In an October issue of the ISJ there was an editorial, "Politics Has Become Faith-Based ," by Debu Majumdar. He was right on. No matter what the issues, or how they are related to the needs of the people, our --holders espouse nothing that isn't party line or that isn't in the interest of their owners.
Their loyalty is faith-based and/or for sale and not affected by the issues. Think of Alexander Hamilton when he wrote, "Men often oppose a thing because they had no agency in planning it or because it was planned by those they disliked."
Omega Replica WatchesBack in the 1970s, when the WAMI medical school program was being debated in Idaho, Dr. Roy Schwarz from American Falls, dean of the Medical School at University of Washington, was helping Idaho establish this innovation for our medical students. He made sure that in addition to talking to the key state legislators, we also talked to their "owners," i.e., the person(s) or entities who donated the big dollars to their campaigns. For at least 40 years, then, our elected politicians have placed the
nexus as one of their primary loyalties.
In the early 16th century Machiavelli asserted that "successful states require a modest degree of turmoil to foster a healthy political dynamism." He was referring to needed differences of opinion and the ensuing political debate regarding the issues of the day. In our congressional chambers today there is no meaningful debate, merely repetition of the party line. All assessments are strictly tribal. If the Democrats espouse apple pie and motherhood, the Republicans will vote no, and vice versa. There is no thought, only submission to the party.
In the ISJ of Jan. 27, 2010, there is another good editorial; this one about the recent Supreme Court decision regarding corporate campaign financing relative to the free speech clause of the First Amendment. It is obvious that the justices of the Supreme Court are also tribal. Because of this 5 to 4 party line decision, the members of the U.S. Congress will not only be owned by campaign donors and big business, domestic and foreign, they will be bought and sold like chattel on the open market.
Perhaps the Supreme Court should relate its decision to the 13th Amendment, which abolished chattel slavery. The men and women of Congress can now be sold like slaves of
150 years ago, but instead of coercion by the lash, it will be the withholding of campaign funds that will bend them to submission.
But what about the people ; are they involved? Are they out there? Their loyalties also are faith-based or tribal. Most ignore the issues, don't even find out what the issues are, merely submit to the dictates of the tribe, party, religion, mob, etc. Sigmund Freud about a century ago described what he called the domination-submission syndrome ; there are those who dominate and those (the big majority) who submit, and both derive pleasure from it. The implications of this ubiquitous behavior are grim, indeed.
Some of us recall the rise to power of Adolf Hitler in Germany during the 1930s. The Nazi Party began as a populist movement for workers' rights organized by Anton Drexler in 1919. Hitler, who took the party over, was a moving speaker and had his scapegoat for all the ills of Germany. But why did the millions of Germans let him and his party dominate them so completely?
As rearmament improved the economic status , most were willing to bask in the contentment of submission; they wanted to "escape from freedom." (" Escape from Freedom" by Eric Fromm details Hitler's rise to power from this domination-submission perspective.)
Other articles:
http://miragebook.com/blog/view/id_332/title_England-under-fire/
http://tfdevil.com/blog.php?user=watches2010&blogentry_id=163
http://www.qssa.com/blog.php?user=mywatches&blogentry_id=3678
http://www.wazzupdude.com/blog.php?user=mywatches&blogentry_id=150
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_6087a00e0100hltl.html