Political Behavioralism

The American policymaking process is greatly influenced by special interest groups, political parties, and political behavioralism—“Behavioralists believe that the subject matter of political science should be limited to objective, observable, quantifiable data,” (LibertyUniversity). Moreover, the text informs the reader that “[t]he word ‘politics’ comes from the Greek word politikos (πολιτικός), which means ‘of, for, or relating to citizens,’” (LibertyUniversity). Society’s morale is a direct result of political behavioralism; whereby those coerced to abandon their independence are far less likely to contribute positively to a healthy state of polity. The most important influence during the policymaking process is a delicate balance between predictive behavioralism and political landscape; the differences between (a) predictive behavioralism and (b) political landscape; are (x) internal inherent sovereignty and (y) external influence of polity. A balance and hierarchy are both needed to achieve a well-tempered balance; its essential ingredients can be found in both Biblical and secular logic.

Contemporary special interest groups engage in political activism whereby wealthy elites fund political parties according to their personal biases. Self-serving bureaucrats funnel money to radical interest groups to invoke mayhem and sew division, thereby depreciating the value of the (b) political landscape, requiring greater (x) internal inherent sovereignty. Thus, (z) maleficent special interest groups—often occurring in the form of innocuous philanthropic institutions—must be factored into the (a) predictive behavioralism of both (x) the sovereign individual and (y) external influence of polity. The success of political parties relies on external funding; therefore no difference need be discerned between (z) interest groups and political parties.

Political Scientist Heinz Eulau reflects on the importance of reading the original texts of political theorists, rather than relying on interpretations or commentaries of famous works. It remains the duty of the political scientist to gain an objective and personally sourced opinion on policy and its influence on the political environment. Eulau states that political behavioralism originated “on American data that political behavior research was initially nurtured and nourished, (Eulau, H., p. 16). Political theorist and philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) wrote that; “[t]he man who is only interested in himself is not admirable, and is not felt to be so. Consequently, the man whose sole concern with the world is that it shall admire him is not likely to achieve his object,” (Russell, B., pp. 20, 21). Russell added—on the subject of human opinion and political behavioralism—“[r]epressions in the political and in the psychoanalytical senses thus go hand in hand…Power kept within its proper bounds may add greatly to happiness, but as the sole end of life it leads to disaster, inwardly if not outwardly,” (Russell, B., p. 22). It is evident both (x) internal and (b) external factors equate to (a) political behavioralism; the theory of predictive political behavior.

Predicative Behavioralism

Predictive behavioralism is the theory of the behavior of constituency; dependent on both internal and external interests. The term behavior is defined by Bouvier Law Dictionary as a “[m]anner or conduct…the general manner in which a person engages in private and public conduct,” (Sheppard, S., p. 264). The Fifth Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, published in 1979 defines the now-removed term behavior as a “[m]anner of having, holding, or keeping one’s self; manner of behaving, whether good or bad; conduct; manners; carriage of one’s self, with respect to propriety and morals; deportment. State v. Roll, 1 Ohio Dec. 284; Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118, 63 S.Ct. 1333, 1340, 87 L.Ed. 1796. See also Character; Reputation,” (Black, H., p. 141).

Predictive behavioralism, or (a) the patterns of public opinion; remains central to the policymaking process. The artificial curation of common interests wills evident changes in individual behavior, causing division and disillusion. Common interests and common narrative are the result of (z) demagoguery, leading to a phlegmatic apathetic constituency. Economist Friedrich August von (F.A.) Hayek (1899–1992) believed that political behavioralism was dependent on subjective interests and individual needs; thereby writing, “[t]o produce the same result for different people, it is necessary to treat them differently. To give different people the same objective opportunities is not to give them the same subjective chance,” (Hayek, F.A., p. 177). Hayek’s political theory states that an acknowledgment of differences enumerated in policy is required to provide appropriate representation, thereby allowing for (a) the predictable behavior of constituents. Conversely, when individuals are given equal opportunities in a one-size-fits-all policy the utilitarian detriment descends civic morale; offsetting the balance of polis. This does not advocate mythical equity, yet leaves a backdoor in policy for minority interests.

Alarmingly, the majority of government policy produced today claims to correct the inequalities witnessed in U.S. polis; instead opting for absolute policy—deeming it equitable. Absolute policy is absolutely tyrannical; thereby abolishing meritocracy and promoting the pursuit of an unachievable illusory utopia.

Translator and Historian Carnes Lord reminds the reader that Aristotle’s (384 B.C.–322 B.C.) political theory emphasized the correlation between (x) the sovereign individual, and (a) predictive behavioralism, asserting polis derived from (x) the sovereign will of man. Aristotle’s political theory on behavioralism recognized (x) the sovereign to be superior to that of (z) servitude to influence, denoting that “it is of the essence of moral behavior that the actions of virtue be performed for their own sake rather than for the sake of their consequences,” (Lord, C.; Strauss, L.,  p. 189). Special interest groups are often guilty of committing the fallacy of the negative premise whereby policy is crafted upon (b) external fears bestowed by the (z) political party. Throwing money at persistent problems without first producing a viable and achievable solution remains futile and an opportunity for federal exploitation at the taxpayer’s expense in contemporary polity.

This problem is nothing new; The Independent Gazetteer wrote on December 21^st, 1787 that during the Constitutional Convention “the common people, I observed, were as inattentive as the others… O strange behavior! the people do not seem to know what grandeur is preparing for them and their posterity,” (McMaster, J.B., pp. 504, 505). Historian Daniel Dreisbach cited Colin Bonwick’s observation on the founding of America, citing its foundation lie in “[r]eligious belief … [that] suffused their entire understanding of political morality and behavior and nourished their conceptualization of social and governmental processes.” (Dreisbach, D., p.80). Dreisbach attributes political behavioralism to the origin of the metaphor for the “separation of church and state,” writing “[James] Burgh (1714-1775) and his fellow reformers shared a faith in ‘science, education, and the application of the principles of correct reason to the problems of the day;” he adds that Burgh and proponents of science were, “[e]arnestly dedicated to doing right, they believed in the power of moderate common sense and knowledge to improve the lot of their fellow men,” (Dreisbach, D., p. 79). James Burgh’s writings bore “a dissenter’s zeal for religious toleration and a distrust of established churches,” writes Dreisbach; (Dreisbach, D., p. 80).

Paul Carus (1852–1919) wrote on Nietzschean political theory on (a) predictive behavioralism, noting that; “an endorsement of standards can be determined by experience and has resulted in what is commonly called ‘morality,’” (Carus, P.; Nietzsche, F., p. 4366). Carus believed that modern man today “take[s] for granted that the moral valuation is a product of many millenniums and has been established, not only in one country and by one religion, nor in one kind of human society, but in perfect independence in many different countries, under the most varied conditions, and finds expression in the symbolism of the most divergent creeds,” (Carus, P.; Nietzsche, F., p. 4366). Paul Crus opined that while the beliefs of major religions and their denominations “are all as unlike as they can be,” they “all agree as to the excellency of moral behavior which has been formulated in these different religions in sayings incorporated in their literature. We find very little if anything contradictory in their standards of valuation, and if there is any objective norm for the subjective valuation of man it is this moral consensus in which all the great religious prophets and reformers of mankind agree,” (Carus, P.; Nietzsche, F., p. 4366). Carus contended that “[a] transvaluation of all values is certainly needed, and it is taking place now. In fact it has always taken place whenever and wherever mankind grows or progresses or changes the current world-conception,” (Carus, P.; Nietzsche, F., p. 4366).

Political Landscape

Political landscape examines the parameters of polis, and is the inverse effect of predictive behavioralism. Paul Burnstein of the University of Washington traces the origin of political behavioralism to Page and Shapiro’s (1983) classic article, Effects of Opinion on Policy. Burnstein notes that “[i]ssue salience has long been seen as a key element of democratic responsiveness. Citzens who care about an issue are especially likely to take elected officials’ actions on that issue into account on election day (Arnold 1990: ch. 6; Jones 1994; see also Lindaman and Haider-Markel 2002). This leads elected officials to be highly responsive on salient issues,” (Burnstein, P., p. 30).

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) opined in a critical essay to the psychologists of France; that there existed “repeated proof that ‘instinct’ is the most intelligent of all kinds of intelligence which have hitherto been discovered,” (Nietzsche, F., p. 75). Nietzsche’s ubermensch (superman) represented both (x) sovereignty and (a) predictive behavioralism; thereby controlling (b) the political landscape. Nietzsche’s facetious metaphor has historically fallen perverted, invoking demented interpretations producing inconceivable atrocities, including Hitler’s Holocaust and attempt to “purify” the race of Germany to attain that depraved ideal. Nietzsche’s political theory remains true—there is an ubermensch that every man strives to attain; though it may fall far from Nietzsche’s godless utopia described in his ubermensch.

Bertrand Russell noted on behavior; that, “[b]oredom as a factor in human behavior has received, in my opinion, far less attention than it deserves. It has been, I believe, one of the great motive powers throughout the historical epoch, and is so at the present day more than ever, (Russell, B., p. 57).” The concept of boredom in the contemporary age remains a relevant dichotomy: (1) stagnation; social entertainment and external distraction; living for today and avoiding the consideration of tomorrow; indulging in the atrophy of the mind; or, (2) liberation; microevolution; self-improvement and pragmatic adaptability; living for both the present and the future simultaneously, while taking note of history. Incumbent pol, (z) special interest groups, and political parties have notoriously exploited those who choose (1) stagnation and distraction. By encouraging (x) citizens to void concern of inherent values and personal concerns—instead focusing on subjective social issues, minoritarian political interests, and identity politics—politicians and their (z) special interest counterparts can offset the balance of polis, thereby disrupting both (a) predictive behavior of constituency, and (b) the political landscape. The various (z) interest groups drain (x) civic sovereignty by (y) external political factors, thus redacting (2) liberty.

Russell’s work offers insight comparing the behavioralism between those subservient to the state and those obligated to conserve America’s historical duty to nonviolently dissent. Russell painted a relevant illustration of (b) political landscape and its problems, writing “[a]nimals in captivity, it is true, become listless, pace up and down, and yawn, but in a state of nature I do not believe that they experience anything analogous to boredom.” The (x) citizen must actively differentiate himself from the animal in captivity by invoking (x) dissent against (z) special interest group radical absolute policy. Constituents have fallen into apathy in contemporary politics; bedsheet ballots result in the inauguration of deceitful demagogues elected off the coattails of incumbent pol.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778) heeded warn to the present generation; “[a]s for you, modern peoples, you have no slaves, but you are slaves yourselves; you pay for their liberty with your own. It is in vain that you boast of this preference; I find in it more cowardice than humanity,” (Rousseau, J., p. 155). Rousseau clarified; “I do not mean by all this that it is necessary to have slaves, or that the right of slavery is legitimate: I am merely giving the reasons why modern peoples, believing themselves to be free, have representatives, while ancient peoples had none. In any case, the moment a people allows itself to be represented, it is no longer free: it no longer exists,” (Rousseau, J., p. 155). In modern polity, the federal government encourages anarchy, segregation, and hate; followed by total subjugation of citizenry—an act of impeding autocracy that appropriates the generational encroachment of totalitarian tactics, ultimately invoking authoritative policy; under the pretext of an absolute utilitarian utopian democracy, thus deposing our Republic. Political theorist Richard Nozick (1933–2002) explains the political behavioralism of anarchism writing; “[m]ight not a population of anarchists realize how individual efforts at hiring protection will lead, by an invisible-hand process, to a state, and because they have historical evidence and theoretical grounds for the worry that the state is a Frankenstein monster that will run amuck and will not stay limited to minimal functions?” (Nozick, R. pp. 130, 131). Nozick’s invisible-hand process political theory reveals the inadequacies of Anarchy; yet dissidence must be invoked as part of the mixed constitutional process originally proposed in Aristotelian-Ciceronian theory. Historian James E. Holton contends that a “mixed constitution [makes] it possible to avoid the defects inherent in each of the simple forms,” (Holton, J.; Strauss, L., p. 247). A mixed government requires stoic conservatives, radical liberals, and dissident libertarians to ensure a well-balanced political viscosity in government. Above all, representation stands crucial—the fulcrum of our Constitutional Republic. Republicanism is not a factional prospect, nor is it despotic bipartisanism; republicanism is a personal reverence for both the neighbor and the union.

Political theorist Alex Jones of Infowars.com wrote in his latest book The Great Awakening; on the subject of global concentration of power; whereby he prophesies the next great Renaissance—the reawakening of civilization as we approach the next stage of world order. As the global cabal relentlessly attempts to siphon authority from the sovereign individual; Alex attributes the detriments of predictive behavioralism, contending that the conscious coercion of dysfunctional policy often results in undesirable behavioral changes. The apparent objective of the ruling class is to behavioral changes in polity to promote disparity, hopelessness, and detachment—whose solution can only be further government intervention on behalf of pseudo-utilitarianism. Alex Jones the globalists “think they can change human behavior (and to some extent I believe they can), but there may be certain immutable characteristics of the human constitution that will forever frustrate them. Their plans can work, but only for a time. Then those plans fall disastrously apart,” (Jones, A., p. 78). The Republic remains under attack, bound to the will of the partisan psychosis that has segregated itself from its obligations and duties to the citizens.

Love Thy Neighbor

Jesus revived the topic (Mat 5:43, 19:19, 22:39; Mark 12:31, 33; Luke 10:27) professed in the Old Testament (Lev 19:13, 15-19; Deu 5:20; Job 16:21; Psa 15:30, 101:5; Zec 3:10). In accordance with Scripture, Friedrich Nietzsche spaketh of that the love of thy neighbor should come secondary to the love of the Lord’s Holy Spirit and thyself. Nietzsche professed “[b]ut I say unto you: your love of the neighbor is your bad love of yourselves. You flee to your neighbor from yourselves and would like to make a virtue out of that: but I see through your ‘selflessness,’” (Nietzsche, F.; Kaufmann, W., p. 172, 173). Instead, Nietzsche declared, “[t]his ghost that runs after you, my brother, is more beautiful than you; why do you not give him your flesh and bones? But you are afraid and run to your neighbor,” (Nietzsche, F.; Kaufmann, W., p. 172, 173). Nietzsche’s words abide by Christ’s reminder to “Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: 29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation” (Mark 3:28-29; KJV)

Similarly, Jesus received a request from one of the scribes in the New Testament, asking to invoke His authority over the hierarchy of importance of obligations; and how one should best adapt their behavior in polity. Jesus responded with divine authority and objective assurance, answering; “[t]he most important is, Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these,” (Mark 12:29-31; ESV). The New Testament provides additional insight into the obligation to thy neighbor; (Romans 3:10, 15:2; 1 Cor 10:24; Eph 4:25; James 2:8, 4:12). Nietzschean theory discourages pseudo-altruism to obtain publicity, encouraging the individual to consider their own behavior and its impact on their environment before devoting their behavior to external distractions, namely thy neighbor. Christ trumps Nietzschean logic—yet his radical remarks are integral to enact the consideration needed to invoke authenticity back into society. Incumbent politicians use demagoguery to achieve positions of prominence only to reject the interests of the people to better their own, thereby deposing themselves from the support of their constituency; thus the cycle continues as our nation dives deeper into debt and despair. Nietzschean theory stands valid to contour behavior—especially political—to invoke self-regulation for those yet to come to God; thereby offering a theory of betterment; one that must be limited to internal personal application. The citizen must stand to resist external tyranny by policy by standing firm in the bunkers of objective truth foundationally grounded in the mind; as it is written, "[d]o not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is —his good, pleasing and perfect will," (Romans 12:2; NIV).

Nietzsche’s radical position on political behavioralism supports the Biblical hierarchy of Christian obligations: By loving the Lord God with all our hearts, we inherently rid ourselves of Nietzschean “bad love” thereby first giving ourselves completely to His Holy Ghost that runs after us. Nietzsche isn’t wrong that contemporary political behavioralism exhibits the same detrimental characteristics of evasion; whereby the constituent omits obligations and duties to the betterment of their interests. The result is a vestment in social interests and an abandonment of personal needs; thereby falling subservient and reliant on federal welfare and authoritative encroachment.

Bertrand Russell’s behavioralist theory deduces that in Byronic Unhappiness, the “wise have seen through all the enthusiasms of earlier times and have become aware that there is nothing left to live for. The men who hold this view are genuinely unhappy, but they are proud of their unhappiness, which they attribute to the nature of the universe and consider to be the only rational attitude for an enlightened man,” (Bertrand, R., p. 31). America’s polity suffers from Byronic Unhappiness; whereby the great institutional narrative strives to depose the faith of the individual, thus offering reliance on government intervention. Instead, the success of earlier times must serve as personal testimonies to fuel our future battles; this is true in both (b) polity and (x) the individual themselves. Happiness is the result of personal behavior—and remains conducive to our level of faith in present moments of conflict. The government has a moral obligation to encourage behavior that holds reverence to tradition, allowing for testimonial blueprints for future prospects; lest writing off the endeavors of the past as archaic barbarism. Nihilism is self-defeating in that its theory ends in purposelessness; the prudent citizen must reject the appeal to reset the system, instead building on what exists and embracing what is known. A healthy (b) political landscape requires (x) a sovereign individual with a behavioralist blueprint to strive to meet their needs. Rousseau wrote of the connection between the behavior of the sovereign individual and the political landscape, asserting that, “it matters very much to the community that each citizen should have a religion. That will make him love his duty,” (Rousseau, J., pp. 199–200). Similarly, Bertrand Russell opined that, “[a]ll serious success in work depends upon some genuine interest in the material with which the work is concerned,” (Russell, B., p. 27). Rosseau’s and Russell’s theories overlap; bearing contemporary relevance to the (a) predictive behavior of the (x) happy, sovereign individual; as it pertains to (y) our influence from society; and (b) the collective political landscape.

When David was in the wilderness he fled Saul arriving at King Achish of Gath who proclaimed, “‘Saul has killed his thousands, and David his ten thousands?’ David heard these comments and was very afraid of what King Achish of Gath might do to him. So he pretended to be insane, scratching on doors and drooling down his beard,” (1 Samuel 21:11-13; NLT). David’s ability to change his behavior played an integral role in the evasion of his perceived potential threat. David changed then his behavior again, returning to the wilderness to hide from Saul. God did not allow David to remain hidden, and Saul eventually discovered David. This led to David adjusting his behavior a third time—first, from his original state, whereby David’s behavior was changed to lead him to appear insane; second, changing his behavior in reaction to his internal paranoia; third, finally changing his behavior to humility and sincerity—David’s behavioral changes were marked by his level of faith in God. David's ancient characteristics of behavior contingent on faith continue to apply to man today.

Conclusion

Behavior is contingent on liberty and environment. The recognition of and contribution to political behavioralism is an important achievement as we approach the coming new world order. Citizens require the assurance of (x) liberty to self-regulate their own behavior away—from special interest group influence, and the biases of partisan politics. The individual and the body of people can look upon their own lives and establish a stable foundation that can be used to provide support to their local community, bolstering counties; states; and the nation. Far from Utilitarianism, the U.S. government must accept its diverse constituency, thus establishing two principal goals. First, allowing for the individual to find ubermensch—the best version of themselves; supplanted through a personal relationship with God. The second, use that solid foundation to diffuse a behavioral influence thereby positively contributing to the political landscape. The citizen must regulate his own behavior in a way that offers a recognizable personal peace; while categorically contributing their values to the health of the body politic, thus achieving an experientially tangible contemporary polis.

Bibliography

Canvas. (Accessed on February 7^th, 2024). Behavioralism.pdf: GOVT210: Introduction to Political Science (B01). https://canvas.liberty.edu/courses/572125/files/99872543?module_item_id=61910439.

Dreisbach, Daniel. Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation Between Church and State (Critical America). NYU Press. Kindle Edition.

Hayek, F.A., The Road to Serfdom: Text and Documents--The Definitive Edition (The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek, Volume 2). University of Chicago Press. Kindle Edition.

Jones, Alex; Heckenlively, Kent. (2023). The Great Awakening: Defeating the Globalists and Launching the Next Great Renaissance. Skyhorse Publishing. Kindle Edition.

McMaster, John Bach; Stone, Frederick. (2011). Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution, 1787–1788. Liberty Fund Inc.

Nietzsche, F. Beyond Good and Evil - Classic Illustrated Edition. Heritage Illustrated Publishing. Kindle Edition.

Nietzsche, F.; Kaufmann, W. (1954, 1968). The Portable Nietzsche. Princeton University. The Viking Portable Library. P62.

Nozick, Robert. (1974). Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Basic Books. Kindle Edition.

ProQuest. (Accessed on February 7^th, 2024). The Behavioral Movement in Political Science: A Personal Document - ProQuest. https://www.proquest.com/docview/1297293473?_oafollow=false&accountid=12085&sourcetype=Scholarly%20Journals&imgSeq=1

ProQuest. (Accessed on February 7^th, 2024). The impact of public opinion on public policy: A review and an agenda - ProQuest. https://www.proquest.com/docview/215319430?_oafollow=false&accountid=12085&sourcetype=Scholarly%20Journals.

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. Essential Political Writings: The Social Contract, Discourse on Inequality, Discourse on the Arts and Sciences, Discourse on Political Economy (Annotated). Kindle Edition.

Russell, Bertrand. The Conquest of Happiness. Liveright. Kindle Edition.

Strauss, L., et al. (1963, 1972, 1987). History of Political Philosophy. The University of Chicago Press. Kindle Edition.