1 vs 99

     Well, so much for looking at the glass half full instead of half empty. Chomsky's view of the American Dream is a punch to the gut for a lot of people. And I want to say that he's wrong, that America is a place of equality... but it's not. 

     His analysis of the battle between the elites of society and those on the bottom wanting more democracy, dating back to the founding of the country, really hit me hard. The fact that James Madison, a founding father, wanted the government to "secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation" (Madison, qtd. in Chomsky, 10) is quite disturbing. He wanted to "prevent the danger of democracy" (Chomsky 3). Isn't this the form of government they sought to institute in response to another that sought to repress it? That's counter-intuitive. Granted, I know Madison thought this was in the best interest of the country, and he did not seek to make the lives of the laborer difficult. It is understandable that the Founding Fathers trusted landholders and the rich and educated more than farmers and day-laborers. Would you rather have someone with an MBA in Business running a company, or simply a high school graduate? What I mean by this analogy is that it is understandable that they wanted well-educated, smart people making the decisions, but not all of them. And I think that was where they went wrong. Democracy is government by the people, the majority of the people. And the opulent aren't the majority.

     More compelling evidence I found was from the Crisis of Democracy. The Trilateral Commission complaining about the "marked upswing in other forms of citizen participation" and "the essence of the democratic surge of the 1960s" being a "general challenge to existing systems of authority" (Trilateral Commission, qtd. in Chomsky, 28-29) is an illustration of the Commission's entitled outlook. Citizens standing up for their rights is a good thing, especially in societies in which their rights are suppressed to an extent. But before we raise our pitchforks and torches, let us remember that the Trilateral Commission is made up of "liberal internationalists from... Europe, Japan, North America" (Chomsky 18). This isn't some U.S.-based conspiratorial organization. These are 3 world powers, and isn't specific to only America.

     There is so many more interesting topics that Chomsky discusses, but these really stuck out to me. I learned in my American History classes about how citizens were still unhappy about their limited participation in government, and how the government was insensitive to the needs of its citizens. Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion are prime examples of the government taxing the poor unnecessarily. But, yet again, politicians weren't doing this to be mean, or because they were evil, but because they thought this was in the best interests of the country. Yes, they certainly took advantage of the citizens and had their best interests at heart as well as the country's, but they shouldn't be viewed as the bad guys. There's more to it than that.

     I understand Chomsky's perspective, and agree with him in that the methods used by those above us are absurd. But they also want the country to be stable, even though to them, stability meant having the rich and powerful calling the majority of the shots. And that's not cool. The majority of the population is being neglected. There is certainly a struggle between the 1% and the 99%. It is most definitely a struggle to get the full "American Dream" because of these factors. In that sense, I agree that there needs to be change.