Burke, Paine, Freud, And Clerow Wilson

I'm not a philosopher. At least not any more than the other guy. But I see myself in a society I did not make, and doing things for reasons I don't always know. And I wonder why. I'm sure there are people with answers to all my questions, but I don't understand them. We live in the “post-modern”ⁱ age and I can't understand the philosophical dialectic of our times.

In truth, I find most philosophic arguments somewhat opaque. Often the players seem more interested in “one-upping” their colleagues than in helping the rest of us. Practitioners use language which I understand, to formulate concepts which I don't. I'm not an insider regarding the newer ideas, so I use as my guides to secular thoughtⁱⁱ (especially political thought) Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine, whose ideasⁱⁱⁱ are, arguably, the source of current conservative and liberal philosophies.^iv Many, I'm sure, see their views as out of date, but I live in the past.

Although their philosophies are complex and nuanced, I'll try to summarize each in just a few sentences.^v Paine was a revolutionary. He was a believer in equality and liberty and in whatever was necessary to achieve them. From his perspective when action was required we should not refrain from it. Sometimes the necessary steps worked, as in the case of the American Revolution, and sometimes, as was true regarding the French Revolution, they didn't. Sometimes they got out of hand. Although modern liberals diverge from some of his teachings, the “left,” today, shares many of his views.

Burke shared his English heritage with Paine, but disagreed on a number of points. Most important was his acceptance of the idea that the reality is that there is inequality, and that is appropriate. He saw this as most significant, and as a justified construct, in the English monarchy^vi and class system, and in Parliamentary rule.^vii,viii,ix While he supported American independence it was because that system had failed the colonies. The system was not inherently wrong, but functioned poorly when applied to the other side of the world. History and heritage were the important sources of our societies, and deviation from them should be done slowly and carefully, and following the rules. In current terms he was a “rightist.”

One way of looking at their approaches is through Paine's lens. He believed in reason,^x and that humanity, observing reason, could achieve peace and justice. He believed that reasonable men (people) would respond positively to the facts.^xi They would reach a common conclusion about the causes and cures of problems. And they would act to solve those problems.

Some, and Burke was among them, felt that reality and human nature were much more important motivators in human decision making than was recognized by those who turned to reason. He was more conservative in nature and looked to the past, to how people have acted before when faced with a similar situation, to the rules of the game, and to a full analysis of the current situation, as guides when considering the next step. It was an approach that placed greater emphasis on the “is” than the “ought,” believing that approach was more likely to be productive.

Perhaps politics was not the most important subject on Sigmund Freud's agenda, but his teachings accurately reflect past as well as present political philosophies. Paine believed in the immediate identification and rectification of problems by whatever means he thought might work at the time. It is still a common method of operation – recognize a problem and solve it. And by using Reason, you can certainly identify those things that are unfair or wrong in life.

Whether the therapy works or not, it is a start. Even if some of the results of the solution are problems greater than those which initiated the action,^xii it is a start, and if changes are needed they can be made in the proposed remedy. Don't just stand there, do something. Fix the problem. Right the wrong.

The process is the equivalent of a person following the directives of his Id. It is the unfiltered and, often, the incompletely evaluated reaction to situations which, themselves, may not be what they seem.^xiii And there may be disagreement on the nature of the problem, even among reasonable people.^xiv Hence there will be disagreement concerning the solutions. And since we are dealing with ungoverned Ids, the solutions, themselves, may be in conflict – possibly even resulting in deleterious results. Too often they act too fast.

Those who rely on history and human nature, on doing good while observing past precedents and proprieties, seem to be more significantly controlled by their Superego. But that Superego tells them to act slowly and deliberately and to do their best not to violate those principles that have been reliable guides in the past.^xv And it may be the cause of delay in action when more speed is warranted.

For Aristotle it was the “golden mean.” For Maimonides it was the “middle way.” Our solution to the problem, as named by Freud, is the Ego. Not the boastful and self-centered pride that rules too many of us, but the integration of our urges with the constraints that govern them. And, for the most part, it works. In politics it's called “compromise.”^xvi While there are times when “no deal” is better than a “bad deal,”^xvii it is usually the case that compromise can serve both sides: generally the truth lies somewhere between the extremes – though not always in the middle. Even the Ego can temper justice with mercy – or, at least, the Superego with the Id.

Reason and human nature may not be simple concepts, but we know what they mean and we can deal with them even if we can't work out every problem. They're far more understandable than complex philosophies that consider many issues of no concern to us, and that turn our vocabulary into a playing field of the cognoscenti. But I know where the philosophers are “coming from.” As I said, I have a grasp of reason and human nature.

Next episode: “My Ideal” – Wait until text time.

 

 

 

 

I        Actually, there's probably a new designation for it. Or perhaps that age is over and there is currently a new one. Either way, however, it's not the age in which I grew up.

ii       I have to admit to what would, nowadays, be considered old fashioned. I still use the Bible and some of its expositors as the basis for my religious ideas – but they're even older than Burke and Paine.

iii      Or, more accurately, whose predispositions led them in different directions though they may have dealt with identical facts.

iv       A fascinating book on the subject is “The Great Debate,” by Yuval Levin. (New York, Basic Books, 2014). The designation of conservative and liberal is, admittedly, an oversimplification. The two agreed on many points though their premises and approaches were divergent.

v        I apologize for the hubris, but space requires it, and because I only want to use parts of their opinions as starting points. I'll try to expand a little at some time in the future.

vi       And other monarchies as well.

vii      Other obvious inequalities – physical, intellectual, and socioeconomic – are less relevant to this discussion.

viii     Burke didn't completely repudiate the idea of equality, but his approach, in modern terms, would be the acceptance of equality of opportunity rather than outcome, which was more in keeping with Paine's outlook. In both cases, however, it would take long explanation to clarify their positions.

ix       Apart from differences noted above (end note vii), a 3 year old doesn't have the knowledge he will have following an education; nor does a 25 year old have the wisdom, insight, or experience he will have a half-century later.

x        Indeed, he named, and believed, that he lived during “The Age of Reason,” and he even wrote a book by that title.

xi       It's hard to ignore the fact that both Paine and Burke were highly intelligent men with good stores of reason. Yet they argued. But that's human nature.

xii      It may be “better to light a candle than to curse the darkness” (Watkinson), but if the match used to light the candle also sets the house on fire there is a worse problem than there was before. While that new situation teaches an important lesson, and may lead to changes, it would have been better to hold of on action and to take a little time first to find the light switch.

xiii     What you see is not necessarily what you get, and it may be seen differently by others.

xiv      While virtue is assumed to be the justification for most of the doings of those who rely on intellect, some reasonable people will personalize the problem. They will see only injustices toward themselves, and act to optimize their own position. Clerow Wilson (“Flip” Wilson to the initiated), when his character Geraldine was found to be acting out of concern for herself, was wont to have her claim “The Devil made me do it.” Her Id prescribed behaviors that solved her problems, even if at a cost to others.

xv       Of course many of their acts are based on human nature too, so self-interest will also be on their agenda.

xvi      Unfortunately, politics, for the most part, doesn't work. That's as a result of human nature. Certainly not reason. They clothe their refusal to compromise on “principle,” but too many of them lack the principles necessary to support such a claim.

xvii     Indeed, Maimonides taught that when it came to anger or pride there was no justice on their sides.

Politics, Leadership, Polls And Language

              

 

According to Merriam-Webster, “cliché” originated from the French word “clicher” (its past participle) meaning “stereotype,” and we know it as a word indicating some overused expression.ⁱ The term is expansive and may relate to a proverb or other “truism” as well as to a short phrase or description. Clichés are reliable. They're “tried and true.” People use them all the time. After all, “it's better to be safe than sorry.”

But more than that, clichés (and I'm most interested in the expressions and proverbs) are so obviously true that they sum up all that we need to know about something. They're the received wisdom – “words to the wise.” They encapsulate someone's thoughts. They're argument-enders. It's difficult to respond to some banal statement, whether true or false, when you know that the one who said it is smug and impressed with his own brilliance, and has no interest in a rebuttal. He'll simply smirk and turn away.

That's not to say that all proverbs deserve disposal. Their history and popularity attest to the fact that they “strike a chord” in speakers and listeners, and at one time they were fresh and original. Now, though, they seem more useful as substitutes for thought. They're comfortable and familiar. And, to a significant degree, they're political. Perhaps not intentionally so, but that's the way many may be understood. When someone advises you to “look before you leap,”ⁱⁱ to “think it through” and remember that “what can go wrong will go wrong,”ⁱⁱⁱ so you must be cautions in order to avoid “unintended consequences,” and “never [to] burn your bridges before you cross them,”^iv he is expressing a very conservative position, and many proverbs are little more than cautionary tales reduced to a few words. And they're likely to be wrong.

But those of a more liberal bent have their own bromides. They're quick to remind anyone who will listen that “the early bird gets the worm”^v and “nothing ventured, nothing gained.”^vi And if they perceive a problem they can't “just stand there,”^vii they have to “do something.” And quickly. “A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush” and “a stitch in time saves nine.”^viii And their quick thinking and bias toward rapid action often leads them to “think outside the box” and to “push the envelope.” But they're wrong, too.

Still, there are “cooler heads.” Following Aristotle, they favor a middle path – compromise. After all, “there are two sides to every story.” What they never consider is that at least one of those sides is wrong. Whatever their private thoughts, they never concede that a compromise between right and wrong is wrong, and “the lesser of two evils” is evil.^ix And such an attitude gives credence and a platform to that “lesser,” as well as to the two evils between which it is a compromise. As I'm sure you've guessed, “half a loaf is [not always] better than none,” and because of their lack of sincerity, the compromisers are even more wrong than the “extremists” who actually believe the clichés they repeat.

But their words sound fair. And in modern-day politics, that's what counts. It's better to sound moderate – to be willing to compromise. And since the voters aren't always sophisticated, for many of them a middle ground seems like the best solution, one between the “extremes” rather than on one side.

And that's “where the money is.” Those are the voters who will decide most of the elections. “Dyed-in-the-wool” conservatives and liberals will vote for their own candidates irrespective of issues and positions, leaving the real decisions to those in “the middle of the road” in “swing states.” So our leaders conduct extensive polls to find out what those “independent” voters want and move toward those positions. It's much easier to lead when you know what the followers want. People are not interested in what is right but in what sounds right. So our representatives find out what sounds right to the voters and then courageously proclaim that position. A politician who actually says and defends what he believes is sure to be punished for it.^x (He who lives by the word, dies by it.) The one who repeats the truisms on which we have all been raised will fare much better. He^xi will be received by the voters with a much higher degree of comfort, irrespective of true beliefs or ability.

So the best thing a politician can do is to soothe the voters with words of comfort and wisdom – “the wisdom of the ages.” Clichés may be wrong or, at best, insipid, but we respond to them.  As William Claude Dukenfield said, “Never give a sucker an even break.” That's a turn of phrase dear to every “leader's” heart.

Next episode: “Remembrance Of Things Yet To Come” -- Death and the mad man.

 

i     We also use it to refer to anything else that is hackneyed and almost meaningless, like clothing styles, an idea, someone's reaction or life, etc.

ii    Perhaps we should sometimes be cautioned not to leap.

iii    Some believe that Murphy was an optimist.

iv    Of course some of those bridges shouldn't be crossed in the first place.

v    Chestnut: “Early to bed and early to rise, and your girl goes out with other guys.” But chestnuts are tastier than worms.

vi    Nor lost. Actually something may be lost. Especially if you expect prices to go down and you sell everything only to see them rise.

vii    We'd often be better off if our politicians did nothing and just stood there.

viii   If it's the right stitch. Otherwise it may require adding future stitches rather than saving some.

ix    Compromise is too often viewed as the first step in getting your way. It is the starting point for the next debate – one you expect to carry you further toward your goal. But, of course, that's exactly what your opponent thinks.

x     In 1964, Barry Goldwater, Republican candidate for the presidency, proclaimed “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” With a war going on in Viet Nam, and many voters doubting their country's position, such a statement was viewed with suspicion, as the view of a dangerous superpatriot. Senator Goldwater only received 52 electoral votes to President Johnson's 486.

xi    Or she.

All The News ... Addendum

Time passes. And we think of things we “shoulda' said.” Usually that phenomenon occurs immediately after a particular conversation. It is a missed opportunity. It's too late now to make a clever remark or pose a particular argument that would have gotten everyone's attention just a few moments ago.

Ideas, however, are not static. And they are not bound by time.

I was reading a previous blog that I wrote a little over a year ago, “All The News That's Fit To Print.” Of course I agree with myself, but I could have said more. And perhaps I could have emphasized other ideas. In it I pointed out that the primary aims of a publication are to sell papers and to publicize the publisher's opinion.ⁱ Thus the media slants are predictable even before a story is read or viewed by members of the public – a public usually having the same view anyway.ⁱⁱ The media weren't giving us the objective truth we had a right to expect.

I haven't changed my view about the facts – and these are facts. But my perspective is a little different. I still view the various media as biased in a wide variety of was – both in terms of political judgments and international perspectives. I still think the papers are excellent for wrapping fish,ⁱⁱⁱ and I think that they have the view that while it is their job to criticize others, any criticism of them is an impingement on the First Amendment. With those criticisms, though, there's more to be said.

I've come to the conclusion that that's their job. Mostly they're relatively honest^iv and it's the responsibility of the public to sort out the differences of opinion and to try to get a more objective view of events by consulting a wide variety of media with different prejudices. It's time we realized and accepted the fact that there is no such thing as a free press. At least not in the sense that one can get unbiased news about all important matters, and get it from a from a single site. And there are are many causes for this problem.

First of all, the public has little patience for “hard news.” Its great interest is in sensational material, especially in the detailing of the pain of others. In addition to all the murders and other crime stories that are featured, we find that pain in reports on the poor of our own country, as well as those elsewhere. We devour stories about wars and natural catastrophes. As long as the problems are those of others, we are fascinated by them and search them out. We savor Schadenfreude, so that's what the media provides.

Adding to the problem is the fact that accuracy is not a critical factor, but speed is. Publishing first, takes precedence over getting it right. In fact, there is not enough time for the media to get it right. Like a lie, a rumor “will go round the world while truth is pulling its boots on.”^v To be first, therefore,^vi little time can be wasted on the checking of facts – or those statements presented as facts. Indeed, notwithstanding pompous statements about “truth” and “accuracy,” it is not always in the best interests of the media spend the time to present material correctly and objectively. Rather, it is the goal to achieve a certain response on the part of those who receive the information, and to achieve that response first – before someone else convinces them of an alternative “truth.” The deadline dictates the news.

And news usually reflects a point of view rather than objectivity.^vii The message is the message. But that has always been the case, and, like today, those in the past who carried new information either believed what they had heard or been told, or they related “facts” that they wanted the audience to believe. Some may even have believed it themselves, although they probably told the story in such a way as to emphasize their beliefs rather than the facts. Travelers related what they considered important when questioned about the place they had left. That represented “incidental” news. But sometimes the goal was more calculated. Pheidippides ran to Sparta to get Athenian troops needed for the battle against the Persians at Marathon – at least that was Herodotus's story.^viii It was the messenger who carried good or bad news.^ix

Wandering minstrels followed, and town criers as well.  And they, like the editors of today, chose what we would hear.  But the “news,” at least that which was reported, was old. Even the introduction of newspapers in the seventeenth century left the public with old news. Perhaps it was more recent than previously, but it was old. That problem was solved with the telegraph, radio, television, and internet, and now we get the news while it is happening – sometimes even before.^x This is especially the case when the media are controlled by the state. For them, the news is an extension of foreign, as well as domestic policy,^xi and it must be doled out to the public carefully, expressing the ideas that will be of greatest use to the government. Politicians recognize the power of the pen.

And the same is true of history, which is, in essence, old “news.” Using old reports, such as those in newspapers, or history books written long after the fact, is likely to lead to erroneous conclusions. As Winston Churchill said, “History is written by the victors.”^xii That's quite in line with the idea that the written word, even now, should be considered in the light of the prejudices of the writer. So the best historians are those who sift through contemporary documents and try to understand them rather than those who rely on the interpretation of others. The record of events more likely to be correct than reports of events.

So if, like Will Rogers, all you know is what you read in the newspapers, you'd better read a lot of them. Which, fortunately, you can now do thanks to the internet. You can read all about it in papers from coast to coast and internationally as well. You can sample both governmental and private biases around the world. The responsibility for what you read, and what you believe, however, is yours. The obligation to get the facts belongs to you. You can't blame the media for slanting what they present. You'd do the same. If you only read what you're going to agree with, you're wasting your time. You could write those articles yourself.

That's what I shoulda' said. Rather than blame the media for doing what I would do – what anyone interested in making money and influencing people would do – I should have acknowledged my own responsibility to learn the truth. And it is my responsibility. No one will do it for me.  I'll be my own editor.

Next episode: “The Absolute Truth” – I'm Sir Oracle. Don't question me.

i     The paper will claim otherwise, saying that the staff are free to express their own opinions. The staff, however, having been approved by the publisher, are likely to share his views. At least if they want to keep their jobs. Some papers boast balance and evenhandedness and hire columnists with contrary opinions, but those with different views are certain to be outnumbered significantly by those who express the “party line,” lest anyone think that the minority opinion has any validity. Obviously it doesn't. But the publisher has established his credentials as one who is “objective” and who wants to air all sides of a story.

ii    The bias of a newspaper is likely to be known to the purchaser before he opens it. The Village Voice will speak out in extremely liberal terms, while the Wall Street Journal will record a much more conservative perspective; the New York Times will multiply Israel's faults while the New York Sun will always see the bright side. (The same is true of other media. NPR, for example, is likely to have a liberal outlook while FOX News will be conservative; Atlantic Monthly will be liberal and National Review conservative.) To a large degree this is a marketing as well as a political position. Each outlet finds its niche, and each reader buys the paper that he knows will echo his prejudices. And from that viewpoint, it works.

iii    I didn't say that at the time, but it's true.

iv    Notwithstanding the low opinion of the media as held by the public and as demonstrated in polls which evaluate the performance of many professions and industries.

v     Rev. Charles H. Spurgeon.

vi    And that's a major goal of the media.

vii    It's a mistake to take at face value either “All the news that's fit to print” or “Fair and balanced” reporting. They respond to both temporal and doctrinal dictates as much (or perhaps more) than the objective facts. In some markets one is more attractive to the public, in some markets the other is favored. It's unfortunate that much of what they say is taken seriously. Some of the media make a show of “evenhandedness,” but it's clear that it's only pretense.

viii   Plutarch tells it differently.

ix    And he was sometimes shot for his efforts.

x     The scheduling of particular events, or their anticipation, coupled with the need to be first in reporting, my lead to errors. For example, Dewey did not defeat Truman. And the reporting of election winners, reporting that occasionally needs to be revised, also occurs.

xi    Clausewitz was too limited in his perspective.

xii    He also wrote “History will be kind to me for I intend to write it.” A cute remark, and one illustrative of the unreliability of such printed reports.

I've Got It Coming

 

There are many different ways to compare conservatives and liberals. I used to believe that liberals were the ones with faith in human nature and a generally optimistic outlook. I used to believe that liberals were more idealistic than conservatives, but now I know that's not true. They're far more realistic.

I used to think that conservatives were rich thieves who viewed everyone else cynically. They were practical, not idealistic, and not contributing their fair share to an America that cared for its citizens. But now I know that, too, isn't true. Youth is optimistic and youth is liberal, and youth sees the two as being related. So I used to think what almost all youth, and many who were a lot older, thoughtⁱ – that America was a land of equality, and all that was necessary to obtain that equality was for the conservatives to get out of the way.

The idea wasn't new. The Founding Fathers had written, and the new nation had adopted, a Constitution that deemed promotion of “the general Welfare” and “the Blessings of Liberty” as important reasons for its existence.ⁱⁱ The expectation of national support for those incapable of caring for their own needs was justified, and was there from the beginning. It was not unreasonable that those lacking them should feel entitled to assistance for food, housing, health care, child care, education, and any other form of assistance they might require. There was even a clause in the Constitution that authorized taxation to “provide for the ... general Welfare.”ⁱⁱⁱ What could be clearer and more fundamental than a national responsibility to provide welfare, and the blessings necessary for all its inhabitants.

The idea wasn't new. The Bible had made it clear that we all had an obligation to help the widow, and the orphan, for they were in need. Perhaps that obligation was a voluntary one, and it was up to all of us to give charity, but the responsibility to do so was not something lightly dismissed. Certainly the widow and the orphan needed our help. It was understandable for them to seek it.

But times have changed since the days of the Bible. What was once the widow and orphan is now anyone who claims to be in need – whether because of student loans, hunger, foreclosure, sickness, lack of a job, lack of a spouse, too many children, and other similar hardships. The needs of those afflicted by these ills of society have resulted not only in quiet suffering but in noisy demonstrations around the country,^iv demonstrations that now also include those suffering from ennui and envy of those who are better off than they. It is, according to them, the rich – the one percent – who are benefiting from American prosperity and denying the remaining ninety-nine percent what the Constitution guarantees. Conservatives may consider charity to be laudable and the proper way to care for those in need, but those who protest don't want charity – they want what is properly theirs and what has been stolen by the rich.

The American system supports that claim. Taxes are collected and used to pay for entitlement programs that finance almost all the needs that people claim. It was probably the government that was the source of the education loan, and it may have been the source of funds for the mortgage of the house that is now in default. There are certainly programs that provide food or food stamps, health care, unemployment insurance, education, and general fiscal assistance. The Constitution guarantees it, and the taxpayers provide it. At least that's the contention.

But that's not the case. I used to believe that in violation of our laws, the conservatives and the rich stole from the poor and they should be made to pay for it. Now I'm not so sure. In fact, I'm now convinced that we've been following the lead of Robin Hood – we are stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, not that that's necessarily bad. I can only conclude that the liberals, who favor such policies, have lost faith in their fellows and no longer trust those who are able to do so, to give charity. So they make it a matter of government policy. It's a practical solution to a problem they perceive. And, in a certain way, it makes sense. But the sense it makes is one of perception and revenge only. Attention is focused on one solution – tax the rich – without looking at other possible solutions. It isn't even likely increasing the taxes on the “one percent” will have a significant impact on their desire to aid the rest. After all, the “rich” are already paying most of the income taxes^v and the others may not pay at all. ^vi That, however, doesn't matter. Their hearts are in the right place, and they're determined to deliver what the Founding Fathers promised.

Except they didn't. The references to “the general Welfare” in the Constitution are both directly linked to “the common Defense.”^vii The “Blessings of Liberty” were probably political rights rather than financial blessings. And taxes were to be collected for the purpose of providing for the common defense and general welfare. They were not intended for feeding the hungry and supporting the poor. That wasn't the Founding Fathers' objective. Congress, on the other hand, has expanded both the concept of taxation and “welfare.” After all, it gets votes. And during the (Franklin) Roosevelt administration it served, to a degree,^viii to limit the damage caused by the Depression. But that was certainly an expansion of the initial mandate.

And by the time the government finished propping up the poor,^ix they had come to depend on the entitlements. If the Constitution didn't guarantee them, we did. The problem, of course, is that we can't afford it. The entitlements are considered too important to end. Poverty should be eliminated and the poor should be no different from anyone else. They've got it coming. We have an obligation to all of those who claim it, and if that means higher taxes, so be it. As long as they're taxes on someone else,^x especially the rich. It looks like the taxes will be on someone else, but that will be future generations. There have to be other solutions, and I'll discuss some of them next week.

Next episode: “Write If You Get Work” -- And hang by your thumbs.^xi

i     And still think.

ii    United States Constitution. Preamble.

iii    Ibid. Article I, section 8.

iv   Indeed, around the world. But those abroad are not covered by the United States Constitution, unless they're American citizens.

v     According to The American, in 2007, the top 10% of earners paid 68% of all income taxes collected. The National Taxpayers Union tells us that it was 69.94% in 2008.

vi   The Associated Press (April 7, 2010) notes that “About 47 percent of U.S. households will pay no federal income taxes for 2009, either because their incomes were too low or because they qualified for enough credits and deductions to eliminate their tax liability, according to projections by a private research group.” Indeed, because of those credits, many households will get more money back than they paid in taxes. Meanwhile, for the same year, “the top 10 percent of earners … paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government.”

vii    In the first instance the word “defense” is not capitalized.

viii    World War II was the real solution to the social ills caused by the Depression.

ix    Very appropriately, the government has spent enormous amounts of tax money on bailing out those who are in need.

x     Not me! Tax someone else. I can't afford it.

xi     Bob and Ray.

Politics As Usual

 

Conservatives and Liberals: they're all the same. Both Democrats and Republicans have been found to violate ethics standards; both engage in sexual abuse and extra-marital affairs. But that's because they're human; it has nothing to do with politics. Politicians are just interested in scoring points and getting elected.ⁱ The policies they claim to support are simply those they think will help in their quests. It's a problem for those who really believe in the policies.

Those in office press legislation that is likely to sound appealing to voters irrespective of the content of the bills. In fact, the congressional supporters may not even be aware of what is in the bills, but they're willing to back them in exchange for votes for their own legislation, for the inclusion of earmarks bringing benefits to their own constituents, or because there is a need to support the party position. Those out of office oppose any such legislation although they, too, may be completely unaware of the contents of the bills. It's a rare member of the opposition who will support a government initiative “on principle.” At the moment it is Democrats who are supporting proposals which are long, complex, and confusing, and though they may containing local or personal benefits, they are likely to be expensive, and, in the long run, short on the values they claim to promote. Many of them are unpopular for these reasons.ⁱⁱ And the Republicans oppose virtually any proposal by the Administration ostensibly for these reasons, but more likely in order to stymie any action which may benefit their opponents. As was recently said by a commentator,ⁱⁱⁱ if the Democrats favored motherhood,^iv the Republicans would oppose it. The same kind of behavior would hold, of course, if their roles were reversed.

But they're the only game in town. The various “third” parties usually have no chance of winning, or of governing if, by some miracle, they won. Not that it really matters. The middle level people – the “functionaries” – are the only ones who get anything done and they have no interest in official policy, only in what is likely to benefit or interest them and ensure their continuity in what are tenured positions. It really doesn't matter who is in office, except to those running for election.^v

That's a cynical position. I know that. But each time there is a new President or Congress it blames its failures on its predecessors and claims any successes for itself. And it winds up doing pretty much the same as that which preceded it. That's certainly true of the President who, during the campaign, may have sworn to make changes in the Government, but whose actions, when in office, usually mimic those of the previous President. That's not surprising. It's easier to make claims when you have no responsibility; and the desire to score points encourages such behavior.

That's the way our democracy works. Conservatives and Liberals have a lot in common. But many of our policies will remain unchanged irrespective of who's in charge. Typically these are foreign policy issues, however even some of our social policies have taken on lives of their own and their continuance is assured. We rant a lot and demand change, but fortunately we have one of the world's most stable governments, even if we are very negative about it.

The only solution is to be more positive and to play the hand we were dealt. It's a good one that really should please us. And it would if we took it more seriously. Not enough of us vote because not enough of us care. In reality, I'm not sure the result would be any different if there were greater participation, but it's worth a try. The Founding Fathers set a course for us that may not be perfect, but it seems to work.^vi And despite our efforts to change everything, our democracy is holding up. We've tried all kinds of changes, toward more conservative and more liberal, but we come back to the same overall policies no matter who's in charge. Maybe we've tried too hard to change and not hard enough to follow our original principles. Perhaps we should return to them.

It's worth a try. We've exhausted the alternatives.

Next episode: “Lessay Fare” – That's easy for me to say.

i      As well, of course, as their general human interests in the earthly pleasures.

ii     Who knows what it will be after Election Day.

iii    I don't remember who it was, but I heard it on the radio. It's got to be true.

iv    This is not the best place to discuss abortion policies.

v    They tell us it's critical to us, but the only change that will occur if they're elected is that they get the paycheck and the note on their resumé. It really won't help us at all.

vi    The main interest of the political parties is in the Funding Fathers.  They have little interest in the Founding Fathers.