The Russian annexation of Crimea and the subsequent outbreak of the Ukrainian civil war with its thousands of casualties are a European tragedy. It is the deadliest crisis in Europe since the end of the Kosovo War and with increasing NATO intervention the conflict is at risk of escalating even further. The West urges for peace while European and American elected officials as well as the media decry Vladimir Putin as the sole culprit of the deplorable situation. But the reality is more complex and albeit less visible, the United States have played a major role in the current developments leading to war on the European continent.

Russian President, Vladimir Putin

Vladimir Putin is an easy man to dislike. His authoritarian rule of Russia is strongly at odds with democratic ideals of the West. The Russian suppression of the free press and political opposition, the mysterious poisoning deaths of opponents and Putin’s strongman posturing are giving just reasons for critics to ridicule and criticize. The Russian president has a strongly unfavorable image in the West and the actions taken in Crimea seem to fit this perception perfectly. The annexation of the Ukrainian peninsula is a factual breach of international law. It seems like a clear-cut case which allows for guilt to be easily assigned. But a look at the history of post-soviet Ukraine tells a story not quite as simple.

Over the course of 25 years Russia developed a strong sense of betrayal and resentment towards the West and specifically the United States, and for good reasons. The basis for and foremost evidence of the Western lack of credibility was laid at the end of the Cold War. Russia was in dire straits economically and politically in the early 90s as the Soviet Empire was about to come to an end. But the Russian-Western relationship was at its climax. Diplomatic cooperation between Russia and the West was close and negotiations produced results. Mikhail Gorbachev had led the way to end the Cold War and during the 1990s 2+4 Talks he negotiated Germany’s reunification. Russia agreed to a united Germany on the condition that NATO would not further expand eastwards. The West accepted in the form of a gentlemen’s agreement but not in writing. 9 years later the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary joined the alliance. 2004, in a second wave of extension, six former Warsaw Pact countries and Slovenia joined NATO. Albania and Croatia in 2009. The West broke its word and NATO – an alliance that was founded in opposition to Russian power and has ever since been considered a threat by Russia – was now at its borders.

In an 2009 interview with the German SPIEGEL then Russian President Dmitry Medvedev expressed the feeling of betrayal also concerning the Western promise in the 90s talks to take Russian interests into consideration. This promise was obviously violated by the NATO’s expansion but NATO and the US respectively added insult to injury various times. Notable instances were the 1999 Kosovo War, the US retreat from the ABM Treaty in 2002 and the US intervention in Ukraine.

In 1999 NATO’s aerial bombardment during the Kosovo war commenced although NATO by its own charter is a defense alliance and the action was not sanctioned by the UN Security Council because Russia and China would have vetoed it. Under US leadership the alliance proceeded to attack nonetheless. It proved to the Russians that the West and particularly the United States would break their own rules and would use unilateral force regardless of objections of their supposed partners to get their way.

Only three years later, in 2002, the United States unilaterally withdrew from the ABM Treaty, ending an agreement that was the cornerstone of bilateral arms control between the US and Russia for 30 years, to pursue its development of a National Missile Defense system. A decision that came only months after Russia had offered wide-ranging support for the United States fight against terror after the 911 attacks. From a Russian perspective this move could only be interpreted as an American drive towards a first strike capability and hence, a hostile act.

Most important for the current situation, however, is the ongoing meddling of the United States in the affairs of Ukraine, a direct neighbor and a country considered a smaller version of Russia itself with a large minority Russian population (ca. 17%). The United States has provided $5 billion in financial aid to Ukraine from 1991 to 2014 under the USAID program. Ukraine is one of many recipients of USAID funds among the former Soviet states. However, Ukraine is the only one experiencing two uprisings in 10 years. In both cases a Russian-friendly leader, Viktor Yanukovych, was overthrown and replaced by a Western-friendly counterpart, Viktor Yushchenko and Arseniy Yatsenyuk respectively. In both cases there is more than incidental evidence that the United States at the very least facilitated the protests.

After Viktor Yanukovych’s declared victory in 2004, the United States co-sponsored exit polls that rejected the run-off election’s official outcome and sparked the uprising of the Orange Revolution, it funneled money to NGOs that supported the Pora Movement – the revolution’s main agitators -, through the National Democratic Institute – a non-profit founded by former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright – it trained election observers and was one of the first to decry the fraudulent nature of Viktor Yanukovych’s victory on November 23^rd – only two days after the election. Among the candidates, Viktor Yushchenko was the US’ clear favorite. He had personally met with Dick Cheney in 2003, he received financial support by the National Endowment for Democracy – a Washington non-profit founded by Ronald Reagan -, his campaign website was created by a Washington PR firm and when he was poisoned with Dioxin during the campaign he was flown into Vienna to have American doctors attend to him. The Orange Revolution would bring Yushchenko to power. But he would be thrown out of office in 2010 with only 5.45% of the vote after prolonged infighting of his administration and widespread accusations of corruption. His former opponent Yanukovych became president in an election the OSCE called “transparent and honest”.

US Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland, US Ambassador ,Geoffrey Pyatt, and newly elected Ukraine President, Petro Poroshenko

In 2014, thanks to the taped and released conversation between US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and US Ambassador to the Ukraine Pyatt, there might be doubt as to the extent of US sponsorship of the Maidan protests but certainly not about US interference itself. The 2014 uprising ousted democratically elected Yanukovych and installed Arseniy Yatsenyuk. Yatsenyuk, like Yushchenko, has strong US ties. His foundation Open Ukraine is supported a.o. by NATO and the United States State Department and he was explicitly named by Nuland as favorite US choice to lead the Ukraine after Yanukovych’s ouster. The then held election confirmed Petro Poroshenko, a multibillionaire businessman and one of Viktor Yushchenko’s close confidants, as new President of Ukraine. In effect, force was used a second time within a decade to diminish Russian ties, push the Ukraine towards the West and likely set it up as NATO’s next addition.

The annexation of Crimea came as a direct Russian response to what they must perceive as ongoing US interference in matters of Russian national security and an attempt to isolate and surround Russia. The actions chosen by the Putin administration are inexcusable, they are a breach of international law, but they are understandable. US actions, however, can hardly be linked to concerns of national security. And looking at the catastrophic results of the Ukraine conflict one has to ask why the United States does see it fit to destabilize a country that is over 5.000 miles from its borders and bring about an escalation that might destabilize an entire region.

The EU sees the United States as ally. But it should be of great concern to European leaders that the US has a history of destabilizing sovereign countries and replacing a nation’s leadership for the sake of economic gains; Iraq just being the latest example. It should furthermore concern European leaders that the US military industrial complex is a major influence in the American government, shapes its foreign policy decisions and would reap major benefits from NATO – and therefore the US – going to war.

The Ukraine conflict is not caused by unilateral action. The US and NATO have long treated Russia with condescension and by ignoring Russian concerns regarding the Balkan wars or the NATO expansion showed that they consider Russia little more than the loser of the Cold War or as Barack Obama put it “a regional power”, not an equal partner. The repeated interference in matters of great economic and security concern for Russia lay the basis for the crisis at hand. Invading a sovereign country is inexcusable. But looking at the 25 year development leading up to the Ukraine conflict one must conclude that the same is true for US actions. But while Russian behavior, albeit an overreach, concerns a direct neighbor and is therefore understandable, nothing similar can be said for the US.

The Gilded Age – Trusts were the “Bosses of the Senate”

What will the American society of the future look like? What do Americans want it to look like? It could be the America of the Gilded Age, with its Robber Barons and mass poverty. It could be America of the Great Prosperity, the America ushered in by FDR. Where do Americans want their leaders to take them? It is an important question. Maybe the most important one. Without a vision of a better future one can hardly be expected to confidently navigate the country through the rough waters of global and domestic challenges lying ahead. Anyone aspiring to lead a nation should have a solid idea of where to take it and the means necessary to achieve his vision. All the more troubling is the insistence of a large number of presidential candidates to either refight long lost battles of the past or to sell a vision that chooses the Gilded Age over the Great Prosperity or no vision at all.

One can only guess what world candidates like Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee or Marco Rubio live in. But according to their public platforms none seems to either understand the key issues facing the country or if they raise valid points like reforming the too complex tax code they argue in the exact wrong direction. None of the Republican candidates even acknowledges legalized corruption or excessive inequality as an issue. On the contrary, their platforms look like they have been drafted in direct cooperation with the Business Roundtable and dipped in bucket of phony patriotism. They are mind-blowingly inaccurate in their assertions, contradictory and in part childish in their simplistic appeal to emotions.

Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz. – by Gage Skidmore

Overarching themes of all Republican platforms are cutting taxes, strong national defense and the sanctity of life and it is debatable that any of these topics are among the most pressing issues facing the nation. Cutting taxes ties into the idea of “small government” which propagates that shrinking the government by the means of withholding tax revenues is in itself commendable. In reality the size of government has to match the number of services it is supposed to provide. If cutting taxes results in a lack of oversight of the financial industry, which in turn leads to another economic meltdown, no one can argue that smaller government is necessarily better. Hence, the idea that shrinking the government is in itself a good thing and will solve the nation’s problems is fiction, as is the assertion that the Obama administration’s taxation and spending is unusually high. Internationally the United States tax to GDP ratio is one of the lowest among the developed nations and tax receipts under Obama measured against GDP are among the lowest since the 2^nd World War. The basis for the argument to cut taxes is simply flawed and renders any policy using it meaningless and misguided.

Closely related to taxation is the issue of federal debt. It is another top priority listed by most Republican candidates. Identifying the federal debt as too high is a fair point to make although it is sustainable at current levels and the US will certainly not default since it has control of its money printing ability and the recent past has shown that despite an excessive increase of the money supply inflation is negligible. Regardless, the national debt is high and its reduction a viable endeavor to pursue. But the ideas put forward are as far from satisfactory as they are contradictory and hypocritical. In the face of record high levels of wealth accumulation and record low levels of effective individual tax rates not a single candidate propose raising revenue. Instead they put forth the aforementioned tax cuts, which will only exacerbate the problem, and a “Balanced Budget Amendment”. The amendment in itself will not fix the deficit but it will prevent deficit spending and since the government every year borrows to cover its outlays it would have to immediately raise taxes or cut spending to adhere to the amendment. Raising taxes is not a Republican option which leaves only spending cuts. Now, since the military consumes 50% of the nation’s discretionary spending and the United States spends as much on its military as the next 10 largest military spenders in the world combined it would be the natural pick. Surprisingly, none of the candidates recommends cutting defense. On the contrary, all suggest “strengthening” defense: increasing the defense budget, a measure that will increase the deficit even further.

Federal Spending 2014. – source CBO

Where do the savings come from? The suggestion is for one Social Security. A program that has an 80% approval rating among the American public, has lifted millions out of poverty and has not contributed a single dollar to the deficit. A suggestion utterly without merit. Idea no. 2 is to cut Medicaid and Medicare, programs that provide health care for the poor and elderly. Again, a highly misguided proposal. It is true that the outlays for medical programs will rise as the Baby Boomer generation retires and it will put a higher burden on the government’s budget. But only for the owners of a very  special mindset the logical solution is to cut medical coverage for millions. Instead a first step to reign in cost could be to eliminate Medicare Part D and decrease the programs cost by allowing for negotiation between the government and the pharmaceutical industry. Nobody would lose coverage and highly profitable corporations, not the poorest Americans, would pay the price. But this would be a marginal improvement to an already dissatisfactory health care system. The most effective way to reign in cost, however, would be the introduction of a single payer system, which has proven to work and produces superior results around the world. None of the candidates suggests either solution.

A cut in Medicaid and Medicare for the poor and elderly would directly reduce prevention, increase overall cost in the system for the treatment of more terminally ill and decrease life spans of those subjected to cuts. The candidates in effect would rather increase the suffering of millions of the already poor than reduce the record expenditures for the military, introduce any kind of tax or even just close loopholes in the tax code. There are much more obvious ways to reduce the deficit. Asking the weakest members of society to bear the pain on their own entirely is unethical, shameless and backward.

Furthermore the programs are much alike in advocating for outlawing abortion. A discussion that has been had in the 70s. They declare support for Israel, the 2^nd Amendment and highlight threats to national security. The federal government is described as the enemy within. Rand Paul uniquely adds libertarian focuses civil liberties and government surveillance. However, major issues relevant the United States like job creation, inequality, corruption, Global Warming or the necessity of infrastructural investment are hardly ever mentioned. If they are, cutting taxes and smaller government are the suggested solutions.

The United States faces severe problems. Money not ideas dominates its politics. Democracy is all but gone. Inequality is severe, so are poverty and the real unemployment rate. Universal health coverage doesn’t exist. Education has been declining for decades. The current generation of thirty year olds will be the first to be worse off than their parents’ generation. Yet, none of the Republican platforms addresses the issues or does even acknowledge they exist. The vision they express is an exacerbation of the status quo’s problems and their policy proposals are shamelessly pandering to the strongest elements of society. There are no bold ideas for positive, meaningful change. How will limiting access to abortions, cutting medical coverage for the poor and increasing military spending improve the American condition? The lack of legislative imagination and the level of political cowardice are breathtaking. It is a cruel irony that the Republican candidates advertise positions that would institutionalize the governmental dysfunction of Washington that they are so fond of decrying. Only one satisfied with the United States’ current situation, with the continued redistribution of the nation’s wealth to a small circle of already extremely wealthy individuals and corporations on the expense of the vast majority of Americans and the decline of the country as a whole should find the platforms offered by Republican candidates attractive. Those seeking to dramatically change the nation’s fortune will have to find that promise somewhere else.

The United States are ruled by the rich. It is not a secret. And neither are the enormous amounts of money that flow into Washington, especially during campaign seasons, making sure the wealthiest continue to be favored by the government regardless of the party in charge. The ideological capture of Washington by the few stands in stark contrast to the perceived fundamental American values of equality and democracy and is widely despised for that very reason. But the rule of a country even as big as the United States by a corrupt elite is not by a long shot a unique case and as a model of governance it is not inconceivable to endure for years to come. What makes the continued American oligarchy inconceivable, however, is the depraved quality of the governance it bestows on the United States and by extension the rest of the world; a form of governance that speaks to the deplorable character, lack of humanity and breathtaking shortsightedness of its perpetrators.

The outcome of the oligarchy’s rule over the last 30 years has been in many ways spectacular for themselves while proving disastrous for the country as a whole. Their agenda has been straightforward: eliminate any regulatory burden impeding profits, cut taxes to minimize government ability for oversight, establish as favorable a tax code for themselves as possible, guarantee themselves the greatest possible amount of government funding and guarantees and keep an ongoing public infighting going while maintaining an air of patriotic respectability.

The results speak for themselves. The richest Americans own a greater share of the nation’s wealth and income than any time since the Great Depression, they pay the lowest effective tax rates since the Great Depression and in this self-created capitalist paradise almost all newly created income goes exclusively to the richest 1% of Americans. Corporate America fared equally well. Profits are at an all-time high, while tax contributions to the federal budget are a third of what they used to be in the 1950s. 10% of the S&P 500 managed to pay effectively no federal taxes at all or even received billion dollar tax refunds. Making money has indeed been so easy for America’s corporations that they have run out of ways to spend it holding 5 trillion in cash reserves even after spending record amounts on CEO salaries. So if it comes to concentrating the nation’s wealth the oligarchy has succeeded beyond its wildest dreams.

But what are the consequences of the rule of the wealthy for the rest of the United States? What does the success of the oligarchy translate into for the average American? The answer is that for an American worker in the 21^st century the richest country in the world has never appeared so poor, so indifferent and offered so little. The profit of the few is the deficit of the many. The money that is stashed offshore tax shelters by corporations or in vast amounts invested for the elite in money market funds is missing for investments that would further general welfare and the public good.

The infrastructure that binds the country together and keeps it moving is falling apart. The US is every year falling back further in education performing below average in the community of developed nations in virtually every category. Good education becomes increasingly unaffordable. Wages stagnate as workers put in longer hours. A stable 15% of Americans live in poverty and so does every fifth child. The United States is the only developed country that doesn’t offer its citizens universal healthcare. Consumer debt to finance education or a car has at $3.2 trillion never been higher. At this point the average American pays his due taxes and gets nothing in return except an utterly dysfunctional government, a double-standard legal system, a shattered American Dream and a public discourse that couldn’t be more cynical. While the oligarchy is busy amassing the nation’s wealth, the rest of the country is neglected and the social fabric of society is slowly falling apart.

The more successful the oligarchy managed to have their wishes translated into law the more severe the pressure on the rest of the country has become. So far the transition of the United States from a fairly equal country dominating in virtually every category in the 50s to a slowly declining empire resembling social realities of a Banana Republic has progressed relatively unopposed. Yet, the men who keep on forcing their self-serving rules upon the American people should ask themselves what ends their actions are aspiring to. How much more can they rig the system, squeeze the populace and abuse their influence before the indignant public reacts to their country being bled dry? How long can the people be kept apathetic about their country’s condition and lulled into inaction by the media? Elitist exploitation will ultimately find its boundaries in the public’s patience.

But it is not only the oligarchy’s relentless pursuit of wealth accumulation and the consequential erosion of the average American’s livelihood that renders it illegitimate. The United States itself is its major victim as the country slowly loses its ability to innovate, reinvent and rebuild itself and its gridlocked government is too focused on serving their funders to respond to the societal or political challenges. Progress becomes elusive and active efforts to roll back societal achievements like Social Security that lifted millions out of poverty are undertaken. The oligarchy is in effect presiding over the self-induced decline of the cash cow they are feasting off.

Credit – Beverly & Pack

A lasting American oligarchy would be possible if its goals and the goals of the American people and the country were aligned. It is not inconceivable that the people would relinquish their right to democratic participation if their livelihood would take a turn for the better. However, the detrimental effects of the oligarchy’s rule on populace and country are ample evidence that the few are not working for and in many cases against the will of the many. Their shortsighted insistence on pleasuring their greedy disposition instead of at least in part serving their de facto subjects will compromise their own position and is the most damning evidence of leadership failure.

The American oligarchs inadvertently volunteered to run the United States. Their arrogance propelled them to. The act of buying influence in Washington must at its root have the conviction to know better and to deserve a greater say. But in reality their inept governance is bleeding the United States dry, exposes its citizens to unnecessary hardship and shapes the “Greatest Country on Earth” into anything but. They might not understand the ultimate consequences of their actions or they might not be able to change the country’s dynamic at this point. But ultimately it is their body of work that renders them unfit to govern, will force them to forfeit control and end the pathetic chapter that will go down in history as the failed American Oligarchy of the early 21^st century.

The United States are a constitutional republic, an indirect democracy. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the legal basis the United States are founded upon, are widely considered to be brilliant documents and the men who conceived them are universally admired and beloved. Their defiant act of fighting the revolutionary war against the British Empire for the United States’ independence and the republic they established to contrast the British monarchy are a major source of pride for the nation. Democracy is the essence of the American identity – but it is an identity that seems to have been lost.

Lyndon Johnson signing the Civil Right Act of 1965

American democracy was never without challenges. Voting rights were initially limited exclusively to white landowners and it took until the Voting Rights Act of 1965 for American elections to be fully representative of its populace including minorities and women. Elections were throughout history subject to fraud including the presidential elections of 1876 confirming Rutherford Hayes and the 2000 election that awarded the presidency to George W. Bush. The American model of democracy by design allows for candidates to win the presidency without winning the popular vote. The most prominent example once more being the 2000 election which saw Al Gore winning the popular vote by half a million votes, yet losing in the electoral college.

Despite the historical flaws of the system, in the last 100 years hardly anyone would have argued that the United States are not a democracy. But the American system of governance increasingly shows signs of incremental decay as a concerted effort is undertaken to roll back the century-long progress granting fair and representative elections, the voter’s choices are being limited to a few prescreened elite candidates of two parties and ideas give way to money as the decisive factor in elections.

Woman suffrage activists

The 19^th Amendment guaranteeing women the right to vote and the Voting Rights Act were both laws designed to improve American democracy by making it more inclusive and therefore representative. In the last 10 years, however, there has been a systematic push to roll back the very progress people fought to achieve for decades. Gerrymandering in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia has led to congressional representation bearing little resemblance to the actual voting patterns and clearly favoring one party of the other. Voter ID laws trying to alienate the poor and minorities have been passed in 16 states – ironically under the guise of preventing exploitation of the system. Both measures have been implemented in a narrow-minded effort to favor the Republican party at the expense of the democratic process.

But more damning still is the enormous influx of money in the political process that amounts to nothing less than legalized corruption. Over 6 billion dollars have been spent in the 2012 elections. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney spent 1 billion each in their bid for the presidency. In 2014 Super PACs raised almost 700 billion dollars to support candidates. More than 50% came from only 100 Americans. The competition of ideas, one of the strongest qualities of democracy, is replaced by a competition of money and in the United States of today money wins between 82 to 96 percent of the time. Policies in consequence strongly favor funders’ interests and fostered a dynamic of wealth redistribution in the hands of the very few on the expense of the vast majority Americans.

Among the electorate the accurate sense is prevailing that the real choices democracy should offer don’t exist. Voter turnout for the 2014 congressional election was the lowest in 70 years with only 36.4% of eligible voters choosing to participate. With two parties dominating the political stage for the last century plurality was already limited. The thorough corruption of Democrats and Republicans alike and the fact that candidates on the state and federal level are almost entirely prescreened by the funders has some people wondering whether the United States at this point are not an oligarchy instead of a democracy. Others argue American democracy has been lost altogether.

Democracy means rule of the people; the majority of people. Today’s America, however, is ruled by money and its extreme concentration in the hands of a very few assures that the overwhelming majority of people have little influence. Elections are held and representatives are elected but put in context American democracy is little more than make-belief. Until the most powerful nation on earth manages to conquer its inner demons and reinvigorates a truly democratic system the United States will bear very little resemblance with the country its people idolize.

Hardly a day goes by without a US politician invoking American values to justify the country’s course of action. The president’s State of the Union address every year spells out for the ignorant listener what defines the United States as a country: equality, pluralism, democracy, selflessness, fairness, opportunity and justice among others regularly make the list. But what for Americans maybe is a fair assessment of their country and summary of its superior value system sounds to many in the international community like a sneer at reality.

The notion that the United States operates according to a higher set of moral values is hardly observable in reality. The decade-long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States treatment of prisoners, its treatment of dissent, its treatment of partners, international institutions and the international community as a whole and of the American people stand in contrast to the politicians lofty rhetoric. Maybe most troubling, however, is the way the United States deals with its own failures to adhere to its own ambitious standards.

The United States has committed war crimes. As part of its global campaign against terrorism it has illegally abducted, detained and tortured hundreds. Dozens were killed in the process. It was widely known during the Bush years and has been further detailed by the Senate’s so-called Torture Report released in December 2014. Yet, despite the facts being known and torture being a clear violation of the Geneva Convention there have been no legal consequences to anyone responsible. George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld who have ordered the CIA and military to torture were neither indicted nor charged. The same is true for John Yoo and Jay Bybee who drafted and signed the legal justification using torture and for George Tenet, the then Director of the CIA, who went along and oversaw the implementation. The actions taken were universally condemned in the US and other nations alike. Yet, the United States with a constitutional scholar as president was unable to level justice against the perpetrators.

While the torturers got a pass in the United States, swift justice was dealt to whistleblowers, most notably Edward Snowden. His revelations shed a light on dramatic government overreach and violations of the 4^th Amendment, started a much needed public discourse about surveillance and had close to no adverse consequences for his nation except his government’s embarrassment. But although he went to great lengths to show his intentions were benevolent and didn’t profit personally but sacrificed his career in order to publish his revelations the Obama administration saw it necessary to drive a young man of 29 years into permanent exile, revoke his passport and label him an enemy of the state. The example of another even younger whistleblower, Chelsea Manning, shows what Snowden can expect should he be extradited. Manning was held without charges or trial for 3 years violating the 5^th Amendment. He was eventually charged with aiding the enemy and currently serves a 35-year prison sentence.

Domestically the United States incarcerates more citizens than any other nation. More than 2 million Americans are currently imprisoned. But while the law reacts decisively on trivial drug offenses the major crimes of Wall Street banks that on the one hand defrauded the country up to a point close to economic collapse while on the other paying their executives multimillion-dollar bonuses went unpunished. Instead of investigating and prosecuting the banks and especially their leadership for fraudulent behavior and find ways to prevent future conduct of that kind they received a bailout at strongly favorable conditions. None of the CEOs and top executives had to face jail time or was even indicted. The banks are larger in 2015 than they were in 2008 and annual cash bonuses are again in the tens of billions.

What does it say about the United States’ character that it is not able to address its own failures and injustices within its own borders? What does it say about its character that it rather hunts down and jails young men who uncover inconvenient truths than torturers who brought grave injury and death to hundreds and criminals who brought poverty and despair to millions of Americans? The ideal of America that is so often confessed to hardly matches the country its actions describe: a country unable to address its own most egregious wrongs, a continuous breaker of its own and international law, a protector of the powerful and persecutor of the powerless. If the United States cannot to stand up for their own core principles and most fundamental laws – American values don’t exist. They are just words. And if Americans want to live in the country they profess to love, their government needs to live up to the ideals it uses to define it.

Democracy is considered one of the major achievements of the 1^st world, the next step in the evolution of governance guaranteeing stability, equality, human rights and rule of law. To Americans it is fundamental to the American Idea, the essence what the United States are comprised of, and their self-proclaimed proudest export. To Europeans and Americans alike Democracy indicates whether a nation is modern and civilized and can be a reliable partner or is backward, corrupt and fundamentally flawed. Democracy is also regularly considered the final form of government. There is no discussion about alternatives and rarely a discussion about possible improvements. It is accepted as a given and a constant not worth questioning.

There are good reasons for holding democracy in such high regard. Particularly its greater ability – in contrast to systems like monarchy or aristocracy – to express the wishes of the majority of the governed instead of a small privileged fraction of its populace only. But it is also true that democracy, as monarchy or aristocracy, is just another form of governance. Democracy is not perfect. It has significant strengths as well as weaknesses, it is not inherently superior and it is not suitable for all countries alike.

Winston Churchill once said that “The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.” The quote describes accurately one of the major challenges democracy faces. A viable election requires educated voters who are knowledgeable about issues and candidates. In reality, however, only a small minority of voters is actually aware of the current state of its country and could argue his or her position on the issues and most know little about the candidates’ convictions. Voting campaigns are promotion campaigns, often untruthful and helping little to enlighten voters on what they are actually voting for.

Educational platforms and tools that offer transparency by benchmarking parties and candidates exist but are not mandatory and few voters have the drive to educate themselves before casting their vote. Putting tests in place that prohibit voters to participate who are not knowledgeable about the choice they are about to make would be considered undemocratic and elitist.

The results are that voters vote against their own best interests and at times elect leaders that are patently unfit to lead. The status quo is reinforced and no meaningful progress is achieved. The societal evolution is slow and usually only in situations of crisis allows for rapid change.

Yet, despite the problems democracy faces, there is little will for reform and competing systems of governance are treated with condescension. China is one example of such behavior. The country’s one-party system is called a dictatorship and considered illegitimate. This attitude, however, fails to realize that China’s system allows for a much more rapid decisions process than a democracy would which is tantamount to the country’s breathtaking development over the last 30 years that has lifted millions out of poverty. It also fails to acknowledge that China still is a vast developing country and it educational standard has yet to catch up with the West. A great part of its populace would be utterly oblivious to what and whom to vote for if offered the opportunity rendering a viable democratic process unachievable. Lastly, it fails to understand that a party as large as the Communist Party of China never can be one monolithic block. China simply packages many parties in one. There are many factions within the party and arguments exist but the eventual decisions for the country are then executed with one voice.

In the end the merits of the form of government are evident in its ability to produce good leadership and peace and prosperity for its people. The western democracies should not accept the mantra that there are no possible improvements to their form of government, that it indeed is the best option for every country and that competing forms of governance are inherently inferior regardless of the history, societal and economic development of the country in question. Democracy doesn’t grant moral superiority. Only actions do.

The United States like to proclaim themselves the Leader of the Free World. And calling the United States a leading country is certainly justified. It is the last remaining superpower, it boasts the world’s largest economy, it is the richest country on earth with the world’s strongest military force and many of the world’s leading educational and research facilities as well as multinational corporations call the United States their home. In many respects the power of the United States is unrivaled which seems to establish the country as a natural leader of nations.

But good leadership of individuals and nations alike requires qualities that are a rare combination; Competence, prudence, farsightedness and the ability to show restraint, inspire and lead by example and some would argue a sense for the common good. Do these qualities accurately describe the track record of the United States? It is hard to argue.

It is particularly hard to argue that the United States have, as so often publicly proclaimed, been preoccupied with spreading freedom, justice, democracy and prosperity around the globe – all of which might have seemed like a worthwhile pursuit for the Leader of the Free World. The actions taken and the military interventions conducted over the course of the last one hundred years, however, much rather paint a picture of a country preoccupied with defending its economic interests and ideological and military supremacy. Humanitarian aspects were without exception at best a secondary concern for the men shaping US’ foreign policy.

Salvador Allende was overthrown by a US initiated coup in 1973

The United States repeatedly intervened in the affairs of sovereign nations, toppled their leaders and installed repressive regimes to guarantee favorable conditions for its business interests. Iran’s Mossaddegh in 1953, Guatemala’s President Jacobo Arbenz in 1954, Joao Goulart in Brazil in 1964 and Chile’s Salvador Allende in 1973 are only four examples. Prior to toppling leaders the US policy of choice had been military invasions and occupations. Central American countries were the principal recipients of that kind of treatment. In the first 25 years of the 20th century the United States initiated over 20 such invasions or occupations in which would later be called the “Banana Wars”. The financial interests of the United Fruit Company were the overt driver of these military endeavors.

The results of the outlined American policies were hundreds of thousands injured, tortured and dead civilians and soldiers in over a dozen countries in the Americas alone. The countries in question remained in abject poverty with obscene disparities of wealth and populaces suppressed by American-friendly dictators for decades. United States business interest profited greatly.

In Asia American concerns were centering around military and ideological supremacy rather than pure economic goals. The outcome of American intervention from the 1950s onward, however, was as devastating as they were in the Americas if not more so. And while one could argue for Central America and the West Indies to be in the direct vicinity of the United States, the same argument certainly didn’t apply in Southeast Asia.

US bombers over Vietnam

Under the guise of resisting communist aggression Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia were flattened by American bombs killing millions and destabilizing the region as a whole between the late 50s and early 70s. In Cambodia the bombings tore apart the very fabric of society. It gave rise to the Khmer Rouge, one of the most brutal regimes in history that within 4 years killed almost a quarter of its own people.

In the Middle East the US betrayed its pretensions to spread democracy by backing any dictator or autocratic regime as long as it would support US oil related interests. It destabilized the region by arming both sides of the in First Persian Gulf War in the 80s and subsequently waged two wars against Iraq that devastated the country and left the region in turmoil. While hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died US military, security and oil companies like Blackwater and Halliburton made billions.

Proponents of American interventionism and world leadership can point at Germany and Japan as the two shining examples of countries that made a marvelous recovery not in small part due to American investment flowing into both countries after their destruction and defeat in World War II.

For the most part, however, the United States military interventions left countries and whole regions devastated, many did never recover. Central America is still an impoverished region, Southeast Asia does fare little better, the Middle East has been brutalized beyond recognition and living conditions are among the most deplorable in the world.

What does this track record say about the United States? What does it say about a country if it is willing to accept the continued suffering and deaths of hundreds of thousands to guarantee stable profits for its economic interests or to simply make a point in an ideological struggle? What does it say about a nation if it continuously sacrifices its self-proclaimed greatest values to make a buck? What does it say about a country if it has to lie about its motives and falsify facts to convince even its allies of its course being rightful? What does it say about a nation if it manufactures evidence and crisis to arbitrarily exercise force and bully smaller nations into submission? What does it say about the US that is waged more wars in the last 100 years than any other nation?

The military endeavors of the US have helped make it the wealthiest nation on earth and guaranteed profits for its business interest creating some of the mightiest corporations worldwide. For the nations subject to US military campaigns, however, very few will see them as crusades for freedom, justice and democracy and for most of them these values failed to materialize as a result of US intervention.

The US exercise of its leadership or – as some would call it – arbitrary meddling in the affairs of sovereign nations did not bring about peace, progress or prosperity and it is not designed to do so. It is not an expression of largesse but of narrow self-interest to uphold economic and military superiority. The United States leads the world by superiority of force not superiority of ideas.

Looking at the United States’ track record of global leadership one has to ask: Is this the leadership the world wants? Will this kind of leadership help the world progress to a better place in the future? It is hard to argue.

The problems of the United States are numerous and it is not easy to see the common connection between stagnant wages, childhood poverty, record low tax revenues and record high levels of public debt, a withering infrastructure, excessive health care cost and an ever increasing level of wealth and income disparity. And yet, they are all results of a thoroughly disoriented legislative body whose ineffectiveness was and is brought about by legalized corruption. A development that had its beginning in the mid 1970s.

It was in the mid 70s that Political Action Committees started to proliferate, that the Supreme Court equated money with speech and awarded corporations first amendment rights. Politicians learned quickly how to tap the newly available resources of the business community and the policy focus shifted away from the American public’s best interests towards those of Corporate America.

The legislative preference towards the monied interests showed results. Taxes were cut and loopholes benefiting the business community were added to the tax code, unions were busted, a broad set of deregulations introduced. Wages started to stagnate, an increasing amount of the nation’s income went to the richest Americans, inequality deepened and the deregulations set the stage for the Savings and Loan Crisis – the first of three major financial crisis we experienced to date.

After the political dependency on outside funding was institutionalized the trend of governing on behalf of the interests that funded both parties got increasingly more severe. Business saw the success of buying political influence. As a consequence it paid for further loopholes to be introduced and a vicious cycle of loosened campaign finance laws and an ever increasing stream of money was poured into the political process.

Today’s America is the result of 30 years of misguided public policy. In consequence the governance of business and the rich brought about a perverse situation that sees the country’s wealth so thoroughly redistributed to the top that more than 15% (46.5 million) of adults and more than 20% of children live in poverty while company’s like Apple have cash reserves of over 150 billion Dollars. The government gives away billions to vastly profitable companies like Exxon and Chevron while the lack of funding makes public education increasingly unaffordable.

The richest Americans are practically exempt from criminal prosecution while the very same system puts over 2 million regular Americans behind bars. At this point no major legislation impeding on corporate profits or personal wealth can be passed in the United States of today. Government contracts are given away uncompeted, drug prices to pharmaceutical companies are paid unnegotiated. In order to make a business out of even the most basic needs and misery of its citizens the thoroughly corrupted Washington allowed for the private prison industry and for-profit colleges to arise and allows for obscene margins in the health care industry which bankrupts citizens as it bankrupts the country as a whole.

Governing the United States on behalf of those who can pay for it has shown to be to the detriment of the vast majority of the American citizens, the country’s financial stability and its moral integrity. A congress obedient and numb is not able to react to the most pressing needs of its citizenry, not able to pass meaningful reforms and not able to bring justice to those who committed the most egregious financial crimes of a century. None of this will change until the United States manages to pull the needle pumping unlimited amounts of anonymous cash into the political system from its government’s arm.

The current system of campaign finance, the legalized corruption of the US government, must be stopped. It touches every issue, every US citizen’s life, the country and its standing in the world. Campaign finance reform is absolutely mandatory. As long as congress is dedicated alone to the profit motive of Corporate America and the wealth accumulation of the richest Americans there will be increasing inequality, a two-tier justice system, exploitation of the poor and the United States will become a fatality of the greed and shortsightedness of its ruling class.