July 19, 2006
by Robert T. Melaccio Sr.

While this article does not represent the views or opinions of the author it does ask rhetorical questions and other political and associated aspects for review and consideration based on current events, what is being reported in the media today and on the general comments of average Americans gleaned form varied sources. Certainly, this is not intended as an argument for or against. It is however, it is an exercise to attempt to provide food for thought as to where our objectives may need fine tuning and correction.

However, to form the basis for consideration and the article it is appropriate we first define Globalism in as simple terms as possible. Perhaps how ones perspective or views it is subjective and open to debate by some who could argue certain elements are closely related to other ideologies. Lets examine what the dictionary states about some of these.
Miriam-Webster defines Globalism and imperialism as follows:

glob-al-ism : a national policy of treating the whole world as a proper sphere for political influence -

im-pe-ri-al-ism 1 : imperial government, authority, or system  2 : the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence imperialism.

With this accomplished one asks the rhetorical question of what is the true intent of our zeal to spread this ideology and what impact does it have not only on the world but specifically on We The People of this nation. Does the current issues concerning immigration, the trial of our military personnel, the NAFTA agreement and a host of other issues really involve the spread of democracy or is it the spread of Capitalism and of Big Business that is the underlying objective? Rhetorically one could ask do the people of America gain or actually lose? To answer some of these we must look closely at the objectives involved for both. Below is the definition as provided by Miriam-Webster for capitalism:

Main Entry: cap-i-tal-ism
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market .

If one reviews the definitions above one could determine that they are closely entwined. Therefore, one could come to the opinion that the success of one definitely impacts the success of the other. While certainly we can agree that most men have a zeal to be free and not shackled by government and that the spread of Democracy is a good thing it may not be the best system in everyone's view. However, if you consider all the other systems of the past together you will see they have failed and that there is no other alternative. I ask rhetorically does the linking of the political goals of Globalism allow for the linking to Imperialism by those factions who oppose the United States? One could see this as feasible from the perspective many of these nations perceive. Rhetorically, is this the conflict that must be overcome?

When we tie these concepts together we find it would seem prudent that to establish a successful free market you must have democracy. If this is a plausible conclusion then the only way to implement a democratic government in a not so free society is to change that society. Now that sounds simple but what we speak to is how to bring about that change. Now given the choices available that means via an electorate, military or covert change.

Rhetorically, has anything been left out? That does not have to be the case but I know of no other methods. Therefore to summarize what we have said is to say in order to implement an effective free market system one should establish a democratic government first. That said, then whatever impedes or detracts from that goal needs to be addressed and whatever needs to be done to improve that end must be undertaken.

So when one looks at the greater picture one should be able to see through the trees to the forest and understand whatever promotes this end will need to take place. However, one must ask rhetorically what is the true nature of the effort and is it truly for the good of the average man that this change needs to be implemented? Certainly, in the case of those who have nothing in these countries change in any way that produces economic change and freedom is a positive, regardless if that change is minor. In just today's paper a map indicating at least ½ or more of the world has limited freedom to none. So, this is no easy task to bring freedom and democracy to all nations.

Providing an opportunity for jobs, benefits, security and going from nothing to something can not be argued against as one of the positive factors and they certainly are. However, when you reverse the view looking at it from someone who is there and has and is going from having to something less or even nothing it certainly does not have as great an appeal in pursuing this ideology. In the opinion of many this is where the United States is today and it is the reason for the upsurge in average Americans being concerned and demanding to know just where they are heading in this new system.

(Article Continues Below)

The general opinion of people today is that America is the instrument, the power and wealth, along with the fodder to achieve the goal. After all we supply the resources, our youth, our technology our manufacturing, our markets, our skills and more while the others absorb. Many are of the opinion we pay in higher taxes, lost jobs, lower wages, lost educational opportunities and in above all in blood to implement this vision. Even our president finds it frustrating when our supposed allies do not have the commitment nor zeal to pursue this noble cause. Well many another article has been written about this but the answer lies in many a war and the actions of these governments in relationship to their own interests.

Also, when one looks at how this might be implemented you would say that change must be managed effectively and controlled so that initial hesitation or non compliance or reluctance is overcome with the least amount of disruption while the plan continues. I'll throw out a hypothetical for consideration. Lets ask this rhetorically. What if gas prices were considered reasonable but big oil companies wanted to gain access to known reserves but were prohibited by government legalities. Perhaps the land is set aside by law and cannot be touched?

What if a gas crisis emerged that drove the prices up substantially. It may not have originated from anyone here but it comes due to poor management and policy. While we know there would be a great outcry because of the cost, eventually over time people would learn to accept those increases, along with the governments promise to more fuel into the pipeline. However, to provide more fuel access to those reserves is critical. Therefore a compromise is in order. Surely this will happen and access will be provided. Net gain, increased sale prices and revenue, bottom line profit and overall access to reserves. Of course in fairness to the big oil companies they do compete in a different market and are not totally responsible for the price hikes but allegedly a contributor. We must not fail to remember our government is involved with being part of the architect of that environment for their not reacting sooner.

If one accepts this hypothetical concept then one can see how it can be utilized across the board in varied circumstances to achieve the same and desired results. The public is outraged, the public concedes and the public gives in and accepts and we move to the next opportunity. Very simple in concept but it works. Given that costs are consistently rising along with taxes, insurances, costs of living- food, clothing, shelter, health and all other associated necessities and salaries, benefits and actual buying power is going down, just where is the average American family today? The hard facts are in many places to be found but are disturbing. That does not address the rich who are becoming more wealthy by the second.

Now this brings us to the only question we can ask. Families have to consider if it is worth it? Who gains and what is gained is the question? Certainly when an average person looks at profits and wealth there are larger profits for persons and organizations but there are fewer who are getting wealthier and sharing that wealth. It is certainly not the average American. The average American looks on in amazement as our youth go to war and these troops are recycled in and out like a basketball game.

Because of a limited size all-volunteer army, they must rotate these people in and out of the trouble spots. One suspects and asks rhetorically if the reason for their limited size is most likely found in a belief we could rely on our allies? Sometimes these troops see three or more tours. That is an unprecedented aspect which has never before been heard of. Some of these young may snap and do things wrong and worse. But no one addresses their friends die all around them, by a people who hate and despise them and our way of life. They see it day in and day out and have to smile and say thank you even when being shot at. Then they have to be examined by some shrink who never ever was in the military, in combat, or undergone that kind of stress and heartache and be told they broke a code. Well there is also a portion of those who go who are bad and should have never been in the military to start. That is just a fact. Yet, we must also consider the situation and that perhaps they did do wrong and while no one can accept that one might ask rhetorically who else should share in the guilt?

Also, when they speak of a booming economy what percentage is involved in military aspects? Check your history books. One asks rhetorically, if you took away all that military spending how good would things be and for what industries and who?
After all we are not dumb that we do not see problems on the horizon Korea, Iran and the terrorists? One must ask rhetorically as the President seemed to voice his concern, just where are our allies? Rhetorically, what does that forebode and does it mean a return to a draft? Perhaps a limited draft? Rhetorically, are we being prepped for the inevitable draft that we may have if we use the hypothetical given above? The other day a U.N. representative stated and I paraphrase "the united states is the only power is capable of "policing" the world". In my opinion that statement sums it all up. We get to pay and bleed while the world reaps the fruit.

In my opinion and the opinion of many while we focus on the Global vision our nation looks the other way as illegal people break the law day in and day out and our politicians ignore the truth and go about their business without ever addressing the facts. In my opinion and that of others only when something must be addressed they do so in minimal ways so as to not detract from the goal at hand.

Sadly and unfortunately [the word of the century] they tell us about the bible, faith and God, The Rule of Law and our being a Nation of Law but just what does that mean in relationship to actions? Yes, Americans are starting to wonder what this is all about and asking the hard questions. Who are the benefactors, who gains and who loses?

These are the questions confronting the nation today and these are the issues that will surface in November. It is simply for who's, what, purpose and price Globalism? In many an average Americans opinion it is not the concept or goal it is however in the implementation that is causing the problems.

If you enjoyed this post Subscribe to the Free Populist Party Newsletter

     click here

Robert T. Melaccio Sr. [send him email] is a freelance writer.

Copyright © 2006 Robert Melaccio