Do political parties work to improve the well-being of citizens?

This post is a response to a question posed in its complete format: “Are there any political parties in this world, who not only defend their country, work to improve social and material wellbeing of citizens, but also aim to improve spiritual wellbeing of citizens?”

Any political party that focuses on the material well-being of the citizens while acknowledging how industry is intended to serve, not rule them, is a party that defends their country and works to improve their overall well-being.

No political party can “improve the spiritual well-being of citizens” because that’s a responsibility each citizen holds for themselves. Governments are administrative bodies that regulate the pragmatic activities of a society.

“Spiritual matters” are neither pragmatic nor quantifiable in any way that any administrative body can directly address. However, by facilitating the development of a socially and economically stable and harmonious environment, a government frees the people up to address their personal “spiritual” issues.

In this case, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs can illustrate these parameters for a government’s responsibility to its citizens.

Governments are responsible for ensuring the first two tiers of needs are accessible to all citizens. By addressing these basic needs, the community can adequately address the following two tiers of needs. When a government provides the stability of the two bottom tiers, then a community can become stable and supportive of its members, which then encourages each member of that community to pursue matters at the top of their hierarchy of needs.,

When the bottom of the pyramid begins crumbling, like it is now with extreme income inequity, the entire edifice of meeting needs crumbles and civilized society is then lost. We are seeing the cracks throughout governments worldwide as widespread disinformation by toxic parties disrupts our systems around the globe while they vie for power.

If we want to avoid system-wide collapse, then we must each reaffirm our commitment to the social contract while recognizing we are all in this together, and only by working together within the context of mutual respect, can we resolve the problems arising from the chasms we have been creating between us to sow division around the globe.

Either we learn to “voluntarily see the light” and choose better for ourselves, or we continue to allow the toxic members of society to direct our species toward a systemic collapse. If we fail to resolve our political issues, future existence on this planet will be threatened by our ecologically destructive activities. Our environmental irresponsibility will catch up to us and cull our species at rates exceeding hundreds of millions per year until the Earth can reestablish a new “normal” for itself.

Governments worldwide must reassert their commitment to ensuring the bottom two tiers of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs are adequately addressed if we are to restore global stability and secure our future. Individuals’ “spiritual needs” will naturally be addressed if we can accomplish that.

Why do a lot of Americans think politics is a dichotomy?

This post is a response to a question posed in its complete format: “Why do a lot of Americans think politics is a dichotomy that consists exclusively of democrats and republicans who are fully aligned with the platforms of either party?”

It might have something to do with almost every elected representative being a member of or closely affiliated with one or the other party.

It might have something to do with the notion that votes cast for alternatives are generally wasted protest votes that accomplish little more than a token form of expression that, at best, is viewed as a spoiler between the two major parties.

It might have something to do with the harsh reality that electoral reform will be necessary to change the current power dynamic. It might also have something to do with how much the oligarchic powers like it the way it is because it works in their favour to reduce their costs of buying government representatives and their risk of losing their investments.

It might also have something to do with a population that can easily be characterized as so much the walking wounded that they’ve developed Stockholm Syndrome because the alternative in changing the dynamic will demand a severe degree of chaos. At the same time, everyone hopes some magical solution will present itself to help them avoid risking everything while getting their hands dirty.

Finally, it might have something to do with the American people not being quite at their breaking point and have shown incredible resilience as they’ve learned to live in a dystopic environment under a perpetual threat of losing everything, including their children to gun-toting lunatics using their schools to vent their childhood rage. Since they’re okay with giving up their lives to enrich billionaires, it seems they’ve given up on being the home of the brave and the land of the free.