In watching the huge amount of precipitation that will deluge Northern California just after the first week of 2017 our Think Tank dared to ask the question no one wants to talk about; are the Sacramento Levees safe? It turns out that Arnold Schwarzenegger as Governor of California tried to get the upgrading of those levees into the budget several times (along with water retention projects for droughts), but the Democrat majority in the California Legislature at the time wanted to spend that money on social programs.

At the time Democrats called it a victory, but perhaps in hindsight they set the state up for a pending disaster, we shall soon see as this mega storm drops it’s mother load on California. How much water will hit Northern California? Well, he Los Angeles Times had an interesting article published on January 6, 2017 titled; “In Mammoth Lakes, preparing for a mammoth storm,” by Tony Barboza, Hailey Branson-Potts and Joseph Serna which stated:

“The epic system could dump so much rain and snow that some ski runs and roads are closed warning of significant flooding, mudslides and avalanches in the Sierra Nevada. Up to 12 inches of rain is expected on areas below 8,500 feet & up to 7 feet of snow in higher elevations. The storm was packing the same wallop as one that hit Northern California in 2005, causing $300 million in damage. This system could bring 36-hours of heavy rain to parts of Northern CA. While that is good news for California, in its 6th year of drought, the coming rain could melt already-standing snow – feeding watersheds swollen from storms earlier this week.”

True enough and other reports from the Weather Channel suggest that the amount of water could be in the neighborhood of 15-Mississippi Rivers and about 57 Trillions of gallons of water, enough to actually affect the planet’s rotation, albeit only few hundredth of a second. Will the mistake of the California Legislature during Arnold’s tenure as governor and the subsequent years recently under Jerry Brown cost the US Taxpayer around the country 100s of Billions of dollars? It just might, and this will be a tough call for the Trump Administration if that levee system fails and drowns thousands of people and put a good chunk of Sacramento underwater.

How bad is the situation? Well, it turns out there was a lot of snow pack, about a decade ago, one year that put the snow levels at 175% of normal and they were extremely worried back then, fast forward 10-years later, more wear and tear on the levee system and no major upgrades, that could spell disaster and anyone who isn’t worried about it, isn’t paying attention – let’s just hope the experts and weather forecasters got this one wrong. Think on it – be great, don’t hesitate.

A discourse is a formal method of speech or writing where the speaker or writer tries to goad content and meaning upon the listener or reader. A dialogue on the other hand is an informal speech aimed at constructing meaning which adheres to democratic norms. This article would like to focus on various forms of dialogue that remain embedded in the ritual of life.

First of all I would like to start with a coercive dialogue. A coercive dialogue is one of its kind where the speaker or writer tries to enforce meaning upon the other. In a coercive dialogue, meaning is autocratic-centered and there is very little constructivism. I would like to use an example from modern-day politics. Trump forced the countries of the Middle East to sever their ties with Qatar. This form of diplomatic whip ruling is coercive-centered dialogue.

Secondly, I would like to introduce a democratic dialogue. A democratic dialogue is a form of conversational apology where the speaker or writer follows what I would describe in Buddha’s line of thought called the Middle Way. An example of a democratic dialogue can be illustrated with an example from Indian History. Mahatma Gandhi made the famous Dandi March where he and his followers in order to protest against the salt tax, marched to the sea and made salt.

Thirdly I would like to introduce a form of dialogue called persuasive dialogue. The aim of this form of dialogue is to win the attention and favor of the reader or listener. This form of dialogue is famous in the Philosophy of rhetoric. The aim of this form of dialogue is to flatter, seduce, inflame, excite and generate much attention. This form of dialogue can be found in films, music, dance and drama. This type of dialogue is also generated by demagogues.

The fourth of a dialogue is coined in a neologism psycho-log. It is a form of dialogue which takes place between a client and a lawyer, a therapist, a counselor, a psychiatrist. It follows an intense period of questions and answers. Sometimes the dialogue attains a therapeutic tone. The dialogue is a mixture of democracy and autocracy.

The fifth form of dialogue is streams of consciousness dialogue. In steams of consciousness writing, the normal rules of grammar, syntax and punctuation are avoided. The writer writes in a free association of thought. The master of streams of consciousness writing was James Joyce who wrote the epic novel-Ulysses. Reading Joyce one is filled with profound poetry of emotion. Virginia Wolf is also another acclaimed writer of streams of consciousness. Within Streams of Consciousness, reading becomes a poetic metaphor of thought.

Kinshasa is the capital of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DR Congo). It has many attractive and interesting natural settings and is located alongside the Congo River. In addition to its natural attractions, the city also contains some very significant educational and media institutions. In general, standard medical facilities are scarce in Democratic Republic of Congo. Even though Kinshasa houses some of the better hospitals in the country, do not expect high quality health care service at international standards from these hospitals. The facilities most of them provide are ordinary and the medical service is of average quality. This is a summary of some of the more popular hospitals in Kinshasa.

The address for Centre Medical de Kinshasa (CMK) is Avenue des Wagenias, Commune de la Gombe. This hospital is one of the leading hospitals in Kinshasa. It is properly equipped and provides good medical service in various medical fields. Its equipment includes a brand new CT, X-ray and MRI units in addition to a pharmacy, lab and multiple operating theaters. Comfortable accommodations are also available. Telephone: 243 89 895 0300.

Hospital General de Kinshasa (HGK) located at Avenue Colonel Ebeya, Kinshasa, is one of the largest public sector hospitals in DR Congo. This 2000 bed hospital employs a cumulative staff of 2250 and conducts over 3,000 consultations and 120 deliveries every day. The hospital offers complete and cost effective health care service. During the administration of Dr. William Close, the admired American missionary physician, the hospital achieved many developments including a large maternity ward. He recruited many eminent foreign doctors also. HGK has eight operating rooms, departments in the major medical specialties, intensive care units and laboratories. The hospital is a major referral center and is known to provide good, personal attention. Telephone: 00243 63070; 00243 63050.

Yolo Medical Hospital Centre of Kinshasa situated at 1263 Avenue Yolo, Kinshasa is another popular health care facility in Kinshasa. The private limited company, SPRL manages this hospital. The hospital has been offering effective medical consultations, clinical and surgical service for almost thirty years. In 1987, a new building was added to the hospital complex. The hospital now has suitably equipped operating rooms, a maternity ward and offices for administrative services. Yolo Medical Hospital has a advanced laboratory also. The emergency department of this hospital has many brand new facilities. Telephone: 00243 819995321.

The address for Sdarovia hospital is 84 bis, Avenue Masimanimba, Kinshasa. This service oriented medical facility offers cost effective medical service to those struggling with poverty. Doctor Paul Bobe Alifi Leta founded this nonprofit Christian hospital. The hospital employs 10 staff physicians and a dedicated nursing staff to assure the best personal treatment. The hospital gets generous funding from different parts of the world and uses this for purchasing state-of-the-art equipment. Sdarovia hospital conducts many medical education and research programs and has emerged as one of the best health care centers in DR Congo. The hospital offers good medical care at low price in all major departments and their pediatrics and obstetrics units are particularly satisfactory. Telephone: 0243 97862034.

Youth is the beautiful springtime of life, full of energy and eagerness. Age in America today is seen as a handicap, full of aches and in need of help. The image of George H Bush skydiving for his 90th birthday is drowned out by ads about elders in need of home care. In that arena, Joe Biden is scrutinized for defects. Those pale in comparison to his value at this moment as a man experienced in governing the US.

Democratic presidential candidate challengers to Trump have a trove of great ideas on how to remedy the damage Trump is inflicting on the country. Those range from Constitutional infractions to human rights abuses and the standing of the US in the world community. Add to that list his abuse of his presidential powers, his assault on the environment and the erosion of public trust due to lies emanating from the American White House. indeed, the democrats have a large menu of urgent issues to address, but none stand a chance if Trump can’t be undone.

Current US President Donald Trump lies openly and claims the deceit is a negotiating tactic. A third of the country buys the Trump side of the double talk. The other two-thirds fumes over how so many can be so gullible. It takes a person who’s been burned a few times to spot the spot the trick and know how to use it.

Circus maven P.T Barnum reputedly said back in the mid-1800’s that there’s a sucker born every minute. He made his mark by exhibiting trumped up freaks and getting the curious to pay for seeing them. America’s current President conducts similar oddities in the form of skirting laws and norms. The American public pays big to let a third of its people admire the legal gymnastics.

The world’s melting pot and land of opportunity makes room for the vulnerable one-third in its population that buys the Trump twist on American values. The toll, however, is heavy for the two-thirds who care about the American foundation of democracy. All they need is a leader who can show the way based on instinct I informed through experience.

Joe Biden has come under attack for positions taken 10, 20, 30 years ago. He is held to account for comments that ring alarms and for being tone deaf, out of step with today. Actually, it is the perception that is out of touch with reality.

Today’s media world is fast paced. That is the condition that put reality star conman Donald Trump into the Oval Office. His experience told him that he could bluff his way into any situation he wanted. He did just that, even if he had to con his way to that position and use outside sources to get the job done.

Joe Biden, on the other hand, is a person of experience with higher aspirations than enriching himself. He went through the excruciating period in America’s past when racial desegregation was uncertain ideal. He fought for social gains within constraints of the times while Donald Trump was scheming to get the best pf his next mark.

Donald Trump hasn’t changed and neither has Joe Biden. Trump is still ripping off as many Americans as possible. Joe Biden wants to stop him and get American moving again as he did under the progressive era of Barack Obama.

In his lofty position, Trump has no trouble spewing out incendiary lies to stir his audience. He has a host of schills to help sell the story. Joe Biden has a lifetime of experience in promoting the public good in opposition to those like Trump. He merits a break in the media microscope of today.

Experience lays down a vast infrastructure of information in the brain. Those lay the foundation for spoken expressions in the present. Sn answer to a question may take a moment to process. That is far less than the week of media coverage given to the monster hurricane Damian.

That disaster impacts thousands of lives and communities. The response of US President Donald Trump was to play a “short round of golf.” Considering that the Damian disaster was his excuse for skipping out on an international responsibility, no further words need be processed from thoughts.

Biden doesn’t need a week to process thoughts and produce potent words. He does, however, deserve s few seconds for the process. After all, whether it’s Joe Biden or some other democratic candidate with experience under the belt, the goal is to defeat a man in the Oval Office who doesn’t take even a second to process a thought into words that can sink the whole world..

Politicians and other talking heads (and thus the general public) seem to agree that the current credit crisis was caused by lack of governmental oversight of the big bad bankers. In actual fact, it was just the opposite. The cause of the crisis was Government pressure (mostly but not entirely from Democrats in the White House and Congress) imposed on the mortgage lending industry as far back as the beginning of the Clinton era. Semi-government institutions, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, caved in to the pressure, and by readily buying ever-increasing numbers of shaky loans, they made it highly profitable for loan originators (mostly local brokers and bankers) and loan “bundlers” (Wall Street) to willingly go along.

Starting in 1992, a majority-Democratic Congress mandated that Fannie and Freddie increase their purchases of mortgages for low-income and medium-income borrowers. Operating under that requirement, Fannie Mae, in particular, became aggressive and creative in stimulating “minority gains.” The Clinton administration investigated Fannie Mae for racial discrimination and proposed that 50 percent of Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s portfolio be made up of loans to low- to moderate-income borrowers by the year 2001. The Clinton administration criticized the mortgage industry for looking at “outdated criteria,” such as the mortgage applicant’s credit history and ability to make a down payment. Threatening lawsuits, Clinton’s Federal Reserve demanded that banks treat welfare payments and unemployment benefits as valid income sources to qualify for a mortgage. That isn’t a joke — it’s a fact.

By 1999, liberals were bragging about extending affirmative action to the financial sector. A Los Angeles Times reporter hailed the Clinton administration’s affirmative action lending policies as one of the “hidden success stories” of the Clinton administration, saying that “black and Latino homeownership has surged to the highest level ever recorded.” After 2001, a major new market was found for these loans-illegal immigrants.

Meanwhile, a few economists (but no politicians) were screaming that the Democrats were forcing mortgage lenders to issue loans that would fail as soon as the housing market slowed and overly-stretched borrowers couldn’t get out of their loans by refinancing or selling their houses. In Bush’s first year in office, the White House chief economist, N. Gregory Mankiw, warned that the government’s “implicit subsidy” of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, combined with loans to unqualified borrowers, was creating a huge risk for the entire financial system. Rep. Barney Frank denounced Mankiw, saying he had no “concern about housing”. The New York Times reported that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were “under heavy assault by the Republicans,” but these entities still had “important political allies” in the Democrats.

During the 2004 presidential campaign, George Bush bragged about the fact that a greater percentage of Americans owned their own homes than ever before, but (except for praising low interest rates) he did not explain how or why this happened. President Bush pushed even farther; he asked lawmakers to eliminate the down payment normally required for FHA loans. So Republicans have dirty hands too.

Nevertheless, in 2005 after Fannie and Freddie were investigated and heavily fined for accounting fraud, Republicans in Congress wanted to take away Fannie and Freddie’s privileged status, but by a strict party line vote Democrats won, and Fannie and Freddie were allowed to continue their businesses largely unchanged, but with one condition…they had to increase their support of loans for challenged borrowers. By this time, those working in the mortgage industry were calling such loans, “liars’ loans”.

By the end of 2006, 30% of new mortgages in the USA were subprime mortgages, up from 2% in 2002. Most such mortgages were sold off by the banks who originated the loans and converted into CDO’s, securities backed by bundles of mortgages. Despite the junk loans in these bundles, these securities continued to be rated AAA by the bond rating agencies. Many financial institutions all over the world continued to invest in them, because of their AAA rating, their reputation as being backed by the U.S. government, and a slightly higher interest rate than “comparable” securities. Many banks did not buy them at all, and some hedge funds entered into swaps whereby they made money if these securities lost value.

Lax standards for borrowers and low interest rates after 9/11/2001 expanded the demand for houses which, in turn, inflated prices. Seemingly reliable price increases attracted flippers and people who figured that owning a second or third house would be a good investment, further adding to the demand. Total demand drove housing far beyond any sustainable price level. Confidence in ever-increasing housing prices tempted many to cash in their “profits” by taking home equity loans.

When the housing bubble finally burst in 2005, the huge inventory of dubious first mortgages along with accumulated second mortgages piled on many properties caused the mortgage loan default rate to spike. This caused the market for mortgage-backed securities to soon collapse. Those who bet against these securities collectively made billions, but others like Merrill Lynch and AIG were stuck. Because no one would buy them, these securities had to be recognized on the books as essentially having no value, as per one of the new regulations (“mark to market”) adopted after the Enron debacle. Per accounting standards, financial institutions that owned these securities had to write down these assets against their equity, leading to huge decreases in the equity of a few of the largest banks. These banks no longer had enough equity to meet the loan/equity ratios required by banking regulations, so they had to virtually stop making loans of any kind, thus triggering the present credit crisis. Some large banks like Citigroup tried to cope by selling 10 or 20% of themselves to sovereign funds, namely the investment arms of the Chinese and various Arab governments, but these countries soon lost confidence in the system and withdrew further support. Finally, major financial institutions began going bankrupt. As some economists predicted, the affirmative action loan time-bomb has exploded.

Now, at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars, taxpayers will have to rescue one of the Democrats’ most important constituent groups: rich Wall Street bankers. It is likely that soon after that deal is done, billions more will be spent to bail out a bigger group of Democratic supporters: welfare recipients, illegal immigrants, and other unqualified borrowers, who were given loans that twenty years ago would have been considered laughable.

The mainstream media has no stomach to criticize liberal Democrats, who, more than anyone else, caused all of this. While government intervention caused the problem, the fix, ironically, is supposedly greater government involvement (regulation) in the future. Politicians are participating in this cover-up, because nearly all of them are on record supporting easier-to-get mortgages, and they want people to believe they had little to do with causing the problem. Both Obama and McCain say it is too bad better regulations were not in place, as if it were possible to regulate against large companies making bad investments. Both candidates probably had focus group data indicating that voters did not want to hear what was the real cause of the credit crisis.

Apparently, the country has learned nothing from this expensive mistake, so it will only be a matter of time before the government again will wreck the economy.

Aristotle, the Greek philosopher lived and wrote his discourse on ‘Politics’ around 350 B.C. while the Florentine Machiavelli’s ‘Discourses on Titus Livy’ was published posthumously in A.D. 1531. Aristotle enjoys an established position in the field of ethics, politics, metaphysics, and he ‘formulated the field of natural philosophy by summarising what the natural philosophers before him had considered relevant…. He is the creator of modern scientific terminology who founded and classified the various sciences extant today’ (Jayasinghe 2009). That Machiavelli’s reputation is somewhat more controversial can be ascertained from the dictionary definitions of the word ‘Machiavellian’. The Shorter Oxford Dictionary begins straightforwardly enough with the definition of ‘Machiavellian’ as a noun: ‘A person who adopts the principles recommended by Machiavelli in his treatise on statecraft’; and then, as an adjective: ‘of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Machiavelli or his principles, adopting unscrupulous methods; duplicitous, deceitful, cunning, scheming’. Our contention is that the latter explanation, although accepted over a along period of time by popular use, is a misconception of the valid and influential contributions that Machiavelli made to political theory and practice.

Machiavelli:

Although chronologically more recent than Aristotle, this essay purports to begin by discussing the impact of Machiavelli on political thought and statecraft, especially his contribution to the modern concept of ‘democratic elitism’ followed by a discussion of Aristotle’s contribution to the field, especially his central and influential concept of ‘polity’ as a precursor to democratic elitism.

Machiavelli gained a reputation and a following for his contributions to political theory, while he also contributed to the principles of warfare, literature, history and diplomacy. His negative reputation rests on his very first work, written in 1513 but published posthumously in 1532, ‘The Prince’. As a realist and pragmatist Machiavelli discounted the common view held by political philosophers that moral goodness was the basis for political power, giving legitimacy for the exercise of authority. From first hand experience as the Second Chancellor of the Republic of Florence before the Medici regained power in 1512, Machiavelli saw that the only real concern of a ruler was to acquire and maintain power with no regard to the moral dimension which he saw as completely irrelevant to statecraft.

For Machiavelli, force of arms is the only legitimising instrument and the foundation of a well-ordered political system. Political authority and legitimacy is built upon force or the threat of force and not always upon established principles to which all citizens pay homage to. Machiavelli described people in general as being ‘ungrateful, disloyal, insincere and deceitful, timid of danger and avid of profit’ (Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, 2005; 2009). Subjects obey the laws of the state because of fear of the superior power of the state. He bases his arguments on the self-interest of the majority of individuals who do not, in practice, subscribe to moral injunctions unless forced by fear of consequences. Here we find the basis of Machiavelli’s idealisation of the ‘prince’ as against the passive, indolent and ignorant ‘people’.

What political thinkers who came after Machiavelli termed ‘democratic elitism’ (Bachrach 1967) had its origin directly in Machiavelli’s vision of the requirements for attaining and holding political power, although not everybody subscribes to this view. The concept he developed was termed ‘virtu’, not the same as the English word ‘virtue’ with connotations of moral uprightness. To Machiavelli, who held pagan beliefs, Christian virtues of humility, piety and submission to God’s will, were not the ideal, but heroism, manliness, force of character, and conquest, were. What Machiavelli means by ‘virtu’ is…’the range of personal qualities that the prince will find necessary to acquire in order to “maintain his state” and to “achieve great things,” the two standard markers of power for him’ (op.cit.). According to Machiavelli, the ruler must adopt a “flexible disposition” where he varies ‘her/his conduct from good to evil and back again “as fortune and circumstances dictate”(op.cit.). Machiavelli has also postulated another central concept in ‘Fortuna’, as the irrational, malevolent, ultimate threat to the safety and security of the state. However, if ‘virtu’ and wisdom of the ruler is equal to it, Fortuna may be mastered at least to some extent, if not totally. What Machiavelli means, according to some commentator, is that in times of trouble the ruler needs to take drastic, even violent action to restore stability.

‘Machiavelli lays claim to the mantle of the founder of “modern” political science, in contrast with Aristotle’s classical norm-laden vision of a political science of virtue’ (op.cit.). Those politicians who considered Machiavelli to be an ally expounded the doctrine of ‘reason of state’ for actions that strayed from accepted codes of right and wrong (Viroli 1992). This current view of Machiavelli is in sharp contrast to how he was denounced in the 16th century as ‘an apostle of the Devil’ (op. cit). However, Machiavelli never advocated evil for its own sake; it was to be merely an instrument of power, which was neutral as far as conventional morality was concerned. There was also another view originated by Rousseau that Machiavelli was a satirist and was merely exposing the immorality of most rulers. However, all things being equal, Machiavelli preferred conformity to moral virtue and not to its opposite.

The advocates of ‘reason of state’ who argue for state absolutism, argue that the good of the state takes precedence over all other considerations, but is not supported by Machiavelli himself. To him the state was a ‘personal patrimony’ almost synonymous with ‘private property’. Allied to the concept of ‘virtu’, which equates to individual initiative, skill, talent and strength of the ruler, this shows that the ‘reason of state’ idea cannot be directly attributed to Machiavelli. ‘Machiavelli is at best a transitional figure in the process by which the language of the state emerged in early modern Europe’. The idea of a stable constitutional regime that reflects the tenor of modern political thought (and practice) is nowhere seen in Machiavelli’s conception of princely government’ (Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, 2005;2009).

Republicanism, to which Machiavelli attaches the most importance, dissociates politics from the religious and moral order. Machiavelli is said to be the first modern writer to point out that that there was no natural god-given framework to political life. Rather it was the task of politics to create order in the world. In the ‘Discourses’ Machiavelli refers to the French monarchy and the system of government approvingly. However, to him it was a minimal constitutional order in which people live securely (vivere sicuro), but not in freedom (vivere libero). The French government was strong, and held in check the aspirations of both the nobility and the common people. According to Machiavelli, the goal of political order is the freedom created by the active participation and contention between the nobility and the people. While the common people formed the democratic foundation by consent freely given, the nobility ruled, as is fitting for the elite. This then, was the foundation of the more modern concept of democratic elitism.

Machiavelli recognised the importance of laws and orders made by ‘Parlement’ in Paris, which provided the checks and balances that kept the monarch and the nobles from exercising arbitrary power. However, security alone was not enough, to truly guarantee freedom or liberty to the entire nation. Only in a republic would both aspects of political freedom take root. The French government, because it seeks security rather than liberty has needed to disarm the populace. Machiavelli believed that an armed citizen militia was the only guarantee against the tyranny from within, or from an external aggressor. Another facet that Machiavelli stressed in democratic elitism was that both the nobility and the ‘plebs’ take an active part in governing themselves. They may often clash, but this (‘the tumults’) is to be expected. In Machiavelli’s own words… ‘they do not realise that in every republic there are two different dispositions, that of the people and that of the great men, and that all legislation favouring liberty is brought about by their dissension’ (Machiavelli, 1965).

For Machiavelli, the elite are opinion-makers. He set great store in the ‘rhetorical’ character of his republicanism. Leaders are identified in open, public debate and this is a cornerstone in the concept of democratic elitism.

Aristotle:

Aristotle’s ‘Politics’ is a polemic on political philosophy. To a certain extent he had been influenced by his teacher Plato, but whereas Plato was a grand theorist pure and simple, Aristotle’s writings reveal him to be of a more grounded and empirical turn of mind. Although influenced by his teacher to some degree Aristotle breaks new ground in his exploration of political philosophy.

Aristotle explores the concept of a political community (‘koinonia politike’). He deals with the organisation of the household with the male as the head and then women, children and slaves, in that order and their relationship to each other. The male, as husband, father and master, is the central political unit of the household. The ‘natural’ hierarchies in a state are thus recognised from the beginning. He then deals with ‘wealth-getting, outlining practices he calls natural and unnatural forms of trade. He expresses some views which may be seen as quite unacceptable in today’s world. ‘…the male is by nature superior, and the female inferior; and the one rules and the other is ruled; this principle of necessity extends to all mankind.’ It is clear, then, that some men are by nature free and others slaves, and for these latter slavery is both expedient and right’ (The Internet Classics Archive: Politics by Aristotle). However, his beneficent view of this ‘natural’ order of things is revealed in:

The abuse of this authority is injurious to both; for the interest of part and whole, of body and soul, are the same, and the slave is part of the master, a living but separated part of his bodily frame. Hence, where the relation of master and slave between them is natural they are friends and have a common interest, but where it rests on law and force the reverse is true.

Aristotle goes on to describe various forms of household management and various means of earning a livelihood. After discussing the moral virtues of slaves and freemen, Aristotle goes on to assert that a ruler must have ‘moral virtue to perfection, for his function taken absolutely, demands a master artificer, and rational principle is such an artificer…'(op. cit.). This is in marked opposition to the Machiavellian position.

The word ‘democracy’ carried negative connotations for Aristotle. His ideal form of constitutional government was the ‘Polity (politeia)’, an amalgamation of the best of aristocracy and democracy. While Plato advocated rule solely by the ‘philosopher king’, Aristotle explored several forms of rule extant in the real world. He discovered monarchy, with only one head of state, which could degenerate into tyranny. Aristocracy, rule by a few, is another viable constitutional form. This can degenerate into an oligarchy, a junta. A democracy could also degenerate into mob rule. Aristotle condemns an ‘extreme from of democracy’ where the assembled mass of people fall victim to the exhortations of a demagogue and sets themselves above the law with dire consequences. For Aristotle, ‘polity’ as a mixed and balanced form of government is exemplified by his advocacy of the ‘golden mean’ in all things. Polity was a healthy mixture of the elite and the masses in a mutually sustaining arrangement. This surely was a precursor of a sort, to the modern concept of democratic elitism. For Aristotle it didn’t really matter whether the city-state was governed by the one, the few, or the many, what he was concerned with was whether each of these forms of government ruled in the interest of the state, or of themselves.

Polity is defined as the rule of the constitutional majority under the law in the interest of the whole state. In keeping with his admiration for the ‘golden mean’ Aristotle also favoured the growth of the middle-classes who are neither very rich nor poor.

For this degree of wealth is the readiest to obey reason… Hence the latter class (the poor) do not know how to govern but know how to submit to government of a servile kind, while the former class (the rich) only know how to govern in the manner of a master. The result is a state consisting of slaves and masters, not of free men, and of one class envious and another contemptuous of their fellows….. But surely the ideal of the state is to consist as much as possible of persons that are equal and alike, and this similarity is found in the middle classes…

Aristotle recognised the best ‘law-givers’ as coming from the middle class. He cites Solon, who was called upon to frame laws and a constitution for Athens. He is said to have put an end to an oligarchy to establish the original Athenian democracy. Aristotle found Solon to have established in Athens a democracy which operated under constitutional law and the result of a good mixture of political elements. Whereas Plato and Socrates had bowed down to the expert opinion in all matters, Aristotle saw in Solon’s achievement the soundness of the judgment of the majority, at least in constitutional matters.

Among the practical recommendations that Aristotle made to balance the contribution of the rich, and the not so rich within the state, he advocated fines for the rich if they did not attend public meetings, or sit in courts of law, with payment to the poor, to enable them to attend the meetings and take part in legal proceedings. He specifies the ownership of property qualification should be high for the rich and moderate for the poor. A commentator concludes that Aristotle’s’ ideal was the ‘expression of finding the mean in political matters and thus creating a more durable political association capable of securing the means for the cultivation of ethical and intellectual virtues as applied to the good life of the citizen’.

With the emergence of China as an economic superpower, and the liberal democracies of the West struggling to make ends meet, questions are beginning to be asked whether, or what kind of, Machiavellian solution may bring stability to the current chaotic world order.

Regardless of one’s personal political preferences, beliefs, etc, most will agree, we have witnessed, for the last 30 months, a level of political polarization, probably not witnessed, and/ or experienced, since the United States Civil War! In my lifetime, I have witnessed many politicians, many of which, I have disagreed with, but, there was, always, a certain degree of predictability, and/ or, expected/ anticipated behavior, etc. The current occupation of the White House, President Donald Trump, has, behaved, quite differently, often, resorting to name – calling, repeating misstatements/ lying, empty rhetoric/ promises, and, what many consider, extreme degrees of vitriol. The Democratic Party, 18 months, before the next Presidential election, have still not articulated, a compelling theme, but, rather, to a large degree, have merely, complained about Mr. Trump. Which of the more than two dozen candidates, might prevail, whether they can nominate a consensus candidate (who unifies them), etc, will certainly, determine the results of the 2020 elections! Will this be, about, President Trump’s record, or rhetoric/ promises? With that in mind, this article will attempt to, briefly, consider, examine, review, and discuss, 5 possible/ potential factors.

1. What’s most important to electorate?: There seems to be, little – to – no, meeting – of – the – minds, or seeking the common good! Since the American political system, is, quite complicated, especially because of the use of the Electoral College, which candidate, and specific message, will appeal, enough, to prevail?

2. Voter turnout: In the hotly contested, 2016 Presidential election, more potential voters, did not vote, than did! Will the rhetoric, of today’s political climate, bring people out, or, will it turn – them – off? Which voters are most likely to vote, and, who might they support, and why? Will enough individuals, pay keen attention, fact – check (in order to differentiate between political spin/ opinions, and real facts), or will, we, once again, witness, empty promises, and rhetoric, win – out?

3. Will Democrats unify, behind their candidate, or repeat 2016?: In 2016, Democrats, to a large degree, defeated themselves, because, a considerable percentage of Bernie Sanders’ voters, either, didn’t vote, at all, or supported a minority candidate (with no chance of winning), or Mr. Trump (as a protest against Hillary Clinton). Will this election be more of the same, or will they unify, behind their candidate, in order to defeat President Trump, in 2020?

4. Priorities: What will be the voters’ priorities? Will opposing Trump, be enough, to unify Democrats? Will immigration become a major issue, which, either benefits the President, or his opponents? Will the majority of Americans credit President Trump, for the economy, or, will they believe, it has not treated, all segments of society, equally? How about the environment/ Climate Change, integrity/ ethics in politics, etc?

5. What’s right, versus, appeals to biases/ prejudices/ self – interest/ political agenda?: Will the rights, privileges, freedoms, and justice, for – all, expressed in our Constitution, prevail, or, will an appeal to core supporters’ biases, prejudices, etc?

No one knows, for sure, what will be the over – riding issues/ considerations, regarding the 2020 Presidential election! However, if we hope to see a relevant, sustainable government, which addresses compelling priorities and needs, voters must become ready, willing, and able to pay keen attention, and be less apathetic!

Secretly conducted central government proceedings, which directly affect the integrity of an entire nation, a republic, always smack of fascism and illegality, and remind the reasonable and historically minded person of the conspiracies of the Nazi Party in pre-World War II Germany. According to the U.S. Constitution, articles of impeachment against a standing duly elected U.S. President can only be asserted by the U.S. House of Representatives against that President if accused of high crimes and misdemeanors. Currently, a firm majority of the American electorate, or those U.S. citizens currently old enough to vote (over 50 percent of them), are demanding to know the specific high crimes Donald Trump is accused of committing to warrant articles of impeachment in the House of Representatives. Wise pundits such as Mark Levin, Esq. have poignantly cried on television and radio insisting on complete openness and clarity from the House Democrats, especially Adam Schiff, regarding their accusations against President Trump. Fictitious polls have been created and publicized in the mainstream media, such as the New York Times, Washington Post, U.S.A. Today, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, and NPR, like the outrageous headline by the U.S.A. Today proclaiming that 59% of the “American people” “say Trump saw gain via Ukraine” according to a Quinnipiac University poll. What the hell is a Quinnipiac Poll? Next week the same newspaper might scandalously cite a Girl Scout poll indicating that 70 percent of the American people say that Donald Trump should wear shorter ties of a different color than red.

As I have stated before, as have numerous other political analysts, all polls declared accurate and reliable are sorrowfully inaccurate and as crooked as a dog’s hind-leg. Most reasonable American citizens refuse to be disturbed by telephone solicitors during the evening weekday hours, or on the weekends; and that is exactly what pollsters are, disruptive telephone solicitors. These minimum wage hacks are soliciting opinions, and most hardworking Americans either refuse to answer their telephones, or hang-up immediately, when disturbed when they are either relaxing or eating meals. So, who are these pollsters contacting, if not reasonable American citizens, to make such seemingly definitive percentage proclamations? To be perfectly frank, they are lying through their teeth for their political lord, the almighty dollar. When they publicly say that they’ve contacted a thousand reasonable voting American citizens during their poll, you can be certain that they have actually contacted less than probably a hundred people, and those people were probably either children, illegal aliens who could barely speak English, or very depressed unreasonable people just wanting someone with whom to talk.

Nonetheless, though lying to the American public is immoral, it is not illegal unless the liar is under-oath to tell the truth. A shame it is that all newspapers and radio/television news-people cannot be placed officially under-oath to credibly publish and the state the truth about a matter based upon only the relevant prevailing facts. If that were so, people like the inveterate liar Rep. Adam Shiff would not have a platform from which to spew their snake-like venom.

You see, the Democrat majority in the House of Representatives has used Shiff’s fabricated version of President’s Trump’s telephone exchange with the Ukrainian President to vaunt the hearsay statement of the alleged CIA whistleblower into the limelight. In effect, that CIA employee is not a whistleblower, but merely a gossip who didn’t hear anything directly President Trump, but only mouthed words he, or she, allegedly heard someone else say something about a phonecall between Mr. Trump and the Ukrainian President. Yet, Mr. Trump has already disclosed an official transcript of the telephone call, and there was nothing in it that could possibly be construed as improper or illegal. What this effort designed by the Democrats to impeach Mr. Trump boils down to is an illegal pragmatic conspiratorial fiat to remove the President from office; since they couldn’t do it legally through the 2016 Election and the Russia-collusion witch-hunt, called the Mueller investigation. Mr. Trump came through each of these farcical gauntlets shining brightly like a new silver dollar. Just like Hillary Clinton’s perverse and illegal Obama-era State Department dealings, email illegalities, and her pathological lying came back to bite her in the rear, causing her to lose the 2016 Presidential Election and the trust of the American electorate, all of the underhanded illegal doings of the Democrat Party before and since 2017 to harm President Trump is going to cause the Democrats to lose a House majority and the Presidential election in 2020.

The secret committee hearings in the U.S. House of Representatives occurring on Capitol Hill will only serve to create suspicion in the collective mind of the American electorate, to denigrate and discredit Mr. Trump’s accusers. Openness and disclosure are the hallmarks of a constitutional republic. In the end, those million-or-so people, illegal aliens, dead Americans, and many dead-minded Democrats, who, by the pragmatic political machinations of the Democrat Party in the “big-city” states, will end-up voting in the 2016 election for a Democrat socialistic candidate, will not hardly be not be enough votes to match the great popular-vote of the reasonably minded American heartland, which will certainly give President Trump over 300 electoral votes and ensure his reelection. The voice and will of the true American electorate will be heard loud and clear.

Not long ago, I met a nice and pleasant college student studying at Starbucks, she goes to the local 4-year State University here. Well, I thought she was a nice and polite college student until she started talking about her politics. Let me give you a run-down on all this because as a baby-boomer I am quite frankly a little appalled by the sense of entitlement going on with kids in college these days.

You see, she told me she wanted to vote for Bernie Sanders because she liked what he promised about health care and tuition free college, that is to say Free College for Everyone. Okay, lots of people feel this way but isn’t it just a bit self-serving – to vote for someone so you can get free stuff that everyone else will have to pay for? Of course this vote-buying game is something that the Democrats engage in early and often – and socialist leaning candidates around the world use this strategy as they come into power as populist leaders.

Since, Hillary Clinton is the nominee now, she said; “I am definitely voting for Hillary!” and “I like what she stands for with gays, minorities, free health care and college,” besides she is a Democrat nominee. I asked her what she thought about how Team Clinton and the DNC worked to shut out her former favorite candidate, a very deceptive and dishonest move. She told me; “That’s politics!” Really, a college student suddenly thinks she knows everything about politics? Also, where on Earth is her loyalty? No loyalty as long as she gets free-college tuition and doesn’t have to pay back here student loans.

And guess what, this sentiment is hardly uncommon. Did you know that college loan defaults have skyrocketed since the Democrats started talking about “Free Tuition” during this 2016 Presidential Election? It’s true, it jumped over 10%. The Wall Street Journal in an article titled; “More Than 40% of Student Borrowers Aren’t Making Payments – New figure raises worries that millions of them may never repay more than $200 billion owed,” by John Mitchell April 2016. Well, thanks a lot Bernie and Hillary, thanks for your undermining of yet another important sector of our society. The article stated:

“While most have since left school and joined the workforce, 43% of the roughly 22 million Americans with federal student loans weren’t making payments as of Jan. 1, according to a quarterly snapshot of the Education Department’s $1.2 trillion student-loan portfolio,” and “About 1 in 6 borrowers, or 3.6 million, were in default on $56 billion in student debt, meaning they had gone at least a year without making a payment, 3-million more owing roughly $66 billion were at least a month behind.”

Since many of these student loans are backed by the tax-payer and the rest turn out to be part of citizen’s stock portfolio, we are shifting all the current costs and past defaults to older Americans. Lastly, I’d like to add something here. Whenever the government helps create a “bubble” in any sector of our economy, it always double-downs and makes it worth, fails to rectify the problem, this is going to be a disaster.

Further, if college tuition becomes free, and if the government is involved, trust me; that is all it is going to be worth. And the Democrats they are busy attacking Donald Trump for his Trump University? Give me a break. It’s time for the Democrats to come clean on this problem they’ve created and stop promising things they cannot do. Didn’t they learn from ObamaCare?

In these times, when the level of polarization, in American politics, is, probably, at its highest, recent polls indicate, approximately 35% of the voters, are strong supporters of President Trump (and, will, most probably, vote for him in the next election), and approximately 40% have indicated, they will almost certainly vote against him. This leaves, somewhere around 25 to 30% of the electorate, who will most likely, determine, who is elected, in 2020. Many opponents of Mr. Trump, seem to believe, they will defeat him, in the next election, but, the reality, probably is, that election will be one of the most closely contested ones, in years. Remember, in 2016, when Trump defeated Clinton, she won the popular vote, while he won the Electoral College, and thus, the election. In that contest, the margin of victory in several, so – called, swing – states, was extremely small. Therefore, if Democrats hope to regain control of the White House, they will need, to provide the American public, with a compelling reason, rather than merely, going, negative, against this President. So far, over 20 individuals, have announced, they will be running in the Democratic primaries, and, they run, on the political spectrum, from being moderates, to, far more liberal/ progressive. Should this be, merely, about finding a winning candidate, or, one, who might be ready, willing, and able, to make a difference, for the better, for the nation, and the citizens? With that in mind, this article will attempt to, briefly, consider, examine, review, and discuss, whether we need, idealistic progressives, or pragmatic idealism?

1. Opposing President Trump: Although, opposing the rhetoric, ethics, and agenda, of President Trump, may mobilize some, shouldn’t there be, a goal – oriented, focused, solutions – based, candidate, to serve the needs of our nation?

2. How far left? How far, left, on the political spectrum, should the Democratic candidate, be? Candidates, such as Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren, are, perhaps, the furthest, in that direction. However, wouldn’t the moderates (both, Democrats, and Republicans), perhaps, be frightened – off, by the expected, appeal to fears, which, no doubt, would be articulated, by the incumbents, and his strongest supporters? Also, isn’t it, merely, empty rhetoric, on the left, to articulate a strong, progressive message, which has little, to no, probably, of being enacted?

3. Winning, and making a difference, versus, pie – in – the – sky: Which is more important, to win, and make a difference, and preserve certain principles and ideals, or, demanding, a more progressive, but, unachievable, agenda? The reality is, only when we proceed, with progressive idealism, will we be able to, truly, move, in a direction, focused, on the common good!

4. Who might win, and why?: We should never vote for a candidate, solely, because, he might have a better chance, of regaining the Presidency, but, it should be a realistic consideration! Many believe, in 2016, one of the key reasons, Clinton, was defeated, was, the unwillingness of some Sanders’ supporters, to vote, for her, in the general election. Will these voters, again, be spoilers, if Bernie, doesn’t gain the nomination? Which potential standard – bearer, might, attract, those who consider themselves, progressives, while being acceptable, to the moderates, and disenchanted Republicans?

5. Who might be easiest for Trump to oppose?: Whether one supports, or opposes, Donald Trump, all should admit, and recognize, he is a clever candidate, who knows, how to appeal, inspire and motivate, his core supporters! The campaign against Sanders, will be, repeatedly, calling him, Crazy Bernie, and a socialist (whatever that means), and, he will continue calling Elizabeth Warren, Pocohontas, etc. Biden has sought the office, several times, and although, he is currently the front – runner, his record of running, has been less than stellar! He is probably the least likely, to attract, Sanders’ supporters, but might have the most appeal to moderates.

In my humble opinion, I personally believe, the best Democratic candidates, at least at this point, appear to be, Kamala Harris, Corey Booker, and Amy Kubliner, but, that doesn’t mean, they will get the nomination. If Democrats, wish, to avoid, ruining this opportunity, they must, come together, and look at the bigger picture, with a combination of pragmatism, and idealism!