[automutation]

This paper was written in the spirit of the Founding Fathers of America who were Freemasons. It is about the integrity of the system as a whole. It is not really about politics but about making power more pure and representative.

This is not a partisan political paper but moreover about philosophical revolution focused on the system to rejuvenate the original spirit of America that the 18th century Freemasons envisioned.




-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Ideology and Civilization

I believe that to advance society and civilization, our belief systems, frameworks of thinking, how we think about things, and the way we think about them, including how we look at our politics and faith, must continue to develop and progress for our society to reach its true potential. With development, ideologies become more logically consistent, compatible with other ideologies, and may help us discover greater wisdom.


There are many ideologies which are continually developing to become better, and must change and adapt to become not only more advanced, but more accurate depictions of reality, being better representations of the truth and serve humankind better. One example is the science, philosophy or ideology known as Economics. Economists at the forefront of their study are always modifying and developing their theories for the mathematics and ideology to become better functioning and closer, more accurate and in tune with reality, being better at describing the complex exchanges that the system attempts to emulate.


Specifically a field which may need to develop and change before our society can progress to the next level is American Political Science and the two-party system. Because there are a myriad of possibilities about how any one person could view a plethora of issues, on certain issues one person could agree differently than the political party they belong to, but must adhere to or adapt and accept the views of that party completely because there are only two practical choices, two parties that have a realistic and reasonable chance of becoming elected. We have third parties like the Green Party and Libertarian Party, but what is going to unlock the potential for better government and therefore better society, is making it possible to become elected without even belonging to a party, and perhaps even gradually dismantling the two party system over time and making it possible for each person who is in Congress or the Senate to focus on what they truly believe, independent of established rigid and logically inconsistent political ideologies, become elected by the people from the area they represent, and represent the same people who elected them, not rigid dogma.

The American Constitution never specified the creation of political parties, let alone making the ideological landscape be composed of only two of them with any real existent power. Could anybody really believe that there are only two mutually exclusive ways of viewing the world and every ethical issue that exists? I think the reality is that there are plenty of people that realize that they may not agree about everything with the Democrats or the Republicans, but they are forced to choose the issue that is most important to them and base their party affiliation dependent on a few specific things, ignoring the big picture and therefore compromising on everything outside those main issues. What that does is destroy the individual and make them become assimilated into archaic immobile ideologies anchored to doing things certain ways, and might limit the ability of Congress to function as a dynamic emergent social organism composed of individual philosophers and leaders, just as the human body is composed of cells, to create truly innovative legislation that better represents the people. Additionally, it works to preserve the established status quo and circumvent the whole original purpose and concept of American Government, being “By the people, for the people.”


Because I believe what America is really about is creating a balanced society, where everybody has dynamic opportunism. People moved to America because anybody could own land, compared to Europe where there was a system of Nobility, and everybody who was not a member of the patriarchy lived a life of servitude. Those who were wealthy had an interest in preserving the Status Quo, in other words the way things worked and keeping it that way. They didn't want everybody to be born with equal opportunity, because they would have to compete to be where they were at, and their place at the higher echelons of society would not be secure. America changed that, by making it possible for any man, unfortunately at the time limited to those who were white, the opportunity and chance to become a better person and become part of the good society, if they earned it. At one time the land was being given away free for anybody, out in the American West. But basically, America at its inception, with the exception of the treatment of blacks, was the abolition of the immobile class system and destruction of the Status Quo, although people still had to earn it.


Over time, as I would believe would be true with any great society, there is a natural tendency for the ideals of which it had been founded on to wash away in the river and the power structure to become dominated by wealthy interests and not those of the people. Rome had been a democracy before it had become an empire. I believe that with how industry and finance have developed and congregated, including how moneyed interests have shaped legislation in America, in addition to how the two party system has affected politics, the dynamic opportunism which had been something existing at the very core of what made our country what it was, has gradually become circumvented. The rich and powerful dominate and control how things work, and American government is no longer what the Founding Fathers envisioned as “By the people, for the people”.


One thing that is supporting the status quo and circumventing the true spirit of America is the two party system itself. Because it is rigid and dogmatic, limiting the ability of Congress to function better as a symposium of individual thought not affected by ideological dictation, we are limiting the ability of government to be truly representative. Originally in the constitution they were called Representatives, not Politicians. To me, a politician is somebody who is good at pandering to different moneyed interests, getting the support of those powerful enough to make big contributions, and navigate the waters of power in a way that makes them become elected. A representative is somebody who becomes elected simply because they represent the people and are what some might call a freedom fighter. Instead of being funded by large contributions from powerful interests with strings attached, they are funded by Internet campaigns with large numbers of small donations, where the only commitment is to serve the people they represent. Representatives would fight for the prosperity of the people they represent no matter what, where a politician would yield and be something powerful interests could own. Keep in mind, what I have said is just my idea of the difference and meaning of the two words and not an official definition.


If we had more Representatives instead of Politicians, we would have an America closer to what the Founding Fathers had envisioned, being by the people and for the people. A representative would make their vote based purely on the interests of the people they represent. There would be no clouding of their mind by other things, like corporate lobbyists or the ideology they had to subscribe with to get in the political game and become elected. They would also be free to make up their mind the way they saw fit on any issue, and could debate that with their colleagues. They would have ideological freedom instead of having pressure to conform to what their political party dictated.


We need a system where each representative is free to make up their mind and work together with other representatives, acting as intelligent individuals and are not dictated how to think by their political party. For one thing I think Congress and the Senate would work much better, because they would more open to new ideas and new ways of thinking. That is the way to solve old problems, because obviously the old way didn't work or it wouldn't still be a problem. The best ideas would get the support of the majority, and legislation would get passed. People could work together on developing innovative solutions to our problems, that brought the best of different philosophies into a consistent proposal. We could compromise archaic intellectual frameworks and outdated philosophies but never again compromise our integrity.


In Economics we admit that the theory must be dynamic and develop, to keep up with time. So why not the same thing with Politics? As Americans, I believe representatives should have allegiance to our country and our people exclusively. Our political views, whatever they may be, rightfully ought to be anchored exclusively with the interests of our people, our national prosperity and our future coming first as the highest priority. Political ideologies, should there be any at all, must be dynamic, flexible and open to new ideas and modifications. They should not dominate and dictate political discourse and American government. Basically, representatives of the Congress and the Senate should feel no pressure whatsoever in synthesizing their positions, ideas and proposals other than the interests of the general populace and the nation they represent. It would put a stop to those who are making short term profits at the expense of long term sustainability and national infrastructure.


Freedom is not a commodity to be bought, broken up and sold piece by piece for profit. It is at the core of what defines America, and ought to be defended, honestly and with integrity, for every social citizen. I am not just talking about the freedom of speech. I am talking about the most fundamental kind of freedom, the exoneration of every citizen from a life of servitude, and to preserve the dynamic opportunism at the core of our national identity. But that would be another essay; suffice to say transparent government that represents the people independent of ideological dictation is needed to defend what we are talking about. Because the answer to our problems might be politically hybrid and innovative, and might be something different than we had ever thought or ever would think if we kept limiting our minds with the development of two, mutually exclusive and logically inconsistent, black or white ways of viewing the world. More than that, the organization of political power into two major parties is something that inherently binds us to keeping things the way they are.


For our ideologies and indeed society to develop and advance, some things have to happen. Some of them are already happening, like how underdog candidates who are not submitting to powerful interests are raising huge amounts of campaign funding on the Internet with large numbers of small donations from ordinary citizens. Additionally we must allow candidates to become independent of archaic ways of thinking and the way ideology had been drawn up in the past, either to become dynamic enough to create new viable ideologies, or move toward becoming independent of rigid established ideology altogether. This could be done in a myriad of ways, but they are all related to supporting ideological diversity.


One way would be making the two major parties more dynamic, flexible and open to new ideas. Instead of being rigid, it would be socially acceptable for a Democrat or a Republican to have different and unique views. This is already happening to a certain degree, although in isolated circumstances and has inherent limitations due to the fact becoming truly independent of the party one belongs to would make the party itself have no purpose to exist. For example, in the recent 2008 presidential election, both candidates challenged their party and wanted to create a new type of politics. But ultimately, to some degree they had to realize they did in fact belong to that party and had to adopt and support the traditional views to become president. What they had believed before had to be adjusted somewhat to be more in line with the party they belonged to. But at any rate, it wouldn't hurt the two major parties to become somewhat more dynamic, flexible and innovative with their legislative approach.


For the Congress and Senate to function as the Founding Fathers intended, we would need members acting as independent individuals who were not subject to being dictated by ideology or moneyed interest. I believe that with every new generation there must be new ideas. To create new ideas requires intellectual independence, something you might call freedom. If there were no political parties, every member of the United States Congress and Senate would be free to make up their own mind on every issue. Innovative new solutions could be created, integrating ideas from different philosophies to create something original. Old problems could perhaps be solved, because instead of two sides going at it like battleships firing cannons, and not being open to thinking about the issue in new ways, they could just sit down, and work out a mutually beneficial compromise. It's obvious to quite a few people that the two party government is not working. If either side has both the White House and Congress, things get done. Otherwise it's just partisan bickering and often no meaningful legislation gets passed.


More importantly, debates would actually function the way they are supposed to. Because with a two party system, the opinion of a member of Congress is already decided. If they hear a speech about something, from a member of the other party, they are not really listening. Their mind is already made up, dictated by the party. If everybody had intellectual freedom in the Congress and Senate, and the ability to make up their own mind, they might actually listen to the other people's speeches with open ears and minds. They might acknowledge there is some common sense in what is being said. Then they might think how that idea could be made even better and be more fair for everybody. That is how the Congress and Senate are supposed to work. Members working together for the common good, working together not unlike the members of a rock band, where each member has input and feeds the idea, and has a voice in the outcome. It's supposed to be a symposium of individual thought, working and thinking collectively.


With a more dynamic political landscape, there could be meaningful debate on issues on the senate floor, and representatives could have the freedom to agree with whatever side of the debate made more common sense. Instead of Congress being a dictatorship being commanded by crusty ideology, it would be a true democracy of ideas. It would stop the archaic intellectual framework that congests the more perfect functioning of American government. The American People, the general populace, and the average citizen would be better represented because they could trust their elected official to do what would be best for their general citizens. Instead of being subject to ideological dictation or moneyed interest, they would have the freedom to represent the people who elected them.


First, I think we are going to see members of the major parties become more willing and empowered to stand up to powerful interests and become genuine representatives of the people. We are going to see the development of candidates from both major parties gradually become more empowered to speak their conscience and lead with their heart. Over time, as grassroots Internet campaigns become more eminent for more elections, there are going to be more independent candidates elected. The day we begin electing enough independently minded candidates with original and new ways of thinking about problems, and even more importantly, are willing to listen to their colleagues with open minds and ears, working together to solve problems with mutually beneficial compromises that embody the best ideas from different philosophies, would be the day we are going to be proud that America has restored its true spirit.


The true American spirit is about giving a genuine opportunity to everybody. We are the land of the free and the land of opportunity. Maybe we could have a system where the Federal Reserve is once again owned by Congress, as it was specified in the Constitution, and it provides zero interest business loans to American citizens for new business development. In the 1800's, America was different from the bureaucracy of Europe and its feudal system. Because owning a business in modern times is analogous to owning land 200 years ago, creating an environment where anybody with an innovative idea or product who would have access to capital would truly restore the dynamic opportunism and the true spirit of America. If the new American startups paid their workers a good living wage, good benefits and supported ethical standards like Fair Trade and Sustainability, they wouldn't have to pay as much taxes. Another idea that could support progress would be extraordinarily low sales taxes and tariffs for products that are Fair Trade certified and are manufactured with sustainable methods, and high taxes for any products that critically exploit servitude of the third world, and use those taxes to make sure the employees of those sweatshops are taken care of. Create business incentives to be more ethical and contribute to a better world. Something like this would incorporate the best ideas from the two ends of the political spectrum that exist now, the ethical standards of Fair Trade, a Living Wage, and Sustainability supported by progressives, and the business incentives and rewards of lowered taxes supported by conservatives, but it would be making those rewards become earned by doing business in a socially responsible manner. This would unite the best ideas of the two ends of the political spectrum, however the kind of revolutionary legislation we are talking about may not be able to be passed until we start thinking outside the box in terms of American politics and Congress begins working together and developing ideas in a dynamic way as members of a united symposium.


Perhaps the idea of having a government composed of representatives with freedom from ideological dictation is an ideology itself. But it would be an ideology composed purely of philosophical freedom; something very American. I believe that the ideology of viewing the political spectrum as being two dimensional is archaic. The reason being, I firmly reject the notion that for every conceivable ethical issue, there are only two ways of looking at it and exactly two solutions. But to be realistic we must realize the way things exist now, although understand and believe in the ability for the situation to become gradually better over time. Because if we believe something is possible, it empowers us to create the confidence needed to realize progress.

Ideologies must continually develop for civilization to advance, become more civilized, and discover greater wisdom; the wisdom of the philosophical journey I have led during this paper would be realizing how we will become more prosperous by restoring the original spirit of America.

[automutation]

I didn't know about politics being off limits for discussion because the legendary architects of the American revolution and many Presidents are Freemasons and I assumed that government was a topic discussed by the brotherhood.

The fact was I had already posted it and I thought it would be ok because it was focusing more about philosophy and a better functioning system.

Much respect to the brotherhood

pts