America, meet America.

America 1 is inaccessible to people who live here too. This was an outstanding post. Thanks for sharing.

Trevor, I think the problem lies in the person you are arguing with. People who are less analytical, very emotional, and one dimensional will automatically answer you with answers like:
You must hate America
Then you don't support the troops
etc...

I say one-dimensional because of America's vastly monolithic experience. The vast majority of Americans have never experienced living abroad and appreciate the different cultures and beliefs the world has to offer. Their only "outside" experience is based on the media, and more importantly, the movies they see. This limited experience makes it difficult for them to realize and understand why the majority (more than 51%) of Chinese citizens in China are content living in communist China, why the majority of Cubans (more than 51%) love Castro, etc...

They would argue these facts with:
China is communist. Why the hell would they love it there.
If they loved it there so much then why are they coming to America?
Everyone hates Castro, are you stupid?

It is this monolithic experience that is the main problem. When you combine this with arrogance, pride, and zeal, you will eventually have another Spanish conquistador, Sword and Bible movement, and so forth.

That is why I think America needs to realize that many nations are very happy and they don't even live the American lifestyle. It is a reality that you don't have to be American to be happy.

We want the world to have buying power.

But not selling power

If the rest of the world is poor it's easier to export our factories and cheap labor jobs to other countries, dropping the costs of manufacturing all the products we Americans love to buy. America is a nation of buyers for more than it is a nation of sellers.

Besides, people in power have historically done everything they can to stay in power. The richest and most powerful Americans can ensure they and their families and friends remain rich and powerful by keeping America on top.

Mykola Bilokonsky said: we have places to which we can export our labor

I'm amazed that you can't see the flaw in your argument.

Exporting labor means that people are earning money. If they earn enough money, they are no longer poor.

Look at how far China has come in the last twenty years. There is a growing middle class in China. China is also moving toward democracy.

If you are talking about exporting US jobs, most jobs have gone to China.

We are also exporting goods and services to China. The US, China relationship is a good thing overall.

Myk, they may not earn enough money now, but it is still more than they would make without the corporation or else why would they choose to work with the corporation rather than in a local industry. Eventually as more and more corporations export jobs to developing nations the demand for workers will increase which will allow the workers to ask for more money. The United States experienced the same exact history back in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

You are talking about skipping a step of a history, which if you go to this nice article by Killfile, you can see that this has been the problem with socialism/communism in the past. Trying to force an economic situation on a people who are not ready will only lead to failure.

You are making the same argument as those who claim that Google should either not abide by China's rules or not do business with them at all. An all or nothing approach does not always work. Sometimes small steps are what is needed.

I don't like multinational corporations seeking cheap labor in my third world country, but I understand it is legal and maybe even fair in economic terms. It is also, as you say, a help to level unemployment.
But there is a catch, and it is big... corporations come to this countries because of very weak labor laws, low wages, etc... as soon as the country starts to get up on its feet, the multinational starts loosing money, suddenly they have to give contracts to the workers, vacations, higher wages, etc...

So, the result is that those economies dependant of this big corporations, are continuously making the biggest effort to destabilize the political climate of these third world countries so they can't get up on their feet. This can get to the point of financing coups, establish a dictators, or even invading countries... you know, the last century history in South America, middle east and Africa.

For gods sake shut the )#%=(%# up. What do you people know about 3rd world countries? I live in a third world country and the &()/)(6 Bush family just obtained the rights to are richest gold mine. They'll strip mine and leave less then 2% of the value in the country. We had a military coup funded my Kissinger and paid for by Pepsi. Don't talk to me about America 1, the world, and I only see America 2. The world economy is in shambles because you really don't get it. The American way of sustained growth is unfeasible. It has to stop some where. You have to say enough. I've suffered personal loss at the hands of the America 2. I've lived in America and understand America 1, and love it. But must I and the rest of the world suffer America 2 in order for you to have America 1.

Sorry for the ranting. I just don't get it. I hate all kinds of violence, and can't under stand why a child must work, or go hungry because you have to have an iPod.

José,
Great comment! I love the passion.

Ugly,
I reckon you need to travel and see the world a bit. There's more to the world than you will see on News Hour.

Mykola Bilokonsky said: we have places to which we can export our labor

I'm amazed that you can't see the flaw in your argument.

Exporting labor means that people are earning money. If they earn enough money, they are no longer poor. (Then key word here is ENOUGH. Twenty-five cents an hour, 15-18 hours a day making Nikes that cost a couple of bucks and sell for a couple hundred so that someone can shoot you because they want then means that they can now afford to buy stock in Nike and wait for the rise in price...cool.)

Look at how far China has come in the last twenty years. There is a growing middle class in China. China is also moving toward democracy. (But of course there is no class distinction in China. The tide lifts ALL boats.)

If you are talking about exporting US jobs, most jobs have gone to China. (Where they may make $0.30 per hour instead of $0.25.)

We are also exporting goods and services to China. (As long as they are the ones that they can't perform yet or that they can't pirate.) The US, China relationship is a good thing overall. (Horse manure.)

Said like a true, brainwashed Republican propaganda believer. All you have to do is record it and play it back ad nauseum and eventually people will wear down and fall for it.

Gunner: I'm not sure where you're coming from in your response. Were you responding to Myk (#4.3), or to Ugly Bastard (#4.4)?

As per your (?) comments on China, I can pretty much categorically say that the "growing middle class" in China doesn't even broach the American notion of "middle class." The billions of dollars that China's government has spent building massive urban centres at lightning speed comes primarily from China's wealthy and from foreign investors. The vast, vast, majority of Chinese are still dirt poor. The tide may lift all boats--but most Chinese are treading water.

While both supposedly boost the American market, moving white-collar jobs to China and India is far different from building factories in Mexico. Both also harm the American worker and widen the gap between classes. Maoist rhetoric is a thin veil across China's enduring imperialism. The only democratic system that China is approaching is a free market economy modeled after American business.

As James Joyce wrote, every nation has the government it deserves. The people don't deserve jack @!$%# if they're willing to vote for Bush again and again - they get what they deserve.

That would be true if our votes were counted, if everyone were allowed to vote or if politicians couldn't buy entire elections. It's happened before and will again. The days of showing power through voting is over; I shudder to admit what I realize must be the only way for America 1 to thrive and overthrow America 2. Aside from that, great article, well-written and heartfelt. Thank you for taking the time to post it here.

I agree, he was voted in. Whether or not the election was rigged is another story, but the fact is some people, allot of people did in fact vote for him. I think this has allot to do with the Republican or Democrat issue, it seems allot people only vote one way, not necessarily based on the candidate but on the party. I think this is due to laziness and lack of education.

Jason et al: I was glued to the television for the 2000 and 2004 elections, and I paid enough attention in my Politics of Democracy class in high school to know that the popular vote has no impact on the election of the President of this country. The US Electoral College--assembled somewhat like a patchwork quilt of politicians, some elected, some appointed, depending on the state--takes responsibility for this dubious task.

stolte-sawa - Word.

What's the point of the Electoral College anyway? I think someone on this thread mentioned that term limits were a bad thing because they went against the will of the people, isn't that also what the Electoral college does?

Wikipedia defines it as:

"An electoral college is a set of electors who are empowered as a deliberative body to elect someone to a particular office. Often these electors represent a different organization or entity with each organization or entity represented by a particular number of electors or with votes weighted in a particular way. Many times, though, the electors are simply important persons whose wisdom, it is hoped, would provide a better choice than a larger body."

Seems to defeat the point of an election in the first place. Why can't we get rid of this and let the people actually decide?

Jason: If you allow the people to entertain the illusion of direct democracy, they will feel justified in their political circumstances. I would love to get rid of the Electoral College. I am really a fan of the parliamentary system, though. Voting for the party that best represents your needs is a nice way to skirt the inevitable "popularity contest" that frustrates American presidential elections.

Ivan Idea - great comment and really great handle.

I think a lot of that is because ever since grammar school we have all been taught that America is so great because of its democracy, not because of the constitution, the rule by law rather than man, or our inalienable rights.

If we said we were trying to spread that across the globe, most people would get the "deer in headlights" look and wonder why are we spreading those things.

For most people, democracy = good no matter what. And rights, laws, and constitutions are blanks, they really don't have an associated value.

I have nothing against democracy more so than against any system of rule. I don't care how so much a nation is governed, or who is doing, but instead whether that government is protecting the rights of the citizens. If a king wants to protect my freedom of speech, property, religion, and all my other rights, then I am just fine with that king. If a democracy wants take away my rights because the majority wants it that way, then I don't much care for that democracy.

So I get your point that we are being hypocritical when we say we support democracy, but don't. I just think it is more that our PR/propaganda would not work with what we are actually trying to do.

It's just a pet peeve of mine when democracy is automatically assumed to be good or the gold standard.

Look, I think democracy is a bad idea

I find this a very ironic statement. How can protest about the rights of the individual being suppressed or squashed and then turn around and say "I think democracy is a bad idea."

Democracy has its various forms, but at its heart it is rule by the people. Look it up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

If you don't have the most basic right to govern yourself, what other rights do you have?

And to Adam... are you insane? You think you have any rights under a King? That is ridiculous. If you live under a King, you are his subject, completely under his authority to do with as he wishes. If a certain benevolent King decides to give you select privileges (notice the word choice here), well, you would have to bow to him and thank him for being so gracious. But, don't get too attached because the next King down the line might decide to revoke those privileges. And there is nothing you can do about it.

At least in a Democracy, if a right is voted away by the majority, there is the chance that opinion will change back in your favor and the majority will vote the right back into existence. Anyone remember Prohibition?

At least in a Democracy, if a right is voted away by the majority, there is the chance that opinion will change back in your favor and the majority will vote the right back into existence. Anyone remember Prohibition?

Which is the same as saying the king could change his mind.

There is only one real way to protect your rights and it is not a democracy. A democracy can be just as tyrannical as a dictatorship. The only way to guarantee your rights, is to draw a line in the sand and when the government, whether it be a king, democracy, president, lord, politburo, congress, parliament, high priest, whomever, steps over that line you fight to overthrow that government.

The majority voting on something and the king changing his mind are NOT the same. not even close. It takes a hell of a lot more than a whim for the majority of people to agree on something, get their act together, and actually vote on said thing.

However, for a King it takes nothing more than a whim and a declaration of his whim.

Sure the end result is the same - but the inherent difficultly alone in the majority vote is a bit of a safeguard against irrational and greatly damaging decisions from becoming law.

I really can't believe you said they are the same thing.

Mykola,
This article is outstanding, not only for the way you have put the ideas together, but for the courage to publish something contentious and controversial. Well done and thanks.

I think the House should have a singe term term limit. This is supposedly the people's representation, while the senate was supposed to represent the states, and thus we should have real people and not career politicians in the House.

I wouldn't mind some term limits on the Senate, but those can be for two maybe even 3 terms, which would give senators a good 12 to 18 years in office.

I've toyed with this idea for years..... What if the House of Representatives was set up like jury duty? Hear me out, it's not as crazy as it sounds..... Every state takes the names of those who voted in the last major election (thus, involved people), then randomly select the representatives. The selectee would have the immediate option of declining, no questions asked. Selectee's interested would then take a battery of test to determine if they are indeed sane and aware of our country's political system so that they could actually do the job. Make it a two year duty (with good pay of course), and each state's representatives would elect their own leaders.

There's a lot to work out, but I think it's doable..... It would give us a true House of the People. No elections, no campaign fraud, hell, no campaign.... just two years of doing the peoples bidding without corporate interference and lobbying....

Not sure how to get something like this started, but it would give control of America back to the people, instead of the corperations.

I think term limits are inherently evil, because they go against the will of the people. The people should be bale to elect whoever the hell they want- why should the government force change if the people don't want change?

I don't believe the will of the people hold a candle to the money offered to the politicians by lobbyists. I seriously doubt the founding fathers imagined the millions of dollars that would be used to sway the votes of those who are supposedly representing us.

That's why term limits would allow the people to once again be able to choose who represents us. The system as it is now, is broken or at least warped.

I think a lot is broken in America, and certainly our political system is flawed, but I really don't care about lobbyists or the like. Granted, I'm a true capitalist (last test I took said I was 93% economically libertarian), so that might influence it, but I don't see why lobbyists giving money/things to politicians is a bad thing.

It wouldn't work. Check out how many former Congressmen and Senators are now lobbyists and consultants...for foreign governments and foreign corporations...using their influence for the sake of money, not for the sake of our country or its citizens. Money/greed is all that matters.

Jim Dent--

You're idea is pretty original, however I see 0.00000001% chance of it ever happening. Who would select the "randomness", people would scream foul, the same junk talk that goes on now would continue, only with unqualified, "thrown in the mix" people. I would also bet most don't know parliamentary procedure

Thanks for an engaging reply, you cut to the core of a lot of these issues

Wow. Thanks Myk. The overall civility of this thread is beginning to make me feel uncomfortable. I may have to go and heckle Phaedrus to get the saccharine aftertaste from my mouth.

Here is kinda how I see it, though, and you can tell me if I'm wrong: it all comes back to lobby groups.

That, along with campaign contributions, influence peddling and less overt and legal methods of buying legislation, does appear to be the method of choice for corporate interests in affecting change to their benefit. I'm sure, since so many politicians are involved in the corporate world in other ways (see Cheney, Dick), there is also a lot of swapping of favors.

misguided american imperialism. All that anti-communist stuff, the proxy wars and covert ops, have left us with a foot in every major door - and that access is granted to the government.

It would be ironic but thrilling to see the legacy of all these Cold War shenanigans (and many were necessary - after all, we're not French!) turn out to be the use of all our ill-gotten power for good... and not in the current "world policeman" way. Has any country in history done this?

Do I have a point or am I being paranoid?

Most of what you wrote mirrors and augments my points. *shudder* Scary.

Ya'll haven't even seen full-bloody-beard Myk

I don't believe we have seen Mykola-as-Rasputin. Please spare us.

or shaved head Myk

I do recall a prompt..oops.. Jon Nagelmaker-esque shaved head avatar. I assumed it was inspired by Natalie Portman in "V."

I still don't like France-bashing

Hence the France-bashing ;)

To use it for good, though? There's no profit in that.

The "profit" in question would have to consist of politicians keeping their jobs. This would entail voter education on a massive and unprecedented scale and the subsequent public outcry. I won't hold my breath.

I think I see a solution. Do either of you guys know anyone who is involved in corporate America? All you gotta do is make a deal with the devil to have your soul put in his body and then work your way from the top. From there you take over everything. Then you burn it to the ground. And once again, the freedom of the Dark Ages will reign!

Hear Hear.

Only, how in the world are the laws governing corporations going to change if the corporations are the ones influencing the laws? Forgive me for sounding hopeless, but I don't really see a solution to that problem.

Forgive me for sounding hopeless, but I don't really see a solution to that problem.

I agree, it does sound hopeless. I think it is easy to point out the problems without attempting to give solutions. Even if it is a small step, we need to start making changes. Nothing can be done overnight.

Lets start with term limits ... even if it's only in the House. Lets start somewhere.
Lets start with changes in the way corporations work. Lets start somewhere.

What we have now is not working, and if all we do is point it out, and say wow that's a mess, and we do nothing to try and change it, then we are part of the mess.

I believe much of the same thing: corporations as they have developed these days are oversized, amoral, supremely selfish, and unafraid to buy congressmen and use them toward their own ends.

Adam, I would also like to hear from you (as a libertarian) what operations you believe the government should be involved in. Much of the talk I hear suggests that the contemporary American government couldn't organize an omelette.

However, I resisted calling myself a libertarian then, and I absolutely refuse to now.

Mykola - I have never been one to shy away from a good "bitchfest" ; ) but surely there is something we can do. I hate to think it is totally out of our hands because then we are only being acted upon by those in power. I am currently researching the different Term Limit organizations, and plan to figure out what little things I can do to try to make a difference. If nothing else, it will make me feel like I am doing something, no matter how small.

Thank you for your article, it has motivated me to try to do something.

Well after the 1994 mid-term elections, the GOP controlled House attempted to start the amendment process rolling on a term-limit amendment, too bad not enough Democrats jumped on board to gain the super-majority needed.

However at this time, I would trust neither party to vote for term limits, as the current GOP have gotten fat on power and the Democrats due to their love of government power, even when they are not in power, have always been anti-term limits.

Couldn't we reduce the influence of corporations on our political system by limiting how much they can give to candidates for public office and to parties? Even if we could limit terms to one for the House, corporations could just buy another one-term politician for the next session. I think corporate financing of candidates leads to corporate welfare and most of the rest of the sins of the age. Soft money is given to party leaders who then distribute bribes to the party faithful, but not to representatives who dare to vote their conscience. Campaign finance reform has got to be the single most important issue to fix what's wrong with America 2.

The best way to get corporations out of government is to get government out of corporations. Why do corporations care about government anyway? Power. Government has the power to give corporations sweet tax loopholes, nice subsidies, and regulations to reduce competition. If government no longer had the power to do these things, there would be no need for corporations to influence government, because the government could no longer influence the corporation.

Adam: I'm guessing you are an extreme Liberatian, am I right?

I respect that you are passionate about this topic, but what happened to:

I'm going to limit myself to just one critique.

;)

Adam: I'm guessing you are an extreme Liberatian, am I right?

Yes, I am extreme about holding onto my liberty ;-)

I respect that you are passionate about this topic, but what happened to:

I'm going to limit myself to just one critique.

;)

To be honest, I expected this thread to devolve into a flame war, and I had little want to be part of that. It did not, so I stayed.

Here's a few thoughts I had.

No constitutional rights for corporations. Corporations should not have the same rights as a private citizen. If this means new laws need to be governed for corporations to follow in lieu of free speech and privacy, so be it.

No law should be passed that does not directly benefit private citizens. None of this trickle down bull@!$%#. No cash infusions to corporations through tax breaks to stimulate the economy.

Corporations have no right to intellectual property. They can't hold patents or copy writes.

Corporations can lobby, but there should be spending limits.

Any political candidate receiving campaign contributions can not be employed by the contributor within 4 years of the end of the candidates term or, if he loses, his campaign run. All unused moneys should be returned to the contributor or given to charity.

No constitutional rights for corporations. Corporations should not have the same rights as a private citizen. If this means new laws need to be governed for corporations to follow in lieu of free speech and privacy, so be it.

Where does the corporation end and the private person begin? Or in other words, when would something be said be Microsoft versus Bill Gates who does have freedom of speech?

No law should be passed that does not directly benefit private citizens. None of this trickle down bull@!$%#. No cash infusions to corporations through tax breaks to stimulate the economy.

You have just gotten rid of a great deal of environmental law.

How do you legally define "directly benefit private citizens"? This seems ripe with loopholes.

You do also realize that corporations do not pay taxes.

Corporations have no right to intellectual property. They can't hold patents or copy writes.

I hope you don't want any new pharmaceutical drugs or Hollywood movies. Television programming is gone. As are computers and most electronics from the past decade.

Corporations can lobby, but there should be spending limits.

How do you enforce those limits?

Any political candidate receiving campaign contributions can not be employed by the contributor within 4 years of the end of the candidates term or, if he loses, his campaign run. All unused moneys should be returned to the contributor or given to charity.

What happens with mergers? Does this count contributions to the party, where almost any decent sized company donates to? If anything this would increase career politicians as it limits their job opportunities after running. Why would I, a normal guy, run for office if for the next four year I would be limited in jobs?

I admit much of this is not well thought out. I was just throwing it out there, but let me see if I can at least try to explain where I'm coming from.

Corporations cannot be trusted to be morally centered. Board rooms and shareholders create an environment of group think that tends to downplay personal responsibility. Corporations are property not people, and should not be given the same rights as people.

Where does the corporation end and the private person begin? Or in other words, when would something be said be Microsoft versus Bill Gates who does have freedom of speech?

By the Tax ID vs. SSN.

No law should be passed that does not directly benefit private citizens. None of this trickle down bull@!$%#. No cash infusions to corporations through tax breaks to stimulate the economy.

I admit this is a little ambiguous. Could you explain how this would get rid of many environmental laws? I would think passing legislation keep water and air clean would benefit private citizens. Since corporations do not eat drink or breath, it wouldn't be beneficial to them.

You do also realize that corporations do not pay taxes.

Your implied argument that corporations pass their tax liability to the consumer and employee is a load of crap. I could just as easily say that consumers don't pay taxes because they pass their tax liability to the corporation in the form of lost revenue.

How do you enforce those limits?

I wouldn't. Whoever enforces rules would. I'm not sure how that works with congress, but with us regular folk, that would be the executive branch of government.

What happens with mergers? Does this count contributions to the party, where almost any decent sized company donates to? If anything this would increase career politicians as it limits their job opportunities after running. Why would I, a normal guy, run for office if for the next four year I would be limited in jobs?

This is a contractual issue. If you don't want to agree with it, don't run. This type of thing happens all the time in the private sector. The idea here is to not effectively put a congress person on the payroll promising a cushy job once the person leaves office or finishes spoiling an election in favor of their candidate.

Corporations CAN be trusted NOT to be morally centered

Or may something like this: Corporations are REQUIRED to return value to shareholders regardless of whether or not such actions are morally centered.

Ugly, (I hate typing your name for fear of offending you, somehow) where do you get your news? What about your sources makes them more reliable than Myk's, or mine, or anyone else's? You think the President doesn't watch FOX News, doesn't read the papers? Are you a firsthand correspondent to World Events?

I hope you don't mean to say that you believe discourse is a fruitless endeavour--but maybe you are saying the opposite. I'm not sure. You spend enough time ruminating and commenting on Newsvine that you must feel like you're making something meaningful here. Still, I will say this: not everyone can man the front lines. For most of us, discourse is all we've got.

I couldn't agree more Mykola... Money is what makes the world go around. :)

I couldn't agree more Mykola... Money is what makes the world go around. :)

And here I was thinking it was Isaac Newton...

but I am a 'derka derka' minority

finally a new nomination for "Best Newsvine Quotes of 2006". I really need to keep track of all of those.

Yes, we do have to understand that I live in Seattle, which is as close to perfect as you can get. If I was down in perhaps Birmingham, Alabama, things would be a tad bit different.

Aine, he really is young. BUT, he is something most of us are not. He is a very good listener. This article and the lengthy comments show him as a talker (writer) but I will bet he is devouring every tidbit that comes along in the comments. I was impressed when I met him, now I am overwhelmed with admiration for his courage and understanding as displayed in this article and aftermath.

You could start by not swearing in front of your elders.

LOL! OldFogey hasn't seen / heard me swear, and I'm an ex-sailor and that stereotype is true.

According to the "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy," the most offensive word in the universe is "Belgium." But don't tell Irma. *grin*

Was leaving but couldn't let this one get by. Mykola, You were doing fine until you got to the last paragraph of comment 26.2. Then you fell in the hole you were trying to fill. Kevinb66 and his ideas do not come from ignorance. Look around, plenty of knowledgeable, enlightened, intelligent people view America as Kevin does. Their view has been skewed by upbringing, experience, political mumbo jumbo and the teachings of charlatans and deceivers. It is our duty as citizens to educate, educate, educate. Only when full knowledge is instilled in all will we come to grips with our nation's problems. Modern technology is allowing us to do that much more rapidly than would have been possible just a decade or so ago. Please don't throw ignorance at people you haven't done your best to enlighten. I realize ignorance is just a lack of knowledge but as the word is used in modern American English it carries meanings it never should have.

Go Mykola.

Don't patronize me.

Your view of the United States removes yourself from responsibility. Someone else is always responsible for the evil perpetrated in this world. The problem with your statements is that the United States is a free nation. The people committing these evil acts are you, me, your friends, family, and neighbors. To be sure there are some evil people among them but not all.

Where you see the United States as a force for subjugating the lower classes for the sake of the higher classes, I see a United States that seeks to elevate every person and at least attempt at giving them equal opportunity.

I see hope where you see despair.

But Kevin, Is America 2 real? Does it exist?