If we were to posit that the two current major political parties are in fact nothing more than two sides of the same corporate coin, working in harmony to promote the interests of commerce over the needs of society, where would that leave us?
No worse off than we already are at the moment, which is a pretty sad statement to make in itself.
Some say we need a third party, a new party that will be more responsive to the needs of `progressives' such as our humble selves.
Yet there already are `alternative' movements out there such as the greens, the socialists and the libertarians which would at the outset make our new party not third but sixth in the line of those who feel disenfranchised by the system competing for voter sympathy.
Given the political disasters of the past thirty years one would think a new party would be a lead pipe cinch to win wide support...but that hasn't happened, has it?
Third or alternative parties are hardly new nor, given our savage economic history, has the ground been any more or less fertile than it currently is as far as being an ideal climate for change.
Why is it third parties have such a hard time gaining traction?
Let's set aside the fact that most alternative parties are focused on a narrow range of issues which don't enjoy wide voter support and look at the mechanics of change.
Running for office is expensive. This is the second barrier an alternative party has to breach, fundraising. What's the first? Creating a viable platform that will attract mainstream support.
In order to attract sufficient campaign contributors the first act needs to be one of successfully addressing the issues that concern mainstream voters.
No one wants/can afford to throw away money on a losing proposition. A platform that fails to offer viable solutions to the most pressing problems faced a majority of voters is worthless.
Once you've licked the platform problem you need to get the word out. This presents a two-edged sword because if the media you pay to advertise for you doesn't endorse the solutions you put forth they're going to take your money while they gun you down not just with their editorial section but on their front page.
Not only do our two main political parties work for the corporate interests, the media is owned by them also.
So `solving' our economic problems in a way that puts even a small portion of the burden back where it belongs, on the engines of commerce, is likely to come under vicious attack by the corporate owned media.
Let's suppose that despite the media's best efforts the platform moves forward and gains popular support. The contributions come rolling in and there's a groundswell of support.
Victory is within our grasp, right?
Don't start counting your chickens just yet...
There's the small matter of running fifty-one successful senatorial races over a period of six years and close to three hundred successful congressional races over the same period before you can even think about instituting your reform agenda.
Six years where the powers that be will be undercutting your efforts at every turn and handing you defeat after defeat on both the house and senate floor.
In six years time the public that supported your initial platform will be calling you the `loser' party that can't get anything done...
Then there's the candidates themselves that must remain faithful to the cause while being offered all manners of gifts and powerful posts...in exchange for their loyalty.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
In six years half of your champions will have defected to the corporate side and your third party will have accomplished nothing...'cept give a huge chunk of change to the already fat corporate media.
As you can see the deck is stacked against any new party seizing control in less than three (very long) years.
Let's suppose for a minute that by some overlooked flaw in the electoral calendar it was somehow possible for a new party to get a majority elected in a single election.
The `old timers' that sit on the most powerful committees would pull seniority on the newcomers as well as filibuster every proposed change that went against their corporate benefactors.
Then we need to consider how business would `react' to a government it no longer owned...you think the economy is bad now, the massive lay-offs and huge price increases they'd inflict on the public (because they can) may well require your new party to declare martial law!
Let's switch back to the candidates for a minute. Since government is a law making body a good majority of those who run for office do so on their `legal' background.
The legal community is somewhat of a club and who puts out the bulk of highly paid legal work...business!
So if you need to be a lawyer to gain credibility with the voters and lawyers have a vested interest in caring for the needs of their deep-pocketed clients, you can see a little conflict of interest arising at the get-go!
So we run non-lawyers and toss them into the arena of legal wrangling, which would be very much like tossing them into a pit of lions.
In short good citizen it's not possible to use the system to fix the system. The deck is stacked against the non-investor class regardless of how you feel about them.
Yet without change our society will tear itself apart, quite needlessly.
Hell of a fix to be in, is it not?
Without justice there can be no peace and without peace there can be no prosperity and without prosperity there can be no freedom.
There is a way to deliver our children from evil but that `way' resides outside the box.
Thanks for letting me inside your head,
Gegner