The Great American Game

As we near the frenzied end of another season of politics, I find myself interested in what is being said on both sides, but apathetic about the process in general.

The interest is driven by observing the various strategies that are employed (and not employed) by both sides and by the effects that those strategies have on the public. While I find the choices made by the campaigns interesting, I find the 'roads not taken' to be more interesting and wonder frequently why campaigns don't say this or that. A particular example was in the 2008 campaign where the McCain side failed to simply take what the people who had opposed Obama in the primaries had said about Obama and just run ads that repeated those attacks. It seemed a ready-made strategy and a particularly damning one to use the words of his own running-mate against him, or the words of his selection for Secretary-of-State against him, but the McCain campaign didn't. I don't know why.

Of equal interest is the reaction of the public-particularly individuals-to what campaigns and candidates are saying and doing. Clearly, the country is more partisan and more divided than ever with potential voters on both sides more bitter and angry than they were in the last election. So with all of that, why would I find myself subject to a sense of apathy about the electoral process?

My apathy isn't borne of fatigue and it isn't because I don't care, quite the contrary, I care quite a bit. My apathy comes from a sense that the electoral process is all just a front for what is a great 'game' of sorts. Please let me explain, for this is a conclusion that I did not reach hastily or lightly. Rather is it based on my own observation of the way political parties have operated in the past, supplemented with the published conclusions of other people and further validated by the way in which political parties continue to operate in the present.

First a quick look at the political past. After the 2000 election, a Republican occupied the White House. For the first Bush presidency, Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency, the Supreme Court was sympathetic. The Republican party could have done a lot of the things that they are campaigning on now, but they didn't. Perhaps they couldn't have done anything that wanted, but they could have done a lot. The same thing happened with Democrats in 2008, they had majorities in both houses and the presidency, and they did do some things (such as pass the health care legislation they wanted). But the Senate didn't pass a budget (they still haven't) and they haven't done all the things they are campaigning on now (Obama says he wants to lower our taxes, then why didn't he?). My point is that when one side has a greater portion of the power they don't use it the way that they say they want to. Why?

This leads to the notion that the Republican and Democratic parties actually work together to keep a monopoly on political power in this country and that they have done this for some time. During the elections and debates, they pretend to be at odds, but at the end of the day they are really on the same side-that being the side which controls the politics of this country. A particularly good example is of the 2006 election of Joe Lieberman to congress after a wealthy candidate Ned Lamont financed his own campaign and won the Democratic primary. The Democratic Party and the Republican Party worked together to re-install Lieberman and keep out Lamont-who had not proven his primary loyalty lay with the established political parties. This is detailed in the book 'You can't be President: The Outrageous Barriers to Democracy in America' by John R. Macarthur, among other things. A look at the meteoric rise of Obama will confirm that he was vetted and approved, not because of who his is, but because he showed the established parties that he will 'play the game' they way they dictate it must be played. Lastly I will tack on Ron Paul as an example of what happens to candidates who are not primarily loyal to the two-party monopoly, but have an independent will of their own. Despite finishing 2nd in many of the primary contests this year, he was virtually ignored by the media and both political parties. Time and again, results would focus on the candidates who came in 1st, 3rd and 4th, and completely skip over Ron Paul finishing second. Why? Because, as someone who expresses a degree of independence, he must be ignored-and he was-and it worked.

Finally, even if the preceding items were to be dismissed as speculative, I come to the present day to drive the point home and ask if my apathy is right, or wrong. Consider that only a year ago, the Republican field of candidates had Mike Huckabee, Tim Pawlenty, Herman Cain, Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann, Jon Huntsman Jr,, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul and Mitt Romney among still others vying for the Republican nomination. All of them were saying how critical it was that Barak Obama be defeated in the upcoming general election. One-by-one they were eliminated from the field until only Romney remained. But what about all the talk of the 'need to defeat Obama'? What happened to all of those other voices? Gingrich is a powerful speaker, as are many of the other Republicans. How come his isn't out there right now attacking Obama, how come they all aren't out there? If the election is as important as they said it was, then they should be out there campaigning-if not for Romney, then at least against Obama. But they aren't. And the same thing should have happened in 2004 with all of the other Democratic candidates who didn't get the nomination. But it didn't.

So that leads me to the inescapable conclusion that things are not as they are presented to us. It leads me to the conclusion that Newt isn't campaigning against Obama because doing so won't make him president, and beyond that narrow goal, he really doesn't care. Nor do any of the others. Nor, even for that matter, does Mitt Romney. In 2008, when he didn't get the nomination, did he go out and campaign for McCain? Nope. So, when you couple the very real actions that are going on this very day, with the other evidence of what the two-party monopoly has done in the past, it leads to the very real conclusion that-while we are expected to get riled up and treat things as vitally important-the people who are actually in office treat it as a game. They want to win, sure, but most of all, they want to keep playing the game.

View the original article here

From Slavery To Freedom - The Story Of American Blacks

In the early years of the American republic, Blacks were quite optimistic for the end of their slavery. Many legislative, judicial and constitutional initiatives helped Blacks overcome their inferior mindset and thus they started thinking themselves to be as free and equal as whites.

They drew their inspiration from American and French revolutions. They believed in self help and self determinations. They also worked side by side with whites whenever got the chance.

Approximately 91 % of the Blacks were slaves and approximately only 9% were free. Virginia had approximately 13000 free Black men but even that was also just 4% of their total population.

Between 1790-1800, they started to spread their communities by migrating to port cities like Boston, and engaging themselves in easy going jobs. They worked endlessly to help other Blacks to migrate and build their population. Laws were made to stop this migration but failed.

Likewise they grew in Philadelphia and New York City where the percentages of slaves declined from 65% to merely 6% from 1790-1800 and by the end of the next decade approximately all Blacks were free. They established themselves in various skilled jobs like carpenters, sail-makers, bakers butchers barbers and other skilled workers.

In the late 18th and early 19th century, Blacks started to grow their own communities and associations like that of mutual-aid societies, schools and churches. Few famous preachers appeared from this group like Richard Allen, John Marrant and Absalom Jones.

Initially Black's churches were controlled by white men, but later on the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ruled their independence from white men's influence. Though, white philanthropists contributed a lot towards helping and improving Black societies, but Black did not only rely on white donors and they also established themselves independently. Blacks were not allowed to vote in elections, but later Black who owned property, with minimum worth $250, was allowed to vote. After the Haitian and French revolution, Black from France were allowed to to establish trade relations with America as it was conceived to be in the best American interest, by the then American President.

Blacks also realized the importance of literature to support their cause and adopted many literacy forms to show their position in white dominated societies. Many famous writers like Absalom Jones, Richard Allen, James Forten and Prince Hall etc wrote for Blacks and were very popular. They always highlighted black's efforts in each of their writings. In the early 19th century Prince Hall made pamphlets, as it was the only available means of print media before the advent of newspaper, on the Masonry literatures and the Blacks role in it.

Later many writers adopted different ways to attain the attention of white people along with black readers. Absalom Jones and Richard Allen defended their race with their pamphlets very tactfully when different other writers tried to create interracial conflicts. Spiritual autobiographies by Jupiter Hammon and Banneker's almanacs helped blacks flourish as they became very popular within no time.

During the 1812 war between the US and Great Britain, black offered their services and later on proved themselves worthy of defending their motherland by performing various gallantry actions. Whether in the Navy or on the battlefield of Orleans, they proved themselves to be the best.

After the 1812 war, despite the above mentioned efforts, the many of the American blacks started feeling that all hopes of true freedom in America are hollow and thus movement started growing about migrating to different places like Canada, the Caribbean, and Great Britain itself or even back to Africa, a place from where they were forcefully brought during slavery. Few whites also encouraged their migration as they thought it to be good if numbers of slaves are kept within limits.

However, most of the blacks were never in favor of forced colonization and the option of going out of America. Slowly all the men who were advocating the movement of blacks in other places outside America were termed to be "Men of mistaken views" and slowly great opposition stated growing among blacks towards forced colonization.

Black men preferred to stay and fight for their rights in America than to go back to Africa. Gabriel's rebellion was one such planned and coordinated mutiny but all efforts went in vain because of bad weather.

All other rebellions and conspiracies by blacks were ruthlessly crushed; they got nothing except almost 500 blacks lost their lives in these acts, allegedly involved in conspiracies and revolt planning.

In America till then there was no freedom of expression for slaves in South as was available to the inhabitants of North. Unlike the success of the slaves of Haiti, the blacks in America were there for many many more years of the struggle against the oppression to finally get their victory and so sought after 'FREEDOM" to live their life on their own terms.

View the original article here