Partisan Politics:

Is it Really the Best Way to Determine Leadership?

(Revised 11-16-2009)

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

In many cases that’s true, even though American partisan politics has, in spite of that, produced some good leaders who were good thinkers. In fact, many partisan politicians were drawn to public service out of a sincere desire to make life better for all citizens, and improve our cities, states, nation and world. And in many respects many of them have made great improvements.

However, many have not. Many have made things worse. Many have served only the wealthiest few who financed and supported them, and only pretended to serve all the people, and some of them have been terribly divisive, deceptive, grossly inept, and harmful.

Most Americans are painfully aware of that now, especially after the last nine years. But, we can prevent it from ever happening again. For even though a democratic leader, Barack Obama, now holds the power of the U.S. presidency, it has become evident that even he will not or cannot do what must be done, and his words are much greater than his actions. It seems that his promise for greater transparency and accountability may not be fulfilled. He has not mapped a path to peace. And it has become apparent that he tends to appease the rich and powerful who are still robbing us blind. Therefore, we really need to significantly reform our political-economic system.

It is now more imperative that we do so, because unless and until we put a stop to it, the partisan political pendulum could and probably would swing back to the right. It’s happened many times before, and it would happen again. In fact, another arrogant, hypocritical, right-wing Republican demagogue could rise to power waving the flag, thumping his bible and rattling his sword, claiming to serve God and Country when he actually serves Mammon and the wealthiest few (even more than Democrats do).

The basic problem is that the American partisan political system has often been corrupted by greed. It is inherently divisive and often corrupted by the self-importance and self-righteousness of partisan politicians, and especially by the bribery of corporate lobbyists and influences. It has enabled certain presidents to gain and abuse power to the detriment of the majority of the people, and to the detriment of the environment, the infrastructure, and humanity as a whole, while enabling the wealthiest few Americans to increase their wealth exponentially. And I suggest to you that it’s high time that we progress and advance beyond it.

I ask you: Why should we be divided and fight for power over each other? Why should we follow, support and empower egocentric individuals who seek power over those who disagree with them? Why should we let our fate be determined by one person? Why should we be either winners or losers in a continuous, winner-take-all partisan contest for power? Why should we perpetuate an unstable partisan system that creates, fosters and perpetuates corruption, conflict and division?

Besides that, why should hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dollars be wasted on commercial television for political campaign advertisements that are generally misleading, offensive, and terribly annoying, when all that money could be far better invested in our country and in our people? After all, it is a very sad commentary on our partisan political system when more money is spent on misleading, deceptive, slanderous mud slinging at political opponents than are spent on advocating a positive, constructive political platform.

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 theirs 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.

One of the things that most Americans don’t realize, however, 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 votes (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.

That was a crucial turn of events, and it inevitably proved disastrous, so we should realize how and why it happened. You may remember that after the presidential election in 2000 the right-wing "neo-conservative" Republicans had their goons in the streets with signs, chanting "Sore Loserman." Why? Because the Gore-Liberman team was working with the Florida Supreme Court to ensure that state law was followed to resolve the disputed election in that state. The problem was a faulty machine count that rejected 179,914 Florida ballots, most of which were undoubtedly in Gore's favor because they were in heavily Democratic regions. Unfortunately, the Bush-Cheney team got the hand-vote count stopped by resorting to "legal" partisan maneuvers and misleading street theater.

I raise this point because George W. Bush actually lost the popular election in 2000 but managed to gain the presidency by hook and by crook. And now, even though Barack Obama won the 2008 election fair and square, there are still a small minority of proud, militant, die-hard right-wing "neo-conservatives" in America still fomenting conflict and raising a stink.

Of course, in 2004 Bush won the election with a little less controversy about the election process. However, even then only 64 percent of eligible voters voted, which means that only about 32 percent of eligible voters re-elected Bush for his second term.

In fact, even though Barack Obama is a far better man and the "lesser of two evils" as a choice for president, he was elected by only 52 percent of the popular vote. And that was not 52 percent of all eligible voters. You see, there are about 210 Million eligible voters in the U.S., and only 118 Million of them voted (about 62.9 Million for Obama and 55.7 Million for McCain). That means 43 percent of eligible voters (92 Million people) who could have voted, did not bother to vote — probably because they are totally disgusted with partisan politics and the divisive, annoying and slanderous political ads on television, or because they simply cannot endorse even the lesser of the two evils that divide us.

This is not the way to run a country.

Granted, Obama won because he is a good man and the most fair politician for the job of president at this time. But, he was able to win because he said "Our time has come." (which, as it turns out, was not true because while his time came, ours did not). He also won because right-wing partisan Republicans and the most corrupt of the wealthiest few had been given enough rope over the last 28 years that they hung themselves. Having completely rigged the system to serve their own self-interests, they not only set themselves up for dire consequences, they caused a whole lot of harm and loss to others. That started to become apparent back in the 1980s, but it became much more obvious in the 1990s, and then became painfully obvious during George W. Bush’s reign. And even now the Obama Administration and Democratic Congress is still allowing the banks, lending institutions, credit card companies, insurance companies, HMOs, pharmaceutical companies and others to indulge themselves and get even richer at our expense, causing us a lot loss, harm, pain, and suffering.

Unfortunately, during the last 30 years most Americans have been conditioned (some would say brainwashed) by the wealthy corporate powers-that-be, and I’m sorry to say that includes Barack Obama and most other Democrats right along with Republicans. Most Americans bought into Reaganism because it sounded patriotic and even religious. Unfortunately, that enabled the psychology, attitudes and traits of American corporations and other wealthy special interest groups to spread like an epidemic virus that has increasingly infected most Americans. It has made them think greed and self-interest is alright and not think about the state of our neighborhoods, communities or states or our infrastructure, or about humanity as a whole. It has made them accept the policies and actions of the CEOs and boards of directors of corporations, banks, lending institutions, manufacturing industries and the U.S. Military Industrial Complex as good for all Americans. But it’s all been a sham, perpetrated by and benefitting the wealthiest one percent of Americans who now hold 90 percent of the wealth of the nation, who have been able to do so by simply claiming that what they do is in the name of God and Country.

Lest you get the wrong idea, I should explain why I expose and rebuke the politicians, and especially the extremely right-wing partisan bigots and hypocrites who have created the most conflict and division, falsely claiming to be religious and/or patriotic while accusing their critics of godlessness and treason.

I rebuke them not out of partisanship. In fact, I submit that partisanship should end. For while most good, liberal progressives still think our problems will be solved by having a Democratic president and having enough Democratic members of Congress to really control it, that is not really true. It only perpetuates the divisive, unstable, unfair partisan political system, and corporate rule.

Granted, having democratic leadership is somewhat better than having extreme right-wing conservative Republicans in power. Democrats are usually the lesser of two "evils," because 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 more fair and at least still try to serve the vast majority of people and advocate for those who need help. And, even though many Democrats bought into Reaganism in the 1990s, moved to the right of middle out of political expediency, and have been nearly as culpable as Republicans for enabling political and corporate greed and corruption, in the 2008 campaigns they at least pretended to be more willing to stand up and speak out for fairness, reform, proper and sufficient regulation, and democratic values. Unfortunately, they haven’t delivered on their promises.

Republicans, however, are even worse. They still cling to Reaganism (which was essentially continued and expanded by George W. Bush) because it enabled them and the wealthiest few to become extremely and excessively rich during the last 28 years. That was and still is their main goal, despite the fact that their deregulation and policies and laws favoring corporations have been disastrous for most of us. That became increasingly apparent during the Bush Regime’s reign. That’s why they had to resort to their typical tactics of using misleading half-truths and falsehoods in their campaign attack ads against Barack Obama, believing that a malicious offense is their best defense. Fortunately, they were wrong this time. Enough of the American people were turned off by right-wing attack ads and realized we needed change, and Democrat Barack Obama was elected.

Unfortunately, Republicans apparently find it impossible to accept the will of the majority. But I hope they will develop a conscience and hang their heads in shame for what they have done, rather than repeat the deceptive and hypocritical Reaganite-Bushite mantra against "big government." They like big government when it suits their purposes, and even though they now wail against deficit spending, they were the ones who put the U.S. government deep in debt because of their tax cuts for the wealthy, their obscene no-bid contracts that have enormously benefitted corporate war profiteers, and their enabling of corporate polluters, predatory lenders, etc.

I also hope Barack Obama will get the message, be strong, courageous and frank enough to ensure that truth and justice prevails. I hope he will take the opportunity to work toward reforming this political-economic system, its inequitable economic policies, its favoritism to the wealthiest few, its corporate globalism, and its global U.S. militarism, all of which have increasingly widened the already huge income gap between rich and poor, shrunk the middle class, increased the working poor population, exploited people in this and other countries, created a third cold war with Russia, and wreaked terrible conflict, division, havoc, violence, death and destruction in the world.

Now, since religious bigotry is a big part of the problem in the world, my hope is that Obama will not be like the right-wing Republican Neo-Conservatives who listen to certain so-called "Christian authorities" who claim Islam an "evil religion." I worry about that, because there have been several ominous indications that he is trying to gain the favor of the "Christian" Right. Therefore, I must tell you the factual truth.

The fact is that true Muslims understand that the prophet Muhammad knew and respected the teachings of the Christ Jesus. Muhammad stated that "killing is always evil," and that indiscriminate killing is especially evil. Moreover, like Jesus, Muhammad advised against retaliation and against force or coercion in religious matters, and he commanded Muslims to "be very courteous to Jews and Christians because we all believe in the same God."

Unfortunately, many in the Neo-Conservative Movement in America believe the leaders of the Christian Right regarding Islam. I think that’s one of the reasons why they’ve insisted that we must support Israel no matter what, and wipe out the Muslim extremist insurgents in Iraq. But, they’ve also made it clear that they don’t want "another Vietnam," and I must say something about that.

The tabbed page on Bush’s Real Record and War explains exactly why the Reaganite-Bushite claim that the U.S. lost the Vietnam War because "we didn’t want to" or "didn’t try" to win, or because of "a lack of American resolve," is an utterly false rationalization. It’s why much of the world sees the U.S. as a nation that will not admit its mistakes, a view that became widespread during Ronald Reagan’s reign, and that only increased during the reign of the Bush Regime between 2000 and 2008.

I trust that Obama is not like Bush, the Christian Right, Christian Zionists, and Jewish Zionists, who all believe that Islam must be wiped off the face of the earth. I trust that Obama knows that those warmongers simply do not realize that they are nearly as bad as the misguided Muslim extremists who want Israel and the U.S. to be wiped off the face of the earth. They are ALL wrong.

I think Obama knows better, and I think those who wanted him to be president know that. A month before the election most people in the world knew that. Even in Great Britain, 70 percent of the people preferred Obama over McCain. In Germany it was 85 percent, in the Netherlands 92 percent, Taiwan 81 percent, in Australia 76 percent, France 75 percent, and even in Canada 64 percent preferred Obama. And the vast majority of people in the world view the right-wing Neo-Conservative Republicans in the U.S. as shameful failures who were and are far too greedy, corrupt, self-righteous, and even arrogant, as was clearly demonstrated by Bush, Cheney and their most vocal cohorts.

Having said that, I should clarify that 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 American Republican Party was co-opted in the 1980s by right-wing extremists and wealthy imperialists (and that includes 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, as I said, even most Democrats have found that they’ve had to position themselves to the right of middle in order to compete. And, even though the Bush Regime’s extraordinary errors and abuses of power made a lot more Americans realize the vain folly and flaws in the right-wing Neo-Conservative agenda, not much changed. Even the 2006 election of more Democrats to Congress did not move the country any closer to the middle. The Democrats were either unwilling to make needed changes, or they were afraid of George W. Bush’s veto power.

Now, I should add that the late William F. Buckley Jr. and Irving Kristol were really the fathers of the Neoconservative Movement. They were both extensively and highly influential in the print and broadcast media, and in 1979 Esquire magazine declared Kristol as "the godfather of the most powerful new political force in America -- Neoconservatism." That year a book was published, titled The Neoconservatives: The Men Who Are Changing America's Politics. However, while Buckley and Kristol provided an intellectual rationale for their right-wing ideology, the ones who gained political and military power as a consequence were Ronald Reagan and his administration.

Reagan’s team included Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and William J. Bennett, who rose to prominence again with George W. Bush in 2000, along with other right-wing ideologues like Libby, Wolfowitz, Ashcroft and others of like-mind, who’s goal was to further an agenda set forth in a document titled document entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, written in September 2000 by a right-wing conservative think-tank called Project for the New American Century (PNAC). It calls for global dominance of the U.S. Religious Military Industrial Complex, and it has been enormously successful. It’s made a few Americans very much more wealthy than they were 28 years ago, and that’s why they are fighting tooth and nail, resorting to deception and slander to try to stop any initiatives to establish significant reform and regulation. They wanted and still want free rein to continue the inequity and unfairness that has been so devastating to the vast majority of us.

Granted, the political climate has been gradually moving a bit from the right, which allowed the rhetoric of Obama and other Democratic presidential candidates to begin to address some progressive issues and speak up for the majority and the working poor. Thanks particularly to John Edwards, their rhetoric included at least some awareness of all the poverty, hunger and homelessness which has devastated so many American families. They also indicated an awareness of the huge problems that impact most Americans, such as food insecurity, job insecurity, housing insecurity, along with the problems of inequity and insecurity around health care, prescription drugs, education, inflated and rising costs, price gouging, a degrading economy, a weakened dollar, global warming, a degrading environment, depleted fisheries, political corruption, corporate corruption, economic corruption, unregulated and unchecked greed, fraud, war, and all the other problems that have been exacerbated by right-wing Republicans in Congress and in the Bush Regime, and by some Democrats who have been almost equally culpable. But at least some Democrats were talking about some of the things that are wrong, and that’s good, as far as it goes.

However, we have to realize that in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, about 80 percent of the funding for the political campaigns of both Democrats and Republicans was provided by the wealthiest one percent of the population. 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.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama changed that, because most of his campaign funds came from average people who gave small donations. And I hope Obama wants to bring about real campaign finance reform, to prevent the wealthiest few and their lobbyists from shelling out huge financial bribes to politicians. However, during the campaign against McCain, Obama evidently fell into the temptation of drifting to the right, as Bill Clinton did in 1991, in order to get votes from Independents and Republican moderates.

Granted, Obama is smart and savvy. I think he’s the most brilliant and fair-minded politician we’ve seen since John F. Kennedy and Franklin D. Roosevelt before him. Obama generally does not demonize or lie about the opposition, but reaches out to find common ground, and he is certainly the best man to be president. But, it could be said that he, like most other politicians, has done what is politically expedient in order to get elected. But, it could be said that he, like most other politicians, did what was politically expedient in order to get elected, and as president he has said and done things to appease the wealthiest few and their huge corporations, and that concerns me.

For example, Barack Obama has said that the country’s current challenges "are simply too big for government to solve alone." Of course, there is some truth to that. We all need to help in whatever way we can. However, it is a statement usually made by Republicans. After all, their agenda has been and still is to further cut taxes for the wealthiest few and cut investment in people, the infrastructure, and environmental protections and cleanup, while claiming that they are reducing your taxes and making people "self-reliant and not dependent on government." It’s a grossly misleading claim, but it’s been the Republican mantra during the last 28 years, designed to justify the deregulation and huge tax cuts for the wealthy, which have gotten us into this economic mess.

Obama has gone so far as to say he would enhance Bush’s "faith-based" initiatives by steering federal taxpayer funds that were formerly used on social service agencies, to religious groups. But he does so to pander and cater to the religious right, and that would be a tragic mistake. (See the section on Bush’s "faith-based" initiative on the page titled Bush’s Real Record, telling the truth about it and showing how and why it is unconstitutional.)

Unfortunately, all politicians have pandered to the Christian Right, to the point where in 2008 being a Christian became a litmus test for being the U.S. president, in spite of the Constitution and the intent of the founding fathers (see the page on Little Known American History). The Constitution of the United States of America was written in response to the crucial need for religious tolerance, religious freedom and equality, and freedom from the religious bigotry of hypocritical theocrats. After all, we cannot have religious freedom without religious pluralism and equality of religions.

Despite that, neither Barack Obama nor John McCain could afford to appear to be tolerant of religious minorities like American Muslims, nor could they appear tolerant of the freedom to not be a "Bible-Believing Christian." In fact, McCain identified with misguided "Christian" leaders like Pat Robertson, John Hagee, James Dobson and Franklin Graham, calling America a "Christian nation," and Obama resorted to talking about the role his Christian faith played in his community work to "fulfill God’s will," and do "the Lord’s work." That is pandering, and it is extremely dangerous. It’s exactly what George W. Bush did.

This was even more flagrantly demonstrated in August 2008, when both McCain and Obama spoke at an Evangelical "Christian Civil Forum" in California. They both submitted to being questioned by a conservative evangelical preacher before his congregation, whose favorite hymn is Onward Christian Soldiers ("marching off to war").

McCain’s and Obama’s participation in that forum could be seen as an implicit endorsement of the proud, militant Christian Right’s political clout. In fact, it was yet another ominous indicator of the diminished tradition of the separation of church and state in American politics, which began with Ronald Reagan and his so-called "Moral Majority," and became more blatant under George W. Bush and the so-called "Christian Coalition." Moreover, it is absolutely contrary to the intent of the founding fathers. (See the pages titled Little Known American History, and Religious Pluralism vs Theocracy.)

I realize Obama feels that talking about his faith was necessary, and it’s no wonder, since right-wing conservatives have been claiming God for themselves during the last 28 years. But it is wrong and unconstitutional to bring a specific religion into politics.

Remember, Thomas Jefferson wrote: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

Most of the founding fathers felt the same way and agreed with Jefferson, who also wrote: "The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man."

Jefferson also wrote "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a clergy-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest of ignorance of which their civil as well as their religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."

That is still true, and just as relevant today as it was in the 1700s.

Obama is doing what he thinks is politically expedient, but it only reveals how willing he is to cater to right-wing conservative "religious" forces and corporate forces that continue to gain more and more power. Furthermore, Obama’s invoking Ronald Reagan’s name, his defense of recent right-wing Supreme Court rulings, his endorsement of the latest FISA legislation giving retroactive immunity for telecoms that engaged in illegal electronic surveillance, his failure to effectively refute the deceptive claims of the opponents of universal health care, and other things only reveal that he is like many other politicians. (But, even though he is really not the agent for the real and lasting change that we need, he will certainly do as the best alternative for U. S. president in the meantime, until the new reformation.)

I must also point out how, during the primary elections and the general election, we saw how 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, so that what we heard about during the battle for power. We didn’t hear much about principles and important things. We heard about what each side said that was offensive to the other side.

There certainly was a whole lot of mud slinging from malicious right-wing Neo-Conservatives (who had no choice but to support McCain over Obama, even though McCain tried to distance himself from the horrible record of Bush and the ultra right-wing Neo-Conservative Republicans). They resorted to slanderous, deceptive half-truths and outright lies against Obama, because they typically believe the best defense is a strong offense.

For example, they accused Obama of wanting to "redistribute the wealth by taking money out of your pocket and giving it to someone else." That astounded me, because politicians influenced by Reaganism and Bushism have been redistributing the wealth of the nation to the wealthiest few for the last 28 years, and especially for the last eight years during the Bush presidency. The truth is that Obama merely seeks fair, equitable economic policies that are in the interests of all the people.

They also accused Obama of "associating with terrorists," and of being anti-American. In fact, the right-wing Neo-Conservatives who claim to be Christians were so deceptive that they spread malicious lies about Obama on the Internet, some of which went so far as to claim that Obama was "an Arab," and that his birth and rise to prominence is part of a conspiratorial plot to create a "one world government of the Antichrist." They do not realize that the Bush Regime was the closest thing we’ve ever had to a one-world government, dominated by huge, profit-hungry multi-national American corporations and the U.S. Military-Industrial Complex, that will apparently stoop to anything to try to rule the world in the name of religion and patriotism.

That was evident in Republican attack ads against Democrats in the recent election campaigns, when it was typical for Republicans to slander and denigrate Democrats by claiming that they would "raise taxes and take away jobs." But even worse tactics were stooped to by desperate Republicans, which became evident to some alert people. For example, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. revealed in September 2008 that there were many scams perpetrated by Republicans, particularly in the "battleground" or "swing" states, to prevent Democrats from being able to vote. The Republicans have exploited and taken advantage of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), which was passed in 2000 by George W. Bush and a Republican Congress and Senate. It institutionalized a series of impediments that have made it very difficult for Democrats to register, vote and have their vote counted.

Kennedy revealed that one of these requirements under HAVA is called "the perfect match," which has had a terrible impact. For example, a quarter of the voters in Colorado were removed from the rolls because of this. Republicans used a computer system to compare registration applications to all other government records of a registered voter in the state. They access social security records, motor vehicle records and other government records, and if there is any information on a voter registration that is different than the information on another government record, they remove that voter from the voting rolls. And the "discrepancy" can be as trivial as using a middle initial on one record and a full middle name on another.

Kennedy said that in New Jersey, which is a swing state, 870,000 voters in New Jersey were sent letters saying that they were ineligible to vote, which means that three quarters of a million Democrats were removed from the voting rolls. Kennedy said another Republican tactic is tossing out new voter registrations for "inadequate" identification. This is "legal" because most newly registered voters don’t realize the identification requirements, and there is no notification of what they are. That probably meant that about 12 million new voters that the Democrats had gotten to register did not have their votes counted. Their registrations were probably tossed out.

Thank God, Obama won in spite of all that, and John McCain finally showed his true nature in his concession speech, which was very gracious. He is, after all, a very decent man – a far better and more fair man than George W. Bush and his cohorts --- even though McCain received very bad advice from right-wing Republican strategists, and even though he is misguided in his militaristic and economic policies which are designed to serve the interests of the U.S. Military Industrial Complex and other corporations, at the expense of everything and everyone else.

Anyway, considering all that, I submit that the rift in campaign rivalries, the media failure and the voting scams are just more reasons why partisan politics is flawed, divisive, polarizing, hindering, damaging, and unproductive. Regardless of which party won, half the people are bitter losers who resent the misleading and slanderous tactics used by the winners. Consequently, the U.S. is not and will not be a united nation, and certainly not indivisible. In fact, divided we have fallen!

I also submit that having a Democratic president and having a democratically controlled Congress will not really solve our problems ... at least not fully, and not for long. Even with Obama as president, progress will be only in the short term, and it will only perpetuate the division and keep the partisan political pendulum swinging.

Considering what's happened just in the last 45 years, it will probably just be a matter of time before it will swing back to the right again if we perpetuate this system. Another hypocritical right-wing demagogic scoundrel could take refuge in patriotism and religiosity, waving the flag, thumping the Bible and rattling his sword, appealing to egotism and prejudices, and succeed in deceiving and misleading enough people to get elected, just as Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush did.

A case in point is how and why Ronald Reagan was able to take the presidency away from Jimmy Carter. And I think it should be noted what a terrible mistake that was (see the page on Reagan’s Real Legacy). After all, in the 1970s the Carter Administration, backed by a preponderance of hard evidence from CIA intelligence indicating the increasing decline of Soviet power, de-escalated the First Cold War and entered into a new era of dialogue with the Soviet leaders of the USSR. In fact, the Carter Administration essentially ended the First Cold War because it focused its efforts on finding common ground and working in the spirit of cooperation instead of conflict. And, as Carter has shown, especially as an ex-president, he is a man of great compassion and goodness, and of peace, and he is a true Christian. And President Jimmy Carter’s initiatives and policies could have changed the world for the better.

Unfortunately, the world has gotten worse during the last 28 years because most of Carter’s efforts were squashed and negated by a concerted propaganda campaign led by Ronald Reagan and his administration, which included Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and George H. W. Bush Sr., who rose to power in 1980 and started the Second Cold War even though the Soviet Union was already in decline.

As I discussed on the pages titled The Third Cold War and Neo-Imperialism, Reaganites and Bushites have pursued foreign policies which have been disastrous for many people in the countries involved, while being very lucrative for some very wealthy Americans. During the last eight years the younger George W. Bush led us into horrible conflicts and wars and even started the Third Cold War with Russia. And the fact is that all these Neo-Conservative right-wing Republicans have served to empower and benefit huge American corporations in the U.S. Military-Industrial Complex that Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us against back in 1961.

Furthermore, America’s status in the world has been damaged by the foreign policies and actions of Reagan and Bush, which have been mostly about obtaining or controlling natural resources and/or maintaining or gaining strategic military footholds in other countries. (See the pages titled Neo-Imperialism, Reagan’s Legacy, and Bush’s Record.)

The point is that divisive, harmful, bad and even evil leadership can be very cunning and loves to masquerade as good, and it often even thinks it IS good, which is why it often succeeds when the political climate is ripe. It succeeds because many people are easily fooled by demagogues who appeal to the human ego and its tendency toward feeling superior, whether it’s because of religious beliefs or nationalism or race or political ideology. After all, the murderous tyrant Adolf Hitler easily rose to power in the 1930s by making the German people feel superior and powerful, and he was the epitome of the worst kind of demagogue.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that Ronald Reagan was as bad as Adolph Hitler, because Hitler was so blatantly evil that the vast majority of people in the world and even most Germans eventually recognized it. However, the script Reagan followed as a television pitch man made him an even more successful demagogue, because most people did not recognize him for what he was. Thus he was able to open the doors wide for the forces of self-interest, greed, inequity, racism, nationalism, militarism, and political and corporate greed and corruption. And many people STILL do not see what he was.

The attitude and policies Reagan brought to the presidency in 1981, many of which were copied between 2000 and 2008 by George W. Bush, are some of the biggest reasons why we have had such bitter partisan conflict and gridlock; political corruption; corporate corruption; bad relations between labor and management; huge and unfair income disparity; diminishing protection of the environment; increasing racism; growing poverty, hunger and homelessness; a shrinking middle class; and diminishing financial status for the vast majority while the rich have been getting a whole lot richer - incredibly richer. And that's just the domestic problems. (Again, see the page on Reagan’s Real Legacy.)

Furthermore, if a good Democrat actually advocated the kinds of changes that are needed to establish real fairness, equality, equity and justice, he would be in grave danger of being assassinated, because wealthy, extreme right-wing ideologues do not stop at deception, fraud and malfeasance. Some are prone to use violence and even deadly force to control and rule. So a truly good and fair reform leader might be killed, just as John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr., moderate Israeli President Rabin, and moderate candidate Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan were. After all, they and many other good, conscientious, progressive leaders, who served in the best interests of humanity and the people as a whole, and especially of the poor and disadvantaged, have been assassinated by those who love and lust for worldly wealth, power and domain, and will stop at nothing to acquire and/or maintain it. They resort to assassinations to kill good people who expose them and try to stop them, and they are very cunning and adept at covering their tracks and getting unstable, zealous scapegoats to do their dirty work.

I think Obama is aware of that, and I think that’s why he has not appeared "too liberal" or punitive against the greedy, corrupt, self-righteous people who have gotten us into this mess. He sometimes can’t resist rubbing the Republican’s noses in the mess they’ve made, but he’s the least partisan politician in America, even so. He truly seeks Republican cooperation, even though so far they’ve denied it.

However, President Obama being in power does not necessarily mean our most serious problems will be solved. Just consider that the election of Democratic President Bill Clinton in 1992 did very little to stop Reaganism and prevent or deal with its rampant political and corporate corruption. In fact, it continued and increased in the 1990s during the eight years Clinton held office, as was made obvious by all the corporate scandals and ripoffs exposed during that decade, and then it was continued and further enabled and exacerbated by George W. Bush.

Granted, early in this decade there were some token legal actions against the most blatant and exposed 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. Corporate corruption and abuse of power, which Reaganism (and Bushism) enables and licenses, is immense, and pervasive, and the army of highly paid corporate lobbyists who bribe and influence politicians in Washington D.C. is only part of the problem.

When Democrat Bill Clinton was president in the 1990s, he couldn't stop Reaganism because Reaganite Republicans 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, so it has had an increasingly devastating impact for the last 28 years. Not on the wealthy, of course, because rising and out of control costs don’t bother them. In fact, their incomes have risen far greater and much 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.

Furthermore, even if even if Democrats could make a difference, it would only be temporary. As I said, the partisan political pendulum would swing back to the right again, invariably, and we would have more conflict, division and instability.

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. 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 has rendered 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 presidential monarchial 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.

Even if Barack Obama could beat the system and try to change it, any success would probably be short lived, because partisan politics would inevitably enable someone to reverse it and restore business as usual. All it would take is a political climate ripe for some right-wing demagogue to rise to power appealing to prejudices, nationalism and religious bigotry once again. And if you think that is not a danger, just consider how and why being a Christian has become a litmus test for being the American president, in spite of the Constitution and the intent of the founding fathers. And consider how Barack Obama had to convince people that he is a Christian and not a Muslim.

However, religious bigotry is only part of the problem, because greed and corruption have produced just as much trouble, inequity and unfairness. Today, die-hard Republicans are in denial and cannot see that things are now as they were in 1929 after three successive Republican presidents in a row favored and gave license and free rein to the wealthiest few, at the expense of everyone else, and brought the Great Depression down upon America.

America was divided before that and has been divided since then, along "class" lines based on financial wealth. But, the wealthiest few and the right-wing Republican politicians who represent them have been very cunning at misleading many Americans and getting them on their side, by claiming that their cause and agenda is really for the benefit of everyone. In fact, they’ve been very successful, especially in boosting presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush to power. Thus America has been divided right down the middle for a long time, because right-wing Republicans have been able to fool a lot of people, with disingenuous and even misleading and deceptive rhetoric.

Another way of looking at it is that, in certain ways, the American Civil War that flared up in 1861 existed long before that, and has never stopped completely. There was a brief respite from 1941 to 1945 when Americans came together to defeat two very strong common enemies during World War II, but Americans went right back to it, and it started to get really bad again in the 1960s. The battle lines may change location, and the issues may change slightly, but Americans are still fighting each other. In fact, right now, because of the terribly bitter partisan political climate created mostly by the Reagan and Bush Regimes and the rest of the right-wing Republican Neo-Conservatives during the last twenty-eight years, the American people are more sharply divided across ideological partisan political lines than they have been since 1861. We are in fact dangerously divided and in conflict, and even if Barack Obama is able to establish a bit more unity during his term, it would not last if we continue and perpetuate the political-economic system that brought us to this point. It would inevitably and eventually prove even more disastrous than it has been between 2000 and 2009.

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

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 control of Congress and the White House.

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 population is not represented by our government. In fact, most often (like during the last eight years) the great majority is not really represented and only the wealthiest few are truly represented.

I tell you this truly: When a president like George W.Bush can deny habeas corpus and due legal process to any human being, and even his own fellow citizens; violate the Constitution; start illegal wars on false premises; commit war crimes; allow torture of prisoners; violate national and international laws and the Geneva Conventions; assume dictatorial powers and issue statements and decrees of the types that George W. Bush did, with impunity, avoiding deserved impeachment and even avoiding huge demonstrations and protests against him on the streets of our cities, it clearly demonstrates how many Americans have become either as blind flocks, or as hopeless, helpless subjects.

That is why the rich, powerful right-wing Neo-Conservatives have not been afraid of anyone who does speaks out against them. We’ve been free to say almost anything, because the right-wing corporate propaganda machine is well-tuned and extremely well financed, and it has been very successful at discrediting and/or at least denigrating those who dissent or protest. In fact, allowing some liberal and progressive people, especially those who are famous, to say what they will, has perpetuated the fallacy that we have a free, open, democratic society. But, the reality has been that the most money talks, and the most money rules. And great wealth can not only richly reward those who can very cleverly pull the wool over your eyes. It has even bought elections, as we saw during the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections.

So, it is now important that we understand that Obama won not only because he was overwhelmingly favored by most of the people in the world who recognized that he is bright and has the best intentions. He won also because the corruption and greed of right-wing conservative Republicans was so blatant and had been so exposed.

But, I remind you that there could be another Reagan or Bush waiting in the wings, who has learned that he must not merely wave the flag, thump the bible and rattle his sword. He would know that he must not so blatantly favor and enable the wealthiest few, and would promise to provide more help to the middle class, the working poor and the poor. But, he or she would thus be even more deceptive because his hidden agenda would be to serve the wealthiest few. That’s why I submit that we must prevent that from happening again.

First, however, we must realize that Obama’s presidency could be merely like putting a band-aid on an open wound, without treating the pervasive, underlying infection.

If you think that is not true, just consider the political rhetoric of extreme right-wing ideologues like Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney in recent months. Their rhetoric has been very divisive and deceptive, and some of it has even created a hostile and dangerous political climate in America. Their comments have been presented as truths, when they are actually propaganda, half-truths, and even falsehoods. Their misleading rhetoric has falsely claimed that global warming and climate change is not caused by careless human industrial activities and products. They falsely tried to connect President Barack Obama to socialism and "Big Brother" government; to equate clinical abortion to murder; to equate international diplomacy with "placating the enemy and putting America at risk," and to equate universal health care as "government takeover." All lies serving the interests of the wealthy few and their corporations at the expense of all the rest of us.

Their kind of deceptive and inflammatory rhetoric has fomented political paranoia and anger among ultra right-wing conservatives who are rabble easily roused, prone to the lynch mob mentality and easily incited to anger and violence.

It could even be said that their kind of rhetoric incited the recent murder by a right-wing extremist of a doctor who worked at a medical clinic, and it is the kind of hate speech that has incited other murders as well. It is divisive, malicious hate speech that stokes the paranoia and inflamed the misguided passions of malicious demonstrators and murderers who claim to serve God and Country. And, in that sense, these misguided, self-important, self-righteous hatemongers can be equated with the leaders of any other terrorist group that claims to be religious in an attempt to gain power. They masquerade as good, when they are far from it.

The newest right-wing attack dog, now eclipsing Dick Cheney, Sarh Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter, is Glenn Beck. He works for Fox News, which is owned by billionaire Rupert Murdock, a right-wing arch-conservative who controls a huge media empire designed to make his world view appear to be reality. But Murdock’s television stations and newspapers rarely if ever bother to present constructive, ethical, analytical or investigative journalistic findings. Instead, they present right-wing propaganda, misleading half-truths and even falsehoods, lies and sensationalism. And Glenn Beck is but one of many right-wing demagogues who appeals to prejudices, ignorance, racism, fear, and bigotry. The more outrageous and inflammatory, the better to sell the product.

Such hatemongering and fearmongering is designed to fight needed reforms and regulations. And it is part of the underlying infection that we must treat and deal with. After all, partisan politics is in fact competition for the presidential "throne" of monarchial power, and often the bad guys have won pretending to be good. That’s why the term "Imperial Presidency" was coined in a book written in the 1970s, critical of the Nixon Presidency. It was used again in criticism of Ronald Reagan, and more recently of George W. Bush. And, along that line, Andrew J. Bacevich, Professor of International Relations at Boston University, retired Army colonel, and West Point graduate, has written a good new book about it, titled The Limits of Power: the End of American Exceptionalism.

Bacevich submits that under the Bush Administration the U.S. Congress, especially with regard to matters related to national security policy, gave up power and authority to the executive branch and enabled an Imperial Presidency once again. Bacevich submits that because of this, the Bush Administration negated genuine democracy, and now we look to the next president to be a hero and fix things, rather than rely on truly democratic methods and solutions.

I agree, but I would add that the Bush Regime’s secrecy, power grabs, abuses of power, and violations of national and international laws and the Geneva Conventions have set dangerous and perilous precedents that we must abolish and not follow.

I would also add that it is wrong for many people to expect President Obama to be a hero-king. Even if Obama is able to do what he wants and is a good president, he cannot be, and is not a perfect head of state, because no one can be.

I need to say that even though Obama has done and said mostly good things, he has not been wise in some of the things he’s done and said. For example, the Obama administration is continuing the Bush administration's call for immunity for those who established and authorized the policies regarding torture, illegal wiretapping, and other wrongdoing, and those who engaged in them. That is wrong. Justice must prevail, for unless the U.S. tries and punishes wrong-doers, we cannot expect other countries to bring wrong-doers to justice.

On the US-Iran relationship, President Obama appears to many people as contradicting himself. As former National Security Council staff members have pointed out, the Obama administration has done nothing to cancel or repudiate a program begun in Bush's second term to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to destabilize the government of Iran.

In an interview with National Public Radio (NPR) on the occasion of the publication of his July 2008 article in The New Yorker, titled "Preparing the Battlefield," the renowned investigative journalist Seymour Hersh revealed his findings on the goals of the $400 million budgeted by the Bush Regime for covert operations inside Iran. He provided valuable information on U.S. Military preparations to ensure that operatives were in Iran to stir up foment and provide support for the anti-Iran terrorist organizations Jundallah and MKO. So Obama must stop such activity, and mean what he says about honesty and mutual respect.

The Obama administration has even been accused of adopting many of the executive-authority and national-security rationales that the Bush Regime indulged in. It’s become evident enough that the chief counsel for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a legal watchdog group, has said: "It's putting up a veritable wall around the White House, and it's so at odds with Obama's campaign commitment to more open government."

Granted, Barack Obama obviously cannot be compared to George W. Bush in most ways. Obama is a far superior man in most ways. However, since he has come under such venomous, misleading and even falsely slanderous attacks by extreme right-wing ideologues (who are extremely sore losers), he has allowed himself to become affected by it in some negative ways. For example, regarding policies about presidential power and prerogatives, the Obama administration's legal arguments have become similar to Bush’s. That is reflected in everything from institutional momentum to the continuity of the power of career employees in federal departments and agencies in which the same cultures and mindsets endure. And it is even reflected in the Obama administration’s refusal to prosecute the people who perpetrated many of the illegal and wrong acts authorized by the Bush Regime.

The point is that no president can lead us to unity and harmony, or to government that is truly democratic, and respectful of all nations, religions, races and cultures.

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 Obama will not be replaced 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.

You see, Democracy is rendered null and void when decision-making and policy-making power is taken away from the public arena and given to elitist partisan groups or individuals. Democracy can exist only if and when government operates with the consent and the direction of the people as a whole body politic, when they have equal voice and equal opportunity to name who they want to represent them in the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. Unfortunately, as it is now, we do not have truly representational government, and thus we do not have true Democracy.

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

If you read the pages titled The New Declaration of Independence and 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. I concisely lay out the justification for it and how and why it will work, 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.

As I’ve explained on those other pages, if we the people choose wisely, we can actually be represented by a government that is truly of, by the for the people. We will never again be ruled by a divisive, partisan pretender to the throne. We can virtually share the throne, as the equal joint heirs that we are. We can put an end to political partisanship, nationalism, and religious bigotry. We can establish true political democracy, equality and equity, and we can establish true religious freedom, equality and pluralism.

America can truly become a shining example to the world, when we treat all religions, races, nationalities and cultures equally, and when we establish real and 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.