The first party gains power by convincing a majority of voters that they are financially poor and unfairly labeled immoral, or tolerant of immorality, by the supporters of the other party. It teaches them that they are poor because of the political policies of the other party and the "obscenely" rich supporters of that party.
If only their party could make the laws of the land and be in charge of the force of government, these people would not be so poor. It teaches them that, in reality, their morals are natural and very normal, but the other party and its supporters falsely think their own morals are better or superior.
The second party gains power by convincing a majority of voters that they are financially well off and moral. It teaches them that they are financially well off because of the hard working principles they apply in their own lives. It teaches them that their morals are higher than a minority of people who are immorally hedonistic (devoted to pleasure seeking) and not even willing to teach morals to their own children, thus threatening the spiritual and social fabric of the society around them.
A sizable body of people are known as swing voters. They do not feel particular allegiance to either of the two major parties. These swing voters are split into two distinct categories.
One category of swing voters are people who feel financially well off enough and do not like to see people who don't work carried by them and other taxpayers. However, these swing voters hate hearing the words "morality" and "family values" trumpeted by preachy self-righteous people.
The second category of swing voters are people who feel financially poor, but feel they are moral, based on every traditional standard of morality ever written or spoken, whether religious or philosophical. They are concerned about the spiritual moral decay of society.
Swing voters are up for grabs at every election. Each of the two major parties continuously fights to change the swing voters' perception of one of their own self-perceived sets of characteristics (the material set or the spiritual set). The real art of politics is to win a majority of both factions of these swing voters with the same message. At first glance, this task would seem impossible for most human beings, but not for skilled politicians.
At any point in history, the party of people who have the power and the leadership of the American government will be the party of people who have the most skilled politicians. Therefore, the gaining of political power and leadership in America has more to do with exhibiting this political skill, than with proclaiming the truth. The American maxim of politics could be stated as POLITICS OVER TRUTH!
As I stated in the first paragraph, "American politics is the simplest thing in the world to understand." The only curious question is why politicians of both major parties are reluctant to explain American politics to the American people as I have done so in this writing?
Maybe it is because they all favor politics over truth. Is there another reason I'm missing for why they don't explain it thus, or is my explanation of American politics all wet? Whatever happened to truth?
--Kenneth J. Wolf #61 (02/11/98)
Return to Captured Thoughts