Politics, by definition,
is the art of achieving results
in terms of control over Man’s behavior;
a study of influence, and the influential;
of Who Gets What, When, and How.In affairs of state, politics is always a means to some social end. Too often, the target is to arrive at an unworthy end, whereby politics merely becomes an end in itself.
In a Democracy, every citizen has a legal right to participate in politics, and every party stands equal with every other political organization. But random choice can no more create purpose than a law degree can create a President. If it is to our dismay that politicians cannot recognize the desires of the citizenry, it is to our shame when we act in the insanity of selecting a President by whim, from those proven not to act in recognition of the people’s desires.
When the people become cynical toward politics and political promises, they look eagerly for a candidate whom exhibits statesman-like qualities of candor, honesty, courage, and devotion to duty. Ours is a nation which queries, “Why have there been no first-class politicians risen in years?” Is it because leadership has been lacking? Or is it we’ve simply forgotten what true leadership looks like?
Where is that individual whose vision sparks a fire inside of us, bearing witness, Yes! That’s the One! It is not fashion which makes the greatest impression; it is Character which stamps a lasting image. It is the capacity to be approachable, intelligent, decisive, communicative, and believable, with an Integrity which is the dividing factor between a vibrant, results-oriented President, and a mundane, shallow charlatan.
Will the next Chief Executive take the oath of office because that candidate’s war chest was greater than the competition’s?
Or because a spirit
swept the citizenry,
and a Vision took root?
What, precisely, are we to expect of those whom we empower with the responsibilities of political administration?
For all elected officials, it would seem the chief focus is to:
1. Bring to light the desired goals of the nation as a whole
2. Bring to fruition a combined benefit for the citizenry
3. Expose and eradicate the inconsistencies which thwart
the realization of the first two aims
Management of a system such as the United States government requires a leadership whose experience recognizes the intrinsic problems common to all people; and an attitude which reflects a fearless optimism that such problems can be tackled and overcome. The essence of politics is compromise; politics is the art of the possible, and of the expedient: it is the middle way. But what is possible, is intolerable to the idealist; what is expedient is anathema to the moralist; what is the middle way draws the curses of the fanatic.
Politics has often been called the practice of the second choice. In fact, success in politics often yields less than second choice. Much of the present-day disillusionment with democracy is a widespread disgust with a game in which even the winners are little-pleased with their half-victories. Hence, in every democracy there appears groups of fanatical extremists whose objective is to set up a totalitarian state in which they will not be required to compromise their respective programs.
When we look at the war in Iraq, we can see the evidence of just such a wrangling for power against a change to a democratic opportunity, which those who benefited from the oppression and favoritism of the old system find intolerable.
Fed by a mercenary insurgency to stir up strife,
and to keep Democracy at bay by robbing Iraqis of their sense of security, safety, or hope in their new government, this is not simply the reaction of Iraqis
to the Coalition’s presence, or the impact of Iraqi
civil war...it is being done on purpose.
These groups participate in politics and exploit its benefits in order to abolish it. These totalitarian parties are fighting militias, and not political parties. Their tactic is to thwart agreement, rather than facilitate it. Their spirit is that of all or nothing, and not that of compromise. If such groups gain strength, the practice of politics becomes impossible.
Through the introduction of Controversy, anger and frustration have been used as tools of opportunity. Whether the instigation of racial tension under which Hitler moved to eradicate the Jews, or the KKK enlisted its lynch mobs, or a Muslim is convinced to strap on a suicide belt, people are manipulated by emotion to enact change to remove what is uncomfortable through the stirrings of Controversy.
Controversy requires dissatisfaction which becomes the weapon against Apathy. Controversy doesn’t require truthfulness; it has as its simple goal the intent to facilitate involvement. Controversy can strike a chord of concern over “global warming" to bring attention to Al Gore; Controversy marches front and center to boost the Democratic rolls through partisan criticism of George Bush. Controversy was the tool Rosie O’Donnell used to shine a spotlight on gay marriage; Controversy garnered attention for a pseudo-Church in the graveyards of our military dead. Controversy brings fame to the mundane and conversational topics to talk shows. Controversy brings attention.
While Controversy is effective against Apathy, it is dangerous in that it provides a direct link to anger and frustration, which can lead to offense and retribution. As a strategy, it becomes the vehicle of enlistment.
As a mercenary weapon, Controversy
has the capacity to incite violence.
But Controversy has no place in the directorship of a nation. It is a “fool’s tool ” when made a lever for the works of government. Because it needn’t lean on fact for support, Controversy has no solid foundation upon which to stand and is as malleable as the audience it is thrown at.
It has taken many years of social manipulation through Controversy to bring the American people to a point of dissatisfaction with Democracy, and to prepare the way for American Socialism. Are we not already seeing the creeping vestiges of what Globalization will mean for America?
-e.
