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.