I believe that a socialist shift within our own government as well as a capitalistic transition within the government of China is not only possible, but probable. With time, each society and their respective government will recognize, adopt and modify the beneficial characteristics of the other nation. This is by no means a new process. For hundreds of years this process has been vital to the evolution of histories' greatest nations, and it is happening now right before our eyes. For instance, CNN calls Obama's progressive tax reform as a socialist shift. Whether it is or not, there is a definite shift to the left within our own government, as seen in our recent election of both a Democratic President and Congress. China has already begun this process. The China of 2008 is very different from the China of 1949. Since the Chinese Civil War, the socialist policies of Mao Zedong have been not diminished, but capitalist characteristics have been adopted and modified to conform to 21st century economics. The failure of the 'Great Leap Forward' in agriculture, among other things, opened the way to Găigé kāifàng, the period of economic reform which placed many municipalities and heavy industries into the private sector. This reform, although capitalistic, has benefited China greatly.
As I have mentioned before, it is natural for a group of people to move, overtime, towards a moderate "center." Whenever this group strays too far from the center, there is always a tendency for a group to move back to this center through a variety of ways. May this be through means of rebellion, as with the Chinese Civil War, or elections, as with our own government, all peoples are centripetal. On the other hand, for a nation and its people to undergo a 180 degree change in government policy would be impossible. Change can only be taken in moderation, otherwise the peoples will resist in an attempt to return to the center. Due to this, the center is a moving target, a sort of pendulum. In the case of the United States, that pendulum seems to be moving to the right. When it will apex is uncertain, especially when political issues are compounded by an economic instability, and until it does reach a turning point we are likely to see many more socialist policies, much like FDR's New Deal. The same can be said for China. As our guests mentioned, a more democratic and capitalistic government is possible, especially if China stays on the path of reform they are following now.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Thursday, December 4, 2008
The Radical Middle
Abraham Lincoln once referred to our government as a "government of the people, by the people, for the people." I couldn't agree more with this statement; we are privileged as United States citizens to live in a democratic republic, a form of government where the voice of the people is, in its most perfect form, equally and fairly represented. This being said, the political party that would best serve the people would be the party that represented the voice of the majority, the party who's agenda most closely resemble the opinion of the masses. Using this logic, the far left and right would not be the best choice to lead our country. It can be safely said that the majority does not lie near the extremes; by sheer intuition one can deduce that most people, when asked individually and independently of party affiliation, are moderate and lie somewhere near the middle. If we lived in a Utopian society, 85% of the people would lie within one standard deviation, considered moderates. Unfortunately, we do not live in such a society. The popularity of the last ruling political party and their respective representatives, economic, moral, and technological issues swing the opinion of the masses, and whether the popularity is for or against a political party depends on how the majority moves. Although the ruling political party is ushered via the voice of the majority of the people, a mere 1-5% of the popular vote ever separates a normal national election. A party that was able to win by 15% or more of the popular vote would best serve the people. That is why I believe the Centrist party would be the best choice.
As I stated earlier, this party would represent somewhere near 75% of the populations opinions. The benefit would be a more direct form of political thinking; where the well being of the whole is placed before anything else. If the bill Congress was to pass would be unpopular to the average person, then it might not pass as easily as if the far left or right was the majority in congress. The special interests of the democrates or republicans, coorperate giants and federal montrosities would come second to that of "Joe the Plumber."
On the down side, the Centrist party isn't very organized. They have a hypothetical platform, and although they are a registered party, they have not gained anywheres near the amount of publicity or support that the Democrats or Republicans do. This is because we have settled into a bi-party system, and many drastic things would need to occur before this tend could be broken. Even if the Centerist party gained the support and placed a member in the oval office, our problems would not go away. The swinging pedulum between Democrat and Republican control brings about change in the government. Out with the old, in with the new. Again, the majority is a moving target. Unfortunatly, centrist party control would not bring about the same change as our current system; thier views would be too broad and moderate. The Centrist party would stagnate any political evolution. The pendulum would stop, along with many other fluxuating trends such as the economy. If that party was to then become consistently elected, either the center/majority of the people would have to change thier opinions far enough to the right or left to be considered non-centerists, or we would fall into a rut which would be difficult to pull ourselves out of.
As I stated earlier, this party would represent somewhere near 75% of the populations opinions. The benefit would be a more direct form of political thinking; where the well being of the whole is placed before anything else. If the bill Congress was to pass would be unpopular to the average person, then it might not pass as easily as if the far left or right was the majority in congress. The special interests of the democrates or republicans, coorperate giants and federal montrosities would come second to that of "Joe the Plumber."
On the down side, the Centrist party isn't very organized. They have a hypothetical platform, and although they are a registered party, they have not gained anywheres near the amount of publicity or support that the Democrats or Republicans do. This is because we have settled into a bi-party system, and many drastic things would need to occur before this tend could be broken. Even if the Centerist party gained the support and placed a member in the oval office, our problems would not go away. The swinging pedulum between Democrat and Republican control brings about change in the government. Out with the old, in with the new. Again, the majority is a moving target. Unfortunatly, centrist party control would not bring about the same change as our current system; thier views would be too broad and moderate. The Centrist party would stagnate any political evolution. The pendulum would stop, along with many other fluxuating trends such as the economy. If that party was to then become consistently elected, either the center/majority of the people would have to change thier opinions far enough to the right or left to be considered non-centerists, or we would fall into a rut which would be difficult to pull ourselves out of.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)