But, what else is there we should know about them? Are they really different, and do they truly serve separate interests and can they? We know they claim to be about as different as they can be. They have people pushing brooms for both that get on TV, the radio, the internet and in the various forms of print media, claiming they are really different, that they aren't really that different, that they were really different, but aren't that different now or that they were really similar, but are really different now. Cast a wide net and reel in as many fish as you can. Have a panel with two or three Democrats and two or three Republicans and have each of the members switch it up giving somewhat different versions of what each is, and if they happen to contradict the stances they took last election season – hey they moved too. All the better to confuse you with.
It's as confusing as the idea diets for people that are perfectly healthy are necessary. It's as contradictory as the idea throwing up into toilet bowls, making ex-lax the dessert of choice or that heroin, crack and cigarettes instead of food are choices that make people truly confident when they look at themselves and assess themselves psychologically and as people. It's as hypocritical as the idea that industries designed to get children asking for facelifts, tummy tucks, weight loss camps, ex-lax or the right ways to vomit from an early age to get them started young, yet claiming to be nothing like tobacco companies or alcohol companies trying to advertise to kids, care about the health and well being of people they sell their products to. It's as bizarre as the notion that one body type for all women makes sense – whatever that type. Or as ludicrous as the idea such a notion is not just another form of trying to assert control over a woman's body and mind, and is no different than forcing them to feel ashamed if they choose not to fully cover up, that they are worthless if they don't bind their feet causing wrongly healed painful broken bones and infection or that they have to stay in the kitchen solely while refraining from educating themselves, because that is all women are good for, are to be ashamed inherently and are from birth irreparably polluted and filthy in their minds, bodies and their souls.
How can Democrats or Republicans try and claim they are different in reality as opposed to rhetoric? Where is this separation? In talk, yes, they are typically very different, but these folks are not separate ideological entities seeking to shape the nation through their conception of how best to change it. These are two faces of the same corporation. They are two large cogs in an industry and a business. Like the fashion/diet industries they rely wholly on each other to stay alive – albeit having a relationship of a different nature, but it is symbiotic, seeks to fool people through lies and deception, wants to make people dependent on them for their answers to the questions they themselves pose and could be said to go a step further.
Let's start with the place we see the differences held up to a national spotlight, at least most recently, that's the debates. There the candidates are on center stage saying, “I'm different this way, and he is different this way.” But, what are they really saying? After the election we see the aftermath of the “rumble in the jungle” presented to us in the media. A bloody slug fest, a tug of war.
Look behind the machinations of those debates and what we really see is two entities holding hands together and smiling at a successful series of events for their industry. In the years 1976, 1980 and 1984, the League of Women Voters, sponsored the debates, and was impartial and even allowed third parties to participate given a reasonable support level. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Women_Voters) Democrats and Republicans wanted something other than impartiality, and, together, they took matters into their own hands. “On October 2, 1988, the LWV's 14 trustees voted unanimously to pull out of the debates, and on October 3 they issued a press release condemning the demands of the major candidates' campaigns:
“The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates...because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public. —League President Nancy M. Neuman, LWV October 03, 1988”
“The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) began in 1987 by the Democratic and Republican parties to establish the way that presidential election debates are run between candidates for President of the United States. […] The organization, which is a nonprofit corporation controlled by the Democratic and Republican parties, has run each of the presidential debates held since 1988. The Commission is headed by Frank Fahrenkopf, a former head of the Republican National Committee, and former White House press secretary [under the Clinton administration] Michael D. McCurry. […] In 2000, the CPD established a rule that for a party to be included in the national debates it must garner at least 15% support across five national polls. This rule is considered controversial as most Americans tune in to the televised national debates and hear only the opinions of the two main parties instead of the opinions of the multiple other U.S. parties, including three others considered 'major' for having organization in a majority of the states and a couple dozen others considered 'minor'.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Debates)
Not only did the two parties ensure the hook sunk deep ensuring things went according to the way those parties exclusively wanted to see them go, as no other parties are on their board of directors, they then purposely increased the difficulty level for third parties and independents attempting to participate in our open system. They did this by placing harsh limits on parties outside of the Democrats and Republicans wishing to get in. In doing so, they thereby appointed themselves sole proprietors of our political system. Sorry America, but you better like Democrats and Republicans or will will force ourselves on you whether you like it or not – this despite the growing ranks of those calling themselves politically unaffiliated.
And regarding the media, sure channels can choose to put in other opinions, but what happens if a channel does it too often? What happens if they provoke the ire of the Democrat/Republican monopoly? What backlash will ensue? Will they have access to the same level of representatives? Will they have access to the same sorts of interviews? If Democrats and Republicans are so convinced they are right and their positions are right unto themselves respectively, why not let others into the debates? Has this business become that far removed from the business of serving the needs of the American people? What are they afraid will be pulled out of them laid bare for the world to view if other participate? What segment of America truly benefits from the dance? This year ... we will not find out. :D
To read about my inspiration for this article go to www.lawsuitagainstuconn.com.