The repulsive collective nightmare of self-pity and fear needs to end. As a nation we have allowed ourselves to be divided by diverse political entities interested in only one thing: power. As a nation, we, the people have run around like pathetic losers as we allow alleged leaders, who are far inferior to us, grasp power, preach, and turn themselves into medieval overlords.
Our Founding Fathers wrote, “We the people of the United States…”
It is not They the Elected Leaders, not Those Who Tax Us — It is We the People of the United States.
We the People
Not the Cabinet.
Not the House of Representatives.
Not the Senate.
Not the Vice President.
Not the President.
It is We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union...
Perhaps it is time for We the People to start taking responsibility for the mess we helped make and to take responsibility for the mess we have made of our personal finances. It would also be refreshing if we were to take responsibility for having sold our souls to the lowest interest, no payment due "until" credit cards and loans; allowing ourselves to be led like sheep to the slaughter.
It is essential for We the People to stop crying out for leaders; we the people need to step up and lead. There should be a change from "business as usual". We could start by demanding the yoke of unfair taxation with shoddy representation be lifted from our shoulders. It is imperative that we go back to the words of the Constitution, and to remember the Bill of Rights. Our elected officials are to be responsible to us — not the other way around
We the People might be advised to remember the old cliché that "freedom isn’t free" is as true today as it ever was. It is essential to remember the brave men and women who have suffered for freedom, who have given a limb (or two or three), have been hideously burned, scarred, battered, or worse. We should not be required to honor those who have fought for our freedom but should honor them automatically. We must not be so self-involved in our petty little differences and political agendas that we are blind to their needs.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Joanne Huspek
I agree. But I fear that those with the money have all the power.
2 - Dr Dreadful
Indeed, Joanne.
It was ever thus, even in the US and most certainly in Rome.
Remember who the Founding Fathers were. They weren't Bill the docker and Sid the goatherd.
3 - dee
Agreed.... I like to think we have come full circle... we again have taxation without representation... the people in Congress don't represent 90% of "we the people".... people need to stop being scared and do something.. money is a piece of paper, if it is made to be irrelevant to most people, than those with money, have no power... the system is broken and we the people need to commence a overhaul ASAP...
I love the USA, hate what some people are doing to it...
4 - El Bicho
if the alleged leaders are far inferior to us, then how is it they have figured out how the system works?
"We should not be required to honor those who have fought for our freedom but should honor them automatically."
So you require that it should automatically happen?
"the four words: The Senate and People of Rome"
"the four words--"
"six, sir"
"six words..."
5 - Bliffle
Well! This is amazing!
It appears that SJ has finally awakened to the fact that the enemy of her freedom and prosperity is not Obama and the liberals, but the bi-partisan claque of the Corporate Statists, who have no allegiance to any party or ideology.
Maybe some of the other knee-jerk anti-whatevers that infest this site will also wakeup.
We are moving towards a sortof neo-feudalism.
The Federal Government is being Privatized (in a final gigantic thrust of that aberrant notion which was so seductively sold to so many citizens willing to be deceived) to be the purse of corporations.
The federal government has been privatized to serve as tax-collectors for the big corps. Tax-collectors from the peasants, to their corporate masters.
How else to regard the latest outrage inflicted by Timothy Geithner and cohorts?
6 - roger nowosielski
"We are moving towards a sortof neo-feudalism."
Deep thought, Bliffle. New social/political relations?
And yes, SJ is doing quite well of late, both with message and style. She is to be commended.
7 - Ruvy
SJ is a little late with this article. In fact, she is a lot late. This was the article she needed to write two years ago - before the shit hit the fan. She might have has a small chance - a miniscule one, actually - to do some good.
We can't blame her too much. She did push for some kind of change anyone could believe in. She pushed for Sarah Palin while she was still preggie in Juneau.
Awright, maybe you weren't impressed by Sarah's evident nervousness and less than encyclopedic understanding of geography and world politics. But she was at least something that the sitting president of the United States isn't - honest and forthright. She had (and maybe still has) something that Obama never got to develop - honesty.
You guys in the States are close to a breaking point of some sort. I don't know what it is, but I can smell it in the air. What with the Chinese calling to replace your dollar, with your economy on the ropes, and fear sweeping your country, something is going to give soon.
America has become very much like the Jewish village of Tzachanovka, which hung by nothing. Sooner or later, nothing gives way.
8 - Dr Dreadful
Oh, no, Ruvy, you're way off.
She's 233 years late.
9 - Baritone
SJ writes with a great deal of hyperbole harkening back to a time that never really existed. As Doc notes, "the people" have never really been in power. To our founding fathers by and large "we the people" were landed white males.
Shit has always happened. There were no "good old days."
The so called Roman Republic was a step in the right direction, but was nevertheless subject to corruption and repeated murders to gain power. Also, the notion of who was actually a "citizen" of Rome was limited.
Just how "we the people" would manage to take charge without an all out revolution is beyond my imagining. That Obama, Geithner, etal are endeavoring to change the direction this country is moving is disturbing to some (Apparently ALL of those disturbed ones post here at BC,) perhaps the only way to get us out of the quagmire that has been building up for years - perhaps decades - is to dramatically alter the paradigm. We can no longer hope to pull ourselves up via business as usual.
It's scary, and they may ultimately be proven wrong. But, to continue down the same path (the one leading to, or perhaps, from the aforementioned quagmire, I'm not sure which.) we've walked along for years will not get us out of the forest. (Pick whatever metaphor you wish, I've supplied several.)
B
10 - roger nowosielski
B-man,
I'm not exactly certain what your're driving at. Direct democracy is clearly beyond the realm of possibility. It went by the wayside with the demise of the city-state (polis). Representative democracy (in effect since the 16th century I guess) had replaced it. There is still the Republic form in some extended sense. "We the people" - with or without revolution - has been largely a myth. Only extreme decentralization (with respect to political power, territory, population) can possibly resurrect the concept and make it quasi-real.
11 - Dr Dreadful
I doubt whether the US would be in the position of world economic and political dominance it enjoys today if it had remained a querulous collection of loosely affiliated states, as some of the Founders wanted. Whether that would have been a Good Thing or not is another argument.
B-tone isn't quite there with his notion of how the 18th century gentleman thought of 'the People'. To him it did mean all of the people (except slaves, of course). It was just that not all of the people could be trusted to make important decisions. It was taken for granted that the hoi-polloi knew this and would happily go along with the leadership of the gentry.
12 - roger nowosielski
Right!
At the inception, it was the landed class - the property owners. So "We The People" was relatively speaking a simple proposition. Today, it may well be an anachronism.
13 - roger nowosielski
So have we arrived, then, at the point of no return - the failure of liberal democracies?
14 - Baritone
I don't know if there is such a thing as a point of no return. Government and economies are moving targets, ever moving and changing.
As far as Obama is concerned, it is obvious that his naysayers are absolutely convinced of his emminent failure. They hate what he is doing as they see it as the end of the free market.
While I am not a socialist per se, I believe that there are certain elements of the so called "free market" deserve to die. Giving free reign to speculators and large corporations - entities that are seen as being "too big to let fail" must be brought under control. Large, multi-faceted corporate entities should be broken up into smaller, more manageable pieces.
I am not particularly a "rah-rah" cheer leader for this country. It's good, but only in a relative sense. I harbour no hesitancy in criticizing this country. I've listened to people like SJ jump down the throats of anyone who has the temerity to complain about the US and how it does its business both within and without our borders. I am not a flag waver. Nationalism can become just as divisive and ultimately dangerous as religion.
B
15 - roger nowosielski
I was addressing the political crossroads. We can hardly argue anymore that we have representation in Washington; so our form of government, whatever you want to call it - a liberal/representative democracy, a republic, whatever - is so in name only. So the argument is - it's only a matter of time before the real form, still in the making, will emerge and take hold. So just as in Rome, the Res Publica caved in and gave way to the Imperial Rome (even that eventually subdivided into East and West), likewise in the present.
So SJ's article in a way, making an appeal to "We The People," brings home the realization that we've been living a dream and that soon, very soon, we may be awaken to a world we haven't even imagined.
All along, I believed the liberal democracies would survive this crisis. I'm no longer that certain. What's "in name only" cannot persist indefinitely. Sooner or later, the bubble will burst and so will the illusion. And what will emerge, God only knows.
16 - SJ Reidhead
So Roger, we're getting along this time? I agree with you - to a point. The cynical historian in me says we've already passed through the "representative republic" stage and have passed go into the early stages of "empire".
The thing that troubles me the most about this current economic crises is the remedy and the ramifications 10 years from now. I truly fear what is going on in this country, not only from the far left, but the far right (which terrifies me even more).
We have some very nasty people in this country who have plotted and planned misc. political agendas for years, and have spent that time building very powerful lobby forces (mostly on the extreme right).
I fear we are entering into an age of "empire" and a period where the whole idea of "democracy" may be fading. I guess that's my point with this specific rant. Maybe people get the government they deserve - and the rest of us must live with the consequences.
SJR
17 - roger nowosielski
You know, SJ. I never would have thought that, but "We The People" slogan had really rang the bell for me. I'm not much into labels because they hardly mean what we want them to mean, but I do think we're entering an "imperialistic/dictatorial stage." Sure, we'll still see lip service paid to democracy and democratic institutions, but these are quickly eroding. As I said in the earlier comment, I'm coming to the realization that our form of government is "in form" only. Perhaps it's been like that for years - in fact, it has. But the present crisis is making it all the more apparent. It finally makes us see how impotent "We The People" have become.
I just hope that all the human and citizen rights we've been able to amass in the process will not disappear. But how are we to ensure that they won't? So no, SJ. I'm not very optimistic.
Roger
18 - SJ Reidhead
Okay, something is seriously wrong here. Roger and I are agreeing!
I think you are right about the "lip service" thing. I blame a portion of it to apathy, people just don't care as long as things are going well for them.
We are rapidly approaching a time where freedom is indeed an illusion. Good Republican that I am, I think we just went way overboard after 9/11.
I think we are indeed living in interesting times.
Isn't that a curse?
SJR
19 - roger nowosielski
SJ
In the political sense it is an illusion - going back how far? kind of hard to tell.
Up and until recently, it wasn't quite so in the economic sense. If you were reasonably well of - decent skill, education and profession - you have mobility and freedom of choice: Where to live, who to work for, where to send your kids to school, who your neighbors would be, and so on and so forth.
I believe even the working class enjoyed a measure of freedoms that would come with a modicum of financial independence/job security, etc. And don't forget, there were also rights - Civil Rights and so on. But those freedoms are quickly disappearing when economic freedom slips away. This is, I think, most people fail to emphasize: the extent to which all freedom (including political) is contingent on economic freedom and a measure of prosperity. Without the latter, even political freedom may well be meaningless.
So perhaps "political freedom" has been illusion for quite some time, SJ. But what had this country going, what kept people hopeful and aspiring, is the prosperity which, if not altogether shared by each and everyone alike, was always "around the corner." Well, that particular illusion is burst; and I think this is the greatest cause of disappointment.
Whether political activism (rather than apathy) could have saved America as a polity and preserve the best of its political institutions - that's rather difficult to say. I happen to think the cards were stuck against us from the get-go. We're just too big territorially and in terms of population for the Federal Government to work. But the economy and the possibility of widespread prosperity kept the political illusion going.
Well, no longer.
Roger
20 - Cindy
As I said in the earlier comment, I'm coming to the realization that our form of government is "in form" only. Perhaps it's been like that for years - in fact, it has.
I agree. I think it has.
But the present crisis is making it all the more apparent. It finally makes us see how impotent "We The People" have become.
That seems very true. Perhaps as more suffer or anticipate loss or suffering, more will come to the same realization. It may be difficult for the general population to imagine what they aren't experiencing.
There are quite a number of people who have been experiencing crisis because of the system we have for much, much longer--forever really. Now it seems there will be a leveling. Maybe most people will be forced to have the experience of seeing through the eyes of their fellow humans.
21 - handyguy
SJ, 61% of 'we the people' [us the people?] disagree with you at least in part [based on your previous 3-part 'rant'] and support the president.
I am a bit shocked to see Roger and Cindy defending this simplistic, reductionist, platitudinous article, which is more of the same with the specific liberal-bashing toned down.
It's a big, complicated country, with big, complicated problems, and neither the problems nor the solutions, nor opinions about the problems and solutions, all go in one direction. It accomplishes little to pretend they do.
It's so damn easy to say 'Woe is me, we're just like the Romans!' And so unmeaningful.
By the way, SPQR is technically three words in Latin:
Senatus Populusque Romanus
22 - Cindy
handy,
I actually haven't had a chance to read the article yet. Just voicing my opinion on those perceptions Roger noted. Which is pretty consistent with what I write all the time.
23 - roger nowosielski
You shouldn't judge her, Handy, on her previous work. This one is not a rant, and it's not fair of you to be referring to it as such. And so it goes for the reaction SJ received to those pieces; they're of no account in the present case.
I don't see her attacking the libs and defending the reps in here at all. In fact, she's very even-handed. You may call her observations simplistic - which may or may not be true; but they do seem to raise some valid questions regarding the extent to which "We The People" are truly represented anymore on the federal or the state level.
There is nothing I would like better than for that to be the case (and that SJ was dead-wrong about the questions she's posing), because no less than you I believe in the merits of freedoms which liberal democracies are supposed afford us.
And that's more important to me than Obama or Bernanke or whichever party is in power or occupies the Oval Office - because our entire way of life and future as a nation is at stake.
Therefore concerned I am and will be. And no amount of your trying to minimize it or assure me that my concern is misplaced is going to change my mind.
(Of course, how you relate to the questions SJ is raising, that's your business, so let's leave it at that!)
24 - Political Common Sense
These comments are all interesting, and bring about some thought however, it seems as though each of the posts are negative and defeating. Has everyone here given up hope for our nation, or am I missing something? It appears to me a bunch of commentators rather than folks sharing ideas.
Everyone agrees, things are bad, Bush was a fool, and Obama and Pelosi are self serving socialists. The question is; What do "We the People" in the context of the original ilusion do about it? Sit and watch, or activate in some manner or another.
25 - roger nowosielski
PCS,
If history is any guide, shit happens and it happens spontaneously.
Of one think I'm certain. It ain't going to germinate on the pages of BC.