Replies

You’ve got two men who represent opposing parties, but whose actual deeds in office, and their respective end results, are quite similar. Some (including me) consider that there’s no appreciable difference between their records.

Now, the agenda these two men have forwarded through their deeds in office, favors left-wing ideals - and not the established, traditional ideals upon which the country was founded.

Both of their single terms in office resulted in great harm to the established order of things. The agenda they doggedly pursued was a radical departure from the way things had ordinarily been done by their people, and cut across the grain of the oldest traditions and practices which their people had long been accustomed to.

Again...the results were disastrous on both counts.

Now, having described these two men, let’s imagine that one of them currently holds the nation’s highest executive office. For the most part, his fellow party members in the legislature back his agenda with lock-step herd loyalty. Opposition party members in the legislature, for the most part, do not.

Complicating this executive’s execution of his agenda, is the fact that his party controls only one house of the legislature. His solution to this road block is to use the power and privilege of his office to bypass the legislature altogether, when possible, and simply issue executive edicts to accomplish his political goals. He also makes extensive use of the government’s bureaucratic agencies to issue and enforce political edicts which carry the weight of law.

Currently, this executive has achieved much of what he set out to do when he assumed office, and his radical agenda is causing disaster and dislocation throughout the culture and established order of the nation. However, he is term limited by the nation’s Constitution, and is up for re-election. Because of the obvious damage his agenda has inflicted upon the nation, his re-election is by no means guaranteed. In fact, his loss to an opposition challenger is a virtual certainty, provided the opposition party runs a competent, well-liked, well-known person, with a solid record of producing good effects as a chief executive.

The opposition party could not be more perfectly set up to cake walk their way back into power in the executive suite, but what do they do? They choose to run the aforementioned executive, whose record in office bears an unusually striking similarity to the current occupant’s.

This presents a dilemma for those in the opposition party who care less about labels, and more about traditional ideals and end results. By his record, it’s a near certainty that, should he win the election, their chosen candidate will most likely forward the agenda of the other side - representing his party (and their interests) in name and rhetoric only.

Faced with the political and institutional reality that one of these men will win the election, the opposition party, who are quite likely to win control of both houses of the legislature, are faced with having to work with a chief executive who, despite all his rhetoric to the contrary, will most likely continue forwarding the same agenda that has recently done so much damage to the nation.

Many of these legislators will feel compelled to push for a resumption of best practices, as understood by those who elected them to office. Many of them will feel empowered and duty bound to put an end to the radical departures of the previous administration.

And here is where it gets complicated for some people.

Politics is a bit like making sausage. You don’t want to watch how it’s done behind the scene, lest you lose your appetite for the resultant product. A lot of deal-making, strong arm tactics, threats, and compromising, goes into the mix. Despite having a new majority, the opposition party in the legislature will tend toward factionalism and a lock-step herd mentality, mostly predicated on nothing more than the base group dynamic of ‘us versus them’. Thus has it ever been in politics.

This will result in the individual members voting with their ‘team’, and in the case of the opposition party, supporting their team captain’s agenda, should he become the new chief executive.

If the current chief executive somehow holds on to the office, you can expect much less cooperation with his agenda from the opposition-dominated legislature.

Anyone who’s closely watching the legislature now, sees this dynamic at work with the current chief executive. Many of his team members in the legislature have supported his disastrous agenda to their personal detriment. Many have been voted out of office during the current term, and many more will be punished for defying the will of the people.

Whatever happened to self-preservation? Does party loyalty really trump political survival for these legislators? Apparently, for many, it does. Understand, too, that many (if not most) of the newly dominant opposition party legislators will behave exactly as their counterparts across the aisle have, once their guy is chief.