Posted by: Dr Pano Churchill | August 21, 2016

The Reason behind Faith and Belief

I was reminded of this Logical Thinking when was asked to squarely think and share data points and information during a Life Science discussion with a friend. We were actually talking about a new L…

Source: The Reason behind Faith and Belief

Posted by: Dr Pano Churchill | August 21, 2016

The Reason behind Faith and Belief

I was reminded of this Logical Thinking when was asked to squarely think and share data points and information during a Life Science discussion with a friend. We were actually talking about a new Life Saving drug that we have in the pipeline. A medicine so powerful — that it can mend the broken Hearts. A medicine that can save the lives of people suffering from advanced Heart disease. A salvation for broken people…

As I was conversing and inviting this friend to work with me — all the while thinking that at this moment — indeed here is a Paradox for a logical person. A scientist no less. And what is paradox, but a contradiction. A seemingly straight forward contradiction. Same as when I ask people to take a Leap of Faith, and come work with me, based on limited information.

And indeed I do this all the time. Because the way I see it — this is the job of a Great Leader. I must be the Visionary that other people will follow before all the data paints a complete and highly defined picture that others can follow. And indeed there is Logic and Reason behind these great Acts of Faith and the Leaps of Faith required of those who like St Paul, live amongst us today.

It is indeed the mark of Leadership to be able to communicate the Vision, but it is also the key behind the Human Mystery of Belief, to be able to follow that Vision to the land of milk and honey. The ones who get there, the chosen ones, are the blessed ones to live in a state of Grace of their own choosing.

And yet it all comes down to the Pythagorean geometry of the Theorem of Contradictions, and the rounding the square around the circle.

It is truly an exercise in futility when we only engage the binary, dualistic mind and clearly we cannot deal with this level of contradictions, paradoxes, or mysterious theorems, that require us to think at a different level.

Yet the mysterious thinking of Belief which rests at the heart of faith, is what a small percentage of people have become adept at, while the majority remain quite rigid thinkers because their “point of view” their agnosticism, their religious interpretation — all taught them that in order to be faithful, obedient, and stalwart in the ways they choose to conduct their lives, they had better seek some ideal “order” of things that dovetails fully with their philosophy.

And who can blame people who choose the easy path, instead of growing in their capacity for understanding things beyond understanding…

These are not elliptically thinking people, but rather quite ordinary smart and functional people. Unfortunately, they simply never learned much about living inside of paradox and mystery as the very nature of faith and life.

Albert Einstein, the famous physicist, told us to live Life as if everything is a miracle and then he went ahead and proved that…

Yet when one searches further — the local English language dictionary defines a contradiction as two things that cannot be true at the same time. In short a schizophrenic attitude to thinking. One could say that a contradiction is two things that cannot be true at the same time, being held in your present frame of logic. As long as you do not reframe your reality, as long as you insist on your own frame of reference, you will not be able to find the wisdom in paradox.

Take for example “The Kingdom of God” which is Jesus of Nazareth term for the bigger frame, or what we often call “the big picture” or “in the light of eternity” the ‘Great Hereafter.”

But to get there and to even begin to understand that great hereafter, you’ve got to find some framework that allows you to stand back and look at this moment with the eyes of Compassion for all and sundry, including yourself. Only then you’ll see yourself with compassion and love as well.

And that way, you’ll see in peaceful coexistence, the many things which appear to be contradictory through logical, egocentric, dualistic thinking. In the frame of compassion — things might not necessarily be divided. So much so that living in the here and now becomes the norm and a transcendent belief suddenly becomes easily understood.

Therefore a great paradox which is a seeming contradiction — may nonetheless be true if seen in this different frame. This newfound “Reason” and “Logic” behind the “rational” mind is what transcends understanding through the normal thinking process.

But let’s look at the meaning and the origin of the word “Paradox” in order to fully understand this paradoxical nature of belief.

The word comes from the Greek prefix “para” meaning “beyond” or “outside of” and the verb “dokein” meaning “to appear or to think.” A paradox is beyond the normal way of thinking.

Contradictions are based on logic, a set of assumptions or expectations which we take for granted. Conversion to a new way of thinking, is when a changed mind allows you to call those old assumptions and expectations into question.

If you’re still overly attached to your ego, you normally can’t let go of these opinions. It takes true transformation to allow you to look at yourself from a bit of distance—with some calmness, compassion, and the humility and honesty to know that you don’t know.

In truth, we are all living paradoxes.

No one or no thing is totally good or totally bad.

Yet the miracle of Life is always present with us.

Every moment that we are alive and every moment that we breath — we are a manifested miracle.

And well beyond this Life we are a true Miracle too — only in a changed form and in an unseen [as of yet] reality.

So let’s behave like it.

Yours,
Pano

PS:

As a good example we must examine the Damascus moment of Paul of Tarsus. In his profession, He was a persecutor of the followers of Christ and he may even have been a murderer of many of them — all in the name of being a good Pharisee.

He defended his reality to the hilt.

Yet on a fine day, and quite suddenly, on the road to Damascus, he gets blinded and as a fallen blind man — he sees the “Light” and he finds that the strict line between good and bad, evil and virtue, black and white — gets completely dissolved.

And in that singular moment, the contradictions have been overcome within him, and he joins the eternal Life of Faith…

What a Journey…

So what would be your road to Damascus moment in your Life?

Will you come to truly see after being blinded?

Or you will stumble from proof to proof until there is no longer the Miracle of Life to behold you in this World?

Be in the now and accept what is as it is: A great Miracle to behold…

Posted by: Dr Pano Churchill | August 10, 2016

The Lincoln Party

What is the Lincoln Party?

The Lincoln Party is the accumulation of the aspirations of our Democratic and Republican members for Innovation in our Democracy.

We have been always seeking to create a better Body Politic and perhaps find a new path to keeping our Constitutional Republic alive.

The Lincoln Party is the way to be a fighting Democrat, or a Compassionate Republican, in today’s polarized and partisan Constitutional Republic of the United States without abandoning the team colors of your party — yet still voting your Conscience.

The Lincoln Party is for all those who choose to take a strong stand and want to fight corruption, cronyism, and fascism, in our Democratic Politics.

And of course the Lincoln Party is the Home of all those patriots that believe in UNITY, and choose to support our country’s journey forward towards a Great Future to believe in.

We have an enormous interest in public service and have been working towards making the world a better place for quite a while now. And now that Bernie has given up on the Movement — we’ve chosen to carry on by ourselves. Since we became conscious of the power of our Collective Actions — we decided to carry forth the New America movement in order to change the people in Congress and the Senate, with True Progressives who can safely earn our Vote, not because they deserve it, but because they earn it.

And that is the reason why I’ve made the effort and allocated the time and dedicated adequate resources to start the Lincoln Party in these United States of America.

Lincoln party is the only party of Unity in America. And we are the ones that walk the middle line between the two main parties. We follow the golden rule of classical politics. We are all inclusive because we invite all the people to join us — so long as they are flexible and adaptable towards all others. Regardless of creed, color of the skin, origin, nativity, sex, and orientation in Society — we are all together fighting this war of survival on behalf of our Constitutional Republic.

And don’t ever think that this is an exercise in Politicking like some Politicians are doing to get elected. I am doing all of this as an American strictly because I see the political corruption and the everyday business and societal corruption, endangering the very existence of our beloved Republic. Political corruption being the cancer in the body politic — we have to make every effort to excise it and stop it from killing the host: Our Great Democracy.

I founded the Lincoln party in honor of the first Civil Rights Activist — the Honest Abraham Lincoln. And I went further yet because I followed his platform for his elections and used the same seven planks for my platform adjusted for the current time and political climate.

The Lincoln Party is the place to find guidance and support for your Democratic Republic when you search to find other amenable Candidates accessible to American Citizens and especially Voters, in their pursuit of growth of our Constitutional Republic through Policy Advocacy for Liberty, Democracy, and Progress.

We are all Lincoln followers from the United States, starting from the State of Washington, and rapidly spreading across this Great Land of ours, and we are supporting both Progressive and Conservative Policies and Candidates for our Republic.

We want to caucus as a Group for the National Elections same as we caucus for the State Primaries and all Electoral contests. We further want to vote as a block of Independents in order to alter the balance of the Establishment Crony Politicians that rule the destiny of these United States, like some “Tammany Hall” corrupt politicians did so many years ago.

It is this corruption that has given us the Crony Corrupt Politicians that supposedly represent the people in the United States Senate. Take for example a local Washington State incumbent in the Senate that has done nothing for a full quarter of a century [25 years] minding only the special interests of the Big Money elites, and her Big Corporate Sponsors, along with her lobbyists and political establishment minions.

We aim to change that…

We are Jeffersonian Democrats and Hamiltonian Republicans, united in the pursuit of the Unity that Lincoln promised who also believed that we can take back our government from the corrupt & complicit career politicians in Washington DC Senate and House.

Therefore we also support Dr Pano Churchill — Founder and Funder of the Lincoln Caucus — in his electoral fight for the position of Senator of the United States Senate, on behalf of the Great State of Washington, same as we support all those others who run as Lincoln Caucus Candidates, Independents, Libertarians, Compassionate Republicans, and Fighting Democrats.

Join us and organize for the upcoming elections with us….

Here is the Essence of the Lincoln Caucus:

THE LINCOLN CAUCUS PARTY PLATFORM

If you’re tired of the mess in Congress, tired of corrupt partisan politics, tired of crony politicians lingering on in corruption just because they think our government is a good place to transact their dirty business for the benefit of their sidekicks – and if you want to change things – I urge you to join up and support the Lincoln Caucus.

Come walk with us because the Lincoln Caucus is the Spirit of Honest Abe personified for the Ages and adjusted to the demands of the difficult times we traverse today…

I ask you to join Lincoln, and stand up, and say proudly that this country, and our government, belong to all of us; and not just to the crony government squatters, the career politicians, and their meritless bureaucrats, who take advantage of us all – for the benefit of the 1% and their wealthy lobbyists & campaign contributors, to whom they profess their undying loyalty.

You know these people are corruption vultures, feeding on the carcass of our Rights and on the body Politic of our Republic that they have brought to this sorry state of affairs.

Join the Lincoln caucus & party, in order to clean up the bipolar US Politics and the Tammany Hall that the US House of Representatives has become.

Because we need to undertake the Herculean effort of rebuilding our Strength, finding our long lost Glory, and start reclaiming our rightful position at the helm of the world.

I say – join us, because it is an act of Honor to come together and demand CHANGE. It is an act of defiance and belief that we can undertake this giant job because we need to claim back our country from the claws of these DC vultures, the insiders, the lobbyists, the permanent representatives, the princely squatters of Congress & Senate, the narrow minded political establishment, & the broken political parties.

And like old Oliver said to the long parliament: “You’ve been here far too long for any good you have done – In God’s name Go away now.”

We’ve got to send our Alzheimer addled Senators to the rest home after 25 years… of doing children’s gymnastics in the Senate, because this is our country and we’ve got to do good for it. The Senators representing this State have to recall that they manage the future of the whole of these United States of America.

We have to upset the apple-cart of those vested interests who think they own both our government and our country, and they just partner up with the 1% to run it to the ground for their enjoyment and enrichment.

We must stop the rot, excise the cancer of corruption, and retake control of our Republic because we need to innovate and better our Democracy now – same as we do in our own work, our family, our business, our community, and in our own life.

We need an economy, a budget, a tax code, a health care system, and a system of justice that works for all Americans. We need to refresh our American Revolution demanding that government represents us all, not just the politically connected. We need a bigger economic pie where more Americans have a bigger piece of that economic pie. We need strong American leadership, not just wars and retreats.

Given the serious crises this country faces, we cannot expect the career politicians who created the problems in the first place, that they will now come around and become righteous so they can solve these problems for us. Instead, we need to take the initiative by taking head-on the big bureaucracy, the big government, the big banks, the big unions, and the big businesses, because we are free to restart and innovate our American Revolution since we are not tied-up to lobbyists and special interests.

We created the Lincoln Caucus because we recognize that we don’t need a permanent political class that thinks it’s entitled to rule over us. We only need citizen leaders who’ll put principle and people, before party.

And as Lincoln said: “If we stand together, there is nothing we cannot accomplish.” It’s time to Reboot Washington.

God Bless America.

So join the Lincoln Caucus, because over the last thirty years we’ve gone crazy in this country with divisive and partisan politics that only serve the beltway insiders and the special interests but never the people.

The people that make up the Main street normal America are rather upset that the “establishment” has grown fat, lazy, petty, conventional, and causing American failure.

The people recognize that America deserves better than that. And that the DC vultures deserve a dose of radical and major disruption.

And the best, perhaps the only way to disrupt the establishment is by innovating like we do with the StartUp businesses, and using whatever works to change the political landscape and disrupt Washington DC politics as usual.

We can even begin by “stealing” the ideas that work, and make an alchemy of it. Think of it like an amalgamation of the successful tactics of a lot of the Donald Trump show and the Bernie Sanders’s populist bag of tricks, and Hillary Clinton’s pragmatic establishment machine blietzkrieg, and put it all together – albeit with some really strong and clean, fresh candidates.

We are looking for candidates who are not wooden and are able to go on to campaign honestly and be elected as Lincoln Caucus Candidates for America. Do you know anyone to recommend?

But let’s first teach you some tricks of the trade… because we need to use whatever is out there. Take for example Mr. Trump’s vulgar approach to politics as a terrific extension of the middle finger to the establishment of Washington DC, but also as a terrible political and governing paradigm. Same goes for the Sanders-style socialism, with free weed for all. But if someone turned the critique, passion and disdain shared by these two movements into a new one — they could change the system in serious and meaningful ways.

And this can only be accomplished by an outside force that can knock Washington out of its rut, and take over the bully pulpit of the presidency, along with a healthy movement of new Senators, and Congress people. This is the only place to start because the governing body is the great lever that has the power to lift the Republic out of the ditch establishment politics has driven us into.

Here’s how the Lincoln Caucus proposes that we do this:

First we choose strong non Politician candidates, that come from outside of the beltway and the political system. Voters are beaten down, are upset, and are bubbling with anger. They watched as the two parties choose selfish spats and rhetorical maneuvers, to pretend that they work without ever doing anything of value. The current political parties rarely dare to do the right thing, and they don’t even try to do the hard things, and certainly not anything important. Mr Sanders and Mr. Trump in equal measure have shown us that the people want true outsiders, even deeply flawed ones instead of the same old corrupt and untrusted bureaucrats.

Thus we must give the People what they want.

And the way to win is to rail against Big Businesses, Big Media, Big Government, Big Establishment, and Big political parties.

Mr. Sanders and Mr Trump are right that the system is rigged against normal people. Everyone outside of the GOP establishment seems to agree on eradicating corporate welfare and tax-avoidance tricks for the super wealthy. Read the Panama papers for fresh ammunition on legal tax dodging. Then read the March 26 Economist cover story, “Winners Take All,” on how America’s small businesses are getting shafted by the lack of true competition.

The Lincoln Caucus will take this business a step further and force the wealthy to forfeit their entitlement benefits and contribute their fair share to this country that has given them so much. And then rail against the DC establishment and the corrupt beltway insiders. Everyone loves socking it to Congress and the lame old men and women squatting there for quarter of a century, half a century, or even more — with nothing to offer except favors for the lobbyists and the special interests in exchange for campaign contributions. We’ve got to get these bums out of the office.

We’ve got to establish firm term limits for all office holders and elected representatives. A two term limit has to become a priority and a Democratic goal right up there, with campaign finance reform.

We have to mandate that lawmakers go home after serving a couple of terms. Let them go back to their farm like the great Senators of old Rome, the great Cincinatus, the Seneca, and Cato who went back to plow their farm and tend to their lives and families, instead of profiting off their service to the country for ever.

So today we should do the same because we need to force the government leaches, to get outside of the D.C. government bubble and go renew themselves in the countryside. We can start doing this by holding months-long sessions in different sections of Normal America so the jaded cynics can meet the reality that You and I know to be true each and every day.

And this is what takes an innovative fresh thinking and a set of fresh clean-faced candidates, for this change to come to pass, and for our goals of renewal to happen.

Of course the candidates have to be authentic and capable of having a rolling, candid, transparent conversation with the voters in person, as well as on social, and conventional media. And they got to come from amongst the people because the American Voters aren’t dopes.

The American voters want an unvarnished look at their future representatives, at their future president, future senators, future congressmen and women, and at their personality and ideas. They can tolerate uncomfortable truths. But they have to come from someone comfortable in his or her own skin. If voters trust the person isn’t full of it, they are clearly willing to think differently about issues.

Exploiting this ideological ambiguity is key to success with the voters.

The ideal candidate would write a very specific agenda in normal, conversational language, not whatever nonsensical language today’s political class was taught to speak. He or she would engage voters daily on social media, with fun and flare. (Think Trump with impulse control and better spelling.) The candidate would inundate voters with transparency and specificity, even when it hurts. And exploit cable TV’s addiction to whatever is hot and new. Mr. Trump has shown how technology has made money less important in modern politics.

The new candidates have to exploit the fear factor. The candidates could be from the military or immediately announce someone with modern-warfare expertise or experience as running mate, or their second in command, or as their chief of staff.

People are scared. Terrorism is today’s World War and Americans want a practical narrative not a “theory” for dealing with it. President Obama has established an intriguing precedent of using drone technology and intelligence to assassinate terrorists before they strike, but when there are too many collateral damages and collateral killings — it causes blowback, and we need to invest further in it and perhaps perfect it with surgical aim.

A Lincoln caucus party candidate could build on death-by-drones by outlining the type of modern weapons, troops and war powers needed to keep America safe. And make plain when he or she will use said power. Do it with very muscular language—there is no market for nuance in the terror debate.

Learn from the mistakes of Trump and Sanders and avoid that like the plague. Anger has its limits. The fringe can win primaries but it can’t win national elections. You draw in the 40% of people who don’t vote or big blocks of dissatisfied independents with a call to a higher purpose. In this case, the purpose is cleaning up the mess the leaders of the two parties created.

Use the Internet revolution for the greater good. Social media allows us to tweet our every thought, snap our every mood and Facebook, Instagram, SnapChat, or geek out every little bit of our fantasy, but it hasn’t done much to create shared purpose. We have breathtaking technology to find a ride, get a room, or a date, with the swipe of a finger across a smartphone screen. Those same innovators could help create a “National App” to match every kid who needs a mentor with a mentor, every person who wants to volunteer with someone or some group in need; every veteran with people and companies who want to reward his or her service with thanks, help or a job. Also, call on Silicon Valley technologist to do tours of service to bring data solutions and efficiencies to our aging governmental systems.

Right now, millions of young people are turned on by a 74 year old pot smoking socialist scolding Wall Street; and millions of others by a reality-TV star with a view of women harkening back to biblical times. So why not recruit Google’s, Facebook’s, or Twitter’s innovators to make a national appeal and a search for fresh talent? And why not choose the collective movement of Innovators to head a the Lincoln Caucus like a Third-party movement? Maybe we can even convince people like Bloomberg, Zuckerberg, and the Alphabet-Google guys, to help fund this movement with the billions they planned to spend on their own campaigns and lobbying efforts, and then recruit them to advise the Senators, the Congress people, and the new President.

This is the Lincoln Caucus — the Innovation Party.

Who on this bountiful land is against innovation?

Especially when winning campaigns is always about the future?

All we need are fresh good candidates.

Are you interested to help save this country?

If so please email us at envpar[at]gmail.com

The LINCOLN CAUCUS PARTY is the platform upon which Abraham Lincoln ran for president in 1860 and it was a simple one. All in all it was one and a half pages and 1200 words — quite a contrast to today’s party platforms of hundreds upon hundreds of pages of stuff…

Written in the succinct and beautiful language of principle, it was meant to be read by all Americans, not just policy elites, and to guide great political action rather than make promises to special interests.

Might such a document today help to heal the divisions in the parties and the American people, as a preparation to healing those in the nation?

The platform on which Lincoln ran gestated over a period of six long years, of introspection, reflection, and discussion between Abraham Lincoln and the best Political and Social Economic minds of his time – that came together often and caucused frequently in meetings that came to be known as the Lincoln Caucus.

This Lincoln Caucus we are reviving today and we use this truly extraordinary document that was written amid the gathering clouds of war and division in an America that was rendered asunder fast descending into chaos and hate.

Sounds like a document for our own times too…

The Lincoln Caucus Platform is an easy to read and understand document of principles and ideas for the people’s government that Abe Lincoln wanted to lead.

This is all of what was written in that first Lincoln platform: It said that “the maintenance of the principles promulgated in the Declaration of Independence and embodied in the Federal Constitution … are essential to the preservation of our Republican institutions; and that the Federal Constitution, the Rights of the States, and the Union of the States, must and shall be preserved.”

The achievement of the Lincoln Caucus platform was to reunite the Declaration and the Constitution at a time when one part of the country had departed from the nation’s principles and another from its constitutional forms.

Lincoln referred to the Declaration as an “apple of gold” adorned by a frame of silver — the Constitution. The Declaration supplies the principles and the Constitution supplies the structure of law to preserve those principles.

At its founding, the Lincoln platform sought to put those two documents back together in order to reunite the nation, and Abe Lincoln was afterwards known as the great Unifier for ever.

My question to you now is this:

Would it be wise for today’s Americans to pursue a similar platform for our Future?

This summer the RNC in Cleveland, and then the DNC in Philadelphia, the Republican Party and the Democratic party respectively, could do nothing better than to emulate the original achievement of the Lincoln Platform — and instead they chose to spread hate and division in spades.

Alas they are not interested in simplicity, or truthfulness either.

But we are. And in fact we are interested in simplicity and transparency mainly because the Lincoln Caucus platform was at work from back then 1860 all the way to right now. And because there is strong interest in the idea of always writing a short plank platform that people can understand; so they can in good turn examine the Leadership potential of the Candidate and evaluate their performance, and consequently hold their feet to the fire based on their promises, their specific platform, and their vision.

And that is the difference between the Lincoln Party and the other established crony political parties. Make the comparison for yourself. Do this because this is exactly what the corrupt political establishment parties want to avoid at all costs.

And that is why we have to stick with it.

Honest Abe left this legacy for us, and we aim to take it up for good.

We should begin by stating in simple language the main issues at stake and answering honestly the big questions:

For Example the question of:

Does equality, the principle resounding from the Declaration of Independence, require a vast government to make Americans equal in ways that we are not?

Or does it rather require a limited government that protects the decisive thing Americans have in common — our human nature and the rights inherent in that nature?

Following these principles, the Constitution establishes a form of law.

All sovereignty is in the people, who ratified the Constitution through republican means. It delegates limited authority to three politically accountable branches at the federal level and reserves the rest to the people and to the states.

For all its flexibility, the Constitution is not in this respect “living.” It establishes a powerful but limited government.

By contrast, our government today, under the doctrine of a “living” constitution, is a tool of limitless scope for the engineering of every aspect of our lives. As a result, we are becoming not citizens but subjects of a vast and failing bureaucratic social experiment. The nanny state wants to run or lives as if we are hamsters running the wheel inside a laboratory cage…

The Lincoln Caucus Platform, although unwelcome to many in the main political parties, has the virtue of simplicity.

We say that government belongs to, must respond to, and must in all cases seek to benefit the American people.

The federal government has become too centralized and many powers should be checked or returned to the states. The American people have the right to decide who joins them in citizenship. The military should be strong in defense of our nation and its interests. War should be undertaken cautiously, but when undertaken it should be fought fiercely and with the utmost speed. All agreements with other nations should be made in the interest of the American people. The social safety net, built at vast expense, should be made and kept secure.

One can find sanction for all of these opinions in the writings of Abraham Lincoln, and for many in that early American Government Platform. One can also find general agreement amongst all Free Thinking Americans, regardless of party affiliation, because the ground is laid to agree upon core principles and very few policies to implement them.

We lay the great big lines and the broad ideas because Political Platforms and Ideological Planks, should not be about details.

They should be about principles and broad lines of policy. The details will be worked out in due course between the President and Congress, as is right and good.

The platform of the Lincoln Caucus today supplies a direction, not a specific route.

Our Lincoln Caucus Platform is meant to actually be read. It is meant so that it would be discussed at dinner time in family kitchen tables, during lunch at the deli counters, in the subway, the bus, talked across back fences, shared in the porch talks, invoked in the press, and widely liked and shared on social media.

Such a simple Lincoln Caucus platform would unite all Americans in common purpose, as it did at the beginnings when it was used to head off divisions, and helped point the way to healing our divided nation.

As Americans we decided and wrote just such a platform — for the now. We employed the old Lincoln Caucus platform and refitted for today’s challenges and advanced technological age.

Because we all agree that an anti-party platform for the LINCOLN CAUCUS should be like the first platform that Lincoln wrote and ran on SUCCESSFULLY before he won the nomination and always used as his guiding light after he moved to the White House and led the country to Victory.

And what our platform is — is simple, truthful, and short.

Today our Lincoln Caucus platform has the same number of planks, as the Lincoln Caucus platform.

And it starts with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and it condemns the modern regulatory state, and says we have to devolve authority.

Those are the old Lincoln themes.

It says the entitlement state should be secured, because we’ve invested so much in it.

And then it has the platform “planks” that come directly from the Abraham Lincoln campaign. The great Abraham Lincoln campaign platform of I860 to today’s Lincoln Party Platform for the Presidential Campaign of 2016, are not that far apart…

But what about those platform “planks” ?

What are they?

A. All of the agreements with other nations should be made in the interest of the American people.

B. Our military should be very strong, cautiously used, and only so that when we fight wars, we would fight them expediently, economically, and quickly, in order to get it over with, so that we can go back to living our lives as fast as possible.

C. Our platform has to be steeped in common sense.

D. Our party platform further says that the American people get to judge who gets to be citizens with them, and who doesn’t. It’s our Right…

E. Total obedience to the Constitution

Etc, etc, etc.

We say things like that, in our daily conversations at home right?

And our Lincoln Party Platform is a Conversation amongst Great Minds.

Lincoln Party platform is supposed to be a general document for the benefit of affiliates, citizens, and voters, but not a long list of detailed theses that need to be evolving and always flexible to allow Candidates to spread their wings and modify their message in order to win.

After all the Lincoln Party Platform is strictly a Visionary document… to invite people to come along and be counted.

Platform of the Lincoln Party is the list of general commitments, because you can’t really settle the details in a platform document.

That happens in politics between the Congress and the president, especially, after the election.

That is why we address them.

As for Treaties and Alliances here is my answer:

“Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none” –Thomas Jefferson

Get the Vote out and come together to the Lincoln Caucus Party for Victory in 2016 and beyond.

If you’re tired of the mess in Congress, tired of corrupt partisan politics, I ask you to join up and support the Lincoln Caucus.

I ask you to stand up and say proudly that this country, and our government, belong to all of us; and not just to the crony government squatters, the bureaucrats, and the wealthy lobbyists & campaign contributors.

You know that we need to claim back our country from the claws of the DC vultures, the insiders, the lobbyists, the permanent representatives, the princely squatters of Congress & Senate, the narrow minded political establishment, & the broken political parties.

This is our country and we’ve got to do good for it. We have to upset the apple-cart of those vested interests who think they own it.

We must take control of our Republic because we need to innovate and better our Democracy – same as we do in our own work, our family, our business, our community, and in our own life.

We need an economy, a budget, a tax code, a health care system, and a system of justice that works for all Americans. We need to refresh our American Revolution demanding that government represents us all, not just the politically connected. We need a bigger economic pie where more Americans have a bigger piece of that economic pie. We need strong American leadership, not just wars and retreats.

Given the serious crises this country faces, we cannot expect the career politicians who created the problems in the first place, that they will now come around and become righteous so they can solve these problems for us. Instead, we need to take the initiative by taking head-on the big bureaucracy, the big government, the big banks, the big unions, and the big businesses, because we are free to restart and innovate our American Revolution since we are not tied-up to lobbyists and special interests.

We created the Lincoln Caucus because we recognize that we don’t need a permanent political class that thinks it’s entitled to rule over us. We only need citizen leaders who’ll put principle and people, before party.

And as Lincoln said: “If we stand together, there is nothing we cannot accomplish.” It’s time to Reboot Washington.

God Bless America.

So join the Lincoln Caucus, because over the last thirty years we’ve gone crazy in this country with divisive and partisan politics that only serve the beltway insiders and the special interests but never the people.

The people that make up the Main street normal America are rather upset that the “establishment” has grown fat, lazy, petty, conventional, and causing American failure.

The people recognize that America deserves better than that. And that the DC vultures deserve a dose of radical and major disruption.

And the best, perhaps the only way to disrupt the establishment is by innovating like we do with the StartUp businesses, and using whatever works to change the political landscape and disrupt Washington DC politics as usual.

We can even begin by stealing what works and make an alchemy of it. Think of it like an amalgamation of the successful tactics of a lot of the Donald Trump show and the Bernie Sanders’s Cheech & Chong bag of tricks, and Hillary Clinton’s pragmatic machine blietzkrieg, and put it all together – albeit with some really strong and clean, fresh candidates.

We are looking for candidates who are not wooden and are able to go on to campaign honestly and be elected as Lincoln Caucus Candidates for America. Do you have anyone you want to recommend?

But let’s first teach you some tricks of the trade… because we need to use whatever is out there. Take for example Mr. Trump’s vulgar approach to politics as a terrific extension of the middle finger to the establishment of Washington DC, but also as a terrible political and governing paradigm. Same goes for the Sanders-style socialism, with free weed for all. But if someone turned the critique, passion and disdain shared by these two movements into a new one — they could change the system in serious and meaningful ways.

And this can only be accomplished by an outside force that can knock Washington out of its rut, and take over the bully pulpit of the presidency, along with a healthy movement of new Senators, and Congress people. This is the only place to start because the governing body is the great lever that has the power to lift the Republic out of the deep ditch, the current establishment politics has driven us into.

Here’s how the Lincoln Caucus proposes that we do this:

First we choose strong non Politician candidates, that come from outside of the beltway and the political system. Voters are beaten down, are upset, and are bubbling with anger. They watched as the two parties choose selfish spats and rhetorical maneuvers, to pretend that they work without ever doing anything of value. The current political parties rarely dare to do the right thing, and they don’t even try to do the hard things, and certainly not anything important. Mr. Trump has shown that the people want a true outsider, even a deeply flawed one. Thus we must give the People what they want.

And the way to win is to rail against Big Businesses, Big Media, Big Government, Big Establishment, and Big political parties.

Mr. Sanders is right that the system is rigged against normal people. Everyone outside of the GOP establishment seems to agree on eradicating corporate welfare and tax-avoidance tricks for the super wealthy. Read the Panama papers for fresh ammunition on legal tax dodging. Then read the March 26 Economist cover story, “Winners Take All,” on how America’s small businesses are getting shafted by the lack of true competition.

The Lincoln Caucus will take this business a step further and force the wealthy to forfeit their entitlement benefits and contribute their fair share to this country that has given them so much. And then rail against the DC establishment and the corrupt beltway insiders. Everyone loves socking it to Congress and the lame old men and women squatting there for quarter of a century, half a century, or even more — with nothing to offer except favors for the lobbyists and the special interests in exchange for campaign contributions. We’ve got to get these bums out of the office. We’ve got to make term limits for all office holders and elected representatives a priority right up there with campaign finance reform. We have to mandate that lawmakers go home after serving a couple of terms, instead of profiting off their service to the country for ever. Also we need to force them to get outside of the D.C. government bubble by holding months-long sessions in different sections of Normal America.

And this takes an innovative fresh thinking and a set of fresh clean-faced candidates to happen.

Of course the candidates have to be authentic and capable of having a rolling, candid, transparent conversation with the voters in person, as well as on social, and conventional media. And they got to come from amongst the people because the American Voters aren’t dopes.

The American voters want an unvarnished look at their future representatives, at their future president, future senators, future congressmen and women, and at their personality and ideas. They can tolerate uncomfortable truths. But they have to come from someone comfortable in his or her own skin. If voters trust the person isn’t full of it, they are clearly willing to think differently about issues.

Exploiting this ideological ambiguity is key to success with the voters.

The ideal candidate would write a very specific agenda in normal, conversational language, not whatever nonsensical language today’s political class was taught to speak. He or she would engage voters daily on social media, with fun and flare. (Think Trump with impulse control and better spelling.) The candidate would inundate voters with transparency and specificity, even when it hurts. And exploit cable TV’s addiction to whatever is hot and new. Mr. Trump has shown how technology has made money less important in modern politics.

The new candidates have to exploit the fear factor. The candidates could be from the military or immediately announce someone with modern-warfare expertise or experience as running mate, or their second in command, or as their chief of staff.

People are scared. Terrorism is today’s World War, and Americans want a practical narrative not a “theory” for dealing with it.

The war on ISLAM is not an adequate story of all that is going on around the globe today. President Obama has established an intriguing precedent of using drone technology and intelligence to assassinate terrorists before they strike, but when there are too many collateral damages and collateral killings — it causes blowback, and we need to invest further in it and perhaps perfect it with surgical aim. Jihaddists exist inside all of our cities and inside all of our communities — so it is up to us to figure out how to educate them in order to help them see Peace as the only path going forward as Americans and to be able to place the Constitution above the Koran?

A Lincoln Party candidate could build a reputation by discussing the Liberty VS Security issues we face today. Or a Candidate could speak freely on executing wars like a videogame in “death-by-drones” by outlining the type of modern weapons, troops and war powers needed to keep America safe. And make plain when he or she will use said power. Do it with very muscular language—there is no market for nuance in the terror debate.

Learn from the mistakes of Trump and Sanders and avoid that like the plague. Anger has its limits. The fringe can win primaries but it can’t win national elections. You draw in the 40% of people who don’t vote or big blocks of dissatisfied independents with a call to a higher purpose. In this case, the purpose is cleaning up the mess the leaders of the two parties created.

Use the Internet revolution for the greater good. Social media allows us to tweet out every thought, snap our every mood, and Facebook our updates, Instagram our moods, and SnapChat our image, or geek out every little bit of our fantasy — but it hasn’t done much to create shared purpose. We have breathtaking technology to find a ride, get a room, or a date, with the swipe of a finger across a smartphone screen. Those same innovators could help create a “National App” to match every kid who needs a mentor with a mentor, every person who wants to volunteer with someone or some group in need; every veteran with people and companies who want to reward his or her service with thanks, help or a job. Also, call on Silicon Valley technologist to do tours of service to bring data solutions and efficiencies to our aging governmental systems.

Right now, millions of young people are turned on by a 74 year old pot smoking socialist scolding Wall Street; and millions of others by a reality-TV star with a view of women harkening back to biblical times. So why not recruit Google’s, Facebook’s, or Twitter’s innovators to make a national appeal and a search for fresh talent?

And why not choose the collective movement of Innovators to head a version of the Lincoln Caucus like a Third-party movement?

Maybe we can even convince people like Bloomberg, Zuckerberg, and the Alphabet kids to help fund this movement with the billions they planned to spend on their own campaigns and lobbying efforts, and then recruit them to advise the Senators, the Congress people, and the new President that will surely come now that the people have seen the systemic rot, the cronyism, and the establishment corruption — and are disgusted with the sewer that our Political parties have been wading in.

Time for Change and as Bernie Sanders said, Let’s built a Future to believe In.

This is the Lincoln Caucus — the Innovation Party.

Who on this bountiful land can be against innovation when the old paradigm is dying?

Who can honestly say today that the Candidates of the Big Parties reflect that interests of the people?

Who feels proud to support the Losers that are showing up as Presidential Candidates today.

Could we even find more God-awful candidates that those two if we had been searching for the dregs of society?

Who can say that they don’t want change in our Body politic?

Especially when winning campaigns is always about the future and not about the past?

All we need are fresh good candidates.

Fresh blood and energy to water the tree of Liberty and Democracy.

Join us and let us know your thoughts.

Join us, if, you care to keep this Republic like Ben Franklin said: “If you Can Keep It”

Here is the US Senate Candidate Dr Churchill’s video statement of WHY he is campaigning for the Senate of our Republic:

watch

And here is the relevant podcast in audio link:

http://www.spokanetalksonline.com/?powerpress_pinw=3650-podcas

Please share with your team, supporters, friends and family, and with your far flung social family…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUvVhWqXiWo

And like my grandfather who successfully fought against Fascism and won during the Second World War as the Architect of Victory — Winston Leonard Spencer ChurchillI — today I carry the tradition and fight fascism and corruption in America and across the World.

Come join me to fight the endemic rot of Corruption and the creeping Fascism of Cronyism, to make our Democracy whole and alive again.

But how do we recognize the Enemy?

Here are some of the Characteristics of Fascism and it’s Corrupting influence today:

1. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption. Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

2. Fraudulent Elections. Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

3. Corruption, Cronyism, Lobbying. Lobbyists have conspired to control our Government and our Democratic process through massive influence of Money and Power in our Body Politic.

4. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause. The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

5. Supremacy of the Military. Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

6. Rampant Sexism. The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

7. Controlled Mass Media. Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

8. Obsession with National Security. Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

9. Religion and Government are Intertwined. Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government’s policies or actions.

10. Corporate Power is Protected. The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

11. Labor Power is Suppressed. Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

12. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts. Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

13. Obsession with Crime and Punishment. Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

14. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism. Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

15. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights. Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of “need.” The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

17. Fascism takes different “masks” in different times and today it might just be the mask of Big Banks, Big Unions, Big Government, Big Bureaucracy, Big Lobbying, Big Education, Big Political parties, and Big Money… but in the end it is always the same: The Corruption of everyday fascism is the evil we should always fight against.

18. “Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power.” –Benito Mussolini, Fascist dictator of Italy

19. “Fascism will come to America in the name of anti-fascism’. I’m afraid, based on my own long experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security.” –Sen. Huey Long

20. “Fascism is capitalism in decay.” –Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

Cheers

Dr Churchill

PS:

My Grandfather WInston Spenser Leonard Churchill fought fascism in Europe during the Second World War and won. He was rightly called the Architect of Victory as small distinction of the manly efforts he made and persevered to win the war against the Nazis and their allies.

Today I am called to fight fascism here in the United States against the cronyism and the corrupt practices of the establishment political parties that have ruled over us unchecked for far too long.

Join us and stand with me.

So…

Are you interested to help save this country?

If so please email us at envpar[at]gmail.com

God Bless America.

Posted by: Dr Pano Churchill | August 8, 2016

Leadership

“If you build an army of 100 lions and their leader is a dog — in any fight, the lions will die like a dog.

But if you build an army of 100 dogs and their leader is a lion — all dogs will fight like a lion.”

~ Napoleon Bonaparte

Posted by: Dr Pano Churchill | August 7, 2016

Influence of Mathematics on Philosophy

Mathematics has some profound philosophical implications.

English Modern Era Philosopher extraordinaire, Bertrand Russell, concluded from his study of the history of philosophy, that Mathematics is the chief source of the belief in eternal, external, and exact truth; as well as in a super-sensible intelligible world.

Russell argues, that this is so, because of the abstract nature of mathematical concepts, and he traces this to the early history of Philosophy where the ancient Greeks though hard and long about those timeless Questions.

Pythagoras, who found the school of thought of Mathematics and Geometry as Philosophy — a school of Thought that deals with complex theorems and their insoluble solutions, gave us the famous dictum of the “exact circle” although no physical object is now, or could ever be, exactly circular…

This suggests that exact circles are only idealized noetical, theoretical, or neural inventions, and that this fanciful fantasy is a byproduct of Reason and Logic that applies to ideal, rather than physical, objects.

Furthermore, numbers have all of these qualities as well being well serving “Inventions” that appear to be time-independent, or timeless.

Hence mathematics by definition and invention, seems to want deal with an ideal, eternal, and inalienable world, of pure thought.

Ergo philosophy…

But where and how do such mathematical entities exist?

But where and how do such mathematical entities exist?

Methinks — they exist within our own very lives.

Today and tomorrow and the day after, same as they exist in all of our tomorrows…

Yet the very existence of eternal, ideal mathematical thoughts, seems to require the existence of something actual upon which they are tethered or the scaffolding upon which they exist. Because much like the mortal coil we are, we see, and we inhabit, is based upon the unseen Soul and the Spirit — so is each and every number based upon the unseen and hardly understood Unity of the Infinity and Eternity, as the Understanding beyond Understanding.

And as Philosophical thought progressed, several centuries after the early “Pure Thought” Greek Philosophers — we come upon the early monotheistic and christian philosophers Philo (ca 20 BC – ca 50 AD) and Augustine (354-430) respectively, who placed the ideal world of eternal truths in the mind of the Godhead.

Augustine argued that mathematics implied the existence of an eternal, necessary, infinite Mind, in which all necessary truths exist. He asserted that we all know timeless and time-independent truths about logic (e.g., A = A) and mathematics(e.g., 2+2=4) but our comprehension of Infinity does not go much further than that…

Still those truths stand as things for the “limited” human historical time, but not for anything resembling eternity or even infinity. Because the always changing, always evolving, entropy ladden material things, can’t stand, let alone cause, … fixed, eternal truths.

Nor can the finite human minds, fully understand them — since our thinking of them, does not make them true, but is rather, judged by them.

Thus “ultimate truth” must derive from something non-material that is superior to the human mind.

Mathematical truths therefore, must depend on a universal and unchanging source.

A “Source” a “Spirit” an “Entity” that embraces all truth in its unity and in whose Understanding we shall all thrive.

Such a Truth must exist…

And maybe its definition is exactly what we call God.

This is the source of the Divine Spirit today.

Methinks…

Yours,

Pano

PS:

And by the way,

We do have the so called “Divine Algorithms” to prove it.

Einstein has also given us “proof” and some additional food for thought.

Do you want me to elaborate?

The Churchill Society will hold a Symposium on this subject shortly and we want to invite Thought Leaders and modern philosophers to participate.

You can apply herewith…

Posted by: Dr Pano Churchill | August 2, 2016

I want…

I want to see you.
I want to know your voice.

I want to recognize you when you
first come ’round the corner.

I want to sense your scent when I come
into a room you’ve just left.

I want to know the lift of your heel,
the glide of your foot.

I want to become familiar with the way
you purse your lips, then let them part,
just the slightest bit, when I lean into
your space and kiss you.

I want to feel the small of your back,
and sense the lake between your breasts.
I want to know the joy of hearing you whisper
kiss me “more” and more, and more…

–Rumi

Screen Shot 2016-08-02 at 6.35.14 PM

Posted by: Dr Pano Churchill | July 31, 2016

Give me your Good Thoughts

Rumi says that thoughts are like a magic carpet, on which the soul rides across eternity.

I say that if we have good thoughts and we share those with other good people and direct them t positive outcomes — then the rest is easy.

Thoughts become things and all of this is fodder for the spirit.

Our Spirit is what gets nourished greatly from Good Thoughts, and our Life becomes a Success too.

Our Leadership increases it’s reach, and the people follow us and our good thoughts intently.

The Spirit which is also far more of what we are, gets enlarged through the power of good thoughts for ourselves and for others — and thus it takes a far greater place of our Life, making all of us a better people.

Our Life becomes far greater through the Spirit — when we allow only the current of the purest good thoughts to flow through our mind.

This is the “trick” if we could only call it that:

Thoughts become things.

Keep that in mind when you “think” thoughts which carry good wishes, thoughts which carry Love, and thoughts which carry blessings for ourselves and for all others.

It’s as simple as that.

Yours,
Pano

PS:

When I speak of this — some people always ask me, if that is some New Age mumbo-jumbo, but for me it is daily practice.

It has become automatic like prayer or meditation sharing and spreading Goof THoughts radiating outwards to all and sundry. Good wishes to foe and friend alike.

I choose to share my Life by flowing. I lead by sharing pure thoughts with all. I run my life like the water running & streaming downhill in an unending journey to the sea that reaches into the vast ocean of Spirit.

Flow and avoid obstacles and the ornery trouble makers, who make life difficult — not by fighting them, but by walking around them.

Flow with the flow…

This is not so much going with the flow, as being in the flow, and refreshed by the flow.

For when we have powerful, positive thoughts for, and about others — guess who benefits?

I’ll give you a hint:

Just guess…

Who is it that experiences the Good Thoughts first?

And who is it that benefits from those Good Thoughts first?

Methinks it’s Me.

Screen Shot 2016-07-18 at 9.38.09 PM

Posted by: Dr Pano Churchill | July 31, 2016

Lincoln Party is the Third Party…

To the Bernie Sanders Crowd falling in lockstep behind the fascist DWS:
To DWS head of the DNC who manufactured the Clinton victory:
To the Democratic National Committee:
To the Democratic party:
To the Rank & File Democrats:

Last night through Hook & Crook, through fear & deception, and through intimidation & criminality — you anointed Hillary Clinton with your nomination for President of the United States.

I couldn’t fail to notice that she was dressed like the Pope in an all white pantsuit…

She runs on a chromosome alone and thus thinking that if she represents herself as a biologically unimportant chromosome — she might slip in the position of the President and sit down on the chair, unobserved.

Or maybe she is thinking that when this Presidential thing falls apart as it will surely do — she can then campaign with her corrupt sidekick the Muslim Huma, and Debbie that does the Democrats in tow, for a position in the Vatican. Really she wants the Top post and she will break a random Italian glass ceiling, in order to become the first Lady Pope.

Please don’t laugh and don’t snigger here because Hillary is truly multitalented and gender fluid and she can pull a Kaitlin Jenner in the opposite direction if she can steal the Nomination for the Pope position.

Just see this amazing woman that she is able to walk and talk at the same time. Maybe not much of a walk but surely she is a talker around the podium and she spoke at length while her daughter dressed in a woman-in-red dress, galivanted around the stage, and gyrated to the music. And then Hillary embraced the genius journalistic wonder “red-child” and talked and talked and talked — while her husband went to sleep under her melodious voice singing badly written national lullabies.

Screen Shot 2016-07-28 at 4.11.38 PM

So, let the record show that in the face of at least 4 federal investigations, email scandals, and the unraveling of America’s remaining trust in your candidate; set against the backdrop of a neo-fascist opponent who has demonstrated he can beat her, your Party leaders have failed to heed the concerns of your constituents and have thereby imperiled the safety and stability of our nation and world.

As this threat has become imminent, you have continued to put forth your support for the most vulnerable, flawed, corrupt, and polarizing candidate in the Party’s history. You have the power to ask her to step aside and raise up another member of the Party. In spite of the acute urgency of the situation, you have chosen not to intervene.

You have systematically, deliberately, and unlawfully undermined the campaign of the most honest, decent statesman of integrity of our generation – the one candidate who has consistently proven he is the only one who can effectively stop the terrifying prospect of the ascendancy of Donald Trump. Moreover, you have done so by providing covert support financially and logistically for Hillary Clinton, in violation of your own Party’s Charter, Bylaws, and the laws of the United States of America.

We – the people of the United States – and particularly those who continue to stand in support of Bernie Sanders hereby hold you fully accountable for your decision, conduct, and the subsequent consequences.

Screen Shot 2016-07-28 at 10.28.49 PM

And as Hillary will grow the government against the Constitution and despite the Tenth Amendment — we will have to fight her, because the old Document that guides our decisions says, this in the very last of the Amendments of the Bill of Rights, the Tenth. This Tenth amendment is as exceptional from the others as it gets. In fact it declares clearly:

“The powers not delegated to the United States

by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the

States, are reserved to the States respectively, or

to the people.”

The essence of the Tenth Amendment is that the States individually reserved all the powers which they didn’t collectively delegate over to the federal government.

And that is what we have to safeguard from the claws of Hillary and Billy the kid who didn’t know what his middle leg was doing.

We are in for a fight.

Yes, as we are all too aware, Hillary Clinton was officially anointed this week as the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee for the upcoming election. She was chosen by the party to be its nominee long before the race ever began, and it used every means at its disposal, both in plain sight and behind closed doors, to ensure that nothing – least of all the will of the people – would prevent that from happening.

Yet even though she may have won the title, she lost any moral legitimacy to the position that the title represents.

It is a shameful, hollow victory; one that has stained the democratic process in its callous and brazen willingness to subvert that very process by whatever means necessary in order to triumph.

Her campaign’s collusion with the DNC (not to mention her corporate media allies, lobbyists and tech industry cohorts) to undermine Senator Sanders’ bid for the nomination – to any rational, thinking person who’d paid even the slightest bit of attention to the unfolding race – was as obvious as it was incensing. The party’s hierarchy, working with their establishment counterparts at state and local levels, did everything they could to sabotage and stifle the Vermont Senator’s burgeoning campaign.

Screen Shot 2016-07-25 at 4.46.55 AM

This subterfuge became glaringly apparent through a whole host of underhanded practices. From planning debate schedules to ensure the lowest possible viewing audience; widespread voter suppression through registrations being dropped, party registration being changed, or receiving incorrect ballots; manipulating voter registration rules; forged signatures on voter registration sheets; scandalously high discrepancies in many states between exit poll results and actual voting tallies (disparities that were not evident in either the Republican primary or the 2008 Democratic primary); officials conspiring to paint Sanders as an atheist, as revealed in the recent WikiLeaks email dump; and the list goes on…

Perhaps the saddest aspect of all of this is that so many of those previously disenfranchised, disaffected and otherwise alienated or jaded by the political process saw in Senator Sanders’ campaign a light in the political darkness. They saw a man of principle, someone who had spent a lifetime remaining true to his beliefs and his word, and someone who wanted to rid the system of its corporate, insider cronyism and make the country and more fair and just one. And now those same people who fought alongside Sanders are confronted with the cruel reality that those corporate, insider cronies came out on top…once again.

However, as dispiriting as that reality may be, it could have been worse. Had the Democratic primary been fought fairly, on a level playing field, with no establishment deck-stacking involved and Clinton had still clawed her way to the nomination, there would be very little solace to be had in the notion that voters simply liked her and her politics better. As bitter a pill to swallow as the actual outcome is, at least one can take some comfort in the knowledge that she didn’t win on merit, she won through fraud and deceit.

If, as many like to say, politics is a sport, then Hillary Clinton is the political equivalent of a state-sponsored, doped-up Russian athlete.

The only upshot is that we are now back in an 1860 moment when the Third Party Candidate Abraham Lincoln run and the People liked him. He was anointed with nothing but their vote, and he won. Am certain that the people’s vote was not wasted, as History later confirmed in a rather large way.

We should remember that and go for the Lincoln Party Candidates: http://www.meetup.com/LincolnParty/

Vote for Value not for Convenience or Fear.

Screen Shot 2016-07-27 at 3.27.42 PM

And if you don’t want to vote for an upstart — then vote for anybody else including the Donald or Jill Stein, except the hilly-billy from Arkansas, because Hillary Clinton didn’t win the Democratic Party nomination – she simply won the game of trickery, collusion and fraudulence that modern politics in this country has devolved into. And while Sanders’ bid to clean house ultimately failed, it opened the eyes of many millions of voters to show just how corrupt the system has become.

Right now many of those voters are crestfallen and many more are just plain angry. But there are many fights that lay ahead, and when they come, those same voters will be going into battle with their eyes wide open.

Regardless of what happens from here on, America owes a great deal of gratitude to Bernie Sanders. His legacy will be of the man who exposed corruption inside the two party system, dared to challenge the limitations the so called experts put on grass roots activism and building a national campaign with only small dollar donors. He challenged the notion that you have to be morally bankrupt, lie about the issues or ignore the issues to play the game. He also challenged the notion that you have to play dirty in your campaign.

No matter where we go from here, Bernie Sanders will always be the man who launched the revolution. But now that he has tapped out, deciding to play a different role as a leader in the Senate who can help actual progressives get into office down ballot. He has left it up to us to decide if this is true a moment of change in America or if we slink back to the establishment and settle for the candidate they hand picked, cheated for, and lied about, in order to get the nomination.

This is about the issues and its about leadership. Hillary Clinton has a long record of being on the wrong side of the issues highlighted by the revolution. Sure the establishment has sold her to those who don’t do their research as a progressive, but when you break down her record issue by issue, she fails the progressive or even compassionate test time and again. Pro Free Trade, Pro Fracking, Pro Offshore Drilling, Anti substantive regulation of Wall Street, banking, insurance, big oil, chemical companies (GMOs, Pesticides). She has fought for the rich and powerful and allowed the poor and middle class to get hammered by unfair taxation, outsourced jobs, stagnant or shrinking wages, runaway housing, energy, education and healthcare costs. She was a part of promoting Bill’s policies that sold private prisons, mass incarceration of predominantly the poor communities of color, free trade, deregulation, etc. Many other issues found her sitting on the sidelines when those fights needed champions like the fight for gay rights, gay marriage or the spread of HIV, fight for a living wage. She screwed up all of the Middle East and North Africa single handedly and has destroyed most all of Africa for America and delivered it lock stock and barrel to the Chinese, without a fight.

And lest we forget that she is the candidate most likely to take us to war all over again, and she already has started her work of flooding the world with weapons of mass destruction and mayhem. And so long as someone gives her some more money for the Corrupt Clinton Machine the CGI — she will sell her own Mother or the nicest nuclear weapon to you. It’s a nice BIG racket if you can have it. But I must admit, you have a good business going on right there lady.

Screen Shot 2016-07-25 at 4.20.21 AM

But I have a question for you now;
“Don’t you think You should hang a red light above the door to help people find the entrance to the den of inequity for a “Happy End” good time — easier?”

And so it all ends.

So it ends at least as progressives looking at the issues tend to despair. ANd it’s understandable to despair with this Evil choice of the God-Awful candidate — I must remind them that there still is one champion left in the race. Jill Stein has a nearly identical record on the issues as Bernie, albeit not the legislative history. She will fight for us and not corporate owners. When asked why she was staying in the race even though Bernie was carrying nearly her entire platform, she told the media, because the party will never let him win. They will cheat him out of the nomination and when that happens he can join me or I will be there to continue the fight.

Sure the conservatives who reject Trump have an option as well in Gary Johnson, but lets not confuse the two, because Jill carries Bernies’ entire agenda, Gary Johnson has a few areas of overlap with legalizing marijuana and keeping the nation out of wars of choice and military interventionalism, but on nearly every other issue (economy, environment, regulation, safety nets for the poor, sick, elderly or unemployed, government involvement in healthcare and education Johnson has fought on the wrong side.

Screen Shot 2016-07-28 at 10.22.38 AM

If the revolution is to continue we need to continue to reject business as usual and crony capitalism. We need to expand our choices and lead the growth of the 3rd parties. Start with getting both into the debates and then see if we can strike Gold twice in one election. We grew Bernie from 3% in the polls and nobody understanding the issues or challenging the establishment to the most popular politician in Washington. Bernie has broken down those barriers, we just need to continue growing and continue rejecting the corrupt two party system. It helps that the two parties gave us the two most unlikeable, untrustworthy candidate in our nations history.

And that is something we have to fight against and root for a THird party candidate.

Yours,

Dr Churchill

PS:

But we still have a lot more work to do and many miles to go before we sleep…

We have to engage many more young voters and educate them about the Lincoln Party.

We have to register more first time voters under our banner.

We have to not be afraid to tell people that we are still fighting for real change.

And we have to tell them that we are going to overwhelm the establishment at the polls — regardless of fear, regardless of any uncertainty, and regardless of doubt.

Let’s fight on against the Fear and the relentless Doubt that has been sown amongst us by the fear mongering machine… of the fascist DNC.

Screen Shot 2016-07-25 at 4.48.47 AM

PPS:

As for the children — here is the takeaway message from this debacle of Democracy:

Dear Hillary and followers –

You should be ashamed of yourselves.

You just set the worst historic moment in American history.

You just taught every little girl across America that it’s okay to cheat, lie under oath, and bully others in order to be successful in life.

You taught them that it’s okay to tell a young child to shut their mouth when they’re protesting about what matters to them that you obviously ignored.

You taught them it’s okay to use your gender as a means of landing a high profile career. You taught them it’s okay to take away freedom of speech and expression. You taught them it’s okay to change your position on a policy to get a vote. You taught them that if you have money and influence, it’s okay to use it to bully others…

Mrs. Clinton, you’re a disgrace to America and American Women.

You and your followers DESERVE a Trump presidency. I will do whatever it takes to make sure that doesn’t happen but not by voting for you. You lack too much of that stuff called integrity…

 

 

Posted by: Dr Pano Churchill | July 30, 2016

Lincoln Party is the Third Party…

To the Bernie Sanders Crowd falling in lockstep behind the fascist DWS: To DWS head of the DNC who manufactured the Clinton victory: To the Democratic National Committee: To the Democratic party: T…

Source: Lincoln Party is the Third Party…

Posted by: Dr Pano Churchill | July 27, 2016

Why Politics Matter.

An alarm has been sounded…

It comes from the most unlikely of quarters.

It comes from the National Aeronautics & Space Administration.

It comes from some of the best scientists of America — the venerable and thoughtful observers of all celestial things, the science heavies of NASA.

This new NASA study reveals that dozens of ancient advanced civilizations much like ours, once existed on Earth, but they all came to an abrupt end…

This study done by NASA, suggests that humanity as we know it could come to an abrupt end in the next few decades, based on the unsustainable living patterns observed with these previous civilisations that came to a sudden or not so sudden collapse and disappearance into the sands of history. These once mighty civilizations came to an abrupt and definite halt and slid surely into oblivion eventual forgetfulness, and in many instances even erasure from the pages of history like the mighty Greeks, the Persians, or the Han, the Khmer, and the Mauryan civilizations and their mighty achievements in science and progress.

And then the world slid back to the Stone Age or simply faltered and were succeeded by the Dark Ages, foisted upon the people by daft religions and stupid ideologies – that killed every logical advancement and scientific progress.

And if we look back in history, 3000 – 5000 years, we will find a historical record that clearly shows us how advanced and complex civilizations were just as susceptible to collapse as we are today. This ongoing pattern has led researchers to question the future existence of society and civilization as we know.

If we were to look back further back in time, over 10,000 years, we would encounter evidence of tens of not hundreds of advanced civilizations that possibly predate the Pre-Inca, the Incas, the Olmecs, and the Ancient Egyptian civilization, not to mention other advanced ancient civilizations in ancient Mesopotamia, in India and Asia or Meso-America, by thousands of years.

In studying all their remnants and the time line of their birth to collapse — it becomes rather difficult to overlook the repeating patterns as identified by the scholars in most of these civilizations and this NASA funded study that bears clear evidence of the path and the trajectory that all ancient civilizations on Earth have taken from inception to death for many thousands of years — since the beginning of Man’s journey on our planet.

Today this evidence is considered by many people as a sure sign that clearly shows that even these really ancient civilizations have been reset a number of times, before their eventual collapse and destruction.

These factors have kept on repeating themselves many times, and have been the culprit for the disappearance of all the great ancient civilizations before us. In the NASA study report, the “Applied Mathematician” Safa Motesharri and his “Human and Nature Dynamical” model claims that “the process of rise-and-collapse is actually a recurrent cycle seen as repeating over and over again throughout history.”

“The fall of the Roman Empire, and the equally, if not more advanced, Han, Mauryan, and Gupta Empires, as well as so many advanced Mesopotamian Empires, American, and Asiatic ones — are all testimony to the fact that advanced, sophisticated, complex, and creative civilizations can be both fragile and impermanent.”

The NASA study came to the conclusion that there are two key social features that contributed to the collapse of every single advanced civilization from the past: “the stretching of resources due to the strain placed on the ecological carrying capacity”; and “the economic stratification of society into Elites [rich] and Masses (or “Commoners”) [poor]” These social phenomena have played “a central role in the character or in the process of the collapse,” in all such cases over “the last five to fifteen thousand years.”

Even though our civilizations is at a very advanced technological stage, this does not necessarily mean that we are saved from imminent chaos. In the study we find that “Technological change can raise the efficiency of resource use, but it also tends to raise both per capita resource consumption and the scale of resource extraction, so that, absent policy effects, the increases in consumption often compensate for the increased efficiency of resource use.”

One of the best examples of advanced ancient civilizations disappearing can be found in Mesoamerica: Thus if we take a look at the ancient Maya people, who were an extremely advanced ancient civilization, we find that several factors played a crucial role for this once great empire to crumble eventually. While most researchers would agree that Deforestation, Famine and Drought where some of the key components in the failure of the ancient Maya, we find a similar pattern in other civilizations, not only in the Americas, but all around the globe.

It is here that the applied mathematician Safa Motesharrei and his colleagues on the NASA study “Human and Nature Dynamical” they run the models that conclusively show, that under conditions “closely reflecting the reality of the world today… we find that collapse is difficult to avoid” if not inevitable and unavoidable.

Those are the facts folks. Now we can live with them and die with them, or we can choose to alter our situation…

And the study has scenarios…

Three top scenarios tell the most dramatic story:

  1. In the first of these scenarios: “Civilization, appears to be on a sustainable path for quite a long time, but even using an optimal depletion rate and starting with a very small number of Elites, the Elites eventually consume too much, resulting in a famine among Commoners that eventually causes the collapse of society. It is important to note that this Type-L collapse is due to an inequality-induced famine that causes a loss of workers, rather than a collapse of Nature.”

Lots of other scary shit scenarios follow but the takeaway is that our Politics of today matter greatly… for the eventual outcome.

Perhaps far more than what we thought they would.

This “threat of collapse” comes from unwarranted places but nonetheless it is as real as History.

So let’s take a trip forward from today to the end of year 2016, when by estimation and current trend projections — 352 murders would have been committed in New York City in total, and the New President of the United States is a New Yorker named Donald Trump.

This is good news and bad news. Surely The Donald is a boon for New York, but the murder rate is also a bit higher than the number of violent deaths in 2015, or 2014, or 2013 — but still far below the 2,245 murders that took place in 1990, that was the city’s worst year yet. In fact, as measured by the murder rate, New York is now basically as safe as it has ever been, going all the way back to the 19th century.

Now Donald will not square his talk with these statistics and yet the national crime statistics, and numbers for all violent crimes, paint a slightly less cheerful picture. And it’s not just a matter of numbers; our big cities look and feel far safer than they did a generation ago, because they are. People of a certain age always have the sense that America isn’t the country they remember from their youth, and in this case they’re right — it has gotten much better.

How, then, was it even possible for Donald Trump to give a speech accepting the Republican nomination whose central premise was that crime is running rampant, and that “Trump alone” can bring the chaos under control?

Of course, nobody should be surprised to see Mr. Trump confidently asserting things that are flatly untrue, since he does that all the time — and never corrects his falsehoods. Indeed, the big speech repeated some of those golden oldies, like the claim that America is the world’s most highly taxed country — when we are actually near the bottom among advanced economies.

But until now the false claims have been about things ordinary voters can’t check against their own experience. Most people don’t have any sense of how their taxes compare with those paid by Europeans or Canadians, let alone how many jobs have been displaced by Chinese competition.

Yet 58 million tourists visited New York last year, and most of those weren’t fleeced by bandits. And still tens of millions more tourists — many of them Chinese, visited other major cities safely. Of course we all know that because many of us live in or near those big cities, and see them every day. And most all of us can now feel safe visiting Times Square in New york City and come back unmolested and happy after spending our money buying chinese made chotchkes and taking selfies with the topless girls prostituting themselves openly.

Still if you go uptown far enough you’ll find plenty of crime and in the contiguous ghettos but for a while there are mostly safe districts in New york where hardly any existed a few decades ago. And as there always were, bad neighborhoods and occasional violent incidents, it’s hard to see how anyone who walks around Times Square taking photos with an expensive I-phone and looking at the boobs on display with open eyes, could believe today in the blood-soaked dystopian vision malarkey that The Donald had laid out, to propel himself to the White House.

Yet at this point in history — there’s no question that most voters — including, a majority of white men and women, indeed buy into that dystopian vision.

Why?

One answer according to Gallup, is that Americans always seem to believe that crime is increasing, even when it is in fact dropping rapidly.

Part of this may be the wording of the question: People may have a vague, headline-fueled sense that crime is up this year even while being aware that it’s much lower than it used to be.

There may also be some version of the “bad things are happening somewhere else” syndrome we see in consumer surveys, where people are far more positive about their personal situation than they are about the economy as a whole.

Again, however, it’s one thing to have a shaky grasp on crime statistics, but something quite different to accept a nightmare vision of America that conflicts so drastically with everyday experience. So what’s going on?

Well, I do have a hypothesis, namely, that Trump supporters really do feel, with some reason, that the social order they knew is coming apart. It’s not just race, where the country has become both more diverse and less racist (even if it still has a long way to go). It’s also about gender roles — when Mr. Trump talks about making America great again, you can be sure that many of his supporters are imagining a return to the partly imagined days of male breadwinners and stay-at-home wives.

Not incidentally, Mike Pence, Mr. Trump’s running mate, used to fulminate about the damage done by working mothers, not to mention penning an outraged attack on Disney in 1999 for featuring a martially-minded heroine in its movie Mulan.

But what are the consequences of these changes in the social order? Back when crime was rising, conservatives insistently drew a connection to social change — that was what the whole early ’90s fuss over “family values” was about. Loose the bonds of traditional society, and chaos would follow.

Then a funny thing happened: Crime plunged instead of continuing to rise. Other indicators also improved dramatically — for example, the teen birthrate has fallen 60 percent since 1991. Instead of societal collapse, we’ve seen what amounts to a mass outbreak of societal health. The truth is that we don’t know exactly why. Hypotheses range from the changing age distribution of the population to reduced lead poisoning; but in any case, the predicted apocalypse notably failed to arrive.

The point, however, is that in the minds of those disturbed by social change, chaos in the streets was supposed to follow, and they are all too willing to believe that it did, in the teeth of the evidence.

The question now is how many such people, people determined to live in a nightmare of their own imagining, there really are. I guess we’ll find out in November.Imagine that it’s the year 2020 — just four short years from now.

To answer that question — let’s take a look a few years ahead on a field trip to the Future:

Say it’s the year 2020 and the campaign is under way to succeed President Trump, who is retiring early, after a single wretched term…

Trump did what he could, but that dog couldn’t hunt…

And as a President he was ineffective as hell, mainly because He couldn’t muster a coalition to work things out…

Thus things have been going from bad to worse for the duration of his term in the oval office.

Voters are angrier than ever — at politicians, at compromisers, at the establishment. Congress and the White House seem incapable of working together on anything, even when their interests align.

With lawmaking at a standstill, the president’s use of executive orders and regulatory discretion has reached a level that Congress views as dictatorial — not that Congress can do anything about it, except file lawsuits that the divided Supreme Court, its three vacancies unfilled, has been unable to resolve.

On Capitol Hill, Speaker Paul Ryan resigned after proving unable to pass a budget, or do much of anything else. The guy just gave up and gaveled himself out of circulation and went to live permanently in the gym. House burned through two more speakers and one “acting” speaker, a job invented following four speakerless months. The Senate, meanwhile, is tied in knots by wannabe presidents and aspiring talk-show hosts, who use the chamber as a social-media platform to build their brands by obstructing—well, everything. The Defense Department is among hundreds of agencies that have not been reauthorized, the government has shut down three times, and, yes, it finally happened: The United States briefly defaulted on the national debt, precipitating a market collapse and an economic downturn. No one wanted that outcome, but no one was able to prevent it.

As the presidential primaries unfold, Kanye West is leading a fractured field of Democrats. The Republican front-runner is Phil Robertson, of Duck Dynasty fame. Elected governor of Louisiana only a few months ago, he is promising to defy the Washington establishment by never trimming his beard. Party elders have given up all pretense of being more than spectators, and most of the candidates have given up all pretense of party loyalty. On the debate stages, and everywhere else, anything goes.

I could continue, but you get the gist. Yes, the political future I’ve described is unreal. But it is also a linear extrapolation of several trends on vivid display right now. Astonishingly, the 2016 Republican presidential race has been dominated by a candidate who is not, in any meaningful sense, a Republican. According to registration records, since 1987 Donald Trump has been a Republican, then an independent, then a Democrat, then a Republican, then “I do not wish to enroll in a party,” then a Republican; he has donated to both parties; he has shown loyalty to and affinity for neither. The second-place candidate, Republican Senator Ted Cruz, built his brand by tearing down his party’s: slurring the Senate Republican leader, railing against the Republican establishment, and closing the government as a career move.

Former presidential hopeful Jeb Bush called Donald Trump “a chaos candidate.” Unfortunately for Bush, Trump’s supporters didn’t mind. They liked that about him…

The Republicans’ noisy breakdown has been echoed eerily, albeit less loudly, on the Democratic side, where, after the early primaries, one of the two remaining contestants for the nomination was not, in any meaningful sense, a Democrat. Senator Bernie Sanders was an independent who switched to nominal Democratic affiliation on the day he filed for the New Hampshire primary, only three months before that election. He surged into second place by winning independents while losing Democrats. If it had been up to Democrats to choose their party’s nominee, Sanders’s bid would have collapsed after Super Tuesday. In their various ways, Trump, Cruz, and Sanders are demonstrating a new principle: The political parties no longer have either intelligible boundaries or enforceable norms, and, as a result, renegade political behavior pays.

Political disintegration plagues Congress, too. House Republicans barely managed to elect a speaker last year. Congress did agree in the fall on a budget framework intended to keep the government open through the election—a signal accomplishment, by today’s low standards—but by April, hard-line conservatives had revoked the deal, thereby humiliating the new speaker and potentially causing another shutdown crisis this fall. As of this writing, it’s not clear whether the hard-liners will push to the brink, but the bigger point is this: If they do, there is not much that party leaders can do about it.

And here is the still bigger point: The very term party leaders has become an anachronism. Although Capitol Hill and the campaign trail are miles apart, the breakdown in order in both places reflects the underlying reality that there no longer is any such thing as a party leader. There are only individual actors, pursuing their own political interests and ideological missions willy-nilly, like excited gas molecules in an overheated balloon.

No wonder Paul Ryan, taking the gavel as the new (and reluctant) House speaker in October, complained that the American people “look at Washington, and all they see is chaos. What a relief to them it would be if we finally got our act together.” No one seemed inclined to disagree. Nor was there much argument two months later when Jeb Bush, his presidential campaign sinking, used the c-word in a different but equally apt context. Donald Trump, he said, is “a chaos candidate, and he’d be a chaos president.” Unfortunately for Bush, Trump’s supporters didn’t mind. They liked that about him.

In their different ways, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have demonstrated that the major political parties no longer have intelligible boundaries or enforceable norms.

Trump, however, didn’t cause the chaos. The chaos caused Trump. What we are seeing is not a temporary spasm of chaos but a chaos syndrome.

Chaos syndrome is a chronic decline in the political system’s capacity for self-organization. It begins with the weakening of the institutions and brokers—political parties, career politicians, and congressional leaders and committees—that have historically held politicians accountable to one another and prevented everyone in the system from pursuing naked self-interest all the time. As these intermediaries’ influence fades, politicians, activists, and voters all become more individualistic and unaccountable. The system atomizes. Chaos becomes the new normal—both in campaigns and in the government itself.

Our intricate, informal system of political intermediation, which took many decades to build, did not commit suicide or die of old age; we reformed it to death. For decades, well-meaning political reformers have attacked intermediaries as corrupt, undemocratic, unnecessary, or (usually) all of the above. Americans have been busy demonizing and disempowering political professionals and parties, which is like spending decades abusing and attacking your own immune system. Eventually, you will get sick.

The disorder has other causes, too: developments such as ideological polarization, the rise of social media, and the radicalization of the Republican base. But chaos syndrome compounds the effects of those developments, by impeding the task of organizing to counteract them. Insurgencies in presidential races and on Capitol Hill are nothing new, and they are not necessarily bad, as long as the governing process can accommodate them. Years before the Senate had to cope with Ted Cruz, it had to cope with Jesse Helms. The difference is that Cruz shut down the government, which Helms could not have done had he even imagined trying.

Like many disorders, chaos syndrome is self-reinforcing. It causes governmental dysfunction, which fuels public anger, which incites political disruption, which causes yet more governmental dysfunction. Reversing the spiral will require understanding it. Consider, then, the etiology of a political disease: the immune system that defended the body politic for two centuries; the gradual dismantling of that immune system; the emergence of pathogens capable of exploiting the new vulnerability; the symptoms of the disorder; and, finally, its prognosis and treatment.

Immunotherapy system or perhaps we can ask: “Why the political class might be a good thing?”

The Founders knew all too well about chaos. It was the condition that brought them together in 1787 under the Articles of Confederation. The central government had too few powers and powers of the wrong kinds, so they gave it more powers, and also multiple power centers. The core idea of the Constitution was to restrain ambition and excess by forcing competing powers and factions to bargain and compromise.

The Framers worried about demagogic excess and populist caprice, so they created buffers and gatekeepers between voters and the government. Only one chamber, the House of Representatives, would be directly elected. A radical who wanted to get into the Senate would need to get past the state legislature, which selected senators; a usurper who wanted to seize the presidency would need to get past the Electoral College, a convocation of elders who chose the president; and so on.

They were visionaries, those men in Philadelphia, but they could not foresee everything, and they made a serious omission. Unlike the British parliamentary system, the Constitution makes no provision for holding politicians accountable to one another. A rogue member of Congress can’t be “fired” by his party leaders, as a member of Parliament can; a renegade president cannot be evicted in a vote of no confidence, as a British prime minister can. By and large, American politicians are independent operators, and they became even more independent when later reforms, in the 19th and early 20th centuries, neutered the Electoral College and established direct election to the Senate.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell proved unable to rein in Ted Cruz. (Tom Williams / CQ Roll Call / Getty)
The Constitution makes no mention of many of the essential political structures that we take for granted, such as political parties and congressional committees. If the Constitution were all we had, politicians would be incapable of getting organized to accomplish even routine tasks. Every day, for every bill or compromise, they would have to start from scratch, rounding up hundreds of individual politicians and answering to thousands of squabbling constituencies and millions of voters. By itself, the Constitution is a recipe for chaos.

So Americans developed a second, unwritten constitution. Beginning in the 1790s, politicians sorted themselves into parties. In the 1830s, under Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren, the parties established patronage machines and grass-roots bases. The machines and parties used rewards and the occasional punishment to encourage politicians to work together. Meanwhile, Congress developed its seniority and committee systems, rewarding reliability and establishing cooperative routines. Parties, leaders, machines, and congressional hierarchies built densely woven incentive structures that bound politicians into coherent teams. Personal alliances, financial contributions, promotions and prestige, political perks, pork-barrel spending, endorsements, and sometimes a trip to the woodshed or the wilderness: All of those incentives and others, including some of dubious respectability, came into play. If the Constitution was the system’s DNA, the parties and machines and political brokers were its RNA, translating the Founders’ bare-bones framework into dynamic organizations and thus converting conflict into action.

The informal constitution’s intermediaries have many names and faces: state and national party committees, county party chairs, congressional subcommittees, leadership pacs, convention delegates, bundlers, and countless more. For purposes of this essay, I’ll call them all middlemen, because all of them mediated between disorganized swarms of politicians and disorganized swarms of voters, thereby performing the indispensable task that the great political scientist James Q. Wilson called “assembling power in the formal government.”

The middlemen could be undemocratic, high-handed, devious, secretive. But they had one great virtue: They brought order from chaos. They encouraged coordination, interdependency, and mutual accountability. They discouraged solipsistic and antisocial political behavior. A loyal, time-serving member of Congress could expect easy renomination, financial help, promotion through the ranks of committees and leadership jobs, and a new airport or research center for his district. A turncoat or troublemaker, by contrast, could expect to encounter ostracism, marginalization, and difficulties with fund-raising. The system was hierarchical, but it was not authoritarian. Even the lowliest precinct walker or officeholder had a role and a voice and could expect a reward for loyalty; even the highest party boss had to cater to multiple constituencies and fend off periodic challengers.

House Speaker Paul Ryan has already faced a rebellion. The reality is that there no longer is any such thing as a “party leader.” (Cliff Owen / AP)
Parties, machines, and hacks may not have been pretty, but at their best they did their job so well that the country forgot why it needed them. Politics seemed almost to organize itself, but only because the middlemen recruited and nurtured political talent, vetted candidates for competence and loyalty, gathered and dispensed money, built bases of donors and supporters, forged coalitions, bought off antagonists, mediated disputes, brokered compromises, and greased the skids to turn those compromises into law. Though sometimes arrogant, middlemen were not generally elitist. They excelled at organizing and representing unsophisticated voters, as Tammany Hall famously did for the working-class Irish of New York, to the horror of many Progressives who viewed the Irish working class as unfit to govern or even to vote.

The old machines were inclusive only by the standards of their day, of course. They were bad on race—but then, so were Progressives such as Woodrow Wilson. The more intrinsic hazard with middlemen and machines is the ever-present potential for corruption, which is a real problem. On the other hand, overreacting to the threat of corruption by stamping out influence-peddling (as distinct from bribery and extortion) is just as harmful. Political contributions, for example, look unseemly, but they play a vital role as political bonding agents. When a party raised a soft-money donation from a millionaire and used it to support a candidate’s campaign (a common practice until the 2002 McCain-Feingold law banned it in federal elections), the exchange of favors tied a knot of mutual accountability that linked candidate, party, and donor together and forced each to think about the interests of the others. Such transactions may not have comported with the Platonic ideal of democracy, but in the real world they did much to stabilize the system and discourage selfish behavior.

Middlemen have a characteristic that is essential in politics: They stick around. Because careerists and hacks make their living off the system, they have a stake in assembling durable coalitions, in retaining power over time, and in keeping the government in functioning order. Slash-and-burn protests and quixotic ideological crusades are luxuries they can’t afford. Insurgents and renegades have a role, which is to jolt the system with new energy and ideas; but professionals also have a role, which is to safely absorb the energy that insurgents unleash. Think of them as analogous to antibodies and white blood cells, establishing and patrolling the barriers between the body politic and would-be hijackers on the outside. As with biology, so with politics: When the immune system works, it is largely invisible. Only when it breaks down do we become aware of its importance.

Vulnerability to disease or “How the war against political middlemen left America’s body politic, defenseless?”

Beginning early in the 20th century, and continuing right up to the present, reformers and the public turned against every aspect of insider politics: professional politicians, closed-door negotiations, personal favors, party bosses, financial ties, all of it. Progressives accused middlemen of subverting the public interest; populists accused them of obstructing the people’s will; conservatives accused them of protecting and expanding big government.

To some extent, the reformers were right. They had good intentions and valid complaints. Back in the 1970s, as a teenager in the post-Watergate era, I was on their side. Why allow politicians ever to meet behind closed doors? Sunshine is the best disinfectant! Why allow private money to buy favors and distort policy making? Ban it and use Treasury funds to finance elections! It was easy, in those days, to see that there was dirty water in the tub. What was not so evident was the reason the water was dirty, which was the baby. So we started reforming.

We reformed the nominating process. The use of primary elections instead of conventions, caucuses, and other insider-dominated processes dates to the era of Theodore Roosevelt, but primary elections and party influence coexisted through the 1960s; especially in congressional and state races, party leaders had many ways to influence nominations and vet candidates. According to Jon Meacham, in his biography of George H. W. Bush, here is how Bush’s father, Prescott Bush, got started in politics: “Samuel F. Pryor, a top Pan Am executive and a mover in Connecticut politics, called Prescott to ask whether Bush might like to run for Congress. ‘If you would,’ Pryor said, ‘I think we can assure you that you’ll be the nominee.’ ” Today, party insiders can still jawbone a little bit, but, as the 2016 presidential race has made all too clear, there is startlingly little they can do to influence the nominating process.

Primary races now tend to be dominated by highly motivated extremists and interest groups, with the perverse result of leaving moderates and broader, less well-organized constituencies underrepresented. According to the Pew Research Center, in the first 12 presidential-primary contests of 2016, only 17 percent of eligible voters participated in Republican primaries, and only 12 percent in Democratic primaries. In other words, Donald Trump seized the lead in the primary process by winning a mere plurality of a mere fraction of the electorate. In off-year congressional primaries, when turnout is even lower, it’s even easier for the tail to wag the dog. In the 2010 Delaware Senate race, Christine “I am not a witch” O’Donnell secured the Republican nomination by winning just a sixth of the state’s registered Republicans, thereby handing a competitive seat to the Democrats. Surveying congressional primaries for a 2014 Brookings Institution report, the journalists Jill Lawrence and Walter Shapiro observed: “The universe of those who actually cast primary ballots is small and hyper-partisan, and rewards candidates who hew to ideological orthodoxy.” By contrast, party hacks tend to shop for candidates who exert broad appeal in a general election and who will sustain and build the party’s brand, so they generally lean toward relative moderates and team players.

Parties, machines, and hacks may not have been pretty, but they did their job—so well that the country forgot why it needed them.
Moreover, recent research by the political scientists Jamie L. Carson and Jason M. Roberts finds that party leaders of yore did a better job of encouraging qualified mainstream candidates to challenge incumbents. “In congressional districts across the country, party leaders were able to carefully select candidates who would contribute to the collective good of the ticket,” Carson and Roberts write in their 2013 book, Ambition, Competition, and Electoral Reform: The Politics of Congressional Elections Across Time. “This led to a plentiful supply of quality candidates willing to enter races, since the potential costs of running and losing were largely underwritten by the party organization.” The switch to direct primaries, in which contenders generally self-recruit and succeed or fail on their own account, has produced more oddball and extreme challengers and thereby made general elections less competitive. “A series of reforms that were intended to create more open and less ‘insider’ dominated elections actually produced more entrenched politicians,” Carson and Roberts write. The paradoxical result is that members of Congress today are simultaneously less responsive to mainstream interests and harder to dislodge.

Was the switch to direct public nomination a net benefit or drawback? The answer to that question is subjective. But one effect is not in doubt: Institutionalists have less power than ever before to protect loyalists who play well with other politicians, or who take a tough congressional vote for the team, or who dare to cross single-issue voters and interests; and they have little capacity to fend off insurgents who owe nothing to anybody. Walled safely inside their gerrymandered districts, incumbents are insulated from general-election challenges that might pull them toward the political center, but they are perpetually vulnerable to primary challenges from extremists who pull them toward the fringes. Everyone worries about being the next Eric Cantor, the Republican House majority leader who, in a shocking upset, lost to an unknown Tea Partier in his 2014 primary. Legislators are scared of voting for anything that might increase the odds of a primary challenge, which is one reason it is so hard to raise the debt limit or pass a budget.

In March, when Republican Senator Jerry Moran of Kansas told a Rotary Club meeting that he thought President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee deserved a Senate hearing, the Tea Party Patriots immediately responded with what has become activists’ go-to threat: “It’s this kind of outrageous behavior that leads Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund activists and supporters to think seriously about encouraging Dr. Milton Wolf”—a physician and Tea Party activist—“to run against Sen. Moran in the August GOP primary.” (Moran hastened to issue a statement saying that he would oppose Obama’s nominee regardless.) Purist issue groups often have the whip hand now, and unlike the elected bosses of yore, they are accountable only to themselves and are able merely to prevent legislative action, not to organize it.

We reformed political money. Starting in the 1970s, large-dollar donations to candidates and parties were subject to a tightening web of regulations. The idea was to reduce corruption (or its appearance) and curtail the power of special interests—certainly laudable goals. Campaign-finance rules did stop some egregious transactions, but at a cost: Instead of eliminating money from politics (which is impossible), the rules diverted much of it to private channels. Whereas the parties themselves were once largely responsible for raising and spending political money, in their place has arisen a burgeoning ecology of deep-pocketed donors, super pacs, 501(c)(4)s, and so-called 527 groups that now spend hundreds of millions of dollars each cycle. The result has been the creation of an array of private political machines across the country: for instance, the Koch brothers’ Americans for Prosperity and Karl Rove’s American Crossroads on the right, and Tom Steyer’s NextGen Climate on the left.

Private groups are much harder to regulate, less transparent, and less accountable than are the parties and candidates, who do, at the end of the day, have to face the voters. Because they thrive on purism, protest, and parochialism, the outside groups are driving politics toward polarization, extremism, and short-term gain. “You may win or lose, but at least you have been intellectually consistent—your principles haven’t been defeated,” an official with Americans for Prosperity told The Economist in October 2014. The parties, despite being called to judgment by voters for their performance, face all kinds of constraints and regulations that the private groups don’t, tilting the playing field against them. “The internal conversation we’ve been having is ‘How do we keep state parties alive?’ ” the director of a mountain-state Democratic Party organization told me and Raymond J. La Raja recently for a Brookings Institution report. Republicans told us the same story. “We believe we are fighting for our lives in the current legal and judicial framework, and the super pacs and (c)(4)s really present a direct threat to the state parties’ existence,” a southern state’s Republican Party director said.

The state parties also told us they can’t begin to match the advertising money flowing from outside groups and candidates. Weakened by regulations and resource constraints, they have been reduced to spectators, while candidates and groups form circular firing squads and alienate voters. At the national level, the situation is even more chaotic—and ripe for exploitation by a savvy demagogue who can make himself heard above the din, as Donald Trump has so shrewdly proved.

We reformed Congress. For a long time, seniority ruled on Capitol Hill. To exercise power, you had to wait for years, and chairs ran their committees like fiefs. It was an arrangement that hardly seemed either meritocratic or democratic. Starting with a rebellion by the liberal post-Watergate class in the ’70s, and then accelerating with the rise of Newt Gingrich and his conservative revolutionaries in the ’90s, the seniority and committee systems came under attack and withered. Power on the Hill has flowed both up to a few top leaders and down to individual members. Unfortunately, the reformers overlooked something important: Seniority and committee spots rewarded teamwork and loyalty, they ensured that people at the top were experienced, and they harnessed hundreds of middle-ranking members of Congress to the tasks of legislating. Compounding the problem, Gingrich’s Republican revolutionaries, eager to prove their anti-Washington bona fides, cut committee staffs by a third, further diminishing Congress’s institutional horsepower.

Smoke-filled rooms were good for brokering complex compromises in which nothing was settled until everything was settled.
Congress’s attempts to replace hierarchies and middlemen with top-down diktat and ad hoc working groups have mostly failed. More than perhaps ever before, Congress today is a collection of individual entrepreneurs and pressure groups. In the House, disintermediation has shifted the balance of power toward a small but cohesive minority of conservative Freedom Caucus members who think nothing of wielding their power against their own leaders. Last year, as House Republicans struggled to agree on a new speaker, the conservatives did not blush at demanding “the right to oppose their leaders and vote down legislation without repercussions,” as Time magazine reported. In the Senate, Ted Cruz made himself a leading presidential contender by engaging in debt-limit brinkmanship and deriding the party’s leadership, going so far as to call Majority Leader Mitch McConnell a liar on the Senate floor. “The rhetoric—and confrontational stance—are classic Cruz,” wrote Burgess Everett in Politico last October: “Stake out a position to the right of where his leaders will end up, criticize them for ignoring him and conservative grass-roots voters, then use the ensuing internecine fight to stoke his presidential bid.” No wonder his colleagues detest him. But Cruz was doing what makes sense in an age of maximal political individualism, and we can safely bet that his success will inspire imitation.

We reformed closed-door negotiations. As recently as the early 1970s, congressional committees could easily retreat behind closed doors and members could vote on many bills anonymously, with only the final tallies reported. Federal advisory committees, too, could meet off the record. Understandably, in the wake of Watergate, those practices came to be viewed as suspect. Today, federal law, congressional rules, and public expectations have placed almost all formal deliberations and many informal ones in full public view. One result is greater transparency, which is good. But another result is that finding space for delicate negotiations and candid deliberations can be difficult. Smoke-filled rooms, whatever their disadvantages, were good for brokering complex compromises in which nothing was settled until everything was settled; once gone, they turned out to be difficult to replace. In public, interest groups and grandstanding politicians can tear apart a compromise before it is halfway settled.

Despite promising to televise negotiations over health-care reform, President Obama went behind closed doors with interest groups to put the package together; no sane person would have negotiated in full public view. In 2013, Congress succeeded in approving a modest bipartisan budget deal in large measure because the House and Senate Budget Committee chairs were empowered to “figure it out themselves, very, very privately,” as one Democratic aide told Jill Lawrence for a 2015 Brookings report. TV cameras, recorded votes, and public markups do increase transparency, but they come at the cost of complicating candid conversations. “The idea that Washington would work better if there were TV cameras monitoring every conversation gets it exactly wrong,” the Democratic former Senate majority leader Tom Daschle wrote in 2014, in his foreword to the book City of Rivals. “The lack of opportunities for honest dialogue and creative give-and-take lies at the root of today’s dysfunction.”

We reformed pork. For most of American history, a principal goal of any member of Congress was to bring home bacon for his district. Pork-barrel spending never really cost very much, and it helped glue Congress together by giving members a kind of currency to trade: You support my pork, and I’ll support yours. Also, because pork was dispensed by powerful appropriations committees with input from senior congressional leaders, it provided a handy way for the leadership to buy votes and reward loyalists. Starting in the ’70s, however, and then snowballing in the ’90s, the regular appropriations process broke down, a casualty of reforms that weakened appropriators’ power, of “sunshine laws” that reduced their autonomy, and of polarization that complicated negotiations. Conservatives and liberals alike attacked pork-barreling as corrupt, culminating in early 2011, when a strange-bedfellows coalition of Tea Partiers and progressives banned earmarking, the practice of dropping goodies into bills as a way to attract votes—including, ironically, votes for politically painful spending reductions.

Congress has not passed all its annual appropriations bills in 20 years, and more than $300 billion a year in federal spending goes out the door without proper authorization. Routine business such as passing a farm bill or a surface-transportation bill now takes years instead of weeks or months to complete. Today two-thirds of federal-program spending (excluding interest on the national debt) runs on formula-driven autopilot. This automatic spending by so-called entitlement programs eludes the discipline of being regularly voted on, dwarfs old-fashioned pork in magnitude, and is so hard to restrain that it’s often called the “third rail” of politics. The political cost has also been high: Congressional leaders lost one of their last remaining tools to induce followership and team play. “Trying to be a leader where you have no sticks and very few carrots is dang near impossible,” the Republican former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott told CNN in 2013, shortly after renegade Republicans pointlessly shut down the government. “Members don’t get anything from you and leaders don’t give anything. They don’t feel like you can reward them or punish them.”

Donald Trump had no political debts or party loyalty. And he had no compunctions—which made him the perfect vector for anti-establishment sentiment. Like campaign contributions and smoke-filled rooms, pork is a tool of democratic governance, not a violation of it. It can be used for corrupt purposes but also, very often, for vital ones. As the political scientist Diana Evans wrote in a 2004 book, Greasing the Wheels: Using Pork Barrel Projects to Build Majority Coalitions in Congress, “The irony is this: pork barreling, despite its much maligned status, gets things done.” In 1964, to cite one famous example, Lyndon Johnson could not have passed his landmark civil-rights bill without support from House Republican leader Charles Halleck of Indiana, who named his price: a nasa research grant for his district, which LBJ was glad to provide. Just last year, Republican Senator John McCain, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, was asked how his committee managed to pass bipartisan authorization bills year after year, even as the rest of Congress ground to a legislative standstill. In part, McCain explained, it was because “there’s a lot in there for members of the committees.”

Party-dominated nominating processes, soft money, congressional seniority, closed-door negotiations, pork-barrel spending—put each practice under a microscope in isolation, and it seems an unsavory way of doing political business. But sweep them all away, and one finds that business is not getting done at all. The political reforms of the past 40 or so years have pushed toward disintermediation—by favoring amateurs and outsiders over professionals and insiders; by privileging populism and self-expression over mediation and mutual restraint; by stripping middlemen of tools they need to organize the political system. All of the reforms promote an individualistic, atomized model of politics in which there are candidates and there are voters, but there is nothing in between. Other, larger trends, to be sure, have also contributed to political disorganization, but the war on middlemen has amplified and accelerated them.

Illness pathogens thrive in our bodies when our immune system is compromised: “This is how Donald Trump and other viruses got through…”

By the beginning of this decade, the political system’s organic defenses against outsiders and insurgents were visibly crumbling. All that was needed was for the right virus to come along and exploit the opening. As it happened, two came along.

In 2009, on the heels of President Obama’s election and the economic-bailout packages, angry fiscal conservatives launched the Tea Party insurgency and watched, somewhat to their own astonishment, as it swept the country. Tea Partiers shared some of the policy predilections of loyal Republican partisans, but their mind-set was angrily anti-establishment. In a 2013 Pew Research poll, more than 70 percent of them disapproved of Republican leaders in Congress. In a 2010 Pew poll, they had rejected compromise by similar margins. They thought nothing of mounting primary challenges against Republican incumbents, and they made a special point of targeting Republicans who compromised with Democrats or even with Republican leaders. In Congress, the Republican House leadership soon found itself facing a GOP caucus whose members were too worried about “getting primaried” to vote for the compromises necessary to govern—or even to keep the government open. Threats from the Tea Party and other purist factions often outweigh any blandishments or protection that leaders can offer.

So far the Democrats have been mostly spared the anti-compromise insurrection, but their defenses are not much stronger. Molly Ball recently reported for The Atlantic’s Web site on the Working Families Party, whose purpose is “to make Democratic politicians more accountable to their liberal base through the asymmetric warfare party primaries enable, much as the conservative movement has done to Republicans.” Because African Americans and union members still mostly behave like party loyalists, and because the Democratic base does not want to see President Obama fail, the Tea Party trick hasn’t yet worked on the left. But the Democrats are vulnerable structurally, and the anti-compromise virus is out there.

A second virus was initially identified in 2002, by the University of Nebraska at Lincoln political scientists John R. Hibbing and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse, in their book Stealth Democracy: Americans’ Beliefs About How Government Should Work. It’s a shocking book, one whose implications other scholars were understandably reluctant to engage with. The rise of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, however, makes confronting its thesis unavoidable.

Using polls and focus groups, Hibbing and Theiss-Morse found that between 25 and 40 percent of Americans (depending on how one measures) have a severely distorted view of how government and politics are supposed to work. I think of these people as “politiphobes,” because they see the contentious give-and-take of politics as unnecessary and distasteful. Specifically, they believe that obvious, commonsense solutions to the country’s problems are out there for the plucking. The reason these obvious solutions are not enacted is that politicians are corrupt, or self-interested, or addicted to unnecessary partisan feuding. Not surprisingly, politiphobes think the obvious, commonsense solutions are the sorts of solutions that they themselves prefer. But the more important point is that they do not acknowledge that meaningful policy disagreement even exists. From that premise, they conclude that all the arguing and partisanship and horse-trading that go on in American politics are entirely unnecessary. Politicians could easily solve all our problems if they would only set aside their craven personal agendas.

If politicians won’t do the job, then who will? Politiphobes, according to Hibbing and Theiss-Morse, believe policy should be made not by messy political conflict and negotiations but by ensids: empathetic, non-self-interested decision makers. These are leaders who will step forward, cast aside cowardly politicians and venal special interests, and implement long-overdue solutions. ensids can be politicians, technocrats, or autocrats—whatever works. Whether the process is democratic is not particularly important.

Chances are that politiphobes have been out there since long before Hibbing and Theiss-Morse identified them in 2002. Unlike the Tea Party or the Working Families Party, they aren’t particularly ideological: They have popped up left, right, and center. Ross Perot’s independent presidential candidacies of 1992 and 1996 appealed to the idea that any sensible businessman could knock heads together and fix Washington. In 2008, Barack Obama pandered to a center-left version of the same fantasy, promising to magically transcend partisan politics and implement the best solutions from both parties.

“Pork” can be a vital tool of democratic governance.
No previous outbreak, however, compares with the latest one, which draws unprecedented virulence from two developments. One is a steep rise in antipolitical sentiment, especially on the right. According to polling by Pew, from 2007 to early 2016 the percentage of Americans saying they would be less likely to vote for a presidential candidate who had been an elected official in Washington for many years than for an outsider candidate more than doubled, from 15 percent to 31 percent. Republican opinion has shifted more sharply still: The percentage of Republicans preferring “new ideas and a different approach” over “experience and a proven record” almost doubled in just the six months from March to September of 2015.

The other development, of course, was Donald Trump, the perfect vector to concentrate politiphobic sentiment, intensify it, and inject it into presidential politics. He had too much money and free media to be spent out of the race. He had no political record to defend. He had no political debts or party loyalty. He had no compunctions. There was nothing to restrain him from sounding every note of the politiphobic fantasy with perfect pitch.

Democrats have not been immune, either. Like Trump, Bernie Sanders appealed to the antipolitical idea that the mere act of voting for him would prompt a “revolution” that would somehow clear up such knotty problems as health-care coverage, financial reform, and money in politics. Like Trump, he was a self-sufficient outsider without customary political debts or party loyalty. Like Trump, he neither acknowledged nor cared—because his supporters neither acknowledged nor cared—that his plans for governing were delusional.

Trump, Sanders, and Ted Cruz have in common that they are political sociopaths—meaning not that they are crazy, but that they don’t care what other politicians think about their behavior and they don’t need to care. That three of the four final presidential contenders in 2016 were political sociopaths is a sign of how far chaos syndrome has gone. The old, mediated system selected such people out. The new, disintermediated system seems to be selecting them in.

Political Chaos is the Disease Symptom. “This is the disorder that exacerbates all the other disorders.”

There is nothing new about political insurgencies in the United States—nor anything inherently wrong with them. Just the opposite, in fact: Insurgencies have brought fresh ideas and renewed participation to the political system since at least the time of Andrew Jackson.

There is also nothing new about insiders losing control of the presidential nominating process. In 1964 and 1972, to the dismay of party regulars, nominations went to unelectable candidates—Barry Goldwater for the Republicans in 1964 and George McGovern for the Democrats in 1972—who thrilled the parties’ activist bases and went on to predictably epic defeats. So it’s tempting to say, “Democracy is messy. Insurgents have fair gripes. Incumbents should be challenged. Who are you, Mr. Establishment, to say the system is broken merely because you don’t like the people it is pushing forward?”

The problem is not, however, that disruptions happen. The problem is that chaos syndrome wreaks havoc on the system’s ability to absorb and channel disruptions. Trying to quash political disruptions would probably only create more of them. The trick is to be able to govern through them.

Leave aside the fact that Goldwater and McGovern, although ideologues, were estimable figures within their parties. (McGovern actually co-chaired a Democratic Party commission that rewrote the nominating rules after 1968, opening the way for his own campaign.) Neither of them, either as senator or candidate, wanted to or did disrupt the ordinary workings of government.

Jason Grumet, the president of the Bipartisan Policy Center and the author of City of Rivals, likes to point out that within three weeks of Bill Clinton’s impeachment by the House of Representatives, the president was signing new laws again. “While they were impeaching him they were negotiating, they were talking, they were having committee hearings,” Grumet said in a recent speech. “And so we have to ask ourselves, what is it that not long ago allowed our government to metabolize the aggression that is inherent in any pluralistic society and still get things done?”

I have been covering Washington since the early 1980s, and I’ve seen a lot of gridlock. Sometimes I’ve been grateful for gridlock, which is an appropriate outcome when there is no working majority for a particular policy. For me, however, 2011 brought a wake-up call. The system was failing even when there was a working majority. That year, President Obama and Republican House Speaker John Boehner, in intense personal negotiations, tried to clinch a budget agreement that touched both parties’ sacred cows, curtailing growth in the major entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security by hundreds of billions of dollars and increasing revenues by $800 billion or more over 10 years, as well as reducing defense and non-defense discretionary spending by more than $1 trillion. Though it was less grand than previous budgetary “grand bargains,” the package represented the kind of bipartisan accommodation that constitutes the federal government’s best and perhaps only path to long-term fiscal stability.

Former House Speaker John Boehner explained to Jay Leno before he resigned: “You learn that a leader without followers is simply a man taking a walk.” (Steve Helber / AP)
People still debate why the package fell apart, and there is blame enough to go around. My own reading at the time, however, concurred with Matt Bai’s postmortem in The New York Times: Democratic leaders could have found the rank-and-file support they needed to pass the bargain, but Boehner could not get the deal past conservatives in his own caucus. “What’s undeniable, despite all the furious efforts to peddle a different story,” Bai wrote, “is that Obama managed to persuade his closest allies to sign off on what he wanted them to do, and Boehner didn’t, or couldn’t.” We’ll never know, but I believe that the kind of budget compromise Boehner and Obama tried to shake hands on, had it reached a vote, would have passed with solid majorities in both chambers and been signed into law. The problem was not polarization; it was disorganization. A latent majority could not muster and assert itself.

As soon became apparent, Boehner’s 2011 debacle was not a glitch but part of an emerging pattern. Two years later, the House’s conservative faction shut down the government with the connivance of Ted Cruz, the very last thing most Republicans wanted to happen. When Boehner was asked by Jay Leno why he had permitted what the speaker himself called a “very predictable disaster,” he replied, rather poignantly: “When I looked up, I saw my colleagues going this way. You learn that a leader without followers is simply a man taking a walk.”

Boehner was right. Washington doesn’t have a crisis of leadership; it has a crisis of followership. One can argue about particulars, and Congress does better on some occasions than on others. Overall, though, minority factions and veto groups are becoming ever more dominant on Capitol Hill as leaders watch their organizational capacity dribble away. Helpless to do much more than beg for support, and hostage to his own party’s far right, an exhausted Boehner finally gave up and quit last year. Almost immediately, his heir apparent, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, was shot to pieces too. No wonder Paul Ryan, in his first act as speaker, remonstrated with his own colleagues against chaos.

Nevertheless, by spring the new speaker was bogged down. “Almost six months into the job, Ryan and his top lieutenants face questions about whether the Wisconsin Republican’s tenure atop the House is any more effective than his predecessor,” Politico’s Web site reported in April. The House Republican Conference, an unnamed Republican told Politico, is “unwhippable and unleadable. Ryan is as talented as you can be: There’s nobody better. But even he can’t do anything. Who could?”

Of course, Congress’s incompetence makes the electorate even more disgusted, which leads to even greater political volatility. In a Republican presidential debate in March, Ohio Governor John Kasich described the cycle this way: The people, he said, “want change, and they keep putting outsiders in to bring about the change. Then the change doesn’t come … because we’re putting people in that don’t understand compromise.” Disruption in politics and dysfunction in government reinforce each other. Chaos becomes the new normal.

Being a disorder of the immune system, chaos syndrome magnifies other problems, turning political head colds into pneumonia. Take polarization. Over the past few decades, the public has become sharply divided across partisan and ideological lines. Chaos syndrome compounds the problem, because even when Republicans and Democrats do find something to work together on, the threat of an extremist primary challenge funded by a flood of outside money makes them think twice—or not at all. Opportunities to make bipartisan legislative advances slip away.

Neurotic hatred of the political class is the country’s last universally acceptable form of bigotry.
Or take the new technologies that are revolutionizing the media. Today, a figure like Trump can reach millions through Twitter without needing to pass network‑TV gatekeepers or spend a dime. A figure like Sanders can use the Internet to reach millions of donors without recourse to traditional fund-raising sources. Outside groups, friendly and unfriendly alike, can drown out political candidates in their own races. (As a frustrated Cruz told a supporter about outside groups ostensibly backing his presidential campaign, “I’m left to just hope that what they say bears some resemblance to what I actually believe.”) Disruptive media technologies are nothing new in American politics; they have arisen periodically since the early 19th century, as the historian Jill Lepore noted in a February article in The New Yorker. What is new is the system’s difficulty in coping with them. Disintermediating technologies bring fresh voices into the fray, but they also bring atomization and cacophony. To organize coherent plays amid swarms of attack ads, middlemen need to be able to coordinate the fund-raising and messaging of candidates and parties and activists—which is what they are increasingly hard-pressed to do.

Assembling power to govern a sprawling, diverse, and increasingly divided democracy is inevitably hard. Chaos syndrome makes it all the harder. For Democrats, the disorder is merely chronic; for the Republican Party, it is acute. Finding no precedent for what he called Trump’s hijacking of an entire political party, Jon Meacham went so far as to tell Joe Scarborough in The Washington Post that George W. Bush might prove to be the last Republican president.

Nearly everyone panned party regulars for not stopping Trump much earlier, but no one explained just how the party regulars were supposed to have done that. Stopping an insurgency requires organizing a coalition against it, but an incapacity to organize is the whole problem. The reality is that the levers and buttons parties and political professionals might once have pulled and pushed had long since been disconnected.

Political Prognosis and Treatment of the disease: “Political chaos syndrome as a psychiatric disorder.”

I don’t have a quick solution to the current mess, but I do think it would be easy, in principle, to start moving in a better direction. Although returning parties and middlemen to anything like their 19th-century glory is not conceivable—or, in today’s America, even desirable—strengthening parties and middlemen is very doable. Restrictions inhibiting the parties from coordinating with their own candidates serve to encourage political wildcatting, so repeal them. Limits on donations to the parties drive money to unaccountable outsiders, so lift them. Restoring the earmarks that help grease legislative success requires nothing more than a change in congressional rules. And there are all kinds of ways the parties could move insiders back to the center of the nomination process. If they wanted to, they could require would-be candidates to get petition signatures from elected officials and county party chairs, or they could send unbound delegates to their conventions (as several state parties are doing this year), or they could enhance the role of middlemen in a host of other ways.

Building party machines and political networks is what career politicians naturally do, if they’re allowed to do it. So let them. I’m not talking about rigging the system to exclude challengers or prevent insurgencies. I’m talking about de-rigging the system to reduce its pervasive bias against middlemen. Then they can do their job, thereby making the world safe for challengers and insurgencies.

Unfortunately, although the mechanics of de-rigging are fairly straightforward, the politics of it are hard. The public is wedded to an anti-establishment narrative. The political-reform community is invested in direct participation, transparency, fund-raising limits on parties, and other elements of the anti-intermediation worldview. The establishment, to the extent that there still is such a thing, is demoralized and shattered, barely able to muster an argument for its own existence.

But there are optimistic signs, too. Liberals in the campaign-finance-reform community are showing new interest in strengthening the parties. Academics and commentators are getting a good look at politics without effective organizers and cohesive organizations, and they are terrified. On Capitol Hill, conservatives and liberals alike are on board with restoring regular order in Congress. In Washington, insiders have had some success at reorganizing and pushing back. No Senate Republican was defeated by a primary challenger in 2014, in part because then–Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a machine politician par excellence, created a network of business allies to counterpunch against the Tea Party.

The biggest obstacle, I think, is the general public’s reflexive, unreasoning hostility to politicians and the process of politics. Neurotic hatred of the political class is the country’s last universally acceptable form of bigotry. Because that problem is mental, not mechanical, it really is hard to remedy.

In March, a Trump supporter told The New York Times, “I want to see Trump go up there and do damage to the Republican Party.” Another said, “We know who Donald Trump is, and we’re going to use Donald Trump to either take over the G.O.P. or blow it up.” That kind of anti-establishment nihilism deserves no respect or accommodation in American public life. Populism, individualism, and a skeptical attitude toward politics are all healthy up to a point, but America has passed that point. Political professionals and parties have many shortcomings to answer for—including, primarily on the Republican side, their self-mutilating embrace of anti-establishment rhetoric—but relentlessly bashing them is no solution. You haven’t heard anyone say this, but it’s time someone did: Our most pressing political problem today is that the country abandoned the establishment, not the other way around.

In conclusion to await the Collapse of our Civilization because of The Donald is not the right course of thought or action.

However to be sure — the coming Collapse is imminent, not because THe Donald is the new President of the United States, but because we live in an unsustainable way.

Each and every day we do the same stupid things that we’ve done before and yet expect some miraculous change to occur by itself.

Each and every day we rape our environment and pollute our atmosphere.

And even daily, we destroy our ecosystems with abandon, as if they were going to somehow magically regenerate themselves.

We drive the planet and all species to destruction without consideration.

We slash and burn the living skin of our planet, all the while we demand more cow protein from the unsustainable farms that are springing up all over the Amazonas.

Daily we pollute all the environmental commons, near and far.

We destroy areas of boreal forest the size of whole European countries to wrest some oil from the frozen rocks in the tar sands projects of Alberta.

And then we transport that oil to distill it into gasoline so that we can burn it up and create more and more global warming as we release the CO2 into the atmosphere.

And we do all that for profit. We destroy our home for profit as if it justifies everything.

And daily the rapacious elites or Morons and Criminals, are getting wealthier, and wealthier — further ensuring that the Collapse in near.

Not because of their useless accumulated wealth but because the division between the uber-wealthy and the masses of labor and the unemployed, is getting far greater than what can be termed as sustainable.

And as we all know UNSUSTAINBLE SOCIETIES AND CIVILIZATIONS COLLAPSE.

You see the point is that when the 1% of the 1% owns as much wealth and more than the other 90% of Society — we are slated to go the way of the Mayans, the Incas, the Toltecs, the Olmecs, or the ancient Mesopotamians, and the willy burial pyramid building Egyptians.

Have we learned anything from observing those Morons losing their way and driving themselves into oblivion, or we need to study some others to believe?

How long will it take for any student of History to cotton-on to the idea that we are already sleep-walking off the cliff?

How long will take for us to start electing Leaders that understand that our course of history is clearly unsustainable, and our environmental destruction is unavoidable — therefore our collapse is inevitable too.

How long will it take for you to wake up Motherfuckers?

Or maybe you don’t think the science is correct eh?

It’s alright… we all know that we are not gonna be here forever.

Right…

And if you don’t believe me — just ask the Dinosaurs.

Yours,
Dr Churchill

PS:
Now go and mull it all up.

Out of Politics and Chaos, New Emergent Life Arrives… or Not.

Older Posts »

Categories

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,264 other followers