Democracy's Discontent by Sandel - Book Report/Review Example

Introduction to Political Economy In the book Democracy Discontent by Sandel he argues that ill-equipped public philosophy perpetuates the languishing American democracy. Sandel asserts that the solution to the dwindling democracy cannot be traced in its political pillars but rather furnishing the public philosophy that drives the democracy with vigor. Sandel acknowledges that public philosophy entails the political theories that guides and directs our public lives. These political theories invariably affect our daily practices, the assumptions we hold as citizenry and the freedom that is bestowed in our expressive lives. The current American politics is not able to facilitate democracy since the public philosophy through which we address our self-governance and community welfare is hard to implement. This is true because the philosophy is within our eyes thereby its effectiveness may go unnoticed unless one is compelled by a critical situation that requires reflecting upon the political philosophy of the land. Political philosophy core idea is that the federal government should remain neutral on the citizen’s religious views and moral perceptions, which may inhibit the federal government from upholding laws that define the moral codes of its citizens (Sandel, 1998). The political realm of the American nation has led to the development of public notion that has created confrontational views across the liberals and the conservatives. The republican may postulate that taxing the rich individuals to fund charitable programs violates their rights on how to spend their money. Democrats frame their argument on the need for the government to establish ways to resolve issues regarding housing, health and levels of income. In their book, White House Burning, Johnson and Kwak exemplify the importance of the national budget to every citizen of the United States. In their book, they have succinctly demonstrated how the government has managed to settle debts in the past especially after the recession caused by the Second World War. They claim that the microeconomic shift experienced in the 1970s as among the major reasons the nation prevailed through the critical moments (Sandel, 1998). In addition to the factors that enabled the nation to survive through the debt crises in the past is the growth of conservatism and increase in population that led to numerous insurance programs. Both scholars agree that the current quandaries facing the Americans today is its inability to identify a contemporary approach to the existing problems. Lack of a substantial technocratic solution is augmented by the political policies held in the contemporary America. These political policies may manipulate such factors like insurance programs thereby affecting the general population. Through the power of politics, legislation has been passed that hinders the development of the solution to the current national budget. Though the argument lay down by Johnson and Kwak is justifiable, it does not explicitly elaborate why the contemporary American societies are facing difficulties. This is more so because, the political climate that adopt ill economic policies may be coerced through the power of the voters to develop and implement legislation that seek to address the problems of the common citizen. From the various views depicted in this paper, I therefore agree with the argument forwarded by Sandel that the contemporary United States is in crises because of the poorly formulated public philosophies. I support this view because every individual within the country conforms to the same public philosophies that are predetermined by the political climate of United States. The public philosophy we uphold guides our daily perception in every activity we undertake and thereby may inflict more pressures in an individual level. The public philosophy people hold may limit the federal government from exercising their social and regulatory roles especially where individuals have a dissenting view. In instances where the federal government is compelled to act as a neutral party such as in religious and moral stand of its citizen, the federal government is limited in its regulatory mandate. This may cause the government to lack control on the freedom of worship thus leading to the development of cults that do not operate under moral standards. Public philosophy diminishes the power of the federal government in that it may cause individuals to use political pillars to develop or abolish legislation that adversely affect the lives of many individuals. The argument held by the republican that taxing the rich is a violation of their right to spend their money constitutes a public philosophy that can affect the welfare of the nation. The democrats’ view that the federal government should provide incentives such as health housing and basic level of income may coerce the federal government to incur extra expenses in the national budget that may adversely affect the citizens in the end. Proposition 13 brought along changes in the influence of politics to formulate legislation that affects the welfare of the citizen when Jarvis decided to avoid the legislature in order to push for a campaign against the hiking property taxes and the taming of the assessed value. Jarvis used the power of voters to augment his vendetta against his critiques. Many state officials did not support this move though it eventually gained favor from the state. This view divulges from the Johnson and Kwak perspective that blames the political influence in the formation of laws that lead the nation to financial crises. The worrying aspects to both Johnson and Kwak would be to convince the voters to side on their views even when the federal government is not on their side. The adoption of proposition 13 changed the public philosophy in that people initially expected to receive revenues from their local government in order to develop cities, schools and other incentives but with the passage of the proposition, this was left to the state to manage a budget. The proposition made local government lose funding independence thereby receiving their funding from the state, which helped to centralize their financial base. This perspective would worry Sandel since it may take long to develop a public philosophy that all citizens may find fitting to adopt. This is true because individuals frequently disagree on many aspects, and it is hard to develop a common notion in a multitude. In my budget balancing strategy, I would evaluate domestic and foreign aid programs such as eliminating farm subsidies and reducing foreign aid. I would reduce the allocation of funds to the military activities for instance reducing military troops in Asia and Europe, ceasing the purchase of military weapons. Further, I would deal with issues regarding the health care such as implementing reforms that deal with malpractices in the health sector, reevaluate the Medicare eligibility age. In my strategy, I would consider the social security aspect in the country for instance increasing the retirement age to 70. In addition, I would modify the existing taxes such as estate taxes, investment taxes and formulate new taxes such as millionaire tax while bridging all the loopholes in the taxation process. From the process of summarizing my budget balancing strategy, I have learnt that some of my strategies may yield benefits in the short term while other strategy procedures may amass it savings in prolonged period thereby its upon me to identify the strategy that fits either circumstances. My fascination from the course is the reading on public philosophy since it affects every individual, but it can go unnoticed. This phenomenon adversely affects many aspects of our lives, and it has enabled me to view various dispensations in my life from another perspective. The reading on public philosophy has enabled me to realize the influence of various political spectrums that help us shape our societal practices, political and religious inclinations. Sandel, M, J. (1998). Democracys Discontent: America in Search of a Public Philosophy. Cambridge, M A: Harvard University. Read More