We know the establishment has already purchased their "top-tier" candidates for the coming election season, and we know the media has already trumpeted those purchases to the world, so that every other lobbyist has an idea where their money and efforts should be directed.
But of course, this isn't news. It's unfortunately the continuing state of play, even though the netizens of this blog used to cry loudly for the necessity of "People-powered politics", but apparently the win in the 2006 election cycle has dulled that type of dreamy idealism. It is, yet again, more important to "win" than it is to give power back to the people.
In the first part of this series in which I describe the principles of my libertarianism, I discussed the necessity of decentralization for the re-establishment of freedoms and their preservation. In this section I want to discuss the corrupting mechanic employed by party operatives and misguided partisan purists to string the average citizen along in their "two-party system" game.
Of course, Howard Dean is probably the best example of a "people-powered" candidate to this site. This is made all the more evidence by the fact that the establishment media politically assassinated him before the first primaries with a "yeeaaahhh" sound clip taken directly from the line in to soundboard of the mic he was using, instead of the contextual clip that showed him having to yell loudly into the mic because the crowd in the room was cheering that loud.
The establishment played the tape over and over again to delegitamize a people-powered candidate, and it was an obvious and violent act. I was quite disgusted by what I had witnessed at that point, even though my candidate was another people-powered candidate who received a similar drubbing, that candidate being Wes Clark, whom I supported from the Draft Clark initiative all the way through to the primary.
I remember generally considering myself a liberal at that point, even though the fissures were beginning to show themselves as I began to realize that liberalism generally embraced centralization, and that unfortunately always lead them to eventually support the establishment, even though the establishment would always crucify any attempt by a "people-powered" candidate to "Crash the Gate".
And yet, here we are in another time, and people aren't exactly excited about the current "pre-paid" establishment candidates of either side of this crooked two-party system. But the operatives and partisan purists are out in force again, feeding off of each other to once again carry out their corrupt scheme of centralization, destroying our freedom for their own profit.
But let's break down the entire mechanic of this corruption.
The establishment, comprised of corporations, special interests, and their lobbyists, purchases their "top-tier candidates" with large campaign donations from their PACS. These same candidates, after they fill out the instructions they are intended to by the establishment, will find jobs in the same establishment lobbying firms that paid them once they leave office.
Partisan purists are then prodded forward by paid-for party operatives to choose from these establishment candidates, the ones that are the "only ones that have a realistic shot of winning", or at least that is how they're billed by the establishment media. The partisan purists corrupt themselves into buying this meme, and then go forward like herded animals onto the doorsteps of everyday citizens a week of two before the election.
The other day, Matt Stoller wrote "where is the debate"? But what debate is to be had between individuals who have been paid off by the exact same establishment interests?
And of course, the partisan purists haven't decided to find their own "people-powered" anti-establishment candidate, either because they are afraid the individual will only ultimately be politically assassinated like Dean and Clark, or because they have bought into the notion that establishment candidates can somehow represent "the people", even though their paid-for status practically guarentees the opposite is true.
But so many people have apparently not caught on to the tricks played onto us by the establishment. Many of us were wondering, why are the campaigns beginning so early?
It's as though the establishment has come up with the appropriate metrics to measure how far ahead they have to get of the people to inhibit "people-powered" politcs from ever having a winning effect.
They've all "embraced the internet" because they're pandering to the idea that our movement was about the internet itself, and not a philosophy of grass-roots politics.
Unfortunately, the people have once again taken the bait, and will march the establishment's tune all the way to the ballot box.
The next part of this series will regard the most sacred principle I hold as a libertarian, the opposition to the use of force. Of course, I am talking about libertarian philosophy, which should never have a party, except maybe "Democratic-Republican".
I suppose I can find a principle for the idea behind this post. Any true candidate of the people would return any contribution that wasn't from an individual person. I know party operatives and purist partisans think that would be impractical, but then again, they appreantly have no incentive for dismantling the establishment, which indeed makes them corrupt and complicit.