Mr. Crawford

I have read more than a few your responses on Medium and have always found your perspectives insightful. It is a great honor that you have taken time to comment on my article.

You have asked a very good question. The essay (4,500 words) really doesn’t address that part of human nature very well: topics needed to be cut out to reduce word count. The book (57,000 words) gets more into dealing with this ugly side of human nature in several places. I will just try to summarize.

First, I would say that the “groupings to gain advantage” is a matter of degree, not an absolute extreme. Western democracies, with the English traditions, have fared better in terms of opportunities and prosperity for its citizens than, let’s say, countries with the Spanish or Muslim traditions. The English traditions have corralled that natural instinct for power accumulation by groups by making the groups somewhat accountable to the people outside that group. Hence, a social order that is more stable and open has been created in UK, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Ireland. To take citizens from an aristocratic/peasant relationship to a more democratic relationship should be regarded as an immense achievement in social engineering.

Second, the book is quite clear that the early TDG builders, like the English of the 1600s and Americans of 1700s, have to consciously change the culture of politics. Fortunately, the TDG will not instantly get mass appeal. The 1% of citizens — who recognize that western democracy is failing and are willing to put in some effort to building a higher version of democracy — must realize this societal objective of ridding of political parties, factions, groups, etc. while building that TDG. They must not only build a new electoral structure, they must build a new culture that shuns the “groups” — and those who aspire for higher position. Impossible you might say. Well, the English showed the world a new way in 1688. The authority and responsibility moving from the aristocracy to elected politicians should been a failed experiment, but it worked: the English did not revert back. The Americans enhanced this relationship between the government and the people in 1787: the rest of the world learned from them.

Third, if the TDG builders do not build this new culture free of factions to acquire status, influence, and power, the TDG will go absolutely no where. That part of their mission is quite clear in my book. The naysayers should stay back and just watch. If the early TDG builders are given “free association”, the success of the TDG is all up to the builders. Again, the mass of society will not be involved in the early building; just those who believe it is possible. That is a good thing for the TDG needs to be free of toxic attitudes in its early stages. When the early builders have a working model that shows the world how a future non-partisan government will operate, some the naysayers will change their mind and join. Many average citizens will appreciate the leadership and attitudes coming from the TDG. This transition is describedin more detail in Chapter 6.

Fourth, I’m going back to that matter of degree again. Not all humans form groups or like to form groups for the sole purpose of personal advantage. For example, the psyche of middle management of the Republican Party is much different than the psyche of the fire department in Bangor, Maine. The former is very partisan and the players must be careful in what they say and do. The latter will allow more freedom for firefighters to speak their mind, which then creates better decisions for the fire department. Don’t get me wrong, the fire department probably has a few factional issues and power struggles, but nothing like the R’s. It’s all a matter of degree. If it is a matter of degree, we can learn to move towards the more positive end.

I believe that humanity can the learn the TDG way, just like a significant portion of humanity has learned the democratic way. But it will be a conscious, deliberate effort to move in that direction. We cannot assume it will just happen by wishful thinking.

The Founding Fathers were very correct in their assessment of the nature of England’s political parties. Rather than dismiss their musings as a total failure, why not analyze why they failed and try to understand how to make their musings more practical.

And maybe, just maybe, the world was not quite ready for a non-partisan government in 1787.