First off, I must say I am not American. This might make some people think I am not qualified to contribute to this topic, but if you are one of them, you should stop that train of thought right away and realize that you are doing exactly what Zakath15 is asking you not to. You are dismissing outside opinions and views, you are too lazy to give me the benefit of the doubt, you are failing to acknowledge that anything outside the US matters.
Okay, with that out of the way, I also wanted to add that I do not hate Americans and their land, but I am most of the time frustrated with the level of ignorance and narrow-mindedness the average US citizen displays. Therefore I am more than pleased to see Zakath15 make such an honest effort to get to the root of this issue, to invest some time and energy into thinking through it all with a clear mind, taking into consideration as many variables as humanly possible.
As I read through this thread I had idea after idea pop up in my mind, and I am already frustrated with myself, knowing there is no way I will manage to sum up all those ideas cohesively, in an easily digestible form... But I will give it a shot anyway.
First of all, true democracy and true capitalism do not exist, they cannot exist in this world. They are noble concepts originally intended to give everyone an equal chance at life, but human nature corrupts, mutates these ideas to serve itself, just as it does with anything else. Socialism - wouldn't it be beautiful if it really was possible? Imagine something like Star Trek. However, Star Trek and socialism are only imaginable in a utopian world where people would actually put others before themselves. Would you do that? Maybe, there is a slight chance, but would the rest of the world be willing to do that? I think not. To use the Star Trek analogy, I think that the real world would have lots of Ceskas and a few suffering, struggling Janeways. Socialism failed because of the few cunning individuals who abused their power to squeeze out as much of the system for themselves as possible before they completely busted it. For another extreme example of how human nature can pervert ideas, concepts to serve its own agenda, I just give you one word: televangelists. Just how many of them use the name of Jesus to con people out of their money?
Capitalism, fair competition, right. Who can say without making complete idiots out of themselves that capitalism in its current form gives all businesses equal chances? People on this board should be acutely aware of the situation in the software business, and how it is anything but fair. Okay, I admit, I know squat about economics, but I sure think that true capitalism should not allow the big business to kill off competition through blatant threats that equal to blackmail. I also think that innovation should not be stifled but encouraged. Capitalism, free competition would only work if strict trade laws were in place that were enforced to the last dot, and if politicians formed these laws and regulations without any hint of bias, with utter and complete objectivity.
But you see, that is also impossible, because Americans live in a democracy, where the people choose their leaders. Why is this a problem? Because democratic leaders have to represent the opinions of their people, and many of those people are too narrow-minded to see past their own petty little issues and make sacrifices for the greater good. If the people feel that their leaders do not do their job well, they will not think twice about replacing them by someone more suitable for the job. The problem is, a politician in our world does his/her job well when their most powerful supporter's needs are met, not when they make the wisest and most educated decision, in fact, sometimes the two happen to be the complete opposite. And if a politician "betrays" his/her most influential patrons, he/she might as well kiss that political career good-bye.
While I do not - and have no grounds to - doubt that George W. Bush is a capable leader, I just want to throw this idea in. And please do not flame me for this, do not label me a conspiration theorist, I am merely thinking through some ideas I came across. Is it conincidental that Bush happens to come from the land of oil, and that quite a few people in his administration and many of his deep-pocketed supporters are in the oil business? And what is the most sought-after natural resource right now in our time? Yes, oil. Remember, I am still not saying that Bush attacked Afghanistan for oil. All I am saying that the oil lobbyists are extremely rich and equally powerful in the US, and they have a heavy influence on the way laws and policies are formed in America.
However, their clutches extend beyond the realm of politics, to scientific research and discovery. We all know that alternative power sources exist and could be further investigated as replacements for fossil fuel, yet we continue to burn our petrol with glee. We do not care that we could be running our cars on water or who knows what if the oil industry did decide to put scientific progress on hold for about a century to squeeze every last penny out of us, until they run out of oil. In the meantime they are hard at work extending their monopoly to the next alternative power source they are secretly developing. Yeah, I know, conspiracy theory, pure speculation, but is it really?
Anyway, my point with this was going to be this: what do you think would happen if Bush suddenly decided to urge the scientific community to focus their research on alternative energy sources? Would it be foolish? I do not think so. I think this is an issue of pressing importance. Yet it will not happen, because the oil companies would be VERY-VERY upset. Bush suddenly would not be so popular anymore. His old friends would suddenly be digging up all the dirt they can find to discredit, incriminate, politically annihilate him. He might make it through his 4 years and then disappear (he certainly would not be running again for presidency, he would not have anyone to support his pricey campaign), or maybe he would not survive even that long. The real powers behind this masquerade of democracy would find themselves someone else to play "president" for them.
That probably sounds very offensive as it is, so I will tone it down a little. I am not saying that American democracy does not work, or that the US president is a marionette with its strings in the hands of the BAD OIL PEOPLE. What I am saying is that President Bush has to do his best at governing his nation with wisdom and AT THE SAME TIME pleasing his important supporters, or else he would not be in the presidential seat for long. His values, his standards have to be compromised. He cannot always make completely objective and morally sound decisions. Sometimes he even has to play a little dirty to please his close "friends" or risk turning them into vicious enemies. Therefore democracy becomes corrupted, and so does capitalism. Imagine what will happen when information becomes the most precious resource we have. Microsoft will take the place of the oil lobbyists. Or has it done that already? Why is it that in the midst of all the legal attacks that Microsoft has to endure, they seem unmoved, even unharmed, untouched? Is capitalism failing? Is democracy failing? Are they both failing?
Here's something else. Somebody here mentioned that if America stopped being so active in the international arena, someone else would take their place, and the US would not be number one anymore. Well, something along these lines anyway.
My question is: Why are you so obsessed with being number one? Does the US have to have the final/biggest say, the most influence in every single international issue, whether that be political or financial? What is so wrong with just not getting involved at all? If two nations decide to kill each other off, why does the US have to get involved at all? Why not just completely withdraw from both politically and financially, so the US has nothing to do whatsoever with that conflict? No blood on their hands, noone to get angry with them. I am not saying this is the right thing to do, merely asking a question. Like others said before, it would be a far better idea to set up an international task force to tackle conflicts where human rights are trampled upon. But no, the US has to be the gun of the "civilized" world, because they get to exert the greatest influence on the world that way, they can hand-pick governments and get hot deals. But also because of that, they are also constantly at the receiving end when the enemies of the western world strike back.
And whoever said that taking a neutral stance regarding international issues was isolationalism? Look at Switzerland. I tell you, they have some very smart people running that country. Even Hitler did not touch them. Yet they are far from isolated, far from ignorant. Yes, I know, some will say, America cannot quite do that considering it is the most powerful nation in the world. But really, why can't they? What would be so wrong with keeping your hands off potential problem areas and just peacefully trading with the rest of the Western world?
Just my thoughts. Nothing more. Just trying to get more people to think for themselves.
Facebook
Twitter