Democracy or Idiocracy?

Is America's system of government under trial? Andrew Roberts, a concerned British historian, wrote for the New York Times in his article "1776- would you like to reconsider?" stating that "the American primary system, which has thrown up two presidential candidates who are despised by 60% of Americans, is broken and urgently needs to be reformed." 

How is it that 60% of Americans despise our two choices for president when it is those same citizens who took part in voting for them in the first place? Is this out of impracticality? Dismay? Failures in leadership? Democracy?

The United States is an entertainment-driven nation according to the Nielsen Company which states "more than half the homes in America have three or more TV's". As many of us have come to know, television can be an ineffective way to process news if not analyzed properly. A more shocking statistic comes from the Cable News Network which exclaims "Americans spend an average of $70 billion a year on lottery tickets!" It seems the states have become accustomed thrill, playing the lottery, a game of chance. As a result, oftentimes, we tend to choose exciting over practical. This may be a reason we have wound up with very flamboyant candidates for the presidency. 





Another reason that our country may have ended up with this 
unique pair could be out of fear of a specific candidate winning the election. "You do not want Hilla the Hun to win- vote Trump!" You would not want pumpkin Hitler to win- vote Hillary!" How many times have you heard, through word of mouth and figuratively every article on the internet, voting for a third party candidate is obsolete?



Are faulty leaders to blame for the less than ideal options we have to choose from or is it democracy itself that is in need of reform? I have stated before in my previous blog "Argument is the Answer" that our way of government is messy, yet liberating. 

China, on the other hand, appears to be doing extremely well in regards to business, investment, and workforce. Coincidentally, China's president Xi Jinping has been elevated to what they call a "core" leader. This does not give Xi Jinping new powers; it does, however, gives him the solitary authority of the Chinese Communist Party. Seeing that Xi Jinping is a dictatorial leader, the concern of him having too much power does arise. 



The New York Times shows that a Chinese document proclaims “for a country and for a party, a leading core is vitally important”. The autocratic government of China seems successful for the time being. The downfall of a single concentrated power is shown throughout all of history. Over time, an unchecked, unbalanced leader will become corrupt; not looking out for the interest of their people, but considering only their own interests. 

Are both forms of government not to be trusted? I would say that a democracy is essential for the people to be represented. Ironically, the people are very diverse and each individual has to compromise for any law to pass, any candidate to get chosen and any decision to get made. This is why it is important not to compromise too much by settling on matters or candidates we the people undervalue.