To say that being competitive is part of the American DNA is like saying water is wet. Everybody engages in it, at some level, on a daily basis, whether it is in the workplace, or neighborhood, or club, or even in the home. And the drive to be #1 is constantly pounded into the psyche and virtually demanded of the entire population as they wade through all the "#1"s on a daily basis, starting with the "#1 Morning news" to the "#1 Coffee" and "#1 Breakfast Sandwich" as you write yourself a note to call the "#1 Car Dealership in the Area" to schedule a "Fastest Oil Change Ever" for your "#1 In It's Class" automobile.
And I think this extends very much into the way these Coronavirus/Covid-19 pandemic press conferences present themselves. I can't help but think there's a certain amount of jingoistic pride that runs through the media coverage. "America is World's #1 for Coronavirus/Covid-19 cases", "United States Leads the World with Covid-19 Deaths", etc., etc. Well, seeing as it is the country with the largest population that would have any semblance of integrity surrounding the numbers reported, what else would you expect, given the astonishingly tepid initial response at all levels of government? I mean, who would really believe any numbers coming out of Russia, or even China itself?
So, having the highest number of cases in the world, doesn't tell us really what's going on. That's to be expected, right? But, perhaps some numbers like "percentage of population infected", and/or "death rate per some base number", and based on these numbers, "what areas are true 'hotspots'", i.e. what geographic locations have higher infection rates than others, etc, would be more helpful. Or maybe not. It's just my opinion.
But America has always had this "top dog" mentality. It seems to lend credence to it's assumed role in the free world order as "The Leader". And even when dealing with indigenous matters, it is implied to the American public that these "concerns" are of similar importance to the rest of the world. It is under such assumptions that, by way of example, the winners of the American football, basketball and baseball championships are dubbed as "World Champions". Bit of a fucking stretch I'd say there - seeing as none of the rest of the world (save some traitorous Canadian franchises) largely gives a shit. How can you win a "World" anything when you're the only fuckers playing the game? It's like living on a deserted island in the middle of an ocean and proclaiming yourself "king" - you can do that because nobody else gives a shit!
A couple of areas where American braggadocio is probably justified are the claims of the #1 economy and the #1 military - and even on that second claim I'm sure there's foreign fanatics who would dispute that notion. Everybody wants to be rich and powerful and that's what America was as the "Leader of the Free World" - and nobody really argued.
But since the advent of the new millennium, things have changed markedly - and absolutely none for the better.
Since the tragedy of 9/11 shook America to it's foundation, there was an initial slow downward eddy pulling at America's status in the view of the world. From George Bush's ineptitude in the immediate aftermath, through the racially motivated undertones of the Obama administrations, there were signs of cracks in the American cape of invincibility. And that eddy turned into a vortex with the arrival of a real estate salesman in the White House.
One of the huge imponderables of the young twenty first century is how, after less than Emmy consideration worthy performances on the "Apprentice" tv show (permit me here a wee digression, but how that shit was called "reality" is way beyond me. I feel a rant coming on about the misappropriation of the English language by all forms of social commentary in these times - but that is a different subject for another day) and, more astonishingly, after the "Access Hollywood" tapes emerged wherein he admitted he was a sexual pervert and misogynist, he still got elected POTUS - albeit through the back door of the Electoral College.
As I said, this erosion of America's world position has accelerated markedly with the arrival of Trump and his pond scum family (Donald jr posting memes suggesting Biden is a pedophile - and then says it was a "joke"? Who's the real joke here?) and regardless of who wins in November, the status of the United States will continue to decline.
There are many reasons why this is happening, one of which the antediluvian American political system itself. Previously, and still, much lauded - mainly by Americans themselves - this American institution of a two party only political landscape is showing all the signs of "institutional old age". It's forgetting who it represents, constantly descending into a stand off between two bickering guests in a residential home and stubbornly resisting all forms of progress.
Politics are supposed to be "of matters relating to the people", and in the "Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave", the presence of just two political parties across the legislative landscape just doesn't, in my opinion, give the American people much freedom in their choice. It's either Republican or Democrat. Them is your option, so to speak. One or the other.
Now that system has worked, for the most part, for many years when politics were actually more focused on the people. But then politics became about business first with the Reagan administration's economic policies. "Supply Side Economics", or "Reaganomics" are the terms most commonly applied to the strategies employed by the former actor, union agitator, state Governor and Democrat and his cronies in the early nineteen eighties.
I'll expand a little on my views on Reaganomics in an upcoming piece, if only because there's quite a number of conservative types tossing the terms around again and they need sorting. In Plain Man Language (IPML - just in case I use it again!), supply side economics means putting business ahead of the citizen. Even those who have had limited exposure to basic economics are familiar with the terms "supply" and "demand". Don't know why they didn't call them "sellers" and "buyers" respectively, because that's what they are. Another pair of nouns that could be similarly substituted are "business" and "consumer".
Back on point here: Reaganomics theorized that by granting significant tax breaks to the both to the consumer and to businesses, it would stimulate demand and pull the country out of the economic doldrums of the time. It is important to note here that the actual financial benefits of such policies fell disproportionately in favor of the uber rich and the captains of industry - which, in a lot of cases, were one and the same. The positive impacts were less so for the middle classes and relatively miniscule for the lower income earners.
But the seeds were sown and there was a monumental shift in the political landscape. Direct influence wielded by corporate dollars and billionaires shaped political campaigns and policies of those in power more directly and more unfettered than before. And since those days of Reaganomics, the price of entry into the bidding war for elected officials has skyrocketed. And they have been rewarded over the last approximately 40 years with successive Congressional efforts at "tax reform", which to me is synonymous with tax cuts for the rich.
And thus the importance of who was sitting in the White House became exponentially more critical to said captains of industry and the "business" of politics sprang into overdrive.
Elected officials today, at all levels, but particularly in the highest offices, are the minions of the 1%. It is the only economic bracket that can afford to play in the election game in the US, and said people are a notoriously close knit and elitist group. As such, they tend to select from within their circles, circles that are very far removed from the day to day issues facing the general American public. Do you really think they struggle to find, and pay for, day care for their offspring?
And it's important to understand what I mean by "business". I mean it in the same terms as one would use to describe manufacturing, farming, food processing, venture capitalist etc. etc. People have become "expert" in the business of "elections" specifically (as opposed to politics in general), college courses are being offered and the business of election or re-election has become a full time job for many, many people. Hence the cost of campaigns today for the top offices run into the BILLIONS of dollars, driven by a bidding war of a kind as competing ideologies engage in check book battles, with the winner(s) being suitably rewarded in some manner or other if their candidate comes out on top
And with such vast sums of money in play, those at the sharp end of "The Pyramid of Wealth" (if that's not a "thing", it is now and I copyright it!!) have an enormous amount at risk based on who holds office - at any level! But clearly, the big dollars are on who's who in Washington, with the ultimate prize of the White House tenancy.
Let me back up here a wee bit. To emphasize my point about the rewards available to corporate "sponsors", I would point to none other than Haliburton. Now, I'm not a financial guru (just a plain guru!) nor do I play the market in any heavy way, but I'm quite aware of "business" and all that entails with it's many players, and to be honest, before Bush ordered the invasion of Afghanistan, I'd never heard of Haliburton - clearly I paid no attention to the details of whomever was selected to be the "almost president"! I had no clue who Haliburton was, where they were from, or what they did, but all of a sudden, they were like the department of defense's own personal Wal-Mart. Apparently they supplied fucking everything to the US military during the initial stages of the invasion of Afghanistan and then the invasion of Iraq!
Back to where we were: Make no mistake: there are literally trillions of dollars at stake here, and so whomever gets the backing of these billions of dollars must be "trust worthy" (if I knew how to insert an emoji here, I'd put the green faced vomit one, so picture that!). In this case, "trust worthy" is cipher for "will comply".
And the aim of these financial behemoths is very clear: the more power I have, the more money I'll make. It's not complicated. Don't let some wiry little associate political science professor tell you different. Power equals Money and Money equals Power. There's nothing fancy about it.
And being elected to political office in the US is most certainly not about democracy any more.
Americans do go on about their "freedoms" a bit. Freedom of Speech, Religion, Rights to Bear Arms, Freedom of Choice, etc,. etc.. America - the Champion of Human Rights! Let's look after the people and make sure they don't get ripped off - like when a business becomes a monopoly, it's broken up because of the lack of choice to the consumer (among other reasons, I know, but poetic license affords me the latitude to "condense" certain "items", shall we say?)
Not to stray too far into the realm of economic enlightenment, but a monopoly is when one entity dominates an industry, and if there was more than one, say two, that would be an oligopoly. The difference to a consumer is in one instance, you get no choice, but in the other you do get a choice. But it's one or the other only. It's "Us" or "Them". "Red or Blue". "Right or Left". "Conservative or Liberal". This isn't a menu of choices. It's all the American voting public has to choose from. Again, it's not complicated. Don't let anyone tell you different. The objective is the same: power and money. With any discussion on politics anywhere in the world, if it doesn't come down to money and power, you've lost the plot.
Who also loses something, (a lot really), in this bi-partisan duel are the American public, who's governmental needs and wants are held hostage as each party bickers back and forth with the other. With the rewards so high for "winning" and so costly for "losing", the art of compromise in political terms has been lost.
What is needed are more viable political parties and for the purposes of our "discussion" here, it's not relevant where they stand on the political spectrum. But to create the opportunity for either of the current parties to coalesce with a third party (probably pun intended, maybe not), or a bloc of parties being eventually strong enough to hold the balance of power. Now I know that millions of political science wonks will give me (and anybody else who asks probably) a million reasons why that won't work.
But I'll bet not many of them would list the "barriers to entry" I mentioned above as one of their reasons. Any new entrant onto the political landscape will be required to invest billions upon billions with little initial hope of much return.
But I do believe that the two party system is failing the American people. But how do we change that? Well, that brings me to part deux of my prescription for democracy! I've mentioned before that politics in the US seem to be just one endless re-election cycle providing fertile ground for lobbyists and the election industry in general. Naturally, the longest campaigns add the most to the American GDP, and no matter who gets elected to the White House, practically the day after the inauguration, the re-election campaign kicks off.
These long, tedious campaigns probably are way past their useful stage. They are so seemingly ubiquitous, I would argue that otherwise rational people will just switch off and at election time will vote along the lines of the party they have nearly always voted for, and any swing towards one side or the other is often the effect of voters at the fringes of either party who get caught up in whatever is the fanciful notion of the time. So I believe what is also desperately needed is an utter and total demolition of the current campaign laws - including finance.
By limiting campaigns to, say, start on January 1 of an election year, you remove a lot of staleness, both from the messengers and from the targets. And there should be an absolute cap on how much can be spent. Each political office (right from a village mayor or council person through to POTUS) will have a set, hard cap. The laws covering what you can and can't do will be simple and understandable. And whomever the candidate is will be responsible for everyone in their campaign. And if the laws are violated, there is only one consequence: the candidate is barred from running for office again.
Harsh, I know, but, in my opinion, the abuses of the current system should not be tolerated anymore. And under these new laws, those insurmountable financial barriers of the past are removed. New parties could be established, giving the electorate more choice and upon election to office, these new parties could bring a new dynamic to Washington, introducing the art of compromise to a massively divided political........well, using the word "process" would infer some speed of movement other than the glacial pace that Congress works at now.
I think that observers of politics in the US will acknowledge that what is happening in this country today is unacceptable - from both sides. Incremental changes won't work. Changes like this will initially disrupt the economy (although in reality, only a few bucks will be removed from GDP), politicians will need to be more focused on their constituents because there are others in the field now, not just "us and them".
So, what have we done here? Well, we have proposed seminal changes to the American political landscape, opening it up to new ideas from new parties, allowing far more qualified and able individuals to proffer themselves for election than we currently have to put up with, Congress will move quicker with the ability to compromise and coalesce to get things done, and we will switch governmental processes back to focus on the electorate. It should be remembered that businesses can't vote, and there's a lot more people than businesses.
So, all in all, I think we have done a good day's work here. We should move on to solving the rest of the world's problems!
But what do I know? I'm just a Plain Man, and this is my opinion.