"HEDGES: But could it go down and down, and what we end up with is a form of neofeudalism, a rapaciously wealthy, oligarchic elite with a kind of horrifying police state to keep us all in order?
HUDSON: This is exactly what happened in the Roman Empire."
Assuming Bernie Sanders doesn't win the oligarchy's democratic party nomination for President of the Empire, I see two options for those that won't vote for Hillary "the War Criminal" Clinton or Donald "He's One of Them for Gawd's Sake" Trump, although it looks like it's going to be Cruz now. Trump has simply worn out his welcome, his big fat mouth has done him in. This is also assuming Bernie Sanders does not decide to run as an independent as he promised and endorses Hillary "the War Criminal" Clinton as he's inferred.
Get behind third party candidates or boycott the national election.
The reason why I say "assuming" Bernie Sanders does or doesn't do the above is because if Sanders does win the nomination or run as a third party candidate, then most of the left will devote their time, effort and money on his run against the republican nominee. Citizen activism would remain in election mode until November, significantly hampering any chances at a progressive third party effort or an election boycott. Just the way the ruling class wants it.
They're two very different things with two very different goals. Voting third party seeks to make a statement against the two party duopoly as a sort of protest vote. The goal is to join others to show our political leaders their dissatisfaction with the duopoly and perhaps push them in the direction they want on issues. Some actually believe they can use third parties to slowly penetrate the duopoly's hold and sway political arguments and decisions that way. The evidence indicates that's largely a pipe dream.
Even if it were possible, the bottom line is the political system we live under is an oligarchy controlled by a plutocracy. It's been scientifically proven. We have 535 people who supposedly "represent" 330 million people. That's not democracy, that's by definition an oligarchy, a small group of people who make the decisions, rules and laws for everyone else.
It's always going to be that way until we change the system. Voting for third parties is simply trying to participate in an oligarchic system, a corrupted and rigged one at that.
I find most people who have voted most of their lives disagree with an election boycott, some quite vehemently. But turnout for elections has been declining with 2012 tallying an historically low mark of 37%. That's 63% of eligible voters that did not vote. In a democracy that's called a "super majority". So clearly a boycott would not be anathema to a large percentage of Americans. They basically already do it. The same pattern is playing out in other western countries whose political systems have been captured and controlled by the plutocracies.
Those against a boycott argue that it will just be chalked up to apathy and accomplish nothing. Like voting for congress and President accomplishes anything. Or they argue that voting third party sends a better message. They say that last election proves it, even when 63 percent of eligible voters do not vote, no one notices.
Of course no one will notice if it's done it silently, if it's done without organization and effort. People are willing to knock on doors until their feet bleed to get other people to vote for their favorite politicians. Obviously a boycott won't work unless it's organized and publicized to a degree that it could create the conditions for changing the political system. The goal would have to be specific, a changing of the political system and the method of boycott would have to be common and transferable to all participating citizens, particularly those already de facto boycotting.
If more people decide to vote third party or compromise their morals by voting lesser evil, what does that accomplish? Many progressives and liberals will vote for Jill Stein of the Green Party. Many libertarians will vote for another third party and many conservatives will vote for whatever other parties are out there. Each third party will get anywhere from .01 to 1.5 percent of the vote, either Clinton or Trump (or Cruz) will become President and we'll be FUBAR again for four more years until the oligarchy lets us play again.
Voting third party certainly isn't an avenue to change the political system and again, the political system is so rigged that third parties have no chance or at best present a course of action that would take decades to have any significant impact in Congress. Check out the number of third party politicians at the national level since WWII - 4. That's four third party Congressional representatives in the last seventy years.
So it depends on what you want, starting with democracy itself. Do you want democracy? If so, then this current system will never provide that. Do you really want Power to the People? This is where it must be said, "be careful what you ask for", like your Grandma used to say. Democracy isn't easy, it requires effort and it's got it's own set of pros and cons and certainly isn't perfect. If that's what people want then we have to reject the current system and demand a new one.
Or are you satisfied with an oligarchy but want a new and improved oligarchy? Then voting for Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein might be the better option. Perhaps after another seventy years we could have four more third party national representatives.
Looking down the road a question to be asked is "how much longer can this national representative political system of 535 representatives last in this country"? Forever? Two hundred years? One hundred? Unless you answer forever, then you're in effect admitting that eventually it should be replaced. If that's the case, why wait one hundred years? How much worse can it get than to have an oligarchy controlled by a plutocracy waging war across the planet, funneling all the wealth to the top 1% and enacting a complete full spectrum dominance police state in the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave?
Why wait for democracy, why wait for a system that represents all the people instead of one that represents the wealthy and powerful?
As soon as the possibility came on the horizon, I thought a Clinton vs. Bush election contest would be a perfect time to challenge the system. Now it turns out it will be Clinton vs. Trump/Cruz which is the same thing if not worse. The symbolism of electing one person to make decisions for 330 million people with the choice between a de factor war criminal and a narcissistic lying billionaire should turn the stomach of anyone with any sense of personal freedom on this planet. This is a situation any self respecting human should reject at hand. It is time for freedom.
No comments:
Post a Comment