Party 'differences' are ideological,abstract, and non-democratic.

Democracy at the Top of government is abstract, ideological and has very little effect on the Bottom where the People reside and where the essence of democracy rests. It usually doesn't relate to the Bottom of government( the People) in a real way. By that, I mean the differences, being abstract, only effects the concept of democracy held by the different Parties at the Top. The test of any policy or law is whether it relates to the People in a real way and whether it helps the People at the Bottom in a real way. This takes time and needs 'political space' to be tried out. But, if instead of waiting to apply the law to test its veracity, the Parties attack the ideology even before it's fully implemented and before it gets a chance to be tested, that's a purely ideological difference. If a Party actually has a 'difference' with such an established law, it can suggest and legislate another better law. Of course, this can never be accomplished by 'shutting down' the most important aspect of a democracy. To pass a 'necessary' law that automatically excludes another( in a different domain) is bad politics. It demonstrates an undemocratic way of carrying out democracy. Politics becomes a game; a very harmful game. That move does not reflect an astute political move, it reflects a 'harmful spirit' in our politics. Politics becomes a game; a game that can be very damaging to the people. It reflects a mentality more concerned with 'playing politics' at the Top (playing with words) than with doing democracy at the Bottom. Even the terms used to describe this phenomena is somewhat of an oxymoron. If the government is 'shut down' does that mean we don't have a government for that period of time? Does that also mean laws will not be enforced during the 'shutdown'? Government agencies enforce laws, so laws will not be enforced because it is 'shut down', and not a 'viable enforcing' agency? Surely our 'learned' politicians can think of something else to do, besides creating more problems for the People.

Party loyalty causes destruction

We have already discussed the almost instinctive need for large groups of people to divide into different sectors of allegiance. In a way ,that's understandable, because there are many ways to perceive and work towards the same goal. However, democracy is a Constitutional construct. There's only one way to be democratic. That's to align triadic government along the lines of its Three Branch structure and to 'move' the alignment so that the Bottom of the structure is always dominant and the support of the entire government. That means, the government "of People" and "by people" is always "for the People". Anything short of this is not democracy and the attempt to sabotage the government structure by a so-called political maneuver that compels the other Party to act or destroy government is the peak of asininity. Surely our politicians are more intelligent than that. But, then to point the finger to the other Party, in such an obvious move, proves that my previous statement can not be true. God help us. There should be a Constitutional enactment that prohibits such political maneuvers; a Law of the land that prohibits political moves that are destructive of democracy. The government doesn't 'serve' the Representatives in office, it serves all the people at the Bottom of Democratic government. That suggested Law should be passed to keep one Party from 'terrorizing' the other Party with a 'shutdown' to the detriment of the People. I assure you, that political move will accentuate the 'stupidity' of the move by that Party. Hopefully, it will lead to the demise of that Party. There should be laws that require all legislation and all policy through a scrutiny that verifies the democratic nature of the policy. There should also be laws requiring all Parties, if any, to follow that 'democratic nature' in its legislation and campaigning. Failing this requirement, political Parties should be banned. They've already demonstrated that they are not concerned with democracy and should not be allowed to exist in a democratic Nation. They're 'political terrorists'.

Real democracy is about the real individual.

There's 'Democracy', as conceived by some political philosophers, and there's 'real' democracy as experienced by the 'real' individual at the Bottom of political democracy. The first one is linguistic, general, abstract and sometimes doesn't even 'touch' the 'real' individual in his/her 'condition of togetherness'. The second one is real. There's a big 'linguistic gap' between the Top of government and the Bottom of government. But, there is no gap in the actual condition of the so-called relation of the One and the Many. There is a 'real government' and there are 'real', 'individual' millions at the Bottom. Unfortunately, those are the only two ways of dealing with the 'condition of togetherness'. The first is linguistic and highly illusory and can be 'manipulated' endlessly. The second is closer to reality, but still needs lots of work to close the 'huge gap' existing between 'governing' and 'purporting to govern'. Of course, all politicians purport to govern and don't hesitate to exercise 'political power' to give 'vent' to their manipulations. Its unfortunate that 'power' is essential to the governing process. But, then again without it, governing could not take place. ( maybe it could be considered a disease?) No, I'd better leave that alone. But, it might be essential for politicians to just understand that their 'power' is a 'temporary thing' and that they will not take it to the grave, any more than an 'ordinary' human takes his possessions to the grave. Surely, any real individual realizes that the 'grave' means a 'stop' to all human institutions, including 'democracy'. Why are politicians less insightful than the 'ordinary' individual? I guess, it can only be because they are so wrapped-up in the allurements of power and possessions( economics and money) than the ordinary guy. I guess the 'disease' comes with the position or the 'possessions'. Maybe we should 'learn' from the corporate structure,( No that won't work either) well, it can be dissolved voluntarily or involuntarily and then resurrected under a different name. But,.... then again, corporations are immortal, we are not.

Whats the difference between a terrorist and a politician who wants to shut down government?

There is no difference between the two. The Oxford Dictionary defines "terrorism" as being an unofficial act of violence and (or) intimidation to achieve political aims. "Terrorize" is to "threaten and frighten someone over a period of time". So why is a government shut-down being threatened? Well, that's exactly what happens when politicians divide into opposing Parties and then 'pretend' that they both have democracy in mind. The arguments and reasons 'for' and 'against' arise by the hundreds. The technique for achieving a political goal is precisely to place the opposition in a corner where they either 'perform' or suffer the consequences. In some other area, the technique might be justifiable, but never in the political arena. A politician should never lose sight of the fact that all his activities are justifiable only when the 'People' benefit from the policy or law. Any politician or Party that tries to destroy the institution that gives rise to his Job, just doesn't get it. There should be many ways to achieve a political aim, but destroying government isn't one of them. If the people need anything, it's a democratic government that places the essence of democracy (People at the Bottom) first and foremost. How ridiculous, a politician trying to 'stop' government, if he doesn't get his way. People are the 'heart' of government and hence, any attempt not to 'provide' a government over a period of time can only be viewed as 'terroristic'. Terrorists kill people, terrorist politicians kill democratic government. What's the difference? In the end, its always the People who suffer. It's unfortunate that many politicians are 'self-elevated' into 'political postures' that excludes democratic values. Maybe its time that the People decide what the democratic values of the different parties should be? Some of those so called 'political moves' should be against the law. What? A politics governed by laws? Yes, why not? It's unheard of, but it could be more democratic.

The human condition underlies all governmental systems.

Truly, the human condition underlies all governmental systems. No matter what form the government takes, its always about the People or humans who are the 'governed'. Sometimes, politicians get so involved with their government system that they forget that all governments are about, or should be, about People. Politicians attack the governmental system as an institution, and sometimes they are oblivious of the fact that they are attacking human beings also. At times we don't 'take over' the humans living in a Nation, we take over, or colonize, a Nation and then compel changes in the People, sometimes that means we 'give them Coca Cola', and sometimes the takeover is for the 'worst'. But, it seems that 'new lands' or no longer available, and 'new sources' for Gold have also been depleted; oil is important today, but its somewhat of an oxymoron, for a war to be taking place in a foreign Nation, and the military goal of the invader is 'protect the oil fields'. Wow, where are we going as a Nation of human beings? Consider, the fact that computer geeks have 'leaked' data held 'in secret' and now some of those geeks have being made citizens of other Nations, and some are being punished for 'leaking'. Hey, computer geeks deal with the electronic world, and now, that has been elevated to a punishable crime? Computer geeks are also human beings, so the question becomes, is the 'direction' of governing now being directed to the electronic level of functioning? There's no more land; no more gold; and oil is in question; so is the 'Internet' the next frontier? Hey, each human being is an "electro-chemical" expression of 'life', hence, the human condition is a 'higher expression' than the Internet or 'electronic' conversations. The 'electro', as well as the 'chemical' aspects of life constitutes the human condition. Government should be for the "welfare" of the human condition. We need to have more knowledge and respect for the human condition and the necessary 'condition of togetherness' required for a 'good life'. Politicians should become more 'states-worthy' and less concerned with 'colonizing' the Internet or the International sphere. Maybe its time we become more knowledgeable about the human conditions of existence instead of the political conditions of existence.

Underlying democracy, the economy and Capitalism is the human condition.

Democracy is at the Bottom of Triadic government and every government needs an economy and our economy is a Capitalistic economy. But underlying all these institutions is the individual in the social, or, the human condition. Certainly, a Capitalistic economy is a complex economy and at a certain point in its evolution it was perceived that a Capitalistic economy could benefit from the creation of the corporate structure. Consequently, "legal fictions" were created. As we all know, all one needs to do to 'form' a corporation is file so-called Articles of Incorporation. Once that is done and approved by the proper agency of the State, the corporation is 'born'. The corporation gets a Charter from the State which acknowledges its legal existence. It then 'exists' as a 'legal fiction', which is recognized by Law and is protected by Law as a 'person' under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. But, as we have said every Democratic government is a People government. That means that the People are the essence of democracy and hence also of government. The sacred aspect in any government are the human beings at the Bottom of triadic or of Three Branch government. Three Branches, that must function as a Triad. One branch legislates laws; another interprets laws and the Executive governs by law. All that is a Constitutional 'given', but I reiterate, underlying all these political, economic, institutions is the human condition. At this point we reach a condition that is not dependent, for its very existence, on any governmental, economic, Capitalistic, or legal institution. On the contrary, all these institutions are dependent on the intelligence of the human condition. Its the human condition which is sacred. And its the Freedom and Equality of every individual that must be protected by law. A good definition of 'human being' is a human being who exists under law and order within a real democratic government.

Capitalism is also important to Democracy.

The economy is important to any Nation and Capitalism is important to the economy. However, real democracy is the underlying support of both Capitalism and the economy. Without democracy, we would not have the individual striving required to maximize 'Capitalism'. Maximizing Capitalism means allowing individuals the Freedom and 'Independence' to produce, manufacture, and organize their efforts along economic principles. But, these principles originate within the economy and Capitalism and should be used and made effective within those economic spheres. They are not democratic principles. Democratic principles drive our political structures not our economic structure. The two must function along 'separate' lines. That's not easy but, its required if we wish to keep our political system 'purely' democratic. We have been critical of economic structures participating within our democratic structures. Of course, the whole idea is not just to be critical, but to understand the difference between the two so that a 'bigger' effort can be made to better perfect our democratic system. Its not a perfect system, but ( as the saying goes) its the best thing around. We must become more knowledgeable in the distinctions between the economy and democracy and in particular, what 'drives' the two. People need democratic government; People also need an economy; People also need Capitalism. But, we can't mix the principles that 'drive' each of these disciplines. The economy 'saw' the need for corporate structures; corporate structures ( legal fictions) 'saw' the need for capitalism; democracy 'saw' the need for 'legal fictions' now we must understand, why that was the case. And when we understand their relationship to each other, we cannot lose our focus and mix the different driving forces of each of these disciplines. Profits drive the economy and Capitalism, Freedom and Equality drive democracy.

"Politics" must become more democratic and less economic.

The economy is very important to any Nation. However, it should not be the driving force of a democratic government. Plutocracy is driven by economic value systems and consequential class distinctions resulting therefrom. The basis of Plutocracy is a government of the rich. The basis of democracy is a government "of People", "by people", and "for People". The "for People" is the most important distinction between democracy and other forms of government. These other forms of government are also "of People" and "by People". The individuals in power are also "people", but there is no concern for the Other in their concept of government. Those forms of government are selfish and the 'condition of togetherness' is used to advantage, usually economic advantage. The Top lives in Palaces and the People live on the streets. Whereas, a democratic form of government should be "for the People". But, look around; politicians, even in democratic forms of government, are just as 'abusive' of the welfare of the People, as the autocratic forms. What happened? Has the human condition deteriorated into some sort of race to accumulate more and more money or is politics just becoming the place to strive for, if one wants to get rich. Can you believe it? The most noble of endeavors, to serve your Country, has become a stepping stone to riches. Soldiers also serve their Country! Are they getting rich or do they just get a "thank you for your service". The value system of democracy has been contaminated by the value system of the economy. We all have been infected with the disease of "more and more". How sad. What can we do? Can we become more "human"? Is there such a thing? Of course, not. We don't become more human, we just stop thinking only of our own selves. That's what politics is about; its not about ones' self, its about, "for the People". Politics is truly a noble endeavor, but we need more 'statesmen' and less politicians.

Yes, Money 'drives' politics, but so do 'power hungry' politicians.

Democracy has many problems. We have pointed out that one of them is to elevate an economic principle in place of a democratic principle. Unfortunately, that is not the only problem. Another problem is so-called 'power'. Power is a very misunderstood term. Certainly, the Top of government must have power to be able to function and do its job. The Top gets this power from the People by virtue of being elected to office. That 'power' exists only for the duration of office. Have you noticed any politicians who are out of office and appear as effete as anyone else? In all probability, while in office, they amassed enough money to feel 'more comfortable' than the average person. That would be their only claim to fame and wealth. Of course, that doesn't apply to all politicians, but its an example of the fact that political power while in office does not carry over when out of office. That's not power. What is political power? Well, it just might be, to be in such an 'inviting' political position and not be tempted to do something illegal, undemocratic, or economic, and for selfish reasons. Selfishness leads to greediness. That's why I say the Bottom of government doesn't have power, but it has strength in numbers. Strength in numbers is a characteristic of the Bottom of government. The People in their 'condition of togetherness' can be stronger that any political power and that strength arises from the 'condition of togetherness' and the numbers in the condition. The Top has only a job to perform and only for a short period of time. The strength of the Bottom is always there; its always present and requires only a peaceful assembly. " To peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances". That is the First Amendment's Constitutional right to revolution.

"Party loyalty" is antagonistic to real democracy.

The democratic spirit is a spirit that emanates from the Bottom of triadic government and instigates the Top of government to structure itself for the benefit and "welfare of the People". "Hard" Party ideology is antagonistic to this spirit because it fixates the parameters of Party ideology in such a way that it excludes the welfare of the People. Its Party platforms usually benefits the Party as an institution and the corporate structures. Its connections to the corporate world reflects the obvious fact, that its primary concern is to follow the value system of capitalism, which uses a medium of exchange( money and property) to sustain itself. Capitalism is important, but capitalism is driven by a different value system than the democratic spirit. Is there anybody in political office that can see that? Capitalism is an economic system not a democratic system. The economy is important, but it should not be the engine of democratic politics. What has happened to us? We invent an economic system that drives itself and then( here is where we make our mistake)turn all our political attention to the medium of exchange(money)of the economy. What happens to democracy? Well, we say, first I want to be comfortable and then I'll become democratic. Well, that attitude underestimates the power and force of Greed. No, when it comes to accumulation of money and striking a region of comfort, there are no parameters. The sky is the limit and that 'sky' reaches all the way up; all the way to the Top 1%. "Hard" Party affiliates assume that they are driving the force(greed) and its the force(greed) that is driving them. Evidently, someone who has a lot, always wants more. That attitude can completely destroy democracy; it can very well produce a Plutocracy in its place. Greed cannot drive democratic government, but it sure can destroy it. Politicians must learn not to 'mix' oil with water; that they 'play' two 'games', one is politics and the other is 'economic'; and never should the two mix. Its not efficient. Politics is not about profits, and the economy is not democratic.

If "Political science" is an oxymoron; "Party loyalty" is absurd.

'Hard Party loyalty' in a democracy is an absurdity. The division of politicians into a 'party' posture already divides the essence of democracy. The essence of democratic government is a government "of people", "by People" and "for People". By dividing into 'hard' Party postures, the welfare of all the 'People' becomes subordinate to a political ideology. Its may be acceptable to form 'soft' Party postures, where the welfare of 'all the People' is never subordinated to some fixated Party ideology. But, a 'hard' party ideology is actually harmful to government. How can 'shutting down' government be helpful? Its idiotic! Government is necessary. The problematic arises when human beings divide themselves into political Parties. This initial division into Parties already 'suggests' that some people consider themselves more important than other people. In a political organization that already 'smacks' of favoritism, division, and self serving points of view that will be installed, by that Party, into the structure of the existing government. That's what gives rise to 'Party politics'. That is already a bad place to start a real democracy( not just a verbal, lip service, abstract concept of a 'Peoples democracy') We've already said that Party loyalty can be harmful to democracy. How do we cure this harmful situation? Its ok to have differing views of what can be useful to a democracy, its another thing to stress the ideological posture to the point that it shuts down a government. Maybe, we could form a 'soft' form of ideology, from which we can better view the different viewpoints of the different Parties, so long as that difference translates into the 'welfare' of all the People at the Bottom of triadic government. We cannot have 'cut-throat' politics that actually harms the very People, who are the essence of the democratic spirit. It seems that politicians are too busy fighting for things, other than the "general Welfare" of the People".

the term "political science" is an oxymoron.

"Politics" is not science and science is not politics. Although the two categories get easily mixed and equally confused, the subject matter of each is different. Politics deals with National, State and International issues, of government, while science attempts to get to the bottom of 'reality' by means of 'quantifiable disciplines'. Politics deals with 'large' entities( Nations ) and 'large' arrangements of political Freedom and Equality. Science also deals with large 'materials', but they are descriptive of 'reality', e.g. Matter, and the 'electro-magnetic' spectrum. Although the electro-magnetic spectrum deals with the 'small' instead of the 'large', nevertheless, the electro-magnetic spectrum is a 'large' enquiry. So how does Politics or 'statesmanship' become a science? The truth is that it can never become a science. Why then is political science taught as a college discipline? One can only guess that it may be an attempt to define real politics as some sort of preferential political arrangement. All Science follows the experimental method, and politics should not be experimental. If there was such a science, every politician would be required to study it. Today, politics does not deal with quantifiable elements, it deals with the manipulation of huge collections of humanity. The underlying moral is that this manipulation should lead to the greatest satisfaction and happiness of each and every human being. Each human being having the capacity and ability to improve his/her life in the direction of the 'good life'. Nothing should interfere with this goal. There is no other reason for living and there is no other reason for politicians to exist. Of course, besides the fact that large segments of humanity plainly need a triadic form of government, but, that triadic form of government could 'quantify' the Bottom to include each and every human being within the polity. In other words, governing should include the Freedom and Equality of each and every individual in the Polity. In this manner, maybe politics could become 'quantifiable' and 'closer' to being a science. An individual does not need a 'politicians', only large collections of humanity need statesmen.

The relation between the Top and the Bottom gets distortrd.

The basic political relation between the Top and the Bottom gets very easily convoluted, distorted and re-arranged. Sometimes its easy to see that the Top of any government does not really understand what the hell it's doing. In democratic Nations, the Top mistakes an 'economic value' for a 'political value'. In Autocratic nations, its always a contest between the 'haves' and the 'have nots' and, add to that, the fact that they have little or no respect for the human condition. In either case, they are sadly mistaken about the 'Peoples grant' of political power. Of course, in Autocratic Nations there was a 'taking' of power, not a grant. Nevertheless, neither case is sensitive to the fact that they (The Top) were not 'born' into their political office. The old Divine Right of Kings was purportedly 'born' into Kingship. To be sure, they were wrong, but at least they acknowledged the 'supposed' connection. Today, neither Party acknowledges that it is becoming too dependent on an economic value system that deals with 'money' as a medium of exchange. Economic values are rapidly replacing democratic values that should 'govern' and motivate political decisions. Look at the platforms propounded by the opposing Parties. One Party says, " do away with Social Security; the other Party says; keep and improve Social Security". Yet, both Parties ask for 'contributions' from the people to 'run' their elections and carry out their platforms. Why? Doesn't this 'divide' the People or the Bottom, into the haves and have nots? If the top 1% or, to give them the benefit of the doubt, the top 5%, of the population, 'hold' most of the 'medium of exchange',( sometimes tax free and most of the time, by corporations which are not 'human beings'), isn't the election already lopsided? Why should "winning the election" mean, "having a lot of money"? Why can't "winning the election" mean "s/he has the best democratic(people) platform"? I'll tell you why!, because we have become 'overcome' by an economic principle instead of a democratic principle. 'Long live the 'King''.

Can a World war resolve an internal war or a National revolution?

A World War will never resolve a National revolution. Obviously, a World situation is way bigger than a National situation and never shall either reconfigure the political situation in the Other. The only result is that the National shall be left in shambles and the World may have aligned itself into a political arrangement, less pleasing or more pleasing, than the original arrangement of Nations. Even the revolutionary forces within the National shall be re-distributed in such fashion that the outcome can never be foretold. The outcome could be worse that the initial problem. But what choice does any Nation have if the activity to be 'corrected' is the destruction of the very basis of all governments; viz; the human condition? Certainly, the activity to be 'corrected' must be addressed. If it can be resolved diplomatically, so much the better. If not, military force is warranted. Nevertheless, the 'International' must always respect any attempt to solve the situation in a peaceful way. If such should be the case, that attempted resolution should be respected and acknowledged by all Nations in the International community. That move does not justify 'mingling' with the National problems of that nation, viz. the revolution. Each Nation must resolve its own internal problems. But, how does the enforcement of an International violation not cause an interference with the National situation. To be sure, it will have an effect, to wit; it will eliminate the use of chemical weapons on a National scene. The International problem is the use of these weapons on the National scene, which may cause their use to spread to the International scene. That is an International problem, not the National problem. The revolution must continue, because the Right to revolution exists in all governments, whether democratic or autocratic. Governments, all governments, are founded on the People. The essence of government are the People.

The National is about Democracy;Democracy is about the People.

The Bottom line of all governments is People. Without people, no government. The 'dependence' is on government; not the people. The people is the Bottom line of all governments. No government can survive without its People. Of course, this fact places a different slant on International politics. International politics is about the relations between different Nations. National politics relates to the relation between the National structure and its own people. The only relation between Nations on the International level is to keep 'order' among the different Nations; it has nothing to do with mingling with their internal affairs. This means law and order on the International level. The question becomes, can a Nation cause disorder on the International sphere, i.e. can a Nation cause danger to other individual Nations on the International level? Most certainly. If a Nation is so disrespectful as to annihilate its own People by violation of an International sanction, that Nation does not have the desired respect for the human condition which is the basis of all governments. That violation endangers the entire world. It undermines the very basis of government; all governments. Its the exercise of a power that endangers the autocratic power as well as the democratic power of other Nations. The Bottom line is the human condition, whether democratic or autocratic. Neither form of government can do without its people. Although this blog acknowledges and postulates a need for the democratic form of government, it also recognizes that even autocratic rule can be humane. Obviously and unfortunately, that is not always the case. Hence, the difficulty on the International sphere, of entertaining a way to proceed that might result in a war. Its the biggest decision leaders have to make, but sometimes its necessary. Nevertheless, there must be great caution in proceeding.

The 'National' is about democracy, the 'International' is about Nations.

The National sphere is about governing people within a National democratic structure. The International sphere is about governing established Nations on the level of International relations with other Nations. The National governs its people; the International or United Nations governs the International sphere constituted of many different Nations. Each Nation is independent and has its own people and its own government. One hopes that every Nation respects its own people. Internationally, one Country cannot and should not, meddle with another Country's internal struggles, unless its a clear violation of the standards set up by International Law. Hence, if Nations kill or destroy the lives of its people by violations of International standards, some response is necessary. Of course, there are always Nations which are engaged in internal revolutions, social unrest, or some kind of abuse of its own peoples. That's expected in a world with different political ideologies and different forms of governing. However, if the deaths of its People are caused by clear violations of International standards ( not National standards) a response must be given on the level of the International sphere. Not to respond to International violations are, of course, different than not responding on a National level. A Nation engulfed in revolution is not in a position to respond Nationally. But, that Nation should not use 'tactics' that are clearly prohibited by International standards of conduct. That creates an International political situation that requires an International response, not a National response. No one in their right mind wants war. But, where are the other Nations? Why are they not effected by this clear use of these prohibited weapons? Is everyone playing it safe? Are they unconcerned with the 'unruly kid on the block'? Civilization and government is about People and when leaders begin to annihilate innocents, women, and children, someone has to do something about it. It won't go away by itself.

International politics is on a different scale from National politics

International politics relates to the status and activities of an established Nation with other Nations on the International sphere. National politics relates to the relationship of the government to its people. The People are the governed in both cases. On the International scale the People of any one Nation are the governed, yet Other Nations have no say-so in their National politics. One scale is different from the other scale. There-in lies the problematic. All governments are for the purpose of governing the Peoples of their particular Nations. That's a fact. No Nation can exist without a form of government, which makes the government, any government, dependent upon its own people. Even a dictatorship taken over by a 'few', must depend upon its People. In a Democracy or a purported Democracy, that should be obvious. Stated differently, regardless the type of government, the mere fact that it's 'a government', makes it dependent on its People. No government can hope to continue existing without respecting the human condition. In the 21st century, that fact should be obvious. If it were not for the People, governments would not be necessary. So, how can we accept the fact that a Nation has, in the exercise of its delegated power, used it to eliminate the very individuals that gave it to them ( in a democracy or purported democracy) or( in other forms of government) allows it to have it? Government has mistaken the delegated power of government for some kind of imaginary elevation of actual power in the 'Office Holder'. Where did the human condition go wrong? When did it begin to consider its own self more important than all the People it governs? Leaders have a job to do( and not for private aggrandizement), leaders should 'represent' all its People. If a leader is unable or unwilling to perform his/her job, the easiest thing in the world is to 'step down'. I assure you, it will be appreciated.

International politics deals with established Nations on the world scene.

International politics is different from National politics. The International deals with established political entities or Nations on the World scene. While National politics deals with that particular political entity and the manner in which it deals with its own 'internal structure', or with its own 'human condition'. Of course, the International level of interaction also deals with governing the human condition, but that particular 'governing' is taking place within an already demarcated National government. That government could be a democracy or it could be something else. The major criteria on the International scene seems to be that everything should be done that is necessary to prevent World Wars between Nations. All this is obvious. The issue,of course, is what did Syria do and what is the United states about to do? Well, obviously Syria will deny using chemical weapons. Is there any proof that Syria has chemical weapons? The U.S. says "yes", Syria won't even admit that it has chemical weapons. But, it doesn't deny it either. The other issue is, did Syria use chemical weapons? Syria first said, "no, it was the rebels" but, now says, it "didn't even know chemical weapons had been used". Obvious contradictions. But, should the U.S. respond to this situation? The basis of any response should be, not the verbal 'game' being played by both Nations, but the actual filmed killing of innocents, women, and children by means of chemical weapons. Should that be tolerated? The answer is not as simple as it might appear at first glance. These problems are not resolved by the simple," he hit me and I'm going to hit him back", philosophy of the simplistic politician. On the International scene, we need Statesmen( not politicians) and God help our statesmen. There's no easy answer. A response could escalate; a non-response could escalate.

If the criteria for International politics is different from that of 'local' politics, how do we reconcile the two?

If the political International scene is governed by a different criteria from that of the local or National scene, how do we reconcile the two levels? Surely, an 'individuals life' on the National scene is as sacred as an 'individuals life' on the International scene. But here is where we make the transition from 'National' rules to 'International' rules of government. At this point, we must be very careful. Surely, 'life' on the International scene is just as sacred as it is ,or should be, on the National scene. But, not all governments are democratic. So, do we have a right to interfere with other ways of life because of their 'local' abuses or cruelty towards their members of the polity? I mean, how do we protect 'human life' on the International scene by a criteria that should relate to peaceful International relations? Of course, it would be ideal if the whole International scene respected individual life as some National governments do. Even then, no political entity is perfect. Normally, the answer would be No, we do not have a right to interfere, unless it will encourage others to assume the same lackadaisical attitude towards human life. If previous International 'policy' has seen fit to 'draw a red line' against the use of chemical 'weapons', that red line should be respected by all parties. If that International policy is intentionally violated, what can the National level do? The violation must be 'clear' and unquestionable. But, having established that clarity, the only answer is to respond. The question becomes, by following the rules of International politics and International inquiry, has that clarity been established as an International fact? If so, and if the International Nations have previously drawn that 'red line', unfortunately, there is no choice in the matter.

The 'political' is different from the 'individual'.

The political 'structure' is very different from the individual 'human structure'. The political structure locates or situates 'something permanent' within the individual human being and then organizes itself around that permanent condition. That permanent condition is a human dignity or an integrity 'within' each individual. Each individual may be 'different'( race, creed, or color), yet, each individual is equally human. Every ones' humanity is the same. There is no difference in the human condition. Human qualities reside within each individual, not within the political structure. The political structure only reflects a structure for governing; a structure that respects the human condition and tries to improve the conditions of every-day living within its political boundaries. That political structure, in a democracy, is triadic in nature. Why triadic? Because the triad affords a government "of people" to organize their own government, and also, to define and clarify the organizational terms, of the structure. A democratic government governs millions of individuals by means of law i.e. by rules of conduct that protects each individuals "freedom and equality" among all the other individuals, and within the government structure. Government 'rules' individuals in a 'condition of togetherness', while the individual rules his/her own 'inner' life. Government has no business getting involved with an individuals 'inner life'. Government relates to each individuals relations to other individuals, so long as they live in a 'condition of togetherness', while each individual 'organizes' his/her own human integrity, or 'inner life'. That's why democratic government structures have a 'public' sphere and a 'private' sphere. A human being living within a democracy is entitled to his privacy, but in the public sphere s/he/ has to follow the Law. The same 'rules' apply, on a different scale, on the International sphere.

Political disrespect for the human condition cannot be tolerated

Political disrespect for the human condition cannot be tolerated. Certainly, the use of chemical weapons to kill women and children cannot be tolerated. Governments are established to protect and help the people who constitute their particular Nation. If the only manner of handling dissent or opposition is to use chemical weapons against innocents, women, and children, that government does not serve the human condition. That government is erected on the foundation of pure political power; and its an 'isolated' political condition gone wrong. Political opposition should be an ideological contest among competing theories of government for the privilege of governing. All governments should be concerned with helping the people. Of course, all political systems, even National ones, divide into Parties and adopt different ideologies. But, instead of attempting to consolidate the different views into a 'political arrangement' that helps organize into a better society, they divide into 'opposing' political Parties. True, the opposition between Parties is sometimes vicious. The Party mentality kicks in and before long the Parties become opponents instead of partners looking for a better and improved way of helping its people to become stronger. Where do these 'Leaders' go wrong? The search or struggle to establish helpful and efficient political institutions is immediately squelched and replaced by a search or struggle for brute political power. In some cases, that Political power becomes a 'highway' to getting more and more money and to further consolidate their positions; such as in Capitalism. These latter political maneuvers are not as 'bad' as the pure, unadulterated exercise of political power by 'gassing' women and children. Sure capitalism has substituted a different value system(money) in the place of a democratic value system,(which is based on the freedom and equality of the human being)but, that does not destroy the human condition, which should be the basis of all political systems. Democracy is founded on Humanity.

Democracy is difficult; but democracy works.

Why should democracy be difficult? Because,if we say that the top of government represents all the People at the bottom, the people have to be assured that the Top is carrying out its International obligations with the consent of the People. Even though the Bottom is never privy to all the 'information' that the Top is privy too, it has a 'part to play' in 'some', not all, International obligations. Such is the case in situations involving a declaration of war. Of course, that is not necessary in the case of defense of the Country in the immediate present. 'Defense', is just hitting back, and hitting back requires an immediate response. However entering a situation that could escalate an internal revolution into an International situation, involving other countries, requires some amount of information; information about the nature of the situation, and why there is a necessity of getting involved with the 'problems' of someone else. Obviously, killing women and children with poison gas is one such 'internal problem'. That crime is not against some ideological difference, its a crime against humanity. The human condition is the basis of all governments, whether acknowledged or not. Hence, localized 'crimes against humanity' involves all of humanity; its not just a 'crime' in the Country where they were perpetuated, its a crime against the human condition. Such a 'stance' can never be justified as a local political move. The problem is that the Bottom in a democracy cannot respond on an International level (of course, neither can other types of government, but other types of government don't require the 'consent' of the People) Democracy needs the 'leadership' of the Top to respond. We have been 'victimized' before by 'weapons of mass destruction'; that should not be the case in a well documented case.