A Philosophical Disquisition upon Political Praxis: Clash Points in Politics

Political science and political philosophy, in the 21^st century, need to be formally shaken up; this is because, it is contended here, of the increasingly narrowing constraints that are being so ironically demanded of them by sanctimonious deconstructionism and other postmodernist cognitive constructs, which rigorously affect what results in an anal perceptivity, that becomes, necessarily, ethically and morally unhealthy to a dangerous degree.

What may be denominated as political scatology is, thus, unworthy of those who claim to assuredly possess vital intellects grandly intent upon establishing their own version of variegated existential or phenomenological meaningfulness.

Context, Subtext and Pretext

They have, crudely, placed overt cold contempt upon such contentions as can be found, through Western civilization, in Divine Law and classical Natural Law; for belief in God and right reason are, ultimately, both denied since both, finally, are guided by the same principles in theology, politics, law, science, and elsewhere; as would have been agreed to by Thomas P. Neill, this view is moderate realism in terms of what has been called the perennial philosophy, contrary to all the errors of ideological nominalism (as quite clearly seen through: Communism, Nazism, Fascism, etc.).

Moreover, this sage thinking is not at all categorically isolated to the West because, e. g., Confucianism and Thomism can correctly reach complete humane agreement upon the ultimate essentials of human life, fundamental reality, and basic truth.

As another pertinent example, the Golden Rule, as it has been called, can be found in the quite varied teachings of such significantly diverse belief systems as: Brahmanism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Judaism, Confucianism, Christianity, etc. Universal norms of conduct are, moreover, not just supposedly imaginable or minimally conceivable, they do, in fact, exist, as C. S. Lewis had so noted, very soundly, in his still very magnificent, though little book, intriguingly titled: The Abolition of Man.

And, thus, classical Natural Law teachings are not illusionary byproducts of a long-forgotten mythical age; neither is the traditional political knowledge of Aristotle, Plato, etc. as defined classical political philosophy.

As was known to Frederick D. Wilhelmsen, Gerhart Niemeyer, and others, systems of thought are reflections upon man, as is government itself. But, more in particular, one can ask about what is the purpose of proper government. “The object of the State is to secure and promote the temporal well-being or the common good of its members.”1

Among others, Lewis, Neill, Hadley Arkes, John H. Hallowell, Alasdair MacIntyre, James V. Schall, Heinrich A. Rommen, E. B. F. Midgley, and Michael Oakeshott would be found to concur with the fundamental proposition that proper government aims at the common good, contrary to the plainly adverse contentions of radicalism directed against politics; unlike ideology, (true) politics is the total denial of perfection (utopia) on earth, as John Passmore would readily acknowledge.

To creatively help the purposive political conversation of the ages along, nonetheless, an enlarged comprehensiveness of approach is called for, by which added layers of intelligence can be rightly applied, for the then useful evaluation of politics, political science, and political philosophy; this will expand upon some of the thinking of Leo Strauss who had, of course, a real appreciation for classical political philosophy.

New Terminology for a New Era

Consequently, the neologism of “suprapoliticography,” the study of political science as an analogy for what historiography is, meaning the study of different historical schools of thought, is suggested as being now needed. One knows, of course, that political science, the examination of politics, is, therefore, only meant to be the proper “scientific” or professional comprehension of formal politics (facts, figures, statistics, governmental organizations, political systems, etc.).

This is as supposedly separate from or distinguished from political philosophy, meaning the philosophizing done about or concerning the entire matter of politics qua political thought, which relates to the State, usually called the nation-state. Nonetheless, “the system of government must be ultimately decided by the requirements of the public good, which is the object and purpose of civil society.”2

So, in applied consequence, suprapoliticography is to be singularly concerned with the overall examination and investigation of how and why political science gets studied by different schools of thought; in addition, geopolitical, geohistorical, and geostrategic thinking would have to be properly covered, for a better encompassing thoroughness of approach. The abstracting quality of political science, however, minus knowing political philosophy dilutes any purposive sense of the why in pursuit of only knowing the how and what involved with any real-world polity.

The ideological baggage that different thinkers bring to their perception of politics or political science can be rigorously handled by yet another recommended neologism: “suprapoliticology” that will explore, analyze, and research the how and the what of this cognate means of study, which then gets done in the full realm of that which is deemed political.

None of the above, however, is as abstract as it may, at first, superficially seem to uninformed observers of the quite often incredible dynamics of politics, both nationally and internationally conceived as such.

Both suprapoliticography and suprapoliticology will be creatively drawn into an effort to presumably intelligently discuss an aspect of politics that ought not to be dismissed because it is of the essence of the political in both speculative/philosophical thought (political philosophy) and empirical praxis qua political science.

An extreme of what is meant below can be observed on zombietime.com regarding very pure hatred, vulgarity, viciousness, dissension, contempt, etc. that would be easily and always recognized as such, if ever directed against a Leftist politician; and, racist as well, if that politician is non-White, of course.

New terminology (as discussed above) may be needed, therefore, to appropriately handle better the novel situations that can arise, meaning when seeking more precise descriptive understandings of political realities; and, it may assist in avoiding needless circular discussions that would, ultimately, prove so fruitless for adding new substantive knowledge, when then considering critical or pertinent ideological matters.

For instance, the political science and political philosophy literature, back in the 1960s and into at least the 1980s, had produced the debatable dispute as if to authoritarianism needed to be properly distinguished from totalitarianism; this was concerning academic and other efforts at attaining, supposedly, more precise and definitive calculations of political epistemological descriptiveness; this was concerning the often desired specific typologies qua classifications of modern regimes.

And, the valuable works, e. g., of J. L. Talmon are still worth reading, unlike the vast majority of volumes, articles, etc. that were then produced prolifically, most, moreover, beyond any real need.

But, as many perceptive critics had rightfully pointed out, does it finally matter if, e. g., a bullet shot into somebody’s skull had resulted from a clearly totalitarian regime or just, perhaps, a merely authoritarian one? Rather than getting possibly inextricably steeped into the furthest arcane disputations, to the nth degree, between authoritarianism versus totalitarianism, it is suggested that tyranny, an old but still quite useful/serviceable term, can be yet profitably employed to indicate the basic nature of either a regime itself or, at the least, the inherent tendency of its indicative policies, programs, measures, attitudes, etc.

Lately, and fortunately, there seems to be a truly renewed preference and interest for correctly recognizing the value of tyranny, pertaining to the attempt toward getting at the greater truth involved. One overtly sees this, rather markedly, presented in such books as Mark Levin’s Liberty and Tyranny.

Moreover, the efforts of both suprapoliticography and suprapoliticology ought to be critically devoted to supporting tyranny vigorously for guidance concerning the often implicit, if not always explicit, realities so inflicted upon politics, the noted functional operations of regimes, in many contemporary countries.

In back of all this is really the often unmentioned philosophical contention of materialism or naturalism under various names. But, this contention “is the grossest and crudest of errors. It carries a man no further than the direct evidence of his senses. It is a child’s philosophy.”3

Consequently, there will certainly be the everlasting antagonism, final animosity, between liberty and tyranny (AKA the worship of materialism), as the two divergent poles toward which many people will tend to gravitate; the latter has, in fact, especial appeal, e. g., to the majority of (deracinated) intellectuals who do long to feel a vicarious and, if possible, real taste for actual power on earth.

One handily gathers this notion from reading such representative works, e. g., as Paul Johnson’s Intellectuals. On the whole, of course, solid conflict, sometimes just said to theologically be represented by sin, is seemingly inherent to what gets called human nature, though many, of course, blame it upon society or unjust institutional structures of one kind or another.

Verily, on an overall and much larger point, ever since mythic Ogg and Grogg emerged angrily, from their respective prehistoric caves, and could not see eye to eye over some matter held tenaciously in hot dispute, a rock was crashed upon the skull of one against the other; later, civilized people developed the advanced idea of having systems of law and electoral politics as kinder or, perhaps, less violent means of adjudicating various disputes; there was certainly supposed to be, therefore, an appropriate level of civility held as suitably proper for any truly civil society qua civil order of polity.

However, there also came about the different approaches toward political activity; some saw it, e. g., as a gentlemanly sport surrounded by both unofficial (unwritten) as well as official protocols, ethics, and various ways of truly proper behavior and decorum; others, however, have roughly perceived politics as just being the (mere) conduct of war by other means, namely (often Machiavellian) political warfare, not just a pleasant sporting match. Political differences of opinion, nonetheless, have also been, in the past, called the existence of factions.

It has been, e. g., said, pertaining to America, that “the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic, …”4

On the other hand, historically speaking, even the tempestuous, strife-filled nature of the (much smaller) ancient Greek city-states did not prevent Aristotle, in his Politics, from speculating on “the various theories of a perfect state.”5 Factionalism, however, cannot be prevented, only managed.

Regardless, the United States had witnessed the functional creation of political parties, the Federalist Party and the Republican Party, which, meaning as parties or factions, are nowhere to be accounted or provided for anywhere within the wording/structure of the US Constitution; they are, therefore, actually extra-constitutional arrangements that have become, nonetheless, integrally involved in the very existence of politics American style, though it was once so vainly hoped that this country could totally or, at least, mostly escape the great extremes of factionalism then seen in Europe.

The ready clash of political (and any other principles) is and remains, however, the very (combative) definition of true party politics, even if it is yet genuinely extra-constitutional, as to its known empirical existence in a nation; partisanship is, on the whole, healthy politics versus the unfortunate cynicism that can come to afflict excessive bipartisanship or a nonpartisan attitude.

And, here both the aforementioned efforts of intelligently applied suprapoliticography and suprapoliticology come forcefully, into direct and indirect play, in the following keen offered observations, as presented illustrations. One sees clear knowledge of a kind of modern factionalism gone fairly mad, though on mainly one active side of the political spectrum.

For instance, David Horowitz (a former Marxist), among others, has tried to ever vigorously inform the organization today known as the Republican Party (no relation to the earlier one) that the Left, in America, is consciously conducting political warfare and that any effort less than recognizing that salient fact and responding adamantly to it in kind will, eventually, result in substantial political failure; moreover, if one side is actively fighting and the other is, in effect, mainly dreaming away many of its own hopes, plans, proposals, and objectives, the former will, over time, usually win; the latter, normally, will tend to finally lose in such a decidedly uneven contest, for the needed power to rule an entire modern country.

Contemporary Political Realities or Fantasies?

Merrily, in the minds of many, this is an age for psychotic frivolity gone wild; how so, one might still curiously ask? Perhaps, the largest protest march on Washington in history (September 12, 2009) had occurred, in some sort of assumed political vacuum, in that the seemingly over-Europeanized mass media chose to simply ignore its real impact, as if all simply went down the paradigmatic Orwellian memory hole too quickly.

On the other hand, if that cited major event does not monumentally result in greatly changing the basic direction of national politics for, at least, both now and the next generation, then it deserves to be really forgotten, as having been just a sort of bad joke gone extremely sour beyond belief. The future will be indicative, indeed.

Suprapoliticographic schools of thought, oriented either toward Marxism, Conservatism, Libertarianism, Liberalism, Anarchism, or any of a wide number of other ideologies, will, of course, place different interpretations upon the ultimate meaning or final lack thereof concerning what may or may not be seen as, e. g., a genuine protest movement.

Attendant to all this will be the suprapoliticology studies by which researchers, scholars, academics, pundits, commentators, etc. will give forth casually, critically, or otherwise with their own, true or false, various and varied politically structured and cognately operational asseverations.

Thus, a rather congenial Introductory Politics Course 101 may be in order, as a gentle means of needed instruction. In short: Where even two or more people gather together, there is the existent presence of politics, meaning in its most primordial, basic, or original form; but, unanimity, among other matters, cannot always be easily achieved; and, certain supposed unity, therefore, need not to forever presume an absolutist agreement existing upon everything imaginable; if there be freedom, people are yet free to just disagree, inclusive of partisanship or factionalism.

On the other hand, many people are afraid, in America, that constitutional government qua political governance may be put into jeopardy, if the centralization of State power continues apace, which can logically diminish the qualities of citizenship; this is mainly by considerably reducing the abilities of average citizens, directly and indirectly, to really influence the realities of practical governance itself.

Such a situation is likely to produce conditions conducive for conflict, not efforts toward seeking degrees of reconciliation or arbitration of disputes; the once possible middle ground of compromise, vital to a free society and polity, shrinks as a consequent result. So, some interesting questions can be reasonably asked.

When, historically, did the once dreaded, hated, or feared (or, even often outlawed) political opposition become transformed into the “loyal opposition” when, e. g., a possible former majority becomes a minority party? Are there always clearly known ethical limits on the assumed proper exercise of power accepted by all or most political parties in a country, in the Western world, or in the so-called civilized world?

Is it politically healthy for a presidential administration, as was true of Richard M. Nixon’s activities, to draw up an enemies list? Or, is it manifestly always illustrative of political paranoia?

If prior conditions definitionally exist by which a certain (disfavored) party can never really peacefully attain government-controlling political power, then isn’t the existent political system, in fact, a true farce? If democracy is held to be the supposedly best, the fairest, the freest, way of conducting a political system, then why does the realistic concept of democratic despotism exist?

In terms of violent opposition to regimes, when, historically speaking, did the regularly preferred use of “terrorist” terminologically replace the use of “anarchist”? Although few people would say they would support the closed society ideal, is it true that the open society is really the same as the free society?

Is the free society, moreover, the same as the good society? Is conflict integrally needed to insure the existence of a truly free civil social order?

There was supposed to be, as once widely proclaimed by Obama’s many enthusiastic supporters, a postracial, postpolitical, postmodern, and, for purposes of this discussion as a specifically noted matter, a post-conflict president for this nation; unfortunately, one sees the very obvious cult of personality, related political hagiography involved, the factor of tribalism with people perceived as collective groups and not individual citizens, and the marked, retrograde collectivist transition from a modern society of contract backwards to a status society of subjects of a regime, which, meaning such societies, have been so manifestly atavistic, reactionary, in nature.

To the larger point political being asserted, therefore, half of this country is, now, both distinctly divided and alienated by one of the most discordant, divisive, presidencies in its entire recorded history; there is a tremendous credibility gap, moreover, between the often alleged popular perception versus reality.

But, politics without conflict is inherently inconceivable in any genuinely free society and, consequently, conflict in a free society, without the concomitant existence of politics, becomes then conceptionally impossible; both ironically and paradoxically as it may seem, Georges Sorel’s Reflections on Violence (an often neglected work these days) ought, therefore, to become among today’s most required instructive reading.  A Sorelian analysis can be strategically directed and uniquely focused, ironically, against the forces of the Left.

This is set, functionally, for appropriately interpreting how what may be perceived as “concealed violence” can be, thus, quite skillfully effectuated through certain attempted ideological transformation of the political culture; it is, moreover, a determinedly nihilistic part of the Nietzschean transvaluation of values of modernity qua radicalism itself.

Conflict, therefore, is the first sensate basis of politics; without it, there would be, therefore, no truly tremendous need for organizing people (or politics) for the purposeful sake of attaining or developing political power to, for instance, achieve any particular objectives versus others that might be possible.

Another truism can be stated pertaining greatly to the last few centuries, as to the horrifically tragic impact of much reified cognition parading as profound thought, though only being, in fact, secularist-materialist substitutes (Communism, Nazism, Fascism, etc.) for religion; intellectuals (AKA second-rate minds) have, willingly, concocted these psychotic thought systems, what Robert Musil has intriguingly denominated as a “second reality,” as a terrifying means toward attaining the kind of total power once allocated only, solely, for a Supreme Being, the Lord God Almighty.

Unsurprisingly, most intellectuals, in seeking a Deity substitute, have regularly sided with whatever power promised a version of enlightened despotism, by whatever nice euphemism; this is even though such pragmatic oppression, alleged to be enlightened, is still necessarily, by definition, despotic, of course.

And yet, no ideological fixation is absolutely monolithic, in the minds of all those who believe in its (assumed) truth, because even nominalism in thought cannot so forever absolutely guarantee the totalist acceptance of just any imaginable error.

And, contrary to chiliastic rumors, perfection on earth is not yet attainable, even by the advanced efforts of the most ardent of radicals and other true believers, those psychologically and emotionally motivated and intensely involved humanoid bipeds (AKA extremists).

Whenever, however, a monopoly or a near monopoly in sociopolitical, sociocultural, or socioeconomic struggle occurs as with, e. g., the current cultural-intellectual dominance of most progressive ideology, factions naturally do result. [The supposed illusion, for now, might be if, e. g., the “Chicago Kid” (AKA Obama) should candidly say: “We are all Democrats, we are all Socialists.”]

Insurgent political forces, as is known, can come to achieve essential dominance in this country and that said hegemony can be instituted upon a suitably national scale of endeavor, within political reality and its varied empirical consequences, as to the noted (despotic) direction of things.

Brief Historical Note as Analogy

This was seen in, for instance, early American history when the Federalist Party (the original majority party) completely faded from view, meaning with the absolute national ascendancy of the Democratic-Republicans who (virtually) monopolized all domestic politics; they had yet necessarily broken into natural factions that, moreover, later revealed themselves more vividly, of course, in a resulting sectionalism or regionalism.

It is rendered for its being a useful, though limited analogy, for giving a larger context for what will be critically said. Pres. Thomas Jefferson, of course, had well covered that intriguing aspect of the particular political ascendancy, in his so openly saying: “We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists.” There was the overt saturation of success that had definitely occurred over a number of years; but, nonetheless, dissatisfaction grew.

Various sharp disagreements or dissensions, clashes, had later developed by which interests still conflicted with each other, in the heightened quest for dominance and consequent political power and control; these can be, thus, readily observed and properly denominated as being clash points.

Pres. James Monroe’s Era of Good Feelings, as it has been historically called, didn’t really last that long, when properly examined; America had, of course, a North and South, an East and West, with often divergent needs and conflicting interests.

As a matter of fact, a bloody war was fought, mainly on American soil, costing over 600,000 human lives, a not insignificant number. [The Democratic-Republicans, previously more simply known as the Republicans, eventually had adopted the name of the Democratic Party.]

In the present era, they, the to-be-stated conflicts, would need to be suitably acted upon as through a combined research and policy implementation group, to properly achieve effectiveness of scale of operations, by which it would be logically done systematically, not haphazardly, occasionally, or in an ad hoc manner.

Because of the ever continuing acceleration of history in the modern era, developments that used to take many or, at least, several decades or, perhaps, yet many years to congeal now come to a crisis point within a few years and, sometimes, within less than a single year’s worth of time.

Thus, many elements of the far or hard Left, filled ever with ideological angst, have not so sufficiently perceived the Chicago Kid (a neo-Marxist/Fabian Socialist) as sincerely being activist enough to suit their radically ultraprogressive tastes; this is clearly in spite of the basic saturation of success that has, in fact, been fairly substantially and, in good measure, substantively achieved; nonetheless, as is observed by many commentators and pundits, with the vast majority of the far Left, it is, thus, never quite genuinely fast enough, never significantly radical enough.

There is actually occurring the widely present public struggle between the mostly fierce classical/neoclassical Marxists, who lovingly long for a true and bloody revolution from below, versus the neo-Marxists who wish to skillfully conduct the modernist revolution from above, the ever radicalizing “march through the institutions” of Antonio Gramsci, Saul Alinsky, etc. It is ideological classicism versus sophistication, one supposes.

Current History and Its (Presumed) Political Monopoly of Radicalism

There are, therefore, an increasing number of contemporary clash points, in American politics, which could so readily be taken seriously advantage of by the Republican Party, if it should ever cease acting as the stupid party, which is doubtful. The latter comment pertains to the noted fact that it has studiously neglected trying, more or less, to take political advantage of such obvious areas of major dissension, especially within the radicalism of this early 21^st century; and, in consideration, no merely simplistic divide and conquer strategy is being put forth here.

Various liberal and leftist groups are now, more than ever, divided against themselves; this is because all ideological strains of thought, as they do deal with constant variations of cognition, are not truly nor logically compatible, in the final analysis. Even V. I. Lenin, when intellectually provoked, had to overtly admit to a critic that communism was, of course, filled with inherent contradictions and benefited from them as well; he said that, moreover, it normally advanced not in spite of but, rather, because of its contradictions.

Today, those environmentalists who, e. g., have fairly broken from the seeming majority of the greenies by their qualified support of nuclear power, as a responsible way of diminishing usage of coal, gas, and oil, are plainly illustrative of an obvious ideological clash point; it, the true fundamental disagreement, cannot be fully nor just completely resolved within the then narrow and rather constraining context of environmentalism qua radicalism (utopianism) since it is, as said, an ideology; it is, equally, the so basely crude and nominalistic bastardization of politics.

The following will be held illustrative, as a heuristic exercise, for encouraging such a strategy and related tactics concerning a form of political warfare that is aligned with what can then be called psychological warfare; these matters can be as applied to other areas of radical ratiocination that has, fundamentally, achieved monumental cultural-intellectual supremacy in the mass media, journalism, academia, even in such a cultural organization as, for instance, the National Football League (as manifestly seen, e. g., in the greatly successful effort to, thus, ideologically purge Rush Limbaugh as being a vile conservative qua (alleged) racist), AMA, AARP, and elsewhere.

In seeking an intelligent means of a counteroffensive, the Republicans could selectively “cherry pick” off the nuclear power-oriented greenies; this would be then by properly demonstrating to them how clearly, empirically, and situationally incompatible their position is versus the present dominant bulk, the majority, of the more narrow-minded environmentalists.

First, this suitably and realistically creates what can be called a logical wedge or means of making people feel, probably increasingly, that they can justifiably disagree with and divide themselves from some of their interests, against their fellow true believers; as another quite useful and secondary effect, some numbers of the nuclear greenies, on selected issues supportive of their particular cause, could, thus, be rationally persuaded to somewhat defect, either temporarily or, perhaps, in the long run, from parts of the very broad coalition that generally composes the existence of the bulk of the Democratic Party.

Another clash point, to be logically exploited, can also be here illustrated. The radical leftists, as part of the broader Democratic Party coalition, tend to usually favor, e. g., disarmament and withdrawal of American forces from all around the world, while most Democrats still largely favor supporting the reality of the welfare-warfare State.

The fringe radical minority in that party, however, can be made to easily realize that their support for that political organization logically necessitates the perpetual need for the ever globalizing aggrandizement of the military forces of the USA that must, therefore, functionally divert tax money away from both domestic and international collectivist efforts so quite eagerly favored by them.

What Can Be Done: Promote Clash Points

The Republican Party can skillfully encourage or, rather, aggravate any such possible differences among environmentalists through, e. g., helping the pro-nuclear power greenies; this can be openly done by giving them rhetorical and other effective outlets for their particular point of view in party publications, conferences, etc. Analogously, this was once creatively and most successfully done, in the 1970s and 1980s, by then providing an inviting bridge, easily favorable for most of the GOP, for the pro-Cold War Democrats, such as with, e. g., Ambassador Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, as a simply most prominent example of that past era.

On the matter of the military-oriented nature of continuing with a welfare-associated State (as the needed fulfillment of the ongoing warfare-welfare State), it does not take too much elaborated ability – as with speaking about the presidential administration of Obama — to, thus, suitably point out that it still costs a great deal of real money to keep fighting real wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, even fairly regardless of his (permanently incredible) Nobel Peace Prize, of course.

Any fairly predictably resulting (ideological) factionalism that results should, therefore, be positively persuaded to follow through this line of logic that can direct appropriate attention toward clash points; this is, thus, toward citing the radical need to reject the leadership of the current head of the Democratic Party, among other consequences.

The assumed illusion is presented, furthermore, that the pandemic existence of the ideological hegemony known as cultural Marxism (nominalism), as seen, e. g., in all of multiculturalism, diversity, pluralism, affirmative action, use of Ms. as a form of address, etc. has permanently created a totalistic unity that cannot be segmented or fractured for “negative” political purposes. This is not necessarily true.

Militarism and pacifism must, sooner or later, clash, collide, within the odd confines of an ideology that considers itself to be essentially directed in favor of seeing absolute peace as the primary objective in foreign policy, surely not the maintenance of military forces throughout the world, in general, and the paradoxical (read: conflicting) conduct of serious ongoing wars (Iraq and Afghanistan), in particular.

Many of the radicals, those on the Left fringe, will naturally tend to then feel increasing degrees of genuine disaffection concerning what now exists and, moreover, concerning who is then seen as being truly responsible for the obvious continuing difficulties; many can consequently think it reasonably proper to, moreover, gravitate heavily toward someone such as, e. g., a Ralph Nader; in contrast, Obama can be usefully depicted as a genuine war monger, in his still willingly sending American troops off to fight in foreign countries, merely now conveniently disguised as an assumed peace advocate.

So, whether positively (gaining allies/supporters) or negatively (discouraging one’s opponents) applied, selected clash points can be, logically, utilized for soundly defeating the ends of the Democratic Party and promoting both the short and long-term ends of conservatism in politics; this is, moreover, set well beyond the more limited confines of the other major political party, meaning the direction of thinking toward the traditionalist right, not just conservatism, broadly understood, or the Republican Party.

A third example is how a manifest clash point or notable wedge issue definitely exists between the homosexual liberationists and the basic majority of the Hispanic and, perhaps, the vast majority of African-American communities regarding sodomite “marriage” if actually done by an Act of Congress to thoroughly federalize this political issue; those two cited latter parts of the Democratic Party’s vast coalition are not, however, so easily sanguine or thoroughly calm about the known, ongoing, aggressive empowerment of that particular sexual fringe group. This genuine success is easily seen in the recent passage of the Federal Hate Crimes legislation.

It is an absolutely convenient sociocultural and sociopolitical wedge issue that can be intelligently acted upon, if properly done in a sophisticated and entirely professional way, by creatively appealing to those noted elements that do yet remain essentially conservative pertaining directly to this highly important sociocultural (and sociopolitical) matter; this is so certainly contrary to the thinking of the (ideological) radicals of their own party, of course.

Conclusion

Such major differences can, therefore, be quite profitably exploited, if a truly coordinated effort is directed very systematically toward fostering and furthering the here desired and massive enhancement of the illustrated political clash points.

But, this kind of major political effort needs to be done consistently, competently, and coherently toward the presented object of truly destabilizing and discrediting many of the Democratic Party’s coalition elements; but, this particular cited effort is not to be accomplished as just a part-time entertainment.

Aided by careful studies done, furthermore, through useful efforts at preliminary, at first, and, later, more advanced suprapoliticography and suprapoliticology, the relationship between theory and praxis can be then better realized and, with concerted intentions, shortened to best effect for a successful politics set at diminishing, short term and long term, the often accepted political plausibility of democratic despotism, of tyranny.

The desired advancement of social civil liberty and allied freedom for a free society may, moreover, then be more assured of seeing a real achievement of solid civic virtue, as Alasdair MacIntyre would substantially agree, meaning beyond the vile nominalist-oriented deformations caused necessarily by ideological absurdities and fanaticisms.

Notes

1. E. Cahill, The Framework of a Christian State, p. 451

2. Ibid., p. 476

3. M. P. Hill, The Catholic’s Ready Answer, p. 295

4. Publius (Hamilton, Madison & Jay), The Federalist Papers, Number 10, passim

5. Aristotle, Politics, Book I, Chapter XIII

Bibliography

Hadley Arkes, Natural Rights and the Right to Choose, Beyond the Constitution; and The Philosopher in the City

Thomas P. Neill, The Rise and Decline of Liberalism, Makers of the Modern Mind; and Religion and Culture

John H. Hallowell, The Decline of Liberalism as an Ideology, Main Currents in Modern Political Thought; and The Moral Foundation of Democracy

Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory, Whose Justice? Which Rationality?, Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry, The Tasks of Philosophy; and Ethics and Politics

James Kalb, The Tyranny of Liberalism: Understanding and Overcoming Administered Freedom, Inquisitorial Tolerance, and Equality by Command

Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Leftism Revisited: From De Sade and Marx to Hitler and Pol Pot; and Liberty or Equality

James V. Schall, S.J., Catholic Political Philosophy

Heinrich A. Rommen, The State in Catholic Thoughtand The Natural Law

E. B. F. Midgley, The Natural Law Tradition and the Theory of International Relations; and The Ideology of Max Weber

Kevin R. C. Gutzman,The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution

Thomas E. Woods, Jr., The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History; and How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization

Frederick Copleston, S.J., A History of Philosophy (multivolume source)

Anthony Esolin,The Politically Incorrect Guide to Western Civilization

Paul A. Rahe’s Soft Despotism, Democracy’s Drift: Montesquieu, Rousseau, Tocqueville, and the Modern Prospect

E. Cahill, S.J., The Framework of a Christian State

JohnPassmore, The Perfectibility of Man

J. L. Talmon, The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy; The Myth of the Nation and the Vision of Revolution: The Origins of Ideological Polarisation in the Twentieth Century; andPolitical Messianism – the Romantic Phase

Rauol E. Desvernine, Democratic Despotism

Leo Strauss’ Natural Right and History, Persecution and the Art of Writing, The City and Man; and Thoughts on Machiavelli

Frederick D. Wilhelmsen, Man’s Knowledge of Reality, Christianity and Political Philosophy; and Being and Knowing

Michael Oakeshott, Rationalism in Politics, The Politics of Faith and the Politics of Scepticism, On Human Conduct; and The Vocabulary of a Modern European State

Gerhart Niemeyer, The Communist Ideology, Between Nothingness and Paradise; and Aftersight and Foresight

Stephen Tonsor, Equality, Decadence, and Modernity

Thomas Molnar, Return to Philosophy, Archetypes of Thought, The Pagan Temptation, Politics and the State : the Catholic View, God and The Knowledge of Reality; and Utopia, the Perennial Heresy

Mark Levin, Liberty and Tyranny; and Men in Black

Jonah Goldberg, Liberal Fascism

M. P. Hill, S. J., The Catholic’s Ready Answer

Bertram D. Wolfe, Marxism

Robert C. Tucker, The Marxian Revolution

Publius, The Federalist Papers

Georges Sorel, Reflections on Violence