Democrat v. Republican = False Choice

As the federal government makes war to bring “democracy” to other countries, the irony is that it has cut free of democracy itself. The Republicrats have a lock on the system. The voters have no choice. False choices are not free choices... It’s Labor Day, 2006, and the mainstream media is already busy trying to stir up interest in the midterm elections. Many conservatives think the media is trying to help the Democrats wrest a Congressional majority away from the Republicans. But what I see is the media trying to prop up the electorate’s belief in the legitimacy of our Republicrat government. That belief is in jeopardy, More Americans than ever before are seeing through the charade that is “the two party system.” A recent Associated Press piece wonders whether the Democrats can capture part of the Midwest from the Republicans. But all the article shows is that many of the region’s voters don’t care who wins. They are disgusted with the Bush-led Republicans, and reject out of hand the prospect of voting for Democrats. They realize that neither party in our so-called two party system offers them anything different from the status quo. When it comes to issues that affect the lives of the American people - war, jobs, gas prices, crime and our culture wars - the Republicans and Democrats govern as a single party. Regardless of what their party platforms may say, they have a working agreement on major issues, e.g., the Middle East, immigration, “free trade,” and secular values. They compete against each other only for the limited supply of spoils for themselves and the special interests that support them. And given that the recent reelection rate for Congressional incumbents is about 98%, there’s not much competition. When the Democrats and Republicans in Congress vote overwhelmingly for the same things, what difference does it make who wins the election? For example, both parties support the Middle Eastern War with a vengeance. In 2004, with public dissatisfaction with the Iraq War growing, the United States Senate voted unanimously (100-0) to support a UN resolution condemning Iran’s nuclear program and to “take whatever action is necessary” to deal with it. Individual Republicrats, across their incredibly narrow political spectrum, all chant in unison for war against Iran. “Liberal” Republicrat Hillary Clinton says: “I don't believe you face threats like Iran and North Korea by outsourcing it to others and standing on the sidelines. [...] A nuclear Iran is a danger to Israel, to its neighbors and beyond.” “Moderate” Republicrat John McCain says: "There's only one thing worse than the United States exercising a military option, and that is Iran having nuclear weapons." That doesn’t leave much room for “Conservative” Republicrat George W. Bush, but he does his fellow Republicrats one better - the nuclear option. Bush was asked if his administration was planning for the possibility of a nuclear strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. "All options are on the table," he said. Even today, the last thing the Republicrats are concerned about are the 2974 American soldiers who have died in Iraq, and the almost 20,000 wounded. Neither are they concerned about a comparatively trivial matter - the gas and oil prices driven upwards by the Middle Eastern War. Together, they are all off planning that war’s Iranian phase. Or consider the loss of American jobs. “Free trade” and the federal government’s monetary policies are outsourcing manufacturing and even service jobs to foreign countries. But the Republicrats don’t disagree about who should be the new skipper at the helm of the Fed or Treasury. The Republicrat Senate recently confirmed the Fed Chairman, Ben Bernanke, and the new Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson, by unrecorded and nearly unanimous voice votes. Financial analysts from India, where American jobs are going, welcome the Republicrats’ new money masters, but American voters don’t have a choice in the matter. In 1999, the Economic Policy Institute credited Clinton and a “bipartisan coalition” with passing NAFTA [North American Free Trade Agreement] and in 2005 Bush worked overtime to secure the passage of CAFTA [Central American Free Trade Agreement]. No matter which branch of the Republicrats wins control of Congress in 2006, or the White House in 2008, is anyone betting against SAFTA [South American Free Trade Agreement] of HEFTA [Hemispheric Free Trade Agreement]? Immigration is out of control thanks to Republicrat policies in effect since the “Immigration Reform Act” of 1965. As illustrated in Patrick J. Buchanan’s new book, State of Emergency, immigration is responsible for a disproportionate share of the recent increase in violent crime. But no matter how much immigration threatens public safety, it’s obvious American voters can’t change anything. In the so-called “culture wars,” Bush himself recently personally approved the over the counter sale of the abortion pill. It’s hard to blame that result on the Supreme Court. With Hillary Clinton cheering Bush’s decision, it’s also hard to call either wing of the Republicrat party pro-life or pro-family. Every once in a while, an individual Republicrat breaks ranks with his party on its policies. When he does, he finds himself alone, stigmatized as “controversial” and often facing a well-financed primary opponent. Examples would be John Murtha’s opposition to the Middle Eastern War or Tom Tancredo’s opposition to immigration. “Third parties,” which in reality would be a second party, have been unable to crack the Republicrat stranglehold on our government. Billionaires like Ross Perot, who opposed NAFTA, have tried and failed. So have brilliant men like Patrick Buchanan, who for years have led opposition to the Middle Eastern War, “free trade” immigration and abortion. If the wealthy or brilliant can’t use a third party to reform the current system, what hope is there for the rest of us? As the federal government makes war to bring “democracy” to other countries, the irony is that it has cut free of democracy itself. The Republicrats have a lock on the system. The voters have no choice. False choices are not free choices. Americans bear some responsibility for this state of affairs. Voters are not voting for the candidate they like; they are voting against the candidate they hate. For too long, voters have been content to pick from the “lesser of two evils.” The lesser evil is still evil. And if we’re voting for evil, how can we be surprised when we get an evil government? The only solution is for Americans to stop supporting their corrupt federal government. I view the current disenchantment if not disgust of the American voter as a positive development. As revolutionaries say, “the worse it gets, the better it gets.” As things continue to get worse, at some point, Americans will stop volunteering to become part of the federal government’s war machine, and start a tax revolt against the parasites in Washington D.C. And only when that day finally comes may things finally start to get better. X - In Hoc Signo Vinces Luke Exilarch - luke@eXilemm.com September 4, 2006 (Labor Day) To print this page, click here...