The Problem with Politics

Do you notice the correspondences? The town or community is the world. Jim’s real estate company is the United States. Jim represents our leaders. The agents are the people who work and produce.

The correspondences may not be perfect, but close enough to make the point.

The frustration of many of the American people and the world are a lot like the agents in the story. Like the broker of the real estate business, the leaders of this country sought what was best for all in the beginning. They wanted to create a situation where those who wanted to work hard could achieve much greater success than anywhere on the planet. Unfortunately, like the boss in the company, as the decades passed, they started looking to satisfy their own needs rather than the people they were serving, and demanded more and more from the people who supported them.

Notice that the broker did not have a democratic organization, but once the salespeople elected him as their leader (by joining the company), the boss made decisions irrespective of what the salespeople thought.

This is what takes place in America. We elect our representatives, it is true, but once they get in power they start representing themselves and not the will of the people. Congress passes many laws and measures that 50, 60 and even 70% of the population do not want. They keep plodding away against the wishes of the people until we now wind up with an approval rating for Congress below that of used car salesmen. We all know that George Bush had low approval ratings, but according to Gallup in July of 2008, the approval rating of Congress reached a low of 14%.1

It has moved higher since then, but still not been good.  In Oct 2009 it was still a paltry 21% approval.2

Rasmussen had the approval rating even lower than Gallup at a measly 9% overall. But get this. He had the approval rating of independents at a mere 3%. This was just before the financial collapse of 2008.3

Congress made Bush look like Mr. Popularity, something few thought possible at that point in history.

The bottom line is this: Congress votes against the will of the people a little here, and a little there, until no one is pleased. If this trend continues, there will be a rebellion of some kind. The tea party people could be just the tip of the iceberg. Just as the salespeople withdrew and started a new company, people from the United States will withdraw, take government into their own hands and create a new system.

Is there any way to avoid the impending breakdown of our society and restore the American Dream?

My answer is yes. When one compares the voting records of Congress to the polls revealing the desires of the American people, it becomes obvious that a reasonably informed average person has more common sense and knows what is better for the country than our representatives. Sadly, many of our representatives do know better, but they are often pressured to vote against the welfare of the country as a whole by outside pressures. If we could bypass these outside pressures and insure that the actual will of the people is represented, then perhaps we could bring back the American Dream and inject new life into our country.

There is a way to do this. I call it Molecular politics.

One point we all agree on is this: the legislators in the United States and all other free countries do not represent the will of the people to their satisfaction. The common people everywhere seem to feel somewhat betrayed by those who are expected to represent their interests. We find that, instead of representing the interests of the people, they either represent their own interests, the interests of party leaders or some other entity.

This seems to be a problem that we have all accepted as a necessary evil, but the true teachers and dreamers of the race do not accept flaws such as this as a permanent thing. Such people will say, along with the late Robert Kennedy, “Some people see things as they are and ask why. I dream things that never were and ask, why not?”

Instead of just accepting the necessary evils of our society and wondering why they have to be, let us elevate our minds to a higher level and dream of things better and ask why not?

Why not have a political system where the people are truly represented to the extent they are satisfied that one voice is as important as another? Just because this is not the case now does not mean that the lights of the world cannot make creative change and make the dreams of the ages come true.

Even though many feel in their hearts and minds that a true democracy would be a wonderful thing, there are many intelligent people who oppose it on an intellectual and philosophical basis, but I wish here to show that this basis is founded in illusion.

In the United States (and many other nations) pure democracy is opposed for two main reasons:

1. It is not constitutional. We have a republic that calls for a representative government, where one person is elected to cast a vote for the many.

Answer: A true democracy can function within the framework of our existing Constitution. Nothing has to be altered in the original document, as we will illustrate in this treatise. We will clarify this as we proceed.

2. The polls that are continuously taken now illustrate that average “John Q. Public” is ill informed and the majority will often support silly, immoral or dangerous notions. We watch Jay Leno interviewing the man on the street and many, even with a college education, cannot answer basic questions – such as who is the vice president. On the other hand, they are pretty well educated on what their favorite celebrity is doing.

Answer: As we read about the various polls taken past and present, it does seem at times that John Q. Average is misinformed, sometimes even a little unbalanced, and certainly not one to whom we wish to trust the destiny of the nation. If the polls are any indication of how a true democracy would vote, then it does seem wise to be against it.

Let us dispel this illusion by one statement of fact: a true democracy is not a poll and the results of the will of the people expressed in it will be much more logical and beneficial for the whole than a rule-by-poll would be.

Why is this?

Because the method of obtaining the vote is very different between the two.

Here are the differences between voting in a democracy and voting in a poll:

In a democracy all who desire to vote are represented; in a poll only a very small percentage voice their opinion.

In a true democracy a person votes from his own initiative because he knows and feels something about the issue; in a poll he uses no initiative, but is contacted by a pollster. Many of those contacted through a poll would not be informed enough to even have a desire to vote in a democracy on a particular issue.

Let us point out that in a true democracy the citizen is not forced to vote, but all who desire have the privilege of voting. This means that those who are ill- informed and do not care about government will usually not vote. Thus, in a democracy you will have a much more intelligent voting populace than you have in a poll.

This truth is illustrated by comparing polls taken on the internet verses polls taken by telephone. Internet polls are much more representative of how the results of a democratic vote would be than a telephone poll because those who respond are using their initiative to make the contact and are involved enough to be concerned about the issue.

As we compare similar issues responded to by regular polls and internet polls, one will notice a huge difference in the direction of common sense for the internet polls. For instance, in the OJ trial, regular polls had the public fairly evenly divided on his guilt or innocence; but, in the internet polls, people overwhelmingly thought he was guilty from the beginning.

The current problem with internet polls is that most draw from a selective audience, or are partisan, but one that draws from concerned citizens from the Left and Right could be truly representative.

It is interesting to note that polls have gotten less reliable over the years rather than more. I remember way back to the campaign of Nixon and Kennedy that the polls had them both in a dead heat. It was so close that few dared guess who the winner would be. The interesting thing here is that is just what happened. It was one of the closest elections in history just as the polls predicted.

Now let us look at recent presidential elections. Many pollsters have been about 10% off in recent elections. That’s an error level about twenty times as high as the polls were back in 1960, when technology was nowhere near what it is today. When the Republicans last took the majority, the results were contrary to any prediction from polls, but they were a little closer when the Democrats took control.

Why the big difference in the polls?

The answer is that, in its infancy, the polls were used in a fairly logical and sincere effect to find the truth, whatever that may be. Then, one day, it occurred to the powers-that-be that people were influenced by the polls. No one likes to look stupid and if it appears that everyone thinks XYZ is true, then one may as well go along with the idea, especially if he is not sure his opinion is right to begin with.

Thus began the “everybody-thinks-this-way-and-so-should-you” polling concept. This new direction in polling does not reveal the true minds of the thinking public, but instead is a tool for influencing public opinion.

The power of influence on the non-thinking public of the “everybody-thinks-this-way-and-so-should-you” concept is very powerful and full of illusion.

Remember the Milgram experiment? Subjects were ordered to obey an authority figure and administer electric shocks to another person if he did not respond as requested. The subjects were willing to fry a man’s brain because of the demand of an authority. He was also strongly influenced by the implanting of the idea that other subjects were doing the same thing. These poor dupes were willing to risk prosecution just to fit in. This illustrates how powerful the “fitting in” principle is, and why the partisan polls can become a dangerous weapon against real democracy or any representative system.

In the sixties, the polls were generally worded to find the truth, whatever that may be. Now, since the turn of the century, the polls are carefully worded so predetermined results will be obtained. In addition to this, many polls use a carefully selected group of people whose opinion is already established.

Let us create an example of how a poll may be used to promote illusion.

Let us pick the topic of education. This is a vulnerable one for the masses, as everyone wants to do all they can to insure that our kids get the best in education, even if it calls for a sacrifice.

Imagine that a group of Congress people want to pass a big spending bill for boondoggle project #473, and they fear the public would be enraged at such a waste. Therefore, they decide to attach the spending for this project as a rider to an education bill because everyone loves and supports education. They whip up a billion dollar education bill that sounds good, but is, in reality, a complete waste of money. It turns out that almost all the money goes toward the creation of more administrators and more cushy benefits to current leaders. Maybe one percent of the funds goes to benefit the teachers and the kids. The administrators are looking forward to using the extra money for educational “seminars” in Hawaii and the Bahamas.

Now begins the presentation and promotion. Congressional members who favor the bill present it as an education bill, money for “our kids,” “our future,” money that will help us catch up to other enlightened nations. Immediately, all educational leaders join in support of the bill because they (the administrators, not the teachers) will greatly benefit. They immediately start repeating the mantra that this bill is “for the children,” and do their best to make anyone who opposes it as appearing to “hate kids”.

A handful of honest legislators actually read through the bill, see through the illusion and realize that it is a complete waste of money. As soon as their views are announced, they are pounced on by supporters of the bill as being “against education”. They are also accused of “hating the kids”.

Shortly after these mantras are circulated, the supporters of the bill commission a poll. Typically, the following questions are asked:

1. Do you support the XYZ education bill which will give more money to our schools so they can raise the educational level of our kids?

2. Do you approve of Congressmen Smith and Jones who are against the bill?

Now, when the uninformed are called and hear these questions, they think within themselves, “sure I’m for education. Let’s spend the money.”

Then, in response to the second question they automatically think that Smith and Jones must be about as low as you can get for being “against the kids”.

Next, the results of the poll (which is overwhelmingly for the bill and against Smith and Jones) is given to the media. Then the media without questioning or doing any research announces the results, and pretty soon the majority of the people are overwhelmingly in favor of the bill and see Smith and Jones as public enemy number one.

Now Smith and Jones, who are the only ones in public favor of the truth, are totally on the defensive. Every time they are interviewed by the media they are approached in an attack dog method and find that they spend all their time in defense rather than explaining their position. Finally, Smith and Jones withdraw into the woodwork thinking that if they keep quiet, they can at least preserve what little image they have left.

Finally, the actual vote takes place and the two pork- spending bills pass the House and go to the Senate and President, who does not dare reject it. Then, when the next election comes around, those who voted against the bill are attacked as being anti- education.

Now, this is a fictional account, but it represents a political process that is repeated over and over again and supported by an uninformed public. It illustrates to us the great present-day problem with the polls and the political process, but such problem will not be perpetuated by a true democracy. Instead, the problem will be cured.

In the democracy proposed here, the voters will be more informed and the illusion caused by the polls will be dispelled.

Question: Why would a true democracy create more intelligent government than elected representatives? Isn’t an elected representative more intelligent and informed than John Q. Average?

In all countries where there are free elections you have political parties that represent the conservative side, on one hand, and the liberal side on the other.

In this treatise, we shall mainly deal with politics as they exist in he United States, but the principles under discussion should apply to all free countries, for they all have an interplay between the pairs of opposites.

Some countries have numerous parties representing the two sides, but in the United States over 90% of the population is generally represented by the two major parties – the Republican and Democrat parties.

Both parties claim to represent the “people”, but, in reality, each party represents the view of fewer than 50 per cent of the voters because of third parties and independent people.

Therefore, if you are a Democrat and are in a district where a Republican is elected, you have to bite your tongue until the next election or longer. Then, if a Democrat is elected at that time, the Republican has to wander in the limbo of not being represented.

The point is that no matter who is elected, only a minority is represented and the rest of the people are very disgruntled that their view is completely bypassed until their side wins again. Wouldn’t people be much happier if their views have a chance of being represented at all times?

This may seem like a pipe dream, but through the principle of Molecular politics this becomes possible.

Before we get to the solution, let us make sure we understand the complete problem. In addition to the frustration of not getting our party of choice in office half the time, voters also suffer considerable frustration when their candidate of choice seems to wander off the expected course and votes on numerous occasions contrary to even the will of his own supporters.

Next: The Seven Influences