Democracy’S Hypocrisies: Revelations of Society’S Incremental Erosions on Democracy

By J. J. Joseph

Democracys Hypocrisies

My gravitas to write Democracys Hypocrisies emanated in part from President Obamas utter adversities since procurement of the office of commander in chief, but largely due to desperate attempts by a small segment of society to displace the power of the peoples vote with that of their positions of enormous wealth. Numerous social issues are addressed, with the intent to uncover the hypocrisies, which have eroded traditional Democracy as we know it. Hopefully, the reader will, upon completion of this book, find the revelations both informative and enlightening.
In my view, it would appear that for the entire duration of his tenure in the White House, this president has been faced with the daunting task of swimming upstream in his attempts to pass anything through congress. Additionally, he has endured more dishonor, disrespect, and caricature in his capacity as president of the United States than anyone else in the history of American presidents. No other president before Mr. Obama has sustained such ridicule while holding the most powerful and noble office in the entire universe. Nonetheless, he has demonstrated exemplary qualities in the manner in which he has maintained his dignity by remaining impervious to such acrimony clearly intended to detract him away from his agenda.
There are manifestations of attempts by a small segment of society to shift the power from the peoples vote to the omnipotence of their millions. Last elections saw the most money infused into campaign funds of a few candidates on both sides of the aislebut more on the Republican end of the spectrum. More importantly, in the wake of the 2012 elections, a number of states have vamped up their efforts to disenfranchise minorities through voter suppression, allegations of voter fraud, as well as gerrymandering. This is in direct contradiction to traditional democracy, whose very fundamental principle is government of the people, by the people and for the people. Furthermore, with the recent passage of the legislation by the Supreme Court, allowing donors to endow as much as they deem necessary to their representativeswith no obligation to divulge their sources, one can only imagine how much money will be thrown into the bag in 2016. This is total hypocrisygiven that the vote should carry more weight than the dollar in a democratic society. Clearly, there have been significant erosions to traditional democracy as we know it. It is therefore my hope that power be restored back to the people through their fundamental right to vote, thus allowing them the ability to determine who is elected to public office, rather than a handful of wealthy individuals.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris US
• Release date: Jun 6, 2014
• ISBN: 9781499026009

Book preview

Copyright © 2014 by J. J. Joseph.

Library of Congress Control Number:          2014909450

ISBN:          Hardcover          978-1-4990-2601-6

                   Softcover            978-1-4990-2602-3

                   eBook                978-1-4990-2600-9

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Thinkstock are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Thinkstock.

Rev. date: 06/03/2014

To order additional copies of this book, contact:

Xlibris LLC

1-888-795-4274

www.Xlibris.com

[e-mail]

611205

11158.png

Contents

11165.png

Introduction:   Traditional Democracy

Paralyzing Filibuster

The Repercussions Of War

Future of the Tea Party

Religion and Politics

Women in the Military

The Minimum Wage Repression

Transparency and the Candidate

The Immigration Conversation

Michigan and the Auto Bailout

Cities in Peril

Income and Wealth Inequality

Mccain vs. Obama

Blacks and President Obama

Climate Change

Employer-Employee Relations

Eroding Labor Unions

The Firearm Catastrophe

Health Care / Obamacare

Same-sex Marriage

The Predicaments Of African American Males

The Influence of Money and Special Interest Groups

Unsubstantiated Allegations of Voter Fraud

Acts of Voter Suppression

Obama’s Enemies

The Truth Behind the Housing Bubble

Paul Ryan over Marco Rubio

The Marco Rubio Exposition

The Gop and Women’s Issues

The So-called Fiscal Cliff

Obama’s National Security

Romney’s 47 Percent Write-Off

Women’s Rights

The Diminishing Gop

Illegal Drugs and Society

Dishonor of the Presidency

The Education Disparity

Polarizing Polls

Large Government vs. Small Government

Race Relations in America

Is Political Advertising Losing Impact?

Winning Against All Odds

Obama’s Legacy

Why the Hypocrisy

10716.png

INTRODUCTION

10922.png

Traditional Democracy

O VER THE YEARS, there has been a concerted effort by the elite to gradually transform democracy into something else in an attempt to maintain the status quo. As we have known it, the traditional definition of democracy is such that power is placed in the hands of the masses—government by the people. The people are charged with the supreme power to formulate the government by electing noble, wise, and skilled statesmen to represent them. It is therefore incumbent upon these elected officials (in the form of elections) to engage in fixing the policies and conducting all governmental affairs on behalf of the people. Everyone in society is entitled to equal opportunity, with the same freedom of expression, as well as the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges. In layman’s terms, in the eye of the law, everyone is equal and should be given the same treatment with no special favors given to anyone over another. Additionally, no one (including kids) should be denied their rights due to heritage, culture, ethnicity, or an inability to speak the English language. The most fundamental right provided by democracy, however, is the right to vote. It is the ultimate process whereby a citizen can exercise their choice as to who is most suitable to be elected to represent them in government. And so, this right, which was provided by the Founding Fathers, should never be denied. Democracy, which derives from the Greek word demos, or people, is defined, basically, as government in which the supreme power is vested in the people. In some forms, democracy can be exercised directly by the people; in large societies, it is by the people through their elected agents. Or, in the memorable phrase of President Abraham Lincoln, democracy is government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

The constitution provides that people have the right to speak freely without government interference. In direct contrast to this entitlement, however, only certain privileged individuals enjoy the luxury of this freedom while others unfortunately meet their demise, whether miraculously or coincidentally. Pioneers of the civil rights movement, like Martin Luther King Jr., President John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, Medgar Evers, and Malcolm X, have all been silenced, arguably due to their tireless fight to bring about an end to segregation and prejudice. Martin Luther King Jr. and his family met tremendous persecutions, beaten, jailed, and even suffered demolition of his home by explosives. It would be utterly disingenuous to refrain from viewing this as totally inconsistent with the traditional definition of freedom of speech.

10726.png

PARALYZING FILIBUSTER

10927.png

H ARDLY ANY OTHER process can be as counterproductive, desensitizing and, quite frankly, obstructive to the forward mobility of a government’s decision-making process than filibuster—especially if it is used as an impediment. The definition of filibuster—often known as talking out a bill—according to Wikipedia, is ‘a type of parliamentary procedure where debate is extended, allowing one or more members to delay or entirely prevent a vote on a given proposal’. Certain politicians are notorious for filibustering and will apply the tactics to just about anything put forward by the president or any other entity, especially if the proposal being presented can potentially embellish the proposer. Typically, filibuster is utilized by a senator endeavoring to prolong or totally impede the progress of a vote on a bill, thus extending the debate on an action to be undertaken. Allowed the latitude to speak extensively on a topic of their choice until three-fifths (or 60 votes) is reached, thus bringing the debate to a close (invoking cloture), some inconsiderate senators use this leverage to exploit the concept of filibuster to the maximum.

Emanating in the early 1800s, filibuster emerged as an option for blocking a floor vote, after it was determined that the senate had no alternative mechanism in place for terminating a debate. Some senators may remain within a reasonable time frame; others may prolong the filibuster for hours and hours to ensure that passage of a piece of legislation is denied. Wikipedia states that in 1953, Senator Wayne Morse set a record by filibustering for 22 hours and 26 minutes while protesting the Tidelands Oil legislation. Senator Strom Thurmond broke this record in 1957 by filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1957 for 24 hours and 18 minutes,[10] although the bill ultimately passed.

Throughout the years, the filibuster has been frequently used and misused by obstructionists to prevent passage of a bill—oftentimes only to be antagonistic and diametrical. Some politicians would even go to the extent of unreasonably applying this paralyzing tool to just about anything put forth by their opponent. The general motivation behind willful blockage of proposed legislations appears to be a concerted effort to discredit and deny any possible acknowledgement going to the proposer. More importantly, to appease and appeal to their base, these representatives will indiscriminately filibuster a piece of legislation, despite the fact that it may have all the elements of an ideal scenario to fulfill a particular indigence. Notably, the only bills insusceptible to filibuster are the ones beneficial to those filibustering, as well as their wealthy donors. Most recently, a bill requiring additional background checks on individuals attempting to become gun owners (Universal Background Checks) was filibustered by Senate Republicans, rendering it incapable of adjudication by the house. In fact, the GOP has occluded virtually everything Mr. Obama has attempted to legislate since the inception of his tenure of a second term in the White House. According to Dpreview.com, the list below reflects some of the bills proposed by the president, which were blocked by Republicans.

• Tax on companies that ship jobs overseas

• Political ad disclosure bill

• The Small Business Jobs Act

• The Dream Act

• Repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

• Benefits for Homeless Veterans

• Affordable Health Care for America Act

• The Jobs Bill

• Wall Street Reform

• Immigration Reform

• Unemployment Extension Bill

• Fair Pay Act of 2009

It is indeed inconceivable to concede that these unconscionable House Republicans could be this insensitive to the needs of the nation. In a concerted effort to obstruct virtually everything presented by the president for passage, they seemingly would not stop at negating anything, just as long as it doesn’t adversely affect their chances for reelection.

Granted, whereas I would like to make it abundantly clear that I am in no way attempting to delegitimize or nullify filibuster, it is my sentiment, however, that its frequency should, at the very least, be circumscribed in some manner. Rather than allowing senators the latitude to use this tool infinitely, there should be some quota in place to restrict excessive usage within an annual or fiscal year. There obviously is some manifestation that filibuster in and of itself is not an egregious phenomenon if applied as a solution rather than encumbrance. Some may even be skeptical of its potential utilization by representatives on both sides of the aisle as a political scourge to negotiate concessions in exchange for voting for cloture (vote to end a debate). The fact is, filibuster appears to be a tool being indiscriminately manipulated as a blockage to any bill put forth by the opposition in an attempt to discredit its efforts. Imagine Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s unprecedented filibuster of his own proposal. According to Wikipedia, On December 6, 2012, Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Senate Minority Leader, became the first senator to filibuster his own proposal. Without giving a lengthy speech, he invoked the rules of filibuster on his bill to raise the passage threshold to 60 votes . . .

The end result of such insensitivity by our representatives can only benefit their rich donors—as opposed to the very people who voted them into office. The question therefore becomes, how can filibuster be regulated in a manner such that everyone understands its real purpose? Evidently, the concept was intended to analyze, neutralize, and justify proposals emanated from the other side to ensure fairness and equitability. However, obstructing literally every piece of legislation proposed by the opposition is contrary to what filibuster was designed to accomplish. The real hypocrisy arises when the very ones who apply the filibuster remedy to legislation which seemingly benefit the disadvantaged somehow elicit reasons to justify easy passage of bills which favor them and their affluent counterparts. Consider the challenges the president has been up against in his efforts to pass a bill requiring more stringent background checks on individuals who intend to be gun owners. It is easy to understand the reason for such oppositions to passing such a piece of legislation, given that the NRA would not dare allow passage of any law which would conceivably circumscribe or restrict their gun sales. Immigration and universal health care are experiencing the very same political headwinds from the GOP, essentially due to obvious fear of embellishing Mr. Obama’s legacy, in addition to politicking for 2014 and 2016 elections. Contrast these aforementioned repressed bills to the recently passed Reduced Flight Delay Act of 2013, which was met with absolutely no opposition in the senate. Recall that this bill was meant to exterminate flight delays which were caused by the sequester-related budget cuts. Essentially, passage of this bill would allow the FAA the liberty to allocate monies at will, to avert having to apply cuts to all departments, thus causing staff reductions among traffic controllers. The palpable reasoning behind such an unchallenged passage is the fact that it benefits the frequent (elite) fliers, including the bigwigs in Washington. Keep in mind that passage of this piece of legislation was accomplished while ignoring everyone else affected by the budget cuts. Consider this quote by Joe Weisenthal of Business Insider: The Sequester is terrible policy. But it won’t go away if the first thing the government does is address the frequent fliers of the world, leaving only the voiceless to suffer . . . At the same time the sequestration is delaying fliers . . .

It is my belief that, sooner rather than later, there will come the need for serious debate as to whether filibuster is really being applied as it was intended by our forefathers. After all, what good is a tool if it is being used as a weapon? How well is it serving the people if it has become an obstacle in the way of forward mobility? How fair and equitable is it if it is being utilized selectively and disproportionately to the benefit of a privileged few and to the detriment of an unfortunate segment of society? Only when these and many other questions are addressed will our leaders be able to come to some consensus as to whether filibuster is working for or against the masses. The question of whether the required sixty votes currently required to invoke cloture should be reduced to a more reasonable number or if filibuster in and of itself should be abolished entirely also needs some analysis; only time will tell. Consider this quote by the Huffington Post: ‘It speaks to the current level of dysfunction that longtime nonpartisan Washington observers like Ornstein are speaking out,’ said George Kohl, the senior director of the Communications Workers of America, and a member of the Fix the Senate Now coalition that favors filibuster reform. They know that what we are witnessing is not normal and threatens the basic functioning of the Senate."

10731.png

THE REPERCUSSIONS OF WAR

10931.png

I SUPPOSE AT THE end of the day when the smoke clears, the rubble and remains are discernible, and the true impact is ascertained, the question is, was it really worth the fight? Let’s be fundamentally clear about one thing. War has very little (if anything at all) to do with the welfare and benefits of citizens and is all about ego, imperialism, politics, and self-interests. This phenomenon called war can have devastating consequences on society in many facets. Some of the most prevalent means by which we are affected are emotionally, physically, psychologically, politically, fiscally, economically, socially, as well as morally. Unfortunately, the brunt of the agony and anguish is felt by the tens of thousands of sons, daughters, wives, husbands, brothers, sisters, mothers, and fathers who would never see their loved ones back alive. Given all of the catastrophes which emanate from war, oftentimes I wonder whether our political leaders explore all the possible options and ponder the ramifications prior to resorting to this essentially dreadful experience. But we would be overly naive to expect a few of these trigger-happy bellwethers to consider whether the cause of war even justifies the means.

The social damage perpetrated on families by war from time immemorial has been and continues to be enormous and can have indelibly devastating effects on families. When the heightened anticipation of welcoming a relative, friend, or loved one back home is shattered by combat mortality, it is a hard pill to swallow, much harder than death by natural causes. The entire dynamics of the family is inevitably expected to go through significant changes with respect to how they deal with this unexpected disaster. Depending on the structure of the family, the roles of the surviving members typically undergo some sort of transition with regard to certain responsibilities. It may sometimes be necessary to embark on a plan of action as to who should assume the role of the family’s financial and moral support provider. In many cases, the bereaved individuals oftentimes require professional care in order to be able to function properly in society. Additionally, it can be somewhat difficult to maintain the same level of productivity for at least some period following this traumatic experience. Therefore, potentially, a grieving individual may go through considerable changes simply due to undergoing the unthinkable of losing a dear one in combat.

The emotional, psychological, and physical impacts can be even more ruinous to the lives of