The United States may be one of the richest countries in the
world, but it seems to have a number of features that suggest it is still a
developing one, and may indeed deserve to rank as belonging to the Third World,
not the First.
Left behind and out of step
First, let’s take a relatively minor case in point, namely weights and measures, and temperature measurement. The countries of Europe and many other places adopted the metric system decades ago, but the United States is still stuck with the old Imperial system that it inherited from colonial times.
Where Europeans measure in metres and centimetres, Americans still use inches, feet and yards. This must cause considerable confusion for importers and exporters.
Likewise, most of the rest of the world gave up using the Fahrenheit temperature scale decades ago, in favour of the much more logical Celsius scale. But not the United States!
When will Americans catch up?
First, let’s take a relatively minor case in point, namely weights and measures, and temperature measurement. The countries of Europe and many other places adopted the metric system decades ago, but the United States is still stuck with the old Imperial system that it inherited from colonial times.
Where Europeans measure in metres and centimetres, Americans still use inches, feet and yards. This must cause considerable confusion for importers and exporters.
Likewise, most of the rest of the world gave up using the Fahrenheit temperature scale decades ago, in favour of the much more logical Celsius scale. But not the United States!
When will Americans catch up?
Democracy
The United States may claim to be a democratic country, but there are huge holes in its various systems.
To take the most obvious one, how come it sticks with such an outdated way of electing its President? Surely a president is the president of every citizen over whom he or she is going to preside, so therefore all the citizens should have a vote on who that is, and every vote should carry equal weight. That is what happens in just about every country that has an elected president, but not in the United States!
For one thing, strenuous efforts are made by the political machines to dis-enfranchise as many people as possible who might be thought to favour the “other side”, and – for another – the electoral college system is an absolute nonsense that has very little to do with Democracy. Why not have a simple system in which the total number of votes for each candidate across the country decides the issue?
And, while we’re at it, why not allow American nationals in United States dependent territories to have a vote? Those people are subject to American laws, which are overseen by the President, but have no say in who that person is. How can that be correct?
The United States may claim to be a democratic country, but there are huge holes in its various systems.
To take the most obvious one, how come it sticks with such an outdated way of electing its President? Surely a president is the president of every citizen over whom he or she is going to preside, so therefore all the citizens should have a vote on who that is, and every vote should carry equal weight. That is what happens in just about every country that has an elected president, but not in the United States!
For one thing, strenuous efforts are made by the political machines to dis-enfranchise as many people as possible who might be thought to favour the “other side”, and – for another – the electoral college system is an absolute nonsense that has very little to do with Democracy. Why not have a simple system in which the total number of votes for each candidate across the country decides the issue?
And, while we’re at it, why not allow American nationals in United States dependent territories to have a vote? Those people are subject to American laws, which are overseen by the President, but have no say in who that person is. How can that be correct?
The justice system
In a First World country one would expect every citizen to be treated equally before the courts, and for those courts to impose the law with complete impartiality – not subject to any political pressure.
However, in the United States there have been countless cases of justice being miscarried, and the victims of these miscarriages are often people who are poor and from non-white communities. It seems to come down to money – unless you can afford a good lawyer, you are quite likely to lose your case.
And how can the justice system be impartial when officers of the law and judiciary are voted into office? Even more absurd is the appointment by the President of members of the Supreme Court. These are obviously going to be political appointments, with the expectation that the appointees will interpret the law either as Liberals or Conservatives. That is what might be expected in a banana republic – it should not happen in a First World country.
In a First World country one would expect every citizen to be treated equally before the courts, and for those courts to impose the law with complete impartiality – not subject to any political pressure.
However, in the United States there have been countless cases of justice being miscarried, and the victims of these miscarriages are often people who are poor and from non-white communities. It seems to come down to money – unless you can afford a good lawyer, you are quite likely to lose your case.
And how can the justice system be impartial when officers of the law and judiciary are voted into office? Even more absurd is the appointment by the President of members of the Supreme Court. These are obviously going to be political appointments, with the expectation that the appointees will interpret the law either as Liberals or Conservatives. That is what might be expected in a banana republic – it should not happen in a First World country.
The death penalty
Virtually every civilized country in the world has abandoned the death penalty, but not the United States, which joins countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia and North Korea on the shameful register of Third World countries that still practice this ultimate barbarity.
Virtually every civilized country in the world has abandoned the death penalty, but not the United States, which joins countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia and North Korea on the shameful register of Third World countries that still practice this ultimate barbarity.
The Second Amendment
Back in 1791 the United States was a very different place to what it is now. Pioneers were heading west to open up vast areas of land that were populated by hostile natives, and the need to be armed was a very real one. People needed to be able to defend themselves from many kinds of threat, including that posed by fellow citizens whose motives were not always above board.
Memories were fresh of how the country had won its independence from what was regarded as a dictatorial foreign power. Many citizens had banded together and formed armed militias that could mount a raid and then disappear back to their homes until the need next arose.
It was therefore important for the citizens to allowed to keep their weapons even after Independence, just in case a similar emergency should arise in the future. Hence the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution.
But all that was more than 200 years ago! Things have changed, and most civilized countries have taken the view that allowing people to possess firearms – except for very specific purposes – is extremely dangerous. Ownership of handguns and rifles is therefore either banned outright or subject to extremely strict conditions.
But not in the United States! Instead, just about anyone is allowed to own the means to kill other people, and there have been countless cases of mass killings being carried out, including at schools and colleges. Is this really what we should expect in a First World country, or is this not a characteristic of a backward nation in which the rule of law takes second place to the law of the jungle?
Back in 1791 the United States was a very different place to what it is now. Pioneers were heading west to open up vast areas of land that were populated by hostile natives, and the need to be armed was a very real one. People needed to be able to defend themselves from many kinds of threat, including that posed by fellow citizens whose motives were not always above board.
Memories were fresh of how the country had won its independence from what was regarded as a dictatorial foreign power. Many citizens had banded together and formed armed militias that could mount a raid and then disappear back to their homes until the need next arose.
It was therefore important for the citizens to allowed to keep their weapons even after Independence, just in case a similar emergency should arise in the future. Hence the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution.
But all that was more than 200 years ago! Things have changed, and most civilized countries have taken the view that allowing people to possess firearms – except for very specific purposes – is extremely dangerous. Ownership of handguns and rifles is therefore either banned outright or subject to extremely strict conditions.
But not in the United States! Instead, just about anyone is allowed to own the means to kill other people, and there have been countless cases of mass killings being carried out, including at schools and colleges. Is this really what we should expect in a First World country, or is this not a characteristic of a backward nation in which the rule of law takes second place to the law of the jungle?
Public health
Most First World countries have adopted health systems that are funded from general taxation and provide medical services that are free at the point of use. This means that all their citizens are guaranteed first-class health care when they need it, however rich or poor they may be.
However, this is not the case in the United States, where all medical facilities are privately owned and managed and can only be accessed if you pay the fees involved. In practice, this means taking out an insurance policy, but if you cannot afford to do this you are left in the lurch. Only the very poorest can get health care paid for from social funds, thus leaving millions of people in an invidious position.
How can a First World country possibly justify a system in which matters of life and death are subject to the whims of insurance companies, the managers of which get rich on money that should be going to pay doctors and nurses?
Most First World countries have adopted health systems that are funded from general taxation and provide medical services that are free at the point of use. This means that all their citizens are guaranteed first-class health care when they need it, however rich or poor they may be.
However, this is not the case in the United States, where all medical facilities are privately owned and managed and can only be accessed if you pay the fees involved. In practice, this means taking out an insurance policy, but if you cannot afford to do this you are left in the lurch. Only the very poorest can get health care paid for from social funds, thus leaving millions of people in an invidious position.
How can a First World country possibly justify a system in which matters of life and death are subject to the whims of insurance companies, the managers of which get rich on money that should be going to pay doctors and nurses?
A long way to go
All these factors add up to the inevitable conclusion that the United States is far from meeting the criteria for being in the First World of civilised nations. It is therefore still languishing as the wealthiest member of the Third World.
© John Welford
All these factors add up to the inevitable conclusion that the United States is far from meeting the criteria for being in the First World of civilised nations. It is therefore still languishing as the wealthiest member of the Third World.
© John Welford
Nice article John.
ReplyDeleteI live in the USA although I'm originally from the UK & this allows me a some latitude in comparing both & commenting.
The USA is a primitive country by many standards.
Fundamentalist political & religious views dominate the media & political circles.
Fear & greed drives politicians to abandon integrity & humanity so that they shamelessly appeal to the basest instincts. They claim to be patriotic while being as divisive as the y need to be to remain in power.
The principles as outlined in the Declaration of Independence & in the Bill or Rights are ignored consistently by all levels of adult society while being peddled to gullible children as proof of the country's virtue.
In short - bullying, hypocrisy, dishonesty, malpractice, greed & self interest are the real fundamentals of American society.
Keep up the good work.