DONATE

Showing posts with label American Civics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label American Civics. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 10, 2025

Intro to ‘Restoring the Mind of the Republic’

 


Intro by John R. Houk, Blog Editor

Intro © September 10, 2025

 

In my Baby Boomer Generation (I’m approaching 69 in November) a College/University education was promoted as the pathway to a successful life. After the protest era (largely Vietnam War protesting) of the late ‘60s and early ‘70s, college education transformed from critical thinking into Leftist indoctrination. Today’s divided America is experiencing the fruit of that deceptive transformation.

 

I ran into an interesting essay at TomKlingenstein.com that addresses a reform of College/University indoctrination entitled, “Restoring the Mind of the Republic”. The essay is by Daniel J. Mahoney. If you have kids in High School, especially kids about to graduate, YOU should read this post if YOUR kids are planning a College/University journey. Consider finding an Academic Program focused more on teaching to think for oneself (critical thinking) and less on Leftist Transformation Brainwashing.

 

JRH 9/10/25

Always Free to Read yet READER SUPPORTED!

PLEASE! I need more Patriots to step up. I need Readers to chip in $5 - $10 - $25 - $50 - $100 (PAYPAL or CARD - one-time or recurring). YOUR generosity is APPRECIATED. PLEASE GIVE to Help me be a voice for Liberty:

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

Big Tech Censorship is pervasive – Share voluminously on all social media platforms!

Our Senior Citizen Family Supplements our income by offering healthy coffee products. BETTER YOUR HEALTH with healthy & good tasting COFFEE and enjoy some weight management supplements. BUY Happy Coffee & Weight Loss Supplements at the Diana Wellness Store: https://dianawellnessstore.com


>>HAPPY HEALTHY COFFEE<<

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

Restoring the Mind of the Republic

College Course (TomKlingenstein.com Photo) Matej Kastelic/Shutterstock

 

By Daniel J. Mahoney

September 9, 2025

TomKingenstein.com

 

Editor's Note

The universities that once shaped citizens capable of self-rule now produce ideologues incapable of self-reflection. In place of liberal education, they offer a catechism of grievance and identity. It’s a system designed not to enlarge the mind but to narrow it.

 

Academic and essayist Daniel J. Mahoney describes an emerging alternative: schools of civic thought that recover what our elite campuses have abandoned. They resist the destructive Left’s groupthink without falling into a mirror-image dogmatism. They turn students not toward slogans but toward the great questions of politics, philosophy, and human purpose. In doing so, they remind us that education, rightly understood, is the foundation of a free people.

 

In today’s universities, identity has replaced intellect. The great tradition of liberal learning — “the best that has been thought and said” — is cast aside in favor of a cult of “settler colonialism.” The result is not wisdom but indoctrination: graduates schooled less in judgment than in a reflexive disdain for the West.

 

Over the past two decades, we have witnessed an Orwellian reversal of the first order. The idol of “diversity” has produced an almost uniformity of thought, enforced by clichés that smother debate before it begins. Our leading universities and most prestigious liberal arts colleges now do little to foster the independence of spirit, the self-respect, and the openness to enduring wisdom that allow the life of the mind to flourish.

 

These supposed centers of inquiry refuse to even entertain a balanced appreciation of the West — of both its flaws and its remarkable, and rare, capacity for self-correction. Too often, graduates of even our finest universities leave with little knowledge of the civilization that formed them, coupled with open contempt for the freest and most self-critical societies in human history. They emerge, instead, inclined toward the most unreasonable utopian demands.

 

Thankfully, when it comes to higher education, not all news is bad news. There is now pushback in the upper echelons of government: the Trump administration is leveling the playing field, one that’s long been askew.

 

Trump’s stalwart refusal to subsidize DEI, tolerate the subversion of women’s sports in the name of “trans rights,” or allow heedless antisemitism at elite universities is changing the rules of a game long played against our republic’s interest. The public mind is changing, too, at a parallel pace. More than a few parents have caught on to the fact that most college campuses do their best to stifle the most valuable form of pluralism: intellectual diversity.

 

But the days of the Left’s command on civic education are numbered. Thanks to the rise of what are now commonly called “schools of civic thought” in a host of red and purple states, there’s hope for the restoration of authentic liberal education for our children.

 

The first of these state-chartered programs, the School for Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership at Arizona State University (SCETL), was established in 2016 with strong backing from a Republican governor and legislature — and, predictably, with resistance from the Democratic opposition.

 

As public opinion on education shifted in the President Trump’s favor, the Left gradually softened its stance, backing appropriations for a program that no longer seemed so contentious. By 2023, Democrats even lent their support to the creation of the Institute of American Civics at the University of Tennessee.

 

SCETL, like any new institution, experienced its share of growing pains alongside notable successes. Nine years on, under the leadership of Richard Avramenko, it now boasts a rigorous undergraduate major and minor, offers a robust graduate program, and hosts conferences and lectures that deepen the study of citizenship and statesmanship in both American and global contexts.

 

In its courses, political philosophy and the study of statecraft are seamlessly interwoven. The pursuit of wisdom is grounded in disciplinary learning, yet refuses to be confined by it. SCETL, like the civic thought programs it inspired, rests on a rejection of rejection itself — of the easy wokeness and political correctness that erode liberal education, constitutional self-government, and our civilizational inheritance.

 

Among the array of SCETL scholars both young and aged, you won’t find any sympathy for totalitarian political religions, facile moral nihilism and “transgression,” nor any contempt for America’s founding principles.

 

For this academic, it’s a breath of fresh air; when I joined the school’s ranks for a semester engagement, I did so with pride.

 

But SCETL’s wholesale rejection of the woke Left’s typical chokehold isn’t rooted in some right-leaning counter-ideology that’s equally fanatical or doctrinaire. The school simply refuses to play a role in the culture war that rages outside the walls of campus.

 

As the distinguished political theorist Harvey C. Mansfield wrote in SCETL’s mission statement, the large questions of human and civic life need “open and vigorous debate” on college campuses. He has created a blueprint, here, that other schools would do well to follow. After all, the university should have no place for what George Orwell once called the “smelly little orthodoxies” beloved by the fashionable intellectuals.

 

On the other hand, universities don’t need the Right to pursue a counter-politicization; they require, instead, renewed attention to the enduring civic and human questions of knowledge, life, virtue, and justice.

 

As Mansfield points out, these Socratic questions need to be pursued in two distinct but complementary ways: an approach that looks “beyond the time and borders of our present society” (think Plato, Homer, Dante, Shakespeare, or even Marx and Nietzsche), and one that delves deeply into our own civic tradition.

 

Only with such thoughtful engagement, can we know “whether they need to be reformed or reasserted.” The Founding Fathers, here, ought to have pride of place — as should political thinkers from Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, Abigail Adams, the two Roosevelts, Mercy Warren and Martin Luther King.

 

No serious civic thought program can neglect “the two greatest books on America, The Federalist and Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America.” [Blog Editor Bold Text Emphasis] The thoughtful integration of great books and great speeches, political philosophy, political history, and political economy (just as Mansfield recommends) aims at something higher than technical expertise or even civic competence.

 

In Mansfield’s words, SCETL, and the “civic thought” approach at its best, “looks outward to humanity and inward to America.” It “tries to be both proud of genuine greatness” — the dignity of man — “and humble about human imperfection.” It eschews both “visionary expectations” for politics and “unmanly contempt” for the effort of human beings to govern themselves in freedom and virtue, as Leo Strauss once put it.

 

Fortune has smiled on America: Some version or another of the SCETL approach has spread far and wide.

 

Ohio, now, has five such institutes either in formation or operation. The Buckeye State’s flagship effort, the Chase Program for Civics, Culture, and Society under the direction of Lee Strang, promises great things for American culture. Meanwhile, at the University of Texas – Austin, the School for Civic Leadership is developing a first-rate program rooted in the study of first principles. At the University of Florida, the Hamilton School of Classical and Civic Education is shedding light on the intellectual history of the West, attracting distinguished scholars such as Allen Guelzo and James Hankins, co-authors of the forthcoming two-volume history of Western civilization, The Golden Thread.

 

New civic thought initiatives, each with their own distinct focus, have also taken shape in North Carolina, Utah, and Tennessee — with more expected to follow.

 

Of course, there are unlikely to be any such initiatives in blue states any time soon. Within their entrenched intellectual circles, self-loathing and “settler colonial” ideology will continue to flourish for the foreseeable future.

 

But for red states, merely implementing these schools won’t bypass the risks therein. If their new programs have hope of enduring, they must do what the academic Left would not: avoid narrow partisanship and the quest for ideological purity. At the same time, they must also avoid a dangerous attempt at “fairness” which places disciplinary distinctions, modern norms, and a false sense of ideological balance above the noble mission, such as the one articulated by Mansfield.

 

This is certainly one tricky line to tread, but it’s crucial educational leaders try.

 

There is a method to this work. As American Enterprise Institute fellows Benjamin Storey and Jenna Silber Storey have noted, our intellectual forebears left us blueprints in the dialogues of Socrates, the counsel of Catherine of Siena, and the oratory of Cicero and Frederick Douglass. Unlike the academic mainstream, schools of civic thought must prize dialogue and the pursuit of truth, resisting both the lure of ideological zealotry and the temptations of relativistic “pluralism.”

 

I’d be remiss not to mention private institutions such as Hillsdale College (where I now serve as a Senior Visiting Fellow) and the new University of Austin, both playing vital roles in restoring the civic and civilizational dimensions of liberal education. The University of Austin seeks to bridge “the two cultures,” humanistic and scientific, while resisting the tyranny of political correctness.

 

And Hillsdale, with its graduate programs in Michigan and Washington, D.C., long paved the way for civic thought by uniting the study of the Founding, Great Books, politics, literature, and statecraft, while also confronting the ideologies that undermine republican self-government.

 

These efforts complement one another, provided they remain anchored in two essentials: spirited resistance to political correctness and the pursuit of truth in dialogue with the wisdom of the past.

 

But for every school of this kind, the task at hand is clear yet formidable: to recover the art of truth-seeking dialogue within the ruins of a fallen education system. If they can resist both zealotry and relativism, they will have achieved something rare — a model of education worthy of free citizens. From such a restoration, the effects would ripple outward, renewing not only our universities, but also the civic life of the republic itself.

 

Daniel J. Mahoney is a Senior Fellow at the Claremont Institute and professor emeritus at Assumption University.

 

2025 Tom Klingenstein

Monday, May 11, 2015

PLANNED CHAOS PART V, THE POLITICAL INSTITUTION

Founding Fathers Political Spectrum

The Leftist paradigm to reinvent America different from the intentions of America’s Founding Fathers:

The most effective weapons of assault are divide and conquer, and distraction. (From a Fix Bayonets post)

Danny Jeffrey has presented a brilliant post which he attributes as submitted by Dee Fatouros. The thing is this post has a lot of the flavor of Danny’s work so I am a bit uncertain if this is the entire work of Dee Fatouros or if Danny Jeffrey collaborated in the content. Frankly it is irrelevant if this post is collaborative or the work of a sole author. Although essay wise the wording may be lengthy, the journey is quite concise in its layout.

This essay is entitled “PLANNED CHAOS PART V, THE POLITICAL INSTITUTION”. I originally wrote that I haven’t examined or did a search on Fix Bayonets to see if parts one through four are. However in trying to checkout some info on Dee Fatouros I discover that Danny Jeffrey placed all parts on a Blogger page with a Fix Bayonets look: DeeFatourosWorkUpSite. In your own investigations of the potential collapse of the America we know, it might behoove you to find parts one through four in your own research.

The essay begins with the foundation of a great civics lesson on American politics from inception to the present. THEN the author (or authors) explains how the American Left with George Soros as the current Leftist puppeteer deceptive pulling the strings of politics and money to transform America to a member of global totalitarian One World Government under the paradigm of Leftist altruism that is absolutely void of real Liberty and independent entrepreneurship.

JRH 5/11/15
******************************
PLANNED CHAOS PART V, THE POLITICAL INSTITUTION

Submitted By Dee Fatouros
May 11, 2015 6:39 AM

Political Institutions:
Institutions that pertain to the governance of a society, its formal distribution of authority, its use of force, and its relationships to other societies and political units. The state, an important political institution in modern societies, is the apparatus of governance over a particular territory.

Absolute monarchy - a form of government where the monarch rules unhindered, i.e., without any laws, constitution or legally organized opposition.

Anarchy - a condition of lawlessness or political disorder brought about by the absence of governmental authority.

Authoritarian - a form of government in which state authority is imposed onto many aspects of citizens' lives.

Commonwealth - a nation, state or other political entity founded on law and united by a compact of the people for the common good.

Communist - a system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single -- often authoritarian -- party holds power; state controls are imposed with the elimination of private ownership of property or capital while claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people (i.e., a classless society).

Confederacy (Confederation) - a union by compact or treaty between states, provinces or territories that creates a central government with limited powers; the constituent entities retain supreme authority over all matters except those delegated to the central government.

Constitutional - a government by or operating under an authoritative document (constitution) that sets forth the system of fundamental laws and principles that determines the nature, functions and limits of that government.

Constitutional democracy - a form of government in which the sovereign power of the people is spelled out in a governing constitution.

Constitutional monarchy - a system of government in which a monarch is guided by a constitution whereby his/her rights, duties, and responsibilities are spelled out in written law or by custom.

Democracy - a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but which is usually exercised indirectly through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed.

Democratic republic - a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.

Dictatorship - a form of government in which a ruler or small clique wield absolute power (not restricted by a constitution or laws).

Ecclesiastical - a government administrated by a church.

Emirate - similar to a monarchy or sultanate, a government in which the supreme power is in the hands of an emir (the ruler of a Muslim state); the emir may be an absolute overlord or a sovereign with constitutionally limited authority.

Federal (Federation) - a form of government in which sovereign power is formally divided -- usually by means of a constitution -- between a central authority and a number of constituent regions (states, colonies or provinces) so that each region retains some management of its internal affairs; differs from a confederacy in that the central government exerts influence directly upon both individuals as well as upon the regional units.

Federal republic - a state in which the powers of the central government are restricted and in which the component parts (states, colonies, or provinces) retain a degree of self-government; ultimate sovereign power rests with the voters who chose their governmental representatives.

Islamic republic - a particular form of government adopted by some Muslim states; although such a state is, in theory, a theocracy, it remains a republic, but its laws are required to be compatible with the laws of Islam.

Maoism - the theory and practice of Marxism-Leninism developed in China by Mao Zedong (Mao Tse-tung), which states that a continuous revolution is necessary if the leaders of a communist state are to keep in touch with the people.

Marxism - the political, economic and social principles espoused by 19th century economist Karl Marx; he viewed the struggle of workers as a progression of historical forces that would proceed from a class struggle of the proletariat (workers) exploited by capitalists (business owners), to a socialist "dictatorship of the proletariat," to, finally, a classless society -- Communism.

Marxism-Leninism - an expanded form of communism developed by Vladimir Lenin from doctrines of Karl Marx; Lenin saw imperialism as the final stage of capitalism and shifted the focus of workers' struggle from developed to underdeveloped countries.

Monarchy - a government in which the supreme power is lodged in the hands of a monarch who reigns over a state or territory, usually for life and by hereditary right; the monarch may be either a sole absolute ruler or a sovereign - such as a king, queen or prince - with constitutionally limited authority.

Oligarchy - a government in which control is exercised by a small group of individuals whose authority generally is based on wealth or power.

Parliamentary democracy - a political system in which the legislature (parliament) selects the government - a prime minister, premier or chancellor along with the cabinet ministers - according to party strength as expressed in elections; by this system, the government acquires a dual responsibility: to the people as well as to the parliament.

Parliamentary government (Cabinet-Parliamentary government) - a government in which members of an executive branch (the cabinet and its leader - a prime minister, premier or chancellor) are nominated to their positions by a legislature or parliament, and are directly responsible to it; this type of government can be dissolved at will by the parliament (legislature) by means of a no-confidence vote or the leader of the cabinet may dissolve the parliament if it can no longer function.

Parliamentary monarchy - a state headed by a monarch who is not actively involved in policy formation or implementation (i.e., the exercise of sovereign powers by a monarch in a ceremonial capacity); true governmental leadership is carried out by a cabinet and its head - a prime minister, premier or chancellor - who are drawn from a legislature (parliament).

Presidential - a system of government where the executive branch exists separately from a legislature (to which it is generally not accountable).

Republic - a representative democracy in which the people's elected deputies (representatives), not the people themselves, vote on legislation.

Socialism - a government in which the means of planning, producing and distributing goods is controlled by a central government that theoretically seeks a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor; in actuality, most socialist governments have ended up being no more than dictatorships over workers by a ruling elite.

Sultanate - similar to a monarchy, a government in which the supreme power is in the hands of a sultan (the head of a Muslim state); the sultan may be an absolute ruler or a sovereign with constitutionally limited authority.

Theocracy - a form of government in which a Deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the Deity's laws are interpreted by ecclesiastical authorities (bishops, mullahs, etc.); a government subject to religious authority.

Totalitarian - a government that seeks to subordinate the individual to the state by controlling not only all political and economic matters, but also the attitudes, values and beliefs of its population.

The excerpts from the following article are detailed at the end with a link, but they are all part of the same excellent overview.
A SHORT GUIDE TO THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SYSTEM

The United States is - by size of electorate - the second largest democracy on the globe (India is the largest and Indonesia comes third) and the most powerful nation on earth, politically, economically and militarily, but its political system is in many important respects unlike any other in the world. This essay then was written originally to inform non-Americans as to how the American political system works.

What has been striking, however, is how many Americans - especially young Americans - have found the essay useful and insightful. There is considerable evidence that many Americans know and understand little about the political system of their own country - possibly more than is the case with any other developed democratic nation.


In the U.S., the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) tests what American students are learning. It has found that the two worst subjects for American students are civics and American history. One NAEP survey found that only 7% of eighth graders (children aged 13-14) could describe the three branches of government.


On a recent trip to the United States, I was eating cereal for breakfast and found that the whole of the reverse side of the cereal packet was devoted to a short explanation of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the American government. I find it hard to imagine that many democratic nations would feel it necessary to explain such a subject in such a format.


HISTORICAL BACKGROUND:

To understand any country's political system, it is helpful to know something of the history of the nation and the background to the creation of the (latest) constitution. But this is a fundamental necessity in the case of the American political system. This is because the Constitution of the United States is so different from those of other nations and because that Constitution is, in all material respects, the same document as it was over two centuries ago...


THE CONSTITUTION:

Unlike Britain but like most nation states, the American political system is clearly defined by basic documents. The Declaration of Independence of 1776 and the Constitution of 1789 form the foundations of the United States federal government. The Declaration of Independence establishes the United States as an independent political entity, while the Constitution creates the basic structure of the federal government...


Further information on the thinking expressed in the Constitution can be found in the Federalist Papers which are a series of 85 articles and essays published in 1787-1788 promoting the ratification of the Constitution...


THE PRESIDENCY:

What is the Presidency?

The President is the head of the executive branch of the federal government of the United States. He - so far, the position has always been held by a man - is both the head of state and the head of government, as well as the military commander-in-chief and chief diplomat. He presides over the executive branch of the government, a vast organisation numbering about four million people, including one million active-duty military personnel...


THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

What is the House of Representatives?

The House of Representatives is the lower chamber in the bicameral legislature known collectively as Congress. The founders of the United States intended the House to be the politically dominant entity in the federal system and, in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, the House served as the primary forum for political debate. However, subsequently the Senate has been the dominant body...


THE SENATE:

What is the Senate?

The Senate is the upper chamber in the bicameral legislature known collectively as Congress. The original intention of the authors of the US Constitution was that the Senate should be a regulatory group, less politically dominant than the House. However, since the mid-19th century, the Senate has been the dominant chamber and indeed today it is perhaps the most powerful upper house of any legislative body in the world...


THE SUPREME COURT:

What is the Supreme Court?

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land. Originally it had five members but over time this number has increased. Since 1869, it has consisted of nine Justices: the Chief Justice of the United States and eight Associate Justices. They have equal weight when voting on a case and the Chief Justice has no casting vote or power to instruct colleagues. Decisions are made by a simple majority.


Below the Supreme Court, there is a system of Courts of Appeal, and, below these courts, there are District Courts. Together, these three levels of courts represent the federal judicial system.


POLITICAL PARTIES & ELECTIONS:

To an extent quite extraordinary in democratic countries, the American political system is dominated by two political parties: the Democratic Party and the Republican Party (often known as the 'Grand Old Party' or GOP). These are very old and very stable parties - the Democrats go back to 1824 and the Republicans were founded in 1854.


In illustrations and promotional material, the Democratic Party is often represented as a donkey, while the Republican Party is featured as an elephant. The origin of these symbols is the political cartoonist Thomas Nast who came up with them in 1870 and 1874 respectively.


The main reason for the dominance of these two parties is that - like most other Anglo-Saxon countries (notably Britain) - the electoral system is 'first past the post' or simple majority which, combined with the large voter size of the constituencies in the House and (even more) the Senate, ensures that effectively only two parties can play. The other key factor is the huge influence of money in the American electoral system. Since effectively a candidate can spend any amount he can raise (not allowed in many other countries) and since one can buy broadcasting time (again not allowed in many countries), the US can only 'afford' two parties or, to put it another way, candidates of any other party face a formidable financial barrier to entry...


THE FEDERAL SYSTEM:


Understanding the federal nature of the United States is critical to appreciating the complexities of the American political system.

Most political systems are created top-down. A national system of government is constructed and a certain amount of power is released to lower levels of government.
The unique history of the United States means that, in this case, the political system was created bottom-up.


First, some 240 years ago, there were were 13 autonomous states who, following the War of Independence against the British, created a system of government in which the various states somewhat reluctantly ceded power to the federal government. Around a century later, the respective authority of the federal government and the individual states was an issue at the heart of the Civil War when there was a bloody conflict over who had the right to determine whether slavery was or was not permissible. With the exception of Switzerland, no other Western democracy diffuses power to the same degree as America.


So today the powers of the federal government remain strictly limited by the Constitution - the critical Tenth Amendment of 1791 - which leaves a great deal of authority to the individual states.


Each state has an executive, a legislature and a judiciary.

The head of the executive is the Governor who is directly elected.

The legislature consists of a Senate and a House of Representatives (the exception is the state of Nebraska which has a unicameral system).

The judiciary consists of a state system of courts.

The 50 states are divided into counties (parishes in Louisiana and boroughs in Alaska). Each county has its court.


Although the Constitution prescribes precisely when Presidential and Congressional elections will be held, the dates and times of state and local elections are determined by state governments. Therefore there is a plethora of elections in the United States and, at almost all times, an election is being held somewhere in the country. State and local elections, like federal elections, use the 'first past the post' system of election.


The debate about federalism in the US is far from over. There are those who argue for a stronger role for the federal government and there are advocates of locating more power at the state level.
The recent rise of the electorally-successful Tea Party movement owes a good deal to the view that the federal government has become too dominant, too intrusive and too profligate.


Meanwhile many states - especially those west of the Rockies - have what has been called "the fourth arm of government": this is the ballot or referendum initiative. This enables a policy question to be put to the electorate as a result of the collection of a certain number of signatures or the decision of the state legislation. Over the last century, some 3,000 such initiatives have been conducted - in some cases (such as California) with profound results.


RECENT TRENDS:

In all political systems, there is a disconnect between the formal arrangements, as set out in the constitution and relevant laws, and the informal arrangements, as occurs in practice. Arguably, in the United States this disconnect is sharper than in most other democratic systems because:


The US Constitution is an old one (late 18th century) whereas most countries have had several constitutions with the current one typically being a 20th century creation.


The US Constitution is relatively immutable so it is very difficult to change the provisions to reflect the reforms that have come about over time from the pressure of events.


Since the US adopted its Constitution, the US has become the pre-eminent world economic and political power which has brought about major changes in how the Presidency operates, most especially in the international sphere.


What this means is that, in the last century and most especially since the end of the Second World War, the reality of how the American political system operates has changed quite fundamentally in terms which are not always evident from the terms of the Constitution (and indeed some might argue are in some respects in contravention of the Constitution). The main changes are as follows:


The balance of power between the Congress and the President has shifted significantly in favour of the President. This is evident in the domestic sphere through practices like 'impoundment' (when money is taken from the purpose intended by Congress and allocated to another purpose favoured by the President) and in the international sphere through refusal to invoke the War Powers Resolution in spite of major military invasions. Different terms for this accretion of power by the Presidency are "the unitary executive" and "the imperial presidency".


The impact of private funding of political campaigns and of lobbyists and special interest groups in political decision making have increased considerably. Candidates raise their own money for campaigns, there is effectively no limit on the money that can be spent in such campaigns (thanks to what is called super Political Action Committees), and the levels of expenditure - especially in the presidential primaries and election proper - have risen astronomically... this has led to some observers describing the American political system as a plutocracy, since it is effectively controlled by private finance from big businesses, which expect certain policies and practices to follow from the candidates they are funding, and big donors, who often expect preferment such as an ambassadorship from a candidate elected as President.


There has been a growth of what is called "pork barrel" politics through the use of "earmarks"...  appropriations are achieved through "earmarks" which can be found both in legislation (also called "hard earmarks" or "hardmarks") and in the text of Congressional committee reports (also called "soft earmarks" or "softmarks").

The nature of political debate in the United States has become markedly more partisan and bitter... US domestic politics has become polarized and tribal. As a result, the political culture is often more concerned with satisfying the demands of the political 'base' rather than attempting to achieve a national consensus.


One final trend worth noting is the frequency of the same family to provide members of Congress. Low polling in elections, the high cost of running for election, and the focus on the individual more than the party all mean that a well-known name can work successfully for a candidate. Everyone is familiar with the Kennedys, Clintons and Bushs in American politics but, in 2014, there are no less than 37 members of Congress who have a relative who has served in the legislature....continue.


Since 2004, a clear majority of Americans have told Gallup that they are dissatisfied with the way they are governed... This disillusionment is reflected in the falling number of Americans who even bother to vote....


The debate about the effectiveness of the US political system is a part of the wider debate about whether or not the United States is in relative decline on the world stage. In his book "Time To Start Thinking: America And The Spectre Of Decline" [
for my review click here], Edward Luce writes: "Sometimes it seems Americans are engaged in some kind of collusion in which voters pretend to elect their lawmakers and lawmakers pretend to govern. This, in some ways, is America's core problem: the more America postpones any coherent response to the onset of relative decline, the more difficult the politics are likely to get."

To read the entire presentation, go here

Enter the primary enabler of the movement to accelerate destruction of the American ethos:


George Soros is one of the most malicious individuals on the face of planet Earth. He uses his immense fortune to undermine the political and financial systems of nations not only to line his pockets but to remake the world to his liking. He has used his wealth and influence to build a lethal network cloaked in social justice to fuel his agenda. Once America has been brought to its knees, nothing will stand in the way of the globalist agenda. His biography is far too lengthy to discuss in this writing, but go here to read much more.

If George Soros were a lone billionaire, or if the Shadow Party consisted of a few disgruntled billionaires, these facts and achievements would not be so ominous. But the Shadow Party is far more than a reflection of the prejudices of one special interest or one passing generation. The Shadow Party has united the forces of the radical and “liberal” left while expelling moderates from the Democratic Party coalition. The Shadow Party is the current incarnation of a socialist movement that has been at war with the free market economy and the political system based on liberty and individual rights for more than two hundred years. It is a movement that has learned to conceal its ultimate goal, which is a totalitarian state, in the seductive rhetoric of “progressivism” and “social justice.” But its determination to equalize outcomes, its zeal for state power and for government control as the solution to social problems, and its antagonism to America as a defender of freedom are the tell-tale signs of a radical movement whose agenda is to change fundamentally and unalterably the way Americans have lived.  

For further detail on exactly how he and others have been working for decades to change the face of the American political system, go here and here. The information is both detailed and extensive in the links connected with this section, but well worth the time since they are an excellent illustration of the stealth attack on America. After reading the material, one will no longer need to ask, "How did we get here?"


The most effective weapons of assault are divide and conquer, and distraction.


The strategy of pitting various categories of the citizenry against each other is a most effective emotional technique. Minorities, women, and those comprising the LGBT aggregation are the favorite targets in the current attack in which to implant a narrative of discrimination and victimization by the created straw man of  a white, male dominated, capitalist America.


Take a grain of truth and build upon it until it becomes an an iron clad falsified structure with a siren call to the targeted groups. When such a dynamic is set into motion, it is nearly impossible to counter because currents of such beliefs often flicker below the surface and, in difficult times, can be easily ignited often leading to riots and violence between the different classes of victims as well as against the perceived enemy. The violence, if stoked long enough and hard enough by those seeking to destroy the system, could eventually lead to martial law and an outright totalitarian usurpation of governing power.


Such a takeover would be long and bloody and best avoided by the power masters. It would be far better and more easily managed if a state of collective anomie could be induced resulting in the despair of the national psyche leaving it vulnerable to such promises as "Hope And Change", world peace (UN government), economic security (redistribution of wealth), a classless society where all are equal, (all are equally poor due to the elimination of entrepreneurship) and discrimination (free speech) is a crime.


The above is precisely what has been happening to America over past century via the gradual erosion of our major social institutions. The pillars of our culture have been infested with the corrosive elements of political mendacity as well as disinterest of the electorate, educationally induced intellectual laziness, spiritual rot, and the false promise of a benign central governmental structure that will do everything in its power to care for the cultivated dependence and/or the hedonism of its citizenry.


Total control by a world government has been inching along and is now going full throttle, unnoticed by the collective I.Q. due to decades of conditioning. Great civilizations have risen and fallen due to the ambitions of the ever increasing totalitarian, expansionist, and expensive tendencies of the governing power. The unawareness and often complicity of the citizenry contributed to the downward spirals because the governed were not fully attentive to the true meaning of the events unfolding before their eyes.

Between a sense of false victimization and bread and circuses lavished upon certain groups via the largess of the central government's bleeding of the taxpayers, America will eventually collapse. The set up will then be complete for the UN to step in. A stifling darkness will descend upon humankind until the dormant embers of awareness, safely secured by their guardians, slowly become nascent and begin to glow once again.
We must be those guardians and pass our precious treasure to future generations so that they will be ready to "Fix Bayonets" for the combat to come.

SHARE this essay...

This feature will allow you to share the above essay to your timeline, a friend's timeline, a group, to a page you manage, or in a private message. It also allows you to leave a comment about the essay. If that comment is meant for me please use the comment section below.

Suggested Reading...

_____________________________
Some see, few know, many choose to wander aimlessly in a fog, devoid of sunlight. I seek the light of day and leave the others to their chosen realm of ignorance. They are the ones who have brought this great nation down. I write only for the benefit of those who possess the courage required to restore our birthright. – Danny Jeffrey