candidate, others will follow. Eventually, it will be just one more tedious thing candidates have to do like participating in debates or going to stops to give speeches.
Anyways, it's just an idea of one guy. When more minds gather, the process can be refined and exponentially improved. But the basic gist of giving a more clearcut way of measuring a candidate's overall qualifications would certainly help voters not only make a better choice but to feel like their votes are going the right directions. It may even encourage casual voters to it upon themselves to study more about the candidates and what fields of knowledge they must know.
4) Involving more people in the government and the building of wealth in our country
After politicians are better watched and their performances improve, and after we get better officials in office, the next thing we need to do is to encourage more people to participate in the continual building of our country. All biases on race, sexual orientation and whatever other nonsense simply needs to go because our system does not work when groups of people are excluded for non-meritorious reasons. This is because the capitalist system and the free market is fundementally based on two things. First is ambitious individuals are encouraged to make money by investors with capital. Second is that these same individuals need to make a structure that benefits many other people in order to succeed. They increase the demand on the labor market, not only giving many people jobs (and there are almost always more jobs to employers as each employer needs more than just one other employee), they also pump up the value of workers in the job market. Then they also need to help satisfy some demand of the general public or other businesses.
In order for the above to work, it needs as many people as possible to supply each of the three groups: entrepreneurs, workers and customers. It's not wonder that just about every single prejudicial barrier that has been broken in modern times has always been done so by the society that is the most economically developed? Bottom line is that successful societies have the element of embracing all of its members so that their hopes, dreams, ambitions, creativity and hard work can contribute to the common cause. My own personal theory is that often times it is the people who are the most different, the "kind" of people that would most likely get discriminated against, their differences that may bring the greatest amount of benefit to their society because they have what society doesn't already have. So in a way, discriminating against others for being different is a bit criminal since you're depriving society of a potentially missing ingredient.
Thus there are many barriers that could be lifted. We could remove the presidential qualification that a person needs to be born in this country to be president. There are so many people who move to this country because they want to be here that badly. That type of attidude is exactly what our society needs for success. Speaking of which, we should also try to find more and more ways to better manage immigration. There are a lot of capable and hardworking people who would want to come to America and contribute. Rather than spending so much money keeping them out, we should manage their coming in and even assist certain peoples who have more to offer. It's a fiscally stupid idea to vigilantly try to keep people out and it's a silly idea to not let people who want to be part of our society and contribute out. We should help those that want to join by offering cultural assistance so that they can have a smoother transition and become fierce advocates of this country. And if some go back to their old countries as successes here, they can also help develop those places.
On the flip side, we should also encourage our own existing members of society to go out to other parts of the world, experience other perspectives (you know, other than joining the army and meeting those people while holding guns) and even help those societies. As those societies benefit, they will be much more likely to develop a friendly nature to the US. And we will fulfill our obligation to help others before they hurt us. Our country currently has a strong tendency (the last 50 years or so) to share our military might but not our economic, financial and peaceful political processes. Is it any wonder there are so many poor countries out there filled with armed militas? And guess what, none of them like this country.
Our inept politicians love to talk about trade embargos, which never work. Usually a much poorer country has a harsher government, one that the US doesn't like, and there will be some sort of disagreement that leads to an embargo. What many people in the US don't understand, including our politicians, is that from society comes the government. The government can affect society a bit but only so much before the change in the society is so great, the people change the government. It goes both ways. An oppressive government like a dictatorship may press it's people so bad, they overthrow it in favor of a socialistic government. And a socialist government may whip a very primitive society into a moderate that overthrows it for a primitive democracy. This is very much like Russia's development over the last century. (Strangely, socialism is its own worst enemy as when it is run well, it tends to lead more and more to a free market democracy but an overly successful free society often becomes so hedonistic, it either implodes or begins implementing more socialism into the mix). If we have a country that annoys us like Cuba, we shouldn't put embargos on it. If one looks at the result, it has only lead to Castro keeping a forever firm hold on that island. I bet if we had poured money in to the island, enough citizens would have become wealthy enough to either change Castro's tune or overthrown him outright. We're making a similar mistake in Iran. One thing about extremists...they exist in just about every country. But you'll notice the societies with the most powerful economies, the extremists never accomplish much in them. It always seems like they get their footholds in oppressed countries with depressed economies, where they have access to a lot of potential members by recruiting them from families with nothing to lose.
5) Make all citizenship earned
This one's pretty short. Most people in this country don't really appreciate how good it is in this country. I was born in to poverty on a small island...and I was one of the lucky ones. My family strove to travel thousands of miles away from other family members to join a society where we didn't speak a lick of the language. Then we had to wait a period, fulfill certain conditions and then apply for citizenship. As a child, I even had to pass a test. I can tell you a very, very high percentage of my family have a great appreciation for getting to live here along with the other people who also came from the same country I did and had to pass through the same rites to gain citizenship. Not only should we help other people who want to come in, we should also make it so that anyone who is born here also needs to work hard to get the privilege of voting and other benefits of being a citizen. Make learning about the government and political process be part of the process and/or military service contributions add up to the payment needed to gain admission, even for those who are born here. I guarantee the future generations will want to participate more in the political process. The new political party could push for such an agenda.
....so, that's all for now.
- R
On "Rorschach"
As you can see, my journal is a neat little "homage" to the similarly-named character of the epic Alan Moore graphic novel, Watchmen. Watchmen is special to a lot of geeks and SGers because it simply takes a beloved, commercial artistic medium and raises the bar so very high in terms of the finest qualities of classic literature. And as a big-time comic book fan and sometime dealer, it was my favorite book for a long time. (It still is one of the very top ones and still is the top English one. ) And for fun, I've kind of made my journal into the iconic "Rorschach's Journal" from the book, along with profile pics of him and adding a few comments here and there. I don't think I'm him and I don't roleplay him either on SG or anywhere else...well, I do once in a blue moon but I definitely don't think I'm him.
I've chosen this name and continue to use it for two reasons. Two reminders...one motivational and one cautionary.
If you know anything about the character and the plot of Watchmen, none of the "super heroes" in the book have any super powers except for only one, Dr. Manhattan. All of the rest of the other caped heroes, masked crusaders, have some sort of other plot device that let them do what they do. Nite Owl II is like the Bruce Wayne persona of Batman, with a fine intellect and vast wealth to fund his adventuring. Silk Spectre II comes from a well-off family and receives training and mentoring from her mother, the original Silk Spectre. The Comedian is a government-sanctioned one-man war machine. And Ozymandias is a genius and also has a vast, self-made fortune.
By the present day of the story, all of the heroes have retired from vigiliante-ism except for one, Rorschach, who goes it completely alone. And he has no resources except for one device, a grappling hook gun given to him by his ex-partner Nite Owl II. He has no money, no secret hideout, no superior intellect, no exceptional training. Add on top of that, he's a scrawny little man who all his life has been mentally and physically abused all of his life. Yet he is the "terror of the underworld," feared by all criminals and those individuals in society who don't play by the common sense rules. In a way he personifies everything that comic fans find so alluring in Batman, the other side of his persona that relentlessly seeks justice and accomplishes so much by sheer will.
When I was younger, I always thought I was such a bad ass in terms of intellect and potential. But through a series of circumstances and events that occurred when I was in college, I found out that really I was a very complacent and self-addled. Any given complex problem, I could only see maybe two solutions and usually only one. In other words, I was an opinionated jerk!
So when I had this "enlightenment" it was about the same time I started to have an internet persona and so I chose the name to first remind myself what I could accomplish by my own sheer will.
Secondly, as you all know, the character Rorschach is the one character that by the end of the book is unchanged, which leads to his destruction in the end at the hands of Dr. Manhattan. Nite Owl II and Silk Spectre II both find hope in each other, Dr. Manhattan learns to cherish human life again (and ironically his first act is to take a life) and Ozymandias learns self-doubt. But Rorschach sees everything in symmetrical black and white, shadow reflecting shadow, and can not change. So the second reminder to myself is to always try and see things from other perspectives and be flexible if possible. I've learned and realized so many new things that...that...well, lets just say that I've passed the stage of thinking that I know it all and have come to the point where I now know that there's so much that I don't know.
So, there it is if you've ever been curious.
Fixing American Politics
I have this idea...
I really don't believe in our current two party-dominant system. That type of dynamic may be fine in sports where cities teams do proxy battles for the enjoyment of all, where winning and losing becomes the stuff of stories and gaudy legends. I don't believe that one side should win and one side should lose in politics where we're talking about lives affected. And this being the US, what happens here has repercussions all around the world. So, I have this idea, this possible future goal in my life, if I live that long. I hesitate to call it a dream because it's something that I think can really be achieved.
All of the non-political Republicans and the free-thinking Democrats along with many independents in other parties should form one new third party. It doesn't need to be big enough to take on head-to-head either of the two current parties. It just needs to be large enough swing any vote one way or another. Most of the controversial topics and biggest elections, the votes are all heavily divided by party lines and often the margins of victory are only a few percentage points. If the party was about 10 to 15% of the voting public, it could rule as both parties clamor to make their case to those "swing" votes.
The problem with the current state of affairs is almost totally directly related to the accountability of our policy makers/enforcers along with our flawed election processes. Don't get me wrong, I love this country. I think the democratic elements of our government are good and I like the fact that we have representatives making decisions instead of regular lay people. But, like a wonderful garden that isn't constantly tended to, everything is overgrown with weeds and there is plenty of room for snakes and other undesirables to thrive in. (And by "undesirables" I'm talking about people who make money without creating wealth, who get rich by cheating other people. I'm not talking about other races or lifestyles. If you consider those as your "undesirables" then SHOO, America no longer needs you. )
I propose the following steps to get this rolling:
1) The economically and financially educated, the clear thinkers, the activists and the politically savvy who care about the present and future should get together and organize into a new party.
Those who are welcome are:
If you are independent and scrutinize both candidates before making a decision;
If you belong to one of the two parties but scrutinize your own party's policies and politicians more than the other party's;
If you are successful financially by your own hand;
If you are well educated in economics;
If you are an everyday leader in some way, shape or form (business, military, household);
If you are well read in The Art Of War and other military and political classics;
If you often find yourself voting mixed and in no recognizable pattern, purely based on merits;
If you don't vote at all because you're disillusioned with politics due to the lack of viable choices given;
If you have West Point military training...
...and I'm sure there are a ton more that if I had more fine minds on it, we could come up with something great. Essentially, we need a party full of members who can judge issues based on merit. This party would also contain experts in all major fields that successful political leaders need to be proficient in.
2) The first agenda would be to make lawmakers more accountable in their lawmaking. The party itself could swing their votes enough to pass most of the serious issues of the day. Then, most of the politicking would be to cater to those votes. And if these votes had to be acquired by convicing those voters wtih valid, reasonable and well-scrutinized arguements, then suddenly the political air would become much clearer.
In the next wave of voting, the parties would realize that the current political bases they have become built on are now not enough to achieve political power through electoral victories. Currently these power bases, for both parties, are based on catering to special interests. One side wants to unnaturally and unjustifiably pass money from the financially successful haves to the financially inept have-nots without creating wealth in the process. While the other party has gathered its strength from zealots who base their decision making not on reason but on ancient texts and a few non-elected leaders with little accountability. And both sides are being very politically liberal, attempting to pass law after law that satisfy their special interest masters, with each law disguised as some sort of "help" for the people in their name. For those of you who know a bit about politics, you know that almost none of these laws have expiration dates. Plus in our political system, not only is it extremely difficult to repeal a law, almost no competent politician wants to lead any effort to do so. As a major elected politician, you gain fame and political power by passing laws and the effects of these laws make money for your special interest. With a percentage of those profits, they continue to fund those politicians' campaigns. This is the cycle we have to break.
Plus, if you think the lawmaking side is messed up, think about how scary this idea is. Our Supreme Court justices have open political party affiliations! How can you judge clearly and arbitrarily if you've already declared a way of thinking? And you're appointed by another politician with similar affiliation? WTB checks and balances plz, PST! ...and don't even get me started on how little they are paid and thus how potentially vulnerable they are to outside financial influences. The two parties need to be more accountable to those who can judge them because our judges can't be trusted to do so.
3) The next agenda would be to fix the election process. Democracy is good and all because it gives the illusion to the public that they control the government. But in reality, other than a few speeches, maybe some debates and some TV face time, what do voters really know about their politicians? Lets go with the most extreme example, the ineptness of voters in electing the most powerful and influential elected official in the world: the president of the United States. First lets cover the "jobs" the president is expected to perform.
Commander In Chief of all armed forces, the most powerful military force in the history of the world, capable of killing nearly 100% of the humans on earth;
Leader in the legislative arm of the government, the domestic lawmaking body made up of the Cabinet, the House and the president her/himself who can sign bills into laws and thus is a leader in shaping economic policy domestic and foreign;
Appointer of chief justices of the Supreme Court;
Chief executor of foreign policy;
The top representative and figurehead of the American public;
Appointer of the cabinet, which includes all sorts of other major leaders from Secretary Of State to Treasurer to Chief Of Staff.
Yet we can elect (that second time) George W. Bush who doesn't grasp the basic principles of warfare enough not to start a second major front. We can elect George H. W. Bush who knows his foreign policy well but couldn't form a domestic policy to save his political life. We have Bill Clinton who made our military look like fools in all sorts of hot zones from Somalia to Bosnia (see the movie Three Kings and read Joe Sacco's documentary comic, Safe Area Gorazde for some eye-witness accounts for more info) while cutting military intelligence and provoking Osama Bin Laden at the same time. Our beloved Ronald Reagan could make a successful economic domestic policy by spending more tax dollars on high tech equipment, causing those companies to spend more on the job market and encouraging more students to study more high-tech majors. He was able to destroy the Soviet Union without a single shot fired. Yet he didn't even grasp the basics of economics enough to avoid escalating the drug wars, nurturing the environment that feeds the black market with ridiculous campaigns such as "Just say no." (I have to scrutinize him the most, he was my favorite president when growing up. ) You have Jimmy Carter who failed on both economic AND military fronts. And Barack Obama, who is so inept in creating real political policy, it was heavily in question whether or not he would have even been re-elected in his own state of Illinois as Senator due to that state's dissatisfaction with him (luckily he won that state in the end in the bigger election, possibly because he had five times more funding than his opponent for that state and visited the state eleven occasions more).
Lets face it, when most people vote, they really don't know who they're voting for. They have two to choose from and most of what they know is summed up by a color, red or blue, along with a picture. How many people who voted for Obama actually knew who he was three years ago? How many people who voted for McCain actually wanted him to be president as their first choice? I bet that guy wasn't even most of his voters' second choice...he simply was the not-Obama choice. It would be funny if it weren't so tragic.
Simply put, the voters don't have an easy time making a good choice. They get two candidates, maybe three at the most. They don't have any way to judge them on any meritorious basis in terms of leadership skill for the position. And what about the very few individuals who have thought about the issues, educated themselves and know their stuff a bit? They are a small minority and a few politically ignorant people who go out and vote simply because they were encouraged to do so by their favorite entertainment star or their religious leader! (And while that message may sound fine and magnanimous, you know the person speaking is inferring that you vote their way because they know the audience they're addressing has a certain political slant. ) An ignorant vote counts just as much as an informed one in our current system and that's not going to change. And thus many voters stay home on election days, which gives even more power to the organized voting blocks. The most effective thing to do would be to screen candidates better and thus give us better choices. Right now, we vote on the "lesser of two evils." Why not vote on the better of two qualified candidates?
Sprinkling a bit of meritocracy into our democratic republic, the first thing we should try is to have this new political party come up with a series of tests, written, oral or some other kind, where each candidate is examined and then scored. The test could be voluntary at first with confident candidates getting examed periodically and the topics would cover everything from the candidate's physical fitness for the office, their knowledge in military tactics, their general knowledge of economics, knowing where India and Pakistan are, knowing the history of why those two countries are mortal enemies, and knowing why that area is a potential flashpoint for nuclear war. That would be some sample things a viable presidential candidate would need to know. And the arbitrary body would publish these scores as part of that candidate's political record. Each candidate can then gauge somewhat their level of knowledge and *gasp* go out and learn more about what they need to know. Perhaps they find a "guru" type to become their advisor for this weakness. But in the end, the public knows a bit more about each candidate.
At first, only a few candidates, the ones who are not leading candidates but are confident they will score well will try the testing. And when that candidate inevitably gains more votes due to scoring well and thus clearly defining her/himself as a more qualified candidate, others will follow. Eventually, it will be just one more tedious thing candidates have to do like participating in debates or going to stops to give speeches.
Anyways, it's just an idea of one guy. When more minds gather, the process can be refined and exponentially improved. But the basic gist of giving a more clearcut way of measuring a candidate's overall qualifications would certainly help voters not only make a better choice but to feel like their votes are going the right directions. It may even encourage casual voters to it upon themselves to study more about the candidates and what fields of knowledge they must know.
4) Involving more people in the government and the building of wealth in our country
After politicians are better watched and their performances improve, and after we get better officials in office, the next thing we need to do is to encourage more people to participate in the continual building of our country. All biases on race, sexual orientation and whatever other nonsense simply needs to go because our system does not work when groups of people are excluded for non-meritorious reasons. This is because the capitalist system and the free market is fundementally based on two things. First is ambitious individuals are encouraged to make money by investors with capital. Second is that these same individuals need to make a structure that benefits many other people in order to succeed. They increase the demand on the labor market, not only giving many people jobs (and there are almost always more jobs to employers as each employer needs more than just one other employee), they also pump up the value of workers in the job market. Then they also need to help satisfy some demand of the general public or other businesses.
In order for the above to work, it needs as many people as possible to supply each of the three groups: entrepreneurs, workers and customers. It's not wonder that just about every single prejudicial barrier that has been broken in modern times has always been done so by the society that is the most economically developed? Bottom line is that successful societies have the element of embracing all of its members so that their hopes, dreams, ambitions, creativity and hard work can contribute to the common cause. My own personal theory is that often times it is the people who are the most different, the "kind" of people that would most likely get discriminated against, their differences that may bring the greatest amount of benefit to their society because they have what society doesn't already have. So in a way, discriminating against others for being different is a bit criminal since you're depriving society of a potentially missing ingredient.
Thus there are many barriers that could be lifted. We could remove the presidential qualification that a person needs to be born in this country to be president. There are so many people who move to this country because they want to be here that badly. That type of attidude is exactly what our society needs for success. Speaking of which, we should also try to find more and more ways to better manage immigration. There are a lot of capable and hardworking people who would want to come to America and contribute. Rather than spending so much money keeping them out, we should manage their coming in and even assist certain peoples who have more to offer. It's a fiscally stupid idea to vigilantly try to keep people out and it's a silly idea to not let people who want to be part of our society and contribute out. We should help those that want to join by offering cultural assistance so that they can have a smoother transition and become fierce advocates of this country. And if some go back to their old countries as successes here, they can also help develop those places.
On the flip side, we should also encourage our own existing members of society to go out to other parts of the world, experience other perspectives (you know, other than joining the army and meeting those people while holding guns) and even help those societies. As those societies benefit, they will be much more likely to develop a friendly nature to the US. And we will fulfill our obligation to help others before they hurt us. Our country currently has a strong tendency (the last 50 years or so) to share our military might but not our economic, financial and peaceful political processes. Is it any wonder there are so many poor countries out there filled with armed militas? And guess what, none of them like this country.
Our inept politicians love to talk about trade embargos, which never work. Usually a much poorer country has a harsher government, one that the US doesn't like, and there will be some sort of disagreement that leads to an embargo. What many people in the US don't understand, including our politicians, is that from society comes the government. The government can affect society a bit but only so much before the change in the society is so great, the people change the government. It goes both ways. An oppressive government like a dictatorship may press it's people so bad, they overthrow it in favor of a socialistic government. And a socialist government may whip a very primitive society into a moderate that overthrows it for a primitive democracy. This is very much like Russia's development over the last century. (Strangely, socialism is its own worst enemy as when it is run well, it tends to lead more and more to a free market democracy but an overly successful free society often becomes so hedonistic, it either implodes or begins implementing more socialism into the mix). If we have a country that annoys us like Cuba, we shouldn't put embargos on it. If one looks at the result, it has only lead to Castro keeping a forever firm hold on that island. I bet if we had poured money in to the island, enough citizens would have become wealthy enough to either change Castro's tune or overthrown him outright. We're making a similar mistake in Iran. One thing about extremists...they exist in just about every country. But you'll notice the societies with the most powerful economies, the extremists never accomplish much in them. It always seems like they get their footholds in oppressed countries with depressed economies, where they have access to a lot of potential members by recruiting them from families with nothing to lose.
5) Make all citizenship earned
This one's pretty short. Most people in this country don't really appreciate how good it is in this country. I was born in to poverty on a small island...and I was one of the lucky ones. My family strove to travel thousands of miles away from other family members to join a society where we didn't speak a lick of the language. Then we had to wait a period, fulfill certain conditions and then apply for citizenship. As a child, I even had to pass a test. I can tell you a very, very high percentage of my family have a great appreciation for getting to live here along with the other people who also came from the same country I did and had to pass through the same rites to gain citizenship. Not only should we help other people who want to come in, we should also make it so that anyone who is born here also needs to work hard to get the privilege of voting and other benefits of being a citizen. Make learning about the government and political process be part of the process and/or military service contributions add up to the payment needed to gain admission, even for those who are born here. I guarantee the future generations will want to participate more in the political process. The new political party could push for such an agenda.
....so, that's all for now.
- R
VIEW 6 of 6 COMMENTS
<3 I'm a nerd that's easy to please