"Big Corporations" are not concerned about religion, they owe their 'existence' to the Law.

"Democracy" means "real People"; the term 'emanates from the Bottom' of the 'Triadic Nature', or, the Three Branch structure, of democratic government. 'Governing' relates, in a real way, to the basic relation of the Top to the Bottom. It should include 'all real individuals' at the Bottom. But, the Supreme Court has seen fit to consider the 'corporate structure' as a "Person" under the Constitution. Recently, the Court 'seemed' to 'attenuate' the "personhood" of the 'corporate structure', an accepted "legal Fiction"; but, not so, instead it was the 'relation' between the 'owners of the corporation' and 'Corporate Personhood'. Has "Corporate" Personhood, been effected? Has it been 'thinned out' or 'lost weight'. Not really, its not the "legal Fiction" that has 'lost weight', but, it seems, that the 'ownership' of the "legal fiction" has, or rather, the relation between the 'owners' and the "fiction" is being tampered with. It seems that the 'legal fiction' remains a 'properly stuffed fiction'. In other words, it 'ain't going nowhere'; society, or the social, is 'stuck' with 'real people' and "legal fictions". Its already a well established principle, that a corporation has a 'personhood' within the economy, and, the future of that concept, is not about to be challenged. To challenge that concept, as such, would 'destroy' "Capitalism", as we know it, and it would endanger the 'economy'. But, 'owners' beware; the 'relation' between you, and your 'economic brain-child', or "legal fiction", is about to be changed; are you a 'privately owned' "fiction", or a 'publically owned' "fiction"? Are the owners 'just a few' or Many, or, the 'public'. Since, we already seem to be a Corporate society, the 'little guys' will just have to move over. The decision becomes a 'legal base' from where later decisions will favor the 'big guy', in all "their independent Constitutional glory", not the 'little guy'. The 'Big Guy' doesn't need to claim, 'religious freedom'. The decision will 'effect' any real individual that seeks to incorporate his/her business. Sure, 's/he or, 'they', still have certain 'religious freedoms', like 'real individuals' but, you better 'stay small'. If you get 'too Big for your britches', you will lose your 'religious freedom'. The 'Big guys' don't have it. They don't need it. The "big", just keep getting, 'bigger and bigger', of course, only in a 'fictional way'; nevertheless, they are considered "legal Fictions" and hence, protected. What happens to 'real People' and the 'small corporation'? I guess, that in a 'Corporate society', they will have to come under the 'governing' of the 'Big Corporate Guys'. By 'defending the 'religious freedom' of the 'individual' and, the small 'corporate guy', the 'Big Guys' acquire control of, both, the 'small 'legal fictions' and 'real People'. Are we headed towards a Plutocracy, an Oligarchy, or a " fictional corporate society"? What difference does it make? In any case, the "little People" are being 'shackled'. No wonder, the 'Big Guys' are in the top 1%. They need 'more duties' and 'less profits'.

'Real adversity' between Parties should not exist in a Democracy.

'Real' adversity has real 'oppositional components' as distinguished from different 'points of view' about the same matter. A different 'point of view' merely reflects different ways to accomplish the same thing. If the 'end goal' in a Democracy is to 'govern' the People in a 'democratic manner', the 'different point of view' approach, is still within the 'general parameters' of Democracy. If a political Party opposes 'all political activity', on the simplistic basis that 'Government', is something 'free people' do not need, that is a dangerous position for any Party ideology. That is more a position of opposing a Party ideology by some adversarial Party. The goal in such approaches is merely to render the opposing party inefficient, or to eliminate it by adversarial methods, instead of 'democratic electoral methods'. That's the whole problematic with 'Party ideology', and so-called, "party loyalty". Party ideologies create 'oppositional components' that are harmful, to a 'general concept of Democracy'. The reason for that is that Parties find themselves 'opposing' each other instead of working out the 'methodology' by which some 'one democratic goal' can be achieved. Can any individual sue the Supreme Court because s/he disagrees with its decision? Can any individual sue the President because s/he disagrees with what he does? Can any individual sue the Congressman because s/he disagrees with what s/he does? Try it and see where it gets you. That's called a 'political question', not a 'case' or 'controversy'. The Courts, in general, and the Supreme Court will not decide a 'political question'. Obviously, because the irony of the situation is that the Supreme Court is also made up of members of 'different Parties', 'different ideologies', and are also 'Party loyalists'. You've heard of 'packing the Courts'; well that's a common practice, and that's good-old Party 'adversity' at work. There's nothing wrong with 'differences', but when they are approached from an adversarial, ideological, basis, it can destroy Democracy. Everyone is different from everyone else, but we don't have to have a 'real' fight over it. How disappointing, I thought even children knew that.

All 'Nations' have 'power'. In a Democracy, an 'individual' is Free and Equal; but not to, 'shoot himself in the 'democratic foot'.

If a 'Nation' is properly established, it has 'political power'. The issue is never, "can it do that?" If its a 'properly' established Nation, it has the 'power' to do 'that'. No other Nation can keep it from acting as a 'Nation'. To do so, would amount to an interference with the 'autonomous power' of a properly established political entity. That's on the International scene. On the National scene, and in a Democracy, that is exactly the point, in stating that the 'adversarial Party System', within a Democratic Nation, can have the 'effect' of 'diluting democracy', or, to put it differently, be 'non-democratic' in nature. 'Adversarial' Party ideology can undermine the Democratic spirit, if that Party acts from 'outside' of a 'properly established democratic ideology'. Don't get me wrong, Democratic 'Party Ideologies', can 'differ', in 'point of view', but not in 'democratic spirit'. In other words, on the International scene, an Autocracy cannot 'question' in a 'legal forum', the fact that some other Nation is a Democracy; to do so would have the effect of imposing an 'International litigious world', not to mention, the fact of the 'problematic' of establishing a 'proper legal system' within an 'International community', that would, 'not interfere', with the Autonomy of every Nation. Of course, everyone knows that, and that's why the 'interference' of one Nation, into the business of another Nation, amounts, in a practical sense, to an act of 'War'. ( that's on the International scene) Of course, I don't refer to 'simplistic 'disagreements or opinions' by 'individuals' within any Nation, about the 'political status' of other Nations, like writing 'books' or 'making movies'. Individuals are free to disagree with whatever they choose. However, an individuals 'behavior' or 'opinion' is never a 'political International issue'. Of course, the same applies, on a different scale, to a Nation that has an adversarial Party system, and wishes to resolve 'Party distinctions' or 'differences' by litigation or 'non-compliance' with the Constitution. That would endanger Democracy, because every individual, would be filing lawsuits against the Constitution. That's why we have a Three Branch government. A democracy is 'constituted' in such a way, as to protect the Freedom and Equality of every individual, but, please understand, that does not grant the right for any 'individual', acting in a Representative capacity, to 'shoot himself/herself in the foot'. That's just as bad as trying to 'shut down government'. Wow, where are we going?

'Political power' vs. 'money' or 'economic influence'.

"Political power" is the only kind of power that exists, and by that I mean, that it can exist within the 'institutional setting' known as the "Nation", or the "State", or "Government". Is "money" or "economic influence" a kind of 'power'? The answer is No! Money is an economic 'medium of exchange'. It is arbitrarily established and subject to many different types of changes. Power is power; its an 'affirmative act' that has a 'source' by virtue of Office. Of course, compliance with Constitutional principles is necessary. Money is a variable that can change into 'possessions' of a concrete nature, but as a medium of exchange, it is not 'power'; of course, neither is the individual that has changed his/her money into 'possessions'. Being 'rich' also has many variables because the 'riches' can be 'inherited', 'accumulated', or acquired by 'illegal means'. I almost forgot, you can always incorporate. Regardless how acquired, it remains a 'medium of exchange', that needs to circulate among the People at the Bottom of government. Some degree of 'hoarding' may be justifiable, but not to the extent that it propels one to the Top 1% of the population. An economy that has a top 1%, holding most of the 'medium of exchange', doesn't make sense. It certainly reflects an imbalance, or a 'greed', with respect to 'money and possessions'. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against money, possessions, or corporations, per se, but, how can a medium of exchange be hoarded by a mere 1% of the population? Isn't this an indication that 'all is not well with the economy'? That's why money has no place in politics; that's why money should be kept out of politics; that's what distinguishes 'political power' from 'economic influence'. Unfortunately, and sadly, many individuals seek political office as a 'means' towards self-aggrandizement. Money and possessions are 'not power', but its accumulation has been substituted for the 'democratic values' of Freedom and Equality. Money, a 'medium of exchange', has become 'more valuable' than Freedom and Equality. That's the sad part. Its a complete misuse of an economic value that seeks to 'replace' the political values of Freedom and Equality; "its a giant step towards Plutocracy". I think all politicians should be required to live in a Dictatorship, just long enough, to get a 'taste' of what is, 'Freedom and Equality'; oh, by the way, they can take their money with them.

Political 'power' vs 'People's strength in numbers.

Political power is an 'institutional' power. It exists simply because Government, as an institution, has attributed said power to the Top of government. Otherwise, it would not exist. In a Democracy, the power at the Top of Government is a grant by the 'Many people' at the Bottom of Government. But, its an 'attributed' power and it only exists for the duration of Office. In other forms of government, the big issue is always, from where do they get power? Of course, they get their power from the 'already long-ago' established 'institution of government', and the 'ascension', regardless of how that occurs, into Office at the Top. In the ancient Divine Right of Kings type of rule, power was said to be of Divine origin. In other forms, power exists by virtue of holding political Office in the institutions of Government. There are no other sources of 'political' power. The Government, or the State, or the Nation must exist as a 'form' of Government. That necessity, in itself, coats the Top of government with a 'form' of 'institutional power'. In a Government "of People", "by People", and "for People", or stated differently, in a Democracy, the power comes from the Bottom, not the Institution. The essence of democratic government are the People, without which there would be no power in government. The 'Crafters' of the Constitution knew this and hence, 'crafted' the Three Branch Constitution, as a source of Institutional power, and the First Amendment as the strength of the People. The 'Bottom' in a Democracy has no institutional power, but the People 'in their condition of togetherness', have 'more strength' in 'Numbers', than, the Top. The Bottom has 'real strength', the Top only has 'institutional', or 'attributive' power. Whereas, the Top has power only for the duration of Office; the Bottom 'never loses' his/her 'strength in Numbers', because the People, 'crafted' the Constitution. Its futile to seek 'power', for 'powers sake'; the pursuit is 'empty' and of short duration. Money, at least, can be 'accumulated', but don't kid yourself, that's equally empty. The long-run will prove it. Government Office is a 'Noble Office', and should be 'pursued', but only for the 'right reasons', not the illusory reasons of 'power' and 'money'.

Can "Democracy" be improved? No!, only, the 'knowledge' of the 'condition of togetherness'.

Can "Democracy" be improved? If your definition of Democracy is that it is a Government, "of the People", "by the People", and "for the People", and we go no further in our analysis, the answer is, "No, it cannot be improved." Why? because the government is 'formed' from the very People who 'are to be governed', and the government is 'operated by' the very People who are to be governed, and the 'purpose of governing', is "for the benefit of 'all' those very same People". But, if we ask, "can the 'individuals' who actually 'assume positions of power' within a Democracy be improved? The answer is, absolutely! I realize that I have just made a statement, in general, that the 'human condition' must be improved; an impossible task! But, I don't mean it, philosophically, psychologically, or even morally, my meaning is 'closer' to the 'sociological'. Look, if we can appreciate the fact that we 'must' exist in 'a condition of togetherness', or be 'doomed to failure' as human beings, we are 'halfway' there. But, the 'condition of togetherness', as an absolutely necessary condition, is not 'appreciated', or 'respected', by many politicians; they think they exist alone in the world, or that only their Party exists, or only their Nation exists. No one can exist alone in the World; no Political Party can exist alone; no Nation, can exist alone, in the International Community. Aloneness is out of the question. The 'human condition' may not be 'improvable', as such, except maybe by someone who has assumed that 'philosophical', 'psychological', 'moral', or 'religious' task,( politicians don't think that way), and furthermore, that is not the task of politics. However, the task of the 'need for a government' structure, to help organize the 'condition of togetherness' is absolutely necessary, and the improvement of that knowledge, is not only possible, but necessary. Hence, the knowledge that all governments should be a 'People government'; the knowledge that 'some of those same 'people" must 'assume' positions of power in the government; the knowledge that all government, if constituted "of", "by", those same People, must be "for" those People. How can it be otherwise? The 'human condition', especially the humans in public Office, must understand that "we are not alone in the World", and neither are politicians. Learning to 'Live Together' is absolutely necessary. The 'political structure' of democracy cannot be improved, but the knowledge of the 'Representatives' in 'Offices', can certainly be improved. Either we begin to think of "Others", or we are doomed. Selfishness, and Greed, have no place in a 'condition of togetherness'; it can't 'hold together'. Only the political values of "Freedom" and Equality" can 'hold us together'. Politicians should be required to meet 'certain criteria', other than just having 'lots of money'.

A Nation cannot have pride 'in itself''; but,the People can have pride in their Nation.

The term "Nation" is an abstraction and hence cannot have 'pride' in itself. But, its People can have pride in their Nation. That's why a democracy, that is constituted by all of the People at the Bottom of government, can 'invigorate' its National Identity with pride. The pride comes from the Bottom, or the governed; that is, the People who reap the 'benefits' of the Freedom and Equality that every individual enjoys, from the government. The Freedom and Equality enjoyed at the Bottom, gives-off a sense of pride in the governmental structure. Freedom and Equality helps 'cement' National pride in the structure that permits it to exist. How then does an Autocracy have 'pride' in their form of government, or do they? Generally speaking, the 'cement' that holds together' in an Autocracy, is fear, weapons of mass destruction, military power, etc.. The difference is that in a Democracy the individual fights for his Nation; in an Autocracy the individual fights because he 'must' or suffer the consequences. Of course, both fighters are great fighters, but the Democratic fighter fights for his Nation; the Autocratic fighter fights for himself/herself. That's why democracy must always protect its people, and must ensure their Freedom and Equality. The people are truly the back-bone of the Democratic Nation. Sure, the People cannot do without their Nation, but, neither can the Nation do without its People. A Nation without people cannot exist; but, its better for a Nation to protect the Freedom and Equality of its people to ensure 'pride' of Nation. A Nation 'with pride' can function more securely within the International sphere; it functions as a Nation that has 'respect' and 'integrity' for the 'human condition', regardless of where they may reside. It does not, or should not, march-off to War that easily. Heaven help us.

Party ideology should follow Democratic Ideology; instead, Parties follow an economic ideology.

Parties are not all that bad; I mean, they could follow a Democratic Ideology. In such case, they would be beneficial because, that allows for the clarification of 'opposing views' of how best to serve Democracy, or, how best to serve all the People. Government is not for the purpose of 'benefiting' government. Government is an abstract 'fiction' with a Political Identity that serves a purely 'governing' Ideology. Of course, government has to be funded and hence, taxation, jobs, opportunities within government, etc., become necessary. But, government as a 'governing Agency' does not benefit, per se, from 'governing' activities. The people 'must benefit' from government, otherwise, why have government? Nevertheless, Government must be 'strong', both, to help its people, and to protect its people, but, the ultimate goal of its existence, is to serve and benefit all its People. Of course, it relation to Other governments, also becomes a necessity, within the International sphere. In summary, that would be a Democratic political ideology. But, instead, Capitalism, an economic value system, has taken hold of the 'political value system', viz. the Freedom and Equality of every individual, to the point where, 'Money', has become the ultimate value for the Individual, both, the individual at the Bottom, and, the Individual serving as a Representative in Government. Consequently, Freedom and Equality, takes Second Chair to an economic value. Of course, that serves a 'Plutocratic Ideal' as well as an 'Oligarchic Ideal', but not a Democratic Ideal. How did that happen? Well, its hard to say, but, notice the 'characteristics of greed', and compare them with the mind set of a child. Of course, that's not fair, nevertheless consider, the childish mind set of, 'more and more', or, 'again and again', of immaturity. Money is a 'true fiction', empty of any value, other than, an 'attributed value', a changeable value, and a cumulative value. Its 'unhealthy accumulation', for an economy, is evidenced by its being hoarded by the top 1%, which limits its circulation at the Bottom. Governments relationship to its Capitalistic economy must be re-addressed. Government must take the initiative, and acquire more control over the economy. 'Money' has taken over Government, and it should be government, that takes over the economy. I don't mean some kind of 're-distribution' scheme, and I don't mean the 'adoption' of an 'economic value system', I mean, a more 'democratic economy'. Democracy has First Chair; the economy, can take Second Chair.

"Nationalism" is a relation from the 'Bottom' to the 'Top'.

"Nationalism" has become weak. Why? because the Top doesn't care about the Bottom, and the Bottom doesn't care about the Top. The relation between the Top and the Bottom is the 'most essential' relation in government, and hence, in evoking a 'real' feeling of Nationalism. But, what has happened? Simple; the people have divided into 'adversarial political Parties' and 'fractured' the integrity of the Top, and the social has divided into 'organized factions' that purportedly serve a democratic ideal, but actually are 'self-serving factions', more concerned with how much money they have, and much less concerned with the 'real people' at the bottom. A "Nation" is not a 'top heavy' phenomena. It cannot 'exist' without its People at the Bottom. Hence, its a 'real relation' between an abstraction and a reality. How sad. All the 'changes' recommended by these 'political' or 'social' divisions (actually they are 'political factions' also)are 'long distance' recommendations. By that, I mean they seek to implement programs that may take a 'life-time' to produce real results; like change the educational system, create more jobs, create new opportunities, etc. Please, please, don't get me wrong. These are good programs, policies, and laws; but can't change be more direct, and create more immediate results? Does it have to be a mere 'shuffle of money' at the 'Top' that basically remains at the Top, and leaves the people at the Bottom 'untouched'? What about the real people? If the Parties can't produce 'direct change' and the social is so congealed into 'factions' of a political nature, who, or what, can bring about real, immediate change? Here we have to be careful, because of the use of 'political' language, to create 'apprehensions' and 'outright fear'. Of course, you can hear the 'rumbling' already, "socialism". No, absolutely No! The Bottom is constituted by the People in a 'condition of togetherness' that gives power to the 'Representatives' at the Top. The Top can create change, as 'representatives of the Bottom' where-so-ever it is necessary. The only condition would be that the changes benefit the individuals at the Bottom (their freedom and equality)and not, some political, or social faction. The Top, of 'democratic government' should be the 'bottom' 'acting in unison' by means of the 'Representative Top'; a Government, "of People", "by people", and "for People". In a Democracy, People in a 'condition of togetherness' that influences the Top, as 'Representative' in nature, can revive Nationalism. In return, the Nation can bring about 'immediate' change. Wasn't that the reason for creating a democratic government in the first place?

The 'Bottom' line in any government are its People.

The 'Bottom' line in any government are its People. I use 'Bottom" in a metaphorical way, but in actuality, all the individuals are at the bottom of government. The government is always at the Top and the people, all the people, are at the bottom. These are all metaphors. But, Democratic government is a government "of people", "by People", and "for people". In this way "all the metaphors" are 'filled' with 'real People'. Any other kind of government, is also a government with institutional power at the Top, and the people at the Bottom. But, as you can see, the power at the Top is gotten from an institution that got its arising from, "somewhere" other than the Bottom. Those governments are not 'representative governments'; to be sure, they arose from "somewhere" and a 'historical enquiry' can tell us how that particular government first came about. The important thing, is that it's not a government, "of People", "by People" and "for People". Hence, it cannot be a "representative" government of 'its People'. To be sure, it 'represents' the political entity, called Nation. Of course, we can also say, that those governments are also "of people" and even "by people". But, we cannot say that that government is "for the People". Government, in those cases, becomes an Institution at the Top with Power, but the power can be used in whatever manner the Leader chooses, because its a government but, not a government of 'its People'. The reason for that is that the leader has 'ascended' to the 'pinnacle of power', but the 'power' was not 'delegated' from the Bottom. But don't kid yourself, they are 'powerful Nations', because on an International level, all Nations have 'equal power' among Nations and the political game is a 'game of power'. The issue of 'representation' on a National level, does not enter the 'International political game'. But, even though, they are not "representative" on their National scene, on the International scene, they have 'equal power' because power is a 'given'. But, don't kid yourself, even in those cases, the People are more important that the Governments. People, are more important than any government, whether 'representative' or 'not'. 'All Peoples' were here 'first', then Governments 'came in', were developed, were established, were formed, or 'whatever'. The problem is that 'government' became a 'power game', and made 'itself' more important than the People. Take my word for it, 'you and I' are more important than 'any government'.

If 'Party politics' respects the human condition, it will not create 'antagonistic divisions' in democratic ideology.

The basic underlying premise of a democracy is the human condition; in whatever Race, Color, Creed, or Life-style it expresses itself. The verbal distinctions usually made about the human condition are never 'basic' to the condition itself. Usually, the distinctions relate to 'property ownership', 'possessions', 'money', or simply 'class'. Actually, the Bottom line is, humanity is 'pretty-much' the same, anywhere one goes, or looks. People are People; human beings are all equally human beings. No one is 'less' human than another. Governments are 'artificial constructs' designed to 'govern' or, in some cases, to 'rule' human beings. Political Parties are 'further sub-divisions' into different ideological 'leanings'. Of course, the 'differences' should be a difference in 'view-point', within the same governing ideology. But even that artificial division, becomes contaminated, by the 'tendency', of the 'politicians' to become greedy and to use their 'political advantage' for 'self-aggrandizement. It seems that some People, in positions of Power, don't respect the 'Other', nor do they consider the 'Other', as Free and Equal, as they consider themselves. That trait may be a 'human trait', among most Peoples, but 'most People' are not acting in positions of power. Politicians are 'Representatives', and they must act as such. Public Office, as such, is a noble task. Being a Representative, to 'help govern' Millions, is no small undertaking. The problematic creeps in when a 'Representative' begins to exploit the position for 'personal advantage', or for further 'accumulations' of 'Party power'. Political representation should be a 'selfless task' and yet, its in politics where one can 'clearly' discern the failings of the 'human condition'. It may be that 'human failings' loom large in the political field, but we cannot ignore the fact that any choice made to participate in Public Office, will always be 'accompanied' by a 'scrutinizing public'. Differences in 'Party politics' are usually differences in political ideology. But, there are no differences in the human condition. Everyone is 'politically free' and 'equally human'. The basic reason for that is that politics is about 'artificial, political constructs' and Freedom and Equality are as 'real' as the 'human condition'.

Party-Politics creates differences in democratic ideology, which leads to economic ideologies.

The only 'difference' that should be allowed in Party ideology should be a difference that reflects a 'point of view', albeit within a 'general concept' of democracy; in no case would it be a deviation from the general concept of democracy. In such a case, all Parties would still be following the concept of democracy. The general concept must include the concepts of the Freedom and Equality of the 'real' individual. Oftentimes, the 'difference' in Party ideology is based on a 'different foundation' from the democratic base established for the articulation of policy. One prime example, is the emphasis created by the 'insistence on extending' the 'fictional value' of the 'concept' of the business corporation. Everyone knows that corporations are not 'real'; without additional 'ado', that means they are "legal fictions", 'unreal', but, are afforded legal protection under the Constitution. That Supreme Court move may have been legitimate, at a time when they were 'viable economic entities', in an 'earlier' developing economy, but today, they are economic giants. Hence there is no necessity for 'expanding' their concept under the Constitution, into a concept that applies to 'real individuals'. Of course, I speak of Citizens United. The only motive for said 'expansion', would have to be a move to 'increase' the 'fictional value' over the 'real value', within a democratic social. Of course, that would shuffle 'political values' to a lesser political position and increase 'economic values'(money) to a more important place within the social, and the political. That, in itself, would weaken the 'democratic values' of Freedom and Equality, and strengthen the effects of 'money on politics', and I might add, brings us a lot closer, and quicker, to a Plutocracy. Maybe, we are already a Plutocracy, or an Oligarchy. Those forms of government do not recognize the Freedom and Equality of each and every Individual; they only recognize the 'freedom and equality' of the 'well-to-do', 'the rich', and the 'politically strong'. In such cases, the 'average human being' is completely left out of the political equation. How ironic. The human value system should be a system that is 'untouchable' by political institutions, but instead, the human being has to 'fight' for his/her God-given values. That's why we have the First Amendment; the political Right "peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for redress of grievances". The Constitution protects the Right to revolution.

The 'problem' with 'real democracy' is the division into Parties.

The problem with 'real' democracy is the division into antagonistic Parties. Why should there be a 'division' of the Freedom and Equality of each individual? Freedom and Equality, subject to reasonable 'democratic' Laws, Policies, and institutions, should not have any 'great', 'substantial', differences; Free and Equal within the Law, the social, and in institutions, is relatively simple. Sure, there may be some variations, but I seriously doubt, that they would go 'out-side' the parameters of a 'democratic value'. Freedom is freedom of 'movement and activity' within the social, subject to just laws and social institutions, which are based on Freedom and Equality of all individuals. Equality is 'equal human beings'. No ones humanity should be compromised. Since, all law and policy are( or should be)designed to 'socially order' and 'arrange' the social interactions of the people, and provide for their health, as well as their economic well-being, how can we have 'severe antagonisms' in the political order? Even the Justices of the Supreme Court divide into different Parties and different 'interpretive practices'. How can that be? Sure, the Constitution is subject to several interpretations, but there should be no 'variance' from the 'democratic spirit'. Of course, in a democracy everyone is free to do as s/he wishes, subject to Law and Order, and 'institutional guidance', but, what about the leaders in the Polity? They function as 'Representatives', not as free agents(while in Office) of their own 'personal' destiny. So why, if we are a democracy, do we have 'antagonistic' Parties that 'pull out all the stops' come election time? Maybe, we should have more control over election practices to better insure a democratic outcome; i.e. an outcome that benefits the People as individuals, and as a whole. Don't get me wrong, different points of view, are OK, but they should not destroy democratic values. A real democracy is "for the People".

The term "democracy" can be an abstraction, or it can be real.

The term "democracy" can be an abstraction, or it can be 'real'. Obviously the distinction is between a linguistic term and a 'reality'. Understandably, the term 'reality', being a language term, can also be problematic. But, I use that term, in the sense of 'real', as 'contrasted' to a purely 'language term' that has no referential basis in 'concreteness'. The reason for making this distinction is that it is very easy for a government to verbally claim to be a Democracy, while at the same time, never implementing, in a 'real way', any policy that reflects a 'democratic spirit' viz., the freedom and equality of the individual. Of course, we can thank 'political language' for that. It wasn't just the Linguistic Turn, that contaminated the language game in politics, because those political shenanigans have always been present in politics. Of course, the Linguistic Turn didn't help either. Nevertheless, most language terms have a 'language aspect' and a 'real' or 'referential aspect'. Most individuals don't really have to worry about these distinctions, because most ordinary 'language usage' is used in a 'real' fashion. By that, I mean sort of like, "that's what I said". However, I refer specifically, to the function of Nations, Countries, and governments that function for the 'purpose of governing' i.e. to 'close the gap' between the 'spoken word' and the 'policy implementation'. In different language, to 'relate', in a 'real way', the One 'to' the Many. The term "Democracy", can be used theoretically or practically, i.e. it has an abstract nature and a 'real' nature. The practical is usually exhibited in the Law, policy, or activity, being implemented. People can 'talk' democracy, or, they can 'live' democratically. Often, politics uses words and language terms, to 'hide behind' and to 'confuse'. As an example, I usually, use the familiar scenario; Q. " why are we bombing 'them'? Ans. "we're bringing them democracy". (whether the bombing is justifiable or not, the answer is pure gibberish.) Democracy has to be made 'real', because it relates to the real individual, at the Bottom; it relates to you and I. Democracy cannot be just a conversation, it has to be 'real'. Sure, we can do the "Talk", but we also have to do the "Walk"

If Nations are abstractions, they are 'empty vehicles' of power.

If all Nations are abstractions, in most cases, they are 'empty vehicles' of power. They are 'empty', of the 'will of the People', that constitutes them. Power, we have said, in a Democracy, comes from the People at the Bottom of government. In a non-democracy, heavens knows where they get their power. Non-Democracies don't need 'power' because they use force, or fear, and their so-called power, is really a 'subjugated acquiescence' of the People at the Bottom. The Divine Right of Kings, failed because the 'Divinity' of the King became questionable. The 'ideology' had to be justified by a linguistic distinction called "the Kings Two Bodies". Of course, there was the 'Divine Body' and the Natural(normal)Body. The Kings actions had to 'fit' one or the Other body; a very 'variable' and 'insecure' source of power. That may have been the source of the saying, "The King is dead,( the normal one) Long live the King.( the Divine one)" But, back to the argument. If political power has its source at the Bottom of government, then the Bottom must institutionally 'confer' it. This can only be done, by some 'electoral process'. The electoral process is what 'must' be present, and the electoral process, must be exercised in a 'fair and equitable manner'. Of course, we are aware, that at present, there are some elections going on, and the elections are being 'compromised' by 'rebels', 'armies', are whatever. The point is that elections must be 'fair and equitable' if they are to reflect the 'will of the people'. I understand that the 'will of the People' is a nebulous term, but all language terms are vague. The general concept of the People, needs to be clarified, so as to justify the use of those political terms. Besides the above mentioned 'compromised', the problematic arises when the People divide-up among themselves,(lets just say into Political Parties) and 'attenuate' the so-called 'will of the People'. That 'unfortunate process' goes on, even in democracies. In democracies its called 'Politics'. To an impartial observer, that could be called, "linguistic, political, war", between Parties. Nevertheless, its a linguistic war, between Parties, and not, an 'ideological War' between Nations, which can very easily, also break out into 'actual War'. Actual 'War' no longer requires "boots on the ground", because, the "boots" are already on the ground when the War is declared. If some Nations are "empty vehicles" of power, they should be concerned with their own people, not with the 'power relations' of other Nations. Even if some democracies are not "empty" vehicles of power, they should "stay home". What "We the People..." need to do is learn how to 'live together', not learn, how to 'destroy each other'.

Nations are abstractions

Nations are abstractions and exist, out of necessity, for two different reasons. The first reason is to govern their own people: the second reason, is to interact within the International Community of other Nations. There can be no other reason for the existence of Nations. Truly, they are absolutely necessary and their foremost obligation should be to govern their own people. The People is the 'closest' and most pressing obligation. Some Nations are 'large' and some are 'small', yet the size of any Nation does not and should not reflect on its Sovereignty. On the International scene, every Nation has an Identity and each is considered a 'sovereign'. But, distinctions need to be made between the interactions on the International scene and interactions on the National scene. Obviously, the former involves an exercise of equal Power among equal Nations, and the latter, involves the exercise of political power in relation to its own People. The only similarity between the two spheres are the recipients of the interactions, viz. the People. All People are human beings and all people exhibit the same humanity. To be sure, there are different cultures, different languages, and different social organizations; not to mention, different forms of government. But, the 'human condition' is the same. There are no differences in human beings, and every Nation should first be concerned with their Peoples well-being. The 'differences', that some people draw between humans, always relates to 'possessions' and 'wealth'. That reflects the lack of concern and understanding about the human condition. Politics on the National scale is about the human condition. Politics on the International scale is about 'power' and 'identity' between equal Nations with equal Power. Internationally, the conflicts and arguments always involves the exercise of power in relation to, Land, 'Gold', and oil. Why? because Nations have a geographical area that defines them; a monetary system that establishes its economic security; and a valuable commodity that is still being used today. Nationally, the conflicts always involve the relations between the government and its own People. Internationally, politics is an abstract 'power game'; Nationally, politics is about understanding that Nations are necessary, but that the human beings are more important and that they(Nations) would not be here, but for its People. Why can't Leaders understand the relationship between political entities, institutions and People?

International 'relations' seems to go back to the initial building blocks of all 'Foundings'.

International relations between Nations is mostly a linguistic phenomena. Of course, its also a very 'real' phenomena. Don't get me wrong, both the abstract and the concrete are always involved, but, the so called 'problematic' between Nations seems to always relate 'back' to those initial 'building blocks' of all Nations, viz., land, gold, and oil. Of course, now we have the World Wide Web that can 'consolidate' the World into a much 'smaller planet'. Now, any individual, can 'talk' across 'geographical barriers', 'political boundaries', even across, language barriers. But, the so-called 'strength and power' of some Nations, is determined by its 'geography',i.e., its land, its 'gold', or its oil. The 'interest' of 'neighboring Nations' is determined by its proximity or the willingness of Nations to exchange these valuable commodities. But, how can a political entity, like the United Nations, keep the 'conversation going' between Nations, when they have very little in common. Different governments have different 'attitudes' towards their own People, and different ways of 'governing'. Not all Nations are democratic. Hence, their main concern is not always the "Freedom and Equality" of the People. Hence, International Relations can be reduced down to a mutual concern for Land, Gold, and Oil. Of course, the 'geographical boundaries' of most Nations has already been established, but some 'other' Nations or smaller political entities, can still be 'assimilated' into a "Mother Nation". Hence, the importance of land is still 'alive and well'. The relation to 'gold' was always important; to the point that a 'monetary system' used a gold standard to determine 'value'. That is no longer the case. Now, its 'more arbitrary' and less based on the gold standard. Our monetary system is so 'abstracted' that it has 'free-floated' from any real basis for value. Now, its simply 'money'. But, that leaves oil. Yes, oil is still with us, because we have become dependent on it for much of our technology. So what do we do? We try to substitute 'something else' in its place, or dig for it in new places. In the meantime, we are still dependent on it, while, on the International scene, we converse about things that we can 'only talk about'. We have no jurisdiction within another Nations geographical boundaries. Yes, we have to keep the 'conversation going', but, it behooves us to stress the importance of the Human condition; to give less attention to Land, Gold, and Oil, and insist on the sanctity of the human condition. A 'real' United Nations would be called, a "United Peoples of the World".

Governments are 'ideological structures', and ideological structures are 'abstract'.

There is no simple description of the different types of government; nevertheless, some distinctions have to be made. Most governmental ideologies are described as 'Top-Down' phenomena. In other words, the government is at the Top and the People are at the Bottom. All governments eventually assume a Top/down relation between the Top, or the 'place' of political power, and the Bottom, the 'place' for the people. Of course, 'political power' means 'power' attributed to the Top of government for the purpose of 'governing'. But, we have to consider where that 'Power' comes from; or, how is it acquired?, or, 'who says the Top has power, and the Bottom does not'? Of course, in the antiquated, Divine Right of Kings, we know where the 'purported source' of the power comes from; in the Autocratic form, some Individual merely 'takes over' the Top; in the Oligarchic form, 'several individuals' take over the Top; in the 'Plutocratic form', the wealthy, take over the Top. The manner by which the Top is 'assumed' in these forms, at this time, is not being considered. The point is that these forms of government become 'abstract governments', i.e. 'linguistic forms', and assume the real Top/Down relation. The Top becomes the source of 'power' and the source of the 'ideology'. The Bottom is the Many, or all the People. Governments can be 'more' or 'less' successful, depending on how the 'People', at the Bottom, are 'treated'. All Autocracies 'don't have' to be autocratic 'all the time'. Nevertheless, if an Autocratic government is 'actually' autocratic, the 'relation', in the circumstances, will be obvious. But, back to the point. In a Democracy, the Top also has power, and it also has an 'ideology', and it's also 'abstract'. However, the 'power' at the Top emanates from the People at the Bottom. In other forms, the power emanates from the Top and the Bottom has no power or say-so. In Democracy, the People are also without 'power' at the Bottom, because power can only exist at the Top of government, and that's the only way governments are 'organized'. But, the Bottom has 'strength in Numbers' and that's why the First Amendment was the 'very first' Amendment. In democracy, although the ideology is also abstract, the source of power emanates from the Bottom, and hence, the Bottom is never without remedy; even the abstract 'ideology' can be said to 'arise' from the Bottom. Keep in mind, that all 'ideological structures' are only 'linguistic relations' from an 'abstract formulation' to a 'concrete situation'. The worse types of governments are the Plutocratic and Oligarchic, because they have 'substituted', 'money and power', in place of, the democratic values of Freedom and Equality.

Democracy is the 'guidance' of the universal freedom and universal equality of the Individual.

Democratic government 'guides' the Freedom and Equality of the Individual. Of course, that's not the 'usual phraseology' used by politicians. Usually we hear phrases like, "Democratic power governs the people at the Bottom". The emphasis is on the word "governs" and the word, "power" and those words usually means something akin to "rules". But, the truth of the matter is that government can do no such thing. Don't get me wrong. Government is very important and is absolutely necessary. But, look at it closely, how can an abstract institution have 'power' over the 'human condition'. The truth is ,it doesn't. Again, think about it , it must 'govern' but 'governing' is just a certain kind of 'guidance'. Truly, it must establish 'institutional conditions' and Laws for the fair, Free, and Equal interaction of all its People. These institutions, policies, and laws, describe the parameters of what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. Truly, the Top of government does have power to 'pass' these Laws and Policies, because the Bottom of the structure of government has 'attributed Constitutional power' to the Offices at the Top for the purpose of 'governing'. However, governing is not the same as 'ruling' or 'dictating' to the People. That's why the First Amendment of the Constitution provides for " the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances". The 'last word' is in the people at the Bottom, not the Top. The people are always protected from a government that wants to 'rule'. 'Governing' is guidance, and heaven knows, the People need guidance. But, most 'government abuse' emanates from the Top. That's unfortunate, because those are positions of 'political power' and are subject to abuse. Too often, politicians assume these positions of power for the 'wrong reasons', and then, attempt to destroy the 'democratic process'. That's what's happening when political Parties try to 'concentrate money' from the economy in the Top 1%. They substitute money in place of freedom and equality of the individual. An 'economic value' is replacing a 'democratic value' of Freedom and Equality of all individuals. The Freedom and Equality of all individuals 'must be protected' from 'wrongful' governmental encroachment.

How can Democracy 'govern' millions of individuals?

Governing millions of Individuals is not an easy task. The only way to do that is to form 'universal' or 'large' categories for 'governing'. By that, I mean categories that are 'descriptive' of the 'universal qualities' of the 'living condition'. You can't be too specific, and the category must include everyone that is to be governed. For example; everyone expresses 'Life' in his/her own way,( Of course, 'later' we will establish legal boundaries that must be respected.) and also, one individuals 'life' is no 'different' from another's 'life'. There is no such thing as 'more life' or 'less life', when it comes to the human condition. Everyone is 'equally human'. These two 'qualities' of the 'living condition' are universal and any political entity established to 'govern' must respect those qualities. Why?, simply because every individual is 'Free and Equal'; not to mention the simplistic fact, that People were here before governments were formed. Hence, governments can 'govern', but not abuse the human condition. Any governing that 'limits' the free expression of 'life' is not governing, and any governing that discriminates between the 'life' in one human being, and the 'life' in another, for whatever reason, i.e. race, color, creed, or 'wealth', is not governing. Hence the first requirement of government is to categorize, in large categories, the 'range' and 'reach' of 'political power' in the governing entity, i.e. to organize the human interactions of all humans within its jurisdiction. Remember, the government does not really govern 'per se', it merely sets 'parameters' within which every individual can express his/her 'life'. Notice, 'governing' is not an 'imposition', nor is it a 'rule', nor does it 'dictate'; it merely sets parameters for the behavior of the individuals within its jurisdiction. Governing is 'not' an 'affirmative act', its an act that sets 'limitations' on 'conduct within the social', called laws, 'mores', 'institutional delineations', but it does not 'require', 'demand', or 'compel'. In other words, every individual is free and equal, within the 'structure of government' and the 'structure of the social'. The individual is 'free' to violate law,( if s/he so wishes) or diverge from 'social mores', but, if s/he does, they will have to 'pay the price'. The point is that government does not 'rule'( think Ruler.), 'demand' or 'dictate'( think dictator); it merely sets parameters for 'social interactions'. In a real democracy, every individual is free and equal.

Government is not a necessity for any one individual, but its 'necessary' for millions of individuals.

Government is not necessary for any one individual; but its necessary for millions of individuals. Government is a 'man-made' institution, and its 'necessity' arises when the 'number of individuals' to be governed, become 'too numerous'. The 'family' can be called a very early, so-called, 'form of government' but, in that 'historical context', the 'government' arises from a 'blood relation' between the Father, the Mother, and the children. Hence, the 'relation' is different. Usually, in such cases, the Father was the so-called 'government'. I know, we're 'stretching' quite a bit, but, we must try to understand the concept of government in its earlier 'forms'. Obviously, distinctions need to be made. Of course, the first time we encounter this 'historical problematic', is when a hypothetical distinction between the One and the Many was being examined. That 'relation' was never understood, but, that was the classical manner of viewing the problematic. The problematic, as posed then, was a 'linguistic problematic' and the solution was expected in the 'linguistic domain'. Nevertheless, it was understood, that the answer to the question had to be an answer that related to a 'political relation', and not a 'blood' relation. But, keep in mind, that issues or problems relating to the Linguistic Turn did not exist at that time. But, today we have all kinds of linguistic problems with the concept of 'representation', and those problems brings us up to the 'present', and the 'necessity for a 'democratic form' of government. Why a democratic form? Because, as our discussion shows, if government is not necessary for any 'One' individual, how can we justify government for 'millions of individuals'. Simply, millions of individuals cannot govern themselves. They need government. Of course, the institution of government becomes a necessity. In other words, 'government' becomes a 'man-made institution', and the best way to establish such an institution, is if, the millions to be governed, select, or elect, the person, or persons, who are to serve in that capacity. That requirement immediately, gives rise to a need for a 'proper form' of Constitutional Democracy. Obviously, the form of government must be 'triadic in nature'. It must be Triadic, or Three Branch government, because the Top 'governs', the Bottom is 'governed', and the Third Branch, 'interprets' the Constitutional nature of the government. Of course, that's the only form of government, that can be called 'self-government', because the people in the different offices are People that come from the Bottom. That's the problematic, but each Branch must comply with the Constitutional mandate, and must function properly. The important point is that the People need government. The other point, is that government has to be more than just 'linguistic'; it has to actually 'relate' and 'touch' the individuals at the Bottom, and it has to do that in a democratic fashion. The Top, out of necessity, may be 'linguistic', but the Bottom, out of necessity, 'is not'. In a democracy, the People govern themselves.

If Democratic Government is "of the People", then it can only be as 'good' as 'its People'.

In any Democratic Government, the 'Bottom line' is always the People. Of course, the reason for that is that government 'arises' from the People. Hence, the necessity for the people to elect an individual to serve at the Top, in a representative manner. Of course, the candidate always comes from the Bottom, or from the People. The 'basic form' of a 'democracy' should be a three-pronged approach to 'governing'. Consequently, it can be said, that a democracy is a government "of the People", "by the People", and "for the People". Of course, in a Written Constitutional Democracy, the 'format' is set forth in the Constitution; which must be followed. Some 'purported' democracies are not Constitutional in nature, and some do not use an electoral process to select leaders, and if they do, apparently, its not very fair. However, our present concern is not with those forms of purported democracies, but with a Constitutional Democracy. It's relatively easy to see the need for an 'intelligent process' of determining the qualifications of any candidate, to sit in a political office. Keep in mind, that most candidates are not presently in office, and some have never been in office. Hence, we have a situation where the People must decide based on information appearing in the media and the information given us by 'other' candidates. That's where politics kicks in, and everyone knows, we hear 'everything' except the candidates qualifications to hold office. It becomes a 'personality slug-fest'. Of course, we should know as much as possible about each candidate, but some of the 'punches' and 'counter punches', in the 'fest', evidence a tactic designed to 'embarrass' and 'demean', more so, than a tactic designed to inform. Its at this point, that the fact that a 'government can only be as good as its People', kicks in. A candidates 'real' thoughts about the Freedom and Equality of 'all the People', and the 'representative nature' of the Office, are very important issues in any campaign. The 'human condition' and the 'humanity' exhibited by any candidate, in their 'private life', becomes important. Unfortunately, we seldom hear or read about those factors, except in some negative formulation. How sad, 'politics' has 'reduced' the procedures of a democracy, to a level, no different, from those of an Autocracy, a Plutocracy or a Dictatorship. 'They' got to the Top, with 'power', 'money' or 'force'. Democracy gets to the Top by using the rules of 'economic advertising', 'money over-load', and 'personality destruction'. Where's the difference?

If People 'matter' in government; government is "for the People".

If the People really matter in a democracy, government must be 'for the People". Obviously, government cannot be "for government" only. Of course, this does not mean that government should not be interested in 'solidifying' and 'strengthening' its position on the International scene. How then should we take 'antagonisms' between Nations. There are no easy answers, but that's not to say that Nations should not be prepared for International 'problems'. Nevertheless, the primary function should be the people within any one Nation. That means any, and all, Nations, should be primarily concerned with the welfare of their own People. Concern for its People, is a 'never ending concern' for the 'strength' of its own Nation. A nation can only be as 'strong' as its People in the 'condition of togetherness'. Remember that 'facetious', albeit, 'suggestive' saying, "what if we declared War and nobody came". Obviously, the Top of any government, is not in a position to 'declare anything', that does 'not include' the participation of its people. That is why Governments must be very careful, not to be 'antagonistic' towards other nations, without 'first' considering their own Peoples welfare. Lets 'continue' the 'facetious line', and extend that last 'suggestive' saying; " What if we declared War against another Nation, and our own people, revolted against us?" Maybe that's a little unlikely, but its theoretically possible. That dilemma speaks for the necessity of democracy being "for the People". It's they who will be effected, if not killed, and the concern is more "for the People" than for 'abstract politics' on the International scene. Of course, there's always an issue of self-defense'. But, barring that, governments should be "for their own peoples welfare" first, then possibly, for 'strategic International politics'. The 'Strength' of a Nation on the International sphere, can only be as 'strong' as 'its People'.'Political power', on the International sphere is just as 'empty', as it is on the National sphere, if it were not, for 'the People'. As a matter of fact, International 'power' is more 'vacuous' than National power, because the International sphere does not have all the 'International peoples' behind its injunctions. Its an 'empty verbal power game'. For Heavens sake, stop playing " my dad can beat up your dad" on the International scene. All human beings, should be able to recognize, and acknowledge, the 'humanity' of Other human beings. If we continue playing abstract 'National' and 'International' games, we're in trouble.

In a Democracy, people matter.

In a Democracy People matter, or they 'should' matter. If the People do not matter, its not a democracy. How is that conceivable? Well, simply put, in a form of government where the People don't matter, obviously, 'someone' or 'something else' matters. That has to be the equation, because the 'political equation' is that of the 'relation of the Top and the Bottom'. That's the political domain. Politics and government has no other 'point of origin'. People were here first, then governments. People and government may have originally begun with 'families' and 'tribes' and finally 'collectivities'. This last 'arrangement' has acquired many negative connotations; 'Communism'; Socialism'; 'pluralism', even 'majority-ism', but, in fact, the terms are all congealed, general, abstractions, that only serve to impute 'negativity' towards the Bottom of government. All these different ways of creating a negative impression of the Bottom of government, are just means by which the Top takes advantage of the Bottom, by means of Language, or maybe, even by means, of the so-called Linguistic Turn. That's politics. Its devastating, but its just 'empty talk'. The true relation of the Top to the Bottom is not 'just' an abstract relation; it has a reality. The Top is generally linguistic, but the Bottom, although it is usually 'referred' to with abstract language, is, nevertheless, real. How do I know that? Because you and I are real. Hence the relation of the Top to the bottom becomes very important. The relation must be conceived as a 'real relation' and that requires that, the 'Many people' at the Bottom be seen as 'individuals', 'real' concrete individuals; that means 'Number'. If that is not occurring, the 'real individual' is being 'flattened out as an abstraction', only, and that is not Democracy. People matter; people matter more than governments matter. This last phrase does not create an 'opposition' between people and government; to the contrary, it situates the relation of the government to the people, and the People to the government, in its proper perspective. Governing is a 'job' with 'built-in' political power at the Top, but it's 'representative' in nature, and the power 'emanates from the People' at the bottom; not from the Top. To be sure, the Top also matters, but only because the Peoples have 'made it' to matter, and only, as an obligation to 'represent' the People. Otherwise, there would be no necessity for such things as governments.

Democracy is not perfect, but at least it's of a 'Representative' nature.

Democracy is of a 'representative nature', and it can not be otherwise. Any attempt to reconcile a One and a Many is futile. Of course, the Top is always a 'Nation', a 'State', or a 'Government' and the Many is referred to as the Bottom or the People. Given this structure, any attempt to reconcile the two ends of the 'governing' relation is futile. It cannot be done, and that's probably why any attempt to justify 'governing' by any one individual is characterized by 'words' such as, Autocratic, Dictatorship, or Divine Right of Kings. The 'implication' in the 'words' is that One individual can rule Millions of Individuals at the Bottom. This assumes the 'proper', or 'right', 'attitude' of an Individual,towards 'Many' individuals; not to mention the possession of the 'Power to govern' in any One Individual. But, no One individual is superior to another. All are Equally human. Hence, the necessity of a form of Government that arises from the 'integrity of the human condition'. At this point, arises the importance of the participation of the Many, or the People, in the 'selection' of the Top. Of course, the word, 'selection', means 'election' in political language. Here is the birth of politics. It's the biggest 'word game' in the World. Someone, or a few, will be elected to represent the People. But, 'represent' they must. The positions at the Top are not elevations to some position of 'human superiority', nor is it an elevation to a position where 'democracy' can be abused; its an elevation to a position of a 'representative nature' and then, only for a short time. This is not an easy assumption of 'power', because it requires that individuals leave their 'personal inclinations and desires' aside, and assume a 'representative function' of governing the Many at the Bottom. Its a selfless act. Therein lies its difficulty. Weak, and 'personally' ambitious, individuals, should not be in politics. To be sure, these positions are difficult and the individuals at the Top should be highly respected. But, that respect is 'earned', and does not attach automatically to the Office. I suspect the reason for that is the nature of a 'Peoples Democracy'; a form of government whose Triadic nature is continuously in motion, with the 'arrangement' of new, and 'growing structures', of Freedom and Equality. Democracy is never static; its a growing organism of 'freedom and Equality'.