"There is one thing stronger than all the armies of the world, and that is an idea whose time has come." Victor Hugo (H/t CH)





Welcome to...


3 domain names. 1 academic objective:

a new theory of self-governance "whose time has come."



PLEASE NOTE: This webpage is undergoing partial re-construction. Several graphics, along with some text, are temporarily "missing," but should be replaced by Monday, June 14.



Brief preview...

Self-Governance Science's Strategic Cooperation Theory is critical to America's ~70 million left-of-center (LOC) and ~70 million right-of-center (ROC) voters understanding of the process of "effective" self-governance, because it tells them what the question marks in these two graphics are.

In the first, what's shackling them? What's preventing them from escaping their S-G nightmare? In the second, what must they do to free themselves?




"If you want something you've never had, you must be
willing to do something you've never done."
Thomas Jefferson


Dear visitors,

This web page has been created to convince America's political scientists that Self-Governance Science represents a vast, unexplored continent of new, existential-level knowledge that America's voters (all 140 million of them) desperately need, and should be taught.

At the core of this new field-of-study is a radically new theory of self-governance, the Strategic Cooperation theory, which essentially says that:

  1. The "purity of motive" (POM) of the elected representatives in a democratic nation's legislative branch, particularly its national legislature -- and most especially in America's U.S. Congress -- will determine the extent to which that nation's major economic, financial, fiscal and societal (EFFS) problems will get solved.

  2. The legislative solutions will tend to be apolitical/non-ideological (ANI) -- which is to say, not "Democratic" or "Republican," or liberal, conservative, socialist, libertarian, etc.

Introduction (working draft)

If this web site were about the study of, say, medicine (Medical Science), or nutrition (Nutrition Science), or exercise (Exercise Science), most of us would have a good idea of what to expect.

But, Self-Governance (S-G) Science?

For now, think of S-G Science as part-medical science, part-nutrition science and part-exercise science for American democracy, and the democratic process.

By way of explanation:

We can thank our species' capacity for intellectual curiosity for the large amount of useful, instructive, "scientific" knowledge humanity has amassed, particularly in recent decades.

That's why, for example, our medical scientists know pretty much how to keep our body and its many systems, e.g., respiratory, nervous, cardiovascular, etc. in good health, i.e., free of infections, infectious diseases, chronic diseases, etc. And why our experts in nutrition and exercise physiology know how to keep our bodies in peak condition, nutritionally and physically.

Unfortunately, with American democracy -- and its myriad of major systems, e.g., free market system, financial system, healthcare system, criminal justice-, mental health-, immigration-, etc. -- the exact opposite is the case.

Viewed through the lens of effective S-G and best S-G practices (two core S-G Sci concepts), our political scientists are still operating in the Dark Ages because they have accumulated zero useful, instructive knowledge in these two existentially critical areas.

In short, it is political science's failure to explore this new continent that explains why our nation's ~70 million left-of-center (LOC) and ~70 million right-of-center (ROC) voters don't have the slightest idea of what they need to do to keep American democracy and America's democratic process both in excellent health -- and America's major systems functioning at their highest possible levels of effectiveness and efficiency.

That, in a nutshell, is why America's voters need this new knowledge, and why America's political scientists need to undertake their own version of a Manhattan Project -- i.e., an all out effort to develop a new, uniquely 21st century "self-governance paradigm" that provides voters with much more than simply the means of preventing our democracy from experiencing the same tragic fate that history says awaits all democracies.

Rather, a paradigm that will enable America's LOC and ROC voters to keep Congress continually replenished with a steady supply of liberal Democrats, social Democrats, conservative Republicans, libertarian Republicans, etc. who are capable of solving not most, but all of America's major economic, financial, fiscal and societal (EFFS) problems -- in many cases, completely and permanently -- with uniquely 21st century legislative policies that will be strongly supported by large majorities of America's liberals, moderates, conservatives, libertarians and social democrats.


"If I asked what they wanted, they would have said faster horses."
Henry Ford

S-G Sci = American democracy's Model T



Please note: this part educational, part advocacy web page/blog site deals almost entirely with a radically new, "outside-the-box" category of knowledge. So new that some concepts, and the terms for describing them, are (as of June 17) literally only a few weeks old. As you will quickly discover, the dynamic/chaotic nature of this web page explains: 1) why it exists in a near-constant state of "conceptual" construction, deconstruction and reconstruction, and 2) the bad grammar, bad sentence structure and redundancy.

When the process is a little further along, the material will be edited, packaged and presented in PowerPoint format, and the initial stages of a national education and awareness campaign will get underway. Until then, a number of unedited sections (think of them as short blog posts, random thoughts and observations, etc.) are provided to readers who wish to begin learning about, digesting and critiquing this new knowledge immediately.

Political science and civics educators (and their students) should find the new, self-governance-based concepts both eye-opening and thought provoking -- and their implications for the future of American democracy nothing short of breathtaking.

Also, you will encounter quite a few experimental infographics. Experimental because, in addition to providing meaningful information, they are designed to give "form and substance" to S-G Sci's radically new ideas -- to make the unthinkable: thinkable, the inconceivable: conceivable, the impossible: possible, the unachievable: achievable, the -- (you get the point).

The fly in the ointment...

If S-G Sci fell under the category of a better mouse trap, or a faster horse, America's political scientists would be beating a path to this web page and embracing this new field-of-study with open arms.

But S-G Science is neither. It's political science's version of medicine's Germ theory, or astronomy's Heliocentric model -- i.e., new, orthodoxy-revising, status quo disrupting knowledge. And when it comes to this kind of knowledge, history says our nation's political science establishment's initial reaction will almost certainly be to treat it as whimsical idealism, naive foolishness -- knowledge fitting only for a Sims creation, i.e., a pretend world divorced from the harsh reality of how the "real" world works -- rather than academic-grade deserving of its own field-of-study.

Why? Because, if it's truly valid knowledge, our political academicians will have to radically re-think their well established "18th century" beliefs and theories re how America's voters should practice democracy (a.k.a. engage in the process of self-governance) -- particularly and especially when it comes to the national legislative election process (NLEP).

re America's NLEP
(as seen from a layman's perspective)

Many/Most/All of our 21st century political scientists operate on the assumption that, since politics is bloodless war (in Congress' case, between our two factions of "politicians"), and elections are bloodless battles (between our two factions of voters, LOC and ROC), the NLEP can be thought of as a metaphorical battlefield on which our LOC and ROC voters fight (every two years at thousands of polling stations around the country) over which side's political/ideological (PI) hero-warrior legislators will control the U.S. House and Senate.

Of course, the motives of our LOC and ROC voters are obvious. LOC voters want the Democrats in control of Congress because they want Congress to enact liberal/progressive policies, while ROC voters want a Republican controlled Congress enacting conservative/libertarian policies.

Let's call this political science's "Bloodless War" (BW) theory of democracy -- or of the democratic process -- or (this is my choice) of self-governance (S-G).

While this theory might have made some sense in 18th century America, maybe even 19th century America -- in 20th and especially 21st century America, it has resulted in America's LOC and ROC voters being permanently trapped in an emotionally debilitating, part-Groundhog Day, part-Twilight Zone self-governance nightmare from which they cannot escape.

That nightmare: every two years, as predictably as the sun rises, voters elect/re-elect literally the worst possible D's and R's to Congress: namely, legislators who are utterly incapable of solving any of America's myriad of economic, financial, fiscal and societal (EFFS) problems -- not even the easy ones.

What is it about these particular D's and R's that make them so bad at this thing called governance?

As every political scientist and astute political observer already knows, while most of Congress' legislators are largely well meaning, they also have political aspirations, along with (in all likelihood) varying degrees of powerlust. Which means many/most/all of their legislative decisions are dictated -- not by what is in the best interest of their nation, but what will help vs. hurt their political careers/re-election chances and/or increase vs. decrease their or their party's political power.

So, long story short: The D's and R's our voters are electing to Congress every two years (as predictably as the sun rises), are incapable of governing effectively, honestly, selflessly, etc. because -- as is pointed out ad nauseam on this page -- they are self-serving, politically ambitious "politicians" (PAPs), first, and well meaning legislators an astronomically distant second.

And, unfortunately for the American people, the "politics" our two factions of self-serving PAPs in Congress have been engaging in (for generations) may be bloodless, but (as will soon be detailed) the collateral damage their neverending, all-consuming struggle for political power has inflicted on our society and nation is incalculable.

. . . . . .

Returning to our political academicians' well established "18th century" beliefs...

Embracing S-G Sci will require our political science establishment to revise at least two foundational definitions: what constitutes an "informed" voter and a "healthy" democracy, and add a number of new ones, e.g., effective self-governance and strategic cooperation -- which our political science establishment will be loath to do, not least because doing so will ruffle the feathers and/or upset the applecarts of too many in the Washington political establishment.

That said, in our social media-savvy society, one of the fastest ways to both:

  1. convince, minimally, a critical mass of these educators and other political thinkers that Self-Governance Science is, in fact, a valid field of study "whose time has come,"
  2. help get these new S-G terms into the general public's working vocabulary,

...is by this web page and it's Twitter and Facebook pages receiving a respectable number of likes and shares.

So, if you want to see Self-Governance Science become a reality, and the American people become S-G "savvy," simply like and/or share this web page and it's Twitter and/or Facebook pages.

aside: if you want to see these things happen sooner rather than later -- your only limit is your energy level.

For example, you can:

  • begin writing about this new field of study:
    • why it's needed;
    • how it will change our politics;
    • (my favorite -- and almost certainly our founders, too, if they could communicate from their graves) why S-G Sci will bring Imperial Presidencies to a quick end,
    • etc.

    ...and posting it on your social media platform(s), those of your friends, on your favorite media sites, etc.

Feel free to copy and paste any of this site's graphics.

One word of warning: it is precisely because this new knowledge is so new, so outside-the-box, so paradigm changing, and so status quo disrupting, that the vast majority of our society will treat your posts -- but, more importantly, you -- the same way the earliest believers of other "radical" theories, e.g., Heliocentrism and the Germ Theory -- or radical "social" ideas like abolition, women's suffrage, civil rights, gay rights, animal rights, etc. -- were initially treated, i.e., as naive, foolish, not all there, etc.

My advice: be brave, be stoic, and ignore the many Americans who will say you've foolishly hitched your (intellectual) wagon to an unachievable objective.

Focus instead on the many generations of Americans who will be profoundly grateful that you did.

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
Margaret Mead

like page







This post comes under the heading: making the inconceivable, conceivable.

The most important of S-G Sci's "21st century" thought experiments*

* may qualify as the most thought provoking, most “new knowledge” spawning, and longest titled thought experiment of the 21st century.

U.S. Congress Consisting Of One Passionately Liberal Philosopher King
One Passionately Conservative Philosopher Queen
Thought Experiment

(a.k.a. the Two PKQ Congress Thought Experiment).

To begin, let's imagine that America's voters wave a magic wand that instantly turns our two chamber, 535 seat Congress into a one chamber, two seat Congress – one seat permanently reserved for a passionately liberal philosopher king, the other for a passionately conservative philosopher queen.

Let's call them PKQ-caliber legislators, or PKQs for short, which makes them the mirror opposite of the self-serving PAPs who overwhelmingly dominate both political factions in Congress.

To make our two PKQs even more exceptional, let's give both of them the intelligence of an Einstein, the wisdom of a Solomon, the compassion of a Mother Teresa, the pure logic of a Mr. Spock, the ingenuity of a MacGyver, the vision of an Elon Musk, and the moral compass of a Nelson Mandela.

Finally, our PKQs' genetic profile mirrors our general population: in round numbers, roughly 61% white, 18% hispanic, 13% black, 6% asian, 2% other.

We now have what Plato and others in history have called the most perfect or ideal form of government possible (given our species' many human flaws and shortcomings):

a benign dictatorship.

In this case, it's a benign co-dictatorship. One that issues its decrees in the form of legislation, jointly crafted by our co-dictator-legislators, which they then wisely assign our Executive Branch the responsibility of implementing and enforcing.

FYI: this is the Legislative/Executive Branch relationship our founders drafted into the Constitution, with the expressed intention that the President of the United States never become an Imperial President (which, fyi, is exactly what an unbroken chain of craven, responsibility-phobic, PAP-controlled U.S. Congresses allowed to happen starting a long time ago).

Back to our PKQs. For any legislation to become law, both of our PKQ-caliber legislator-dictators have to vote for it. And since one PKQ is passionately liberal while the other is passionately conservative, any legislation they craft must not offend either PKQ's ideological values or principles.

From this thought experiment, a number of questions come to mind:


How many of America's major economic, financial, fiscal and societal (EFFS) problems can our PKQ-controlled Congress solve with legislation that doesn't offend the ideals and principles of liberalism or conservatism?

Answer: Essentially, all of them, principally (but not solely) via a new legislative agenda and new category of legislation, whose main focus is systematically going through the hundreds of thousands of pages of legislation enacted into law by all 116 current and past Congresses (= 230+ years).

Then, relying on hindsight, common sense, Einstein-level intelligence, Solomon-like wisdom, etc., removing every self-serving legislative provision inserted by every self-serving "politician" who has ever served in Congress -- which, fyi, is a lot of politicians.

For the time being, let's call these self-serving provisions: "dysfunctionalizing" legislative provisions (DLPs).

Here's an instructive way to visualize their growth over time...

At some point, it should become apparent that DLPs, which one could reasonably estimate number in the hundreds of thousands -- PLUS the tens of thousands (?), hundreds of thousands (?) of bureaucratic rules and regulations that were directly or indirectly created as a result of the DLPs -- are responsible for dysfunctionalizing America's major systems:

  • free market system
  • healthcare system
  • financial system
  • public education system
  • criminal justice system
  • mental heath system
  • immigration system
  • etc.

FYI: there are a number of ways to think of each individual DLP. For example:

  • As a tiny wrench thrown into the gears of one or more of our major systems. One tiny wrench, too small to notice. A million or more wrenches (= dysfunctionalized systems).
  • As a serving of simple sugars or trans fats added to an otherwise healthy meal. One meal, no problem. 200 years of sugar and trans fat laden meals = major systems suffering from chronic "diseases."
    • And the "symptoms" of the diseases: America's major EFFS problems.
  • As a very small explosive devise set off inside or outside a skyscraper. One explosion here and there, manageable. After 200+ years of unrepaired explosions = heavily damaged structure, electrical system, plumbing system, etc.
    • see following "DYSFUNCTIONALIZED SYSTEMS" graphic.

In cause/effect terms, DLPs help explain where the lion's share of our major EFFS problems "come from" -- and also why so many of them seem so intractable, so impervious to (painless) legislative solutions.

aside: DLPs and EFFS problems both come under the category: PAP Created Problems (PAPCPs).

(Figuratively speaking) PAPCPs account for 99% of America's problems, and (literally speaking) explain why PAP-controlled Congresses represent an existential threat to America's EFFS wellbeing -- and, eventually, to American democracy.


DLPs also go a long way toward destroying the Democratic and Republican parties' political/ideological (PI) myth re where America's major EFFS problems "come from."

The Republican Party, and hardcore conservatives, would have us believe they come from...

The Democratic Party, and hardcore liberals, would have us believe they come from...

Self-Governance Science's apolitical/non-ideological (ANI) TRUTH

They actually come from...


The concept of DLPs opens the door to other 21st century insights as well, for example, why our free market system isn't even remotely free, or fair -- or why "predatory capitalism" is so dominate -- since DLPs are the means by which the last 230 years of self-serving PAPs in Congress have engaged in the wholesale practice of various forms of legalized corruption -- i.e., government created and/or sanctioned "unfairness" -- e.g., special interest-, vested interest-, and political cronyism (e.g., patronage).

It's important to note that making our nation's free market system truly free and fair will not, in and of itself, rid America of all its EFFS problems. It is, after all, just one of many of our major systems in serious need of substantial repair by PKQ-caliber legislators (think: extensive "de-dysfunctionalization" agenda). But "optimizing" our economic system will get us well down the road to that highly desirable, easily achievable objective.


Let's assume that a small but critical mass of our most civic minded LOC and ROC voters decide to begin using social media and other 21st century "tools and methods" to identify, then aggressively recruit, PKQ-caliber liberals, conservatives, etc. in advance of the Democratic and Republican primary processes.

Will they discover that individuals with this particular set of qualities are extremely rare? Somewhat rare? Not rare at all?

Answer: while an exact number is clearly out of the question, if we conservatively guesstimate a range of as few as 0.5% (one out of two hundred) of America's ~250 million adults, to as many as 5% (one out of twenty), there are between 1.25 -- 12.5 million Americans who qualify as "PKQ-caliber." In raw numbers, even at 0.5% that's a lot of people (almost 2,900 in each of our 435 congressional districts).

That's enough to keep Congress overflowing with a steady supply of highly capable liberal, moderate, conservative, etc. PKQ-caliber legislators for well over ten thousand years* (about 14,000 years to be exact).

* assumes the maximum time served in office for our 100 Senate and 435 House members is six years.

Fourteen thousand years. ** pause to let that fact sink in **

ASIDE: Knowing that (in raw numbers) our nation is literally awash with PKQ-caliber Americans brings to mind a wonderful line from an outstanding Kathy Mattea song,

"...standing knee-deep in a river and dying of thirst."



How can a Congress controlled by "amateurs" -- i.e., legislators who are not "professional" or career politicians -- run a nation as large and complex as America?

Answer: First, it should be obvious that Congress doesn't "run" America (thank goodness). Our nation is "run" by tens of millions of Americans distributed throughout:

  • dozens of major federal agencies
  • 50 fully functioning state governments
  • thousands of county, city and other government bodies, and
  • millions of:
    • businesses
    • community and social organizations
    • school boards, churches
    • charities, etc.

Next, PKQ-caliber legislators will be among the most intelligent, most educated -- most knowledgeable -- and most accomplished members of our society.

They will NOT be, as some might fear, erudite academicians who will rule from high atop Mt. Olympus, divorced from the reality of everyday life; blindly indifferent to the daily plight of the unwashed masses. America's voters, unwashed or otherwise, wouldn't give such people the time of day, much less recruit them to run for our national legislature.

Next, PKQ-caliber legislators will have what no other generation before us has had: the sum total of all human knowledge at their fingertips (or, rather, their smartphones). And IBM's Watson, Alexa, Siri, and other forms of artificial intelligence at their beck and call. Add to that the wealth of "flesh-and-blood" knowledge, experience, wisdom, expertise, etc. that will be at their disposal in our federal agencies, our many think tanks in Washington and around the country, our universities, Silicon Valley, our business sector, etc.

Finally -- and what all of us need to think long and hard about:

"You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality." Ayn Rand

Let's face it, if the collective we, i.e., LOC and ROC Americans, don't fix our broken Congress and our broken politics, our broken Congress and politics will end up destroying our democracy.

It's that simple.



It is all but impossible to get high quality candidates, much less PKQ-caliber candidates, to run for Congress. So why should we expect to see sufficient numbers of PKQ-caliber candidates suddenly start stepping forward?

Answer: Most won't step forward, they'll have to be arm-twisted via social media and other "21st century" means. But they will agree to "run" because of the power of new knowledge.

Meaning, once a small but critical mass of our society:

  1. becomes aware of, and has a basic understanding of Self-Governance Science's core concepts, including a working vocabulary of a couple dozen or so terms -- e.g.,
    • PAPs vs. PKQs,
    • PAP- vs. PKQ-controlled Congress,
    • PAP- vs. PKQ-governed democracy,
    • effective self-governance,
    • strategic cooperation,
    • optimizing legislation,
    • optimized systems,
  2. recognizes the "truth" of the ANI Principle (and its S-G implications)

The Apolitical/Non-Ideological (ANI) Principle
of Effective Self-Governance
(shortened title: the ANI Principle)

So long as Congress is controlled by self-serving PAPs, it will not matter:

  • which political party is in power, or
  • which philosophy, liberalism or conservatism, the PAPs govern by, or
  • how well-intentioned the PAPs are.

Over time, with rare exception, America's EFFS problems will continue to get larger, or more severe, or both.

However, if Congress is controlled by PKQ-caliber legislators, it will not matter which party controls the House or Senate in any given election cycle, America's EFFS problems will get solved -- in many cases, completely and permanently -- with legislation that is neither "liberal" nor "conservative," but will be strongly supported by large majorities of America's liberals, moderates, conservatives, libertarians and social democrats.

-- it will not be long before almost everyone else in our society also becomes aware of, and has a basic understanding of S-G Sci's core concepts, definitions, and the ANI Principle.

That's when everyone will become S-G savvy. Meaning, our LOC and ROC voters will know exactly what they have to do to save their democracy. And when that happens, it will be manifestly easier to arm-twist America's PKQ-caliber citizens into serving in Congress for a few years "as a one-time duty."



If it turns out to be extremely easy to teach voters how to use social media and other 21st century "tools and methods" to vote effectively -- in most cases, requiring not much more on their part than a few mouse clicks here and there -- will enough of our 140 million voters be willing to learn this new self-governance skill(?)... technique(?)... strategy(?)... paradigm(?) that within, say, a few election cycles, they become pros at keeping the House and Senate continually replenished with a steady supply of (mostly) liberal Democratic and conservative Republican PKQs?

Answer: If the history of new ideas is any guide, yes, vastly more than enough voters will -- not least because only a relatively small percent of the voting population will have to become active participants in the (pre-primary process) identification and recruitment phase of the NLEP.

The real change will occur with America's LOC and ROC primary voters. Their numbers will explode because our society will understand that the primary process phase of the NLEP is American democracy's real Super Bowl event.

  • General Election Phase: voters decide if Congress is controlled by the Democrats or Republicans.
  • Primary Process Phase: voters decide if Congress will be PAP-controlled or PKQ-controlled.

"A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step." Lao Tzu

This thought experiment constitutes the first step in a journey that will move at a snail's pace until social media's movers and shakers start climbing on board -- at which point it will turn into one of the fastest thousand mile journeys in history.


"You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
To change something, build a new model that makes the
existing model obsolete."
Buckminster Fuller


Existing model: BW model of S-G
New model: Strategic Cooperation (SC) model*

* logically derived from the ANI Principle


. * * * * * * * * * * * *



“The world as we have created it is a process of our thinking.
It cannot be changed without changing our thinking.”
Albert Einstein

18th century


21st century


    Two 21st century TAKEAWAYS

  • PAP-controlled Congresses endlessly engage in bloodless war.
  • PKQ-controlled Congresses solve their nation's EFFS problems.

18th century

21st century


America with a
PAP-controlled Congress



America with a
PKQ-controlled Congress



A comparison of

Bloodless War's 2 Phase S-G Model
Strategic Cooperation's 3 Phase S-GM


The 2 Phase S-GM


produces this outcome


While the 3 Phase S-GM


produces this outcome



* * * * * * * * * * *



Debunking Political Science's Flawed Voter theory

Part 1:

Most of our intelligentsia in academia and elsewhere will blame America's myriad of EFFS problems on our voters' many shortcomings -- i.e., they are unintelligent, uninformed, naive, gullible, apathetic, etc. But more than anything else, voters are greedy, wanting more government largesse and benefits than they're willing to pay for in the form of taxes.

"When all is said and done," our political academicians will say (just as generations of their predecessors before them said), "the human flaws and failings of a democratic society's voters are what has doomed nearly every democracy in history -- and so, too, will doom America's democracy, as well."

For now, let's call this political science's Flawed Voter theory (think of it as the Tytler Cycle without the details). At first glance, their erudite logic seems spot on:

  • America is a democracy (constitutional republic for you sticklers).
  • In a democracy the buck stops with the voters.
  • Generations of American voters have keep Congress filled to overflowing with self-serving PAPs who have shown themselves to be, election cycle after election cycle, utterly incapable of solving any of America's EFFS problems -- even the easy ones. Yet our voters keep electing/re-electing them (which, fyi, is de facto proof of our voters' inability to govern themselves "effectively").
  • Our nation now finds itself buried under a mountain of major EFFS problems -- and the mountain is growing ever more massive, ever more menacing by the minute.

Ergo, we're screwed, our democracy's "end is nigh!" -- and it's the voters' fault. QED.

There's just one glitch in this centuries-old logic/conventional wisdom:

a substantial number of our nation's approximately 140 million liberal, moderate, conservative, etc. voters are not unintelligent, not uninformed, not gullible, not apathetic, not greedy, etc. Yet they vote (election cycle after election cycle), along with our intelligentsia, for the same self-serving PAPs that our gullible, greedy, low intelligence voters vote for.

The key insight/takeaway of that glitch should be that if our society's best and brightest political scientists and thinkers want to actually "save" our (and their) democracy, they will need to toss their Flawed Voter theory out the window, then don their Sherlock Holmes hats and cloaks and begin tracking down the real culprit responsible for our voters' self-governance problem.

Fortunately, the sleuthing phase of their investigation will not take long, for they will need look no further than the nearest mirror.


Part 2:

Poli-Sci's Flawed Understanding of Self-Governance


Seen through the lens of effective self-governance, here's the far more instructive explanation for why generations of America's voters have kept Congress filled with largely well meaning individuals -- but individuals who care about their political career, and about political power, far more than they care about doing what is in the best interest of their nation:

For generations political science and civics educators have been teaching their students and our society to use the NLEP to, in effect, achieve just one objective, a political/ideological objective: decide which political party will control the U.S. House and (after the 17th Amendment) Senate. And the basis for each voter's decision is simple:

which political party's ideals, principles, legislative agenda, policy solutions, etc. is the (presumably, informed) voter most supportive of and/or wants to see Congress implement to deal with the issues most important to that voter.

For definitional purposes, let's call this the "18th century" view of the NLEP [read: outdated, primitive] because, among things, it was largely born in 18th century -- i.e., pre-industrial, pre-electricity, just about pre-everything -- America when (as seen from this layman's perspective):

  • our nation was new,
  • our population was tiny compared to today,
  • our federal government had almost no power,
  • there were only a relative sprinkling of laws on the books that affected the daily lives of the American people, and
  • odds are that the few issues that the few voters (who were allowed to vote) voted on fit into today's classic liberal vs conservative mold:
    • liberal mold: the voter supports the candidate/party whose policy solutions require the federal government to grow in size/scope/power.
    • conservative mold: the voter supports the candidate/party whose solutions if anything decrease the federal government's size/scope/power.
  • "politics" in Congress was "bloodless war" between factions of "politicians," and congressional elections were bloodless battles largely between two factions/tribes of voters, i.e., LOC and ROC voters.

We can call this 18th century view the "PI-centric" view of the NLEP, or the "Bloodless War" model (and theory) of self-governance.

With the benefit of hindsight, our political science and civics educators could just as easily taught their students how voters could use the NLEP to achieve two distinct, seemingly unconnected objectives:

  1. the aforementioned political/ideological (PI) objective: decide which party controls the House and/or Senate
    • a.k.a. LOC and ROC voters making PI war to settle their political/ideological differences.
  2. an apolitical/non-ideological (ANI) objective: decide if Congress will be PAP-controlled or PKQ-controlled
    • a.k.a. LOC and ROC voters making ANI love to achieve their shared ANI objectives (which they have a lot more of than PI differences).

Again, with the benefit of hindsight, this would have required little more than a minor tweak, academically speaking. But what a payoff it would have been for our nation -- in self-governance terms, comparable to the American people winning the Powerball and the Mega Millions -- every two years!!

At some point, there will be a great deal of debate over why it never occurred to our political scientists and other political thinkers in academia, media, good government organizations, etc. that the NLEP could and should be used to accomplish two objectives.

my theory:

One part, the inability to think outside the established dogma box that a great many of our political intelligentsia spend their career and/or earn their livelihood in.

The other part: intellectual hubris.





Lord of the Flies meets Game of Thrones meets Idiocracy

By the time most of us enter high school, we already have a pretty dim view of "politicians," especially the ones in Washington. And for good reason; simply look at the daily soap opera... slugfest... childish food fight that passes for "governance" in our national legislature...

(think: Lord of the Flies meets Game of Thrones meets Idiocracy).

It certainly proves an observation made ~160 years ago by Alexis de Tocqueville:

"I do not know if the people of the United States would vote for superior men if ran for office, but there can be no doubt that such men do not run."

Why "superior" people don't routinely run for Congress is a subject for another time. For now, the more "instructive" question is: what constitutes a superior candidate? What qualities, attributes, skills sets, etc.?

If de Tocqueville were alive today, his idea of the perfect candidate, particularly one running for Congress, would probably be much the same as ours. Someone who was intelligent, educated and knowledgeable; who could process and synthesize large amounts of complex data, and make executive level, life and death decisions. Most of us would probably also want someone who possessed the wisdom that comes from many decades of life experience. But above all, we would want someone who, once in the House or Senate, would always put the interests of the nation above his or her own interests -- be those interests personal, political, financial or otherwise.

In other words, our ideal candidate would be an extraordinarily capable non-politician -- a.k.a. a PKQ.

Clearly, the idea of having 535 PKQ-caliber legislators in Congress seems too far fetched to be taken seriously. But, that said, having our House and Senate overwhelmingly dominated and controlled by Democratic and Republican PKQs would clearly be a dream-come-true for the American people -- not least because a PKQ-controlled Congress would be able to easily do what generations of PAP-controlled Congresses have shown themselves to be utterly incapable of doing: solve America's major EFFS problems -- in may cases, completely and permanently.

Meaning, our illegal immigration problem: solved. Our unaffordable healthcare problem: solved. Our crumbling national infrastructure problem: solved. Even our "inner city" problem, i.e., multi-generational crime, violence, gangs, chronic unemployment, etc.: solved. And on and on.

And solved no matter which party controlled either chamber in any given election cycle, with (as you will soon learn) legislative solutions that voters from across the political/ideological spectrum -- everyone from Bernie Sanders "socialists" to Ron Paul libertarians -- would strongly support.

brief aside:

Q: Would PKQ-controlled Congresses be able to solve America's major EFFS problems quickly?

A: In this layman's view: for the most part, probably yes, if we define "solving them" as Congress crafting and enacting the array of legislation that most of our society (correctly) believed would quickly solve those problems that could be solved quickly, while putting the problems that couldn't -- e.g., our $1 trillion annual budget deficit, our crushing student debt crisis, $26+ trillion national debt -- on a solution glide path that would lead to the problems' eventual solutions in a timely manner.

Q: Would a PKQ-controlled Congress be able to turn America into a Utopia?

A: Of course not. Our species has too many flaws and shortcomings for that to ever happen. But, given our nation's many "exceptional" advantages -- e.g., our substantial wealth, our abundance of natural resources, our abundance of entrepreneurial people, industrious people, creative problem solvers, etc. -- a PKQ-controlled Congress would get us as near to Utopia as it is humanly possible (think: "neartopia").

So, is a discussion about PKQ-controlled Congresses an example of over-the-top wishful thinking? So far off the beaten path -- so wholly disconnected from the "real world" -- as to be unfeasible?

Or is this a discussion about an accomplishable objective?

Accomplishable because:

    • it's a self-governance blueprint that might not have worked in 18th century America, or 19th, or even 20th century America, but is a perfect fit for (technologically advanced, social media-savvy, app proficient) 21st century America.

    • 95% of the American people would love to see their democracy become a PKQ-governed democracy (but haven't known how until now).

    • necessity truly is the mother of invention. And make no mistake, history is very clear in this regard: our time as a wealthy democracy with a large, healthy middle class will soon be coming to a crashing end if we aren't "willing to do something [we've] never done" to actually fix our broken Congress, politics and democracy.

. . . . . . . .

It's well worth noting that making the transition to PKQ-controlled Congresses will represent the crowning achievement for the many "good government" organizations in Washington and around the country who have been striving tirelessly (and thanklessly) for decades to come up with some type of reform -- or anything, for that matter -- that would either entice, or force, or shame Congress' self-serving, politically ambitious, power hungry, etc. "politicians" to suddenly start acting, legislating and governing like NON-self-serving, NON-politically ambitious, NON-power hungry NON-politicians.

In other words, to start acting, legislating and governing like PKQ-caliber legislators.

Unfortunately, one need only look at the soap opera, slug fest, etc. that takes place in Congress every day, and it's obvious how futile these organizations' efforts have all been. However, that's not the worst part. Even if every major reform effort was 100% successful, America would still end up with a Congress overflowing with self-serving, politically ambitious/power hungry "politicians."

Here's a quick overview of the four most notable reform efforts, and why each should be viewed as "shiny object" measures.

  1. Overturning Citizens United. A large amount of emotional capital has been invested in getting Citizens United overturned because the assumption is that less (or no) BIG DONOR/DARK money in national politics will miraculously free, or enable, Congress' self-serving PAPs to start acting, legislating and governing less like PAPs and more like PKQs.
    • The PROBLEM: BIG DONOR/DARK money did not turn Congress into a den of self-serving, craven, dishonest, demagoguing, fiscally irresponsible, power hungry, etc., etc. PAPs. Congress was overflowing with those kind of PAPs long, long, long before the Supreme Court's ruling re Citizen United (in 2010) made BIG DONOR/DARK money legal.

  2. Redistricting reforms. The assumption: redistricting will result in more moderate Democrats and Republicans getting elected to the U.S. House -- as was the case up until roughly four decades ago.
    • The PROBLEM: the moderate D's and R's elected in these newly "de-gerrymandered" districts will be PAPs -- as has been the case for well over the last 50+ election cycles (= 100+ years).
    • The likely outcome of more non-gerrymandered districts: more (marginally effective at best) "compromise" legislation laden with "self-serving legislative provisions" inserted by, not two, but four groups of self-serving PAPs in Congress:
      • self-serving moderate Democratic and Republican PAPs,
      • self-serving liberal Democratic PAPs,
      • self-serving conservative Republican PAPs.

  3. Convincing Congress' PAPs to impose ethics and/or campaign finance reforms on themselves with the expectation that said reforms will miraculously make Congress' self-serving PAPs start acting, legislating and governing like "selfless public servants."
    • The PROBLEM: Our species has millennia of experience spanning countless cultures and civilizations which says that's not how the mind of a self-serving PAP works.

  4. A term limits constitutional amendment.
    • The PROBLEM: Even if this amendment did get passed -- a self-serving, politically ambitious, power hungry, etc. local or state level politician running for Congress would -- if elected -- NOT suddenly stop scheming, demagoguing, finger-pointing, etc. like self-serving PAPs have always done simply because he or she could only serve in the U.S. House for three terms, then in the Senate for two terms. Again, that's not how the mind of a self-serving PAP works.

The glaring takeaway from this short list is that, while well-intentioned, none of the "Establishment supported" reform efforts being pursued by our good government organizations will change the "political power" status quo in Congress. Self-serving PAPs will still overwhelmingly dominate and control.

. . . . . . . .


President John F. Kennedy said something strikingly apropos for this momentous inflection point in American democracy's 230 year history:

"Those who dare to fail miserably can achieve greatly."

. . . . . . . .

S-G Sci's hardest to accept ANI truth

America's major EFFS problems cannot be laid at the feet of...

  • all things liberal: liberal policies/liberal values/liberal politicians/etc., or
  • all things conservative: conservative policies/values/politicians/etc., or
  • the Democrats in Congress!!!, or
  • the Republicans in Congress!!!, or
  • (evil) socialism, or
  • (evil) capitalism, or
  • the (evil) rich, or
  • (evil) big government, or
  • etc.

Rather, the blame lies solely with one Apolitical/Non-Ideological (ANI) culprit:

PAP-controlled Congresses

. . . . . . . .

One (of many) BIG QUESTION(s): Why do our (well-meaning) PAPs refuse to come together, legislatively speaking, if doing so will result in at least some of our EFFS problems getting solved?

  • It isn't because the problems are intractable -- because they aren't.
  • It isn't because "principled" political/ideological differences stand in the way -- because solving our EFFS problems doesn't require the abandonment of either side's values, principles, ideals, etc.
  • It isn't because everyone assumes the legislation needed to "solve" our EFFS problems will necessarily inflict a considerable amount of pain/suffering/hardship on a number of key constituency groups, e. g., the poor, the elderly, the wealthy, etc. -- because it won't if the legislation is crafted by PKQ-caliber D's and R's.

Short answer: it's because both sides' PAPs share the same horrifying, knees-getting-wobbly fear, namely: their own party will end up getting most of the blame if the policies fail (= their party looses seats come the next election), or the other party will get most of the credit if the policies are successful (= same outcome come the next election).

The tragedy is that none of this is Earth shaking news. No closely guarded secret has finally been brought to light. Most of us, but our political scientists especially, know our nation is in the sorry state it's in -- know we have been a caricature of a democracy for quite a while -- because we keep our national legislature permanently overflowing with the last people on the planet any free society's voters should be allowing to wield the reins of national legislative power.

Economist and social theorist, Thomas Sowell, expressed it perfectly many years ago:

"Power is such a dangerous thing that ideally it should be wielded by people who don't want to use power, who would rather be doing something else, but who are willing to serve a certain number of years as a one-time duty, preferably at the end of a career doing something else." [boldface and underline added]





S-G Sci solves one of American democracy's greatest mysteries:

LOC: left-of-center . . . . . ROC: right-of-center

Why do our most intelligent, most educated, least gullible LOC and ROC voters vote for the same "well-intentioned" PAPs/PAPs for Congress that our least intelligent, least educated, most gullible LOC and ROC voters vote for?

* * * * * * * * * * *





"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge
but imagination."
Albert Einstein


3 core S-G Sci principles .

  • A democracy's EFFS problems are not caused, created or exacerbated by political ideologies or governing philosophies but by legislation crafted by self-serving PAPs.

  • A democracy's EFFS problems are not solved by political ideologies or governing philosophies but by legislation crafted by NON-self-serving, NON-PAPs.

  • Particularly at the national level, a well meaning politician with political ambitions is a politically ambitious politician first, and a well meaning human being an astronomically distant second.

. . . . . . . . .

effective self-governance: the ability of a free society's voters to keep their national legislature continually replenished with PKQ-caliber legislators.

    • S-G Savvy voters: voters who know how to identify, recruit and elect PKQ-caliber Democrats, Republicans, etc. to their national legislature.

ineffective self-governance: the inability of a free society's voters to keep their national legislature continually replenished with PKQ-caliber legislators.

    • S-G Inept voters: voters who do not know how to identify, recruit and elect PKQ-caliber Democrats, Republicans, etc. to their national legislature.


PAP: politically ambitious politician PKQ: philosopher king/queen
  • PAP created EFFS "pathologies"
  • PAP-controlled Congress
  • PAP-controlled legislative policy formulation process
  • PAP-governed democracy
    • a.k.a. dystopic democracy,
    • also dystopian democracy
  • PKQ-caliber candidate, legislator
  • PKQ-controlled Congress
  • PKQ-controlled legislative policy formulation process
  • PKQ-governed democracy
    • a.k.a. neartopic democracy,
    • also neartopian democracy

PAP-governed democracy: a democracy/constitutional republic (CR) whose national legislature stays permanently controlled by PAPs.

PKQ-governed democracy: a democracy/CR whose national legislature stays permanently controlled by PKQ-caliber legislators.

Multi-Ideological Legislation, or M-I Legislation: legislation that contains some provisions that are distinctly liberal/progress and some that are distinctly conservative/libertarian.

Political/Ideological (PI) deprogramming: convincing (principled) liberals and conservatives in particular that blaming America's major EFFS problems on a political party's ideals, principles, values, etc., or governing philosophy, e.g., liberalism or conservatism, is like doctors in the 18th century blaming infections and infectious diseases on imbalances in the body's major fluids, i.e., the Four Humours theory of Disease.

NLEP: National Legislative Election Process

  • Two Phase NLEP: (think: PI-based self-governance paradigm/model)
    1. primary process
    2. general election
  • Three Phase NLEP: (think: ANI-based S-G paradigm/model)
    1. pre-primary candidate identification/recruitment
    2. primary process
    3. general election

NOTE: America's voters can be said to be engaging in the process of self-governance ineffectively when they "use" the 2 Phase NLEP, and effectively when they use the 3 Phase NLEP.


* * * * * * * * * * *

“If you control the language, you control the argument.”
George Orwell, 1984

Using new language to change the academic and national debate

With just the aforementioned lexicon of new terms, political scientists will be able to begin asking, and answering, entire new categories of questions (which, fyi, they should have started formally asking and answering decades ago).

Sample questions:

  • How much of America's extreme:
    • poverty,
    • income inequality,
    • social discontent,
    • racial strife,
    • rich vs. poor animus,
    • political/ideological tribalism,
    • etc.

      ...exists solely because America is a PAP-governed democracy?

  • How will America's "democratic process" change when voters continue viewing cultural/religious/lifestyle issues, e.g., abortion rights, in liberal vs. conservative, Democratic vs. Republican terms -- but begin viewing bread and butter/prosperity issues in PAP vs PKQ terms?

  • What kind of macro- and micro-social and other changes would we expect to see occur, especially among our younger generations -- and how quickly would they occur -- if America's 535 national legislative role models were no longer PAPs, i.e., pontificating, finger pointing, responsibility avoiding, craven, demagogic, etc. -- but were PKQ-caliber legislators?

  • What kind of legislative policies could (and would) a PKQ-controlled Congress craft and implement that a PAP-controlled Congress couldn't?
    • How many of those policies would be overwhelmingly supported by voters from across the political/ideological spectrum? (Hint: all of them.)
    • How many of those policies would actually solve the EFFS problems they were enacted to solve? (Hint: for all intent and purposes, all of them.)

  • What is the likelihood that a PKQ-controlled Congress will be able (collectively) to legislate and carry out their government oversight duties with the:
    • intelligence of an Einstein,
    • wisdom of a Solomon,
    • logic of a Mr. Spock,
    • compassion of a Mother Teresa,
    • moral compass of a Nelson Mandela,
    • ingenuity of a MacGyver
    • vision of a Steve Jobs
    • common sense of a Mark Twain

      (Hint: very likely)

  • What is the likelihood that PKQ-controlled Congresses will result in America's "Imperial Presidency" going the way of the dinosaurs.

    (Hint: 100% likely)

  • TRUE or FALSE: as a society, we are profoundly more:

    rude... crude... loud... greedy... envious... dishonest... angry... resentful... confrontational... judgmental... self righteous... anti-social... etc., etc....

    ...and profoundly less:

    thoughtful... conscientious... respectful... principled... courteous... peaceful... generous... civil... altruistic... resourceful... stoic... goal oriented... civic-minded... community focused... etc., etc....

    ...than we would otherwise be because we are a PAP-governed democracy.

  • TRUE or FALSE: Self-Governance Science will enable America's 140 million voters to achieve their holy grail of self-governance: a veto-proof, filibuster-proof Congress capable of crafting and enacting the array of legislation needed to solve -- in many cases, completely and permanently -- all of America's major EFFS problems.

    (no hint needed)


* * * * * * * * * * * *

Political Science can be thought of as descriptive,
while Self-Governance Science is prescriptive.

USEFUL LAYMAN'S ANALOGY: Medical science can be divided into two distinct sciences: the descriptive and the prescriptive. The former describes the causes and symptoms of a host of medical conditions (e.g., diseases, cancers, illnesses, etc.), while the latter works to develop cures, treatments, mitigation strategies, etc. for the diseases, cancers, illnesses, and other medical maladies.

Unlike Political Science, which is a descriptive science -- it describes and opines -- Self-Governance Science can be thought of as a prescriptive science -- it analyzes and prescribes self-governance solutions.

* * * * * * * * * * *



Self-Governance Science will develop 21st century
apolitical/non-ideological truths which will supplant
Political Science's "18th century" political/ideological myths

Making the transition from a 2 Phase to 3 Phase NLEP will almost certainly require the active involvement of our academic community, our political scientists in particular -- which will require a willingness on their part to begin exploring a radically different line of 21st century questioning, starting with one that, at first glance, makes no sense at all:

Why isn't it apparent to America's ~70 million left-of-center (LOC) and ~70 million right-of-center (ROC) voters that they both want Congress to pursue the same legislative agenda to “solve” our nation's major EFFS problems?

Clearly, anyone who knows anything about liberal and conservative legislative policies will scratch their head and ask: how is that even possible? Our LOC voters largely favor "liberal" values and principles -- from somewhat to very strongly -- and therefore support the policies advocated by the Democratic Party.

At their most basic, those policies boil down to (from this layman's perspective):

    • Using income redistribution measures, e.g., subsidized healthcare, food stamps, etc., to make life more bearable for our society's poor and needy -- paid for by making the wealthy pay their “fair share” of America's income taxes.
    • Placing more rules and restrictions on what business, especially big (read: greedy) business, can do in pursuit of the almighty dollar.

Meanwhile, our ROC voters largely favor "conservative" values and principles -- from somewhat to very strongly -- and therefore support the policies advocated by the Republican Party, which, at their most basic, entail:

    • Cutting government programs and spending, and lowering everyone's taxes -- income and otherwise.
    • Reducing government's burdensome rules and regulations on everyone, but especially on the business community (read: our nation's job creators).

It's obvious that these two legislative agendas couldn't be further apart -- polar opposites, in fact.

Yes, but -- everyone is operating on the "18th century" assumption that there are only two categories of legislation Congress can realistically craft to solve America's EFFS problems:

  • "government" solutions, which = liberal/socialist legislation
  • "free market" solutions, which = conservative/libertarian legislation

Or a compromise somewhere between the two positions, requiring give and take by both sides (i.e., horse trading/quid pro quo-ism behind closed doors in what used to be smoke filled rooms).


The roots of this severely flawed, PI-based assumption can be traced back to an academic debate among political philosophers that began long before our nation's founding. One that divided many of our founders -- and our legislators in Congress -- into two "political" factions almost from the very beginning:

This perfectly legitimate, and relevant, academic debate between political philosophers, which began several hundred years ago, eventually deteriorated into today's "my political ideology is better than your political ideology" intellectual urinating contest among and between our liberal and conservative elite in academia, think tanks, media, etc. That contest is presently so strong that, if it produced an odor, our universities and think tanks (and cable news networks) would reek with the stench of urine.

At some point in our history (my layman's guess, around the time of FDR's New Deal), Congress' self-serving PAPs "weaponized" these two governing philosophies. Meaning they co-opted the intellectual debate and turned it into the single most powerful (by far) demagogic weapon a PAP could possess.

Their pitch to voters became:

"Elect me and my party to Congress because policies based on my side's (morally superior) political ideology are the only way to "cure" America's EFFS ills. While policies based on the other side's political ideology aren't just incapable of solving our problems. In many cases they are the "diseases" responsible for causing our problems in the first place."

Our (Democratic and Republican) PAPs' demagogic narratives -- both of which were echoed by their respective cliques of "faithful believers" in academia, media, think tanks, Hollywood, etc. -- worked exceptionally well because, as the years progressed, the calculus/thought process for an increasing number of our nation's voters -- both unintelligent and intelligent, uninformed and well informed, greedy and non-greedy, etc. -- became:

better to vote for the loathsome, self-serving politician who supports policies that will cure America's EFFS ills rather than vote for the likeable, NON-self-serving NON-politician who supports polices that will make America's EFFS problems, if anything, worse.

You might say that's when liberalism and conservatism (as governing philosophies) became full blown, zero sum, good ideology vs. evil ideology religions. With the result that, today, our most passionate voters, especially those with strong political/ideological (PI) views -- who, lest we forget, are the groups who decide in the Democratic and Republican primary processes which two PI hero-warrior candidates will go head-to-head in the general election phase of the NLEP -- have become little more than mindless zombie warriors (even though many of them have well above average: IQs, education-levels, "knowledge" of the issues, incomes, etc.).


That's American democracy's problem in a nutshell -- which, fyi, S-G Sci solves.


* * * * * * * * * * *

A fuller explanation of the 3 Phase NLEP

Pre-Primary, PKQ-caliber Candidate Identification and Recruitment Phase:

    • Mainstream LOC and ROC voters use social media and other 21st century "self-governance knowledge tools" to identify and successfully recruit "superior" (i.e., PKQ-caliber) liberal, conservative, etc. candidates.
      • PKQ-caliber candidates will NOT engage in largely vacuous campaigns like "politicians" do (because they aren't), but will do what NON-politicians should do:
        • Post their credentials online.
        • Provide the specifics of, and logic behind, the ANI-based legislation they would commit to crafting and voting on if elected to Congress.
        • Engage in a series of live-streamed town hall sessions designed to educate/inform voters on why (and how) a Congress filled with PKQ-caliber Democrats and Republicans can easily solve America's major EFFS problems -- in many cases, completely and permanently.

Primary Process Phase:

    • The vast majority of LOC and ROC voters who are not unintelligent, not uninformed, not greedy, etc. -- as well as a substantial number of LOC and ROC voters who are -- cast ballots in their respective primaries for these highly capable, PKQ-caliber candidates in order to insure that, regardless of which candidate is elected in the general election, he or she will not be a PAP.

General Election Phase:

    • The vast mainstream of ALL voters vote for these highly capable, non-politicians because even our least intelligent voters are more than smart enough to understand the implications of the Fundamental ANI Principle of Self-Governance.

      The Fundamental ANI Principle of Self-Governance.

      So long as Congress is controlled by self-serving PAPs, it will not matter which political party is in power, or which philosophy, liberalism or conservatism, they govern by. Over time, with rare exception, America's EFFS problems will continue to get larger, or more severe, or both.

      However, if Congress is controlled by PKQ-caliber legislators, it will not matter which party controls the House or Senate in any given election cycle, America's EFFS problems will get solved -- in many cases, completely and permanently -- with legislation that is neither "liberal" nor "conservative," but will be strongly supported by large majorities of America's liberals, moderates, conservatives, libertarians and social democrats.

Clearly, the idea that a significant number of America's voters not only could but would willingly learn how to practice democracy effectively or competently is a mind boggling idea to say the least.

Which is great news since those are the kind of ideas that have gotten our species to where we are.

* * * * * * * * * * *

re Political Ambition

There are roughly half a million Americans serving in some form of elected office, most of them at the local level. My operating assumption is that, not all of them but the vast majority initially ran for office, not because they had political aspirations or they craved political power, but because they constitute that tiny minority of individuals in every democratic society who actually get off their butts and offer to perform what are often times the mostly thankless tasks that have to be performed to insure that the many gears of a community (and a society) that are essential to their successful functioning don't stop turning.

(Because when enough gears stop turning, civilizations stop being "civilized.")

That said, within this group of well-meaning, well-intentioned individuals, there is no doubt a small(?)/ substantial(?) percentage who, once in office, experience the perks and privileges that came with their position. And however small or minor those perks may be, it corrupts their decision making -- maybe ever so slightly in some cases, considerably in others.

The reason for pointing this commonsense observation out is to underscore the larger takeaway: political ambition should be seen as a necessary evil at the local and, to a lesser extent, state level -- but a 100% unnecessary evil at the national legislative level.

* * * * * * * * * *

Destroying the PI Myth that has grown up around
Liberalism and Conservatism

One of Self-Governance Science's greatest contributions to humanity will be debunking the major political/ideological (PI) myth that says, as a practical matter there are only two legislative agendas (which, fyi, exist in a zero-sum relationship) that Congress can realistically pursue to "solve" one or more of America's myriad of major EFFS problems: the conservative/libertarian agenda and the liberal/progressive agenda:

The conservative/libertarian agenda:

  • trusts in, and relies on, "free market" solutions.
  • rooted in the belief that reducing the size, scope and power of the federal government is the best way to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
  • places a higher value on protecting individual freedom than achieving or advancing economic/social justice.

The liberal/progressive agenda:

  • trusts in, and relies on, "government" solutions.
  • rooted in the belief that increasing (when and where necessary) the size, scope and/or power of the federal government is the best way to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
  • places a higher value on achieving economic/social justice than protecting individual freedom.

It is because of the PI Myth that

  • a significant number of America's LOC voters believe liberalism is morally superior to conservatism -- and therefore, by extension, liberals are morally superior to conservatives. While a significant number of America's ROC voters believe just the opposite: conservatism is morally superior to liberalism -- and therefore, by extension, conservatives are morally superior to liberals.

  • in the General Election, the rule of thumb:
    • for liberal/democratic voters is: Better to elect a self-serving, politically ambitious liberal "politician" to Congress than a non-self-serving, non-politically ambitious conservative.
    • for conservative/republican voters is: Better to elect a self-serving, politically ambitious conservative "politician" to Congress than a non-self-serving, non-politically ambitious liberal.

BOTTOM LINE re the PI Myth:

The PI Myth is responsible for two existentially consequential outcomes.

1. Liberalism and Conservatism are now full blown religions with devout adherents dominating in academia, media, think tanks, Hollywood, etc., and among a substantial number of America's voters.

2. Tactically, generations of PAPs in Congress have so successfully mastered the art of PI demagoguery that, in any given election cycle, the miniscule number of issues that ignite voter passion and determine voter turnout (which, in turn, will determine the election's outcome) are largely hot button issues that will have very little, if any, effect on the number and/or severity of America's major EFFS problems.



re America's political role models

What most stands out about essentially all of Congress' PAPs -- even the most well-meaning of them -- isn't pretty.

  • They are skilled in the art of demagoguery.
  • They pander to their base.
  • They are adept at avoiding responsibility for bad/unpopular outcomes and quick to take credit for good/popular outcomes.
  • Given the size of our national debt, and annual budget deficits, it is obvious that, with rare exception, PAPs are fiscally irresponsible and blatantly unaccountable.
  • PAPs resort to personal attacks, questioning the other side's honesty, integrity, motives, agenda, etc. if it is politically expedient for them to do so.
    • especially the case if their re-election is in jeopardy
  • When questioned by reporters, PAPs have no qualms about:
    • pointing the finger of blame at anyone and everyone except themselves,
    • not answering questions that might reflect negatively on them,
    • obfuscating, e.g., providing such mangled answers that no one knows what they said or meant.

Our nation's children and students grow up watching PAPs act like, well, PAPs -- i.e., finger pointing, quick to blame, bloviating, pompous, etc. Equally damaging, our youngest minds watch our PAPs' armies of true believers (and well-paid believers) in cable news, academia, national media, think tanks, Hollywood, etc. viscously belittling and disparaging the "other" sides' policies, motives, integrity, etc.

As a result, our children and students naturally assume that, contrary to what their parents, teachers, etc. may be preaching to them, this is "normal" behavior for people who disagree with each other on issues large and small.

The harmful (direct and indirect) ripple effects of this are almost impossible to calculate.

Suffice to say, a good case can be made that our nation's overall social behavior, attitudes, value systems, "character," etc. are all extremely unhealthy -- or diseased -- thanks to the unethical behavior and actions of literally generations of unethical PAPs in our nation's national legislature.

That's why, as a society, we are profoundly more:

    rude... crude... loud... greedy... envious... dishonest... angry... resentful... judgmental... self righteous... etc.

...and profoundly less:

thoughtful... conscientious... respectful... principled... courteous... peaceful... generous... civil... altruistic... resourceful... stoic... goal oriented... civic-minded... community focused... etc.

...than we would otherwise be.

Of course, what that also means is that when America's 535 role models are selfless, PKQ-caliber legislators, we will find our society -- especially our children -- quickly emulating the behavior of PKQ-caliber legislators.

Meaning they will quickly become profoundly LESS:

    rude... crude... loud... greedy... envious... dishonest... angry... resentful... judgmental... self righteous... etc.

...and profoundly MORE:

thoughtful... conscientious... respectful... principled... courteous... peaceful... generous... civil... altruistic... resourceful... stoic... goal oriented... civic-minded... community focused... etc.

* * * * * * * * * * *

The science of effective self-governance is radical science,
but it is not rocket science.



interesting FYI

If America's 140 million voters had the ability to sit down around a giant kitchen table in order to discuss among themselves -- and only among themselves -- how to "fix" their broken Congress, broken politics and broken democracy, the table would be approximately twice Earth's circumference.


* * * * * * * * * * *


There should be a great deal of debate among our political scientists (and a protracted national discussion among our voters and media) over the wisdom of electing lawyers to Congress because of their inherent conflict of interest -- i.e.,

  • more laws = more work for lawyers;
  • fewer laws = less work for lawyers;
  • simple, straightforward, commonsense laws = fewer lawsuits = less need for lawyers;
  • complex, convoluted laws = more lawsuits = greater need for lawyers.

* * * * * * * * * * *







Name: Montie Rainey
Profession: Retired, advocate of Self-Governance Science
Education: BS, Mathematics and Computer Science
(University of Illinois at Chicago, 1984)

Opinion columnist, The Jackson Sun



© Copyright 2020 535PKQs.com. All Rights Reserved.