In September 1787, at the close of the Philadelphia Convention, a woman is alleged to have asked Benjamin Franklin what type of government the Constitution was bringing into existence. Franklin is supposed to have replied: "A republic, if you can keep it." For all practical purposes, it is probably accurate to say that the American Revolution did establish a republic as the form of government for our nation. But, you cannot end the discussion with the statement that America is a republic. Americans need to understand what kind of a republic we are and just exactly who is really in control.

America is a republic, and in theory, you can define the American republic as a form of government where the populice, or at least a part of it, may have an opportunity to impact how some things are governed. This is a bit ambigious, or even politically wishy washy; but, that is exactly how best to define the American Republic.

A modification of this defination, for the American form of Republic, is in terms of our utilization of representative democracy as opposed to direct democracy. In the American representative form of democracy the people are represented by individuals who have been elected by the people. But, these elected representatives act under their own personal interpretation of what the country needs, or how they personally have been influenced to act, rather than as proxies of what the people want. In a republic with a direct democratic form of government the elected officials would know exactly what the majority of their people want and they would act accordingly. Thus, in a direct democracy the elected representative act in the interests of the people rather than in their own personal interpretation of that the country needs or how they have been influenced. A very special form of direct democracy is referred to as a pure democracy, which is defined as a form of governing where everyone, who wants to, participates in governing. In essence, American government can be kind-of-like a pure democracy at the local level, a direct democracy at the state level but it is definatly a representative democracy at the national level.

Local politics can be rather interesting but we really need to focus our attention on the national level. At the local level, unlike the national level of politics, little is hidden or remains hidden for any length of time. At the national level, however, the complex functioning of the American Republic has become a huge dark veil, which covers up how little a voice people have in determining whom they get to vote for and just exactly who it is these elected officials really serve. This enormous lack of true representation is further compounded by the fact that our American Republic is totally dominated by only two political parties, which differ very little from one another. Through extremely efficient guile, Americans are led to believe that they are in control of the republic when in reality they are being manipulated by an elite few; who are hidden behind a two party veil of highly miss-representative democracy.

Originally, the Democratic Party was the product of Anti-Federalist factions, which were in direct opposition to the fiscal policies of Alexander Hamilton. The original Democratic party wanted strong states' rights verses a dominating Federal government and they wanted strict adherence to the Constitution. The Democratic party (originally called the Democratic-Republican Party) was in direct opposition to the idea of a national bank and they did not want to see a wealthy few running the nation. Until just before the Civil War, the Democratric parties chief rival was the Whig party, which was destroyed by its own pro- and anti-slavery division. What has just been described is the original democratic party and not to be confused with the democratic (socialist) party of today.

The Republican party, on the other hand, was largely a product of the anti-slavery movement and attracted many anti-slavery Whigs. Abraham Lincoln, the Illinois leader of the Whig party, left the party and for a short time returned to his law practice, prior to joining the Republican party. Most early Republicans liked to considered themselves as modernist. The Republican party, from its genesis, has supported expansion of American economy; as demonstrated by its 1856 slogan: " free labor, free land, free men." With time, the doctrine of the Republican party has developed an underpinning based on fostering economic prosperity through free-market decision making. In other words, let supply and demand drive the economy and don't hamstring big business with a lot of government regulations. Altho, this is a discription of the original Republican party it is probably fairly accurate today, with the added caviate that "big business has big influence" over todays Republican party - and the American people are Poed.

At the risk of ecoing an old belief, we can say: " the Republican party grew up believing the government needs to support big business and the Democratic party grew up believing the government knows what is best for the working man."

Time has warped and twisted both parties together until today we have two parties with the same agenda for the governement to support big business interests (expand the economy) and, in the process, convince the working man that the governement will always be there for him (control the populace). If you strip away the political hype and the constant effort by the government to provide the American public with an evil enemy, the real functioning of the American government is in the interest of those who profit most from the expansion of American economic and political systems. Inspite of the fact that the doctrines of the Democratic and Republican parties have shifted, flip-flopped and even merged the foundational elements supporting those who benefit from the stable or controlled expansion of American economic and political systems has grown stronger.

The supposition being put forth is that the principle agenda of the American republic is: "controlled expansion of American (world) economics!" At first, it would seem that everyone should benefit from controlled expansion of American economics. In a pure socialist system the government would control everything and wealth would be equitably distributed across all social classes. In a pure capitalist system those in control would reap the reward for expanding economy and the rest of society would labor to make it happen. The human factor, as proven by history, makes it impossible for either system to work in its theoretical form. If the pendulum swings too far in the direction of socialism the welfare burden will bankrupt the nation and if the pendulum swings too far in the direction of capitalism the working class will revolt. The answer is to pit the capitalist and socialist against one another, to moderate the pendulum swing, while controlling economic expansion in the interest of a select few.

Economic expansion cannot be controlled without first heavily influencing national and world governments. For this to work the influence must be through covert actions and its real agenda must be hidden from the populace. This is best accomplish by first controlling a majority of the politicians, which is made easier by limiting political options: ergo a two party dictatorship. Of course, influencing is not the same as controlling; as was demonstrated by the Republican parties "trickle down economics," which is just a modern play on the feudal system concept that " the richer the ruling elite the better the crumbs falling from their table." The Republican plan worked extremely well for the rich but the price paid by the working poor and the middle class has been significant. So much so that our nation has just sold it soul to the socialist in an attempt to escape rampant capitalism. Those who voted for Obama may fell like "change is coming" but all that has happened is a change in the direction of the pendulum's swing. Those who are influencing government actions, the ruling elite, are still controlling the real agenda in both parties.

When we speak about elite rulers we are talking about the few who have the most to benefit from exerting considerable control over our government, thus making our republic a kind of Oligarchy. The word oligarchy is taken from the Greek words for "few" and "rule". An Oligarchy, therefore, is a form of government where political control is in the hands of a few individuals. The ruling few may be linked together through family, military or business ties. The members of the oligarch become very wealthy and powerful through exploitation of those being governed. When the ruling elite of the oligarchy is known, and the degree of exploitation is high, those being governed have a tendency to become restless. It is for this reason that the success of the American "oligarchy" relies on elitist power being exercised through the guise of a Republic. And, that is exactly what is taking place in America; we are a people who think that we have a democratic republic when in realty we are more of a representative democracy where the elected officials represent an obscured oligarchy.

There is little doubt that herd behavior contributes to our accepting ruling-elitist exploitation but we do not want to discount the role played by our own shortcomings. The average American puts forth very little effort to understand the workings of our government; we display little interest in following the actions of our elected officials; and we are so politically apathetic that we never look beyond the Democratic or Republican parties for candidates. The ruling elite has built us a political sandbox to play in, they have given us the toys we are to play with and we, like good little children, are content to never look beyond our sandbox.

Before we look closer at the American political system we need to examine history for examples of the many being ruled by the few. A good example can be found in Greek history - in the Spartans. At the bottom of the Spartan society were the Helots. Helots were not actually slave, but close, kind of like perpetual indentured servants. They worked the land and did all the menial labor. The next class was the Periokoi. The Periokoi were skilled workers and craftsman directly supporting the technical needs of the leading class, which was the Spartiate. We know them by the name of their culture or as Spartans. The Spartans were a very well trained and highly disciplined military oriented social class. In truth, they were more of a police force than an army. They did fight neighbors and a few foreign battles but over 90% of their efforts were devoted to enforcing the will of the ruling council, which included two kings. On the surface you had a dual monarchy tempered by a council. In reality, this society was totally ruled by 5 men, the Ephorate, who managed everything from military/police activities to the running of the school system. This system worked well; not because the people supported it but because the Spartiate forced the system to work. The Helots survived, the Periokoi were OK, the Spartiate thrived and the Ephorate languished in total power and wealth. It was through the application of force that the Spartan governmental system lasted for over 300 years.

The Spartan "elitist-centric" government was certainly not the first example of such a society, but it does clearly display some of the key elements required. First, you need a large laboring class that bears the majority of the economic burden. Second, you need a technical and business class for specialty work, to manage day-by-day economic affairs and to make improvements in the economic system (improvement were not a Spartan strong point). You also need a system of control. For the Spartans, control was clearly through force and the application of guile was pretty much nonexistent. In any advent, the Spartans are a good example of an elitist-centric society where the few rule the many through force.

In spite of the best efforts of the elitist and the judas goat politicians, the herd will at times get restless. Keeping the herd from becoming too restless is the one paranoia of the elitist - they fear anarchy more than anything else! Looking back into history we find the Roman elitist were challenged with keeping the herd from becoming too restless; which, they were successful at doing, at least for a period of time. The Roman political system was at one time a republic and in many ways the voice of the people was heard. Time, corruption and elitist motovations eventually destroyed the republic. From conception of the Roman republic; however, the people were keep under control through guize more than through force. They were led to believe that they were in control when in reality they had minimial impact on the governing of Rome. As the republic decayed and elitist control bacame more apparent the people became harder to control. The Roman poet Juvenal (c 200), in his Satire X writing, coined the phrase "bread and circuses" to define the process used by the elitist in keeping the Roman masses sedated. In this phrase: "panis et circenses" Juvenal mocks the fact that the only remaining cares of a Roman populace, which has given up its birthright of political involvement, is bread and circuses. The Roman elitist used guile, more than force, to remain in control; but, as the gap continued to widen between the rich and the poor, and the veil hidding the elitist became worn, people were not as content. Eventually, as guile failed to work and the herd became restless - force was required