Political Party Ideas (from October, 2005)

Most American citizens consider the U.S. political system to be a two party political system, and for the most part this is correct. This political system is dominated by two parties; the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. Because it is every citizen’s right to form a political party, there are in actuality hundreds of recognized political parties in this country in any given election year. In addition to Democratic and Republican, we have Libertarian party, Green party, Reform party, Constitution party, Natural Law party, Communist party, American Nazi party, Socialist party, Workers World party, American Reform party, Freedom Socialist party, Socialist Labor party, Timesizing party, Labor party, America First party, New Union party, Young Democratic Socialist party, Pansexual Peace party, and the list goes on. With this much partying going on, we should be having a lot more fun, shouldn’t we?

In the developmental years of this country parties sprung up quickly to support candidates for elected office. It is the “Birds of a feather” doctrine and it works both for and against fair representation of the people’s interest; primarily against. The diverse fractionalization of the constituency tends to dilute the power of opposition to the point of impotence by separating candidacy and government into factions of sectional interest. So no longer are elected officials acting in the best interest of the country, but rather are acting in their own best interest to get re-elected by pandering to the vocal majority (which is most often the loudest money.)

The media in its effort to gain favor from the system panders to the idea of there being only two relevant political parties and this idea has been perpetuated throughout the world. In an article from New Zealand discussing the Japan/United States beef policies the author states, “Nearly two dozen US senators from both political parties urged…” leaving all readers with the impression that there are only two parties in the US political system. This is a subtle semantic argument, granted, but if the author had said, “from the Democratic and Republican parties” it would have eluded to the fact that there are other parties in existence. The word, “both” denotes only two.

Semantics are everything in politics. Semantics allow the politicians and the party machine to lie and display it as truth. Media coverage of events rarely mentions the Libertarian, Green, or any politician other than the Democrat or Republican. When a Presidential debate is held, Democrat, Republican, and occasionally a third party candidate are invited, but never has there been a debate with all Presidential candidates present. To have all candidates present would be an organizational nightmare, but we are talking about the leadership of this country. Isn’t that worth a little effort on the part of the present government and media to ensure there is adequate and fair representation of all political candidates? Oh no, that would be detrimental to the self interest of “The Party” and would reduce the power base of “The Party.” Power is the key; control.

The system is an entity unto itself. The party system operates in the same manner as a corporate system. The only driving force is to perpetuate itself. The only way to perpetuate itself is to support the powerful interests within the system. The Democratic and Republican parties are the most powerful interests in the system, so the system excludes others from disrupting the balance. The system is protected from change. Since the party system does not allow for diverse influence, it is limited and unfair. The delicate balance of the two parties is in effect way out of balance if one takes the global view and looks at the “big picture.” The Democratic Party tends toward more liberal platforms; a more socialist bent, and the Republican Party stands for order, and justice (he said mockingly); a more conservative bent, but in reality they are both pretty much the same. They both want to talk a lot and do nothing. Their primary concern is to achieve and maintain power. So, in effect citizens actually have no choice in the existing political system. One either votes for a third party candidate, who if elected will most often be impotent to effect change, or may vote for either the Democratic or Republican candidate who if elected will talk about important issues and yet do little to nothing about it.

Another major factor in securing power is money. Only the rich elite have any real access to the political system, so the rich elite control the system. The rich elite own the media, so that also is controlled and manipulated to ensure the exclusion of outside influence; to protect the system from change. The populace is separated from the elite, and the elite are protected from the general populace. It is and always will be an economic issue. The vast majority of this nation, the general populace is placated with the pretence of involvement. It is every citizen’s right to create or join a political party, but if one creates a party, one has little hope of effecting any real change, and if one is effective, it will be on a very, very minute scale. Typically, a third party can do little more than make enough noise so that one of the two major parties will adopt an idea, but in the end the idea will be homogenized and diluted so much that it rarely resembles the original idea. Only occasionally, such as in the 1992 election where Ross Perot made so much noise about the national budget, will there be any effective change. And of course, that was short lived. Only if we had a strong third party showing every four years, would things perhaps change in a timely manner on a national level. Unfortunately, there are virtually none of the elite rich who wish to see change in the system. Ross Perot was an anomaly. And if one joins one of the two major parties, one is merely supporting the system that maintains the status quo. To the Democrats, the average citizen is a pet. To the Republicans, the average citizen is a slave. The commonality is that if one is not a member of the elite, one is a lower class citizen who must be managed.

The media support the system that owns them by running the propaganda machine. One point made by James Bowman of The New Criterion, “…but the media, being in the business of full-time reality-manufacture, are a bit slower to understand the difference between self-created realities and, well, the real kind.” So it is not that the media actually act in a malevolent manner to hide the truth, well sometimes, yes, but it is that the propaganda machine as with the political machine pretty much runs itself. It is once again all smoke and mirrors and slight of hand. It is a system being in place that by its own impetus protects itself from change. There are elite powers making decisions to ensure the elite stay elite, and the rest of the world stay separated from them, but the system itself perpetuates this.

Do not consider this a conspiracy, but rather the edge of conspiracy. A conspiracy must have conscious, active involvement. All of the actions in the propaganda machine and the political machine, or any human bureaucratic machine are innate. It is conspiratorial by nature, not by human design. It is too complex for mere mortals to take credit for putting it in operation. It is too grand. If one is of a religious bent, one may wish to blame Satan if one is in the oppressed majority, or credit God if one is within the elite minority. The existential view is to just ignore the “why” of it all and simply accept it. Either way, if you are not one of the elite, you are simply shit-out-of-luck in the current political system.