We Live among 'Economic Giants' that create 'Haves' and 'Have-nots'.

We Live among 'Economic Giants' that create 'Haves' and 'Have-nots'. They are 'Persons' in 'Contemplation of Law' and are protected by the 'Constitution'. They are 'Persons' but, not like 'You' or 'I'. They do not 'Hurt', have Pain, diseases, hungers, require sleep, and they do not need Education, or a Roof over their 'heads'. They are the 'Business Corporations'; the 'greatest producers' and Manufacturers of 'Everything' Humans need to 'Survive' and then 'Some'. The 'Some' refers to 'really' unnecessary Items but, which produce 'Profits' and that's the 'name of the Game'. 'Business Corporations' are 'Profit Making machines'. If a Corporation is not making a Profit its immediately 'Dissolved','Killed', and maybe even 'Resurrected' with another 'Name'. We are Persons also but without the 'economic advantages' of 'Corporate Life'. Everyday a Business Corporation must produce, sell, and makes a 'Profit'. But, do all Human Beings, as Persons, have that advantage. We used to ride in 'Carts', 'Wagons', and Horses. Now we ride in Automobiles, but with different 'Horse-power'. We got the 'Auto' but kept the 'Horse-Power'. Human Values have been 'attenuated' and replaced by Corporate Values and the 'height' of Corporate value is 'More and more of the same', viz., Profits. I asked if greed was the result of 'Democracy' or the 'Human Condition'. Maybe its the result of our 'Corporate Economy'? Hey, in todays World, Corporations are necessary but maybe they should also have 'Democratic Duties' within the 'structure' of their 'Nature' as 'Constitutional Personhood' and not just make 'Profits'. If they don't want to be Democratic, just Dissolve them.

Is 'Greed' a characteristic of 'Democracy' or is it characteristic of the 'Human Condition'?

Is 'Greed' a characteristic of 'Democracy' or is it a characteristic of the 'Human Condition'; and does it make any difference? It does make a difference because 'Greed' is 'not necessary'; 'More and More of the Same' is unnecessary. 'Governments' are 'necessary' and so are 'Social and Economic Conditions' that 'contribute' to the 'General Welfare' of the 'Many' at the 'Bottom'. Why? Because the 'Many' cannot be controlled to just 'a Few'; or 'limited' to a certain 'Number'. Hence, we have to live with the 'Other'. The 'Human Condition' is not a Man-Made Institution. But, Government is 'Man-Made' and the 'different Types' of 'Government' are 'Institutions'. Hence, 'Institutions' can be subjected to 'Institutional Conditions' that the 'Human Condition' cannot. In other words, the 'One', as Polity, can be designed in such a manner that the 'Benefits' of the 'Social' and the 'Economy' contributes to the 'General Welfare' of 'everyone' in the Polity. I'm not suggesting that 'every Polity' should be a 'Democracy' or that everyone at the 'Bottom' should have 'Equal Benefits'. Even an 'Autocratic Government', or 'any Other Type of Government' can certainly have such a 'Great Leader' that He/she contributes towards the 'General Welfare' of 'all its People'. Back to Democracy. Democratic Government has organized its 'Economy' in 'Capitalistic Fashion'. It has protected the 'Business Corporation' by declaring it a 'Person in contemplation of Law'. The Constitution protects the Business Corporation. That 'helps the Economy' but, does that help 'Everyone' at the Bottom, or the 'Many' at the Bottom? Does 'Capitalism' generate the 'Materials', 'Matter', or even the 'opportunity' for 'Greed'?

The 'Real Issue' that exists between 'Political Parties' is that of the 'Haves'and the 'Have Nots'.

The Real Issue that exists between adversarial 'Political Parties' is that of the adversarial 'Haves' and the 'Have-Nots'. A Line can be drawn between 'Political Adversaries' and you will find that the 'Rich' and the 'not so Rich' and the 'Poor' covers the 'Entire Bottom' as well as the Top of the 'Polity'. Of course, if one were to ask 'What are they fighting about?' one would have to conclude that, in the last analysis, the 'Rich want more'; the 'not-so Rich' want more; and the 'Poor want more'; but, the Poor 'might be satisfied', if they had enough to 'live on' and to cover necessary expenses. Why has 'Democracy' and 'Capitalism' created a 'Bottom', and of course, a 'Representational Top' that's mobilized by 'Greed'? Of course, you always have those at the 'Bottom' that says, 'Just Leave Me Alone' and get on as best they can. Why Greed, or, better yet, is that the 'normal' for a 'Human Being'. Do 'all Humans' get 'Greedy' when they find themselves in 'Favorable' and 'Prosperous circumstances'? Some will say, that's not a Political Issue, that's a 'Human Issue'; a 'Psychological' Issue; an 'Economic Issue'; or a 'Social Issue'. No! That's precisely the Issue. That's why the 'Democratic Structure of Government' was set up as it was. Government and Politics is absolutely necessary, if the 'Human Race' is to survive. The 'Top' must 'Represent' and 'Serve' 'all the Bottom'. I think, what I'm asking, is if the Top really Represented all the Bottom in a 'Fair manner', would there be 'Greed', or is 'Greed' a 'necessary Aspect' of all Governmental Collectivities?

No 'Political Entity' can have a 'Top' without a 'Real Individual' to occupy its 'Post'.

No 'Political Entity' can have a 'Top of Power' without a 'Real Individual' to occupy its 'Political Post'. A 'Political Top', or an Institution of Government are not 'Natural Phenomena'; they are 'Man Made'. If something 'goes wrong' in a 'Government' or a 'Political Entity', its usually the 'fault' or 'Responsibility' of the 'Human Condition'. 'Institutions' can do no wrong because the 'Responsible aspects' are the 'Humans' that 'Mobilize' it. One cannot have a 'Top with Power' without 'Someone' to operate it. Of course, there's always the issue of 'Whose Institution' is it and 'Who created it'? But those are 'Historical Questions' and cannot be answered without a more clear 'definition' and 'understanding' of 'History' and How 'compelling' it should be. Hence, most 'Political Questions' are reduced to the question of 'Who occupies the Top' and what are his or Her opinions of the 'History' and the 'Political Function' of the 'Entity'. These 'factors' make Democracy 'more difficult' to Govern than Autocracies. In Autocracy, the top 'does not listen' to the 'Bottom'. In 'Democracy' the Top 'must listen' to the 'Bottom' because they are the 'source' of the 'Power at the Top'. But, the 'Bottom' must also 'listen to the Top' because that's their Government.

A 'Democratic Top' can degenerate into an' Autocratic Top'.

A 'Democratic Top' can degenerate into an Autocratic Top. All it takes is a Selfish Individual at the 'Very Top' occupying that 'Public Office'. But, its never the 'Office' that 'compels' it, its the 'Individual' or the 'Personality', or the 'Psychological State' of that 'Individual'. That's why we need 'Real Politicians' at the 'Helm'. A 'Politically Correct' Politician is likely to be influenced by the 'Power' in the 'Highest Office' in the Land. At that Point, Political Issues change to 'Personality Issues'. That's why we need a 'Real Politician' who possess 'selfless traits' and has the 'General Welfare' of the 'Bottom' and not his/ her own 'Personal Welfare' in mind. That's also why a candidate should file his/her own Tax Returns after being elected to Office. Why should 'that issue' go 'unexplored'? 'Power seduces' but not in the same manner, as when its tied to the 'General Welfare'. A 'Real Politician' is concerned with the 'General Welfare' of the 'Bottom'. A 'Public Office' serves the 'Bottom', never the 'Occupant' of the Office. Where are the Real Politicians?

'Governing' can easily be reduced to 'Rule'; but, 'Rule' is 'unlikely' to become 'Governing'.

'Governing' can easily be 'reduced' to 'Rule'; but, an established 'Rule' is unlikely to become 'Governing'. For 'Governing' to be 'reduced' to Rule, the only requirement is that the 'Top of Power' becomes occupied by someone that's not a 'Real Politician'; at best, is only 'Politically Correct'; or, someone 'unfamiliar' with the meaning of a 'Selfless Leader'; i.e. a Leader concerned with the 'General Welfare of the People' and not with His/her 'Personal Welfare'. Of course, this 'Personal Welfare Switch' can occur 'after Election'. If so, there will be attempts to 'modify' and 're-structure' the 'Top of Power' instead of the 'General Welfare of the People' at the 'Bottom'. Since, in a Democracy, the Real Source of Power is 'in the People', the People will be 'appealed too' but, by the 'Persuasive Rules of Advertising', and not with the 'General Principles of Governing'. 'Persuasion' is easy once one knows who one's appealing too; and then, come the 'empty promises' of the 'Politically Correct'. Another characteristic of changing from 'Governing' to 'Rule' is an attempt to 'Modify the Top of Power'; e.g. an attempt to 'Pack the Courts' and change the 'Judicial Structure' into a 'Reflection' of 'Party loyalty'. If that happens, the only result is a 'Lop Sided' Democracy. I say, 'Lop Sided' only because there is a 'Possibility' that so-called 'Party Loyalty' is not 'founded' on the 'People' at the 'Bottom'. Instead, its a division based on the 'Corporate Nature' of the 'Social' and its 'Productivity'. We're 'headed' towards 'Plutocracy'.

The 'Bottom' gave rise to the 'Top'; the Top can only 'Govern' or 'Rule'.

The 'Bottom' gave rise to the 'Top'; the 'Top' can only 'Govern or Rule'. If the Top is Autocratic; Plutocratic; or Oligarchic, it has 'imbued' itself with 'Power of Rule'. In such cases, the 'Top' becomes 'more important' than the 'Bottom'. But, if the 'Top' is 'Democratic', the 'Bottom' is more important than the 'Top' and that means that the Top must 'Govern' the Bottom. It cannot Rule. More importantly, it also means that the 'Essence of Democracy' are the 'Real People' at the Bottom. In all Political Entities, its the 'People' who are the important ones. But, not all Political Entities accept that. In a Democracy, it was the 'People' who 'Constituted' the 'Polity' and they 'Committed it to Writing in a 'Constitution'. The Constitution 'constitutes' the 'People' and the 'Government'. The Government is structured as a 'Government' 'Of the People', 'By the People' and 'For the People'. The 'Democratic Institution' assumes its 'proper place' and 'Structure' within the 'Political Entity'. This is not to say that Democracies do not have their 'Problems'. They do, but the problems are 'resolved Democratically'. When an 'Autocracy' has a Problem, the 'Polity' can get 'rid' of the Problem. Of course, all 'Polities' have Problems. One of the biggest Problems in a Democracy is when a Candidate assumes 'Leadership' and She/He is 'unqualified' to 'Govern'. 'Leadership' in a Democracy can be more Problematic than leading an Autocracy. One Reason for that is that solving a 'problem' or a 'Political Issue' is not as 'Simplistic' as using 'Democratic Ideology' or 'Republican Ideology'. It can be a 'Human Problem' and hence, not 'completely Ideological'. Where are the Real Politicians?

Democracy has 'Power at the Top'; like any 'Other Form' of 'Governemnt'.

'Democracy', as a Political Entity, has 'Power at the Top'; just like any 'Other Form' of 'Government'. A 'Form of Government' is a 'Political Institution' and consequently, one must ask, "from where does a 'Form of Government' get its Power? All 'Political Entities', Large or Small, are 'Created or established' 'Political Institutions'. Early Tribes, Groupings, etc. usually had 'Leaders', 'Chiefs', who were 'selected' from the 'Wisest', 'Strongest', 'Fastest', or the 'Most Cruel'. Some just 'took' the Position by 'Force' and some 'Inherited it' by being a 'member' of a 'Powerful Family'. Later came the 'Divine Right of Kings' which 'attributed' their 'Right' to Rule to the 'Divinity'. All these Forms are now 'Obsolete' except, and just in case, there still exists, a few 'Isolated Groupings'. 'Every Grouping' had its manner of deciding who would Lead them. Of Course, today, every 'Government' has a 'Top of Power' and a 'Bottom of People'. That was the source of the so-called 'dilemma' of the 'One and the Many', or 'How to Organize an 'Institutional Political Entity' with a 'Top with Political Power' and a Bottom with the 'Many' Human Individuals. If 'Human Individuals' are 'Free' and Equal', as in a Democracy, 'Law and Order' must exist. If 'Law and Order' exists, 'The Many' need to be Governed. But, 'Governing' is different from 'Ruling', hence, the 'basic difference' in the 'Forms' of Autocracies, Plutocracies, Oligarchies, and Democracies. But, 'Democracy' is the only Form that emphasizes the importance of the 'Many People' at the 'Bottom'. The Essence of Democracy are the 'Many Peoples' at the 'Bottom' and the 'Top of Power' is there to 'Serve the General Welfare'.

Democratic 'Government' is a 'Form' of Government; 'Real Democracy' is the 'Nature' of the 'Bottom''.

Democratic 'Government' is a 'Form' of Government; "Real Democracy" is the Nature of the 'Bottom' of a 'Form of Government'. The Top of Power follows 'Democratic Principles' as it 'Governs' and the Bottom of Government is where all the 'Real People Reside' next to each Other. The People are 'Real', not Constitutionally created "Persons" like 'Business Corporations'. The 'Real Persons' Live, Die, and Suffer. They are not 'Institutions' and if they are included as 'Citizens' of a 'Nation' they should be properly 'Governed' and not 'Ruled'. All Political 'Positions' are of a 'Representative Nature'. That means, the Positions were created to allow a 'Representative' from the Bottom to serve and only for a short Period of Time, in some 'Functional and Democratic Capacity'. The 'essence of Democracy' is 'all the Real People' at the Bottom. Without Real Individuals, i.e. 'Real People' there is no Democracy.

That was no 'Trial'; it was a 'contest' between 'Ideologies' and 'Party loyaly'.

That was no Trial; it was a contest between Ideologues and Party Loyalty. How did anyone expect 'Party Ideology' to vote against itself? The 'Representatives' have already 'separated' and each has formed their own 'Party Preferences'. It should have been a search for the 'Truth' and for 'Competence' and that doesn't have anything to do with 'Party Lines'. I don't mean 'Political Preferences', I mean 'Truth'. How could an 'Ideologue' go against His/Her own Party Ideology? Some did. The Highest Political Offices in the Land and they turned it into some 'Political Contest' about voting along 'Party Line' instead of voting for the 'Truth'. Even the 'United Nations' appears to know the Truth. 'Party Loyalty' had no part to play in this scenario. It was not supposed to be a Political Contest between the 'Parties', it dealt with Political 'Behavior', human behavior. Usually, Politics 'seeps' into 'Normal Conversations'; this was a case where 'Human Behavior seeped' into 'Politics' and that 'says more' than any 'Party Ideology'. A perfect example that 'Human Behavior'; 'Decency'; and 'competence' qualifies a 'Representative' for 'Public Office', not Party Ideology. Politicians consider 'Party Ideology' as some 'inflexible criteria' for putting 'Public labels on themselves' and then refusing to step outside the Label. Being 'locked' into 'Party Loyalty' destroys 'Human Decency' and 'Real Political Understanding'. Where are the Real Politicians?

Party Loyalty has just demonstrated its 'Frivolus' nature.

Party Loyalty has just demonstrated its 'frivolity'. Imagine Two of the Highest Political Institutions in the Nation have 'divided' along Party Lines. Each Party Line has its own 'Ideology', yet neither could see that the real issue was not an Ideological Issue; it was more of an 'Incompetence issue'. It was a 'Personality Issue' not an 'Ideological one'. The Issue dealt more with 'behavior' than with Political Ideology. The behavior was an attempt to extract a 'Deal', more so than a 'Political Solution' among 'Nations'. A 'Nations' Ideologies apply to 'National Issues', more so than 'International Issues' After all the 'Party division' is about 'National' and 'Local Government', not about 'International Relations'. That's a horse of a different color. Nevertheless, a 'Leader' must be 'competent' in both the National and the International Arena. Dividing among Party-Lines and voting among Party Lines is frivolous. It demonstrates a 'lack' of 'Personal Flexibility' between 'National and International' modes of behavior. How sad, 'Leaders' unable to distinguish between mere 'Ideological Party Issues' and 'Real Political Issues' on the International Sphere. 'Voting' along 'Party Lines' is 'childish'; 'inflexible'; and 'demonstrates a weak reason' for 'Serving' in a 'Representative Capacity' in a 'Democracy'. Where are the Real Politicians?

A Political Campaign for the Higest Office in the Land has descended into 'name calling' and "sheer Mockery".

A Political Campaign for the 'Highest Office' in the 'Land' has 'descended' into "Name Calling", Insults, and Sheer Mockery. What has happened to 'Political Language'? Even a Movie made in Hollywood where the Language is 'comparable' would be 'distasteful', 'Mockery', or a 'Comedy'. Of course, if the 'Opposition' does not reply with 'equal distaste', it places itself at a 'disadvantage'. That's what happened in the first Debate. The 'Appeal' was made to the 'Back-yard Barbeque Crowd' and it was 'never challenged'. Has Politics descended to that level? Can Political Language still refer to the "Constitution"; "the General Welfare" and "Freedom and Equality" of the 'Individual' at the Bottom, or has Politics 'lost' its Language? A 'Politics' without a 'Proper Language' cannot survive. Of course, I do not speak of 'Political Correctness'. That's Empty, Vacuous, 'Insincere', and 'Hypocritical'. A Proper Language is Important, but I speak of a 'genuinely Proper One'. Insults and Name Calling will not work. Especially at the 'Highest Level' of 'Public Service'. What Kind of leaders do we have? A 'Top' should always set an 'Example' for the 'Bottom'. But, when the 'Top' talks like the 'Bottom'; and 'without Political Discipline', its only 'Natural' to 'worry' about the 'Quality of Leadership' driving the Ship of State. Where are the Real Politicians?

Many Political Entities call themselves 'Socialist':and 'Republics': but 'Govern' like 'Autocrats'.

Many Political Entities call themselves 'Socialist': 'Republics': and even 'Democratic', but 'Govern' like 'Autocrats'. The Real Difference is in the 'Form of Government', or the 'manner' in which they 'Govern'. But, they do not seem to 'hide that difference'. But, an actual 'Democratic Leader' that tries to 'Rule' instead of 'Govern' stands out in His/Her preoccupation with 'Economic Issues' and 'other Issues', instead of 'Civil Issues' like 'Freedom and Equality'. For Example, how long does it take to 'eliminate', or at least, 'to address' 'Racial Inequality' in the 'Social'? It was done in the 'Educational System'. In a Democracy, the 'essence' of any 'Social Institution' is to address the 'condition and status' of the 'Bottom'. Otherwise , its not a Democracy and its 'not Governing'. All Political Entities exist only for the Purpose of 'Governing' or 'Ruling'. They are 'Social Institutions', not 'products of Nature'. If a Nation purports to be 'Democratic', it must serve the 'Bottom' or the 'Peoples'. 'Democracies' Govern, they don't Rule. One doesn't have too look far to see some of the 'Atrocities' perpetuated by 'Autocratic Rule'. But, the problem in a Democracy is that, 'Someone' can be 'Elected' to the 'Top', who then attempts to 'Rule'. When that happens, the 'Top of Power' is in turmoil. Most 'Revolutionary activity' occurs at the 'Bottom'. When it occurs at the 'Top', 'Democratic Ideology' is being destroyed, and when that goes, the 'Democratic structure' unravels and 'cannot hold together'. The 'Top of Power', becomes 'unhinged'. Where are the Real Politicians?

In a Political Entity, the 'Top' is 'necessary'; How is the 'Form' of Government justified?

In a Political Entity,the 'Top of Power' is 'Necessary'; all Political Entities have their own 'Top' and 'Form' of Government. Why is there a difference? There are many Forms of 'Government'; some 'Forms' don't even 'look like' or resemble a 'Government', as we know it. Some, like the Family; we must surmise, grew out of a 'Closeness' between the 'Individuals'; and some among other Individuals being born in 'proximity' to each Other; like a 'Tribe or Group'. Then something must have happened; a particular 'land area' began to 'Feel' like 'Home' and then 'began' to be considered 'as Home'. My Land; our land; It was 'Given a Name' and whether 'mental' or 'actual', the 'circumference and size' was 'delineated' and called 'Our Home'. The above 'sequence' can't be justified, but the process must have been 'similar'. Different 'Races' came into being and different 'Areas' acquired a certain 'Identity' and 'Independence'. The 'Immigrant was Born'. A Human Being who will never understand the trajectory, acquires an 'Identify' and 'must survive' in the World. Of course, 'Human Kind' begins to establish control over his /her Land and 'Nations' are Born. 'Identifies' come into existence, then 'control', then 'Power at the Top'. Politics is Born. Since all Human Beings are Equally Human; 'no 'One' is 'Superior' to Another. Of course, 'Nations' are 'Institutions' and justify their 'existence' and their 'authority' differently. A 'Political Entity' takes 'Form' and the 'Institutional Power' at the 'Top' becomes defined; Monarchy; Autocracy', Oligarchy; Plutocracy, and much later, 'Democracy'. 'Power' at the 'Top' and the 'Many Peoples' at the 'Bottom'. From the 'Divine Right of Kings' to 'Government of the People', 'by the People' and 'For the People'. Only a Democracy respects the 'Freedom and Equality' of 'each and every' Real Individual at the Bottom. Hence the need to 'transfer authority' to 'Govern' to the 'Top'; 'Representative Government is Born', but 'only' for a 'short period of time'. The Center of Gravity of 'Governing' in a 'Democracy' is always the 'Many Peoples' at the 'Bottom'. The 'Top' is always 'Representative'. Where are the Real Politicians?

The Relation of the Top and the Bottom arose from 'Necessity' and the 'Need for Government'.

The Relation of the Top and the Bottom arose from 'Necessity' and 'Eventually' for the 'need of a 'Political Entity'. Obviously. 'Many Peoples' cannot 'Govern themselves'. The 'Political Entity' must be 'organized' in a manner where the 'Many' or the 'Governed' have a say-so in the 'Form' of Government. That's a Democracy. Since all 'Real Human Beings' are 'Equal and Free', no one Human Being is more qualified by virtue of just being Human to become a Leader. Hence, some criteria by which a Leader is 'chosen' must exist. But, where is it? Anyone can Run for Office, but what are the qualifications of that Person. Of course, everyone knows that's the 'Purpose' of a 'Campaign', but most Campaigns' are reduced to 'empty Promises'. But, that's what we call 'Politically Correct'. That's 'Empty' and 'Insincere'. That's not what I'm saying. If one listens to the arguments of the Senate and House, the Language and Motivations for such 'Leadership' are not being discussed. The motivations have to be 'relatively selfless' and a Leader must have a 'comprehensive' knowledge of the 'Real Political situation', and, very important, the possession of a 'Political Vocabulary'. How can an 'Economic Dialogue' be used to 'make comprehensive' Political moves? It can't. That's an Economic move and Politics does include 'Economics', but 'not to the exclusion' of a 'Political Vocabulary'. The 'basis and Nature' of a 'Political Entity' is Governed by a Political 'Vocabulary' and not 'solely' by an 'Economic One'. Leadership in the 'Business World' differs from Leadership in the 'Political World'. Where are the Real Politicians?

The 'Relation' of the Top to the Bottom does not always include the 'Many Peoples' at the Bottom.

The 'Relation' of the Top to the Bottom does not always 'include' the 'Many Peoples' at the Bottom. All Governments have a 'Top with Power' and a Bottom with the 'Many'. The Relation of the 'One' and the 'Many' exists in all 'Forms of Governments'. But, many distinctions arise when it comes to the Form of the 'Political Entity' and the 'Many Peoples' at the 'Bottom'. All 'Tops' have Power to Govern. One cannot have a 'Top' of Power without a 'Bottom' of 'Peoples'. But again, the Peoples are the 'Governed', and one must ask, do they have any 'Political Rights' and if so. from where do they get these Rights? Of course, a Government is an 'Institution' and not a 'Natural Phenomena' but, the 'Peoples', whether at the Top or the Bottom are equally 'Human'. As Human Beings, all are the 'same' and one 'cannot assume' that any 'One' Human is 'Greater' than the 'Other'. Again, Power to 'Rule' is 'different' from 'Power to Govern'. One important feature is that 'Power' is an 'Institutional Phenomena' and in the 'Democratic Form', the Top gets its Power to 'Govern' from the 'Peoples at the Bottom', through the 'Ballad Box'. The 'Institution of Government' is 'authorized to Govern' by the 'Constitution' and the 'Many Peoples' at the 'Bottom'. An Autocratic Form of Government does not Govern; it Rules. That means the 'Peoples' at the Bottom do not have any 'Political Rights' to participate in the act of 'Institutional Rule'. Of course, 'Democratic forms' can also 'fall' into that quandary. An Individual, 'unsophisticated and unqualified' in the workings of Government can be voted into Office and She/He may try to 'Rule' instead of 'Govern'. Simply from his lack of knowledge of Politics. This happens when an individual does not 'understand', or simply doesn't care, that 'Democratic Government' is about 'serving the Peoples' at the Bottom and not about the 'mere exercise' of 'Political Power'. Political Power does not exist except as an Institution and in the Democratic Form of Government, the 'Peoples' at the 'Bottom' transfers that 'Institutional Right' to Govern by means of the Ballad Box. Of course, many things could go wrong, but there should be some sort of qualifications to run for Public Office. When Trump was asked what qualified him to Run; he said "I build big Buildings". Governing establishes a 'Relation' between the Top and the Bottom and that Relation must be used to 'Serve the People'.

The most important Relation in a Political Entity is the relation of the Top to the Bottom.

The most important Relation in a 'Political Entity' is the 'Relation' of the 'Top to the Bottom'. If we are talking 'Politics' or 'Political Entities', we are talking about a 'Structure' or a 'Form of Organization' that allows for 'Governing' the 'Many' by 'One' or the 'Few'. The Top always has 'Power' and the 'Bottom' is the 'Governed' or the 'Ruled'. But, many other 'factors' enter into the Relation. Every Political Entity must also have a 'Social' and an 'Economy'. No 'large group' of 'Human Beings' can 'hold together' without some 'form' of 'Political Organization' and it has gotten to the point where the 'Economic Arena' has acquired importance. These 'factors' all 'effect the Social', and the 'Political'. The importance of the Economic is unquestioned. But, one must ask, why? Simply, the Political is under authority of the 'Political Form' of the Nation, while the Economic is 'Capitalistic' and whose 'Unique Productive Form' is somewhat 'unrestrained'. A Nation cannot survive without an 'Economy' and therein lies a subtle 'danger'. The 'Economic' permeates all the 'Real Individuals' at the Bottom. That's why the Supreme Court created a 'Person" in contemplation of Law' protected by the Constitution. An Individual lives within the 'political Form' of the Government, but is not always in contact with its 'Institutional Nature'; while the 'Economic' permeates every 'moment' of an 'Individuals Life'. We cannot survive without Government, but we cannot survive 'one day' without the 'Economic'. Its very easy for a 'Political Entity' to be dominated by the 'Nature' of a 'Capitalistic Economy'. If the Economy is Capitalistic, 'economic production' becomes 'very important' and the 'Corporate Nature' seeps into the 'Political' and acquires 'dominance'. No 'Real Individual' can compete with a Social formed by 'Corporate Structures' or 'Legal Persons' or 'Legal Fictions'. So now, we use our Time to Count our Money and forget about our Freedom and Equality. We literally 'create' a 'Class Society' by 'embracing abstract Fictions' called Money. The Economic 'Pours in' and the 'Freedom and Equality' goes out the Window. Where are the Real Politicians?

In a Political Entity, the Media and its Objectivity is very important.

In any Political Entity, the 'Media' and its 'Objectivity' is very important. Without a 'Media', the 'Bottom' would never know what the Top is doing, and often times, there are things that the 'Top' does not want the 'Bottom' to know. All Political Entities create a 'Relationship' between the Top and the Bottom and the proper function of the Media is to keep the Bottom informed about the 'functions of the Top of Power'. Its a very important 'Political Relation' and one that establishes a certain 'Political Relationship'; in a Democracy, between the 'Representatives' at the Top and the 'Many Peoples' at the Bottom. The function of the media is to monitor this 'Relation' and report it to the People at the Bottom. Without the Media, the Bottom would never know what is happening at the Top of Power and the Top would never know what the Bottom is thinking or doing. Of course, the most important Requirement the Media has is to be 'Objective' about the Reportage. But, the Problem that inheres in such a Relation is that the Top is the 'One' and the Bottom is the 'Many'. There's that old, 'ancient Problematic' about the 'relation' between the 'One and the Many'. The One and the Many is an essential relation of Government. It must exist. But we've discovered that in the formation of our Democracy, the first thing the Representatives did was to divide into 'Political Parties' each with a different 'Political Ideology'. Already we have a difference. Now, ask yourself, if the division was a "Party Division" into Democratic Political Ideology, why cant the Parties act 'Democratically'. Why is there so much animosity between the 'Parties' that they argue about 'Procedures' instead of Substance? The quest is for the 'Truth' of purported 'Political activity' and not about what can be 'withheld' from the 'Peoples at the Bottom'. Who do the Parties Represent? Why are the 'People' confused by shifting 'Political Talk' that does not address the 'Real Issues'. The Real Issue is about 'Competency' and 'Leadership'. A Nation cannot be 'driven' with 'Economic Principles'. Where are the 'Real Politicians'.

In a Democracy: when the 'Top' acts arbitrarily; it no longer represents the Bottom.

In a Democracy: when the 'Top' acts arbitrarily: it no longer represents the 'Bottom'. Democracy is a 'Representative' Government and 'Leaders at the Top should Represent all the 'Peoples at the Bottom'. 'Shuffling Government Funds' from Military Funds, to build a 'Wall' that contributes to 'Isolationism' is not only, not Democratic; its dangerous. How can a Leader of the People who gets 'all his Political Power', only as a 'Representative of the People', endanger the 'very People' who elected him to 'Office'. That is not 'Democratic'; nor 'Republican'; that's not even 'Governing'; its closer to 'Ruling' a Nation. In a Democracy, 'Leaders' who do not have the 'Peoples Welfare' in mind should not be in 'positions of Leadership'. All 'Democratic Politics' is about 'Representing the People'. In a Democracy, there is no other reason for 'Politics' to exist. In a Democracy, the Bottom is Free and Equal and for that reason, 'Democratic Politics' becomes necessary. But, its 'Political Principles' that become necessary; not 'Economic Principles' and not 'Arbitrary' and 'Pet Projects' of 'so-called Leadership'. To use 'Political Office' for 'Personal Gains' and 'Personal Projects' is clearly a misuse of Political Power. In such cases, either a 'Representative Leader' does 'not Understand' or She/he is 'clearly using' the Elected Office for 'Political Gain'. In the first case, the 'So called' Leader does not 'Understand' Political Principles at all, and in the Other, the Leader does not have the 'Selflessness' required for 'Leadership'. In either case, that kind of 'Politics' leads to a 'Disorganized Bottom' and that raises the issue whether the 'Political Parties', will 'cling' to their 'Ideology' or whether they will try to 'benefit' from the 'mayhem and confusion' caused be the 'Top of Power'.

When the Top of Power 'destabilizes' in a Democracy, the 'Bottom' begins to 'splatter'.

When the Top of Power 'destabilizes' in a 'Democracy', the Bottom begins to 'splatter' in every direction. No longer a 'cohesive Bottom' of 'Freedom and Equality', the bottom becomes 'unmanageable and antagonistic'. The general sense of stability weakens and the different 'Races' and 'belief systems' begin to 'turn' against each other. Democracy has Power at the Top, but if the Top does not exercise its Power in a 'proper way', there is 'nothing' to hold the Bottom together. That occurs when the Top is governed by 'economic Principles' or when there's a lack of 'Political Knowledge' at the helm. Governments, all Governments, whether Democratic or Not, are 'Political Entities' and when they are not 'Governed' or 'Ruled' by their 'Political Ideology', they 'weaken' and 'eventually disintegrate'. But, if the Political Ideology holds together, there is a possibility for their 'Bottom' to hold together. Governments as 'Political Entities', or 'Real Governing Agencies' have a better chance of 'living in a Condition of 'Political Togetherness' then 'Billions of Individuals' living without any kind of Governing Principles. Why is it that Different Political Ideologies can live together in the World, while Billions of Individuals cannot. The answer is Politics. But Political Leaders must learn to hold their Nations together and 'resolve' Political Differences with 'Political Principles' and not 'Economic Principles' or 'Personal Inclinations'. 'Political Entities' are 'Huge' and should be 'disciplined Entities', while Individuals have 'less' Political Inclinations then do 'Political Entities'. An 'Individuals' 'immediate concerns' are more attuned to 'Personal Life-Styles' and they leave 'Political Concerns' to the 'Political Realm'. An Individual cannot hold together a Political Entity, while a Political Entity can hold together the 'Many' Individuals at the Bottom. The Issues are issues of 'Political Entities', 'Political Power', and 'Politics'. In a Democracy, that requires a 'thorough Knowledge' of Political Principles and the 'Right Spirit' for 'Governing'. In a Democracy a 'Leader' cannot 'Govern' with 'Personal Inclinations'. A 'Leader' needs a thorough Knowledge of 'Political Principles' and 'Politics'. Where are the Real Politicians?