Representative USA Politics — vs — U$A Realpolitik Oligarchs
I. Introduction
The contemporary political landscape in the United States is marked by profound public dissatisfaction, driven by a perceived disconnect between the foundational principles of public service and the actual conduct of those in power. A significant concern articulated by citizens centers on the fidelity of politicians, jurists, and clergy to their oaths of office, particularly when personal, familial, or professional interests appear to supersede their sworn duty to protect and defend the US Constitution and its populace from both foreign and domestic adversaries. This report delves into the intricate dynamics underlying this sentiment, exploring how practices such as partisan redistricting, the influence of elite structures that concentrate and misuse the nation’s inherent power, and the pervasive spread of disinformation contribute to a crisis of trust and hinder collective progress.
The analysis further examines the challenges inherent in fostering national unity and advancing societal well-being in an era characterized by deep polarization. It highlights the contributions of select leaders often cited for their efforts to bridge divides and promote long-term development in education, science, and economics. Ultimately, this report aims to illuminate the systemic issues that perpetuate dysfunction and to identify potential pathways for reform, emphasizing the critical need for a renewed commitment to civic responsibility and authentic democratic engagement.
II. The Core Grievance: Self-Interest Over Public Duty
The Erosion of Trust and the Betrayal of Oaths
A central tenet of public service in the United States is the solemn oath taken by politicians and jurists to uphold the Constitution and serve the collective good. For federal officials, this oath explicitly requires support and defense of the Constitution against “all enemies, foreign and domestic,” and a commitment to “bear true faith and allegiance to the same,” taken “freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion.” This foundational pledge underscores a commitment that should, in principle, transcend personal gain or partisan loyalty. However, a prevailing sentiment among all of US is that many in positions of authority, which derive from the nation’s collective power of “We The People” across local, state, and federal levels, prioritize personal interests of their families and friends, and their career longevity over any sacred duties to our USA national priorities, interests, and security. This perception of self-serving governance fuels widespread disillusionment and a sense of betrayal.
Clergy, too, hold a unique position of moral authority within society, often taking oaths or making declarations of allegiance that bind them to principles of faith and civic responsibility. While their direct civic responsibility may not be identical to that of elected officials or jurists, their role in shaping community values and promoting social cohesion is significant. When clergy are perceived to align with narrow political agendas or to contribute to societal division, it can further compound the erosion of trust in leadership across all sectors. Historically, the extent to which clergy should engage in political discourse has been a polarizing question, with public opinion often divided based on alignment with the political positions advocated.
The Decline of Public Trust in Institutions
The public’s skepticism regarding the integrity of its leaders is not unfounded. Data indicates a gradual decline in trust across various US institutions between 2021 and 2024. Over two-thirds of American adults report a loss of confidence in USA institutions (Why Not Politicians’ Agendas), a consistent downward trend in eight out of nine sectors assessed. This decline is particularly pronounced among younger generations, with Gen Z respondents consistently reporting lower levels of trust. This broad erosion of institutional confidence suggests a systemic problem, where the actions of civil/public servants (not U$A politicians) are increasingly viewed through a lens of suspicion rather than faith.
A critical observation emerges when considering the implications of this declining trust. A lack of public confidence can directly impede a person’s willingness to engage with and access services provided by institutions, impacting overall societal well-being. When citizens perceive that their leaders are driven by self-interest rather than public duty, the legitimacy of governance is undermined. This creates a fertile ground for populism and support for divisive candidates who exploit and perpetuate the belief that government is ineffective or self-serving. The perceived “morosoph sermons” — or the pronouncements of “learned fools” — from leaders who seemingly lament the state of “Civil Politics” while perpetuating self-serving behaviors, only deepen this cynicism.
The Legal and Ethical Framework of Public Service
The Code of Ethics for Government Service, adopted by Congress in 1958, articulates broad ethical guidelines for all government employees and officeholders. These guidelines emphasize adherence to the “highest moral principles,” a commitment to “a full day’s labor for a full day’s pay,” and prohibitions against discriminatory practices, accepting favors that influence duties, making private promises binding on office, or using confidential information for personal profit. Crucially, it mandates that public servants “uphold the Constitution, laws, and legal regulations of the United States and all governments therein and never be a party to their evasion”.
Despite clear ethical directives for politicians, jurists, and civil servants, violations occur far more frequently, resulting in U$A news media reports, a lack of accountability, and no disciplinary actions against those who abuse official resources or take actions that enhance their personal financial holdings. The existence of such an ethics code, and the documented instances of its breach, underscore the persistent tension between the ideal of public service and the reality of human fallibility and self-interest. The frustration with “RINO, DINO, LINO… and *INO (Politicians In Name Only)” individuals reflects a deep concern that many in public office are failing to embody the core principles of their positions, becoming mere caricatures of their intended roles.
III. Gerrymandering: A Manifestation of Systemic Abuse
The Mechanics and Impact of Partisan Redistricting
Gerrymandering, the practice of redrawing electoral district boundaries to favor one political party over another, stands as a stark example of how self-serving interests can subvert democratic principles. This process, typically undertaken after each decennial census to account for population shifts, can also occur mid-decade if state laws permit, as seen in Texas in 2003. The aim is to “pack” voters of an opposing party into a few districts to waste their votes, or to “crack” them across many districts to dilute their influence, thereby creating “safe” seats for the dominant party.
Recent examples highlight the aggressive nature of this practice. Texas Republicans, with input from the Trump administration, initiated a push to redraw congressional maps to secure additional GOP seats in the US House, aiming to flip up to five seats by reshaping Democratic-held districts in major metropolitan areas and historically Democratic strongholds. This move triggered retaliatory considerations from Democrats in states like California and New York, threatening a “tit-for-tat” redistricting battle. The overt nature of this partisan maneuvering, once a furtive accusation, has now become a “battle cry,” openly defended as a legal adjustment reflecting population growth and political trends. This aggressive approach to redistricting intensifies pressure on primary elections, where candidates must appeal to a passionate faction within their dominant party, further exacerbating political polarization.
Legal Challenges and the Role of Independent Commissions
The legality and fairness of gerrymandering have been consistently challenged in federal courts. While the Supreme Court has previously ruled against racial gerrymandering, deeming it a violation of constitutional rights, it has struggled to define clear standards for partisan gerrymandering. A significant 2019 decision,
Rucho v. Common Cause [2019] declared that questions of partisan gerrymandering are “nonjusticiable political questions,” effectively leaving the remedies to states and Congress. This ruling has, in practice, emboldened parties to engage in more aggressive redistricting without fear of federal judicial intervention.
In response to the inherent conflict of interest when state legislatures control redistricting — as legislators are motivated by their own reelection and party success — reformers have proposed and implemented independent redistricting commissions. These commissions, often composed of citizens and designed to exclude current officeholders, aim to reduce partisan influence. Research indicates that districts drawn by independent commissions are significantly more likely to result in competitive elections and decrease incumbent party wins by a substantial margin compared to legislative redistricting. Despite their demonstrated effectiveness in fostering more competitive elections, only a growing number of states have adopted these independent commissions, with some states still relying on legislative control or hybrid approaches. The ongoing struggle to implement such reforms underscores the deep-seated resistance from entrenched political interests that benefit from the current system.
IV. The Scarcity of Unifying Leadership
The Call for Leaders to “Bind Up Wounds”
The lament about the scarcity of leaders who have helped “bind up our anthropocentric and ethnocentric wounds and move forward in education, sciences, economics… and civilization over the past +60 years” highlights a profound yearning for unifying figures. Specifically names Jimmy Carter, Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Barack Obama as exceptions to this perceived norm, suggesting they embody a different approach to leadership focused on collective progress and healing. This perspective underscores a desire for leadership that transcends partisan divides and addresses fundamental societal challenges.
Key Policy Contributions of Unifying Leaders
The leaders identified (not only/all) have indeed championed various initiatives aimed at fostering national unity, advancing social justice, and promoting systemic progress. Their contributions, though diverse in scope and approach, reflect a commitment to broader societal well-being beyond narrow political interests.
The Challenges Faced by Unifying Leaders
Despite their efforts, these leaders, and others striving for similar goals, often face significant obstacles. The political process in the US, particularly at the federal level, is characterized by politicians, courts, and clergy increasing social polarization and civil strife, which can slow legislation and make the passage of comprehensive laws more difficult. This dynamic, often described as “punctuated equilibrium,” leads to long periods of inaction punctuated by moments of significant, but frequently highly contentious, change. For leaders like Carter, who campaigned as an “outsider” and adopted a “moralistic, executive-oriented, rational approach,” a reluctance to engage in traditional congressional methods of compromise and patronage sometimes led to difficult relationships with Congress and challenges in enacting his agenda.
A critical observation that emerges from examining the trajectories of these leaders is the disconnect between sectoral advancements and holistic societal progress. While there may be significant advancements within specific sectors, such as the vision for AI-powered K-12 education, the overall “Social Progress Index” indicates a broader societal stagnation or even decline in the US, particularly regarding inclusive economic growth.
The US, which led the world in social progress until 2007, dropped to 31st globally by 2020, with economic growth becoming “much less inclusive over the last 31 years”. This suggests that even with individual advancements or specific policy successes, systemic problems such as political polarization and the entrenchment of elites can hinder broader, equitable, and inclusive societal progress over the long term, validating frustration that the system fails to translate potential into widespread betterment for “all of US.”
V. The “Army of Enablers” and Perpetuation of the Status Quo
Political Elites and Status-Statism
The concept of an “Army of Enablers” and “status-statists” resonates strongly with elite abusers theory, which posits that control and influence in large societies is concentrated in a relatively small, unified minority at the top, often at the expense of the nation’s inherent power, which resides with “We The People.” This “elite” occupies “top command posts” across major political, economic, legal, educational, cultural, scientific, and civic institutions, controlling vast assets and significantly influencing policy decisions. Common backgrounds often unify these elites, shared social circles, and a collective misanthropic worldview that prioritizes the imperial “colonialist enterprise system” for maintaining a U$A “favorable climate for business”. This concentration of control and influence, often maintained by a “technocratic elite of credentialed managers,” actively resists significant structural change, framing public advancements and challenges to the existing order as threats to national stability.
A critical observation here is that the “Army of Enablers” is not merely a collection of individuals but a systemic phenomenon designed to perpetuate the control and influence of the elite. Elite theory directly challenges the notion of a truly pluralistic democracy, where diverse competing interests contribute to representative outcomes. Instead, it suggests that the elites, through shared interests and institutional positions, maintain a “consensus” that subtly defines the acceptable boundaries of political discourse and policy. This can create an illusion of democratic choice while ensuring that fundamental challenges to their usurpation of the nation’s power or the economic system they benefit from are contained. This subtle, legalistic, and institutionalized defense of the status quo can be interpreted as undermining genuine democratic change, contributing to a form of democratic backsliding.
Disinformation and Polarization
The reference to “nihilist fire” aligns with the pervasive spread of disinformation and the resulting erosion of shared reality. Disinformation, defined as targeted messages spread to purposely mislead voters, and misinformation, consisting of false rumors and misconceptions, are rampant, particularly during federal election cycles. A skeptical public becomes an ideal target for these campaigns, which exploit existing societal cleavages and further undermine institutional trust.
The contemporary media landscape, especially cable news and social media, significantly exacerbates political polarization by disseminating disinformation and fostering a “tribal mentality” that leads to hostilities. Algorithms on social media platforms amplify “fake news” within partisan echo chambers, effectively filtering out dissenting voices and reinforcing pre-existing beliefs. This aligns with the philosophical concept of “Unique Personal Subjective Reality (UPSR)” as a “self-constructed world”. When individuals actively select and interpret information through their existing frameworks, influenced by “attentional sieves” and “interpretive frameworks,” it can lead to confirmation bias and distortions of objective actuality. The concept of “Autopatē,” or self-deception, further explains how information is warped to align with desires and self-serving narratives, akin to sophistry.
This dynamic suggests that the “nihilist fire” is, in essence, the active destruction of shared objective reality through the weaponization of subjective reality in the information age. It is not merely about spreading false information but about cultivating an environment where individuals are increasingly resistant to facts that contradict their “self-induced hallucination”. Both domestic and foreign actors, including Russian interference in the 2016 election, exploit these platforms to radicalize, recruit, and coordinate extremist activities, leveraging online spaces like imageboards and encrypted messaging services. The decline of local journalism further contributes to this problem by eroding civic engagement and knowledge, leaving a vacuum that disinformation can fill. Countering this pervasive disinformation requires a “portfolio approach” that includes long-term structural reforms beyond mere platform regulation.
The Nexus of Political Careerism, Patronage, and Special Interests
My disgust with “U$A realpolitik elections and satrap careers” points to the corrosive influence of careerism, patronage, and special interests on the integrity of the political system. “Realpolitik,” traditionally a foreign policy concept emphasizing national interests and control over ideological or moral considerations, is here applied to domestic politics, suggesting a pragmatic, control-driven approach that disregards ethical considerations for political gain. This manifests in the pursuit of “satrap careers” — a term implying subservience to influential patrons rather than genuine representation.
Political careers, while requiring public visibility and offering a strong incumbency advantage, are also influenced by financial considerations. Term limits have been proposed as a reform to counteract careerism, ensure legislative turnover, and reduce incentives for wasteful, election-related government spending. Special interests, including influential lobbying groups, actively oppose such limits because they risk losing their “valuable investments in incumbent legislators”. Lobbying, though constitutionally protected as the right “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” has become a significant source of influence, with groups spending billions annually to shape federal policy. These contributions can significantly impact a candidate’s success, leading politicians to prioritize the interests of major donors.
The Influence of Special Interests refers to the undue influence and control that organized groups or individuals exert in shaping public policy and political outcomes through lobbying, funding campaigns, and advocating for specific issues, thereby diverting the nation’s inherent power from “We The People”. This concentration of control often leads to policies that favor the wealthy or well-organized at the expense of broader societal needs, prompting ongoing debates about campaign finance reform and lobbying regulations.
The practice of patronage, where individuals are appointed to government positions as a reward for political support rather than merit, further contributes to inefficiency and corruption. While reforms like the Civil Service Act of 1883 aimed to establish merit-based hiring, political patronage persists, albeit less widely than historically. This system, which can lead to “cronyism” and the siphoning of resources, undermines principles of fairness and accountability. The influence of special interests and corporate lobbying is particularly pronounced in policy formation and implementation, with industries like banking and finance making substantial donations to committees responsible for relevant legislation. This deep financial entanglement can lead to policies that favor the wealthy and well-organized at the expense of broader societal needs, marginalizing the voices of average citizens. My reference to “U$A status-statists’ abuse” reflects this deep-seated concern that the system is rigged to benefit a select few, perpetuating a cycle of self-interest and undermining the democratic process.
VI. Addressing Systemic Dysfunction and Charting a Path Forward
My profound dissatisfaction, coupled with the systemic issues identified, necessitates a multi-faceted approach to reform. Addressing the erosion of trust and the perceived betrayal of oaths requires not only legislative changes but also a fundamental shift in political culture.
Reforming Electoral Processes
The integrity of elections is paramount to a functioning democracy. Gerrymandering remains a primary concern, and while federal courts have largely deferred to states on partisan redistricting, the adoption of independent redistricting commissions at the state level offers a proven mechanism for creating more competitive and representative districts. Such commissions reduce the conflict of interest inherent when legislators draw their boundaries, thereby fostering greater electoral fairness.
Beyond redistricting, broader electoral reforms are proposed to enhance transparency, objectivity, and fairness. These include changes to voting systems, such as ranked-choice voting, and federal oversight of elections. While some reforms have faced resistance, often characterized as too complicated for voters, they are crucial for addressing the widespread sentiment that the current electoral framework fails to adequately represent the public. Campaign finance reform, aimed at limiting the influence of monetary contributions and informing voters about funding sources, is also a contentious but vital area for ensuring that elections are not unduly swayed by special interests. Efforts to strengthen voting rights, building upon landmark legislation like the Voting Rights Act of 1965, are also essential to ensure equitable participation and representation for all citizens.
Enhancing Accountability and Ethics
To counteract the perception of self-serving governance, robust mechanisms for political accountability are indispensable. Free and fair elections serve as the primary means for citizens to hold elected officials accountable, providing opportunities to vote out unsatisfactory performers. However, additional legal and administrative measures are necessary. These include strengthening ethics statutes and codes of conduct, implementing stricter conflict of interest and financial disclosure laws, and enforcing “sunshine” laws that provide public access to government records and meetings. Recent legislative proposals, such as the Presidential Ethics Reform Act and the ETHICS Act to ban congressional stock trading, indicate a growing recognition of the need for enhanced transparency and a reduction in potential conflicts of interest among public officials and their families.
Furthermore, protecting whistleblowers who expose corruption or abuse of authority is critical for internal accountability. An independent judiciary also plays a vital role in reviewing the decisions and actions of public officials and agencies, serving as a venue for citizens to bring claims against the government. These measures collectively aim to rebuild public trust by demonstrating a tangible commitment to integrity and public service.
Tackling Gun Violence and School Shootings
My demand for “no more school shootings” highlights a tragic and persistent failure of the politicians, justices, and clergy. Despite the visceral public reactions and demands for action following mass shootings, legislative responses have often been insufficient, frequently stalled by the polarized gun control-gun rights debate. While public support exists for measures like universal background checks and bans on assault weapons, this support has not consistently translated into meaningful legislative action.
The legislative gridlock is often attributed to the significant influence of lobbying groups, such as the National Rifle Association (NRA), which actively opposes gun control measures and uses campaign contributions to block changes supported by a majority of Americans. Efforts to “harden” schools with visible security measures or arm school personnel have proven ineffective. They can even increase casualties, underscoring the need for evidence-based solutions rather than reactionary policies. Addressing school shootings requires moving beyond simplistic narratives and confronting the political and economic aspects that reinforce underlying issues, including those related to masculinity and social values. A comprehensive approach would involve overcoming the entrenched political divisions that prevent the passage of common-sense gun safety laws, such as expanded background checks and red flag laws, which often garner substantial bipartisan support despite the ideological divide.
Cultivating a Renewed Civic Ethos
Ultimately, the challenges outlined point to a more profound need for a renewed civic ethos. The prevalence of disinformation, the weaponization of subjective realities, and the tribal mentality fostered by polarized media all contribute to a society where constructive dialogue and collective problem-solving are increasingly difficult. To counter this, there is a need to promote genuine civil discourse (not lies, hype, B$…), which, while potentially messy and confrontational, is essential for shaping public policy and the functioning of the judicial and executive branches. This means moving beyond anecdotal arguments and engaging with diverse perspectives, even when they contradict personal convictions.
Cultivating a resilient democracy requires strengthening institutions, reinforcing democratic norms, and building popular resistance against authoritarian tendencies that exploit societal grievances. This involves not only modernizing legislative procedures and codifying unwritten norms to safeguard judicial independence but also strengthening electoral oversight and accountability to prevent “manufactured majorities”. I call for “POLITICS ARE PEOPLE, NOT A GAME!” serves as a potent reminder that governance should be centered on the well-being of citizens, not on partisan maneuvering or personal gain. Embracing doubt as a tool for questioning assumptions and fostering continuous inquiry, as suggested by the philosophical framework of “Doubt: Reality as Self-Induced Hallucination,” can empower individuals to consciously shape a more authentic and ethically resonant reality, prioritizing the principle of “Do No Harm”.
VII. All Of US.
The critical assessment of US governance reveals a complex interplay of factors contributing to public disillusionment and systemic dysfunction. The core grievance stems from a perceived breach of public servants’ oaths, where self-interest and partisan loyalty appear to overshadow constitutional duties. This perception is reinforced by declining public trust across institutions and the overt manipulation of electoral processes through gerrymandering, which entrenches partisan control and influence, thereby stifling genuine representation and abusing the nation’s inherent power.
The scarcity of unifying leadership, despite the efforts of figures like Carter, Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez, and Obama, underscores a broader challenge: even well-intentioned efforts to foster progress and cohesion often confront deeply ingrained political polarization and the resistance of established structures that exert control and influence. The “Army of Enablers” can be understood as a manifestation of elite theory, where a unified minority actively works to maintain the status quo, often through the subtle subversion of democratic norms and the exploitation of the information environment. The weaponization of disinformation, amplified by a fragmented media landscape, creates self-induced realities that further divide the populace and hinder collective action. The pervasive influence of careerism, political patronage, and special interest lobbying further distorts the democratic process, prioritizing private gain over public good.
Addressing these deeply rooted issues requires comprehensive and sustained efforts. Reforming electoral processes through independent commissions and campaign finance regulations is crucial for restoring fairness and representation. Enhancing accountability and ethics through robust legal frameworks and transparent governance can help rebuild public trust. Tackling pressing societal problems like gun violence demands overcoming legislative gridlock driven by special interests and adopting evidence-based policies. Ultimately, charting a path forward necessitates a renewed commitment to civic responsibility and the cultivation of a shared civic ethos that prioritizes collective well-being over partisan conflict. This involves fostering genuine civil discourse, embracing critical inquiry, and recognizing that actual progress hinges on a collective dedication to the principles of a resilient and equitable democracy.