As I’ve mentioned before, many times, I’m a Jew by birth and an atheist by choice.
But I was challenged the other day by a fellow Jew (by birth, but a Messianic Jew by choice). But knowing all this, he challenged me, knowing our similarities and differences, to write a treatise on which way America.
Because we DID agree on one thing: America is the result of the Christian-Judaic tradition. And knowing all that, we at least have a common set of values, even though we can argue the validity of either one of them.
Now we both agree that the perfect form of government would be to be ruled by a perfect man (or woman), but since that’s obviously impossible, that leaves a democracy of some sort.
Which now gets into the who, how, why, and what.
Enter the Constitution:
Now needless to say a theocracy is out, so that includes every religion, which comes down to what moral guidelines we the people in the majority (or at least the majority of the electorate) can agree on.
Of course to say – honesty – one would think is a given, but they all claim to be honest.
But that’s about as reliable as the Boy Scouts’ oath. So based on that, like the British and the French, a more tenuous security for the man in charge, would be some guardrail. But that ain’t gonna happen.
Of course the founders based the Constitution on the Christian-Judaic belief that “All men are sinful” therefore it was necessary to set up those safeguards.
Okay, we have, for all practical purposes a two-party system, not stipulated, but simply what up to this point is an inevitability based on the sociological AND psychological phenomenon of leadership, social hierarchy, pecking order call it what you want.
For example, study our narrator’s (from Confessions) painting. It’s called The Contenders. Which begs the question: who are the contenders? Answer: ALL of them, which I’ll explain in a minute. But as for the why, mathematically, two main parties are more of an inevitability than more. NOT because that’s what they want, but because, like the head stallion of the herd, the next viable contender has to be more powerful than all the rest to stand a chance of overcoming.
For example, let’s take ten rhesus monkeys in a controlled situation. Study the pecking order. There’s always the highest, with descending contenders on down the line, until by all outward appearances many in the middle either follow one or the other or appear like they don’t care on down to the peanut gallery and finally on down to the kid who always has the cooties.
Now look at the picture above. And ask yourself: who’s the REAL leader and who are the contenders?
Okay, now getting back to the monkeys. Once you identify the leader and the pecking order you give the leader a lobotomy. Now the two closest contenders duke it out and one prevails. Thus a slight shift in the power structure. Right down to the bottom of the barrel, who is now replaced with the now lobotomized ex-leader and I think you know where I’m going with this. You keep repeating the process until each one moves up a notch – the seemingly uninterested start to take an interest until finally the bottom one becomes the leader until finally he gets his and we start all over again. But on a much lower level.
Okay, how does this translate for all practical purposes, to politics? Again, simple math. In order to keep or gain control you need the support of as many of the rest behind you. Three, four or more factions will merely diminish the chances of challenging the ruling party or person.
With me so far?
Now ask yourself this: which is more important today? Getting rid of Trump or the reasons you may have voted for him in the first place? It’s the old approach-approach conflict, the avoidance-avoidance conflict, or the approach-avoidance conflict.
Translated into what it will take today: which is more important? Getting rid of Trump? Or getting what you want at the expense of democracy. And integrity. And everything that in some twisted way allows for the ends justifying the means: lying, cheating, stealing, destroying people’s lives and actually killing if you count Covid, boat strikes, Venezuela, Minnesota, January the 6th etc., etc..
Now, getting back to the painting: who is the REAL leader? The guy in the middle sitting, that everyone else surrounds and plays to? Or the two in front of him facing each other? The one on the right appears to have his backers as does the one on the left and in-between they run the gamut of dedication, down to the peanut gallery (the guy on the ground leaning towards his intended audience [who seems more intent on taking it all in than listening to his wisecracks]). On the far right looking up is the super patriot who’ll blindly follow the powers that be without question (my country right or wrong). Behind the more beefy contender on the left you have his goons. A little to the right on down stage you have another goon who may not be as decided. Behind the more cerebral but far more intense contender pointing the accusatory finger you have his accountant. The goon behind the real leader is obviously the main goon. The one on the far left sitting down is maybe the most dangerous since you don’t get the impression he’s impressed by any of them.
Okay, it’s just a painting of a bunch of Indians in a different time and place and okay so it was called “The Contenders” but it was bought by one of the most powerful men in industry who put it in his board of directors room and retitled it “The Board of Directors” where it hangs to this day.
And what’s this got to do with our story and the whole point of all this? He was the most moral man our narrator says he ever knew in a position of that high authority. And why is that important? Because every Presidential candidate would seek his support AND money before anyone else.
My point: we can’t change the person. But we can change the person we support. At least as long as we still have a republic.
And what was Benjamin Franklin’s answer to Elizabeth Willing Powel when she asked: “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?”
“A republic, if we can keep it.”
So far, so good.
P.S.: The Iroquois in the painting represent the five nations of their federation who ruled all of New York State at one time. Washington and others based much of our Constitution on their government. In case you wondered why the painting? The man who bought it had commissioned Augustine, our narrator from Confessions to paint a series of paintings on New York State Indians. This is one of dozens. The man who bought this painting as well as all the other paintings owned dozens of companies all over the world. Without his support a certain president many years ago would not have been president.
So to answer my friend’s challenge: how do we assure our leaders have the moral compass we in turn support? By reaching those who have the power to give them that support.
Epstein Files?
And all those world leaders?
Leaders?
According to my fellow Jew who challenged me, the highest next to God was Lucifer. And what was his downfall?
Pride. Hubris.
It’s like a man thinking he was Superman jumping off the top of the very skyscraper he built thinking he could now fly and as he descended each story he could be heard to say, “So far, so good.”
Dr. Phineas T. Redwell