Democracy is a political Institution that gives the People at the Bottom the right to 'revolution'.

Democracy is a political Institution that is arranged with a Top and a Bottom. The Top houses power and the Bottom houses strength. But, the power of the Top arises from the Bottom and the strength of the Bottom arises from Number. Once, the Individuals, or, the Many at the Bottom, "peaceably" organize themselves to "petition the Government for redress of grievances", the failure or success, of the 'organization' depends on their Number. There is strength in Numbers, and rightfully executed, the People are the ones who can determine the outcome of the 'demonstration'. The only thing the Top can do to quell the demonstration is to purport to control the demonstration, not to 'crush it'. Control of the right to Revolution is different from an attempt to crush it. Obviously, any resort to 'illegal means' or some 'over- reaction', to the demonstration is not an acceptable means of control. Of course, at any time the whole thing can go wrong. It can go wrong from either side of the exercise of the Constitutional Right. The demonstration can be destructive, and hence not peaceable, or, the 'control' can be violent, and hence, not legal, or a case of over-reaction. Either side of the equation can 'go wrong'. Usually, the failure or success of such a demonstration depends on its organization, and the way the demonstrators conduct themselves. That's why the "Peace Marches" were so effective. Of course, the 'marchers' suffered many atrocities, but they changed the nature of our society. The credit goes to those who "marched", to those who suffered the atrocities, and to those who gave their lives. They also changed the nature of the Right to 'Revolution'.

A medium of exchange has 'purchasing power', not political power.

Money and possessions are economic values; not political values. Political values or political Offices have power, but economic values do not have power. In a Democracy, the power of political Office is a 'grant' from the People at the Bottom, who have elected the Representative into Office, and who have been Constitutionally authorized to Represent the Many people at the Bottom. Other forms of Government also have power at the Top, but they acquire Office at the Top by other means. Nevertheless, all Governments, being political entities, have power at the Top. The only kind of power that exists in the world is political power because its an 'organization' of the One and the Many or the Top and the Bottom. Political power is the only kind of 'power' an Individual can posses. Of course, we hear of power in the hands of the wealthy, but that is not 'power', that's 'purchasing power', and the only thing that does is serve as a medium of exchange. As a medium of exchange it can only be exchanged for, or purchase, other 'things' or 'possessions'. But, it never authorizes an Individual to 'govern'. The term or word "power" is often misused. Power is the only thing that allows one or several human beings to 'govern' Other human beings. That's why the principles of the economy, must be kept apart, from the principles of Government. A human being can only acquire political power, i.e., power to 'govern', by being elected to a political Office. Obviously s/he must demonstrate that s/he has the knowledge and dedication to 'govern' the People of the Nation. But, under no circumstance can money and possessions be a 'criteria' for assuming a responsible political office. The reason for that is that a Capitalistic economy is motored by 'profits' and a democratic political entity is motored by Freedom and Equality, and never shall the 'two meet'.

'Political power' can cause a War.

Political power can cause a War, but Individual 'strength', or, if you wish, 'individual power'( which 'power' doesn't exist on an Individual level or on a National level), will never cause a War. On a National level, Individual 'strength' or 'autonomy' may cause a 'personal dislike', or, a 'racial dislike', or, 'racial discrimination', or some 'social dislike', or, some 'economic dislike', or, even some 'political dislike'; and these Individual 'dislikes' or discriminations may even exist among 'humans' interacting with 'Other Humans' from another Nation; in other words, on the International level, but these factors, alone, are never sufficient to cause a War. Why is that? Because all these factors are 'personal human factors', that cause 'personal' difficulties, or, conflicts, in the 'condition of togetherness' which constitutes our 'National Identity'. They may cause, "riots", 'social' or 'economic unrest' in the Nation, but these 'personal human factors' do not have an 'effect' on the International sphere. However, every Nation has 'power' by virtue of its 'organization' into a political entity, and, any "organizations of Nations" on an International scale also 'houses power' in its interactions with other Nations. However, Individuals, as individuals, within any Nation do not have an effect on the International sphere. But, Individuals as Representatives, of a Nation, can and do, have an effect on the International sphere, and the political power that attaches to that Individual as 'Representative' is real Power. Obviously, this can cause a dilemma with an Individual. Here we have an Individual that recognizes that s/he has 'power' as Representative of a Nation of his/her People, and also, as 'Representative' of his/her Nation, in the interactions with Other Nations. But, the difference in the exercise of this power is vastly different. Political power in a Democracy arises from the Many Individuals at the Bottom. It can be changed every Four years. On the International sphere its a 'given' of the Organization into a 'United Nations' or some smaller 'Grouping' of Nations. However, the dialogue among Nations is motored by 'pure power' and the exercise of 'pure power' must be very cautious. 'Political power' on the International sphere can cause War; as a matter of fact, the 'careless exercise' of pure power on the International sphere will result in 'postures' of War. Why? Because, Nationally, the political Game is about the 'proper exercise' of 'Representative power'; Internationally, the political 'Game' is always 'completely motored' by 'pure power', and 'pure power' is absolute, and 'absolute power' can 'cause' War.

'Political power' is an abstraction; Individual human power is an illusion.

A Nation, or government, of that Nation, is an 'abstraction'. By that statement I mean that, in actuality, a Nation is a 'condition of togetherness' of 'real people' that live within the 'geographical and political' boundaries of that Nation. The Nation has an 'International Identity' and an 'Autonomy'. That 'Identity' and that 'autonomy' characterizes that particular Nation. Regardless, its size or Identity, on the International sphere, a Nation has 'Equal Power' as a political entity. Why is that? Simply. because human beings have a right to 'organize themselves' into a political entity. No one can set requirements on the nature of that political entity. Hence, the 'Equal Power' is a 'given' of the political organization. In other words, a Nation already has all the Power it needs to govern its People. It has no need for 'more power'. ( I already hear some laughter in the background) Hey, its the only way the 'Many' found to organize into a 'political entity', with its own Autonomy and Identity. Every Nation needed Power at the Top, and by virtue of 'organization', it has Power over its own organization. In other words, its the only way to 'organize' the One, at the Top, and the Many, at the Bottom. Nevertheless, on the International scene, it has 'no Power' over 'Another Nation', or the 'Peoples' of the Other Nation. The problematic is that 'some Nations' want 'more Power', and the only way to get that, on a World that is already 'full', is to encroach into the 'Political Boundaries' of the Other Nation. Kinda-like that old childish " my dad can beat up your dad" mentality. 'Kings', Autocrats, Dictators, Leaders, Presidents, etc., must be the most 'lonely individuals' on the planet. Can you imagine someone who can 'create' a 'war situation', and kill Other men, women, and children? (I'm serious!) Have you ever watched a Leader 'age'? Well, if they're not 'lonely', they have to be "power hungry", or 'greedy', because they want 'more and more' of the same, comparable to 'greed' in the economy, that motivates Individuals towards 'more and more' of the same( money), which leads to the 1%, or Plutocracies, or Oligarchies. Internationally, its about 'Power'; Nationally, its about 'Money', in both cases ,its about 'greed'. I used to think Governments needed to change, but I was wrong, People, who lead Governments need to change. "More and More", only leads to "less and less".

The Bottom of any type of Government, is about real People; the 'causes' of War, are abstract.

Democracy at the Bottom of Government functions, via the Individual, the Electorate, and the Vote. Democracy, within a Nation, plays its own game; i.e., 'internal politics', elections of those considered qualified, and establishing Institutions, policies and Laws that protect and preserve the Freedom and Equality of the Individual. The International game is entirely different. The International Game is a power game between Nations, i.e., it's 'external' to the 'internal politics' of any one Nation and should not involve the 'real people' in any one Nation. That's just a way of saying that the 'power struggle' between Nations should not involve the 'internal politics', or the Individuals, within a Nation. In the case of a Democratic Nation, a conflict with another Nation does not directly involve the 'internal' democratic, or non-democratic, practices of the Nation. That's the dilemma with International politics. International conflicts involves a dispute with other nations about, National boundaries; land disputes; disputes, agreements, or disagreements, about Natural Resources; and never, about the 'differences' in the form of Government. Of course, the problem is that when International Disputes break down, there is always a 'potential' for War, and that means that many individuals within the Nations will, indirectly, have to get involved. But, we have also said that Nations or Governments of all types, not just democracies, are 'abstractions', 'Autonomous', and by virtue of said 'autonomy' are equal in 'power' on the International scene. Nevertheless, they, also, are constituted of 'real People', and just because they might be 'non-democratic', and do not protect the 'freedom and equality' of the Individual, does not mean that they have a right to consider the Individual in a democracy, in the same way as they consider their own People. That's completely out of the question. 'Power' differences between 'abstract entities' must be resolved 'abstractly'. War is 'not abstract', and is not a solution; neither are threats of war. 'Real Peoples' should not be victims of an abstract problematic. That's ridiculous. If Leaders on the International scene cannot resolve an 'abstract problem' by 'abstract means', maybe they shouldn't be Leaders. Wow, maybe its not about governments, maybe its about the Individuals who 'run' government; they're the ones who need to 'change' their 'humanity'. How sad, humans create 'abstract problems' and try to resolve them with 'Real Wars'. War is justifiable, only as a 'defensive measure'.

Democracy, at the Top of Government, works in a cycle.

Democracy, at the Top, works in a circular fashion. By that, I mean the Three Branches of Government must be 'continuously' in activity. Also; each Branch must function properly, and that means that each Representative must 'think democratically' and not be influenced by 'motivations' that are 'not democratic'; e.g., 'purely' 'economic' or 'racial motivations'. Historically, and during this 'circular movement' of the 'Three Branches', or 'democratic institutions', many previously existing 'social imbalances' were corrected. For example, initially there was a 'racial divide', or stated differently, there was an institution called 'Slavery' in the social. Of course, there were many other practices that were changed and many others coming into existence within our economy. Example; at one time, Banks were 'really banks', and not investment institutions; after the assembly line, technology helped the further evolution of 'production', and with it came the business Corporation, and then, the electronic revolution and television. Of course, after that came the 'digital revolution' or the computerization of just about everything. With all these advances in technology and the computer, the World 'shrunk' into a 'large community'. People could talk to each other and we are able to 'compare institutions' and 'share commodities'. Television and computers helps us see the living conditions of the 'Other peoples' in the World. Now, we want to apply 'television technology' and 'computer technology', to, indirectly, provide for the 'well being' of everyone in the World. Of course, these 'altruistic tendencies' to help Others is a possibility, but what is really happening to us. When we go 'full circle' in the implementation of our democratic Institutions, and we still see, via T.V. and the media, 'race riots', it makes one wonder if we really did give up our 'discriminatory practices' when we overcame the 'racial divide'. "Freedom and equality" are characteristics of every 'human being' in the World, regardless of Race, Color, or Creed. Could it be that once our Democratic institutions are established and social standards and laws of behavior are established, that we return to our more primitive concepts? Could it be that once democratic institutions go full circle, we 'awaken' our more primitive belief systems; belief systems that 'again' encourage 'Individuality' to the extreme point, of 'selfishness', 'economic greed' and 'individual inequality'? How sad; sometimes its not Governments that must change, its the human condition.

In a Democracy, revolutions take place at the Bottom of government.

In a Democracy, revolutions take place at the Bottom of Government, not at the Top. A revolution is an event characterized by a confrontation between the 'assembled' People who are 'governed', and who are at the Bottom, and the Government, at the Top, that is doing the 'governing'. Any attempt to change the manner of governing, by the Top, is not a revolution. At best, its the undermining of the 'structure' of the government, by the 'very same structure', that characterizes the Top of that Government. In other words, in a Democracy, its just the form of Government that's 'self-destructing'. Of course, Governments can change the 'manner of governing'. But, if the Top of Democratic Government is characterized by the 'division' of Power into Three Branches, the Three Branches would have to 'agree' on the changes in the entire mode of Governing. That's why we have 'elections' and the exercise of the 'vote'. In a Democracy, obviously, any attempt to 'circumvent' the 'electoral' or 'voting process', would just be an attempt to undermine the very structure of the Government. Wow, a Democratic government trying to de-construct. Its unbelievable. Where would that leave the electorate? Well, I guess with a 'non-meaningful' vote, or, an 'empty vote'. All that political friction arises from the human tendency to separate into political Parties. The Party mentality is divisive. Of course, it doesn't have to be divisive, but that pre-supposes that both Parties are democratic in 'ideology'. Obviously, Parties don't see 'eye to eye', each Party has an agenda and that agenda 'carries over' into the Supreme Court, which has been 'packed', and whose members, incidentally, have also divided up into Parties, or stated differently, into different 'interpretive practices'. Consequently, once an Individual ascends to the 'halls of power', s/he should only have duties to perform; at that point, s/he should not try to install 'ideological differences'. A Branch of Democratic Government does not have the authority to pass a law, that authorizes, one Branch, to 'shoot itself' in the 'democratic foot' of the other Branch. If you need to change Government, start a Revolution, or, go to the polls.

Democratic values apply to 'real' people; economic values apply to 'economic institutions'.

Democratic values apply to 'real people', i.e., to autonomous individuals. Each Individual is autonomous and is as 'free' and 'equal', as another. Each Individual, is as 'Equal' and 'Free', to express the principle of 'life', within her/himself. Democratic 'organization' or 'structure' going from the Top to the Bottom, stops with its 'confrontation' with the 'real individual' at the Bottom of Government. Why? Because Government is necessary to the 'condition of togetherness' but it only organizes or structures a form of government that allows for the 'fullness of Life' to be expressed within an Individual. It does not tell the Individual how to express life, it only helps the 'condition of togetherness' by structuring a 'democratic manner' of interactions within the social and within its social institutions. Each 'Life' is responsible, for 'each expression' of Life. No government can be more important than the 'life' it protects and enables to live 'democratically' in a 'condition of togetherness'. Governments are 'late' to the Game of Life. Life was here first, then 'family' organizations; then tribal organizations; then larger units of 'togetherness' which were eventually called 'Colonies', and later 'States', and which admittedly, were considered Legal Fictions. 'States', or, 'political entities', are Fictions. But, at no time, in the evolution of Individuals and Families, and Tribes, and into other 'conditions of togetherness', is there a 'transition', or 'transmutation', or even, a 'transfusion' of the 'life principle' from a 'real human being' to the Governmental Institution. Governments are, at best, fictions. The economy functions differently. The economy functions by competition. Without competition, we would not have a successful Capitalistic economy. But, the goal of the economy is purely to have more and more. Obviously, we could not have competition for 'life' between Individuals. Individuals should not have to compete with each other for their 'freedom and equality'; why should they?, they already have it; and Government must 'protect' and 'preserve' it; and the economy should 'stay out of it'.

All Democratic Governments need an economy; but, economies do not need democratic values.

All Democratic Governments need an economy. But, an economy does not need democratic values. In a Democracy the two must be kept separate because the Government functions with political values of Freedom and Equality and the economy, functions with economic values and principles, based on a profit motive. But, the measure of the success of a democratic government must be based on the 'human condition' and not on the state of the economy. To be sure, the economy is important, but government can not function on the basis of economic principles of 'profits'. A government or a Nation can be rich, yet its People can be destitute and in need. But, its also possible that a Government or Nation can be based on Individual Freedom and Equality, an also have a very successful economy. However, its at this point, where great care must be exercised to keep economic values from 'contaminating' the political principles of freedom and equality. For example; if a successful economy produces candidates for political Office that arise to the Top of government power, and they entrench themselves, and Others like them, we are headed towards a Plutocracy. That's the danger of mixing Democratic values with economic values. Of course, the issue is one of keeping the two underlying values separate and apart. Of course, neither can be eliminated; that's not the point. But, so-called 'political science' must insure that a democracy be always 'motored' by Freedom and Equality and not by economic principles which revolve around 'profits', money, and possessions. Political values of freedom and equality cannot function on the basis of economic principles, and successful economies cannot function with the democratic values of freedom and equality. Those may be fine distinctions, but they are essential, otherwise, we walk straight into a Plutocracy or Oligarchy. Of course, complete separation is impossible, they have to mingle, but the two disciplines can have commensurate principles that allows both to function within a democracy. To be sure, Corporations that 'arose' in a democracy, must 'practice' more democratic values, not in their 'creation of profits', but, in their 'allocation of 'profits' and the 'practice' of that same 'freedom and equality' that allowed them to 'function freely' within a Democratic social. 'Gratitude' is not a political value, nor is it an economic value; its a human value.

Democratic Government is an 'Institution'; the 'Bottom' of Democratic Government are 'real' People.

The Top of government, any type of Government, is a political Institution. The Bottom of Government, any type of Government, is constituted by 'real' People. In a Democracy, the duty of Government is to establish a real relation between the Top and the Bottom. That can only be established by setting up 'Institutional forms' that carry out the 'democratic dictates' of Governing. In a Democracy the Institutions must be Democratic, viz., they must protect the Freedom and Equality of every Individual at the bottom. However, the Individuals at the Bottom also have duties, but those duties are generally expressed in 'Freedom and Equality', whereas, the duties of the Top are carefully delineated in the Constitution, and the interpretive practices are applied by the Supreme Court. The 'expressions' of Freedom and Equality, at the Bottom, are not delineated anywhere. That is left up to each and every Individual at the Bottom. That's real 'Freedom and Equality', but that's not to say, that an Individual at the Bottom can do anything s/he dam-well pleases within a Democracy. There are rules, most are established Institutionally, through Laws, Policies, and 'social norms'. The Top Governs Democratically; the Bottom 'lives' democratically. Fortunately or unfortunately, the 'bottom line' in a democratic governmental system is its People. Government, governing, and 'living' in a Democracy, is a 'people thing'. So what can be expected from the people in a Democracy? To be sure, the Individual who is 'enjoying democracy' must also 'practice democracy'. 'Social disruption'; 'Institutional disruption'; 'legal disruption'; and just plain 'disrespect for other human beings' or human institutions cannot be tolerated. Why?, because of the social consequences that can occur within the social. The problematic in 'social unrest' is that the Bottom of Government, viz.,the People, is also divided into 'factions', 'racial groups', or just plain 'divided', and these 'oppositions' demand actions. But, 'opposition' within a democracy is never just among the People at the Bottom; its always between the Top and the Bottom; that is, it involves both, the 'assembled', and the 'enforcers' or the police. The Bottom of government is characterized by a 'condition of togetherness'. The 'condition of togetherness' does not allow for 'divisions' among the 'Many People', based on 'racial', 'economic', 'social', or 'governmental' preferences. Democratic Government protects and defends the Freedom and Equality of 'everyone' in a 'condition of togetherness'.

Not all wealthy people are Plutocratic or Aristocratic.

Of course, not all wealthy People are Plutocrats or Aristocrats. Don't get me wrong. People can have plenty money and possessions and still be 'Democratic in spirit'. Nevertheless, the burden is on them. Its the same with the People at the Bottom. All People at the bottom are not necessarily, Democratic. Obviously, the reason is that anyone at the Bottom of government, must 'live' his/her democracy. S/he must understand that the guy or gal, next to him or her, is 'also' "free and equal", and, unfortunately, not many, can do that. Some individuals can have 'auras' of 'superiority' simply because of reasons based on 'Race, Color, or Creed'. In other words, neither the Top nor the Bottom is automatically 'democratic', simply from the position, social or political, they may hold in the 'democratic arrangement' in the Nation. That's why I say that the Top is under obligation to the Constitution, and the Bottom is under obligation to 'live democratically'; not 'selfishly', nor isolated from a 'democratic spirit'. That's also the reason for pointing out that 'economic values' have 'supplanted' Democratic values, and have 'seeped' into the political arena. Once economic values 'seep' into the political arena, the 'standard' for participating in a 'viable democracy', can very easily, become a matter of money and possessions. It should be obvious to everyone, that 'political or democratic' values apply to both the Top and the Bottom of Government. These Democratic values permeate the entire system of life within a Nation. However, 'economic values' are situated within the Capitalistic structure of the economy and are determined by 'success or failure' within the economic system. Economic values are not based on 'freedom and equality', they are based on 'profits', and economic competition; more of the same; and in some cases, greed. That is not to say, that all rich people are greedy. Neither, are we saying that all poor people are 'democratic'. Nevertheless, whether fortunately, or unfortunately, the bottom line is the 'human condition'. How easily we 'forget' our 'humanity', and our 'condition of togetherness'; and how easy, it is to come under 'obligation' to our 'monies and possessions'.

Legal and Institutional harmony is possible in a Democracy.

In a Democracy, both Legal and Institutional harmony becomes possible, when the Top of Government understands its function as a 'Government of Freedom and Equality'. That is the sole purpose of Democratic government; to govern equally. The Top is not necessarily required to be 'free' in the exercise of its political power. The Top is 'not free', to do as it pleases, its 'duty bound' to do its job. The Top, being duty bound to do its job must function according to Constitutional mandate. It must exercise its power in the form of establishing the Legal and Institutional underpinnings for a 'smooth functioning' among all the millions of People, as Individuals, and not as "factions", that constitute the governed. The Top has been given a Standard to follow; namely, the Constitution. But the Bottom also has a standard, one that is usually not recognized as a standard, and that is, to function or rather to 'live' in Freedom and Equality. Living in Freedom and Equality is basic to a Democracy. There are no superior Individuals in a Democracy; there are only 'free and equal' individuals. The Office holders at the Top, are duty bound to perform their Constitutional job. The Many People at the Bottom are bound to properly express their Freedom and Equality, by 'living' freely and equally with their neighbors. The Bottom 'lives' democratically; the Top guarantees it. The problematic arises when Individuals, whether at the Top or the Bottom, begin to sift their attention to the 'quantifiable standards' established by Capitalism, viz. profits, money, and possessions. There's nothing wrong with these standards, but they are not Democratic standards. They are economic standards; and Democracy is 'fueled' by Freedom and Equality, and not with profits, money and possessions. That would be a Plutocracy, or, an Aristocratic form of Government. We are neither. Plutocrats and Aristocrats are too busy 'pruning their egos', by staying up late, counting their money, and possessions; hence, they cannot be concerned with the Freedom and Equality of the human condition.

The Top governs the 'condition of togetherness', at the Bottom; but both must live in 'legal and institutional' harmony.

The Bottom of Government is characterized as a 'condition of togetherness'. In a 'condition of togetherness', each individual is free and equal. Freedom and equality means each individual is free to do as s/he pleases, subject to the 'parameters of law and institutional structures'. The role of the Top of government is to provide the 'institutional' and 'legal structures' within which this freedom and equality can be 'expressed'. Equality means 'equal human beings'. The human condition is, the 'same' within the 'human kingdom', which separates us from the 'plant kingdom' and the 'animal kingdom'. Hence, Government governs the human kingdom by preserving the 'equal expression' of human life among a People. Government is only an Institution, and an Institution has a duty, and the duty is to 'preserve and protect', each and every Individual at the Bottom of government. Government cannot be blind to the needs of a 'Just Order'. The People cannot be blind to the 'Freedom and Equality of the Others' at the Bottom. We cannot establish a dichotomy between the Top and the Bottom. The reason we can't do that, is that the Top would always be 'inadequate' to the 'needs of a Just Order' and the Bottom would always be 'antagonistic' to the dictates of Government. The only solution is for the Top to 'understand' its proper function, and for the Bottom, to 'live freely and equally'. There is no other way. The Top and the Bottom must live in 'democratic harmony' instead of living in a constant state of 'democratic tension'. Let me explain. Democratic 'tension' is a 'misunderstanding' and 'misuse' of the freedom and equality, afforded everyone in a 'Democracy'. Life must be 'lived' democratically, and the Top must 'structure its institutions and laws', in such fashion, as to allow the 'free and equal expression' of life, 'within' each and every individual. The individual must 'live' in freedom and equality, and the biggest barrier to this realization, is not considering the 'neighbor' as 'equally free and equal' as 'you'. 'Seeing Others' as one sees oneself is a beginning; but then, Government also has a duty, to provide the Institutional Framework for the 'expression' of 'real democracy'. We cannot have 'unjust laws', or laws that are 'not enforced', at the Top, and 'social disorder' at the Bottom; and we cannot live in a 'constant state of tension'.

"Freedom and Equality" are not easy to achieve, but they are absolutely necessary.

The most important thing that should motivate a 'politician' is to try to help 'implement' and 'protect' the 'freedom and equality' of all the individuals that constitute the 'governed'. Of course, that would be the case in a Democratic form of government. The reason that implementing Freedom and Equality can be a problem is basically, two fold. One aspect is that the transition between the 'abstract language', which we are all familiar with, and the implementation into actual 'results' can be difficult to achieve. The other aspect is that the Individual who occupies the Offices at the Top comes from the Bottom of government, and is also a human being and hence has the same human frailties. The former needs an Institutional base from which to establish a genuine realization of Freedom and Equality, and the latter, needs to practice the Freedom and Equality that s/he preaches when s/he runs for Office. Of course, there's always the politician that just doesn't care about results. But, we speak about a serious effort to implement a democratic result. In all cases, whether Institutional or Personal, we must 'descend' from language to results via legal requirements and social institutions. Often, on an Individual basis, the Individual holding Office does not 'see' the 'Other' human beings at the Bottom, as being as 'free' and 'equal' as s/he is. Hence, the 'political activity', s/he engages in is 'colored' by 'individual imperfections' that directly or indirectly proves harmful to the democratic Ideal. A perfect example of the 'failure' of 'institutional control' and 'individual control', is the condition called 'rioting'. Unfortunately, the term 'riot' already assumes a 'wrong assembly'. Continual use of the term by the media can only be a disservice, and contributes to 'escalation'. In such conditions, the only remedy would have been to have addressed the 'initiating impetus', immediately, at its inception, and to the satisfaction of the 'assembled'. Failure to do that, is a 'human failure', not an institutional failure, because the institutions provide means by which to address those issues. But, 'human kind' being what it is, ignores the original impetus. Once, there is escalation within the 'initiating impetus', there is a loss of control because 'Other individuals' will join the 'assembly' and 'change' the 'acceptable condition' into a 'riot', i.e., an unacceptable condition. Obviously, both conditions, the 'assembly' and the 'enforcement', can be excessive, and because both conditions can be 'peopled' by individuals who don't care about 'democracy' or 'freedom and equality', the conditions merely escalate and harm the Individuals who were not involved in the 'initial assembly' and the 'subsequent enforcement'. The problematic is, there are idiots on both sides of the dispute. From the human side, truly, human beings have the Right to 'assemble'; from the enforcement side, 'representatives' should 'listen' to the people, they're trying to tell you something, and they are entitled to a 'democratic resolution'.

'Real' Freedom and Equality are inherent in the Human Condition.

Freedom and Equality are 'characteristics' of every Democratic form of Government. They constitute an 'element' of the form of Government; which form is only a 'political organization'. To be sure, its very important to the form of Government, and as an 'element' of its constitutive nature, as a 'political entity'. But, don't kid yourself; the 'freedom and equality' inherent in the human condition cannot be 'captured or housed' by the political entity. For that matter, no form of government can 'encapsulate' the freedom and equality of the human condition; nor its uniqueness, nor its dignity, nor its integrity, nor its sacredness. The Freedom and Equality essential to the form of Democratic Government, is a 'political' Freedom and Equality. It arises from the fact that Democratic government is a Political Institution, and as such, merely helps to 'organize' the 'condition of togetherness' of all the Individuals at the Bottom of the Political Institution. Government is essential and important, but it can never, in a real sense, 'govern' the human condition. No Institution can govern the 'expression' of human life. That does not mean, we don't need Government; to the contrary, it means that Government is so necessary to the 'condition of togetherness', that we cannot exist without it. But, the problematic arises when government purports to 'limit' and 'control' the 'expression' of the 'freedom and equality' inherent in the human condition. That cannot be done by government; the 'expression of life' is sacred and not subject to governmental control by means of political or social institutions. True, that's a dilemma; but Government must 'necessarily organize', the 'manner' by which individuals, 'give expression' of that life, by means of Laws, that protect the Individual Freedom and Equality inherent in each and every human Individual, while they exist in their 'condition of togetherness'. In different words, Government helps 'organize and defend' the freedom and equality in each and every human being from the usurpation and misguided control of 'another human being', in the same 'condition of togetherness'. True, Government 'governs', through Law and Order, but its the 'Order' that protects the Freedom and Equality 'inherent' in each and every Individual, in their 'condition of togetherness'. Your 'neighbor', is more important, than your Government; but don't misunderstand, 'Government' is absolutely necessary. Its very sad; but the human condition 'needs' Government; at that point, the issue becomes, what 'form' does Government take?

A Triadic, or Three Branch, Government has Three mutually functional sides.

Obviously, a Triadic, or a Three Branch, form of Government has Three sides. Equally obvious, no side can exist by itself, and the continued existence of a Three Branch Government is dependent on 'all' its functions, or on the function of all its sides, i.e., in a 'condition of togetherness', and a condition of 'mutual interaction of its People, in 'Three different ways'. That is important for a governmental structure to function as a 'whole', i.e., with its own 'integrity', as an 'institutional power'. Otherwise, the result would be a 'lame' structure of government; and democracy is 'not' a lame government. It is not 'lame' or 'weak', because the Power of the Top emanates from the People at the Bottom, from each and every Individual in the Democracy. Any 'Institutional form' must have a basis for its existence, and for its continuing 'support'. Hence the 'strength' of the People at the Bottom, in 'their condition of togetherness', which is conveyed to the Top of a democracy, in the form, or, 'grant' of an 'Institutional Power', has its source in the 'People'. People's 'strength' in 'togetherness', is 'institutionally' converted into 'political power' at the Top. These Three basic functions of Democratic Government cannot be 'dis-functional'. For any one side of the Triadic form of government to attempt to legally sue, another side, is an act of 'political Deconstruction', at the Top. We can expect Revolutions at the Bottom, but how can we accept 'dissolutions' at the Top? On a less 'political perception', its like authorizing some individual to shoot himself/herself on the foot. Its ludicrous and politically unacceptable.

A Democraic form of Government is the best expression of the Universal 'human condition' of existence.

Democratic Government is a government "of the People", "by the People", and most important, "for the People". It is a political form of government that has a Universal political value. The 'human condition' is a Universal 'condition of existence'. All human beings can be politically organized into a Democratic form of Government. Of course, all human beings are 'dependent' and 'conditioned' by the Nation, into which they are born. Being born is never 'an Individuals choice'; nor a 'choice' of the Nation, into which we are born. Hence, forming a system of government always involves a 'human choice', made by an Individual, or a few Individuals; individuals who assume a 'responsibility' for 'giving' a 'structure' to a 'Universal', but, Institutional form of government. Once established, the form of government remains in place, but continues the 'act of governing'. Once it 'becomes' an Institution, it must establish 'positions of power', at the Top of the governing triad. The Top always governs the Bottom. However, that does not mean that the Top is 'superior', or 'more important', than the Bottom. The Top is always Institutional and hence a result of 'some organizational impetus'. The Bottom of government, are the People, and the Bottom is constituted by human beings. All human beings 'have life', and hence, are their own 'self-expression', and hence, Sacred. As between the Top and the Bottom, we find that the human condition is more important than any Institution of Government. Nevertheless, the human condition needs Institutions of Government. That makes government the basic institution of the masses. Nevertheless, the 'sole purpose' of government, is only to 'govern' the Many under its care; it has no other function; of course, with the exception of establishing a more 'universal relation' to other Governments. That's the function of the United Nations. Firstly, a Nation has the duty to govern its People, as a Nation; Secondly, it has a duty to 'relate' to Other forms of Government, on an International sphere. In both cases, its always about the 'human condition' and its 'care' in the Nation or the World. 'Humanity' is 'larger' than any form of Government and the best 'expression' of the human condition, in a 'condition of togetherness' is a Democratic form of Government.

'Politics' is a 'public discipline'; it functions 'sluggishly', and is not a "science".

It's not easy to be a politician, (assuming 'serious motives' in the practitioner), because the trajectory between the Top and the Bottom of government, is replete with social, institutional and linguistic obstacles; of course, everyone recognizes that there is a 'gap' between the 'word' and the 'reality'; that's natural. Since, all our language is naturally 'abstract', there must exist a gap between the 'saying' and the 'doing'; except, maybe, exclamations of pain, like "Ouch". In such cases, the connection between the exclamation, and the pain sustained, is 'somewhat inseparable'. To be sure, such, is not the case with 'political terms'. Why is that? Simply, because the 'separation' between the Top and the Bottom of Government, is a real 'institutional separation' which creates a 'real relation' between the Top, or the few, and the 'real millions' of individuals at the Bottom. There is no question that both, you and I, are 'real', nor, that all 'Others' at the Bottom, are also real. There's also no question that, we live under government; nor is there a question that Government arises from the Constitution, and that the Constitution requires interpretation. Of course, this is the point, where 'interpretive practices' in the Judicial Branch, kick-in. The reasons for that is that the 'generalities framed' in the Constitution must be 'applied' to specific cases. But, only certain disputes can be heard by the Court. Why? because only certain disputes involve the 'mode' of governing, or the 'Constitutionality or Unconstitutionality' of the activity. But, Constitutional adjudication has its problems also. Why should that occur? Because they are also divided into Political Parties, and hence have different 'loyalties'. All Judicial candidates are asked if they will 'follow' the Constitution; yet, I've never heard of a candidate being asked, in 'unambiguous terms', if s/he, will 'renounce' his/her 'Party-loyalty'. Too extreme you say. Yet, its the only Branch of Government that should be 'Constitutionally Objective'. So how can Politics be a 'science' that determines 'proper' political activity? The term, "Political Science', is an oxymoron. To be sure, its "political", but, a "science"?, not even close.

Is there such a thing as a serious 'States-person'? (Politician, or 'political Office holder')

Certainly, one should not be required to be wealthy to run for public office. If anyone comes from modest means when s/he 'ascends' the 'pinnacle of institutional power', its very likely that s/he won't be of 'modest means' when s/he 'descends'. Of course, there's a lot of 'personal exposure', once one sits at the 'Top'. The question is always "did the change in 'finances' come from the political exposure or from 'somewhere' else"? We must 'immediately' eliminate those that are already rich when they run for Office, because they are already rich. Democracy is a political value not an economic value. It tries to balance-out the inequities in the economy. Of course, not everyone within the Top 1%, wants to 'run' for Office, but, nevertheless, there seems to be personal enjoyment in being 'greedy', or, 'hoarding a medium of exchange', or "being on the Forbes List. The problem with that attitude is that, it is an 'economic attitude', as contrasted, with a 'political attitude'. Greed is an economic value, easily 'inhabiting' a human beings personal value system. Of course, there's a clear distinction, or should be, between 'political values' and 'economic values'. If everyone in the Nation was 'rich', such a problem would not exist; i.e., no one would run for Office for the purpose of becoming 'rich'. But, apparently, that's not the issue. The issue seems to be, not so much 'money' per se, as, a problem of 'greed'. "Greed" is a certain 'grasping-ness' that is characterized by the 'fact' that 'economic values' are quantifiable, and hence, 'more and more' of the 'same' acquires a 'momentum', not easily overcome. Some of us live 'economically', not 'politically'. Some of us, don't live 'economically, nor politically'. Some of us just, 'don't count'. Can anyone live 'Politically', i. e., in Freedom and Equality? That's the issue. Can a 'politician' possess 'pure political values', as contrasted, with 'economic values' or, 'greed'? Notice, the 'political values' are qualified with the word "pure". Of course, "purity" in that sense cannot exist. There's a little of both in every politician. We can only hope for more of the 'political', than the 'economic'. But, "Greed" is an abnormal 'acquisitiveness', that seems to contaminate the 'political values' of Freedom and Equality, and hence, should not be allowed at the Top of Government. Well, I guess we should just become, as best we can, 'good judges' of the 'moral and political values' of our candidates. No 'greedy' person should be allowed at the Top.

A "State" is a 'government'; a government is a 'way' to relate the Top and the Bottom, of the social..

J.J. Rousseau, called the State a "fiction". Apparently, the reason is that, one cannot point to a State, in the same manner as one can point, to a rock, or a house. Its a 'political Institution' that demands great respect. The 'reason' for that respect is more apparent, viz. it 'institutionalizes' the Top of a Governmental structure. I say, the Top of a Governmental structure, because all 'arrangements' or 'governments' of the 'Many' People, are arrangements of that ancient problematic, called the One and the Many, which is an arrangement of a Top and a Bottom. Since it is an 'arrangement', of the Many Peoples in a 'civilized unity', the Top must, of necessity, relate to the Bottom. That's where language has always been a problem. The problematic is that the relation can be a purely linguistic relation, in which case, it quickly translates into 'political jargon'; viz., we do the 'talk' but don't do the 'walk'. Simplistic? yes, but even these 'everyday sayings' can reflect a serious problematic. The relation must be a 'real relation' not just a 'reflection' of simple 'linguistic usage'. Of course, if the relation is a 'real relation', as opposed to a purely 'linguistic relation', then the concept of the State is not a 'fiction'. Why? Simply because the State is a structure of the One and the Many, in a 'most functional' form, where a Top 'really relates' to the Bottom where all the People are situated. Hence, in that case, the State would not be an empty concept of a 'political Institution', that relates to the multiplicity of Peoples at the Bottom, in some 'purely linguistic fashion'. Of course, the linguistic terms, "a real relation" can also be called a linguistic formulation but, notice that the 'terms', reflect an 'activity' that 'must take place'. That's using language in a real way where the Linguistic terms don't just 'define' an activity, ( going to a dictionary) but compel it, (do it) in a 'real way'. It also clarifies the difference between a 'politician' and a 'states-person'. A 'politician' is very adept at manipulating language, whereas, a 'states-person', is very adept at manipulating institutions that 'support' a government, "for the People". The real relation 'really touches', or includes or excludes, the individual at the Bottom, who are affected, effected, by the Policy or Law. A 'real relation' is not 'just' an abstraction, its real.