One of the first general theories encountered in the literature is that the ruled – the people – will select a ruler or class of rulers of high stature and virtue to deal with a national crisis. The underlying assumption is that this type of ruler will ably lead the nation through the crisis.

This idea is antithetical to the very concept of modern democracy. It flies in the face of the idea because in a modern democracy, we can no longer guarantee, as if we ever could, the election of the "best" man/woman to the job of ruler(s). What we do is elect to the position(s) of ruler is the person(s) ‘best’ at self-promotion (mostly demagoguery) based on their credentials, stands on the issues, and the demographic composition of the market they are contesting. In other words, the ruler in modern democracies are chosen (1) in well defined markets (districts); (2) periodically no matter the national situation; (3) based on their stand on the issues of the day; and (4) by employing well defined marketing schemes (campaign plans) maximizing self-promotion, organization, party affiliation, and targeting.

So we must conclude that the first general theory about the relationship between the ruled and the ruler makes a giant leap in logical realism. It presupposes foreknowledge of a crisis, during a pre-crisis period and based on this foreknowledge they make a rational choice by selecting (electing) a virtuous ruler(s) of high standing to lead them through the crisis. Four examples of presidents that might fit this general theory are Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Reagan.

However, the question becomes then, do the ruled elect a ruler(s) who defines the situation and deals with the coming crisis, as above, or do we simply elect a ruler who is then shaped by the situation and how he/she deals with it.

In the modern democracy, the former is the exception to the rule while the latter would be the general rule because of our periodic elections of the ruler(s). Once a crisis, despite one’s ability to foretell the crisis during the pre-crisis period, is upon a nation, the ruler(s) is generally already in place and if they can deal with the crisis, the ruled may vote the ruler(s) back into office in the next election cycle.

This situation presupposes a tenure of comfort and stability followed by the necessity for the ruler(s) to deal with the crisis, that is, a pre-crisis period followed by the crisis period. Examples of presidents that might fit this general theory are Wilson (WWI), Roosevelt (WWII), Carter (his economic crisis), and Bush II (9-11).

So, the relationship between the ruled and the ruler(s) is an important one determining (1) who will lead and (2) based on the ruler’s response to the crisis, how long they lead. The latter would speak volumes about the quality of that leadership.

The ruled may foretell the need for a strong ruler(s) and elect him to deal with, say the Carter economic crisis; or the ruler(s) may simply have to deal with crisis because they are the ones in charge at the time of the crisis, like George W. Bush.

In terms of the current political crisis, Bush II and the sitting congress bear full responsibility for failing to take the necessary actions to deal with the two seminal events of our times; namely, the pursuit of victory in the world war against terror and the defense of American sovereignty by enforcing border security and immigration laws.

It has been their inability to deal with these two events in a meaningful, cogent, and responsible way that has led to and defines the current political crisis. Instead of the rulers defining the crises, they are being defined by the situation and it is generally agreed that both sets of rulers (executive/legislative) have been contemptible.

In all fairness, each of the crises enjoyed long pre-crisis gestation periods where the sitting ruler(s) failed to enforce border security and immigration laws and failed to pursue a peace through strength and vigilance foreign policy. For example, during this pre-crisis period, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and all the sitting congresses bear full responsibility and complicity for failing to enforce border security and immigration laws and pursuing a peace through strength and vigilance foreign policy.

The republicrat congresses failed to hold the executive branch accountable on these issues and the executive branch did not go the extra mile to enforce them.

The two seminal events of our times did not magically appear from the pot smoke Clinton failed to inhale; rather they manifest themselves right in front of the nation’s eyes, incrementally rising to become the mountainous events they are today.

The state apparatus, which we have granted such enormous powers, failed us all, failing to take the necessary actions to deal with either issue over time. This failure to take actions grew into a catastrophic failure resulting in the crises.

There is simply no excuse for either of these events to have ever developed into the defining issues (crises) of our times. They became crises because our government failed to act when it should have. It failed to act because the congresses did not conduct adequate over site and accountability inventories and the executive branch and bureaucracies simply failed to do their jobs.

Certainly, it is possible to do ones job and something come out of left field to blind side you, things happen and things happen totally unexpected. However, these two events were meticulously documented by many in the private sector, think tanks, universities, and the media over the past twenty plus years. The American people watched, read and listened to the crises unfold, while our rulers did nothing.

Concerned citizens across the land told policy makers repeatedly about the emerging crises and what should and could be done to address the problem during the gestation stage.

All that can be said, is that the arrogance of power and egotism must have consumed the numerous administrations and congresses of the past twenty years, our so-called ruler(s) did essentially nothing or chose to follow the minimalist principle of bureaucracies – the minimum permissible.

Instead of a nation where words mean things because they are backed up with actions, we became a nation of words and empty threats. The war on terror was executed as a police/ prosecutorial matter and the border - well it was there.

What resulted was 9-11, and it can not be said often enough,

What is more horrific and alarming is the continuing failure of our rulers to clearly and unequivocally (1) pursue victory in Iraq and against terrorism world-wide and (2) defend the sovereignty of the United States by enforcing border security and immigration laws. The crises continue unabated and the nation marches into a deepening political crisis, while our political rulers continue to do nothing.

As a nation, we have arrived at this place and time of great danger because our rulers have failed to execute the laws of the land and their continuing failure foretells of more emanate prospects for more serious consequences in the future.

THE END