As I have argued over the last few weeks, and as common sense would dictate, groups naturally do what is in their interests. Since a small elite class owns most of the mechanisms which distribute information, they have the most selective pressure over information. They shape the way we talk, and they do it in such a way as to uphold and increase their power.
Once again, this is no conspiracy. It is a natural institutional phenomenon.
The case of the two-party-ideology is the best evidence. I want to do two things here. One — I want to use the prevalence of the two-party ideology to illustrate how the elite class manipulates public opinion via discourse imposition. Two — I want to show that the two-party ideology should be abandoned, along with the two corporate/statist parties.
The “two-party ideology” refers to either the “Republican versus Democrat” or the “liberal versus conservative” framework of discussion. The framework includes, as a major assumption, that a person is either one or the other, necessarily. It also assumes that if you are not either, you are somewhere in between them. It is a linear spectrum. There is nothing outside of it.
This leaves no possibility for any other view. How very convenient for powerful groups. All they have to do is exclude a view from this framework, and it becomes impossible to address. What about the things that the two parties overlap on? They simply must be correct, according to the two-party ideology. It could not be that both are wrong.
On foreign policy, they overlap nearly perfectly. They may differ in rhetoric. That is, the Democratic Party may speak a slightly less hawkish line, but if we look at the history of the Democratic Party, we will see that they impose U.S. corporate interests just the same.
What about banks? Democrats, like Republicans, can’t even mention bank regulation. The main puppet-masters of the two parties would never tolerate such defiance. The banks would pull funding immediately from that candidate and give it to their opponent, and the opponent would win.
After the second bailout, Obama made a passing comment about banks acting irresponsibly. What happened? A few banks made statements about how this concerned them, and Obama made a public apology the very next day, including an explanation of what heroes these “job creators” were.
We could go on — issue after issue — the core political conceptions that keep the powerful, powerful being the most protected. Even when a large segment of the population holds one view, it can be successfully ignored.
For example, extensive polling was done after the U.S. War Against Vietnam (a more accurate name for that war). Most Americans felt that involvement was the wrong choice. More importantly, many of that group felt that it was not only a strategic mistake; they felt that it was morally wrong to ever send forces there.
The idea that American military intervention could be morally wrong and based on upholding economic interests of some powerful groups is far too dangerous. The Democrats had to keep their “opposition” in safe bounds, calling the war a “strategic blunder,” failing to follow their constituency.
These show something crucial. The parties do not get their speech or ideology from their voters. Their voters get their speech and ideology from their party.
The corporate candidates of the corporate parties are simply mouths made to speak the speech that we are supposed to adopt.
The two-party ideology is the trap that keeps us from challenging power. Many liberals make the major mistake of voting for the Democratic Party, thinking that it is the more pragmatic option. Many liberals realize that the Democrats represent elite interests, but think they are a better choice than the Republicans.
They’re not. Both parties represent, for the most part, the same corporate interests. They are really two factions of one party. Voting Democrat is just a slightly slower descent down the same hole, the abyss of a despotic state, controlled only by the elite class.
Of course, voting third party has drawbacks. A Republican might get elected. This is not as bad as many liberals think. Of course, Republicans say bizarre and frightening things about women and science, but if we look at the actions of both parties, they are nearly equal in frightening-ness.
We have to start voting third party now, just to increase public confidence. If third-party candidates were to get even 10 percent of the vote, this would force the mainstream discourse to address it. It would send a clear signal to everyone that they are not the only ones who have no confidence in the corporate parties. People don’t want these parties. They feel stuck.
We have to create parties that are not slaves to campaign contributors. We have to abandon the Democratic Party immediately.
Voting third party is not a wasted vote. Voting for the DemRep Party is a wasted vote.
Brian Moen has voted third party in every election since he was 18. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.