By Scott Nesler
By no means is the essay below complete or worthy of publication. The Do Good Gauge website provides the opportunity for the reader to coach the author. Quality can be obtained with your scoring, feedback, and follow-up.
Politicians should take stock in good rather than adhering to single word ideologies such as liberalism or conservatism.
Over twenty two years ago I worked for the United States Defense contractor McDonnell Douglas on an Unmanned Air Vehicle development project. The project introduced me to a productive team environment where individuals had similar skills and interest. Most of us were in our twenties or early thirties. After hour conversations were limited to technology, drinking, or the opposite sex. Politics were discussed only on topics of direct bearing. The project was secret. I dealt with this by refusing to read or listen to material flagged as secret. Because this was a development effort I really did not know what the air vehicles would be used for other than surveillance. That did not stop me from thinking how the product of my employment could be used for unethical purposes.
 |
I was born in 1964. My brother was drafted and survived the Vietnam war. I remember the fear of loosing my older brother while he engaged in a political dispute half way around the world which had little to do with him, his family, or his community. I started working on the MD UAV-SR project in 1989. This was before the first Gulf War. It was a prolong period of peace. I remember stating my opinions on wars and military build up with a couple of colleagues. For the first time, I was respectfully called a liberal. At the time I did not know what a liberal was. I still did not know in 2006 when George W. Bush was elected for a second term. The pain of seeing a nation elect a leader so out of touch with any individual in the United States pushed me to seek understanding in the word and its opposition. George W. Bush was on the side of big business. Ronald Reagan coined the term, "Trickle Down Economics". That is, the political influence and resources would be directed to a few with the hope it would trickle down to the masses. |
The power and influence has become so concentrated that a few control the far majority of the resources. No longer does an individual have the ability to express a point of view. When given a microphone, the media quickly twist the meaning of the words to their persuasion. If an individual is against the elite's status quo, they are deemed an enemy of the establishment and thus demonized. This concentration of power is not limited to government. It is in the corporate world, the universities, and the media. The masses have been pacified with meaningless material substance earned on the backs of their parents and grand parents who fought for a democratic voice. It is this apathy which sustains and builds upon this concentration of power. Apathy is diluted when met with burden and despair. Gandhi succeeded in gaining an ear and establishing a resistance against British Imperialism only through the impoverished masses.
Large companies of the past devoted a substantial budget to research and development. This was apparent twenty-five years ago as software engineer. Over the past ten years the job market in research and development has dried up. Large corporations have shifted R&D funding to the fiscally rewarding opportunity of corporate lobbying. This lobbying is used to deregulate the safe guards of public interest. The savings and loan crisis, the dotcom bubble, the real-estate and mortgage crisis, and the BP oil spill in the gulf are all disasters where the forethought of research and development could have prevented or lessoned the burden..
The number of elected officials is minuscule compared to the masses of citizens. The excessive wealth of a few corporations can easily sway the decisions of the vote through greed and bribery. Financially appeasing a few elected officials is cost effective compared to satisfying the public interest. The masses need to understand this. Gandhi did. Gandhi mobilized the masses using non violent civil disobedience against the influence of power.
After all of these years I have come to terms in understanding the concept of liberal and conservative, though understanding could as easily been discovered from the Webster Dictionary. Liberal is broad, wide, and open, while conservative is strict, narrow, and bound. Conservatism is not an ideology, it is a mechanism to control the masses and hoard resources.
This statement does not mean I'm a liberal or that I despise conservatism? The essay is an indication that politics is out of whack with democracy. Politician need to drop the pretense in single word ideologies and focus on the good defined by Jeremy Bentham. It is the greatest good to the greatest number of people which is the measure of right and wrong.
