Christopher Burg delivers a lovely smackdown to both political parties - or, at least, to their establishments. An example:
The Democrats are selling a world where the disarmed populace is entirely at the mercy of the lawless but remain safe from unapproved, dangerous speech and any potential transgression against Mother Gaia, real or imaginary, is punished via summary execution.
There's more at the link. Go read it all for a good laugh - albeit a painful one, because I think he's more right than wrong.
I'm also having a lot of fun seeing the textbook conservatives and neocons in despair at Donald Trump's progress, and the progressive left's despair at Hillary Clinton's ditto. I continue to maintain that the former should now vote en masse for the Libertarian Party to register their protest, and the latter for the Green Party for the same reason. That would make the next few election cycles a whole lot more interesting. Let's get four parties into our political system, instead of two. Break the stranglehold!
Peter
4 comments:
A problem we who desire change face. American elections do not handle split decisions well. At least one state forces binary choice by only allowing the top two votegetters in the primarys as candidates in an election. Yes this can result in two candidates from the same party facing each other in the general election.
It has come to the point where very few people are voting "For". Instead, both parties have each found a candidate that members of the other party find utterly loathsome.
Thus, the Republicans absolutely have to vote for Trump least they be cursed with Hillary, and the Democrats are aghast at the idea of Trump, so they will forget the Bern and go with the Hill.
Of course, this shuts out the third parties, least you wind up with another Perot or Nader.
A previous article discussed why voters are angry. Very good stuff. I agree that most voters are angry with our government, both the "left" and the "right". The problem is that a "socialist" who is unhappy will support a more radical socialist, and a "conservative" who is unhappy will support a more radical conservative. The two sides get further apart because neither party is representing thier opinions of how things ought to be. Whomever wins (like the stupid bowl, there Will be winner, even if they are lousy)then tries to drag the country further into the cesspool (in the view of the other 50%). Its a divergent system that is becoming more and more unstable as time passes.
According to Gallup, in 2015 26% of US voters identified as Republicans and 29% identified as Democrats. 42% identified as independents. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are able to win a majority without a significant number of votes from people outside their respective parties. And while independents do not vote as a block, it's worth noting neither major party can win without a significant number of their votes. The realization the American people actually have the ability, should they choose to exercise it, to elect a president who is a member of neither party is, I submit, something both parties would rather remain a reality of which most people are unaware. To that end, those who are devoted to either of the two major parties present us with a false dichotomy. They do not, of course, say something like "there are only 2 political parties and you owe your allegiance to one or the other of them." That's far to easy to attack. Instead, we typically get some version of the following: "You can vote for whomever you wish, but voting for a third party candidate is the same as voting for (insert name of candidate in the other major party). America can't afford 4-8 more years of (insert person or major party name) policies. The stakes are just too high." The stakes are, indeed, high. What is at stake is who will control the nation, two political parties whose differences are largely more style than substance, or the people and states who are supposed to wield most of the power?
Post a Comment