One Party
State
Charlie Earl
OK….please
explain to me why the cherished “two-party system” is so precious when our
money, property and liberty are being consumed by both parties when they are in
power? One would think that two parties would mean that there were stark
differences between them thus offering the voters clear-cut philosophical
options. Instead… we have the “Me party” and the “Me too party.” What a crock.
Whatever differences exist are merely matters of degree and nuance. They appear
to share the same goals for this great nation, but differ only slightly on the
vehicles for achieving them. In a homogeneous society such minor differences
would not be all that remarkable, but in the caterwauling cacophony of our
nation today, how can we function and prosper with a single-track statist
mindset as our sole national vision?
People who
adamantly support the purity of the present two-party system are somewhat like
those who live in a household with an abusive alcoholic. As the episodes
increase in intensity and frequency, the family attempts to accommodate the
abuser, forgive the abuser and shield the abuser. As time goes on, however, the
compliant victims begin to understand that there are but two sensible responses
to an abuser. One must either flee from him or confront her. Any other response
merely prolongs the inevitable tragic outcome. So it is with our dominant two
parties….their oligarchy has fostered massive abuses on our liberty and our
property. In league they have developed a monstrous government apparatus that
will collapse of its own weight but only after devouring our wealth and our
liberty.
Why is it
that after nearly 160 years of the same two-party rule that has led to decay in
our federal republic so many voters feel compelled to support the status quo?
Perhaps the Soviet Union would still exist if only the Politburo had the wisdom
to divide into two nearly identical factions of the Communist Party. The hungry
and discontented citizens may have been mollified a few years longer by the
false choices presented by their statist leaders. False choices…..ah! there’s
the rub. Their rhetorical gamesmanship differs, but the two old parties offer
little real choice for voters. Some of you will insist that there is a yawning
difference between them because without one party to apply brakes to the
other….things could be much worse. So then, I ask why does the defending party
that introduces legislation this is a watered-down version of the original to
prove that its “compassionate,” “fair,” or any number of bogus reasons for
advancing a statist agenda? Either path steals our property and restricts our
freedom, so how can one be better than the other in absolute terms? The
differences are matters of degrees while the outcomes are similar.
Some think
we over simplify when we claim the two old parties are similar. A Thoroughbred
is sleek and fast. A Clydesdale is big and strong, but any 3 year old can
identify each of them as a “horsey.” The differences are ones of scale and
purpose, but they are too similar to be considered different. Knights rode
Clydesdales into battle, and Thoroughbred offspring have pulled buggies in
Amish country. Two different horses or parties, but in the end…..basically the
same. So are our representatives of the two old parties comparable to horses,
you may ask? Of course not, or rather not to be confused with the front end of
the equines. One final metaphor may illustrate why our two party system is
actually two slightly different wings of one party.
If you are
familiar with football, you may know that the game is played on a field that is
approximately 53 yards wide with out-of-bounds lines indicating the field of
play. Running down the field, straddling the center are two series of short
lines at one-yard intervals. Those are called “hash lines or hash markers.”
When a play ends to the outside of a hash line, the ball is placed on the
nearest hash marker for the next play to begin. If a team continually runs or
throws to the left despite how the defense reacts, every play during a specific
drive or series will begin on the left hash mark. Our national will and our
national destiny are resting on the left hash mark. All that is required for
changing the position of the hash marks is an alteration of the rules, and the
two parties write the rules. Given the history of their compromises and
collusion, we may be playing near the out-of-bounds sideline very soon….with
little room for maneuvering.
Charlie Earl
No comments:
Post a Comment