The notion of an effective one party system in this country is one I've been contemplating for several years. All one has to do is watch our political process with this hypothesis in mind, and evidence for it continues to accumulate in droves, while evidence against it looks more and more like a facade. One does not need to invoke secret societies like the Trilateral Commision or the Bilderbergers to see the pattern. As John Perkins, Author of "Confessions of an Economic Hitman," pointed out, most so-called conspiracies are not hidden from view; they take place in plain sight.
Since the government in all significant ways is effectively owned by those who "contribute" to it--ie, big business, the members of the plutocracy, I think it's most appropriate to call it the Party of Power, as power in this country is apparently not divided between two warring factions, but contained in one monolithic, two headed beast that hisses and spits at itself around issues that are not central while advancing an agenda of agreed upon goals that serve to enhance its control.
Neither faction, despite the rhetoric, really defends our civil rights--Republicans want to build up the police state "for our own good," and most recently justify invasions of privacy and Soviet-Style National ID on the basis of National Security. Democrats believe in “rights”—the supposed rights to food, shelter, health care, and generally a risk and effort free life at the expense of others. (Psst—it’s called Socialism, and it's Communism's capital-driven little brother). They want to tax away our earnings and take away our ability to resist the will of the government "for our own good." In truth it is for their own good. The real motivation is to keep would-be revolutionaries fat, happy, lazy, and ill-equipped. The most obvious and dangerous example is the recent fervor over gun control.
There is no major political party that really supports smaller government and advocates decentralization or increased individual rights. Democrats are utterly deluded about the beneficial effects of a larger state, but at least are at least honest about their desire to increase its size and decrease our personal power at our own expense. Republicans preach decentralization but instead practice militarization. Democrats grow the beaurocracy; Republicans grow the military. Both succeed to some extent; laws are passed with far more frequency than they are repealed. Inevitably we have less freedom than our parents did. There's no reason to think the trend will stop.
Hot button issues like abortion, gay marriage, school prayer, and many other may make for good theater, but they really don't matter to the PoP. (But make no mistake, gun control does. More on this some other time.) I doubt they really care who we're screwing or what we're doing with the products of conception, so long as the products of conception grow up to be obedient little work drones who love Big Brother.
These issues do make for great distraction from more relevant issues, like who's really in charge and how they're doing a better and better job of taking control. The resulting debate is useful in creating the perception of a free society as embodied by the two party system engaged in open discourse on marginally relevant issues.
I think it's more telling to look at what both "parties" agree on then what they don't. I further think it’s telling when "Democratic" candidates enact policies that serve the "Republican" agenda and vice-versa. The most egregious example of this is NAFTA, a pro-corporate, anti-worker globalist coup signed into law by a member of the alleged Party of the People.
The differences between George Bush and Al Gore in the 2000 election were less significant than the fact that both were both hereditary oligarchs—children of wealthy, powerful, political families who did little on their own merit to earn the right to compete for the title of "Leader of the Free (sic) world." This seemed to speak quite clearly to the true nature of power here in the Land of the Free.
But most people are too busy blaming the other party to note the true source of the problem, or are too distracted by bread-and-circuses to care. My additional hypothesis is that this is no accident, and that every single institution in our society contributes to the creation of dutiful, unquestioning subjects as opposed to free thinking upstarts. One could at this point call me paranoid, but one could also consider, and examine the evidence for, a third hypothesis--that a government/society run largely by entrenched power and ivy league law school graduates is quite capable of this degree of deception and manipulation, and given the incentives and motivations, it is almost inevitable.
If you follow these trends to their logical conclusion, there is only one destination. Arguably we are already there. I personally cannot find a historical example where a government growing more powerful and centralized has led to better conditions for its citizens in the long run. It always seems to lead to tyranny, and "both" parties seem to be leading us inexorably in that direction.
Please prove to me that I'm wrong. I'd feel a whole lot better.
No comments:
Post a Comment