hopelessness begins at home, part one

Coming to a realization is defined as "the act of becoming fully aware of something as a fact". So it means that you have finally come to know something as true that has been true all along, you just hadn't... well... realized it yet. I believe that the specific phrase "coming to a realization" can also mean that you have become conscious of an idea that has long been tucked away in your brain, and has suddenly been shown the light of day, much to your own surprise. Today it was to my own surprise that I came to a new realization. It shouldn't shock me so much, because I come to new conclusions daily, with each day building on the one before. But today's was particularly amusing.

I'm going to break this up a bit, into several posts. The new blogger "beta" is extremely confusing, but now at least I can arrange my posts in the order I want them to be in, so for the first time, this will actually go: one, two three, four.

hopelessness begins at home... the official beginning:

I was watching a news clip from The Nation (a great political news magazine of which, as is the case with all magazines, I am not a subscriber, but should be) and what I saw opened my mind to a new, dim, reality. The clip was about the involvement of my generation in different politcal and social battles. The reporter visited three protests to gauge the involvement of his own generation in different issues. The subjects at hand were: the war in Iraq, a genocide in Darfur and the Sudan, and immigration. Both the Darfur protest in D.C. and the immigration rally in New York were well attended by younger generations. Although the key speaker at the Iraq war protest was a young Iraqi veteran (who was probably about 26 or 27 years old), the people in attendance were predominantly senior citizens, or people about to arrive there. The same can be said about a rally a close friend of mine attended when George Bush visited the Merchant Marine Academy here on Long Island. Their message was simple: if you care about American solders, then don't put them in harms way for no reason: stop the war in Iraq.

The absence of people my age at these events is disheartening at best, and scary in reality. The part that concerns me most is not that I am thinking this is a sign that "kids these days" dont care about the War, or who is President, or what crimes he commits. I know this is not the case. By and large, most people my age do not support the fictional "War on Terror" and are not, even the Republican ones, supportive of the Dubya or the Cheney Dick. And that is precisely what worries me. The strong convictions, but lack of involvement people my age show concerning social and political injustices and wrongdoings is the flag of hopelessness being raised above the heads of America's younger generation. They feel strongly about issues, and do take action on those they feel they can make a difference in (Immigration issues, and rallying support to end Genocide that is not being committed by the nation in which they are citizens). These are approachable subjects. But young Americans feel no political connection with their government, or their respesentatives. People my age feel very strongly about the Iraq war, oil companies freed from paying taxes, and the oil and drug industries grip on Congress and the Senate. But that is one tree that is just too big to climb. Why? Well that's where my realization comes in. I saw, very clearly, that there are two quite expansive inherant flaws that lie in the American voting system. It is these two things, and their effects, that have caused many an American, particularly young ones, to give up.

to be continued...

hopelessness begins at home, part two.

ONE: The voting system. It stinks. Not only is it corrupt from its very roots, but even the upper layers don't allow American citizens a one for one chance of their vote being counted the same as someone elses. And here's why:

The foundation of America's voting system is intrinsically flawed because such a vast amount of money is necessary to run for any political office that the positions are really only open to people who are at least fairly wealthy (who else can quit their job to galavant about running for office?) and therefore they are more likely to be disconnected from their mostly lower and middle class constituents. Furthermore, even the wealthiest of political hopefulls aren't rich enough to finance their own campaigns. Nickle and dimeing donations out of regular citizens isn't going to raise a fraction of the total dollars needed to fund a successful campaign. So where must the money come from? Two places that are really one: extremely wealthy Americans and the companies they own and/or operate. And these companies and people aren't handing over two or three million dollars (or more) with a simple, "I like you. I think you'll do a good job as ________. So here, take my money." Even a child could tell you that even a Saint would think twice about that deal. What they're really saying is, "You take this money, and then when you're _________, and some bit of legislation that will cause me some indigestion comes up, you better remember me. If you don't, next election you'll be going door to door with a tin can." Corporate donations corrupt even the most honest representatives. And who can blame them? The best of the best must, at some point, have to say, "I've gotta give a little or I'll loose it to someone else who might give a lot." It is legitimized by a "lesser-of-two-evils" mentality that has to be adapted in order to remain in any political office.

Continued in part three.

hopelessness begins at home. part three.

TWO: The voting system itself. From a flawed electoral-voting process that gives some people a full vote while basically disregarding the others, to a corporately-controlled voting process that virtually promises an inaccurate vote count, our voting system is falling to pieces beneath us.

Americans are beginning to understand that the antiquated system of electoral voting means some people have more of a say than others. And it isn't because people in Wyoming have fewer residents per electoral vote than people in New York. The problem is greater and more obvious than that. A simple analogy: Texas has 32 electoral votes (30 Congressman and two Senators which allows them 32 votes). That was a fact, so I suppose the analogy really begins here. Let's just say 49.75% of Texans cast their ballots for a Democrat candidate, and the other 50.25% go Republican. The Republican candidate gets all 32 of Texas' electoral votes. This basically means that the other 49.75% of the population of Texas might as well have not voted at all. Their votes are completely discounted. This is why a candidate can have many more votes than his opponent, but still loose the election.

There is a reason for this system, though, and it isn't a bad one. The system is in place because of a conflict of interest. Our government wanted to give the states equal power between one another to some degree. They didn't want people in the most populous states (New York, California, Connecticut, etc) the be able to exert their power over the less populous ones (South Dakota, Alabama, Iowa). The fact is that the average person in New York wants things to be very different than the average person in Alabama. The problem is that not everyone in New York or in Alabama is the same as the next guy (or girl) in New York or Alabama. A great example is Austin, Texas. I spent time there and met more liberals than I would meet at the deli on a New York morning. When I say liberal... I mean LIBERAL. The people I stayed with had a Taoist community center in their back-yard, and their next-door neighbors took me out to some posh downtown restaurant and proceeded to talk to me about how when you see an animal, you haven't chosen it... It has chosen you. The only way I would have felt as if I were in the prescence of a more liberal couple is if we were in the East Village and the "couple" consisted of two men in Gucci sunglasses. Or two women.

My point is that although this system of all or nothing electoral vote tallying was designed to keep Baptists in Alabama from being swept under by the needs and wants of gay men in California, it grossly ignores the fact that not everyone in Alabama is a bible thumping Republican. Nor are all the residents of California gay men sitting in coffee houses eating organic baby-greens with organic mango chutney salad then driving home in Priuses. I have traveled quite a bit, and I have met many extremely liberal people in states famous for their stark red status. As I mentioned earlier, Austin Texas is overflowing with people nearly drowning in leftist ideals. Birmingham, Alabama is packed with liberals. Such is the case in cities around the country. It goes the other way too. On any morning, walk into any deli on Long Island and you'll hear a surprising number of contractors talking about "killing towel-heads" and singing praises to their Comandante: the Gee Bush.

The answer, which is extremely clear but feared by politicians with a firm grip on their thrones is splitting the electoral votes fairly as the ballots are cast. This would proove to be particularly gruesome for conservatives who risk loosing votes in states that constantly go in their favor. But fair is fair. This system, which is analogous to the system of voting for members of Congress, is already in place in Maine and Nebraska, and it is the only system that guarantees both protection for less populous states' interests, as well as offering the most fairly balanced election possible. If we don't do away with the plurality voting system, people in the United States are going to begin to feel exponentially polarized as far as polotics are concerned. The divide between red and blue states will continue to grow, as will dissention within the states by members of the political minority.

Continued in part four...

hopelessness begins at home, part four.

Just as bad, or worse than, the flawed electoral voting process is the fact that our election process is becoming increasingly corporately owned and operated. It is hard enough to trust that the count is accurate when it is the Federal Government tallying the numbers. But, as it is, not only the machines that register the votes are themselves owned, operated, and even designed by private corporatons, but those very same companies are in charge of tallying the votes. We are thus guaranteed inaccuracy in our voting process. Anybody who looks at this situation, and thinks that the person who designs and finances this system is being completely objective is either ignorant, or choosing to be ignorant. Nobody, when given that kind of power, would not take advantage of it at least to some degree. I'm not saying that rigged electronic voting machines are being cranked out by the thousands. That would be too obvious. Plus, with our current all or nothing electoral voting system, they don't even need to put faulty programming in all of them. A few strategically placed machines will do the job just fine. For instance... a few machines swinging votes one way or the other placed in key positions in Ohio or Florida can guarantee a win for the chosen candidate. All you need is for the machine to take, literally, several votes cast for one guy, and simply record them for the other guy. And since Republicans in Congress have fiercly battled againsts a physical receipt after you place a vote (argued in Florida before electronic voting machines were placed in the swing state for the '04 election), there is absolutely no way to contest which person the machine... excuse me... the COMPUTER says is the winner.

A machine that uses a lever to cast a physical ballot is not tamper-proof by any means. But it does mean that a bi-partisan group of actual human beings is required to physically count the votes. This leaves more of a margin of error than using a computer, but that is counteracted very heavily by the fact that it also brings more checks and ballances into the equation. A computer can be programmed to do anything the programmer wants it to do. This includes changing, or simply deleting certain votes. Because many members of Congress don't want people to get a receipt after casting a vote at an electronic machine, a re-count after a computerized election is simply not possible. The fact of the matter is that most of these members of Congress happen to be Republicans, whether you want to admit it or not. Not to say the Dems are completely honest, but not wanting people to have proof they voted wreaks of fraud.

I truly believe that these things give Americans, particularly the younger, left-leaning generations, a feeling of extreme hopelessness. My generation, to a large degree, has lost faith in its government. We know full well that we have little to no control. Not with an unfair, corrupted voting system, and not with a corporately-funded Congress and Senate. The scary part of all this isn't just America's future loosing faith in its nation. It is detrimental to the very existence of America itself. A nation is not a tangible object. It isn't a deck of cards or an ocean that simply exists whether we want to believe in it or not. A nation is a dream that survives on the willingness of its members to continue believing in it. When people loose faith, they stop believing. When people stop believing, the nation no longer exists. Right now, America is doing what many great nations of the past have done: It is taking its own existence for granted. Americans just believe their Nation will always be there. But if a large number of Americans stop caring, it won't be.

This is the end. If you have read this first, you must go back to the post entitled "Hopelessness Begins At Home, Part One" and then work your way through consecutively until you find yourself back here. If this alone made sense to you as it is, pick up the phone book, look under "psychotherapists" and call the first one. That was not funny. I'm sorry.