GOVERNMENT SYSTEMS AND POLITICAL ALIGNMENTS
TRADITIONAL GOVERNMENT CONTROL MODEL
By James H. Hafeman, MPA
LEFTWING CENTRIST RIGHTWING
Totalitarianism – Monarchy – Theocracy – Conservatism – Moderate – Liberalism – Libertarian – Democracy – Anarchist
Traditional Conservative – Independent – Traditional Liberal
An individual interested in learning the complex association of politics in any system of government (right click any referenced 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 v. 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 basic rule-of-thumb for all the models in this web site are:
- · 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.
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 after he learned the GOP had better ideas.
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 room full of overbearing wives, there is non-stop bickering, accusations and innuendos.
Ultimately the American constituency has been prevented from clearly identifying the issues and platforms of candidates, particularly leftwing communist 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 holds true today for the very ignorant voter and we find candidates choosing their Party over the good of their constituency.
[In the Troubled Asset Relief Programs (TARP), the politicians not once mentioned any concern for the struggling citizens who lost half of their retirement portfolios, were experiencing foreclosures, lost their jobs and ended-up working below their pay grade and/or part-time, which in-turn prevented them from paying on other loans for their education and automobiles, and the investment in their homes was decimated.]
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
Modern Liberal Modern Independent Modern Conservative
MODERN GOVERNMENT CONTROL MODEL
By James H. Hafeman, MPA
LEFTWING CENTRIST RIGHTWING
Modern Democrat and RINO – Independent – Modern Conservative Republican
The Modern 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 held a national primary which allowed the unchecked influence of corrupt Democrats to affect an election by voting for the weaker leftwing Republican candidate, John McCain, who won Michigan in 2000. There should be either a national primary for all parties on the same day or they should all select their candidates at their respective county/parish conventions on the same day at the same time; the State should not have to fund partisan primary elections.
If the GOP followed the same guidelines as the Democrats, the political elitists would choose the presidential nominees for the Party. Opening a Primary Election to novice voters has been a remarkable contributor to the downfall for the Republican Party. Then again, the political insiders have also poisoned the well, which has prevented good people from seeking political office in either Party; in every case the Party wins and the citizens lose.
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 was evidently implemented to quickly destroy the State of Michigan—The anti-Constitution 111th Congress Democrats, in just two short years, 2009-2011, managed to do even more harm to the nation than what Granholm and her Democrats did to the State of Michigan.
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 after Newt Gingrich was ousted from Congress by the RINOs; if anything the Conservatives may have moved so far left you can’t tell a RINO from entrenched Commiecrats. The gap between the Neo-Liberals and the Constitutional 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 and 2030 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-BACK AMERICANISM BY 2024
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 over $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 Paul Ryan and the Mitch McConnell types were more interested in reaching across the aisle to embrace the destruction of the republican system of governance; the do-nothing Republicans worked well with the deny-everything Democrats. The only time they appear in public is when they feign outrage for one of the atrocities they helped facilitate.
The bottom-line in 2022 is to identify the members of Congress who need to be replaced and run a devoted American against them in the Primary Election and prepare for a political phoenix in 2024. It’s time the voters in the United States of America garner some fortitude and make their expectations known in no uncertain terms.