When the 'Political Top of Power' begins to unravel, 'Political language' 'loses' its 'Grip'.

When the 'Political Top of Power' begins to 'unravel', that's a sign that the 'Political Language' of Power is losing its 'Grip'. The only language that can hold the 'Integrity' of the 'Political', at the Top, is the 'Language of the Political'. In a Democracy, the Language of the Bottom 'cannot', or rather, 'should not', be used. Words like, "He's Toast'; 'Name Calling'; 'Rat infested Countries', Racial references; etc. all sound like 'Back Yard Barbeque' terms. That is not the Language of 'Democracy' and that is not 'Political in nature'. It may be 'proper' at the 'Bottom' at the 'level' of 'Common every day talk'. But, the language of Politics requires the Language of the Political. Governing is not the same thing as 'existing' and 'functioning' at the Bottom in the so-called 'daily Grind'. A Democracy needs the 'Political Language' of 'Real Democracy' and it must be spoken 'properly' and 'knowledgeably.'. 'Real Politicians' are, or 'should be', knowledgeable of the 'Language of Democracy'. If they can't 'talk it' chances are they 'can't 'do it'. Are You reminded of that 'comical quip', 'If you can't do the 'Talk' you can't do the Walk'. (there's many different ways of saying the same thing) When it comes to 'Politics' and the 'Language of Politics', the saying is 'not so comical'. Knowing the 'Language' of Politics is 'vitally important' for a 'Real Politician'; but He or She must also do the 'Walk' because they are 'Representatives' of the 'Peoples' at the 'Bottom'. Of course, I've already discussed the so-called 'Politically Correctness' that exists in Politics. That's an 'Empty Politics', a Politics that is 'Empty, Vacuous, and Insincere'. That can also be singled out in the so-called 'Doing the Talk'. But, political Language is essential to the 'Real Politician', so not being able to do the 'Talk' is already a 'disqualification' from being a 'Real Politician'. Someone like that, should not be in Office. There is no 'way' She or He can possibly do the 'Walk'. If they cant do the Talk, they cant do the Walk. When common every-day Language is used to 'attempt to Govern' a Nation, the 'Politics' of that 'Nation' is going to 'unravel'; not the 'Bottom' of the Nation, but the 'Top of Power' of the Nation. Of course, that will weaken the Nation as a 'whole'. The 'Top' will lose its 'Integrity' and when that 'goes', so will its Bottom. How sad; a Nation loses its Integrity because those who are at the Top of Power do not know 'how to Govern'. Where are the Real Politicians?

Governing a 'Democracy' is not easy; neither is living 'democratically'.

Governing a 'Democracy' is not easy; neither is Living 'democratically'. Its a 'Two-fold' effort. A Political 'Top' Governs according to the Constitutional Requirements and subsequent Political Institutions established by the Social and the Bottom lives and interacts in Equality and Freedom. Of course, the Political Parties have 'divided' the 'Political tensions' at the Bottom into two separate Political Ideologies. These Two Parties are 'more adversarial' than 'Complementary'; nevertheless, its an established system that 'attempts' to be Democratic. That's not too bad so long as the efforts remain in the direction of Democracy. Of course, a lot could be said about 'improving' the 'Political Process' but, the issue at this point is the 'Bottom of Democracy' and the 'efforts' made by 'Real Individuals' to live 'Democratically' at the Bottom. Its not easy because a normal 'Human Being' 'Feels and Knows' that 'She/he' are 'Equal' to all Other 'Humans' and 'Free' to do as She/he perceives and Understands Her/his Life. Of course, there are Laws and that means 'conforming conduct' to the 'acceptable' way of expressing that Equality and Freedom. If Laws do not conform to the 'very general' Constitutional Description of a democratic Society, they have to be changed and that change has to be 'Constitutional'. The Laws protect the Democratic Way of life and the Real Individuals have to live within the 'descriptive range' of a Democracy described by 'Linguistic Labels'. For this to occur, there must be an understanding of a Democratic Life. The Bottom can't just do anything it wants. That's why the Economy deserves close scrutiny at the 'Autocratic nature' of the Business Corporation. I do not mean that The Business corporation should function as a Democracy, and hence, not productive, but I do mean that Autocracy in the Business World must be accompanied by Governing of the 'Corporate nature' to insure its 'participation' in the 'Democratic Society' of which it is part. After all, its the Democratic nature of the Government and the Social that allows the Corporate Nature to be very Productive and hence Business Corporations should participate in the Democratic Spirit that allows them to exist. After all, there's a big difference between Democracy and Plutocracy. A Democratic Government should not allow 'Autocratic Principles' to 'seep' into 'Democratic Government' by allowing only the Rich, Millionaires, and Billionaires, to Run for Office. Where are the 'Real' Political Parties and where are the 'Real' Politicians?

If all 'Real Individuals' at the 'Bottom' are 'Equal', there cannot be any 'Racial Discrimination'.

If all 'Real' Individuals at the Bottom are 'Equal', there cannot be any 'Racial Discrimination'. Since 'Equality' is a reference to the 'Human Condition' everyone is considered to be equally 'Human'. There may be 'differences' in the Human Races but, in that case, the 'differences' do not apply to the 'Humanity' of the 'Real' Individual. 'Differences' apply to the 'color of skin', language, place of birth, or Other 'Sociological Traits' or characteristics . If 'all Human Beings' are 'Politically Equal', they are also 'Politically Free'. 'Equality and Freedom' are 'Political Terms' that apply to all 'Human Beings' living within the Political Entity. A Political Entity is a 'Human Institution' and as such cannot be Superior to a 'Natural Condition'. A Political Institution is merely an 'opportunity' to live with 'Others' in a 'Condition of Togetherness'. Regardless the differences in the 'characteristics' of the 'Human Condition', Racial Discrimination should not be tolerated. Racial Differences are not sociologically 'Superior' or 'Inferior'. We are all Politically 'Equal' and hence Politically 'Free'. 'Freedom and Equality', or, 'Equality and Freedom', characterizes the 'Social Conditions' of 'Living next to each Other' in a 'Condition of Togetherness' at the Bottom of a Political Entity. Of course, Political Freedom means Freedom within the 'confines' and 'directives' of 'Law'. A Political Entity must have Law to regulate the Interactions of its Citizens in the 'Social'. Hence, in a Democracy all Real Individuals are considered 'Equal and Free' and as such, cannot discriminate 'Racially' against each 'Other'. Equality and Freedom are 'characteristics' of every 'Real' Individual living within a 'Real' Democracy. But, a 'Real Democracy' needs 'Real Politicians'. Where are the 'Real Politicians'?

Have you ever heard of an 'Autocracy' tolerating 'Democratic activity' at the Bottom?

Have you ever heard of an Autocracy tolerating 'Democratic Activity' at the Bottom? If you have, Ill bet it didn't last long. Autocracy 'Rules' the Bottom and that usually means it 'demands' complete 'Fidelity'. Of course, one could always argue about degrees of 'Fidelity', but the fact is that when a 'Ruler Rules' 'She' or 'He' says what is 'acceptable' and what is not. In a 'Democracy' the 'Bottom' enjoys 'Equality and Freedom' in the 'Social'. Notice, that I put 'Equality' first and 'Freedom' second. Of course, the 'habituated form' of the words are usually 'Freedom and Equality'. I use that 'format' also but I'm being a little cautious, by placing 'Equality First'. Actually, the two Words are 'inseparable' and do not exist 'separately' in Political Discourse. If 'anyone' and 'everyone' is 'Equal' then each 'Equal Real Individual' is also 'Free'. My caution lies in the fact that 'Corporations' are accepted as being 'Legal Fictions', that exist 'only in contemplation of Law'. That means they're not Real. Hence, how can a 'Legal Fiction' be in the same 'Linguistic Category' as a 'Real Human Being' or a 'Real Individual'? And why are we to consider them as 'Persons' in 'contemplation of Law'. A Legal Structure(Corporation) is not 'even close' to being a 'Real Human Being'. Of course, they are 'Economic Entities' and do need 'some protections' as 'such'. But, the 'nature and function' of an 'Imaginary Legal Business Structure' is Autocratic to the core. They are not 'successful' because they're Democratic; They are successful because they're Autocratic. But the organization of the Economy is 'different' from the organization of the 'Democratic Polity'. Why not organize the Economy in 'Economic Terms' and 'Protect' the 'Business Corporation' in 'Economic terms' and stop calling Business Corporations 'Persons'. They are not even 'close' to being 'Real' and they certainly are not 'Persons'. If 'Autocracies' do not tolerate 'Democratic activity' at the 'Bottom', should 'Democracies' tolerate 'Autocratic activity' in the 'Economy' at the 'Bottom'? Its one thing to protect an 'Economic structure' by calling it a Legal Fiction, its 'another' to call that 'Fiction' a 'Person' in 'contemplation of Law' and give it Constitutional Protection. Where are the Real Politicians?

The 'Bottom' of a 'Democratic Polity' can divide into 'Political Parties', but both must be 'Democratic'.

The 'Bottom' of a 'Democratic Polity' can divide into 'Political Parties', but they must be 'Democratic'. Why is that the case? Simply because the Bottom can not be 'aspiring' to become 'Autocratic', or to 'transform' into any 'Other Form of Government'. But, how can a 'Real Democracy' become 'Autocratic'? Theoretically, it can't, but a Bottom of 'Freedom and Equality' is only 'Possible', because the 'Bottom' exists in a 'Real Democracy'. Hence, only a 'Real' Democratic Bottom of 'Freedom and Equality' can exist in a 'Real Democracy'. Hence 'No Division' into a 'Political Party' at the 'Bottom' can 'house' a 'Party' that 'espouses' 'Autocratic Rule' because 'Rule' is the 'anti-thesis' of 'Governing'. Democracies 'Govern'; they do not 'Rule'. But, the issue is not that simple. All Political Entities have an Economy and an Economy can be 'motored' by 'Capitalistic ends'. This is the 'place' where 'subtle' distinctions between 'Governing' and 'Ruling' begins to 'accumulate'. One 'Accumulation' favors 'Governing', the other 'Ruling'. If the 'Social focus' is on 'Economic Principles', to the 'exclusion' of 'Democratic Political Principles', the end result will be 'Autocratic'. Why?, because economic Principles in Capitalistic activities are solely 'motored' by 'Profits'. No Business Corporation will survive for long in a Capitalistic Social if that Corporation is not making a Profit. A Business Corporation must be driven by Profits. It 'must be' Profitable. However, if economic activity is 'kept separate' from Political Activity, then a Democratic Government of Freedom and Equality can continue to exist. Otherwise, it will be replaced by 'Capitalistic profits' which 'pushes' 'Democratic activity' into 'Autocratic activity' or an Autocratic Form of Rule. A Corporation 'Rules' its employees, it does not 'Govern' them. Governing is one thing, being Motored by Profits is another, and never should the 'twain' be confused. Both 'Entities', Government and Economy, need each Other, but they must be kept separate. A Government 'contains' an Economy and if an Economy ever 'contains' a Government, it will be Autocratic. But, how 'easily' do Political Principles 'slide' into Economic Principles and 'making more and more of the same', or Money? How easy is it to 'throw away' Freedom and Equality and transform it into the 'Motor' of 'having more and more of the same'? That's why, 'Political Parties' need to 'define themselves' and define the area of 'democratic activity' in which they are allowed to function. Any 'other approach' will be disastrous. If a Democratic Bottom continues to exist, we'll be ok, but if the 'Economy' takes over the 'Bottom', we're in trouble. Where are the 'Real Politicians'?

There is nothing 'inherently' wrong with dividing the Bottom into Political Parties,.....but....

There is nothing inherently wrong with dividing the Bottom of a Political Entity into Political Parties. But, in a Democracy, the division must constitute two 'different approaches' to 'doing Democracy'. Hence, the Parties would just have to justify the 'different approaches' to a 'Democratic Social'. A Real Democracy should actually have a 'multiplicity of approaches' to the constitution of a 'Democratic social'. However, if the Division is 'inherently' one between 'Haves' and 'Have-nots', or 'Racial' in Nature, the Division is not a proper division of a 'Democratic Bottom'. The Bottom of a Democracy is a 'Social' constituted by the democratic 'political values' of 'Freedom and Equality' among 'all' the 'constituents' at the 'Bottom'. Otherwise, the Parties are just 'hiding' the 'real significance' of the 'Division'. A 'Social' is unstable if it has 'Plutocratic' tendencies. Both 'Democratic terms' and 'Plutocratic terms' are references to 'Political Structures'. Of course, the 'Bottom' of these 'two structures' are different i.e. the Social in them is constituted differently. A 'Democracy' does not have a 'Plutocratic Top'. However, if the Top of a Democracy has a Bottom that is a 'plutocratic Social' i.e. a social 'motored' by 'Monies', 'Haves', Corporate Business Fictions, and a 'value system' of 'more and more of the same', it runs the 'danger' of becoming a 'Plutocracy'. In such cases, the 'subsequent election' becomes very important. Why? Because it could transform the 'Democratic Top' into a 'Plutocratic Top', or a 'Plutocratic Government'. The 'Irony' of this phenomena is that what makes this phenomena possible is the 'Freedom and Equality' of the Democratic Social. Said Freedom and Equality must be 'Appreciated' and 'Lived'. An individual should not claim to live in 'Freedom and Equality' and then only 'chase' the 'Holy Dollar' as if it was the 'cement' that holds the 'Social' together. Freedom and Equality are just as 'Real' as the 'Dollar'. One cannot 'buy things' and 'own things' with 'Them', but they make 'buying' and 'owning' possible and the 'Social Structuring' of the 'Top and the Bottom' in a 'Real Democracy'. But, it is important to 'value' and 'implement' this 'Freedom and Equality' to protect the 'existing Democracy'. For this to occur, we must implement 'Both' in our Governmental System and we must 'Govern' with Political Principles of Democracy and not with 'Economic Principles' of the Economy. Hence, all Political Parties in a Democracy must emphasize 'democratic Principles' and not 'Economic Principles'. We are not 'Plutocratic', we are 'Democratic'. Where are the Real Politicians?

The 'Bottom' of our 'Democratic Entity' has been splintered into 'Political Parties', and an 'Inhuman Condition'.

The 'Bottom' of our 'Democratic Political Entity' has been 'splintered' into 'Political Parties' and an 'Inhuman Condition'. The first aspect of the splinter is Political in Nature. Of course, this 'Cleft' could have been between the 'Differences' and the 'best manner' of achieving a 'True Democracy'. Both Parties could have stuck to the 'nature' of the Cleavage, which was purely Political and which might have really helped the 'achievement of a Real Democracy'. But, was that the case? Take an Example; the issue of some kind of Gun Control. The 'news' clearly shows that Individuals are shooting other 'Individuals', but not only that, but also shooting Individuals within 'Large Groups', and including 'Bystanders'. Well, that's not good and 'completely prohibiting Individuals from owning Guns for their own 'self and Home-protection' would not be a solution. In all cases the evidence shows that the Perpetrators have 'Automatic Weapons', or 'Weapons of Mass Destruction'. These weapons are weapons of War, not weapons of Individual self-defense. How does an Individual acquire weapons of War in a Democratic Social? Where are the Political Parties? All attempts to limit these killings has failed. If these weapons are allowed in the 'Social' and at 'Home', they should not be 'Weapons of War' or Automatic Weapons of Mass Destruction' and the attempt to treat 'mental illness' and the 'Personalities' of the 'Perpetrators', 'early', is ridiculous and silly. Any Individual can get a hold of a weapon and hurt someone. But, the fact that an 'Individual' can be 'armed' so as to shoot 'large groups' or 'Twenty Individuals' or 'Bystanders' within 'Seconds' is absurd. Those weapons are for 'War and Mayhem' and treating 'mental Illness' is not the solution. The only solution is to limit the 'Production' and 'Availability' of those Weapons to 'Law Enforcement Departments' and 'Military Departments'. The solution is simple. Don't sell to just any Individual. Those weapons are not necessary for 'Target Shooting', 'Hunting', or 'Personal Defense' or 'Self-Defense', and their availability to just 'anyone' 'who wants one' is ridiculous and motivated by 'Economic Motives' and not by 'Democratic' or 'Moral Motives'. Where are the Political Parties? It would be simple for them to enact Laws prohibiting the 'availability' and 'sale' of these Weapons to any 'Tom, Dick, or Harry' who just wants one. If the availability of these weapons is not controlled, these atrocities will continue. That is 'Inhumane' and 'Asinine'. Why don't the Political Parties do something that is not completely motivated by 'Economic considerations? Where are the Real Politicians? Is it really possible that our 'Leaders' do not know how to limit the circulation of these Weapons? I don't think so. But, that's what happens when we are 'Governed' by 'Economic Principles', or an 'Economic Motor' instead of 'Democratic' Political Principles. Politics is not a 'Business' and should be motivated by 'Political Principles' of 'Freedom and Equality' and not by the 'Profit Principle'. Where are the Real Politicians?