Why, Politically, I'm A "Neither": Neither A Democrat Nor A Republican
John Whitehead, of the civil liberties-defending Rutherford Institute, says it so well in a piece at the HuffPo:
As I make clear in my book, Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the people dealing the cards--the politicians, the corporations, the judges, the prosecutors, the police, the bureaucrats, the military, the media, etc.--have only one prevailing concern, and that is to maintain their power and control over the citizenry, while milking us of our money and possessions.It really doesn't matter what you call them--Republicans, Democrats, the 1%, the elite, the controllers, the masterminds, the shadow government, the police state, the surveillance state, the military industrial complex--so long as you understand that while they are dealing the cards, the deck will always be stacked in their favor.
Incredibly, no matter how many times we see this played out, Americans continue to naively buy into the idea that politics matter, as if there really were a difference between the Republicans and Democrats (there's not).
As if Barack Obama proved to be any different from George W. Bush (he has not). As if Hillary Clinton's values are any different from Donald Trump's (with both of them, money talks). As if when we elect a president, we're getting someone who truly represents "we the people" rather than the corporate state (in fact, in the oligarchy that is the American police state, an elite group of wealthy donors is calling the shots).
Politics is a game, a joke, a hustle, a con, a distraction, a spectacle, a sport, and for many devout Americans, a religion.
In other words, it's a sophisticated ruse aimed at keeping us divided and fighting over two parties whose priorities are exactly the same. It's no secret that both parties support endless war, engage in out-of-control spending, ignore the citizenry's basic rights, have no respect for the rule of law, are bought and paid for by Big Business, care most about their own power, and have a long record of expanding government and shrinking liberty.
Most of all, both parties enjoy an intimate, incestuous history with each other and with the moneyed elite that rule this country. Don't be fooled by the smear campaigns and name-calling. They're just useful tactics of the psychology of hate that has been proven to engage voters and increase voter turnout while keeping us at each other's throats.
And he's right in this, too:
Our failure to remain informed about what is taking place in our government, to know and exercise our rights, to vocally protest, to demand accountability on the part of our government representatives, and at a minimum to care about the plight of our fellow Americans has been our downfall.Now we find ourselves once again caught up in the spectacle of another presidential election, and once again the majority of Americans are acting as if this election will make a difference and bring about change--as if the new boss will be any different from the old boss.
As if Barack Obama proved to be any different from George W. Bush (he has not).
Obama makes Bush look like a miser when it came to spending, also when droning. But the point that our ruling elite have more in common with each other than with us still stands.
I R A Darth Aggie at August 14, 2015 6:00 AM
1. They aren't the same. Sure, sometimes you get a choice between a douche and a turd sandwich but that's life. You don't always get what you want and sometimes you don't like any of your choices.
2. While the presidency is the most visible office it is actually not that influential. Which party controls congress has far more effect than which controls the executive. There is no correlation between economic growth and presidential party. But there is a strong correlation between economic growth and majority congressional party. The president may be pretty but congress has the money.
3. Money and politics in the US aren't as tied as people like to complain. Why don't wealthy business men just buy elections instead of buying politicians (cut out the middle man), because they can't. Rich people (like Trump) try to buy their way into office all the time and they consistently fail. It is more important where your money was raised than how much you have. If you can get someone to send you $1.00 you effectively have their vote. Get millions of $1.00 donations and you probably have the election.
Now, it is true that after the election some politicians sell their influence. Guess what, that's people.
And those trying to remove private money from politics really need to look at how that worked out elsewhere. Instead of eliminating influence they concentrated it. In a democracy you need votes to win. People vote for the person they like best that they've heard of. So when politicians can't buy media coverage (since they have no money) they have to get that coverage for free, from their local media mogul. The influence isn't eliminated, instead it is concentrated to people who own media platforms.
Ben at August 14, 2015 6:16 AM
I don't know that I'm quite that cynical, at least not yet. But Whitehead's essential point is true: the inner circle of both parties champions big government and crony capitalism. Other than the occasionally-successful Democrat wing that wants to cut the military, there is no momentum in either party for reducing government spending or power, despite dozens of grassroots efforts over the past several decades. The Democrats kicked out their nonbelievers long ago, and the Republican leadership has successfully fought off the Tea Party. Even Fox News these days is regarded as establishment, not all that different from CNN.
Most commentators are missing what the Trump/Sanders phenomonen is all about. It's the mainstream of each party, trying to send a message to its leadership. Said leadership is frantically stuffing cotton into its ears and chanting "Lalala! Can't hear you!" Hillary will be the Dem nominee; the party leadership will see to it. And the GOP will see to it that someone equally establishment, probably Jeb Bush, is nominated on their side. The goal is for the election to be strictly a popularity contest, with the assurance that no matter who wins, K Street and the bureaucracy can remain as they are.
Cousin Dave at August 14, 2015 6:50 AM
I am not surprised to see "news" agencies acting the same, because they all have the same goal today: GET MONEY.
That's why you have three talking heads droning on for a half-hour, repeated ad nauseum, on each channel, about the same event - and why they breathlessly interject, "we don't KNOW!" every time they can.
That's why you have no Walter Cronkite on the air today.
When it comes to any sort of election, pandering to the lowest common denominator means endless articles about "Who will WIN!?", without a word about policies. Peter Jennings even had the gall to ask on the air, "what do we know of this man?", the night of the 2008 election, even after carrying Obama's water for the past two years!
The sound and fury is so great that no one will notice this next sentence:
You do not have a right to vote for the President.
Look it up.
Radwaste at August 14, 2015 7:04 AM
To be fair Radwaste even when Cronkite was on the air you didn't have a 'Walter Cronkite' broadcasting. The man's reputation is mostly myth.
Ben at August 14, 2015 9:11 AM
The only real difference between the parties is which branches of science they choose to ignore, and which parts of your life they want to mirco manage.
lujlp at August 14, 2015 10:01 AM
One major difference between the parties is who comes to the government with their hand out. If it's Republican, it's corporate interests, and if it's Democrat, it's the poor.
Patrick at August 14, 2015 8:35 PM
One major difference between the parties is who comes to the government with their hand out. If it's Republican, it's corporate interests, and if it's Democrat, it's the poor.
Posted by: Patrick at August 14, 2015 8:35 PM
Yes, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, et all have never been bought and paid for by corporate interests.
The poor are just useful idiots, Grist for the Democratic Party mill.
Both parties do the bidding of big business, and big government. The Republican Party is just slightly less willing at the present time, to screw over small businesses, and the rest of the non government employee middle class in order to buy votes. They are smart enough to realize you don't butcher the goose that lays the golden eggs.
That said, politics is a team sport, you are either actively supporting one party or the other, and working within it to push government in the direction you want it to go, or you are standing in the middle of the road facing down a Mack truck.
Isab at August 15, 2015 8:42 AM
Did you notice you don't have the right to vote for a President?
Radwaste at August 15, 2015 9:51 PM
Riiight Patrick. Ge and Berkshire Hathaway are just small poor people. Just like how Hillary is and has always been broke. That why she doesn't have to pay taxes. All that stuff she buys doesn't mean she has money. She is still a poor person.
Ben at August 16, 2015 5:14 AM
Leave a comment