The Current Election is Evidence That The United States is Crumbling

Sources in Comments....The United States as a Society and as a Civilization is crumbling. In fact, according to a study by professors at Princeton University, the United States is no longer a democracy, but is instead an oligarchy(1). In her opening statements, Con points out a few truths, but also a makes a few falsities....although these falsities are quite easy to believe. She praises the resiliency of the current generation of Americans (by which I assume she means Gen X and Millenials). This is actually quite false. Instead, that younger generation lives upon the shoulders of its predecessors, both figuratively and literally, as many of them are not yet property owners, earning itself the nickname "Generation Rent"(2). The influence held by modern Americans is purely based upon current economic splendor and military prowess; foreign peoples are either impressed by American wealth and want to copy its morals and ethics, or are afraid of bringing American wrath upon itself. Both of these reasons for influence are quickly vanishing:As more migrant workers (legal or not) come into the country and send money back to their home country, jobs for Americans are lost to them. The H1B visa is the most cited example of this(3). The other problem of importing foreign technical workers is that American genius and capability is thus exported overseas, thinning the gap between American and foreign technological abilities. But these high paid STEM workers are not the only victims of migrant labor. Others who come in and take jobs that, as some would say, jobs Americans are unwilling to take, do take jobs that could be filled by Americans in desperate situations. High School grads looking for money to attend college or persons who have lost their jobs due to whatever reasons can no longer turn to more menial jobs, as those are taken by migrants. This is not a rant against immigrants, as that those individuals stay in the US and join the society, thus producing for the society (their money is often not sent back to their nation of origin and they do not return to that nation). As for military prowess, the US military, although technologically advanced and currently the most powerful in the world, just had a major blow dealt to it. The insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan improved upon the Maoist Guerrilla(4) tactics used to force the US to a draw in Vietnam(5). The US, which possessed a vastly superior military force compared to the insurgencies in either of those two countries, lost in Iraq and has been forced to make an extended stay in Afghanistan. The reasons for this are several, not least of which was the poorly planned invasion of Iraq in the Bush Administration and the bumbled handling of both wars by the Obama Administration. Essentially, both presidents, neither one of which had extensive military experience (Bush was a National Guardsman(6) and Obama never served a day) decided that they were both superior commanders to the generals they had in place. The War on Terror, if all the conspiracy theories from both Right and Left are to be ignored, was one where generals chose to be politicians and politicians decided that they were generals. ISIS, if it can survive the onslaught of Russian, Syrian, and (quite possibly soon) Iranian troops, has shown the world how to defeat the United States in war. Merely make the war last too long for public approval and make it very expensive (the US did itself no favors by adhering to a policy of Nation Building).As other rivals of the US take notice, they will realize that a combined effort of guerrilla warfare and conventional war will help to defeat a politically hogtied military. If the US military was unleashed and (not including any Weapons of Mass Destruction) its full force was allowed to be used, then no nation would dare to challenge it. But as it currently stands, many Americans do not want to see the horrors of war such as Abu Gharib, Guantanamo, or civilian casualties. To keep winning votes, politicians will acquiesce and put more undo political burdens upon commanders, who, in turn, will place that burden upon the fighting man himself.Back to the concept of Oligarchy: con claims that the Roman Republic did not die because of Caesar but because of an unwillingness to unseat Augustus. In part, she is correct, but she neglects the cause of this unwillingness. The Patrician class (who had become wealthier and more powerful as Rome grew both in military and economics) had become quite Oligarchial. There arrived a vast divide between common working men and those wealthiest elites who rant the country. The Empire was obtained by Augustus, yes, but he did so because of the situation already in place long before Julius ever crossed the Rubicon(7).As of right now, neither candidate appears to be an Augustus or a Julius Caesar (contrary to what most media outlets tell us), but both do represent the oncoming of such a character. One of them is from the higher echelons of big business, the other has done the bidding of Wall Street her entire political career(8).Con, in her opening statements, points out that my opinion is an old complaint of not being represented because my ideology is not represented adequately enough. Although the point of a democratic-republic (which is what the United States is kind of supposed to be) is to have enough representatives that as many points of view are advocated for, I wholly concede that this is often not the case, even in a perfect world. However, before her brilliant closing paragraph, she serendipitously points the very flaw in American Society.... And I quote"In this sense of the election, women- in spite of their long-standing majority in the electorate (and permanent majority in the population) are today afforded their first real opportunity to elect a representative from the ranks of that majority. To the extent that Hillary symbolizes the potential end of 240 years of disenfranchisement from the highest ranks of power for most of America, this election seems like the dawning of democracy, not collapse."Instead of advocating Hillary's policies or achievements (which, let us not make that the subject of this debate) she simply points out the Hillary is a woman. How is it that all women are represented by her? She represents the platform she has taken politically, not every one sharing a biological characteristic with her. To demonstrate the danger of this train of thought, we need only look at the various riots which have occured within inner cities, mainly among black populations outraged at the violent death of a community member at the hands of police (whether the dead individual was a criminal or innocent, armed or unarmed, is wholly inconsequential here). Such shootings, both justified as well as the actions of murderous police officers, have certainly taken place in the inner cities long before the events in Ferguson. I submit that the riots were actually a reaction to the sense of betrayal felt by very poor blacks in the inner cities after the first black president failed to deliver on his promise of "Change"(9). When he ran in 2008, there was a definite sense that he was going to bridge the gap between the races. Again, how will America's individual woman fare if the next president is female, when she doesn't represent her particular viewpoint?So, I presume that Con (and anyone else reading this) does not simply want to see me crying and pointing my finger at society while offering not a single solution. May I humbly suggest the following: Political discussion should take place between friends and acquaitances. These need not be debates, but, for some reason, politics has become a taboo subject in polite discussion. Instead of engaging in discussion and possibly debate, people are merely happy sever ties with individuals who want to discuss politics. I don't mean to shove one's own ideology down every one else's throats, Progressives, Conservatives, Liberals, and Libertarians should discuss their similarities and differences. Sadly, more people are perfectly content to discuss the TV shows last night and the weekend's football game instead of discussing current affairs and politics. People appear to have forgotten to civilly discuss political affairs in public, among their friends. To put this country back on the road of democracy, people need to be willing to civilly discuss things with one another. Since she put it so well, I am inclined to steal a line from Con. (Hope you'll forgive me): "This Union will survive so long as we see ourselves as democracy's keepers."