A look at the connection between political ideas and the human condition
No state has yet been founded which can be viewed as perfect, without failures or imperfections. This is unsurprising to me and probably is of no surprise to anyone else; there will never be a perfect political system or state, and there are two main reasons for this.
The first is glaringly obvious: we as human beings are imperfect creatures. This is reflected in the forms of governance, the laws and the legislature we have created, which always fall short of pleasing absolutely everyone.
Secondly, we understand that the reason you cannot create a system that satisfies everyone is precisely because we are not all the same, and we don’t all agree on everything. If we were all the same the perfect system would have been created on day one.
So already, with these things in mind, we get a good idea of how political system’s reflect on the human species that make them. But what’s also fascinating is that, in many ways, governments will act like parents to a population.
Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that we should look at governments as our parents – we’re adults after all. I’m not talking about us as citizens and individuals here, but about the nation itself, which is like a family that needs a good parent. A parent to guide it, ideally.
The first unit of the nation is the family. What else is the nation other than a vast family – a vast imagined community of very real people. Government is an institution which should serve the nation, not the other way round.
I personally advocate very small government, and think that it should only be there to serve the nation and its people. I think a Minarchist government could act like a parent to a nation, albeit one that allows the nation family a great deal of independence, essentially leaving them to their own devices. What I mean of course, is that the small government should only be there to carry out important functions such as protecting the borders etc.
I’m not a believer in Anarchism, but I imagine an anarchist society would be like a family of children having no parent whatsoever, thus being left entirely to their own devices. (Although it’s likely that the eldest child in the group would take up the mantle of “parent” in some way, thus proving – in my opinion – that society without government will never work; governance, in some form, will always manifest somehow – that’s human nature).
What this all explains also, is why regressive Liberals prefer big government, social welfare expansion and the silencing of free speech; they want to exist in a womb-like environment, closed off from the realities of the big bad world, safe in the stomach of their parent, never to be born into the cold.
And even when they do come out, they’ll be smothered and mollycoddled. Their parent (the government) will be overbearing, never letting them so much as walk three steps on their own, breastfeeding them until their 25.
I think this idea is talked about (brilliantly) in the Pink Floyd song “Mother”, written by Roger Waters. The song talks about this very thing, as exemplified in the lyrics – for instance:
“Hush now, baby, baby, don’t you cry,
Mama’s gonna make all of your nightmares come true,
Mama’s gonna put all of her fears into you,
Mama’s gonna keep you right here under her wing,
She won’t let you fly but she might let you sing,
Mama’s gonna keep baby cozy and warm,
Ooh, babe, ooh, babe, ooh, babe,
Of course Mama’s gonna help build the wall,”
This can be interpreted however you want to, but let’s do so politically.
In this case, the mother is the overbearing state and the child is, of course, the citizen. The mother doesn’t wish to grant the child any independence, but desires instead to build a wall (ostensibly to separate them from the real world). An overbearing ‘mother’ state like this deems itself far more important than the nation.
In other words, the Liberal position has become one that seeks a government that looks after them and gives them everything they need, silencing anything that might hurt their feelings. This position is essentially a surrender of one’s sovereignty to an overbearing state. It is the opposite to a Libertarian one, namely one that advocates small government and maximum responsibility over ones own affairs; the parent encourages the child to think for themselves, allowing them a good deal of independence and installing within them a sense of responsibility. In other words, the nation doesn’t need the government to run it or tell it what to do, but merely relies on it instead.
In the western world today, our governments are a bit like tired parents, beaten down by the job and in need of revitalization. It’s not extreme to suggest that they have been infested by Globalist ideas.
Governments in the west today have become corporate entities. They no longer exist for the best interests of the people, but instead are using people more and more as tools for an economy-centered agenda. Western governments have become like career parents, far more interested in furthering their careers than having a relationship with their families, neglecting them and relegating them to the sideboard.
If they were driven towards the nations best interest they wouldn’t be looking at people as ways in which to make money. Sadly, this is true, and we now see women being discouraged from having children when they are at a fertile age. Governments will recognise them as having value in the workplace instead, and this goes hand in hand with a culture that tells them there’s no problem with having kids in their mid-thirties.
In the USA, the Deep State is the ultimate example of a government which has sold itself out. As we understand it, the reason the President and the people in his administration cannot carry out the pledges they were elected on is not because they don’t want to, but because they are being prevented, at every turn.
Who is preventing them? It’s the very people that make up the deep state idea – an idea which seeks, I think, to render the elected leaders more and more powerless, with little flexibility to do anything that goes against the Globalist agenda. The people within the deep state do not work for the people as they should, but privately pledge allegiance to Globalist ideas instead. Despite this, they tell us they are being constitutional.
Any government, no matter how powerful, if democratic should work in the best interests of the people, not against them. Otherwise the institution that is the government is unfit for purpose and should be replaced by one that does serve the people.
In any country, the deep state ideology cannot continue. Unlike true governance, a deep state is no reflection of humanity – not in my opinion. That’s because, however imperfect we may be, we do not create governing bodies that go against our best interests. Deep states are devised ideas, and they’re not devised by us, they’re devised against us.
We don’t know what goes on behind the scenes, but as we go on we are getting a much better idea. Instinctively people are voting against the ideas of deep states. This will to change things for the better is yet another reflection of humanity – that we can be lied to and deceived for a while, but not for ever.
I think that a return to a traditional style of governance is preferable, if we want to see rule in the people’s best interest return. We need to separate big politics and big business from government. We need to de-construct the idea of the career politician, replacing it with the idea that running for office is a public service, not a career move. The fact that politics has become a business is one thing, but the fact that governance has is completely unacceptable.
In summary then, we need to re-invent the government of every western country, out of Globalist hands. If any government is going to serve a nation properly, it needs to be a tool for elected individuals to use as a rod of power for the good of the people. What it can’t be is an institution infested with ideas that people never asked for and which hinder progress. Quite how we could achieve the best system’s of governance is another matter of course, but one thing is true: when we do there’s one aspect we need to have in mind more than anything else – the reality of human nature.