An Alarm Bell In The Night

Dear Family and Friends,

I keep hearing what Jefferson called in 1820 “an alarm bell in the night.”  The bell he heard was over the growing potential for civil war because of the unresolved slavery issue.  The bell I hear is for destructive civil strife and the potential for a complete breakdown in our body politic.  As I imaged the matter several months ago:  America is encamped on the slopes of a giant volcano.  We feel and hear the rumbles; in reality, the mountain may blow up.  

Hence, what I am hearing is far more than an alarm bell.  Our civilization is on the verge of an enormous eruption.  How long can a people endure in history when they betray themselves and their own founding?  How long can western civilization endure when it disowns the two spiritual forces which engendered our civilization:  the Greek discovery of divine reason as the constituent of our common humanity, and the Judaeo-Christian response to the living God?  The Enlightenment perverted reason from divine-human mutual participation into a natural possession, a world-immanent power for “changing the world;” and the same self-styled “enlightened intellectuals” threw out the God of Christianity. We are reaping the consequences.  Nietzsche’s terrifying vision of a civilization which has murdered God hurling into an empty abyss is coming to pass in our midst.

I may have to dedicate more of my time and energy to diagnosing and writing on the political upheavals in the midst of which we are living.  Such is the work of political philosophy:  to diagnose the spiritual-political problems, and to serve in some small way in their therapy.  As my brother Andy has said repeatedly, “Pearl Harbor is my calling.”  My calling is and seems to be the different kind of Pearl Harbor in which we are now living. I cannot ignore it.  

That I must use whatever skills I have to analyze, diagnose, and perhaps in some very small way help heal these divisions, is evident to me.  Although I do not know this to be the case, it is possible that it is now too late to preserve the United States of America.  Political communities come into being and perish. They die either from internal forces ripping them apart, or because they are overcome by a greater power from abroad. The greatest danger threatening us is not terrorism, Russia, or China, but ourselves: we are dissolving from within as a sizable part of our body politic has lost its grounding in divine reality and in common sense (reason).  In a word, millions of us are out of control.  Without internal order, either we must be controlled by force, or we perish.  Control by force is, in effect, political slavery, and nothing that we should allow to come to pass.  But if we will not control ourselves, what or who else will control us?  This is one of the central themes of millennial political philosophy:  control from within (rational self-control), or dominance from without (power, force, or drugs).  It was a major concern of our Founding Fathers, who left spiritual-rational formation to families, churches, local communities, not to the government (nor to the newly established Federal government).  

A brief note in response to a question one of you raised:  It is conceivable that a human being may be self-consciously agnostic, and still be grounded in reality; and one can “believe in God,” and be swirling in illusions. Truth lies at the level of experience, not verbal formulations.  Those who do good are grounded in the Good, however it is symbolized or expressed; those who do evil do not have that grounding.  Jesus’ words are the measure:  “A tree is known by its fruits.”  The human responsibility is to engage in the search for truth and to seek to do what is right, and not to think that one has arrived at truth, or is doing right without checking one’s own destructive or lower tendencies.  Where there is hatred, violence, ill-will, drug abuse, illusions, and so on, they are not from God, and they are forces tearing us apart.  Any adult can see and understand that our American political society has become rife with hatred, violence, drug abuse, mindless entertainment, disordering music, intellectual-mental drugs (ideologies), and godlessness.  

In short: What shall we do?  What must each of us do to serve God (as we understand Him) and country?  How is one to live in the midst of a society that is breaking apart, and seems to be intent upon killing itself? What is your responsibility? What is mine? Asking the right questions is ever a good beginning.

"No, I Am Not Gaga"

Dear J,

I have given some thought to your claim:  “You seem to be absolutely gaga over the Trump. I think you are in love with him!  Either that, or you are in love with the fact that you sagely (I admit) predicted his winning the election. If the latter is the case, I urge you to get over him. Trump is not a decent human being.”

No, I am not in love with Trump.  My support of him, and that of those with whom I have spoken, is not based on the man at all.  That is why “the Deplorables” were not unnerved by the personal attacks against him.  It has been far less about Trump the man, and far more about the movement for which he has been the loudest and most prominent voice in the past year and a half.  I will not write many details, because nearly everything that I would include you would take as a personal or an ideological insult against “Progressives,” as you style yourselves.  I will sketch briefly in more general terms lest you think that I am personally attacking you or people you admire, and that is not my intention at all.

As I see it, our country is dying.  We have been dying for decades, at least since the 1950’s, but with signs of decadence and decay extending far back in time.  Our Founding had its flaws, and some of them showed up quickly, and contributed to the horrific “Civil War.”  By roughly 1900, despite much goodness in our people, real problems were evident and increasing.  

The sense I have had for decades is that our political elites, our rulers, and the main institutions of our country—government, churches, large businesses, educators, entertainment, mass media, and so on—have largely betrayed our country, often without even knowing it.  To use a simple phrase, “We have been sold a bill of goods.”  Or to put the blame back on us, the body politic, “we chose poorly.”  Yes, we Americans have made some bad choices.

If you were to sit and listen to many of folks who have favored the election of Donald Trump, you would find that he has been accepted as an act of rebellion against “the establishment” which has been destroying us.  Again, to give details means that you will take offense, so I must be silent.  Trump has been seen as a protest vote against our political elites, the mass media, the educational establishment, internationalism, “free trade” ideology, and so on.  Trump gives voice to a popular uprising against what we have done to ourselves, and allowed our leaders to exacerbate.  

If you think that I or others who like Trump are “in love with him,” you are not seeing the larger issues that motivate us at all.  And that failure to see the real problems is precisely one of the foremost problems. Indeed, the problems facing our country are enormous. Not only are we dying, but we as a people in history have been blind to many of the real problems.  Trump takes over in a country which is decaying from within, and in a world which has become enormously dangerous. Policies over the past decades have been disastrous, or not truly beneficial at best.  And these policies are far larger than Obama or Democrats or Progressives, etc.  Both political parties have failed us, leaders from both parties have been sleep-walking and mislead and damaged our country.  As one example that may not hurt you, I cite the libertarian ideology of “absolute free trade,” and the internationalist belief in “open borders.”  Both parties have advanced these causes at our national expense.  Trump voices a strong reaction against such policies.  That is why many of us have supported him.  He is not a panacea, but promises at least a slowing down of our national dissolution.  Hence, his simple, understandable slogans and promises struck a chord in our hearts:  “We will build the wall,” “free trade must be fair,” and in a nutshell, “America first.”  Such are the words we have been longing to hear from our elected leaders.  And even his bluntness and rejection of “political correctness” has appealed to us, because we have seen in Trump not a politician who can dance and skate, but a leader who will take incoming hits for his truthfulness—signs of courageous leadership.  Trump promises to be a real leader, and not a man who wishes to “lead from behind.”

As for Trump “not being a decent human being,” it is typically American to portray political leaders we do not like as bad, evil, decadent, authoritarian, and so on.  Every human being has flaws—you and I included.  What is needed in a good leader is sound political insight and judgment, prudence, courage to act, energy.  If he or she is a good human being, so much the better.  But as James Madison wrote in the Federalist, “Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm.”  That is why our Founders put so much effort into constructing a system of “checks and balances,” and would never have envisioned or promoted the enormous massing of power in the Presidency that has emerged, especially since Lincoln. This undue concentration of power in political leaders and in enormous institutions is one of the major problems facing our badly wounded body politic.  

The foremost problems in our body politic, however, are not political. They are spiritual, intellectual, and moral.  But I know that you, as well as most of our “elites,” are very uncomfortable in hearing about these matters, so I omit them for now.  Suffice it simply to note this:  It does not go well for a country which untethers itself from its grounding.  And I quote the Russian spiritualist and novelist, Dostoyevsky, who wrote in the 1880’s: “The West has lost Christ; that is why it is dying; that is the only reason it is dying.”  Our civilization has forsaken its roots and its grounding in divine reality, and we see the consequences of this rebellion everywhere.

Do We Need One Leader To "Bring Us All Together?"

A very brief note on a rather unpleasant matter. One keeps hearing of “anger” and “division” in the body politic. Some folks express anger. We can all think of examples. Watching one of my favorite segments on a Fox News show today, called “the Political Insiders,” the former Republican congressman from New Hampshire, John, was visibly angry. (The two former Democratic pollsters were not visibly angry).The Republican was very angry, and focused on Trump. He has never manifested that kind of anger in my viewing, and the host asked him about it. It seems obvious to note that the Republican establishment is besides itself, “having a cow,” so to speak, about the possibility of a Trump nomination. 

And I keep hearing some establishment figures—including this Congressman John—talk about “another candidate who will yet emerge.” Hints of a “contested convention” and floor fight after the first ballot, when most delegates are free to vote as they want. And most delegates are party regulars from each state, by the way, not necessarily fans of the person they must—by Republican rules--vote for on the first ballot. They are members of the Establishment. And that leads me to what particularly interests me today: This John has mentioned for the past few months that the decisive candidate for the 2016 Presidential election “is not in the race yet.” Again today, he said that it will be someone who brings R’s, D’s, and independents together. I really do not know whom or what he has in mind. Then I have heard Democratic experts speculate that neither Clinton nor Sanders will be the Democrat nominee, but possibly Biden. His name keeps recurring, as in a Biden-Warren ticket. And then the big one today, the most puzzling comment. Ms. Peggy Noonan was on some news show, a clip of which I watched on Realclearpolitics.com, in which Noonan said that the country needs a single person to bring us all together. 

Here is part of my thinking on the Noonan wish: her desire seems laudable, but it also sounds rather messianic to me. Americans have a history of looking for a political messiah to “bring us all together,” especially in times of crisis or severe stress. Several generations ago, FDR had the appeal of a political messiah when most Americans were anxious, many on the edge of starvation. Reagan had such an appeal, to an extent, for much of the electorate. Obama presented himself that way (“no more red states and blue states,” etc), and the media hyped him into that role of being “the One.” As much as I admire Peggy Noonan, I think that it is wishful thinking, and not even healthy. Or is it? Can any of you think of a single American who could truly bring us together as a people? I mean this as a genuine question, as a thought exercise. No one comes to my mind. And remember, I am not persuaded that it is possible, but it sounds like a messianic dream. The best we may be able to do is to find someone to appeal to half to 2/3rds of the electorate. In all honesty, who could possibly satisfy “Black Lives Matter” and the KKK, or a similar group? Who could even satisfy both Socialists and conservatives, or nationalists and internationalists, free traders or protectionists? I can think of no one who appeals to such diverse groups, can you? Not even our past Presidents who are still alive—Carter, the elder Bush, Clinton, W Bush, or Obama. Is not Peggy Noonan really just dreaming this time, and not facing reality? We are not only diverse, but highly divided, whether we like it or not. It may be the case that there is no political solution to divisions that have spiritual-intellectual-psychological roots. Perhaps we need to deal with the spiritual wasteland? 

I wish our country and world well, but I am starting to sense uncomfortable similarities to the 1930’s. If you ever read, for example, “The 20-years Crisis” (1919-1939), by E H Carr, you know what I mean. Divisions and propensities to violence are deep and common. I think about the phrase from “the Second Coming,” poem by Yeats, 1919, published in 1920: “Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; / Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world….” The western “democracies” as well as Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia all looked to some one man “to bring us all together.” A dangerous dream, I think. (Note: If you walk in D.C., look at the statues from the FDR era; they are remarkably similar to Soviet, Fascist, and Nazi art: massive, muscular animals and men. Glorification of power [not beauty] in statuary. This art shows the similarity in underlying culture, in engendering spiritual experiences (Geist). 

Is the world, as we know it, breaking apart before our eyes? Or is that just being far too melodramatic? Are these tensions more typical of western history in the past several hundred years? English, American, French Revolutions; nationalism; Communism revolutions; National Socialism; wars for “liberation”; and so on. And yet, are there not also signs of consensus, of coming together, of cooperation across borders, of good will towards many, and of diverse forms of spiritual renewal, as with Zen, and so on? Even in the U.S., do we need or want a single man or woman to “bring us together”? Why? 

Addendum:

News reporters tend to be a little short-sighted. I turn on the TV, and keep hearing about disruptions at Trump rallies, about violent break-outs in Florida among students on spring break, about police killing or serious wounding in Maryland, and so on. And more terrorist activity in Africa, this time in Ivory Coast, and threats from North Korea that they could destroy Manhattan with a hydrogen bomb. All of that since yesterday evening. On and on—reports of violence.

The larger and more disturbing issues are ignored: violence and disorder are becoming common in everyday life, in America, and in many countries of the world. Without doubt, America is becoming—or is—a violent society. How often do we see images of riots in cities, or of murders? Even high school, college, and professional sporting events become occasions for slugfests. There seems to be a large appetite for violence, for watching violence, for reporting it. So many of us are given to violence that the more peaceful millions get overlooked.

What is there in our national character that promotes or at least enjoys violence? When in our nation’s history have we not been a violent society—at least with repeated outbreaks, and recurring wars, incursions, occupations of other lands, and so on?

“A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Or, how deep are the divisions, and how long can we stand given our proclivities to violence?

There are several main alternatives to handling violence in the long run: One way is to let the violence continue, and increase, even to the point of living in virtual anarchy and chaos. Another way is for a far greater power to suppress the violence, as by police or military action even against its own citizens. A third way is for a foreign power to impose order on the disordered realm. The fourth way is the most difficult, but clearly the best: for individuals to discipline themselves, to get ordered from within, and live their lives peaceably.

I think that the fate of our political society is in the balance. As I quoted from Yeats, “the center will not hold.”

A Party Pulling Apart

We have all heard today (March 3), I am quite sure, Mitt Romney’s verbal assault on the character and political policies of both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, with nearly all of his gunfire fixed on Trump. We have also heard or read various responses to Romney’s action and words.  I shall be brief.

Running through memory, I cannot recall a former President or party Presidential nominee offering such a blistering attack on his Party’s frontrunner during the nomination process.  A distant relative comes to mind:  when Theodore Roosevelt, one term out of the White House, went to the Republican convention that chose Taft as its nominee for his second term.  Roosevelt bolted from the Republicans, and ran on his self-created “Bull Moose Party.”  The action split the Republican votes, and gave the election of 1912 to New Jersey’s governor, Woodrow Wilson.  Roosevelt loved power, and was convinced that he did a better job than his former protege, Taft, and deserved the party’s nomination.  (Note:  although TR was known as the “trust-buster,” it was actually Taft who far more effectively broke up business monopolies.  In time Taft was named to the Supreme Court, and remains our only ex-President to serve on our highest Court.)

Romney’s charges against Trump’s character and temperament as “unfit for the Presidency” would seem to make it impossible for him ever to support Trump if he should win the nomination.  Indeed, Romney and other political bosses in the Republican establishment have been busy burning bridges this week in their assaults on Trump.  Verbally, Romney shredded Trump and his policies. One can watch the speech or read the script online. Can Humpty Dumpty be put back together? 

If Romney truly believes all that he said—in effect that Trump would be a political and moral disaster if elected President—what took him so long to denounce a man whose endorsement he eagerly sought four years ago, and who praised Trump’s business acumen at that time?  Why didn’t Romney deliver his attempt at character and political assassination last summer, soon after Trump entered the race?  Did he just assume, as so many pols did, that Trump would quickly fade?  In that case, during the fall and early winter, when Trump became the front-runner, why did Romney not “spill the beans” on such an evil man, as Romney implied he is? Surely Romney knows better than I do the effects Trump has had galvanizing a sizable part of the electorate that had been politically disengaged as a result of Republican policies and failures.  Or does Romney not see what has been happening in the electorate?  Are the “political insiders” really as blind as they seem to be?  And why discredit the political responses of millions of Americans at this time?  What is gained?  The whole Romney affair today has the appearance of being an act of desperation by the wielders of power in the Republican Party, who refuse to allow power to slip from their hands. In this case, Romney is a tool or pawn of Establishment forces.  To be honest, I thought that Romney was a good and descent man, beyond letting himself be used as a would-be political assassin. Apparently, he is a serviceable tool of hidden political forces.  And who exactly are these men who may have sent Romney out to do their dirty work? 

Has Romney’s attack been effective?  Or, has he proven as ineffective in destroying Trump’s candidacy as he was in winning the 2012 Presidential election?  Reactions from various sources so far are suggesting that devoted Trumpians are unmoved, although one can measure the effects better in several days, when phrases and charges by Romney filter down to more voters—charges such as “a con man,” “a fake,” “a liar,” “a phony,” “a fraud,” “playing us for suckers,” a “business failure,” a man of poor character “with too much to hide,” unworthy to be President, whose policies would most likely bring about “a recession,” and so on. 

It is interesting to consider a few of Trump’s policies that earned special denunciation by Romney:  building a wall on the southern border (rejected by implication); limiting immigration, and especially observing Muslims desiring to enter as possible terrorists; limiting free trade by policies intended to keep jobs in America. In a word, it is Trump’s more nationalistic policies, distinct from Republican and Democratic sponsoring of absolute free trade and “open borders,” that Romney attacked.  Trump’s desire to protect the populace from illegal and destructive drugs (such as heroin) was not mentioned.  In fact, nothing positive or good about Trump was mentioned. Romney’s attack was utterly one-sided, and delivered with a pious smile on his face.  He executed his attack far more cogently than anything he ever unleashed on President Obama. Why? 

Finally, as others have noticed, for political strategy, Romney favors supporting one of the three candidates in a given state in order to deny Trump state victories (most of the remaining primaries and caucuses are “winner-take-all.”)  The likely result would be a convention without anyone having sufficient delegates in advance (just over 1200 delegates). So I assume that the “powers that be” in the Republican Party want an “open convention” because it most assures their ability to manipulate, to cajole, to buy off delegates with benefits—in a word, to maintain their power; and hence to assure that a candidate malleable by them, and to their favored economic and political policies, would be designated.  The Party leaders want the kind of man they have in the Bushes and in Romney:  someone who does the bidding of the leaders and behind-the-scenes power brokers. 

Here is a prediction: If Trump gets the nomination, and if he wins the election, he will not feel beholden to the Republican Party, and would have around him men and women deemed undesirable by the Party, and probably be drawn from both Parties, and from outside of both of our major parties.  Trump would embody an independence from political establishments unlike what we have seen in the Presidency for many years—at least since Eisenhower, perhaps not since before we had political parties.  And why not?  What has the Republican Party done for Trump and his movement? If he should “play ball” with one party’s leaders, he would be betraying the trust of the voters, many of whom probably support him precisely because of his relative party independence. 

A major political party is unravelling, and it has been doing for some years now.  Romney’s action may be seen as a late, desperate gasp by the Party’s elite to keep control of people who are spinning out of their control. 

Watching The Struggle For Power

Folks,

Listening to “talking heads” speak about Presidential candidates, primaries, electoral politics, all sorts of “issues” or “policies,” and a mud-smattering of personal attacks, it is good to pull back from the verbiage, withdraw from the heat of battle, observe and think:

What we are all watching unfold in this primary season is an enormous struggle to gain and to hold political power.  Human beings’ feelings, character, and various policy issues are all secondary at best.

The Democrats began to display the power struggle in open only when there appeared to be, for several months, a plausible threat to Clinton and her lock on power within the Democrat Party.  The Clintonians did not take Sanders seriously because he was so removed from the levers of power within the Party.  As he gained in popularity, and Clinton fell, she outmaneuvered Sanders by moving into his ideological territory.  Her enormous defeat in New Hampshire no doubt shook up the ruling powers somewhat, although if they looked at the larger picture—as I am sure the Clintons did—they knew that Sanders would be doomed by the fact that such a huge portion of Democrat primary voters are minorities, and especially the blacks have voted for, and favored, the Clintons overwhelmingly.  Sanders was a threat to Clinton only from the white youth he attracted; and from the higher-income voters, many of whom have long distrusted the Clintons for their less-than-noble qualities and their ability to shift positions quickly (something Sanders seems unable or unwilling to do).  Sanders has not, to date, hit Clinton hard on significant matters, and so never really threatened her power position.  Nibbling and quibbling over her speeches at Goldman Sachs proves to be pathetically insignificant.  When Sanders said, “Enough of those damn emails already” in their first debate, he virtually guaranteed Clinton the nomination.  How so?  Sanders would not take off the gloves and really try to deck the overwhelming front-runner in the Democrat Party.  His own lust for power has been overly bounded and constrained to defeat a very powerful Party machine.  

The Republican story unfolding before our eyes is a largely different matter.  The Republican Party elite had pre-selected the Presidential nominee (as did the Democrats with Clinton).  That choice was Jeb Bush.  Spending some $150 million on a candidate who barely rose above 4-5% in national polls shows the foolishness of their ways, and their belief that money and power could overcome any popular choice.  That plan failed with Bush’s poor performances in Iowa, New Hampshire, and then decisively in South Carolina; except for Iowa, these states have been strong bastions of Bush power in politics.  (Remember that even in 2000, in the Bush-Gore election, the only state in the NE which Bush carried was New Hampshire; had Gore taken that state, he would have been President, even without Florida.)  The Republican Party bosses clearly underestimated Trump and the power of the movement he unleashed.  The blindness of the Republicans should not be surprising.  The same Republican Establishment has proven itself tone deaf for years.  To note a few examples:  disregarding popular sentiment and foisting the lackluster insider Romney on the electorate in 2012; the utter deafness to the Republican electorate after the huge waves of 2010 and 2014, which gave Republicans control of the House and the Senate.  What did these elected Republicans do?  They arrogantly disdained their own voters, and did what they pleased by doing virtually nothing to challenge the power of the President—the task they had been elected to do.  They failed, and they were too proud to recognize or to admit their errors.  The backlash has been not the person of Trump, but the movement that has been sweeping Trump to victories. “The Donald” has been capitalizing on the gross failures of the Party elites—failures and backlash to their failures.  

The Trump phenomenon is grounded on two primary forces:  the contempt of many Republican voters for their Party’s leadership in Washington; and the disgust of many Republican voters with governmental power in general, and with power from imperial Washington, D.C., in particular.  Part of the irony here is that Trump has not given much voice to reducing Washington’s power, and that could prove to be his Achilles’ heel with his base.  Trump is, on the other hand, being used by the electorate as a battering ram against the Republican establishment, and especially their leadership in Congress.  Understandably in terms of power-politics, the Establishment is fighting back, hard.  One of their main forces so far has been to use Mitt Romney, formerly Mr. Milk Toast, to attack Trump with nasty charges.  Senators and Congressmen have joined the chorus.  These men are not fighting for “ideas,” but to maintain their power-hold over the Republican Party, and over a sizable part of the American electorate.  If Trump continues to win primaries, as he is expected to do, it should be interesting to see how desperate the Republican elites become.  Expect virtually anything and everything to be used.  Of course the Republican elites gain support from non-Republican powers, such as the NY Times, and even the Clintons, who do not want to run against Trump, despite what polls say now.  Bill Clinton is far too astute a Machiavellian politician not to know that Cruz or Rubio would be easily defeated in a general election, but that the real treat to their attempt to regain the Presidency is Trump and the movement underneath him.  

Watch the lust for power at work. The rest is superficial dressing. These politicians use “policy” as a main cloak for their naked selves:  men and women greedy for gain—for power, and often for wealth.  Imposing their “ideas” on the populace—their “policies”—is primarily a means to exercise their power, and to guarantee the holding of power for themselves and their fellows in their Party. What is a political Party but an organization to acquire, to maintain, to increase, and to exercise political power?  In this regard, there is no essential difference between the Communist Party of the USSR, the National Socialist Party of Germany, or the Republican or Democrat Parties in the United States.  Our Parties are more benign, not because the powerful in this country are more virtuous than in Germany or the Soviet Union, but because their are more CHECKS on the abuses of power in their country than in the totalitarian regimes.  All of the key players in these parties are authoritarian, and driven by the lust for power.  Otherwise, they would not seek such power over others.  They would live more private lives. If their overwhelming desire were to help formulate and effect policy, they would work in a think tank, or on Capitol Hill as members of a staff, or as lobbyists, or even quietly pursue scholarly work, for examples.  

One last point. As Trump closes in on the Republican nomination, we will hear shrill and increasingly brutal assaults from the holders of power in both parties to destroy the man and the movement that threaten them. They will not openly admit:  “We want power, and to keep our power, we must destroy the greatest threat to us.”  Trump will gain power as discontented voters, disgusted with their Party elites and with Washington’s rule, feel increasingly threatened and vulnerable (“unprotected”), as by international violence and domestic acts of terror (whether from Americans or from foreign sources). Threatened people lash back. Feeling powerless, they look to a powerful force to increase their security.  Most Americans feel highly vulnerable now:  personally, economically, financially, and with their lives threatened by terrorists.  And what are terrorists, but men and women so driven for power that they will resist to any means to assert their will?  Physical murder is the last resort of the power-driven. Before that, they engage in character assassination and every possible trick short of murder.