Welcome to the Kingdom

Welcome to the Kindom of America, where the rich get richer and everybody else remains static at their expense.

Remember the good old days when anyone with a dream could become President of the United States? Of course you don't. Every President has been a millionaire since the term of Harry S Truman, and he only got the Presidency as FDR's VP. Before Truman, the Roosevelt Family was very wealthy (in fact, FDR's grandfather Warren Delano II made over a million dollars in China in the 19th century). His predecessor, Herbert Hoover is rumored to have attempted to flee the country with $5 million worth of gold.

Now, I ask you: could any of these men have become the president without the enormous sums of money provide by their familial wealth? I highly doubt it. Frequently around campaign season one sees the news of fund-raising, such as Hilary Clinton's. Now, $20 million does not seem like an amount of money needed that would allow anyone to become President. Even Ron Paul's laughable 2008 campaign raised millions of dollars, and his was one of the least popular.

What this means is that hardly anyone can become president. For example, we have had two Roosevelts, two Bushes, and possibly two Clintons. Each of these pairs are from the same three families (albeit the last one by marriage), all millionaire aristocrats. If an average American attempted to compete with them, they would be laughed out of the country. So what we have now is basically a plutocracy. The rich are elected by the people, for themselves.

This obviously means there is something wrong with the system. How can a country founded on secularism and freedom for all people to do all things (eventually) retain such an anachronistic thing as a plutocratic presidency? The rich rule traditionally because they are exactly that: rich people with enough money to avoid having to do the work the middle and lower classes labor at.

Is this the best system? Of course not. There are countless nations with better government systems, and most of these countries are significantly better-off in other aspects as well. Take universal healthcare as an example. The United States does not have it, while every country in Europe save for Kosovo and Belarus has it. Well, you might say, it is because of the population difference. Smaller countries can better-afford universal health care. And that is partially true. However, even India is attempting to create a universal health care. A country with three times our population, and 1/6th of the global population is doing it, and yet we are not. Just another indication that the richest men aren't always the best leaders.

However, what method of government would better-suit the USA is up to debate. One compelling possibility is that of meritocracy, a system in which people in positions of power obtain said by their ability (or merit, hence the name). This system prevents assumption of power due to wealth, familial connections, or empty charisma. Theoretically, a meritocracy is one of the best possible government systems. It is ruled by those most able to rule. Of course, communism works too, in theory.

Meritocracy will be explored in more depth at a later date. Thank you for your time.