by Gary C. Gibson

Created on: December 23, 2009

Parle ments were places for political speech. In the beginning the United States had a tripartite form of representative government well suited to the vast spaces and slow time for communication. Over the years the representative government has evolved into a kind of collegial plutocracy with the costs of becoming elected very high and the rewards for being elected an almost guaranteed multimillionaire status. The complex modern networks of communication have in some ways neutralized a substantial element of the purpose of the representative structure of government in the United States. An insular and unresponsive assembly of individuals elected for being toadies of existing economic infrastructures are reinforced by propaganda from the broadcast media owned by trans-national corporations.

My premise that the United States is ruled today by a de facto plutocracy is a little disingenuous. Actually the plutocratic Senators and Congressmen are flunky big money chasers allegiant to the CEOs of trans-national corporations. Corporatism is what has replaced democracy in the United States. Maybe America needs a parliament for government with live intelligent people engaging in debate, with an engaged prime minister and more responsiveness to the people. If we need royalty we could get the sports entertainment industry to be figureheads along with those voted best performers in Hollywood on a year to year basis. They could be voted in or out on a Paula Abdul Show.

The U.S. Government is a kind of state producer of political space with a variety of different labels placed upon the same old same old. Because the Gospel of The New Age Adam Smith' is preached by both parties of the rich, capitalism in a corrupted version such that it's purpose is to enrich the rich and trickle down sustenance to the poor and middle class became an unchallengeable religion by the year 1991. Those that might point out that Smith's purpose in writing 'The Wealth of Nations' as a student and friend of David Hume was to support the best possible way of life for the masses might be accused of heresy. Economic heresy might be the charge with the label of socialist being applied to those that believe that the best interests of the majority do not essentially lie in enriching and oppressive minority but in improving their own personal standard of living.

An actual democracy would feature a dominating middle class and few poor people and a harmless class of the rich would could serve as advisers occasionally.

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>