If you’ve read any of my posts before, you’ll know that I think a lot about the world and how it could be improved. Its important for us to understand that any humanly-created system or construct can always be amended or changed, and that there will likely never be a perfect Utopian solution.
With all of the atrocities we’ve experienced lately, the world is reaching an agitated state and is understandably losing confidence in global leadership. Take a look at anyone’s News Feed and you’ll see countless cries for help and loads of rhetoric aimed at how our current administration is inept (in addition to the one we may have coming in 2016).
It seems as if our cultures have reached a point where they are evolving at a faster pace than the political regimes that are supposed to govern them.
The more and more I thought about this, the more I became interested in it. So I’ve decided to start another book that reflects on the development of social structures. I have no idea how long it’s going to take me to write, because it spans current affairs, social studies, economics, and philosophy – so at the moment its quite a scatterbrained manuscript. But I’d like to paste an excerpt from this new project of mine. The following is taken from a chapter I’ve written regarding the political structure of the United States (this particular part focuses on the Presidency). Much of the research I plan to do hasn’t yet been inserted, so I’ve tried to include only the intuitive parts of the document. I have a lot on content regarding political reform and what could be implemented. Also, I included the first paragraph in case you’d like to learn a bit about democratic vs. republican ideals (obviously you can’t include a hyperlink in a book).
Whether you have an interest in politics or not, it’s a good idea to at least familiarize yourself with the general principles which govern the two predominant parties: http://www.diffen.com/difference/Democrat_vs_Republican.
That said, I’d like to focus on how current political structure is hindering a cohesive sense of unity within the United States. As a party’s representative, it is fundamentally difficult to form independent views and policies when you’re predisposed to a particular set of values (be it democratic or republican). For an individual to successfully rise to the top of their party, they are subjected to a predetermined obligation which requires them to align their platform with the views and teachings of said party. If the candidate deviates too far from this alignment, they lose the support of the party (a comment out of context: this Trump situation is beginning to illustrate an exception to this, if he ends up getting the Republican nomination).
This, logically, limits the extent to which a candidate can express differing ideals – in fear of losing the endorsement of their political affiliates. It’s important to understand that social norms, culture, and life in general, are fluid phenomena. They are constantly changing and shifting directions, with many trends and fads coming and going as time elapses. The bipartisan republic we have created, which dictates our behavior through legislation and law enforcement, is too inconsistent to lay a sustainable foundation of unified, effective ideals. Our culture is dominated by two parties with vastly differing ideals. Presidential administrations change every four or eight years, making it difficult to maintain a persistent motif or long-lasting direction of beliefs which we can continually rely on. This has resulted in divisive populations and conflicting generational values, as what is trending during one administration may be frowned upon during another administration.
Perhaps more importantly, however, is our antiquated societal system that represents the very fabric of civilization. We are accustomed to a centralized, almost omniscient governmental institution. This institution provides the United States with legislation, executive action, and, judicial review. Essentially, they tell us what we can and cannot do by labeling certain actions as “legal” or “illegal”. Theoretically, one would think that this is the best system we can implement – as electing representatives “of the people” is a reasonable concept that is seemingly the fairest way of handling our affairs because it is a reflection of the populace (in other words, politicians are supposed to represent the majority of constituents’ values).
Unfortunately, there is a crippling flaw in this system. The flaw to which I am referring is that of the human element. Currently, presidential administrations are limited to a certain number of years, as to avoid a dictatorial social structure. Conceptually, this makes sense and in theory, this system should work. However, when we insert the natural fallibility of human character into the equation, this system becomes corrupt. What this results in is an extraordinarily competitive political environment that is conducive to manipulation and deceit in order to gain electoral support. Politicians will say whatever they must in order to win elections, and will continue to operate based on the influences of whatever groups keep the individual in office. In the case of presidential administrations, this becomes an even bigger problem, due to the fact that once a president is re-elected, there is no incentive to continue operating in a way that reflects their original promises that granted their election – as without the possibility of another term there is no longer anything at stake.
This system has resulted in an extremely volatile social standard of living. We see peaks and valleys that correlate with certain administrations, as some are more capable of managing our nation than others. While this will undoubtedly be a controversial recommendation, logic would insinuate that this system is in need of reform. Our political structure has become incapable of operating in a successful way for extended periods of time.
Despite the backlash that the following comment will most likely induce, the logic behind it is sound. If we consider the aforementioned problems, then it would make sense to allow our population to elect leaders for an indefinite amount of time, as there is no logical reason to limit the reign of a particular leader so long as they are operating in the population’s best interests. If implemented, this in no way would allow a dictatorial regime, as elections would still be held at the same frequency as always. However, allowing a leader to remain in their position until society decides they are no longer sufficiently representing them will solve the several fundamental problems I outlined above. There would no longer be an incentive to manipulate voters merely to get elected. The instant things are being run inadequately, they would simply be voted out. It would also solve the problem of those that wait until their second term to implement their “hidden” agendas, along the same logic.
Basically, what this excerpt is saying is this: once we finally happen to find a leader who we all (mostly) approve of, why put a time limit on his or her tenure? Wouldn’t it make sense to hang on to the rare gems we find for as long as we can? Granted, I admit that my perspective on this might be biased. After all, the only presidents my generation has really been exposed to have been Bush and Obama – not exactly the greatest of examples.
Sometimes I feel robbed of the American Dream we always used to hear about. Life isn’t nearly as easy these days as it used to be from the sounds of it. But then I think about all the people who broke their backs to create a better life for their families, and I simmer down. I just hope for a day where people stop bickering and all begin trying to contribute toward a solution.