When men have departed from the right way, it is no wonder that they stumble and fall.
The current political paradigm results in recurring political "gridlock." In some ways gridlock is useful. Gridlock forces each side to appeal its case to the people, hoping that the other side will get some kind of negative message from the voters. The paradigm must occasionally incorporate and woo the voters, so the political paradigm produces very creative (i.e., manipulative) political planning and tactics intended to influence the voters.
Due to the increased technical complexity of modern society and the day-to-day stresses faced by the voters, experience has taught many politicians that lies, half truths, and shallow debate are effective in influencing the voters. Elections continue to be popularity contests, often among nice looking and well spoken individuals whose most significant credential is being able to get elected. Personal attractiveness became more important to winning elections when television was invented. Smooth talking became important when political debates were televised, again making superficial appearance rather than substance important in winning votes.
Once elected, politicians are at the mercy of lobbyists and special interest groups for the information needed to make decisions. As a result, they are easily swayed by these external systems to support the outside agendas. Nontechnical politicians find it difficult to sort out the two sides of a debate on most matters, especially those involving technology. Many votes on legislative bills in Congress are close, often turning on a minor point, making external inputs from lobbyists and interested voters important.
It is hard for elected officials to tell who is a voter spurred on by a lobbyist for a special interest and who is a voter with well-considered and independent views. Lobbyists get voters having peripheral connections to the special interest to call or write their congressmen on just about every issue, leaving non-special interest voters out of the process much of the time. This and other exclusionary effects create a group of voters that is often referred to as the "silent majority."
For example, many people will not participate in any political "demonstration," but they still have firm convictions regarding most of the subjects in the political arena. Yet, politically oriented demonstrations make news stories that are broadcast everywhere on radio and television. Substance is replaced with placards, slogans, chants, polls, and ten-second "sound bites."
Modern communication technology makes it easier than it used to be for voters to be manipulated. Nevertheless, there is one uncontrovertible truth -- the voters get what they deserve. They have gotten higher taxes, lower take-home pay, more unemployment, and a lot more crime and social disorder. Yes, we have earned many of our problems.
Modern communications also make it easier for the voters to see what is going on inside the Washington, D.C. beltway. Radio and television entertain us with talk-show hosts that thrive by ridiculing politicians and exposing political hypocrisy. The voters have "sent messages" to the political paradigm in recent elections, in the public opinion polls, in letters, and in telephone calls, which now include faxes and electronic mail. Hitting the political paradigm with political redirections is increasingly popular. Under Technidigm-2000, those redirections can be more measured, thoughtful, and systematic.
A political party is a system. Each political party system has its own resources, components, feedback, and objectives. Since the two dominant political parties are in competition for a limited set of government powers, they necessarily and constantly engage their resources in political warfare with each other.
When the two opposing political systems approach an election, each searches desperately for any tactic that will give it an edge in capturing the approval of the voters. This results in political party manipulation of the voters from the incumbents as well as those wannabees who are not in office. Nothing the other side says or does is right; nothing that our side says or does is wrong. The news media are intent on finding "good stories," so they focus on problems and discrepancies. Since reporters are just trying to report the available information, some credibility is generated even for the wildest claims.
As if the production of misleading news stories is acceptable, the practice of politically "spinning" a story in a favorable direction is now so common that we now have large groups of representatives from both sides assigned this task as followup to presidential political debates. The bulk of the information available to the voter is polarized, leaving the voter in a state of confusion. The voter is immersed in information confusion until election day. In the absence of an appropriate frame of reference within which to apply principles, the voter is likely to support a candidate based on shallow thinking, helping to perpetuate rather than inhibit the objectionable political process.
Thus, the current political process does not cultivate integrity, although everyone claims to be full of it when asked. According to my dictionary, integrity is:
INTEGRITY -- The entire, unimpaired state of anything, particularly of the mind; moral soundness or purity; incorruptness; uprightness; honesty. It comprehends the whole moral character, but has a special reference to uprightness in mutual dealings, transfers of property, and agencies for others. (Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged)In fact, reaching the ultimate objective of the political system (i.e., getting elected) has become so independent of integrity that the process feedback discourages the development of integrity and frustrates those who have integrity. Only the voters can require integrity in a candidate. Only the voters can require evidence of sufficient capability in a candidate to do the job.
However, politicians only have to pass through the integrity election screen during election years. While politicians try to present a good image all the time, their efforts become extreme as the elections approach. Voters are subjected to a lot of level one input (i.e., opinions) and off-the-level information during elections . The election process is very volatile, with voters being swayed daily by one side or the other. The net result is that many voters are turned off by the process and tune out anything political until they walk into the voting booth.
For many voters, just getting a polling location and casting a ballot at all is enough of an accomplishment. The result is that they end up giving their vote to the last candidate that happened to get their attention, for reasons that they may not remember or may not be able to justify very clearly.
Candidates that lose the battle of confusion in state caucuses or primary elections start losing support and drop out of the race. Historically, the final nominee has been the one that was most effective in playing the political game, and no integrity or demonstrated experience in solving difficult problems was required. Indeed, there is plenty of evidence that the voters can be manipulated into voting for someone with no recognizable integrity or problem solving (i.e., leadership) experience other than that associated with getting elected.
To rationalize this process, claims are made that the election process is a "test" of the candidates' perseverance. The election process, if it is to be a test, should be a test of a person's character. To the extent that elections test perseverance rather than character, people of integrity will avoid running for public office. The positive perseverence required to achieve good character is far superior to the type of perseverence required to get elected. It just goes unrewarded, so fewer politicians pursue it. The voters can only blame themselves for this sad state of affairs.
Although muckraking politics nauseates many voters, the democratic process requires the voters to decide which candidates should have power. Many voters are ill prepared for this decision, so candidates often win elections because of how they look or because of personality differences. Name recognition can be bought by advertising or "marketing" candidate names. Promises made to special interest groups can get votes. Sadly, issues concerning knowledge, experience, and character have historically played a secondary role in the decision making process of many voters.
Successful politicians know these simple truths and take full advantage of them. More qualified candidates who would be better able to serve the interests of the country and the people also know the ropes, but their integrity often gets in the way. Some ask, "Who needs this?"
Scoundrels and unethical politicians can capture governmental power in a level one democracy. As a result of voter default, the essential qualifications for office are simply too low to ensure the election of capable and honorable people. Voters repeatedly find out that they voted for a personality that was not real.
Voters, in effect, default to scoundrels because of a lack of time to collect, understand, and weigh each candidate's credentials and his or her true views on key issues. In an increasingly technical society, voter limitations and the resulting defaults are likely to become more prevalent. Whereas information is so important to informed decisionmaking, voters have been confused by too much information -- with no way of verifying its accuracy. They can not tell whether information is on-th-level or off-the-level because they have not required politicians and political parties to be on-the-level.
Rather than proactively selecting the right people for office in the first place, the voters are likely to do what they have done in the past and elect the most persuasive professional politician. They then will wait for adverse consequences that affect them personally, voting in the next election against the incumbent that they elected previously.
This reactive approach to voting usually results in putting another professional politician in power, qualified or not. This causes large swings in who controls government programs and, thus, dramatic cancellations of the outgoing party's programs and redirections along the paths preferred by the incoming political party. Such "mandates" for change are expensive when the incoming group has to start new programs have similar objectives so that the other party gets no credit when and if the ogjectives are finally reached. Level four solution system optimization is not possible under this approach.
The political process has deteriorated to such an extent that many capable, respected, and honest people will not even seek office, as evidenced by retired General Colin Powell decision not to run for president. He said he had inadequate "fire in the stomach," an internal fortification needed to maneuver the political election gauntlet. This kind of decision by such a popular and capable individual says a lot about the current nature of the U. S. political system. Voters long for people of demonstrated integrity, but the political process tends to offer up people of questionable integrity.
When Technidigm-2000 is understood and applied by an increasing number of voters, not only will the political process become more civil, integrity will become a necessary quality in each candidate. Would the Founding Fathers have wanted it to be otherwise?
Return to Technidigm.org Home Page