I have been trolling the internet again, paying particular attention to international forums in various subjects, and I have noticed a marked increase in traffic critical of the United States. As I read these posts, I tried to form rational arguments in favor of the United States, but came up short on many fronts. While I was able to laud America's contributions to the world over the past two centuries, I found that current American action, speech, and policy was much harder to defend. A recent article on slashdot about a study comparing UK and US health statistics resulted in the forum being flooded with responses critical of multiple aspects of American society including healthcare, economy, lifestyle, global perspective, and more. Even after filtering out confrontational (troll) responses, several educated arguements remained that challenged the prevailing self-opinion of America at large.

Now let me insert a disclaimer here. I realize that no opinion, action, etc, can be attached to a group on account of the presence within that group of individuals with dissenting or alternative opinions. I speak of the self-opinion of America, therefore, based on the expressed opinions as portrayed by the type and content of articles in the mainstream media, the responses of the vast majority of Americans in the forums I have been browsing (excluding the small handful of worldy Americans with well thought out responses), and the opinions of fellow students and coworkers who have astounded me with their lack of perspective. I have the deepest respect for those citizens who have made the effort to expand their perspectives, including those who are able to form a cogent arguement contrary to my own opinions. This post should in no way be applied to them. It should, however, be applied to that mass of people who believe themselves to be exempted by the above disclaimer but who couldn't find the Ivory Coast on a map or who give confused looks at a question on the merits of a parliamentary system.

Returning to the matter at hand, I will endeavor to summarize some of the broader critiques of the U.S. presented by those living elsewhere. As the article referenced above is healthcare related, let's start there. A common critique is that healthcare in the US is prohibitively expensive and results in a poorer overall national quality of health. For the amount of money the US spends on healthcare each year (ranked among the highest in the world), the quality of US healthcare is abysmal by comparison (one of the poorest of "industrialized" nations) according the the WHO. One poster took this a step farther and questioned the economic model that has led to America's market-driven healthcare system. While his comments are insightful, they offer little in the way of alternatives. Many of the American comments in the same thread indicate a preference for Canadian-like socialized medicine, or UK-like government medicine. I personally think that the German system would work well with a few modifications. All these systems have weaknesses, but I agree with the WHO that healthcare is a right not a service. Unfortunately, too many US responses among fellow students with whom I have discussed this simply shrug and say "we're still the best," or blame it on "statistics skewed by minorities." Ahh….future leaders of America.

One of my other favorite anti-American critiques is brought up in a subthread of the slashdot article which indicates that Americans know little to nothing about other countries in the world. I am ashamed to say that I agree with this sentiment. I'm a year from graduating here at the University of Iowa, and most of my fellow students still can't distinguish Iraq from Iran on a world map. Hmm…..that explains a lot, I think…. One thread offers an explanation (excuse?) for this phenomenon. I can think of NO EXCUSE for this ignorance, particularly if Americans wish to involve themselves so pointedly in the affairs of other nations. Not all of us have to major in geography, but we should be able to locate the Red Sea without Google or Wikipedia. Don't even get me started on American multilingualism. While the US dollar and the logistical power of the US military act much in the same way as the British Navy of old, they do not give America carte blanche to do as they will heedless of future consequences. There is a fine line between the catastrophic collapse (a la Ottoman empire) and graceful decline (a la UK) of a global "superpower". No influence, whatever it's ideals, lasts forever. The US cannot rest on the laurels of WWII any more than the UK could bask in the defeat of Napoleon. The world keeps turning, and constant change renders what was once a revolutionary idea a commonplace concept.

So what's my point in all this? Mainly to draw the attention of "my fellow Americans" to the consequences of willful blindness driven by complacense, righteousness, and arrogance. I also submit that a handful of hard-working citizens who have made an effort to expand their horizons can do much to change the course of history. We must not rest on our laurels either, confident in our education and ability and contributing little to society in return. With education and perspective comes responsibility, and it is our duty to ourselves, our families, and our world to introduce new ideas that contribute to humanity as a whole. 300 years ago a few courageous forward thinkers introduced the (as yet imperfected) concept of individual liberty. 300 years later, it is time for us to introduce new ideals to the world that will forward the cause of compassion and humanity. Once again, I call for change inspired by our daily actions and examples.

The following is an excerpt from one of my posts on slashdot.

“Governments” were initially formed (in the tribal days) to share resources and protect the group from others who might desire those resources. This mutated as “civilization” grew. Governments became more complex as they managed ever larger areas, populations, and resources. They created money to better distribute these resources over more diverse areas. A gold coin was the same on both ends of the empire. Religion grew out of a desire to understand nature along with a search for social “morality”. Eventually, technology allowed science to split from religion and the “moral” side of religion became mired in its own traditions and rituals, obscuring the original message of cooperation. Just as religion was perverted from a cooperative influence to a divisive amplification of difference, money began to be perverted by those who controlled its production. Soon, a coin wasn’t the same to those two distant strangers. To one, it meant he could eat for a week – the price of a loaf of bread. To the other, it wouldn’t even buy the crust because others in his area had more coins, and the laws of supply and demand drove the prices in his area up. The idea of money as a universal alternative to barter was destroyed. What initially served as a tool for distribution turned on itself and became a tool for exploitation. Remnants of the original purposes of religion, government, and currency remain to this day, and were essential in the development of today’s technology. From the guy who dug up the sand, to the guy who soldered the chips, to the programmers, distributors, consumers, auxiliary industries, etc….the world as we know it would not exist without the ability to safely communicate (provided by the govt), share resources (provided by the monetary system), and the will to cooperate (initially encouraged by religion, supplanted by the monetary system). All of this brought us to where we are today, but as we see every day, this system is falling apart. Why?.

To answer this, let’s look at what the three systems (govt, rel, and $$) have become. Government long ago transitioned from a management system agreed upon (in action if not in name) to an entity that exists only for its own glorification and expansion. The actions of it’s constituents no longer play a critical role in a government’s legitimacy because the govt structure has become so large that it is impossible for it to truly represent a true majority on any given issue. Religion, as mentioned above, sacrificed its unifying messages of cooperation, humanity, compassion, etc for “technicalities” of procedure, ritual, interpretation, and more that now are used to divide what they were intended to unify. The $$ system was the last to die, buffered for ages by the actions and failures of governments and the attitudes and perspectives of organized religion. The rise (and current decline) of the US marks the zenith of the economic system’s ability to do “good” for humanity by encouraging innovation, development, and efficiency. Today’s system rewards efficient exploitation far more than innovation. With ever increasing economic globalization, there are fewer and fewer “new markets” in the “new world” sense. As a result, competition over existing markets causes the emphasis for efficient exploitation to snowball. Unless we find another inhabited planet that we can dominate, subjugate, and exploit – we are left to eat our own. This explains the “dollar a day” fallacy which postulates that if the percent of the world’s population living on less than $1/day were to be given, by any means, $5/day…..that $5 would be devalued to such an extent that there would be no real effect on lifestyle.

So….what to do now? I argue that the system described above has given birth to its successor. The global awareness, ability to communicate, and desire to cooperate originally engendered by the 3 systems no longer require the “supervision” of their parent systems. Today, I don’t need a government to send my letter to the other end of the world. I don’t need money to trade my work for a product. I can work with others who truly share my interests, even at a distance, rather than others who merely reside in my local geographic vicinity. The infant alternatives are still in their nascent states – by no means perfect, and still not ready to stand completely on their own, but they do exist and they are growing rapidly – originally in the software community, but expanding to other genres at an ever increasing pace. Old religion is merging with government, while the original messages live on as individuals and small groups discover that spirituality does not require mandated rituals. Money is becoming increasingly virtual and less tangible….less real. It is being replaced by a trade in knowledge and skill – still an imperfect currency, but superior to what we have been using because they cannot be controlled by the ignorant. Government is the last to be affected because it has such a pervasive influence. It is not being replaced – history has shown that replacing governments merely leads to more of the same over time. Instead, it is being ignored. Many many people are existing outside of government regulation – one issue/genre at a time. Eventually, governments will dissolve into their original roles….the distribution of “public” resources. Regulation, enforcement, communication, etc…will return to the control of “we the people”. It has begun. Don’t screw it up with violence unless it becomes absolutely necessary. Violence allows the ignorant to stay in power. In both totalitarian states and violent revolutions the artistic, intelligent, and enlightened are persecuted and suppressed. It is time for the intelligent to turn away from the status quo . Rather than destroying what we have now, let’s just begin to build something better, and allow the old system to implode. It will be difficult. It will be painful. There will be reactions, violence, and more, but we need no longer be ruled by the ignorant, fearful, and greedy. We can make this change.

I don’t pretend to be an expert in the field of theology, but with the current state of world affairs, I think a little discussion of the benefits and flaws of organized religion may be a good thing. I say “organized” religion to distinguish socio-religious organization from individual or communal spiritual quests. It is not spirituality I question, but the physical entities that have arisen in it’s name. Religion is a framework in which spirituality can be developed. As with many manmade creations, however, it is too easily abused. Organized religion does not require spiritual depth or even a desire to develop this depth. It merely requires faith and specific behaviour. This is not to say that organized religions mean to do harm, or even that harm is an inevitable result of organizing the human spiritual quest. The vast majority of world religions will accept any person who is willing to (at least in name) proclaim certain tenets. Religion is a great motivator of people and provides a strong social conscience to many who are seeking to better develop their own mores and values. If religion (by which I still refer to organized or semi-organized religion) were to limit itself to the spiritual, it would indeed be the driving force for “good” that it believes itself to be.

Unfortunately, religions rely on “leaders” to interpret messages that were designed to communicate tolerance and peace. These leaders too often have political, physical, and economic interests that conflict with the deliverance of an unbiased message. Even if it is not their intent, the conflicts of interest that arise when the powerful disseminate information to the weak can lead to the dilution or distortion of an otherwise pure truth. In many arenas, this would be viewed as it exists. For instance, we often expect our political leaders to be corrupt and to distort information to better affect their own interests. Why then, do we not view our religious leaders the same way? We see the flaws in the leaders of “other” religions or sects all too clearly, yet we blindly follow the guidance of our own with very similar results to those we criticize. This is evident at times in other arenas, albeit to a lesser degree and with more debate. In politics, for instance, a person may believe that one specific leader can “do no wrong” as it were, but others within the same political party will freely criticize specific decisions of the same leader. This makes it difficult for political leaders to achieve power over a “critical mass” which consolidates power to such a degree that they engender the same fanaticism and narrow focus that religious leaders so often create.

The “obvious” cause is the “faith” of the followers. The vast majority do not have faith in our political leaders to do what is “right” all the time, or even most of the time. Our religious leaders, however, have (in theory), reached their position by demonstrating in both deed and word their commitment to the tenets of their respective religions. Add to this the unifying nature of an old saying….

“Me and my brother against my neighbor. Me, my brother, and my neighbor against a stranger.”

There are other variations on this saying, but the concept is nearly universal. It allows for sects of the same religion to fight each other and yet unify to fight an “outsider”. Faith, plus a unifying doctrine makes for a mass of people who are willing to die for what they “believe”. When that outsider is designated an “enemy” by religious leaders, followers extend the faith in their religious beliefs to faith in the “righteousness” of a political cause. God ceases to be the driving force in believer’s lives (although his name is used and abused more than ever), while the eradication of the outsider and the support of religious leadership is seen as a duty. Leaders transition from having “earned” their position from faith, word, deed, and sacrifice, to having been “granted” this position by divine mandate. This transition is often subtle, but the leaders are given the symbolic power of the entire religion. This has nothing to do with spirituality, and everything to do with power and intolerance. Both sides argue for their religion and it’s values, and swear that the “other” is the antithesis to all they believe. Extremism drowns out the quiet protest of the rational and the messages of God are placed second to the “interpretations” of religious leaders. So begins the jihad/crusade (circle one).

So what’s my point? Merely that each of us needs to consider, meditate, and pray on each word and action we do or neglect to do in the name of our religion. The world teeters at the brink of the next world war, crusade, or both. To ensure the peace and tranquility that is conducive to meditation, prayer, and spiritual development we must disassociate ourselves from the “name” of our respective religions and dedicate ourselves to the underlying tenets rather than the message of the day. The vast majority of religions advocate peace. It is strange, that these same religions are the cause of so many wars, and so much repression and destruction. It is time that I stop rallying to my neighbor’s cry of “foul” and start studying the message of God for myself. Let us rally instead to a new cry – that of a common need to develop our spirituality in a safe, quiet, and peaceful world. Rally to the cry of peace and turn your back on the power games that have overtaken organized religion.