The Top of government is more subject to 'illusions of power' and feelings of 'self-importance' than the Bottom.

The Bottom of government has less illusions than the Top. Whatever illusions the Bottom has usually relates to illusions and misunderstandings of 'freedom and equality'. No one is free and equal in some kind of 'measurable way'. The parameters of 'Equality' is 'set' by Number; not language. The parameters of 'freedom' are circumscribed by law. Law circumscribes the parameters of non-acceptable behavior; it does not tell you how to 'behave'; it tells you how 'not to behave'. If you behave in that way, you violate the law and are punished. The term 'Equality' cannot be sufficiently described with words. 'Equality' of what; of possessions, money, physical strength, moral 'strength', 'health'( what is health?),etc. We go around in semantic circles, never reaching a precise description. That's why we have to use Number to determine the applicability of laws, policy, and 'political power'. Equality applies to the human condition; not the 'race' or the 'property or money owned' by an individual. Then we can include, exclude, and determine if the law and the policy is being applied 'equally' and 'fairly', because we can 'count'. Its the numbers stupid. The Top too easily is mesmerized by 'political power' and the function of the Office. The Top is more prone to make mistakes than the Bottom. The Top should function from democratic principles, not egotistical, selfish, or economic principles. Its easier for the Top to be in 'illusion' than for the Bottom to be in illusion. When the Bottom is not treated Equally or Freely, they get 'hurt' and they 'feel' the hurt; when the Top doesn't do its job, it misunderstands power, is under illusions of superiority, or principles of economics, or is being 'party-loyal' and is not applying democratic principles. When the Bottom doesn't act democratically, they get put in jail; when the Top doesn't function democratically, do they go to jail? what happens to them? Nothing! They just say, that's our Party-ideology. Who has misunderstood power and who is under illusion?

Another misused word in real democracy is "entitlements".

An 'entitlement" is not an entitlement, it's a direct result of the essence of democracy. You can call it that if you want, but it reflects a lack of knowledge of real democracy. The essence of real democracy is at the Bottom of triadic government; that's where all the People are. The representatives at the Top are merely carrying out their proper duties- in the case of Social Security- by returning to individuals what the individual has already paid out to the government in the form of withholding taxes.( But where are the jobs?) In the case of the 'poverty stricken', the government is merely carrying out its responsibilities to the less fortunate. Is the latter, a case of what is usually called a 'handout'? Hell No! Why do we have government, if not to 'govern' the 'condition of togetherness' at the Bottom of democratic structures? The form of democratic Government is not a 'structure' formed for the purpose of individuals' to ascend the ladder of opportunity and then abuse the 'office' and the political power that the Bottom has entrusted to them. The Top has democratic duties just as the Judiciary and the Bottom of democracy has democratic duties. Equally so, the Top, the judicial, and the Bottom get compensated for their contributions to a functional, democratic form of government. So why reduce the so-called 'entitlements' that only go to the Bottom of democracy, like Social Security, food Stamps, Welfare, etc.? If those are entitlements, in the sense used by politicians today, so is the salary, retirement, and other 'perks' enjoyed by the officeholders at the Top of government. Hey, I have an idea, why not reduce the 'entitlements' of the office holders? They get 'benefits' from the government for carrying out their duties. Corporations pay the same percentage of taxes as 'rich' Americans, and they're not even real. People are real, and their 'compensation' for existing and contributing to the 'condition of togetherness' should not be tampered with. Tamper with the Top; the economy: and the top 1%.

The distortions in language and democracy are not 'inherent' in language or democracy.

Language cannot function without generalities and specifics. It's within the nature of language to be able to refer to the 'specifics' of experience as well as to the huge, generalities of experience. In the 'politics' of democracy, this fact reduces to 'talking democracy' on very high levels of abstraction and sometimes, unfortunately, never reducing general principles 'down' to 'specific', 'real' facts. Law, policy, and 'social' programs are defined and established on very high levels of abstraction, because they apply to the Many individuals at the Bottom. Of course, they have to be reduced to specific, qualified cases of application, to be rendered efficient. This necessity calls for establishing 'byways', methods, and a 'structural relation' down the 'real' relation that connects the Top to the Bottom of government. Otherwise, we are stuck with the 'talk' of democracy and never get down to the 'walk' of democracy. Hence, the 'distortions' that arise in some political discourse are not necessarily inherent in language nor in democracy. Truly, many of the distortions inhere in the human condition of some politicians. Government is an absolute necessity; the use of language is also and absolute necessity; but the distorted, ambiguous, ranting's of some politicians is not necessary. To be sure, with some politicians, the distortions are intentional, but fortunately, not all human conditions are motivated by the same moral values. The substitution of economic values in lieu of democratic values in the 'governing process' is the most 'demoralizing' move that can be imposed on the human condition. We are all in a 'human condition' and we all need government, but, I assume, some of us don't have to be 'greedy for money or political power'. God help the 'conditions of togetherness'. Where are the Statesmen?

In a democracy, the People at the Bottom need to organize

The Bottom in a democracy 'houses' millions of People. But, each is an individual and has the right and privilege to live his/her life anyway s/he pleases; of course, according to his/her needs and within the parameters of law. The Top of a democratic form of government already has a structure; is very well organized; and its offices are occupied by representatives from the different Parties. The Top doesn't have to organize; it already is. Neither do the Party-politicians. The problem with the Party-politicians is that they constitute only a select few individuals from the Bottom who espouse some Party ideology and who want to participate in politics( for whatever reasons). Of course, they're supposed to be 'representatives', but that's another issue. However, not everyone wants to be a politician. That, in itself, already limits the playing field. Nevertheless, the Bottom of politics also needs to organize. The reason for that is, simply, to be heard. Each and every individual that is 'offended' by government structures is actually harmed, in a real way, and hence needs to make himself/herself heard. However, there are no 'connections' in the relation of the Top to the Bottom, that 'run' upwards. The government relation only runs from the Top to the Bottom; 'nothing' goes up the relation, except, maybe, the right to vote, but that is spread out over the tenure of office. But, in the meantime, what do we do? But, if the Bottom organizes into a 'substantial' group, it can be noticed. Being noticed means having some kind of 'influence' on the policies that emanate from the Top, at the time of the installation of the policy. Why wait till the next election. The First Amendment does not call for the 'right to assemble' only on election years. Its an ever-present right. However, that raises great issues. How do we control such organizations? So, why can't we just pass laws that compel the already existing Parties to be democratic in a 'real' way? That would compel every politician to respect the "freedom" and "equality" of each real individual and it would place corporations in their 'proper' place.

Language is essential to theoretical democracy, but DOING is essential to real democracy.

Language is essential to democracy. We cannot do without the language of democracy. Nevertheless, we have to remember that democracy is not just about 'talking' democracy. Democracy has its language, but it also has its practices. If democracy is just 'talk', its not real democracy; at best its theoretical democracy. Anyone can do that. As a matter of fact, many Nations already do that; they do the 'talk' but not the 'walk'. The Top of any government is always 'linguistic' and theoretical. However, every government has a direct line from the Top of government to the bottom of government. The Top, of necessity, must remain abstract. The direct line to the Bottom must be a line that extends from the abstract Top down to the concrete situation,( in a real way) or to the Bottom where each and every individual lives on a daily basis in a 'condition of togetherness'. Why?, because that closes the theoretical gap that exists between the One and the Many. The purpose of governing is to render the abstract concrete. Otherwise, the Top is not doing its job and the Bottom is without government. The Top can 'talk' democracy, but that is not sufficient; it must DO democracy. That's the purpose of policy, government programs, and laws. If anyone in politics wants "less government", they are making a big mistake. We have to ask ourselves, "then, who will govern us?" That would just place us at the mercy of the 'value system' and the 'moral system' of the leaders at the Top. That'll never work; it won't work, even for those who espouse such a position. Governing the 'condition of togetherness' requires a direct line to the Bottom where the essence of democracy is situated. Once, that relation is established in a 'real way', the Constitution becomes the Law of the land. The direct connection has to be kept or the Top will lose its connection to real democracy. The Top must listen to the Bottom; that's where life is lived; where people are hungry; where people need jobs; where suffering takes place; and those are the people who will serve in 'your military' when you declare war.

Language can be used to distort democracy

Probably, the most misused words in democracy are the words "Equal" and "Free". Truly, every individual in a democracy is "free" and "equal". Many people claim that we are not free because we cannot do whatever we please and because some have more than others. Hey, yes we can do whatever we please, but the requirement that we remain within the parameters of law are properly placed lines of allowable behavior designed to allow full interaction among millions of other human beings with the same rights and the same dignity. True, sometimes laws are unfair. In that case we have to change that particular law, but continue to live within a democratic framework delineated by just laws. With respect to the word "equal", some people say we are not equal because the Other has more money or owns more property and hence has more 'power'.("Power" is another word misused in democratic government). Well, 'equality' in a democratic context means equally human. The human condition identifies each and every individual living on the planet. In a real democracy that humanity and dignity is respected. "Equality" has nothing to do with the amount of money one has or the amount of property one owns. Of course, that has many advantages, but that's mostly because we have co-mingled economic values with democratic values. Everyone born is born into existing 'conditions of togetherness'. Although the 'condition of togetherness' we all find ourselves in is not of our choosing, in a democracy, government must 'protect' that 'condition of togetherness'. It must treat each and every individual as a 'dignified human being', hence every individual is equal to the Other individual. There are no distinctions in the human condition and the government should not make any. Now, why should government treat each individual as "Equal" and "Free"? Because government is the Top of an 'artificial body' created to govern the Many at the Bottom. (The "State" was called a fiction many years ago). The essence of democracy are the People at the Bottom and their "freedom", "Equality" and humanity must be protected. The "power" at the Top is a given of the structure; the individual who governs does not have more "power" than you or I, only his/her office has the power to govern. That power is accompanied by a job s/he has to perform. Failing that, in a democracy, s/he incurs the 'Constitutional wrath' of all the People at the Bottom.

Number is not Utopian nor a panacea

Number is not a panacea nor Utopian, but it sure helps to measure whether the beneficiaries of any policy, law, or other government activity or program is democratic or not. We already resort to 'counting' and 'Number' in Taxation, home ownership, jobs, employment, percentages, racial distributions, gender distributions, etc., so why not extend those practices to judge whether any governmental policy, program, or law, includes or excludes everyone who is supposed to be included or excluded? For example: A family man living in a small home earns $30,000 a year and pays taxes on that amount. Another, earns $200,000 a year and pays taxes on that amount. A corporation earns $500 million a year and pays taxes on that amount. Do all three pay the same percentage of taxes a year? Should the tax be equal or should it be increased among the more fortunate? Is it possible for a corporation not to pay any taxes at all. It sure is possible and to add salt to the wound, a corporation is a "legal fiction", which means its not human, not real, ( like Alice in Wonderland, its not real) and the law recognizes that fiction, and further treats it as a "person" under the Constitution. This 'legal move' increases a corporations 'economic grasp' tremendously. That, in of itself, should be considered a 'great gift' of government, so why increase the advantages of a corporate "fiction" to further create tax loop holes in the law that allows it not to pay taxes? Is that a 'fair playing field'? Do you see the advantage of quantifying democracy by using Number to balance "freedom" and "equality" of every individual(real ones)in a real way. If the essence of democracy is the real individual at the Bottom of government, why give tax advantages to 'fictional persons' and not to real persons. The same rules could apply to the availability of jobs, employment and home ownership. Democracy does not require that everyone earn the same amount of money, or that everyone own the same amount of property, but it does demand a 'fair playing field'.

Can democracy be quantified?

Is Number a language and is it possible to communicate with Number as can be done with language? The answer is No! Such communication is possible only with language. Although mathematics is a 'form' of language, it does not have the same function as communication with words. Communication with words deals with semantics or meaning. To be sure, mathematics does not deal with 'meaning' but, nevertheless, is a 'quantification' that gives to each number or concept a fixed quantity. We can add, subtract, and perform many complex transactions with these numerals and algebras. Similarly, science also functions with 'quantifications', except that science is based on the 'experimental' method. Of course, government and politics is not experimental. While number always remains the same, "words" carry meanings and the same word can mean many different things depending on the context and whether it is used metaphorically or not. But, we have said that Three Branch Constitutional government can be 'reduced' to a more simple triadic form of government to help us to better conceive the underlying basis of governmental power. We have concluded that the Bottom of the triad supports the Top of the triad and that the Top would not exist if it were not for the Bottom. There can be no Top without a Bottom. Hence, the Top is the Administration and the bottom are the millions of individuals who constitute the democracy. Democratic government must include each and every individual within its settings of policy and law or be judged not to be democratic. The best measure of that inclusion or exclusion is Number. Democracy must be subjected to an enumeration process that verifies the inclusion or exclusion of every individual within the stated category of governance. For example, the very general proposition, "every individual is free and equal", means Every Individual. No exceptions and no discriminatory classifications relating to gender, race, rich or poor. "Every" means every human being is "free", and "equal" means every human being is 'equally human'.

The only path to real democracy is Number.

Language is not working; by that, I mean political language suffices as a descriptive formulation of democracy as set out in the Three Branch structure of the Constitution and subsequent interpretations by the Supreme Court. Constitutional language is absolutely necessary. But, many of those formulations were all prior to the so-called Linguistic Turn. This is not to say that language was not problematic prior to the Linguistic Turn, but the Turn received its 'collective impetus' from Richard Rorty,s book, "The Linguistic Turn". Language as 'non-correspondence' with reality creates many gaps with respect to 'practical application' of democracy and democratic values. Of course, politicians were already adept at twisting language without the support and encouragement of the Turn. But, it may be useful for us to consider why in the economic sphere, language is not as important as it is in the political sphere. Basically, the reason is because 'language' as a medium of communication, does not refer, so much, to the 'organizational aspects' of the economy as it does to the 'end result' of economic activity, or medium of exchange of economic activity, which is money. (Of course, there is one case where it does refer to the 'organizational aspects' of the economy; i.e. "legal fictions"). Nevertheless, the economy is about profits and that means money and property. My point is that money is a quantification that can be counted. The 'counting' is important because it determines your 'class status' within a society. The 'status' of the individual is based on how much money or property s/he has. My point; why can't the Bottom of Constitutional government, which is "We the People...," also be quantified so as to determine whether any law or policy is sufficiently democratic to be Constitutional? I'm sure you heard the somewhat recent statement of an "ex-politician" say, (I paraphrase) " Look at the numbers". A good beginning point.

Well, the shut-down is almost over; or is it?

A government shut-down is the most ridiculous result that can be intentionally perpetuated by politicians against the People. It's not a 'political move' against the other Party; its a political move to get concessions at the expense of the People. But,that's a direct result of so-called Party loyalty; or just plain 'dirty politics'. The People always have to pay the price. Its such a basic realization; a shut-down does not harm the Parties, it harms the People. So, why do some politicians use the people as leverage and as a means of getting concessions. They should be proposing alternative solutions to problems of democracy; not 'damaging' the 'little democracy' that the Bottom enjoys. Both Parties should be democratic, only the means of 'practicing' democracy should be different. Obviously, one of the Parties is following an economic or 'money agenda'. When I say that we should not mix economic principles with democratic principles, I do not mean that the economy, as an important part of any Nation, is not important; I mean, the economy is 'driven' by 'profits' while democracy is 'driven' with "freedom and equality". There is no freedom and equality in economics. If there was, we wouldn't have a great economy; in the same manner, there is no 'profit' in democracy. If there was, we would be a Plutocracy. Oh, Oh, I just painted myself against the wall. Are we a Plutocracy? Well, we're not supposed to be. The Constitution says we are a democracy, " We the People...,. Then, why is there such a thing as the 1%? Were the 1% just more 'human' than any other 'human being'? No! They were more grasping and more greedy and they tapered laws to fit an economic agenda by requiring less duties from the 1% and corporations. They even fought against 'laborers' forming into Labor Unions and yet, protected corporations by creating a "fictional" entity and legally calling it a "legal fiction", which sounds more acceptable, but, in spite of all the trickery, remains 'mythological'. Our democratic values have become dislocated from their Constitutional base and, unfortunately, some Party loyalists love it. So much for Parties!

Democracy has been 'embarrassed' by power

The best government in the world has been 'embarrassed' by political power. To be sure, political offices are characterized by the exercise of power but, the most embarrassing aspect of its use is for so-called political leaders, divided by Party lines, to use it against each other as if it was some sort of 'game'. The undemocratic spirit of the 'Party mentality' that divides politicians is partly to blame (The autocracies are laughing at us). Another reason is the reduction of the 'democratic spirit', down to the level of a 'baseball game mentality'. Politics is serious business and anyone with a 'game' orientation should not be allowed to hold political office. Democratic politics is about People and about governing. Where did democracy go wrong? It was in assuming that only serious individuals that actually had a democratic spirit would want to hold political office. It certainly is not the compensation for holding office, but it was probably the opportunity of functioning on a level of power where self-aggrandizement could be better 'realized' by political maneuvering and by 'sleeping' with the lobbyists and the corporations. In actually, its the 1% shooting itself in the foot. Government is "for the People"; and maybe its time that the People begin to "assemble" and show their 'strength' in Numbers. After all, that was the reason for the First Amendment. The government belongs to the People, not the politicians. Any direct or indirect self-aggrandizement while in office should be prohibited by law and that law should be a standing law with 'teeth'. That Law should emanate directly from the Constitution. A government shut-down in a democracy is humiliating and should not be tolerated. The 1% has shot itself in the foot; it has demonstrated that 'politics' is more important than People. Since, government is about People, their politics is about creating shut-downs to get concessions that further work against the people.

Why does politics have to 'suck'?

Politics is a noble endeavor. Maybe, I should have said, "politics should be a noble endeavor." The biggest problem in a 'political science', or in political activity, is that the only 'politicians' or 'statesmen' around, happen to be human beings. Unfortunately, it can't be any other way. There is no "Hal". So, why do human beings dressed in 'political garb' resort to 'childish games' when politicking? By seeking office, they are attempting to place themselves in positions of power. Once they get the position, they can exercise political power. Political power is a 'given' of the office. They don't have power before the election nor after leaving office. They're power is gone. Kaput. Nada. However, the 'given' power is a characteristic of the 'democratic conditions' of life. It's a political factor. It does not exist any where else. A politician or statesman should be motivated by 'democracy', since that should have been the motivation to ascend to a position of power in the first place. Only politicians and statesmen seek power. Ordinary human beings don't care if they have power or not. They're too busy 'getting a life' or, 'making money'. Life is about being able to go on living. Human beings who ascend to positions of power are involved in a serious matter. Their motivation, while in office, should be to insure that all the People are 'getting their democracy' i.e. GENUINE democratic laws, policies, and programs. The only way to implement real democracy is by means of a direct relation to the Bottom that includes all individuals within the referenced categories. So, why do politicians interest themselves in shutting down the very institution that gives them their power? Is there such a 'thing' as shutting down government, when it was the 'People' who elected the representatives of government? Maybe we should use a different term, like "no more money for these programs". If that's the case, why not tax "legal fictions" to reflect a more accurate representation of the 'increased economic grasp' ( by calling them 'persons') that government gives them? Why can't statesmen, politicians see where their real responsibility lays?

A government shut-down is crazy.

No individual, Politician, office-holder or Party has a right to shut down government. That's the most 'un-political' act possible. Only a Party or individual politician who is looking-out for himself/herself would propose such a political move. "Holding a Nation hostage" reflects the lack of a 'democratic' perspective and a complete mis-understanding of the function played by someone in a political position of power. There can be differences between Parties, but no Party has a right to shut-down government while they work out those differences; or use a shut-down as a means to get political concessions. The government belongs to the People, not the politicians. Politicians should be trying to make government more democratic instead of less democratic and they do not have the privilege of shutting-down a government that does not belong to them. A shut-down by any Party is a perfect example of a complete mis-use of political power. The People in a democracy need government. The People put those politicians in power and now the politicians are closing down their government. Wow, they just don't get it, do they. That's why a democracy needs Statesmen. The problem with the human condition is that it cannot handle power. Once an individual assumes a position of power, s/he immediately proceeds to assert her/his individuality and abuses the position. The days of "rugged individualism" are over. A democracy is not about an individual, its about each and every individual in a 'condition of togetherness'. A Democracy includes all its People, not just a few, not just the 1%, and not just the rich. Where are our statesmen?

Democracy is difficult

Democracy is not easy. Its difficult because it allows any 'qualified' individual at the Bottom of government to engage in politics and ascend to the position of political power. Since the strength or solidity of any Nation is its integrity as a Nation, the individual who ascends to a position of power must have a democratic spirit. In other words, the individuals in positions of power, must themselves have a democratic spirit. The freedom, equality and integrity of the individual in power will reflect the integrity of the national spirit. A democratic spirit respects and protects the individuality, integrity, freedom and equality of all individuals at the Bottom of Three Branch government. That's democracy. So why is that difficult? Because it is precisely the individual at the Bottom who has ascended to the Top who will 'govern'; and hence if that individual does not have a 'democratic spirit' s/he will not serve the People, s/he will serve something other than democratic values. A government "of People", "by People' and "for people" will espouse and protect democratic values, not economic values, the top 1%, or the corporate structure (legal fictions). Unfortunately, money has pervaded every branch of government. Although, money, in itself, is not bad; it's the greed that motors it that overcomes the human individual. Humans, being weak, and espousing value systems that are not democratic, have a difficult time living in a 'condition of togetherness' i.e. within a democratic nation. Democracy is difficult because politicians are 'weak' human beings. If individuals, particularly those who run for political office, were not weaklings and did not lack integrity as an individual, and who also respected the Freedom and Equality of others, we could have a strong democracy. Instead, the 'difficulty of democracy', coupled with Party differences, causes ideological skirmishes at the Top that cause harm to the Nation as a whole. That's also why we have a 'shut-down'.

Party differences could be based on real democracy

The fact that Party differences proves that they hamper democracy can be corrected, if Party differences were both trying to achieve a real democracy. By this I mean, if both or all Parties emphasized the paramount importance of the People at the Bottom of Three Branch government, we could have distinguishable Party differences that actually supported and emphasized different approaches to the establishment of a real democracy, i.e. at the Bottom of government. However, 'political language' gets in the way of that goal. Political language has always been used to confuse, mislead, and now to 'terrorize' the other Party and compel a 'shut-down'. Unfortunately, there's very little we can do about language and the way some people choose to use it. The Linguistic Turn has not helped "political language". However, if we quantify some of the terms in the Constitution, such as "We the People....", or that democracy is a government "of People", "by People", and "for the People", we may have a chance to actually live in a real democracy. This may help 'quantify democracy'. By quantify, I mean Parties stop using 'political language' to confuse, mislead, or 'hold government hostage'. By quantifying the Bottom of government, we mean use NUMBER to refer to those policies and laws that Constitutionally apply to the people at the Bottom. Every law and every policy constitutes a category of applicability that could be evaluated by merely counting those to whom the policy or law applies. Since Law and Policy apply to a governing that's democratic, it would suffice to count those to whom they applied. As far as Parties are concerned, simply require that democratic Parties be, in fact, democratic. Some gauge on the democratic nature of the Parties should be enacted into law to keep Parties from forming non-democratic Parties. Autocracy, by its definition, would never allow a democratic 'party' to form. Neither should a democracy allow a Party that worships economic values instead of democratic values. Individuals forming into Parties should be grateful for existing in a democracy that allows them to have their own 'life styles', without trying to perpetuate the value system into the 'democratic value' form. Governing is about democracy!

The shut-down proves that Party differences cause harm to democracy

So what is to be done? Different Party ideologies just demonstrate that the 'difference' at the Top does not constitute a 'real' difference on the Bottom. Truly, ideological differences are harmful when either Party suggests 'something' other than a 'democratic spirit'. Its also harmful when 'ideological differences' are used for leverage to achieve some non-democratic result. Laws properly passed and approved can only be held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Political maneuvers to cause the same result is illegal and should be held to be illegal. In fact, that kind of maneuvering should be outlawed. Government shut-downs by political Parties exercising their ideological differences is not a Constitutional attack on a particular law, it's 'terroristic' political maneuvering that is unconstitutional and should be held to be unlawful 'politic-in'. Would the Constitution tolerate a 'new Party' to form and to run on a platform that supports and wants a totalitarian government and to hold that democracy is illegal? Of course not, how can democracy be exercised in order to hold democracy illegal? Its ridiculous! Politics must conform to Constitutional structure; it's not the other way round! In other words, democratic activity cannot tolerate clear undemocratic politics. Politics already has a 'bad' name without using political moves to undermine properly enacted laws. That's 'sour grapes' of the worst kind. It's ludicrous; its cheap politics; and it should be illegal. Who's hurting from the shut-down? Do you think its the 1%; the corporations; the 'haves'; or is it the People who are looking for jobs; who need medical care; who have paid the price by serving in the military and are now 'turned loose' to 'die' from dirty politics? Com' on politicians, we're not stupid!

Wow, pure Party ideological differences caused government shutdown.

What happens to the 'real' People at the Bottom of 'real' government? The Bottom is where democracy 'resides' with all the People. The Top is ideology and Party affiliations and never shall the Top of government,( as it exists now) 'merge', 'blend', with the 'real' individual at the Bottom of 'real democracy'. We need less Parties, and more democracy. To hear the 'interchanges' going on by the Two Parties is strategically interesting but, it only reflects a 'political bantering' at the Top. Its a shame that no one is concerned with the People at the Bottom; and by this I do not mean that the Democratic Party should give-in to the 'political terrorism' of the Republican Party. Even the Republican Party is 'split'. Hilarious, the 'haves' are bickering with themselves while the 'have-nots' suffer. In an earlier blog, I mentioned that even an 'emerging Plutocracy' is doomed to failure, because those at the top would, sooner or later, begin to argue among themselves. Well, its happening; greed can never be appeased; there's always 'more and more'. The best political move available to a real democracy is for the People to somehow inaugurate Laws that define more clearly, and which set the parameters, of a real democracy, even if the description is elusive. This way, any Party that purports to be democratic, would have to comply with the stated definition and description of democracy or not be allowed to exist. Maybe, even the Party ideology would have to be approved by the People. We've had Laws on Voting, on monopoly, etc. but they have been rendered 'useless' by Party participants who favored a 'Plutocracy'; a corporate society(legal fictions), or the Top 1%. None of these approaches is democratic, so why do the People need that kind of Party. Sure, there's "freedom" and "equality", but that's for democracy, not a license for 'political terrorism' at the Top.