Democracy and Capitalism
Those who live in America enjoy freedom because America is a democratic nation in which the people hold the power. Is this statement truly a reality? One must consider the fact the United States is also a capitalist society and this has changed the face of democracy. Can we honestly say that the citizens of the United States hold the power when we consider the actual state of the political system? Upon closer examination, it appears that the majority of decisions made in this country are based in the interest of capitalism. From corporate funding for political candidates to the monopoly of ourinformation systems, the current political system in America is deeply rooted in capitalism which has taken power away from the people.
Private ownership is at the core of capitalism and this has lead to an individualistic and profit driven society, though it is not inevitable. The capitalist system in the United States has become one of corporate ownership rather than that of the people. Those in control of our major institutions exercise great power when it comes to decisions that impact the nation. A centralized system of power is in sharp contrast to that of democracy because in a true democracy a few would not have power over the masses. "Can we expect these megacorporations to exercise their power democratically, with the public interest in mind?" (Szykowny, 1994, p. 16)
The alternative to state or private power is democracy. Really functioning democracy presupposes relative equality...it also requires the dissolution of concentrated power, state or private. Like other institutions, the media should be under the controlof the workforce and the communities in which ...
... middle of paper ...
...the role that technology and capitalism play in democracy. The resistance to democracy in Asia is addressed. And it concludes with a discussion of the issues being faced in the United States today regarding democracy.
9. Szykowny, Rick. (1994). The Threat of Public Access. An Interview With Chris Hill
and Brian Springer. Humanist, 54(3), 15-22.
This interview focuses on the public's access to mass media. A good background of public access and democracy is provided. Both Hill and Springer have been involved with issues surrounding this for several years. Their focus seems to be on the role that cable television plays in public access. Media ownership and its reduction into the hands of a few is a major issue that they discuss.
10. Turow, J. (1997). Media Systems in Society: Understanding Industries, Strategies,
and Power. New York: Longman.
Michael Parenti (2002) declares media in the United States is no longer “free, independent, neutral and objective.” (p. 60). Throughout his statement, Parenti expresses that media is controlled by large corporations, leaving smaller conglomerates unable to compete. The Telecommunications Act, passed in 1996, restricted “a single company to own television stations serving more than one-third of the U.S. public,” but is now overruled by greater corporations. (p. 61). In his opinion, Parenti reveals that media owners do not allow the publishing of stories that are not beneficial and advantageous. Parenti supports his argument very thoroughly by stating how the plutocracy takes control over media in multiple ways: television, magazines, news/radio broadcasting, and other sources.
1. Janda, Kenneth. The Challenge of Democracy. Houghton Mifflin Co. Boston, MA. 1999. (Chapter 3 & 4).
Over the centuries, the media has played a significant role in the shaping of societies across the globe. This is especially true of developed nations where media access is readily available to the average citizen. The media has contributed to the creation of ideologies and ideals within a society. The media has such an effect on social life, that a simple as a news story has the power to shake a nation. Because of this, governments around the world have made it their duty to be active in the regulation and control of media access in their countries. The media however, has quickly become dominated by major mega companies who own numerous television, radio and movie companies both nationally and internationally. The aim of these companies is to generate revenue and in order to do this they create and air shows that cater to popular demand. In doing so, they sometimes compromise on the quality of their content. This is where public broadcasters come into perspective.
At first glance, it seems implausible the word democracy isn't written in the United States Constitution, or in the Preamble of the Constitution, or even in the Declaration of Independence. One would assume a concept so paramount to modern American culture would surely be derived from one of its oldest and most endeared documents. Alas, it is not. The Constitution only specifically mentions two entities, the government and “We the People”. Defining government is an easy enough task, but who are “We the People”? Originally consisting of only white male property owners, eventually adding in other races, income classes, women, and astonishingly, corporations, the definition of “We the People” has evolved numerous times. Corporation is another key term the architects of our government failed to define for us, perhaps that is why it found its way into the phrase “We the People”. A grave dilemma lies in this fallible defining of terms. Granting corporations person-hood legislatively shifts the power of democracy from human interests to corporate interests. This corrosion of human interest can clearly be noted when examining the battle over corporate power highlighted in the court cases of Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and United States v. Sourapas and Crest Beverage Company.
Leon, Gloria R.; Fulkerson, Jayne A.; Perry, Cheryl L.; Cudeck, Robert. Personality and behavioral vulnerabilities associated with risk status for eating disorders in adolescent girls.
Fog, A. (2004, May 4). The supposed and the real role of mass media in modern democracy. Retrieved from Agner.org: www.agner.org/cultsel/mediacrisis.pdf
The United States is run by a democracy. There are many pieces to democracy that must be in good health in order for democracy to be effective and work. In this essay I will critique some of the most important parts of democracy in America and go deeper. I will first focus on the strengths of United States democracy and then I will dive into categories of democracy that I believe to not be thriving. I believe that the current conditions of United States democracy are becoming a hindrance to this nation, because the opinions and freedoms the public possess are being stripped away through poor media, education, and economy.
In contemporary times, the rise of capitalism as a dominant economic trend and its ravenous demand to accumulate sources from new markets, has led to the idea of merging political and economic power into one, which is democratic capitalism or otherwise illustrated as “a system where markets allocate income according to efficiency while governments redistribute income according to political demand."(Iversen, 2006). The advancements mentioned earlier, have given ground for questions concerning the possible compatibility of the political ideology which is democracy and the economic ideology capitalism and how would they affect one another. This mergence could be examined in recent times, whereas in the past around the start of the nineteenth century it was considered as inappropriate and unlikely to happen. This paper aims to demonstrate to what degree are democracy and capitalism compatible, by examining the various areas of conflict of the two ideologies, how has capitalism affected the democratic system in the United States and does actually global capitalism have an impact on the developing countries democracies.
Hudson, William E. American Democracy in Peril: Eight Challenges to America’s Future – Fourth Edition. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2004.
In making this argument this essay seeks to five things. Firstly, to define democracy within the contemporary context offering the key characteristics of a modern re...
Beauty pageants have caused an increase in mental and physical issues in young girls who participate. Participation and competition for a beauty prize where infants and girls are objectified and judged against sexualized ideals can have significant mental health and developmental consequences that impact detrimentally on identity, self-esteem, and body perception ("We must protect our kids from the catwalk of shame."). If young girls don't win, they might take it personally and get hurt feelings. The child might end up feeling unattractive or inadequate ("Child Beauty Pageants Pros and Cons.") which can lead to the development of disorders such as bulimia or anorexia. ("How Do Child Beauty Pageants Affect a Child's Development?") These are both eating disorders girls develop to lose weight excessively. Furthermore, the average BMI of a beauty pageant contestant as of 2010 is 18.3 (Beauty Pageant Statistics), which is classified as underweight...
... small media reforms (like public journalism) will be enough to reduce the commercial and corporate imperatives driving our existing media systems (Hackett and Zhao, 1998, p. 235). Instead, a fundamental reform of the entire system is needed, together with a wider institutional reform of the very structures the media systems work within, our democracies. This will be a difficult task, due to powerful vested interests benefiting from the status quo, including media, political and economic elites. Reforms will need to be driven by campaigns mobilising public support across the political spectrum, to enable the citizens of the world to have a media system that works to strengthen democratic principles as opposed to undermining them. This task is challenging, but it will become easier once people begin to understand the media’s role in policymaking within our democracies.
Child beauty pageants are a quite controversial topic, not only in the United States but all around the world. Beauty pageants teach young girls bad lessons and causes them to grow up too fast. The people who are strongly opposed to child beauty pageants view the children involved as being objectified and treated more like eye candy than little girls. Many people have had enough of the exploitation and are starting movements for change. Some countries such as France, have even gone so far as to ban children under the age of sixteen to compete in pageants. Anyone who violates this law faces heavy fines and possible jail time (Could Child Beauty Pageants Be Banned in the USA?). The United States should also look into the possibility of a law prohibiting the participation of children in beauty pageants. Beauty pageants exploit children and applauded them for their looks. Many people believe that “it’s human nature to be drawn to beauty”, but have they taken it too far (Holland, Kristen)?
If no one stops exposing young girls in beauty pageants, what are our next generations going to look like? Young girls running around portraying fake looks, turning into someone completely different from who they truly are. Although beauty pageants may reinforce the fairy tale that physical beauty guarantees fame, fortune, and happiness, this activity may tarnish the child with physical, emotional, and societal lifetime difficulties. The exposition of children to the glitz pageant circuit is becoming evident in their growth and development as young women.
Have you ever considered entering a beauty pageant because it seemed fun? These beauty pageants do appear to be fun but they can have a lasting effect on your perception of beauty. Even though beauty pageants build confidence through performance and help boost careers, they harm society by lowering self-esteem, putting too much emphasis on beauty at a young age, and also providing unrealistic images of beauty.