Political Ideology should not be 'fixed'; it should allow 'flexibility'.

Political Ideology should not be 'fixed' or 'rigid'; it should allow 'flexibility'. Instead, Political Ideology 'divides' the Bottom into 'opposing forces', or, stated differently, it divides the 'Social', and most political campaigns, follow the so-called 'Party Line'. Most campaigns seldom allows a 'crossing' of the 'Line' that divides the 'parameters' of what constitutes 'One', or, the 'Other', 'Party Ideology'. That is a very 'narrow minded' and 'restrictive' view of the 'vastness' of the 'Social' or the 'Condition of Togetherness'. Initially, the 'Bottom' should not have divided but, each 'Real Individual' being so 'Individuated' and clinging to His/Her sense of 'really being an existing, Real Individual', seems to always exclude the fact that S/He lives in a 'Social', i.e. a 'Condition of Togetherness', and His/Her concept of 'Self' becomes too arbitrary or 'Inclusive'. I realize the difficulty of what I'm suggesting but, the 'effort' should be 'enlightening'. We are too 'ego-centered' in our own 'Individuality' to allow the 'elusive concepts' of 'Equality' and 'Freedom' to creep into our 'own sense' of being a 'Real Individual'. It seems that our 'sense' of being a 'strong Individual' is 'intimidated' or 'threatened' by the 'Other'. How strange; we are all Real Individuals, yet our 'egos' will not allow a 'common feeling' of 'Equality and Freedom' in a 'Crowd'. That's why it is important to perceive ourselves as Real Individuals 'Living in a Condition of Togetherness', which is a 'Political Structure', or 'Polity'. As we all know, a 'Polity' is a 'Man Made Structure' or 'Institution' that has 'Political Power' at the 'Top' and 'The Many People' at the 'Bottom'. Its a 'Social configuration', not a 'Natural Phenomena' like the 'Family'. If the People at the Bottom need to 'Divide', they must understand that any formation into 'Political Parties' must remain 'flexible' because 'political situations' are always 'changing' and its 'important' to 'retain flexibility' to confront such situations. A 'Rigid Ideology' cannot do that. Where are the Real Politicians?

In a Democracy, the 'Top' must be 'Politically' and 'Morally' qualified.

In a Democracy, the 'Top' must be 'Politically' and 'Morally' qualified. Of course, that applies to any 'Form' of Government. The Top of a Political Entity is always the 'Driver' of the 'Entity'. As Driver, the 'Leader' should posses the 'Political knowledge' to 'drive' the 'Ship of State' and should also show 'some concern' for its 'People'. Of course, 'the Peoples' or 'Subjects' are all 'Human Beings'. All Human Beings are the 'Same' and deserve some 'concern' from the Top, regardless its 'Form of Government'. The reason for that is that a 'Form of Government' is a 'Man-made' Institution'. The 'Human Condition' is not 'Man-made'. Of course, some will think that's naive; how can a 'Dictatorship' be concerned with 'its People'? I'm suggesting 'some concern', not a 'complete change' in the 'Form of Government'. After all, weren't some 'Kings' more 'humane' than 'Others'? Are some 'Dictators' more 'humanitarian' than Others? I'm not trying to draw a 'new Line' between 'Form of Government' and 'degrees' of Morality. The fact remains, a 'human being' will always be a 'human being' and every 'Leader' who serves in 'Office' is a Human Being. In a Democracy, the Top is always expected to be 'Politically qualified' and also 'Morally Qualified'. But, lately, has 'Morality' been separated from Democratic Politics? Recently, a Supreme Court Appointee was accused of 'very violent sexual behavior' in a 'Hearing' before the 'Judiciary Committee'. Of course, a Committee, is not qualified to 'try an accusation' like that. That requires a 'Jury Trial' in a 'Proper Court'. Yet, the Committee, after a 'squabble' with the 'Opposing Party', and accusations of 'Political Party Sabotage', went on an approved the Appointment. Now, we have, on the Highest Court in the Land, a 'Tainted' Justice. The Truth is no one is qualified to judge the Justice. So why did a 'Vote' based on 'Party Loyalty' 'settle' the issue and advanced him to the Highest Court in the Land? What happens to 'Objectivity'? In a Democracy, 'Objectivity' is necessary in the Highest Court in the Land. Many, Many, years ago, the 'Bottom of Democracy' split into 'Political Parties'. So now, instead of trying to achieve 'Judicial Objectivity' in 'Constitutional Adjudication', we 'stack' the 'Courts' with 'Party Preferences' in 'Constitutional Interpretation'. Isn't it time we improve the 'selection process' of the Highest Court in the Land? Where are the Real Politicians?

Governing is not a simple matter; its a complex factor.

'Governing' is not a simple matter; its a complex factor. Of course, there are 'different forms' of Government; hence, different 'forms' of Governing. An Autocratic Government is not about to be told 'how it should' Govern. One would think, that a certain 'Political Mono-Idealism' 'should' give Autocracies a certain 'stability', which is not present in 'Democracies'. Of course, the stability is at the Top, not the Bottom. Also, consider the 'Moral' or 'Ethical Values' of the Dictator? After all, its all up to Him/Her. Well, isn't it just as difficult to 'arrange' and 're-arrange' a 'Political Entity' in a proper 'Ideological Manner', as it is for an 'Individual', at the Top, to change 'Himself/herself' to fit into the proper 'Moral Stature' to 'Govern' an 'Autocracy', or, even a 'Democracy'? Doesn't 'Governing' require a certain 'Selflessness' and 'Aloofness' to be able to 'relate' to "Huge Groups of Peoples' and to 'Established Institutions. After all, being at the 'Top' of any 'form of Government' requires, both, an 'Ideological Stance' as well as a 'Moral Stance'. Every 'Human Being' at the 'Top' has a 'Political Ideology' and a 'Morality', or 'Personality'. It seems more likely that a 'Top' can change the 'Ideology' easier than His/ Her Personality. 'Manipulating Others' is always 'easier' than 'Manipulating Oneself'. Hence, we must be careful whom we place in 'Political Office'. That's one of the reasons why a 'CEO' or 'Business Mentality' should not be in an 'Office' of 'Political Power'. All, if not, 'most' of the changes we can expect will relate to 'Profits', and 'Economic Moves'. And heaven knows, 'economic changes' are necessary, but not just changes that benefit the 'Legal Fictions' and the 'Rich'. What happens to 'Freedom and Equality'? They go out the Political Window. A 'Real Politician' should have 'Real Values', both 'Political' and 'Moral'. Where are the Real Politicians?

All Nations have a Judicial System.

All Nations have a Judicial System. Of course, not all Nations are Democratic and hence their Judicial System 'reflects' their Political Orientation. A 'Democracy' usually has a 'Constitution' and the 'Constitution' is either 'Written' or 'Unwritten'. We have a 'Written Constitution' and a hierarchy of Courts that extends from the City level up to the National Level. The Highest Court in the land is the Supreme Court of the United States; it decides what is 'Constitutional' and what is 'Unconstitutional'. It is, or should be , the 'Pinnacle of Political Objectivity'. But, is it Objective? The 'Peoples at the Bottom', a long time ago, divided into 'Democrats' and 'Republicans'? At present, and with the latest addition of a new Justice, the Court is Conservative, as opposed to Liberal, or, in different words, Republican. The Judiciary Committee examines the qualifications of the appointees and inquires into His/Her 'Objectivity' in 'Interpretive Practices'. Will the Justice follow Party ideology or The Constitution. Of course, they always say they will follow the 'Constitution'. The question becomes, will a Decision be the same if it is 'decided' or 'written' by a Democrat or a Republican? Will Party Loyalty or 'preferences' 'lean' a decision towards 'Party Ideology' as opposed to some sort of 'Objective Reasoning' solely with the 'Terms of the Constitution'? The Constitution 'constitutes us'. Is Objectivity possible in a Nation 'cleaved' by Party Ideology? Can a Justice be so conscious of his/her 'thinking processes' that 'S/He' will not 'factor-in' the 'Ideological Preferences' of the Political Party that appointed him/her to the Highest court in the Land? What about His/ Her 'Moral Character'? More of that later. Where are the Real Politicians?

A 'Business' or 'Corporate Mentality' cannot Govern a Democracy.

A Business or Corporate mentality cannot Govern a Democracy. The reason for that is that the Motor of a successful Business or successful Corporation is Profits and Size. Neither can succeed without the 'proper Motor'. Of course, a Democracy cannot be successful without Freedom and Equality of the Individual. The difference between a Business Entity and a Political Entity must be continually emphasized. Of course, one of the major distinctions between the Two is that a Business and a Corporation must both make Profits and the manner of functioning of the Top is more closely related to an 'Autocratic Form of Government', whereas, a Democracy cannot function without 'Freedom and Equality of 'all' the Real Individuals at the Bottom. A Democracy must organize its 'Social' and 'Economy' along lines of the Freedom and Equality of the Individuals at the Bottom. But, a Corporation is not 'connected' with the 'Peoples at the Bottom'. They are 'disconnected' and considered as 'potential customers' and hence, also subject to the 'maleficent influence' of 'Advertising Campaigns'. Even the Employees or Managers of the Corporation are considered as 'helpers' in the creation of 'Profits'. Their function is to 'work' for the Corporation and 'often', at a 'wage' intentionally established to 'generate' a profit. The 'Freedom and Equality' of their 'workforce', and in some cases, the fair compensation for their Labor, is completely out of the picture. Democratic Government is even required to pass Laws governing 'Minimum Wages', to avoid abuses. In a Democracy the Bottom should always be part of the Top and the Top should always be part of the Bottom and the whole purpose of Government is to 'govern' the 'Bottom' with 'Freedom and Equality'. Now, place a CEO, or Business oriented Individual to drive the Ship of State and what do you get?... A Governmental Entity driven with 'Economic Principles', hence emphasizing some 'economic changes', but driving 'Freedom and Equality' out the 'Window'. The end result is a 'Political Entity' that's 'part Autocratic'( Dictatorial), 'part Plutocratic'( Rich), and 'part Oligarchic'( select Few). Where are the Real Politicians?

In a Democracy, the Peoples at the Bottom are of the 'utmost Importance'.

In a Democracy the 'Peoples at the Bottom' are of the 'utmost importance'. In any Political Entity, the 'People' are the 'Governed' and the Political Entity is there 'only' to Govern. Of course, its at 'that point' that the different 'Political Entities can be 'distinguished'. How and by what means does it 'Govern' and what are the 'practical', 'everyday characteristics' of the 'Governing process', on the 'Peoples' that it Governs. In Autocracies, Plutocracies, and Oligarchies, the 'Peoples at the Bottom' lead a 'more or less' tolerable existence. Their 'participation' and 'say-so' is not that important. However, in a 'Democracy' the importance of the 'knowledge', 'insights', and 'sensitivity' to the 'manner of Governing' becomes very important. Why? Because, they are the 'Governed' and the 'Government' is established to be a 'Strong Government' and it does that by promoting their 'Freedom and Equality'. The importance of Democratic Government is not the 'lesser' because its 'sole purpose' for existing is to 'Govern Democratically', which means to organize the 'Social' and the 'Economy' and to 'promote the Freedom and Equality' of 'all' the 'Real Individuals' at the Bottom. 'Democracy' is 'very strong' because it has the 'support' and 'participation' of the 'Real Individuals' at the 'Bottom'. In a Democracy, the 'Peoples' are as 'important' as the 'Political Entity'. In an Autocracy, or similar Forms, the Power at the Top is 'Independent' from the 'Peoples at the Bottom'. Hence, the Peoples are not 'that important' and hence 'not the focus' of the 'Governing Power'. An 'Autocracy' is also a strong 'Form of Government', but 'all its strength' is at the 'Top' and not at the 'Bottom'. A 'Democracy serves' the 'Bottom' and the 'Bottom' 'serves' the 'Top', when necessary, and 'Protects it'. Democracies cannot be 'separated' from its 'Peoples at the Bottom'. That's why, the 'attitudes' of the 'Individuals' at the Bottom is 'as important' as the 'attitudes' of the 'Office Holders', or Government, towards the Bottom. 'Democracy' must work with its 'Peoples', as the 'Peoples' at the 'Bottom', must work with their 'Democratic Government'. Where are the 'Real Politicians'?

In a Democracy , 'Revolutions' at the 'Top' are 'Electoral Revolutions'.

In a Democracy, 'Revolutions' at the 'Top' are 'Electoral Revolutions'. The reason for that is that the Top has been 'elected' by the 'Bottom' and has undergone 'Political Scrutiny' by all the 'Peoples' at the 'Bottom'. In a Democracy, the 'People' elect the Top and place him/her in 'Office' at the Top. So long as the Bottom is 'alert' and 'cognizant' of 'subtle changes' in the 'manner' of Governing, the peoples at the Bottom still have 'control'. They never lose 'control'. That 'control' is 'always' at the 'Bottom'. Its called, the 'Power of Election'. Although that 'Power' doesn't come along on a daily basis, at least it comes along every 'Four' years. But, the electorate must remain alert to 'subtle changes' in the 'Social' and the manner of 'Governing'. In an Autocracy, the 'whole process' is different. We have to ask, how did the 'Autocrat', in the first place, get the 'Office' at the Top? Was it 'Force', 'Trickery', 'Familial', Inherited like in the 'Divine Right of Kings', or 'Oligarchic'. Whatever the process, if it was not a 'proper election' held by the 'Peoples' at the Bottom the end result was not 'Democratic'. In an Autocracy, all the 'Power' is at the Top hence, the Top can change whenever it wants but, 'unlikely' because of the 'seductive embrace' of Power. In an Autocracy, the 'Top' usually changes the 'Top'. In a Democracy, 'Power' is 'always' at the 'Bottom' and is 'funneled' to the 'Representatives' at the Top, who 'only Represent' the Peoples at the Bottom by holding 'proper elections' every 'four years'. In a Democracy, the 'Bottom' changes the 'Top'. In an Autocracy, Plutocracy or Oligarchy all Power is in the hands of the 'One', or the 'Select Few'. In a Democracy, 'all' the Peoples at the Bottom hold the Power. Hence, in a Democracy, if we are talking about 'Revolutions', we are talking about 'Electoral Revolutions'. Hence, in a Democracy, the Peoples must be aware of the 'subtle changes' in the exercise of Power. Is the Top using 'Business Principles', 'Autocratic Principles', 'Plutocratic Principles', or 'Oligarchic Principles', to Govern? If so, its time for an 'Electoral Revolution'.

In a Democracy, 'Power to Govern' means Government must use 'Democratic Political Principles' to Govern.

In a Democracy, 'Power to Govern' means 'Government must use 'Democratic Political Principles' to 'Govern'. Of course, 'To Govern' means that the Top must 'Govern' the 'Social' or the 'Bottom' where all the 'Peoples' and the 'social Institutions' are situated. A Democracy cannot use Autocratic Principles, Plutocratic Principles, or Oligarchic Principles to Govern the Social. Well, some will say, that is obvious. Yes, that is obvious, because we live in a Democracy. But, consider the fact that behind every 'Political Office' there is a definite 'Personality' or 'Persona' who holds the 'Office'. I know that 'Persona' or 'Personality' is still somewhat vague. But, every Candidate who 'aspires to Govern' or 'purports to Govern' must be 'very familiar' with 'Democratic Political Principles' to 'feel' the 'urge' to 'Represent' all the 'Real Individuals' in the Social and to respect and Protect their 'Individual Freedom and Equality'. The Constitution begins with "We the People..." and applies to the 'Real People' in that phrase and not to 'invented Persons' who are actually considered as "Legal Fictions" and who only exist "in contemplation of Law". The point is that Corporations are 'Economic Entities' and are already protected by Law and do not need further protections, since they cannot go to Jail, nor Vote, nor 'go hungry', nor 'get sick' and they should not be able to 'participate', by contributing to 'Political Campaigns'. An Economic Entity is part of the Economy but, it is considered by Law as a Legal Fiction that exists only in contemplation of Law. Hence it cannot have the same 'Rights' that a 'Real Individual' enjoys in a Democracy. Its one thing to protect an 'economic entity' and 'another' to turn it into a 'Person'. That's why, in a democracy, the Office Holder, especially in the 'Highest Office in the Land' should be familiar with Democratic Principles. A CEO, an Economist, or a Businessman, is steeped in 'Profit making ventures' and is familiar with economic Principles. Hence, all his changes could well relate to the 'Economy' and not to the 'Freedom and Equality' of the 'Real Individual'. Democracies must be very careful who they choose to 'drive' the 'Ship of State', its very easy to 'slide, unknowingly', into 'Plutocracy', 'Oligarchy', or even 'Autocracy'. One 'incremental change', at a time, could 'add up' to 'Plutocracy' or 'Oligarchy'. Where are the 'Real Politicians'?

In a Democracy, Power to Govern is 'Granted' by the 'Peoples' at the Bottom.

In a Democracy, 'Power to Govern' is Granted to a 'Representative' by the 'Peoples' at the Bottom. All Governments have Power at the Top. In other words, in a Democracy, if the 'Peoples' at the Bottom do not 'grant' that Power, the Top has 'no Power' to 'Govern'. Stated differently, no 'Human Being' or 'Individual' has a Right to just walk into the 'Top' and assume the 'Right' to be a 'Representative of the Bottom'. 'Representatives' 'run' for Office and the 'electorate' votes. Once in Office the 'Representative' has 'Power of Office', but only for the duration. Then the 'cycle' repeats itself. Its not a perfect system, because all Human Beings are 'different', and no 'one Individual' is 'Perfect'. But, certainly an Office Holder understands that if S/He does not 'exercise' the Power of Office in some 'tolerable manner', S/He will not be 'Returned to Office'. 'Individuals' can also 'discipline themselves' to accomplish 'some Political Goal'. Hence, the importance of the Voting System. But, our Democracy must also contend with the 'Electoral College', a 'Process' that is neither a 'Place' nor a 'College'. When a 'Candidate' for Office receives 'Millions of Popular Votes' more that the 'Other Candidate', and the 'Other candidate' wins the Election, something is wrong with the 'System'. It must be changed. It must be changed in a manner that the 'results' reflect the 'Popular Vote' and not the 'Electoral College' Vote. Hey, all the 'qualified Voters' at the Bottom are 'allowed to cast a popular vote' and even 'encouraged' to vote, and millions are spend by Candidates to get the Vote out, so why don't the 'end- results' reflect the 'Popular Vote'? Its not the Vote that is problematic, its the System. 'Voting' must be made more meaningful. So, Democracy must make 'some changes'. How about Autocracy? No problem, The Ruler 'rules'. Plutocracy? No problem, The Rich Rule; Oligarchy? No problem, The 'select few' Rule. In the latter cases, its not so much the 'Vote' as the System of Government. That's another Story.

Government is 'Essential' but, what kind of Government?

Government is 'Essential' but, what kind of Government? The 'basic reason' for Government is the huge amount of Population in the World. As I've stated earlier, all one has to do is conduct a 'Thought Experiment', to wit; 'One sole, Individual living on an Island all by Him/Her-Self, does not need 'Government'. Why not? Because there's no 'Natural' need for it, and because its a 'Human Institution' established by the different 'Peoples' in the World. Humans may be born within an established 'Political Entity', but even that, is not a 'personal choice'. No one 'being born' has made such a 'choice'. Yet, all Human Beings need Government. Well, what kind of Government? Well, fortunately or unfortunately, everyone is born into an already existing Government; a Democracy, an Autocracy, a Plutocracy, or an Oligarchy and I'm sure there are other 'Smaller forms', even 'Tribes', or 'Families' established by 'smaller numbers' of Human Beings. Every 'Political Entity' and Smaller Forms of 'Government' has a 'History' and a study of that History can tell you how their 'particular Form' of Government came about. In the World today, 'Governments' are well-established, and some are members of the 'United Nations'. Of course, each 'Government' has 'Power at the Top' and 'People at the Bottom'. The Power at the Top must be 'respected' but, so must the 'People' at the 'Bottom'. After all, it was 'People' who established 'Governments' of all kinds. Hence, it appears that all Governments must acknowledge their purpose as being a 'Government of their People', hence, all Governments should be 'Representative' i.e. Governments of all 'stripes', should 'Represent' or 'Serve' the 'Peoples' under their care. But, you cannot tell an Autocracy that; nor a Plutocracy; nor an Oligarchy; and sometimes, not even a Democracy, because Democrats have become too 'Politically Correct'. The 'Politically Correct' can 'speak' the language of Democracy but their 'Words' and 'Talk' is 'empty and vacuous'. They're insincere. Hence, what is needed are 'Sincere Politicians' who actually serve the 'Peoples at the Bottom'. I understand that 'Political Science' is not a 'Science', but shouldn't it be 'less' a "Power Grab", and 'more' a 'Public Service'. Where are the Real Politicians?