Democracy compatible with free enterprise?

IS DEMOCRACY COMPATIBLE WITH A MERITOCRACY, WITH FREE ENTERPRISE?

Yesterday’s post was about United States Presidents who smoked cigarettes or cigars and some who might have smoked more controlled substances. As it is to be expected, smoking and abortion are two of the most controversial issues we have today.

It is a culture and at the same time an issue that divides us. On the one hand we have very valid arguments for the absolute preservation of life according to some religious beliefs and on the other the right of the individual as women profess to have more autonomy over their bodies than would the government.

With smoking it is equally divided: on the one side we have the proponents that it is extremely noxious and unhealthy and on the other there is the view that government should not be interfering with an individual’s choice. What gives? Can the government supersede the rights of the individual for the common good or could the individual’s rights also be accommodated?

One way to look at it is changing perceptions. At one time smoking was deemed sophisticated and sexy. As we have inched into the 21^st century smoking has taken on an image of low class, dirty and unhealthy habit that only ignorant people take up and hurt themselves in the process.

When we take a look at President Obama we see a very dignified and very Presidential figure. When we see a photo of him with a cigarette in his mouth, all of a sudden we see a very common, dirty hoodlum.

Which brings us to yet another great debate we face in our society: Do we elect public officials for their merits, intelligence and capabilities or because they are more like us? Do they come from the general population which is supposed to be mediocre and ordinary and do these people reflect the same qualities or lack of them?

We experienced eight years of this in the person of George W. Bush. We have to go back far into our history to equate a leader with such common and plebeian qualities: Andrew Jackson. When Jackson moved into the White House, the predominant theme was one of populism and crass behavior. All aristocratic and intellectual endeavors were shunned away as the masses had finally had a say in their selection of a President. Yeah, you might want to call me an elitist, but frankly, I don’t give a shit what you say about me, I think that most progressives would like to see a President who is at least as intelligent as they are. I want to see one that is more intelligent than I.

Yet George W. Bush was not really “one of them” as he came from a very privileged background, supposedly had received an Ivy League education and should have, by all accounts the intellect and capacity to be President of the United States. However, it was his projection of this fake Texan cowboy image, the crass commonness he put across that got him a majority of the American voters to cast their ballots for him. (Or was it the Supreme Court?) But it was all a front, a very deceiving and cruel trick played on the unsuspecting and rather ignorant American constituency. The extreme right was sold on him because his belligerent tone and warmongering rhetoric. The religious fanatics were swayed because he claimed to be a “born again Christian” and they came out in masses to give him their votes. Church buses were put to use to carry people to the polls. It was estimated that the Evangelicals alone mobilized more than 22 million votes in the 2000 elections.

Then there were the true owners of George W. Bush’s heart: the oil interests. As his family and his wealth originated in this area, he was so favorable to benefit oil that he even embarked on an unnecessary war to enrich the oil companies and he lied to the American people and to the world to do so.

What we found in George W. Bush was one of the most inarticulate, incompetent, intellectually challenged Presidents we ever had. So the question of whether the electorate should pick someone who is more like them has been forever settled. Oh, they will try once more, we see the likes of Sarah Palin raising their heads like a slithering ugly snake to take their place in history. But Sarah Palin already had more than the allotted 15 minutes of fame regaled to any given individual with no talent or education. She has way outlived her relevance.

It has been my belief that in America, if you worked hard, you studied, you applied yourself and you were industrious you would succeed and gain fame and fortune. The idea of an individual improving him or herself is a noble one and we have up to a certain degree rewarded this kind of endeavor. But it seems that more and more this American dream is but a fleeting, unattainable concept. It is directly tied to the predominant special interests that are hell bent on maintaining their grip on power and not allowing anyone from “the masses” to participate or gain a foothold into their lofty ivory towers.

We in America are still struggling with what we are, what defines us. Are we an oligarchy? Are we a meritocracy? Are we a true Democracy? I think we are all these or a combination of all these. At certain times in our history one has had more power and influence and therefore has been able to reap the benefits of power. Right now we are at a point where it is all about an autocratic, privileged oligarchy that is very small and lives off the poor and the middle class.