Polarization
Parties
The so-called “Two Party System” is a polarization causing machine. In the final analysis, it is no better than
the alleged Communist, thesis-antithesis-synthesis. The philosophically idealistic, thesis-antithesis-synthesis,
might work if we ever stopped to listen to the other side of the story: but,
this is an ideal situation; most polarizations are not ideal; the Aristotelian perfect
method of dividing sets into situation verses not-situation is rarely the true case
of events. Real life thesis and antithesis
is a lot messier than that: but, the polarization already present in the
argument leads only to one conclusion: I’m right, you’re wrong. The true-to-life messiness of actual
problems, almost always means that both sides are partly right and partly
wrong. Again, this might work if we ever
stopped to listen to the other side of the story: yet, we rarely, if ever, do
so.
The “Two Party System” tends to prohibit our listening to
one another: for before we reach kindergarten, our homes are already hopelessly
polarized: there are only two sides to every argument: I’m right, you’re wrong. In kindergarten and sandbox this polarization
is inculcated into our lives as a habit by a process called education. By the time we reach history class, names
have been firmly attached to each pole: Democrat and Republican. Even the names have a biased pejorative
twist: for Democrat calls forth the non-existent, yet persistent myth of Greek
Democracy; while Republican reeks of the stench of the Roman Republic, with all
its murderous manipulations: were you aware that all of the Julio-Claudian
Caesars were murdered?[i] Ongoing education only serves to deepen the
rift. Problem solvers are diverted into
other pursuits by design.
The “Two Party System” might work if it publicly focused on
real problems; in such a case, we might hope for reasoned solutions through
honest debate. Instead, trumped-up problems
and solutions are posed as real and true.
The false problems obfuscate the real problems. The false solutions cover up the fact that
only minor issues were publicly resolved.
The real problems remain in the dark, behind closed doors, where the
politicians, or other movers and shakers, divide the pie to their own satisfaction. It does not take long, with the ensuing imbalance
of wealth, for the public, who create virtually all true wealth, to figure out
that they are being robbed blind; that politics is a major instrument in this
robbery. Nevertheless, polarization
still works very effectively: we are suckers, easily drawn into silly
arguments.
This follows any other business model based on profit as the
greatest good. In profit-centered
mentality the objective is to relieve the customer of his money; with or
without providing a fair exchange of goods or services in return. In all such systems, the buyer and seller are
placed in a direct competitive relationship: other sellers are not really
competing against each other; nor are other buyers in competition: unless there
is an extreme shortage or surplus of goods and services. Most of the time this works out fairly
equitably: the seller is not robbed; the buyer is not “skint”. That is, until, we arrive at businesses like
banking and usury, insurance and investments, and other businesses that offer
no tangible goods or services… only invisible mystic services. In politics, the politician is the direct
adversary of, and competitor with, the citizen.
Democrats don’t really compete with Republicans; instead, they use
well-designed false misleading questions to evaluate the statistical mood of
the public: once the mind of the public herd is measured, they play out their
hands to retain power and stay in office.
This has nothing to with solving problems. Politicians are only interested in solving
one problem: how to stay in office personally, how to retain their party’s
power. The natural function of human
greed ensures that such a system self-perpetuates. Hence, the parties accuse each other of
having no platform.[ii] The Presidential election decays into a cheap
popularity contest.[iii] So, the primary function of so-called “think
tanks” is to figure out how to play the populace. This is the only problem solving technique
for which politicians have any real skill set.
The only way to overthrow such a well-organized system of
polarization, manipulation, and power control is to eliminate it. I’m not sure that this is even possible; or
that other corrupt systems are any better.
Multi-party parliaments must build majorities by agreement, compromise,
and alliance in order to form a “government”.
Ostensibly, any true public issue can be presented by forming a new
party around that single issue: there must be a quid-pro-quo, for the bigger
stronger parties to form a “government”.
Supposedly, the will of the public is served as different parties ebb or
flow in terms of voters. For this to
work, voters would need to float between parties. Optionally, we could chose a king.
So, do elections in Canada, England, France, Germany, Greece,
Italy, Portugal, Spain, and the like, serve the people better than in the
United States? I don’t have the answer
to that question. Right now, it seems as
if an effective new party or two in the United States, wouldn’t hurt. We, of course, have other minority parties
already; yet, they are so minuscule as to be ineffective.
The American populace has been duped into believing that the
“Two Party System” of designed polarization is so beneficial to society, that a
vote against it is a wasted vote. Until
we disabuse ourselves of the silly ineffectiveness of the “Two Party System” we
will not make any headway. We will
continue to be locked into endless political polarization….
[i]
Julius: stabbed to death in the Senate; Augustus: poisoned by his wife;
Tiberius: smothered; Caligula: assassinated by Praetorian Guard; Claudius: poisoned
by his wife; Nero: murder or suicide? at the hand of Epaphroditos.
[ii]
Historically, the Democrats have produced much better platforms than
Republicans. The only true plank in a
GOP platform is often, beat that dirty rat … Democrat. The last GOP candidate to lead with platform
building ideas was laughed off the stage (Fred Thompson).
[iii]
If you sincerely think I’m wrong about this, lay out for me the true platform
differences between Clinton and Trump: there are none (not the platform differences
between their parties). Then prove to me
that both Clinton and Trump were not manipulated into candidacy by Michael
Bloomberg, the master player.
No comments:
Post a Comment