Molecular Politics

Chapter Forty-Three
Molecular Politics, Part I

One point most of us agree on is this. The legislators in the United States and all other free countries do not represent the will of the people to the satisfaction of the people. The majority of common people everywhere seem to feel somewhat betrayed by those who are expected to represent their interests. We find that instead of representing the interests of the people they either represent their own interests, the interests of party leaders or some other entity.

This seems to be a problem that we have all accepted as a necessary evil, but the true spiritual teachers and dreamers of the race do not accept flaws such as this as a permanent thing. Such people will say along with the late Robert F. Kennedy: “Some people see things as they are and ask why. I dream things that never were and ask, why not?”

Instead of just accepting the necessary evils of our society and wondering why they have to be, let us elevate our minds to a higher level and dream of things better and ask: Why not?

Why not have a political system where the people are truly represented to the extent that they are satisfied that one voice is as important as another? Just because this is not the case now does not mean that the lights of the world cannot make creative change and make the dreams of the ages come true.

Even though many feel in their hearts and minds that a true democracy would be a wonderful thing there are many intelligent people who oppose it on an intellectual and philosophical basis, but I wish here to show that this basis is founded in illusion.

In the United States (and many other nations) pure democracy is opposed for two main reasons:

[1] It is not constitutional. We have a Republic that calls for a representative government where a one person is elected to cast a vote for the many.

[2] The polls that are continuously taken now illustrate that average John Q. Public is ill informed and that the majority will often support silly, immoral or dangerous notions. Even Hitler ran around 70% in the polls in his heyday.

Objection One: A true Democracy can function within the framework of our existing Constitution. Nothing has to be altered in the original document as we will illustrate in this treatise. We will clarify this as we proceed.

Objection Two: As we read about the various polls taken past and present it does seem at times that John Q. Average is misinformed, sometimes even a little unbalanced and certainly not one to whom we wish to trust the destiny of the nation. If the polls are any indication of how a true democracy would vote then it does seem wise to be against it.

Let us dispel this illusion by one statement of fact: A true democracy is not a poll and the results of the will of the people expressed in it will be much more logical and beneficial for the whole than a rule-by-poll would be.

Why is this?

Because the method of obtaining the vote is very different between the two.

There are three differences.

[1] In a democracy all who desire to vote are represented whereas in a poll only a very small percentage voice their opinion.

[2] In a true democracy people vote out of their own initiative because they know and feel something about the issue, but in a poll they use no initiative, but are contacted by a pollster. Many of those contacted through a poll would not be informed enough to even have a desire to vote in a democracy. Let us point out that in a true democracy the citizen is not forced to vote, but all who desire have the privilege of voting. This means that those who are ill informed and do not care about government will usually not vote. Thus in a democracy you will have a much more intelligent voting populace than you have in many polls.

This truth is illustrated by comparing polls taken on the internet verses polls taken by telephone. Internet polls that are equally accessible to the left and right are much more representative of how the results of a democratic vote would be than a telephone poll because those who respond are using their initiative to make the contact and are involved enough to be concerned about the issue.

As you compare similar issues responded to by regular polls and internet polls you will notice a huge difference in the direction of common sense for the internet polls. For instance, in the OJ trial regular polls had the public fairly evenly divided on his guilt or innocence, but in the internet polls people overwhelmingly thought he was guilty from the beginning. The latter obviously reflected the majority view which still exists.

It is interesting to note that polls have gotten less reliable over the years rather than more. I remember way back to the campaign of Nixon and Kennedy that the polls had then both in a dead heat. It was so close that few dared guess who the winner would be. The interesting thing here is that is just what happened. It was one of the closest elections in history just as the polls predicted.

Now in recent national elections the pollsters have been far less accurate than those way back in the Sixties. A prime example is from the 2024 presidential election where celebrated pollster Ann Selzer had Harris leading Trump in the swing state of Ohio 47% to 43%.  The actual results turned out that Trump won Iowa by 13 points, 56% to 43%.

Other pollsters in recent years have off about 10% nationally and with various states . That’s an error level about twenty times as high as the polls were back in 1960 when technology was nowhere near what it is today.

Why the big difference between polls and actual results?

The answer is that in its infancy the polls were used in a fairly logical and sincere effect to find the truth whatever that may be. Then one day it occurred to the powers that be that people were influenced by the polls. No one likes to look stupid and if it appears that everyone thinks XYZ is true then one may as well go along with the idea, especially if he is not sure his or her opinion is right to begin with.

Thus began the “everybody-thinks-this-way-and-so-should-you” polling concept. This new direction in polling does not reveal the true minds of the thinking public, but instead is a tool for influencing public opinion.

The power of influence on the non-thinking public of the “everybody-thinks-this-way-and-so-should-you” concept is very powerful and very much full of illusion. Remember the Milgram experiment? The subjects were willing to fry a man’s brains out because of the demand of an authority and also the implanting of the idea that other subjects were doing the same thing. These poor dupes were willing to risk the electric chair just to fit in. This illustrates how powerful the “fitting in” principle is and why the polls can become a dangerous weapon against real democracy or any representative system.

In the Sixties the polls were generally worded to find the truth, whatever that may be. Now, in this  generation, the polls are carefully worded so predetermined results will be obtained. In addition to this many polls use a carefully selected group of people whose opinion is already established.

Let us create an example of how a poll may be used to promote illusion; the topic of education provides a good example. This is a vulnerable one for the masses, as everyone wants to do all they can to ensure that our kids get the best in education, even if it calls for a sacrifice.

Imagine that a group of Congresspeople want to pass a big spending bill for Boondoggle Project #473 and they fear the public would be enraged at such a waste. Therefore, they decide to attach the spending for this project as a rider attached to an education bill because everyone loves and supports education. They therefore whip up a billion dollar education bill that sounds good, but is, in reality, a complete waste of money.

It turns out that over half the money in the bill goes to pet projects of those who created it, often crazy things that the voters would never approve in isolation. Then the money that does go toward education supports the creation of more administrators and more cushy benefits to current leaders. Maybe a couple percent of the funds go to benefit the teachers and the kids. The administrators are looking forward to using the extra money for educational “seminars” in Hawaii and the Bahamas.

Then begins the presentation and promotion. Congressional members who favor the bill present it as an education bill, money for “our kids,” “our future,” money that will help us catch up to other enlightened nations. Immediately all educational leaders join in support of the bill because they (mostly administrators, not the teachers) will greatly benefit. They immediately start repeating the mantra that this bill is “for the children,” and do their best to make anyone who opposes it as appearing to “hate kids.”

A handful of honest legislators actually read through the bill, see through the illusion and realize that it is a complete waste of money. As soon as their views are announced they are pounced on by supporters of the bill as being “against education.” They are also accused of “hating the kids.”

Shortly after these mantras are circulated a poll is commissioned by the supporters of the bill. Here are the questions:

[1] Do you support the XYZ education bill which will give more money to our schools so they can raise the educational level of our kids?

[2] Do you approve Congressmen Smith and Jones who are against the bill?

Now when the uninformed are called and hear these questions they think within themselves, “sure I’m for education. Let’s spend the money.”

Then in response to the second question they automatically think that Smith and Jones must be about as low as you can get for being “against the kids.”

Next the results of the poll (which is overwhelmingly for the bill and against Smith and Jones) is given to the media. Then the media without questioning or research announces the results and pretty soon the majority of the people are overwhelmingly in favor of the bill and see Smith and Jones and public enemies.

Now Smith and Jones who are the only ones in public favor of the truth are totally on the defensive and every time they are interviewed by the media, they are approached in an attack dog method and find that they spend all their time in defense rather than explaining their position. Finally, Smith and Jones withdraw into the woodwork thinking that if they keep quiet they can at least preserve what little image they have left.

Finally, the actual vote takes place and the two pork spending bills pass the house and goes to a Senate and President that does not dare reject it. Then when the next election comes around those who voted against the bill are attacked as being anti education.

Now this is a fictional account, but it represents a political process that is repeated over and over again and supported by an uninformed public. It illustrates to us the great present-day problem with the polls as well as the political process, but such problems will not be perpetuated by a true democracy. Instead, the problem will be cured.

In the democracy proposed here the voters will be more informed and the illusion caused by the polls will be dispelled.

Question: Why would a true democracy create more intelligent government than the current system? Isn’t an elected representative more intelligent and informed than John Q. Average?

To search the website, containing millions of words, replace the word “search” with the word or phrase you want to find and place the entire line in the Google search box.

“Search” site:freeread.com

To access all the chapters so far see the directory at the top middle next to the meme.

For videos explaining the Molecular Relationship go HERE:

Join JJ’s Facebook group HERE

Index for Original Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Series Navigation

Molecular Details