NOTE TO READERS: For now, think of every graphic on this page as an individual section, and every section's text as a stand alone observation or thought, one not necessarily connected to those that precede or follow it. There may also be some overlap between this page and the Home page.
A LAYMAN’S RADICAL CLAIM: Democracies in the modern era, generally, but American democracy in particular, are in various stages of decline/failure for a reason that has nothing to do with their voters' cognitive and other shortcomings. Rather, it is because literally every self-governing society is practicing democracy, i.e., engaging in the process of self-governance, incorrectly.
Which means, we don't have a "it's the voters' fault" problem as CPW suggests, we have an incorrect "theory" of self-governance (S-G) problem---in the same way, for example:
- astronomers practiced astronomy incorrectly when they ascribed to the incorrect theory (taught to them by their astronomy professors) that our Earth sits stationary at the center of our solar system (theory of heliocentrism),
- medical doctors practiced medicine incorrectly when they ascribed to the incorrect theory (taught to them by their medical professors) that good vs. poor health is determined by the body's four major humours being in vs. not being in their "proper" balance (Four Humours theory*)... (* if you come across the phrase, "Four Humours thinking," it means your logic is based on, or derives from, a flawed theory.)
Another way of stating our voters' "existential" S-G problem: their political academics are worshiping at the wrong alter.
re Political Science's unwritten, unexamined—and incorrect—100% Political/Ideological (PI) War theory of S-G.
The unexamined assumption among our political academics is that elections are simply the means by which different factions of voters decide between competing legislative policies, or policy agendas. In the specific case of America's NLEP, the choice for voters is between the Democratic Party's liberal/progressive policies vs. the Republican party's conservative/libertarian policies.
Or expressed differently, America's LOC and ROC voters "use" their NLEP for one purpose: to wage 100% PI War against each other every two years to determine which side's PI warrior-politicians will control Congress for the next two years.
It is because our political academics have been worshiping at the wrong alter from the very beginning that our LOC and ROC voters don't have the slightest idea:
- what shared, apolitical/non-ideological(ANI) objectives even means,
- why their shared ANI objectives are vastly more existentially important/valuable to them than their PI objectives,
- how to use their NLEP to achieve them.
Long story short, it is our society's "primitive" understanding of the S-G process that explains why, after 200+ years of voters waging 100% PI War against each other, the following graphic captures the part-Groundhog Day, part-Twilight Zone S-G nightmare our electorate is now imprisoned in.
In hindsight, once it became apparent to our political academics that America’s voters—even the really intelligent ones—were not keeping Congress filled with non-self-serving, non-politically ambitious, non-power hungry legislators, our experts on the democratic process SHOULD have come together and developed a large body of knowledge re correct vs. incorrect [or normative vs. non-normative] theories, and strategies, of S-G.
**********
BRIEF DISCUSSION: early in the twentieth century, our elected representatives at the state level assigned to our political and civics educators the responsibility of teaching our future voters what voters in free societies should do to fulfil their civic duty in their capacity as voters (layman's takeaway: a voter's two biggest "civic" responsibilities: 1) be informed on the issues, 2) get out and vote in every local, state and federal election).
Yet, apparently, in all this time it has never occurred to our "mainstream" academics to comprehensively compare, or even explore, the relative efficacy of different voting strategies---derived from different theories of S-G---which voters can use most notably in their NLEP. And based on either the actual outcome, or the predicted outcome, of each strategy conclude, for example, that any voting strategy that results in Congress permanently overflowing with two or more factions of largely well-meaning---but also (layman's takeaway) largely self-serving, politically ambitious, power-craving, perks and privileges-addicted---"politicians" is definitely NOT a correct S-G strategy voters should be using to elect their 535 members of Congress.
While a strategy (and the theory supporting it) that results in Congress permanently overflowing with two or more factions of PKQ-Caliber legislators constitutes the correct strategy/theory---which, fyi, we should also describe as the normative strategy/theory.
LAYMAN'S TAKEAWAY: the actual key to democracies succeeding spectacularly has nothing to do with how intelligent the "average" voter is, or how educated and/or informed he/she is, or whether they're gullible or naive or greedy---or whether 90% of eligible voters vote vs., say, 60%, etc.---but merely requires that those societies' political/civics educators teach their future (and current) voters an easy to understand, easy to implement voting, or S-G, strategy, one that will enable them to keep their national legislatures continually replenished with a steady supply of PKQ-caliber legislators.
re POLITICAL AMBITION, POWER-LUST, SELF-SERVINGISM
re Political Ambition
There are roughly half a million Americans serving in some form of elected office, most of them at the local level. A useful operating assumption is that, not all of them but the vast majority initially ran for office, not because they had political aspirations or they craved political power, but because they constitute that tiny minority of individuals in every democratic society who actually get off their butts and offer to perform what are often times the largely thankless tasks that have to be performed to insure that the many gears of a community (and a society) that are essential to their successful functioning don't stop turning.
(Because when enough gears stop turning, civilizations stop being "civilized.")
That said, within this group of well-meaning, well-intentioned individuals, there is no doubt a [small(?), moderate (?), substantial(?)] percentage who, once in office, experience the perks and privileges that came with their position. And however small or minor those perks may be, they are enough to turn the elected official into, by definition, a self-serving PAP.
Meaning, their desire to get re-elected will corrupt their decision making, perhaps ever so slightly in some cases, considerably in others. Regardless of how much, it's likely that a significant number of these elected officials will get re-elected simply because they run unopposed -- because no one else wants the job.
The reason for pointing out these commonsense observations about human nature is to underscore the larger takeaway:
- Political ambition should be seen as a necessary evil at the local and, to a lesser extent, state level -- but a 100% unnecessary evil at the national legislative level.
...
ODDS & ENDS
It is almost impossible to overstate the amount of economic, financial, fiscal and (poverty related) societal (EFFS) damage done to our nation and society by generations of legislation crafted and enacted into law by U.S. Congresses dominated and controlled by, by definition, self-serving, politically ambitious "politicians" (PAPs).
Equally damaging are the two polar opposite political/ideological (PI) myths propagated by both parties' PAPs in Congress---which are treated as incontrovertible facts by large segments of our population.
LAYMAN'S TAKEAWAY: the easiest, fastest way for our society to see those two myths for what they are is by learning to speak the language of Effective S-G, or the language of ANI Cooperation.
Hard though it may be to imagine, our nation's voters, including even our intelligentsia -- particularly our political academics -- don't have the slightest idea of what it means for our ~160 million left-and right-of-center (LOC/ROC) voters to govern themselves "effectively" -- most notably when it comes to the way our voters ARE using vs. SHOULD use their national legislative election process (NLEP).
That's all but entirely because, while most of us have a sense of what it means to be an "informed" voter or a responsible voter, the myriad of concepts associated with a free society's voters governing themselves effectively doesn't yet exist -- other than (presumably) on this webpage. So important, democracy-saving concepts like, for example, normative S-G strategies voters can use in their NLEP to achieve their shared ANI objectives, are not yet part of our society's self-governance (S-G) zeitgeist. The requisite S-G terms are not in our S-G lexicon; the indispensable S-G strategies are not yet in our voters' S-G toolbox (in fact, voters don't even know they have an S-G toolbox).
