POLITICAL POWER & VOTING · Reason and Balance

[ANALYSIS and OPINION]

[Author’s Note: This article was originally intended to be titled “Power versus Principle” as a follow-on to our previous article “Battle for the Soul of the World” at https://reasonandbalance.com/battle-for-the-soul-of-the-world/. However, it became apparent once drafting started that the article was going to be more abstract than desired if the term “principle” was used throughout, hence the change to what follows.]

Here we discuss the pros and cons of voting philosophies in which the voter chooses or supports a candidate, party, policy, or law that places emphasis power acquisition, accumulation and/or maintenance over more noble principles.

POWER SEEKERS and VOTING THEREFOR

Does might make right? Before that question can be answered one would have to determine what is meant by “right”. Clearly a muscular teenage bully beating up his frail younger brother to get the only remaining piece of candy in the house is not an example of a situation where might makes right in the absence of some additional facts showing some legitimate basis for both bully’s superior claim to the candy and his use of force to get it—which, of course, is exceedingly unlikely.

Might in this context is a synonym for power. Here when we talk about power we are talking primarily about political power, that is, the power to make laws, rules, regulations and policies (herein the “laws and policies”) that affect the economic, political and social life in the country in question (typically in the United States or one of its political subdivisions). We are also talking about the power to affect military matters and set foreign policy. On the other hand, when we talk about principle we are talking about the laws and policies duly adopted and implemented whether through legislation, by court decision or by appropriate regulatory and/or executive action. We also use the term values. Here the term “values” means the priorities set by a person or group of people in question in terms of what they consider to be necessary to satisfy their needs, wants and desires. It also encompasses those moral, religious and social practices and beliefs that they deem to be acceptable. .

Assuming that all civilized people believe that peace is preferable to war and that a sense of stability is necessary for prosperity, it necessarily follows that a healthy political system create and nurture an environment where peace and stability are likely to prevail. This is not likely to happen where a significant portion of the general public is at odds with the laws and policies then in effect.

As such, a crucial question is: Do a country’s laws and policies adequately reflect the values of its citizens. Thus, a determination must be made as to whether the values of the people are reflected the laws and policies adopted by those controlling the government. Setting aside for a moment the fact that different members of society often have different values (an issue that is discussed below in the discussion of “Losers”), if those controlling the government have different values than the general public (the governed) then there is likely to be social unrest and political turmoil, if not outright civil war.

In this context, it is helpful to start our analysis with the most extreme case. This is where one person or a relatively small group of people have taken total and absolute control of all law and policy making and no one can veto, modify or interfere with whatever laws and policies they choose to adopt. Any individual, group or organization that is successful in gaining such total power or something akin thereto, is capable of imposing their will on everyone else, regardless of whether it’s right, wrong, beneficial or detrimental to everyone to do so or not. Naturally this situation is found where countries are ruled by either dictators.

The implication of the foregoing is that to the extent one seeks this kind of power, the power seeker is essentially saying the power seeker’s existence is important and everyone else’s is not. Alternatively, they presume that they know how to solve everyone else’s problems better than any member of the public does and that that they (the power seeker) have the ability to do so.

The result is that as one gains power the less likely he is to consider the lives of others as being important. They are merely a mouth to be fed or a tool to be used to satisfy the leader’s needs. Dictators are certainly not likely to abide by the Golden Rule, namely, to treat others as they would like to be treated simply because their focus is solely on keeping power along with all of the money and other privileges associated with it. Most often their rise to the top requires that the power seeker play political hardball, meaning that along the way they have developed political enemies and serious rivals. The losers in those rivalries, however, often suffer retribution in some form. The trouble for the power seeker is, if those rivals are still around, they remain capable of seeking revenge.

The foregoing thus sets up the rather common situation where the most successful power seekers have become dictators who have developed a long list of enemies on their way to the top. Moreover, not only are successful power seekers often surrounded by a group of power seeking followers (with whom he or she is suspicious and/or fearful of); but also, the successful power seeker has often implemented policies that offend many, if not most, of the general public. This is because the laws and policies the dictator has adopted fail in a lot of instances to reflect the values of the general public. This is primarily because the general public has had no actual influence or input into the law and policy making process. Moreover, dictators normally remove themselves from as much day to day contact with the people as possible and live a cloistered and privileged life that does not bring them into contact with the problems faced by ordinary citizens. In this sense, they have less understanding of values of the general public than they ought to have in order to solve societal problems.

An important consequence of the foregoing is that dictators, authoritarians, and one party rulers, though appearing to be in control, often suffer from a deep, sometimes psychotic, fear of being violently overthrown. This is particularly true if the general public is already experiencing hardship and /or is in a state of considerable unrest, such as Germany was during the Great Depression and Russia was after World War I when the Czar was deposed.

This leads to the disturbing and frightening possibility that that those with sufficient power can do things that penalize or harm significant portions of the general public without sufficient fear of being penalized or forced to rectify the harm done. It is largely for reasons like this that Lord Acton, a 19^th Century Member of the British Parliament, historian and writer, said:

“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely;” and

“Despotic power is always accompanied by corruption of morality.”

(See: https://www.acton.org/research/lord-acton-quote-archive )

After considering the foregoing, one can see how and why it was possible that dictators like Stalin, Mao and Hitler found little difficulty in killing millions of innocent people in order to maintain their own power, and, at the same time, achieve their own political agendas.

Typically, those that support the notion of governance through the accumulation and use of power, do so for their own political, economic or social gain. Candidates for office and leaders often induce people to follow them because of the express or tacit promises they’ve made to do things or implement policies that will ultimately give their supporters more money, better jobs, more power and/or a better life. Unfortunately, sometimes people who become followers of those who seek or use excessive power do so out of self-perceived necessity. Perhaps they are poor and very much need a job or at least better job prospects. Perhaps they need money to pay for life’s necessities. Others do so strictly for profit or prestige or to feather their own nest and get ahead in life.

However, it is also quite possible for leaders and candidates who emphasize the need for power do so in conjunction with promises to clean up some perceived societal problem that exists and to restore a social or political order that will be advantageous to the prospective voter or follower. Often these promises are made by the power seeker in times of trouble or when there is already unrest or uncertainty, especially when the community feels threatened for some reason. Here again, consider Hitler’s and Lenin’s situation and the tactics they used when they came to power. Note in particular that authoritarian leaders often paint themselves and their followers as the only true national patriots who are there to save the nation from some perceived evil and that others, typically some minority subset of the population, is largely responsible for many of the country’s problems. This is how Hitler referred to and dealt with the Jews.

A major problem with following a power focused voting philosophy is that it is often ultimately dangerous for all concerned. Power seekers are often surrounded by followers, peers and/or loyalists who are also power-seekers. And, since they often follow the power over principle philosophy, these followers, peers and loyalists also have a tendency to be self-centered and put their own welfare and advancement above all else. In short, like their leader, they have a tendency not to care that much about other people and will discard relationships anytime it is expedient to do so. (In this regard, it is sometimes very instructive to note what has happened to former associates, employees and followers of a politician in question. If a lot of them have had problems with, or voiced strong concern about, said politician it is clearly a red flag about the fitness of that politician for office.)

In fact, power hungry politicians and would-be despots are aware of this and realize that many of their followers would be more than happy to depose them and take power themselves. It’s this very fact that makes many despots paranoid because they are constantly looking over their shoulder worried that a coup by one of their so-called followers is brewing. History is full of instances where power oriented leaders (usually dictators) who’ve turned on once loyal followers and friends, many times imprisoning, torturing and even killing them. In this regard, consider Hitler’s relationship with former loyalist Ernst Rohm (murdered); Mao’s relationship with Lin Biao (died under suspicious circumstances); Stalin’s institution of the Great Purge which resulted in the death of a multitude of his former supporters.

A serious consequence of the foregoing is that this translates into a lack of respect for due process of law when it comes not only to the passage of laws but also the justice that people can expect to receive in the courts. Simply put power seekers are more likely not to care about due process of law and various constitutional protections that may be available to a litigant including criminal defendants. And, it must be pointed out that, too often, former followers of the power seeker find themselves being charged with crimes by unscrupulous power focused leaders. One reason this happens is that often the powerful leader uses his underlings to carry out illegal tasks in order to do what he wants done so that they, and not he, can shoulder the blame if caught. Once again, this is because dictators don’t care about obeying the law themselves. They will do whatever is in their own self-interest regardless of who or what it hurts.

And, again in extreme cases, where a leader has accumuluated a lot of power, the callousness and impunity which they deal with people (and not caring for anyone, even followers) can be understood by virtue of the fact that since they have no regard for the law, they have no real regard for fair and legitimate elections because they either intend to ignore election results or they will set somehow set up the election process that guarantees their own re-election regardless of what the real election results would say.

And, in order to further distort the voting process in their favor, leaders with too much power end up interfering and manipulating the news gathering and dissemination process so as to always make themselves look good and their opponents bad. Not only that, but despotic leaders have a way of forcing news outlets to paint an overly rosy picture of how good and effective their government is in handling social problems and the economy. In short, the general public becomes totally oblivious as to what the truth is. This naturally sets the stage for some very ironic and unjust outcomes. For an extreme example of this, one only has to look at North Korea where its leaders live lives of luxury while most normal citizens live in dire poverty or starve.

Moreover, and again in extreme cases, political opponents and those brave enough to protest oppressive autocratic policies are sent off to languish in prison, be tortured and/or be executed. In a situation where there is no real due process of law, the public eventually becomes so intimidated that they live out their days in constant fear of doing something to run afoul of the government. And this fear, always ends up being acute because autocrats and dictators virtually always spy on and keep close watch on what the general public does. Government cameras, spies and on line snooping become ubiquitous.

With respect to this last point, given the present level of technology not only in terms of weaponry but also in terms of technology’s ability to help governments spy on the public one has to wonder if power is ever given to a powerful dictator whether it can ever be wrestled away and returned to the people.

When thinks about it, voters who vote for leaders, parties or positions for the sole purpose of gaining, increasing or maintaining their party’s undue or disproportionate power, do so with callousness and with dangerously inadequate regard for fundamental principles such as the rule of law, due process, equal protection of the law, the Bill of Rights and other important provisions of the U.S. Constitution. These legal concepts are the very foundation of American democracy and to take the chance of destroying it by voting for candidates or parties who consistently pursue power by the egregiously unlawful means is tantamount to some form of sedition.

The foregoing should not be taken to mean that all persons who seek power are evil and/or that they and/or their situation inevitably leads to some or all of the foregoing consequences. Clearly there are candidates and leaders (in fact, historically it’s been the vast majority of them in the United States) who rightfully recognize that there are limits to their ability to allow their power seeking to have free rein over their decision-making. The more normal and responsible candidate or leader is well aware of, and readily accepts, the lawful constraints that will properly be placed upon them should they gain public office. As such, the pursuit of an appropriate amount of power if done for a legitimate and principled purpose, is not a bad thing and is often to be encouraged.

What then is a legitimate and principled purpose for seeking power and/or for voting for candidates for public office? And just as importantly, how can one tell if a politician does not have a legitimate reason for seeking public office?

VOTING AND POLITICAL ACTION IN THE INTERESTS OF SOME LEGITIMATE PRINCIPLE T

What do we mean by a principle? A principle is normally something embodied in law or policy and often also includes something related to the values of the relevant community. Here, we use the term “value” meaning an action, thought, type of conduct or process widely thought of as being useful, acceptable and/or beneficial in the relevant community. The relevant community can, depending on the issue involved, be any group of people, including the residents of a city, county, town, village, township, state, nation or the World. The relevant community can be extremely large or very small. There is no size limitation. It can, for example, be the members of a boys or girls basketball team. It can also be a congregation of a religious place of worship, the members of a private club or a charitable organization, the student body and/or faculty of a school or the members of a homeowner’s association. Here, however, when we speak of the relevant community we usually mean a country, such as the United States or a political subdivision thereof.

It should be noted that values can be adopted, arrived at or merely accepted silently and informally. This often happens through custom and usage. For example, most societies accept the notion that honesty is a good thing and that everyone should act honestly.

As such, honesty is a value universally accepted without any need for further action by the government. [Having said this, governments have, of course, actually set some rules related to honesty in dealing such as law against various kinds of fraud or lying under oath in Court.]

We start with a blank slate. With no presupposed idea of what the purpose of life is, who created it or what the appropriate set of moral values are. The reason is that history has amply shown that people disagree about too many issues pertaining to questions of morality, the existence of God and the like. As such, a much more practical and constructive way of looking at the situation takes into account the identity of the person or group making the rules and policies (after all that person or group has their own set of values), and comparing the rules and policies that they set to the values of the relevant community—which is typically the general public of the political entity affected by said rules and policies. The important point here, however, is that if the rules and policies implemented by the government in question does not match the values and needs of the general public affected then the likelihood of social and political unrest increases. And, if this mismatch is serious enough or goes on long enough violence and/or a significant amount of societal dysfunction will occur.

In this regard there are four very important questions that must be answered to determine whether a satisfactory amount of matching exists: (i) Who makes, or will make, the laws and policies: (ii) Who is affected by the rules and policies so established; (iii) Are the values of the rule-makers one in the same as those of the people affected by the rules and policies established by the rule makers; and (iv) (which is the ultimate question) do the laws and policies so established match the values and needs of the affected community? If the answer to question (iii) is no, then there is a high probability that the rules and policies that the rule makers establish will not match the values and needs of the citizenry that they affect. This mismatch of values between leadership and the affected public can, of course, be greatly reduced, if not totally eliminated, if the general public has the right to vote and thus elect and/or remove the leadership of the locality, state or nation involved. This is because, with the right to vote, the affected public has a significant amount of control over who its leaders are and how long they serve. If the public doesn’t like the rules and policies being made they can simply vote their public officials out of office and replace them with ones they do like who, in theory at least, will adopt laws and policies that they (the public) do like.

The focus here is on the process and means by which the laws and policies of the relevant community are determined. What is most important is that the relevant community first be determined. And then the question is: What values do its citizens have? In a place where there is a matching of the values of that community’s leaders with the values of the affected public, the laws and policies adopted are far more likely comply with and satisfy the needs and values of the affected public. This matching of the laws and policies adopted with the needs and values of the affected public will occur almost automatically unless there are interfering conditions present. Naturally, when the public has an effective right to vote this matching of laws and policies with values and needs is most likely to occur. Moreover, if the affected public has no right to vote and/or no say in determining who its governmental leaders and officials are or what the laws and policies affecting them will be, then there is not likely to be a matching of the laws and policies with the values and needs of the general public.

However, even where the public has the right to vote, interfering conditions may be present which inhibit or destroy this essential matching of laws and policies with the values and needs of the affected public.

Interfering conditions can be thought of as any factors, whether external or internal, that cause the relevant community to develop values or to vote for candidates who support certain laws or policies under circumstances where the relevant community (the voting public) is under or suffer from coercion, duress, fraudulent or undue influence, or under a significant misapprehension of the facts. In short, where interfering conditions are present the candidates elected by the public and the rules or principles promulgated by their elected leadership will not reflect the relevant community’s true values but usually those of someone else. Who that someone else is, is often the person, group or party causing the coercion, undue influence or misapprehension of fact. This is often a dictator or a strongarm or thuggish political party seeking to maintain or increase their power. Alternatively, this someone could be a potential foreign adversary seeking to cause political instability in the affected country. It could also be a domestic political party engaging in power seeking politics, which in this context would be clearly wrongful because of the illegal or unethical means employed.

Another example, of an interfering condition, of course, would be where a foreign nation invades and conquers another nation. If elections are held while the conquered country is occupied it would be highly unlikely that the results of the elections or the leaders elected thereby would reflect the true values of the peoples of the conquered nation. More than likely, the leaders elected and the laws they promulgate would reflect the values of the conquering nation not the conquered nation even though the laws promulgated only applied in the conquered nation.

At this point, an important observation needs to be made about laws and policies and election results that displease some members of the voting public. In order for the laws and policies adopted by the leadership of a government to be effective and remain in effect the “losers” must peacefully accept the adverse outcomes of both elections and the enactment of laws and policies that they don’t like.* (For purposes hereof, the term “Losers” means those who have suffered an adverse outcome in an election or a court, legislative, regulatory or other lawful governmental proceeding. It refers to both the candidate, a party litigant and/or a principal contestant as well as to their voters and supporters. It also refers to all citizens and people who are somehow negatively affected by a law or policy.) What is meant by this? It means that the Losers must peacefully accept the outcome despite the fact that it may not be favorable and in fact may be unfavorable to them. Under the U.S. Constitution when elections occur, when laws are enacted and/or when policy is made, the Losers can peacefully voice their objections to any adverse outcome and they can peacefully demonstrate and lobby for a change in the law or the policy. That is not a problem, and in fact, in many instances this type of protesting is healthy because it may lead to constructive, positive and peaceful change in the laws and policies of the relevant community. However, violent protesting cannot be tolerated because it causes a breakdown in societal peace, the rule of law and could ultimately seriously affect national security.

How does the community induce the Losers to accept adverse outcomes? This is a crucial question upon which the existence of peace itself very largely depends. Inducing the Losers to peacefully accept the adverse outcomes of any rule, decision or outcome (that is, any principle or value of that community) is a necessary condition precedent to the existence of peace on a local, state, national or international level, and indeed to a prosperous and healthy society generally. Getting Losers to peacefully accept adverse outcomes is never easy. Clearly forcing the Losers to accept adverse results by repression, force or the threat of violence is not an acceptance that can be said to be true acceptance. In fact, that type of acceptance only causes festering resentment. Instead, Loser acceptance of adverse outcomes is most likely obtained where the Losers know that they somehow participated either directly or indirectly in the agreed upon process that established the laws and policies in question. Either that, or they were at least given the opportunity to vote for the persons who established or helped to establish the laws and policies in question. Moreover, Loser acceptance of adverse outcomes will always very likely require that the Losers have some assurance that the law and policy making process was fact-based, unbiased and decided using an objectively fair process that followed duly adopted procedural rules.

Moreover, the simple fact of the matter is that citizens of democratic countries who are unfortunate enough to vote for losing candidates or losing positions are expected, as a condition of remaining a lawful citizen, to take comfort, and thus remain peaceful, in the fact that they may be on the winning side of the next election or next policy question. In other words, you win some and you lose some. Be a good sport, and if you want to be on the winning side and/or support winning candidates then you must, in the future, make more persuasive arguments and convince more of your fellow voters to vote as you do. Failure to peacefully abide by this philosophy will inevitably get you in trouble with the law.

Of course, all of the members of a large body of people (such as all the citizens of a state or nation) cannot directly participate in the process of making law or the rules. And so, the best that can be done is to have a representative government where the people who do formulate the laws and policies are fairly elected by the citizens of that jurisdiction. In short, the representative governments of democracies like that found in the United States, are emblematic of what is, very probably, the best way to assure that the Losers will peacefully accept adverse results. Moreover, and even more importantly, representative democracies provide the best means for assuring that the laws and policies of the relevant group, in this case the entire country, truly reflect the actual values of its citizen, and just as importantly, will meet the needs of them. This is because they’ve had actual input into what laws (that is, what principles) are adopted. By contrast, citizens do not have this input into the law-making (principle establishing) process in power-oriented countries dominated by dictators and/or one party rule.

Unfortunately, the fact that peace exists does not always mean that the laws and policies adopted by governments necessarily reflect the true values of the relevant community. This is true when peace exists in a state where interfering conditions are also present. An example of peace co-existing along with interfering conditions is where the government in power is unpopular but refuses to give up power and in fact stays in power at the point of a gun by arresting dissidents—perhaps even torturing or executing them. The values, of the general public are almost never recognized by governments that come into or stay in power by force or by deceitful means. This is because the rule maker in a dictatorship, is usually just one person (the dictator) or a very small group of people (usually the dictator and a relatively small group of his followers) and thus the rule making group is either significantly different than the group affected, or the values it espouses are no longer shared with the public or wider relevant community. The consequence of the foregoing is that the true relevant community (those affected) are likely to be frustrated, angered and/or disadvantaged by the rules established. This is because the rules established are designed to benefit the decision-making group with little if any regard for the needs, cares or wants of the true relevant community.

In short, the only laws and policies which are likely to meet the needs and values of the affected public are the ones where its citizens have significant input in their making in an environment where no interfering factors exert any significant influence on the law and policy making process. Rules and laws made under circumstances where interfering factors significantly influence the decision-making process are not likely to represent the true values and needs of the affected public.

Before leaving this subject, it is important to be realistic. One’s survival may depend on it.

The foregoing discussion should not be taken as a blanket condemnation of power seeking. Clearly, there can be circumstances, especially if it necessary to defend one’s existence or a vital interest against a wrongful attack then one must bow to realities and focus on maintaining or even increasing one’s power in order to adequately meet the demands presented by the ncessitous circumstances. This is, for example, one reason why having a strong military is a necessity. As an example, one might point to Abraham Lincoln’s suspension of Habeas Corpus during the Civil War.*** In short, in times of emergency or war self-preservation becomes paramount and one must gather and maintain as much power as possible to address exigent and/or survival related challenges. However, the choice to attempt attain inordinate amounts of power should be done only sparingly, and perhaps as a last resort, and with the least infringement on fundamental laws, policies and values of the affected community as possible. One should always remember that if they violate a principle that others hold dear, they (the others) will be far less likely to abide by the principle in question themselves in the future. All of which inevitably leads towards a downward spiral in trust and increases the chances of future conflict.

STRIKING A BALANCE: POWER v. PRINCIPLE

The right to survive and the need to have sufficient power to do so has certain associated corollaries. As noted the only laws and policies enacted with some form of participation by members of the relevant community chosen are truly legitimate in the sense that those laws are likely to meet the needs and values of the affected public. Given large size of the population of the nation, its states and smaller political subdivisions, this by necessity requires that legitimate laws and policies be promulgated through representative democratic processes where citizens duly elect representatives to enact laws and establish policies for the general welfare.

Our forefathers and elected representatives have adopted a Constitution which expresses the profound desire that people should enjoy some fundamental freedoms and rights found in the first ten amendments (a/k/a the Bill of Rights). to the U.S. Constitution. Moreover the U.S. Constitution also carefully delineates the powers and duties of each branch of government. But the major point is that all power resides in the offices held by certain elected and/or duly appointed officials. Power resides in the office, not in the person holding it. This is a major reason why public officials who unsuccessfully run for re-election must voluntarily give up the reins of power and hand them to his successor. Simply put, their power is extinguished when they lose their bid to be re-elected.

The point, however, is that the Constitution embodies the profound belief in the rule of law. This, in turn, means that all citizens, all government officials and the government as well are subject to the law. No one, including the President, the Justices of the Supreme Court, and/or any member of Congress or any other public official is above the law. It is this aspect of the rule of law found in the Constitution that supports the profound desire of Americans to live in a society where basic human freedom prevails and where those freedoms can’t be denied without due process of law. In the eyes of the founding fathers and of virtually all Americans ever since, the Bill of Rights, notions of due process, equal protection of the law, the rule of law and other provisions of the Constitution have been thought of as creating fundamental rights. In fact, the Declaration of Independence in part states:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

In short, if the purpose of voting or seeking office or power is to protect the Constitution, the fundamental rights and the democracy established thereunder then it can be said that the person seeking office or power is, metaphorically speaking, fighting for principle—or more precisely, fighting for legitimate principle. This is because it is a form of defensive self-preservation on behalf of American democracy. Power sought to defend the Constitution, democracy and the rule of law is legitimate so long as the power sought is not excessive and a mere pretext to gain personal powers or wealth or otherwise upset the delicate balance of power established by the Constitution between the three branches of the federal government on the one hand, and the state and federal governments on the other. Similarly, if power is sought to promote peace it is also likely to be legitimate, again so long as it is not a pretext for the imposition of a corrupt or repressive regime.

And naturally, the seeking of power in order to peacefully solve various social and economic problems is not only proper but desirable as well provided again that the power sought is not excessive under the Constitution and not a mere pretext for personal gain. Again, these would be examples of fighting, (that is, voting or seeking office or power) for legitimate principles or purposes. By contrast, examples of fighting for illegitimate principles or purposes (or choosing power over principle) would be voting or seeking office or power in order to impose laws and policies that would clearly be unconstitutional (that is unless a good faith argument is being made to amend the Constitution in a peaceful manner consistent with existing procedures for doing so.)

INDICATORS OF EXCESSIVE FOCUS ON POWER

Naturally, all political candidates want to get elected and all political parties want to have as many of their candidates as possible get elected so that they can have a member of their party elected to the chief executive position (the President, a governor or mayor etc) and/or form legislative majorities in the legislature (Congress). By doing so, they can get the laws and policies that they desire passed and implemented. Thus, every candidate and every party seeks some level of power.

How then can one determine whether a party or candidate is really seeking excessive power or even despotic power? In answering this question, voters should ask themselves questions such as:

Does the party or candidate in question when campaigning or giving a speech:

Advocate, suggest or state, as fact, things that are not factual? (Are they wrong about important facts, do they fail to correct their misstatements, do they seem to be wrong about the facts regularly?)
Advocate positions that if implemented would be unconstitutional without also noting that the Constitution would have to be amended to do what he/they are suggesting?
Advocate, suggest or hint that any of society’s problems are significantly caused by one particular racial, religious, ethnic, socio-economic or other minority group?
Have a history of having followers, employees and subordinates:

Get in trouble with the law; or
Who after leaving the employ of the candidate in question express strong reservations about the legality or propriety of what was done while they were in their candidate’s or leader’s organization?

Appear to have tried to wrongfully manipulate any prior election results—particularly if it involves the failure to give up power or the office that they hold after being voted out of office?

6 Show, or have they shown, any tendency to ignore the law or the Constitution in the past ?

Seek, or have they sought, the help of foreign governments and potential adversaries in winning an election?
Show, or have they shown, signficant disdain for and disrespect to political opponents to the point where they are virtually vilified and/or painted as something akin to the country’s enemy (that is, there’s no sense that there can be reasonable disagreement)?
Advocate, suggest or hint that any form of violence or illegal force is permissible against any person or group of people?
Distract attention from their own alleged or actual wrongs by making unproven allegations of misdeeds by opponents and/or their families and associates?
Consistently express opinions expressing an unusual amount of admiration or positivity about leaders, domestic or foreign who have held and/or exercised a lot of political, business and/or economic power, including foreign dictators and autocrats?
Question the legitimacy of numerous recent election results in places where there has been no prior history of irregularities in counting votes?
Continue to question the legitimacy of elections, especially of opponents or candidates of the opposing party, despite the fact that numerous courts with judges from both major political parties have consistently held that said elections were validly conducted?
Fail to condemn his followers who riot and forcibly entered the very building where an election certifying results adverse to him was being held?
With respect to #14, did they fail to call for additional military or police back up or protection to stop the riot and protect building and officials conducting the election certification process?
Take and keep top secret governmental documents and not return them when legally requested to do so by governmental officials?
If they have ever held office, have or had a tendency to act unilaterally, without obtaining necessary legal permissions from other governmental branches?
Show (or have they shown) a distain for judgments rendered by courts?
Show (or have they shown) a propensity to disregard or denigrate other branches of government?
Because of their wealth or personal or professional history, does their history indicate that they are pretty much accustomed to being in more than the usual amount of control and getting everything they want and/or do they have a history of despotic behavior?
Have a genuine reasonably specific set or proposals on how they will address society’s social, economic, political and foreign relations problems? (Or are they so vague that one simply cannot tell with any degree of certainty?)
Extoll the virtues of old or former “glory days” of the country or its people, and express, hint or at the desire to return to them? (Examples: Hitler (lebensraum) and the Arian race; Putin’s restoration of Ukraine to something akin to the former U.S.S.R.; China reincorporation of Hong Kong and maybe Taiwan?) *****

There is no set number or formula to make a final determination on the issue, but simply put, the more “yes” answers to the above questions, the more likely it is that the candidate or party in question is not the kind of candidate from any party that has traditionally run for office in the United States. Moreover, that candidate is probably seeking excessive power for no legitimate purpose.

The reason that the above are indicators or badges of a candidate or party seeking excessive power (and for no genuine legitimate principle or purpose) is that they provide clues that the party or candidate has little respect for legal processes and might well be willing to lie and use other illegal and unconstitutional means to get elected. And perhaps worse, once in office not to leave if he or she loses the next election. Any indication of a willingness to condone violence is particularly alarming because indicates a willingness to use violence and/or strong arm tactics to either seize or maintain power. Moreover, because of their willingness to use falsehoods and misstate the facts they demonstrate that they are really not trying to solve society’s problems. Instead, they are merely saying what they think is necessary in order get elected, which, in this context, is a nice way of saying “seize power”.

Unfortunately, there is no way of really knowing whether such power seeking candidates and politicians really believe in or intend to carry out some the programs and policies that they espouse until it is too late and they have taken office and seized the reins of power. As such, and unfortunately, many voters can be misled by good public speakers who are fast and loose with the facts and who are great at firing up the passions of the crowd. Moreover, history has shown that politicians with serious character defects can be elected by voters into office even under circumstances where the election was otherwise legitimately conducted. This was the case with Hitler prior to World War II.

In any event candidates or political parties engaging in or exemplifying the above are not simply engaging in politics as usual. The whole situation becomes particularly alarming when crucial questions regarding the acts of public officials, and whether they violated the law and/or whether they should be impeached, sanctioned and/or removed from office always comes down to what is known as a party-line vote. This is because party-line votes on things such as determining whether impeachable offenses have been committed indicates that the votes to impeach, or not impeach, to convict or not convict, are not caste on the bases of the actual facts and the applicable law but, instead, are caste on the basis of which party the official in question belongs to. These types of situations are symptomatic of a very dangerous type of power politics that will ultimately destroy democracy simply because it is the type of politics that does not focus on solving the real problems that the country and its citizens actually face. Instead, the only goal is to see who is in power and who remains there.

July 7, 2023

David Dixon Lentz

[At no point in the drafting or publication process of this article was any means of artificial inteeligence used.]

Footnotes

* In fact it could be argued that Losers who consistently refuse to accept election results in open defiance of repeated court decisions upholding the validity of elections and also work to replace the candidates who, by court decision, have won with those who lost is a form of sedition. Moreover, citizens who violently or, without substantial factual basis for doing so, regularly refuse to recognize either court approved election results or the results of lawful law and policy making processes are, in essence, refusing to recognize the legitimacy of the government, the rule of law and the means by which our government operates under the Constitution. It’s just another way of trying to wrongfully overthrow the government.

** Many times decision-making for purpose of making money is also done for purposes akin to gain or increasing one’s power. Other times, especially if it is done for the purpose of allowing one in necessitous circumstances to exercise a legal right or have access to basic support services for necessities and is less likely to be true a power acquisition decision in the negative sense discussed in this article.

*** In the Lincoln/Habeas situation Lincoln was suspending an important legal right in the interest of preserving the Union under circumstances where armed conflict was raging. It was a true emergency calling for extraordinary measures. Note, however, that in essence he was fighting for a principle, that principle being preservation of national unity and the Constitution. The important point here is that power politics in pursuit of maintenance of the Constitution is, in fact, not a bald attempt to seize power for power’s sake, but an act to obtain the powers necessary to preserve our democracy as we know it. In this regard, it is not wrong to propose an amendment to the Constitution. It is wrong to try to change it without going through the formal processes for doing so that are set forth in the Constitution itself.

***** If one adds to this list the fact that the candidate or politician in question has exceedingly deep pockets (that is deep enough to potentially buy his way out of legal trouble or payoff political opponents, then the situation is particularly ripe for an attempted excessive power grab.