Our political landscape is populated with the elements of a giant machine that perpetuates itself on “issues”. These issues are demagogued, talked about, massaged, and spared-over by the media pundits, the political classes, and lobbied through-and-through by those 401-c3’s that make money off the roller-coaster-riding concerned-citizen.

But the issues and problems are never solved. Why?

Because the protagonists and antagonists gain from the conflict. If you resolve the issue, the conflict goes away, the problem is solved, and the “reason for being” of a profiting participant is nullified. Thus, the participants in conflicts of public issues have an intrinsic conflict of interest.

Here are some examples:

If incidents of racism declined over the last 60 years, as they in fact have, there would be little need for an NAACP. So the NAACP is motivated to engineer a systematic effort to amplify, not solve, any race issue.

If the NRA, through its Institute for Legislative Action lobby, were to firmly solidify the 2nd Amendment rights in law such that no populist progressive politician or judge could raise a challenge as to the interpretation of private gun ownership, there would be no need for the NRA; save for the safe training of firearm use, but anybody could do that.

If Focus on the Family or the Alliance Defense Fund were successful in bringing the DOMA [Defense of Marriage Act] into law in such a way as to protect the definition of marriage from meddling minorities; or if they were able after 40 years of trying to finally pass laws to protect the unborn, there would be no need for them to raise money.

The same could be said of Congress, or any other self-interested political-lobby, and its failure to balance a budget, end bloat in welfare, curb unbridled spending, stop illegal immigration, and other issues that can never seem to get resolved.

Once the problems are solved, they would be out of a job—and more importantly, unable to raise money.

Now some would assert that I am being cynical, since, like the abortion or marriage issues, pro-lifers & pro-marriage folks say it would take a Constitutional Amendment to protect the unborn, or define marriage as being between a man and woman.

I disagree. What is takes is a citizenry and a Congress that understand the Constitution and its proper application to protect the interests of the cultural and political majorities.

Here is an example:

Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution says, in part and in application of Congress’ control over a runaway judiciary:

“In all cases… the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.” [Emphasis added]

If the DOMA was passed into law back in 2005 with a clause built-in that removed subject matter jurisdiction of the definition of marriage from the courts, no back-water judge acceding to a radical minority could issue an injunction. The case would simply never see the light of day. The deal would be done.

Further, if the law stipulated that if the Executive Branch failed in its duties to enforce or defend that law, instant penalties would be proscribed upon the offending agencies, the marriage issue would be over.

None of these issues are going to get solved until citizens force their lobbies and representatives to stop the slight-of-hand, fund-raising gimmicks and demand real solutions.

The caveat however is that the public has to know the difference, and right now, they do not.