Hellooooooooo!!!!!!
It's been awhile I realize...since the advent of Facebook and Twitter, my desire to express a string of thoughts in anything more than 150 characters has been at an all time low. Unfortunatley that means for some time, this particular website has been a haven for all the incredibly stupid shit I encounter on the web.
I'm not even going to bother trying to recap what's all happened since I last posted here...cos well, a lot of shit happened. Leaving it at that is probably doing it more justice than explaining everything in detail.
That said, one thing that has happened over the past couple months is that I've had an entire about-face change in how I view the political landscape in America. I've never been a rank and file Democrat or Republican, but always end up voting for one or the other based on which one I think will do less damage to the country. I voted for Obama in the last election. I think it is too early to tell whether or not he's doing a "good job" as he's got quite the mess to sort out right now.
That said, I can say with near certainty I won't be voting for him in 2012. I won't be voting for the Republican candidate either. I will never vote for either of those parties ever again. From now on, I will cast a vote for a 3rd party candidate. I hadn't done this in prior elections because that's perceived as a throwaway vote. I must admit, I found it a little arrogant and presumptuous that Democrats got mad at Ralph Nader when he ran because he would "steal votes from Obama". Well who's to say a Green party voter might have voted for John McCain? The problem is I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal. The fact of the matter is that neither the Democrats or Republicans represent my views. There ARE some third parties that do represent me, but unfortunately, the two party system we currently have completley shuts them out of the game.
As it stands, it's basically impossible for a 3rd party to run a candidate for president for two reasons. First, campaign funding has gotten so out of hand that unless you're Ross Perot, you simply can't compete with them. And since both parties are so prone to grooming career politicians, it's impossible for people in the private sector to even begin to compete with them. Take Barack Obama for example. This is a man who was elected by the state of Illinois to represent their interests in the senate. He spent the last year and a half prior to winning the presidency campaigning for a new job! All the while he collected a paycheck from the tax payers of Illinois. Can you imagine a private sector scenario where you could tell your boss you aren't going to come in to work for a year while you try to get a new job, but you expect your boss to pay you anyway? It wasn't always like this. When our country was founded, it was basically the norm to go to Washington and represent your country, and then go back to the private sector when the congress wasn't in session. There have been numerous parties to come and go in America (The Know Nothings, the Whigs, Bull Moose, etc...even the Republicans were a 3rd party when Abraham Lincoln won the presidency). The second reason is because the two parties have warchests SO large that they shut out everyone who would oppose them. The special interest groups that fund them know they have to play ball with Republicans or Democrats if they want their interests represented because in the end, those are the only two parties that will actually get elected. So you have all the big money from unions, lawyers, religious groups etc all funneling to Republicans or Democrats.
This is a problem for a number of reasons. First off, since each state has differing rules on what it takes to get on the ballot, unless you have representation in each state, it becomes essentially impossible to get a 3rd party on the ballot in each state. If you poll below 15% nationally (I believe?), you can't make it to the debates. This is higher than most states require which seems dumb since there's so many more ideas/views that come from the national level as opposed to a single state.
The biggest problem I see is campaign funding. Look at how much money Barack Obama raised (I don't mean to pick on him because he's a democrat, but he just so happens to be the President right now). If you really think you raise over 200 million dollars for a presidential campaign with no strings attached you are woefully naive. That money has strings attached to it. Lots of strings. It is expected Obama will enact legislation in favor of his constituency and veto things that aren't in their best interests. Bush was the same way. So was Clinton and the Bush before that. Every elected official who happens to be a Republican or Democrat operates in this way. You don't rise to the top of those parties without acting that way. The special interest groups that account for the bulk of the donations (and no, he didn't raise the lions share of that from nickels and dimes from his website...really now) didn't contribute that money because it gives them a warm and fuzzy feeling. Ever wonder why mal practice and tort reform aren't mentioned in the "sweeping health care reform"? When trial lawyers constitute a large portion of funding that put you in office, you don't bite the hand that feeds. This is bad for America because malpractice lawsuits are major reason healthcare is so expensive (Doctors have to insure their businesses). Ask any Canadian how sue-happy they think the United States is.
All of this leads me to my point. We live in a two party dictatorship. We have one more choice than the people in the Soviet Union did. For 28 years, there either a Bush or a Clinton in/around the White House. Both of these parties are entirely funded/propped up by special interests groups representing religion and corporations in America. The following is Benito Mussolini's definition of Fascism (a subject he should know from whence he speaks):
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."
Well when these candidates are essentially bought by corporations that fund lobbyists and special interest groups that get them into office, isn't that essentially what we have in America?
I don't think any one individual is at fault here. I think Barack Obama is a very intelligent invidiual, however he's still part of the big machine. Who could possibly think that Democrats and Republicans don't put their own respective party's welfare in front of the nation? The last year has been nothing but a power struggle played out in rhetoric. Take the bailout funding for example. When Bush went and asked for a bailout, all the democrats voted against it and said it would ruin the economy. When Obama essentially asked for the same thing a few months later, all the republicans voted against it because they thought Obama's plan would ruin the economy. It's all about keeping the other guy down. The only solution I see here is more parties. We need serious campaign reform. Sitting politicians shouldn't be campaigning for a new job while they are holding an existing office. Religious organizations should forfeit their tax exempt status the minute they contribute money to a political campaign. You participate in the process...you pay your share just like everyone else.
So as a result, I've decided my vote is best cast for the other guy. It's my way of saying I want to participate in the election process, but I am casting a vote of no-confidence in the two party system. Do I think it'll fix/change anything? Probably not..but maybe someday enough people will come around and stop voting for these two parties so we can be by the people and for the people again.
