help

I have to admit I’m slightly confused. Or more specifically, completely dumbfounded. I’ve heard about it and I’ve scanned the required reading about it throughout my time in academic situations, but something is lacking. I know the theory behind why it’s there, and I know the general rules as to how it should work.

There are various forms of it being practiced on every corner of the globe. Each is adapted for what’s necessary in each region. Different nations decide what works for them. The theories on how it should work are dramatically different in some cases, but are generally sound until put into practice. Because of this, it shifts and adapts to the social climate as necessary. It goes by many names across the globe, but a government is necessary for social order. Let me relay what I’ve learned so far about it’s workings.

There used to be simple distinctions between the different types of governing bodies. These are being shed in favor of more amorphous entities. Both the soviets and America use the term "president" for their most powerful leader, but they have begun vying for power within their governments to almost the status of kings. Iran, considered evil because of their West-defiant views, has a president too, but he’s a subordinate of the Ayatollah. India is a democracy with a president, but their prime minister has most of the power. I don’t know much about that one though except that "Chad" knows his operating systems inside and out and he has a better American accent than I do.

While the UK, Japan and Canada are considered monarchies, their prime ministers hold positions that are very similar to a president and their royalty is almost symbolic. China is a republic, but it’s been around so long it may just be going through a phase like a woman wearing her hair in a bob to try something different. Africa isn’t a country if you’re looking at a map, but pretty much every foreign government views it as Egypt, South Africa, that place where all the runners are from, and desert. South America probably has a few different types of government too, and I’m sure they’re not even similar, but as far as I can tell they’re either appointed by the US or have just overthrown a government appointed by the US. I guess they don’t like our generosity. Then there’s Australia, but I’m pretty sure they’re just a more boisterously racist form of the US. From what I can tell by watching Fox News, Mexico is an elaborate farm-team system of bus boys and drug runners who insist on taking jobs Americans don’t volunteer for anyway. Even with an election that was probably rigged I still know it’s a republic. And really it’s quite possible our last couple were too.

That’s more the global view. As an American I can’t be too concerned with the activities of other countries because, even though they are the basis for our economy and are outrunning us in almost every pertinent category, they are not the most powerful nation in the world. It would take too much time to learn about other cultures so instead I’ll take a look at mine. We are the richest country in the world, and the third largest population, and we do our part to consume almost a third of the world’s resources. We have two main parties to our government; one that leans toward conservative values and corporate responsibility, and the other that tries for more liberal values and corporate responsibility.

We have four branches of government that rarely use checks and balances among one another. There are many different organizations within each branch, but all four of these seem to work very well together to secure as much financial gain for the wealthy as possible. The cooperation also helps to develop and sustain the isolationist policies that drive our economy so effortlessly down. They mutually create policies that effectively and efficiently keep the poor from any social standing. Before 1942 the country was primarily one of farming or manufacturing and without a collegiate degree someone could realistically own a home fairly quickly. With the demolition of most of Europe and the profits generated from a two-front war, opportunity knocked and business opened the door wide enough to create a phantom middle class, widespread consumer debt, and record profits across the board.

Like the water, there is a cyclical process to government. It used to be that the legislative branch would create laws, the judiciary branch would interpret them, and the executive branch would then enforce the day-to-day implementation of them. The lines were always fuzzy, but one could negate another’s decision. The Supreme Court could choose not to enforce a law or the president could veto one. It was very simple, and meant to keep one branch from becoming dominant. Because of the shift in economic power that the bloodshed caused, the second world war caused a change in how things are done.

The executive branch generates evidence of unjust acts that may or may not be happening or instigates smaller conflicts. They then use vague terminology and ambiguous language to describe their course of action. The legislative branch ignores the implications of the request and passes it quickly without second thoughts, unless it could somehow decrease profit potential for the business branch. This is rare because the highest officials of the executive branch themselves are tightly involved with the business branch. Contracts are given liberally with little concern to cost and in turn the business branch uses the subsequent profits to lobby better monetary compensation for it’s chief officers and stagnant or lowered compensation for lower level employees. These employees are either left to tread water at their current economic level or fall down the social ladder. The lobby also works hard to lower standards health standards, emissions standards, other profit-inhibiting factors. The Supreme Court is appointed by the executive branch to continue deciding social arguments that spark interest and give career politicians easy yes or no answers so they can build a platform for perpetual election.

This lopsided reliance and allowance toward the business branch puts more pressure on them to be more responsible. It’s obvious this is working. While profits are hitting record levels the economy has stalled, which is better than its previous tailspin. Executives are receiving severance packages that rival some GNPs while forty-seven million Americans are without health insurance. The buttsex of the Gays made certain that the list of pertinent issues only recently included the health care system. Even without the people’s attention toward it, the system’s been working well for us so far. Among the top thirty developed nations there are only twenty that have a higher life expectancy. Even with the average premiums for a family of four being above the annual salary of a minimum wage worker, we’re only about fifty trillion in debt due to social programs like Welfare, Medicaid, and Medicare falling apart. And that doesn’t even factor in that, with the minimum wage increase by 2009, the minimum wage worker’s annual income will go up almost twenty-five hundred dollars. That’s almost a thousand dollars over the poverty threshold of 2006.

This greatness comes from being a representative government. Each member of congress only represents 564,000 Americans, so it’s easy enough to relay the will of the people. And because they are the voice of the people, they aren’t affected by the business branch’s attempts to influence them. A member of congress makes about $165,000 annually. A well-connected lobbyist starts at roughly $300,000. And despite the pharmaceutical and health products industry funding one trillion for lobbying, only the most responsible and consumer friendly regulations are put into place. So while the business branch pushes trillions into lobbying efforts, the masses are the largest beneficiaries. American car companies lobby to create ways of keeping foreign auto manufacturers out of the market to increase competition because no one is buying their cars.

The lobby is also helping to push ethanol fuel alternatives that will help curb our thirst for oil by almost two percent. We may have to revert to the level of farming of before the industrial revolution and factor up for the increased population, but it would be nice to slow things down. The corn that will be converted to fuel could feed numerous families for months, but how will they get around? And that’s one of the reasons—even if a very small one—that we’re in Iraq, to establish a presence and show the oil-rich countries how great we are. And, although they already created a successful electric car with a loyal following and battery technology has increased notably, finding renewable alternative resources would be hard and doesn’t show the same profit potential.

Because of the backing of the military industrial complex and pass-the-buck politics, the executive branch easily gave itself more power and entered the country in an unpopular war. Not only do they have the power to deem someone an enemy combatant, which strips them of basic human rights, but they can now declare war and listen in on the private conversations of the citizens. Luckily, this is never done to gain advantage, but rather as a way to deter the ambiguous threat of global terrorism. And even with numbers relating to terrorism, violence, and animosity toward the US exponentially greater than when it began, the war in Iraq successfully liberated its people and sparked a rejuvenating insurgency.

The most efficient part of the whole system is the reliance on so called think tanks. These are places where consultants hired by the business branch spend their days finding strategies and processes that will make the government work better for their clients. Places like the Discovery Institute that brought intelligent design into the mainstream. Or say the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition that started out by casting doubt on the harmful of cigarettes and more recently have been campaigning against the human effect on global warming. With the think tanks’ help the US has led the way in scientific research. In fact when it comes to research in general. Even though as recently as twenty years ago they were tops in the rankings for education they are now only about seventh and ninth for their share of the population with college degrees and high school degrees, respectively. Can’t complain too much when we’re still top ten.

Our military is the strongest in the world. It extends to pretty much every corner of the globe. We have our hands in pretty much everything. We threaten military action and intimidate. But we only intimidate those that can’t retaliate and those that have different belief systems than our own. The military around the globe is filled with volunteers who enlist because they see a quick money opportunity. They are recruited persistently by men barely older than themselves who need to reach monthly quotas. They end up over their heads and surrounded by violence and act out themselves. Their irrational violence and the politics that takes them there kills family members that causes more people to turn to the terrorist ideals. It’s like creating your own job security. If you ignore them having to come back into the same failed heath care system that everyone else is a part of, if not more so, then it’s a pretty amazing deal.

So what I’m confused about is why everyone around the globe seems to have such a distaste for us. Even if we’re increasing our nuclear arsenal we should be able to keep Iran from developing nuclear technology. We may not take the time to learn anything about the cultures we attempt to infiltrate or liberate, but that doesn’t mean we don’t have the population’s best interests at heart. It wouldn’t make any sense for business to work outside the good of the consumers. Why would anyone dislike the best country in the world? We may ignore diplomacy, consume more per capita than anyone else, and reject global issues, but we’re only trying to help make the world run as well as America.