Delving into the world of political insanity.
Political models that accurately portray and define a liberal, conservative, or moderate—centrist are non-existent in what should be an enlightened society. Modern political philosophies do not coincide with the traditional understanding of political alignment. In reality, there are two faces of America and the rules of political engagement have changed dramatically. Since the topic is boring to anyone except the most politically excitable, the information in this web site, although exclusively owned by the author, is free for you to review and reference with appropriate citation. Any reprinting in a professional publication of the content is prohibited without appropriate authorization from the author. Thank you and enjoy. James H. Hafeman, MPA
TRADITIONAL GOVERNMENT CONTROL MODEL
By James H. Hafeman, MPA
LEFTWING CENTRIST RIGHTWING
Traditional Republican - Independent - Traditional Democrat
An individual interested in learning the complex association of politics in any system of government (right click any refrenced links to open in a new window), and in particular the political affiliations that define the roles of leadership among a people, may find the various models in this web site useful. Whether leadership is in the form of a sole tribal leader of an obscure people, a mayor in a city of 4,500 or three million people, or the President of the United States or a terrorist dictator; each individual leader has their own political philosophies and values. However, the ultimate assessment of any political leader is based on their practice and political philosophy regarding their advocacy or opposition of government controls and governmental influences over the people they serve. A leader’s advocacy for or against any unnecessary governmental controls and influences over the people they lead determines their political tendencies. The tendencies are then associated with a political philosophy, or in this case, a political affiliation that is best described as being either left or right of center.
The above Traditional Government Control Model is based on a very simple concept. The model serves as a definitive diagram that is based on historical political philosophies. Utilizing the leftwing and rightwing concept, the Traditional Government Control Model demonstrates the fundamental principles associated with each side of the aisle in the traditional sense. Simply stated, all the Government Control Models utilized are drafted according to the most common understanding of political systems, but also utilizes some enhanced historical understandings and terminology. The model places the highly controlling and domineering Totalitarian government to the far left and the Anarchist, who enjoys no noticeable governmental influence to the far right. The status quo groups, that are neither progressive nor regressive, are identified as Centrist or Moderate.
Most individuals may already understand that legislative or parliamentarian leaderships are typically divided into a leftwing and a rightwing seating arrangement. In the United States for example, the leftwing of the House of Representatives and Senate are occupied by the Democrats and the rightwing is held by the Republicans. In England’s House of Commons, the leftwing is predominately the Liberals, who joined the Social Democrats in 1988 to become the Democrat-Liberals. The Parliamentary Labour Party representatives are also leftwing. The former Tory Party, now known as the Conservative Party, is right-wing although they may be seated on the left. Conservatives in Great Britain are still commonly referred to as Tories. [Also see international links to the House of Representative, Senate, Labour Party and European Liberal Democrat.]
· The more inclined the political philosophy is in embracing strong governmental controls and influences over the citizens is depicted on the left side of the scale—LEFTWING.
· Contrarily, the less inclined the political philosophy is in embracing governmental controls and influences over the citizen is depicted further right on the scale—RIGHTWING.
· The model also depicts what most politically astute people would consider the political bottom-feeders; those with a middle-of-the-road philosophy—CENTRIST.
MODERN GOVERNMENT CONTROL MODEL
By James H. Hafeman, MPA
LEFTWING CENTRIST RIGHTWING
Neo-Liberal - Neo-Conservative - Modern Conservative
Historically, clear definitions have not been readily available to help distinguish political movements. To complicate the issue further, most previous definitions had also been subjective and through time, many political philosophies have become less definitive as a result of a constant political metamorphosis. Furthermore, what had been once construed as a viable definition for one political movement in the past, may no longer apply. This is particularly true in today’s modern schizophrenic political environment. The terms Fiscal-conservative and Social-liberal come to mind when thinking of an example in today’s schizophrenic political environment; they may be good political mantras but are politically incompatible. Imagine the nominal level of intelligence required to embrace the notion that we can be promised all kinds of excellent social programs, yet not spend any money on them. The practice of Fiscal-conservatism and Social-liberalism would only apply if the politician endorsed self-supporting organizations and programs that have proved themselves as being immeasurably beneficial and productive, like the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts.
The dynamics of the various political movements have often merged into a complex set of competing philosophies. Contrasting the merging of ideologies, many political movements have become segregated from the original concepts of a specific political philosophy. As an example, the Traditional Conservatives had been defined as being the status quo group; today the status quo groups are considered Centrists or Moderates.
The measurements utilized to assess the philosophical transition from the Traditional Government Control Model to the Modern Government Control Model remains closely aligned with the former in that the philosophical adjudication on the government’s role in the lives of the citizenry remains paramount. The Modern Government Control Model still retains the leftwing and rightwing aspects demonstrated by strong government control and influence or the nominal government control and influence respectively. The most significant differences between the two models are the evolutionary philosophical inversion of the Liberals to the left and the movement of the Conservatives to the left. Today’s Liberals, the Neo-liberals, are identified as being leftwing and the Conservatives have transitioned from a Centrist ideology to a rightwing philosophy. The conservatives returning to leftwing ideologies are called neo-conservatives. There are also two philosophical additions to the Modern model; Fascism and Communism. It wasn’t until the 20th Century that Fascism and Communism were established as significant political philosophies and required inclusion in the models.
Generally, most of the other political philosophies remain virtually intact on the scale. Both the Traditional Government Control Model and the Modern Government Control Model are balanced in the middle by the Centrist. The middle-of-the-road Centrist, which had been traditionally to the right of the Conservative, is best identified as an Independent or a Moderate by today’s standards. The Moderate is the least interesting philosophy to define since it is the most mundane area of the model.
Regarding the role of government [also see Federalism] in the lives of the citizenry, the Moderate has few, if any, clearly defined boundaries. The news media had declared themselves and many politicians, like Bill Clinton, and a majority of the citizens in the United States as Moderates. Essentially, the Moderate is an individual without any tangible political convictions and will generally sway left or right, depending either on the consensus regarding an issue or how the Moderate perceives the viability of remaining in the center with as little supportive involvement as possible. The Moderate is today’s ball and chain political group and are considered the status quo group. The Moderate is characteristically the main political group that lacks any real direction, is unable to make any controversial decisions, possess little if any vision and have no ability to see beyond the present. Based on that standard alone, Bill Clinton was accurately labeled as a Moderate throughout most of his presidency.
Individuals that had lived in previous generations had the benefit of the family in close proximity. The nucleus of the family centered on all the surviving generations. The family unit once provided individual support to each other. If the family was unable to provide the necessary support of a family member, the sociological support groups like friends, neighbors and church would become involved. Prior to the 1930s, it was unheard of to go to the government for aid, comfort and charity. But times had changed. Charity, once starting at home, has evolved into charity through the government.
The rugged individualism that was necessary to survive beyond the corridors of a city and sustained a nation for over two centuries was slowly disappearing as the nation matured. However, the United States still has an occasional politician that represents the virtues of years gone by. President Ronald Reagan displayed the romantic idealisms of a person holding the values, commitments and spirituality associated with a cowboy’s big heart. It seemed as if God had purposefully delayed allowing God-fearing Conservatives into leadership roles until the last minute. In today’s good versus evil world, the God-fearing Conservatives are required in leadership roles far more frequently.
Literacy, transportation and new inventions helped to shape a changing society and country. The modernization also gave us a period of a darkened-enlightenment; individuals began to lock out the necessary acknowledgement of a higher power and authority and instead placed their futures in the hands of men. Like an overbearing wife, there was non-stop bickering and accusations. The American constituency was prevented from clearly identifying the issues and platforms of leftwing candidates. The only system by which an individual citizen could assess the alignment of a political candidate in the modern political environment was by the candidate’s party affiliation. This practice should hold true today and candidates must choose a party carefully before signing on under a particular party’s ticket.
Appeasement of the people by a governing body does not necessarily remedy governmental controls and influences. The indoctrination of the citizenry through propaganda which alleges the government is both responsive and accountable to the people is nothing more than a method utilized by government to enjoy continued support by the citizens. A satisfied and ignorant people will help the government to avoid any revolution until such a time the people are powerless to regenerate control over their government. The employment of a few good visceral terms or ideas often generates a positive reaction among the little people. Adolph Hitler was an excellent orator and propagandist who instilled a deep passion among the citizenry; the German citizens turned in their weapons and burned books. By the 1990s, similar mantras would initiate the confiscation of assault weapons in the United States and prohibit citizens from owning any weapons that could cause a threat to an oppressive government. The simple usage of the term “assault” as an identifier of certain firearms sustained a vigorous undertaking of disarming Americans who owned or wanted to own a firearm that could be used in a counteroffensive against a marching army under the direction of an oppressive government authority.
GOVERNMENT CONTROL MODEL
By James H. Hafeman, MPA
LEFTWING CENTRIST RIGHTWING
Modern Liberal Modern Independent Modern Conservative
The Government Control Model above is the set application for reference. This model provides a method for an individual to identify themselves to their constituency based on their philosophical political ideologies. There are Liberal-Republicans ( Neo-cons) and Conservative-Democrats ( Blue dogs) out there, but neither should be affiliated with the Party that fails to align with their political beliefs. There are clear examples of the Democratic Liberals movement further to the left. The political system setup by the Democrats had essentially eliminated the common person from choosing a presidential candidate.
Using delegates at state conventions, the Democratic presidential candidate is chosen primarily on the floor of the various state conventions; few states permit an actual primary vote by the registered voters and those states that do are rather insignificant to the process. However, in modern society, the general public is oblivious to fundamentals of political interaction within their lives, so the muddier the waters, the better off many candidates are, particularly those with Fascist and Communist tendencies like former presidential candidates Al Gore (2000) and John Kerry (2004). Unfortunately, the Republicans hold a national primary which allows the unchecked influence of corrupt Democrats who may affect an election by voting for the weaker Republican candidate, like John McCain, who won Michigan in 2000. There should be either a national primary for all parties at the same time or they should all select their candidates at their respective conventions on the same day. However, if the GOP followed the same guidelines as the Democrats, only the political elitists would choose the presidential nominees for each party.
John Kerry selected John Edwards to run as his vice-president. The Democratic Party rallied behind the two Elitist who were hailed as saviors by the Hollywood Elitist and corrupt media forces. The Lawyercracy created by the Democrats throughout the years should have been enough to raise a suspicion among the constituency. But, being good Democrats, Kerry with 20 years in the Senate and Edwards with almost six years, all of a sudden came up a “Plan” to save the nation. The “Plan” that Kerry had not clearly laid out before the voters, even on his web site, was incredibly suspicious. In fact, at the time of this writing, it is believed that this Plan for national salvation had not yet been presented to the reelected President George W. Bush to help guide us into a prosperous future. Any American Patriot would rapidly present any worthy plan without accolades. Then again, Democrat Governor Jennifer Granholm promised a plan to fix Michigan, but that plan still hasn’t seen the light of day either.
It had been suggested that today’s Liberals are more moderate and the Conservatives have transitioned from a Centrist ideology to a rightwing philosophy. The truth is that the Conservatives have not moved further right than where they were during the Ronald Reagan Administration, if anything the Conservatives may have moved a little more left. The gap between the Neo-Liberals and the Conservatives had increased significantly since the Neo-Liberals sold out to the United Nations and embraced Socialistic ideologies, the serfdom philosophies of Communism and the UN Agenda 21 whole heartedly.
Up until lately, the Republican Party had consisted of mostly strong, independent, God-fearing Conservatives. It has been the movement of the Democrats further to the left that created an imbalance and widened the gap between the two parties until the liberal-Republicans began infiltrating the GOP. The Communistic ideologies lauded by the leftwing are a hindrance to the progressive nature of the Republic. Minimum wage prevents employers from paying an individual what they’re worth as an employee and has effectively provided little gain and positive reinforcement in many of the jobs, especially when an employee is considering being elevated to a higher level of responsibility. The notion of a fair day’s wages for a fair day’s work is reasonable, but does not require government controls. The ideology of unionization of employees has helped usher-in an age of responsible industries. Unionization had helped skilled workers earn salaries commensurate with their talents. Eventually, unions also began representing the unskilled and incompetent workers as well. Once the average citizen thinks they have something to gain by supporting one political party or another, the dynamics and purpose of a free Republic becomes increasingly obscure. Citizens should expect nothing from their elected officials except high-quality representation and nothing from their government except the necessary goods and services required to maintain a secure and sovereign nation.
WINNING IN 2014
There is only one way for the citizens to regain control of the United States of America; taking-back your political party! The Democratic Party has moved so far left that they think themselves impervious from suffering any consequences for their overt totalitarian ideologies. The Republican Party has also moved so far left that they are a mere reflection of the Progressive Party of President Woodrow Wilson.
The Democratic Party has been touted as the “Party of the Working Man”. Really? Explain why the “working man” has to pay $4 for a gallon of gas and absorb all coinciding costs associated with growing, harvesting, transporting and selling of consumable goods! Now we have their health care fiascos raining down on the citizens.
Republicans were the “Party of the Constitution”. They were supposed to protect the citizens from the atrocities of an overzealous political machine; instead the McCain and the Graham types are more interested in reaching across the aisle to embrace the destruction of the republican system of governance. The only time they appear in public is when they feign outrage for one of the atrocities they helped facilitate.
The bottom-line in 2014 is to identify the members of Congress who need to be replaced and run a devoted American against them in the Primary Election.
To contact us:
When it comes right down to it, we’re all in this worldly adventure together. This journey we call life has only two certainties; a beginning and an end. From Creation through the chronicles of history we have no measurable recall except for this short period of time that we are now sharing.
We have gained most of our historical knowledge from books and tales. What we know of the past had been written by a few who had witnessed history in the making, or, what seems to be most popular method in today’s society, is accepting as fact those findings which were only devised through guessing. As civilization evolved and became allegedly more sophisticated and civilized, it has become less clear to what exactly was seen and what was in reality only guessed.
The University of California, Berkeley, has already given up on the use of the word “Theory” in its presentment of their course in “Evolution”. The former “Theory of Evolution” has transitioned into fact. There is a tendency to give far more credence to those who have guessed than to those who had witnessed.
The journey on which we continue may often seem too long and pointless. It may seem overwhelmingly uneventful. The theatrics of life pans from sustained inaction, to sudden drama, or to an off-beat comedy, or perhaps to some profound connection of gathered wisdom that we had somehow missed along the way but have finally grasped.
During our early years the days lingered for most of us, the school day would start and slowly come to an end. Summer vacation was a long-time in coming but by the end of the summer we were so bored we actually looked forward to returning to the grind of school. Eventually we graduated and along came our own family, our work and numerous other commitments in life. We couldn’t figure out how the hours of the day had all of sudden grown so short and passed so quickly. For those fortunate enough to survive until the final phase of our lives we will probably once again have the days and hours linger, but this time around it may be to our great joy.
Reminiscing on what we believed to be sound and just to us as youth was in reality nothing more than the progressive development of our inner character. Could we finally accept a new direction in our lives, perhaps a profound respect for what we once viewed as archaic and benign?
Through maturity we have learned that the best things in life involve change and the worst things in life involve change. We find it more difficult to reconcile ourselves to our regrets; not visiting old relatives and friends of the family because it was not convenient at the time – but then they have all passed on, leaving us wondering why we didn’t make the time. It may be impossible to have no regrets, so our goal has changed to strive for fewer regrets as our life goes on.
Our ability and our will to accept the harsh and often difficult supposition that we are flawed and are constantly struggling to adapt and renovate our impoverished capacity to exercise wisdom, common sense or even both, should keep us on our toes until life’s ultimate conclusion. As we once looked to others for support and advice it some how became our turn to give others our support and our advice. It became our turn to serve each other and our communities. It is now temporarily up to us to make crucial decisions, providing our limited wisdom and uncertain guidance to those who are preparing to replace us.
The thoughtful enterprise that comes from knowledge, experience, and a deep understanding of both reward and consequence makes us more timid, yet somehow more sincere. What we need to offer those who look to us for some understandable perspective is not necessarily good and sound advice; it is perhaps only the successful methodologies that we utilized in order for them to make their own good and sound decisions. There are no dreams to be dreamt unless those who are about to have them are given the comfort of a pillow for their head, a welcoming mattress for their body, a quality blanket for their comfort, the security and warmth of a family and a simple kiss on the forehead for restoration of both souls.
And as far as regrets go, I pray each of us will one day report to God with fewer regrets in our lives and only a few forgivable disappointments.