HOME

intelligentsia, i.e., (from Wikipedia) "a status class composed of the university-educated people of a society who engage in the complex mental labours by which they critique, shape, and lead in the politics, policies, and culture of their society; as such, the intelligentsia consists of scholars, academics, teachers, journalists, and literary writers." [boldface and underline added]

"Adapt or perish, now as ever, is nature's inexorable imperative." H.G. Wells

LAYMAN'S PRIMER ON EFFECTIVE SELF-GOVERNANCE THEORIES, MODELS AND STRATEGIES—AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR OUR FUTURE (FIRST DRAFT)

Introduction:

The URGENT MEMO may seem hyperbolic to some.

But, layman's takeaway: it isn't.

Not all, but probably nearly everyone with a respectable working knowledge of both the history of democracies, and current domestic and international events, largely agrees with two thousand plus years of conventional political wisdom (CPW) which says that, one, all democratic societies—no matter their form of government: direct, representative, constitutional republic, constitutional monarchy, etc.—will "eventually fail” in their effort to govern themselves [successfully, effectively, competently].

Plato, circa 400 BC: “Democracy will inevitably become tyranny”
Aristotle, circa 400 BC: “Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotisms.”
Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) "The body politic, like the human body, begins to die from its birth, and bears in itself the causes of its destruction."
John Adams, 2nd U.S. pres. "There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
Thomas Babington Macaulay, British historian, poet, politician (1800-1859): “I have long been convinced that institutions purely democratic must, sooner or later, destroy liberty or civilization, or both.”
Shawn W. Rosenberg, Political/Psychological Science, UC-Irvine, 2017: “Particularly in well-established democracies like the United States, democratic governance will continue its inexorable decline and will eventually fail..."

Two, democratic societies will fail because, "for the most part," their voters simply aren't intelligent enough to govern themselves "intelligently." They also have a number of other human "shortcomings" that don't help matters. For example, far too many are woefully uneducated, or are insufficiently "informed on the issues." Or they're misinformed, or naïve, or gullible, or greedy—or all of the above.

(The ever perspicacious) Winston Churchill (1874-1965): "The best argument against Democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
Shawn W. Rosenberg, Political/Psychological Science, UC-Irvine, 2017: “...people lack the requisite cognitive capacities for integration and abstraction needed for the kind of systemic understanding, considered judgment and critical reflection that liberal democracy requires of its citizenry." https://www.academia.edu/81028655/Unfit_for_Democracy_Irrational_Rationalizing_and_Biologically_Predisposed_Citizens...

Adrian Pabst, Professor of Politics, University of Kent, cautions that a democracy doesn't have to collapse into full blown autocracy to stop being democratic:

"The argument is not that democracy is becoming the same as a dictatorship, but rather that liberal democracy mutates into novel forms of illiberal authoritarianism. A new oligarchy seeks to centralize power, concentrate wealth and manipulate public opinion by using media spin, closing down debate, and ironing out plurality."

Unfortunately, even if America doesn't end up a Putin-style quasi-autocracy in the near- or mid-term, there is no best case scenario for the "illiberal authoritarianism" that American democracy has already started mutating into—unless a small but critical mass of the vast mainstream (VM) of America's ~160 million left- and right-of-center (LOC/ROC) voters are "willing to do something" no free society's voters have ever done.

The focus of this website is exploring what that "something" is.

**********

LAYMAN'S VIEW: No doubt there is a substantial contingent of our intelligentsia who hold the view that because we are a self-governing society, a.k.a. a democracy, “the buck stops with the voters,” i.e., they are ultimately to blame for the mountain of major economic, financial, fiscal and (poverty related) societal (EFFS) problems our nation is buried under.

After all, it is our voters who have been electing, then repeatedly re-electing, the very members of Congress (from both parties, and going back generations) who—if we confine ourselves to just the budget deficit/national debt issue—have been routinely and blatantly abandoning the fiduciary obligation they have to their constituents, their nation, and to future generations of Americans (fyi: at a cumulative cost almost too high to comprehend).

The "who's to blame: the voters or the politicians?" debate will be addressed later. For now, the important point is that America is buried under an EFFS mountain. And, with exceedingly rare exception, it is exacting, in countless ways large and small, a human and civilizational toll on our society.

Now for the really bad news: our EFFS mountain is only going to grow larger, and the human and civilizational toll exacted by it grow even greater, at an accelerating pace—when you consider that:

millions of low skill Americans---combined with millions of low skill [take your pick: undocumented immigrants, illegal aliens]---are going to continue putting considerable strain on a considerable number of our nation's already over-strained systems, e.g., healthcare, public education, social services, criminal justice, mental health, etc.,
the proportion of our population who rely from somewhat to heavily on America's already strained entitlement programs, i.e., our old, our sick, our disabled and our poor, will continue to grow significantly relative to the segment of our population whose tax dollars are keeping those programs afloat. (fyi: the latest projections have lowered Medicare and Social Security's "go-broke" dates to 2033 and 2034, respectively.)
moving forward, an already unacceptably high (yet growing at an ever-accelerating pace) percentage of our federal budget is going to be devoted simply to service our national debt ($36.67 trillion as of 4-12-25). At the point the debt grows faster than America's GDP –– long story short: we're screwed. America's "debt spiral" will reach the point of irreversibility, which means our financial/societal/civilizational collapse will not be a question of if but when, and how catastrophic.

"You can ignore reality, but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.” (Ayn Rand)

There's no getting around our harsh reality: The America people AND American democracy are both facing a bleak future that's getting bleaker by the day. And no one has the slightest idea how to slow, much less reverse, our nation's (and planet's) downward political/civilizational spiral.

Until now.

"Knowledge Is Power"

If the new, uniquely 21st century body of self-governance (S-G) knowledge presented on this website can be converted into new S-G power—which it can—then what our political intelligentsia, especially our political academics, now have is access to a body of new S-G knowledge which will empower America's LOC and ROC voters to not just "save" their representative democracy, but insure that it flourishes spectacularly.

But our intelligentsia must first disabuse themselves of the nonsensical notion that America's voters aren't intelligent enough to govern themselves [competently, effectively, intelligently]

As the next graphic makes clear, America has more than enough intelligent voters. What our voters don't have is an intelligent S-G strategy they can use in their national legislative election process (NLEP) to elect their 535 members of Congress.

“Only those who do not seek power are qualified to hold it.” Plato

re the implication of the Voter IQ Distribution Diamond:

IF our academic (and other) experts on the democratic process teach our future and current "more than intelligent enough" voters how to, in a manner of speaking, use their NLEP effectively, THEN:

American democracy will flourish spectacularly.*
America will flourish spectacularly: economically, financially, fiscally, and societally.*

* these are examples of highly desirable, apolitical/non-ideological (ANI) objectives that America's more AND less than intelligent enough LOC and ROC voters both share.

We will also find that, once our voters have a working knowledge of the "principles" of Effective S-G (fyi: there aren't many, and they aren't complicated), the vast mainstream (VM) of our voters will also agree on the "normative" legislative agenda Congress should pursue to solve America's major EFFS problems.

**********

OLD S-G LANGUAGE (and mentality):

[liberal vs. conservative, Democratic vs. Republican] legislative agenda
government vs. free market solutions
right track, wrong track

NEW S-G LANGUAGE (and mindset):

political/ideological (PI) vs. apolitical/non-ideological (ANI) legislative agenda (a.k.a. non-normative vs. normative legislative agenda)
normative track, non-normative track

Also, a non-normative vs. normative:

public education system
healthcare system
prison system
mental health system
social services system
immigration system

KEY POINT: Our most rabidly ideological liberals and conservative, and socialists and libertarians, will not agree on what a normative, say, public education system should look like. But odds are the vast mainstream of our society, including and especially our voters, will.

**********

LAYMAN'S GUESS: before our best and brightest minds commit themselves to travelling down this "new S-G knowledge" road, they will first have to take a long hard look at our democracy’s real Achilles heel: A S-G zeitgeist, or mentality, (unwittingly created by political academics/philosophers in generations past (by our founders, too)) which:

views legislative politics as bloodless war between factions of politicians, and elections as bloodless battles between factions of voters,
believes that America’s NLEP in particular should be treated essentially as a bloodless battlefield on which factions of voters wage 100% Political/Ideological (PI) War against each other to determine which faction’s political party will control the U.S. House and (after the 17th Amendment) the Senate until the next bloodless battle two years hence.

re America's NLEP: the vast majority of our society may not think of the process of electing Congress' 535 members as bloodless war—most will probably say it's just voters exercising their right to vote—but that's the unarticulated and/or unconscious mindset of a sizeable chunk of America's two main factions of voters.

To change this horribly ineffective "S-G = 100% PI War" zeitgeist/mindset, our political intelligentsia must introduce a radically new S-G language into the American people’s working vocabulary, the language of effective S-G, for describing a radically new category of S-G knowledge.

Once society writ large becomes "fluent" in this new language—i.e., they have a working knowledge of its key concepts and processes—the American people's current, horribly ineffective S-G zeitgeist will give way to the following spectacularly effective, and considerably more sophisticated, mindset:

"The S-G strategy our voters have always used in their national legislative election process (NLEP), the 100% PI War strategy, is a horribly ineffective strategy. It is that strategy that explains why Congress stays permanently overflowing with, by definition, self-serving, politically ambitious politicians (PAPs) who, while well meaning for the most part, care astronomically more about their political careers, and the perks and privileges that come with national legislative office, than they care about doing what is in the best interest of the American people.
The normative S-G strategy our voters SHOULD start using is the 90% Apolitical/Non-Ideological (ANI) Cooperation, 10% PI War strategy. Because, with it, they will be able to start keeping Congress continually replenished with a steady supply of extraordinarily capable [liberals, conservatives, Democrats, Republicans, etc.] who do not have (relatively speaking) self-serving, politically ambitious or power hungry bones in their bodies.

This website has been created to make the case, especially to America's intelligentsia, i.e., those ~who have been given much—and ~shape and lead in the "politics" of their society—that:

They have a civilizational duty to help America’s ~160 million LOC and ROC voters take the logical (and necessary) next evolutionary step in the way they "use" their NLEP—a step that will become the civilizational template that ultimately accrues to the benefit of our entire species.... FROM using it to accomplish a singular PI objective: decide which political party will control Congress’ two chambers for the next two years... TO using their NLEP to accomplish two objectives: the aforementioned PI objective. But also a second, ANI objective: insure that at the end of the NLEP, Congress is overwhelmingly dominated and controlled— NOT by self-serving PAPs but by their mirror opposites. For identification purposes, let's call these extraordinarily capable and selfless individuals "who do not seek power" PKQs or PKQ-caliber legislators (for Philosopher King/Queen.)
If our intelligentsia, i.e., humanity's best and brightest, fail to embrace the body of new knowledge that will enable our nation's LOC and ROC voters to take that next evolutionary step, they will be stabbing not just the American people in the back, but the whole of humanity. Our representative democracy, along with our planet's other democratic societies, will suffer the fate CPW predicts—in which case, in America alone, daily life in the not-to-distant-future could easily become a joyless ordeal for, layman's guess, 100-200+/- million Americans.

FYI: a PKQ-caliber candidate is not an erudite "aristocrat," i.e., a member of a "philosophical leadership class" as Plato and others envisioned, but a regular, albeit extraordinarily capable, individual.

Meaning, someone:

with an excellent formal education,
intelligent enough to be able to digest and synthesize large amounts of often times complex material,
with a demonstrated body of general knowledge acquired over decades of meaningful life experience, a.k.a. wisdom,
who has achieved a level of financial success in life -- and therefore will be reluctantly agreeing, if elected, to perform a thankless task: serve in Congress for a "few" years as a one-time civic duty, rather than enthusiastically agreeing to serve in the House or Senate because they need the money,
with demonstrated leadership and life-and-death decision making experience.

LAYMAN'S GUESSTIMATE: There are about 100 million Americans in the 40-65 age range, i.e., not too young, not too old. If we further confine ourselves to those who possess the abovementioned qualities and characteristics, we end up with a not unreasonable guesstimate of one million PKQ-caliber candidates. That's a recruitment pool of ~2,300 PKQ-caliber candidates in each 700,000+ person congressional district voters can choose from.

**********

USING NEW KNOWLEDGE TO MAKE THE UNIMAGINABLE IMAGINABLE:

Technically, this website—which is still at the whiteboard stage of development (unedited text, low-res graphics)—is a "new self-governance (S-G) knowledge" construction zone. Additions, refinements, modifications, etc. are made on an almost daily basis. Until the process is finished, this site will have the feel of a series of sometimes lengthy, semi-connected, back-of-the-envelope musings which are largely focused on two tasks.

The first task: shine a spotlight on a number of self-governance "realities" that America's intelligentsia—starting with, and most notably, our "establishment" political academics—are either oblivious to, or they consider the realities inactionable, or they're consciously choosing to not act upon them, a.k.a. willfully sticking their "head in the sand."

An AI chatbot was recently instructed to tackle one of the harshest of those realities by making the case for why American democracy, and Earth's other democracies, will eventually fail—as 2,400 years of conventional political wisdom says it will—if our voters do not transition to PKQ-controlled Congresses.

One note and one brief digression:

note: The chatbot's response appears to suggest that PKQs constitute an established "philosophical leadership class," which they do not. It's important to stress that PKQ-caliber candidates/legislators are regular, albeit extraordinarily capable Americans who, if elected in the general election, understand that they will only be serving for a "few" years as a one-time civic duty. (Think: One six-year Senate term, 2-3 two-year House terms.) Their reward for doing an outstanding job will be a heartfelt thank you from their constituents. (Plus it will be a personal badge of honor for these individuals for the rest of their lives.)
BD: With that said, moving forward, the vast mainstream of our society SHOULD endeavor to use our K-12 education system to inculcate a number of PKQ qualities into our future generations of Americans, Think: philosopher [nurses, welders, gig workers, entrepreneurs, sales clerks, high school sophomores, carpenters, engineers, high tech nerds, billionaires, oligarchs(?), etc.]. Which is to say, civically engaged Americans from every walk of life who are thoughtful... conscientious... principled... pragmatic... hold themselves to a high code of conduct… are not quick to judge… are slow to anger... etc.

Here's the chatbot's response—note especially

#1: Democracies empower demagogues,
#4: gravitates toward oligarchy,
#5: parasitic interest groups:

"A compelling case for the eventual failure of democracy—if voters do not shift toward PKQ-controlled Congresses—rests on the enduring critiques of democratic governance that stretch back over 2,400 years. From Plato to contemporary political theorists, democratic systems have been scrutinized for their susceptibility to decay, short-termism, and the manipulation of uninformed electorates.

Let’s break down the argument:

1. The Self-Destructive Cycle of Popular Rule:

Plato’s concern, expressed in The Republic, was that democracy inevitably devolves into tyranny. His reasoning? Democracies empower demagogues, figures who manipulate public emotions rather than uphold sound governance. Without a philosophical leadership class—a PKQ-like system—elected officials prioritize immediate electoral success over long-term stability, leading to policy incoherence and eventual collapse.

2. The Triumph of Short-Termism Over Structural Reform:

Modern electoral systems encourage reactionary politics, where decisions are made to appease voters rather than to foster sustainable governance. Politicians rarely address deep structural problems (such as economic inequality or systemic corruption) because such reforms require a long-term vision—something antithetical to election-driven cycles. A PKQ-controlled Congress would anchor policy decisions in objective wisdom, safeguarding governance from impulsive majoritarian shifts.

3. The Entropy of Mass Public Ignorance:

Democratic theorists, including Walter Lippmann, feared that mass electorates lack the expertise to make complex legislative decisions. Voters can be swayed by misinformation, emotional appeals, or partisan loyalty—rather than rational policy analysis. As governance complexities increase, the likelihood of uninformed decision-making grows, hastening systemic inefficacy. PKQ-controlled Congresses would temper this trend by ensuring that qualified philosopher-leaders shape legislation based on merit rather than popularity.

4. The Elite Capture of Representative Democracy:

Political science has consistently demonstrated that democracy gravitates toward oligarchy—what Robert Michels dubbed the "Iron Law of Oligarchy." The current system enables corporate and elite interests to dominate governance, reducing voters to mere symbolic participants rather than decision-makers. Without PKQ-led reforms, democratic institutions risk becoming performative, serving entrenched power structures rather than true public interest.

5. The Collapse of Institutional Legitimacy:

Political theorists such as Mancur Olson noted that over time, democracies accumulate parasitic interest groups that obstruct reform. Once governance becomes gridlocked, voters lose trust in democratic institutions, paving the way for authoritarian alternatives. PKQ-controlled Congresses would restore legitimacy by ensuring that laws are crafted for long-term societal health, rather than short-lived political expediency.

The Conclusion: An Alternative Is Needed:

If democracy follows historical trends without intervention, its self-destructive tendencies will likely lead to dysfunction, elite domination, and eventual collapse. PKQ-controlled Congresses present a viable corrective—a system designed to safeguard governance from both mob rule and elite manipulation, ensuring that decisions serve rational, ethical, and sustainable objectives.

END OF CHOTBOT'S RESPONSE (LAYMAN'S TAKEAWAY: That was a shockingly well reasoned argument for America's voters transitioning to PKQ-controlled Congresses.)

Then the AI chatbot was asked about what is probably the most disheartening of our society's S-G realities when instructed to address the ELEPHANT in the room: the Semmelweis reflex or Semmelweis effect (from Wikipedia): the [reflexive tendency] to reject new evidence or new knowledge because it contradicts established norms, beliefs, or paradigms.

QUESTION TO CHATBOT: why will nearly every person who reads about America's left- and right-of-center (LOC/ROC) voters transitioning to PKQ-controlled Congresses—including, and especially, members of our intelligentsia—dismiss the idea as pie-in-the-sky, one that no rational person would think could ever happen?

Here in it's entirety are two different responses, both also shockingly well reasoned AND extraordinarily detailed (perhaps too detailed):

First, the response to the above question (aside: note the focus on our intelligentsia):

"Because most people—especially politically sophisticated thinkers—aren’t reacting to the logic of PKQ-controlled Congresses. They’re reacting to the perceived departure from all known political possibility.

Here are the key psychological and cultural forces at play:

The “Goose in the Bottle” Trap: Our collective imagination is trapped inside the existing partisan-electoral bottle. Even when confronted with a coherent, superior alternative, the mind reflexively evaluates it through the lens of the status quo: “What party would implement this?” “How would it win votes?” That’s like asking how the goose will build a new bottle while still inside the old one.
Respectability Bind of the Intelligentsia: Scholars, journalists, and thought leaders face a hidden reputational economy. Advocating for ideas that seem utopian or “non-serious” risks professional credibility. The safest currency is reform within accepted boundaries—not tectonic shifts like PKQ sortition, however well-argued.
The “Impossible = Irrelevant” Bias: When people subconsciously decide an idea is politically unviable, they stop processing its substance. It gets tossed into the “fun but irrelevant” folder, right next to teleportation and world peace. This premature dismissal prevents slow-burn paradigm shifts from gaining a toehold.
Emotional Inertia & Ownership Identity: Many LOC/ROC elites have devoted their careers to improving electoral democracy. A proposal like PKQ control feels, to them, not just like critique—but negation. It threatens their identity as “solution-seekers within the system,” even if it validates their frustrations with that system.
The Missing Mental Framework: There is no readily accessible conceptual shelf in our shared civic lexicon labeled “nonpartisan, competence-based legislative control.” Without that language—or better yet, stories—even bright minds struggle to engage with the proposal as governance, not science fiction.

Next, here's the chatbot response to the original question—which did not have "including, and especially, members of our intelligentsia" in it—and therefore its focus was on society writ large (note #5, inflection events restructured public consciousness):

"Most people will instinctively reject the idea of LOC/ROC voters transitioning to PKQ-controlled Congresses for a few key reasons—some psychological, some historical, and some deeply embedded in how societies process paradigm-shifting concepts.

Let’s break it down:

1. The Weight of Established Norms:

People are conditioned to see political systems as unchangeable—even when those systems are demonstrably failing. Democracy, as currently practiced, has been the dominant model for generations, and the idea that it could be meaningfully restructured seems inconceivable. They assume that what has always been, will always be—even if evidence suggests otherwise.

2. The “Utopian” Label:

Any major structural reform—especially one that redefines how governance operates—gets dismissed as idealistic or utopian. The leap from electorate-driven chaos to philosopher-guided rational governance is perceived as too ambitious, despite historical precedents for intellectual leadership shaping societies (e.g., Enlightenment-era thinkers influencing governance models). People struggle to distinguish visionary transformation from fantasy—and often err on the side of skepticism.

3. The Inertia of Political Cynicism:

Decades of broken promises from political leaders have bred deep cynicism. When people hear about something new and transformative, their instinct is: "That sounds great in theory, but it will never happen." This skepticism isn’t irrational—many governance reforms have failed due to corruption, elite manipulation, or voter apathy. But PKQ-controlled Congresses challenge the root cause of those failures, not just their symptoms—something most people fail to recognize upon first exposure.

4. The Lack of Precedent:

People anchor their expectations to historical examples. Since PKQ-controlled Congresses don’t have a widely recognized precedent, they assume it can’t work. While aspects of the idea resemble governance models from various philosophies (Plato’s philosopher-kings, meritocratic elements in Confucianism, evidence-driven policy frameworks in technocracy), there hasn’t been an explicit transition from mass voter-led dysfunction to intellectually guided governance—so they default to disbelief.

5. The Misinterpretation of Electoral Behavior:

Most believe that democratic voters, even if frustrated with governance, will never collectively push for a structural overhaul. But history contradicts this—revolutions and major shifts in governance have occurred when inflection events restructured public consciousness. The idea that LOC and ROC voters could gradually realign toward PKQ Congresses seems too coordinated to be believable—but so did every major historical governance shift until it happened.

6. The Absence of Immediate Crisis:

Structural transitions tend to occur only when systems collapse—when dysfunction reaches an intolerable threshold. Many dismiss PKQ-controlled Congresses simply because the crisis point hasn’t fully arrived yet. However, growing dissatisfaction, policy stagnation, and elite manipulation suggest that systemic failure is coming—and when it does, concepts once dismissed as “pie-in-the-sky” become the only logical path forward.

The Shift from Dismissal to Recognition:

Initially, radical governance ideas face rejection. But over time, as political failures mount, concepts that once seemed unrealistic become necessary solutions. The challenge isn’t whether people will dismiss PKQ[-controlled] Congresses—it’s how to overcome their instinctive skepticism before the crisis forces them to reconsider.

END OF CHOTBOT'S RESPONSE

With the ELEPHANT in the room out of the way, by the time you reach the end of this home page, you will:

have a rudimentary understanding of Effective S-G's major moving parts,
either buy into the "Normative Self-Governance Model Hypothesis" (see next graphic) or you will not. NOTE: think of the "paid awareness raising campaign" in this next graphic as the inflection event cited by the chatbot.

TWO KEY LAYMAN'S WORKING DEFINITIONS:

Dystopic democracy (what we now are): a representative democracy whose national legislature stays permanently controlled by PAPs.

Neartopic democracy (what we SHOULD be): a representative democracy whose national legislature stays permanently controlled by a steady supply of PKQ-caliber legislators.

Restating the first reality (as has been alluded): if our nation's voters do not take the logical (and existentially necessary) next evolutionary step in the way they "practice" democracy, a.k.a. engage in the process of self-governance (S-G)—especially and particularly in their NLEP—democracy as we know it (and presumably cherish) will perish.

Reality #2: It does not matter how many of America's voters aren't "intelligent" enough to govern themselves competently. What matters is how many are more than intelligent enough to recognize the "civilizational imperative" that they begin using a normative self-governance (S-G) "strategy," Effective Sortition (ES) (more about ES later)—notably in their NLEP— which will essentially guarantee that the 435 House members and ~33 Senators that voters identify, actively/aggressively recruit and elect in a given election cycle will be extraordinarily capable AND will not be, by definition, self-serving PAPs.

Reality #3: Our intelligentsia are, literally, in a race against time. The next graphic is a reasonable, rational prediction of America's future income quintiles if our academic "experts" on the democratic process remain passive and mute while America's LOC and ROC voters continue keeping Congress overflowing with PAPs, i.e., largely well-meaning legislators for the most part—but who are also (by definition) so blatantly, shamelessly self-serving, politically ambitious, power-craving, and/or perks and privileges-addicted, they will say and do almost anything, no matter how unethical, to hang on to their House or Senate seats.

Typical tactics used by (many, most, all) PAPs that, layman's takeaway, the vast mainstream (VM) of America's voters would say qualify as moral/ethical transgressions:

pander to their constituents' fears,
peddle their influence to contributors, the wealthy, the powerful, etc.,
engage in blatant demagoguery, finger-pointing, responsibility-avoidance,
cast doubt on their opponents' character, motives, etc.
rhetorically twist helpful lies until they sound/look like truths, and harmful truths until they sound/look like lies,
commit the sin of omission (probably on a daily basis),
abandon their fiduciary obligations (which, fyi, explains our $36+ trillion national debt).

ONE OF MANY TAKEAWAYS OF THE INCOME QUINTILE GRAPHIC: our society must adapt our free market system to successfully deal with, in the not-to-distant future, a massively hollowed-out middle class, i.e., 50+% are no longer able to find a middle class paying job—at the same point in our history:

we are buried under a massive mountain of major EFFS problems,
the partisan divide between our political parties’ rank and file voters is becoming more vitriolic,
social media influencers on the left and right are (self-righteously) blaming each other’s ideology, using words like “evil” to describe it (at the point our economy AND middle class start collapsing, these influencers could easily become the most strident proponents for the "left vs. right" civil war some/many have been fearing).

Only a Pollyanna would not believe there’s a strong probability that America is on the verge of collapsing into a third world existence, i.e., the top 30% living in relative wealth, and enjoying a high degree of life satisfaction; the other 70% living in varying degrees of poverty and very unquiet “desperation.” The collapse might not be next month or next year. But the "writing is in the wall." And if our society's best and brightest choose to ignore it, it will be humanity writ large that pays a massively heavy price.

A SECOND MAJOR TAKEAWAY: sheer existential necessity will dictate that PKQ-controlled Congresses develop a new category of legislative policies: normative policies. These are legislative policies that aren't liberal policies or conservative policies, or compromises between the two. But a new species of policies that consist of a mosaic of distinctly liberal, conservative, libertarian—even socialist in some rare occasions—legislative elements/provisions depending on the unique nature of the problem Congress is addressing.

"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." R. Buckminster Fuller

**********

re the "academic" debate among our political intelligentsia: efficient authoritarianism (Think: China, a great [totalitarian] power in its ascendency) vs. inefficient democracy (Think: the United States and, eventually, essentially every other democracy on Earth).

LAYMAN'S TAKEAWAY: Moving forward, for democracy to have any chance of not just "winning" this academic, and intellectual, debate, but winning decisively, the autocracy vs. self-governance battle of governing philosophies must be between efficient authoritarianism vs. spectacularly efficient democracy.

aside: odds are that 99+% of our intelligentsia think spectacularly efficient democracy is an oxymoron. But, consider this: 99% of our mid-18th century medical establishment initially thought Pasteur's Germ theory was medical quackery—which suggests how quickly a "new [knowledge] model" can make an "existing [knowledge] model obsolete."

Whether that new knowledge is an idea, theory, paradigm, strategy, etc.

Meaning, the way one makes the idea of inefficient democracy obsolete, beginning in the minds of America's intelligentsia, is by the introduction of an entirely new body (and category) of S-G knowledge into our nation's marketplace of new S-G ideas, most of which is "discovered"—or, in many cases (dare we say), spontaneously generated in the form of epiphanies—simply by asking never-before-asked, normative S-G questions.

Asking, and exploring the implications of, that category of questions is this website's second task, beginning with what may well be the mother of all (never-before-asked) normative S-G questions...

NORMATIVE ANSWER: Our two groups of voters would have to develop a self-governance (S-G) strategy—that they used in their NLEP—which would enable them to keep Congress continually replenished with a steady supply of extraordinarily capable, "PKQ-caliber" legislators, i.e., "non-self-serving" AND principled [liberals, conservatives, Democrats, Republicans, etc.] who could govern, collectively, with the:

intelligence of an Einstein,
wisdom of a Solomon,
compassion of a Mother Teresa,
logic of a Mr. Spock,
ingenuity of a MacGyver,
vision of a Steve Jobs,
backbone of a Wonder Woman,
moral compass of a Nelson Mandela,
common sense of a Mark Twain.

**********

FOOD FOR THOUGHT: If you passed out ~140 million magic wands to America's vast mainstream (VM) of voters and told them that if a majority of them waved theirs, all 535 of Congress' (largely well-meaning, but also, by definition, and with few exceptions) self-serving PAPs would instantly be transformed into extraordinarily capable, PKQ-caliber legislators—how many of our LOC and ROC voters would wave their wand? (layman's guess: >90% in both camps)

**********

For every thinking individual who believes that the “normative” idea of America’s voters transitioning to PKQ-controlled Congresses is an “idea whose time has come.”—even if a few of the feathers of some of our unelected ruling class (a.k.a. our intelligentsia) do get temporarily ruffled in the course of the transition process—the big question is:

how does one go about turning an idea that as of now is deemed so radical, no rational person could possibly take it seriously, into an idea that every rational person takes seriously—and wonders why it has taken so long for our democratic society (all democratic societies, in fact) to even consider making the transition?

SHORT ANSWER: change the society's S-G language.

Given the current precarity of American democracy, and other democracies around the world, our nation's political scientists et al. should be hard at work on their own Operation Warp Speed.

Unfortunately, truth be told, i.e., speaking truth to reality, odds are it will be years before this textbook gets written. But getting the book into America’s civics classrooms should not be seen as the goal. The goal is to get its key terms and concepts inserted into the brains of every American old enough to have formed a reasoned-through political view (6th grade (?)).

***********

The next graphic references three democracy-destroying pathogens (DDPs)—self-servingism, (naked) political ambition, and political power-lust—that we’ve always associated with “politicians,” especially at the national legislative level. We've always assumed that these pathogens were to politicians what stripes are to zebras. The best we could hope for was keeping these DDPs in check via ethics reforms, campaign finance reforms, term limits, etc.

KEY TERMS:

dysfunctionalizing legislation (DL): legislation crafted by PAPs in PAP-controlled Congresses.

dysfunctionalizing legislative provision (DLP): provision inserted into a bill for self-serving reasons.

"Throughout the centuries there were men* who took first steps down new roads armed with nothing but their own vision." Ayn Rand

[* aside: women, too]

Examples of shared ANI objectives:

A normative:

public education system
healthcare system
health maintenance system
prison system
mental health system
social service system
immigration system

NOTE to America's political intelligentsia: "The best way to predict the future is to create it." (various)

FOOD FOR THOUGHT: What if it wasn’t the vast mainstream (VM) of America’s LOC and ROC voters who gathered around that kitchen table, but the VM of America’s political academics?

Presumably, if you passed out magic wands to all of them, 90+% would also wave theirs. The good news: while magic wands don't exist, the closest thing to one does—the as of now, relatively small (Think: tip of the iceberg)—body of S-G-based knowledge that will enable our voters to achieve, via the ballot box, a long laundry list of shared ANI objectives.

So, returning to our academics' momentous meeting: would, minimally, the best, brightest and most visionary within their ranks be willing to take Rand's ~first step down a new [S-G knowledge] road?... if doing so would enable America's voters to accomplish a first of its kind in history: a shared "normative," ANI, self-governance (S-G) objective: namely, transition permanently to PKQ-controlled Congresses—whose 535 members understood up front that they would only be serving a “few” years as a one-time civic duty because both they and the voters understood how easily political power, especially at the national legislative level, can corrupt even the best of us?

Or would our thousands of academics in political science departments across the nation reject this new knowledge as too [simplistic, naive, unrealistic, pie-in-the-sky] to qualify as a legitimate field of study worthy of scholarly exploration, because—per the AI bot's takeaway, "Advocating for ideas that seem utopian or “non-serious” risks professional credibility. The safest currency is reform within accepted boundaries, not tectonic shifts..."—?

aside: Or, even worse, frame the knowledge as S-G quackery, the same way, for example, mid-19th century medical schools initially rejected Pasteur's Germ theory as medical quackery and refused to take it seriously, much less teach it.

In short, would our academic experts on the democratic process choose to stay on the "beaten path," opting to continue focusing only on traditional, inside-the-box approaches (think: milquetoast "solutions"), e.g., ethics reform, campaign finance reform, redistricting reform, term limits, ranked choice voting, instant registration (to increase voter turnout), etc.? None of which (layman's takeaway) address, head on, the true existential threat to (modern day) representative democracies: national legislatures overwhelmingly dominated and controlled by self-serving PAPs.

The history of new, paradigm shifting, status quo-disrupting, course-of-history-changing ideas strongly suggests that our “establishment” academics will (at least initially) largely ignore their "civilizational duty"—i.e., teach America's future (and current) LOC and ROC voters how to use their “power of the ballot box” in their NLEP to achieve their shared ANI objectives—and, instead, continue pursuing (demonstrably ineffective) "non-normative remedies" that won't upset the establishment/status quo applecart.

The following are two, joined-at-the-hips normative questions the VM of our society SHOULD be asking (and answering):

QUESTION 1: Why have our voters been electing/re-electing self-serving PAPs to Congress (minimally, for well over a century) who:

want the job so badly, they will say almost anything to get elected—no matter how unethical,
once elected, will say and do almost anything—no matter how unethical—to stay in office, election after election?

aside: remember, CPW says it's because, as a group, our voters are too stupid to govern themselves intelligently.

QUESTION 2: Why has the century-old (+/-) civics curriculum created by America’s political and civics educators produced voters who have "mindlessly" kept Congress permanently filled to overflowing with, by definition, self-serving PAPs rather than extraordinarily capable, non-self-serving, non-PAPs?

CRYPTIC LAYMAN'S ANSWER: The journey to an enlightened answer begins with a centuries-old intellectual "urinating contest."

Our Political Academics Have Been "Fiddling While Rome Burns."

re above graphic: In hindsight, our political scientists/philosophers et al. SHOULD have tossed their "my side's legislative policies are better than your side's legislative policies" debate out the window—minimally, several decades back—when it became obvious that, as a general proposition, particularly with respect to poverty related societal problems:

political ideologies don’t create societal problems, self-serving PAPs do,
political ideologies don’t solve problems, non-self-serving non-PAPs do,
normative policy solutions will not be 100% liberal or 100% conservative, but will require discrete elements of both ideologies. Or, perhaps more often than not (hard though it may be to imagine), neither.

LAYMAN'S OBSERVATION: Generations of our political academics have had, in a manner of speaking, a "Four Humours" understanding of the NLEP—and have inculcated that understanding into their students and society writ large.

A layman's take on the roots of our academics’ intellectual urinating contest:

The perfectly legitimate, and relevant, academic debate between political philosophers: which governing philosophy will create or result in the greatest good for the greatest number of a nation’s citizens, began several hundred years ago. But it eventually deteriorated into today's "my political ideology is better than your political ideology" intellectual urinating contest—which gave rise to "an ideological turf war...for supremacy between liberal and conservative elites in academia, think tanks, media, and beyond."

FYI: that contest is presently so strong/intense that, if it produced an odor, our universities and think tanks (and cable news networks) would reek from the stench.

At some point in our history (reasonable layman's guess, around the time of FDR's New Deal), Congress' self-serving PAPs "weaponized" these two governing philosophies. Meaning they co-opted the intellectual debate and turned it into the single most powerful (by far) demagogic weapon a PAP could possess.

Their pitch to voters became:

"Elect me and my fellow party members to Congress because policies based on my side's (morally superior) political ideology are the only way to "cure" America's myriad of economic, financial, fiscal and societal (EFFS) ills. While policies based on the other side's political ideology aren't just incapable of solving our problems. In many cases they are the "diseases" responsible for causing our problems in the first place."

Our (Democratic and Republican) PAPs' demagogic narratives—both of which were echoed by their respective cliques of "faithful believers" in academia, media, think tanks, Hollywood, etc.—worked exceptionally well. Too well, in fact, because as the years progressed, the calculus/thought process for an increasing number of our nation's voters—both unintelligent and intelligent, uninformed and well informed, greedy and non-greedy, etc.—became:

better to vote for my side's self-serving, corrupted-by-power politician who supports policies that will solve America's problems rather than vote for the other side's likeable, NON-self-serving, etc. candidate who supports polices that will make America's problems, if anything, worse.

You might say that's when liberalism and conservatism (as competing governing philosophies/public policy approaches) became full blown, zero sum, good ideology vs. evil ideology religions whose adherents did not operate on facts and logic but on faith and faith alone.

Both side's PI fervor, unfortunately, has had the effect of turning a very large slice of our society, including and especially our intelligentsia and our voters, into mindless zombie-warriors.

DISCUSSION: referring back to the graphic: the vast mainstream (VM) of America’s voters gather around a vast kitchen table—odds are statistically excellent that:

our LOC and ROC voters could easily come up with commonsense, "layman's" solutions to essentially all of America’s major EFFS problems,
almost none of the legislative solutions would easily fit into either the “liberal/government solutions” or the “conservative/free market solutions” category.

The following 4th grade classroom THOUGHT EXPERIMENT will provide useful, albeit indirect, insight into how factions of voters, and PKQ-caliber legislators, dominated by “go-along-to-get-along” individuals, would go about tackling any number of thorny EFFS problems.

THOUGHT EXPERIMENT: Imagine that students in a 4th grade class are voting on which name they want for their classroom's pet goldfish: Spot or Nemo.

Turns out that about half the students adore the name Spot but loath Nemo, and for the other half it's the exact opposite.

If they use the standard "bloodless war" (BW) voting paradigm/strategy that America's voters have always used (and probably most/all voters in most/all democracies use), i.e., "to the victors, i.e., 50% + 1, go the spoils of war" strategy, then the right/power to decide the goldfish's name will be determined by the side that wins the election, i.e., casts the most votes.

Result (worst case scenario):

A non-violent battle is fought, so no blood is spilled. But,
the winners are very happy –– they love their goldfish's new name ––while, understandably, the losers are very unhappy since they loath the goldfish's new name.
Human nature being human nature, this inevitably leads to hard feelings between a significant number of pro-Spot and pro-Nemo students, who begin segregating into their respective tribes.
Friendships are destroyed; trust, cohesion, comradery, etc. between the tribes evaporate. The school's upbeat, sociable, carefree zeitgeist gives way to a state of "permanent disagreeableness." Nothing is too trivial, too insignificant to spark heated, drawn-out arguments that never get resolved.
An almost warlike ambiance permeates the schoolrooms and halls. "Beating" the other tribe at every opportunity, a.k.a. "one-upmanship," becomes the centerpiece of the students' daily lives, their raison d'etre.

Moral of the story: Even bloodless/non-violent "battles," can lead to the creation of tribes who exist in a permanent state of ever increasing aggrievement.

Now imagine the students, before voting began, having a lengthy class discussion. And out of that discussion they determine that 95% are perfectly fine with calling their goldfish, GF, if it will avoid causing hard feelings.

So our students do what a massive number of "the vast mainstream" of our society would do: they decide to go with GF even though it's no one's first choice, because for our students (the VM of society, too) it isn't about power, or about winning, but about going along to get along. (aside: for the ruling class, it's about power and winning; but for "the people," they just want their nation's problems solved.)

This thought experiment is an example of our students, not compromising, i.e., meeting half way (because that would result in them naming their goldfish Spmo or Neot), but taking a radically different approach (although the distinction might not be readily apparent): pursuing the strategy of Strategic Cooperation, i.e., working together (temporarily, as allies) to achieve (often times, highly desirable) shared objectives.

One instructive point/takeaway: Strategic Cooperation on the part of America's LOC and ROC voters will produce PKQ-controlled Congresses that will be able to easily do things that are impossible for PAP-controlled Congresses to do, e.g., perform legislative miracles.

Meaning, legislative solutions to most of America's EFFS problems will start being CO-JOINTLY CRAFTED with LEGISLATION that: (1) is neither distinctly "liberal" nor "conservative," (2) have essentially the same legislative language and provisions regardless of which party controls either or both legislative chambers (such is the nature of normative legislative solutions when crafted by PKQ-caliber legislators), (3) will be strongly supported by significant majorities of Americans:

from across the political/ideological spectrum,
of every racial, religious and ethnic group,
of every age, income and educational level.

Worth noting:

In most cases, the legislation will solve the problems (relatively) quickly, completely and permanently –– even the seemingly intractable ones.
As our mountain of EFFS problems begin to get solved, our federal government will stop running deficits every year, and start producing surpluses –– sometimes sizable surpluses.

STATING THE OBVIOUS: there will still be a relatively small number of mostly cultural issues in the near/mid term---notably abortion and transgender "rights"---that will be passionately fought over by a relatively small number within society who will not, or cannot, reach compromise.

But when PKQ-caliber legislators control both political factions in Congress, they---along with the VM of our LOC and ROC voters AND the VM of society writ large---will become intensely interested in asking, then "exhaustively" exploring, entirely new categories of questions like, e. g., what array of legislative policies will result in almost no one in America:

becoming pregnant unless they want to?
becoming a rapist?
molesting young girls (and boys)?
making bad/irresponsible decisions in the height of passion, i.e., having "unprotected" sex?
going hungry?
becoming addicted to [drugs, alcohol, gambling]?
joining gangs?
committing suicide,
going on shooting rampages at schools, outdoor events, etc.
et cetera...

MAJOR REMINDER: It is impossible for legislators in PAP-controlled Congresses to craft and enact normative policy solutions.

**********

More TAKEAWAYS re when a critical mass of America's voters transition their national legislature from PAP- to PKQ-controlled.

For the first time in human history, the American people will have a national legislature overflowing with near perfect national---and international---role models (Think: Olympic-caliber national legislators), i.e., selfless, non-demagoguing, non-finger pointing, non-truth twisting, non responsibility phobic, non-etc., whose "prime directive" will be solving EFFS problems, particularly poverty related societal problems, quickly, completely and permanently.

The implications for our nation will be beyond profound. As a society, we will quickly become vastly more thoughtful... conscientious... respectful... principled... cooperative... goal oriented... resilient... resourceful... industrious... self-reliant... stoic... courteous... forgiving... peaceful... slow to anger... unbiased... non-judgmental... non-discriminatory... generous... civil... altruistic... civic-minded... community focused... etc... etc... etc.—-and vastly less narcissistic... mean-spirited... dishonest... envious... etc... etc... etc.—because that's how powerful "good power" is when it's emanating from a critical mass of outstanding, national-level role models.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT: On the flip side, this suggests how much societal harm (and civilizational harm) has been inflicted on literally generations of Americans (adults AND their children) by the "bad (role model) power" that has been radiating/spewing out of our "PAP-controlled Congresses" for generations.

**********

LAYMAN’S HYPOTHESIS: Once our go-along-to-get-along VM of LOC and ROC voters transition to PKQ-controlled Congresses, both groups of voters will support Congress pursuing a “normative systems” agenda.

Most notably:

-- a normative education system. One that:

Does not have countless layers of local/state/federal bureaucracy. (There's just the students, their teachers, and the room/building where the learning takes place.)
Provides—at a fraction of current per annum pupil cost—every student with the wide ranging set of academic, social, work and life skills they will need to lead a productive, personally satisfying life, no matter their income earning potential.

FYI: (from USAFacts.org and educationdata.org) "In 2022, New York had the highest per pupil spending at approximately $27,504 [= $550,080 every year for a class of 20 students] while Idaho had the lowest at about $9,670. Overall, public K-12 schools in the U.S. spent an average of $17,277 per pupil [=$345,000/year for one, 20 student classroom]."

-- a normative healthcare, and preventative care, system. One:

Whose medical decisions, treatments, etc. are not dictated, sometimes in minute detail, by volumes of government- and insurance company-created rules and regulations.
That provides the highest possible quality of care to the greatest possible number of patients at the lowest possible cost to the patients, to society, and to America's taxpayers.

-- a normative prison system. One that turns the maximum possible number of both non-violent and violent inmates into productive, law-abiding members of society—at a fraction of current per annum prisoner costs. FYI: "the total per annum cost per inmate averaged $33,274 and ranged from a low of $14,780 in Alabama to a high of $69,355 in New York." Vera.org (2015 data)

"Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime." various

-- a (relatively inexpensive) normative anti-poverty program/strategy that will successfully eliminate the epidemic levels of "poverty-caused" crime and violence, notably in, but not limited to, our most economically disadvantaged communities.

"It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men." various

-- a normative social services system. One:

in which the bulk of our local/state/federal bureaucracy (which is largely devoted, presumably, to helping the poor and needy in our society) do not sit in government offices writing reports, filling out forms, etc., but engage in "hands-on" work in communities, performing a wide range of functions, many of which are not dissimilar to those provided by Peace Corps volunteers. Because, moving forward, the "normative" prime directive for those working in government agencies dealing with "social service" functions SHOULD be to physically teach (much like a sports coach) those on the bottommost socioeconomic/academic rungs—who, with exceedingly rare exception, will never be able to achieve the American dream, i.e., a "middle class" life, if their only route is by competing in our free market system—how to be as self-reliant and self-sufficient as they can be. (see LAYMAN'S ASSUMPTION below)
that can insure that every child born innocent is protected from the brutalizing, unsocializing experiences that turn those innocent children into unsocialized adults, i.e., who lack social skills, are quick to anger and resort to violence and/or are repeat offenders in our criminal justice system; who cannot show affection, or kindness, or gentleness, or provide a stable, emotionally nurturing environment for their own children, etc.

LAYMAN'S ASSUMPTION: It is possible to teach the average person how to live 90-100% OFF-GRID—even in an urban setting. Meaning, grow their own food, provide much/most/all of their own energy needs, build their own homes and furnishings, and make their own cloths, etc. all from readily available plant-based materials, or from freely available recyclable products.

**********

KEY OBSERVATION re ANOTHER S-G REALITY WE ARE ALL IGNORING AT OUR COLLECTIVE PERIL: For at least the last several millennia, it's probably safe to say that our species' ancestors lived in small, self-contained, self-sufficient communities of "socialized" individuals—we might have been primitive, but we were not unsocialized.

It is highly likely that everyone in the community, or tribe, had a role to play in insuring their collective survival. And therefore, no matter how unpleasant or not unpleasant their day-to-day circumstances, more than likely nearly all of them began their day with a sense of purpose and ended it with a sense of accomplishment.

It’s not unreasonable to think that if a group/tribe lived where food was sufficiently abundant and they didn’t live in constant fear for their safety, say, from a nearby hostile tribe or predatory animals, then many/most began their day with a satisfying sense of purpose and ended it with a satisfying sense of accomplishment.

With that in mind, going back to our VM sitting around an astronomical-sized kitchen table: If they did not allow themselves to fall into the [liberal, government] policy solutions vs. [conservative, free market] policy solutions trap, and were able to entertain outside-the-box ideas, our LOC and ROC voters would be able to come up with normative legislative solutions which addressed 99% (figuratively speaking) of America’s poverty related crime, violence and unsocialization problems. Normative solutions fashioned from the answer(s) obtained by asking normative questions.

For example, can our society, via PKQ-crafted legislation, mimic the circumstances—notably for those on the bottommost rungs of the socio-academic ladder—that will result in them beginning their day with a (satisfying) sense of purpose, and ending it with a satisfying sense of accomplishment?

Short Answer: Yes, our society can.

**********

SWITCHING GEARS...

PERFECT ANALOGY: For well over two thousand years, the medical community practiced medicine based on Hippocrates’ (horribly flawed) Four Humours theory. And because they did, most of the discussions and debates among physicians, researchers, instructors in medical schools, etc. over best practices, i.e., best diagnoses, best remedies, best treatments, etc., was nonsensical—pure hogwash.

Over two thousand years of intellect wasted thinking about and discussing at best, ineffective medical treatments/remedies—at worst, treatments that ended up killing the patient.

Similarly, consider how much intellectual firepower is, and has been, wasted on a daily basis by the best political minds in political science departments, political think tanks—elite political analysts in newspapers like the New York Times, the Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal, etc., etc., etc.—critiquing all thing touching on national politics, notably the liberalism vs. conservatism "intellectual" battle between Congress' Democrats and Republicans. When what our cognitive elite SHOULD have been doing for at least the last several decades was devoting their rare gift, i.e., their intellect, shining a bright spotlight on our LOC and ROC voters’ (and society’s) many shared ANI objectives, including and especially the mother of all shared ANI objectives: PKQ-controlled Congresses enacting normative legislative policies.

**********

This observation should be HARDWIRED into everyone's BRAIN CIRCUITRY—preferably before the end of SIXTH GRADE:

The 100% PI War S-G strategy is a horribly flawed (Think; Four Humours) strategy for electing Congress' 535 members of Congress.

The 90% ANI Cooperation S-G strategy is the ideal/normative S-G strategy.

"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." Howard Aiken

Our society’s intelligentsia must "ram" a small lexicon of new, “normative-based” S-G terms into the American people’s working vocabulary.

Terms that, by their very nature, will both provide the conceptional roadmap AND be the driving force propelling the transition of America from a dystopic democracy, i.e., a democracy whose national legislature stays permanently controlled by PAPs, to a neartopic democracy, i.e., a democracy whose national legislature stays permanently controlled by a steady supply of PKQ-caliber legislators.

OBVIOUS QUESTION: How can 535 "amateurs" possibly run a modern nation as large, as powerful and as complex as the United States?

Here's the best short answer: First, it should be obvious that Congress doesn't "run" America (thank goodness). Our nation is "run" by tens of millions of Americans distributed throughout:

dozens of major federal agencies
50 fully functioning state governments
thousands of county, city and other government bodies, and
millions of:
- [small, medium, large] businesses
- community and social organizations
- school boards, churches
- charities, NGOs, philanthropies, etc.

Second, common sense suggests that our (commonsensical) Vast Mainstream of LOC and ROC voters will quickly begin doing in the House of Representatives what they've done all along in the Senate: elect new PKQ-caliber candidates in one-third of the 435 House seats every two years, and essentially rubber stamp the other two-thirds. So at any given point in time, one-third of the House members will have 4-5 years of experience; one-third will have 3-4 years of experience, and one-third will be true freshman (albeit extraordinarily capable) legislators.

UPLIFTING OBSERVATION: We are likely to find that, within America's ~140 million VM of voters, a.k.a. America's go-along-to-get-alongers, there will be a number of discrete groups –– we could call them, "mini-Vast Mainstreamers" –– who will be strongly pro PKQ-controlled Congresses.

For example, a VM of:

billionaires/oligarchs,
the top 2% of our income earners,
state legislators, mayors, governors,
school boards, parents, grandparents,
college students, post grads,
PhDs, MBAs,...,
professional athletes,
tech geeks, sci fi geeks,...,
entrepreneurs,
Hollywood: directors, producers, actors,...
professional musicians (amateurs, too),
etc.
etc.

These mini-groups of VMers will strongly support America's VM LOC and ROC voters transitioning from PAP- to PKQ-controlled Congresses –– because, presumably, whether you are a billionaire like an [Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Peter Thiel, Larry Ellison, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, etc.], or a state legislator or governor, or an A-list actor, or a Trekkie, or a plumber, or etc., etc., etc., you would much rather that America be governed by PKQ-controlled Congresses than accept where our two permanently warring factions of PAPs in both chambers of Congress –– in their never-ending, all-consuming struggle for power (much of it purely for power's sake) –– are almost certainly going to drive our nation: into fiscal collapse (refer back to Income Quintile graphic). Which, in turn, will lead to societal collapse. Which, in turn, will begin rapidly eating away our society's moral and ethical foundation.

When these things happen, history says the United States will quickly devolve into a Putin-style, pseudo-democratic form of left- AND right-wing authoritarianism. Whose "Imperial Presidents" can, on a whim –– with the backing of their sycophantic, (and cowardly?) PAP-controlled national legislatures (and the "thunderous" silence of their national political media) –– take your assets, destroy your name/your career; imprison you and throw away the key, even kill you... because that's what people with unchecked power end up doing to maintain their grip on, or grow, their power (while their complicit sycophants in and out of government stand passively, silently by).

**********

Existential-level S-G reality: PKQ-controlled Congresses are an existential prerequisite for American democracy’s survival.

**********

TWO TAKEAWAYS:

EITHER (best case scenario): a critical mass of America's elite thought leaders and influencers, a.k.a. those “who have been given much,” WILL take that ~first step down a new [S-G knowledge] road. Meaning, they will embrace the concept of normative S-G strategies, as well as normative policy solutions.

When that critical mass is reached, the "die will be cast." The knowledge will spread beyond the walls of our universities, igniting a spark in a critical mass of society's VM that: 1) cannot be extinguished, 2) will eventually reach, and impact, every democratic nation on Earth, conceivably even some/many of our autocracies.

Our species WILL evolve, socio-politically.

OR (worst case scenario): that critical mass will not be reached—largely because of the Semmelweis reflex—in which case, R.I.P. American democracy and broad-based prosperity... and, eventually, individual freedom on Planet Earth.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT: Is it possible to nullify the Semmelweis reflex via a national tutorial campaign that:

reaches every American old enough to have a "political" view,
causes them to (unwittingly in many cases) become "fluent" in the language of Effective Self-Governance?

Answer: the history of paradigm-shifting, status quo-disrupting, course-of-history-changing ideas says yes.

SCI FI-ISH FOOD FOR THOUGHT re "S-G Awareness:" When a critical mass of society does become fluent in the language of Effective S-G, something remarkable will also happen: our society will become "S-G aware" (analogous to the way Skynet from The Terminator movies became self aware). Society writ large will suddenly "grok," i.e., understand emphatically, why they must, and how to, evolve/transition from PAP- to PKQ-controlled Congresses.

When that inflection point is reached, the only question will be how many election cycles will it take for America's LOC and ROC voters to transition completely to neartopic democracy.

“Only those who do not seek power are qualified to hold it.” Plato

re the holy grail of Effective S-G: Effective Sortition (ES), a quasi-random variant of Sortition.

(From Wikipedia): In governance, sortition is the selection of public officials or jurors using a random representative sample. This minimizes factionalism, since those selected to serve can prioritize deliberating on the policy decisions in front of them instead of campaigning. In ancient Athenian democracy, sortition was the traditional and primary method for appointing political officials, and its use was regarded as a principal characteristic of democracy. [boldface added]

re Effective Sortition (ES)

The following is one way—minimally, the most politically and civically conscientious of America's vast mainstream (VM) of left- and right-of-center (LOC/ROC) voters can use ES in the pre-primary process phase of their NLEP:

1. Every two years, ten groups of LOC voters, and ten groups of ROC voters (with, e.g., 6-12 voters per group) –– all of whom have volunteered in advance to involve themselves in this process –– are randomly selected (similar to how individuals are selected for jury duty) from, let's say, ten distinct regions across each of America's 435 U.S. House districts and ~33 States. (For now, let's call these voters: Talented Xers.) (fyi: each congressional district has ~700,000 people.)

2. Each group will first identify, using a combination of social media, standard recruiting methods and/or an app developed specifically for this purpose, then recruit/draft several PKQ-caliber, LOC and ROC candidates from their own distinct region of the district, i.e., candidates who:

are extraordinarily capable,
have high POM (purity of motive) ratings,
understand up front that, if elected, they will only be serving a “few” years as a one-time civic duty because both they and the voters understand how easily political power, especially at the national legislative level, can corrupt even the best of us.

3. From each district's/state's pool of identified and recruited LOC and ROC candidates, one LOC and one ROC candidate will be randomly selected via lottery –– and, subject to the approval of the Democratic and Republican parties' primary voters in the NLEP's primary process phase, will face each other in the general election phase of the NLEP.

REMINDER: America easily has one million PKQ-caliber citizens, which works out to a recruitment pool of ~2,300 PKQ-caliber candidates in each 700,000+ person congressional district.

KEY POINT: ES makes it possible for LOC and ROC voters to insure that, in the general election phase of the NLEP, both major parties' candidates will always be PKQ-caliber. Which means both factions of voters will never have to confront the "moral" quandary: "Do I vote for the other side's PKQ-caliber candidate if my side's candidate is, by definition, a PAP, i.e., politically ambitious politician, (and therefore also, by definition, self-serving)?"

Layman's observation: ES will not be a big hit with our nation's rabid ideologues (and others). But it will turn out to be overwhelmingly popular with the VM of our LOC and ROC voters, i.e., our ~140 million go-along-to-get-alongers –– who agree:

with Conventional Political Wisdom's (CPW's) dire prognosis, i.e., moving forward, the "end is nigh[ish]" for American democracy (and Earth's other democracies).
that the only way they can escape the hellish, part-Groundhog Day, part-Twilight Zone (S-G) nightmare they are trapped in is by "doing something they've never done," i.e., adapting/evolving.

TAKEAWAY re EFFECTIVE SORTITION (ES):

ES is the only way America's LOC and ROC voters can transition from U.S. Congresses permanently controlled by PAPs to permanently controlled by PKQ-caliber legislators.
PKQ-controlled Congresses are the only way to avoid the Orwellian future that CPW says awaits our nation.

*********

REASONABLE LAYMAN'S TAKEAWAYS:

TAKEAWAY #1 re America's Talented Xers.

They are our society’s best role models in any number of ways. They are civic minded. They involve themselves in community functions and events. They belong to charitable and other voluntary organizations.

aside: as a group, more than likely they are well educated, conscientious—and trustworthy.

How many Talented Xers, size-wise, there are is an unknown. But it could range from a Talented:

"tenth" of VM voters (to borrow from a term popularized over a century ago by black scholar, W.E.B. Du Bois) (= 15,500,000 voters), or
twentieth of VM voters (= 7,750,000 voters, or
thirtieth (= 5,200,000 voters), or
fiftieth (= 3,100,00 voters). or
hundredth (= 1,550,000 voters), or
thousandth (= 155,000 voters),

TAKEAWAY #2: even though the total number of Talented Xers is a small percentage of our VM of voters, it still is a very large number of people who are:

easily capable of grasping the existential imperative of them updating their NLEP, from 2-Phase to 3-Phase, in order for them to:
start keeping both chambers of Congress "continuously replenished" with highly capable, PKQ-caliber (mostly) liberal Democratic and conservative Republican legislators.

There ALSO exists a massively large number of VM LOC and ROC voters who technically aren't Talented Xers but would be enthusiastically, even ecstatically, supportive of their respective group's Talented Xers identifying and recruiting the required pool of PKQ-caliber candidates in advance of the NLEP –– from which our LOC and ROC VMers would field in their respective House and Senate primaries, thus insuring that, regardless of which candidate was elected in the general election, he/she would be PKQ-caliber.

TAKEAWAY #3: the sooner our electorate begins using ES to elect their 535 members of Congress, the sooner we will see PKQ-controlled national legislatures:

turning our nation's EFFS mountain into a molehill,

becoming near-perfect role models for our children (our adults, too),

mending our divided society,

restoring the spirit of Classical Liberalism to our nation's soul,

etc., etc., etc.

The stakes couldn't be higher for the American people AND (if CPW is to be believed) for the future of freedom on our planet.

So, as absurd as it may sound, we must transition from having a:

reading, writing, arithmetic-focused education system

...to a

reading, writing, arithmetic, effective self-governance-focused education system.

Metaphorically speaking, we must transition from being a passively free society whose civics curriculum produces "eighth grade-level" sheeple citizens and voters, to being a pro-actively free society whose civics/Effective S-G curriculum produces "PhD-level" Spartan citizens/voters.

BRIEF PHILOSOPHICAL DIGRESSION:

If our 140 million LOC and ROC VMers sitting around their vast kitchen table were to list the values, ideals, characteristics, attributes, etc. they thought our k-12 schools should inculcate into every student, there’s a good chance our VMers would look no further than the ethe, or ethoses, of America’s Girl- and Boy Scouts, respectively.

Here’s the Girl Scout Law:

I will do my best to be
honest and fair,
friendly and helpful,
considerate and caring,
courageous and strong,
and responsible for what I say and do,
and to respect myself and others,
respect authority,
use resources wisely,
make the world a better place,
and be a sister to every Girl Scout.

Here's the Boy Scout Law: A Scout is:

TRUSTWORTHY. Tell the truth and keep promises. People can depend on you.

LOYAL. Show that you care about your family, friends, Scout leaders, school, and country.

HELPFUL. Volunteer to help others without expecting a reward.

FRIENDLY. Be a friend to everyone, even people who are very different from you.

COURTEOUS. Be polite to everyone and always use good manners.

KIND. Treat others as you want to be treated. Never harm or kill any living thing without good reason.

OBEDIENT. Follow the rules of your family, school, and pack. Obey the laws of your community and country.

CHEERFUL. Look for the bright side of life. Cheerfully do tasks that come your way. Try to help others be happy.

THRIFTY. Work to pay your own way. Try not to be wasteful. Use time, food, supplies, and natural resources wisely.

BRAVE. Face difficult situations even when you feel afraid. Do what you think is right despite what others might be doing or saying.

CLEAN. Keep your body and mind fit. Help keep your home and community clean.

REVERENT.

Why list these highly desirable traits, values, ideals, etc.?

Simply to suggest what the VM of our society might consider the "education" our education system SHOULD be providing our children vs. the education it IS providing them.

FOOD FOR CONTEMPLATION re the concept of a normative education:

Most of us have seen videos of, say, an agitated individual on a crowded subway train angrily berating an elderly person, or other innocent rider—and everyone is recording the scene on their phone rather than coming to the innocent person's aid.

How many of society’s VM would rather that everyone reacted instantly and came en masse to the innocent person’s defense?
How many of society’s VM would want our k-12 education system to inculcate that kind of civic/civilizational behavior into our nation’s future generations?
How quickly would bullies stop bullying if society writ large adopted these kinds of collective defense responses?

*********

FOOD FOR THOUGHT:

Try to imagine an America where obtaining a license to practice medicine merely required:

taking a guided tour of a major hospital’s facilities, i.e., it’s laboratories, operating rooms, examination rooms, treatment rooms, etc.,
memorizing the body’s major organs, bones, muscle groups, etc. and their function.

And that’s it.

Suffice to say, that America would be teeming with incompetent physicians.

Now try to imagine an America where obtaining professional licenses to practice in every other field also did not require a near-encyclopedic mastery of knowledge specific to the field—acquired over years of study and practice: chemists, engineers, airline pilots, air traffic controllers, radiologists, (the list is endless).

That’s what America’s civics curriculum is like. It produces students who, upon graduation into the real world, don’t have the slightest idea of how to practice democracy effectively, or competently---or dare we say: correctly.

After 12+ years of education, our educators are turning out naïve “sheeple voters” who have a primitive/unsophisticated view of the democratic process, when what they should be turning out are decidedly non-naive, S-G savvy "Spartan citizen-voters."

OUTDATED THINKING: civics education

"EVOLVED" THINKING: civics/effective S-G/civilization-strengthening education

**********

re NEXT GRAPHIC:

FOOD FOR THOUGHT: Moving forward, what SHOULD a normative national food system (for domestic consumption) look like, particularly given the takeaway of the "Necessity is the Mother of Invention" graphic that follows this next graphic?

“The world as we have created it is a process of our thinking. It cannot be changed without changing our thinking.” Albert Einstein

Brief philosophical discussion re the moral case for a normative, off-grid/on-grid economic system.

We know that if, say, one hundred 30-year-old men are randomly selected from around the country to run a mile as fast as they can, we are likely to see a close approximation to a standard distribution curve of the runner’s finishing times. A small number of the fastest at one end, a small number of the slowest at the other, and everyone else forming a bell-shaped hump between the two.

Similarly, if 100 30-year-old Americans—or 40-year-olds, or 50-year-olds, etc.—are randomly selected from around the country, and their income earning “ability” ranked, we will see the same bell-shaped distribution curve. Those who, in a manner of speaking, excel at free market “competition” will be at one end; those who fail miserably in this arena at the other, and a bell-shaped hump in the middle.

It’s likely that if we were to rank these individuals according to the extent to which they begin their day with a satisfying sense of purpose, and end it with a satisfying sense of accomplishment, their “satisfaction” distribution curve would track fairly closely (but not exactly) with their “income earning ability” curve.

Since Americans tend to segregate according to income level, it’s logical to infer that our most economically disadvantaged communities—both urban and rural—will also be the communities whose residents are least likely to begin each day with a satisfying sense of purpose and end it with a satisfying sense of accomplishment. Just the opposite: odds are their life will be a daily, joyless struggle—perhaps for their children, too, for those with kids.

In a normative economic system, every economically disadvantaged [individual, family, community] would have the option of going off-grid, from somewhat to almost completely, and MOST of our government employees working in America’s many social service systems would be performing the functions of Peace Corps volunteers, i.e., teaching these individuals/families/communities how to be as close to 100% self-reliant and self-sufficient as possible by showing them how to grow their own food AND grow the plant-based materials they can use to build energy efficient homes, home furnishings and products, make clothing—even shoes.

And let’s not forget that conventional wisdom is pretty sure that a significant percentage (maybe 50+%) of our middle class will soon have their jobs done entirely by AI and/or AI-controlled robots. So they, too, are highly likely to choose to start working off-grid, from slightly to completely, if that’s what it’s going to take to maintain a middle class standard of living (SOL) for themselves and their families.

Aside: do your due diligence: Especially with the "3,000,000 shipping containers from China" graphic in mind, search, including an image search: co-housing, community housing, intentional housing, urban farming, vertical farming, foodscaping, Vertical Harvest Farms, passive solar heating and cooling. Many in our nation are already transitioning away from our society’s massively industrialized, massively bureaucratized, massively dysfunctionalized high energy consumption paradigm. That trend will only accelerate as more middle class jobs are lost to AI, robotics, etc.

LAYMAN'S VIEW: If a middle class SOL is living “comfortably” in a nice house (or apartment) in a safe, stable community with good schools. And if we are a truly compassionate society, then we owe it to our most economically disadvantaged urban and rural communities—i.e., those who are and will continue to “fail” in the free market arena to earn a middle class income—to teach them how to achieve an “off-grid” middle class SOL.

OLD THINKING: gainfully employed

NEW THINKING: gainfully employed, gainfully occupied, or some of both.

"All truth passes through three stages:

First, it is ridiculed;

Second, it is violently opposed; and

Third, it is accepted as self-evident."

Arthur Schopenhauer, 1788-1860 (attrib.)

FINALLY: Chances are you're here because you were notified via email (or the email was forwarded to you), because you either are, or one day might be, a member of our nation's intelligentsia.

However, no matter how you got here –– or what your current, future or former station in life may be –– if you care about America, about American democracy, about its people, about their ability to remain a free, prosperous society; about the future of freedom as an inalienable human right across our planet ––now that you have a basic understanding of this page's new terms, concepts, FOODS FOR THOUGHT, Layman's Takeaways, etc., your:

academic responsibility AND "civilizational duty" if you are a scholar or educator,
civic responsibility AND civilizational duty if you are a voter or student,
civic responsibility AND civilizational duty if you are an influencer,
civic responsibility AND civilizational duty AND sheer self-interest if you are a billionaire,

...is to DETERMINE in your own mind if:

0% of it has academic or other merit, but just might give rise down the road to a new line of investigation or exploration for political philosophers, political economists, public policy thinkers/developers, good government advocates, etc. that WILL be of eventual "democracy-saving/civilization-enhancing" value,
Or 1% of it has academic worth and WILL give rise....
Or 10%....
Or 50%....
Or >50%...

Then DISSEMINATE anything you consider worthwhile, or potentially worthwhile, as far and as wide as you can –– a.s.a.p.

and/or...

Become a financial supporter/benefactor.

LAYMAN'S HOPE: if you are a thinking, caring individual who "wants to make the world a better place," then odds are you would absolutely, positively love to see America’s LOC and ROC voters, as well as voters in democracies around the planet, transition to PKQ-controlled national legislatures—and probably a.s.a.p.

But, the concept is so new, and you are among the first to hear/learn about it—and it all seems so improbable, that as the chatbot made clear (and believe me I know from personal experience), no one wants to charge out of the gate publicly advocating transitioning to PKQ-controlled Congresses. Not when 99.9% of everyone else’s initial, knee-jerk response is going to be to treat the idea as 100% fantasy, something only someone who wasn’t “all there” would actually seriously propose.

It is that harsh reality about us humans that underscores why—recall the "Normative Self-Governance Model Hypothesis" graphic—the single-minded objective of everyone who wants our democratic society to take the next evolutionary step in S-G is to help insure that the marketing/advertising campaign is spectacularly successful.

Successful in the sense that if, say, you’re an academic, you don’t want to have to try to convince your skeptical (and cynical) students and fellow academics that electing PKQ-caliber candidates via Effective Sortition is a serious S-G option—after first having to explain to them what PKQ-caliber legislators are, and what Effective Sortition is, and watching them smirk at the idea, and you for taking it seriously.

What you want is for them to be so bombarded by media advertising that they come to you seeking your thoughts on how to get ES up and running, a.s.a.p.

That's the difference between an excellent radical idea that no one has heard about vs. everyone has heard, and is excitedly talking about.

So, please help our society become S-G aware via a national awareness/education campaign. Your donation(s) to this website’s GoFundMe page will not be made public if you choose to donate anonymously—and this website will neither sell nor divulge anyone’s name to anyone for any reason.

https://www.gofundme.com/f/introduce-americas-voters-to-a-normative-sg-strategy

If you want your name to remain anonymous to even this website, you can go to https://www.silentdonor.com/donate-anonymously-to-gofundme-and-other-crowdfunding-sites/

KEY POINTS:

Every penny received from GoFundMe will go into a dedicated bank account and will be publicly available for viewing.
The first expenditure will go to the development of at least one graphic-rich, "professional caliber" YouTube video that provides a brief overview/primer of this new S-G knowledge, and its implications for our nation and democracy moving forward.
90+% of all subsequent funds received will go directly toward the purchase of advertising on Instagram, Facebook, X, etc., making needed upgrades to this website, and on e-mails campaigns.

Finally, the personal: you can also go to my Substack page. https://montie.substack.com/ By becoming a paid subscriber there you will be helping me keep food on the table, the lights on and the mortgage company from foreclosing on this layman's home.

You can contact me at Montie@EffectiveSelfGovernance.com

LAYMAN'S ASSUMPTION: It is probably safe to say that this paradigm-shifting, status quo-disrupting, course-of-history-changing undertaking is going to be the mother of all uphill battles for humanity.

Until it isn't.

“It always seems impossible until it’s done.” Nelson Mandela

WELCOME AMERICA’S INTELLIGENTSIA: ACADEMICS, JOURNALISTS, SCHOLARS...

Our Political Academics Have Been "Fiddling While Rome Burns."

This website uses cookies.