In a Democracy, the problematic is 'how to enable the 'Institutions' at the 'Bottom' to reach the 'Many'.

IN a Democracy, the problematic is 'how to establish 'Social Institutions' at the 'Bottom', that actually 'reach' and 'benefit' the 'Many'. Its relatively easy for the 'Top' to say the 'Bottom' is 'Free and Equal'. Many 'Autocracies' claim to be 'Democracies'. Of course along with the statement that everyone is 'Free and Equal' is the understanding that 'Law and Order' is also an absolute necessity. No 'One' can Govern 'Many' without there being in place the 'Social Institutions' and 'Law and Order'. Law and Order spells out the 'activities' that are 'prohibited' so as to allow the 'Acceptable' to become 'Institutionalized'. Those 'Acceptable Acts' become the 'Basic Activities' that becomes 'Institutionalized' into the 'Social'. Indirectly, 'Law and Order' establishes 'Social Mores' that become 'Socially acceptable' by prohibiting 'unlawful activity' among the 'Many'. The 'Individual' at the 'Bottom' is 'Free and Equal' and anyone who chooses to Run for 'Public Office' is 'Free' to do so. But, shouldn't there be some 'Requirements and Qualifications' to do so? At present, there is nothing to prohibit someone with 'Autocratic tendencies' from 'Running' for Public Office. Of course, such a tendency is not as obvious as one would think and that is not the 'sole characteristic' to 'guard' against. As we have pointed out, a '100% businessman' will possess certain 'Autocratic Tendencies' to operate a 'Corporate Fiction' successfully. Individuals who have never served the 'Public Good' can also have 'Autocratic tendencies'. No Individual who is a 'Corporate Success' is free from such 'unconscious motivations'. They all 'talk' about improving the 'Economy' but, in most cases, that ambition is limited to some 'favorable treatment' of some favorite 'Legal Fiction' or to giving 'Tax reductions' to the 'biggest Income Producers' in the 'Social'. What about Freedom and Equality, Racial Discrimination, or Class Discrimination? It never includes 'those Individuals' who need it the most or those activities that will 'Balance Out' the 'Social' into a more 'Healthy Social', or that 'Serves the "general Welfare", as provided by the Constitution. Where are the Real Politicians?

The Ancient Problematic of 'The One and the Many' has evolved into the 'Few and the Many'.

The Ancient Problematic of 'The One and the Many' has evolved into the 'Few and the Many'. There has always been an Issue as to how any 'One Individual' can Govern the 'Many Individuals' at the Bottom. What does He or She posses that the Others do not. Of course, The Divine Right of Kings Form of Government relied on the fact that the King was Divine. At first, I imagine, their was a belief that the 'King and the Divine' were in touch with each Other. Later, there evolved a concept that the King had 'Two Bodies'. One was Divine and the other was 'Like Everyone Else'. The 'Divine Right of Kings' concept of 'Rule' comes from this arrangement. Other 'Forms of Government' evolved from this 'basic Concept'. The 'Autocratic' concept retained the idea that the 'Top Ruled the Bottom'. It didn't Govern, it Ruled. There are 'Many' different forms of Governing that retained this 'Line of Authority', but 'thinned it out' by creating 'Agencies' at the 'Top'. But, it was the 'Democratic Form' that really changed the 'Ancient Styles of Governing. Power was in the 'People' and they 'transferred it to the Top' by the Ballad Box and created a 'Three Branch Form' of Government. The Bottom are 'the People' or, the Legislative Branch; The Top is the Executive Branch; and the Third Branch is the Judiciary. This 'Form' allows 'Movement' from the 'Bottom' to the 'Top' of 'Power'. Hence, there was a limitation placed on how long any one Individual could serve in the 'Highest Office' in the Land. But, since any Individual at the Bottom could try to Serve in the Highest Office in the Land, other problems evolved. Was the 'Intent of the Individual' to 'Serve' the People, or to 'Rule' the People, or to 'Govern' the People in accordance with the 'Constitution'. As you can see, the 'Problematic' of the 'One and the Many' still 'visits us', but in a more 'Diluted Form'. It seems that if the 'Intent' is to 'Govern' according to the 'Constitution' and the 'Freedom and Equality' of 'every one Real Individual' at the Bottom, there would be no 'Racial Discrimination'. Real Freedom and Equality would reign. Legal Fictions ( Fictional 'Persons') like Corporations would not be 'favored' over 'Freedoms and Equalities'. Where are the Real Politicians?

The only thing that can be more powerfull than 'Political Correctness' is 'Creativity'.

The only thing that can be more 'Powerful' than 'Political Correctness' is a 'Creative Politics'. A Creative Politics can really tackle the Old Problematic of the 'One and the Many'; 'Power' at the 'Top' and 'The Many' at the 'Bottom'. An 'Autocratic Government' has 'Power at the Top' and 'People at the Bottom', but the formula is much 'simpler' than a 'Democratic Form'. In such cases, the 'Top has Power' and the 'Bottom' has no 'Freedom and Equality'; and if it does, its never spelled out. Hence, the Autocrat is Free to 'Rule' as he 'wishes'. A 'Real Democracy' has a 'Written Constitution' and the 'Organization of the Triadic Form of Governing' is spelled out in clear language. In a Democracy the Power is in the People at the Bottom and that Power is transferred to the Top via the ballot Box. Any one serving in High Office 'serves' the 'People at the bottom'. Of course, that creates many Problems, because that 'Ancient Problematic' raises its ugly head, viz: the One and the Many. But, that only allows room for the 'Creative Spirit'. Instead of 'just following' the Letter of the Constitution, the approach to Governing becomes 'Creative'; a Creativity that does not depart from the terms of the Constitution. No Longer just 'Politically Correct', but a 'True Spirit' to 'Serve' the People at the Bottom. A Political Entity that actually 'Serves' the People. Of Course, the Bottom is a Multiplicity of Peoples and that makes the Political Task of the 'Top' much more Difficult. No easy Task, the Top must become 'Creative', but within the 'Bounds' established by the Constitution. 'Political Correctness' is mere compliance with certain 'Political Practices'. Its 'empty', 'vacuous', and 'insincere'. 'True Politics' 'serves' the People and tries to establish 'Institutions' at the 'Bottom' that will 'protect and 'develop' the 'Freedom and Equality' of the 'Individual'. Where are the Real Politicians?

Politics is 'not Science'; nor Art, but it's 'Creative' and hence 'closer' to an 'Art form'.

Politics is 'not Science', nor Art, but it's 'Creative' and hence 'closer' to an 'Art Form'. The 'Creative aspect' of Politics requires that the 'Top of Power' should exercise a little 'creativity' to 'Serve' the 'Needs' of the 'Social' and every 'Real Individual' that 'constitutes it'. Of course, that's a 'Tall Order'. How can an 'Institutional Top' possibly 'Serve Millions of Individuals'. We must be careful not to confuse 'Real Individuals' with the 'Condition of Togetherness' in which the 'Social' exists. The 'needs' of the Social does not necessarily mean the 'Needs' of Each and 'every' 'Real Individual' in the 'Social'. Of course, all Real Individuals are Free and Equal and that does mean 'all' 'Real Individuals'. But the Term 'Social' does have its 'definitions' and 'applications'. The 'function' of 'Power at the Top' is to 'create Social conditions' and 'Institutions' that help the 'Real Individuals' at the Bottom 'realize' their 'Freedom and Equality. Of course, the Top has other functions, but none is more important than to 'realize' and 'help' actualize the 'Individuals Freedom and Equality'. That factor is what makes a Democracy a Democracy. But, its important that Each and Every Real Individual situated at the Bottom also realize and understand the 'Function' that 'they' must play. A democracy needs 'Law and Order' and the manner by which 'Individuals' comply with 'Law' helps to create 'Order'. That's the Purpose of Law and that's what 'creates Order' in the Social. Neither exists without the 'Other'. A Top that helps establish Law is a Top that Governs with Democratic Principles, not Economic principles. The reason for that is that Economic Principles are Dictatorial in Nature. An Economy strives in one direction and one direction only; towards 'Profits' and 'More and more of the Same'. A Polity must be governed by 'Democratic Political Principles'. Where are the Real Politicians?

Politics is closer to an 'Art Form' than to a Political Science.

Politics is closer to an Art than to a Science. Obviously, a Two Party System has different ways of Politic-ing. Of course, Two ways of doing the same thing is not very scientific, nevertheless the Goal is the Same and that is that Both Parties should be 'Governing' the 'Peoples' of a Nation or one of the States of that Nation. So, why the Difference. Well, each Party of a Two Party System has its Ideology. But, each Party 'Governs' the same 'Territories'. The Parties have introduced into these Territories a different approach to the establishment of a Democratic Form of Government. But, our Government, whether Federal or State is a Democracy, a Government "Of the People", "by the People", and "For the People". Its a 'Peoples Government' and it has a 'Written Constitution'. The 'Liberal' and 'Conservative' Tag alludes towards an 'attitude' towards 'Governing', but 'Constitutional Governing', it must. The 'Political Stance' of each 'Party' refers to 'different attitudes' towards 'Governing'. But, they must 'Govern', not 'Rule'. At the moment, our Democracy is unraveling. Sad but True. The 'seat of Power' is occupied by an 'Autocrat' that cannot 'understand' what Democracy is. 'Led' by 'Principles of Economics', 'Freedom and Equality' has been 'sacrificed' to the 'Holy Dollar'. We have never been so close to a 'Plutocracy'. Unfortunately, its the 'Top of Power' that is 'unraveled' and the 'Lack of Democratic Principles' is disrupting the 'Freedom and Equality' situated at the Bottom. We have never needed more 'Sanity' in 'Governing' and 'True Leadership' at the 'Top of Power'. Where are the 'Real Politicians'? Its their 'Job' to correct the 'unraveling' of 'Real Democracy'.

A Political Entity is a 'Political Institution' and hence not a 'Natural Phenomena'.

A Political Entity is a 'Political Institution' and hence not a 'Natural Phenomena'. As a Human Institution, it is a 'Creation' and as a Creation, it must have its Institutional 'Component Parts', and its Institutional 'Motor'. In a Democracy, its 'Parts' are the 'Three Branches of Government' and its 'Motor' is the 'Freedom and Equality' of 'Each' and Every 'Real' Human Being under its 'Political Authority'. The Bottom, the People in their 'condition of togetherness' empower the Top. The only reason I say 'Real' is because the 'Social' and its 'Economy' is now populated with 'Real Persons' and 'Legal Persons'( 'Legal Fictions' called Corporations). Of course, they are recognized as 'Fictions' and as 'existing' only in 'contemplation of Law'. An Economic Institution( Business Corporation) created by Law as a Legal Fiction which contributes towards the creation of 'Economic Classes' better known as 'Haves and Have-Nots'. A 'Democratic Economy' becomes 'Politically Empowered' by the Law that protects a Business Corporation as a 'Person', hence a Legal Fiction. BUT, a 'Fiction' is a Fiction, whether Legal or Otherwise. Nevertheless, it 'establishes' the 'Corporate Nature' as 'Fundamental' and hence, its 'Size' and 'Productivity' becomes 'Fundamental'. A Fundamental 'Legal Person', or 'Fiction' that helps create 'economic classes', or 'Haves' and 'Have-Nots'. How, then, can a Democracy strive towards Equality. Don't mistake 'Social Equality' with 'Economic Equality'. The two are different. All 'Real Individuals' are 'Equal' and 'Free' and hence it can be said they have 'Social Equality', but not 'Economic Equality' because we live in a 'Capitalistic Economy' where Competition is Basic. Of course, when Constitutional Law holds that a 'Business Corporation' is a 'Person' in 'contemplation of Law', its creating an Economic 'imbalance' because Business Corporations can be as Large as they want and some are 'Huge'. Of course, they can be Taxed 'accordingly', but they are not. The Corporate Tax was reduced thereby augmenting the Imbalance. A Democracy where the Taxes are further reduced to augment already existing economic Imbalances in the Social further creates a 'Capitalistic Economy' that creates 'Haves' and 'Have-nots'. That's getting pretty close to a 'Corporate Society' or a 'Plutocracy'. A 'Business Corporation' can be protected without it having to become a 'Legal Fiction'. A 'Fiction' is a 'Fiction', anyway you cut it. 'Business Corporations' need more 'Democratic Duties' to 'offset' their 'Economic Autocratic Powers'. Where are the Real Politicians?

Why do 'Business Corporations' need to be Considered as 'Persons', in 'contemplation of law'?

Why do Business Corporations need to be Considered as 'Persons' in 'Contemplation of Law', and why only in 'Contemplation of Law'? Does that mean, that they are not really 'Persons'. How can a Constitution create a 'Person'? Of course, everyone knows they are 'Legal Fictions' and hence not 'Real Persons'. So, why consider them 'Persons' and give them the same 'Constitutional Rights' that 'Real Human beings' have? Of course, they are 'Economic Money Making Machines', and hence huge and very productive. No 'Real Human Being', or 'Real Person' can compete with a 'legal fiction' that is 'protected' by the Constitution. Of course, if corporations really 'need Protection', they are 'certainly entitled' to it, but why 'Personhood'. That move places it right alongside a 'Real Person' who is entitled to 'His, Her' 'Human Rights' as a 'Member' of the 'Condition of Togetherness' in which they exist. 'Real Human Beings', at the 'Bottom' of a 'Political Democracy' need protection from the 'Institutional Government' established by the 'Constitution'. Of course, the question arises, Why? Simply because no Human Being or 'Real Individual' can protect 'Himself or Herself' from an 'Institutionalized Political Power'. 'Government' is too Powerful and the 'Bottom' of the 'Political Entity' has split into 'opposing Parties' and the question 'always arises', why can't a 'Government' agree that 'Human Beings' are Natural, Real,( not Institutional) and hence 'more valuable' then 'Business Economic Institutions' established by a 'Social' or a 'Government', deployed by a 'system of Political Power' that is 'Split' along Business Power distributions set in motion by the 'Different Adversarial Parties'. Evidently, there are Politicians who seek to protect the 'Corporate Motor' instead of the 'innate Human Rights' of 'Real Individuals'. That 'establishes' a 'Polity motored' by Money and 'Economic Principles' instead of a Polity motored by 'Political Principles' of 'Freedom and Equality'. Creating Legal Fictions and giving them 'Constitutional Protection' creates an 'Economic Institution' instead of a Political Institution. Its O.K. to protect Business Corporations but, its ridiculous to call them 'Persons' and then simply to say 'Oh, they are 'Legal Fictions' and then giving them the 'same' or 'similar' 'Protections' that a 'Real Human Being' has. No Law can create a 'Real Human Being', or a 'Real Person'. We live in a Real World and we don't need 'Imaginary Persons' alongside us. Its O.K to protect Business Corporations, but why augment our already existing 'Computerized Hyper-Reality'? Where are the real Politicians?

When a 'Top of Power' fractures, and substitutes 'business Principles' for Governmental Principles , it begins to 'behave' like a 'Plutocracy'.

When a Top of Power 'Fractures', it begins to 'behave' like a 'Bottom' without 'Political Principles'. A 'Political Top' is very 'Organized' and, of course, has its own 'Political Language' and 'Ideology' that 'holds it together'. It is a very 'Coherent Political Institution'. All 'Different Forms' of 'Government' use their 'particular Language' and follow their 'particular Ideology'. Their 'Identity' as 'Governmental Agencies' is characterized by their use of a 'specific Language' with an 'Identifiable Power'. An 'Individual' in a 'High Position of Power' must use that 'Political Language' to 'Govern' or to 'Rule', depending on whether its a 'Democracy' or an 'Autocracy'. When a 'Top' uses the 'Language of a 'Bottom', it has 'lost' its bearings and its 'coherence'. It is floundering, and is 'drowning' in a 'Language of impropriety'. The Top becomes 'Institutionally Weak' and condemns the Bottom to a 'chaotic Condition'. In such a case, the Top loses 'control' and the Bottom becomes 'disorganized', 'confused', and loses its sense of 'propriety' and its sense of 'direction'. A Democratic 'Top' of Power 'must Govern' its 'Democratic Bottom with Political Principles of Freedom and Equality. If the Political Top loses 'control' of its 'Government', the Bottom will misuse its 'Economic Principles' and 'transfer' 'Autocratic Mechanism', and 'chains of control' to the Bottom. If a 'Democratic Bottom' mixes or misuses the 'Principles of Business' with the 'Principles of Government', it will transform into a 'Plutocracy' and that's a Government 'Of the Rich', 'By the Rich' and 'For the Rich'. Where are the Real Politicians?

'Political Science' is not a Science; then what is it?

'Political Science' is not a 'Science'; then what is it? Well, its kinda difficult to say what it is but we can certainly give it a try. Does a 'Democracy' need to be a Science? Well, no because 'Politics' deals more with 'Human Behavior' than with the 'Hard Sciences', like 'Physics' or 'Anatomy' or 'Chemistry'. Of course, 'Psychology' is considered a 'Science', but then, its 'behavioral' in nature, and its not a 'Hard Science', which, I think, means that it has many 'variables'. Obviously, there's no 'definite way' to 'do Politics', but that does not mean a Politician can do 'whatever he pleases' and still be considered a 'Politician'. Every 'Person' is a 'World'; and, by that, I mean 'Everyone' becomes what 'She or He' takes in through his 'Five Senses' and 'organizes it' into a 'Personality' or 'Persona'. I know that's an 'oversimplification', but that's why its not a 'Hard Science'. But, then a Person who 'chooses' to 'do Politics' comes from a certain definite 'Background' and is a definite 'Persona'. So, what are the 'Constraints' that characterize 'behavior' to be 'Political in Nature'. 'Politics' is about 'ascending' to the 'Pinnacles of Political Power' and 'Governing'. Its not 'Natural' in the sense that 'something' is Part of 'Nature', like 'Physics', 'Anatomy', or 'Chemistry'; but, its 'Constitutional'. The 'Constitution' 'Constitutes Us' as a 'Political Entity' with 'Power at the Top' and 'Three Branches' of 'Governmental Activity' that 'connects' the 'Bottom', constituted of the 'Many Peoples', with the 'Top Representatives' of Power. This 'Human Institution' relates the 'Top to the bottom', and the 'Bottom to the Top', hence a 'Democratic Institution'. 'Politics' is the 'activity' within that 'Relation' and every 'Democratic Relation' 'Runs' 'Both Ways'. Of course, that is not the case in every 'Polity'. For example, in an 'Autocratic Institution' the 'Relation' runs from the 'Top to the Bottom', but 'not' from the 'Bottom to the Top'. Why not? Because, an 'Autocracy 'Rules' its 'People'; it does not 'Govern'; end of story. Unfortunately, not to many Individuals can cope with an 'ascension to Political Power'. In some Individuals, there seems to occur an 'unbalancing' of the 'Power' and the 'Humane' in the 'Persona'. 'Power' takes over and the 'Humane' goes out the Window. Sad but True. The 'Fake' Politician becomes an exploiter of 'Political Power'. That's why 'Democratic Institutions' establish Democratic 'forms' of 'Institutions' and 'Laws' that 'structure' and 'helps' the 'Top of Power' to 'Govern the Many' at the Bottom. But, 'Govern' it must; it cannot 'Rule' because the 'Real Individuals' at the 'Bottom' of a Democracy retain their 'Freedom and Equality'. That makes the Democratic Form of Government, the Best. But, we cannot forget the 'Duties' and 'Responsibilities' of the 'Real Individuals' at the 'Bottom'; they must 'understand' and 'cherish' that 'Freedom' and 'Equality'. If they don't, it can be 'taken' away. 'Political Science' may not be a 'Science' but, it behooves us to be 'familiar' with it, 'lest we be deprived of our Equality and Freedom'. Where are the Real Politicians?

Theres always a 'Relation' between a 'Political Top' and a 'Political Bottom'.

There's always a 'Relation' between a 'Political Top' and a 'Political Bottom'. That relation is a 'Top/Bottom' Relation, but it also Runs from the 'Bottom' to the 'Top'. That Relation establishes a 'Form of Government'. That 'Form of Government' determines how the 'Relation Functions' and the 'distribution of Political Power' in the 'Form of Government'. For Example, an Autocracy has 'Power' at the Top and the Bottom is Governed by that Power. But, the Bottom does not have any power. In a 'Democratic Form' the 'People' at the Bottom are the 'essence of Government' and the 'essence' determines where the 'Power' is situated. In other words; the Relation of an Institutional Government is from the Top to the Bottom , but that same Relation also runs from the Bottom to the Top. The Relation runs both ways. The 'Bottom', or the People, exist in a 'Condition of togetherness'. But, The Bottom 'elects' a Representative to the Top who will Govern and authorizes Him/Her to 'Govern in accordance with the Structure established by the 'Constitution'. That's the Power of the Top. The 'Electoral Vote' transfers 'Political Power' from the 'Bottom to the Top', but only for a certain Period of Time. The Structure of the Government is established by the Constitution as a 'Three Branch' Form of Government and the Relation from the Top of that Structure to the Bottom of the Structure is the 'Relation that Governs'. In a Democracy, the Bottom relies on the Character, Qualifications, and the Political Knowledge of the Elected Top Officeholder. A Politician must be qualified to Govern. He, She, must posses the Qualifications of a 'Democratic Leader'. Since no Human Being, regardless Race, Color, or Creed, is 'Superior' to 'Another' Human Being, the Institution of Government 'becomes necessary', and the 'qualifications of the Leader' at the Top becomes 'very Important'. Political Knowledge of Democracy is vital to a Democratic Leader. A Leader who is not familiar with 'Political Ideology' cannot function as a Political Leader. That's the Problem with electing some 'CEO's and Businessmen' whose Lives 'solely function' with 'Business Principles'. There's nothing wrong with having knowledge of Business Principles, but they simply are not 'Political Principles', and that's the 'Problematic'. The 'Economic Motor' cannot 'Motor' a 'Political Entity'. They are separate functions and they 'Motor' different value systems. 'Money' must be kept out of 'Politics'. Where are the Real Politicians?

A 'Political Problematic' always involves that 'Ancient Problematic' known as the "One and the Many".

A Political Problem always involves that ancient 'Problematic' known as the "One and the Many". The Top of 'Political Power' has to be filled in with 'Political Institutions of Power'. Of course, there are many 'forms' a 'Governing Institution' can assume. In all cases 'The Top' is designed to either 'Govern' or 'Rule' the 'Bottom'. In a Democracy, the 'Bottom' is 'Governed', hence the Bottom is 'Institutionalized' into a 'Body Politic' that reflects the 'Institutions of a Democracy viz., Institutions of 'Freedom and Equality'. Its at that point, that the 'Power' issue is raised; how can a 'Political Top' govern a 'Multitudinous Bottom'; or, in historical terminology, which is that 'Ancient Problematic of the 'One' and the 'Many'. It took a long time for 'Social Institutions' to evolve. The earliest was the 'Family', 'a Group', 'a Tribe', 'larger Groups' and 'larger Tribes', until the stage was reached where 'States' and 'Nations' were established by 'Human Beings' and 'Constitutions'. They are 'described and Defined' as 'Political Entities' with 'Political Power' at the 'Top' that could 'Rule', or 'Govern'. Autocracy or 'Diluted Forms' of 'Autocracy', Rule; whereas; 'Democracies Govern'. Neither 'Ruling' nor 'Governing' is easy. But, the 'resolution' of a 'Political Problem' is always different. An Autocracy usually 'quashes' the Problem; a Democracy tries to 'Resolve' the problem, which also raises different issues. If a Democracy is being Driven by 'Economic Principles', how can that be 'transformed' back to being 'driven' by Political Principles of 'Freedom and Equality'? 'Democracy' cannot be 'driven' by 'Economic Principles' of 'More and More of the same', or by the 'Haves and the Have-Nots'. That's closer to Plutocracy, not Democracy. But, When that happens one begins to see 'Political Conflicts' occurring at the 'Top' between 'Officials' instead of at the 'Bottom' among the 'Many Peoples'. When 'Political Conflicts' ascend to the 'Top of Power', the 'Political Entity' is 'beginning' to 'unravel' and the 'Democratic form' of Government, Suffers. 'Petty Quarrels' and 'Maneuvers' begin to dominate the 'High Levels' of 'Political Language'. The Top 'lowers itself' to a 'Language and maneuvers' of a 'Backyard Barbeque' with its 'Backyard Language'. The 'Top' is no longer a 'Representative of the Bottom'; the 'Top' is transformed into a 'Few Individuals' that want to stay in 'Political Power'. 'Pettiness' overcomes 'Power'; and 'Real' Political Power 'weakens'. 'Plutocratic Egos' overcome 'Political Principles' and 'Political Language' and destroy Democracy. Where are the Real Politicians?

A Political Top of Power without a 'Political Language' cannot Govern. Is there such a thing as a 'Political Algorithm'?

A 'Political Top of Power' without a 'Political Language' cannot 'Govern'; its Top will not be 'Cohesive'. But, 'The People' at the Bottom need 'Governing', and the 'Language of Economics' will not suffice. Why not? Simply because that will 'launch' the 'Bottom' of the 'Political', or Social, into 'Economic Principles' of 'Haves' and 'Have-nots', or, more generally, 'economic Principles' that 'characterize' a 'Plutocracy' and that have 'no business' being utilized in a 'Political Democracy'. Well, a 'Top without control' is a 'Political Situation', and 'must be' corrected; a Social cannot be 'Governed' or 'stratified' solely by 'Economic Principles' and 'still claim' to be 'Democratic'. The 'Two systems', Government and Economics' are 'motored' differently and hence, will never have the 'same result'. Hence, we must be very careful. Is there such a thing as a 'Political Algorithm'? 'Algorithms' work, function, in the 'Universe of Computers'; can they work, function, in the 'Universe of Politics'? I have to admit, I'm not a 'Computer Geek' by any stretch of the Imagination, but Algorithms do work in conducting searches for Knowledge in a Computer. In a Democracy the Top of Power 'Represents' all the 'Real Individuals' at the Bottom and certainly that can be 'quantified'. That resolves that ancient problematic of the 'One' and the 'Many'( The Top and the Bottom). Hence, a 'properly formulated' Algorithm. But, it must Govern with Equality and Freedom. Certainly, the Bottom can include 'each' and 'every' 'Real Individual' in its computation; that should also be easy to quantify. But, can 'Equality and Freedom' be computerized? That probably requires an algorithm that includes some kind of 'Institutional Set-Up' that 'insures' that 'Individual Freedom and Equality' to each 'Real Individual'. Oh well; I'll just leave this to someone else more versed in Computer Languages. Lets do it the 'old fashion' way, Where are the 'Real Politicians'? We need 'Real Politicians' versed in 'Democratic Principles' and not 'Economic Principles'. We need Politicians that can do the 'Talk' and the 'Walk'.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One cannot 'organize' the 'Human Condition' into a 'Polity' without protecting its 'Freedom and Equality'.

One cannot 'organize' the 'Human Condition' into a 'Political Polity', without protecting its 'Freedom' and Equality'. All 'Political Structures' are 'Institutional' or 'Man Made' and all 'Real Individuals' are 'Nature Made', or 'Natural'. Hence, all 'Natural Individuals' must be 'Respected' and their 'Nature' must be 'Protected'. Hence, an Individuals 'Freedom and Equality' must be protected in any Political, Institutional, Structure for the simple reason that it is only an 'Institution' and not a product of 'Nature'. Man-made Institutions do not have to exist, but when they do, its because they have become 'Institutionally necessary'. Hence, the Institutional organizations of a 'Polity' has a 'Duty' to Protect and Preserve the 'Natural Freedom and Equality' of all the Real Individuals in the Polity. Any Polity that disrespects or fails to protect the 'Natural Condition' and the 'Values' of the 'Human Condition' is not a 'Democratic Polity'. Having said that, it becomes easier to conceptualize the usual dilemmas of Human beings having to exist within Political Entities. All Political 'Tops' have 'Political Power', but that 'Power' is 'Institutional' and 'only' Institutional. The Bottom of the Entity has a 'condition of togetherness', where all 'Real Individuals' have 'Freedom and Equality'. The Top Governs and 'only' Governs a Nation 'Politically' and 'Represents' it on the 'International' sphere. All the real Individuals at The Bottom of every Democratic Polity 'must' be Free and Equal. Failing that, the Nation and its 'Bottom' or 'Social' is transforming into a 'Plutocracy'. That means that the Economy; its Institutions, its 'Language', dominates the Political Entity and its 'Political Discourse'. A Political Entity 'transforms' into an 'Economic Entity' and its accompanying Linguistic usage of 'more and more of the Same', and the 'childish' attitude expressed in the 'childish saying', "My Dad has more Money than your Dad". 'Nature' cannot be changed; but, 'Institutions' surely can. Where are the Real Politicians?