The American Political Science Association asserts that there are Five laws of politics. These are:
- Only a minority of citizens will ever vote
- Incumbents always have an advantage
- It’s rare for anyone to garner over 60% of the vote
- Incumbents loose support during their term
- Parties tend to alternate in office
However, to my engineering eye, these seem more like observations than actual laws. Shouldn’t any field called “political science,” have laws rather like those of physics that accurately model behavior? I’d like to propose an alternative set of political laws. Admittedly, they’re still imperfect – as they’re not 100% infallible. However, I believe you’ll find them much more predictive of American political behavior, and associated outcomes, than mere observations.
Law 1 – Democrats accuse Republicans of doing that which they’ve already done.
Let’s examine this law against some evidence. The Democrats claimed that the Trump administration’s use of cages for immigrant children was a scandal. Their evidence consisted of pictures of children in cages — taken during the Obama/Biden administration.
The Democrats accused Donald Trump of inciting unrest at the Capitol on January 6. They even impeached him for it. Yet Democrats such as Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi, Ariana Presley, and Maxine Waters spent the summer of 2020 encouraging the rioting of Antifa and BLM.
Perhaps the most notorious example of Law 1 is that of Hillary Clinton. Through multiple cutouts (Perkins Coie LLP, Fusion GPS, and Michael Steele) Hillary paid Russians to fabricate evidence that Trump was colluding with Russia. Hillary Clinton colluded with Russians, to affect the election, in order to accuse Donald Trump of colluding with Russians to affect the election.
Law 2 – When it’s most critical, Republicans will never work as a team.
When the electorate gives the Republicans a mission to accomplish, a handful of RINOs will always find a sensitive place in the precision machinery for a monkey-wrench. As a case in point: The Republicans ran on a platform of repealing ObamaCare. The public gave them majority control of Congress to accomplish it. But then the Republicans failed to garner the votes to accomplish it — thank you, Senator Maverick!
The electorate also gave the Republicans a mission to fund the border wall. Again, they failed to do so. They claimed they didn’t have the votes to overcome a filibuster. However, they could have used reconciliation (just as the Democrats have) to bypass a filibuster. When needed most, they were again long on excuses and short on action.
When the Democrats conducted two sham impeachments, a handful of unprincipled Republicans voted for impeachment (looking at you Mitt and Liz). When Republicans needed to stick together to highlight the travesty that these impeachments were — they didn’t. By helping to legitimize these proceedings, the squishy RINOs have ensured that all future Republican presidents face impeachment.
Finally, the Republicans were not even able to hold firm against the confirmation of Rachel Levine as Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services. This nominee openly supports chemical castration of gender confused children. Miss XY-Levine even sent COVID-19 patients to nursing homes – after removing her own mother (Mrs. XX-Levine) from a nursing home. This is who Joe Biden proposed to ensure the health and safety of American Citizens? Yet Senators Murkowski and Collins thought this nominee was perfectly A-Okay.
Law 3 – Politicians assert that they are following the science, when their intent is to curtail personal freedoms.
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous governors pointed to science as justification for the most radical restrictions of personal freedoms in our lifetime. A year of lockdowns resulted in lost employment, bankrupted businesses, restricted movement, and criminalization of assembly. We were even subjected to curfews — since the virus obviously becomes more contagious after dark. We’ve since learned that much of the data was faulty, and the medical recommendations were contradictory.
Politicians have also used the science of “climate change” to affect the way we live. They’ve used it to regulate the products we buy — eliminating choices and driving up prices. You can’t even buy an incandescent light bulb or a high-volume toilet anymore, because they’re a grave offense to Gaia. They’ve also used it in attempts to dictate our behavior. They want us to travel by mass transit, lower our thermostats, and reside in dense communities to reduce our carbon footprint. One question: how does all of that square with the pandemic “science” of social distancing?
Law 4 – When the government offers to help, the best result is achieved by declining.
From time to time, the federal government will arrive in local communities with an offer of help — usually of the financial variety. However, this help always includes strings — which are conceived by an army of faceless bureaucrats. News flash: those bureaucrats lack any philanthropic motive.
Federal bailout of the auto industry came with protections for labor unions. COVID-19 relief includes federal dictates on how the states may levy taxes. Medical subsidies require states to commit to federal treatment guidelines.
The terms and conditions of the “help” are always designed to convert those helped into long-term dependents. Accepting the outstretched hand of the federal government is accepting seduction into serfdom.
Law 5 – When Politicians invest taxpayer money, the investors shouldn’t expect any return.
In 2018 the federal government “invested” almost $492B for infrastructure, education, and training, and research and development.
Infrastructure investments are those monies spent on bridges, dams, highways, and buildings. When a politician wants a highway or building named after him, it’s an infrastructure “investment.” Of course, the only thing being invested in is the ego of said politician.
Investments for education and training includes spending for preschool through postsecondary education. It also includes money for vocational training (to help journeyman Keystone pipeline fitters become ace software coders). The intent of educational investment is to improve the skills and capabilities of the American workforce. While there is no evidence that increased spending does any such thing, it has kept the teacher’s unions on board as the Democrat Party’s most valued advocate.
Investment on research and development includes money spent on both basic and applied research. This is the money with which the government picks winners and losers in science and industry. With this money, the federal government can promote solar and wind energy, while discouraging advances in the fossil fuels industry. It ensures that financially unsound industries can limp along indefinitely, while competing industries are penalized for their successes. This is how we ended up with an ethanol industry in which 131,000 BTUs of energy are needed to produce ethanol containing 77,000 BTUs of energy. We’re paying $1.70 to get $1.00 back. I think we need some better investment advice.
The Congressional Budget Office admits that it has no way to compute the benefits (returns) that have been realized from these investments. If your financial planner informed you that he had no idea whether you made or lost money with last year’s investment, would you give him more money this year? Investors (taxpayers) can’t expect a return on their investment, because politicians don’t understand what an investment is.
- The next time a Democrat accuses a Republican of a scandal, start an investigation — of the Democrat.
- When Republicans say they’ll work together if we just give them a chance — start identifying primary challengers.
- Never give up God-given liberties in the name of science — which is never really settled.
- When the government says, “we’re here to help,” ask them to help by leaving.
- Finally, the next time a politician “invests” your money, recognize that it’s state-sponsored robbery — you’re not getting anything back.
We’ve made a good start on the real five laws of politics.
John Green is a political refugee from Minnesota, now residing in Star, Idaho. He is a retired engineer with over 40 years of experience in the areas of product development, quality assurance, organizational development, and corporate strategic planning. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
This article was first published by American Thinker.