Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

In the last few years I have been thinking a lot about our country and its ideals. Wondering why they are being lost. Why torture is suddenly an American thing to do? I have wondered if we can return to the ideas and ideals that make this country great. I want to hope that we can get past the propaganda, the warmongering, the lies, to reach closer to those ideals than ever before.

Foremost in my mind is the concept of all people being entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I think implied is that the only limit one has on their pursuit of happiness is that they may not infringe on anyone else's right to those three things. It means I can't kill someone. It means the government can't take our liberty unless we are breaking that contract. It doesn't mean we'll all be happy, but it means that we can try to be. It is much like the Golden Rule or the concept of "Do what ye will as long as ye do no harm.

This concept is, to me, what this country has stood for, it is our national mythos, and it is what we, as a people, want to believe. It's true that this is largely a myth. But it's a myth that so many have believed, that it has come close to true on occasion.

Lately it's been far less than true; our liberties have been threatened by a power hungry president. I have expressed my thoughts on the matter in various ways, in blips and bits. Then after I saw this video that was going around the Internet last year, I decided to lay down all my thoughts.

In the end the video isn't really all that important, but as it prompted this process, I should include shall discuss it some. It conveyed a theory that it was not a Boeing 757 that hit the pentagon on 9/11, but actually a much smaller plane. After the video played there was a link to an article that went into more detail.

My response to the article kind of evolved into a personal political statement. It's not a theory yet, but I've been kicking a lot of things around in my brain, influenced heavily by the Social-Psychology class I took in college (as well as the Social Problems course). In that class I read a bunch of a book called "Escape From Freedom" by Erich Fromm. I think he had a lot of things right, but the book is a difficult read, I want to simplify it, but no here and now.

After I posted my political statement as a blog, I was told I should run for president. I'm not so sure about that, but I hope that by fleshing out these ideas and spreading them around a little more, that maybe I can get people thinking about these issues. About what is happening and what should happen. Or rather what I hope could happen, even if I have no idea how it can.

The article that followed the video I mentioned is written well, it makes a decent argument, if a bit redundant at points. As I read it, though, I became increasingly disturbed by odd comments that were made about Israel and the Jews which the writer does not go into detail about. I found these to be little warning signs that this was going somewhere that I wouldn't follow. They are just there as if the inference he's making is so completely obvious that he doesn't have to explain it.

OK, I'll buy that the author's theory (that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon) may have merit, I don't know for sure. I can see the possibility of the Bush administration's involvement in the events 9/11, but I can't say for certain there was any. The line of who benefited from 9/11 does go straight to Bush and his pals. They callously used the clout it bought them to do what they wanted, invade Iraq.

I'm not convinced that they did it intentionally. They don't seem capable of that long range of a plan. I am certain they ignored the warnings about Bin Ladin, but I doubt they knew the extent of what would happen. Their purposeful ignorance allowed it to happen, and they took full advantage of the cart blanche which that sad event gave them. Like kids in a freaky candy store they filled their baskets with things like; going after Saddam, extending presidential powers, filling their pockets and the pockets of their friends with the spoils.

Returning to the article, when you get to the end, the writer culminates with the old, 'Jews are out to take over the world' shtick that Hitler used, while in bizarre fashion the writer also refers to Hitler as a master of lies. Well, I decided, this guy is full of shit. I'm not buying into his prejudice. In that moment the person who created the video and the article ruined his or her credibility. So instead of fighting for liberty and truth, that person turned to spreading more hate and fear, no different than Bush and Chaney's crew.

You see, when the second George Bush took office I knew that we'd end up in Iraq. I didn't even know at that time that he was surrounded by his dad's and Reagan's old cronies. It just seemed as obvious as the nose on my face. Bush II would avenge his father, and finish what his father hadn't, somebody wanted Saddam gone, some body wanted the money from the oil for themselves.

Despite its final message of hate, the conspiracy theory/757 video makes some good points, but because it is a conspiracy theory, it makes everything very complicated, and not quite logical. If you look at the facts that we know, with out some weird secrets, I think it's a much simpler affair. The wealthy like to keep it that way, and it doesn't matter if the wealthy elite are Christian, Jew, black, red, or blue.

It's much like something I wanted to say when I was subbing at a predominately African American school a couple years ago. A group of sixth graders told me that I was 'The Man', I'm certain they said this because of the fact that I am white. Yes, 'The Man' in this country is white, there's no denying that. There are privileges in this country to being white and male in this society that aren't always perceptible unless you are on the other side of the fence. Still, not all white men are "The Man" because that man is also wealthy.

Also, is 'The Man' in Iran white? In Japan? Chile? Now, 'The Man' is white in some African countries because of European colonialism, but not in every one of them. The world is a very global place now. The economy of each country is connected more than ever before. The people in power in the various countries and the leaders to the multi-national corporations of the world, 'The Men' if you will, work together to stay in power. They work to keep the capitalist machine running. They don't care what color the people they deal with are. All they care about is wealth and power.

George W. Bush is not a racist. He calls the Saudi Prince his brother; the prince of Saudi Arabia is not white. Rather, Bush is an elitist. It's not that he doesn't care a about black people, the truth is he doesn't care about poor people of any color.

He and most of the wealthy rulers and capitalist corporation owners in the world believe in something called Social Darwinism (no matter how Christian they may be or claim to be). They believe they are wealthy and powerful because they deserve it. In their minds, they are better than the masses. This was always true of Royalty, too.

They want the poor folk (and that includes the middle class that they would prefer to be poor) to fight among themselves. They want the blacks to think all whites are 'the man'. They want the whites to join the KKK. They want black on black violence to continue. They want the blacks and the Mexicans to fight. They want Mexicans to hate Puerto Ricans. They want Christians to hate Muslims and Jews, Etc.

All of that keeps the general public from realizing that the true threat to their freedom, health, and well being is the ruling elite. Not just the 'Jewish ruling elite' or 'the white ruling elite' or what have you, but the lot of them.

We have been fortunate for a long time in this country. Our country has always been a plutocracy, a form of government in which the power is lodged in the hands of the wealthy classes; government by the rich, for the rich, as it were. Despite this, the propaganda that has infused the public mind, the national mind from the beginning is that "all men are created equal" that "any kid can grow up to be president", and many of our leaders have still believed in that despite their obvious wealth.

The folks that wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights did actually try to set up a system that was democratic and protected citizens from governmental abuse, but we must remember that these people were the wealthiest people in the country at that time; they were the property owning elite. They had extended marginal equality to tradesmen during the revolution, but they did not extend that to poor whites, blacks, or natives.

Yet somehow the system they created went further than they knew to extend freedom. Their broad language opened the door for everyone to eventually be called a citizen. When the constitution was ratified by the 13 colonies 'The People' that were considered citizens were all wealthy white land owning males. As time went on, the lines began to blur.

Everyone read the words, "We, the People" and took it to mean themselves regardless of what was meant by the original writers. Over time things have changed and most of us in this country view everyone to be citizens despite color, creed, or sex.

It was a grand idea. The three branches of government constantly checking each other to create a balance so that no one faction can seize power. The notion that the Law was above the government (this is called "the Rule of Law").

Yet a dichotomy exists, because it is as true today as it was in colonial times; to lead this country one has to be wealthy. In order to be the President of these United States one has to be 1) enormously wealthy, 2) have the support of the even wealthier, 3) male, and 4) white. (The last two are up for a test this election season, and I hope they have changed, we shall see).

This is the demise of our system. In order to fully realize the concept of democracy the barriers of wealth and class must be broken. We have fought for equality of race, sex, creed, and sexual preference but the toughest battle remains to end the subjugation of the poor by the wealthy.

What the wealthy like is when there are a large number of poor people and scarce jobs. This means they don't have to pay workers much, because they are happy just to have work. It makes it easy to have control over the population. It gets even easier if you control all the media. In recent years the ownership of media (TV, radio, newspapers, internet, etc) has been consolidated to a very small number of people.

After the Depression, the workers finally had some power, with strong unions fighting for their rights, the middle class prospered like never before. Ever since though, the corporations have been slowly whittling away the gains the workers made. We can see that they have been successful. When I was a kid it paid to work at a company for years and years, but now it means squat. Most unions do little more than collect dues these days.

Things are always most democratic when there is a large healthy middle class, and very few that are poor or disenfranchised, and also very few that are wealthy and when the power of the wealthy is balanced by the law of the land.

The government must be on the side of the people (all the people); sworn to protect the citizenry. But if one must be wealthy to afford to run for office, then the government is always going to lean in favor of the concerns of the wealthy.

Now, some wealthy people are compassionate and try to care for those less fortunate, but in the end they too will not relinquish all of their control willingly. Those that are wealthy, yet compassionate to the poor tend to be democrats, the lesser of two evils, I suppose.

Our supposed democracy has always been suspect because of the fact that only one of two parties can ever hold the highest offices in the land. In recent years one party has taken over and is slowly dismantling the checks and balances that have protected us for so long. They do it under the guise of Christianity, and proclaiming that they do not want 'big government' meddling in your life.

Their goals are not meek (as Christians are told they ought to be). They do not turn the other cheek. They do not love their neighbor. They are not listening to Jesus when they cut spending on education, relief funds, or environmental protection.

In actuality the only place they don't want 'big government' to meddle is in the pocket books of the wealthy. They don't mind it wire tapping innocent citizens' phones. They don't mind it telling people what kind of sex life they ought to have. As soon as 'big government' asks a rich man to pay higher taxes than a poor man, then is when the Neo-Cons (under the guise of being Republicans) get upset.

The goal is gluttony of power and wealth for them and servitude and praise from you.

I hope that it doesn't get as bad as it could. Right now, Democratic leadership would help. But in the long run the only way to eliminate the problem is to eliminate the two party system. More voices need to be heard in the halls of the government. The voices of the poor. The lower middle class. Women. Those of African, Hispanic, Asian, and Native descent.

People of all colors, creeds, and sexes must work together; put differences aside. We must say that we no longer accept the status quo, that we want fairness. We want equality, and understand that equality does not mean that we are all the same; it means that we all have the same rights, potential, and protection under the law.

What we need is to remind the government that its duty is to the people it serves, not to serve itself. That they work for us, all of US, not just a select few.

Article 21 of the Constitution of the Netherlands states; "It shall be the concern of the authorities to secure the means of subsistence of the population and to achieve the distribution of wealth." What this means is that the wealthy get taxed more money than the poor. It means that wealth must have a more even distribution among the populace.

This ensures a secure middle class and restrains the power of the wealthy. You are probably thinking, "That's socialism." The president says, "socialism" like it's a four letter insult. It's been equated with communism, which eighteen years after the fall of the Soviet Union, is still embedded in the minds of many U.S. citizens as a threat.

What it socialism? It is an economic system that protects those without power from those with power. Webster defines it as such; "A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor."

Socialism and its cousin communism have been portrayed as a threat to democracy. But communism, like socialism, is an economic system, not a form of government. Communism is like the opposite of capitalism. Socialist ideas are used through out the world to tame capitalism without replacing it with communism.

I've already stated that despite the idealism of many of our leaders in the past and what the United States has always aspired to, we don't have a true democracy, but a plutocracy. Once again this is because you must be wealthy in order to hold office.

Ironically the USSR was also a Plutocracy or perhaps an Oligarchy, rule by the few. This did not work well with the ideal of communism, which advocates the abolition of personal property. A few people holding all the power (and thus owning property) in a system that is supposed to make all equal. That's like putting a square peg in a round hole. It wasn't the U.S. that ended the phony communism that reigned in the USSR, it was the fact that it was a sham.

Pure socialism would, like communism seek to eliminate capitalism. I'm not so sure that that is possible, or that it is what is necessary. Communism is likely too idealist, too utopian to ever work, but socialist policies within a capitalist framework keep rampant capitalism from swallowing the poor and sucking the middle class down until they are also impoverished.

These sorts of policies are at work in almost the entire developed world. Capitalist countries all over the world have things like, Universal Healthcare, a living wage, mandatory four to five weeks of vacation for workers, etc.

Having a few socialist policies, like the Article 21of the Netherlands, in place could balance out the detrimental effects of unrestrained capitalism. These effects include mass poverty and the corruption of those in power, problems people have battled for centuries.

I don't really know how these changes can be accomplished; it seems unlikely that our current system would allow it to happen. I fear that the neo-conservatives that are in power now will eventually destroy what little democracy we have. Gone will be the ideals that the United States of America has always aspired to and symbolized to the world.

There is still some hope though. If people get upset enough to push those in power to change, it can be done. We can not only return this country to its ideals, but make those ideals more real than they have ever been. "We the people" must take a stand for the freedom to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Otherwise some day those will just be empty words with no meaning.