WTF Obama! This Healthcare Ain't Affordable: The Exciting News About the Financial F***ing of America!

As can be seen from my title and subtitle, from time to time I enjoy using naughty words.  Well, today I'm going to be discussing some of the naughtiest words in the current American lexicon.  Those words are Healthcare, Medical Insurance, and Obama.  But, before I get into all that 'unpleasantness' let's take a brief interlude and travel to an imaginary world where these problems don't exist.

A Brief, Imaginary Interlude...

Imagine if you will that you live in a different world, on a different earth, and in a different America.  In this America, health care isn't an issue as all people are healthy and prosperous.  They spend all the time that we normally spend worrying about medical bills doing relaxing things like watching television and lounging around the house. This counter-America is so great, and recreational activities are so 'necessary' that certain apartment and condominium complexes start to offer cable television as a free service to all their occupants.   All one need do to to receive free cable is live in their building and pay a minor 'recreation fee,' which allows them direct access to all the building's amenities.  

As can be imagined, people take great enjoyment in these amenities, and before long free cable becomes a standard expectation for all citizens renting apartments in counter-America.  Eventually all buildings offer this service to their residence.  But, unfortunately for all the apartment companies, no one is regulating the cable companies, as they are privately owned companies whose sole goal is to make larger profits for themselves.  Well, it isn't long before the cable companies start coming up with some pretty nifty packages.  Packages that include NFL Game Day, Endless Movie Stations, Pornography, On Demand Viewing and anything else you can think of.  Obviously, the more they offer the more they can charge, but no one seems to mind because as long as they are paying for their monthly 'recreation fee' the apartment complex is fronting the bill.  Years go by and this problem is never addressed.  Before long, cable companies are charging $4,000 a month for access to cable television.  It sounds crazy, but people don't care... after all, they aren't paying for it!  They get every channel they can, even ones they don't need and don't watch.

But, after a while certain people start to complain... people who don't live in apartment buildings who are being charged thousands of dollars every time they want to watch their favorite team play on Sunday.  Furthermore, apartment buildings start going bankrupt because of all the excessive television bills.  Finally people agree that something needs to be done.  Someone needs to be regulating the cable companies to stop this madness!  The government steps in and they decide that all citizens in counter-America should be able to watch TV and that people who live in apartment buildings must also pay, at least in part, to have access to cable television.  As can be expected, all the apartment renters are outraged that now they must pay double, triple, or even quadruple what they used to pay for television, as before they only had to paid a small 'recreation fee.'  If only all those non-apartment occupiers had just kept their mouth shuts and let the cable industry run reckless, charging criminal charges, and taking advantage of a flawed system.  If only...  Now, let's return to our America.

As it turns out, my wife and I don't have cable.  We aren't Amish or anything, we just decided a long time ago that the cost of a cable television bill wasn't really worth the money.  Paying over $100 a month for TV seemed ridiculous to us, so we did what many people our age are doing; we found different alternatives, like Netflix, Hulu, and stream in channels which typically cost us less than $20 a month.  We even share these services with family members to keep costs lower.

Similarly, over the past year I have been without health insurance.  I'm a young healthy guy, and I rarely go to the doctor.  I knew that with the new healthcare system starting in 2014 I wouldn't have the option to go without insurance in the future, so I decided to opt out for the year to save some extra money.  After all, if I'm not using the services, why pay a monthly premium?  Well, much to my dismay I ended up requiring a hospital visit a few months ago.  As it turned out, I wasn't sick; I was as healthy as ever, but I had developed a few kidney stones.  Because kidney stones are so painful I was immediately rushed back to a room in the local emergency room.  I was given a CT scan confirming that there were three stones logged in my kidneys, a morphine drip for the pain, and some fluids to help flush out the stones.  All in all I was in the ER for a little over an hour, I never saw or spoke with a doctor, and was released after the pain subsided.  

Seeing how this was my first visit to an ER uninsured, I was wondering what the bills would look like.  Well, let me tell you.  According to my bill the total charges for this visit were $7,668.51.  I was not given an itemized list of charges, but so far the hospital is charging me $783.35 after adjustments, and the doctor who I never actually saw or spoke with is charging me $1,595 for... well, for being in his presence, I guess. I'm told I will also be receiving a radiology bill for the scan, which I can only assume will be several thousand dollars as well.  Obviously, this is very troubling.  But, it is also very illuminating.  As a person who is normally insured, I typically had no idea what doctors and/or hospitals were charging my insurance company upon my visits.  Honestly, I didn't care... I was insured!  Wanna order some blood work? Go ahead, I'm insured.  Wanna do a CT scan? Go ahead, I'm insured.  Wanna use designer drugs that are 10 times the cost of the alternative? Why not... I'm insured.  

Even more fun is how they never asked me if I wanted scans or blood work done and at no point did they discuss the cost of these procedures, even though I told them I was uninsured and they knew I would be paying out of my own pocket for these services.  Can you imagine going to Walmart to buy school supplies for your kids and there not being any prices listed on anything!?  You just pick everything you want and then they bill you $8,000 later!  Does that sound ridiculous to anyone else?  You see, the medical industry is behaving criminally, and we as Americans not only allowed it, we created it and encouraged it!

But, now things are changing.  This criminal behavior is being called out by all those who don't have insurance, those who see what the actual charges look like and are expected to pay for these services out of their own pockets.  It is being called out by those who don't have a $25 copay or a small deductible.

This is, understandably, a very upsetting situation! But, what is perhaps even more troubling about the America we all currently live in is the people who are most upset by this fiasco are not the poor people who have had to pay these ridiculous fees in the past; No, it is instead the very people who created the problem itself, i.e. the people who have had coverage in the past and therefore allowed the medical community to bill their insurance companies criminally large charges, who are now being held responsible.

Now that everyone is seeing what the not so affordable Affordable Care Act looks like monetarily, they are upset and rightfully so!  They are correct, the fees they are expected to pay are too high and are completely unreasonable.  But, what they aren't understanding is that the reason the fees are now unreasonable is because they have allowed a private industry to take advantage of an imperfect system, and they have not only allowed it but they have encouraged it through their own behaviors and actions.

So, what's going to happen now?  Well, probably a lot of things, and it is certain that this mess won't be fixed anytime soon.  Yet, I can tell you a few things that will start happening immediately once these new plans do go into affect.  For starters, people won't go to the doctor unless they really really need to.  Once they have those high deductibles which mean those visits will be coming out of their own pockets they will start finding cheaper more creative and arguably more healthy alternatives to their own medical needs.  Got high blood pressure? Stop eating steak for every meal and start eating something green.  Anxious about the mother-in-law coming into town? Put down the Lorazepam and have a glass of wine.  Having weight issues? Go for a jog.  Injure your ankle? Put some ice on it.   Get the point?  This isn't to suggest that all medical needs are as elementary as these examples, but if we are all honest with ourselves then we know that the average American has become too dependent on the medial industry to solve their basic problems.

In short, the reason the medical industry can behave as it has in the past is because insured people didn't have to front their own bills.  Now, at least in part, they do, and now, at least in part, they will.  And, as a result, all people are going to start finding other ways to stay healthy instead of depending on the medical industry to dictate their well being.  Eventually, over time, the medical industry will have to adjust too.  If they want people to continue to pursue their services they will find a way to make their services more affordable to everyone, while still churning out a steady profit...  because if the medical industry doesn't come up with a creative solution someone else eventually will.  After all, there is no need to charge $100 for a pill that cost them nickles and dimes to manufacturer.  There is plenty of money to be had, and in the future medical profits will eventually be based on affordability not marketability, and when that day finally does arrives it will be a huge step forward.

But... yes, the current situation definitely sucks!  And it is probably going to suck for a long long time.  But, let's be careful not to blame the poor people for pointing out the problem that we, the negligently insured, have created.   If we and the medical industry had been responsible from the beginning these problems would not exist.  It's going to take time for things to work themselves out, but recognize the problem for what it is.  Don't blame others for a problem you helped create. 

Please Stop Misusing The Phrase 'Orwellian!'

Orwell's classic novel: Animal Farm

I imagine that just about everyone gets as annoyed as I do when people start having political discussions, especially when said discussions are, like most, unproductive and acerbic in tone.  The truth is when most people talk politics they resort to hyperbole.  They attempt to make their point by appealing to extremes that are both irrational and illogical. 

Honestly, I do not fashion myself as an overtly political person. I couldn’t describe or explain the ins and outs of the various processes our elected leaders work through on a daily bases.  Nor could I articulate how bills are written or passed, who is directly involved, and what the immediate implications of such changes do or do not mean. Yet, what I can do is offer a broader, philosophical explanation of the basic tenets of different political belief structures. 

Some may disagree, but my feelings are that when it comes to politics in our country… most people have lost sight of the bigger picture.  They use a lot of tag lines they’ve heard on television, they make outlandish accusations, and/or they may discuss certain ‘hot topics’ or ‘key issues,’ but they rarely address how their political position fits in the grander scheme of things. 

Sticking with poplar convention, let’s begin by exploring extremes and then work our way back to more practical discussions.  In America, people tend to talk about their political position by evoking the terms ‘right’ or ‘left.’  What they tend to mean by this  is that they lean towards a conservative position if they identify with the ‘right,’ or they lean towards a liberal position of they identify with the ‘left.’  However, the more important issue, which requires exploration, is: what does the political ‘right’ and the political ‘left’ look like on a grander, global scale, and how does that relate to the  ‘right’ and ‘left’ in America’s current political climate?

Simply put, the most extreme position one can adopt on the political ‘right’ is fascism and/or totalitarianism.  In both cases, the ruling elite are a small minority.  It may be a select group of individuals or it may be one person, such as a king or dictator, who controls everything and everyone. This is what ‘small government’ would look like at its most extreme.  Many people get confused by this.  Most modern Americans I interact with seem to think that ‘small government’ means less government.  This is not necessarily true, however.  ‘Small government’ actually means the government is ruled by a very small group of people.  It does not guarantee that the government's power and control will actually be any less; it just means that the people wielding the power and control will be fewer in number. In short, it means less people with more power. 

On the opposite end of the spectrum, the most extreme position one can adopt on the ‘left’ is communism. Unlike fascism or totalitarianism, communism’s goal is to distribute the power to as many people as possible, so no one person or group of people holds more power than others.  At its most extreme, communism’s aim would be to eradicate government altogether, as all people would have equal power and everyone would rule themselves.  Accordingly, ‘big government’ actually means a government controlled or run by a large group of diverse people… the larger and more diverse the better.  Again, this doesn’t necessarily mean that the government will have more power or less power; it just means that the power is distributed on a greater scale to a greater number of people.

These two positions represent the hyperbolic extremes that many Americans toss around in coffee shop conversations.  Not only are such comparisons extreme, they are also typically very misguided.

Since the election of President Obama and the advent of many of his policies (such as his healthcare initiative), many Americans (particularly those who identify with organizations on the ‘right,’ such as The Tea Party) have started throwing around the phrase ‘Orwellian.’  The premise of such language is grounded in the literary works of British author George Orwell.  Orwell wrote allegorical novels about the fascism that often develops out of failed socialist governments.  The nuances of this point are however often overlooked by the general public, and they will therefore require some unpacking.

For starters, it may be helpful to address where the American political system sets in the broader spectrum of political extremes.  As we all know, America is a democratic country founded on the principles that all men are created equal and that all people deserve equal rights under the ruling court of law.  America is also a capitalist country that believes in a free market economy, where all people can buy, sell, and trade goods equally regardless of race, gender, or social status.

What this means is that America is a liberal country.  Its government falls on the left end of the political spectrum, as its basic premise and underlying ideologies are founded on the supposition that power should be distributed equally to all citizens.  In short, if you are an American and you believe in democracy you are a ‘leftist’ or political liberal.

However, when Americans use such terms they typically operate from a much narrow frame of mind.  Americans are known elsewhere for being xenophobes and their concept of politics rarely moves beyond America, itself.  Accordingly, when they speak about the political ‘right’ and ‘left’ they typically do so in terms of the narrow margin that exists between the two primary political parties that exist within their own democratic government.  Yet, as noted, even the most ‘right winged’ of conservatives in America still falls on the liberal or ‘left’ end of the greater political spectrum.

Now that we’ve clarified that, let’s take a look at the writings of George Orwell so that we can explore what the phrase ‘Orwellian’ actually means.

 

George Orwell

As alluded to above, Orwell’s writings were written as allegories for the socialist government of the Soviet Union.  As a result many readers assume that the conclusions that Orwell reaches and the criticisms he raises throughout his books are reflective of socialist governments, in general. Unfortunately, this is a gross over simplification and complete misunderstanding of his texts.

Socialism is a governmental system that operates on the left end of the spectrum.  The basic concept behind socialism is that communism is a difficult governmental system to achieve when power has already been limited to certain governmental parties.  Accordingly, in a properly functioning socialist system the government, which would and should be compiled of a large body of diverse people, would distribute power to the masses as equally as possible so that equality would exist on a greater scale. 

The end goal would of course be to distribute power so well that all people are equally provided for and then the government, itself, could dissolve.  In short the goal of socialism is to eventually develop into a perfectly functioning communist government.  There is of course no guarantee that this would ever happen.  Truthfully it is unlikely that it ever would, but it is important to understand the guiding trajectory nonetheless.   

If you’ve read Orwell’s books then you will remember that the distribution of power is a central theme.  Let’s use his book Animal Farm as our example.

In Animal Farm you have a farm filled with various types of animals, all of whom are in the service of the family who runs and owes the farm.  In this allegory, the farmers represent the government in control of the masses.  The masses are of course represented by the animals.  What we have at the onset of the book is an example of a fascist system of government, which is on the far ‘right’ of the political spectrum.  In short, we have a small group of individuals (human farmers) controlling the masses (the animals) and wielding power as they so choose.

As a result of this totalitarianism, the animals become dissatisfied.  Unrest develops, and the animals revolt.  The animals decide that power should be shared by all, and therefore the farmers need to be removed from power so that the animals can distribute the power among themselves.  This is the movement away from fascism (‘right’) to socialism (‘left’).  Yet, what people seem to miss is that the story doesn’t end here.  What makes Orwell's literary world ‘Orwellian’ is his critique of ‘human’ nature (displayed in both humans and animals in Animal Farm), which is manifested through the misuse of power once it is obtained.   

Truthfully, a socialist government never develops in Animal Farm, in the same way that a socialist government never truly develops in the Soviet Union.  Instead, what you have is the hope or promise of a socialist government. While those wielding the power may refer to their government as 'socialist,' it clearly is not as power is never distributed to the masses.  It instead continues to be a fascist government because those who are given the responsibility to distribute the wealth and power never do so; they keep it for themselves.  This is clearly portrayed in Animal Farm when the pigs take power of the farm and start to behave just like the farmers.  By the time the book reaches its conclusion the pigs are no different than the farmers and the farm is in an equally miserable state.  In short, nothing has changed.  The 'government' ruling the farm has not changed... only the people (or pigs) in power have changed.  Fascism still rules supreme on Animal Farm. 

In short, the dystopian societies at the heart of Orwell’s writings are fascist governments (the extreme ‘right’), not socialist governments (the ‘left’).  It is true that the fascism found in both Orwell’s novels and in the actual Soviet Union resulted from the collapse, failure, and misuse of socialism.  This however is not necessarily the fault of socialism itself, but it is rather a very clear example of how individuals in power misuse power for their own person gain.  It could be argued that Orwell believes that socialist systems will inevitably collapse into fascism as a result of ‘human’ corruption. That is to say, it could be argued that in Orwell’s world all government officials will inevitably misuse the power they have. This seems to be the message found in Animal Farm as the pigs become as corrupt with power as did the human farmers. Nevertheless, attempting to compare the democratic government of America and its decisions to provide social programs to its citizens to the hyperbolic collapse of a socialist system, which results in the fascism of Orwell’s dystopian writings, is not only to misunderstand the political spectrum, it is also to misunderstanding the writings of Mr. Orwell.   

Now, for the sake of argumentation and clarity, if people really wanted to use the term Orwellian correctly in reference to the current administration in office, the recent scandals involving surveillance and the collection of personal data would be an excellent place to start.  Recent reports suggest that the FBI has been using surveillance drones on U.S. soil and that the NSA has been compiling 'meta-data' from people's emails and computers to track terrorism.  In such instances the government is removing people's freedoms, i.e.  the right to personal privacy, for their own agenda.  It could correctly be argued that this recent development is 'Orwellian' in nature.  But to use the term Orwellian in reference to things like socialized medicine, etc. is entirely incorrect.   

"So, What's Your Novel About..."

Now that people have gotten wind about the publication of my novel, the first question they always ask me is, “what’s it about?”  It is of course difficult to answer this question.  I wish I could say that it’s easy to sum up 300 pages of single spaced typing in a few snappy sound-bites, but it isn’t. 

Accordingly, I thought it might be of interest, and also beneficial, if I took the time to briefly address the overall scope of my novel and my intended goal when writing it.  The way I figure it, such an exercise will not only be beneficial to my potential readers, it will also be beneficial to myself, as I will have a clear, accurate, and well thought out response to direct others towards whenever they ask me about my book. So, here it is… this is what my novel is all about…

I once read that when J.R.R. Tolkien decided to write The Hobbit and The Lord of The Rings Trilogy he did so in hopes of writing a completely British mythology.  The most popular mythology in British Literature was of course the story of King Arthur.  However, what Tolkien understood was that the legends of King Arthur were primarily French in origin.  This isn’t really a surprise as the Plantagenet Dynasty that once ruled England was at its inception French.  The two countries have had a complicated, if not sordid, history together.  It is therefore difficult to say what makes Tolkien’s myth in fact more ‘British’ than the stories of Arthur and his knights, as England’s own history is so closely tied to that of France’s.  Yet, that’s a different question, for a different discussion.

Either way, the idea of creating a mythology for a particular country or people group has always resonated with me.    I have always loved folklore, fairytales, and classic myths.  I remember reading books of nursery rhymes as a child and watching the classic Ray Harryhausen movies like The Clash of The Titans and Jason and The Argonauts as an adolescent.  Even as an adult, I have shelves of books and movies on mythology and folklore. So, when I got the crazy idea to write a novel, I decided I wanted to create a truly American folktale.  I wanted to write an American myth.  Obviously this would be no simple task.  I had to ask myself what makes America, ‘America’?  What makes us who we are? Two centuries from now, what will we be remembered for? Surely, such answers would have to be at the center of my story, and a few things came to mind.

Every influential nation is remembered for its influences.  Often times these influences are based on political or military power; yet, every great nation is also remembered for its art and culture.  The Greeks are remembered for their philosophers and rhetoricians. The Romans are remembered for the great Venetian Painters of the Renaissance.  The British are remembered for their poets, playwrights, and novelists.  What is America known for?  Most simply, America is known for its vernacular music.

America is certainly a unique country, as it was founded by immigrants from various other nations.  When its future citizens landed on the shores of New York Harbor, Plymouth Rock, or even in the islands of the West Indies, they brought their own traditions and values with them.  They brought religion; they brought politics, and they brought art.  As America developed into a melting pot of various cultures, these cultures learned from one another.  They adapted, transformed, reworked, and reinvented a new culture… an American culture.  And, this is most clearly seen in the advent of American music. America’s vernacular music is its first and only original art form.  The greater influence of this art is beyond measure. Whether it’s jazz, blues, country western, rhythm and blues, rockabilly, rock and roll, pop, or even hip-hop… America’s vernacular music is a truly original contribution to the world. America will always be remembered for its music.

Accordingly, the history of American vernacular music is at the center of my folktale.  But, this isn’t just a myth about music.  As America’s music is bigger than just the music itself.  This book is also about immigrants who came to America in hopes of finding something different, if not better, from the homeland they left behind. It is a story about racial and cultural differences and the conflicts of a post slave America, at the emergence of the civil rights movement. It is about sports, as America, like the Greeks and Romans, has always celebrated and taken pride in feats of physical performance and endurance. Lastly, this story is also about religion.    

Many might not know this, but the word ‘religion’ is Latin in origin, and its literal meaning is ‘re-ligament,’ i.e. re-join, re-tie, or bring together.  Unfortunately, religion has often had the inverse effect of its desired goal, as many of the fiercest of wars and greatest of battles have been fought over religious differences.  Nevertheless, the influence and importance of religion cannot be ignored, as so many of the first immigrants from England and Europe moved to American in search of religious freedoms.   Then there are all those who didn’t come here on their own accord, such as the American slaves and their progeny.  They too brought religion.  And, regardless of their differences all people were, willingly or unwillingly, joined together with other, different people the moment they set foot on American soil.

With all that said, my book isn’t ‘preachy.’  It’s not a ‘weighty’ read.  It was written so that it could be enjoyed by people of all ages, races, and religions.  In my opinion, the best American novels are those like Huckleberry Finn or To Kill A Mockingbird.  Such books are not only truly American in their themes and approach; they also can be enjoyed by everyone.  They can be read and enjoyed by adolescents or adults, white people or black people, Christians or Atheists.  It is my hope that my book will have an equal appeal.

So, that’s what my book is about… more or less.  It’s called The Life and Times of Flannigan Smite.  Its official release date is June 15, 2013, and it will be available for purchase online, immediately.  It will also be available for order at your local bookstore in approximately 6-8 weeks from its release date.  I hope you pick up a copy, and I hope you enjoy reading it.  Spread the word, tell friends and family, write reviews… anything and everything is welcomed because, when it’s all said and done, books are written to be read.  But, books will go unread without you the readers.

Blessings,

Braden Wortz

6/9/2013

Why Both Conservatives and Liberals Are Pushing 'The Big Red Button' Of Self Destruction

The month of November is here, which means the political season is officially upon us.  By this point in time people should be sick of hearing about politics, candidates, and policies.  The last thing they should want to hear, read, or watch is yet another diatribe on political issues.  Understandable.  Let’s face it, at this point in the ‘game’ it would probably be best if everyone just kept their mouths shut and, to quote Jiminy Cricket, let their conscious be their guide.

Yet, here I am blogging on politics five days before the election.  Why would I do such a thing?  Shouldn't I take my own damn advice?!?  Rest assured, I’m not writing this blog in attempt to sway votes or to convince you, the reader, to see things my way; quite the contrary actually.  I am writing this blog to encourage you to disagree with me, with others, and with whatever you may hear, read, or watch in the America media.  Crazy? You might ask… Well, not as crazy as you might think.

The fact of the matter is the current political climate in America is certainly problematic, but not for the reasons many may assume.

In most cases, when it comes to complaining about politics it usually involves one side complaining about the other side and concluding that if those idiots could just see things their way, everything would be fine and wonderful with the country.   The truth is both sides couldn't be more wrong.

Practically speaking, the likelihood of anyone changing their political position over a heated conversation, a lively political debate, or even a well written article or book are slim.  Politics seems to be the only area where normally reasonable people falsely assume they can change someone else’s values if they just speak loudly or clearly enough.  Can you imagine if we approached the other ‘no-no’ topic of religion in the same way?  Can you imagine a devout Christian converting to Islam after reading a compelling article, or a Hindu becoming an atheist after listening to an informative radio interview.  No, that’s absurd.

The same is true of one’s political values.  People certainly change sides, from time to time, but not without much exposure, usually gradually over long periods of time, along with deep prolonged reflection.   In short, snappy sound bites ain’t gonna cut the mustard. So, why do parties place so much emphasis on commercials, advertisements, debates, personal appearances, and television news programs?

The truth is these programs do less to convince members of opposing parties and do more to convince those who already align themselves with a particular party.  Everyone likes to hear someone else affirm their own beliefs… especially if the person doing so is famous, important, educated, or attractive.  That’s just human nature.  When one hears their views being reiterated in a clear concise and articulate manor they tend to find themselves identifying with the individual who is speaking.  The importance of this point can’t be overstated.  In sum, the person is not only identifying themselves with an idea or political view; they are identifying themselves with the person who is saying these things.

Have you ever been in a foreign country?  Chances are if you have and you came across another American you felt a sense of ease, a sense of comfort, and a sense of connection with them even though they were a total stranger.   Undoubtedly, you feel connected to them because you both share a common connection as American citizens who are visiting or living in a foreign or unfamiliar territory.

People experience a similar sense of connection when they hear someone share their common beliefs.  Politicians need their voting public to feel connected to them.  After all, they are going to be making all the important decisions.  Accordingly, campaigning becomes of monumental importance; But, as already articulated, this importance has less to do with winning over the opposition and more to do with creating a false sense of connection with all their constituents.

But, my blogging digresses because the real issue I intend to address today has less to do with the similarities, or lack there of, that politicians share with their public, and it instead has to do with celebrating the differences found within the mass populace. So, let’s get back to the task at hand.

Democracy, Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism all share one common goal: to prevent Totalitarianism.  Yet, they each go about this task in very different ways, and, interestingly, they can all collapse into Totalitarianism if not carefully maintained.

The Communist works to eradicate government all together.  They aim to hand the power back to the public so that each person controls their own freedom.  That isn’t to say Communism supports individualism.  Quite the contrary.  Communism supports communities of people, working together, sharing what they have for the greater good of everyone.  Unfortunately, once governments have power, it’s very hard to take it away from them which is why Communism always runs into practical and logistical problems whenever it is attempted to be implemented.  That’s where Socialism comes in.

Socialism is the modern world’s attempt to build a bridge towards Communism.  In short, Socialism attempts to use the already established governmental system to distribute the surplus wealth and goods to other communities within the country so that all are provided for equally.  Yet, in one of life’s great ironies this has often, at least historically, back-lashed into Totalitarianism.   This is because once the government has control of all the nation's wealth they usually distribute it poorly.

In the case of Capitalism, the distribution of power is linked to the freedom of the economic market.  The basic premise is that with wealth comes power.  If everyone is given an equal playing field, i.e. an open, or free, market economy, they can acquire their own wealth through private business enterprises, etc.  As their business expands, so does their wealth, and so does their power.  But, the problem with Capitalism is that it too can quickly collapse into Totalitarianism.

From the inception of Capitalism, many were very critical.  They however were not critical of the movement in its earliest stages.  Opening a free market where all are allowed to buy and sell goods as they please certainly has many positive attributes.  We as Americans have spent the last two hundred years reaping those profits.  The problems inherent to Capitalism only emerge in its late formation.  This has come to be known as Late-Capitalism.  What theorists and critics have correctly anticipated since the inception of Capitalism is that over time certain business will gain more wealth and inevitably more power.  Once this happens, they will control the market and the economy.

Think of an avalanche.  An avalanche can begin with several small snowballs rolling down a hill.  As each individual snowball progress down the mountain side it accumulates more snow, growing bigger and stronger.  Eventually however, all the snowballs collapse into one big avalanche and everything is destroyed.

The same is true of Capitalism.  At its inception many, arguably most, people will do very well.  They will turn profits, make a healthy living, and accumulate wealth.  But eventually some businesses become bigger and stronger than others.  We now refer to these big businesses as Corporations.  Eventually, all the small independent business are subsumed under the power and force of major Corporations, and these Corporations wield all the power and, ultimately, control everything...  including both the distribution of goods and the market economy itself (which is why they get all the bailouts when the market crashes).

In America, we are just now beginning to see the early signs of Late-Capitalism.  Corporations are now controlling elections and deciding which laws get past.  Both parties in America are financed by the same interest groups.  These Corporations donate billions of dollars and rarely care who is elected… as long as their agenda is supported.

Similar to Capitalism, Democracy suffers from the same inherent flaws. We now speak of the bipartisan consensus that can be found in our democratic government.  This is usually viewed as a positive development in modern politics, suggesting that both parties in America are coming to a common ground on certain important issues.  After all, this is the ultimate goal of every politically motivated person, i.e. to convince others to share their common beliefs and values.

This is also the end game of democracy.  Let the majority win.  The bigger the majority, the bigger the win. For this reason, it makes sense that Capitalism and Democracy work so well together.  Both start out well, but both end by one dominate group dominating and controlling everyone else.  When Democracy was first implemented as a governmental system it worked well because there were as many beliefs and practices as there were people in the country.  Continuing with the avalanche metaphor used in reference to Capitalism, inevitably certain parties have become more dominate, over time, and have therefore won out.

In our modern democratic system we have only two dominate parties to choose from.  Now, even these two parties are coming to a general consensus on key issues.  This isn’t, however, the failure of Democracy; it is in actuality the result of Democracy reaching its zenith.  The dangers however are obvious. As the power balance continues to be reduced, one or two parties end up controlling everything, and like Socialism, a democratic country can quickly collapse into a Totalitarian state.

In short, there is no perfect form of government, as governmental systems are by their nature flawed.  And, every system of government will ultimately fail if left to it’s own devices.  This includes both Democracy and Capitalism.

This however does not suggest that we as American citizens should just give up and throw in the towel. If Americans really want to fight the pitfalls of their government they need to start embracing all of those who share different views than their own.  What America actually needs right now is a wider opinion base.  We need more parties who aren’t controlled by the same interest groups.  Instead of fighting and bickering over our differences of opinion in a two party system, we should be looking for more differences and celebrating and expounding upon them.  We should be welcoming new parties and new agendas.  Otherwise we are willingly handing over our freedoms and rights to one of two parties who are controlled by the same Corporate interest groups.

This might be helpful to keep in mind the next time you attempt to embark on yet another political argument... I mean 'discussion.'