Methodology – a set or system of methods, principles, and rules for regulating a given discipline; the underlying principles and rules of organization of a philosophical system or inquiry procedure; a branch of pedagogics dealing with analysis and evaluation of subjects to be taught and of the methods of teaching them.
Policy – a definite course of action adopted for the sake of expediency, facility, etc; a course of action adopted and pursued by a government, ruler, political party, etc.; action or procedure conforming to or considered with reference to prudence or expediency.
In the army, training doctrine is drawn and taught with a methodology that is set forth as a policy. On the most basic of levels, it is slimmed down and simple. This is not because it assumes a new recruit is stupid. It is done because in order for a large body of people to act in a coordinated and efficient manner, the more synchronized they have to be. The only way to do this, is to teach all recruits the basics, and grind them so far in that what is learned becomes almost as natural as breathing. You are taught to obey, not to question. This is on the premise that the more experienced can impart their knowledge and skills on down without having some hair brained recruit do something that they know is a bad idea, and will probably get them killed. In short, a learning from past failures on what works and what does not.
On small scales, such an approach can be brutally efficient, and tends to work to form an effective force. However it goes without saying that simple methods that may work in one arena, will only maintain their effectiveness under certain parameters. Once these are exceeded, the force loses its ability to effectively function; meaning that it simply has no use. If the simple, small unit continues to pursue its policies with the same methods, it will ensure its own defeat.
Now take this simple principle, and apply it to a much larger, much more complex scale.
The purpose of having political parties is pretty much the same thing. They take bits and pieces of past failures, analyzes them, and see what could be done differently. By having parties, the people that comprise them can understand the basis for the policies on the simplest levels.
Before we became a ‘united nation’, we were a lose republic that had no sense of unified direction, policies, or methods. Being mostly farmers and tradesman, most people had no idea how government even worked. After the revolution there were so many divides in the concept of government that it would be a lie to say that “we” were close to being united as a whole. The only thing a good amount of people agreed on was that the people needed a way to see to their own defense against tyranny and persecution.
Under such circumstances was our government born. It was set forth as an attempt to simplify the needs of the people and ensure it; mainly freedom.
As it has been said many times over – very few people agree on absolutely everything. As such, their perceptions and knowledge on facts will vary. This causes an inevitable clash in the methodology used to govern them. As stated earlier, the party system (republicans, democrats, and even independents) was created to simplify the understanding of government and its role. After all, it is only in the simplest of terms that you can get enough people to support anything.
Ergo government in and of itself is a policy. What most people fail to understand is that methodology takes second chair to policy if the end result is the same. Government is merely the incarnation of the will of some people. Government by definition is a political direction and rule of state over its citizens, typically formed in the name of representation. Therefore, government is nothing more than a policy enacted by some people.
The party system used to maintain the government, is the methodology people use to exploit the government to their own ends. The measure of which can be found in the gain of ideals, monetary, and military support. Therefore in order for an individual seeking a position in government to see to the people as they deem worthy, the individual must garnish support from as many as possible to gain the coveted position. This means that they must either over simplify, or lie. There is no other way to convince millions of people that one of their own may act in their best interest.
Being that government carries the backing of so many people, it holds an incredible amount of force. Wherever a force exists, there will be people looking to exploit it. From the voter who wants something that they cannot achieve on their own, to the politician elected over them, the force will be used to pursue an end.
Whenever those in power set sub-policies into motion that create a great social upset, the party system kicks in, and many of the people seek a new methodology to their policy the government. Such events can happen in as little as a month, some take entire generations. Typically the smaller the upset, the longer it takes for the shift to occur.
What you get as a result of the policy called government, is a body that promises people all sorts of things. Due to the fickle and forgetful nature of people, the methodology that policy is pursued with is never very stable – not even in the short time frame of a decade. After this policy lasts long enough, most people grow so accustomed to it that they never question it – just the methods used to exploit it.
Being that this policy thrives regardless of which method is used to pursue it; it grows until it is blown out. I am not sure if anyone has done so before, but I equate this policies power and its relationship with the people to a see-saw. The more power, knowledge, and connections the policy has, the less the people do. Likewise the more power, knowledge, and connections the people retain for themselves, the less power the policy holds.
It was loosely based on such an idea that a limited republic was founded. It was determined that the policy should exist, but the people hold the lion’s share of the power etc. Yet where you find power you find corruption. Then birth is given to an even greater power meant to keep the lesser powers off the peoples backs. This of course backfires in an ironic twist, largely due to the nature of the policy, and the misunderstandings of those that called for it. As time marched on, the more power the policy gained, the dumber the people got. This is part of the cycle that every society goes through, and so far, has never failed to occur.
So focused on the simplest (dumbed down) methodologies are the people, that they rarely questions their every detail. It is therefore of no small wonder why even fewer people question the policy itself. They believe that if they just get the right policy adjusters into play that the policy will work to the benefit of all mankind. Such is a foolish notion as it is based on the assumption that the world and its inhabitants see everything the same way they do. So disturbed are such psychopaths that they demand that everyone obeys their leader when elected into office. Once again, the more power the policy holds, the dumber its supporters.
What I have the hardest time accepting is that only a small percentage of society questions the existence of the policy despite its failure to success ratio.
Generations of learned behavior and one sided history can go a long ways to having the policy maintained. I am not sure how people take the social and physical benefits produced by those unrelated to the policy, as a direct result of the policy itself. The only guess I can make there is a highly questionable string of assumptions based more off myth then fact that, and the result of the policy holding the lion’s share of the education power.
Yet in the policies own charter (and many of those in its sub-policies), is included an interesting clause. In the Pennsylvania State Constitution for an example, Section 2 plainly states “For the advancement of these ends they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper.”
This means that if the policy has became intolerable, it is not only your right as an individual, but a mandate by the policy, that you can reform, alter, or ABOLISH IT. Reforming and altering though do not change the course of the policy however. All they do is change the methodology used to continue on that course. For the last 200 years, it has failed miserably. This leaves little question in my mind what the next step is. The only problem is that one who tries to abolish a government he never asked for, and disobeys they laws set over him that he never wanted, tends to get thrown into prison rather quickly.
The only answer left then is to let the policy expire out of its own ignorance, and learn a valuable lesson – don’t create a new one to take its pla