Sunday, August 17, 2014

The Politics Of Morality, The Political Divide (Part 2)
It goes unspoken that many of today's 'hot-button' issues are related to morality. Abortion, stem-cell research, gay rights, tax reduction, health care, and even foreign affairs. In part one, The Politics of Morality (part 1), the aspects of morality discussed were of a personal nature. However, the morality at the center of today's moral discourse is social. Social morality has developed into a set of standards. In the case of abortion-how much should society value life? With stem-cell research- what should be the limits of scientific study? In regards to gay rights, how people should live and to what extent should people's civil rights be associated with the way we live? Health care begs the question, how should public taxes be distributed. The tax debate is centered around on what society rewards and encourages. Lastly, regarding foreign affairs -how should society spread its morals to other societies. [Source: Morality and Political Discourse by Yanpei Chen]

Personal Morality is absolute. 

In general, people tend to agree or disagree with personal morality traits of an individual. In comparison, social morality, in today's moral debates, there is a huge disagreement between people on what should be social norms. People gather themselves in groups and try vehemently to impose their morality on others as being the proper social norm. In America, these disagreements have formulated along political party lines, factions, and demographics. [See Article: Party Identification Has Become the Lens Most People See Through ]

In America's two-party system, these disagreements have tended to lump 'We the People' into opposing sides on just about any issues period, but; especially moral issues.

With the election of America's first person of color to the White House, we have seen no compromise whatsoever. In fact, many citizens in this country feel that the obstruction by the Republican Party has bordered on sedition. [See Article: Tea Party Seditionists Say Default Not So Bad] This environment has led to an " us or them," mentality.

No Moral Issue Can Be Settled To The Satisfactions of All!  

The above truism brings this writers research to the realities of just how conservatives and liberals think. Political thinking is very much cognitive. Thus, Cognitive science plays a role in the evaluation of how these left and right factions of political thought process issues in their brains. One thing is for sure; you can't think without a brain. Cognitive science suggests how our brains are shaped determine very much on how we think. Any idea that you may have that you have learned that you use over and again makes up a part of your mindset [way of thinking] according to many Cognitive scientists and is physically represented in our brains. This fact matters in our way of political thinking enormously. The idea that people have the same rational is absurd. People do not think the same. We all have our own unique conceptual systems of thought. However, there are some universal systems of thought. In terms of morality, there are lots of metaphors. Morality is righteousness. In general, morality is a sense of well-being. Helping people. Being a person of high morals is seen as a person of emotional wealth. For example, a person who tends to help people will have many who feel indebted to them thus emotional wealth. On the flip side, when a person does things to harm others there becomes a sense of making restitution for the wrong-doing so morality can be seen as a form of emotional economics

Forgiveness plays a huge role in morality. Revenge for a wrong done plays a role in morality. Feelings of guilt have a place in the realm of morality. Once again, all this goes to the moral accounting metaphor. Metaphorically speaking, morality has an economic system of accounting that calculates a person's morality. How does all of this relate to politics? In a word, framing. Cognitive thought creates framing [images] in our minds. For example, when you say apple, an image of that fruit appears in your mind. Politically, when you speak of tax relief what frame or image comes to your mind? We all remember when George Bush, Jr took office his first order of business was the Bush tax cuts.[Tax Relief] The first mental image that comes to mind is the word relief. If there is a need for relief, there must be an affliction of some sort. The term relief means that some faction is being harmed by taxes, and the moral thing to do is to provide tax relief for those afflicted. So, because of this harm Bush, Jr political handlers set him up as a hero and anyone trying to stop him are the bad guys. So, when you add text to that metaphorically, what they are saying is " taxation is an affliction."

So, for many in America today when they hear the term 'tax relief' this is the frame that appears in their minds. When they hear this over and over it becomes a part of their physical brain. What happens when this accrues is 'taxation is an affliction,' becomes common sense to the person. Now, with this said, it becomes clear. How media outlets like Fox news, which claims to be fair and balanced, can have two liberals and two conservatives on a discussion panel, but; the host is conservative and can frame the questions with the now known factor that most right- wing authoritarian followers will have in their mindset that 'taxation is an affliction. If you take the other sides terms, if you are opposing it politically, and you take a question that fits their ideology and argue against it you are basically arguing for it cause you will be offending the common sense of the targeted Fox news viewer. Your argument will, in fact, reinforce that ' taxation is an affliction.'

      In terms of the modern day debate over taxes and how they should be implemented and who should pay what share of them [taxes] I was reminded by George Lakoff book: Moral Politics , of Dan Quayle's acceptance speech at the 1992 Republican convention when speaking about the progressive tax  he made the statement:

Dan Quayle 

      "Why should the best people be punished?"

The first questions are why is this even considered an argument against the progressive income tax. Second, Dan Quayle assumption is that people with the most money are the best people. And, in terms of morality, this is completely false. But, to a person who has been condition on the notion that " taxation is an affliction," will buy it hook, line and sinker, even though, it goes against their own best interest. Why? Cause it plays into their misconception of their common sense. Why do I use the term misconception? Let's look at current events of current common sense discrepancies among right- wing authoritarian followers.

What are right-wing authoritarian followers?  

In general, a conservative person is against abortion and for a flat-tax. As a liberal, I am totally opposite to this position, so I don't get what the two issues have to do with one another. More baffling, why people are for the flat-tax but against environmental regulations. Moreover, why people who are against environmental regulations are overwhelmingly in favor of gun ownership no matter a person's mental capacity. Then, I can't understand why these same people who are for no gun laws whatsoever are for tort reform. Confused? These examples are pretty wholesale among conservatives, but; what do they have to do with one another? This conundrum is a typical example of a Cognitive science problem. What is it that brings these ideas together and unites them for conservatives? What brings these example into some natural order that certain mindsets of people agree in totality? What is it that makes this possible? Liberals ask the questions how can you be pro-life and for the death penalty? How you can be pro- life for a zygote, but; be for cutting aid to starving children and support and create laws that would detain and punish refugees [mostly children] from fleeing oppression. Conservatives claim liberals as irrational for not wanting to put a murder to death and sanctioning abortion. What this boils down to is different world views.

 What is it that defines the different views of the world people have physically embedded in their brains? Why do conservative's talk so much about family values? With all the complex problems we as a society face in these troubled times, why is the main issue for conservatives always family values? Some conservatives see their way of thinking and the grouping of these mindsets as a family of like-minded souls. In practice, however, the reality is that there are many different world views which lead to the conclusion there are many different notions of family. As previously pointed out there are two notions of family.

  • Strict father figure family. [Authoritarian]
  • Nurturing parent family. [Egalitarian]
Regarding the conservative authoritarian model which has been the model embraced by conservatives throughout the country my research led me to one James Dobson. Dobson has so many people writing for him he requires his own zip code.

Who is James Dobson?   

Dr.James Dobson

   Dr. James Dobson is the Founder and President of Family Talk, a nonprofit organization that produces his radio program, “Dr. James Dobson's Family Talk.” He is the author of more than 30 books dedicated to the preservation of the family, including The New Dare to DisciplineLove for a LifetimeLife on the EdgeLove Must Be ToughThe New Strong-Willed ChildWhen God Doesn’t Make Sense;Bringing Up BoysMarriage Under FireBringing Up Girls; and, most recently, Head Over Heels.

Dr. Dobson is one of those individuals accredited for much of the Republican Party's move to embrace religious factions [Christian Right] into the party fold and his Focus on the Family operation was a huge mechanism in answering the question; why do conservatives always focus on family values. However, ask any liberal and they will tell you flat out that Dobson view of family is distorted.

Case in point.


What Dobson has done is use fundamental theology and other doctrines and geared his writings and precepts of the ideal family into conservative ideology. This en-turn creates politics of morality, which causes a political divide cause as we have learned there are many world views, and many notions of  family.  Dobson, and many of the Christian right and the Republican Party claim to have a strict view of morality. It goes like this; it's a gender system of family structure. Daddy is different than mommy. The father must be strict he is the head of the family the authoritarian figure. There is evil out there in the world and it's the father's role to protect the family from it. Because there are winners and losers in this world, the father must be a winner to support the family. In the Dobson model, children are born badly, in the sense as a child if it feels good they want to do it. Children don't know right from wrong, and you need a strict father to teach them right from wrong. The major dilemma here is the various views on how to teach children right from wrong and this dilemma indirectly has caused a political divide in America and morality is the root.

Dr. Dobson model advocates punishment when they do wrong. Dobson claims that the punishment must be painful enough that the child will correct themselves next time when confronted with a choice. The idea is that the child will internalize the correction and not do wrong again. Dodson advocates spankings. Dobson claims beating a child is okay as long as they are over the age of 15 months. In the Dobson model and subsequently the republican model, a child and person can only become moral through discipline. The claim is through this discipline a person will become self- reliant and a prosperous adult.

Conservatives believe there is a link between morality and prosperity.

Discipline allows one to be obedient to the moral authority which makes one more successful, happy, and prosperous. There is a logic here. Suppose someone is not prosperous. Then you're not discipline enough. And, if you're not discipline enough you're not moral. So, you deserve your poverty. We see this mentality played out in our modern day political debate. We have seen Tea Party, Libertarians, and Republican Party main-streamers and related legislation on both the federal and state levels take on a " go fend for yourself," narrative. This attitude is a prime example of the politics of morality and how it has caused a political divide in America. All of this has social implications.

Another major part of the Dobson [conservative] model is after a child has grown and become mature if they have gotten the self-discipline they can go out into the world and take care of themselves. If they haven't, adhered to this discipline they should still go out into the world [tough-love]  and let the world discipline them.[The School of Hard Knocks] If they can't make it, too bad. Now, there is another part of this. Why is it moral within this system or doctrine to pursue your self-interest? Dobson is very clear about this; he proclaims this as being in step with Adam Smith version of capitalism. 
Noam Chomsky brings perspective on Adam Smith.          

Adam Smith claimed that if everyone pursued their profit by the 'invisible hand' the law of nature would maximize one's goals. The model suggest it's good to pursue your self-interest because that's good for everybody else. In this model, what's bad, is to interfere with someone's self-interest. According to Adam Smith taxation is an interference. And, that's why Dan Quayle said "why should the best people be punished." So, fast-forwarding to our modern day times, under this "train of thought" the Koch brothers are the best people because they are pursuing their self-interest. The next interference is government regulation. Government gets in the way of people pursuing their self-interest. There is also a term in conservative language for those who don't pursue their self-interest. When people pursue the good of the community they are labeled by conservatives as " do-gooders."

 A 'do-gooder,' is one of those people who is trying to help somebody and are getting in the way of those so-called best people self-interest. Once again, this is a prime example of the politics of morality and, how, it has created a political divide in America. Now, there are lots of other facets of this family values model. What does this conservative family values model say about social programs? Conservatives claim that all social programs are immoral. Why? They claim they hurt the people they are trying to help. Because, they are giving people something they have not earned. This action makes people dependent on the state, hence the term "nanny state." This dependence takes away their ability to be discipline that takes away their ability to be moral beings. So, in the cognitive minds of the right-wing authoritarian follower social programs are immoral according to this logic. In addition, you have the mindset as the father as the strict figure with the moral authority. Moral authority can be a very interesting idea because it brings together two trains of thought.

In the text, this translates to morality and power. Part of conservative thought is that people who are in power, who have pursued their self-interest, are moral and should have the authority over the rest of us do-gooders. In short, moral people should rule. The discipline people should rule. This belief gives rise to a conservative hierarchy or moral order. In the moral order which is part of the conservative model, you have GOD above man, man above nature, adults above children, western culture above non-western culture, America above other nations. It's the idea if you look at forms of authority historically that will show you what GOD has made moral. Then there are other versions. The bigotry ones, the ones that are so out front in today's Republican Party. It goes pretty much like this man above woman, whites above non-whites, straight people above gay people, Christians above non-Christians. Now, in fairness, not all conservatives have those bigoted views. There are non-bigoted conservatives. However, it is important to understand as a liberal it has been hard for me not to lump all conservatives into the irrational, mean- spirited, greedy and stupid box. In fact, all conservatives are not irrational, mean- spirited, and stupid. Conservatives have a strict interpretation of morality. For the most part, most conservatives see themselves as moral people. In this writer's view, this reality can sometimes be a "hard-pill-to-swallow."

What Morality Do Progressive and Liberals Have?    

Written By: Johnny Hill

Saturday, August 9, 2014

The Politics Of Morality. ( Part 1)

Before starting, to understand the politics of morality, one must have a clear definition of morality. According to,  morality is the conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct. Morality often is acquainted with the moral quality and character of a person. Then, of course, a virtue in sexual matters; chastity. In America, there has long been a doctrine or system of morals. Who sets these standards and rules of morals? And, how have these moralities infiltrated themselves into our political system?

The Politics of Morality.

Some argue that morality is in the eye of the beholder. That its and individuals choice. That individual's act according to their standards. And, through these actions affect others and is thus political. Politics, however, is public. By collective public governance, "We the People," determine policies, and these polices dictate to the individual a code of acceptable behavior thus politics affects the individual. So, in this writers view, it's fair to conclude that morality connects an individual to politics. Politics matters. Politics causes an individual to form opinions. And, through these opinions, which become public, legislation is drafted that impacts back to the individual. 

Morality Dominates Issues In Modern Day Politics.  

America has always quibbled over issues like foreign affairs, health care, economics, and taxes. However, in the modern day sphere of politics moral flash-point issues such as abortion, stem-cell research, and gay rights seem to have become the rallying points for the political parties to muster their supporters. These issues are always presented as moral ones. All of this raises questions. Has this shift in political focus been good for the American people? Moreover, is shaping public polices by these elements of morality healthy for  politics?

Where Does Morality Come From?

Morality has always been an element in American politics. Morality's role in politics evolved as morality itself evolved. In these modern times, morality has evolved from religion. Nowadays, political parties deem themselves the party of the heavens. Religious, political factions run rampart in modern day politics not only in America, but; around the world. These pious politicians and clergymen proclaim their message is from Jehovah God himself. That following this message puts our country in the realm of the will of God. Many in America feel that our country was organized, and the authority of government rested upon certain beliefs, practices, institutional principles and social norms that are religiously based and can be called morality. It is because of this reality that morality continues to play a major role in our modern day politics. Case in point. In a recent article published in a Republican Party house member sent every congressperson a Bible to guide their decision making.

Rep. Steven Palazzo, (R-MS)

Separation of church and state, anyone?

"When a politician calls for using the Bible as the basis for public policy, what he or she is really saying is, 'Let's use the Bible as I interpret it as the basis for public policy," "When it comes to religion, our nation is pluralistic and diverse. Rather than look to the Bible or any other religious book to craft our nation's public policy, we would do well to examine another source instead, one that was created to guide governance. It's called the Constitution." [Source: Barry Lynn-Executive Director with Americans United for the separation of church and state]

These type of stories inundate our daily news in modern day politics. It's these type stories that has changed moralities role. From this writer's perspective, the authority, legitimacy, and power of any elected official comes from We The People. Since, we the people, use a standard of morals to set a code for social behavior morality can be and is often used as a tool for keeping our elected officials and clergymen in check.

With the rise of capitalism in a democratic society, modern politics matured into a discourse of economic considerations. In which, personal virtues such as honesty, charity and fairness, which were essential in the past are now secondary and much seems to be taken for granted in our political sphere today, in terms of character. In modern day politics, it seems implicit, there is an implied " contract of confidence," that a person in public service is moral and it becomes explosively explicit when that confidence is breached. Then, we see the person's political enemies come out of the woodwork. We see former allies turn tail and run. We see media pounce like a hungry pack of wolves. Morality that was secondary, now; becomes the main issues for we the people. A good example of this reality was the Nixon Watergate scandal.


Individual morality has long formed the basis for political legitimacy and a precondition to good governance. However, as we have seen develop in America in earnest since the late 70's and more so in the early 80's a manifestation of group morality based on religion in which public policy should be shaped cause a deep and growing polarization of the citizenry. We have witness political and religious faction spring up with their pious proclamations that their mindsets have the " consent of the heavens," and following them is the will of God and is "Godly governance." We have experienced political candidates using their so-called morality as political tools to win popular approval and basis for political legitimacy. However, in practice, morality has taken a backseat to economic issues, foreign issues, tax issues, and is only used when a politician has been caught with their " hand in the cookie jar." This has been moralities evolution in modern day politics. This evolution has led to extremism in our political parties and as we will cover in [The Politics of Morality-Part 2] a political divide in our nation.

Written By: Johnny Hill

Saturday, August 2, 2014

Party Identification Has Become The Lens Most People See Through.

Huffington Post Image
According to Wikipedia, Party Identification refers to the political party with which an individual identifies. Party Identification is typically determined by the political party that an individual most commonly supports (by voting or other means). Studies have shown that most people consider themselves independent- minded people. As a child growing up I remember hearing grown-ups always saying "I vote for the person, not a party." I remember them saying this with such a sense of pride. In addition, I remember thinking how civic minded these persons were.

I remember thinking to myself how thoughtful and intelligent these people were to hold such an open-minded attitude. Even, as a small child, I remember thinking how ignorant it was to just blindly support a political position or candidate based on party affiliation alone. However, the reality is a little different now in my adulthood. First, it's a fact, most people vote on the basis of their party identification. We may hear people in the morning coffee houses claiming they are weighing all the issues and candidates but when it comes time to vote they do so with a political party they most identify.

Party Identification Has Become The Lens Most People See Through. 

The truth in modern day politics is that most people have a political party which they identify. Even more, but, not always, people have the same party identification as their parents. Second, in general, its people with strong party identification who tend to be better informed and better educated. These factoids have a number of implications. What they reveal to us is that voting and party identification are far more complex than we realize.

Today, when you ask someone, what party they support, you can pretty much guess who they are voting for and be right most of the time. When trying to ascertain a person's party identification, I would simply ask what political party do your parents support. Studies have shown that most people form their political views early in life and remain stable over time so for lack of term it's pretty fair to say most people are " born into it." Now, this writer is not one to generalize anything, however, in general 7 out of ten people identify with the political party of their parents. In some regions of the country, it has been shown to be almost 4 out of 5.


It is very unusual for a person to switch their party identification in America today. Also, it is rare that in the political climate of today that people vote for a candidate that is not affiliated with the party they have supported all their life. In the 1940's and the 1950's political scientist started doing research on voting. The purpose of these studies was to see what affects campaigning had on voters. The basic mindset going in was that political campaigns would have the same effect on people as advertising. However, what they found surprised them. As it turned out, the campaigning had little to no effect on most people. Furthermore, there was something else that surprised them. It was the better educated and informed voter that was least affected by the campaign. It is these type people who overwhelmingly vote for their party identification. Voters who were most effected by campaigns and changed their votes were less educated and less informed.[See Article: Why Do Poor Uneducated White People Vote Republican.]  What was even more shocking, is that many of these less educated and inform voters did not even realize that the candidates they were supporting  had contrasting positions. These findings were quite disturbing. These finding raised serious questions about Democratic government.

These early studies changed the way academia thought about voters and voting. For example, it came to be that the mindset was you don't win elections by changing people's minds. You win elections by mobilizing your core supporters or base. The problem is roughly 40% of the electorate are Democrats and 40% are Republicans that leaves 20% more or less Independent. Bear in mind these numbers deal with people who take part in the process. These numbers create a dilemma. While it is imperative that political parties mobilize their base. In turn, they must attract these Independent or swing voters without alienating their core supporters.

  With such a wide spectrum of voter mindsets in modern day politics, the general rule of thumb has been to hug the middle. You want to be moderate enough to appeal to Independents without losing your core supporters. Normally, voters at the Republican end of the line will be conservative and at the Democrats end of the line liberal. The moderate voters are in the middle. This reality in the past has kept both parties platforms moderate. James Madison Federalist papers,  part of the narrative was how the extended republic solves the problems of factions. The American voter has created a paradox. We want our political parties to stand for something, but; we want them to corporate with one another. We want our political parties to work together in the public interest. However, there is an important exception that makes it really hard to generalize party identification.

The South       

In the South, we don't have the above mentioned spectrum of voters. In the south, moderate voters are few and far between, in the south, studies and surveys have clearly shown that the swing voters are highly conservative. Why? It only makes sense if we look at it historically. In my last article, Why Do Poor Uneducated White People Vote Republican, we covered the transformation of the south regarding politics. By and large southerners did not start voting for Republicans until the late 1960's. Back in the 1960's there was a very conservative faction within the Democratic party that left the party over the Civil Rights Acts. It was not until the early 1980's with the emergence of Ronald Reagan did we see a wholesale change of party identification from Democrat to Republican in the south. The term Reagan Democrat  was born.

Ronald Reagan

This transformation was largely due to an influx of northerners who started leaving the north and moving south. So, let's make no bones about it, in the south, in the 1980's and 1990's, swing voters were more conservative in mindset than moderate. Most racist conservative southern Democrats who for the longest time could not stomach calling themselves Republican because of it being the party of Lincoln finally started switching their voter affiliations. However, even in the south, with this new dynamic neither party has a majority in the region. So, to put together a majority and win elections in the south both parties have to appeal to these swing voters which puts the Democrats at a huge disadvantage. As we have seen, this disadvantage has translated to the south becoming almost entirely red states.

The Republicans can easily pick up the swing voters in the south without upsetting its core supporters. This fact is not the case for the Democrats. The Democrats face an uphill battle to win back swing voters in the south. So, starting in the 1980's there has been a complete take over by the Republicans in the south. One of the awful side-effects of these changing dynamics is partisanship.

Partisanship has undermined the aforementioned theory by James Madison and created an environment of factions and the quest of the political parties to appeal to the moderates. Bi-partisanship has been thrown overboard in today's political arena. The whole game plan of the Republican party has been to champion issues that make their base " foam at the mouth." Knowing there could be no compromise from the Democrats that puts not only the political parties at odds, but the American people as well. Issues like abortion, same-sex-marriage, social safety net programs, wedge issues. This divisive formula has led to a deep polarization in America today. What this all boils down to is the Republicans feel they can play to their base supporters and win in the south that will create political safe zones and allow them to gridlock and obstruct the nation on mass. We have seen this work quite well for them but, however, there is a change happening in the south.

    What is becoming clearer. By the day, is that this devilish political strategy by the Republicans that assumes winning over the base is enough to ensure victory could be put to the test by the changing population demographics in the south. As a writer and everyday person I have a few self-contained truism that I hold dear. Of those, my most valued is "that nothing in life is permanent except change." There are several changes going on now in the south. Minorities are starting to take part in the political process. It's a real simple equation. High voter turnout spells victory for the liberals and defeat for the conservatives. What we are seeing is all these divisive issues that the Republicans have been shoving down our throats is starting to backfire on them. Pushing all these wedge issues, and their lack of compromise and partisanship has backed them into a collective corner with no way out. The Republicans complete obstruction of the overall general welfare of the American people is soon to render a serious recompense. In addition, to these changing demographics we are seeing a new age voter today. We are seeing more younger voters abandon the politics of mom and dad and form their views. We are seeing the alienation of woman, veterans, and the elderly. All of this has put a strain on many of those southern swing voters who are sick of the partisanship.

Independent Voters In The South Are Changing! 

We can distinguish two types of Independent voters. One group of Independent voters can accurately be described as 'weak party voters,' meaning, voters who tend to lean to one party or the other, but; describe themselves as independent voters. These type voters tend to proclaim their independent mindsets but normally vote for the same party year after year. The other group, the true independent voter don't show a preference for one party over the other. These voters fit the pattern that was revealed about the mentioned voter studies back in the 1940's. These voters still tend to be poorly informed and lack any real passion for politics in general. These voters tend to be of the mindset their vote doesn't matter and that all politicians and the parties they represent are corrupt. The bottom-line with this type voter is they tend not to vote

However, these trends are slowly changing [in this writers view] and the election of Barack Obama is my proof. With the election of America's first person of color to the White House, we saw in 2008 how a candidate based campaign as opposed to a party based campaign could ignite the sleeping giant. These truly independent voters engaged themselves in the process. Both in 2008, and 2012 we saw record numbers of new voters enter into the voting process. With this renewed awaking, we have seen the Republican Party combat this by implementing regressive voting suppression measures in their political safe zones. We have seen political obstruction to the point some claim hinges on sedition. We have seen the use of institutional racism used to enrage less educated poor white people to call for the impeachment of Obama based on trumped up bogus scandal accusations.
[See Article: Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi, Enough Already!

It has become clear that one of the fundamental flaws in conservative thinking is manifesting itself. The inability to adapt to change or accept it. As previously stated, this writer shouts from the mountaintops that the only thing permanent in life is change! Cause of this reality, the Republican Party has been labeled by many as " the party of no."

What Does All This Mean, Now? 

Partisan politics has caused an eyesore on American's system of politics. Which in turn has led to more true independent voters which have weakened the element of Party Identification. This partisanship has led many political scientist to conclude that the mass electorate party that we have known is just about over. This factor means that political parties are going to become less relative. In a way, it brings the development of political parties back full circle. What this means could actually be a positive for We The People. This development forces  political office seekers to connect with the electorate not based on party platforms but the special needs and concerns of the citizenry. There has become a growing awareness in the mass electorate of how big-money corporations and factions have put American government up for sale. There are major grassroots movements to end corporate person-hood and money equals free-speech. Yes, Party Identification has become the lens most people see through, regarding politics.  And more people are starting to realize that it just might be the cause for much of the partisanship and dysfunction We The People have languished through in recent times.
Written By: Johnny Hill