Casting Your Vote – Should It Be Mandatory?

Recently, President Obama weighed in on his thoughts regarding the idea of mandatory voting. On Wednesday, President Obama was speaking at a town hall meeting in Cleveland Ohio.  During his remarks, he was asked to address the issue of mitigating the proliferation and presence of money within the electoral system.  According to a report from CNN.com, the President made the following comments:

“Other countries have mandatory voting,” “It would be transformative if everybody voted — that would counteract money more than anything,” “The people who tend not to vote are young, they’re lower income, they’re skewed more heavily towards immigrant groups and minority groups,”

It seems that the President is suggesting that the issue of income equality, in addition to age and race is affecting voter turn out.  However, would mandatory voting in the United States truly address the issue of money within politics? Would such measures be in line with the America’s core values and liberty?  It is necessary to dissect the President’s argument to illuminate the issue, and you can then decide for yourself whether or not mandatory voting should be instituted. Here are a few considerations as it relates to this suggestion:

1. Mandatory voting wouldn’t necessarily eliminate or limit money within the electoral system – In April of 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States, struck down a prohibitive measure on how much money campaigns could receive during election cycles.  Essentially, last year’s ruling meant that politicians could receive an unlimited amount of money in the form of donations.  Another issue that has risen is the identity or transparency of each donor. Basically, it should be known as to who each donor is, for the sake of the politician and each voter. There isn’t a misunderstanding as it relates to money being a prevalent issue within politics.  However, forcing Americans to vote does not and would not address the unlimited use of campaign donations.  To truly reform the campaign system, there must be a cap or limitation on the amount of donations a campaign can receive.  Campaign finance laws can be traced as far back as 1890, however with the most recent ruling, now politicians have the advantage to receive donations without hesitation.  If nothing else, the presence of money at its current level will only make it more difficult to elect someone who may be of worth.

2. Forcing Americans to vote would reduce liberty and the ability to choose – America has been a country that has represented not only an active participation in the election of candidates, but also the freedom to choose.  In this case, the word “choice” means that every American has the right to decide whether or not they want to vote.  A mandatory voting policy would undermine the concept of deciding for oneself if they are willing to vote.  The possibility of candidates that are up for election which might be unsavory to the American public, would actually prove to be more of a force fed measure.  As a result, it may mean that Americans are forced to choose from a pool of candidates that do not line up with their core values. If Americans feel that none of the candidates are worth voting for, then an option not to vote can fall in line with the freedom to choose.

3. To enact a mandatory voting system would be the antithesis to America’s core values –  In the Declaration of Independence there are key words which can apply to the preservation of liberty and the avoidance of a larger influence of government.  The following words were written by Thomas Jefferson in the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

The portion to focus on, involves the right of Americans to invoke change within their governmental structure.  Forcing citizens to vote does not produce change if the candidates are already chosen based on the amount of money.  In politics, money has become a determining factor in which candidate has more leverage and reach to the public.  Based on the Declaration of Independence, those of us who are American citizens have the option to change the system if we don’t like it. However, if we are forced to vote then the option to change is not necessarily available, but the script has already been pre written.

Overall, the underlying factor in this argument should be to recognize the American value which is that of choice.  Voting should be a choice, because it suggests that all Americans have an option to choose or not.  While there are other countries that make use of such a compulsive system, it doesn’t mean that America should follow suit.  Much of what made America great, was that it led the world in various areas.  To duplicate or mirror what other countries are doing, is to deny the basic principle of American exceptional-ism.  There are those that no longer revere America in that light, because in many ways America has sold out to foreign interests. It has caused a weakening in image, power, and the uniqueness of what America represented.  To create a system of mandatory voting not only resembles what other countries are doing, but it does not represent choice and the ability to select voluntarily.  It is my belief, and perhaps the belief of others that America should not only lead by example, but it should reflect the values that were written by our forefathers long ago.

What Makes a President Successful?

America has existed as a republic for 238 years. July 4th, 2015 will mark 239 years of a nation that has experienced moments of division, triumph, and discovery. It is a nation that has overcome many of the inner struggles to be what it is today. Yet, as it continues to transform, there is an aspect of America that is altogether noteworthy and that is the Presidency of the United States.

During each election cycle, those who aspire to ascend to the highest of political influence decide to campaign and bid for the nomination of their respective party. Within both the Democrat and Republican party, candidates emerge with the quest to not only gain their party’s nomination but to win the Presidency. To win in a general election is to be marked in the history book of life. Each person that has ever taken the position has in some way or another, been remembered for the sole accomplishment of assuming the office. Even if an individual’s presidency was vilified or marred in some way, it perhaps became a personal feat that would never be forgotten.

However, with the ascendance to the Presidency, there comes with it a myriad of expectations. Each President is required uphold the oath that each is given – to defend the Constitution, and to lead with integrity and authority. However, what we have seen over many decades is the complete antithesis to these expectations. Not only have politicians at the Legislative branch failed to uphold American ideals, but some within the Executive branch have forgone their responsibility. Most if not all Americans are living with the desire to see each President governing with dignity and fidelity. However, when this does not occur it becomes a forlorn existence that many voters begin to assume the position of.

Even with the many negative traits and even disappointments that have become common place, there is indeed a formula for Presidential success. What does it take for a President to be successful? Here are a few things to consider:

1. The ability to lead – For any President that succeeded in their craft, they possessed the ability to lead and lead effectively. President George Washington was and is a prime example of an individual who led during his time as President. However, even before his Presidency his leadership was one that was publicly and privately known. Having the quality of leadership is what any successful President must exude. To be a successful leader it means that one must understand how to think intuitively, and how to act decisively. All great leaders were able to govern with justice, and yet maintain a stance of diplomacy with those who opposed. It is a delicate balancing act of maintaining a bridled stance, and also participating in a proactive manner. The ability to lead is one of the most important traits that any successful President can have, because without leadership, a President is nothing more than an occupant in a position that becomes meaningless without influence.

2. Connection to the republic – Looking back at history, every successful President has had a connection with the people. Think of it as selling a product to a consumer. If a prospective customer feels that the product along with the delivery of the sales pitch will be beneficial, then it is likely that they will purchase. Every candidate that runs for President must sell themselves to the American people. If they do so correctly, then it is likely that they find themselves serving in the office of the Presidency. Even after a candidate has assumed office, the connection and authenticity towards the public, must be tangible to the overwhelming population. Without a connection, then their credibility and even reputation will be in question. This ultimately means alienation which often leads to a President that is then vilified to be a pariah within their own nation.

3. Effective communication – Every President must communicate but it must be done effectively. There were Presidents in history that were known as the greatest orators of world history. Some include President John F. Kennedy, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, President Ronald Reagan, and some have said the same about President Barak Obama. The point is that each of these men and others were skilled in their craft as it related to communicating effectively. It is necessary that all sitting Presidents have the ability to communicate their vision and their agenda. Without clarity, then the listening audience will begin to ignore the words spoken, leaving the President to be dismissed.

4. Adherence to the Constitution – This is perhaps one of the most important traits or guidelines that any President can portray which would increase the level of success. The Constitution as it was written, was and is a charter for the United States. It is a document that signifies not only the foundation of America, but it serves as a binding declaration for all who serve in public office. The Constitution was written with the purpose of implementing a framework which would be followed and revered by every politician. For the President, the adherence to the Constitution is perhaps the most important, because a President that follows all Amendments is one that sets the standard for the country. A sitting President cannot maintain success if he/she has acted in a duplicitous manner, by ignoring the Constitution and what is required.

5. Staunch Nationalism – Patriotism for one’s country is to be expected even if you are an average citizen. Most believe in showing some sort of allegiance to their homeland as long as the nation they reside within, has given them the freedom and the reasons to do so. However, the President must also esteem and affirm the greatness of the nation. Nationalism is simply the high regard and pride that one has in their respective country for the sake of maintaining public and private allegiance. Every President must declare why America is exceptional, and what sets it apart from other nations.

6. Handling crisis’ effectively – Most if not all Presidents have faced some sort of challenge whether domestically or internationally. Each President that has ever served has faced a set of extraordinary circumstances which produced a great deal of stress and pressure. However, for a President to be successful, there must be an innate ability to not only handle a crisis, but to avoid disaster in the process. Crisis management is another quality that every President must employ, for without such dedication the country will come to ruin.

The above characteristics and actions must be in place if a President is going to remain credible and experience success. There were Presidents that were abject failures in their pursuit of the Presidency. Much of their failures had to do with lacking many of the above qualities, and even those that were not named in the list. However, the Presidents that were successful were among those who understood their job and why they were elected. To be a President one must be humble and seek to serve honorably. Today’s class of politicians seem to seek honor without maintaining a sense of responsibility. Knowing your purpose in the Presidency and seeking to govern effectively is what leaves behind a lasting legacy. Mistakes will be made, but the Presidency itself is what requires that each person be held accountable in order to serve with dignity and honor.

Just How Secure Is the White House?

During the Presidency of Harry S. Truman, he uttered the following quote:

“The White House is the finest prison in the world.” 

The context of this quote was meant with the idea that the White House at least in his perspective, was a place in which he had little freedom.  Yet, it was a place that seemed to be quite regal in its nature, hence the word “finest”.  The quote by President Truman, served as a reminder of just how little freedom any President will have as they serve in the office.  While the White House is a symbol of American democracy, and it is the designated living quarters of any sitting President, over the years it has also resembled the element of security.  Since America’s founding, there have been four Presidents to be assassinated including three assassination attempts.These individuals were, President Abraham Lincoln, President William McKinley, President James A. Garfield, and President John F. Kennedy.  The three Presidents that were on the receiving end of an assassination attempt, included President Ronald Reagan, President Harry S. Truman, and President Theodore Roosevelt.

Since each of those incidents, security measures were instituted to ensure that each sitting President’s life and their family would not be in any danger.  This included the institution of the the United States Secret Service which began in 1865.  The role of the Secret Service is to protect, serve, and ensure that each national leader or even foreign leader within the United States, is safeguarded at an optimal efficiency.

Below is the actual mission statement of the U.S. Secret Service taken from Secretservice.gov:

“The mission of the United States Secret Service is to safeguard the nation’s financial infrastructure and payment systems to preserve the integrity of the economy, and to protect national leaders, visiting heads of state and government, designated sites and National Special Security Events.”

Here is another statement from the Secret Service regarding the topic of protection:

“The Secret Service operates in an environment in which key leaders and major national events continue to be ripe targets for criminals with varying motives. Our teams of skilled professionals continue to be one of our most critical assets – now more than ever. Secret Service careers afford the chance to earn such esteemed opportunities as protecting our nation’s leaders while also investigating possible threats. This also includes, but is not limited to, protecting their families, distinguished foreign visitors and official U.S. representatives performing special missions abroad. Our focus on protection is closely tied to our investigative focus, in which our teams investigate threats against those we protect and serve as a critical element in the planning and implementation of security designs for national events.”

Based on the above, it is clear that the U.S. Secret Service has a defined message of who needs protecting, and how to do so. However, recently there have been incidents in which the security of the White House in addition to the President and his family, were encroached upon. On September 16th, an armed contractor carrying a weapon who also has a criminal background, was in the same elevator with President Obama while in Atlanta visiting the CDC in response to the latest Ebola outbreak.  Another incident occurred on September 19th when an intruder by the name of Omar Gonzalez, scaled the White House fence, and entered into the White House.  The investigation has revealed that Gonzalez was not only armed with a knife, but he was able to get into the East Room of the White House.

Of course there are other incidents that have happened in the past, however these two incidents have sparked outrage from members on Capitol Hill.  Yesterday, the Director of the US Secret Service Julia Pierson, spoke before the House Oversight and Government reform committee.  She along with the Obama administration have taken much heat for this failure in security, because it not only endangered the President and his family, but it compromised everything related to the White House and its staff.

So, with all of this taken into account, is the White House secure?  Looking at the latest and even past incidents, the White House and all things connected to it, has shown a serious lapse in continuity. The mission of the Secret Service is to protect, and what we have seen lately, shows that the structure of the organization is deeply flawed.  Proper security for any organization, especially that of the United States President, should involve appropriate layering. This means, there should be multiple levels of defense to hinder and or apprehend intruders.

It is understandable that the White House should be accessible to the public, but with these two incidents there is a glaring concern of how vulnerable the President and his family are.  Should something so egregious and unfortunate happen to the President, it would mean instability and pandemonium. America has plenty on its radar that is of great concern. The well being of the President and all who are connected to him, needs to be one of those things that is not on that list. The Obama Administration should make it a top priority to reorganize the Secret Service.

It is because of past and present failures, that the brand of the Secret Service has been tarnished.  As prestigious as that element of the Federal government is, there should be a keen sense of what works, and what doesn’t. At this point, the protocol should be so seamless that any type of outside force that would make itself present would find that the security is impervious to its threats.  It isn’t to suggest that the system of security will be 100% infallible, but there should be a greater level of urgency and detail concerning the President and his family.  What we have witnessed as of late, shows that there is much work to be done in the Secret Service, and in part it includes getting back to the basics of Presidential security.

The Concept of War – Fighting For Belief & Territory

The United States is currently involved in a flurry of airstrikes that has been directed towards strongholds held by ISIS in addition to attacking a group by the name of ‘Khorasan’. Khorasan is a group that is affiliated with Al – Qaeda, and is suspected of actively planning an attack on American interest and even plotting an attack on American soil.  Since President Obama’s recent press conference regarding the strategy to address and ultimately defeat the threat of ISIS, it has put forth the question and even possibility of yet engaging in another war.  So far, President Obama has stated that ground troops will not be deployed in Syria or Iraq.  However, because of the nature of such operations regarding airstrikes and military intervention, it often causes the question of war to be analyzed to some degree.

This situation that the United States finds itself in, is not unlike any other skirmish or military involvement.  The United States both past and present has engaged in war time activity, which has left our nation’s legacy at least in part, resembling active duty warfare both in our nation’s homeland, and even abroad.  However, America is not the only nation that has engaged in warfare.  Israel and Palestine has been the most recent example of war and violence.  There is also the ongoing civil war in Syria.  Other examples include, the following list of wars that have taken place in history according to About.com (Military History):

• The Pequot War
• English Civil War
• King Philip’s War
• French & Indian/Seven Years’ War
• American Revolution
• French Revolutionary & Napoleonic Wars
• The Quasi-War
• War of 1812
• Second Seminole War
• Mexican-American War
• American Civil War
• Spanish-American War
• World War I
• World War II
• Korean War
• Vietnam War
• The Falklands War
• The Gulf War

Each of these wars, are unique in their own right, and took place at various periods of human history. However, each of these wars have one thing in common, and that is, they all occurred because of a belief, and an active campaign to defend or extend territory.  What is it about a war that involves belief?  Looking at the current example of America’s involvement in Syria to defeat ISIS, it is apparent that both the United States and ISIS are fighting for a belief.  Of course, the United States has not openly or officially declared war in Syria against ISIS.  However, the newly established airstrikes from fighter jets and bombers, suggests that there is a mission of active combat.  Let’s examine the concept of belief and territory by using both current and past examples of war.

First, we can begin by looking at the element of belief.  In the context of any war, there is usually a reason for a country or even a continent to wage war on another.  Take for instance World War II. World War II as it was coined, took place between 1939 until 1945.  It involved warfare which mainly took place in Europe, the Pacific, and East Asia.  It was a war that occurred between Nazi Germany, Italy (at that time it was under a Fascist regime), and Japan, against the allied nations of Great Britain, the United States, France & China.

The whole idea behind this world wide conflict was ideological, in addition the the spread of communism coming out of Europe.  It was Adolph Hitler who was at the center of this war, which is what spurred international cries for an end to the Holocaust at the hands of Hitler.  However, the point was that all sides held a belief.  In the twisted and demented mind of Adolph Hitler, his belief was that an entire race of people (Jews) were inferior, and should be extinguished.  So he established various forms of torture and concentration camps to exact his sinister ideology. On the other side of the coin was that of America.  President FDR at the time, realized the need to push back and ultimately destroy the very socialistic regime of Hitler as well as other fascist entities.  The belief was that such atrocities could not exist in human life and should be stopped.

Even today, on the side of ISIS leadership and militants, they hold a belief that terrorism or violence is an act of staying true to the Islamic faith.  It is their belief that what they are doing is in the name of ‘Allah’, however most understand that the brutality and violence that has been exacted on innocent lives is not for the good of anyone or anything.  On the other hand, the United States and partners such as the UK, believe that ISIS should be stopped and destroyed for the sake of peace and human life.  So, essentially in every war since such a concept began, there was and will always be the element of belief.  Each side believes that their quest to fight and ultimately win, is driven by a set of core values that signify their mission.

Secondly, there is the element of ‘territory’.  In every war that has occurred, the aspect of territory has always been apart of the equation.  For instance, going back to the Revolutionary war, this was a war of not only freedom from the American perspective, but it was about colonization to form a unified nation.  That nation which was originally formed out of 13 colonies, became America.  At the time, Americans revolted against the British to escape tyranny to have freedom.  Another example that involved territory was that of the Mexican-American war which began in 1846 to 1848.  This war began because of a dispute over the annexation of Texas into American territory.  It was based out of resentment of Texas leaving Mexico to join the United States in the union.  However, this war was based on a territorial dispute, or that of losing control of Texas from Mexico’s perspective.

The point is that we can look back in history and even current conflicts, and see a pattern of both belief and territorial disputes.  Even with the Ukraine and Russia, we are seeing the issue of territorial infringement.  Currently, Russian President Vlademir Putin has ordered troops to patrol the border of the Ukraine and even enter into the Ukraine.  This has posed a threat to Ukrainian sovereignty, which has led to intense conflict and even international involvement from the United States.

The truth of the matter is that in every war or conflict, there is always a belief or system of core values that drive warfare. Whether the belief is legitimate or not, we will always see each sides opposing views represented in violent or aggressive conflict.  Humanity in all of its diversity has always shown that there isn’t a such thing as a universal belief in which everyone will believe in the same concept.  Right or wrong, reasonable or not, there will always be two sides that oppose the other. One fact of human life despite the yearning for peace, is that at some point someone will disagree.  However, true diplomacy comes from discussing with rationality and listening.  At the same time, there are times when words are not sufficient, which means the concept of war is driven by belief and territory.

The Federal Government & Large Corporations

We live in a day and age where there is a battle for control.  Whether it be the ability to maintain one’s privacy (or what is left of it) or the continued expansion of government regulation over a period of time.  Even to that of large corporations that continue to gather data based on the trends of online users, which essentially means profiting from user information.  Our society has become built on concept of who is in control, and who has the most power or influence.

Looking at the Federal government in addition to large corporations, many see both of these entities in varied distinctive roles.  For example, the Federal government is an establishment which creates, legislates and was given the authority to author laws, that was to be to the benefit of the American public.  It was also meant to be a symbol of both freedom and protection against the tyranny that took place so many decades ago, on American shores.  In the minds of many, the Federal government was and is defined by the U.S. Constitution.

When we switch from the view of the Federal government, there is also the existence of the capitalist side of the American experience.  Large corporations were founded to produce products and services with the intent to enhance American life, while at the same time earning a large profit to increase company expansion.  Large corporations are known for large sums of money or revenue, marketing via television and the internet, and overall being the model of what capitalism was supposed to involve.

However, as we look at the two entities, they do not exactly exist on the opposite ends of the spectrum of each other.  There are similarities between the two.  One such similarity which should not be overlooked is their desire for control.  As mentioned earlier in this posting, our society has become engaged in an open battle for control or who can gain as much influence as possible.

Usually, the individual or in this case the conglomerate, that can gain the most influence, is likely to hold all of the cards so to speak, for a power play which could lead to total domination if left unchecked.  The Federal government along with large corporations, have very similar if not the exact same agenda.

That  agenda is to maintain a sense of establishment over a group of people, or within a particular market.  Here is an example to prove this as not a theory, but a fact:

1.  Growth of Federal influence – Starting with the Federal government, we have seen a steady decline in the ability for Americans to exist or live without some form of Federal influence.  Most would not state that we do not need the Federal government, because there are laws and statutes which we as Americans benefit from.  However, there is an undeniable occurrence of more influence that has and is coming from Washington DC.  Edward Snowden in effect, has legitimized this case by shining a light on government run programs which seized large amounts of data, from innocent civilians.  To be fair, such actions has indeed been at least a reason as to why terrorist attacks have been limited.  However, it raises the issue of privacy, and how much the Federal government has infiltrated our daily lives.  Living in a post-9/11 society, our freedoms as Americans have dwindled in part because of the necessity to mitigate terrorism, and this includes safeguarding data on the internet, and increasing surveillance.  Most agree that doing such is a benefit to our safety, however the fact  that our  nation has seen more intervention from the Federal government says that this also about maintaining influence and power at least to a degree.

2. Expansion of large corporations and marketing – On the business side of things, we are seeing a constant influx of ads, media driven means to increase awareness of various products.  A couple of weeks ago, an episode of “Morgan Spurlock: Inside Man” aired on CNN.  The episode was entitled, “Big Data”.  In the episode, Morgan touched on the issue that our information that is released through the internet, is tracked every single day, by large corporations and third party companies.  These organizations then capture our surfing patterns, and gather our information which is then sold for further marketing purposes.  This is a legitimate occurrence which ultimately means, our information is used not to the benefit of the consumer or internet user, but to the benefit of the company.  This means, the more information that is gathered by large corporations, the more likely these corporations can have influence, and increase their revenue.  They want to gain a level of influence by forcing ads onto the internet user, and finding out what we like by tracking our movements.  At the end of the day, large corporations want money and power which means they must seize our data to gain an upper edge in an ever changing economy.

So, what is the point in comparing the Federal government and large corporations?  Looking at both entities through the eyes of innocence isn’t exactly a complete picture of what is truly transpiring.  Both of these entities named, have their positive sides and negative sides.  On the positive, both represent the American dream so to speak, and even to the degree of core values that are apart of our democracy.  These establishments  were built upon the process of a free system which was to be protected by law and individual liberty. However, the negative side to both is, over time such principles of freedom and individual choice have become eroded.  Some of it is because of the concerns of terrorism and the economic climate.  However, there are other portions of it which is based on the desire to maintain and grasp a level of control.

The point is to at least create the argument that the American people are caught in between.  While neither of these establishments are completely out of line in how they assert their authority or influence, the truth is, the American people find themselves in a constant struggle of government and business influence.  In order for the American people to exist in a system that is beneficial to their livelihood, there must be a proper balance.  It would seem based on news reports, and the American public’s opinion, we are lacking a balance of responsible governance, and corporate fairness.

Are We Truly The “United States Of America”?

The United States is a term that is known throughout the globe, and has been since its very inception. It is a Federal Republic or based on a Republican form of government. The history of its nomenclature can be traced back to April 6th 1776, in which the name first appeared in The Virginia Gazette written by an anonymous writer. It was later written into the rough draft, and eventually the final draft of the Declaration of Independence by Thomas Jefferson.

The term “United States” has been historically known to be words that resemble a democracy and institution of a union that is not separated, but unified based on land mass and values. However, is this feeling or notion actually true? Is the term “United States” truly a value that America holds? Or was it nothing more than an ideal and a hope of a nation that came from under the rule of Great Britain?

If you were to look at the current state of America, I am sure that most would agree that we do not live in the “United States”. Sure, for those of us who are American, we live in a republic that is called, America, but it isn’t truly United.

In watching some of the coverage from yesterday’s Governor’s meeting  at the White House on C-SPAN, I and other viewers bore witness to the further dysfunction that lies within our political and even state capitals. There was an exchange between Republican Governor of Louisiana Bobby Jindal and Democratic Governor of Connecticut Dan Malloy. Governor Jindal made remarks about the President’s administration, the economy and health care, while Governor Malloy retorted back. This was the following exchange as reported by Politico.com:

Governor Jindal: “This president and the White House seems to be waving the white flag of surrender” by focusing on a limited set of executive actions”

Governor Malloy: “Until a few moments ago we were going down a pretty cooperative road. I don’t know what the heck was a reference to white flag when it comes to people making $404 a week. I mean, that’s the most insane statement I’ve ever heard, quite frankly,So let’s be very clear that we’ve had a great meeting and we didn’t go down that road and it just started again and we didn’t start it,”

Governor Jindal: “I want to make sure he hears a more partisan statement: that if Obama really wants to grow the economy, he should delay the Affordable Care Act mandates. We think we can grow the economy. We think we can do better than the minimum wage economy,”

Is the above a representation of the “United States” of America?  This was just a meeting between governors, and yet we saw more examples of partisan bickering.  The exchange wasn’t exactly heated, but it showed that there are still various schisms between Democrats and Republicans.

Our country remains divided on many issues, but none more than that of politics.  Our politicians whether they are in Congress, the White House or even our own states, lack the ability to work together.  Bipartisanship sounds nice, and every now and then we actually witness it in action.  However, at the root of every disagreement, seems to be an ideological intolerance, instead of a willingness to see ideas differently and use them as a tool for productivity.

So, do we live in the “United States” of America?  Short answer no.  Long answer, we live in a place where freedoms are granted, however our states are not operating in a unified manner.  The only thing that has kept us within a union is the principle of maintaining a view that is congruent with this nation’s founding.  Our states only share borders, without actually sharing a common mindset.  There are American values that exist, in which many Americans (politicians included) agree on.

However, from the inside out, our nation seems to be losing the value of what “United” truly means.  We can see it in politics, we can see it in how the everyday person treats another, and we can see it in the erosion of our country in terms of various Godly values that this nation does not hold dear as it were.  Disagreeing is a political piece of the puzzle.  No one expects our politicians to agree on every subject.  However, when they disagree to a point that impedes progress, then we are living in a dangerous place both figuratively and literally.  It is time for our country to think about and truly see just what the term “United States” was meant to hold as it’s meaning.