Why cruelty always wins

 A piece I read recently lamented that when the Democratic Party is in power, they don't exert it to enact the full agenda that their base looks forward to, and when they're out of power, they don't use what leverage they have to restrain the merciless policies of conservative administrations.

The secret, as always, lies with uncommitted voters. Mostly white, mostly conservative, they're often assumed to be moderate. But some of these uncommitted voters might withhold their allegiance from the Republican Party because that party isn't heartless enough. If they swing to a Democratic candidate, it is a temporary protest vote to punish the Republican for some perceived inadequacy. The swinging voter doesn't support the Democratic position. It's strictly a temporary, punitive measure to slap some sense into the more conservative party. The moderate ones swing to the Democrat only if the Democrat promises not to act like a Democrat.

While there are plenty of conservative racists, the underlying principle that unites all conservatives of any color is contempt for the poor. Conservative voters who happen to be on public assistance can formulate some exemption in their minds to excuse their own temporary need. Or maybe they vote against their own interests out of self loathing, or a mistaken belief that if they destroy the support system their own fortunes will miraculously improve in the energized economy now no longer burdened with the dead weight of lazy scumbags who don't want to work.

A person I observed for a time was one of these conservatives temporarily receiving public assistance. She would go to the office to collect her dole. While there, she would point out and disparage other supplicants who were obviously dirtbag losers sucking on the public teat for as long as it will be offered. They could not possibly have mitigating circumstances of their own, because the system itself creates them. It's like poor people didn't exist in any significant numbers until a program was created to feed them. They're like raccoons in your garbage cans. Secure your garbage cans and the raccoons have to go fend for themselves.

I doubt if that particular conservative would ever vote across party lines, even to punish an erring official. But her analysis of her fellow poor people sums up the conservative dehumanization of anyone falling below the poverty line. It has to be their own fault in the vast majority of cases.

I get it. We're all a bit reluctant to get sucked into the sob stories of the disadvantaged. There are bullshitters and chronic losers out there. Is it better to yank the lifeline back from the ones who might deserve it in order to cut off the parasites dangling on the same line? Most uncommitted voters seem to think so. And that's why we can't have nice things.

The Trump administration is a teenage fantasy of a presidency

 The mental age of the Trump administration is about 14.

All that they know about government appears to come from shallow observations based on movies and television. They don't have the attention span to read a comic book, let alone a real one with no pictures.

When confronted with a crime or a mistake, they lie, make excuses, and pout. They clearly don't understand the complexity of governing an enormous world power. They screw things up because they're going through the motions of how they think it works. 

They're using the US military like characters in a game. They're using apps to circumvent parental authority. They're experimenting with juvenile delinquency, as if deciding whether they will grow up to be criminal masterminds. Only they're all adults, clearly criminal and demonstrably not masterminds.

They're in charge.

The Supreme Court gave the president unlimited power to commit crimes as long as it could be tied in some flimsy way to "official acts." The president can't be accused of anything worse than poor judgment, no matter how many people get killed and what gets destroyed.

Legal scholars debate whether the protection extends in any way to the functionaries carrying out the orders. The Nuremberg trials did not accept the "only following orders" defense from Nazis facing the consequences of their heinous acts, but that was a simpler time. Who knew that in the United States we would raise a generation that actually longed to look out over fields of corpses such as the liberators of the death camps found?

Fascination with the Nazis is another teenage phase. The sharp uniforms, the cool-looking ships, planes, tanks. The unflinching cruelty. What does it mean to be a man? Not every boy goes through it. I thought that most grew out of it, but clearly I was wrong.

Everything they do is a caricature. 

Look around your area to see who still has flags and signs out, supporting the idiot in the Oval Office. We have representative government. These are the voters that this government represents. The House of Representatives is supposed to represent the common people most directly. The GOP House members support the regime. We'll find out in 2026 whether they still represent the voters who put them in office, but in 2024 they did. Disillusioned Republican voters have confronted their elected representatives so forcefully that the representatives won't face them in public anymore. But where it counts, in Congress, where they could impeach the President and send him to trial in the Senate, they do nothing. No one wants a government-paid trip to El Salvador, I guess. They're afraid they'll lose. It's a national version of the rape victim who won't testify, or the organized crime witness who knows that they will die even if the mob boss goes to prison.

This is the difference between actual teenage fantasy and the nightmare we're in now. Voters who can't tell the difference put this regime in office. Now they're finding out. They voted for corrupt, greedy, cruel, lying, emotionally immature people to be in charge of every single department of the federal government.

Elon Musk has brought in actual sociopathic teenagers to help with the destruction. Why not? They fit right in.

We're rapidly approaching the "or die" part

 As the current regime sprints toward totalitarian control, its agents have seized and detained legal permanent residents as well as immigrants and visitors either with visa issues or simply suspected of them. Plane loads of people have been sent to prison in El Salvador without due process. Citizens of other countries have been held in ICE facilities and US prisons without explanation, or with flimsy ones.

The wrecking crew of DOGE continues to demolish the professional portions of government agencies, while executive orders illegally halt funding to entities that the regime considers a threat to their authority. In other words, the Bill of Rights is being canceled. As long as white supremacists can say ignorant things, and no one comes for the guns (yet), the mainstream media and the loudest voices on the Internet insist that everything is fine. Freedom of speech and the right to bear arms are the only things that matter to people who specialize in hurtful speech and violence.

Major corporations and even law firms roll over for the advancing dictatorship.

The connect the dots diagram of the Turd Reich takes ever more obvious shape while legal remedies bog down in the courts. Protests gather. The regime ignores both. Once a person has been disappeared, they're hard to bring back. Gone is gone. So the regime can continue to sweep up people while the opposition fumbles for a response.

When situations like this in the past finally led to war, the "bad guys" always scored early victories. The Confederacy won all of the early battles of the Civil War. Germany and its allies entrenched themselves across Europe in World War I. Most dramatically, in World War II, the Axis powers took control of Europe, and the Japanese took control of most of the the Pacific, and required years of bloodshed to dislodge.

War has changed since the Second World War. It's unlikely that the major nuclear armed powers would unleash the full murder-suicide firestorm of a full exchange. But there could be limited strikes, and plenty of drones and conventional munitions that can kill lots of small, squishy humans thoroughly enough.

Meanwhile, on North America, the budding fascist regime in Washington envisions the empire that the enslavers imagined when they launched the Civil War: white supremacy from Cape Horn in Chile to Nunavut, Canada. Maybe they haven't thought it through that far, but I'll bet that someone at the Heritage Foundation has.

The problems with that come down to personnel. There simply aren't enough white people to dominate all of the non-white people that stand in the way of that fever dream. Enthusiastic breeders are doing their best, but it's not going to be enough.

Marjorie Taylor Greene called for a "national divorce" in 2023. She suggested that the country divide up by red and blue states. Various ideologically fractured maps of the United States have circulated for years. Because the United States itself was formed by carving out territory and choosing an ideology for it, the idea seems feasible. However it ignores factors that made the American experiment possible in its day. Everything took longer. Distance mattered more. And the abundant resources of the land area funded the independent existence of the country in a way that would be nearly impossible to duplicate. This is especially true if those resources are divided up among hostile smaller countries carved out of the corpse of the once-great nation.

The opposition to the Lands of the Free -- formerly the singular Land of the Free -- are unified groups under Russian and Chinese control. Both of those countries and their client states make no pretense of valuing the individual lives of their citizens or offering them much in the way of freedom. And their citizens are accustomed to this. Guided by fatalism, they go along, get along. Large numbers may be expended in military and industrial actions that their governments choose. They may not like it, but they can't imagine life any other way. With the United States gone, the last beacon of hope goes out.

If the United States holds together as a fascist state for the sake of the survival of its brand name without any of the signature freedom and democracy that had made it attractive to free thinkers the world over, it might hold its place in the uneasy triangle of hostile posturing that would shape reality for the generations born into it. If the country breaks up into little countries, each defining freedom in their own way, all of those countries will face diplomatic pressures from Russia and China. Each one will have to fund and equip its defenses and manage its economy. Each in turn will be easily picked off by the unified forces of the larger powers, no matter how unhappy the citizens of those powers might be. The self-proclaimed "free" will most likely be the ones doing the bulk of the dying.

Efforts to oppose the regime now might succeed. Some opponents of the current fascist coup will probably die. Some in custody probably already have. That death toll is nothing compared to what will happen if the situation here festers into actual revolution. And breaking into smaller nations will inevitably lead to either the end of freedom in them or their eradication.

Freedom for all ultimately comes down to mutual consent. We decide that we want that, as a species. Anything short of that sets the stage for endless war and the ultimate defeat of freedom as a concept at all. It ends either with the victors marching in lockstep to whatever goals their leaders assign, or everyone gone. As long as we're willing to kill each other, killers will always win. Maybe they're the "good killers." Maybe they're the "bad killers." In either case, the dead are still dead. The murderer always gets away with the crime, because the victim is still dead even if the perpetrator stands trial.

Trump Administration tries to turn the United States into New Hampshire

 The ridiculous trade war started by the Trump administration appears to be a federalized version of the contortions that New Hampshire goes through all the time in its efforts to fund government functions while raising revenue from anything but an income or sales tax.

While I love the simplicity of paying the ticketed price for an item with no mental calculation of the additional tax amount, and enjoy a slightly simpler tax season because I don't have to compile a state return on top of a federal one, I also have to put up with the absurdly high property tax rates. 

Tax rates vary from town to town based on what the real estate is worth, with poor towns often paying disproportionately higher mil rates because the property itself is not as desirable as in a more posh town. Because all funding -- more or less -- comes from property taxes, state aid to education, for instance, still comes out of your own local tax bill.

Education in particular is chronically underfunded. Federal money is welcomed to help smooth out the shortfalls in multiple areas of state funding. But hey: "live free or die," we don't have broad-based taxes. It's a bit like a rich kid sponging off of their parents while bragging about their wildly successful independent lifestyle.

Desperately seeking to offset the disastrous consequences of his handout to the rich in the form of existing and proposed tax cuts, Trump is engaged in the same withdrawal of services to ordinary citizens while seeking alternative funding. It's appropriate that in so doing he will withdraw some of the federal funding that New Hampshire has used to make its policies look successful for decades, but that's no comfort. By devastating our country's trade relationships and raising costs to consumers and producers alike, Trump is going to screw up the economy bigly, like no one else has ever screwed it up before. Tariffs are paid by consumers. 

We the people are the power in the economy and in politics. Most of us are too numb to realize it and take part. I count myself in the numb category for many years. My excuse is that I was gaining life experience and observations in order to decide where I wanted to put my support. I was too numb to figure out that I needed to be supporting the lesser of two evils -- usually clearly identifiable -- to slow the progress of the forces that were bent on eroding democracy as far back as 1980. Their camouflage was much better back then. And their marketing has been powerful all along. I was deeply afraid of turning out to support the wrong side. What if the party that I had a visceral repulsion from turned out to be right?

Decades later it's obvious how wrong they were. But their propaganda machine has gone from effective to ubiquitous. They get considerable help from semi-smart people who roam the Internet, most of them too young to have lived through the process of degeneration. Their sense of the good old days was already a lot worse than my base line from decades earlier. I got to see it unfold. Younger people have to get it from history. That history comes with the storyteller's bias.

The current regime seeks to make the very rich even richer, while going through motions that it hopes will convince its base that the regime is making calculated, good faith efforts to control the deficit. Those tariffs are going to bring back American manufacturing, by golly. A lot of poor and elderly people are going to die miserable deaths as a result of the destruction of social services, but no one needs those losers. It's a much deadlier analog to New Hampshire starving its public schools as it turns to vouchers, tuition systems, and homeschooling. Doll it up as "choice" and "liberty."

Recession as a tool of oppression

 In an economic downturn, rich people lose a little value. Poor people lose their homes. When was the last time a solidly wealthy person was ruined by an economic collapse? 1929?

The safeguards put in place as a result of the Great Depression have been an enormous blessing to the middle and working class, whose savings evaporated as a result of irresponsible investing by bankers in the late 1920s. Never again, said the government. So we got safety nets.

The nets protect your savings if you have any. This is an important detail. If you're too poor even to have savings, the FDIC means little to you.

The nets also protect the trapeze-swinging investment adventurers, partly because they were coupled with regulations to beef up the trapezes themselves and limit the ambition of the stunts, but also by allowing the aerialists to plunge, bounce, pull a stylish backflip and land on the solid earth with a flourish before clambering up to try again. This has ultimately led to such things as a US President who has come back from six bankruptcies with a reputation as a keen businessman, and a financial sector that fucks around constantly and never seems to find out for more than a brief interlude of minor shame. It's still better than when the trapeze accidents would pull down the whole goddam tent, but it has made recession into another tool, rather than an unquestionable mistake.

I'm not the only one to have pointed out that savvy investors exploit economic fluctuations by buying the dip. If they have the funds -- and they have powerful incentive to dig them up -- they can buy low. Later, they can sell high.

It's risky business to push the whole economy down on purpose. The plutocrats probably haven't been so bold as to try to pull it off. Then again, recessions serve their power in more ways than setting up a quick little killing on whatever market has dropped.

Grass roots organizing has been a considerable annoyance to the entities who believe that the wealthy really are much better than the rest of us and deserve to rule without question. The best way to control grass roots organizing is to kill the grass. The right wing machine is lavishly funded by plutocrats flooding every information channel with their version of why life is so tough for the numerous regular folks who do the initial voting in this country. We vote -- or should -- to elect our representatives who will be our champions in this government of the people, by the people. Controlling that decision is crucial to the wealthy maintaining their image as the best of us.

It helps the rich when times are tough because they can direct the fear and anger of the voters at targets the wealthy choose, who are anyone other than themselves.

Organizations opposing that corporate consolidation of power depend on small donations. Anyone with an email account and a scrap of conscience and empathy receives dozens of fundraising appeals a day, sometimes dozens an hour in times of crisis. And we've been in crisis for almost ten years now. The grass is thin and dry, on packed, trampled soil.

Voices on the progressive side have been saying for months that anyone who opposes the authoritarian rule of the party currently in power needs to drop everything and devote all attention to protesting, organizing, and witnessing to their neighbors about the dangers of the current crisis and the dire need to get out and vote in massive numbers to oust them in 2026 and 2028. Go door to door! Talk to people on the street!

Yeah, about that: raise your hand if you, too, will shut off all the lights and lie on the floor so that a religious proselytizer on your doorstep will think that no one is home and go away. Canvassers swear that it's effective, but it takes a special kind of person, which I am not. Raise your other hand if you've ever crossed a street to avoid someone handing out leaflets.

Many of us on the progressive side are further hampered by the fact that we're not interested in wealth for its own sake. I started asking years ago, "Who is enslaved on my behalf? What person or country's poverty is indispensable to our prosperity?"

The poor aren't a uniformly virtuous, big-eyed bunch of noble souls. There are dirtbags and screwups, and failed start-up villains who didn't manage to crack the code to become commercially viable. But people of conscience are on average going to be much less wealthy in money than the people who set few or no limits on how much they will take, and from what sources. Being a shit is way more lucrative than being a decent person.

Take this opportunity to point out your favorite example of someone who sort of accidentally became super rich. Should this happen to you, know that there are simple, immediate steps you can take to start redirecting those funds to a wide array of worthy recipients. Back before JK Rowling revealed her hysterical aversion to trans women, she was a fantastic example of the accidental billionaire taking immediate steps to deflect the bulk of it into helpful endeavors. And she made a point of not bitching about her taxes. It was a beautiful, brief time.

I understand the temptation to settle in on easy street, especially if you hadn't had an exceptionally easy life beforehand. In 1996 I became an unexpected thousandaire after the death of my grandparents. The bequest was in the form of stocks, which I was tempted to liquidate immediately, but didn't. I thought I would try the supposed smart thing to do, and remain invested. Every year I would get the ballots for corporate meetings. After a couple of rounds I noticed that the altruistic shareholder proposals to make the companies more socially responsible always failed, and that the statement from the board of directors was always the same boilerplate about remaining competitive in the business environment as it exists, not hobbling the company in a way that would surely cut off those dividends to shareholders. I divested gradually for a while, as crises in my poor people life called for infusions of funds, and liquidated the last of it in 2011 to invest in a music school. Support the arts if it kills you!

On a much larger scale, a retired professor in the Bronx made a big splash when she donated a billion dollars to Albert Einstein College of Medicine, to subsidize tuition for all future students there. A billion dollars is a lot of money, and quite admirable. However, she still has seventy-five percent of the fortune she inherited from her late husband, who racked it up in the financial sector. Not to put too fine a point on it, but financial sector fortunes are all blood money. Money made on money and money changing hands has nothing to do with productivity and the general quality of life for the majority of people. Again, I totally understand the temptation to keep the big chunk. The idea that the rich don't sleep well is complete bullshit. Their bedrooms are cushioned and soundproofed with bales of cash that most of us never see. The only thing the rich lose sleep over is the fact that they aren't doing better at getting even more wealth. That and the fear that the poor will finally rise up in sufficient numbers to overwhelm their private security forces and drag them out into the street. But we're actually too nice to do that, and too many of us can imagine how nice it would be to have that kind of wealth ourselves. We'd be one of the cool ones.

Billionaires are a sign of a sick economy. Multibillionaires are a massive symptom of a sick economy. They're a natural consequence of unregulated capitalism. Your free market proponents say that they're self limiting because they could lose it all on a bad gamble, but that assumes that a large percentage of them will make these bad gambles, and that the fragments of their fortunes will scatter out to the rest of us rather than being sucked up by the remaining billionaires. Guess what really happens. All you have to do is look at who owns the whole federal government right now: a whole bunch of rich people who suck.

It's about money

 A Twitter (X) thread highlighted the book The MAGA Diaries, by Tina Nguyen, about her experiences early in her career, embedded in the right wing media machine. She has emerged from that now, more concerned with truth than ideology. So that's good.

The poster highlighted the handicap that the Democrats have compared to the Republicans in spreading a coordinated and continuous message to voters. One point stuck out more than any other: The poster referred to Republicans as having "the professional right," well-funded indoctrination programs to attract and train young talent to continue to push the aims of old plutocrats to keep their power intact. She complained that there is no "professional left," despite right wing claims that Democrats wield such an apparatus.

The left is represented by hundreds of small, underfunded groups, broadcasting what seems important to them, but with little reach. The poster calls for a coordinated program funded to the tune of billions of dollars. The goal is to construct a left-wing echo chamber that is equal to or greater than the one on the right.

Two problems with that right away: First, most of the billionaires are Republicans or Libertarians. And rich Libertarians don't really believe in liberty for all, they just believe in avoiding taxes and using their own freedom to protect their wealth. Second, the left revolts at the notion of moving in lockstep. The downfall of diversity is that it's hard to organize, even to protect that diversity.

When the United States finally entered World War II, it was not to protect diversity. The military only integrated to the extent absolutely necessary. We were protecting "freedom," but without defining it so precisely that the white majority would start to wonder if the battle was worth their blood.

The right wing echo chamber is full of tough talk, religious fervor, combat metaphors, and justifications for bigotry. The left has no comparable package of literal bullet points. How do you make acceptance of diversity sound badass? The right pushes oversimplification. How can you distill the positions of the left into attractive oversimplified packets?

I hear that we should de-emphasize the culture war issues, but the right will continue to use them as a weapon. Also, a "normal person's" culture war irrelevancy is a trans or other marginalized person's life and death threat. So when we try to focus on purely economic or environmental progress that will be good for everyone below the top 1 percent, the minions of the 1 percent will insist on sacrificing the marginalized people as the cost of enlisting right wing support for those programs. We can't leave anything or anyone out.

The left's message is disjointed and complicated because it is made of all of the chunks that the machine of plutocracy has jettisoned to make their fighting force the envy of political organizers everywhere. Gavin Newsom recently groveled at the feet of Charlie Kirk with his admiration of right wing effectiveness at spewing their narrow-minded crap. If the left put together such a machine, would we have given up everything we were supposed to be working for in order to "win?"

The answer to human survival lies in marketing. The left does need to identify where the general population stands, and how to get in front of them with counterpoints to right wing infomercials. The answer lies not so much in indoctrinating a generation of young leaders and communicators to reinforce old ideas, the way the right does. The left has to find young people who already communicate through currently fashionable channels, fund and support them. Their diversity can't be corporatized. It should not be. Corporatization is what made our current mess.

Money is a problem. If an economy is doing well, it will generate a certain amount of value. Right now, the right wing believes that a handful of super wealthy people are the best stewards of that value. A full-on socialist in the formal sense believes that the state is the best steward of it. Neither of those viewpoints has much use for empowered workers. Is our goal as a society and a species quality of life for everyone or some nebulous concept of "productivity" dependent on serious income inequality and grinding toil by a permanent underclass? What are we producing for?

Figure that out and the messaging will fall into place.

Legitimate government

The idea that a government is only legitimate if the people consent to its decisions sounds great. In practice, however, it leads to the kind of fragmentation we have today.

A certain business in Wolfeboro, NH, displays a shrine to the Trump administration and a banner saying "Wolfeboro is taxation without representation." The banner is because the individuals involved keep failing to get elected to town government positions. The voters reject them. The majority makes its choice. They feel unrepresented. Therefore, the government of Wolfeboro is illegitimate in their eyes.

 The right wing malcontents who like to carry guns and hoist intimidating flags view any government action that they don't like as illegitimate. They did not consent, therefore the policy in question should not apply to them. They like to agitate supporters over "free speech" issues that don't exist, but also oppose real mechanisms to prevent discrimination in practical matters like hiring, real estate, lending, and education. The fake war on Christmas, the idea that they are forbidden to say the n-word, and the fact that they can get in legal trouble for slapping their waitress on the ass, are used to create public support against a tyranny that was never official. 

In the representative democracy that is the United States, individual voters elect representatives and senators to go to Congress and make decisions based on positions the voters liked in the election. These elected officials have the actual power to enact legislation and approve government expenditures, and set tax rates to secure the funding for government operations. This is the republic beloved of people who like to shout "we're a republic, not a democracy" whenever someone complains about the loss of American democracy. By their reckoning, they consented to the government even if it fails to satisfy their every wish.

Government will always fail to satisfy your every wish. Even the oligarchs, currently ascendant, don't always get exactly what they want the instant they want it. They're streamlining the system to improve response times, but it's still not quite there. As for the rest of us, there's a lot of conflicting dissatisfaction.

In the USA, we hate cheaters, except when they're cheating on their taxes. No one likes paying taxes. Some of us want the rich to pay more. Some of us openly or secretly admire those rascals for getting away with what all of us wish we could. Even if you expect to get most or all of your withheld taxes refunded, you have to fill out a tax return to get your refund. If you're super wealthy, the return is long and complicated. You have to pay one or more accountants to avoid paying any taxes. It's an annual pain in the ass.

In every other category, we want people to play by the rules. Whether it's from a genuine sense of fairness or because you've figured out how to manipulate the rules to beat out the drones who still play by them, Americans get really mad at anything they perceive as cheating. You see it in road rage incidents, college admission scandals, outrage over the proper inflation of footballs, the idea that trans women athletes are really men... stuff like that.

We argue over the rules because they might interfere with behaviors that went for generations unchallenged, like sexual assault. As soon as something is declared outright illegal, we have to put it in the category of cheating.

Powerful people get a pass on all of this. Enforcement is selective on the lower classes. The mere suggestion of improper sexual attraction was enough to get Black men brutally slain, often without a pretense of arrest and trial. But decades after a pedophile ring on a Caribbean island was broken up, we have yet to learn the names of the prominent people on the client list.

While both legal and illegal immigrants who toil in factories, fields, and construction sites are being hunted down by the Department of Homeland Security, one-time illegal immigrant Elon Musk gets to buy the government and install himself as dictator because he arrived rich and made himself richer. Much of that wealth was from government contracts -- the tax dollars of working class Americans -- for services that this oligarch can threaten to terminate, or for dubious endeavors like a space program that produces more expensive fireworks displays than successful missions to Mars.

In the American colonies in the 17th and 18th centuries, fortunes were made on dubious endeavors that defied the authority of the British government. Cheating is part of our national identity. Magnificent in its way as unconventional warfare, its legacy haunts us today in our quest to be a nation of laws with outlaw roots. That's not to say that the American colonists should have submitted meekly to British policies that bound their economy to permanent servitude. Back in the mid 18th Century it made more sense to go our own way and prove our concept by establishing a nation where it could be acted out. For a couple of hundred years, it worked out, more or less. But we've had to survive not only our Civil War, but other bloody upheavals to extend the full benefits of citizenship to more categories of the people who were living here anyway.

The founders tried to establish in the US Constitution a framework of laws that citizens would not feel the need to cheat on. The hand of government was meant to be as light as possible. Setting aside that the electorate consisted only of white make property owners, the basis for the plan was naively optimistic about human nature. It has evolved over time to try to address its limitations. Human cussedness is tireless. We still use the concept of laws as the basis of our arguments about what should be allowed. It's cumbersome, frustrating, slow, and still the best way to structure a government of the people, by the people, for the people.