What is the future of democracy? Is it a realistic option?

What is the future of democracy? Is it a realistic option?

What is the future of democracy? Is it a realistic option?

What a loaded question. I think that to begin digging, we need to look at whether or not we are even functioning in a democracy right now. Is it we the people, or we the corporation?


I can feel comfortable in saying that they way democracy has historically been, that that "pure form" of democracy, we will never see again.

I think the belief behind democracy is a realistic option. But as with everything else in our world, it's changing. People are no longer the only "things" that matter, the role of corporations has really affected the political system. Democracy will need to be re-defined. But I feel strongly in saying that the purpose behind democracy, the thought of people have an opinion in the government will continue to be an American value. I think that us as Americans, that we are too strong to watch the future of democracy to become totally deteriorate, or have we already passed that point?

What is the process to develop an economic policy that provides services and sustainability?

Week Thirteen - What is the process to develop an economic policy that provides services and sustainability?

There needs to be compromise involved in any process that develops an economic policy that provides service and sustainability. Everyone needs to give a little bit.  As with any successful relationship, there is a give-take compromise. Both sides need to make things want to work out. The people giving the services and the people receiving the services need to make agreements. In my opinion, for something to be sustainable, you have to give a little bit up; you have to apply to delayed gratification.





I think that there also needs to be an understanding that you cannot get something for nothing. If people are expecting services and sustainability from the government, then they need to provide funds to the government that allows the to have a decent budget. It's a balance!


I have recently been working with a charity called Lift Up America. I was invited to speak at their most recent event in Phoenix earlier this month. It was such an incredible experience. Though Lift Up America doesn't directly receive funds from the government, they work directly with organizations that do. In my opinion, the cool thing about LUA is that they go to different cities and work with the pre-existing non-profit organizations in the city. They work with empowerment programs for under-privileged youth.  But they empower these children by, among other things and taskts, asking them to go out into their community and to make it better. The first hand out they get is an expecation to give someone else a hand up. To make someone else's world better. And it was amazing to witness the change in the children when they are given the power and the control to make a positive change in their community. It was so re-assuring for me to see an organization like this that functions on the give-take relationship. That acknowledges that life is a compromise. (for more information and for a full picture of what LUA does, please! visit www.liftupamerica.com)

If I make a grocery list that has apples, bread, and milk on it. And if I know that the apples cost three dollars, the bread costs two and the milk five, that I need to go to the store with at least ten dollars or I won't be able to get what I need. It's unrealistic for me to go to the store with eight and expect to still get the same "services" from the store. People can't do that with the government.



There is a cost to living in America. There is a cost to drive on the highways, to have our food inspected, to have police officers. It's not free. People need to realize if they want to function as a member of society, that they need to pay into the pot before they can take out of it.

People need to sort out their priorities, what does the economic policy need to include? Then they need to bite the bullet and front the money to support the economic policy that used to be that of the American Dream.

How does a government facilitate comprehensive care for its constituents without sacrificing equity?

How does a government facilitate comprehensive care for its constituents without sacrificing equity?


I think that, to put it simply, a government should facilitate comprehensive care for its constituents without sacrificing equity by living the same way a family should. By living well within your means. The more money that you have, the more comprehensive care you are able to provide. When people pay more into the government through means like taxes, then the government is able to provide more.

In my opinion, comprehensive care is more than just medicare and medicaid, it includes emergency response vehicles, police officers, the FDA, Postal Service, anything like that to me, is comprehensive care. And if people don't pay into the pot, they shouldn't expect anything in return.

A government needs to be responsible in making sure that they are staying stable and strong for their people.

From my understanding of the question, I think that s a government should facilitate comprehensive care for its constituents without sacrificing equity by only handing out what is coming in. If people are paying into social security, only deliver it at the level that is coming in. The government can only give what they have. But at the same time, the government has some responsibility to give to it's people.

How should a nation-state develop its foreign policy in accordance to its values and in connection to the development of its domestic policy?

How should a nation-state develop its foreign policy in accordance to its values and in connection to the development of its domestic policy?

I have been very fortunate in my life that I've had great opportunity to travel. I've spent time in Europe, Canada, and Latin America mainly. But in addition to my international travel, I've had great opportunity to travel within our nation as well. I'm lucky to say that I've been in all but five US States (and don't worry...I will get to those!)

Through my traveling I've seen political interactions between countries and other countries, and even political correspondence between the states. I still struggle with articulating how I truly feel that domestic and foregin policy should be developed.

I think that, simply put,  a nation-state should develop it's foreign policy in correlation with the values and health of their domestic policy.

For example, if a country believes in helping their under-privileged and providing things like social security and medicare, than the country should be more willing to provide aid for other countries especially after natural disasters. Also, if a nation-state has a domestic policy of freedom of religion, freedom of speech then that nation should never impose their religion or political values on another nation.

But on the same hand, there should be a correlation between foreign and domestic policy. If the country is struggling with their domestic policy, then they should hold a more conservative foreign policy until the issues at home are resolved.

What role do judges and the judicial system play in supporting freedom?

What role do judges and the judicial system play in supporting freedom?

The Judges I feel do a pretty good job balancing and supporting freedom in our country. I think the fact that we do not elect them officially, allows money and corruption to play different roles in there stance.

I think having the number of Judges that we have in the Supreme Court allow for good balance within our country. And the fact the presidents appoint thee judges, allow for the presidents to have a lasting legacy.

However, the legal system as a whole appears to be flawed. It doesn't support our freedom in some ways, because as with many of parts of the government, money plays a role. Though the money may not have as big of an impact directly on the judges, money affects the lawyers and lower level state courts.

Two years ago I flew out to the east coast to see who was, at the time, my boyfriend. He was excited I was in town, and while we were driving into New York City he was showing off a little bit in his car. He was speeding, down the center of the road, and when the cop turned around to arrest him, he ran from the cops. Aggressive Driving, In-ability to maintain lane, 20+ MPH over the limit, and running from the cops were on the list of charges.  Luckily for him though, his Daddy had a big wallet and by the end of the lawyer ordeal he got charged with running a stop sign. How is that supporting my freedom? When someone who obviously made the wrong choices, who probably has no right to be on the road. He bought himself a drivers license. I ask, how is that protecting and supporting my freedom.

As with most political systems, the judicial systems support and limit freedom in our country.

How does the U.S. Congress, as it exists in its current structure, support and/or limit authentic representation?

How does the U.S. Congress, as it exists in its current structure, support and/or limit authentic representation?

I think that many of the best arguments showcasing how the U.S. Congress both supports and limits authentic representation. Early into my high school career, I had the opportunity to sit down and speak with our district representatives who sat in the Colorado Congress. I really was able to feel like she took me seriously as a citizen and that my opinions had some impact on at least the conversations that were had in congress. I do, however, fear that the same opportunities do not stand for the U.S. Congress. What's the difference between the two?

I think that there is a need to think about the change that our society is facing. Is the current set up of congress still effective for the goals of our country? I am disturbed by the role that money has taken on in our government. The recent events in Wisconsin make me sick. How do the Koch brothers have so much influence over a government, and in turn; with their checkbook they are able to affect the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. There is still good in the government, but the good is getting harder to find.

I think that one of the most evident differences is the amount of money in the two. U.S. Congress' current structure is influenced quite a bit by the capitalistic structure of our society. As the regulations on funding of political campaigns have radically shifted, I feel that the structure of the U.S. Congress has as well.

There is definitely a representative bias currently in our congress, being that the diversity in Congress is not proportional to the vast diversity of our country. I have to wonder if there is a way that the power can be more equally distributed and in turn less corrupted in our government. How can we make it that that when a party gains a majority in congress that they don't gain a full, almost monopoly, over the government.

I feel that the U.S. Congress in it's current structure, often finds itself in almost a stalemate. They sit there in filibusters arguing. The senate with write and pass a bill that then the house will throw down. Then the house will pass a bill that the senate will throw down. It's sometimes a very viscous cycle that fails to accomplish things.

In what ways does the U.S. Presidency support and limit the formation of an ideal democracy?

The President. He's the leading man. The one that everyone in the country talks about. He's the one that has the biggest campaign, and he's the one with the most respect. Especially in these tough times, people find it easiest to blame the President. It is his fault that the employment rates are so high. It's his fault that I have to pay so much for gas. It's his fault that my aunt cannot afford medical insurance. It's his fault.

How much control does the president really have? In what ways does the U.S. Presidency support and limit the formation of an ideal democracy? What is the role of the President and how does it affect each of us on a daily basis?

I remember when I was first learning about government, I thought that the President was our government. I've obviously learned more about American Government since then, and I'm grateful the President isn't the only figure in our government.

The President does; however, serve a very important role in the formation of our government. He is able to support the formation of an ideal government, he is able to propose and support ideas and function. He is able to agree with congress, or disagree with their thoughts. The President is also able to limit the formation of a democracy. The president is just one figure in our multi-level government and he is able to use his power of veto, and his power of authority to influence the people over the work of the congress.

I guess now that my opinion has shifted to the thoughts that the congress has the most power in our government. It is that group of people that we can select and elect to make the majority of the choices and to hold the majority of the power.

I think more than anything in America, the president represents an ideal democracy. Now, don't get me wrong. I understand that the President has an immense amount of stress on him, but I think at times he serves almost as a figure head as well. He travels, speaks, and influences people all around the world. But at the end of the day, he is just that one figure in our multi-level government.