Tag: Governance

Do Americans Really Want A Divided Government?

The cycle always returns…..when one party has all the power, it seems that the voter will vote one out so that there is a divide in the branches of government…but is this a good idea?

Political Wire tries to explain the thinking…..

“If Republicans take back control of the House and maybe even the Senate, it will return American politics to its standard state: divided government. In the 21 Congresses after LBJ’s presidency, one party has held full control of the House, Senate, and White House just six times. Also since LBJ, the longest one party has controlled those three bodies is just for four years (1977-1981 and 2003-2007). And get this: Every time a party has had control of the three bodies, it ended in a wave election for the other side (1980, 1994, and 2006). So is what we’re witnessing just American politics returning to its natural state? Indeed, our NBC/WSJ poll in late August found that 62% of respondents said it was better if different parties control the White House and Congress, while only 29% preferred one party in command of both.”

Now that is a helluva question……and the more you look at history of the political process….it does seem that Americans want a divided government….it think it comes back to the old “checks and balances” thing…..but a better question is it a conscious desire or is it something else?

I guess it is an unconscious thing……..

Pew Research: “While 75% identify the Republicans as the party regarded as doing best in the midterms, fewer than half (46%) know that Republicans will have a majority only in the House when the new Congress convenes in January. About one-in-seven (14%) say the GOP won both the House and Senate; 8% say they won just the Senate; 5% do not think they will have a majority in either chamber; and 27% do not know.”

That shows just how important the mid-terms were….after all the hoopla on the Right of how the American people have spoken……but they are not sure of what they actually said……situation normal…..

Hegemony…..WTF?

Inkwell Institute

The College of Political Knowledge

Professor’s Classroom

Subject:  Political Theory/Media/Government

Paper #25

Recently myself and a couple of my readers had a conversation on the effect of the media on political stories……how the media is being used to further an agenda and helped to create this toxic atmosphere in politics.

Mind control?  Did someone say mind control?  Of all the words used by political philosophers, hegemony is one of my favorites….why?…it is an ugly little word that means the domination of one element of a system over others, that is the simple little definition…basically if looked at logically and rationally…it is MIND CONTROL!

Through the various eras in American history there have been a few hegemonic controls….the community and the workplace and the idea of patriotism and finally we come to the modern era, as I call it, the present and the control that the media has over the people’s thought process.

In the past, the not so distant past, if you control the media then you control the society…it was used as a propaganda tool….and not much has changed in the years.  Basically, it was first proposed by Antonio Gramsci back in the 20’s and 30’s…his thoughts on it were that the dominant class used its resources to mold the beliefs and opinions of the subordinate class.  And that boys and girls is the definition of HEGEMONY.

He was accurate…look at today’s society…..the media has helped manufacturer false needs that have turned the people into addicted consumers and the media has succeeded in neutralizing criticism by making it appear that there is free debate and argument….which in turn hides the indoctrination and control that they exert over the people.

Pick a subject….Any subject……now look beneath the ‘story line’….is there an indoctrination taking place?  How about from CNBC?  Or for that matter, FOX News?  The way that the American people talk and act…I am beginning to doubt that there is free will….and as scary as it seems…..NO RATIONAL THOUGHT!

Think I wrong, do you?  Think about the media and their reporting on the economy….the markets are up and everyone sees a recovery slowly approaching…..then ask your neighbor just how life is for him…bet it does not sound as rosy as the media paints……okay then think about the federal budget debt……everything we hear from the media is how there will be cuts in entitlements and such…..does it sound like they are preparing you for the inevitable?

So if you buy into the hegemonic thing….then the media is the absolute best place for the ruling class to use its influence to mold the public to their coming fate.  In essence, the dumbing down of the people to fit the agenda.  For instance, the Tea Party, a populist movement, at least that is what they would have us believe, but thanks to the media it is a movement fueled by opinion not knowledge…the media is setting the stage for the political agenda of the movement….a hegemonic control…..

Merry Christmas…you are being PLAYED!

Is It Gender Specific?

Inkwell Institute

Professor’s Classroom

Subject:  Political Theory/Feminism/

Paper #19

It would be difficult to try and teach political theory without injecting gender into the mix…..in today’s world gender and politics is as important as any other issue and if one looks at the most recent primaries then you can understand why I make such a statement……women are coming of age, especially in the GOP which in the past had been a cultural wasteland for women candidates….all that is changing and we need to see what it will mean in the future…..

In the US the Democratic Party has long held that women are very viable candidates, but it has not been so with the GOP in the past…but today’s political climate is giving conservative women an outlet for their political ambitions….especially on the shirt tails of the Tea Party…..this can only increase the democrat process…but in today’s political sphere there are a few philosophies about gender….personally, I like the idea of more gender diversification in politics….

But different philosophies view gender in very different lights……not all view it in a positive way….and some even see it a the hue of the Cro-Magnon man…..

I will begin with Liberals (I know I also begin with Liberals) who have traditionally viewed differences between man and woman as being a personal and private  significance.  In politics, all people, regardless of gender, are equal….gender is irrelevant as is race and social class.

Conservatives have emphasized the social and political significance of gender divisions and argue that the sexual division of labor between men and women is natural and hierarchical.

And now the Socialists…..like liberals have seldom treated gender as politically significant….they view the divisions between men and women as a reflection of deeper problems with economic and class inequalities.

Everybody’s a/hole the Fascists who see gender as a fundamental division of mankind, where men are naturally the leaders, while women are more suited for domestic, supportive and subordinate roles.  (No wonder these guys have little success)

Feminists also see gender as a political and social distinction, but see these divisions are manifestations of male power, otherwise there is NO distinction….

Now my fav, the Religious Right who regard gender as a God-given division and as such is critical to social and political organization.  So with that said, they tend to see the leadership by men as natural and desirable.  (Silly people that they are)

We could carry on with this discussion of gender and politics, but that would take a whole semester and then we would be where we were when I began this  post.  I realize that my definitions are short, sweet and overly simple but unfortunately that is the way people think and I try to be accurate as I can and as informative as I can in the least amount of space……enjoy…..

Religion–The Ship Of State?

Inkwell Institute

Professor’s Classroom

Subject:  Political Philosophy/Religion/Governance

Paper #14

Now here is a subject that gets the blood boiling, both pro and con……there could be a debate on this for decades and NO one would win the debate…..but I am not here to condemn or support the idea….I just want to point out what part it has played in the past…..both recent and long ago…..do not shoot the messenger…..

Since almost the beginning of what is called political philosophy there has been a debate on what part religion should play in the governance of society……

For instance, St. Augustine in the 5th century AD…..believe that since humans were volatile and irrational, then government must be a God given phenom…he believed that people MUST obey their government as they do their church…..then we come upon Machiavelli……he believed that christian morality was clearly inappropriate for a ruler to use in governance……John Locke…..thought that religious toleration was to be paramount in government, but he also thought there should a a “state” standardized form of religion….The along came Rousseau….who thought that the state should have a “civic religion’….there is a very short sampling of what was thought of religion as it pertained to the state or government or political authority….as you can see religion has played some part in the act of governing….

Most people think of religion because they are taught to think a certain way……does religion belong in the same office as government?……There are many ideas of what religion should do……But what do the different political players think of religion?

Liberals–religion is a private matter linked to individual choice and personal development.  Religious freedom is essential to civil liberty and can only be guaranteed by a strict division between religion and political activity and between church and state.

Conservative–religion is a valuable (possibly essential) source of stability and social cohesion.  Provides society with a set of shared values and the bedrock of a common society, and culture and church and state are inevitable and desirable.

Socialist–portray religion in negative terms, at best it is a diversion from political struggle and a t worst a form of ruling class ideology.  In other words, a way to keep the masses under control.

Anarchist–regard religion as an institutionalized source of oppression of the working class.  Church and state are invariably linked, with religion preaching obedience and submission to earthy rulers, while also prescribing a set of authoritative values that rob the individual of moral autonomy.

Fascist–Rejects religion on grounds that it serves as a rival source of allegiance or belief, and that it preaches decadent values such as compassion and sympathy.  Fascism seeks to function as a ‘political’ religion, embracing its terminology and internal structure, such as devotion, sacrifice, spirit, redemption and so forth

(Once again I thank Andrew Heywood and his book “Political Ideologies”)

In recent decades fundamentalism is becoming more entrenched in American politics,  they see the body of religion is essential, it dictates not only the personal conduct but also dictates the organization of social, economic and political life.  These people believe that religion cannot and should not be limited to private sphere, that its place is with the politics of the land.  They will impose their beliefs on everyone….personally, I do NOT want someone telling me what is right and wrong and passing laws with their personal beliefs…….

As you see the different “roles” that religion can play in the function of a government.  But is it a “Ship of State”?  IMO, it is NOT……religion is a personal thing that an individual makes and there should be NO room for it in government…I agree with the Anarchists in some ways and the Liberals in others…religion has No place in a modern government….laws should NOT be made from a religious point of view…no matter what one thinks the Founding Fathers had in mind…..

Equality (Revisited)

Inkwell Institute

Professor’s Classroom

Subject:  Equality/Government/Political Philosophy

Paper  #7A

Note:  In my last paper, Equality–What Is It Good For?”, I omitted explaining where the different political ideologies stand on the subject…….I would like to correct that oversight on my part……..I would like to thank Andrew Heywood and his book “Political Ideologies” for the breakdown by political leanings……he gave a much better synopsis than I would have….and in fewer words……I like simple but informative….

When it comes to people what are their particular beliefs in the “institution” of equality……I am glad you asked…..

Liberals:  believe that people are born equal, in the sense of equal moral value….this implies formal equality, as well as the equality of opportunity.  Classical liberal thinking emphasizes the need for strict meritocracy and economic incentives—modern liberals argue that genuine equal opportunities require relative social equality.

Conservatives:  view society as naturally hierarchical and have dismissed equality as an abstract and unachievable goal.  Modern conservatives see a strongly individualist belief in equality of opportunity while emphasizing the economic benefits of material inequality.

Socialists:  regard equality as essential and a fundamental value and endorse social equality.  Regardless of shifts in type of socialism, equality is seen as necessary for the establishment of justice or equality, and the enlarging more freedom in a positive sense.

Anarchists:  stress political equality, as understood as equal and absolute right to personal autonomy, implying that all forms of political inequality amounts to oppression.

Fascists:  believe that all of humankind is marked by radical inequality, between leaders and followers and between various nations or races…..nevertheless, the emphasis on nation or race implies that all members are equal, in terms of their core social identity.

There you have the major political ideologies and how they view the idea of equality…..remember, also, that there are many sub-categories within these ideas and that some of the views are tweaked to reflect their view of the subject.

To be continued……Next…….Why Party Politics?