The pianist of one of my favorite bands has a sticker on his keyboard that reads “If you don’t vote, don’t complain”. As a citizen of the United States, you have a right to vote and in exercising that, you have an important role in your government. The true strength of a democracy lies in the hands of the people. We decide who represents us in making decisions on how this country, state, county or town should be run. As a citizen of the United States, I am protected by a democracy that has persevered through 44 presidents, and 234 years. Upon my eighteen birthday I fill out a paper, send it in and I can vote. I can have a major effect in my government. Am I being naïve? How can one vote effect who becomes the next president? In the 1960 race, John F. Kennedy had a victory over Richard M. Nixon by just 0.1 of a percent. Still 0.1 is around 3,000 votes in a presidential election. Imagine if 3,000, some odd people decided they made no difference? We could face a very different outcome. Perhaps the impact of citizens not exercising their right is greater seen in local elections. My first voting experience was a few days ago at the school. I walked in, surprised there was no line at the two booths. The next day I checked the paper and just over 500 people had voted. That equates to the number of students in the 9th- 12th grades alone. Figuring they have two people eligible to vote in each household, you can see how a large percent of eligible voters did not. My dislike and complaining about the outcome is justified by my role; I voted, I tried, so I can complain all I want. However, if your name was not written down and you didn’t pull that curtain closed don’t come to me gloating or complaining.
We play an important role in all aspects of government. However, how involved do we want government in our lives? The media, especially the right wing, expresses concern about “Big Government”. When do we draw the line? The proposed “soda tax” in New York State, casually known as the ‘Fat Tax’ would add cost to sugary beverages. Many residents are out raged, not only are you utilizing the unspoken word “tax” but justifying it by saying, well sugary drinks are leading to obesity. Even if it is true who says government should charge you more in an attempt to control your diet. This proposed tax has many wondering if the line has been crossed. Historically, Americans have always had a fear of the government gaining too much power. The bill of rights was instated to protect citizens from exactly that.
When it comes to government less is more. The less people rely on government, the more, rightfully so, they rely on themselves. The example that comes to mind is welfare. Understand, I am taking a firm anti-welfare stance to support my argument. Welfare has many facets to it I will leave to expound at another time. Welfare pays about two dollars more per hour than minimum wage. So instead of heading out into the job market, many people settle to accept welfare. Welfare is the ultimate government provided safety net. Lose your job and you will be paid by the government. I understand the hesitation some contemplate before accepting welfare, but the real turmoil comes after accepting it. Now you face the situation were many people are. The government has determined you need more than minimum wage to get by. Therefore, instead of raising minimum wage and encouraging welfare-ers to work, the government raises welfare increasing their role in the economy.
One drowsy post lunch social studies class, my teacher wrote one word on the board: laissez-faire. Well I sat right up; it just has a nice ring to it. The denotation wasn’t bad either. Merriam Webster defines laissez-faire as: a doctrine opposing governmental interference in economic affairs beyond the minimum necessary for the maintenance of peace and property rights".Basically, keep your big government hands off my money. Pure capitalism thrives with laissez-faire (say it it’s fun). Competition in a free market allows a Darwinistic outlook, where the strong survive. Without government moderation of the economy, weaker bodies will fall out. The Stimulus packages we have heard so much about, have allowed weaker competitors to delay their falling from the market and many seem to have positively “bounced back”. Nevertheless, the greater impact of the governmental chokehold on these companies will show, and may have a grave economical blow.
Taking a step back, it is easy to see why government would crave a dynamic role in the economy. Economic stability greatly correlates to political and national security. Without economic stability, a nation stands like a Jenga tower, each player be it international or internal is pulling out pegs, removing the very foundation and strength until it tumbles. The United States democracy, like it or leave, flourishes on capitalism. Government should observe, like mother bird watches her baby open up its wings and fly.
Words are powerful tools, just as I read that sticker and its point struck a chord. Many politicians hope that they can strike a chord with you. But, all is to no avail if no action is taken. In the West African proverb: "Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far." Made famous by Theodore Roosevelt, as citizens of the United States our stick is our right to vote. Going unguarded will leave our nation vulnerable to corruption and instability. Think one vote doesn’t matter? Tell that to all people in the totalitarian nations or corrupt democracies. Carry your stick, your vote matters in the United States, let’s keep it that way.
Sources:
Numerous Guests who have visited our class.
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/closerace1.html
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/h/3828-new-york-soda-tax-dead-on-arrival
http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/
http://www.theodoreroosevelt.org/life/quotes.htm
A fascinating view.
ReplyDeleteHave you investigated the success or failure of the welfare to work programs of Newt Gingrich fame/infamy? That provides a great deal of data and some surprising conclusions. http://www.mdrc.org/publications/52/summary.html
ReplyDeleteI am impressed by the interesting analogies you referenced to make your points. A review of the initial creation of Welfare programs in the mid-thirties might be helpful in terms of understanding how politicians initiated welfare programs. And I agree with a previous comment - Mr. Gingrich's discussion of welfare programs adds interesting data and detail to the discussion.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the anonymous comment above. You do reference interesting analogies. Your comments about the bail out are reminiscent of Hoover strategy. His idea was basically, keep the government out and the problem will solve itself. It didn't. We know 1929 - 1932 were not years of which the country is proud. Certainly the current recession is NOT anything like the Great Depression. But that is in part because of the government's willingness to take on the role of safety net provider. You may want to argue that the safety net is too large, but I infer that you think it is unnecessary, which to me seems a bit simplistic. Nonetheless, you present and interesting and, in the northeast, an unpopular idea quite well.
ReplyDeleteGreat essay! Well written!
ReplyDeleteHowever, there are two large SOCIALIZED programs in the United States that no one would ever ever in a million years give up. Of course I'm talking about Social Security and Medicare/Medicade. Pretty invasive governement involvement if you ask me.
Also, when you said The United State's flourishes on Capitalism, to whom or what were you referring? If you hold inflation constant and look at people's actual income now and back in the 70's the vast majority of us are actually making LESS money now, and that includes engineers, accountants, and doctors. When you break everything down into income/wealth percentages, the only people that have experianced wealth growth in the last thirty years are already in the top wealthiest 5%. The top wealthiest 1% of the country owns about 20 percent of the wealth and the top 5 about 35. The people that have experianced the most growth? Those in the top .01%. So who exactly is capitalism working for again?
Now just because I haven't embraced my so called 'inner capitalist' doesn't mean that I am willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are pletny of perks to capitalism, I'm just not sure de-regulation (directly linked to the huge increase in wealth for those already at the top... i.e. Regan's dregreulation policies and George W. Bush's tax cuts in 2001) is the way to experiance them in a fair, just, liberal manner. The supposed United States' manner, if you will. As John Rawls said, "Justice then requires that any inequalities must benefit all citizens, and particularly must benefit those who will have the least"
The comment above is excellent! I would point out that as I understand it, the top 5% of earners pay taxes that make up more than 50% of the federal budget. That should be considered when thinking about the wealth gap.
ReplyDeleteJust as a reminder, ask yourself if you accomplished the following:
ReplyDeleteClearly stated one main idea that tied the four selected sub-topics together in a way that reflected the inter-relationship between the topics we studied this year
All supporting facts were accurate and supported the main idea
Developed all parts of the first selected sub-topic accurately and completely
Developed all parts of the second selected sub-topic accurately and completely
Developed all parts of the third selected sub-topic accurately and completely
Developed all parts of the fourth selected sub-topic accurately and completely
Comments reflected a contemplative review of personal opinion and presented a consistent set of personal political and/or economic values or beliefs
Enough detail is provided that reader is left with no questions as to why author has developed the writing in the way that s(he) has
You have very many good points. I see that you have two main ideas here. One is that we all need to vote and the other is that we need smaller government or perhaps more capitalism. I'm not sure why you have the two ideas rolled together and that makes it a bit confusing to read. You begin and end with a call to vote, but at the end you sound as thought the call to vote should only be for those who want smaller government, no stimulus, etc. I think if more people voted you might find they had the opposite affect. Many exit polls suggest that people with more income are more likely to vote and more likely to vote Republican, supporting the fiscal policy you espouse here.
ReplyDeleteI think you have great ideas. They would be clearer if you delineated them into two main topics that rolled into one connecting theme. They really are separate issues.
I concur with the ideals of your thoughts and applaud your perspective for the need of individual involvement in our process. It is the crossorads of where our rights, priviledge, and responsibilities meet. Perhaps we all should consider the impacts that a laissez-faire policy may have when the government may not fully understand (by choice or knowledge) what is the minimum level of involvement required for maintaining the economic engine. Our history is repleat with examples of how we and our government may not have fully understood the difference between the proper balance of involvement and regulation. I like your analogy of the mother bird and chicks since it also recognizes that oversight (not necessarily involvement)is an important criteria in the success or failure of that economic policy. At times the government is too quick to rush in where at other junctures, much too complicit; both are not only important, but also must be critically applied.
ReplyDeleteYour unvarnished praise of lasissen faire is naive. In many cases the accumalation of a disproportionate amount of capital by huge multinational corporations is a distructive force in our system(i.e. the rich get richer -the poor get poorer.) Something to think about!
ReplyDeleteYou do a good job of presenting your point of view in a current context. I'd suggest tightening up some of your sentences to strengthen your presentation and to support your points. Overuse of "you" and "I" lets the perspective shift too freely -- better to draw a concrete example than to generalize with "you."
ReplyDeleteYour unvarnished praise of lasissen faire is naive. In many cases the accumalation of a disproportionate amount of capital by huge multinational corporations is a disstructive force in our system (i.e. the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.) Something to think about.
ReplyDelete