@wat0n , you replied to my comment that the American founding fathers drew from Classical experience that;
Oh, they did for sure. Indeed, they also criticized how their political systems worked. For instance, there was criticism of how the Senates formed by members that served for life were eventually overrun by the lower chambers that were elected by the people. That's where the idea of having term limits for Senators comes from.
This is true, they believed that they could do better than their counterparts in ancient times.
On political clientelism being a deterring factor against the formation of a ''Deep State'';
It does. That's why some appointments need to remain political.
And enough that aren't so that there is some kind of continuity of experience between Administrations.
On my comment that lobbying is ''as old as politics itself'';
It is indeed, and it's actually not inherently illegitimate either. But there needs to be transparency on who lobbies whom and for what purpose.
Right. Specific groups of the economy and population have specific interests and concerns, and they should be addressed but not to the detriment of the common good itself.
All that being said, it's clear to myself anyway that one of the the chief lessons of history is that over time (as per the historian Toynbee) an Elite becomes out of step with it's own principles and views the foundational common stock of the population (which still believes in those principles) with disdain and hatred and incomprehension.
I read that disdain and hatred and above all, incomprehension, every day on PoFo. And this thread is no exception.
President Trump will have been viewed as the winner, and Biden as the clear loser of this first Presidential debate, by the majority or plurality of Americans. This despite the aggregate collective PoFo thoughts and feelings for or against the man one way or another.
President Trump will win re-election as President of the United States, and those who oppose him who are possessed of a Liberal ideology are going to have to understand why they failed-again-to replace him with a Liberal candidate.
And I will say now why I believe that this is the case and likely always will be. America's voters are in my opinion almost permanently historically composed of;
One third Liberals (whatever liberalism is at any given historical moment) At present they have the Democratic Party
One third Conservatives (the clingers to the more or less discarded previous stage or incarnation of Liberalism)At present they have the Republican Party
One third Populist and Nationalist (who have a concrete ideology that is not ''conservative'' or ''Liberal''). They do not have a Party and are not entirely ever politically represented.
It should be clear that neither two-thirds can win without appealing (falsely or sincerely) in some fashion to that Nationalist/Populist third of the voters.
When one or both major political parties in this two-party system begin to destroy themselves over my earlier-mentioned Elite alienation from the people, the Populist and Nationalist third of the voters captures one of the two parties or creates their own major party to fill the void. This has happened in the past and is happening now.
What President Trump has done is capture the Republican Party for Populism/Nationalism and united them with Conservatives, because both segments of the voters have come to rightfully believe that Liberals have gone way too far overboard.
Liberals in their echo chambers have come to believe that they can get a majority of the people to elect their candidates on a national level when only a third of the voters truly will ever be any kind of comfortable with them. There has been no meaningful appeal to Nationalists and Populists or Conservatives, nor can there be, for the Liberals have hit their singularity of peak political and moral insanity.
This previously was the point reached in American political history where a segment of the population would just as soon kill and/or subjugate/or secede from the other side and force the survivors to accept their political ideology or splitting the country, rather than accept defeat at the ballot box. They historically (at that point close to bloodshed), justify their desire to kill and/or Secede forcefully with projecting this desire upon their political opponents, accusing them of not wanting to accept the results of an election. Most of the time the heated rhetoric can be calmed down and people pull back from the brink, because there are enough sane and moderate people who rationally or at least pragmatically step back from the Abyss. One time in American history it did not.
But man is a fickle and disreputable creature and perhaps, like a chess-player, is interested in the process of attaining his goal rather than the goal itself.