For today’s post, I was going to use this title instead:
“How to break the spell of the programming imposed on citizens of the U.S.A.”
I opted against that longer version for three reasons:
· It’s too long;
· I want to get my main point across, as expressed in the first title;
· I’m going to address, later within this essay, the “how to” of the second title.
About our programming
Americans like to think of themselves as unique. The rugged individualist has been an enduring icon of ours for well over 100 years. But…it’s simply not true. We are easily manipulated and too often we seek simple answers. You know, like this: “Can you say it in 25 words or less?” Or, in a more updated version: “Go ahead – impress me with a sound bite instead of sound analysis.”
We speak with pride about our diversity. But, truth be told, we’re slaves to fashion, which our Elites have spent tens of billions of dollars in advertising to enforce. Not even our religions offer much hope. Too many people think about “Cleanliness is next to Godliness,” and then proceed to use the most heavily-advertised products to clean up their outward appearance. Instead of doing the work necessary to cleanse their souls.
We’re satisfied to let others do our thinking for us. How many people nod in agreement when Rush Limbaugh rants? Why do we have to listen to such a small number of opinion shapers who (somehow) manage to dominate the airwaves? George Stephanopoulos, George “the Kardashian” Will, Rachel Maddow (who’s pretty good with facial expressions, I must admit). There are over 300 million people in this country, and yet so few manage to be in a position to share their opinions. This is not just an accident or coincidence.
Case in point
Every so often, we are led by the nose by articles similar to the two paragraphs I’m about to quote. Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein of The Washington Post wrote this, which was printed in the June 9, 2012 edition of the Chicago Tribune. I will now proceed to quote, inserting my comments in indented paragraphs:
QUOTE:
[Paragraph one]: Despite Americans’ disgust with our politics, about 90 percent of us identify with – or at least lean toward – one of the two major parties.
My first objection is with the second word: “Americans.” I’ll rephrase to make my point: “Most citizens of the USA are disgusted by the state of their nation’s politics. Even so, about 90 percent…” NOTE: If you are a citizen of the USA and yet overlooked how the word “Americans” was misused by Mann/Ornstein, then you should start seriously thinking about how profoundly programmed you are.
I now cite these words: “or at least lean toward.” By using these five words, the claim made about the “90 percent” becomes meaningless. What is meant by “at least?” If a voter is presented only with the choice of Democrat or Republican, he can really hate them both but “at least lean” toward one of them. We have an expression for that: Choosing the lesser of two evils.
Among Americans who call themselves independent, two-thirds lean to one of the parties, and behave at the polls just like the partisans.
Why bother to say “two-thirds lean?” I dare say, 95% of all independents would “lean” toward one major party or the other if they thought keeping the other party out of power was less threatening to their ideals. That leaves 5%, which must be far more accurate since non-Dem/Pub parties have never polled greater than 5% of the vote since at least WWII.
So the core audience for a third party is perhaps 10 percent of the electorate.
Ah, that’s the gist of our authors’ article. Perhaps more than 10 percent of the voters would favor a third party if they could be convinced they wouldn’t be allowing the “greater of two evils” to win by throwing their vote away. That business about “throwing your vote away” has been a mighty club wielded for a long time against those who are non-conformists.
Most people balk at the prospect of third parties for two reasons:
· An assumption that multiple parties would lead to difficulties in governance (aka “gridlock”) due to the necessity of building coalitions should no single party gain enough power to dominate the legislative process;
· An assumption that any third party would end up like the two majors in terms of corruptibility and organization.
However, I have developed two innovations designed to overcome both objections:
ONE: Elsewhere on this blog I posted an article entitled, “A Zero Party system for US Politics,” which opens with this sentence: “In one sentence: It’s time to establish a Zero Party system by means of creating a third party which is leaderless and without members – in modern parlance, a ‘virtual party.’” Here’s the link: http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2010/09/zero-party-system-for-us-politics.html
TWO: Elsewhere on this blog I posted another article entitled, “Written Political Contracts,” which includes this sentence: “I am the only presidential candidate in the history of this country to offer a written contract to the voters, declaring: ‘If you wouldn’t buy a house without a written contract, why would you give your vote away?’ I then proceed to list a variety of items included in that contract. Here’s the link: http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2010/09/written-political-contracts.html
So-called independents are classic referendum voters; when times are bad, they want to throw the bums out rather than carefully attribute responsibility or parse alternatives.
[sigh] I’ll hit on this first: The use of the term “so-called independents.” That alone is dismissive and disrespectful, but when one is in the pay of The Washington Post, one is paid to discourage independence.
I’ll come right out and accuse: Calling independents “classic referendum voters” is just plain retarded. As Wikipedia puts it: “A referendum…is a direct vote in which an entire electorate is asked to either accept or reject a particular proposal. … It is a form of direct democracy.” I fail to see how Mann/Ornstein could possibly have a problem with this.
When “times are bad,” everybody wants to throw the bums out, or at least that sentiment looms large in their minds. As for “carefully attribut[ing] responsibility,” to a large degree, all of the incumbents share a fatal load of responsibility. So why bother to be careful? Throwing out all of the incumbents is the best route for assuring the election of non-Dem/Pub independents. More than being the “best route,” it is the only way forward for the reformation of our corrupt political culture.
As for the parsing of alternatives urged by our authors, we don’t have any alternatives except those offered by our rigged system. The only way to unrig the system is to send a message to all incumbents: “You will no longer have job security in elective office if you continue to adhere to the label of Democrat or Republican.”
[Paragraph two]: The third-party fantasy is of a courageous political leader who could persuade Americans to support enlightened policies to tax carbon; reform entitlements; make critical investments in education, energy and infrastructure; and eliminate tax loopholes to raise needed revenue.
Another attempt by Mann/Ornstein to be dismissive, by calling it a “third-party fantasy.” Why not say, a “third-party ideal?” Unless, of course, their goal [which it is, of course] is to paint third-party activists and non-conformists in general as fringe elements who live in LaLa Land.
Then there’s the part about the desire for “a courageous political leader who could persuade Americans…” That’s the problem with the kind of person who supports Ron Paul, thinking that one man is going to be able to fix our mess. Those kinds of people have a Savior Complex; they fail to appreciate the need to elect independents to Congress, thinking it only necessary to capture the presidency.
Then Mann/Ornstein proceed to list some specific proposals, trying to pretend that all independent-minded voters would, by virtue of being independent, support any or all of these. What any independent would want as a minimum are legislators who would vote for policies based on their merits, not based on the dictates of party leaders or on the desires of lobbyists backed up by mega bucks. Not only independents would want such legislators, so should everybody else.
But there is simply no evidence that voters would flock to a straight-talking, independent, centrist third-party candidate espousing the ideas favored by most third-party enthusiasts.
Mann/Ornstein are right when they say there’s “no evidence,” simply because it’s not even possible to test the viability of any third-party candidate given how badly the deck is stacked against non-Dem/Pubs. Our authors are trying to, once again, be dismissive by suggesting the “ideas favored by most third-party enthusiasts” are so far out, that no (as they put it) “centrist third-party candidate” would even suggest such ideas.
There are a lot of people, who are dissatisfied with our Two-Party duopoly, who suffer from a lack of a long-range campaign strategy as well as the lack of media access necessary to educate the general public. There are, however, two ideas that all of us should embrace, even those who wouldn’t support any third-party: The need to eliminate legislative gridlock and corruption from our current system.
:UNQUOTE.
How to break the spell…
Now I’ll briefly address the issue embraced by my post’s alternate title: “How to break the spell of the programming imposed on citizens of the U.S.A.”
We non-conformist reform types really have our work cut out for us because there’s a lot of stupid out there. Not to mention, the fierce and never-ending campaign to dumb us down. But we are not entirely without resources. I suggest:
· Talk to whomever will listen in your immediate circle;
· Be persistent but not drastic – any attempt to educate an intimidated and cowed population will not be easy and patience will be needed;
· Use your economic clout as intelligently as you can, up to and including boycotts. Though you might not have much, you do have something. Untold millions of others are also at their wit’s end trying to think of ways to overthrow our oppressors. Sooner or later it will occur to them to use what they’ve got – the power of the purse. Added to your efforts, that will make all the difference in the world.
· Brace yourself for the confusion of anarchy which will follow the collapse of our system’s house of cards. At that point, a lot of people will be more sympathetic to our pursuit of reform than to the president’s invocation of martial law.
· Be prepared for the possibility that we might not succeed, and that the country will descend into a new Dark Ages. Console yourself by keeping in mind: People who aren’t programmed tend to do better when thrown on their own resources.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party
“Failure is an option; I’m not arrogant enough to suggest otherwise.”
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment