Related News
Home » Opinion » Foreign Views
Sad state of affairs in United States of America
By Greg Cusack |
September 28, 2010, Tuesday
|
Print Edition
Print Edition
IN recent weeks, I have plunged into Paige Smith's 16-volume History of the United States, covering the period from the first colonial settlements through the "New Deal" of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Mr Smith's engaging narrative features extensive use of primary materials, allowing the reader to hear the voices of many non-famous persons usually not featured in historical works: soldiers, farmers, and laborers.
From letters, diaries, and remembrances of conversations overheard or participated in some stories which immerse the reader in the feel and emotions of earlier times.
In re-studying the American Revolutionary period, I am struck anew by the challenge of defining "which people" had the right to participate in self-government. It still is an issue for us, although in ways different than the founders could have imagined.
For almost the first century of the United States Republic, well less than half of all persons in the US could vote: slaves, women, and men who did not own property were excluded.
After the divisive Civil War of the 1860s black people were freed from slavery and given the right to vote. (However, that right was severely eroded in the decades following that war.) Women were not given the right to vote in America until the second decade of the 20th century. And it was not until the civil rights struggles of the mid-20th century that voting rights for non-whites were truly secured.
However, the "stuff" of politics and civic life is not just the act of voting, but of participating in the ongoing debate over both important issues and which policy measures should (or should not) be adopted.
While we have equality in the right to vote ("one person, one vote"), we have severe inequality in who is able to influence the political climate and, thus, the outcome of voting.
Americans are definitely not equal in their ability to participate in - and influence - debate over major public issues. Most citizens have "just" their voice, including calling in to talk-radio programs and writing letters to the editor in local newspapers.
Wealthy individuals, corporate structures and all kinds of "committees" and "issue groups," in contrast, are able to dominate the electronic media by their superior ability to purchase advertising time.
Glaring inequality
This glaring inequality - and its dangers to a fully informed discussion of issues - was made even worse when in January of this year the United States Supreme Court ruled that individuals or groups who wish to support or oppose candidates or issues may do so anonymously.
It is one thing to allow some to have amplified megaphones; it is quite another to allow those same persons to hide their identity from the rest of us.
This is occurring against the backdrop of growing economic inequality among Americans. According to data published in The Wall Street Journal on September 18, during the past decade household incomes were stagnant.
In the last couple of years, the number of persons actually living in poverty increased: 42.8 percent of younger workers (ages 25-34) fell below the poverty level while 21.3 percent of children under six also were in poverty.
All told, some 42 million Americans were living below the poverty levels last year, and another 15 million were in near-poverty conditions (incomes of 1.25 or less of the poverty levels).
While the richest 20 percent of Americans took in nearly 24 percent of total income in the US, the middle 40 percent of Americans' share of national income fell below 50 percent (from 55 percent in the 1980s), and the poorest 40 percent saw their share fall to only about 10 percent.
If one does not have the decency to be scandalized by such numbers, should one not at the least be concerned about the implications of these trends? Can a society with growing poverty rates and a declining middle class long remain productive or stable?
Despite these alarming figures, those in control of this country seem intent upon allowing the wealthy and their supporters even greater influence in shaping the questions which dominate our civic agenda, as well as the "solutions" most desired by them.
As I hope my country will eventually come to its senses, so I also hope that China can profit from our lessons and mistakes in crafting a functioning, fair political and economic system for its future.
Economics and politics are not separate spheres. Just as we must guard against some gaining disproportionate (and damaging) political weight, so we must also curb those who would use their wealth to overwhelm the multitudes of the less powerful and influential.
(The author was a member of the Iowa state House of Representatives. He also served in the Iowan executive branch. He retired in 2004.)
Mr Smith's engaging narrative features extensive use of primary materials, allowing the reader to hear the voices of many non-famous persons usually not featured in historical works: soldiers, farmers, and laborers.
From letters, diaries, and remembrances of conversations overheard or participated in some stories which immerse the reader in the feel and emotions of earlier times.
In re-studying the American Revolutionary period, I am struck anew by the challenge of defining "which people" had the right to participate in self-government. It still is an issue for us, although in ways different than the founders could have imagined.
For almost the first century of the United States Republic, well less than half of all persons in the US could vote: slaves, women, and men who did not own property were excluded.
After the divisive Civil War of the 1860s black people were freed from slavery and given the right to vote. (However, that right was severely eroded in the decades following that war.) Women were not given the right to vote in America until the second decade of the 20th century. And it was not until the civil rights struggles of the mid-20th century that voting rights for non-whites were truly secured.
However, the "stuff" of politics and civic life is not just the act of voting, but of participating in the ongoing debate over both important issues and which policy measures should (or should not) be adopted.
While we have equality in the right to vote ("one person, one vote"), we have severe inequality in who is able to influence the political climate and, thus, the outcome of voting.
Americans are definitely not equal in their ability to participate in - and influence - debate over major public issues. Most citizens have "just" their voice, including calling in to talk-radio programs and writing letters to the editor in local newspapers.
Wealthy individuals, corporate structures and all kinds of "committees" and "issue groups," in contrast, are able to dominate the electronic media by their superior ability to purchase advertising time.
Glaring inequality
This glaring inequality - and its dangers to a fully informed discussion of issues - was made even worse when in January of this year the United States Supreme Court ruled that individuals or groups who wish to support or oppose candidates or issues may do so anonymously.
It is one thing to allow some to have amplified megaphones; it is quite another to allow those same persons to hide their identity from the rest of us.
This is occurring against the backdrop of growing economic inequality among Americans. According to data published in The Wall Street Journal on September 18, during the past decade household incomes were stagnant.
In the last couple of years, the number of persons actually living in poverty increased: 42.8 percent of younger workers (ages 25-34) fell below the poverty level while 21.3 percent of children under six also were in poverty.
All told, some 42 million Americans were living below the poverty levels last year, and another 15 million were in near-poverty conditions (incomes of 1.25 or less of the poverty levels).
While the richest 20 percent of Americans took in nearly 24 percent of total income in the US, the middle 40 percent of Americans' share of national income fell below 50 percent (from 55 percent in the 1980s), and the poorest 40 percent saw their share fall to only about 10 percent.
If one does not have the decency to be scandalized by such numbers, should one not at the least be concerned about the implications of these trends? Can a society with growing poverty rates and a declining middle class long remain productive or stable?
Despite these alarming figures, those in control of this country seem intent upon allowing the wealthy and their supporters even greater influence in shaping the questions which dominate our civic agenda, as well as the "solutions" most desired by them.
As I hope my country will eventually come to its senses, so I also hope that China can profit from our lessons and mistakes in crafting a functioning, fair political and economic system for its future.
Economics and politics are not separate spheres. Just as we must guard against some gaining disproportionate (and damaging) political weight, so we must also curb those who would use their wealth to overwhelm the multitudes of the less powerful and influential.
(The author was a member of the Iowa state House of Representatives. He also served in the Iowan executive branch. He retired in 2004.)
- About Us
- |
- Terms of Use
- |
-
RSS - |
- Privacy Policy
- |
- Contact Us
- |
- Shanghai Call Center: 962288
- |
- Tip-off hotline: 52920043
- 沪ICP证：沪ICP备05050403号-1
- |
- 互联网新闻信息服务许可证：31120180004
- |
- 网络视听许可证：0909346
- |
- 广播电视节目制作许可证：沪字第354号
- |
- 增值电信业务经营许可证：沪B2-20120012
Copyright © 1999- Shanghai Daily. All rights reserved.Preferably viewed with Internet Explorer 8 or newer browsers.
