Solutions

BACK TO CAIUS-EBOOK.COM HOMEPAGE




Solution 1


Divorcing Ideology From Democracy







[Politics started with the idea that governments have certain belief systems tied to them, that the state must follow to best serve its society. But, herein lies the contradiction that all democracies must struggle with and overcome – democracies are made up of the opposite, a society where all citizens can believe whatever they like. And its government is the expression of this same ideology that represents all ideologies – an ideology that guarantees that no ideology will count more than any other! This is the very thing that makes it a truly free state, where ALL the people rule, not just SOME.

So then why do we have politicians who have taken up ideologies tied to parties that tell us that their ideology is the right one, the only one?

This is contradictory to the same freedom that makes a democracy a government of, by and for the people; it is a treason that proclaims that that official no longer represents ALL, but only SOME of the people – yet he is sworn to represent ALL.

This is a serious contradiction that all democracies must learn to understand and guard against; for it is, at heart, a deception used to undermine democracy itself, by using the false aspects of a freedom that represents only a FEW to change that all-important ALL into that FEW of a tyranny.]




An Ideology is a set of beliefs, an overall viewpoint that creates a particular way of thinking. Religions, as we think of them today, are the prime example of this type of “group” mentality, as shown within what is known as their dogma; the other is politics, and the parties it breeds. Both are major problems in uniting people into a cohesive whole that both these same things say is the primary purpose for which they exist. The aim of both is outwardly unity, yet today, both have become the major hindrance to achieving this.

Any democracy is made up of people with diverse ideologies in both these areas. In fact, the main purpose of democracy was to give its society this same diversity, yet unite it through a unity of purpose, which espouses no ideology at all. This may seem at first to be a contradiction, yet it isn’t, because the only ideology democracy espouses is the ideology of the widest possible freedom for its participants to espouse any ideology they choose. This freedom is in fact, the only ideology of democracy.

This freedom is a freedom because it is guaranteed to all citizens, and is protected by the laws of the Nation so that it is restricted from stealing the same freedom from any other citizen. The result is the provision of the widest possible freedom to all in the State. This is the unity of purpose that democracy provides, a purpose to give ALL the same amount of freedom.

Democracy does not restrict freedom, except where it becomes the freedom to hurt other citizens. In this way all citizens can believe anything they like, as long as it does not impinge on another’s freedom to believe what they like.

Religions do not have this type of situation to deal with. They exist as a group, which allows no freedom of thought except according to the rules of their own beliefs, which are found in their dogma. That is why they have no place in a democracy, except as the private beliefs of their followers. A democracy cannot be a democracy if it follows the rules of any one religion, because it would then take away the freedom of others to believe, as they want. One of the major goals of forming a democracy, especially the American one, was this very thing, the ability to give all people the freedom to worship as they liked. As with all other freedoms, the freedom of worship was conceived as a freedom that impinged on no other’s freedom to worship.

Having said all of this, how can we explain that other system of beliefs called political parties? And how can we explain this in relation to the democracy I have just explained above, which gives the widest possible scope to individual freedom?

Parties are groups with distinct belief sets that try to make individuals believe that these beliefs favor all citizens in a state. By trying to push this belief set onto the electorate, they try to eliminate the widest scope of freedom available to citizens by curtailing any freedoms they do not believe in.

By pushing belief sets instead of individual issues, they curtail the freedom of the individual to choose; they sell a package or set of beliefs, in a take it or leave it way, trying to say that all issues can only be viewed as connected to that one set of beliefs; that one particular viewpoint. This is a deception, to subvert the very purpose of democracy as set out above. In doing this they change the Democratic process into a process which upholds their own particular ideology at the expense of all others. Now freedom is expressed at the expense of the loss of freedom for those with different viewpoints. The exact opposite of what democracy was supposed to achieve.

So our first solution is the elimination of political parties from the Nation, and thus divorcing ideology from the democratic process. 1

A democracy is not concerned with upholding any particular ideology; but it is concerned with individual issues that affect any citizen. These issues, not beliefs or viewpoints, are the real stuff of government. In dealing with these issues, government must recognize that solutions should always be tailored to all or, at least, the majority of citizens. Even if some do not benefit they should, at least, not be hurt by the resolution of the issue. In this way the resolution of issues occurs in a manner where the most pervasive benefit for the majority is found, and little if any harm comes to those who can’t benefit.

Candidates for office must campaign on this same issue resolution, and not on group belief sets or an ideological viewpoint. All of this is not new; it has been known and acknowledged by our leaders since George Washington left the presidency, but none have acknowledged it except in vague references, while at the same time belonging to the same parties whose very existence violate its purpose.

By eliminating parties, we can once more allow the widest scope of freedom to exist in a Nation where everyone of its citizens can believe what they like, yet all have the unity of purpose of one people, a united people.

By facing issues, free of ideology, we can resolve the issues for all, not just those who have a certain viewpoint. Also we can give choice back to the people of this country, a choice to choose from candidates that represent them, instead of a limited number of candidates bought by special interests to further their own agendas. This same “agenda-less” candidate will truly represent all the people, and further the diversity of opinion he is sworn to represent.

The purpose of democracy was to give diversity to beliefs and viewpoints, while still creating a united society that respected this diversity. A unity of purpose that allowed all citizens to believe what they wanted to believe, yet be united in this one central belief (or freedom), the freedom to be different.










FOOTNOTES

To return to note's origin click the footnote number at left



1 Now there are those who say that the party system is the only organizational way to resolve difficulties in bringing government together in passing legislation for various issues. This view has been proven false in recent days, by the deadlocks these same parties have had in passing budget solutions for the National debt.

There is no need for sweeping ideological doctrines in the guise of parties, except as a means to further their own special interests in the way various issues are resolved. The issues of government affect all citizens in the state, therefore their resolution should be free of doctrine, and only concerned with bringing the greatest good to the largest segment of the population, NOT the greatest benefit to a few because they have created a doctrine which favors only their own.

The rise of the super-rich has been brought about in this very way: the existence of political parties, whose doctrine has been shaped solely by the contributions of patrons, who use the buying of these parties as the buying of government itself. The two party system in America has become synonymous with allowing a system where government is sold to the highest bidder, and all choice for the electorate removed. Both parties belong to the rich, and therefore have ceased to give any choice whatsoever to the electorate.

The old Romans, of the Roman Republic, had more choice than we do, since they, at least, had the protection of the Tribunes of the Plebs, officials sworn to protect the commoners from harmful legislation; they had the ability to veto any legislation they deemed dangerous to the populous at large. And they could call for a plebiscite to pass their own legislation.

Also the existence of political parties allow the influence of lobbyists to trade off the benefit of the people for the benefit of various influential groups, and even foreign Nations, as President Washington warned us of in his farewell speech to the Nation.

There is no plus side to parties, except as to the agendas they were created to preserve and nurture. And the doctrines they represent are so loosely defined that they can, in effect, change themselves into just about any form they choose, just like the mythical Chameleon of old.

As to Unions: they at one time had their use in protecting the workers from the harms of the Robber Barons at the turn of the last century. But since that time, their benefits have turned into detriments, in that they afford protection to a very small minority of workers, and have themselves suffered the same abuses that the parties themselves have undergone, to the point where they have themselves been turned into just one more special interest group, pitting themselves against the benefit of the population. They have, in turn, needlessly increased the costs of production, and caused huge price increases that benefit only their own, while causing more hardship for the populace at large.

The only real benefit of unions can come when there is a union representing all workers in the state; but government should undertake this function, to offset the corruptions that private Unions have undergone. The recent financial problems in Europe have shown that even in Socialist regimes the benefit of Unions is minimal, and at cross-purposes with the general population.

We must begin to realize that the purpose of government was to neutralize all special interests in a state where no citizens have any more advantage than any other. The rise of any organizations representing any one group of citizens is a special interest, and therefore at odds with the population in general, which in a real democracy is the only concern of government. The rise of so many varied groups in the state is the result of government catering to so many special interests, and forgetting its prime purpose, which is to care for all citizens equally.

Today, America has become a country whose unity has become lost to the many groups that special interests have created. This has come about because of the rise of the “only I count” mentality of its people. A mentality that has taken all meaning from the term PEOPLE as enunciated in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. A democracy where the ALL has been removed, and the PEOPLE means only ME. This is a result of the capitalistic business process, which has replaced the ALL of democracy with the FEW, that greed has enthroned.

The proof is in the fear the word PLEBISCITE has for most today. This tool used in real democracies, like the Roman Republic, to defeat the special interests, has been made into a dirty word today, because it gives the words PEOPLE and ALL meaning again. It has been replaced by POLLS, that money, ideology and sample populations create. It is scorned by representatives that no longer represent the ALL they were meant to represent; and even the people themselves, who use the word PEOPLE as the hypocritical equivalent of ME.

Today, the American PEOPLE means REPUBLICAN or DEMOCRAT or TEA PARTY or UNION; or to the average person ME. Today, democracy no longer means ALL, only SOME; that is the major problem Americans must fix, to make our society once again have meaning, not only for ourselves, but for that ALL it was made for. Poverty, disparity, and an American Dream that is a Lie are the results we have reaped from this distortion of the ALL into only SOME; it is the deception that has made our society a failure, and our dreams only illusions.





BACK TO SOLUTIONS SERIES INTRODUCTION



BACK TO CAIUS-EBOOK.COM HOMEPAGE


Originally Published:

October 14, 2011

Revised:

July 4, 2014