Our entire political system is based on a system of payoffs. When the Republicans have the control, the payoffs are under the table, and go to men of wealth to buy their allegiance. When the Democrats have control, the payoffs are out in the open, go towards increasing the size and power of government, and buying the allegiance of the underclass.
As far as my 66 years has taken me, that's the only difference I can divine between the application of the two political philosophies in our time.
BTW, people, there is not one word of this system in the writings of our forefathers who made the rules we supposedly live by.
The question for YOU, then, is to divine whether the forefathers knew that this corruption of their ideas would evolve, but were embarrassed to speak of it.
If they did, then we must learn to live within the corrupt society. If they didn't, we must cleanse society of the corruption.
The political momentum is ripe for another wild shift. A shift back to the under-the-table payoff system does no good for the future of our nation.
I will not be participating in the political shift. I will become a cleaner of society. I will be a problem for both sides.
That is all.
Federalist #10 make it clear that they understood the problem, and thought it was inherent in human nature. Their solution was to create a system with so many different centers of power that it would be very difficult for any group to control enough of them to cause any permanent damage.
Then, of course, we passed the 16th and 17th Amendments, and broke the system, entirely.
From Federalist #10:
"The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society."
"It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm."
"The inference to which we are brought is, that the causes of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects."
"If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. ... When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed."
"By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression."
"A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union."
"The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other."
"The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State."
Posted by: Jeff Dege | December 23, 2009 at 14:34
For 20.00$ I'll be on your side, River Dog.
Posted by: Neil Smith | December 23, 2009 at 06:41
Back in the day, our forefathers duked it out on the floor, outside, or duelled over their stances.
I would pay-per-view Duncan Hunter bitch slap the left side into submission.
We have PC so instilled in us that any backtalk brands us as heritics and outlaws.
OK, outlaws it is.
Lets get it on!
Posted by: Skip | December 22, 2009 at 02:44