As the Title says, "Divide and Conquer"- It certainly isn't a new concept. One of many 'art of war' tactics, dividing one's enemies and pitting them against one another in order to defeat them has long been a highly effective method.
For as long as I can remember, most Americans have been identifying with one of two groups (especially around election time)- "Republican" or "Democrat". Nowhere have I seen it with such a vengence, however, as here at Answerpool.
Please allow me to hypothesize a moment within a question- Is it possible that a relatively small group of people could, in fact, hold a large amount of power over the masses through this very method?
Think of a Football game, for example. You've got one half the fans on one side, and the other half on the opposite side. They're all rooting and yelling for their own team- which carries with it a strong sense of ownership. Each side thinks that their side is the better side, and naturally wants for their side to be the victors.
But, in reality, it's all just a Game, of course. Who are the people REALLY running the show? Are they anywhere to be seen on the field? When your team wins, does everyone talk about the owners of the field, or associate the blame or compliments on the people behind the scenes, which put the show together? No, I think not. People are much more inclined to place the blame or the kudos with the players or the coach. The visible players. Not with the invisible people who set the stage, or made the rules, or contributed with whatever else. Without whom, there would be no game to watch.
Well, is it at all possible that that is what is happening, here? Perhaps people are just so used to fighting against each other, that they've forgotten that we're really all on the same side.
Here's a little known Fact, for you: Did you know that Bill Clinton and both Bush Sr. and Jr. were all fraternity brothers at Yale University together? Now, that hardly proves anything conclusive. But, it should put things into a slightly different perspective.
Is it at all possible that the two-party system is merely an illusion? Is it at all possible that the 'Democratic process' is merely illusion as well? All just a show? And, every four years is like the Super-Bowl- merely entertainment? What if, like wrestling, the results are already pre-determined? There certainly is a fair amount of evidence to suggest that, based on the past 2 elections, wouldn't you say? Is it possible that our so-called 'power of Democracy' is nothing more than a farse, and an illusion of power and control, in order to control us, then convince us all that it's all our own doing. And, who do we have to blame for everything wrong in the world? Naturally, we point across that illusionary field, at 'the other team', right?
Am I making any sense here, or is all of this just coming across as the mad ravings of a paranoid lunatic? Maybe it is all crazy. But then, what if it isn't? What in the world can be done about it?
I honestly don't know. But what I do know is that the U.S. Constitution, allegedly our Nation's most precious document, tells us that when our Government stops working for the people, and by the people, that the people have the responsibility of tearing it down and building another one. Yes, that means a Revolution of sorts. If there is one lesson we should take from history, it's that the only cure for servitude is unity. We must stand together if ever a thing is to be done about it. Do we not have a Responsibility to do something? It doesn't sound as fun as cheering your old team on, I know. While, trying to beat the other side. But, is it not time to end the Games, and GET SERIOUS?
Some people are concerned that any two-party system is innately flawed. On the other hand, a three-party system seems to devolve, as in Britain and Canada, into a system where the third, small party has undue power by means of bartering with one of the larger parties in return for throwing its vote their way.
And multi-party democratic systems seem to lead to unstable governments.
So I guess we could approach it a different way by asking the question: how do we decide if a nation has a good democracy (i.e. one that works)?
The answer would be very subjective. If you believe in equality before the law, equal access to basic education, a healthy middle class, and reasonable distribution of wealth among the citizens, then where you find this you might judge that the system is working.
So what would your standards be, Valor D, for classing a nation as having a government that is 'working for the people'?
Posts: 6257 | Location: British Columbia, Canada | Registered: 06-11-02
First, it's the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, which legitimizes the overthrow of government when it no longer is responsive to the will of the people. Second, there is no doubt that party politics have become a game. Attack ads, supposed antagonism, juxtaposition of agendas. But I do believe it is all for public consumption. In the coathalls, the cocktail parties, and the like, I have a hunch the camraderie is a good deal stronger. The goal is power, which must be shared in the US. So one party comes in, another goes out, and will eventually return. But when viewed over a longer period of time, things don't change all that much.
Posts: 7646 | Location: On Vacation | Registered: 06-06-02
'Americans, such demanding consumers in every other aspect of their lives, curiously expect little from their political leaders. They hold the principle of democracy dear; but the purpose of democracy remains elusive. The notion that "the people shall govern" is the cornerstone of American political identity - even if the nonchalance with which they watched Bush steal the 2000 election revealed a disturbing reluctance to defend it. Yet the idea that elections should be the mechanism for effecting real change barely seems to register - which is why it was relatively easy for Bush to get away with robbery.
The weekend before November's midterms, for example, I walked up the Las Vegas Strip asking people if they thought the coming elections mattered. Roughly one in five either did not know the elections were taking place or had no intention of voting. Yet precisely 100% said they thought the elections mattered. This dislocation is not particular to the US. For all its inadequacies, America's political culture has proved far more responsive to opposition to the war or corruption than Britain's. But both the popular attachment to democratic ideals and the general ambivalence to democratic outcomes are more intense, making the discrepancy more pronounced...
...The point here is not that there is no difference between the two main parties but that the difference is insufficient to make a significant impact on the lives of large numbers of Americans. The problem is not that people don't want or need change - the poorer you are, the less likely you are to vote - but that they have long since given up on the idea that voting is the way to get it.
The future of the country was supposed to hinge on the outcome of the 2004 presidential election. But somehow the issues of poverty, racism and infrastructural decay that were evident in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina nine months later just never came up. By the time the midterms arrived, little over a year later, Katrina had somehow become irrelevant again.
It's not difficult to see why. Elections are big business. Last year the parties spent $2bn on ads alone. Throw in the fees for thousands of lobbyists, consultants and fundraisers and the electoral-industrial complex starts to develop a momentum of its own. Hillary Clinton, who faced only token opposition in a Senate race she won by 30 points, still lavished $27,000 on valet parking and $13,000 on flowers. The people who provide this money have healthcare, housing and decent schools for their kids. They pay the pipers and name the tune.'Obsessed by personalities, they've forgotten what democracy is for
Originally posted by juanruiz: First, it's the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, which legitimizes the overthrow of government when it no longer is responsive to the will of the people.
Yes, you're quite correct. Thank-you. Silly mistake on my part.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."
So what would your standards be, Valor D, for classing a nation as having a government that is 'working for the people'?
Well, that's a tough one. Because, not too many people are going to agree on any one answer. I'm sure that everyone has their own idea of how things should be. So, all that I can refer you to in this case is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I've just been reading through both documents, plus the Declaration of Independence, and I'm very sorry to report that most of what I read is not the way things are today. Not by a long shot.
I urge you to read through these fundamental documents as well, upon which today's Laws are supposedly based on, yet are so very far from. Then, perhaps you will get some idea of how far our society today has corrupted since the time of the founding fathers.
Here is the full transcript of the U.S. Constitution:
