Saturday, September 19, 2009

The freedom that never expands.

I've been going over the freedoms that have been gained over the last century, especially in the US. I mean, we gained great freedom in communications. At the beginning of the century, the only form of "reliable" communication the average citizen had was mail. Well, conversation if they were withing walking distance. Now, we have TV, Cable, the Internet (my favorite), newspapers (my least favored). Ok, there were books, but those are mainly stories that tell themes of an author, so for just mainstream communication, it was the mail in the beginning of the century. Transportation, there was mainly either the ship, horse or train. Today we have our very own car which replaced the horse, and if you really need to get somewhere far and/or fast, you have airplanes which allows us to travel anywhere in the world in a matter of a day or two. Compared that to the eighty days that impressed those in the 19th century. Foods to eat, beverages to drink, games to play, ok kidding a bit on the last one. Then the more serious ones, native Americans saw the end of their oppressions, African Americans saw the end of the government's backing of white racist in obtaining their civil rights that were lacking when they got their freedom from slavery, ever expanding to enter the country, thanks to computer technology as well as transportation. Even the disabled got their own freedoms and special rights from the ADA though the lawyers have exploited it to their advantage. However, there is one freedom that hasn't expanded, and if anything is contracting to a singular, during all this progress: political parties.

It wasn't always the case. During the early years of our republic, there were differing parties. The Federalist (Washington's party) were hamming it out with the Whigs. Later the Federalist were replaced by the more democratic methods, Democratic party. More democratic because at the time much of our election of leaders were done by the House, which were the only branch of government that was directly elected, thus a party that wanted the elections to be completely elected by direct vote of the people, thus why they were called the democrats. Andrew Jackson was the first Democratic party candidate and was the first elected by a national direct election. Later as the Whigs lost influence during the slavery crisis and the abolitionists gained political power, with the election of Abraham Lincoln, the Republican party was born. Republican because the party was about preserving the Republic while ending slavery. That was in 1860 and we've had these two parties ever since.

The trouble now is that both parties, with a few minor differences, are parcel of the same mold. They've become for the most part a single party, internationalists. When was the last time either party stood up for America and her principles? When was the last time any one them was proud to American or have they been apologists. When Bush was elected I had high hopes that conservationism would finally be back in government as it was during Reagan. Turns out other than taxes, national defense, and a couple of supreme court nominees, Bush was exactly like the democrat party. He tried selling out our security to UAE and China. He expanded government far great than anything Clinton could do in his wet dreams. Gave the internationalists more power over us by selling out economy. Expand China's power and economic reach. Refuse to defend conservatives in the Culture war and actually blamed conservatives for the great divide. He did more to further the goals of the socialist, which is what the Democratic party has become, than any President in history and yet the liberals hated him with a passion for it. Yet now that Obama has come and is Bush on steroids, they love him. Yes, he's planning to raise our taxes, and give our enemies our lives, but otherwise, he's just the same as Bush but fourfold.

What's really surprising to the Democrats is that the people didn't support Bush on his spending and social policies so that the fact that they're doing the same thing in quads and the people don't support the same policies because THEY'RE doing it. Now, as most people don't care for either party as the low approval ratings of congress shows, yet the bitter fighting with the stupidest and asinine arguments go on mainly that their guy did it and it was wrong but now it's good because our thug is doing it. Can anyone tell the difference in the parties other than which thug is actually in charge. It seems that the difference is in name only and in the end the only ideas that are in conflict is who's in charge. This is why the two party (sigh) system is killing us.

The people of this country is mad as hell and aren't taking it anymore. This has given me hope that the people may finally be waking up and taking their country back. However, as everyone is on the vote them out mantra, the old adage of hate the congress but love my congressman comes to mind. Everyone knows the problems with congress and their power grabs by the parties, but their guy is he exception. Those that think Nancy Pelosi is going to be voted out. San Franciscans are all for these policies. It's a city of psychopaths, so her job is safe. Those in liberals states, although New York is starting to crack, they're going to vote them in. Those people support the socialist agenda. You think the dumbest and most brain dead people on the planet, California, aren't going to re-elect those bitter bitties to the senate. It would be a stunner if they get defeated because there are too many illegals, dead, etc. as well as stupid liberals that vote here. What's worse, voting for the Republicans (or Democrat if there's a RINO in the seat) is that are we really going to get anything different or just different thugs struggling to be in charge? If history of the latter half of this century is any indication, it's going to be the latter.

Third parties aren't very well received here. Our system, unfortunately, caters to the lowest common denominator which is dichotomous in their thinking. That their is only two choices and one will always be good and one will always be bad and a third choice is a waste of one's vote. As long as we continue to have this mind set, our freedom to choose in the candidates aren't really going to change. Shoot, such a threat this is to both parties that this administration is attempting to label anyone that supports such a third party as a threat to national security, as a potential terrorist, as a potential mass killer. This highlights the need for such and those that argue that having such a plurality in our government would inert our political process such that nothing gets done. Well, tell me what's going on now is progress. Tell me that this two parties that act as one is expanding or contracting our freedoms. Tell me that restricting our freedom of candidates to expand more than an us vs. them mentality is giving us better government or worse. They know the answer to that and that's why third parties get hammer so badly. They don't want their power entrenchment to be threaten. They would have to actually work for the people, to debate, analyze and actually read what they're passing and answer to the people, not their cozy little group. Perhaps the election of Obama has been the event that his country needed to expand her freedom. For the first time since 1858, people are asking the question: why are we so limited on our choices and why are we tolerating unacceptable institutions in our society. If Obama does nothing else but galvanize the people to say enough of these restrictions on our freedom, we're mad as hell and we're going to change and break this entrenchment of power. Then he could go down as the greatest President ever. Just not for the reason he envisioned.

No comments: