INTRO

INTRODUCTION

This book covers a lot of ground. It is not designed to be read from beginning to end in just a few sessions. Rather, it is meant to serve as a general reference guide to politics, ethics, and philosophy for the average American who wants to know more about these subjects. In addition, this book contains information that all politically active and interested Americans should know if they want to become more competent political participants.

All Americans are political actors of some kind, whether they vote routinely or not. They live in the same communities, they share many of the same interests, and they either respond favorably, unfavorably or with indifference to the actions of other political actors. Most have opinions about various political issues, and most have some vague idea of how these issues relate to their own interests. Most have ideas that qualify as "political" in the broadest and most basic sense, even if they do not participate in the political process in any formal sense. And, most Americans even have some natural interest in political affairs. Unfortunately, Americans have been severely limited in their political knowledge by how politics is taught in our colleges and universities. Academics typically have little in common with the public they are trying to inform. The language that these elites use to explain political phenomena is neither familiar nor interesting to most Americans. The use of such language to communicate the vital political knowledge that every citizen should know represents one of the single most difficult obstacles which Americans must overcome in their quest for greater political competency and greater political power. It is one of the central aims of this book to discuss the subjects of politics, ethics, and philosophy in a way that the average American will find relevant, interesting and engaging, and without resorting to an unbearable degree of social science jargon. Knowledge of these subjects is important to Americans for a number of reasons.

If people in a democracy are to remain free, they must have a good grasp of what their elected leaders are doing on their behalf. In order to hold their representatives accountable, they must know almost as much about the issues that affect them as their representatives know themselves. Lately, and largely due to gaps in their knowledge, Americans have been losing the ability to hold their representatives accountable. In part, this book is designed to help Americans take back this power, and regain control of a political process that has become dominated by elites. These elites include issue activists of every stripe, broadcast journalists, lawyers, academics, the entertainment industry, and elites of the major political parties, including many representatives themselves. Sooner or later average Americans must either confront these elites, or they must completely cede control over their lives to them.

Because they are more likely to be responsive to the special interests that were most instrumental in getting them elected, as a group, our representatives have been taking this country in a direction that a majority tend to oppose. Effectively, majoritarian control over the political process has been lost. If Americans do not soon take back this control, they could lose the opportunity. Some are already saying that it is too late. But, as long as average Americans have the vote, the will, and the knowledge they need to recognize their situation, they can still turn things around. This book is intended to be a vital source of the knowledge that Americans need to start taking back the power that has been usurped by political elites. This book is also designed as a motivational guide for people who have so completely lost faith in our political system that they no longer vote and no longer pay close attention to politics.

Surveys indicate that public confidence in their elected representatives has reached an all time low. This is primarily due to the fact that these representatives appear more responsive to well organized and well financed SPECIAL interests than they do to the will of the people. It seems that regardless of who is elected, that the distance between the policies that most people want, and what their representatives give them, has grown with each passing election. It seems even more clear that representatives have become more responsive to the SPECIAL interests that were often most instrumental in getting them elected, than to the general will. But, there can be an important distinction between interest groups and SPECIAL interest groups. Some so-called interest groups are not SPECIAL interest groups at all, because they happen to be defending where a MAJORITY stands on a particular issue. If an interest group reflects a majoritarian sentiment on and issue, then it cannot be accurately described as a SPECIAL interest. Rather, it is more accurately a PUBLIC interest group, or simply an interest group. Such groups are merely voicing the will of the people. By contrast, most well organized SPECIAL interests represent viewpoints on issues that are not shared by a majority, and which are not naturally entitled to prevail against the will of the people, or against the will of a popular majority. This is not to say that a majority is always right on every issue, simply because it is a majority. However, in a democracy, the will of the majority is entitled to the benefit of the doubt, just by virtue of the fact that it is a majority. And, in cases where there is a popular consensus of long standing on an issue, then, in a democracy, this is the most legitimate view on that issue. In such cases, when representatives fail to energetically defend the will of the majority, they should be thrown out of office WITHOUT A SECOND THOUGHT. Even in a "representative democracy" the people are under no compulsion to keep representatives who routinely obstruct their will on important issues.

In response to the charge that representatives have not been responding to the will of a majority who elected them, one could argue that the people themselves often do not know what they want, or that they do not know where they stand on a particular issue. This is a valid point. The people must form a solid consensus around an issue, or their representatives will take advantage of their indecision. Alternatively, when the people do not speak clearly with one voice on an issue, or when they take opposite sides on an issue, representatives will receive mixed signals. In this situation, representatives will take their cues from the interest groups that were most responsible for getting them elected.

SPECIAL interest groups have been quick to exploit situations in which the people have not formed a firm and lasting consensus on various issues, ranging from abortion to immigration reform. To some extent, the people can be blamed for failing to come together to form a firm and lasting moral consensus about many of the most important issues which currently divide this nation. And, in some degree, this lack of consensus might be expected from a people who are so diverse to begin with. But, the public's lack of consensus on key issues is a symptom of more than just diversity. It is also a symptom of a moral and intellectual failure of the American people themselves. In addition to providing an opening for special interests, the public's failure to carefully examine the issues and come to the conclusions which really would be most conducive to the public interest over the longer term has had other bad effects. Specifically, it has provided an opportunity for two opposing ideologies to dominate political discourse and the political decision making process at the expense of the long term public interest. These ideologies are more commonly known by the terms liberalism and conservatism. These ideologies were unknown to the founders of our republic, and they have only recently come to define political discourse in our own time. In large part, these ideologies are to blame for the difficulty that Americans are having in reaching a consensus on important issues. Their failure to reach consensus is also due in part to our growing diversity as a people. As I will point out later in this book, and contrary to the tenets of political correctness, our growing diversity as a nation is not necessarily a good thing. Beyond a certain point, diversity can generate centrifugal forces that can eventually tear a republic apart. There is a range of diversity that is manageable in a republic, and, beyond this range, diversity can pose a threat to a republic's stability and long term viability.

Some Characteristics of the Target Audience
This book is written especially for people who want to know substantially more about politics, ethics and philosophy than the common man, but who don't want to spend 4 to 8 years of their life in a college or university to get this knowledge. The knowledge presented here is in a highly condensed form. It is only designed to provide a basic introduction to the information that people need to know in order to become more competent participants in the political process. By reading this book, hopefully, you will be able to form a more comprehensive and rational understanding of the public interest than you would by merely watching television, reading a newspaper, or relying on the stock arguments of either liberals or conservatives. Unfortunately, superficial knowledge of liberal or conservative ideologies typically marks the furthest extent of the common man's knowledge of politics, ethics and philosophy. But, as I will attempt to illustrate at various points throughout this book, neither of these ideologies is adequate to form an accurate picture of the public interest over the longer term.

If some superficial awareness of the ideologies of liberalism and conservatism typically marks the furthest extent of the common man's knowledge and interest in politics, isn't it too optimistic to think that the common man would ever seek the knowledge he needs to form a more accurate view of the public interest over the longer term? Specifically, would the common man of today ever seek out a book on politics, ethics and philosophy to begin with? Probably not. But, this book is not primarily written for the common man OF TODAY. Rather, this book is written with the hope and the expectation that the common man OF TOMORROW will be more morally and intellectually sophisticated than he is today. This book is also written for people who feel that they have a larger stake in the community, and for people who generally want to participate in the civic life of their nation in a more meaningful way. Finally, this book is written for people who already have a naturally high level of curiosity about politics, ethics and philosophy; or for people who have what psychologists refer to as a "high need for cognition."

For people with a high need for cognition, the subjects of politics, ethics and philosophy can be interesting and entertaining in themselves. But, given that most people do not have a high need for cognition, and that most do not find these subjects particularly interesting or entertaining, except perhaps in their more superficial forms, should we conclude that all is lost? Not necessarily. For even though a higher than normal "need for cognition" can be the result of some natural faculties that are above average, a particularly "low need for cognition" can easily be the result of some cultural influences that have gone wrong. And while it may be difficult to overcome limitations in the popular pursuit of knowledge which have a congenital source, it is possible to remove the cultural impediments which discourage individuals from seeking knowledge. And, in fact, the common man's low need for cognition is not typically the result of any natural inclination or genetic deformity. In many cases, the common man has simply been conditioned to have a low need for cognition by the popular culture (including the popular press, which has been reduced to a medium of entertainment in most cases). Rather than seeking out serious information on these subjects, under the influence of the popular culture, the common man is more likely to occupy himself with escapist entertainment and hedonistic pursuits more generally. Similarly, he is more likely to avoid the kind of labor intensive cognitive processes required to grapple with the serious social, economic and political issues in his life. As a result, he has been all too eager to cede the power to make decisions on these issues to cadres of highly trained elites. In the process, he has ceded control over his own life.

To the extent that he continues to have ontological needs, or needs related to his search for meaning and purpose in life, the common man remains more likely to embrace the doctrines of one of the conventional religions. Such doctrines seem comforting to him and they don't require much moral or intellectual investment on his part. These doctrines would seem to give the common man some sense of solace from a world that he feels he can neither influence, nor fully understand. Surprisingly, and as will be discussed in the ethics section, if there really is something that we could call divine will, it is likely that the best way to discover it is through reason, not through blind obedience to some religious faith. And, in the degree that most mainstream religions rely on faith, they could very well be leading man further away from both truth and divine will, rather than closer to it. As we will see later in this book, it is mainly the task of philosophy and ethics to point us in the direction of what is true, what is right and reasonable, what is moral and just, and what is therefore most likely to be in accordance with divine will. Once we have used these methods to determine what is "functional," then we can make a religion out of what we have discovered if we choose. For, in this case, our "religion" would have a rational basis.

In contrast to the common man, who is presumed to be a "cognitive miser" who immerses himself in the more escapist elements of the popular culture, the person who is TODAY more likely to seek serious knowledge of politics, ethics, and philosophy already knows that, collectively at least, it is we who control our own destiny, and that or our society. Therefore, we stand a good chance of being able to change the direction of our society, provided that we can agree on the kinds of changes that need to take place. In other words, we stand a good chance of being able to alter the course of our civilization, if we have the will, and the numbers. But, there remains the very real danger that as long as the common man remains under the spell of either popular ideologies like liberalism or conservatism, or a popular culture that is misguided, we will not have the numbers we need to take this civilization in the direction that it needs to go. There is also the danger that, by reducing serious issues to a form of entertainment, the popular press has largely desensitized large numbers of Americans to the problems that need to be addressed.

The major political parties, the popular culture, and the press more generally, have begun to operate in ways that are unmistakably at odds with the public interest. They all have an ideological agenda, and this ideological agenda does not necessarily coincide with what would prove to the be in the best interest of the nation over the longer term. The press in particular has a definite vision of what it believes is in the public interest, and, it religiously attempts to promote this vision in its reporting. If its vision opposes the views of the general public, then, according to its exalted view of its own status and its role in a democratic society, its practitioners believe that they have the duty to change the public's mind. That is to say, the press believes it is not obligated to change its own views to more closely coincide with the views of the public. Rather, the press has come to believe that it is the public's responsibility to change its views to more closely coincide with the views of the press. Obviously, things should be the other way around. As a result of its long term exposure to broadcast media with an ideological agenda, the public has begun to internalize many aspects of an unrealistic world view. Similarly, in their quest to be entertained, the people unavoidably become susceptible to the unrealistic world views that have been propagated through the press and the popular culture.

The difference between people who seek unrealistic otherworldly solutions for their problems and people who have a more practical concern with changing the world is largely a matter of values and outlook. Stated simply, having a a tough as nails handle on reality is generally a better tool for changing the world than having a view of reality that is more dependent on unrealistic ideals and wishful thinking. A relatively small band of well organized and determined people who have a pragmatic view of reality can have a dramatic effect on their society, especially if they are well armed with reason and knowledge. Without reason and knowledge, and without the tough as nails view of reality that it imparts, people can easily become inclined to take society in a direction that will ultimately prove detrimental to their own interests. But, our society's condition is far from terminal. There is still time to change its course. There is still time to keep it from running onto the rocks that eventually claim all ships of state. There is still an opportunity to co-opt both the common man and the more interested and intelligent groups which have a more serious interest in politics. However, the clock is ticking, and even some well informed people are beginning to run from a system that they regard as terminally ill. As yet, there is little indication that the common man has grasped his situation. Without the common man on board, we will simply not have the numbers we need to turn this ship around. If the common man does not soon honor his responsibility to make intelligent and moral decisions about the public interest, or about those he elects to promote the public interest, then potentially, all can be lost. If American democracy fails, this failure will very much be a result of the failure of the common man. The common man has failed in a number of ways that we should be aware of.

The common man has been too self-absorbed and too inwardly focussed on the microcosm of his personal life to see how his life is being threatened by changes that are occurring in the society around him. He has also failed to recognize his own ability to influence the larger forces in his life. To maximize his chances of having a better life, and to better insure the future for his children, the common man must not only be the breadwinner for his family, but he must also attempt to influence the direction of the larger socio-economic and political environment around him. The common man must make some reasonable effort to grapple with the larger issues that influence his life and that will ultimately determine the course of the civilization that he is to leave his children.

Surprisingly, the best way for the common man to begin to understand his situation, his obligations, and his ability to change the course of his society, is through the vehicle of "ideology." Specifically, not all ideologies are bad, and not all are destined to render distorted accounts of the public interest. It is possible to engineer a "synthetic" ideology which really does accurately depict the public interest over the longer term. And, by adopting this ideology (or merely by identifying with its label), the common man can fulfill some of his most important moral responsibilities. But, the decision to adopt an ideology can be tricky. And, if the common man chooses the wrong ideology, he will take the country in the wrong direction. In this book, I will strongly suggest that both liberalism and conservatism are the wrong ideologies. And, to make matters even more difficult and potentially confusing, I will also suggest that both of these ideologies contain elements of truth that we should be paying attention to, even as we should reject them in their totality. That is to say, these ideologies contain parts of the picture we need to develop a better understanding of the public interest over the longer term. These parts must be refined and then integrated to form a new and internally consistent vision of the public interest.

To the extent that the politically active common man has already become spellbound by one of the polar ideologies (either liberalism or conservatism), then we could potentially have a big problem where developing a new and more accurate conception of the public interest is concerned. But, if the politically active common man did not arrive at his current ideological preferences through a process which involves reason, or if he is not likely to engage in the more labor intensive process which performing ideological synthesis requires, we should not immediately despair, for this reason. People who form their political views as a result of a more superficial reasoning process can be more easily persuaded to relinquish these views, once flaws in these views become apparent to them.

Typically, the common man has little knowledge of the formal abstract principles represented by the terms "liberalism or conservatism." Indeed, the vast majority of people who identify themselves as either liberals or conservatives don't fully understand what these terms mean. They simply identify themselves with one or the other ideological label because they have some vague idea that the ideology which the label represents comes closer to serving their interests. Once again, in their current condition, most people are cognitive misers who will avoid the more labor intensive reasoning process that is required to understand an ideology at the level of its abstract principles. Because the common man did not arrive at his current ideological preferences through a process which involved reason, suggests that he can also form an allegiance to a new ideology which more accurately reflects the public interest, without having to undergo the kind of rigorous reasoning process that he is naturally inclined to avoid anyway. So, being adverse to cognitive activity is not necessarily a handicap when it comes to adopting the "label" that identifies one as a "supporter" of the ideology that most accurately reflects the public interest.

Because the common man arrived at his preference for either liberalism or conservatism by means of a route that did not involve any particularly intense cognitive investment on his part, it should be easier to persuade him to abandon his commitment to these ideologies, once they begin to wear thin, or once their flaws become more readily apparent. Once this point has been reached, the common man will likely begin to search for some new "label" which he believes will better represent his interests. That is to say, he will attempt to identify himself with an alternative "resultant" of the more labor intensive ideological reasoning process which he is inclined to avoid. Hence, at some point, it will be possible to enlist the support of the common man for the resultant which will be most likely to maximize the public interest over the longer term. I submit that this resultant is neither liberalism nor conservatism.

Under the right circumstances (those which cause a mass rejection of liberalism and conservatism), there is reason to believe that the common man can be led to support the "most functional ideology," or the ideology which is most likely to serve the public interest over the longer term. In addition, it is also possible that the common man could reject the suboptimal ideologies of liberalism and conservatism as a result of another process. Specifically, and as unlikely as it may seem under current circumstances, we should consider the common man's capacity for moral and intellectual self improvement. Under the right circumstances, it will be possible for the common man to throw off the ideological spell that has been cast on him by various power elites, simply by increasing his level of knowledge and understanding. It is certainly possible that he can begin to think more critically, more independently, and that he can begin to perform at least some of the kinds of ideological syntheses that are required to develop a more accurate picture of the public interest over the longer term. And, as I will attempt to illustrate throughout this book, there is nothing innate, or nothing in the common man's nature, which would prevent him from attaining the level of political sophistication he needs to develop a more comprehensive and accurate view of the public interest over the longer term, and a better understanding of his own interests as well. Similarly, there is nothing in the common man's nature to prevent him from developing a greater interest in the critical subjects of politics, ethics and philosophy. Therefore, it is fair to conclude at this point, that the common man's current lack of interest and knowledge in these subjects (as evidenced by his failure to grasp his situation and by his failure to overcome the forces that are pulling this nation headlong in a direction that most do not want it to go), is not permanent or irreversible. To conclude otherwise would be basically an admission that our situation is hopeless. The tide can be turned, especially if certain catalysts present themselves. In particular, for the common man to develop a more serious interest in these subjects, some changes in our environment would need to occur that would be conducive to seeking knowledge more generally. The seriousness with which people pursue knowledge is closely related to their values. The right values can lead people to recognize and address the major problems which are threatening their civilization, just as the wrong values can lead them to ignore these problems. Neither the ideologies of liberalism or conservatism (nor the parties which have made these ideologies their de facto political doctrines), provide an adequate framework for addressing many of the most serious problems that we now face as a nation.

At this point in our nation's history we must consider the possibility that some of our most revered political traditions and institutions have become outmoded and are inadequate to deal with our most pressing problems. Our major political parties are a case in point. Having been completely overwhelmed by SPECIAL interests, these parties no longer represent the will of the people. And, by all rights, they should no longer exist. Their charter has expired. It is time to give the American people a new political party, and one which will be more likely to serve their interests over the longer term. This new political party can catapult the people back into political power, and can ultimately save the republic. Figuratively speaking, the call to create this party, is also a call to arms.

Political contests can easily take on some of the characteristics of war. And, make no mistake, we are a nation that is fundamentally divided, and at war with itself. This war involves conflicts between parties, or organized groups of men who desire to achieve political goals (analogous to armies). It involves confrontations between these groups (analogous to battles). It involves conflicts over economic resources (analogous to dividing the spoils of war). And, it involves conflicts over basic value and belief systems, and competing visions of the public interest. These are all characteristics of war. The outcome of these conflicts has the potential to determine the course of our nation, if not our civilization, and our way of life.

Currently, the American people are losing the war that is being waged against them by a host of power elites and special interests. Where many issues are concerned, these elites and special interests knowingly obstruct the public will and intentionally prevent what a majority of Americans want from becoming law. It is one of the foremost precepts of natural law that the will of a long standing majority (as opposed to a transient majority, or the kind of majority that Madison had in mind when he wrote Federalist #10) should be the basis for public policy. And, when the will of a long standing majority no longer translates into laws (because it is being obstructed by something like special interests) the people have the right to reconstitute their government in a form that is more responsive to their needs. This is where we are today. As it relates to many of the key issues that affect the destiny of our nation, the will of the American people is no longer translating into public policy, but is being obstructed by SPECIAL interests and power elites.

The American people are losing the war against the special interests and the power elites because they are not well organized. Even more importantly, they are losing the war because they do not share a common ideology. Largely as a result of their failure to adopt a common ideology, Americans do not have a shared vision for this country's future. It is a major purpose of this book to help Americans form this shared vision, and to help them come together around a shared set of core beliefs. There is no real reason why this cannot be done. There is no real reason why we cannot define and adopt a "national" ideology, or a belief system which the vast majority of Americans believe will best represent their long term interests. If armed with such an ideology, it will be relatively easy for the people to confront, overwhelm and eventually vanquish, liberals, conservatives, and the special interests which have been obstructing their will for so long. This book is intended to provide the basic blueprint for such an ideology. This ideology could potentially enlist the support of the common man as well as many intellectuals.

It is possible that the ideological distance, or the difference in values which separates people who have a serious interest in politics from the great mass of people who have little or no interest, can be bridged. Both values and the public's level of interest in politics respond to changes in the environment in some degree. Therefore, it is possible that our society can reach a point where serious interest in these subjects could begin to compete favorably with the public's current level of interest in sports and entertainment. Sound farfetched? Not necessarily. Our society is due for some pretty dramatic upheavals over the next 20 years. And, during periods of severe upheavals, normative transitions occur whether we want them or not. And sometimes, these transitions can take a nation in a completely unexpected direction. The path to a greater need for cognition by the common man is just one possible course that we might follow. The normative transformation of this country is even more likely to translate into the spread of a serious interest in politics, ethics and philosophy, to the extent that these subjects are inherently interesting and are relatively easy for the average person to fathom. In fact, there is nothing inherently difficult or uninteresting about the subjects of politics, ethics or philosophy which might prevent this from happening. In comparison to chemistry or nuclear physics, these subjects are downright easy. Yet, admittedly, under prevailing norms, most people will fail to develop a more serious interest in these subjects, simply because they don't see their practical benefits. A major purpose of this book is to illustrate exactly how knowledge of these subjects is practical, relevant, and necessary to the life of the common man.

Even though the common man of today does not have a serious interest in the subjects of politics, ethics and philosophy, doesn't mean that he is completely apolitical and doesn't have some political opinions and interests. Politics, and discussion of key political personalities especially, continue to be occasional topics of conversation for the common man. And even as the common man's interest in politics falls far below his current interest in sports and entertainment, there are reasons to suspect that this could change. The current baseline level of popular interest in politics suggests that it will one day be possible to cultivate a more serious interest in politics, ethics, and philosophy among a mass audience. There is simply something about these subjects that many people find interesting. Admittedly, a catalyst will most likely be needed before the common man takes a more serious interest in these subjects. So what set of circumstances can we imagine that might make the common man more interested in politics, ethics, or philosophy? What catalyst can we imagine that will impact our society so severely that it actually influences attitudes towards learning more generally? An extreme increase in the price of oil readily come to mind.

Conceivably, a severe economic shock (such as that which can be brought on by a precipitous rise in the price of oil) will both threaten some of the diversions that currently preoccupy the common man, and it will force him to adopt a more serious and realistic orientation towards life. Once oil tops $150 per barrel and remains there over an extended period of time, the economic dislocations and changes in lifestyle which this creates could easily serve as the catalyst that will cause some people to take a more serious interest in subjects like politics, ethics and philosophy. Admittedly, different people will react differently to this situation. Some will plunge themselves even deeper into escapist forms of entertainment in order to avoid many of the harsh realities that will result from a precipitous increase in the price of oil. But, a significant number of people will react more rationally, and will begin to look for the kind of knowledge that they believe they need to improve their situation. As part of their general search for knowledge, more people will inevitably begin to take a more serious look at the subjects of politics, ethics and philosophy. This book is specifically designed for such people. So, ultimately, this is a book that is written for both the common man, and the intellectual. Due to the small differences in raw brain power that actually separate them, there is considerable potential for the political views of both groups to converge. Lets hope that this convergence occurs soon. The alternative will not be pleasant.

Defining Politics, Ethics and Philosophy
At is most basic level, politics has been described as who gets what, when, and how (Laswell, 1936). To this basic understanding of what politics means we can add a number of others. Politics can be thought of as a method by which we can translate our views into power. In this sense, politics relates to the certain power relationships that exist between groups in society. More broadly defined, the academic field of politics, or political science, involves the study of how power is distributed in society; and the study of our governmental institutions.

Politics as the activity of office seeking
As the term is more commonly used, politics refers to activities involved in seeking public office. In this sense, the term applies to competitive contests over public offices, and to the power that is associated with holding these offices. And, due to the methods which they commonly resort to in seeking political office, under the current system, public office seeking has become widely perceived as a particularly dirty business. It may have become this way, but it hasn't always been this way, and it doesn't have to be this way. There is nothing inherent to politics which dictates that only self interested people will seek public office and therefore, only this kind of person will be elected to office. Politics can be highly professional. And, even today, many of the people who seek or occupy the highest public offices are men and women of high integrity. If the reputations of "politicians" in general have been tarnished, it is mainly due to their attempts to pander or appeal to their strongest supporters, who frequently hold views that a less politically active majority disagree with.

Politics in relation to the provision of public services
Politics has also gained an undesirable reputation because, inevitably, in the provision of public goods and services, some will believe that they have received less than they are due. That is to say, there is not a stable and long lasting consensus among the people as to what they want from government, or how much they should have to pay for it. In the absence of this consensus, most politicians have come to depend on the efforts of highly unrepresentative but very energetic interest groups in order to get elected. As a result, politics has acquired a distinctively negative quality in the eyes of many Americans. Most Americans have come to see politics as a necessary evil, and they cannot conceive of any possible system under which politics might be made more rational. And yet, when there is a broad underlying consensus about the way the country should operate, and the way vital resources should be distributed, "politics" can be made more rational. In fact, politics can be rationalized to such a great extent that much of the stigma that is now associated with the term can be removed. We will see how this can be done later in this book. Surprisingly, we will also see that ideology can be the key to rationalizing politics.

Other Formal Definitions
The Oxford English Dictionary defines politics as: The science and art of government. The American Heritage Dictionary defines politics as the art and science of political government.

An Informal Understanding of Politics
To the more formal definitions of politics given above can be added other definitions that describe what most people mean when they use the term politics. As most people appear to understand it, the term "politics" often has negative connotations. People often use the term to refer to an "unjustified" distribution of rewards, or a benefit or advantage that was undeserved. For instance, in response to the perception that someone has been unfairly promoted in their job (or that they unfairly received a benefit of any kind), people will often say "it was politics." In this sense, politics refers to the belief that someone has received an undeserved benefit primarily because of their connections, their interpersonal or "networking" skills, or the informal power relationships they have been able to cultivate, rather than their merits. In this case, politics would refer to the belief that it wasn't "what" a person knew that led to their promotion, but it was "who" they know that made the difference.

This informal understanding of what the word politics means must take certain things into account. At a certain level, advancement in a bureaucracy would seem to depend on so called "people skills," contacts, or "who one knows" as much as it might depend on any technical knowledge or competence a person may have. And, it is often the case that many of the people who would be likely to dismiss someone's promotion as being "political" do not have such interpersonal skills themselves. And, in fact, it may sometimes be the case that such skills can actually play a large part in one's job performance. Still, the people who would typically make such complaints do have a point. In a rationally ordered bureaucracy, a person's competence in a given area should be the most important factor in deciding whether they are entitled to occupy a particular position, even as so-called people skills cannot be totally discounted as a determinant for promotion.

Thus, when people say things like "its politics" or "its not what you know but who you know," that determines whether or not one receives a benefit from a system, what they are really doing is communicating their belief that the way rewards and resources are allocated by a system is corrupt. In this commonly understood sense, the term politics is clearly being used as a pejorative. In effect, "politics" has become a bad word. But, politics hasn't always been used pejoratively. It hasn't always meant an unfair method by which people promote their own interests at the expense of the public interest. Politics used to have an entirely different meaning. It used to refer to the process by which various potentially conflicting interests in society would come together to form a consensus about what would be in their mutual interest, or in the best interest of the community. And while different groups may have proposed alternative conceptions of what they believed would be in the public interest, the consensus which would ultimately emerge from the process would actually tend to better serve the public interest than any of the alternative conceptions of it standing alone. This was due to the fact that all groups involved in creating the consensus would make some attempt to understand and accommodate the interests of all the others. And, it was only later in our nation's history that notions of the public interest began to be conceived more exclusively in terms of how they impacted the particular groups that advanced them, to the exclusion of virtually all other interests in society. That is to say, it was only much later in our nation's history that the "interest group model" of politics began to emerge. This model of politics is more concerned with what various groups want from our political system rather than with what is in the public interest.

Relatedly, prior to its corruption by the interest group model, and during the the colonial period especially, politics used to mean getting together in a public house to discuss various things of interest to the community. This is where people got their news and how they formed their ideas; i.e. by holding discussions in small informal groups. It would probably be a good thing for the country if we returned to this traditional method of opinion formation and getting the news. Some will say that the small communities which are continuously forming on the Internet represents a return to more traditional way of getting the news and forming opinions. This may be part of the answer to the question of what is needed to restore the good name of politics, as well as our lost sense of community.

Ethics
Ethics can be defined more straightforwardly than politics, though its subject matter can be just as elusive and ethereal. By the term ethical is commonly meant something that relates to our ideas of what is good or bad, right or wrong. Broadly defined, ethics is the study of what is right and what is best. Correspondingly, one of the most concise definitions of ethics is this: Ethics is a method by which we can determine if our views are moral, or right. Ethics also involves determining the basis for assigning positive or negative values to things. Some other common definitions of ethics include the following: The Oxford English Dictionary defines ethics as: The science of morals; the department of study concerned with the principles of human duty. The American Heritage Dictionary defines ethics as: The study of the general nature of morals and of specific moral choices.

Philosophy
By the term philosophy, I understand a method for determining truth and for distinguishing it from superstition, or irrational beliefs more generally. By extension, philosophy also involves the study that is devoted to finding answers to the most important questions in life, or those questions that relate to being, or the purpose of life, and which do not rely on extra- rational explanations, such as those commonly provided by religious doctrines. As a practical enterprise, philosophy can be defined as the art or finding the truth or the right answers, including perhaps most importantly, the answer to the question: What is the best form of life? As such, philosophy is more of a methodology or an approach than a body of knowledge. In addition, some of the more common definitions of philosophy include the following: The Oxford English Dictionary defines philosophy as: The love, study or pursuit of wisdom; or of knowledge; of things and their causes, whether theoretical or practical. The American Heritage Dictionary defines philosophy as: Speculative inquiry concerning the source and nature of human knowledge.

Obstacles to the Public's Knowledge of Politics, Ethics and Philosophy
As they are taught in most colleges and universities, the subjects of politics, ethics and philosophy have become largely disconnected from one another. This book attempts to restore the ancient Greek tradition of discussing these subjects as closely related aspects of the same general line of inquiry. The Greeks believed that these subjects cannot be neatly divorced from one another, because each shares dimensions of the others. Hence, they should be discussed as a unity, or as aspects of a unified field. And although different sections of his book will focus more on one dimension than another, they will all be discussed as aspects of a larger whole.

In many of our colleges and universities today, political philosophy, ethics and philosophy are taught as dead subjects that are largely without practical applications. Students are expected to memorize these dead bodies of knowledge for the purpose of passing an examination in the quest for academic credentials. By contrast, as I cover the subjects of politics, ethics and philosophy in this book, they are designed to convey useful information. For I believe they have great practical worth. But, because the practical aspects of these subjects have not been stressed enough, people are often unable to see their relevance to their daily lives. And, there are still many in the academic community who believe that these subjects can never become more popular, because the people will never have an interest in them, or because they will never be able to understand them.

From as far back as Plato and Aristotle, the argument has been made that the subjects of politics, ethics and philosophy involves a special kind of knowledge which the average person either cannot obtain, or is unlikely to seek in the first place. Both ancient and modern philosophers have argued that average people either cannot understand, or can only understand with great difficulty, the finely nuanced reasoning process which political, ethical and philosophical discourse requires. Yet, some philosophers have suggested that an understanding of these subjects is within easy reach of anyone who is willing to make a modest effort. Plato in particular suggested that people already have this knowledge within them, and that they only need to be "reminded" to bring this knowledge to the surface. Kant also suggested that men have some kind of a priori understanding of moral or ethical principles.

I believe that the number of people who are looking for this knowledge today, and those who have an opportunity to learn it, is far greater than it was in the days of Plato, Aristotle, or even Kant. In our society, the chief obstacle to attaining this knowledge has been removed. In ancient Greece, the average person was less likely to be literate and was more likely to be concerned with the bare essentials of daily living. Today, the average person is both literate and typically has a considerable amount of free time which they could devote to learning more about these subjects, if they chose. I believe there is a considerable pent up demand for knowledge of these subjects, provided this knowledge can be presented in a form which is not shrouded by the kind of arcane language that has become the trademark of philosophy and of the social sciences more generally. I believe that politically interested and active Americans want this knowledge, if they can get it at a reasonable cost, and without an unreasonable effort.

Still, the argument can be made that the average person will not be inclined to seek knowledge about politics, ethics or philosophy, except under the most dire circumstances. So how is the average person's relative lack of interest in these subjects to be explained? Because most people cannot make a living at these subjects, or because they are not taught in a way that they find interesting, most people do not incentives to learn more about them. In addition, these subjects would not seem destined to become more popular among a people who are primarily interested in the more hedonistic pursuits of life. This is largely an effect of our consumer culture, which places great emphasis on sensation and action seeking, and considerably less emphasis on thought and reflection. This still leaves us with the question of whether or not there are any circumstances under which the subjects of politics, ethics and philosophy might become more popular. In fact there is some strong anecdotal evidence that these subjects can become much more popular and interesting than they are today. Specifically, even among Americans who do not have a serious interest in politics, informal talk and discussion about "political personalities" is quite widespread. This suggests that if it can be packaged in a form which the general public will find more palatable and interesting, that the subject of politics can become more popular, and, ethics and philosophy can tag along for the ride. There are other reasons why these subjects can become more popular. It is much easier to get a basic understanding of these subjects than it is to get a basic understanding of the more cognitively demanding physical sciences. Given these facts, we can hold out some hope that the general public will eventually become more seriously interested in these subjects, especially if their practical benefits can be demonstrated. But what practical benefits should people expect from learning more about politics, ethics and philosophy? Over the course of this book, I will demonstrate that these subjects have the "ultimate" utility, due to their relationship to the fate of our civilization. Admittedly, I may have an uphill battle. For most Americans are too concerned with maximizing their personal happiness over the shorter term to care much about where their civilization is headed over the longer. Indeed, most Americans don't even think that they have any control over where their society is headed. This is one of the great myths about politics, ethics and philosophy. As sentient beings, we are the ones who are in control!

How is Social Science Education at Fault?
The way that the subjects of politics, ethics and philosophy are being taught in our colleges and universities is enough to discourage most Americans from ever developing a serious interest in them. At one extreme, these subjects are being taught in a sterile, academic fashion, or as subjects that are either without or totally detached from their real world applications. At the other extreme, they are being taught in a way that is designed to advance an ideological point of view that most people do not believe in. Consequently, the way that these subjects are now being taught, one is likely to get a distorted view of them. Yet, if they are taught in a way that is substantially free from ideological bias, and if they are presented in an abridged form that readers will find relevant to their own lives, these subjects can be both interesting and relevant.

Competent political scientists will be among the first to admit that their science is not value free, and that there is no Archimedean point from which to practice their discipline. They will further admit that they all bring a set of values with them to the practice of their craft . But not all views and values are equally legitimate according to generally agreed upon criteria. There is a "synthetic ideological view" which attempts to subsume and account for the various interests in society, and which is most concerned with what is best for a system as a system. Ultimately, this view is more likely to be legitimate than any point of view that is associated with the various competing groups in society. Marxists scholars will recognize this point. However, make no mistake, I am not a Marxist. I nonetheless believe that Marx's idea of the "standpoint of the whole" is a good one. In short, there is a "standpoint of the whole" which carries greater force, and which has greater legitimacy in debates on public issues than other perspectives. This is the standpoint from which I attempt to teach politics, ethics and philosophy.

Social scientists must share some responsibility for the fact that the average American knows as little as he does about the subjects of politics, ethics and philosophy. Social scientists have failed to adequately demonstrate the relevance of these subjects to average Americans. Social scientists can hardly be accused of packaging the essentials of these subjects in a form which would make them more palatable to the average person. Even this book is subject to a similar criticism. But, at least it attempts to bridge the gap between the more serious study of politics, ethics and philosophy at our colleges and universities and the totally inadequate exposure to these subjects that people are likely to get from either the media, or from their primary education.

The educational philosophy that permeates the social sciences is not conducive to teaching with efficiency. Academics in the social sciences are mainly concerned with depth and specialization at the expense of breadth and interrelationships. In addition, academics are frequently engaged in contests with one another in the quest to establish an academic track record and to receive recognition from their peers. These contests typically take place at a high level of abstraction. This abstraction tends to spill over into the way academics teach politics, ethics and philosophy, and it does little to further the public's understanding. The average person finds this level of abstraction to be neither interesting nor useful. I believe that an attempt must be made to raise the public's level of understanding about these subjects, even at the cost of some of the abstractions which academics are forced to dwell upon.

Why Knowledge of Politics, Ethics and Philosophy is Important
There are a number of reasons why the public's knowledge of politics, ethics and philosophy is so important in a democracy. A basic knowledge of these subjects goes to the core of understanding the way our social and political world works, and to understanding our place in it. As a practical matter, people who have this knowledge tend to be more well integrated and functional members of society. Such people are even at lower risk for non-organic mental illness and drug abuse. Their knowledge of these subjects gives them the feeling that they have a certain mastery and control over their lives, or it gives them a sense of efficacy. If you have this knowledge, and if you have the sense of empowerment that it affords you, you typically don't experience the kind of fear and insecurity that leads people to depend on fantasies, illusions, or chemical substances for diversion or escape. So, psychologically, this knowledge can have a very practical and therapeutic value. And, it is not just a coincidence that people with mental illness and drug abuse problems have typically never sought, or have failed to attain, this basic knowledge. Why don't we just say it: Some people are ignorant of the kinds of knowledge they need to be good citizens and functional members of society. Similarly, some people are unwilling to make the investments of time and energy that are required to become more effective political participants. There are other reasons why knowledge of politics, ethics and philosophy is important to people in a democracy.

One of the main casualties of living in a fast paced consumer society is that people either lose of fail to develop the capacity for introspection and the kind of deep contemplation which thinking philosophically requires. In the process, they tend to lose the ability (or they never develop it in the first place) to see some of the finer and more important details of how their society works. And, as well, they fail to see when their society is in trouble. In our age, with all the stimulations afforded by our consumer culture, and with all the demands of modern life, people are conditioned to have a very short attention span and a very narrow point of view. Our jobs typically require us to think in very fast, reflexive and narrow ways, as opposed to thinking in more deep, reflective and open ways. People carry this way of thinking into their overall approach to life. Consequently, they apply this way of thinking to areas of life to which it is not naturally well suited. Forming a better understanding of complex social economic and political issues typically requires the more slow and deliberate approach that is more closely associated with thinking philosophically.

To get a better understanding of how your society works requires you to take a step back from society, and at least try to look at it from the standpoint of a neutral outside observer. In order to see society from the standpoint of a neutral outside observer, you must first be willing and able to transcend the liberal and conservative points of view. These are the two perspective that currently dominate political discourse in our country, and the two key perspectives from which most people observe and attempt to understand society. Neither of these perspectives is optimally suited to produce a coherent vision of the public interest over the longer term, even as each contains elements of this vision within it. . And, that is where my efforts in writing this book come into play. This work is designed to make it easier for people to transcend the ideologies of liberalism and conservatism. I will not attempt to cover everything Americans need to know to achieve political competence in this one text. Nor will I attempt to show them everything they need to know in order to achieve the level of political sophistication that they will need to lead the world into the next century. But, what I can do by means of this book is to get a sizable number of Americans to think about their society more critically, more seriously, and more synthetically.

Given the current economic climate, most Americans are too busy pursuing happiness to care much about where their society is headed over the longer term. Most just want to make ends meet and provide a better life for themselves and their family. Unfortunately, such seemingly noble aims can ultimately prove to be self defeating. As most people understand it, the "pursuit of happiness" is merely an extension of a more somatic approach to life more generally. That is to say, most people in America today are feelers, not thinkers. They see society as something alien that they must deal with, but not something that they are fully a part of, and certainly not something that they could have any control over. Hence, according to their more isolated and sensation based perspective, they have no real incentive to contribute to a society's long term welfare. They just go with the flow. They mainly want to extract resources from society, and that is all. Similarly, they are most concerned with things that appeal to them emotionally and with things that make them feel good. This is not to say that they don't occasionally have political thoughts and opinions. Rather, the quality of their thoughts and opinions tends to be very low. Such people are typically only interested in politics as a way to add to their sensations, or in order to make themselves fatter and happier. For them, being fat and happy are the highest values. But, over the course of this book, I will raise serious doubts as to whether seeking to maximize our short term happiness is the proper course. Perhaps we should not attempt to live in a way that brings us the greatest short term happiness. Perhaps we should live in a way that would be most likely to minimize our suffering over the longer term. And, in order to minimize our suffering over the longer term, perhaps we should not only be concerned with personal lifestyle issues (such as proper diet and exercise), but we should also concerned with the health of our society. Because, if society bites the dust, it can easily take us with it. Hence, there is a very real need for Americans to "look for knowledge" about politics, ethics and philosophy.

10 Laws of Politics
To guide you in your search for knowledge about politics ethics and philosophy, I have assembled ten concise and easy to remember rules, or laws of politics. As I explained above, there are close connections between the subjects of politics, ethics and philosophy. For brevity, I have simply defined these as laws of politics.

1)If you have God, right, reason and justice on your side, you will lose; unless you have the numbers.
2)Although might can make right, reason and truth can be elements of might.
3)Neither liberals nor conservatives have a monopoly on the truth.
4)The best form of government is based on the most functional ideology (or the belief system that is best for human beings generally).
5)The most functional ideology is the belief system which is most conducive to human survivability.
6)The most functional political ideology involves a synthesis of liberal and conservative principles.
7)Philosophy is a method we can use to determine if our views are legitimate, or based upon truth.
8)Ethics is a method we can use to determine if our views are moral, or right.
9)Politics is a method we can use to translate our views into power.
10)Reason and knowledge should form the basis for our political, ethical and philosophical beliefs.