The Business of Politics

Politicians are in the business of running the United States of America.  If they happen to use their management authority to further their own agenda, who's going to complain?  A private companies CEO must answer to shareholders who use an objectively based money value of the company to oust the CEO or management team.  No such criterion exists for politicians.  Increased taxes, regulation, earmarks (either to private companies or government sponsored social programs), size of the debt, or joblessness are apparently not enough to oust them.

Theirs is a "soft" criteria for performance evaluation and one in which they can elicit emotional responses to justify poor performance or just buy a good review if that's what it takes.  They use "code words" meant to elicit an emotional response that supports "good" and fights against "evil".  Let's look at some of these code words: 

Women's Health          

Abortion even 3rd trimester abortions - politicans reserve
the right to get rid of unwanted segments of the population

Nuanced Anything they don't want you to think too deeply about
Social Justice  We will decide the winners and losers
 Income Redistribution We will take as much of your income as we can and decide
who best to spend the money on guaranteed not to be your family ("who best" will always refer to themselves and their allies).
 Green Energy Let's make energy so expensive that we will have to take more money from those who are successful to allow the poor to have electricity because we've made it so expensive that only the successful can afford it thus giving us more money to ensure we stay in power and increase our power base through more
regulation and new agencies. Also this will give us indirect control over the U.S. economy. This is another approach to Cap and Trade (see below)
Cap and     Trade If we can tax carbon emissions we exert direct control over the entire economy and dole out these "credits" to our friends and allies to ensure our mutual success.  Never mind that this will do nothing to reduce the temperature of the Earth.
 Che Guevara Designed to mean "power to the people" but in actuality means more power to those in power
 American Imperialism defund our military to have the money to build a government with absolute power.  A gutted military also poses no threat to those in power.  We can rebuild our own once we are firmly in control.
The Great Society Increase the size and scope of government and in the process make the Black community totally dependent on government through reward of risky and detrimental behavior by removing any consequences for this behavior (refer to pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen)
Human Rights Touted as political concern for those who supposedly have fewer rights than the rest of us (those who work hard and are successful). If appropriately convinced that the government has the right to bestow more rights on a subset of the population then these rights can be taken away from others and ultimately taken away from everyone.
Class Warfare See Karl Marx

Emotional responses from a poorly informed and disinterested public are designed to sound beneficial when, in fact, they will eliminate freedom for one segment of the population to give more freedom and more "rights" to a subset constituency who can be counted on to vote for them.

We are closer to the Venezuelan model of government now than most people realize.  We have been moving in this direction for 50 years but with control of Congress and the Presidency, this Administration has moved us 4x closer to a Hugo Chavez style of government than was possible in the last 50 years.

The policies are not about the poor.  They are merely "useful idiots" who can be counted on not to pay attention to what's really happening and to see that they will get something for nothing so why not?  They will vote for whomever they believe, wrongfully, will give them more Obama money.

This is also true in foreign affairs.  Iranian attainment of a nuclear weapon is a good example of political analysis of risk and reward from a politicians point of view.  A politicians thought process is based on the following:

  • Elimination of the threat will require a protracted war in the Middle East.  Americans are sick of war and a proposal to end this now will be unpopular given the means necessary to end it. Category:  Risk
     
  • If a large segment of the population is unhappy with this, then, we might risk our re-election which is a totally unacceptable outcome.  Category: Risk
     
  • Attainment of nuclear capabilities will mean the destruction of Israel.  Judging by the reactions in the Jewish community with the shoddy treatment of Israel so far, they can serve as "useful idiots" who can be counted on to believe that they have the political clout to demand protection of Israel.   Reward as they will fund their own demise.
     
  • Jews can aways be vilified if worse comes to worse by following other political regime's playbook they'll never see it coming.  Look at the positive outcome of bashing Wall Street - we've already been successful in tying Jews to the financial crisis.   Reward
     
  • A nuclear Iran will radically change global politics, disrupt oil and catastrophically increase the cost of energy (thus promoting our "green" agenda, class warfare, and social justice political models),and mean the  end the nation of Israel (removing them allows us to remove ourselves from Middle and the possibility of warfare to defend them).   By staying on the sidelines reduce the likelihood of retaliation against the U.S. (detonation of a nuclear bomb on American soil is also likely to be unpopular).   Reward
     
  • Iran will threaten the U.S. if and when it believes it has the upper hand and we are too weak militarily (see "gutting the military" above) to defend ourselves but this will likely occur after we have retired having made our money from" political discourse".  A privilege of having held office provides bunkers for ourselves, our families and our most important allies so our survival is not at stake.  Reward

There are more points but the idea is clear.  They do not think in terms of what is best for America or in any way resembling a concern for the well-being of this country.  Their concern is for themselves and their success in their chosen career.

This is a non-partisan discussion.  If allowed to, both parties will use the above analysis with the exception of the Republicans who will not "gut" the military as badly as the Democrats but will more gradually reduce spending while touting National Pride in this same military instead of using the Left's mantra of American Imperialism.  The message changes slightly but not the outcome.

When hearing political rhetoric from both sides of the aisle, it's always best to consider "what's in it for them" and to do a quick risk/reward analysis to see what is going on behind the curtain.  When it comes to politics, it's Buyer Beware scenario.

Politicians are in the business of running the United States of America.  If they happen to use their management authority to further their own agenda, who's going to complain?  A private companies CEO must answer to shareholders who use an objectively based money value of the company to oust the CEO or management team.  No such criterion exists for politicians.  Increased taxes, regulation, earmarks (either to private companies or government sponsored social programs), size of the debt, or joblessness are apparently not enough to oust them.

Theirs is a "soft" criteria for performance evaluation and one in which they can elicit emotional responses to justify poor performance or just buy a good review if that's what it takes.  They use "code words" meant to elicit an emotional response that supports "good" and fights against "evil".  Let's look at some of these code words: 

Women's Health          

Abortion even 3rd trimester abortions - politicans reserve
the right to get rid of unwanted segments of the population

Nuanced Anything they don't want you to think too deeply about
Social Justice  We will decide the winners and losers
 Income Redistribution We will take as much of your income as we can and decide
who best to spend the money on guaranteed not to be your family ("who best" will always refer to themselves and their allies).
 Green Energy Let's make energy so expensive that we will have to take more money from those who are successful to allow the poor to have electricity because we've made it so expensive that only the successful can afford it thus giving us more money to ensure we stay in power and increase our power base through more
regulation and new agencies. Also this will give us indirect control over the U.S. economy. This is another approach to Cap and Trade (see below)
Cap and     Trade If we can tax carbon emissions we exert direct control over the entire economy and dole out these "credits" to our friends and allies to ensure our mutual success.  Never mind that this will do nothing to reduce the temperature of the Earth.
 Che Guevara Designed to mean "power to the people" but in actuality means more power to those in power
 American Imperialism defund our military to have the money to build a government with absolute power.  A gutted military also poses no threat to those in power.  We can rebuild our own once we are firmly in control.
The Great Society Increase the size and scope of government and in the process make the Black community totally dependent on government through reward of risky and detrimental behavior by removing any consequences for this behavior (refer to pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen)
Human Rights Touted as political concern for those who supposedly have fewer rights than the rest of us (those who work hard and are successful). If appropriately convinced that the government has the right to bestow more rights on a subset of the population then these rights can be taken away from others and ultimately taken away from everyone.
Class Warfare See Karl Marx

Emotional responses from a poorly informed and disinterested public are designed to sound beneficial when, in fact, they will eliminate freedom for one segment of the population to give more freedom and more "rights" to a subset constituency who can be counted on to vote for them.

We are closer to the Venezuelan model of government now than most people realize.  We have been moving in this direction for 50 years but with control of Congress and the Presidency, this Administration has moved us 4x closer to a Hugo Chavez style of government than was possible in the last 50 years.

The policies are not about the poor.  They are merely "useful idiots" who can be counted on not to pay attention to what's really happening and to see that they will get something for nothing so why not?  They will vote for whomever they believe, wrongfully, will give them more Obama money.

This is also true in foreign affairs.  Iranian attainment of a nuclear weapon is a good example of political analysis of risk and reward from a politicians point of view.  A politicians thought process is based on the following:

  • Elimination of the threat will require a protracted war in the Middle East.  Americans are sick of war and a proposal to end this now will be unpopular given the means necessary to end it. Category:  Risk
     
  • If a large segment of the population is unhappy with this, then, we might risk our re-election which is a totally unacceptable outcome.  Category: Risk
     
  • Attainment of nuclear capabilities will mean the destruction of Israel.  Judging by the reactions in the Jewish community with the shoddy treatment of Israel so far, they can serve as "useful idiots" who can be counted on to believe that they have the political clout to demand protection of Israel.   Reward as they will fund their own demise.
     
  • Jews can aways be vilified if worse comes to worse by following other political regime's playbook they'll never see it coming.  Look at the positive outcome of bashing Wall Street - we've already been successful in tying Jews to the financial crisis.   Reward
     
  • A nuclear Iran will radically change global politics, disrupt oil and catastrophically increase the cost of energy (thus promoting our "green" agenda, class warfare, and social justice political models),and mean the  end the nation of Israel (removing them allows us to remove ourselves from Middle and the possibility of warfare to defend them).   By staying on the sidelines reduce the likelihood of retaliation against the U.S. (detonation of a nuclear bomb on American soil is also likely to be unpopular).   Reward
     
  • Iran will threaten the U.S. if and when it believes it has the upper hand and we are too weak militarily (see "gutting the military" above) to defend ourselves but this will likely occur after we have retired having made our money from" political discourse".  A privilege of having held office provides bunkers for ourselves, our families and our most important allies so our survival is not at stake.  Reward

There are more points but the idea is clear.  They do not think in terms of what is best for America or in any way resembling a concern for the well-being of this country.  Their concern is for themselves and their success in their chosen career.

This is a non-partisan discussion.  If allowed to, both parties will use the above analysis with the exception of the Republicans who will not "gut" the military as badly as the Democrats but will more gradually reduce spending while touting National Pride in this same military instead of using the Left's mantra of American Imperialism.  The message changes slightly but not the outcome.

When hearing political rhetoric from both sides of the aisle, it's always best to consider "what's in it for them" and to do a quick risk/reward analysis to see what is going on behind the curtain.  When it comes to politics, it's Buyer Beware scenario.