This will point out the convenience of their consenting to leave the legislative part to be managed by a select number chosen from the whole body, who are supposed to have the same concerns at stake which those who appointed them, and who will act in the same manner as the whole body would act, were they present.
In the Technidigm-2000 introductory chapters, you were exposed to the 12 Technidigm-2000 pieces required to simplify complex problems. If you were diligent, you also became familiar with the three synergistic subsets of those 12 pieces - the four key concepts, the four key elements of systems, and the four levels for dealing with problems.
In the remaining pages, we explore how Technidigm-2000 applies to a range of general interest topics, mostly controversial topics. What better sources of controversial topics are there than politics and government? Political topics are important due to their nearly universal involvement in everything that goes on in our complex, multi-layered government system. Also, many of us consider politics and politicians to be in need of significant adjustment, so we might as well get into it. Technidigm 2000 provides a powerful tool with which to make such adjustments.
After exploring how politics impact government in general and how Technidigm-2000 can be used to make both politics and government significantly better, we may have a better appreciation of how to apply Technidigm-2000's framework in other areas. If the framework can be used to deal effectively with the complexities of politics and government, it is hard to imagine any area in which it would not be useful.
Democracies encourage the creation of at least two strong political parties. The parties are almost by definition polarized and, thus, they will tend to confront each other over every issue in which an advantage with the voters might be gained. The energy that major political parties apply to their continuous confrontations makes them difficult to predict and control, and we can only generalize what their long-term plans or approach to government might be. Thus, the U. S. political system is a relatively volatile subsystem of the U. S. Constitution, which is fortunately a very stable system.
Politicians may be honorable statesmen, or they may be less than honorable. To avoid ambiguity, we use the word integrity when referring to anyone who has demonstrated a consistently honorable approach in dealing with others. In the case of politicians who claim to have integrity, the litmus test is also whether they consistently deal fairly and openly with their political opponents and with the citizens whom they seek to represent. If a politician has enough integrity to do that, we may be willing to give him or her the benefit of the doubt. Otherwise, we must conclude that a politician's integrity is a matter of convenience rather than principle.
Unfortunately, the term "politician" is frequently used today to refer to people who are without integrity, honor, and virtue. We automatically assume that candidates and elected officials are primarily seeking to advance themselves and their narrow agendas. They are often presumed to be off-the-level. When they are periodically on-the-level, it is often just happenstance to enhance their own situation. We recognize these and other negative factors in most candidates, so we often find ourselves voting for the least offensive candidate.
Essentially, instead of voting for candidates, we tend to vote against candidates, political parties, or other special interest groups represented by the candidates or political parties. We then try to justify why we voted for someone and are generally able to come up with some ability or quality that is relatively better than the opposing candidate.
Voting that is based on selecting the least offensive option and then justifying ourselves is less than an ideal situation, but it supports the claim of the founding fathers that government is a necessary evil. They established a system of checks and balances that minimizes the chance that power hungry politicians and political parties will take over all the powers of government before the people have a chance to vote them out again. Again, such a stable system of government is dependent on constitutional stability relative to political volatility.
Our objective is better government, which is dependent on our ability to improve politics and, indeed, on our ability to "operate" the U. S. Constitution level four solution system as intended by its designers. Yes, the U. S. Constitution is a level four solution system and has principles, components, feedback, and objectives. It is up to us to achieve its primary objective - better government.
The objective of applying the 12 Technidigm-2000 elements is just as you would suspect. An understanding of the U. S. Constitution, politics, and government in terms of systems and levels will provide us with a common basis for regaining our collective common sense in this age of technology. We may then be able to start to turn things around, perhaps dramatically improving the functioning of social solution systems, especially those that take the form of government programs.
Moreover, Technidigm 2000 helps us determine which government programs have a logical, systematic basis and which do not. The Technidigm-2000 life-cycle approach includes support for government program retirements. Although most of us would agree with Thomas Paine's observation that government is a continuing evil, many government programs need only be temporary.
Under the current "sunset" approach, some government programs die automatically unless they are specifically authorized by Congress to continue. The key criterion for program continuation is whether or not it is needed. Matters of cost and efficiency relative to other programs and options are often too difficult for Congress to address, except at funding time. Then, they are addressed superficially without consideration of their continuing relevance to fundamental principles.
It is difficult to cancel even a poorly run, wasteful program when there is a voting constituency benefiting from it. Also, under the "spoils system" of government, program creation and continuation are used to "reward" special interest groups for their political support. We intuitively know that the best government requires the best elected officials, and the best elected officials are those who place the interest of the people over their own interests. Technidigm-2000 promotes this kind of integrity, but it also promotes the notion that we have to elect able people as well as honorable people. Currently, the most capable people we have are found in industry, not in politics.
But Technidigm-2000 addresses how to enhance programs as well as the people who run the programs. Under Technidigm-2000, the performance of each government program is treated comprehensively, so there may be many possible criteria for change or termination. A good government program or effort that is based on bad principles is actually a bad program.
The U. S. military is viewed as a good part of government. Yet, every time we send military forces into non-emergency combat situations without a declaration of war by Congress, we are ignoring fundamental constitutional principles. The U. S. military is now used as much for political reasons as for constitutional reasons. Although everyone in the military has sworn to protect and defend the U. S. Constitution, they are constantly reminded that the president is the commander-in-chief and that the military must always be subservient to its civilian leaders. Thus, it is relatively easy for politicians to wield military power in ways inconsistent with the principles of the U. S. Constitution level four solution system.
Strict observance of the principles of the U. S. Constitution would limit the power of politicians. Also, when the particulars of the Constitution become outdated, failure of the people to make amendments to it leaves the principles open to interpretation by the courts. When the Constitution or any document requires interpretation, the document is no longer serving its purpose. At that point, the people have lost the power of the constitutional framework that was erected specifically on their behalf. This power was lost several decades ago, and the consequences of that loss are becoming more apparent every year.
Moreover, with the federal government intimately involved in defining what constitutes acceptable educational programs, politics are increasingly impacting our knowledge of history and our collective understanding of basic constitutional principles. Too many government mandates or decisions serve a special interest agenda rather than the overall interests of the country. It is no wonder that some people on the fringes of society have started to revert to colonial-style militias as a means of dissent. They can see the problem, but they can not see the solution. Technidigm-2000 provides the solution.
Return to Technidigm.org Home Page