Well here we are again. Once again the time for America to determine our national leader approaches. It seems appropriate that we take a look at this process, as it seems to have some very real problems.
In reality, local and state governments have far more direct impact on the lives of the population. But the big advertising dollars that go into a national campaign ensure that this particular position gets more notice (and a higher percentage of voters) than any of the “lesser” elected positions. Perhaps one day America will again wake up to the reality that ours was meant to be a “from the bottom up” government, meaning that the higher up the chain you go, the less impact and power that position has on the American people. This is the only way that a free society can exist. Period.
But since we have somewhere lost this previously apparent insight, I figure we have to start somewhere. And since the presidential election is ultimately the only elected position with “national appeal”, it seems an appropriate target.
Unfortunately for liberty and freedom, lawyers and big business have infiltrated and taken over the electoral process, and have turned the entire business into, well, a business. Elections occur and it is said at the end of the day that this one or that one got the majority vote. However, very few in this nation actually identify or endorse the victor of a presidential election. More often than not, we vote against a candidate instead of for one. In the present example, we basically have two viable candidates (G.W. Bush and John Kerry) and a spoiler (Ralph Nader). While there are lots of people on each side in support of their candidate, there are also many who simply are determined that the one they don’t like does not make it into office. A voter may, for example, vote for Bush not because they approve of his policy or ability, but because that voter feels that Kerry’s is far worse. Of course, there are many other candidates in the fray, but it is universally accepted that anyone outside the two-party system is not a viable candidate. Not wishing to “waste” a vote, the voter then decides to vote for the “lesser of two evils” instead of the candidate that actually reflects the voter’s viewpoint.
The idea that these two primary candidates are so incredibly far from each other ideologically is nothing more than media hype. Advertisement technology gets funded in a big way in America, and has become so advanced that those in possession of this technology can sway many millions of people one way or the other based on the scantiest points of fact.
Advertisers found early on that we would by this brand of soap because of the color of the package, or a key word or phrase, and began to build on this idea. Eventually, using demographic information and advanced computer software, this technology has reached the point to where the most basic information can yield plans of action that will sway huge masses of people. If you believe you must vote for one of the two major candidates then you will. So the first object of the game is to narrow down the possibilities (opponents) to the smallest possible number (in this case, 2). Once that is done, it is simply a matter of utilizing this advertisement technology to make your candidate more appealing than the other guy’s candidate. Everything was therefore relegated to the right or the left. You’re either on the right or the left, and this determines your “base”. The candidate that can appeal to the most voters wins the election. Having polarized the system in this way, the population, over time, has adopted one of the two “sides” in fairly equal amounts. This makes for some very close calls. This is another of many situations where it can be readily shown that statistical mathematics can only ever approximate reality. Math breaks down and is useless on a fundamental human level. See, most of us have varying viewpoints on the various issues of government policy, and place ourselves all along this “left-right” line of government philosophy. But because of the two party system, and the successful attempt at establishing this erroneous idea that you can “waste” a vote, only a very small portion of society actually ever sees representation. Moreover, it is arguably the least palatable portion; the center.
The politician lawyers simply take a side (left or right) and count on their “base”. This ensures that approximately half of the population will vote for them. The question now is where to be on this line (how “far” left or right). Since the lawyer has virtually assured the vote of the far left (or right, as the case may be) by virtue of the perpetuation of the “wasted vote” myth, he simply focuses on the center, becoming closer and closer in ideology to his opposition. Advertising technology, as previously stated, can multiply the perception of the smallest possible divergence, so it does not really matter how close in ideology the two candidates are.
As a result, Kerry is a Socialist and Bush is a fascist. Of course neither is the case, but we have been duped into arriving at this conclusion. We have taken two people, neither particularly inspiring or demonstrably adequate for the job, then “polarized” them and simultaneously eliminated all other options.
Both candidates are essentially “central” in ideology, yet we have been duped (again) into the reality that even though the center is not necessarily the majority of the nation, it is the only choice. It is often said that only when there is one side will tyranny rule in America. Well, there are two sides, but they are two sides of the same coin. There is no real choice for government representation in this nation. We continue to get the “Central Party” when many of us (on both sides of this fictitious “left-right” line) would rather see otherwise.
If only centrists voted for these centrist candidates, and everyone else voted in a manner conducive to their convictions, this would not be a problem. We need to end this myth of the “wasted vote”. The only wasted vote is a vote not cast. Both sides wish for fundamental change in one way or another. How is it that any could expect to change anything while continuing to vote for these mundane “go with the flow” candidates? Here’s an idea; vote the way you believe, even if it means casting a vote for someone you feel may not have a chance. The logic in this is simple. If you vote for your actual preferred candidate, they may not win and the centrist closest to your ideology may not because of people like you who refused to play this silly game of advertising and media control, but the result is just another centrist in office. They won’t mess up anything too badly over four years (the position simply doesn’t wield the kind of “all powerful” responsibility required for this) because they are more or less just like the guy that lost, and the one before. Regardless of who gets in, it will more or less be more of the same. Anyone buying into the media hype separating the differences in such broad manner are deluded and naïve in the extreme. Since therefore it doesn’t really matter which one gets the job, why vote for either one of them? Vote for someone that will address the issues you feel are important in a way that you agree with. With any luck, they will win and you will see you’re ideals presented on a national stage. The worst possible outcome is yet another mundane centrist with no need or desire to fundamentally improve anything.
Like most things, government exists in a constantly dynamic state. Its either improving or devolving. If the idea is to keep everything exactly as it is, progress is eliminated, and the only acting influence on government is detrimental. The result is constant devolution. This process is so gradual as to be virtually invisible to the cursory glance, but historically is the case in every system of government. We should as a nation address this problem and work to “form a more perfect union”. If devolution continues unchecked, the downfall of the government is inevitable. It may take a 100 years or a 1000, but its sure as death and taxes as they say. Why should we accept this perpetual cycle of freedom, oppression, revolution, and back to freedom again? Let’s make America the country that breaks the cycle.
Of course, as stated, it is on the local and state level that government really matters. If we could wreck this two party fallacy on more local levels, perhaps then we could address it on a federal level. The president may determine whether or not Istanbul likes us, but it’s the mayor of your town that determines whether or not your trash gets picked up. Your governor’s decisions decide the state of your children’s educations. The president’s actions have to go through a multitude of “OK channels” before he can do anything. Whoever you vote for, please just vote the way you want to vote and ignore this media garbage pulverizing the senses (and the sense) of America. The cost is just too high. Its not a center, its a rut. Let's get out of it.
