“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter” Winston Churchill.
As you read this keep in mind I do not like the inevitability of what is on the horizon and what will be. Also keep in mind when I use the word democracy I am referring to what America (and the West in general) has morphed into from its original conception. Also when I use the words, dictatorial or authoritarian or a derivative of them I do not mean it in the Fascist sense of what springs to mind of Europe in the mid twentieth century. I grew up as a baby boomer in America in Southern California and had a great deal of freedom, in reality too much. It was a car culture and almost every teenager had one or had access to one. The economy was great and money and work were both in plentiful supply. Morals were changing and access to drugs was on every corner and every college campus. The world that is inevitably coming is a world I don’t know if I would be all that happy to live in but good, bad or indifferent, for better or worse, it is the world that will be. We are headed for a planetary collapse due to several causes. The majority of humanity is not prepared for the changes that will be and the reality is most don’t even see them coming. Most of those that do either deny or ignore their existence because reality does not fit their visions and they (both the left and right) would rather go to their deaths than admit they are wrong. The unfortunate thing is they will take the rest of us with them.
It should be painfully apparent to all, with the possible exception of true imbeciles; both our form of government and form of economics have failed. We went from landing a man on the Moon in less than a decade to now having to hitch rides to the International Space Station on the shuttles of our former competitors, the Russians. We went from being the leader of the first world to rapidly deteriorating toward third world status. From the leader in industrial capacity and manufacturing to being behind nations that 50 years ago were largely illiterate, impoverished, starving and had virtually no industrial capacity. To being unable to manufacture even necessary items for internal use much less than items for export. From number one in almost all fields to now lagging behind in most of those fields. Our form of democracy and capitalism have not just failed but failed miserably and we have become so dysfunctional we no longer have a competitive edge. We are behind in education and research and development. An old saying from the streets applies to social democracy and capitalism as we practice them: “when the horse is dead…get off.”
In 1887 Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic over 2,000 years ago: “A democracy is always temporary in nature it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.” Snopes claims it is apocryphal however with the recent revelations about Snopes they are as trustworthy as a politician. Wikipedia called it debatable. Unless we (this applies to the entire West) regain control of the government(s) and restore a rapidly deteriorating order soon we will collapse into anarchy then inevitably a dictatorship will emerge. I wrote this before the problems in Europe became so noticeable and acute. The reason a dictatorship will arise is because in order to regain control and reestablish safety, security, and stability, once lost, requires draconian measures that can only be achieved when inefficiency and individual interests are eliminated and democracy is too inefficient to accomplish the task. Unless we act we (the West) are going to have totalitarian governments there is no avoiding them. We are at the point that a semi-authoritarian state based on reality and logic is preferable to the worthless and dysfunctional cluster we have now. By accepting this as reality we may be able to salvage our culture. Whether recognized or acknowledged or not Western culture is what we value. If the transition is peaceful we may be able to avoid an extreme totalitarian state in the future.
Many of the intellectuals (intellectual does not mean intelligent) have an extremely anti West bias. They fail to understand the values they cherish have been won by the West over 2,000 years. Steven Pinker in his book “The Blank Slate the Modern Denial of Human Nature” said: “Not only acknowledging human nature compatible with social and moral progress, but it can help explain the obvious progress that has taken place over millennia. Customs that were common throughout history and prehistory-slavery, punishment by mutilation, execution by torture, genocide for convenience, endless blood feuds, the summary killing of strangers, rape as the spoils of war, infanticide as a form of birth control, and the legal ownership of women-have vanished from large parts of the world.” (Chapter 9) And, “……part of a long-running expansion of freedom in the West that has granted children their always-present desire for more autonomy than parents are willing to cede. In traditional societies, children were shackled to the family’s land, betrothed in arranged marriages, and under the thumb of the family patriarch. That began to change in medieval Europe, and some historians argue it was the first steppingstone in the extension of rights that we associate with the Enlightenment and that culminated in the abolition of feudalism and slavery.” (Chapter 14)
F.A. Hayek in his book The Road To Serfdom said: “No doubt an American or English “Fascist” system would greatly differ from the Italian or German models; no doubt, if the transition were effected without violence, we might expect to get a better type of leader. And, if I had to live under a fascist system, I have no doubt that I would rather live under one run by Englishmen or Americans than under one run by anybody else.” He went on to say: “Yet all this does not mean, judged on our present standards, our fascist system would in the end prove so very different and much less intolerable than its prototypes. There are strong reasons for believing that what to us appear the worst features of the existing totalitarian systems are not accidental by-products but phenomena which totalitarianism is certain sooner or later to produce.” While this assessment is both gloomy and accurate we are in a position of little choice and that little is being reduced further by internal lawlessness, external threats and increasing dysfunction in government. We may be able to mitigate the negative consequences of what is inevitable if the transition is as he said “effected without violence“; a peaceful transition. With a major financial collapse, or a disaster caused by any one of a number of possible events, the result will be chaos and violence from which a brutal totalitarian state will evolve. We must accept the unavoidable and make a peaceful transition and if we do we may be able to shape it and develop a mixed system which would be the best of both worlds. If we go into collapse we will get what naturally evolves and it is a 100% guarantee that only those on top will like it. Keep in mind I am not oblivious to the dangers in an semi-authoritarian state but we are heading in that direction and unless the vast majority of humanity suddenly has a collective epiphany all at once there is no reversing course. The increasing population, the dwindling resources and the increasing technology make it inevitable. The number one problem is a problem most do not want to acknowledge. It is the problem that must be solved before any other can be adequately resolved. It is the increasing population. Solving ALL other problems can be directly tied to it. Not only do we need to stabilize the number we need to enact a quality control, unthinkable now but a looming, ugly, sad reality. It is a problem that cannot and will not be solved by democratic procedures both nationally and internationally. We (the US) have two legislative bodies: the Senate and the House. It is time all senators are removed and others appointed in their place. (Not saying that none would be worth retaining). No one wants a limb amputated but if gangrene has set in there is no other option except death. The replacements should be appointed by qualifications rather than being elected for their ability at making wild outrageous promises that God would find impossible to keep. The Senate was never to be elected by popular vote. Anyone familiar with American history knows the founding fathers held democracy in contempt as they considered it to be mob rule. It is the reason the Electoral College was established. The Constitution originally called for the US Senators to be appointed by the state legislatures but due to incompetence, cronyism, corruption, and the other ills that plagued them the Constitution was changed for them to be elected by popular vote. What is happening now is what the Founding Fathers foresaw and dreaded and it should be painfully obvious they were right.
Even though lately the House has been more dysfunctional than the Senate the House should remain elected by popular vote as the Constitution states. The founding fathers were right on that also. The members of the House are close enough, or at least closer, to the average person in their districts so are able to have more direct personal contact with them. If this close contact was an actual requirement of the job and members of Congress held multiple meetings with their constituents when not in session the population would be more informed and would have a greater influence with the representative. They receive an excellent salary which they should be required to start earning and the best way is during their many breaks they make contact with the people they are responsible to and for, and who incidentally pay the bills. The representative would be more apt to vote the way the public wanted rather than the way lobbyists wanted. I am not saying the public is always right but the agenda of a lobbyist usually runs contrary to the public good. I also have to ruefully admit the public seldom knows what is good for it. (Sorry but that is a fact proven ALL throughout history.) The representative would also be able to directly explain the details of the proposed legislation and answer questions which would greatly improve the voters understanding of the issues. There is even an off chance, slim as it may be, the voters might vote sensibly. His/her positions could be explained to his/her constituents face to face with far greater clarity and a greater chance of being understood compared to the information presently being obtained through television, books, the internet, newspapers and magazines. The media usually, in reality always, have the agendas of the corporate offices and turn a profit corresponding with the level of emotional hype generated. This close contact would not be possible for the senate as senatorial districts cover an entire state rather than the smaller regions as congressional districts do. The recent election between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton clearly showed the bias of the media.
Originally the House was to represent the people and the Senate was to represent the state. Both congressmen/women and senators should have knowledge of many subjects. Law for one thing. Many elected officials have been lawyers but they need not be lawyers but must have a basic understanding of law. They should have several college level classes on the various types of law: civil, criminal, constitutional, business, environmental, and international. As well as law classes they should have classes in other subjects they will need knowledge of in order to make informed decisions. Classes such as but not limited to: history, comparative religions, psychology, sociology, international relations, and economics. They should also have some knowledge in military policies, procedures, organizational structure and tactics. They need not have a degree but just basic courses so when discussing, receiving advice, and debating a bill they would have a fundamental knowledge of the subject. In plotting a course for a nation or a business the leaders are better off having a broad range of knowledge spread out over many topics. Intricate details can be supplied by the experts whom they have access to. They need to be able to interpret the data supplied into a sensible coherent plan. Now they merely need be a certain age and be a citizen with no other qualifications at all required and it shows in the pitiful performance they now exhibit. A barber needs more credentials than a national elected representative in the United States responsible for millions of people and trillions of dollars.
History repeats itself is a well-known and worn out saying but absolutely true. A study of the fall of any major empire has several factors that are always present. The best known are the Greeks and Romans but all civilizations have certain parallels. In 1998 Russian professor Igor Panarin predicted the US would collapse and break up into six regions each occupied by a different nation. He predicted a civil war will precede the break up. The collapse would be the result of “moral degradation” “economic decline” and “mass immigration”. This was to occur in 2010 and obviously it has not happened but it’s not as farfetched as some think. We are not out of danger. We are hopelessly divided and becoming more so. Our problems in the three areas he gave as major factors are noticeable and increasing. To deny them is to deny reality. Because the world is tied to the US at this point it would be in the world’s best interest if it were to happen that the breakup be peaceful and orderly. If not that would make very real the possibility of foreign powers being involved. You can bet they would not allow our nuclear arsenal to fall into the hands of unstable people either of the left or the right. A hard landing for us would also be a hard landing for the world.
F.A. Hayek in his book The Road To Serfdom said [keep in mind this was written during the WWII era]: “Many separate plans do not make a plan whole – in fact, as the planners ought to be the first to admit, they may be worse than no plan. But the Democratic legislature will long hesitate to relinquish the decisions on really vital issues, and so long as it does so it makes it impossible for anyone else to provide the comprehensive plan. Yet agreement that planning is necessary, together with the inability of democratic assemblies to produce a plan, will invoke stronger and stronger demands that the government or some single individual should be given powers to act on their own responsibility. The belief is becoming more and more widespread that, if things are to get done, the responsible authorities must be freed from the fetters of democratic procedure.”
In Readings of Russian History The Modern Period (Edited by Sidney Harcave) speaking of the Reform of 1861 it makes the statement “The conditions upon which the agrarian system of serfdom was abolished in Russia in 1861 indicate that, under certain circumstances, social reforms may be accomplished with less perturbance and with more social justice under a system of political autocracy than under a democratic government. At least, the results of the emancipation in Russia were more favorable for the peasants than those obtained earlier in the countries of central Europe.”
The Philippines has an extreme drug problem and problems with Islam. The courts have been unable to deal with the issues as the judges are either bought or are threatened and drug dealers go free. The crime rate in general and rates of crimes of violence are extremely high and the majority of citizens do not feel safe. The election of Rodrigo Duterte to the presidency has led to a large drop in crime. The reason is Duterte has sanctioned what are known as “extrajudicial killings” (EXJ). Under the heading “extrajudicial killing” the first sentence in Wikipedia states: “An extrajudicial killing is the killing of a person by governmental authorities without the sanction of any judicial proceeding or legal process.” We are at the point just before that becomes a reality, either that or vigilante justice. A quick internet search of “Mexican vigilantes defending their villages” will show what happens when the government fails to protect their citizens. In a democracy such as ours the process consists of talking and talking and talking and talking and talking. Organizations such as Human Rights Watch decry the EXJs but they don’t consider how many innocents have been saved. Are there corrupt officials? Yes an example of which would be the 43 students in Mexico kidnapped by police at the order of a mayor. Read this: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/17/the-disappeared-43-report-exposes-mexico-s-student-murder-cover-up.html
When a nation or even a geographical area gets this corrupt there is only one way to clean it up. While the methods of Duterte are now unthinkable they will become more thinkable as time continues and we continue moving towards this state. On Facebook when an article is posted about Duterte there will be many comments by people living in the Philippines that support him. One such is the following to which I withheld the name of the commenter due to privacy concerns even though it was publically posted:
Yes he’s brutal.
BTW, he’s the one responsible for the building of 10,000 people rehab building and they’re building another one. He’s also responsible for a tuition-free in state colleges and universities. He’s also responsible for making healthcare for the poorest of the poor Filipinos. Through his volunteers, are also responsible for feeding the street children through “Duterte’s Kitchen.” He’s also responsible for giving a free irrigation system to the farmers. All in 6 months that was not done in 6 years by the previous administration.
I also have taken a few passages from Inferno, the novel by Dan Brown, in which a small portion of it was set in the Philippines. They are the thoughts and observations of a young woman of high intelligence that went there to help the poor. They are:
“Through her acts of public service, Sienna came in contact with several members of a local humanitarian group. When they invited her to join them on a month-long trip to the Philippines, she jumped at the chance.”
“Sienna imagined they were going to feed poor fishermen or farmers in the countryside, which she had read was a wonderland of geological beauty, with vibrant seabeds and dazzling plains. And so when the group settled in among the throngs in the city of Manila – the most densely populated city on earth – Sienna can only gape in horror. She had never seen poverty on the scale.”
“How can one person possibly make a difference?”
“For every one person Sienna fed, there were hundreds more who gazed at her with desolate eyes. Manila had six-hour traffic jams, suffocating pollution, and a horrifying sex trade, whose workers consisted primarily of young children, many of whom had been sold to pimps by parents who took solace in knowing that at least their children would be fed.”
“Amid the chaos of child prostitution, panhandlers, pickpockets, and worse, Sienna found herself suddenly paralyzed. All around her, she could see humanity overrun by its primal instinct for survival. When they face desperation . . . human beings become animals.”
“For Sienna, all the dark depression came flooding back. She had suddenly understood mankind for what it was – a species on the brink.”
This is where we are headed on a planetary scale meanwhile the humanitarian groups hatch intellectual eggs that have no semblance to reality. Give them birth control pills or condoms. The church argues against it and the poor innocent victims are caught in the middle with misery mushrooming exponentially. This is what Duterte is facing and what we will soon be facing too. We are not going to vote our way out of this. All these useless do-gooders in their ivory towers should spend time on the streets to get a dose of reality.
So now we have to me a decision as to what form of government we want and who to be trusted to be in charge. It would be of no advantage to replace “Frick” with “Frack” or Tweedle Dum with Tweedle Dee. In fact it may be worse than doing nothing at all and nothing at all is terminal.
It is obvious that the private sector has no concern or regard for the bulk of humanity except as labor and consumers. Misery and death do not concern them as they are far removed from them and are not directly affected. Actually for large numbers of the populace to be negatively affected is to their benefit as misery opens up new opportunities to sell something advertised to bring happiness and keep people upset, confused and in a perpetual state of commotion. Confused and desperate people are easy to control. Death is also of no concern as the population is expanding so rapidly there are always workers and citizens to take the place of the elderly, the dead and dying or the injured. The character of the private sector is manifest in companies such as Enron, Goldman Sachs, Countrywide and people such as Ken Lay and Bernie Madoff. Business abandoned the United States because they have no loyalty. I find it hard to understand why the conservative side can’t see that business hid behind God, the Flag and motherhood and jumped ship as soon as it was feasible made so by the powers behind the throne they support. I am a capitalist but I also realize the need for regulation. One of the issues that is being raised about the appointees Donald Trump is surrounding himself with is they are all private sector oriented. It can work out very well or very bad. The business sector is responsible for many of our problems but it may well work out to our advantage to have those that know business problems to be in charge of fixing the problems. They have the most to gain and the most to lose depending on the safety, stability and security of the state and the world. They advantage is they know the ropes. Of course the disadvantage is they know the ropes.
It is also obvious that civilians are not up to the task either. A look at the accomplishments of, or lack of, in the last few decades should verify that. The elected officials of the civilian sector, being mostly ignorant on whatever is before them, rely on lobbyists who are in the employ of the private business sector. The elected private citizens in government (those that are on the right) either have a blind faith in capitalism to the point they have confused corporate capitalism with God, the Flag and motherhood or, if not, are catering to their constituents that do and are in the employ of the top 1% that have purchased their votes by financing their campaigns or by having something politically damaging on them. In today’s world with the technology that now exists it is possible to create something damaging without the person actually being involved. Accepting a bribe, picking up a prostitute, records of insanity or ill health complete with hospital records to prove, or records of nonexistent criminal activity and documents such as marriage, birth and death certificates can all be fabricated in studios and labs. The necessary supporting documents can also be produced and slipped into place as needed. (Read the report of the Inferno in the Books Worth Reading section of this site at the description of the organization named the Consortium. Keep in mind it is a real organization). The old saying “believe none of what you hear and half of what you see” no longer applies. We are at a point that we can’t believe our own senses. We can no longer believe what we see with our own eyes. For whatever reason they are failing in their responsibility to inform their constituents of the truth and facts.
On the other side of the aisle (the left) they have a messianic zeal to view society and government as social experiments and will try to force their dreams and visions on society with no knowledge or no concern about the consequences. They claim to have concern but they don’t think things through about the possibility of something going wrong. Their Plan A is a plan for the best with no Plan B and often Plan A is the equivalent of driving “round pegs into square holes.” Both sides use emotions as their basic “tool” to manipulate their adherents. Both sides tend to have the “throw caution to the wind” approach. Both sides compete for the same people as the psychology of these individuals is identical. They are both pedestrian in nature and if converted to the holiness of the “cause” are blindly devoted and not easily persuaded to change by force or reason. The religious right and the atheistic left have much in common although they would be loath to admit it. Again I use a quote by F. A. Hayek: “Probably it is true enough that the great majority are rarely capable of thinking independently, that on most questions they accept views which they find ready-made, and that they will be equally content if born or coaxed into one set of beliefs or another. In any society freedom of thought will probably be of direct significance only for a small minority.” The flaw in the left was dramatically shown in the defeat of Hillary Clinton to Donald trump. They do not think things through and fail to anticipate consequences. They fail to understand human nature and underestimate or overestimate a situation opposite of what it should be. On the other side the right could not foresee the potential blow back from the economic collapse of the Soviet Union.
Scientists, professors and other intellectuals would be no better in the final analysis than regular civilians because they usually, while having great mental capacity, have little experience working with the application of their work with the human element. In theory something may look fine on paper but adding the predictably unpredictable human nature changes the equation, often radically and disastrously. Also like subsections of other groups they would look upon society as an experiment for implementation of their social theories to the neglect of other equally or even more important issues. The population would be little more than laboratory animals for social scientists which is what they basically are now for corporate capitalists and starry-eyed reformers. While scientific progress would be fast tracked the vital social programs would suffer. Many oppose social programs believing they are not in the interests of the nation and many others support them thinking they are good for the nation. They are good if managed right when no viable option is available, but continuing the present mismanagement is also not in the nations’ interest. Curiosity is a main motivator for scientists and as we know curiosity killed the cat. Which if that is what the cat wants so be it but unfortunately the cat often kills the rest of us in the process.
Neither side of the above listed, the Democrats (left/liberal) nor GOP (right/conservative), have the ability to think about or foresee or even care about the consequences of their pet issues. They are often emotionally and ideologically motivated rather than rationally (I include greed as an emotion). The right will oppose any legislation, restrictions, rules, laws, ideas and issues regardless of how logical, well planned, far sighted, sensible, rational, sound and well thought out. The left will support any legislation, restrictions, rules, laws, ideas, and issues regardless of how illogical, poorly planned, short sighted, irrational, senseless, unsound, and poorly thought out. Both sides have us on a suicidal course and both sides either don’t know or care about the flaws in their positions. If extremism was a fatal disease and the 15% on both sides of the aisle farthest from center were to catch it the remaining 70% would probably have the problems solved in short order. Now they are too busy dodging the rocks thrown at one side from the other.
That leaves the military as the last person standing. (Pro-Second Amendment advocates need not panic. I am pro-Second Amendment and think there is not as much to fear from the military as from the present civilian government. [This was originally written during the Obama administration] I will discuss that further on.) I do not advocate the military as legislators as that is not their field of expertise. Remember to keep in mind I am not calling for military rule I am advocating they do the appointing of US Senators only. I think as this essay continues it should be realized it is the best option. I am not saying it is a good option but merely the best available and from here on out they only get worse. We have delayed too long and things have deteriorated to the point our options are fewer than they were. If we continue to procrastinate they will become fewer still and much less desirable. Running a war or providing security is far different than running a nation. War should be left to the experts in war and economies should be left to the experts in economics. Management and administration should be left to managers and administrators. At the present, and for the last several decades, wars have been run by civilians and they have been disasters. The same civilians run the economy and it is apparent they have no ability in that department either. The legislators and both political parties have become totally dysfunctional and corrupt and are no longer an asset but a liability. They are no longer merely an annoyance but an actual danger. The global condition warrants action not inaction.
The military needs to tell the Senate their services are no longer needed and if necessary escort them out of the capitol and then appoint new ones, civilians, based on merit and views. Divide it up either in thirds: conservative, liberal, and moderate or 40% moderate and the liberals and conservatives at 30% each. The military would then act as an oversight board as to feasibility, long term consequences and financial implications. They would have their own panel of experts for information. Experts that would be subject to dire consequences if they are being political and willfully give a false answer. There is a difference between honest mistakes or errors and purposely corrupt ones. There are civilian review boards for the police and military and the civilians need to be monitored as much, if not more. Nothing like a General Patton dropping by to see a senator while tapping his riding crop against his leg and asking how they were coming on whatever issue they were working on. It would get a great deal accomplished in a short time and much less squabbling. You would think their lives depended on successfully and honestly doing their job. Gee.
As stated in the Intro Essay they should be appointed for life and leave in one of several ways:
1) They become senile or incompetent and are replaced, or
2) they get to an age where they want to retire, or
3) they resign due to health reasons, they feel there are other things that need their attention or they feel incapable of doing the job. If they leave under honorable conditions they get a good pension and benefit package. The other option, last on the list,
4), is they are caught with their fingers in the till accepting a bribe or some other dishonest act and are tried for violation of public trust, which is a capital offense, and if found guilty after the funeral a replacement is appointed. (Also the briber gets the same penalty as the “bribee”).
There should be several younger protégés in training under the senator and the military review board would pick the best qualified much as military and paramilitary oral boards do now for promotions within their ranks. The military is our only hope, our only chance for people that have a sense of honor to oversee the nation. If they fail we will be certainly no worse off, probably better because only the senate will be affected and the transition would be a peaceful one as Hayek spoke of, than we will be under the present system that is now unfolding. We are going to end up with a dictatorship and there is no way to prevent it. To any with enough wherewithal to read about, watch or listen to current events it should be obvious a civilian run government with no oversight except the average voter is not filling the bill. It is now run by ignorant, dishonest, greedy, incompetent, and outright stupid people that could care less about the economy or the safety, security, stability of the nation or the world. Their only concern is being reelected and accumulating as much wealth as possible. They do not own the government they are merely temporary managers. An owner of a business would be concerned for the future of the business and be frugal whereas a manager, if he knew he only had a certain length of time to be manager, would have no reason to be frugal. He would want to get as much personal gain for him/her self and his/her “friends” as possible in the time he is allotted. He would have no incentive to be concerned for the future. Now it consists of a government and world run by dishonest and greedy corporatists, lawyers, lobbyists, and special interests staffed by demagogues elected by irrational and emotional oratory.
H.L. Mencken said of demagogues “The demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots.” Again if military oversight fails we are no worse off than under corporate or warlord rule which on our present course is inevitable. The military has a better reputation among the citizens. In his book The Greater Generation-In Defense of the Baby Boom Legacy Leonard Steinhorn said:” The military has in fact become one of our most egalitarian institutions, ironically so, providing advancement opportunities for minorities and training officers to detect unconscious bias against women and blacks.” Further on in the book he went on to say “Even more compelling is how the diversity norm has transformed the military, which was riddled with racial problems in the Vietnam era but now may be the most racially progressive institution in the country, embracing diversity rather than just dealing with-it.” And he also said, “In the Army, for example, promotion decisions are scoured for evidence of hidden or unconscious discrimination, and officers up for advancement are evaluated on how well they’ve created a bias free climate.”
The military is not perfect as any organization of imperfect humans could never be. I am surprised that the military did not take a more outspoken role in advocating more spending towards space (unless there is a program the public is not aware of). When something such as that occurs one must boil it down to one of two reasons: corruption or incompetence. I am relatively certain the military brass is not incompetent. That leaves corruption but it would primarily be by civilians that basically give the military orders. The kind of corruption that existed was the type nourished and encouraged by our present systems of economics and politics. A senator will push for a lucrative defense contract in his or her home state for a battleship, a submarine, an aircraft or whatever even if the military does not want it or has need of something else more.
The military leadership should be able to see that the course of our state has been determined by politics and personal agenda economics not the three pillars of military purpose: safety, security and stability of the state. The disasters in every war we have fought since WWII should verify to all but the most dense that civilians running a war is like a butcher in a slaughterhouse claiming to be a surgeon. Some of the wars such as Vietnam and Iraq we should never have gotten into but once in should have been run by the military mind. The needless waste of resources, finances and of course human life is appalling. Other wars such as Afghanistan should have been over years ago. The present disasters are the result of the military being hobbled by the personal agendas of 535 corrupt and incompetent legislators (with a few exceptions I am sure; at least I would like to think) and the corrupt private sector that do not see death and destruction but corporate profit. Iraq and Libya are two present examples of the civilians in control not listening to military advice. (Actually all our wars since WW2 have been the result of botched civilian involvement).
If the military allows business to control them rather them controlling business by careful monitoring and swift action on those that are corrupt they will be reduced to security guards checking IDs at factories and private mercenary armies in corporate employ would do the security. The safety would be for their employers not civilians. Anyone that knows the history of labor disputes of the late 1800s knows the private sector security forces outnumbered the military. A look at conservative posts on Facebook and other social sites show that government is bad and business is good. Considering businesses packed up and deserted this nation for China at the first opportunity shows that the only thing important to them is profit not safety, security and stability or patriotism to any one nation. They have no social responsibility or ethics and would betray you in a heartbeat. The military calls this treason but to corporations this is just good business. How many security secrets went overseas with them when they packed up and shipped their offices which included the documents in them? To indelicately phrase it they would wipe with the Constitution, the American flag and pages of the Bible if it meant a larger bottom line.
In the westward expansion of America the people and the private sector businesses were protected by US Calvary. Government soldiers paid for by the citizens. Sailing vessels were protected by government ships. Privateers were for all practical purposes pirates that had been “deputized” by a government to capture or destroy ships of the enemy nation. Private armies are mercenaries and do not have the moral or ethical standards towards the civilian population a Western government military would have. They attract people who are for the most part anti-social and are not affected by cruelty as long as there are no adverse consequences for them personally.
Our society has become too large, too complicated and too populous to function with a colonial style or size government. When it is simpler and smaller there is less to go wrong and it is easier to correct when it does. The more complicated something is, including society, the harder it is to correct so it must be held under greater control. Chaos or mob rule does not have the necessary self-restraint within the individual members to maintain control. A single engine propeller airplane is relatively simple compared to a multi-engine jetliner. In the smaller plane it is easier for something to go wrong and when something does go wrong it is easier to correct. A jetliner has so much modern technology and so many backup systems and backup systems to the backup systems there is less of a chance of something going wrong but when it does it is harder to correct and unfortunately sometimes impossible.
Although war has been the military’s main function throughout history it has been the more cautious entity unless under foolish or reckless leadership which does occasionally happen. In truth the private sector is cautious regarding money but not so much with regards to life so long as it is not theirs or their own. To the corporate capitalist mind in an aircraft disaster their major concern is the liability, the loss of the plane and the impact on business. Their attitude is the plane costs 200 million dollars you can always get passengers and a crew. They will try to place the military in their pockets and pave the way for their economic control regardless of the death and destruction. The military is responsible for the safety of the society it belongs to. While science and economics may be complicated in abstract and mathematical terms the military, while guided by ridged but basic rules, has a more complicated task as it deals with human nature. Human nature is probably the most complex thing in the universe. One wonders what will happen in the future when war is waged with “droid” armies. A scientist will often make decisions that are unwise from a social or safety standpoint. Sending a probe into space with “directions” to earth is not something the military would do. We have no way of knowing if what we will meet there will be friendly. Even the renowned astronomer Stephen Hawking made a statement to that effect. History has shown that on our own planet with our own species sooner or later conflict occurs.
I think a collapse of the US and the West is inevitable unless swift action is taken. We have lost too much industry and too many have abused our freedoms too much for too long. Domestically we don’t have the resources or the manufacturing capability and in the acquiring of resources throughout the globe the Chinese have beat us to the punch. Their industry has much Western influence and talent in it from the business leaders that deserted the US. American industry could see the writing on the wall in the 60s and in the late 80s began deserting us in mass like rats from a sinking ship. (It actually started earlier but it went from a trickle to a torrent in the 80s.) Business succeeds on the ability to read the future and they foresaw the social turmoil we would be enmeshed in now. Profit trumped patriotism and they took the business course of action and bailed. If this planet reaches the ability of interplanetary and interstellar flight business will desert the planet like rats from a ship. Why would they want to stay on a dying polluted planet that they environmentally destroyed populated by the ignorant masses that allowed them to do so? I hope most of you are not so naive as to think they would take you along. Ask yourself of what value you would be to them.
We in America have too long thought of ourselves as invincible much like a teenager thinks of themselves as immortal. Supporters of both sides feel there is a quick easy solution to complex questions. One side blames Bush and the other blames Obama. The left blames the right, the right blames the left. The Democrats blame the Republicans and the Republicans blame the Democrats. Actually our present problems and demise can be traced to just before our rise to world power and with our intervention in World War One. That was an ideological war to “make the world safe for democracy” as the battle cry went. The President, Woodrow Wilson, also said that to open other nations to our business interests he would use military force if necessary. Our shortsightedness in foresight is very apparent but our sometimes lack of accurate hindsight is more disturbing. We often don’t even know what we should have done and have too many personal agendas clouding an accurate picture. Our intervention in WWI tipped the balance in favor of the West. It was generally believed that neither side could actually win but would continually beat each other to bloody pulps and finally stop fighting leaving the borders and government structures much as they were at the beginning. Our added support allowed England and France to win and force changes in government types and borders throughout Europe and the Middle East and placed an impossible burden of reparations on Germany. It was apparent that the private business interests had control of the government back then. It was logical to believe private interests controlled our government long before then as the building of the Trans-Continental Railroad had blatant corruption between the railroad barons and the US government which was a precursor of what was to come. (The West forced a revision of borders in the Middle East that is causing a large percentage of our present Mid East problems. Compare the borders now with those pre WWI.)
The objectives of the military goals are the safety, security and stability of the nation. It will tackle problems that the civilians will not and/or cannot. The reason the civilian government can’t or won’t is because these problems are not in the interest of the private sector and their shills, the elected officials, to solve. The two reasons for that are: 1) the average voter has little or no understanding of the issues and 2) democracy thrives on social and economic problems until the system finally collapses from undermining itself. It keeps the citizenry upset and in fear and an upset, fearful citizenry is easy to fool and manipulate and it is also very profitable to do so. Look how many people have become rich selling fear. A couple of areas the military is making progress in that the elected government is not are climate change and renewable energy. Many of the elected officials and their constituents deny they are problems. The Army Energy Program has on its website the following:
“The Army’s vision is to appropriately manage our natural resources with a goal of net zero installations. Today the Army faces significant threats to our energy and water supply requirements both home and abroad. Addressing energy security and sustainability is operationally necessary, financially prudent, and essential to mission accomplishment. The goal is to manage our installations not only on a net zero energy basis, but net zero water and waste as well. We are creating a culture that recognizes the value of sustainability measured not just in terms of financial benefits, but benefits to maintaining mission capability, quality of life, relationships with local communities, and the preservation of options for the Army’s future.”
The military also recognizes the advantage of the private sector as should anyone that can reason. In the quest for a viable and sustainable future the private sector will play a large role as governments have been too much influenced by the irrational, emotional and suicidal mob that has always, after gaining control of the driver’s seat, tipped over the cart of progress all throughout history. The corporate culture mentality, by whatever name it has been given throughout history, is an aristocratic oligarchy and has always run the cart into the ground in the name of personal gain with a disdain for, in their minds, the disgusting peasants. While the ethics and honor of the private sector is for the most part dubious at best their ability to run businesses is not in question. They just need strong oversight by those with honor and ethics. Same principle as a security camera in a liquor store. Acknowledging the role of the private sector in the same paragraph the article goes on to say:
“The Army is leveraging available authorities for private sector investment, including using power purchase agreements (PPA), enhanced-use leases (EUL), energy savings performance contracts (ESPC), and utilities energy service contracts (UESCs) as tools to achieve these objectives. The Army must invest in its installations and improve efficiency in energy, water and waste for the benefit of our current and future missions.”
Look up the site: Army Energy Program Army Vision For Net Zero. I had originally added a link but it has been disconnected but the information can be found under the aforementioned searches. This is another link that seems to connect for now.
An informative article on it can be found on the Think Progress website in the Climate Progress section. The article by Ryan Koronowski titled: “Why The U.S. Military Is Pursuing Energy Efficiency, Renewables And Net-Zero Energy Initiatives” begins with the following:
“The Commander of the U.S. Pacific Command has identified climate change as the most likely threat to the Pacific region, as Think Progress reported: ‘Admiral Samuel J. Locklear III, commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, gave a striking answer when asked about the greatest threat the region faces: climate change.’”
“Locklear told the Boston Globe, the changing climate ‘is probably the most likely thing that is going to happen . . . that will cripple the security environment, probably more likely than the other scenarios we all often talk about.’ Among the issues that the Admiral cited as most concerning was the possibility that rising sea-levels result in the disappearance of whole countries, producing influxes of ‘climate refugees‘ in neighboring states.”
September 3, 2011 an Associated Press article “Poll: Americans trust military, but not Congress” by Jennifer Agiesta and Laurie Kellman states: “WASHINGTON (AP) — Congress may be in the doghouse with the American public, but a new poll suggests that the broader government — especially the military — gets high marks for keeping the nation safe and secure.”
“The military in particular earns the most respect of the survey, with 54 percent deeply confident in the institution.”
“In the AP-NCC poll, just 8 percent say they are confident in the people running Congress, 10 percent in the federal government. Majorities of Republicans and Democrats lack confidence in congressional leaders, with politically crucial independents showing the sharpest increase in distrust of Congress over the past year. That’s up from 49 percent in 2010 to 62 percent now.”
With the exception of the Senate the government would be as it is now. The President would still be elected. Congressmen and women would still be elected by the people with majority vote. The members of Congress would be expected to spend more time in their districts with the people they are responsible for rather than jet setting around the world or at expensive restaurants with lobbyists. The military would only concern itself with the Senate. The Senate is where international affairs are decided and international affairs are the military’s concern. The Department of Homeland Security, FBI, CIA, TSA, NSA, etc. would work closely with the Pentagon as their concerns are internal security problems often from external sources. Internal security would be the job of the federal, state and local law enforcement agencies which are paramilitary in nature. As far as weapons in the hands of private citizens the military would not be overly concerned as the problems caused by weapons owned by private citizens are usually used in crimes not sedition. Crimes are handled by the law enforcement arms of government. The vast majority of sheriffs in America and many, many chiefs of police are in favor of the Second Amendment. The police chiefs that favor gun control are usually lap dogs of the anti-gun crowd and are usually, but not always, in charge of law enforcement in cities run by the anti-gun crowd. In a properly run state violent criminals would still commit violent crimes but the difference is they would only do it once. There would be no reason for sedition and if it did occur it would, of course, necessarily be put down by whatever means necessasry. The reason for the type of government that would exist would be to prevent anarchy and chaos. It is to the military’s advantage to have a population of citizens that are comfortable around guns. Carl Sagan said it best when he said: “Good hunters are also good warriors”.
The problem most authoritarian regimes have is the transition of power. The Communists have done a good job at peaceful transitions. The Catholic Church also, although different in nature is still an authoritarian organization. It can also be looked at as an example of peaceful power transition. The transition of power would only affect the Senate. As previously mentioned the Presidency, the Congress and the state and local representatives would still be elected so there would be no problem as transition is not really applicable. With the Senate it would be more like hiring suitable managers that have authority over the business and international affairs. They can be replaced but those doing the replacing need to be extremely knowledgeable something the average person that votes is not. The complexities of dealing with international (external) issues are far different than those of national (internal) issues. If the security of the nation as a whole is guaranteed the internal issues can be resolved much easier and much more realistically. We do not have a choice unless you consider poverty, mass starvation and pandemics desirable choices.
Calling for a semi-authoritarian state is a long way from what most of us have been taught and believe. It is far removed from what I was taught and believe in. Why did I change? Why do I care? What is my motivation for advocating a change? At my age I certainly have nothing to gain. I am retired and fairly comfortable. My health is “hanging in there” and holding its’ own (sort of). My concern comes from numerous trips across and throughout America over the decades and the interactions with unknown numbers of people from various cultures, lifestyles, economic stations, occupations, religions, races and both sexes. It also comes from a lot of following current events, reading and thinking. Most people in my age group eventually got married and settled into their own little bubble world. I did not. My time was spent reading and conversing with the people I mentioned. It also comes from the world I saw growing up in a very wealthy area of the world at a time of rapid change, (the 60s and 70s in Southern California). A world that I have come to accept as normal and desirable. A world of plenty and full of potential. A world that the rest of the world finds desirable as is evidenced by so much of the world wanting to emulate it and participate in the advantages and adopting its culture. That is part of our problems in parts of the world. I understand those that are at odds with our culture. I can understand their concern, their fear, and their anger because our ways threaten theirs. To them we take on the role depicted by Satan in the Bible. We take a closed society and give them knowledge of an outside world. The knowledge of this outside world and its ways and material objects endangers theirs. We also have not always been as benevolent as we have been told we were. The world I grew up in was not a perfect world but it was attempting to solve the problems that plagued it. A world now threatened by too much-too soon rapidly becoming too little-too late, the folks in their own little bubble worlds erroneously thinking all was well and thinking the folks in charge were capable, ethical and honest. If us “baby boomers” have to take some responsibility for the present disastrous state the nation is in it has to be naivety. We were the good guys and it just never occurred to us those political and business leaders would so blatantly lie to us. It started becoming apparent during the late 60s but we handled it wrong and the millennials of today are handling it in the same way except to more extremes..
I sadly realize most of the numerous people I interacted with are in great danger in a collapse. As I looked into the faces of clerks while making change for me or waitresses bringing me a meal or people near me in airports, stores, bus stations, airports and so on I realize most are alive only because of, for the most part, a stable society. What about the children, the elderly and those with special needs? They are particularly vulnerable as well as the people trying to protect them. In a collapse most will perish or be living in such terrible conditions that survival may be worse than the alternative. Most do not have the mindset or ability to survive and protect those they care about. It requires a hardness and level of education or intelligence that most do not have. The increasing population, the dwindling resources, the environmental degradation, the economic decline and an overloaded system financed by unsustainable activities and by a crushing level of debt are all on a collision course and they will collide at the same time. Unless we peacefully and non-violently go to some form of semi-authoritarian state(s) globally and work within the framework of an international organization the future is worse than bleak. The UN is about all but useless but as with a vehicle that is all you have and can’t afford another you have to keep it running even if it means rebuilding it.
Both the Democrat and the Republican visions are fatally flawed and are not sustainable. Also the Libertarian Party and Green Party are both flawed. None offer realistic sustainable solutions and often don’t even identify the problems. All have personal agendas that run counter to logic, reality and human nature.
What can be considered a second part or a follow up to this essay I am going to post some of the many comments I read on Facebook regarding the police. It will be a reality check about the deterioration the US is experiencing in safety, security and stability. They will verify the fears of many that we are descending into lawlessness and then anarchy. Much is being made over the militarization of the police but a read of the comments will show it is the lesser of the evils. It will protect the majority of law abiding citizens during upheavals from external forces creating problems in the US and it will protect the majority from the criminals that are increasing in numbers. It will also be better able to protect the citizenry during natural disasters. The majority of the anti-police crowd are criminals with criminal records or duped by a vision that runs contrary to human nature. When you read the posts make a determination which side you are on when the old proverbial substance hits the fan. Think of what the world would be like with them in charge and no police or authority.