THE BLOG
06/22/2011 12:56 pm ET | Updated Aug 22, 2011

America Is in Decline, the System is Corrupt, Talk is Cheap, and We Need Real Leaders

America has historically been a moderate nation that leans slightly to the right. This model has proven to create widespread wealth, a gigantic middle class that is considered to be the upper class in most of the rest of the world, but also the most impoverished lower class within the developed world. This large middle class is starting to shrink as more people are being pushed into the lower class as the upper class is becoming exponentially wealthier.

The United States has thousands of millionaires and hundreds of billionaires and people living on the streets hopeless to find work because of the fierce competition due to large corporations shipping jobs overseas, stagnant wages, rising commodity prices, an increasing population and technological advances that replace the need for human workers. The system, as a result, is unsustainable in insuring the American philosophy: that hard work pays off.

Looking at the situation America is in, I am interested in looking at the right versus the left, looking at their flaws and strengths and to incorporate the strengths of both of those ideologies to create a new system that may help create a more social, economic and political equality, while also helping to make business and government stronger and the standard of living in this country sustainable.

This system will not be moderate, left or right, it will be something new that includes transparency and the demand for effective leadership through greater political participation, hence broadening our choices for leaders and making our leaders more accountable for accurate representation of the people.

The left is an idealistic approach that gives government more power to regulate businesses and control policy and monetary decision making. Under this model, taxpayers contribute to programs that support people who are in need of services, acting as somewhat of a safety net in case one's life turns into hell in a handbag. These programs sometimes work, but often times they turn out to be very bureaucratic and less effective than if they were privatized.

In a perfect world, there would be a market for these social programs that would allow them to profit, maybe through advertising while not having to charge the customer. Looking at the European system, which is extremely liberal, there is a large middle class and there is universal healthcare, people collect social security, the standard of living is higher than America's, but the system remains largely indebted and many think unsustainable. With a system like that where the people have to pay a much larger percentage out of their pocket, there is less of an incentive to innovate and prosper, making the wealthy much less wealthy than wealthy Americans. As a result, competition is weaker, and there is not as much choice for goods and services. In a perfect world the European Socialist system would be the system of choice, but our government is swimming in debt and can barely afford to pay off the interest on the principal, let alone provide a security blanket for everyone that needs one.

The right is a realistic approach to looking at the world. It is the belief that countries and people inherently lookout for their own best interests. It is survival of the fittest at its core. Those who work hard and accomplish great things don't have any moral obligation to giving back to those who are weaker, because those who are weaker want to be in power and control just like everyone else, so by giving to the weak, one is weakening themselves. This seems logical at an individual standpoint, but if you have 300 million Americans just looking out for themselves, cutthroat competition ensues, a select few dominate over the rest and the standard of living drops.

I don't buy the trickle down economic model. The world is so global and interconnected that those people who are at the top don't need their fellow Americans to purchase their products, or work for their company when they can provide jobs in other countries for less and sell those products overseas. These jobs that these corporations are creating in foreign countries are expanding the middle class around the world, so in a sense, this business model is good for the world. It also helps to keep the price of goods and services in America lower. That's great too, but that doesn't matter if I don't have a job and my unemployment insurance is about to be exhausted.

Perhaps the political system needs parties represented from the far left, moderate left, center, moderate right and far right. The systems would be set up so that one group on one side of the political spectrum doesn't have too much influence over which way the party is headed, for instance, far left or to the moderate left. Each part of the political spectrum would be represented. For example, the Republican Party wouldn't have to play to the constituents of the far right Tea Party if the Tea Party was an official party represented in the congressional chamber and vice versa. The far-left Socialist Party would be represented along with the Democratic Party and Independent Party. Having more choice always means more freedom and better representation.

Although our system is free, it is unorganized and too partisan for governance to be done quickly and effectively. There is way too much gridlock in Washington due to corporate lobbying and filibustering. Institutions like the Federal Reserve hold too much power over monetary issues. After all, the Federal Reserve board isn't even elected by the public, so who is going to hold these people accountable? Should we allow banks to lend to the Federal Reserve? I think not. If companies are going to be profiting off of the government, then the people should at least have the right to elect the people for whom they are profiting off of so that at least the people are represented in these make or break monetary dealings and policymaking.

There needs to be more people participating in the political system as well as more people considered for higher power positions. With technology rapidly developing, ordinary citizens who don't have the work credentials, connections, or the money should have the opportunity to run for office. There are millions of people out there with amazing ideas and capabilities, but they aren't heard because they aren't in congress or aren't a governor or don't make gazillions of dollars. After all, an ordinary person will always understand better than elitists what needs to be done to help ordinary citizens because they literally fall within that demographic and they feel the pain of the everyday injustices and the pinch of the tight budget that confines and limits their freedom to experience the many wonders of the world. The United States would be well off if it passed a law that required every citizen to vote, like Australia does. Voting can help alleviate the pain and is a right that every citizen can exercise in order to help create change and hence, freedom.

The main reason many people choose not to vote is because they think that politicians only care about getting re-elected, which is true, but what people don't understand is that if politicians do not satisfy their constituents, then we, the people, have the option to vote for someone else. That's when big institutions come into play and use their large bankroll to fund political advertising campaigns that manipulate voters to sway to the candidate of their interest. So, those people who don't vote do have a good argument for not voting, but that can be change through campaign finance reform. Institutions, corporations and unions, under the law, are considered to be an individual and therefore have the same rights as a single person when it comes to campaign contribution disclosure.

This is the biggest mistake the Supreme Court has ever made. When people and institutions do not have to disclose their political donations because of the right to privacy, when it is actually a public matter, the allowance for a corrupt political foundation is created. It makes me so furious that the people don't elect the Supreme Court Justices.

Corporate lobbying, political jockeying, lack of true patriotism and real leadership have resulted in a level of corruption that makes me feel so frustrated and stressed that blood vessels are popping out of my forehead as I write this. Change will never come from politicians, it comes from the people. America is in decline, what are you going to do about it? What are we, as a nation-family, going to do about it?