Government is 'motored' by democracy: the economy by 'profits' and competittion

The 'motor' for a Democracy is democratic principles; the motor for a successful economy is profits and competition. Although, both institutions are essential to a strong Nation, its a mistake to substitute economic principles in place of democratic principles. The end result of that would be Plutocracy or Oligarchy. Democracy cannot be 'motored' by profits or competition. That would destroy both the freedom and equality of the individual. The freedom and equality of the individual hold together a social motored by democratic principles; while the individuals who have succeeded in the economy can be thankful for the democratic principles that allowed them to function in the economy. It was democratic principles that lead to economic success. Without those principles, the economic activity would have been hampered because even the economy cannot operate at full steam without the principles of democracy. A successful economy can follow from democratic principles, but democracy cannot follow from economic principles of profits and competition. Its obvious, that Plutocratic or oligarchic principles would effect the freedom and equality of every individual, except those who were fortunate enough to be at the Top 1%. That would not last long because the 99% would not tolerate a plutocratic or oligarchic government. The best defense against Plutocracy is the First Amendment of the Constitution. The right to "assemble" is a Constitutional right. That was the very First Amendment because it protected the freedom and equality of the individual; not the economy. To substitute economic principles for democratic principles would undermine the freedom and equality guaranteed by democracy, hence the importance of having democratic principles in the social. The 'initial' democratic right to compete in the economy was devastated by the creation of corporations. No one can compete against a corporation, except another corporation. That pretty much leaves competition too corporations, not individuals.

'Language' at the Top is different from 'language ' at the Bottom.

The Top 'speaks' the language of democracy, while the Bottom, 'speaks' the language of everyday life. The language of the Top is general and abstract so as to include everyone to whom any one policy, law or practice applies. Of course, the Bottom also speaks abstractly, but their 'abstractions' apply to specifics. Nevertheless, the individual at the Bottom 'lives' and 'has a life' in the 'specifics' of the democratic social. The actual 'living', or 'having a life', in a democracy is never an abstraction. Unfortunately, that is the place where the 'clash' between a theory and a practice takes place. Theory always remains abstract; 'practice' requires some form of 'communion' or direct connection with everyday life. But, don't kid yourself, 'everyday life' can be as 'distant' from the real thing as is pure theory. Why is that? Simply because every individual has a different definition of what to him/her is 'every-day life'. A living, breathing, human being always participates, in a 'full sense', in his 'conditions' of life. The above distinctions are what requires, that the relation between the Top and the Bottom, be a real relation, not an abstract one. Democracy must relate, in a real way, with the individuals at the Bottom. If we look at the relation we are speaking about, we notice this is the ancient relation of the One and the Many. It seems that the ancients considered the One and the Many as a 'real' One and a 'real' Many. Of course, that makes the dilemmas of government that arises therefrom unsolvable. From the view of a democracy, it has no solution. Hence, the necessity that the Top be an abstract entity called the "State"( even though a fiction) or "government", and the necessity that the relation between the Top and the bottom be a real relation that transforms democratic abstractions into a real 'democratic life' of individual freedom and equality.

The transition from abstract democracy to actual democracy is complex

The transition from abstract democracy to actual democracy takes place within the individual. This includes the individuals who govern as well as those who are governed. This is not to say that the Top of democratic government has nothing to do with real democracy. The Top of government is institutionalized. It's a 'large' abstract, general, linguistic entity that includes all the specifics of a 'generalized' Bottom. As such, it governs 'itself' by structuring its functions, as a government, in the manner set out in the Constitution. But, it also 'governs' along those same lines i.e. in a triadic fashion. Democratic government is from the Top to the Bottom. Nevertheless, the relation from the Top to the Bottom is a real relation and must seep down to the Bottom as a genuine democratic experience; not as abstractions only. Only the individual, any and all, can experience real democracy or real freedom and equality. Try explaining that experience to some individual or class of individuals who are not free and equal and see what happens. They will never believe it. Why? Because the explanation is purely linguistic and they, as individuals, have never 'experienced' freedom and equality. The transition from abstract knowledge to actual experience of that knowledge is absolutely necessary. And the only way to do that is to actually 'engage' the fully functioning individual, in the only way he functions in everyday life, i.e. as an individual. In this way democracy must be experienced within the individual. Democracy can only be lived.

Democracy is a theoretical construct

Democracy is a theoretical construct, but so is autocracy, dictatorship and Kingship. But, if democracy 'goes' from the theoretical to the practical or actual, it must translate the theoretical into the 'real' or into actual activity. Therein enters many of the problems of democracy. The 'trip' from the Top to the Bottom is not always 'straight-forward' or 'straight down'. That is to say, the 'talk' is simple enough, but the implementation or the 'walk' is not so simple. Let me say it this way; it is simple enough, but 'political language' and demagoguery intentionally confuse the simple application of "Freedom" and "Equality" that grounds democracy. That's what happens when we allow Parties to form, some of which, are 'economic' instead of truly 'democratic'. Of course, Autocracies of every form, do not have this same problem. In Autocracy, the Top is 'law' and the Bottom better well go-with-it, or get 'straightened-out'. In democracy, the old conflict of 'States Rights" and 'Federal Rights' keep getting in the way. Although the Constitution formulated a Republic, it also begins with "We the People"... because its a Peoples Constitution. In other words, its a Constitution of the Bottom or "of the People", even though the Founding Fathers respected the existing integrity of already established Colonies. The People govern themselves by means of Constitutional Government. This included the Peoples already living within established States. While in Autocracies, the Top, governs the Bottom; end of story. But, the Republics division into existing local governments does not change the fact that it's still a Peoples Constitution. Hence, it becomes important that each and every individual, in a democracy, be included in Law, Policy and social practices. Number, is the only way democracy can work;.in other words, each and every individual is "Free" and "Equal" and each and every individual 'counts' within democratic laws, policies, and practices.

How can democratic principles become 'more real'?

Democratic principles are abstract principles that apply to the Bottom of triadic government. Understandably, they must be abstract to 'contain' all the individuals (when we 'talk' democracy) at the Bottom. However, the 'application' of an abstract principle must actually take place. Its necessary to render abstract 'talk' into actual 'doing'. That requires an actual application of an abstract principle to an actual 'happening'. The simplistic way of saying that is to say "you talk democracy" now implement it, by 'doing' it, in an actual occurrence. Damn, its still too abstract. The only way to 'capture' true democracy, i.e. "freedom" and "equality" of the individual human being, is by 'living it'. But, that requires that the Top of government ,as well as the Bottom of government, actually 'live' democratically. If the Top begins to understand that the political positions they hold are 'temporary' and merely 'functional' in a democratic form, or arrangement, of the so-called 'the One and the Many' i.e. the Top and the Bottom, maybe the Top will be more inclined to 'apply' Constitutional mandates 'justly', and the Judicial Branch will be inclined to be more objective in its interpretive practices. Oops, forgot the Legislative branch. They should respect the fact that they merely serve in a 'representative' capacity of all the people who has elected them, as well as those who have not elected them, and maybe the laws they pass will be more just. Oh well, there's still to much abstraction in the above. Lets face it, democracy is a 'way of life'. The 'freedom' and 'equality' of each and every human being has to be respected and protected. (That's the key). Why? Because the Top would not exist without a Bottom. It's dependent on the Bottom and both the Top and the Bottom must 'live' democratically. The Top has a 'function' to play and the Bottom has a 'life' to live. Please, help our leaders to understand that.

"Class" warfare is an oxymoron.

Its ridiculous to talk about "class warfare" because classes do not exist; although "warfare" can certainly be said to exist. Another, softer, term for "warfare" could well be called "competition". That's the case in the economic domain. But 'classes' of human beings do not exist. One human is just as human as another. Why classify those who have acquired more property and possessions, or even intelligence, into a 'higher' class. ( and these acquisitions are only possible because we are a democracy) The division onto higher classes has always existed. In the days of 'Kingship', the distinction was called 'bluebloods'. Well, they soon discovered that blood always flows red. As incorrect as that classification was, at least it referred to something all humans had, viz. blood. But, today it usually refers to possessions, money, or having previously held public office, or having being a 'driver' of a legal fiction; none of which has anything to do with the human condition. A human is a human, is a human. Wow, we create artificial lines of demarcation and then engage in 'everyday-life' with an economic principle and then call competition between People, 'warfare'. We create our own illusions and then we 'compete' with them. Well, the result of one illusion competing with another illusion is so far from actual 'life', that it can really be said that we 'live in illusion'. The end result of two illusions clashing with each other is just a 'further' illusion-far removed from actual life. I guess the sad part is that we not only 'talk' this way, we actually live this way. We fight non-winnable battles. Worst yet, is the fact that many political battles are on the level of the illusory. The battles are at the Top, on the level of language, but they 'hurt' the individual because they usually relate to policy, law, and the establishment of every-day practices. These practices need to relate to something 'real' in the human condition; they need to be less illusory and a bit more real.

Triadic government is a geometric configuration of Three Branch government.

The term "Triadic government" is not a substitute for Three Branch Government. It's a geometric configuration of the same Three Branch government elaborated in the Constitution. It's actually an attempt to simplify Three Branch government down to its geometric form for the purpose of better understanding the underlying forces at work in Constitutional government. You can even call it a "quantification" of governmental structure. Once we get under the verbal descriptions of what constitutes Three Branch government, we can better understand the relative importance of its underlying geometric form. We can actually 'see' why democracy is a form of government that emphasizes the importance of the People. Obviously, Democratic government is a government "of People","by People", and "for People". Verbally, we can appreciate the above description, but geometrically, we can 'see' how a triadic form cannot exist without a Bottom. The Bottom is the People, and the Bottom must be included in all democratic laws, policy, and practices. It cannot be selective about these institutions at the Bottom, because if it only includes the top 1%, the 'capitalist' people, the rich, and excludes common, everyday folk, the Bottom cracks or is not sufficient to support the Top of government. A democratic society can support the Top of government; but, a non-democratic society cannot support the Top because the divisions in the social, into classes, will cause the Bottom to crack and not be a good support for the Top. The Top of a 'democratic' government cannot exist without a democratic bottom. It's ridiculous to suppose that, if the 1% gets power, they can rule over the 99% at the Bottom. That's not going to work; if the top 1% gets power, it will foment a revolution and I don't mean a 'democratic' revolution like the one supported by the Constitution.

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

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

Another misused word in real democracy is "entitlements".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Language can be used to distort democracy

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

Number is not Utopian nor a panacea

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

Can democracy be quantified?

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

The only path to real democracy is Number.

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

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

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

Democracy has been 'embarrassed' by power

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

Why does politics have to 'suck'?

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

A government shut-down is crazy.

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

Democracy is difficult

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

Party differences could be based on real democracy

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

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

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

Wow, pure Party ideological differences caused government shutdown.

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

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

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

Party loyalty causes destruction

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

Real democracy is about the real individual.

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

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

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

The human condition underlies all governmental systems.

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

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

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

Capitalism is also important to Democracy.

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

"Politics" must become more democratic and less economic.

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

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

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

"Party loyalty" is antagonistic to real democracy.

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

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

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

the term "political science" is an oxymoron.

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

The relation between the Top and the Bottom gets distortrd.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

International politics is on a different scale from National politics

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

International politics deals with established Nations on the world scene.

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

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

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

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

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

Political disrespect for the human condition cannot be tolerated

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

Democracy is difficult; but democracy works.

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

The most difficult dilemma for a democracy relates to war.

The most difficult dilemma for a democracy relates to war. Why is it a dilemma and why is it difficult? Because a democracy should follow the dictates of the People, and what if the People are against, as most people are, going to war. Are all the people so well informed that they are able to make such a judgment? Even if the people have been informed on the general situation, are they privy to all the information the Executive is privy too. No individual in his/her right mind wants war. But, isn't a political decision based on different factors from the individual factors that are foremost on the mind of the individual? Sure, the people have an opinion and they should express it. But, a political decision on an International level is made on many factors not available to the individual. Of course, this particular dilemma can be abused by the Executive. How many times have we heard a loud clamor for war based on erroneous data, e.g. "they have weapons of mass destruction", only to find out that they did not exist, and later, to justify that same war on the declaration that we are 'bringing them democracy'. Every human being is, or should be, against war. A decision on the level of the International sphere calls for an 'international judgment' based on whether restraint will only encourage further atrocities. If its clear that the alleged atrocities against the human condition have taken place, there seems to be no choice in the matter. Inhuman conduct that has already taken place will never cease on its own. Truly, democracy is about People but, when the media shows the victims of these atrocities as being women and children, what other remedies are available? That situation has gone past reason; its no longer an ideological difference. We've said already, that National democracy and International democracy is about the human condition; We've also said, the human being (not ideology)should be the 'unifying force' of all governments, both National and International. In this situation, we are not protecting or defending an ideology; we are protecting the human condition. God help our young people.

democracy is a political impulse

Democracy is a political impulse and freedom and equality is a human impulse. Democracy can only be 'experienced' among large collections of human beings. Freedom and equality is experienced within the human condition as a separate, 'independent, functioning human impulse' that has its source in human existence; in Life. An 'independent human condition' is an individual and a large collection of individuals, whether by birth or by 'coming together', can be said to exist within a Polity, which should be a Democracy. Why should it be a Democracy? because Democracy is the only 'political arrangement' in which the individual in a condition of the 'the Many', or 'togetherness' can exist in a 'condition of 'fairness' i. e. in an independent condition of political Freedom and Equality. Large collections of individuals, or Nations have every right to an independent political existence. However, they have to interact with their own 'people' as well as with other established independent Nations. Of course, there's a National governing system as well as an International governing system. The National sphere should insure the Freedom and Equality of its inhabitants,( this requires a Democracy) while the International sphere should insure the independent respect of that Nations government. However, the primary concern of any political 'collectivity' should be the Freedom and Equality of its own inhabitants. Why else come together? Every Country, at times, must depend on its 'people' to help defend the Country. There is no other 'political way' to show gratitude towards those people except, at the very least, by guaranteeing their Freedom and Equality. Democracy is the political impulse of Nations while freedom and equality are the impulses of the individual in his/her human condition. Neither can do without the other.

Where and when did the People 'go wrong'?

When, where, and how did "We the People..." go wrong? This is a blog that looks at political structures, but underlying every political structure is a 'People'. That's where you and I are. It is 'people' who inhabit all the different political structures. Hence, every International political issue is also a 'human' issue. Even though, each separate political entity has its own identity and its own government, nevertheless, every polity is a 'condition of togetherness' with a 'political identity' and although it functions on the International scene as an independent political whole, nevertheless, the inhabitants of all nations are all human beings. Each individual is a human being and is entitled to his/her life within whatever polity s/he lives. The manner in which the Polity treats its inhabitants may be a domestic political matter but, the polity should not disrespect the human condition, for the simple reason, that all Polities are constituted of human beings. Of course, the problems of the Polity as a whole while acting on the International scene, are usually conceived separate from the problems of the individuals within that Polity. But how often do individuals, in positions of power, treat their inhabitants unjustly, unfairly, and undemocratically. Although a Polity acts within the International sphere in its relations to other Nations and these relations relate to the establishment of harmony on the International sphere, how can unjust, unfair, and undemocratic treatment of its own inhabitants reflect on International relations? Simply, if they do not respect the freedom and equality of their own inhabitants how can we expect them to respect the freedom and equality of the inhabitants of other Nations? If an individual does not respect the sanctity, freedom and equality of the human condition (s/he's own human nature) how can we expect him/her to respect the human condition of the Other. And if that human being just happens to be in a position of leadership, we are lost. The 'one thing' that unifies the whole world is not the different political ideologies in the world, its the human condition.

The word "democracy" is important; language is important, but so are the People

The word "democracy" is important; language is also important, and the most important aspect of the "word" democracy is each and every individual at the Bottom of the structure of democratic government. In other words, the People are the essence, in a very real way, of democracy. Democracy is more than a word, its an actual 'condition of togetherness'. The problematic is how do we retain that condition in a viable way. The only way is to constantly remember the integrity of the individual, or of ones own self, and all his/her attendant rights to a Free and Equal existence within any Polity. If we learn to respect the integrity of one's own individuality, we can apply that same attitude to the integrity of the 'Other'. I am as important as You; You are as important as I, and we both are as important as everybody else in the world. Its not the "I" or the "you" that is important, its the human condition and its integrity that's important. Being human and having 'life' is our condition; that condition needs government, but only a democratic government will suffice. No other form of government can have the required respect and integrity towards the human condition and no other form will 'allow' the People to govern. How can governments fight over their so-called political 'ideals' and in the process, take the lives of innocent men, women, and children? Children!!, Babies, 3,4,5,8, years old! For heavens sake, lets wake up to our corroded sense of what it means to be a human being. Unfortunately, Government is as 'good' as its People, but its individual leaders that lead Nations into war. Yes, Government must be structured to reflect the sanctity and integrity of the human condition, but how do we reach the 'sanctity' and 'integrity', that should lurk within the chests of our Leaders. I said "should", because sometimes it seems that it's really not the faults or failings of the structure of government, as the faults and failings of the human condition. ( God help us)