Franklin D. Roosevelt, the 32nd president of the United States, has been regarded as the architect of the welfare state in America. His New Deal has been criticized by the politically right as a one-way ticket to socialism. Welfare, in their minds, has taken the drive out of the American people. Why was this supposed madman allowed to hold office to effect this change in the USA?
The Great Depression set the stage for the 1932 election. Republican Hoover campaigned on allowing market forces to rectify this economic disaster. Democrat Roosevelt campaigned on government intervention. Both sides had their opportunity to make their case to the American public. Roosevelt bested Hoover in the popular vote by 22m to 15m voters. Roosevelt trounced Hoover in the electoral college by 472 to 59. If there ever was an American president who received a mandate to govern, it was Roosevelt.
And govern he did. He used all of his deal-making skills, media skills, and authority given to his office within the American Constitution to push forward on the New Deal. In essence, he delivered on his promises to his base supporters.
If the man behind the New Deal was such a flawed character and the New Deal was such a flawed social agenda, then we should conclude that the 1932 election was a flawed process. The margin of victory was so wide that we cannot even claim the election was rigged. So it must be the democratic process itself that failed the American people.
If the welfare state is indeed so bad, the Republicans have had ample opportunity to reverse the direction of the New Deal. Two effective Republican presidents--Eisenhower and Reagan--had the mandate, popularity, and skills to reverse the social agenda of the New Deal. They did not effect this change. And there were a few less effective Republican presidents who wouldn't or couldn't reverse it as well. In other words, there hasn't been the political will to undo Roosevelt's work.
So if the New Deal and its evolution into the welfare state is so flawed and the Republicans have been stymied to reverse it, what is the problem? The answer is clearly that the American people are still electing too many Democrats into Congress who depend on welfare votes to put them into Congress.
Pay attention to that last sentence! Effective solutions are better found when the problem has been properly identified. This last sentence identifies the problem. So a logical solution would be to dismantle the Democratic Party. Here are some ideas on how to do that:
1) Put a thousand or so high ranking Democrats in jail. This will make their leadership impotent and their members scared.
2) Forbid any Democrat candidate to be printed on a ballot.
3) Shut down any media outlet with a liberal/progressive bias. This can be justified in that they are spreading lies and false ideologies.
4) Make a list. Scour the internet discussion groups to identify all citizens with a left-wing bias and put them on this list.
5) Make sure anyone on this list cannot attain a public or private sector job that pays more than $100,000 a year. Make it clear that being on this list means a life with fewer career opportunities.
6) Fire all high school teachers who are on this list. They should not be in a position to influence young people. Same for university professors.
7) If someone on this list has or starts a business, use all the regulations to make it difficult for this person to continue doing business.
Let's take our solution a step further:
The founding fathers allowed only rich, white men the right to vote. Let's go back to that principle. For sure, there will be far fewer votes for any kind of welfare state with this demographic. To minimize careerists from entering the Republican Party and later influencing it in the wrong way, let's raise the standards to get into the Party. Applicants would now have to study and pass a Republican civics test. Topics would include the evils of socialism, liberalism, and progressivism. Of course, anyone already on the list would not be allowed to apply.
If dismantling the welfare state is a high priority to creating a better society, a one-party state (with the one party being of a sound ideology) is preferable the two-party state where one of the parties can bribe voters with a welfare state.
AREN'T ALL THESE SUGGESTIONS SO COMMUNIST?
These suggestions are very typical of a communist party. Would America, the champion of modern democracy, ever evolve to this state? It seems many right-wing thinkers would prefer an oligarchy to their political leaning than today's democracy.
And to be fair, many many left-wing thinkers are so appalled that someone like Mr. Trump could become president that they too must be thinking it is time to for them to take power completely away from those who think differently. The left's version of the world would have the right's political leaders working at at the recycling plant sorting plastics.
In both such left-wing and right-wing oligarchies, the career path in politics is through the parties, but never being accountable to the general public because the public is just too foolish to make a good choice--just like in a communist society.
A one-party USA should be preferable to the current two-party America. Currently, not many Americans are satisfied with the direction their country is going. With a one-party USA, a significantly minority will be reasonably satisfied.
In my previous article on WB "Robert's Rules of Order", General Robert based his rules for non-legislative bodies on three basic principles of democracy:
1) Efficiency in reaching a decision.
2) Letting the minority voice having a fair say.
3) Abiding by the will of the majority.
Looking at these principles and seeing how they are applied to many volunteer organizations, we see how General Robert allowed us to speak our minds at these meetings, make a decision and move on. If we found ourselves in the minority; i.e., we didn't get our way at the meeting; we at least stepped out of the way to let the majority carry out its work. Sometimes we might have even helped the majority strive to attain its objective. But because we had the chance to speak, we were somewhat content that we had the opportunity to change other minds.
But for our national politics, we really don't want the majority to have its way when its way conflicts with our way. We have lost principle #3. And if we hold on to strong opinions, we do our best to shout louder and longer than our opponents, lest our opponents play this game better than we. It really doesn't matter anymore whether we won or lost with the due democratic process. Just shout anyways! So we have lost Principle #2. Even if there is free speech, is it still a societal virtue when there is no free listening?
Because we have lost #3 and #2, we have also lost Principle #1. Today's legislators are less effective in creating new legislation (or amending or rescinding old legislation) than in FDR's time. Even FDR, with all his skills and talents and connections and intuition, would be hard pressed to move America in any direction in today's political climate.
Is the USA drifting to a one-party state?