POLITICS, MAJOR ISSUE OF TODAY’S WORLD

  • October 28th, 2010

I  INTRODUCTION

 

Political Science, the systematic study of and reflection upon politics. Politics usually describes the processes by which people and institutions exercise and resist power. Political processes are used to formulate policies, influence individuals and institutions, and organize societies.

 Many political scientists study how governments use politics. But political scientists also study politics in other contexts, such as how politics affects the economy, how ordinary people think and act in relation to politics, and how politics influences organizations outside of government. The emphasis upon government and power distinguishes political science from other social sciences, although political scientists share an interest with economists in studying relations between the government and economy, and with sociologists in considering relations between social structures in general and political structures in particular. Political scientists attempt to explain and understand recurrent patterns in politics rather than specific political events.

]]>

 

II  THE IMPORTANCE OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

 Political science is important because politics is important. During the 20th century, tens of millions of people were murdered by regimes devoted to particular political ideologies. All peoples’ lives are affected in many ways by what governments do or choose not to do, and by the power structures that exist in society.

 The specific ideas of political scientists are only occasionally implemented by policy makers. Political scientists usually influence the world in more indirect ways: by educating citizens and political leaders, by contributing to debates on political issues, and by encouraging different ways of looking at the world. The study of political science is motivated by the need to understand the sources and consequences of political stability and revolution, of repression and liberty, of equality and inequality, of war and peace, of democracy and dictatorship. The study of political science suggests that the world of politics is complex and cannot be reorganized by simple ideological schemes without unintended consequences.

 

Political Branding

  • September 29th, 2010

To avoid partisan potshots, I disclose earlier that I am neither a Republican nor Democrat, nor could I be classified as a liberal or conservative. Therefore my following analysis is one purely aimed toward examining how brands work in presidential politics.

In different words, do not bother commenting if the analysis annoys your personal partisan political peccadilloes. This can be concerning promoting and not the mayhem of presidential elections.

A lot of has been written within the last year concerning the destruction of the Republican “complete”. A whole – be it for a PC, politician, or perhaps a PC politician – is what the market (voters) think and feel regarding the product. Yes, politicians and parties are products that may be bought though the value is just too high for the typical shopper/voter.

Several Republicans felt their party now not had a brand. Several core Republican/conservative policies seem to have been abandoned by the Bush administration. Translate this into a technology product that had for several years delivered on the core features and functions it promised to provide. Then say that the new unharness of the merchandise had huge bugs that the vendor didn’t fix that diminished or eliminated the usefulness of those features. Some GOP members viewed their party as Windows XP users read Vista – failing to faithfully deliver basic value.

This can be where belief systems enter into marketing. People usually believe things regarding a brand that are not true. But when faced with continuing failure to deliver on a branded price proposition, folks quit believing in the brand. In this election cycle we see two complete battles raging. The GOP had lost its whole and is currently actively redefining/reclaiming it.

Let’s observe every starting with the Democrats. Obama – like several candidate – needs to keep the trust of all categories of people. He set forth a whole that spoke broadly and elicited an amazing amount of response for a candidate with relatively very little history. Bowling badly or making three-purpose buckets spoke well to the operating classes who hold the keys to bound battleground states. However Obama’s “guns and faith” statement whereas raising funds during a San Francisco “Billionaire Row” mansion shattered that believability and damaged his brand value in those markets. Blue collar and Blue Dog Democrats indicate they will sit out this election based on whole misalignment. His selection of Biden did nothing to assist regain those voters.

McCain’s team managed to one thing that any marketing strategist would love to achieve. They managed to search out a whole and value proposition that was broadly popular, that matched the present complete essence of the candidate, and located a running mate who brought further authenticity (real or imagined) to the new brand. In other words, GOP selling strategists scored a trifecta on brand management.

Let’s circle back to the Silicon Strategies Selling copyrighted definition of a whole: a complete is what the market thinks and feels regarding your product. McCain had for years developed a reputation as both a maverick and a reformer. In fact the media created therefore abundant of this McCain price proposition that it became “information” rather than “belief” among most Americans. The market of voters therefore “thought” McCain to be a reformer. Adding Palin to the price ticket – exploiting her highly personal “tiny city, wisdom” complete – emotionally reinforced the ticket’s reformer brand. GOP strategist realigned the first “little government” GOP whole to the prevailing McCain/Palin brands. Then they used this to co-opt Obama’s “amendment” whole, simultaneously strengthening the GOP complete and weakening the Obama brand.

Polls indicate the plan worked very well.

Obama can solely counter this in two ways:

? Attempt to destroy the McCain brand, which can solely be done through negative attacks. This is a unhealthy move because Obama based much of his whole on being a nice guy, rising higher than “politics as usual”. Going negative would be to destroy his own brand.

? Produce a a lot of authentic Obama whole: This is tough as a result of several of the mistakes his campaign created (hijacking the presidential seal, mass rallies in Berlin, the “guns and faith” sound bite) has reduced the general public perception that Obama is “authentic”. Even San Francisco’s eccentric former Mayor Willie Brown – a Democrat to the top – thinks “Obama still seems overscripted . Too perfect.”

Here are the essential branding lessons to find out from this year’s election cycle:

1. Be devoted to your brand: The Republican’s learned the onerous means that the moment you stop “walking the walk” consumers/voters vanish. The GOP got lucky to find a new complete that worked in the 11th hour.

2. Do not invent a brand that is not authentic: Obama learned that you can not talk “tiny city” in Scranton then disrespect “small town” in San Francisco.

3. Represent your brand at every touch point: You receptionist should reinforce your brand. McCain picked a running mate that strengthened his.

Political Stewardship: A Benchmark for Evaluating Democratic Political Governance

  • August 31st, 2010

Stewardship is a term that describes the managerial role played by someone in managing another person’s property. A steward is not the owner but only the manager. When applied to politics, in the context of a democratic environment, political stewardship refers to elected leaders playing the role of political managers who are entrusted with the governance of a nation-state and its public resources that is the property of all citizens. The elected leaders are not owners of the nation-state and its public resources but just managers.

Realistically, one can seldom see an effective or competent political stewardship in political governance. It is the lack of political ideals like political stewardship, which prompts a need to have this ideal as a benchmark to evaluate political governance. When current political governance is compared with the benchmark of political stewardship, one would be able to see: 1) Whether political stewardship is being practiced in one’s nation-state; 2) Whether elected leaders considered themselves as managers for the nation-state or owners of the nation-state; 3) Whether the management of public resources, tangible and intangible, is judiciously carried out for the benefit of all citizens; 4) Whether a transparent management accountability system is in place for all citizens to inquire, evaluate and reflect for their informed decision making to determined the performance of their elected leaders.

When there is a lack or absence of political stewardship, there will be increase or rise of authoritarian oligarchy, tyrants and dictatorships, which are against the practice of democracy and the rule of the law. Authoritarian oligarchy, tyrants and dictatorships are against political stewardship as they consider their respective nation-state and its resources as their private property. Any form of token civil government becomes their tools and the citizens become their servants. Law enforcement agencies and the military becomes their whip to keep all citizens in line with their dictatorial policies. Kangaroo courts become the enforcement institutions to give sham legality to dictatorial laws and legislations. The national economic becomes a private pie to be shared among the family members, relatives, friends and cronies of the authoritarian oligarchy, tyrants and dictatorships. The remainder citizens will eventually compete for economic scraps from their masters’ tables. This scenario is now a reality in many parts of the world and not just a political fiction. Any modern day person who cherishes freedom of though and expression, democracy and the rule of the law should become a strong advocate of political stewardship if they don’t want live like peasants in a nation-state of modern medieval-type tyrants.

]]>

 

Political stewardship begins with an accurate political schema that should be ingrained in the minds of all citizens. An accurate political schema is one that establishes the citizens as the actual power base of a nation-state. All elected leaders are the managers who are entrusted to facilitate the implementation of the governing powers, for the wellbeing of the nation-state. If elected leaders are just managers of governing powers, then, the following checklist will apply:

Do elected leaders (managers) stand for and represent all citizens of a nation-state? It takes all citizens of all culture, ethnicity and religion to make a nation-state. If elected leaders do not represent the entire nation-state, it would lead to eventual divisions, conflicts and political polarizations.
Are the resources of the nation-state invested and managed judiciously by the elected leaders (managers) in a transparent and accountable manner? Any mismanagement, misuse or abuse of tangible or intangible resources of a nation state, would lead to the creation of debts that would have to be borne by current citizens and the unborn future generations of the respective nation-state. So, does any citizen want their elected leaders (managers) to make debtors out of them and their children? Do you want your country to be a debtor nation? If the creation of debts is not tolerated in the commercial world, why should it be tolerated by a nation-state?
Do elected leaders (managers) use their entrusted governing powers to protect or abuse the citizens? One clear-cut principle in political stewardship is that elected leaders (managers) must never ever use the police or the military against peaceful and unarmed citizens. It is like a manager using the company security guards to beat-up the company stakeholders over differences of opinion. In the event of a consistent breach of this principle, it is a sign that democracy in nation-state is going to the dogs. It would be just a matter of time that authoritarian oligarchy or dictatorship would emerge. And the nation-state would eventually become a police or military state.
Do elected leaders (managers) once elected, start changing laws and legislations that will promote their continual governance, which would eventually lead to a perpetuation of a political dynasty. Whenever a single facet of a nation’s law is changed, the question to ask is who benefits from it? If the answer is not the citizens, then, one can be assured that it is for the elected leaders (managers). And why should elected leaders change the laws for their benefit when they are there temporarily as mangers for the nation?  The answer is simple. They intend to stay or they are making way for the creation of a dynasty!
Do elected leaders (managers) consistently use their entrusted governing powers to manipulate the judicial system of a nation-state?  When a judiciary becomes the rubber stamp and mouth-piece of elected leaders (managers), it loses its credibility to dispense justice for the people. And what can be expected from the process is the creation of kangaroo courts whose decisions are just predetermined announcements. A nation-state without justice eventually becomes a lawless nation. The law of the jungle will then prevail.
Do elected leaders (managers) consistently use their entrusted governing powers to mute the media of a nation? When this happens, news is no more news. What the citizen will hear and see every day is propaganda. And what is propaganda? It is basically the news or messages that the manipulators want you to hear and see. And one can be assured it will be on-sided only. A nation that lives on propaganda effectively become blind, deaf and dumb politically.

To evaluate elected leaders (managers) by the principles of political stewardship is to exercise the basic right of a citizen in a democratic environment. It s possible for managers to become owners in commercial companies, but when this happens in a nation-state – democracy is dead and authoritarian oligarchy, tyrants or dictatorships is in reign. There is no grey area in this matter.          This is the reason why the advocacy of political stewardship is of utmost importance for persons who cherish democracy and the rule of the law. It decides whether one would live as a citizen or just as a pawn in a nation-state. What is the use when one gains untold riches but is still a rich slave politically whose fate is determined by others.

Political Pontifications

  • August 2nd, 2010

As a student of history, I have always been fascinated by the sociopolitical events which led to the Fascist take over of Germany, and how they were so successful, as many people seemed to be caught so unaware of the impending doom that loomed upon the horizon; how could they have been so blind, as not to have seen what was coming towards them, and what was happening to their country? I would often wonder, how a people who professed a belief in God, could condone things like sterilization, and euthanasia of the elderly, puzzled me deeply: this could certainly never happen again, and could certainly…never happen here in the United States, or could it? Read the purposed health care bill; in the vicinity of page 425, it speaks to having…end of life counseling, and states that only [certain doctors] will be able to write (end of life orders), well that’s comforting to know…that the decision whether or not your life is worth saving…will rest with only “Special Doctors,” now doesn’t it? Incidentally, this is very similar to the policies that the National Socialist Party had in effect (you know, the Nazi’s) after they came into power in Germany during the 1930′s.

Never happen again…right!

These political dictums seem to sneak-up on people, who are occupied with trying to make ends meet, as they were in the thirties; it, is after all…difficult to impose change upon a prosperous people, only when people lose their jobs, homes, and their stomachs start to growl, do the seek change, as anything they believe, will be an improvement over their current situation. World War II, and the economic boom that it created saved us from destruction then, and the unfortunate removal of many servicemen from the post-war work force was; although regretful to the powers to be, it did promote a rather healthy demand for workers, service men were met at the docks, and train stations, by factory recruiters who would need positions filled once occupied by women during the war.

Now that the war was over, and we had won it, it was time to start the recovery process, but the lessons learned from the destruction of the third Reich, were not completely one sided, many in America felt that the Socialist merely went about things in the wrong way. Some of their ideas, they felt…were not all bad, after all’ shouldn’t everyone have, an equal share [of] the collective wealth? And, as the poor had always outnumbered the rich, were not their votes needed, and…as such, could be easily bought?

The only real concern the liberal movement truly has for the poor, and the minorities, is their ability to stroll into the voting booth with zombie-like tenacity, to reelect those who have been so faithful to them over the years. After all, they were our friends, or were they? Are these the empty pontifications of someone who has no first-hand knowledge? No, as a teenager: I followed my uncle to the polls many times, as it was his job to hand-out the money for the party; the five dollar, or a cheap bottle of whiskey (your choice), thank you for showing up to the polls. If people only knew the contempt they were held in, they would never have been so faithful. Trouble is, at least back then the money was supplied by the rich party faithful; where now they just use diverted tax money! Look for a stimulus check in the mail just before the 2010 mid-term election, and again, just before the 2012 presidential election, as it would be bad timing to send them too soon, as there would be a chance that you might forget their generosity before the polls open. You know for many years this type of behavior went on, and although we were affected by it; we still had a strong enough economy to absorb the shock, and anyway, we had a political system that sort of passed the ball every few years to the other team, and thereby kept the country, and economy, somewhat stabilized.

You may have found diverse economic philosophies on opposite sides of the isle, but the democrats would have been politically crucified just a few years ago, if for example: they would have embraced several radical factions; which today represent major planks in their platforms. For a politician to state that, “The United States [is] not a Christian Nation,” in 1970, would have been their political finish! Or, if they wanted to coddle, or grant large gifts, to individuals who were in the United States illegally, they would have been politically stoned! These people have now reached a political impasse: they can only make a political army, by using the soldiers (as it were) from many nations, ask the ancient Romans; this does not work for long. The vast majority of politicians in 1965, could have gone to church together on Sunday, and disagreed with each other on an issue on Monday; today, they are afraid to be caught in church. When the President of the United States can’t pick a church in Washington D.C. to attend…we’ve have gone too far!

Politics: I’m Gonna Run for Office

  • June 17th, 2010

Article by Eric Le Grande

I’m gonna run for office…I swear. Next election quarter I’m gonna come out and run for President as an independent. How hard could it be? Isn’t our Nation about the people? What better for our nation to be run, than by a youth? I mean, the youth are the future; they are the most up-to-date in technology, geography, language, and virtually every other aspect of our intellectual understanding. The youth are open-minded, willing to work hard, and probably the most emotional and passionate people on Earth. Who would be better than someone who’s fresh from the crowd, been around the block, and knows what’s been messed up by our previous family members? I’m gonna fix the O-zone, make peace with all the nations or blow them away, and listen to the people in order to give them what they want. Wouldn’t that be lovely?Don’t you wish that all that could be done? That all the problems created by our own intellectual growth and our own pride in our cunningness could be solved by one open minded individual. I don’t doubt that there have been many great leaders who have wanted to change our nation to fit the ideals that have become a prejudice belief. That we really are the land of the free and the brave. There have, in fact, been many great leaders with big hearts and honest-to-God good intentions…but why haven’t we become the great country that we believe we are? Don’t get me wrong I’m not slandering our Nation-I LOVE OUR COUNTRY! But you have to admit that we are not all we say we are. We preach love, justice, and freedom, but within our great White House there is another government that rules…the laws of Politics.Honestly, I am not a person who knows about Politics. I would not be able to hold an office or even run for one because the “big sharks” would just gobble me up in a sea of deception before I knew what was happening just like Othello being lead on by Iago. To me Politics is like a whole new set of rules. Not the typical rules that we people live by, but a new set that often stretches and bends. To help me gain more of an understanding about Politics, I asked a few of my friends what they thought Politics was. I asked them to describe what Politics is as best as they can, or give me their definition. Eugene thought of Politics as an art form of some kind, while Tom viewed Politics as a way of “Governing.” This is what they said:Eugene Park: “The art of talking…or something…Politics, it’s umm…the art of something.”Tom Vatanakul: “Dealing with power; Governing; Regulations; Rules…but I think Governing is probably the best word to describe it.”I would mostly agree with Eugene’s point of view on Politics. I see Politics as an art. The people in power who practice this art constantly dance around as if in a ballet. They have to smooze to the people; the big corporations; the other politicians; other countries; and to the judges. It’s about trying to make as many people happy as possible while trying to avoid conflicts or upsetting the people who should be getting upset. That’s the surface part of Politics, the paint on the oil canvas. But what’s beneath the “kiss-ass” colors of the painting? What’s behind the motions of the ballerina’s? Behind everything is an organization of good guys and bad guys all working together to accomplish their goals. Just to make things easier, I am calling the politicians who work for the people’s personality the good guys and the politicians who are working for their own personal gain, the bad guys. Normally in the comic books the good guys would just blow the bad guys out of the water after a near-death fight, but in the world of Politics the “good guys” and the “bad guys” are masked by the pretty colors and smooth movements. The world of Politics is full of new rules and regulations that only apply to the good guys and bad guys. Those rules and regulations exist to create order and balance in a world where nobody is sure who the good or bad guy is.I think a really good way to explain or describe politics is to compare Politics to a game of chess. In chess, there are only two players, let’s call them good (white) and bad (black). It seems like a simple game of good vs. bad but when you look at what is happening on the board, each player is maneuvering his pieces specifically and strategically. Each player has to look at the board and try to figure out what his opponent is trying to accomplish, then he/she has to plan an attack to counter his opponent while trying not to be discovered. Chess is a really toned down scale of politics, but imagine every piece is either a good guy or bad guy who believes that he is the person moving the pieces. It’s a complex web-like system that only few can play and of those few only the elite will survive.Politics is in another world of it’s own. Politics follows rules and regulations that have no bearing for me or other people like me to follow. Politics was created by our own ingenious cunning and forgive me for saying this, but I think that it is something that is un-necessary. So vote for me, the common moron that has no idea about what politics is. Vote for me, the youth who is up to date with the highest and most recent knowledge. Vote for me, the individual who has no knowledge of the world of Politics.

« Prev