Finden Sie Ihren nächsten buch Favoriten

Werden Sie noch heute Mitglied und lesen Sie 30 Tage kostenlos
Power, Politics, and the Political Spectrum

Power, Politics, and the Political Spectrum

Vorschau lesen

Power, Politics, and the Political Spectrum

Länge:
181 Seiten
2 Stunden
Freigegeben:
Oct 13, 2018
ISBN:
9781642987331
Format:
Buch

Beschreibung

This book is about the trials and tribulations of the American people and their republic. The conflicts that arise when the government is not in step with the people. We measure our government's influence on the people using the political spectrum. Are the people sovereign over their government, or is our government sovereign over us? A government does not stagnate, nor do the people who live within it. Through the course of history, people and their government evolve reflecting the changes in society. Good government needs to be in step with the people as they evolve through time. It is when the government is not in step with the people that tyranny is exposed. The reality is, government typically doesn't follow suit with the people at all. It usually follows the money and power instead. These are not new problems as republics throughout history have experienced much the same thing. Government grabs for more power and take more liberties from their people in their effort to become more centralized. Oddly enough, the people will relinquish this power-giving it to the government.

Freigegeben:
Oct 13, 2018
ISBN:
9781642987331
Format:
Buch

Über den Autor


Ähnlich wie Power, Politics, and the Political Spectrum

Ähnliche Bücher
Ähnliche Artikel

Buchvorschau

Power, Politics, and the Political Spectrum - Dan Hale

Power, Politics, and the Political Spectrum

Dan Hale

Copyright © 2018 Dan Hale
All rights reserved
First Edition
Page Publishing, Inc
New York, NY
First originally published by Page Publishing, Inc 2018
ISBN 978-1-64298-734-8 (Paperback)
ISBN 978-1-64298-733-1 (Digital)
Printed in the United States of America

Table of Contents

Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

Chapter 6

Chapter 7

Chapter 8

Introduction

This is an attempt at addressing some of the political events that we have recently experienced with the people and our government. We are in the enviable position of living in the modern age of a free republic that has been the pinnacle of society in all of history. Those of us who are lucky enough to live in the United States of America have had opportunities not afforded the remaining population of this world. We have been fortunate enough to have been sheltered from the other governments, that we have a perspective different from everyone else; hence, it is this perspective that makes us who we are.

How did we get here, and what makes this country great? This will be a pragmatic exercise in comparing our government today with history from the past. To recognize that history must be compared to us so that we may better measure ourselves. To do so is to have a better understanding as to where we have come from and where we are going. Our future is not assured, and this political experiment of freedom has no guarantees as the goal of many is to remove American exceptionalism and enter the world of globalization on the heels of Europe.

The political parties discussed in these chapters are an attempt to explain why they are as they are. It is not a direct attack on either Democrat or Republican Parties, but rather examining their fringe groups that have so recently played a larger role as to their influence in the politics of today. Additionally, it must be understood that both parties are necessary part of this government, and to have one party disappear by the results of the opposing party may have negative repercussions on our republic. It is the discourse between the parties that make the system work. To remove either party is to invite tyranny, however, to allow the more radical elements of any party to take hold may also result in the same.

I am a registered Republican and make no apologies for any of my positions, nor do I expect anyone with opposing views to agree with me. This is the way it is supposed to be as we should not expect everyone to accept all of our political or personal views in life. That said, we should expect them to listen to our position(s) without the fear of reprisal or distain, and it is assured that we will reciprocate in the same. Those with the ability to listen to understand, rather than listen to respond, will always get more out of life. This is a free country that offers us a free exchange of ideas and opinions. Political discourse should be expected and welcomed.

To my Democrat friends, of which I have many, it will frequently be suggested that the radical liberal element(s) of your party is moving in a dangerous direction and that the concerns raised is to assure that both parties have a future. The discourse of having two parties assures we have a government representative of all the people, which should be the ultimate goal of good government. However, when a more radical element attempts to disrupt the system for the sake of advantage. When contrived ideas such as the good of the collective take precedence over the constitutional rights of an individual, the very foundation on which our country was founded is threatened. It should be the responsibility of those in society to address this problem head-on.

The preservation of the republic and its ideals must be tantamount.

1

Power, Politics, and the Political Spectrum

Power:

The capacity or ability to direct or influence the behavior of others or the course of events.

The idea that a person should have power over another person.

Direct the Behavior of Others

To direct someone to do something implies you have a power over them. This power might be voluntary or involuntary.

Voluntary control might be a prearranged agreement such as a contract fulfillment. If one enlists in the Army, then they are subject to the will of that agreement, thus allowing one to have power over another (voluntarily). This would be voluntary hard power.

Involuntary control would be an arrangement where no agreement has been made by the subject person; however, control is mandated over them. If one enters an institution such as a prison system, they are subject to the will of those persons in charge of that institution. This would be an example of involuntary hard power. There are other forms of involuntary hard power over others such as parents over their children or a school system over children. This, too, would be a form of involuntary hard power as children, given the option, would prefer not to be controlled.

Influence the Behavior of Others

To influence the behavior of others is a more benign form of power (soft power). It implies that the person has a choice as to whether they wish to participate or not. The person wishing to influence others has to make a case in which the person being influenced must choose to accept or reject any given proposal. It is the responsibility of those attempting to influence others to best represent their position by attempting to control the language. How one organizes and phrases a statement may influence the listener to accept or reject any given proposal. This is typically done in dialogue, meaning both parties might participate in an exchange, or it can be done in a speech in which the person wishing to influence has the floor. The end result is that the person who is being influenced has a choice; hence, both parties act as equals. This form of power lasts only as long as the act itself. You might inspire those to behave in a special way, but when it is over, those you inspired are no longer influenced after the act. In fact, they may attempt to influence you on another matter because soft power is reciprocal.

Power and the Political Spectrum

The political spectrum of governments should be directly related to the power arrangement previously discussed. In fact, how a government directs or is directed by the behavior of others defines that government. The political spectrum goes from far left to far right.

Far left is tyranny where a government is in total control of the people. The government owns all assets, properties, and even you. You have no say in government, let alone yourself. Additionally, you are viewed as property of the state. The government has all power; hence, it typically uses involuntary hard power to get things done. The use of this kind of hard power does not require the government to be concerned with its subjects as opposed to soft power because you are not viewed as an equal.

Far right is anarchy where there is no government. The control is by each individual person. Individuals own what is their property. They are responsible for using it wisely and protecting it from others. In short, they govern themselves. Because each individual represents themselves, they can only influence others via soft power during the process of transactions. Many might call this mob rule, but this offers each individual the option of controlling the language; thus, soft power is the norm.

It is this far left and far right and those areas in between these opposing factions that determine what form of government is involved. The political spectrum is viewed differently by different people. For the sake of understanding, the principles of power via the political spectrum. It would be best understood by using a linear model.

To many, you will hear that fascism is right of center. Some go so far as to suggest that fascism is far right. However, if you are viewing a political spectrum solely on how power is used, then fascism will be on the left side of the spectrum because fascism has always had a strong government control over its people. The use of voluntary and involuntary hard power is the norm. Some have suggested that the political spectrum model should be viewed more circular suggesting that by placing fascism to the far right, you end up back to the opposing side (far left). This seems to offer confusion for many, and it is difficult to understand how fascism can be related to anarchy. Additionally, placing fascism to the far left would not be correct either as people are allowed to own businesses and property in a fascist state, unlike that of communism, which would be farther to the left than fascism.

The more you move left of center, the more the government controls the language and hence controls the people. The more you move right of center, the more the people control the language and hence control themselves. It is this ideological dichotomy that exists that influences those in power to move right or left of the spectrum. It is interesting to note, no government remains stagnant. In most cases, governments tend to move left from where they have started, and those that are far left will eventually be replaced by less tyrannical forms of government, thus attempting to relocate closer to center. It is not to say that all tyrannical governments move back to center. Many replace themselves with other tyrants hungry for hard power; however, there will come a time when even those tyrannical governments are replaced by something to the right of absolute tyranny.

Historically speaking, when the Athenian republic in Greece was formed, they eventually provided a form of government that introduced democracy. The Greek word was isonomia, meaning equality under the law. The people (those in francized) had some kind of say in their government. When these people assembled and had to decide what was best for their communities, they used what was newly introduced to them. That is to say, rhetorician technique and debate in the assembly was developed, hence the introduction of soft power in government, which now places them to the right of the political spectrum from where they were previously. This is not to say that all was wonderful. The fact is, early democracies did not offer women, slaves, or those who were not citizens any rights to vote. Many of the early democracies might have offered you a vote, but it was not like the modern experience that we have today. It was not one man, one vote, but rather, there were limitations as to how much your vote carried based on your status in the community. If you were noble, your vote carried much more than a common citizen. Be that as it may, it offered the beginnings of democracy.

Soft power takes effort and work among the people. You have to be able to listen to the arguments placed before you. You have to be able to understand the pros and cons of each position and then vote according to your view(s). This is not easy and takes a lot of work. When rhetoric was first introduced, it was viewed very suspiciously. You had to learn to debate both sides of an argument, and this was new to the people. The idea that you would argue for something that you were against was not easy to accept or understand. These techniques were taught by sophists, who were paid teachers of philosophy and rhetoric. The idea that you would make a passionate argument about something you were actually against made others uneasy. How were they to know that these rhetorician techniques were not arguing for what was bad for their community?

Today, we have no problem with this technique and fully understand its value. To bring a resolution to the floor and perhaps have countless debates, listening to opposing views and accepting or rejecting those views. Ultimately, getting a resolution passed can be a long, drawn-out process. To do this countless of times, for each and every resolution takes a lot of work. Government representing the people is not easy because soft power requires you to act as equals, and consequently, you have this long, drawn-out process to get any resolutions passed. This system of government can be frustrating for those involved. Being tempted to circumvent the process is always an issue. Let’s face it; hard power is easy. The fewer in power, the easier it is to get things done. We are constantly at odds with these two dichotomies of power. We tend to want to take the path of least resistance. It is human nature to look toward an easier way.

Ironically, it is this very system of soft power in government that makes it so worthy of doing. The harder it is to get laws passed, the better it is for the people. Fewer laws keep the people more independent of their government. The more laws and regulations we have, the more burden is placed on the people. This process ensures that the people are in charge of their own lives. Soft power may be difficult as a process, but ultimately, it is best if you wish to have a government that represents the people.

The path of least resistance is always the shiny apple that directs you to less freedom for the people. This appealing avenue is typically good in the short term but always has negative long-term consequences. Those that will betray the system of government will typically come from within the government itself by using this path to get things done. Most of them will do so with short-term goals in mind, not realizing the problems they are creating for the future. Some will actively search to make changes in the process because their agenda is

Sie haben das Ende dieser Vorschau erreicht. Registrieren Sie sich, um mehr zu lesen!
Seite 1 von 1

Rezensionen

Was die anderen über Power, Politics, and the Political Spectrum denken

0
0 Bewertungen / 0 Rezensionen
Wie hat es Ihnen gefallen?
Bewertung: 0 von 5 Sternen

Leser-Rezensionen