The United States is currently gearing up for the second civil war. It's been coming since the 1980's when the right-wing started systematically funneling money to the wealthy and away from the poor. Fundamentally, the gap between the haves and the have nots is at the root of the problem. And since no one has the smarts to stop electing the enablers of the wealthy to congress, it ain't gonna be fixed before the balloon goes up (which means the start of the war, for those of you who don't understand that expression).
Another reason it will happen is the polarization of our politics. During the Bush administration, politics became an us versus them affair, turning American against American. When Obama was elected, the right-wing (which has a long and storied history of racism) went into spasms of hate. They created the Tea Party to rally the equivalent of white supremacists and terrorists in a call for smaller government while at the same time calling for more guns, less gun control, and targeting members of congress who didn't agree with their dogma. One was severely wounded and nine people killed at the height of this rhetoric. I have noticed that it's ratcheting up again lately.
But at the heart of it is racism, hatred, religious bigotry and intolerance - all things the U.S. has had a long history of, but which aren't playing well with the rest of us Americans who actually have a brain with functioning reasoning abilities.
So in the end, we'll be fighting one another with arms once again because these radicals can't accept the idea of equality for all, and the other side is getting mighty tired of all the threats.
So howsoever it all turns out, the simple fact is that by the end of the year (sometime after the elections, I imagine) the U.S. will engage in another civil war. It will start off ideologically by the right-wing, but it will end financially by moderates who will attack the source of the problem - the excessive accumulation of wealth and manipulating the system to keep everyone but those with wealth down. After all, if you're going to have a war, cutting off the flow of money to the sides that are fighting is the best way to stop the fighting. No money for bullets, the fighting stops.
I went into the causes of the war before, and so far I see it's still on track. Enough about cause. This is about what needs to change once the fighting is done.
1. Two years of non-compulsory national service to earn the right to vote.
National service is simply the giving of yourself in time and effort to others. It can be done in nursing homes, hospitals, military, homeless shelters - any place a need can be fulfilled without a direct quid-pro-quo compensation as is done in a normal "work" environment. You interact with other people on a new and fundamentally different level. It would involved being housed, clothed and fed on the government's dime while you did your work. You would be paid a small amount, but not a lot - not enough to live on your own - and would be required to live "on base" as it were or where ever the designated housing would be. It would be a regulated, regimented life requiring training, discipline and service.
Too many Americans have only ever served themselves. They think of national service as a "job". They don't understand the commitment involved, nor the level of effort it takes to do it right. They don't know what it's like to put their own tender skin in harms way for their fellow Americans. They don't know what it's like to work for a cause greater than themselves. National service would be the only way to give them a taste of it.
If they understand something bigger than themselves, have worked toward that and spend years of their life in that endeavor to EARN the right to vote, they'll more likely give their vote some more thought than they do today. If they don't want to vote (and too many don't), then great, they can sit and be the egocentric, selfish assholes they've always been. At least they no longer have the right to choose who will lead us.
2. Only those who have served in the military for SIX years or more, or who have been in combat if not serving for six years, or who have made national non-military service a career (20 years or more) can run for, or be appointed to, any federal office.
National service isn't necessarily MILITARY service. National service is a general category for serving one's country. Military service is one of the ways one can do that. But it's a very important distinction between serving one's country civilly and doing it militarily. The former is merely going through the motions to get the right to vote. The latter is what people do when they believe in their country to the point they are at least willing to die for it.
THAT earns respect.
As a vet, I don't always agree with what other vets say. John McCain is a good example of this. I disagree with his politics more often than not. But as a fellow vet (not to mention combat vet), he has earned my respect and a place at the table. I will hear him out because I know he has at least been willing to (and has) put his life on the line for our country. It's not because he's a Senator or an elected official. It's ONLY because he's a vet and we share that common bond.
Another thing about vets that civilians don't get is the level of cooperation needed to get things done in a military organization is the same needed to get things done in a government. We can argue, but we don't usually get nearly as personal as civilians do with one another. We have at least some level of respect for each other civilians utterly lack.
But above all, each has shown by their service that they have put country FIRST. Ideologies are secondary to the good of the country. And by cooperation, the country can prosper. We understand the term "United States" as well as the name and know on a fundamental level civilians can't understand that through unity, we have strength.
Those who have demonstrated their selflessness through long-term national service in the civilian sector, foregoing wealth for service, deserve the same opportunity. It's one thing to slide by doing two years without really caring (but getting the discipline and understanding of what service means). It's quite another to serve for the equivalent of a career. That, too, earns my respect.
3. No one in the military shall receive a commission to officer level without first having served two years (or one year in combat) at an enlisted rank.
This one is odd, but necessary. Officers in the military today (except Marines and Mavericks or prior enlisted) tend to be college jerks who had some "leadership training" without much practice. Most do fairly well, but too many of them are elitist pricks who don't know what the hell they're doing. They've never seen the world through the eyes of those they command, rarely respect the opinions of those they command and have never served under someone who has a good command style that motivates and energizes.
I know this from personal experience.
Giving them a compulsory taste of the enlisted, plebian life helps build a perspective that will make them better leaders. And after the next civil war, we will need good leaders because we sure as hell don't have any now.
4. Wealth will be capped.
I've already written about how capitalism is flawed due to human greed. I've already advocated for moderation. I've pointed out that excessive consumption of limited resources is only going to make things worse.
Of course, I'm not in the position to make any of this happen, but in the aftermath of the next civil war, we will need to plug the single problem with capitalism - excess accumulation of wealth - by capping net worth.
This makes sense economically. By limiting how much a person can be worth in total, it keeps money flowing in an economy. People with excess wealth are those with the majority of their "wealth" tied up in investments. Investments don't create jobs unless an economy is very strong and thriving. Our boom-bust cycles of economic stability are due to the money not flowing consistently.
It also makes sense socially. After all, if the gap between the poor and the rich is smaller, there's less animosity. Further, it makes it easier for the average person to get ahead and achieve the top tier because the bar has been lowered. If net worth is the measure, and someone is already topped out, they have less available funds to support legislation that limits the ability of other people to get ahead, less incentive to do it (after all, if it's easier to reach the top tier, and the wealthy has less worth and disposable income than they do now, it's less of an incentive to help a relative or friend do it) and more likelihood of learning to live less lavishly.
Excess wealth - that achieved above the cap - would be routed into schools, roads, infrastructure and the funding needed to maintain the national service corp. Chances are good that any taxes levied would be very small if at all.
Were I to put on a ballpark cap on wealth, I'd top it out at $100 million per individual (subject to change depending on fiscal realities). That's a hell of a lot of money, but considerably less than the cost of an F-22. When looked at a net worth chart, averaged out over the entire U.S., that puts the available funds for other more vital projects than a person's next yacht at about 60 trillion dollars or so. I object to six people in the United States (the Walton clan of Wal-mart fame) having more net worth between them than the poorest 90 MILLION Americans combined.
Net worth isn't income, either. It's the total accumulation of your wealth after depreciation (or with appreciation). But in that vein, I'd cap incomes as well. Otherwise the corporations would simply pay CEO's more to make up for the differences so that the wealthy could continue to exploit the poor. Incomes would be capped at $20 million per household.
Corporate gifting and leaving it in the name of the corporation would be outlawed. If someone has defacto exclusive use, regardless of who "owns" it on paper, it is net worth for that someone. So drivers, cars, houses, planes, yachts, etc.... The use of corporate assets must be charged at a fair market value or for cost, whichever is lower. Corporations can't give them to execs for their own use as a perk of employment. If the exec want "exclusive use", they have to pay for it out of their own pocket at a fair market rate. So that executive plane trip to Haiti has to be paid for by the executive even if he uses the corporate jet. He pays for fuel, wages and any other incidental expenses that it cost to make the trip. For a house, he pays the market rate for rent for the house and its contents (if it's furnished), plus the cost of the staff. If there is no one occupying the house, the corporation pays for the staff and upkeep.
This isn't detailed, of course, but the bottom line is that corporate perks would be a thing of the past and accumulating wealth would be simpler for people, but there would be a limit as to how much you can get. This would keep the divisions to a smaller degree, let those who aspire to greatness become great, reduce or eliminate the incentives to fix the game so only other wealthy people could win it and stop the flow of the money of the wealthy into the coffers of politicians. (Of course, in this world, the politicians would have a lot less incentive to be the lapdogs of the rich in the first place, having already demonstrated a willingness to put one's life on the line for the sake of the whole country as opposed to the privileged few.)
Education should be made more affordable and EFFECTIVE. I think free education is kind of stupid, actually. It's not appreciated by those who don't want one. It's taken for granted and/or squandered by those who are given it free.
This explains George W. Bush, Dan Quayle and Mitt Romney. All exposed to an education at top universities, paid for by their parents, and all dumb as a brick.
But it can't be made unaffordable as is happening now so that only the rich can afford pay for it without indenturing one's self to the wealthy by taking out student loans or by working one's self into the ground to pay for it.
So I'd do a tiered system. All of it subsidized by the new tax structure to meet costs, with limits on the incomes.
First of all, no one may be a school administrator without having first taught in a classroom for five years. School board members must also be working teachers (expanding the number of school board members will help spread out the workload). Being a member of the school board will result in a 10% increase in pay and workload. Alternates will be elected in case someone doesn't pull their load after being elected.
This means every school board member and every school administrator has taught in the classroom and knows what it's like from the bottom up. The same perspectives as is needed for all military officers is what the idea is here. I'd make doctors work for a year as an orderly (which can be done as a national service) before they're allowed to become doctors, too.
As for schools, I'd go with a three tiered system.
Free primary education, but you MUST GRADUATE. No dropping out allowed. If you don't graduate, you aren't an adult in the eyes of society (more on that stupid age thing in a bit) and will be sent back to school or put to work for society at an occupation not of your choice. Those are your options: Graduate from primary school with the rest of society or work for the rest of your life at poverty level or worse.
This, by the way, simply formalizes what usually happens to people who don't graduate.
Another thought that may or may not fly is graduation level. Some graduate with much higher GPA's than others. In this case, there would be a system in place for the costs for your next step. If you graduate with a high GPA in the relevant subjects (total GPA is BS. If you have a 4.0 in advanced math, physics and chemistry, you're going to be a more appropriate student for engineering than if you got a 4.0 in English, Philosophy and Art), your costs for the next track will be lower in the relevant subjects.
In an aside, sports would be minimized as an activity while academic achievement would be pushed. Sports does no one any good after they graduate (save for the extremely rare individuals who go on to have a career) and takes up a disproportionate amount of school resources. With national service as the way to get the right to vote, there's no need to teach those people how to cooperate or play by the rules and those who don't will be kept out of the game entirely.
I WOULD encourage physical activity and education, but sporting teams and such would be mostly an out-of-pocket expense for those who participated. (Remember, getting ahead would be easier, and spending money on intangibles would be encouraged, so this isn't as awful as it sounds assuming the economy reacts as it probably will.) They can join Little League or some such similar activity if they're so inclined.
Next would be vocational school, having two tracks. The first track would be job vocation - teaching the mechanics how to be mechanics, the yard workers how to be yard workers and so on and so forth. There are people who aren't suited to higher education or don't necessarily want or need one, but it's a good idea to train them for a job they like and can handle. The costs for vocational training would be low and heavily subsidized so that getting training for a job would be relatively painless. GPA's won't affect the costs of vocational training.
The other track would be to train for higher education - mostly getting all of the common prerequisites for a four year degree out of the way. This track would cost a lot more, but it would depend on your grades in primary school as to the actual cost. A generally high GPA means less cost. A C average would be the base cost. A lower than C average would cost a lot more.
Military veterans who qualify for running for national office would receive a free college education.
Sounds unfair? Yep, and deliberately so. Idiots need not apply, and if they do, they had damn sure better work at it to make it. Another thing is that this acknowledges the fact that of all the freshmen who start college, only a third graduate. Weed them out early by making it harder to get the prerequisites that don't suit their demonstrated abilities or make them work that much harder to get what they think they want. Harder, but not impossible. Getting training for a job is easy - and that's what will satisfy most people. Getting a higher education is hardest and only those committed to it - those 1/3 who actually graduate - will be able to do it.
You can't get into either of these unless you've graduated from primary school or gotten your GED.
The third track is higher education. This one you can't get unless you've done the previous prep track. It costs LESS because the effort to learn this stuff is higher and you’ve already proven your resolve to get here through effort or ability (or both).
Now, someone keeping track here may wonder how long all this will take and more importantly WHY.
People need it. To grow up, to mature, to be able to zoom ahead, to find their level. All of those things aren't being addressed by our current system, which was based on the need to put soldiers on the battle field or in the farmer's field to bring in the crops. School should be year-round, making the days progressively longer as one goes up in grade. Schools should teach and prepare children how to be productive, thinking members of society. The country needs to teach them how to be good citizens.
So it will be a longer track for most people. If one assumes we graduate people from primary school as a symbol of their adulthood, then we have a different yardstick for what constitutes an adult. I trust the reasoning of a 10 year old MIT graduate far more than an idiot of 60 whose IQ could be a measure by his hat size. Yet the latter can vote today and the former can't.
So we base adulthood on accomplishment and value to society before we do age. Age isn't an accurate guide and is pretty arbitrary. Faking an academic record (at least in the new world) will be harder than faking an ID card. If you aren't bright enough to graduate, or are too lazy to do it, you will be given a menial task to do that will let you barely squeak by for the rest of your life and be subjected to all the curfews and restrictions we place on children today. That will motivate the lazy to get a GED and take care of those who aren't able to. It's not NICE, but it is a better acknowledgement of reality than we have today.
But looking at the time-line here, you'll notice something kind of odd: For most of those growing up in my brave, new world, it seems it will take a lot longer to get there than it does now.
Not so.
Consider that primary school today usually ends at 18. Well, it won't. Primary school will END at grade 10. Most people can be taught the usual stuff - history, political science, math, reading, writing, science, etc. - in 10 years - especially when one considers schools will be year round then. More studying (if one adds in the extra 10 quarters gained over that 10 years, it's an extra 2 quarters) in less time.
This opens up the opportunity for that national service time. This is the time when kids need to learn to be disciplined, giving, responsible, etc. National service will do that. Yes, having kids in the military at 16 seems harsh, but when you consider that kids as young as 12 have been going off to war for thousands of years (England had a law requiring every male between the ages of 12 and 60 to practice daily with the longbow to be called up for national defense, for example - which is the tradition that led to the second amendment), it's not as bad as you might think. I know a few 16 year olds that could REALLY use that kind of regimentation and discipline today.
After that, it takes on the same track as before. Vocational school then higher education. National Service does NOT give you vocational training like it kind of does today. Making a career out of it entitles you to it, but your perks (voting) don't begin until you retire. In short, you will have no say in what happens to the country WHILE you serve. If you think about it, it makes sense. You can't tell your boss what to do.
But career national service grants you immediate qualification as a federal level candidate (I'm not sure if we can impose the national service to state candidates, but we can for national ones like senators and representatives since that's outlined in the Constitution.) as well as the right to vote. The only reason military vets can run for national office after their national service is that they've demonstrated a considerably higher level of commitment to country in a shorter amount of time by putting their lives on the line for it.
In the end, we have a new society. Adulthood is based on competence. Those who can't be competent are taken care of. Those who won't be competent are as well, but they'll hate life and with a free education (remember getting the education to graduate or the GED is always FREE, so even if they make poverty wages or less, they can always better themselves) there's no impediment to them getting out of their rut.
The end result of all of this is a much fairer society that is in keeping the the spirit of the United States. A place where someone can get ahead through dint of hard work. A place of equality and fairness. A place where those who choose to make the effort to serve their country in whatever capacity they can are the ones who earn the right to decide through democratic means how that country will be run. A place where excess can be achieved, but is frowned upon. A place where moderation, rules, where effort is rewarded, where sloth is punished and where the welfare of the people is attended to.
It probably needs quite a bit of tweaking, but we need to rediscover the unity that made our country great after the war is over.
Because we sure as hell don't have the sense to discover it now.
