Partisan Politics:

Is it Really the Best Way to Determine Leadership?

(Revised 4-29-2008, 10:00 PM, PDT)

"Partisan = n. 1. an adherent or supporter of a person, party or cause, especially one who shows a biased, unthinking allegiance." - Webster's Dictionary

So true, generally speaking, even though partisan politics has, in spite of that, produced some good leaders who were good thinkers.

Unfortunately, most people think there is no better way than partisan party politics to determine who shall have the power and authority of leadership. Each party chooses a competitor-candidate and hopes their "best person" will win the "throne," and even the losing party hopes they will win "next time." Consequently, the divisive, polarizing, winner-take-all contest for monarchial presidential power continues.

Part of the problem is that it continues even though very few people actually determine who the winner is. After all, consider the following facts.

In America, only 60 percent of eligible voters in the U.S. voted in the 2000 presidential election, and far less than half of them voted for George W. Bush. In fact, Democratic candidate Al Gore won the popular vote by at least 400,000 votes in 2000, and he surely would have won more electoral vote (and even more of the popular votes) if all the ballots in Florida had been hand-counted as the law called for. But, Bush got five right-wing partisans on the U.S. Supreme Court to overrule the democratic Florida Supreme Court in order to halt the vote count and put him in the White House. And, even in 2004 when he won with a little less controversy about the election process, only 64 percent of eligible voters voted, which means that only about 32 percent of eligible voters re-elected Bush.

This is not the way to run a country. That has become painfully obvious to many people in the world, and it is even becoming more and more obvious to most people in America.

But, of course, most good, liberal progressives still think our problems can and will be solved by having a Democratic president and having enough Democratic members of Congress to really control it.

But is that really true?

Granted, having progressive democratic leadership would certainly be far better than having right-wing conservative Republicans like George W. Bush and John McCain in power, because Democrats are by far the "lesser of two evils." After all, most right-wing Republicans deceptively claim to serve all the people while they actually serve the interests of the wealthiest few and their huge corporations, while most Democrats are somewhat more fair and at least still try to serve the vast majority of people and advocate for those who need help.

Moreover, even though John McCain has a past record of being more willing than most Republicans to reach across the isle to establish bi-partisan support for some common goals, he has increasingly shown that he is no better than George W. Bush with respect to Reaganomics and global U.S. militarism, which have increasingly widened the already huge income gap between rich and poor, shrunk the middle class, increased the working poor population, created a third cold war with Russia, and wreaked conflict, division, havoc, violence, death and destruction.

Having said that, I should clarify that even though I am very much against right-wing Reaganites, Bushites, and the so-called Neo-Conservative Movement in general, I do not have anything against political, social and fiscal conservatives who are reasonable, caring, and honest, and who are willing to sit down with liberal progressives and work together, find common ground, and come up with needed solutions for the common good. Reasonable and honest conservatives should have a place at the table, to provide their perspective.

The trouble is, the Republican Party was co-opted in the 1980s by right-wing extremists and wealthy imperialists, along with the leaders of the Christian Right who colluded with them, and they’ve been able to push the American political climate so far to the right during the last two and a half decades that even most Democrats have found that they’ve had to be a bit to the right of middle in order to compete. And, even though the Bush Regime’s extraordinary errors and abuses of power have made a lot more Americans realize the folly and flaws in the right-wing conservative agenda, even that has not moved the country back to the middle yet.

Granted, the rhetoric of Democratic presidential candidates has begun to address some progressive issues, and it has included promises to deal with some of the huge problems that impact so many of us, such as poverty, food insecurity, and job insecurity, along with the problems around health care, education, inflation, rising costs, price gouging, a degrading economy, a degrading environment, political corruption, unregulated and unchecked greed, economic corruption, war, and all the other problems that have been exacerbated by right-wing Republicans in Congress and in the Bush Regime. And exposing what is wrong and addressing the problems is good, as far as it goes.

However, if they follow the trends set in recent presidential elections, about 80 percent of the funding for the political campaigns of Democrats will be provided by the wealthiest one percent of the population, just as it is provided to Republicans. The wealthiest few learned some time ago to invest in both sides, so no matter which side wins they will get what they pay for. That’s why the term "Republicrats" was coined in 2000 by Ralph Nader.

Furthermore, during this presidential campaign season even Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have fallen into the partisan political tradition of trying to elevate themselves by cutting down the other. Rather than simply acknowledging problems and presenting their solutions and letting the people decide which is best, they have fallen into the temptations that partisan politics creates and perpetuates. And that, to me, is a real shame, because Clinton, Obama and most of the other Democrats that were vying for power are basically good people who fervently want to reverse the terribly wrong and backward direction that Bush and the right-wing Republicans have taken the country.

Even worse, the commercial news media bottom-feeds on dirty sensationalism and jumps all over stories about conflict and "punching and counter-punching." And that’s all we hear about from the commercial media, for the most part. They tend not to serve as ethical journalists to help the public be fully informed on the platforms and issues. Instead, they stoop to the level of tabloid journalism and cover the mud-slinging, because they think that’s what sells. And sadly, it does.

Considering all that, I submit that this rift in campaign rivalries and this media failure are just more reasons why partisan politics is flawed, divisive, polarizing, hindering, damaging, and unproductive.

I also submit that electing a Democratic president and having a democratically controlled Congress will not really solve our problems ... at least not fully, and not for long.

It certainly would help a little bit for a little while. But it would help only in the short term, and it would only keep the partisan political pendulum swinging.

Considering what's happened just in the last 45 years, it would probably just be a matter of time before it would swing back to the Right again. Another hypocritical right-wing demagogic scoundrel would probably take refuge in patriotism and religiosity, waving the flag, thumping the Bible and rattling his sword, and succeed in deceiving and misleading enough people to get elected, just as Reagan and Bush did.

Even if enough voters were aware and informed enough to elect a good president, it doesn't necessarily mean our most serious problems would be solved. That's easy to see if you just consider that the election of Democratic President Bill Clinton in 1992 did very little to prevent or deal with the rampant political and corporate corruption that continued and increased so much in the 1990s, and then continued into this decade. 

Bill Clinton couldn't stop Reaganism, because Republican Reaganites controlled Congress during most of Clinton's term. In fact, even when Clinton could have vetoed Reaganite legislation, in certain instances he chose to go along with it because he thought it was politically expedient to do so (e.g. he did not veto the so-called Welfare Reform legislation in 1996). Thus, Reaganism essentially prevailed, continued and in certain ways got worse throughout the 1990s. Then it expanded and got even worse under the Bush Regime, and it has had an increasingly devastating impact for the last 27 years. Not on the wealthy, of course, because rising costs don’t bother them. In fact, their incomes have risen far more and faster than inflation. But it’s had a terrible impact on 80 percent of the U.S. population and growing numbers of people around the world.

Granted, there have been token legal actions against the most blatant political and corporate corruption, but those actions have dealt only with what is like the tip of a huge iceberg, and only the tip shows above the surface while the rest is hidden. The basic problem is still there.

As I’ve explained on other pages and in books, Reaganism is a very hard right-wing, divisive partisan ideology which unfairly and disproportionately serves the interests of the wealthiest few. It is to the detriment of the great majority, to the detriment of the environment, to the detriment of public education and public health, and to the detriment of the public infrastructure. Perhaps even worse, it is utterly devastating to the working poor, the poor and the elderly, all while deceptively claiming and pretending to serve all the people in the name of God and Country.

Unfortunately, a big part of the problem is that since the early Nineties many Democrats have thought it was politically expedient to buy in to Reaganism. As I said, most Democrats had moved to the right of middle, and most Reaganite Republicans were, as the Bushites still are, on the extreme right.

Furthermore, even though the direction of the country could have changed considering the crushing defeat of right-wing Republicans in the November 2006 mid-term election which finally enabled Democrats to gain some control of Congress, it did not change much at all. And, even if it had made a difference, it would only be temporary. The partisan political pendulum would swing back to the right again, invariably, and we would have more conflict and instability.

Indeed, even if America had a more sensible, more reasonable and more fair system of caucuses and primary elections, partisan politics would still be hopelessly flawed. And it is extremely flawed now, not only because it divides and polarizes the people, even in their own parties. The political caucus and primary election system is absolutely unfair, and the only reason it exists is for the convenience of presidential candidates so they can go from state to state, one at a time, without having to try to appeal to the whole country at one time. The trouble is, it gives certain states far more power than others, and it renders certain states almost powerless in determining who wins the primary contest. If primary elections were held at exactly the same time in every state and in every time zone, it would at least be more fair and make more sense.

But even if that were the case, partisan politics would still be hopelessly flawed. It is inherently divisive and inevitably corrupt. It does not and cannot serve the interests of all the people. And the biggest part of the problem is that it’s based on the idea that we should choose sides, fight for power over each other, and be forced to accept the results of a winner-take-all partisan contest for power.

Furthermore, another big part of the problem is that it is fueled by money, which has invariably led to corruption. And that becomes even worse when you consider that 80 percent of the funding for the political campaigns of both major parties is invested by the wealthiest one percent of the population, who also pay for the army of lobbyists who continually influence and bribe members of Congress. And, as I said earlier, the wealthiest few get what they pay for.

We need a thorough reformation of government. along with a reformation of religion, to put an end to partisan party politics --- an end to the division and polarization, an end to the bribery and corruption, an end to the congressional oligarchy, an end to the juvenile competition for the "throne" of sovereign power, and an end to the presidential form of monarchy.

After all, why should we be divided and fight for power over each other?

Why should we follow, support and empower egocentric men who seek power over those who disagree with them?

Why should we be either winners or losers in a continuous, winner-take-all partisan contest for power?

Indeed, why should we perpetuate an unstable partisan system that creates, fosters and perpetuates corruption, conflict and division?

And why should hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dollars be wasted on commercial television for political campaign advertisements that are generally offensive and annoying, when all that money could be far better invested in our country and in our people?

We need to face the fact that the present American political-economic system is not merely wasteful, divisive and damaging. It does not produce government of, by and for the people. Not really. What it often does produce is government of, by, and for the rich, regardless of which party wins.

Because partisan politics breeds and fosters dishonesty, greed and corruption, it can turn otherwise good people into disingenuous and dishonest demagogues who launch misleading, slanderous attacks against each other. And after each election, we become either winners or losers, and usually far more than half of the country’s population are not represented by our government. In fact, most often (like during the last six years) the great majority is not really represented and only the wealthiest few are truly represented.

But we can have government of, by and for all the people, and we will have it as soon as enough people get the message and abide by God's will. Then we will no longer be divided and ruled by a partisan "pretender to the throne." We will share the "throne" as equal joint heirs, and, at long last we will have government that is truly of, by and for the people. We will be able to govern ourselves, determine our own destiny, and use the common wealth for the common good.

That's why the message from the Spirit of truth is so very important. It shows how we can end the divisive competition for power, and instead share it as we should.

If you read the page titled How the Meek Shall Inherit the Earth, you will see a summary of how and why the monarchial presidency will ultimately be replaced by an executive council of twelve members, six of whom will be men, and six of whom will be women. On the page titled New Declaration of Independence I concisely lay out the justification for it, and I fully discuss it in the book titled What IS the World Coming To?: A Candid Look at Past, Present and Future Through the Lens of Real Prophecy and Common Sense.

When you read about how and why that will happen, you may be able to imagine an executive council that truly represents all the people, and you could probably name and nominate (or draft) on write-in ballots a dozen people who you greatly admire and respect for their wisdom and good works. Of course, of those who are the most popular choices, only the top 12 who accept the responsibility would be elected and serve on the council, but at least we would have the freedom to name who we would want to represent us.

Personally, when we have free choice and equal opportunity to choose our leadership, I would probably name or nominate a few of my favorite politicians, but I would also nominate other knowledgeable, wise and well known people who I most respect and admire. For example, I might nominate people like Bill Moyers and Charlie Rose, who are very well informed, caring, conscientious and fair. I might nominate people like Maya Angelou, Oprah Winfrey, Susan Sarandon, Brad Pitt, and Whoopi Goldberg, who are talented and also well informed and speak up for those who need help. I might even nominate people like Gloria Steinham and Ralph Nader, who have gained great knowledge and have been working hard for a long time to protect people from oppression and fraud and corruption. But those are names that just popped into my head, and I could name many other good, wise, caring people who have been doing many good works for the benefit of all people.

Of course, you may name others, and the choice would be yours, freely, and independently, as you will see.

As I’ve explained on those other pages, if we the people choose wisely -- if we choose wise and humble people, who are not self-important or self-righteous, who have done good works to try to help and educate all the people -- we can actually be represented by a government that is truly of, by the for the people. We will no longer be ruled by a divisive pretender to the throne. We can virtually share the throne, as the equal joint heirs that we are.

America can truly become a shining example to the world, when we treat all religions, races, nationalities and cultures equally, and when we establish true democracy. We can lead the way in liberating humanity. We can make it so, if we have the courage and the faith to do so.

© 2002 - 2008 Joseph J. Adamson