Democracy [Mob Rule]
Liberal Democracy [Electoral Colleges]
Figure 2.1: The Political Affiliation Model
By James H. Hafeman, MPA
ABOVE: The Political Affiliation Model are examples that demonstrate the placement of various political affiliations. Although few people in either major political party in the United States would support the citizenry dying from starvation or going without access to quality health care, the methodologies employed to attain satisfactory results are as different as the elected individuals themselves. In the broadest sense, the leftwing movement was based on creating a dependent class of citizen and the rightwing motivations were to prevent the citizens’ emersion into the waters of dependence. The leftwing political affiliations truly become extreme when the role of the government shifts to have the people serve the government. In the Modern Dimensions of Political Affiliation Model, (Figure 2.1), Guild Socialism is the first step to the left on the scale that incorporates the serfdom philosophy. The apex of control and influence by the government over the people and the ultimate servitude of the people on behalf of their government is a Totalitarian government.
Retaining the ideas demonstrated in previous models, governmental controls and influences are diminished on the right. Modern Conservatism is the first step to the right on the Modern Government Control Model scale. The leadership affiliated with a rightwing philosophy acknowledges that the government exists to serve the people. The government’s role becomes only the health, welfare and safety of the people. The zenith of the rightwing is where there is no noticeable control or influence of the government over the people; the people are essentially unaccountable to any formal structure. This rightwing apex is defined as Anarchy.
Although a representative form of government is utilized through several political affiliations throughout the lower portions of the model, the variations differ between rightwing symbolic representations and leftwing controlling representations. The people have the greatest influence over the government on the philosophies depicted in the rightwing box and the people have the least influence under the listed philosophies in the leftwing box. In many circumstances, individuals or groups chosen to represent the people are entrusted to make decisions on behalf of the people or more properly, the constituency. Even those decisions that may not be popular among the majority of citizens have to be made by someone. This is where true leadership is objectively identified.
CITIZENRY GOVERNMENT RIGHT-WING
Figure 2.2: The Political Dynamics Model By James H. Hafeman, MPA
The Political Dynamics Model triangles in Figure 2.2 above demonstrate the critical difference between a government run by the political powers of government and one in which the people are predominantly in charge of the government. Ideally, the most productive form of government is where there are consistent balances between the government and the people and both are highly responsive to the others needs. Although an individual that is suspended in the noncommittal land of a Moderate has no real function in the political arena, the system that provides a consistent and positive interaction between the people and government is the Centrist-Moderate Model. In this area leftwing and rightwing representatives should interact and achieve.
The key of the Centrist—Moderate Triangle is the extension of the angles to the left and the right at the top and the bottom. At the center, where the two triangle meet is the zero land where no political decisions can be made. Any politician that has come out and identified themselves as a Centrist or a Moderate would not even make a good cook, unless it was a receipt right off a box of oatmeal. Even then, if the Moderate were told they could use either milk or water they would probably end up at a walk-in clinic on the edge of a nervous breakdown. In the ideal political atmosphere there would be no need to compromise; each side would make decisions based on what is the right thing to do. In the same vein fairness would also be eliminated; doing what is right and proper should always prevail within political and judicial chambers.
Among the citizenry that pays attention to modern politics on both sides of the aisle, it is easily determined that the leftwing members are inclined to provide a high level of governmental influence in society. On the other hand, the philosophy of the rightwing members is limited government with only a nominal influence over the people it serves. The transition from a nation that was controlled by the Democrats to a nation that is now dominated by Republicans is the result of an educated and politically sophisticated electorate. The media has unwittingly described the losses of political seats by the Democrats as a loss of “power” and “control.” The Republicans have gained “leadership” roles. The truthful terminology had not been readily recognized by the alleged moderate media, but the political motivations had been recognized by a majority of the people. In terms of modern political philosophies in the United States, we could easily interchange the word President with either Senators or Congressmen. The philosophies concerning servitude are distinctly opposite.
The Democrats’ transition from a more Moderate philosophy where they were able to work with Republicans, who were also a little more Moderate, evolved during the 1980s and dissipated in the 1990s. The anti-establishment Hippies were rightwing Constitutionalist who embraced an isolationist, hands-off, ideology with their anti-war stance on Vietnam. The racist tactics of the Great Society of Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic Party carefully placed minorities on the Liberal plantation and has successfully held them there for nearly forty years. As the Hippies had grew-up, so-to-speak, to become the establishment and evolve into the “plastic people” they once condemned, they somehow emerged from rock-throwing racists in Little Rock and to dope-smokers doing law school students in the back of El Camino without the benefit of a cigar, to the presidency. Even Hugh Hefner, the CEO of Playboy Magazine, would have brought far more integrity to the White House. The former right-wingers lost their religious convictions over the years, once proclaiming, “God made marijuana and man made alcohol, who do you trust?” That may have been the last time the former rightwing extremists acknowledged there was a God. However, it did become necessary for Democrats to carry a Bible and attend church during their campaigns. It is suspected that Hillary Clinton could even find some temporary religion in her quest to rule over the little people of America.
Although, Hillary may have to explain to the pro-life Christians about her pro-abortion activity in China and the worldwide attention of Mao Hengfeng, The Teflon-Clintons always manage to fool some of the people most of the time. The 900 plus FBI files that were found in Hillary’s keeping at Whitehouse somehow had gone unnoticed by the Democratic Superstar. Only two things could be possible regarding Hillary Clinton, either she is organizationally inept or a liar. Neither is a quality that would be embraced by a majority of the American voters, but the latter is a commodity that is not only expected, but embraced by the Democrats, especially if she proves, which she has, to be good at misrepresenting the truth. What is really ironic, only a few years before the Democrats constantly bashed President Reagan for his alleged memory inefficiencies, Hillary somehow enjoyed a clean bill of health by the mainstream media.
Bill Clinton, hailed as a Democratic saint, brought an embarrassment and an unprecedented compromise of national security to one of the most vital positions in the United States government. The college and university campuses across America were void of any protestors during the preemptive strikes in Kosovo, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Somalia and Haiti. There were no protests against a sitting president engaged in preemptive strikes against nations that posed no national threat to the United States, nor for blatantly lying to the American populace on a topic that was not relevant to national security. Most disturbing is the lack of protest on campuses and among the Democrats when it had been proven that a sitting president had perjured himself in federal court by lying under oath. Only Republicans are held accountable for personal indiscretions. Trent Lott and Newt Gingrich are only two examples of individuals that had felt the effects of the Democratic Hypocrisy Machine.
The remnants of the less than thoughtful, more than emotional, citizenry are now out in droves in opposition to a war that had not received the blessing of the United Nations. It has all of a sudden become unprecedented to send our troops to war under the American flag rather than the United Nations’ flag. Although the Oil for Food Program may not considered to be a scandal by Democrats, only a missed opportunity, the misfeasance of office by those in the United Nations is curiously suspect. Germany and France may be up to their eyeballs in corruption, but as long as they are against the United States, many of their citizens support their corrupt governmental rulers. Russia, on the other hand, only wanted to make money be selling their obsolete weapons to Iraq.
Since the Democrats have an all-out contempt for American entrepreneurship, the quickly blasted President Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld for awarding a bid to Halliburton to provide non-military oriented services in Iraq. The leftwing media, Democrats and other mentally undernourished citizens would have preferred to award a foreign business, with no standards, experience or accountability, the contract funded with American dollars. It doesn’t have to be said, but speculation is that France and German organizations would have received preferential considerations by the Democrats and should have received the contract rather than a competent American company that employs Americans.
The final definitive moment in the Neo-liberals legacy was their nomination of John Kerry. The Democratic Party showed little regard for the continuation of the positive momentum within United States. The Democrats had no definitive platform to run on. The former liberals that embraced the anti-war and the anti-establishment movements of the 1960s and early 1970s ended their Neo-liberal reign in 2000. The negative campaign in 2004 compromised national security and undermined the excellent performance by the American military. On one hand the Democrats wanted America to withdraw from Iraq and on the other hand wanted more troops to perform the mission. Not one Democrat had a memory of the accidental attack against Canadian troops in Afghanistan; too many troops and too many allies in war zones create additional casualties. The logistics involved in a strategic offensive against insurgents can only be further complicated by introducing more people who are only partially in the loop with all their equipment than what is necessary to fulfill a mission.
Another Democratic anomaly is their persistent nagging about sending American troops into harms way without being properly equipped. There is also the fact that the Democrats support a draft, or conscription, but complain about the need to have a “ backdoor draft” which prevents troops eligible for discharge from being let out of their military obligations. The diminished capabilities and size of regular military forces during the 1990s appears to be irrelevant. The truth is that many more American military forces would be killed if their were significant rotations in and out of Iraq. Although the Democrats pray to their non-god that the military would suffer losses equal or beyond those in Vietnam, the experiences and lessons learned by those U. S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan cannot be taught in a military classroom. The excessive loss of troops and the overwhelming cuts and neglect of military equipment during the Clinton years had been the catalyst for the current Democratic complaints. Most intriguing is that Hillary Clinton is on the Armed Services Committee and serves on some subcommittees like Readiness and Management Support and others that place our national security on the line. This is the same woman that demanded a lieutenant general in uniform that needed then President Bill Clinton to sign some important documents, to go home and change into civilian clothes because they don’t allow uniforms on that end of the Whitehouse. The general did as he was told and turned in his retirement papers the next day.
Learning from our mistakes, we usually modify our behaviors, renovate our structures, and reformulate our ideologies and philosophies. We have grown beyond the dreams of our ancestors. So too, our inheritors may grow beyond the dreams of their ancestors, if guided by principles and a devotion to God. It was our responsibility to make life better, easier and less complex, but the offspring of the Greatest Generation has failed the sons and daughters of America. It is quite possible that it is only by God’s will alone that we still exist. We can be thankful our future is rapidly becoming our past and the future will be the next generation’s responsibility. It is possible they may be our last hope in ensuring the human race once again becomes an accountable and responsible species; pray they do not fail their children as we have.
By our own evolutionary standards, we need to be comfortable with our representatives to make difficult decisions, including those that may be considered unpopular. We have learned to relinquish the decision-making process to the competent individuals. Citizens often remain confident in their leadership based on the representative’s perceived abilities to make justified decisions. Exhaustive information and dialogue with experts is exercised frequently among the most competent leaders. Essentially, those entrusted by the people to perform leadership tasks must be committed to performing their duties in the best interest of their constituents generally. Specifically they must fully consider the residual effects on all the people.
As we struggle through our insignificant lives, we gain an introspective of ourselves and an “extrospective” of those around us. There is clearly a difference in each individual’s perspective; a personal dimensional outline associated with meaning and purpose in our lives. From behind the eyes of the viewer lies an interpretation that only they know. The dying patient perceives the world quite differently than the nurse in attendance. All that is in the world is intentional, not an accident. Everything that happens has a purpose, a fulfillment, and all is by necessity rather than by default. Each discovery requires someone to be first, someone to pay attention, someone to interpret the details and another to pass of the information from generation to generation. The process of elimination may be an arduous method and sometimes fatal, e.g., who discovered a certain mushroom was poisonous? Process then, is often the only method to identify significant variations along our way.
We are not animals. We are capable of reasoning and analytical thought. We possess dexterity, will, drive, emotion, understanding, and knowledge. On occasion we have been known to demonstrate that we have some wisdom. We are often times reverent, respectable, caring, compassionate, empathetic, motivated and responsible. We have been known to fall upon our knees to beg for God’s mercy, forgiveness and guidance. We may enjoy self, another, a group, or a crowd. We are simple in body and complex in spirit. Individually, we are completely different from all those like us. We anticipate, plan, organize, evaluate, and we even change when the need arises. We are not diminished by error, but strengthened by failures.
The political atmosphere has changed in the United States. The structure of the leadership prevents constructive dialogue. The give-and-take exchanges have ceased, diplomacy has evaporated and the government has been effectively locked in a Purgatory of their own making. We have come to the point where we will have no further evolution and we have negated the firm resolve of our founding fathers to have a nation for the people, by the people and most importantly, an indivisible nation Under God. Yahweh help us!