Democratic Party: A Party of Fear and Paranoia

I discussed the major drawback of the polarity strategy (labeling an opponent as the evil enemy or the opposite) is that one can easily become paranoid or portrayed as paranoid. I felt that the Republican Party was allowing itself to fight the polar attacks of Democrats with their own polar attacks, which gives you short-term gains but leaves you reliant on whatever popular sentiment exists at that time. It is not a long term strategy. This has been true but something else is developing and it is not the result of the political tactics or words of the Republican Party.

The Democratic Party is becoming fearful and paranoid on its own.

Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid began this with their references to political assassinations, pro-slavery efforts in the 1850s, anti-civil rights movements, and hate crimes from the 1960s and 1970s. Then more Democrats jumped on board making references to the KKK, Neo-Nazis, and violent right-wing militias. This has been a common criticism of Democrats aimed at the anti-establishment Tea Party Movement that is focused on defeating the incumbent majority Party. Now you have more references to racism and political violence. Even former President Bill Clinton fears the anti-government sentiment will lead to violence such as the Oklahoma City bombing or the confrontations with fringe militias at Ruby Ridge and the religious group at Waco.

Just one problem. None of the Tea Party Protests or significant rallies have indicated their desire to overthrow the Government. In fact, they are invoking the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and the words of previous political leaders as their rally point. It is antithetical to refer to existing political documents when overthrowing the existing political system.

Are they violent? No. There has been no bombings, no shots fired (except at Eric Cantor's campaign HQ), no burning down of government buildings, or calls for the death of President Barack Obama. Certainly if you look long and hard enough you will find crazies that support such actions but they are not leaders of the Tea Party Movement, and most Tea Partiers would opposed such illegal acts.

Thats the unique thing about the Tea Party. It is a popular movement that worships the rule of law. They want a return to a respect for the Law and a return to the conservative foundation of the country. They don't want to destroy anything literally or figuratively. They promote voter registration, voter participation, dissemination of information, and coordination of efforts across the country.

In the end that is what former President Clinton and others are afraid of. They are afraid of this alleged "anti-government" movement because it is really about the movement kicking them out of power. They are afraid of a popular movement that intends to vote them out. They should be afraid.

The Government ought to be afraid of its people.

More crazy talk comes from the sinking MSNBC and Time Magazine. Journalists (well in name only) Kleine and Heilemann seem to think Glen Beck and Sarah Palin are guilty of sedition. Their utter lack of legal knowledge is incredible. Sedition is a relic from a different age that has no relevance today. In other parts of the world it is a crime designed to protect unpopular tyrants. Are Beck and Palin guilty? NO! They invoke actions of voting, protesting, demonstrations, and other actions! All perfectly legal. All things that liberals love to promote as well and did so not five years ago against President Bush and the Iraq War.

The left also does not feel any remorse or responsibility for publishing falsehoods like Dan Rather's National Guard Records, infiltrating Tea Party protests like in Chicago, or outright accusing their political opponents of federal crimes that for the most part do not exist.

The Democratic Party has become paranoid, throwing out accusations and attacks that have no base in reality. They are so afraid of losing power they will say anything to discredit or slow down the popular tide that has turned so strongly against them in the past year. I think many Americans are beginning to see the pitiful, juvenile, and incompetent Government they voted in power not long ago. They will not make the same mistake this time around.

It seems very possible that the Republicans will retake the House and move to within 2 seats of retaking the Senate. This would completely stop the Obama Agenda dead in its tracks and lead to the end of the Pelosi-Reid era. Pelosi will likely be replaced as the Democratic House leader, and Reid is all but certain to lose his re-election bid in November.

Of course, unforeseen events in the next six months could change this. But as of now. I think the Democratic Party is deathly afraid of what is about to happen to them and are saying everything and anything they can think of to stop it.

The Polarity Strategy: Demagoguery

Politics is almost always saturated with the use of the polarity strategy. Polarity requires one designate an enemy, a wrong, or some sort of bad trend that compels people to act. In war, its the use of propaganda to get the people personally angry at the enemy such as the characterizations of the vicious bloodthirsty Japanese in World War 2, or even when the Nazis used constant propaganda techniques to demonize the Jews, then the Poles, then the Soviets. It stirs the people into anger and they demand action.



It does not need to be a specific enemy or person. It could be a crime. Groups have always used the traumatic imagery of tragedies to stir anger and mobilize the people to action. A little girl kidnapped from her parents, sexually assaulted and murdered successfully mobilized people into utilizing the new Amber Alert, increasing punishments on sex offenders, and creating the sex offender registry. Mothers of Drunk Drivers (MADD) would tell vivid stories of their family members lost in auto accidents involving a drunk driver. That raised the drinking age to 21 and strengthened enforcement against DUI and raised the penalties. It is important to note that a cause pushed through polarity strategy isn't necessarily without merit or substance. Drunk driving and pedophilia are two things that certainly warrant attention and action. But it is a strategy, that is all, it can be used for any cause.



Today both political wings use it a lot. The right-wing demonizes abortion doctors, gay marriage advocates, the atheists of the ACLU, elitist liberals, greedy labor unions, and criminal illegal immigrants. The left-wing demonizes health insurance corporations, Wall Street, dirty industry, greedy doctors, heavy-handed police officers, reckless soldiers, cruel and greedy white men, and sometimes churches.



The left wing has also done an excellent job of using the dormant polarity strategy. That is, demonizing opposition to their own cause. Those who oppose public education programs are anti-children, anti-teachers, and anti-education. Those who oppose Universal Healthcare are selfish greedy people who don't want to pay for basic healthcare for the poor, the needy, and others. Those who oppose their Immigration Policies are racist, intolerant, and anti-American because the history of America is one of immigrants. Those who oppose their foreign policy are warmongering, imperialists, and anti-Muslim.



This multi-directional use of the polarity strategy has not been successful in swelling the ranks of the left-wing but has successfully persuaded a majority of moderates of the virtue of their cause. In this case, it has worked very well for Democrats over the past five years.



What about merit? What about substance? There is substance to some of their positions but that is not how they persuade a center-right country to back their cause. They need to use the polarity strategy, demagoguery, at every turn. Look no further than the Healthcare Summit. While Republicans argued numbers, specific provisions in the bill, and the overreach of the bill, Democrats told stories of poor Jesus in Reno, and other poor minorities who could not afford insurance and are suffering.



In the United States, in an age of cable news, the internet, and instant communication, demagoguery is very effective. It will continue to be effective as long as people vote on what they see and hear on television, on the internet or otherwise. As long as the facts are shrouded in darkness or distorted in public discourse, the polarity strategy will reign.



What is the counter-strategy to the polarity strategy? Well, one that has developed over the past couple centuries has been the demagogic tendency toward paranoia. As a faction continues to label individuals and groups as enemies, the list grows and soon one cannot help but wonder if that faction has become paranoid, irrational, and delusional. How can everyone be the enemy? How can so many be the enemy? It is more than just playing the "blame game", a faction that uses polarity to excess begins to lose its grip on reality, if it cannot stop itself from creating enemies. Aggressive tyrants are especially prone to paranoia (Hitler, Stalin, Mao). Push them to perceive steadily more and more individuals and groups as enemies and soon the rational observer will begin to see the paranoia.



What about the people? Will we ever come to realize we are allowing ourselves to be persuaded by a parade of demagoguery and fear? Some are coming to their senses, to be sure. But the reaction seems to be the demagoguery in the reverse, the demonization of the Democratic Party, liberals, and socialists. That is hardly an improvement. It is also equally divisive as the Democratic polarity strategy.



Another is to focus on the performance of the Democratic Party. According to the raw numbers, they have governed poorly. This has been used well so far but can be improved. The Democratic Party has been in control of Congress for almost 4 years now. And yet, we seem to look at a record only 1 year long. Bush may have been President, but the Democrats were a key player in the government policies of 2007-2008, the period that preceded the recession. One can also blend fact with fiction. One can argue Democratic policies likely led to the banking and housing collapse, or that they had an opportunity to avert the disaster but decided not to.



This is done all the time on both sides. Republicans are not quite as effective in utilizing this strategy. They need to get better.



Not only has the economy, financial reform, unemployment, and other problems arisen under their watch, but the outlook for the country is poor. Experts do not expect unemployment to return to 5-6% for at least three years. Meaning, Democratic efforts to bring us to economic recovery have failed. Economic growth is very weak and will be weak for years, hence the Democrats have done nothing but prolong the crisis, just as they did in the 1930s. The myth of the New Deal and FDR can now be broken with our recent experiences with government stimulus and centralization of the economy. The New Deal did not get us out of the Great Depression, World War 2 did.



There is also another effect of the polarity strategy. The people want action, but who will act to punish the offender, destroy the evil cause, or stop the evil from occurring again? The Democrats have always promoted central government solutions, central government action. They do not want individuals, groups, or even state and local governments solving these problems. To them there is only one solution. Nationalization, Centralization, and government authority.



It is important to point out: every action exerts power and authority. By calling for action, the Democrats are asking for more power and authority.



Who do Republicans want to give power and authority to? Well, taxpayers and businesses. Unfortunately that comprises barely half of the population (only half the country pays federal income taxes), and businesses are not visible people with families or dreams. What about state and local governments? Very few Republicans seem to want power or authority in these areas to solve these problems. They argue the negative but offer no compelling alternative. At least it is not compelling to the non-ideological moderate.



Do we want to call people to action? As stated above, a polarity strategy to counter a polarity strategy is a troublesome idea. It is short-term and does not allow Republicans to hold the moral high ground. Even now they are no more popular than the Democratic Party. The Republicans seem to arbitrarily use substance and merit as well. Attempts to portray Democrats as paranoid has also been seldom used.



In my mind the Republicans should consider the following:



(1) keep control of the reverse polarity strategy, don't just demonize the Democrats, liberals, and socialists. That will help you make short term gains but it lowers your potential growth and exposes you to potential problems later on if popular opinion swings again.



(2) Portray the Democrats as paranoid, seeing nearly everyone as the enemy: Wall Street, industry, corporations, health insurance companies, doctors, police officers, soldiers, CIA agents, veterans, gun-toting Bible-thumpers, people on television, and anyone else you can get them to blame. Make them appear as if they are pointing their finger at everyone around them.



(3) Finally, find a way to occupy the moral high ground with clear alternatives unrelated to demagoguery. Your call to action should be one of disarming those who act. Government solutions always fail. Solutions are better left with individuals, businesses, but particularly state and local governments. It is time to look elsewhere for solutions and it is time Republicans become clear and coherent in their offering of alternatives.

The undemocratic democratic Party

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/politics_nation/2010/03/hoyer_process_only_interesting_to_us.html

According to Democratic Rep. Steny Hoyer, Americans don't care about the process only results. He used his own phrasing of course but that his the essence of his statement. And it is probably the most undemocratic and un-American sentiment that one can have.

Consider this, the Founding Fathers had difficulty agreeing on a Constitution because of PROCESS. They weren't arguing about policy, they were arguing about process! Taxation without representation? Well that is a process problem. Detaining foreign combatants without Miranda or bringing charges? That's process. When Hoyer states that Americans don't care about process he is completely wrong.

James Madison and others worked so hard on the process the Constitution would set up for lawmaking in Congress. They knew that the deliberate process would be slow and would be frustrating and cumbersome at times, but that was their intent. In fact, they stated the very opposing position of Hoyer, the process is MORE IMPORTANT! Obviously they wanted an effective process that made the country free, prosperous, and secure and therefore built the necessary energy and authority into it. It was a major departure from the Articles of Confederation in that way. So in effect, the energy and decisiveness is exactly where it was intended to be Mr. Hoyer. Current circumstances are completely irrelevant.

This is the attitude of American liberals. The Constitution is a "living document" and must evolve with the times because things are different now, we are different people and this is a different world. It must be made more flexible and more amenable to the results the American people want. That is the argument. The Founding Fathers would disagree. Any flaws or weaknesses in the Constitution that make it ill-suited to the changing times, can be fixed through legal processes such as lawmaking or Constitutional Amendments. This would preserve the integrity and meaning of the Constitution without turning it into a relativistic document that means what it "needs to mean" for us to make progress. We did not end slavery, establish women's suffrage, establish equal protection, or lower the voting age through a Supreme Court decision or some legislative trick.

Unfortunately, the Constitution has been weakened since the 1930s. We even had a President expand the size of the Supreme Court to get HIS interpretation. This more flexible interpretation of the Constitution has led to a power grab by the federal government and a slow and gradual erosion of individual rights.

Ambitious tyrants and oppressive groups always make this argument. The Constitution, the law, or some group is getting in the way of progress and harming the country. We need a strong, centralized, and effective government unhindered by such processes. In fact, Madison addressed this in the Federalist Papers in #10. This is essentially tyranny by the majority. The esoteric processes, as Hoyer would describe them, protect minorities from the potential tyranny of a majority faction. In this case, the democratic party.

These procedures, rules, and Constitutional provisions do indeed make it a challenge to govern the country. And rightly so. That was its purpose. Instead of trying to side-step it, bitch about it, or outright violate it, the majority must work with the minority even when it dominates with such majorities in both Houses and control of the White House. The United States was not built on the theory that elections decide policy and that the loser must step aside. Far from it, elections just give one faction a momentary advantage, nothing more. And I think the moment of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama is ending soon.

What is Leadership according to Taoism?

The very great leaders in their domains are only known to exist.
Those next best are beloved and praised.
The lesser are feared and despised.
Therefore when faith is insufficient and there is disbelief,
it is from high value placed on words.

Tao Te Ching, Ch. 17

Why does government exist at all? Because men are not saints and therefore order must be established and maintained. Harmony cannot exist on its own where men are not saints. Without harmony there is no freedom, no prosperity, and no justice. When government is established how do we judge its greatness and effectiveness?

The Tao teaches that the greatest leaders are only known to exist. How could this possibly be??? In America, we are always learning in the news what our President is doing, what his positions are, how he proposes to change things, to make things better. If we don't, people ask "what is he doing?", "why isn't he doing something about this, or about that?", "he must be weak, incompetent, or simply does not care about the problems that plague society". And so we seek government where the President is beloved and praised. Everyday we take polls to learn how people feel about our President and what the think of the job he is doing. Everyday the President and his advisors take note of these polls as does everyone else serving in public office or in the bureaucracy. We gauge success or failure by use of approval ratings. It is because we place an overly high value on words.

What if the President did not have daily press briefings? What if he did not take interviews? What if the only speech you heard was the State of the Union? In the early days of the American republic, most people never heard the voice of the President, received publications of his speeches and words very rarely, in fact it was not known to the people what the President was doing unless he was declaring war, peace, signing a major piece of legislation, or nominating someone to a post. Otherwise it probably didn't matter. Was there anarchy? Were those Presidents irresponsible? Those Presidents were Washington thru FDR. FDR became the first to engage the people on a weekly basis, the first to be on television, and the first to be a constant in the lives of the people.

Taoism would caution modern society on its constant demands on the President, both in words and action. It would also caution our obsession and high value on words. So the question is do we buy this?

Imagine a society where the people do not really hear daily about their President or their Congress. They know who they are and periodically what they do but for the most part they only "know them to exist". How is this possible? First, the people would have to live where the actions of the federal government seldom affect their lives. Second, when there is cause for complaint, the people do not see the federal government as providing the solution. Perhaps a local magistrate or some private action would provide a more expedient resolution, whatever the case they don't look to central government. Third, the people are living peacefully and prosperously and see no problems requiring government interference. There will always be problems or issues, but no great injustice, no war, no violence, or no poverty that demands large scale action.

Today, liberals and many moderates do not see this kind of world. The federal government must serve an important role in the daily lives of the people. They are taught that are major problems with this country that require solutions. Things are wrong. There is poverty, social injustice, racial injustice, legal inequality, inadequate social services, global warming, and there are people out there that will take advantage of you if no one stops them. They are next taught that these are big and complicated problems that require big and complicated solutions that only the federal government can provide.

Conservatives have different beliefs. They resent the role the federal government has in their daily lives. They believe there are problems, some big, some small. But many, they believe, are exaggerated. They question the level of alarm that many have on the issues of the day. They are also highly suspicious of the required solutions. They feel they do not warrant big and complicated solutions and certainly do not think the federal government can provide those solutions. They feel the federal government is already in excess and that further action is not desirable in the least.

So how do conservatives convince others? One way is they debate the scale of these problems, which has been marginally effective at best. Most people believe these problems exist and are big. Another way is to argue the federal government cannot solve them. This has been more effective but there is an obvious question: then how do we solve them? Conservatives are not very good at answering this second question. Sure they have answers, but they have proven unpersuasive to others. Often the retort is that there are other ways but its not through the federal government. But people want clear solutions and clear details. They want words, they want something to praise. To them, conservative solutions just don't seem compassionate or "good". Their liberal education leaves them skeptical.

What about the Tea Parties? What you are seeing today is a massive rejection of the big and complicated solutions offered by the federal government. People do not believe it is the solution to these problems, but believe these problems do exist. Is that enough to get us back on track? No its not. Because the people are still looking for leadership and solutions they can praise. We are stuck in the middle rung of governance and need to get out. Until then, the defeat of liberal democrats on today's issues may provide conservatives a victory but it may be short-lived. It won't be long before the people give republicans another chance and if they cannot solve this puzzle, their reign will be short-lived as well.

I don't have a theory on the solution yet but am working on it.

Government of the Sages: An Intro to Taoist political philosophy

Not exalting cleverness causes the people not to contend,
Not putting prices on hard-to-get goods causes the people not to steal.
Not seeing anything to want causes the mind not to be confused.
Therefore, The government of the sages empties the mind and fills the middle, weakens ambition and strengthens the bones, always keeping the people innocent and passionless.
It makes the sophisticated not dare to contrive;
action being without contrivance, nothing is disordered.

Tao Te Ching, Chapter 3

The Tao Te Ching is the famous book of poems and sayings that represent the essential philosophical foundation of Taoism. This chapter in particular demonstrates one of the key principles of Taoist political theory. Some of the following is the interpretation of prominent Taoist experts, but some of it is also my own interpretation.

The prominent phrase is that the government of the sages "weakens ambition and strengthens the bones". One of the essential objectives of government is to weaken the ambition of its people, particularly the sophisticated (the clever, intelligent, etc.). Ideally, a state is governed so that the sophisticated have no means of feeding their ambition or satisfying their desire for power and influence. The phrase "strengthens the bones" balances the idea by showing that this is not to be done by disabling the people physically. Taoism does not promote the systematic repression of people for the sake of order and equality.

This principle was widely accepted by the Founding Fathers, although they probably were not aware of the Tao Te Ching and certainly did not express it in such poetic terms. The Founders wanted a system of government where it was made nearly impossible for aspiring tyrants to seize control and satisfy their ambitions. At the same time they devised a Bill of Rights protecting the people from the government's attempts to usurp power or crush the ambitions of the people through use of force. The U.S. Constitution is a grand attempt at weakening ambition while strengthening the bones.

Exalting cleverness is something that unfortunately American society is known for. In Greek times, public figures were often judged on their oratory skills or mastery of rhetoric. This type of cleverness or trickery was often rewarded with elected office. In modern times, we place such an emphasis on not just the oratory skills of public figures, but also physical appearance, voice, and symbolic gesture. The Presidential debates, public speeches, ribbon-cutting events, and other such practices are done because we value figures with such abilities of showmanship. It is something that Taoism abhors and for good reason.

President Obama was highly regarded early in the campaign for his rhetorical skills, good looks, great speeches, and beautiful family. The American people did not seem to place emphasis on his lack of legislative record, or lack of achievement in public service in general. In fact his small record of extreme leftist policy was intentionally ignored because he sounded like a reasonable man who would reach out to moderates and even conservatives. We simply did not want to believe that such an elegant and good looking guy could have the same beliefs as Rev. Wright, Mr. Ayers, or Karl Marx.

The "pricing of hard-to-get goods" is very relevant today. Government is not to control the market through creating demand, as well as controlling or pricing goods. The government is attempting to create value in certain the areas of healthcare, insurance, carbon allowances, and other areas essentially "creating value" and setting prices. The State should not have a role in the economy. In this case, Taoism is clearly in favor of a free market and the Founders were as well.

"Not seeing anything to want" refers to the actual ambition of the State itself and not necessarily one individual or a group of ministers. Today we see the federal government "wanting" more control. In areas of healthcare and cap and trade, the legislation does not actually achieve the state objective (the health plan has been shown to not lower cost or provide better care, cap and trade has been shown that it will not significantly affect carbon emissions). It is not about climate change or lowering the cost of healthcare, it is about control. With more control, and more levers to pull, the government has greater authority and thus public office provides for the ambitious. It is done without the usual visual indicators of ambition like a secret police, a big powerful paramilitary force, or a suspension of individual rights. It is more clever and very well-contrived.

In an ideal system, the State is organized and governed by the rule of law. The rule of law imposes restrictions such as separation of powers, federalism, and Constitutional prohibition on certain acts by the state. A sophisticated aspiring tyrant "dare not contrive" in most cases but not all. We must all be careful and vigilant when the ambitious are allowed to contrive and the sophisticated propose grand designs and promote them through cleverness and showmanship. Some may even try to confuse the meaning of the Constitution in order to move past its potent restrictions. In a State where the Constitution becomes relative, all things are possible for the clever and ambitious.

Sadly, I think we failed in 2008. I think the sophisticated have rallied behind a clever and highly exalted leader with grand ambitions. We must reverse course in 2010 and 2012 and began restoring the legal limitations on the State to "weaken ambition" and while also protect the prosperity and strength of the people "strengthen the bones".