In a Democracy, the Top has Institutional Power, but the Bottom has Many Individuals who have Freedom and Equality.

In a Democracy, the 'Top' has Institutional Power, but the 'Bottom' has 'Many Real Individuals' who have Freedom and Equality. There's that old dilemma of the One and the Many. Of course, the first thing that comes to Mind is why should any 'One' or, for that matter, 'Several Persons' have Power while the Bottom is 'Powerless'. The Individual at the Bottom has 'Freedom and Equality', but that is not 'Power'. Well, lets call them 'Rights'. But, why 'Rights', if not for the fact, that everyone is 'Equally Human', including those who serve at the 'Top'. If the Top is 'Superior' in some manner or another, the 'Rights' become 'unimportant'. Or we could say, the Top 'houses' a 'Superior Human Being' that is more Powerful than any 'Other Human Being'. We, some of us, know better than that. The Human Condition is Equally the same. If Equality 'reins' over the Human Condition, how are we to determine who will Govern the Bottom? Of course, 'Election' is a Possibility, hence electoral Politics. But, Elections, a process that appears relatively 'efficient' and 'innocent' was soon made 'Problematic'. Is there some 'different manner' of 'electing', 'selecting', or 'appointing', the Top. Of course, we now live in the Computer Age, so, is there some way to transfer the electoral process to the Computer? Or, can that also be Problematic? It soon appears that the 'old problem' of the 'One and the Many' that was, at that time, resolved by selecting the 'Strongest' or the 'Wisest', no longer 'Works' as the basis for selecting a Leader. But, now we have access to computers. So, can we vote with our computer? How can everyone have access to a computer? Can Electoral Politics become 'Computerized', or is that also Problematic. Well, consider how the Computer has 'torn down' 'National Boundaries' that allows communication between Individuals of different Nations. The computer has done more to 'Unify' the 'Human Condition' than all the Politicians rolled up into a 'Political Ball'. Do we build Walls or do we knock down Walls? At this point enters the Real Individual and the Morality of the Human Condition. All 'Real Individuals' are not 'Corporations', not 'Legal Fictions', and have 'Equal Rights' and 'Political Freedom'. Maybe the Computer can help us? Where are the 'Real' Politicians?

A 'Top', that begins to disintegrate Morally, can also 'effect' the 'Integrity of the International Sphere'.

The disintegrating 'Top' of any Nation will effect the International Sphere. If the Nation is a Democratic Nation, the International Sphere will begin to take notice. Especially, if the disintegration at the Top reflects a moral Issue. The reason being that a Democratic Nation that is disintegrating with respect to Moral Issues will not be expected to defend its own Moral Integrity, and hence will not be expected to defend the same or similar Moral Issues of Other Nations. When Morality flies out the window in a Democracy, the Human Condition will not be respected and hence the Freedom and Equality that should hold the Bottom together will weaken. Consequently, a Nation with 'weak' morals, at the Top, will create a 'weakness' and a 'disintegration' of the 'Integrity' of the 'International Bond'. This National 'lack of concern' for 'Human Life' will not sit well with Other Nations that are also Democracies that respect the 'Life' of the 'Human Condition'. Of course, Autocracies, Plutocracies and Oligarchies will not be expected to be too 'concerned' about a National Morality because the integrity of their Nation-Hood is organized differently. In their case, all the Political Power is at the Top of the Polity and not at the Bottom, hence Moral Issues that involve the Human Condition at the Bottom are out of the question. Of course, to them, the 'Bottom' is also important, but only with respect to 'Obedience and Allegiance' to the Top. Some Nations treat their Leaders like 'Gods'. Morality never enters the picture, only an 'enforced' National Obedience. That is not the case in a Democracy. In a Real Democracy, the 'Moral' and 'Knowledgeable Stature' of the Highest Office Holder becomes very important because the 'Freedom and Equality' of 'all Citizens' must also be 'respected' and 'protected'. Of course, on the International Sphere, the United Nations also has a 'Political Integrity' but that Integrity is a 'Political Integrity' of Powerful Nations. On the International Sphere, all Nations are 'Equally Powerful' and 'Independent' regardless their 'Geographical Size' and 'Population'. Hence, when a 'Democratic Nation' begins to 'reflect' a 'Moral laxity', the other 'Equal Nations' become 'concerned'. They become concerned because, suddenly, 'Equal Nations' become 'Morally lax' and begin to show 'little respect' for the 'Human Condition'. Politics is not a science, but 'Office Holders' should respect the 'Freedom and Equality' of the 'Human Condition'. After all, without 'Humans', there's 'no need' for 'Nations or Governments'. Without Nations or Governments, there's no need for a 'United Nations'.

A 'Changing Social' is unpredictable, but a 'solid' Democratic Top can hold it together.

A 'Social' is never some solid entity that never changes. Its always in movement and seldom becomes a 'solid', 'fixated', unchanging Entity. Of course, that's referred too as the 'Bottom' of all Political Entities. But, every Bottom has a Top and a 'Democratic Top' can keep a Real Democracy, at the Bottom, viable. Obviously, a Democracy of the 'Many' requires a 'Top' that is both 'Democratic' and 'efficient'. In other words, a Top that acts like an Autocracy, or an Oligarchy, or a Plutocracy cannot 'Govern' a Democracy of the 'Many'. Why not? Simply, because Democracy is a 'Government', "of the People", "By the People", and "For the People". In more 'functional' words, the People 'Govern', not the 'ONE', not the 'Select Few', and not the 'Rich'. But notice, I also said 'Efficient' and that requires a 'knowledgeable' Top. That is very important because a candidate for the Top Office in a Democracy can very easily 'run' for election and not be 'qualified' to hold the Top Office. Once in Office, He or She will remain in Office and that's exactly the problem. Once in Office, the People have to wait it out, unless they take drastic 'Constitutional action' and remove him or her from Office. Remember, a candidate can 'think and behave' like a Dictator, or, like an Oligarch, or, like a Plutocrat, or just plain egotistical, selfish, or 'completely unfamiliar' with the 'Governing process'. He or She can remain fixated on 'Economics', or some other aspect of 'Power' and not know how to 'Govern' a Democracy. Freedom and Equality of the Individual is important in a Democracy. Without Freedom and Equality a Social in a Democracy will not hold together. Where are the Knowledgeable Democratic candidates?

When the Top of a Political Entity begins to 'disintegrate', the Bottom also changes its 'Personality'.

When the Top of a Political Entity begins to 'disintegrate', the 'Bottom' also changes its 'Personality'. The Bottom is always a huge collective of Equal and Free Individuals and even though its 'conditions of existence', as 'Real Individuals', remains as a 'condition of togetherness', the Individual retains his/her 'Identity', as a Real 'human Being'. Politically, Individuals are the 'same'( Equal and Free), but 'Individually', they assert the 'qualities' of their 'Independent Personality'. Fortunately, or Unfortunately, that means that the 'Bottom' also begins to 'disintegrate'. The 'antagonisms' begin as 'mere' Political 'Party Disagreement' that rapidly 'crescendos' into the 'lower rungs' of the Human Condition- from mere Party antagonisms that don't have to exist, to violent behaviors. Its very sad, when the animosities and disagreements at the Bottom have been partially caused, by the 'Representatives' at the Top of Power. The Political Entity 'initiates' the 'causes' of its 'own demise'. The 'Representative' at the Top has failed the People. When the Top fails; the Bottom fails. When the Bottom fails Democracy fails. When Democracy fails the Bottom becomes unruly, disorganized, and at the 'mercy' of the more 'dominant Citizens', i.e. those who stand to Gain by that unruly behavior, viz., the Rich, the Corporations, the 'Big', the 1%. Unfortunately, Democracy cannot survive without a knowledgeable Leader and a 'Real Politician'. 'Real Political Leaders' are essential. Real Economic Leaders are essential also, but they have to stay in their 'Arena' and never should they 'confuse' the 'differences' in 'their disciplines'. It may be possible for a Real Politician to also be a real Businessman, or a Real Businessman to be a Real Politician, and if that's the case, it should be made manifest in the Political Campaign. Barring those qualifications and conditions, don't listen to promises that you will make 'lots of money' (they don't even increase the Minimum Wage) that you will be rich ( only the 1% will get 'Fatter'), that you will ascend to a 'Higher Social Class' in Society ( can you see a Social where the 99% will be as Rich as the 1%, 'economic equality'?) If you hear that, that's not Politics, that's Bullshit! Sorry, lost it for a moment. Where are the Real Politicians? We need Real Selfless Politicians.

A Flexible Ideology allows for a changing, transformable Social.

A flexible Ideology allows for a changing, 'transformable' Social. A 'Social' is never a fixed entity. Its always changing and the external relations between the Individuals in the 'condition of togetherness' can undergo changes. The Individuals do not undergo changes, they remain 'Politically Equal' and 'Politically Free'. As 'Individuals' they are always Equal and Free, but in the 'condition of togetherness', there can be variations. The reason for that is that the 'Social' is always in motion, in activity, 'Institutionally' and 'Individually', and can be subject to variations. Advances in Technology and Institutions can create subtle changes in the Social. Hence, a Political Entity must become aware of those changes and modify its 'political attitude', but always within the 'context' of its Political Identity. For Example, a Democracy allows for the proper Political Response; one that usually expands and changes the Social. Of course, an Autocracy does the same thing but within limits. The Social in a Democracy is 'wide open' to new advances and a proper Democratic Political response. An Autocracy usually suppresses Social Changes to protect its Authoritarian Regime. It only allows those changes that do not threaten its Authority. An Autocracy is an Example of a Rigid unchanging Ideology, while the Social in a Democracy can be modified by new advances in science. That's why Ideology must be Flexible in a Democracy. The People can change within a Democracy, but its Ideology needs Flexibility. A Rigid Ideology or strict Party loyalty only creates political Problems between the Parties or the People and even in the Democratic Principles that maintains the integrity of the Entity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

All Nations have a Judicial System.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'Revolutions' at the 'Top' are Ideological.

Revolutions at the Top are Ideological. In a Democracy, they involve the very essence of Democracy. The problematic is that the Bottom is already divided into Two Parties and never shall the twain meet. In such cases, the end result will probably be a 'weakening' of Democracy. If Democratic government is a Government "of the People", "by the People", and "for the People", the tensions in the Ideological dispute will create a rift among the Individuals at the 'Top' as well as at the 'Bottom'. The 'Top' should know and should resolve such disputes in favor of the 'People' at the Bottom and not in accordance with 'either Ideology'. But, how is that to happen in a Supreme Court that is also 'Ideological' in Nature. Where is the 'Objectivity' and what happens to the 'People'. The best way is simply not to be too 'Party Loyal' with Majority/Minority 'leverages' in the formations of the Committees, and most important, in the formation of the Supreme Court. If the Committee or Court Majority belong to one Party and the Minority belongs to another, the arguments will 'hold' along 'Ideological lines'. But, in a Democracy its always about the 'People' and not about the 'Party' and the different 'Ideologies'. A Judge in the highest Court of the Land should be a 'Peoples Judge' and not an 'Ideological Judge'. Parties may be 'acceptable', but 'Democracy' is 'essential'. Democracy is about the 'People', not about 'Ideologies' or 'Party Loyalty'. So, how is this to be implemented? Well, it may also be a little too 'simplistic' to say 'forget the Ideology' and 'remember the People', but that is the 'essence of Democracy'. Although its never about 'complete forgetting' the Ideology, but its always about 'being Human' and no 'Human Being' should 'forget' His or Her 'Humanity'. When a 'Representative' or 'Office Holder' forgets his or her Humanity, Democracy is 'never served'. When the Top of a Political Entity is compelled to 'act' from 'Party Loyalty', humanity is 'attenuated'. When the Highest Court in the Land 'decides' from Party Loyalty, 'Humanity' goes out the window. Although Party affiliations are 'normal', there is 'no need' to give up our 'Humanity'. There comes a time when our 'Party affiliations' should be 'Weaker' than our 'Humanity'. We are always 'Human' First, 'Ideologues' Second. Where are the 'Real Politicians'?

Political activity is different from Economic activity. Each must occupy their respective Place within a Polity.

Political activity is different from economic activity. Both are essential aspects of a Political Entity. Yet, a political entity must be governed with Political Principles and an Economy must be 'governed' or 'controlled' with 'economic principles'. The two activities are different and they each are essential to the Integrity of their 'proper Object'. Its 'Object' is dependent on the 'unique function' of the Two Different Motors that propels the Activity. Nevertheless, the two cannot become 'mixed'. It takes a well disciplined Politician to occupy Political Office and Govern a Political Entity and its multiplicity of 'aspects'. The biggest problem is the 'mixing' of Political Principles and Economic Principles. An Economy is vital to every Polity, but great care must be taken not to inextricably mix the two. Look, its one thing for a political entity to have a successful,fully functional, Economy; its another for the Polity to attempt to 'Govern' using Economic Principles. The ultimate goal of any economy is to be 'successful' and generate many 'Profits'. But, that is not the 'sole goal' of a Political Entity. When a Political Entity gets 'enmeshed' with 'economic principles', it can very easily transform into an 'Autocracy', or a 'Plutocracy', or even an 'Oligarchy'. Most Democracies will be oblivious of the transition because of the 'important part' that 'economic Principles' and the economy play in the 'daily routine'. Economic Principles cannot 'Govern' a Democracy; only Political Principles can be used to 'Govern' in a 'Democracy'. But the 'undetectable slippage' will not be perceived until its too late. This phenomena can cause revolts or Revolutions in a Polity that is accustomed to Democratic Government. In such cases, its 'Real Individuals' that must come 'to the Fore' against Autocratic Rule, Plutocratic Rule, and Oligarchic Rule or just simply against 'Rule by the Economy'. As important as an Economy has become, it cannot 'Govern'. Where are the Real Politicians?

Most Revolutions begin at the Bottom; but, today we are witnessing a Revolution at the Top.

Most revolutions begin at the Bottom; but 'Today' we are witnessing a 'Revolution at the Top'; the 'Seat of Power'. The Top is unraveling. One has to ask, how did this happen? Obviously, the Top is not a Centralized Seat of Power. When the Top or the Highest office of Power cannot control the other People in Offices of Power, although of the same Party, it becomes evident that the Top is not doing its Job. That, is somewhat unheard of, but at the same time it becomes evident that the Occupant of the Highest Office is not qualified to occupy the office. That is also, somewhat unheard of, but it demonstrates that a 'Business mentality', without Political Principles, cannot hold a Political Office. We must ask, how did that happen. A 'Non-Politician', whether a Billionaire, or a CEO cannot Govern a Political Entity. Of course, one of the Problems that arises in a Democracy is that the 'Bottom' has already 'split' into opposing Parties. That further 'muddies the water' because the People cannot be 'One'. The result will be that some 'Members of the Party' or, the Top will still support the 'Office' and are hoping for the best. But, it can only get worse. When the 'source' of Power fractures, or becomes diffused, it becomes 'attenuated' and lacks 'Force', 'stability', 'Integrity', or simply, Power. An 'unconsolidated Top' is Confusion. One can already begin to 'see' the 'consequences' on the 'National Sphere' as well as the 'International Sphere'. But, a Democracy has a built-in Structure to resolve that kind of Issue. If something renders the Highest Office dis-functional, there is always an Elected Official to take His or Her Place. Fortunately, or Unfortunately, one will begin to 'see' the 'revolutionary spirit' 'sift' from the 'Top' to the 'Bottom'. What can one expect at the Bottom; a continuation of the Revolution, or possibly a re-evaluation of some kind of 'standards' for Political Office? 'Politics' requires 'Political Knowledge'; 'Democratic Politics' requires 'Political knowledge' of 'Democracy'. But wait, it also requires 'selfless service' to a Democratic Nation. Where are the Real Politicians?

All Political Entities have Political Power; but, we must ask, from where do they get the Power?

All political Entities have Political Power at the 'Top'; but we must ask, from where do they get their Power? A Democracy gets it from the People at the Bottom. An Autocracy or any Other Type of Government, whether Autocratic or some blend of Autocratic, has power at the Top also. All Governments or Nations have Power at the Top. The Question as to from where do they get the Power probably has many Unique Answers. There are some 'apparent' or 'Known' answers. For Example; the Divine Right of Kings, a historical and well known Form of Government, received its 'Authority' to Govern from the 'Divinity'. The King was said to have 'Two Bodies'; the Divine Body and the Natural body. Of course, that doesn't work any more. As for other forms of Power, it doesn't make much difference. The Top Rules and that's it. Notice, the Top in Autocratic Forms, 'Rule', they don't 'Govern'. The Democratic form does not 'Rule', it Governs, and it must 'Govern' because its 'Nature' is a 'Representative Form of Government'. So what are the characteristics of a 'Representative Form' of Government. Well, no one in 'Office' is in 'Office' for 'Himself' or 'Herself'. 'He' or 'She' is there to 'Represent' someone 'else'. The 'Office' and the 'Representative' represents the 'People at the 'Bottom' and then, only for a short period of Time. A 'Rare Quality' of 'Selflessness' and 'Great Knowledge' of the 'Democratic process' is required. Notice how 'Ex-Representatives' appear as 'Helpless' and 'Powerless' as You and I. In a Democracy 'Service to your Nation' is a 'Sacrifice'; not a 'Personal Quest' for 'Personal Power'. Its not about self-aggrandizement, its a 'Service' in Political Office; and for that 'We The People' are Eternally Grateful. So, what happens at the 'Bottom of a Democracy', before the formation of the 'Democratic Government', or, one can say, before the Constitution that 'constitutes us' is 'written'? Well, the 'People' 'split' and 'form' Political Parties and 'Politics is Born'. God help us. Where are the Real Politicians?

How does a Political Entity acquire control over an Economy?

How does a Political entity acquire Control over its Economy? In other words, how does a Democracy acquire Control over Capitalism? The word 'Control' is not a very good term. It implies some kind of 'Power' to give 'direction' to 'Economic Activity'. That's not 'possible'; its not 'permissible' in a Democracy. Economic Activity is a 'pure' Corporate activity, but so is Democratic Activity. Hence, the Two activities are Autonomous. Democracy can 'allow' the passage of Laws to 'create' Corporations and to give some sort of 'direction' to Corporate activity. It does this by passage of 'Articles of Incorporation' and establishing 'Corporate Law'. Hence the 'Business Entity' exists within the 'Social' of the Political Entity. Of course, the Law considers the 'Corporate Nature' as a 'Person' in 'Contemplation of Law' within the protection of the 'Constitution'. Hence its 'Person-ality' is considered as a 'Legal Fiction'. Of course, a Fiction is a Fiction, no matter how you 'wrap' it. A Democratic Political Entity is a 'Real Entity' 'constituted' by the Real 'People' it purports to Govern. Hence, its a 'Written Constitution' and any Human Being can read it; study it; and acquire 'knowledge' of 'Constitutional' Law and 'Democratic activity'. The Highest Court in the Land chose to protect the 'Nature' of the 'Corporate Fiction', but it did not give it any 'control' or 'Power' 'over' the 'Political Entity' that Governs the 'Social' in the 'Nation'. Hence, most CEO's are very knowledgeable about 'Capitalism' or 'Business Principles' which 'motor' a Business Entity. But, that does not mean they have knowledge of the 'kind of thinking' that can 'motor' a Democracy: that requires 'Democratic Political Thinking'. Hence, a Political Entity cannot control its Economy but it can require knowledge of democratic Political Activity that allows its Economy to function within a Democratic Social. It can require that all Candidates for Higher Office, be qualified to 'Motor' a Political Entity. Sure, anyone can Run, but why Run if your only interested in 'Economic Activity' and not 'Democratic Activity; or why Run if your qualifications are only 'having lots of Money'? We need 'Real Politicians'; and, 'Political Knowledge' of Democracy should be a 'requirement' for 'eligibility'. If Candidates do not have knowledge of Democracy, they should not be allowed to Run. We do not need 'CEO's' at the 'Political Helm'; nor Dictatorial Principles; nor 'Politically Correct' Politicians; we need 'Real Politicians'. Where are the Real Politicians?