Is the US a Neocolonial power?

Compared to any other country, the US maintains a lot of military bases around the world.

According to the Pentagon's own list PDF, the answer is around 865, but if you include the new bases in Iraq and Afghanistan it is over a thousand. These thousand bases constitute 95 percent of all the military bases any country in the world maintains on any other country's territory.

Many people, especially many Americans, see these bases as playing an important part in maintaining US national security.

Other people, especially those people in foreign countries impacted by US military bases, see these installations differently. For sure, some people see the US military bases as important for their country's national security, but certainly not everyone sees the US bases in that light. Others see the US military bases in their country in less positive terms. For instance, many of the people living in Vieques, Puerto Rico were unhappy with the use of their island as a bombing range by the US Navy. There have been protests in Seoul, South Korea outside US military installations against US involvement in North-South Korean relations. Japanese citizens living in Okinawa have reservations about US Navel and Marine bases. In Ghana, Kwame Nikrumah, an important African politician and anticolonial intellectual, argued that:

Foremost among the neo-colonialists is the United States, which has long exercised its power in Latin America. Fumblingly at first she turned towards Europe, and then with more certainty after world war two when most countries of that continent were indebted to her. Since then, with methodical thoroughness and touching attention to detail, the Pentagon set about consolidating its ascendancy, evidence of which can be seen all around the world

.

What do you think?

Do you think that it is legitimate to call the US a neocolonial power? Why or why not? Can you see how foreigners may dislike US military installations in their country? Or, can you not really see it? Do you think that arguments like this are bogus? Is it more the case that US military bases are more a benefit to the locals and their national security? Should the US be concerned with what locals think about its military installations? Are US national security interests too important to consider local peoples' concerns about the military bases?

US War Powers and the Executive Branch

Continuing our discussion of foreign policy, this week will talk about the US President and his ability to make foreign policy -- especially, his capacity to make war.

Glenn Greenwald writes in Salon:

Back in January, 2006, the Bush Justice Department released a 42-page memo arguing that the President had the power to ignore Congressional restrictions on domestic eavesdropping, such as those imposed by FISA (the 30-year-old law that made it a felony to do exactly what Bush got caught doing: eavesdropping on the communications of Americans without warrants). That occurred roughly 3 months after I began blogging, and -- to my embarrassment now -- I was actually shocked by the brazen radicalism and extremism expressed in that Memo. It literally argued that Congress had no power to constrain the President in any way when it came to national security matters and protecting the nation.

To advance this defense, Bush lawyers hailed what they called "the President's role as sole organ for the Nation in foreign affairs"; said the President’s war power inherently as "Commander-in-Chief" under Article II "includes all that is necessary and proper for carrying these powers into execution"; favorably cited an argument made by Attorney General Black during the Civil War that statutes restricting the President's actions relating to war "could probably be read as simply providing 'a recommendation' that the President could decline to follow at his discretion"; and, as a result of all that, Congress "was pressing or even exceeding constitutional limits" when it attempted to regulate how the President could eavesdrop on Americans. As a result, the Bush memo argued, the President had the power to ignore the law because FISA, to the extent it purported to restrict the President's war powers, "would be unconstitutional as applied in the context of this Congressionally authorized armed conflict...

Yesterday, Hillary Clinton told the House of Representatives that "the White House would forge ahead with military action in Libya even if Congress passed a resolution constraining the mission." As TPM put it: "the administration would ignore any and all attempts by Congress to shackle President Obama's power as commander in chief to make military and wartime decisions," as such attempts would constitute "an unconstitutional encroachment on executive power." As Democratic Rep. Brad Sherman noted, Clinton was not relying on the War Powers Resolution of 1973 (WPR); to the contrary, her position is that the Obama administration has the power to wage war in violation even of the permissive dictates of that Resolution. And, of course, the Obama administration has indeed involved the U.S. in a major, risky war, in a country that has neither attacked us nor threatened to, without even a pretense of Congressional approval or any form of democratic consent. Whether the U.S. should go to war is a decision, they obviously believe, "for the President alone to make.

What do you think?

Has the war on terrorism fundamentally changed the role of the US President in making foreign policy, especially in terms of war?

Should the US President (the Executive branch of the government) be the primary maker of foreign policy? Or, should the US Congress have equal authority to make foreign policy and check the policies of the US President?

Should citizens be more involved in US foreign policy making -- that is, should US foreign policy be more democratic? Or, should citizens be kept out of foreign policy decision making and trust their political leaders -- that is, should US foreign policy be more elitist?

Why Vote?

Why should you vote for the President of the United States of America?

Most of you will never set foot into a city or county council meeting. In these forums, you generally have face to face access to policymakers that you directly elect. These men and women have a significant impact on essential aspects of your everyday life, particularly in areas like school funding, access to fire and rescue service, water and sewage policies, zoning, annexation, local tax rates, and so on. Yet, we hardly ever never rock the county or town council vote – indeed, in most cases, I bet county council debates hardly make it onto the radar compared to the hoopla surrounding the quadrennial presidential elections in the US.

The important point about these local elections cannot be stressed enough: i). You can go meet these policymakers and talk with them about issues of concern to you and your community and possibly persuade them on some matter; ii). They are directly elected by your vote and are therefore accountable to you and the coalition of voters of which you are a part.

In terms of the US president, however, the story is very different. The chances that you will ever meet the next US president (or any US president ever, for that matter) are slim to none – especially now with the intensified security practices surrounding the President following the events on 11 September 2001. Even when the fear of communist sabotage and the threat of Soviet nuclear weapons (which still exist, by the way) stalked Americans’ imagination during the Cold War, citizens were able to arrive early in the morning, wait in line outside the White House gate, and get an escorted tour of the public areas on most any day of the week. That type of open and symbolically more accessible attitude has evaporated over the past decade in regards to the President and the White House. In its place is an increasingly complicated, surveillance-intensive, and selective bureaucratic process that distances the office and the office holder from those that vote.

Even less likely are we, as average citizens living in Shepherdstown, WV, or any particular town across America, able to meet and meaningfully discuss, much less influence, the president on any issue of concern to you or your community.

On top of that, your vote, which millions of American citizens will cast in November, does not elect the president of the United States. To the surprise of many, no doubt, the US Constitution establishes an Electoral College [read here and here] with this authority. Who is the Electoral College? Robert Dahl, the distinguished professor of comparative democracy at Yale University, says that members of the Electoral College usually consist of a relatively unknown and partisan group of party loyalists.

The Electoral College, a fundamentally non-democratic and elitist feature of the US Constitution that insulates the president from the popular will, has created a dilemma for American politics that has played out on four different occasions in our history. Most recently, we saw the consequences of this Constitutional dilemma in the 2000 US election. In that instance, George W. Bush was elected to the highest office in the land because he won a majority of Electoral College votes; Al Gore won the majority of votes from American citizens, but lost the election. All in all, Dahl says that one out of every three US presidents has won with only a minority of voters’ support.

I want to bring the dilemma of our democracy home to you by asking you to reflect on your behavior.

Why do you vote for the American president? Or, if you don't vote for the US President, why don't you vote? And, perhaps more importantly, why don’t you vote for the city and county council members? Do you know your council members? Why aren’t you engaging in some meaningful and consequential political deliberation in a public arena in which you can, actually, impact the policies that impact you?

God and American Politics

Religion is an important component of politics in America. Just look at how God and religion are playing into the current elections:

Obama has started talking about God more frequently. 

Rick Perry has held prayer rallies in Texas, prayed for a weaker EPA, says that he will only select a "pro life" cabinet, and speaks of receiving super natural messages from God.

Mitt Romney has had to defend Mormonism from the claim that it is a cult. 

Michele Bachman regularly mentions her evangelical informed legal training and beliefs.

Overall, God is apparently communicated with a number of candidates regarding a number of election issues.

Even in the book we are reading in class right now, Al Franken's Why Not Me? God and religion play an important role in Al deciding to run for the American presidency.

What do you think?

Should God and religion play a role in American electoral politics? Why or why not? Is it important for a candidate to say they believe in God? Is it important for a candidate to say that they are Christians or Jewish or Muslim or Mormon or what ever? Does it matter to you which religion (if any religion at all) a candidate proclaims? What are some of the potential pitfalls of mixing religion and politics? Because there are so many different religions in America, does religion divide Americans more than it helps them cooperate? 

Ron Paul: Libertarian for US President

Last week we started talking about libertarian politics. This week we finish our exploration of libertarian politics and start talking more directly about contemporary democracy in America.

A great way to transition between libertarianism and contemporary American politics is with the US Presidential candidate Republican Senator Ron Paul. As I mentioned in class, Ron Paul is not completely libertarian insofar as he takes more socially conservative positions in regards to abortion, which means that he favors government intervention in an individual women's right to have an abortion by the repeal of Woe v. Wade and the legal definition of life as beginning at conception. Ron Paul is a libertarian oriented US Presidential candidate running for the Republican Party.

Some of the policies that Sen. Ron Paul advocates for and may try enact if he is elected US President are:

You can read more specifically about Ron Paul's positions as a US Presidential candidate here. In general, he would repeal Woe v. Wade (which would make abortion illegal), close or at least limit the influence of the Environmental Protection Agency, pull troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq and limit global military deployments, push toward a more privatized healthcare system, cut taxes on individuals and businesses, limit the influence of unions, support homeschooling, strengthen border security and exert more governmental power over immigration.  

What do you think?

I want you to think about Ron Paul's political positions and how they relate to the Libertarian Party. Note that the Libertarian Party does not endorse Ron Paul -- they recognize a number of lesser known candidates. Ron Paul has some different views compared to the Libertarian Party on important issues. Some commentators have even said that Ron Paul is not libertarian enough [see also here].

How does Ron Paul measure up to Libertarian ideals? Does Ron Paul and the Libertarian Party share any views or are all of them different? Would you say that Ron Paul is an authentic Libertarian or more of a Republican? Would someone like Ron Paul be a positive influence or a negative influence on the direction of American politics?

Libertarian Politics in America

This week we make a radical shift away from totalitarian governments to libertarian governments. These two ways of governing populations sit at opposite ends of the spectrum: 1) totalitarian systems work to dissolve individuals into the larger collective of the state and 2) libertarian systems celebrate individuals and their inherent rights -- these civil rights limit the state's ability to interfere in the lives of the individuals it governs.

Here are some of the Libertarian Party's positions on various social and political issues of our time. Read through them and respond to the questions I've asked at the end of the blog post.

1.0 Personal Liberty

Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.

1.1 Expression and Communication

We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology. We favor the freedom to engage in or abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion.

1.2 Personal Privacy

Libertarians support the rights recognized by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, and property. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure should include records held by third parties, such as email, medical, and library records. Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.

1.3 Personal Relationships

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption,immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.

1.4 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

1.5 Crime and Justice

Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves. We support restitution of the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. We oppose reduction of constitutional safeguards of the rights of the criminally accused. The rights of due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must not be denied. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law.

1.6 Self-Defense

The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the individual right recognized by the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense.
We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition.

2.0 Economic Liberty

Libertarians want all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic success. A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute
wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.


2.1 Property and Contract

Property rights are entitled to the same protection as all other human rights. The owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others. We oppose all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates. We advocate the repeal of all laws banning or restricting the advertising of prices, products, or services. We oppose all violations of the right to private property, liberty of contract, and freedom of trade. The right to trade includes the right not to trade — for any reasons whatsoever. Where property, including land, has been taken from its rightful owners by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, we favor restitution to the rightful owners.


2.2 Environment

We support a clean and healthy environment and sensible use of our natural resources. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Pollution and misuse of resources cause damage to our ecosystem. Governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights in resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. We realize that our planet's climate is constantly changing, but environmental advocates and social pressure are the most effective means of changing public behavior.

2.3 Energy and Resources

While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy. We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production.

2.4 Government Finance and Spending

All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors. Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent. We support the passage of a "Balanced Budget Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes.

2.5 Money and Financial Markets

We favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types. Individuals engaged in voluntary exchange should be free to use as money any mutually agreeable commodity or item. We support a halt to inflationary monetary policies and unconstitutional legal tender laws.


2.6 Monopolies and Corporations

We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of companies based on voluntary association. We seek to divest government of all functions that can be provided by non-governmental organizations or private individuals. We oppose government subsidies to business, labor, or any other special interest. Industries should be governed by free markets.

2.7 Labor Markets

We support repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment. We oppose government-fostered forced retirement. We support the right of free persons to associate or not associate in labor unions, and an employer should have the right to recognize or refuse to recognize a union. We oppose government interference in bargaining, such as compulsory arbitration or imposing an obligation to bargain.

2.8 Education

Education, like any other service, is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Schools should be managed locally to achieve greater accountability and parental involvement. Recognizing that the education of children is inextricably linked to moral values, we would return authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. In particular, parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education.


2.9 Health Care

We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want, the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions. People should be free to purchase health
insurance across state lines.


2.10 Retirement and Income Security

Retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government. Libertarians would phase out the current government-sponsored Social Security system and transition to a private voluntary system. The proper and most effective source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals. We believe members of society will become more charitable and civil society will be strengthened as government reduces its activity in this realm.

3.0 Securing Liberty

The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government. Government is constitutionally limited so as to prevent the infringement of individual rights by the government itself. The principle of non-initiation of force should guide the relationships between governments.

3.1 National Defense

We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.

3.2 Internal Security and Individual Rights

The defense of the country requires that we have adequate intelligence to detect and to counter threats to domestic security. This requirement must not take priority over maintaining the civil liberties of our citizens. The Constitution and Bill of Rights shall not be suspended even during time of war. Intelligence agencies that legitimately seek to preserve the security of the nation must be subject to oversight and transparency. We oppose the government's use of secret classifications to keep from the public information that it should have, especially that which shows that the government has violated the law.

3.3 International Affairs

American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by
political or revolutionary groups.

3.4 Free Trade and Migration

We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.


3.5 Rights and Discrimination

We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should not deny or abridge any individual's rights based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs.

3.6 Representative Government

We support electoral systems that are more representative of the electorate at the federal, state and local levels. As private voluntary groups, political parties should be allowed to establish their own rules for nomination procedures, primaries and conventions. We call for an end to any tax-financed subsidies to candidates or parties and the repeal of all laws which restrict voluntary financing of election campaigns. We oppose laws that effectively exclude alternative candidates and parties, deny ballot access, gerrymander districts, or deny the voters their right to consider all legitimate alternatives.


3.7 Self-Determination

Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of individual liberty, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to agree to such new governance as to them shall seem most likely to protect their liberty.

Take a moment, reflect on, and respond to the questions below:

Which one (or more than one) of these Libertarian positions do you find unacceptable? Why do you find it unacceptable? Or, do you agree with all of them? What about these Libertarian positions do you find agreeable? Why do you like them?

How would a libertarian respond to the assassination of an American citizen by the US President?

America's Managed Democracy?

Last week we considered whether America could become a totalitarian state. There seemed to be a solid mix of views: some people said "yes," America could become a totalitarian state; some people said "no," America could not become a totalitarian state.

Sheldon S. Wolin, a professor of politics at Princeton University argues that America is already a kind of totalitarian state. In his book, Democracy Inc: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism, Wolin claims that the totalitarian politics practiced in America is different than the totalitarian politics of 1930s and 1940s Italy, Germany, Japan, and Stalin era Soviet Union.

America is a managed democracy [read about it here and here]. What does this mean?

1. A political-religious mythology was created around September 11 that had primarily Christian themes -- an encounter with evil, a loss of innocence, and redemption and salvation of the American national state.

2. An immensely diverse American society was unified around the American Presidency and against a common enemy that makes us insecure -- this form of totalitarian politics is independent of any particular leader, which means that both George W. Bush and Barack Obama are both part of the process.

3. In order to save ourselves from evil, we imagine ourselves morally privileged. So, we take actions that are morally denied to others. For instance, the US government tried Japanese military personnel for war crimes because the Japanese soldiers water boarded prisoners as a torture technique during World War II. At the same time, the Bush administration authorized military personal to use water boarding, yet no one has been arrested or tried for war crimes and in fact the Obama administration has refused to pursue investigations of the Bush administration.

4. The inversion of democracy occurs when the chief executive (the US president) can carry out significant actions associated with totalitarian dictators  -- for instance, when the President can imprison an accused person without due process and sanction the use of torture and assassination and not be held accountable to the rule of law.

5. The resulting managed democracy is a political form in which governments are legitimated by elections, but active democratic politics are managed and diffused. That is, citizens are unable to form into political coalitions outside of normal politics -- citizens are politically docile and politically inactive, but at regular intervals around election season they vote in an election that confers legitimacy on the political process. Until the next election, citizens fade into the background of political decision making and focus primarily on their personal and private lives and desires.

What do you think?

Do you agree with any of the points above? Is America a managed democracy, which is a new kind of totalitarian government? Did September 11 become a mythological day for Americans? Are Americans morally privileged? To save ourselves, are all actions permissible? -- would we sacrifice our most cherished values (e.g. Bill of Rights and the freedoms it guarantees) for security?  Or is there a limit to what we as Americans will do in the name of security?

Totalitarian Politics

Over the next couple of weeks we are going to talk about totalitarianism. We'll talk about the origins of the word, the conditions out of which totalitarians forms of government emerge, its goals and features, the relationship between the government and the citizen, and a number of other interesting topics related to this type of political arrangement.

Like socialism, the state government plays an important role in a totalitarian political arrangement. But, in a totalitarian system, the power and presence of the state is intensified well beyond that of a well functioning socialist democracy like Norway.

In a totalitarians system, like in North Korea or what is emerging in Iran, the state and its charismatic leadership become omnipresent features of peoples' everyday lives. Indeed, in the most extreme cases, the aspects of your life that you usually call "private" (e.g. life in the house, emotional and intimate relationships, business transactions, etc.) practically disappear. The state government becomes a feature of most every aspect of one's life. For instance, in Iran, there is a moral police who enforce a public dress and appearance code. It is illegal for men to wear necklaces and certain kinds of hair cuts are outlawed. Also, at Iranian universities, men and women may be separated.

During the 1930s and 1940s, many Americans started asking publicly: Can America become a totalitarian state? With the rise of Japan, Germany, Italy, and Spain under totalitarian governments, some Americans were concerned that in the case of a nuclear threat from a foreign enemy the US Constitution would be streamlined -- civil liberties would be curtailed and Americans' lives would be totally mobilized against the foreign threat.

Below are some features of populations governed by a totalitarian regime.

1. Party Minded -- the individual person sees their selves as an instrument of the political party.

2. Patriotic -- there is an intense love, affection, and loyalty for one's country, historical myths, and political leadership.

3. Collectivist -- the individual's own private prerogatives, goals, aspirations, enjoyments are downplayed, while the public goals of the collective are the most important.

4. Vigilant -- the enemy is seen as dangerous, everywhere, and camouflaged. So, there is a more or less permanent sense of readiness to uncover the activities of the public enemy of the people, the state, and its leadership.

5. Hate filled -- the enemy of the people, the state, and its leadership are the object of this hate, which is matched by a strong sense of patriotic love of the one's country.

6. Love work and political activism -- contemplation and reflection is shunned, while positive political action and work that benefits the community is celebrated.

7. Disciplined -- people easily obey figures of authority and curb their own private desires for the betterment of the collective.

8. Modest and puritan -- there is an emphasis on self sacrifice, self denial, self discipline and, in general, taming individual desires and wants.

What do you think?

Do any of these eight features associated with totalitarian governments resemble aspects of life in our political system? Which ones? Can you describe how they resemble aspects of our political system?

Or, alternatively, do none of these eight features of a totalitarian system resemble our own system of government? Is our system and a totalitarian system opposites with nothing in common? What do you think are the key differences between our system and a totalitarian system?

Do you think it would be possible for totalitarian politics to emerge in the US? Why or why not?

Class War in America

Most people in Politics and Government seems to agree that in America there are economic classes, as your comments to last week's post attest.

In The Iron Heel, Ernest says that these economic classes have distinctly different interests -- that means the wealthy man cannot understand or fairly represent the poor man's interest. Each economic class must have their own representatives in Congress who will fight for their class interests.

Bernie Sanders, a Senator from Vermont, is neither a member of the Democrats nor Republicans -- he is an Independent. He is the only US Senator to describe himself as a "socialist." Watch this short video of Bernie Sanders on the floor of Congress. He argues that there is a class war being waged in America -- and the wealthy class is winning against the poor:

Jimmy Hoffa, the president of the Teamsters union, also says there is a class war happening. Hoffa means that unions are having their legal ability to collectively organize and negotiate for better pay and benefits taken away. For examples, a newspaper near my hometown reported that local teachers have had their rights to collectively bargain taken away.

Instead of a war against the poor, US Republican Senator Paul Ryan says that President Obama is waging a class war against the wealthy by trying to increase taxes on those that make more than one million dollars per year.

What do you think? Do you see yourself as a member of any particular class? Do the different economic classes have different interests? Or, do the capitalist and the worker have exactly the same interests? Or maybe the capitalist and the worker share some interests, but not all? And, even more importantly, is there a class war happening in America right now? If you think so, which class do you think is winning and which class is loosing?

American Workers, Middle Class, and the Wealthy

This week and next week we are reading The Iron Heel, which talks a lot about economic classes and class antogonism.

What are classes? Basically, economic classes break down like this:

Workers own little to nothing but their ability to do manual labor, which they sale for a wage--hence, workers are sometimes called "wage slaves." Workers then take that wage and spend it on consumer goods that they just made at the factory.

The capitalist class do not labor for a living -- they do not sale their labor for a wage. Rather, they own the machines and factories ("the means of production") in which workers labor each day for a modest wage and they own the stores in which laborers purchase their goods.

Middle class folks sit somewhere in between the workers and the capitalists. They probably own a nice home and they may own a small business, but they probably work there each day alongside their employees, or they may be middle managers who earn a good salary but are not wealthy.

In America, the poor and working class is getting larger. The middle class is getting smaller as more people fall from middle to working class. Workers and the shrinking middle class in America work more with fewer days of leave, less maternity leave, and fewer days of paid vacation compared to others around the world. Click on these images for a better picture of the emerging situation in the US:

At the same time, the wealthy are fewer and getting richer. CEO pay keeps going up while worker pay stays about the same. 

The gap between the wealthy and the working class is getting bigger -- while we keep imagining that it is not, as this video shows:

What do you think? Are there classes in America? Is the gap between the classes too large? If you think that gap is too large, what should be done to close the gap between the wealthiest and the poorest? Or, is the gap between the wealthy and the poor just about right? Should our policies aim to keep the wealthy wealthy and the poor poor? Are there any potential political problems of high levels of inequality?

Surveillance and Government

Surveillance is an important way that one person or group can exercise some amount of control over an emerging situation.

On the individual level, recall the father's actions in The Road. He regularly uses binoculars to scan the landscape and to look for any signs of people or movement. If he sees people at a distance, then the father avoids contact. Surveillance is a useful way to exercise some amount of control under conditions of anarchy.

The government also uses surveillance to exercise control over the population -- this includes domestic populations and international populations and can be as simple as passing through security at the airport or going through a sobriety road check .

Here are some of the ways that the government uses different kinds of surveillance to exercise control over different populations:

1. The US government and other governments around the world request that Google provide user data. Here is a nice graphic that illustrates the frequency of requests.

2. The US federal government has recently empowered the FBI with greater surveillance powers over the domestic population:

WASHINGTON — The Federal Bureau of Investigation is giving significant new powers to its roughly 14,000 agents, allowing them more leeway to search databases, go through household trash or use surveillance teams to scrutinize the lives of people who have attracted their attention.The F.B.I. soon plans to issue a new edition of its manual, called the Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide, according to an official who has worked on the draft document and several others who have been briefed on its contents. The new rules add to several measures taken over the past decade to give agents more latitude as they search for signs of criminal or terrorist activity.

3. Some members of Congress (not all members of Congress) are working to pass laws that would empower certain domestic police agencies to gather "geolocation data" -- that is, the information stored on a person's GPS and cell phone that tracks their movement. This would enable the FBI to gather that information.

4. The FBI uses GPS devices to track peoples' movement. Without a warrant, FBI agents secretely attach a GPS tracking device to a person's bumper and monitor their movement.

5. City governments also conduct surveillance. Major metropolitan areas like Washington, DC, New York City, and Chicago have extensive surveillance systems that enable police agents to monitor peoples' activity. Chicago has 10,000 cameras placed around the city, for instance.

Here are my questions for you to consider and thoughtfully comment on:

What do you think? Surveillance is an important aspect of modern government. Does that mean all government surveillance is justified? For reasons of security, should the government be able to conduct as much surveillance as deemed necessary? Or, can there be too much governmental surveillance? If there can be too much governmental surveillance, where is the limit? Who should be responsible for drawing that limit -- and saying this is the proper amount of surveillance and we will accept no more? And, what are the potential risks to the population if the government collects information on all aspects of peoples' lives? What is the value of having a part of our lives that are outside of governmental surveillance?

Anarchy in Somalia

What if there was no government? What is the absence of government called?

Let's talk about anarchy in this post.

Anarchy, which as we mentioned in class is the absence of hierarchy, is an ideal concept. We can never find pure anarchy in observable life.



Conditions in contemporary Somalia, however, offer an approximation to anarchy. Government in any formal sense has little practical hold on life there.

Somalia has not been under the control of a single national government since 26 January 1991, when military strongman Siad Barre was toppled.... During the 1990s, the conflict in Somalia was between rival warlords and clan-based militia. This led to widespread hunger and the UN and US intervened before a humiliating pull-out.

Fighting continued but with less intensity until in 2006, the Union of Islamic Courts became the first group to exert control over the whole of the capital, Mogadishu, for 15 years.

Ethiopia then invaded to oust the Islamists, with US support. But the Ethiopians were unable to exert control and now the capital is the scene of regular battles between the UN-backed government and the al-Qaeda linked militants, al-Shabab.

What is life like in Somalia?

Somalia has been consistently ranked as the worst failed state on the Failed States Index published annually by Foreign Policy magazine.

Approximately 20% of the population, or about 2 million people have become political refugees.

Piracy has become a source of employment for a sizable portion of the male population.

Businessmen opened their own hospitals, schools, telephone companies and even privatized mail services. Men who were able to muster private armies, often former military officers, seized the biggest prizes: abandoned government property, like ports and airfields, which could generate as much as $40,000 a day. They became the warlords. Many trafficked in guns and drugs and taxed their fellow Somalis.

Beneath the warlords were clan-based networks of thousands of people — adolescent enforcers, stevedores, clerks, truck drivers and their families — all tied into the chaos economy. Ditto for the freelance landlords and duty-free importers.

Yet, Benjamin Powell says:

It is hard to call any country mired in poverty an economic success. Yet by most measures Somalia’s poverty is diminishing and Somalia has improved living standards faster than the average sub-Saharan African country since the early 1990s. In that sense Somalia is at least a relative success story. The most interesting part of Somalia’s success is that it has all been achieved while the country has lacked any effective central government.

Plus, since anarchy took hold of life in Somalia, the life expectancy rate has increased (people are living longer), the GDP per capita has increased (people are wealthier), the infant mortality rate has declined (infants are more likely to survive), adult literacy has improved (more adults can read), and telecommunications have spread (cell phones are widespread).



What do you think? Does a place like the anarchical Somalia have something to offer that a governed society lacks? Does less government and less publicly provided security mean more freedom? Would you rather be secured by police officers that sometimes take liberties with their jobs, or would you rather be secured by Somalian technicals like those shown in the pictures above?

Hello Politics and Government Classes, Fall 2011

Hello Classes

This semester this blog is a way to get you participating and thinking about politics and government. Two Politics and Government classes (100.03, 100.04) will all be using this blog and commenting on posts. With nearly 60 students participating, there should be ample opportunity for everyone to have something worthwhile to say in response to my original post or another students' post.

Please be THOUGHTFUL and RESPECTFUL with those posts that you disagree with. There should be no personal attacks or name calling. This is the space to make reasoned arguments about political struggle and governmental order.

Enjoy the semester!

How to Respond to Illegal Immigrants?

Last week we talked about illegal immigrants. This week we will continue to talk about illegal immigrants, but we'll talk about the in the context of the global economy.

Many Americans ask: What is the best response to illegal aliens living in the US?

One possible response to illegal immigrants is to deport them out of the US. And, to make life in the US as hard as possible for illegal immigrants. Kris Kobach offers an example of this approach:

This year may be Kobach’s most influential yet. From a base in Kansas, where he is the newly seated secretary of state, Kobach will help Arizona defend his laws against all comers. Both the Justice Department and American Civil Liberties Union have sued the state, claiming that immigration is a federal matter. He’ll also counsel a dozen or so states that are considering copycat laws and a coordinated assault on birthright citizenship. And he’ll litigate at least four ongoing immigration-related cases, including lawsuits against California (for extending in-state college-tuition rates to the undocumented) and San Francisco (for failing to notify immigration authorities before a thrice-arrested alien allegedly murdered three people). It’s a “legal jihad,” according to a new report by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which calls the path he’s blazing “a trail of tears.”

Another approach to illegal immigration is to be more open and to make it possible for illegal immigrants to become legal US citizens with Constitutionally guaranteed rights. Stephen Walt offers a good example of this approach.

Although the United States has hardly been free of racial or ethnic conflicts during its history, these features have made it possible for every new group to integrate itself as full citizens. The United States is an attractive destination not just because it is a wealthy society, but also because many different groups and individuals can become integral parts of that society instead of facing permanent second-class status.

If I'm right, then the pressures of international competition give an advantage to any society that can "cream" some of the smartest and/or hardest working people from all over the world. How? By making that society an attractive place to live and work, mostly by creating an atmosphere of equality and toleration. By contrast, societies that limit their de facto talent pool by defining citizenship narrowly, by treating minorities badly, by discriminating on the basis of race, religion, or other characteristics are placing themselves at a competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis the rest of the world.

Over time, therefore, we should expect a growing gap between "cosmopolitan" societies that develop institutions and cultures in which diversity and tolerance are prized and where potential conflicts between them are managed well, and more restrictive societies that are either attractive only to a fixed population of particular ethnic identity, or who are face recurring internal conflicts between various contending groups. My bet would be that, other things being equal, the former do better over time.

So, what do you think?

How should the US respond to illegal immigrants?

Should the US focus on securing its territorial borders from foreigners illegally crossing into the country? Should enforcement focus on punishing companies that hire illegal immigrants and on deporting illegal immigrants out of the US? Should the focus be on protecting American jobs and industries? Also: What would be the economic consequences for you if there were fewer cheap foreign laborers to pick your vegetables and build your houses?

Or should the US relax territorial border enforcement and focus on opening up to more immigrants as a way of becoming more competitive in the global market? Should money, businesses, workers, and goods and services be able to move freely between Canada, Mexico, and the US? Should the focus be on increasing American wealth and power and standing in world politics?

Are there other possible responses that the US government should take toward illegal immigrants?

Illegal Immigrants and America

In a widely read Opinion Editorial that appeared in newspapers across the US, Gregory Rodriquez argued that basically all Americans are hypocrits when it comes to the issue of illegal immigration.

What does he mean that we are all hypocrits?

When it comes to illegal immigration, nobody seems to take responsibility, and we are all, through action or inaction, complicit.

It should be no surprise that illegal immigration is one of the primary means by which the U.S. economy gains access to low-skilled, low-cost labor. As the share of low-skilled native-born Americans falls – in 1960 half of U.S.-born working-age adults had not completed high school, compared with 8 percent today – employers have become ever more dependent on illegal immigration as a steady source of cheap labor.

According to a 2009 Pew Hispanic Center study, 40 percent of the nation's brick masons, 37 percent of drywall installers, 28 percent of dishwashers, 27 percent of maids and housekeepers and 21 percent of parking-lot attendants are undocumented. In California, those percentages are likely to be higher. A 2006 U.S. Department of Labor survey estimates that most California farm workers have no papers.

So whatever your feelings about illegal immigration, if you eat vegetables, enjoy restaurants, reside in a house built in the last 30 years or ever let a valet park your car, the chances are you're implicated in the hypocritical politics that allows 7 million to 8 million people to work illegally in the country....

And the more we blamed those awful illegals for coming to this country, the less willing we became to claim any responsibility for their being here – or for treating them decently. As illegal immigrants were increasingly cast as a threat, Americans cast themselves as victims.

What do you think?

Are American's hypocrits on the issue of illegal immigration? Are American employers who are seeking out cheap labor partly responsible for the immigration problem? Are American consumers partly responsible for the problem of illegal immigration because they always seek out cheaper products? In more personal terms: Are you willing to pay more for vegetables so that better paid, legal, American labor will pick and package the vegetables? Are you willing to pay more for your new home because it was built by better paid, legal, American labor?

Or, is there no hypocracy here? Are American employers and consumers not at all responsible for illegal immigrants? Are the illegal immigrants making the wrong choice and they alone hold responsibility? Can Americans expect to get the best of both worlds?-- no illegal immigrants and cheaper goods?

Whatever your response, explain yourself. Tell me why or why not you believe what you do?

Is the US a Neocolonial Power?

Compared to any other country, the US maintains a lot of military bases around the world.

According to the Pentagon's own list PDF, the answer is around 865, but if you include the new bases in Iraq and Afghanistan it is over a thousand. These thousand bases constitute 95 percent of all the military bases any country in the world maintains on any other country's territory.

Many people, especially many Americans, see these bases as playing an important part in maintaining US national security.

Other people, especially those people in foreign countries impacted by US military bases, see these installations differently. For sure, some people see the US military bases as important for their country's national security, but certainly not everyone sees the US bases in that light. Others see the US military bases in their country in less positive terms. For instance, many of the people living in Vieques, Puerto Rico were unhappy with the use of their island as a bombing range by the US Navy. There have been protests in Seoul, South Korea outside US military installations against US involvement in North-South Korean relations. Japanese citizens living in Okinawa have reservations about US Navel and Marine bases. In Ghana, Kwame Nikrumah, an important African politician and anticolonial intellectual, argued that:

Foremost among the neo-colonialists is the United States, which has long exercised its power in Latin America. Fumblingly at first she turned towards Europe, and then with more certainty after world war two when most countries of that continent were indebted to her. Since then, with methodical thoroughness and touching attention to detail, the Pentagon set about consolidating its ascendancy, evidence of which can be seen all around the world

.

What do you think?

Do you think that it is legitimate to call the US a neocolonial power? Why or why not? Can you see how foreigners may dislike US military installations in their country? Or, can you not really see it? Do you think that arguments like this are bogus? Is it more the case that US military bases are more a benefit to the locals and their national security? Should the US be concerned with what locals think about its military installations? Are US national security interests too important to consider local peoples' concerns about the military bases?

American War Making: The Role of the President, Congress, and the Citizenry

Continuing our discussion of foreign policy, this week will talk about the US President and his ability to make foreign policy -- especially, his capacity to make war.

Glenn Greenwald writes in Salon:

Back in January, 2006, the Bush Justice Department released a 42-page memo arguing that the President had the power to ignore Congressional restrictions on domestic eavesdropping, such as those imposed by FISA (the 30-year-old law that made it a felony to do exactly what Bush got caught doing: eavesdropping on the communications of Americans without warrants). That occurred roughly 3 months after I began blogging, and -- to my embarrassment now -- I was actually shocked by the brazen radicalism and extremism expressed in that Memo. It literally argued that Congress had no power to constrain the President in any way when it came to national security matters and protecting the nation.

To advance this defense, Bush lawyers hailed what they called "the President's role as sole organ for the Nation in foreign affairs"; said the President’s war power inherently as "Commander-in-Chief" under Article II "includes all that is necessary and proper for carrying these powers into execution"; favorably cited an argument made by Attorney General Black during the Civil War that statutes restricting the President's actions relating to war "could probably be read as simply providing 'a recommendation' that the President could decline to follow at his discretion"; and, as a result of all that, Congress "was pressing or even exceeding constitutional limits" when it attempted to regulate how the President could eavesdrop on Americans. As a result, the Bush memo argued, the President had the power to ignore the law because FISA, to the extent it purported to restrict the President's war powers, "would be unconstitutional as applied in the context of this Congressionally authorized armed conflict...

Yesterday, Hillary Clinton told the House of Representatives that "the White House would forge ahead with military action in Libya even if Congress passed a resolution constraining the mission." As TPM put it: "the administration would ignore any and all attempts by Congress to shackle President Obama's power as commander in chief to make military and wartime decisions," as such attempts would constitute "an unconstitutional encroachment on executive power." As Democratic Rep. Brad Sherman noted, Clinton was not relying on the War Powers Resolution of 1973 (WPR); to the contrary, her position is that the Obama administration has the power to wage war in violation even of the permissive dictates of that Resolution. And, of course, the Obama administration has indeed involved the U.S. in a major, risky war, in a country that has neither attacked us nor threatened to, without even a pretense of Congressional approval or any form of democratic consent. Whether the U.S. should go to war is a decision, they obviously believe, "for the President alone to make.

What do you think?

Has the war on terrorism fundamentally changed the role of the US President in making foreign policy, especially in terms of war?

Should the US President (the Executive branch of the government) be the primary maker of foreign policy? Or, should the US Congress have equal authority to make foreign policy and check the policies of the US President?

Should citizens be more involved in US foreign policy making? Or, should citizens be kept out of foreign policy decision making and trust their political leaders?

Thinking About Neoconservative US Foreign Policy

This week's blog post focuses on foreign policy.

In public discussions of foreign policy, the word "neoconservative" is often used. While having older roots, this word and way of organizing foreign policy became very popular during the George W. Bush administration--and is associated with the launching of the US 'war on terror' and the subsequent invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. While not as prominent in the Obama administration, neoconservatism continues to be an important philosophy shaping American foreign policy today.

Here are five neoconservative positions regarding US foreign policy:

1. Internationalism: Neoconservatives argue that the US should play an active role in world politics today by maintaining and extending the current global order that is in line with our national interests. This means that the US should, in general, be more interventionist in its foreign policy outlook.

2. Primacy: Neoconservatives argue that American dominance in world politics is good fortune for the world and for the US. US global dominance should therefore be maintained and no other power should be able to militarily and economically rival the US.

3. Unilateralism: Neoconservatives argue that American power is the source of global stability, not the UN Security Council or NATO or the European Union. So, US foreign policy should not be afraid of acting alone (unilaterally) to maintain US national security interests and global stability.

4. Militarism: Neoconservatives argue that because the US should be able to maintain global stability and spread democracy abroad, a strong US military is needed.

5. Democracy: Neoconservatives argue that it is in US national interest to spread democracy abroad.

Do you agree with all five of these neoconservative foreign policy positions? Do you disagree with all five of them? Or, do you agree with some of them? Which do you agree with and which do you disagree with? Why do you agree and/or disagree with them?

If you disagree with one or more of them, what problems can you imagine might arise with these neoconservative aims? For instance, could policies aimed at spreading democracy abroad create problems for the US? Could unilateral US intervention abroad cost the American tax payer too much? Etc.

If you agree with more than one of these neoconservative foreign policy position, which do you feel is the most important? Why is this the most important position? Which position is the least important? Why is it the least important?

America in World Affairs: Ignorance, Inequality, and World Standing

This week we finish up our discussion of contemporary democracy in America. We start talking about global politics and how they relate to different countries, especially the US.

Recall Bulworth. The film serves as a satirical critique of American democracy. It comments on a number of problems and issues that Americans face domestically. At the same time, these domestic problems and issues also impact the standing of America in global politics.

At one point during a studio interview with a reporter, Senator Jay Bulworth says:

Obscenity? The rich is getting richer and richer and
richer while the middle class is getting more poor/ Making billions
and billions and billions of bucks/ well my friend if you werent
already rich at the start well that situation just sucks/cause the
riches mother fucker in five of us is getting ninety fuckin eight
percent of it/ and every other motherfucker in the world is left to
wonder where the fuck we went with it/ Obscenity?/ Im a Senator/ I
gotta raise 10,000 a day every day Im in Washington/ I aint
getting it in South Central/ Im gettin it in Beverly Hills/ So Im
votin from them in the Senate the way they want me too/ and-and-and
Im sending them my bills/ But we got babies in South Central dying
as young as they do in Peru/ We got public schools that are
nightmares/ We got a Congress that aint got a clue/We got kids
with submachine guns/ We got militias throwing bombs/ We got Bill
just gettin all weepy/ We got Newt blaming teenage moms/We got
factories closing down/ Where the hell did all the good jobs go?
Well, Ill tell you where they went/My contributors make more
profits makin, makin, makin, Hirin kids in Mexico/ Oh a brother
can work in fast food/ If he cant invent computer games/ But what
we used to call America/ Thats going down the drains/Hows a young
man gonna meet his financial responsibilities workin and
motherfuckin Burger King? He aint! And please dont even start
with that school shit/ There aint no education going on up in that
motherfucker/ Obscenity? We got a million brothers in prison/ I
mean, the walls are really rockin/But you can bet your ass theyd
all be out/If they could pay for Johnny Cochran/ The constitution
is supposed to give them an equal chance/ Well, that aint gonna
happen for sure/ Aint it time to take a little from the rich
motherfucker and give a little to the poor? I mean, those boys over
there on the monitor/ they want a government smaller and weak/ but
the be speakin for the riches 20 percent when they pretend theyre
defendin the meek/ Now, shit, fuck, cocksuker, thats the real
obscenity/ Black folks livin with every day/ Trying to believe a
mothefuckin word Democrats and Republicans say/ Obscenity? Im Jay
Billington Bulworth And Ive come to say/ The Democratic partys
got some shit to pay/ Its gonna pay it in the ghetto/ Its gonna
pay it in the- [talks a little] You know the guy in the booth whos
talking to you in that tiny little earphone? Hes afraid the guys
at network are gonna tell him that hes through/ If he lets a guy
keep talking like Im talking to you/ Cause the corporations got
the networks and they get to say who gets to talk about the country
and whos crazy today/ I would cut to a commercial if you still
want this job/ Because you may not be back tomorrow with this
cooperate mob/Cut to commercial, cut to commercial, cut to
commercial. Ok ok I got a simple question that Id like to ask of
this network/ That pays you for performing this task/ How come they
got the airwaves? Theyre the peoples arent they? Wouldnt they be
worth 70 billion to the public today? If some money-grubbin
Congress didnt give them away for big campaign money? Its
hopeless you see/ If youre runnin for office with out no TV/If you
dont get big money/ You get a defeat/ Corporations and
broadcasters make you dead meat/ You been taught in this country
theres speech that is free/ But free dont get you no spots on
TV/If you want to have senators not on the take/ Then give them
free air time/ They wont have to fake/ Telecommunications is the
name of the beast/that, that, that, that, thats eating up the
world from the west to the east/ The movies, the tabloids, TV and
magazines/ they tell us what to think and do/ And all our hopes and
dreams/ All this information makes America phat/ But if the
companys outta the country/ How American is that? But we got
Americans with families that cant even buy a meal/ Ask a brother
whos been downsized if hes getting any deal/ Or a white boy
bustin ass til they put him in his grave/ He aint gotta be a black
boy to be livin like a slave/ Rich people have always stayed on top
by dividing white people from colored people/ but white people got
more in common with colored people then they do with rich people/
we just gotta eliminate them. White people, black people, brown
people, yellow people, get rid of em all/ All we need is a
voluntary, free spirited, open-ended program of procreative racial
deconstruction/ Everybody just gotta keep fuckin everybody til
theyre all the same color

Think about Bulworth's criticism and then read this Newsweek opinion piece. In part it says:

To appreciate the risks involved, it’s important to understand where American ignorance comes from. In March 2009, the European Journal of Communication asked citizens of Britain, Denmark, Finland, and the U.S. to answer questions on international affairs. The Europeans clobbered us. Sixty-eight percent of Danes, 75 percent of Brits, and 76 percent of Finns could, for example, identify the Taliban, but only 58 percent of Americans managed to do the same—even though we’ve led the charge in Afghanistan. It was only the latest in a series of polls that have shown us lagging behind our First World peers.

Most experts agree that the relative complexity of the U.S. political system makes it hard for Americans to keep up. In many European countries, parliaments have proportional representation, and the majority party rules without having to “share power with a lot of subnational governments,” notes Yale political scientist Jacob Hacker, coauthor of Winner-Take-All Politics. In contrast, we’re saddled with a nonproportional Senate; a tangle of state, local, and federal bureaucracies; and near-constant elections for every imaginable office (judge, sheriff, school-board member, and so on). “Nobody is competent to understand it all, which you realize every time you vote,” says Michael Schudson, author of The Good Citizen. “You know you’re going to come up short, and that discourages you from learning more.”

It doesn’t help that the United States has one of the highest levels of income inequality in the developed world, with the top 400 households raking in more money than the bottom 60 percent combined. As Dalton Conley, an NYU sociologist, explains, “it’s like comparing apples and oranges. Unlike Denmark, we have a lot of very poor people without access to good education, and a huge immigrant population that doesn’t even speak English.” When surveys focus on well-off, native-born respondents, the U.S. actually holds its own against Europe....

But poll after poll shows that voters have no clue what the budget actually looks like. A 2010 World Public Opinion survey found that Americans want to tackle deficits by cutting foreign aid from what they believe is the current level (27 percent of the budget) to a more prudent 13 percent. The real number is under 1 percent. A Jan. 25 CNN poll, meanwhile, discovered that even though 71 percent of voters want smaller government, vast majorities oppose cuts to Medicare (81 percent), Social Security (78 percent), and Medicaid (70 percent). Instead, they prefer to slash waste—a category that, in their fantasy world, seems to include 50 percent of spending, according to a 2009 Gallup poll.

What do you think?

Does the inequality between the wealthy and the poor and the inequality in their education negatively impact the United States's world standing? Are America's best days behind us? Does America's standing in world affairs matter? Should we care more about world affairs or domestic affairs? Is there a difference between world affairs and domestic affairs? Should the government work to lessen inequality between the wealthy and the poor and improve public education?

American Politics and Government

It is useful to think about the relationship between the rulers and the ruled along three lines:

1. Rule of the individual -- a king, tyrant, or charismatic individual who commands a political community.

2. Rule of the few -- an oligarchy, or when a comparatively small group of people rule over a larger political community. The Iron Heel offered an example of a capitalistic oligarchy and depicted life for a worker under such conditions.

3. Rule of the many -- a democracy, or when a comparatively larger number of people are selected by the community to rule over the community. The Probability Broach presented a democratic, proportionally elected, republic where at least 90% of the representatives had to cast a vote before a policy could be made into law. The government was small, uninvolved in peoples' lives, slow to act, and very democratic.

Look over the sets of questions below and spend some time thinking about and answering a few.

What do you think? Is America ruled by the many? Or is America ruled by the few? Should there be more democracy in America or less? What might more democracy look like for you? Could you give an example?

Is the American government too big or too small or is it just about right in size? Should we have a stronger federal government or stronger state and local governments? Would you like to see a government as small as the government in the Probability Broach or is something larger required? What particular aspects of the government (social security, military, unemployment benefits, welfare, etc) should be larger or smaller? Why should those aspects of government be larger or smaller?

Or maybe we should not be talking about the size of the government. Maybe we should be talking about the effectiveness of the government. Is the US government effective? If so, give me an example of what you think is effective government? Or is the US government ineffective? If so, give me an example of what you think is ineffective government? What could be changed to make some aspect of government more effective?