Red Clay / Freddy Hubbard

_______________________________

Delicate Balance or Lop-sided

John Fraim

When a presidential administration comes to power, ratios control the initial power of the administration. The first ratio is the percentage of voters the election is won by. This percentage is the ratio in the executive branch which is translated into ratios in the legislative branch, ratios in the House and the Senate. The judicial branch is the only branch where ratios are not affected by new administrations although ratios might change during the administration. 

It is a myth that a Presidential Administration controls the nation. The administration comes to power with the national vote but there are hundreds of more votes during the administration, these all subject to ratio votes. Ultimately, political power depends on ratios between the three branches of government. It is these ratios that create the dynamics between the three branches of government. 

The most important administration dynamics are contained in ratios of leadership in the two houses. There ratios apply to the four sessions of congress under a typical four-year administration or eight sessions under an eight-year administration. (A session of Congress is one year long with each term having two sessions, referred to as the 1^st and 2^nd sessions).

While ratios of the first term closely track the ratios of votes in the election based on the coattail effect, the ratios change during the next three sessions of Congress as members of the House serve two-year terms and are considered for reelection every even year. Senators, serve six-year terms and elections to the Senate are staggered over even years so that only about 1/3 of the Senate is up for reelection during any election. Consider Table A below.

Ratio	Congress Sessions	Executive	Legislative	Judicial
70/30 (Election)	Term 1, 1st & 2nd	70/30 (Coattail)	70/30	50/50
	Term 2, 1st & 2nd		60/40	40/60
	Term 3, 1st % 2nd		70/30	40/60
	Term 4, 1st & 2nd		80/20	50/50

One can see in Table A the President was elected by what is traditionally called a “landslide” vote of 70/30. This is reflected by the 70/30 “coattail” composition of the Legislature. However, the “honeymoon” of the administration’s first year is over by the second year and increasingly the landslide victory is reversed. At the same time, the Party ratio of the Supreme Court remains the same at the end of the term although dipping in year two and three.

For example, under the first year of the Biden administration the ratio in the House was 222D/213R. In 2022 it had flipped to a 222R/213D. Republicans picked up 9 house seats while Democrats lost 9 house seats. The story of the House in 2023 was one of gridlock, prompted by both a slim Republican majority and infighting between the GOP establishment and hard-right conservatives. In 2023, the House took 54 roll call votes on measures on which Biden expressed a clear position. The average Democratic representative sided with Biden on those votes 93 percent of the time, while the average Republican representative voted with the president 5 percent of the time. 

Today, when the balances are so close, just one or two congresspersons or senators have power beyond their usual power when voting close ratio situations. Strange things can happen. A senator can remain in power after huge scandals because their one vote contribution to the ratio is too important to get rid of the senator. At the same time, when a congressman leaves the House, the delicate ratio is lessened for the entire vote. Like an old Teeter-totter, the entire Party loses “weight” and rises on the Teeter-totter board while the other side descends to the ground with their greater weight. 

Lop-Sided or Delicate Balance

While there are always changing ratios between the parties in Congress, one might offer a general observation that lop-sided ratios (like 70/30 or more) represent more of a unified electorate than delicate balance ratios (50/50). In effect, lop-sided ratios indicate greater unity in the nation while delicate balance ratios indicate greater division in the nation. Lop-sided ratios in Congress are perhaps a thing of the past with the decline of mass media and rise of segmented, digital media in the nation. Perhaps like the America of early television in the 1950s.

However, greater unity is not necessarily a good thing per se. For instance, there could be unity of a party in a 70/30 split for a totalitarian government rather than a democracy. In this sense, a delicate balance ratio might be a good thing. 

The history of the Biden administration has been the continuance of the delicate balance that Biden won the presidency by. The ratio has hung close to 50/50 all four years and its continuance shows intense conflict between the parties. The conflict uses to be termed a conflict between Conservatives and Liberals, but new names are needed for the modern division as the two segments of the population become more at odds with each other. 

Today’s great division might be defined in several ways. For example, one could say it is a division between “woke” and “unwoke,” between “vaxers” and “anti-vaxers,” between patriots and non-patriots, between globalists and nationalists or public versus private education. While there are many ways to describe the division, the sustained 50/50 balance shows more than different political ideologies but rather different views of reality. Thus, the arrival of phenomena like “fake news,” virtual reality and Internet bubbles. 

Assuming elections are without fraud and represent the true percentage of real voters (a large assumption) a sustained delicate balance symbolizes a type of stalemate in culture and society. Everything becomes political subject to votes and majority coalitions in Congress and there is little cross-over voting (crossing the aisle), especially in the Democratic Party. Things move ahead through a series of angry negotiations and slim vote majorities. The delicate balance is reflected in a culture on the edge, always in battle. 

The difference today is not really defined or stated in the words Democrat and Republican or Liberal, Progressive, or Conservative. Or Green Party. Or any of the other hundreds of parties in America all trying to gain pollical power. We continue to utilize words that are outdated and need to be trashed and exchanged for new words. Perhaps these words might be part of the next leader that unites America in a lop-sided landslide victory. The members from these local parties joining the two-party system and then rising to a congressman or Senator. 

But the big Democratic and Republican Parties have made little difference in their lives. And why should it have made a difference? Their party was always, originally, small grassroots one established as an extending family. Growing outward from those friends one had in that town or city or farmland or ranch back home. In that little town they grew up in where all the people were their childhood friends. 

These are the true roots of the little miniature parties that really sit on both sides of the aisles in the Senate and House Chambers. 

The Two-Party Myth 

It was so simple when it was just two parties going at it. And America was not yet the great nation of emigrants. These were the early days of America when our ancestors were pushing into the western wilderness. Not knowing about all the different political parties and causes out there today. They were hard at work and didn’t have time for parties. 

Soon, two parties developed in America but there was always other political parties and causes of the times. What did these two parties represent in the first place. I’ve written much in the past about the symbolism of America’s two parties. Really symbols of Masculine and Feminine in the world. The ideas of Freedom and Equality. Both came together paradoxically at the same time to create America. Founded on two symbols rather than one. Always the rock of her strength as well as a great weight to carry. I argue that the double symbol founding of the nation sets it apart from all other nations founded on one symbol. The reason for the nation’s dynamism as well as   challenges. 

Whether one is along with my interpretation above or not, I feel the two symbols of Freedom and Equality have been symbolized as the Republican and Democratic Parties through American history. The grand symbols of America’s founding at the intersection of the two symbols. 

Under the symbols of the Masculine and Feminine Archetypes Carl Jung reminds how the world is divided. How we think. Under the two-party system in America has always been a strong subterranean system of all sorts of other parties in America. Always growing and always diversifying as new peoples moved to America. Identified in some with Masculine or Feminine of the great spectrum between extremes. 

In the earlier days before there were really all types of “parties” trying to get their messages out. In reality, Congress outwardly says it is made up of two parties, but the fact is, it is really made up of many parties varying by religion, sexual orientation, race. America has always been the world’s greatest melting pot. Such a challenge – some might say a curse – has also given the greatest strength.

Yet Americans simply do not see this great patchwork of parties that really make up Congress today. Congress looks so neatly divided in almost equal halves in House chamber. But within the chambers exist many different parties running on the party ticket (brand) with little interest in the real goals of the party. Just their own brand. Building their own brand. Learning much but much about media and image, the tricks of Madison Avenue and Hollywood. 

The American two-party system is really a cover, a brand identifier, for all the little parties in America that are constantly popping up and growing and then joining one of the two great party brands, the brand that hits their target market. But the goals of their miniature party within the big two never goes away. 

The true party breakdown of Congress into a demographics would most likely show one of the greatest diversities of personalities one could ever imagine. One of the major breakthroughs in modern politics might be able to vote exactly what local constituents/voters sent him/her to Congress for. Voting Yes on all issues that effected his/her district. Now voting not just between the two-party divisions. Rather, assembled through coalitions of various parties in Congress, another form of vote. 

Yet the diversities quickly banning together for the vote in Congress. Then, after the vote, continuing their work until the next vote. Ratios still in Congress but perhaps ratios in a slightly different way. Ratios of the various undercurrent parties taking refuge under cover of one of the big two parties today. Percentages among these segmented interest groups within Congress. Within all of the segmented interests and nationalities. Add in, ideologies far from patriotism. Groups and voting blocks constantly reinforced. 

So many interest groups in Congress. There is the question is this grand diversity in Congress in America’s interest. What exactly is America’s interest anyway? I have my ideas on this as we all do. 

Ratios of all Politicians

Beside the ratio of the two parties in Congress member of Congress (as well as any elected official) has a ratio of votes for and against them. Just like the ratios in Congress, the ratios of votes for members of Congress might be closely balanced or lop-sided. For example, a 70/30 vote that elects someone to congress shows more of a unified electorate in the Congress person’s home state than a 51/49 ratio vote.

Apart from Congress, there are also rations in the Judiciary branch outside the Supreme court in all of the appellate and circuit courts around the nation. There are 13 appellate courts that sit below the U.S. Supreme Court called the U.S. Courts of Appeals. The 94 federal judicial districts are organized into 12 regional circuits, each of which has a court of appeals. Congress has authorized 677 district judgeships, including 667 permanent judgeships and 10 temporary judgeships, though the number of “current” judges will be higher than 677 because of some judges electing senior status. 

Each district has a minimum of four appellate judges. Appeals court judges are elected to six-year terms in even numbered years. Article III of the Constitution governs the appointment, tenure, and payment of Supreme Court justices, and federal circuit and district judges. These judges, often referred to as “Article III judges,” are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Judges appointed by a president are more likely to vote his/her party line.

In the end, the most visible ratios are viewed during votes in Congress but judges across the country are also subject to ratios depending on party appointing them.

Cycles, Trends and Patterns 

One administration might go from lop-sided ratios (after an election) to a delicate balance on the other side of the spectrum. What about a progression of different administrations. Might we gain insight into large trends and patterns by looking at ratios in two or more different administrations? 

There are many questions here. For instance, does lop-sided ratios turn to delicate balance ratios over time and then swing back to lop-sided ratios? In effect, does the nation swing back and forth between unity and conflict. In the past quarter century, since 2000, the progression has been Republican, Democrat, Republican and Democrat. But there is little unity to be observed in the last quarter century and the general trend has been towards disunity and close divisions in the Legislature. 

Presidential Admin. A	Presidential Admin. B	Presidential Admin. C
Time Period	Time Period	Time Period
Overall Ratio (4 yrs)	Overall Ratio (4 yrs)	Overall Ratio (4 yrs)
70/30	60/40	50/50

Consider Table B above which shows overall average ratios in the Legislature over a twelve year/three administration period. The change shows a movement of the administrations from more of a unified nation in the 70/30 ratio of Administration A to less unification in Administration B and to delicate balance conflict in Administration C. 

Do the ratios represent known cycles such as business or economic cycles? For example, an economic or business cycle, refers to economic fluctuations between periods of expansion and contraction. Factors such as gross domestic product (GDP), interest rates, total employment, and consumer spending can help determine the current economic cycle stage. Are these cycles represented in ratios within Congress? 

Do the changing administrations represent changes in long term super-cycles, or Kondratiev waves? The Kondratiev theory suggests three phases of the cycle: expansion, stagnation and recession. Yet, more common today is a division into four periods with a turning point (collapse) between expansion and stagnation. The phenomenon is closely connected with the technology life cycle and lasts for a period from forty to sixty years alternating between high growth and slow growth. While super-wave theory is met with skepticism among many, it is still important to consider if there are links of Congressional ratios to phenomena in the nation and world.

Cycles	Cycles	Cycles
Trends	Trends	Trends
Patterns	Patterns	Patterns
Presidential Admin. A	Presidential Admin. B	Presidential Admin. C
Time Period	Time Period	Time Period
Overall Ratio (4 yrs)	Overall Ratio (4 yrs)	Overall Ratio (4 yrs)
70/30	60/40	50/50

But economic cycles are not the only cycle that Congressional ratios might represent. The well-known book The Fourth Turning: What the Cycles of History Tell Us About America’s Next Rendezvous with Destiny (1996) by William Strauss and Neil Howe looks back five hundred years and uncovers a distinct pattern: Modern history moves in cycles, each one lasting about the length of a long human life, each composed of four twenty-year eras—or “turnings”—that comprise history’s seasonal rhythm of growth, maturation, entropy, and rebirth. 

First comes a High, a period of confident expansion. Next comes an Awakening, a time of spiritual exploration and rebellion. Then comes an Unraveling, in which individualism triumphs over crumbling institutions. Last comes a Crisis—the Fourth Turning—when society passes through a great and perilous gate in history. The book shows what past generations can teach about living through times of upheaval—with deep insights into the roles that Boomers, Generation X, and Millennials must play.

Are the generational cycles of The Fourth Turning related to ratios in the Legislature? Do the 80-year cycles and the 20-year eras within these cycles have relationships to lop-sided or delicate balance ratios of Congress? Are the ratios of Congress related to leading events, media, people and products of popular culture? 

Table C above suggests a schematic for looking at the relationship between Congressional ratios and generational cycles, trends and patterns in culture and society. Congressional ratios need to be compared to events in culture outside politics. 

Breaking the Delicate Balance by Generational Segments

The delicate balance continues in Congress. Will it be replaced by ratios that don’t create gridlocks? Will more party members “cross-the aisle” voting against their party. Might this be somewhat like the canary in the mind shaft announcing a new era of dynamics in the House. This is an important number to monitor and constantly track. 

We have suggested that one of the main problems today is in competing views of reality caused largely by the segmented digital world that feeds Internet users different views of reality. We’ve suggested that that there are two main divisions in Congress between subjects like “woke” and “unwoke,” between “vaxers” and “anti-vaxers,” between patriots and non-patriots, between globalists and nationalists and between public and private education.

But so much larger things seem to do battle today. I feel like it is a battle greater than DeMille could have done. Or Spielberg today. Really, more of a philosophical battle is perhaps the best way I can put it right now. Not just between a particular issue in the campaign. Much more than this. Rather a particular form of truth about life. 

For me, it really involved the branch of philosophy called epistemology. Or, the study of knowledge and truth. If anything, this seemed to be a great dividing line of American culture in 2024. There were suddenly many types of truth in our post, post-modern world. 

Perhaps there are more than two views of reality that compete for recognition today. While the Internet might segment users, the one great unifier of views of reality is generations. As argued in The Fourth Turning, generations offer great insight into cycles. The authors of The Fourth Turning argue that generations are the true definers of historical periods. 

Currently, there are five generations of Americans eligible to vote. These generations are listed in Table D below from the youngest at the top to the oldest at the bottom. Perhaps recognizing the views and realities of all generations has been one of the major things missing by politicians today. The three generations focused on are Millennials, Gen X and the Baby Boomers. However, there is hardly any focus in campaigns on Gen Z or The Silent Generation, the youngest and oldest generations. One of the reasons the generations are not focused on is because of their relative lack of power and influence, numbers and likelihood of voting. However, this could change with recognition of the challenges and problems of these generations.

The Generation	Years Born	Age (Jan.2024)
Gen Z	1997 – 2012	12 – 27
Millennials	1981 – 1996	28 – 43
Gen X	1965 – 1980	44 – 59
Boomers	1946 – 1964	60 – 69
The Silent Generation	1928 – 1945	79 – 96
The Generation	Years Born	Age (Jan.2024)

In effect, there really might be five major views of reality based on age and generational membership rather than just the two views based on party membership. If members of generations run on platforms meeting the needs of their own generations, they might be elected to the House. If this happens, the House will offer a diversity of age, something that has never happened in Congress. 

Even if members of various generations are not elected to Congress, one candidate could run on a platform addressing concerns of all five generations. (See my blog titled The Intergenerational Leader)

The various five voting generations have never attempted to be brought together. Perhaps addressing generational concerns will help upset the two-party balance stalemate? In other words, having Congress reach out to various members of their own generation. How many were reached out to? All elgible to vote. All a mixture of all five generations. First of all, within their own families. It has to start here for this type of inter-generational movement. There has to first be the need to reach out to the different generations within one’s own family. Then, branch out from here but start here.

Division Between Generations

The Media and internet content work to keep generations within their own “generational” bubbles. In many ways, keeping the five great generation blocks away from each other is an important technique of political control. As well as economic control. But then, in many ways, economic and political control have merged to become the same thing today. Under the same controller. 

In other cultures – like Japan – there is a mixture of generations throughout one’s life. In America, each generation of a family is, more often than note, alienated from the rest of the family and members of other generations. There is little in pop culture showing inter-generational families or generations living together or being with each other. Hollywood does not promote this type of film. 

The various generations are hardly ever asked their opinions on things. Their opinion identified as a member of a particular generation. Hollywood has its own idea of generations. The image they want to present. Once it was families living together. Today’s programming has made a huge change to solo characters in some wilderness fighting for their life. Also, of course the classification of the world, the chopping it up into story genres and forms with their own rules and screenplay structures. 

A New Economy

There are several things going on besides the dynamics of Congressional ratios. One is the powerful argument put for by Shona Zuboff in a masterwork book titled Surveillance Capitalism (2019). Zuboff is former Charles Edward Wilson Professor emerita at Harvard Business School. The book has received tremendous reviews as one of the great books of our times. 

Reading it, I agree with the reviews. Zuboff reinterprets contemporary capitalism through the prism of the digital revolution. She talks about the modern Internet is really a mining operation, mining your personal data for behavioral control … done each day and done invisibly. Silently. 

In her powerful book Zuboff provides one of the most important criticisms of the power of Big Tech. Is the power today in Silicon Valley or DC? A simple question. Zuboff argues the power is in Silicon Valley. Power in modern culture has transferred from DC on the East Coast to Silicon Valley on the West Coast. In many ways, this is the true scenario of modern times. 

One reader sums up the book well in his Amazon review. “The book alerts us to the dangers of losing our privacy, independent decision-making, and democracy in the impending age of Surveillance. The digital (from an Amazon reviewer) age promised to give us a world of personalized information, communication, shopping and entertainment at our fingertips and we were enticed by the prospect of instant gratification. At the same time, we were completely unaware that more and more private information about our habits, likes and dislikes was being mined from our internet searches and sold off to the highest bidder. Shoshana Zuboff traces this intriguing story of the step-by-step transformation of what was to be an age of personalized information into an age of surveillance.”

The most important aspect of Zuboff’s masterpiece was – for me – was her intellectual freedom and power to suggest a new type of capitalism in the first place. To break ranks with a current paradigm of the world. A worldview. This is really, in my opinion, what she is doing. She is describing, in many ways, an advanced state of capitalism. It is also a worldview of this state. Shoshana’s brave and bold Surveillance Capitalism is a huge broadside hit about the world today. 

Today’s world, she argues, is one where one’s human experience serves as free raw material for translation into behavioral data. Surveillance usually associated with the government, but here business. In today’s world, the two seem to operate in some hidden partnership.

Not only is our future privacy but our individuality is at stake. An argument Zuboff makes very well in her book. There are many problems but perhaps one of the main problems of our period of late state capitalism, the era of “Surveillance Capitalism” as professor Zuboff labels it, the grand problem is that there is no effort from those in control of culture and society to unify it rather than divide it.

Yet it is the spirit of Surveillance Capitalism to simply move forward like an AI robot with few thoughts given to other things. The populace is tracked and given behavioral profiles that grow and are grown. The tie to Silicon Valley and tech titans becomes a greater source of power today. Often, much greater than mere political power players in the Congress of DC. 

Key to Breaking the Ratios

More than anything else, the key is establishing a true ratio system showing current Congressional power areas and showing ratios for the various sub-parties within the two-party system.

How many times do these match constituencies interests? And, how well? Might Congressional representatives adhering to constituency interests lead to new voter ratios?

It shows the immense challenge ahead.

_______________________________

Hopefully, this article promoted more questions than answers.

As Sir Francis Bacon said,

If a man will begin with certainties,

he shall end in doubts;

But if he will be content to begin with doubts

he shall end in certainties.