Since the time of the Reagan administration, I’ve closely studied the sociological and physiological processes of Party Politics (the “System”) specifically, the dynamics of Election Politics and the manner in which the System interpret, to their advantage, Public Mood Swings.
This is by no means a scientific analysis or a premise supported by a manufactured and deliberately orchestrated support system, but more so an organic observation of the tactile response, by the Public, to their native and intuitive senses. In other words, how and in what way the publics political response, to a perception of Governments intrusion upon their broadest possible definition(s) of Freedom, is interpreted and manipulated by the Political Organism for the express purposes of preserving its reign.
With this as a foundational reference and with the deliberate intention of provoking your thoughts, I’ve resolved to a few basic premise which I’ve identified as fundamental to the physiology of the American Political System:
- The System seeks to control and arbitrate the process by which control is exercised.
- The System seeks to redefine what constitutes Representative Government by articulating the process in such a way as to define what and who become “choice”.
- The System perfects what becomes of “choice” by assuring that the means by which the Public participates in the political process occurs only by/through access to the System by one of the two “choices” made available. And so,
- What the Public is presented with is not choice at all but only the options made available.
So, in a sense, mastering control of the process requires only that the System contort itself to what it either believes the Public sentiment to be or to what it tells the Public its sentiment should be and that’s precisely all “it” ever does. One has only to review the political machinations of the System since the early 1900’s to truly see that regardless of what Party is in Power, the course alternations are barely, if at all, detectable. Using Administrations (Presidential) as an identifier, consider the following among the most conspicuous examples:
- T. Roosevelt: Progressive Ideology most conspicuous (first) appearance.
- Wilson: Federal Reserve Act of 1913.
- F.D. Roosevelt: New Deal.
- Truman : New Deal II & the United Nations.
- Kennedy: Camelot (Too much progress must never be tolerated.)
- Johnson: Great Society.
- Nixon: Great Society II.
- Carter: Progressive Austerity.
- Reagan: “Shinning City on the Hill” (So long as you own the “Hill”.)
- Bush I : Thousand Points of Light (as seen over the skies of Iraq.)
- Clinton: “Don’t Stop Believing…” in Progressive Ideology.
- Bush II: If you can’t sell it, buy it, if you can’t buy it, take it, if you can’t take it, pass legislation that vacates the Peoples inalienable right to it.
- Obama: “Change” you’ll pay dearly for in ways you could never have possibly imagined.
The routine is monotonously predictable oscillating between every expanding entitlement/defense spending, global threats, tax hikes or tax cuts and so on leaving the Public, in essence, a most unreliable process for truly effective representative government. In point of fact, it is not at all Representative Government, at least not representative of you!
On the Congressional level, the System’s indifference to public will is demonstrated in these (there are many others) two instances:
(a.) The “Political Chameleon” – Consider the case of Pennsylvania’s own Arlen Specter who adapts to the threat of political anonymity upon finding himself in the unenviable position of the Minority Party (Republican) jumps ship to the Majority (Democrat). Now, I ask you, what then becomes of his commitment to the People who, if you will, elected him based on their Party affiliation? Moreover, what becomes of their representative will which suddenly, as the result of his impulse, now possessing no Party Representative? So much for conviction!
(b.) The “Political Refuge” – Consider the case of Connecticut’s own “Independent Democrat” Joe Lieberman, whose own Party dumps him in favor of a more Progressive Candidate. This instance is a perfect example of the “Centrist” majority core (discussed more fully in Part II of this posting) the System seeks to manipulate. This illustration also represents what happens to the “wild card” candidate whose practices trend in opposition to the three System parameters mentioned above. It also illustrates how affective the “Centrist” core can be when precisely targeting the System. Not only did Lieberman best the Democratic replacement candidate, the Republican candidate suffered the same result as well.
The Public’s contempt the System grows with each swing of the Political Pendulum but the mistake, as I observe, is to ignore the systemic cause primarily due to the fact that the System as practiced is not the process as it was designed or intended. Partisan Politics is an invention of the Progressive Ideologists who discovered that the way to breach the design of the Republican form of Government was to bifurcate the process and so what you have is Partisan Party Politics, divide and conquer. Ironically, even within the System of Partisanship, you find its own systemic prohibitions, again, as seen by the example of “Independent” Joes Lieberman; the legislative infrastructure has been designed to only recognize either of the two Parties accordingly, under the present structure, you’ll never see the Independent as a Committee Chair, a Majority or Minority Leader or, for that matter, as Speaker of the House! To be fair to the argument though, I do acknowledge that Joe Lieberman was able to retain his position on the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs in exchange for his vote pledge to the Democrat agenda, after all, you can only be independent when it counts at the ballot box.
“Partisanship Practices tethers representative government such that the choice and will of the People are defined only by the choices made available and objects to opposition by assuring that there is none!”
One should, and I advise strongly, read James Madison’s essay, Federalist Paper(s) # 10 and although it truly requires one to study all 85 of the articles to grasp the entire scope of the Founding Fathers design however this particular piece will suffice, at least for now. The Founders understood, largely from the cumulative lessons of their time, that Government left to the divisive tendencies of controlling interests trended toward an Oligarchy or out right Despotism. This is precisely why, in our time, there is little change at all in the practice of Government simply because it doesn’t have too. It simply prefers the process as it is.
This a great piece, will conclude the discussion in Part II….stay tuned!
Curtis C. Greco, Founder
