Addressing injustice and unfairness

QUESTION

As befits a theoretical chapter, herewith a theoretical question to think about and discuss. As you have learned from reading the chapter and whatever other materials you may have had access to, the American Revolution and the republic, which eventually came out of it, were largely modeled on the ideals and theories set forth by John Locke. What might you imagine would have been the outcomes of an American Revolution based upon the ideals of Jean-Jacques Rousseau? What rights might we have ended up with had we followed Rousseau’s ideals, and what role might the US now be playing in the world?
(Please look upon this exercise not as “pie-in-the-sky,” but rather as an exercise in applied theory. The consequences of differing ideal-sets can be dramatic and quite informative, and leads countries to very different outcomes. For an example that might come closer to Rousseau’s ideals than Locke’s, look at Sweden, or to a lesser extent any other Scandinavian country, and their ways of dealing with real world issues, policies and problems.)

The US Constitution is at present over 200 years old. It is a most interesting document, at the same time a model of brevity, and one of nebulousness as well. It has, in its time served as the starting point, and even the basis for many constitutions of other countries, more or less democratic, several of which may even have surpassed the original in various ways. While amending it is difficult at best, it has been amended some 27 times, to bring it more up to date, and fill in some things (like basic civil rights for all) that were left out of the initial document. The Constitution also contains a few things that in light of today’s understanding might be better left out (the Three-Fifths Compromise as applied to slaves, and the agreement to refrain from considering the issue of the slave trade until 1808…) It is, however, most unlikely that in any of our lifetimes, the Constitution would be rewritten or broadly updated, as such an enterprise would endanger far too many privileges conferred upon the wealthy by the document as it presently stands.
Now, on to the question itself. If, by some miracle, you were tasked to revise, rewrite or significantly alter some portion of the Constitution, and especially the Bill of Rights, to bring it in line with the present, what section would you choose to devote your energy to, how would you change it, and why? How might your changes affect the country and/or society, and who would be the most likely winners and losers on the basis of your changes?
I know that this is a very difficult question conceptually to grapple with, but I will think all the more highly of those who prove willing to wrestle with it.  Also, while the second amendment usually comes in for a lot of discussion in this forum, please keep in mind that it is far from the only amendment in the Constitution, and your instructor would really like to see at least some of you deal with some of the other amendments.

3. Should universal health care (aka, socialized medicine – to those who wish to scare Joe Sixpack half to death…) be a right, or a privilege? Most of the developed countries in the world (and even some of the less developed ones: Cuba, and Venezuela, for example) think that universal health care is a human right that should at the very least be provided to citizens and legal residents. (Check out the DVD Sicko by Michael Moore on Youtube if you are unclear about the benefits of such an understanding.)
In the U.S., on the other hand, (at least one party, and yes, I will let you guess which…) appears to consider healthcare as a privilege, which should be taken care of by for-profit organizations, to whoever can pay the associated (and often unaffordably high) costs. As a result, more than a quarter of all Americans (up until very recently) have had no health care, and lived in fear of even non-life-threatening injuries or diseases, which many simply could not pay for.  The republicans have now regained a majority in the hallowed House of Representatives, and have promised to roll back the health care improvements put in place by Obama & Co.  They also have signaled their determined interest in finally doing away with Medicare, Welfare and Social Security, which, quite obviously the very wealthy in the U.S. (the only people that really count, after all) don’t really need or want, and certainly don’t wish to pay for.  Should be fun…  (On a personal note, I will be kicking back, drinking coffee, and enjoying deeply, watching how the Tea Partiers will swallow that rather bitter pill.  Yes it may be perverse, but watching them backtrack, full speed in reverse will give me some amusement.  And watching Palin nimbly , or not, dodge the rampaging partiers on the way out should also be worth a chuckle or two, before we gird ourselves for the clean-up.)

4. By the by, should the richest country in the world return to denying to its citizens as healthy and long a life as the rest of the developed world?  Is this oh so “socialist” initiative one that endangers or enhances the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of the people of this great country.  (Oh, and by the way, even Cubans live longer on average than we Americans due to their “inferior” but free health care. Something to think about…)
Let’s keep it brief.  What in the world are we doing meddling so deeply and destructively in the Middle-East?  It isn’t really about proximity of danger (these countries are on the other end of the world from us, and probably won’t for a long time have any means of attacking us as we have them.)  There is only one country in the region, which has nuclear weapons, and we seem quite happy with that (and no I am not referring to Iran, or Iraq, neither of which have them yet, or claim to want them.)  It isn’t really about oil, either, as all other developed countries in the world are content to buy their oil on the world market, and are pretty sure that countries that have oil will be quite willing to sell it, rather than keep it bottled up underground where it will bring them no money or wealth.  We on the other hand, are happily adding billions of dollars to the cost of oil by adding war, death and destruction to the price we will have to pay any way to buy the stuff.  And it sure as heck is not about bringing “democracy” to the region.  We have done nothing to help the demonstrators in Egypt, and have turned a blind eye to the killings in Bahrain, for example (yes we do have a navy base there, but still), but we are beating the drums of war against Syria, Iran, and Libya due to their resistance to the concept.  So what gives?  Why are we there?  Might we be doing the bidding of an “ally”?  Could the tail be wagging the dog?
Think about it, and see what you come up with.  It won’t be fun, but it might be instructive.

5. Long, long ago, when I was much, much younger, but no wiser than now, my father gave me some advice. He said that in America, there are three things that one does not talk about. The three things were: politics, religion and money (more specifically, how much money one was earning…) Obviously, I paid these words of wisdom no heed, which is why I teach political science and am about one paycheck removed from homelessness. So let’s take on the political party system in the US.
Theoretically, when it comes to political parties, you have a choice. In totalitarian countries, one had (or has in the case of North Korea) only one party to choose from. Here, in the US, we have only really two. In most truly democratic countries, they have several viable parties from which to choose. If democracy is about choice, as I have often heard it is, what does that make us? One step up from totalitarianism… When we hold political debates, how many parties are invited to speak? How many parties have the millions of dollars needed to pay off the media to get their candidates names out to the public? Even if (by some miracle or disaster) 99% of the American voting public voted for a third party candidate for president, why is it that the choice for president would come down to whichever of the two (Republican or Democrat) got the majority of the 1% of the vote that went to those two parties? And how many Americans are aware that our vaunted democracy is so clearly out of alignment with what democracy is supposed to be?
The question: How would you fix it? How would you give all candidates for all public service positions, and all parties, an equal chance to stand before the people, to deliver forth their ideas and plans for the future, and allow we the people to choose which from among them to believe and to follow? How would you make our democracy one that other countries might actually consider following, rather than laugh at, or fight tooth and nail against?
(Please keep in mind that this is an exercise in free thinking, which is still guaranteed by the first amendment of the Constitution. Your instructor’s basic hypothesis is that our system is set up primarily to prevent any real change, with the power switching hands quite regularly between republicans and democrats, and nothing really fundamental ever changing. We still have huge numbers of homeless, of poor, of uninsured, of undereducated, and a proportionately small number of extremely rich people protected by the very rich and powerful leaders of both parties. This protects the corporate interests that foot the bill for this system, and benefit disproportionately from it, and we are left with the illusion of a democratic system, which obeys the general will of the voters, as long as we remain ignorant of the truth. I’m asking you to rock the boat now, while you can, if you wish to take up the challenge, because when most of you finish college and join the system, you will be rowing the boat, rather than rocking it. On the other hand, if you disagree with this hypothesis, please have at it as well, but do read the chapters in Parenti before plunging in.)

6. The U.S. has long prided itself on being a relatively democratic system, in which the voice of the people could be raised, and also one in which the representatives of the people, for the most part were elected, and could be voted in, or out at regular intervals. We have not been bashful about offering up our system as a model for other countries to follow if they were interested in promoting the legitimacy and stability of their elected governments. Perhaps surprisingly, perhaps not, fewer and fewer governments seem interested in learning from our model.
Two major problems seem to plague our electoral system. The first is our doubly indirect and hence extremely non-representative method of electing our Presidents. While many voters believe that they are choosing their President in the voting booth (since only those names appear on the ballot), they are in fact, choosing one of three slates of electors, whose names are nowhere listed on the ballot. Many other countries allow their citizens to directly elect their Presidents, which at least appears more open and honest. The second major issue, which is related to the first in several areas, is electoral fraud. While existent throughout our electoral system (think campaign finance, which many governments would call bribery…) fraud appears to be concentrated in our presidential races. Just look at the 2000 elections, in which a whole series of fraudulent activities orchestrated by the future President’s brother (Jeb Bush, who couldn’t cheat his own way in this time) as Governor of Florida and the supposedly non-partisan Secretary of State of Florida, Katherine Harris (who was a paid operative of the W for president campaign) delivered that state, and hence the presidency to W. We ended up with a selected (not elected) President, huge and continuing budget deficits, and a pre-emptive war in Iraq, from which only now we have managed to mostly pull our nuts out of the fire…
Now here is the question: Supposing that we really do want to someday be known as a truly democratic nation, which is mature enough to choose its own President, and not be stuck with a selected loser who can only win by cheating, how would you reform the system to make it what it is supposed to be and what it claims itself falsely to be today?  (Again, you needn’t confine yourself to minor cosmetic changes. One day, this whole mess of a governmental system will be dropped in your laps. Will you have the combination of imagination and courage necessary to make our system live up to its ideals, which are indeed quite lofty and worthwhile? That may be the true test of patriotism, rather than gluing flags to one’s car’s roof, and attempting to “punish” countries that disagree with our misguided policy choices…)

ANSWER

Addressing injustice and unfairness

Political injustice usually involves the violation of individual liberties, including the denial of voting rights or due process, infringements on rights to freedom of speech or religion, and inadequate protection from cruel and unusual punishment (Maiese, 2003). This normally stems from unfair procedures, and involves political systems in which some but not others are allowed to have voice and representation in the processes and decisions that affect them. In the American society and politics, unfairness is clearly observable, where candidates for public service positions and even political parties are not given equal chances to stand before the people. People do not even have the freedom to choose whomever they want, as the decision for who leads is left to the two parties that exist.

In America, where some groups are excluded from political participation, I would want to remedy violations of political rights, by promoting political inclusion and empowering subordinate groups. Public decision-making should respond to the will of the citizens, and members of the society should have the opportunity to participate in the formulation, execution, and monitoring of state policies. I would also require outside assistance for election monitoring, nation-building programs and the development of governmental infrastructure to make the political system fairer (Bonilla-Silva, 2006).

About American involvement in Syria, Iran and Libya

In my opinion, America should seize involving itself in the affairs of these countries, and should also withdraw its troops. The presence of such troops has largely destabilized the economies of these countries. Was the situation in Libya sufficiently serious to warrant humanitarian intervention? Michael Walzer, writing in the New Republic shortly after the launch of the intervention, doubts it. He argued that “a military attack of the sort now in progress is defensible only in the most extreme cases,” which is reminiscent of his claim in Just and Unjust Wars that intervention is permissible only in response to acts that “shock the moral conscience of mankind” (Pattison, 2011). Furthermore, the involvement in the oil producing countries only causes destabilization in oil prices, causing them to rise. This causes huge costs accrued by governments in buying the commodity.

Conclusion

The American constitution should be amended to impose true democracy in the political system, and to avoid the existing unfairness that favors the rich classes in the society. It should set an example to other countries that are struggling to eradicate impunity in their governance. Policies should also be made to avoid unnecessary involvement in the politics of foreign countries.

References

• Maiese, M. (2003). Distributive justice. Beyond Intractability.
• Bonilla-Silva, E. (2006). Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and the persistence of racial inequality in the United States. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
• Pattison, J. (2011). The ethics of humanitarian intervention in Libya. Ethics & International Affairs, 25(03), 271-277.
• Nagel, T., & Nagel, T. (1991). Equality and partiality (Vol. 11). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Dahl, R. A. (2003). How democratic is the American Constitution? Yale University Press.