An analysis of the policies proposed by the various American presidential candidates shows that each potential candidate appeals to the American people in a common way. All of their policies are justified to the American people by appealing to the American nation, the proper role of the government, or an American tradition. Barack Obama justifies his proposed fiscal policy because the current fiscal policy, “…robs the state of critical investments in infrastructure…” Hillary Clinton justifies her advocacy on behalf of veterans because, “our country fulfills its obligations to those who have served and sacrificed for the nation.” John McCain justifies his opposition to abortion because, “courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench.” In essence, he opposes abortion because it violates the tradition of judicial restraint. Every policy is justified on fixing the nation, fixing the government, or restoring tradition – yet a person can discard their nationality, their state, or their traditions, while at the same other people can accept them as near absolute truth. Therefore, these three forces occupy a unique presence within our lives. These powerful forces become the basis by which we understand our environment; it becomes a question of how best to promote the nation, how best to constitute the state, or how best to promote tradition. The answer to these questions determines how people understand society; necessarily, with any particular constitution of society, some people benefit while others lose. While some people do benefit from any particular understanding of the nation, the state, or tradition, the dual nature of these forces, that they provide understanding for people while allowing others power, shows that these forces are neither good nor bad; they exist to teach, and become good or bad only dependent upon how they are used. Read More »