OPINION – For all its pageantry, pomp, and stirring speeches, last week’s Republican National Convention has put to rest any question of how far party leaders will go to maintain their power.
GOP committee leaders successfully pulled off a power grab that effectively allows them to strip state delegates of their status for any reason, and to replace them with delegates of the RNC’s choosing. The prospect of working within the Republican Party to restore good government has been decisively nullified.
One might as well choose to fight racism by joining the Ku Klux Klan and working for change inside the organization.
Those who remain mired in the two-party mindset still insist that voting for the lesser-of-two-evils this election will somehow produce different results. But 150 years of history says they are wrong.
Freedom fighter Kyle Roberts has written two excellent articles on the damage done by the two-party system in which he brings up some powerful points worth consideration.
For instance, what do the following things have in common? Unconstitutional wars and interventionism; a convoluted progressive or graduated income tax; centralization of credit and money in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank that enjoys an exclusive monopoly; free education for all children in government-operated public schools; redistribution of wealth through government bailouts; excessive and unconstitutional regulations of business and private life; violation of the Bill of Rights through various laws establishing a national security police state.
In addition to containing many of the planks of the Communist Manifesto, all of the above policies, which negatively impact freedom, are supported by the two dominant parties.
Roberts asks: “When was the last time any of these were openly discussed on either of the two party’s platforms, in a public debate, or in our legislative chambers?”
It’s time to face some difficult truths. Despite some notable differences between Romney and Obama, neither candidate is articulating a clear ideology of personal freedom and limited government. This is because they do not represent the voice of the people, but rather the voice of the parties that work to get them elected.
The dominant parties have shown themselves to be perfectly willing to do whatever it takes to ensure that the voice of the people, in any degree, is not allowed to interfere with their lust for power. Why would any reasonable person sanction such overbearing conduct by submissively casting their vote for the candidate these parties insist they must support?
Most of us wish to arrive at the same destination of freedom and prosperity for all, but without adjusting our current direction, it’s not going to happen. The current two-party system has proven violently resistant to any change in direction.
The only way to effect the kind of course correction that is needed is to begin by changing our thinking about voting.
Writer Melanie M. Johnson points out that, “contrary to popular belief, voting is not a pragmatic activity. Rather, it is a supremely ideological one. It is the best opportunity most of us ever get to voice our beliefs, our values, and our life philosophy. Following your conscience is never wrong, ever. If enough people understand this, real change can and will happen eventually.”
Instead of fighting the same myopic battles each election cycle, it’s necessary to take a longer-range view of reclaiming the power of our vote.
Writer Stephen Palmer does a masterful job of differentiating between short-term tactics and long-range strategy.
He describes short-term tactics as follows:
- Public, energetic, and angry marches and demonstrations
- Passionate, vitriolic, and partisan commentary that preaches to the crowd and riles the base but fails to win new supporters
- Literal, logical, and personal argumentation
- Directing energy primarily at getting individual political candidates elected
But long-term strategies are noticeably different:
- Personal, lifelong, classical education in the quiet of our homes
- Respectful, thoughtful, open-minded discussion with people across the whole spectrum of belief, with the intention of winning hearts and minds, rather than simply spewing passion or proving how smart and “right” we are
- Symbolic, metaphorical, and artful story-telling and persuasion
- Directing energy toward reforming education, building families and communities, and becoming successful entrepreneurs
If the two dominant parties are running roughshod over our freedoms and preventing our voices from being heard, we need only withdraw our consent and cooperation to break their hold over us.
Bryan Hyde is a news commentator and co-host of the Perspectives morning show on Fox News 1450 AM 93.1 FM. The opinions stated in this article are his and not representative of St. George News.
Email: [email protected]
Twitter: @youcancallmebry
Copyright St. George News, SaintGeorgeUtah.com LLC, 2012, all rights reserved.
I agree with everything said except the last paragraph. Unless those withholding their cooperation and consent come together to somehow build a party or movement that competes with the Republicans and the Democrats then those two will continue to divide offices and power between them. The winner is the candidate who gets 51-percent of the vote, whether that’s 51-percent of 100 million votes or 51-percent of 100 votes
@ Curtis The popular vote doesn’t win an election. The prehistoric and outdated electoral college system can change the popular vote, unlikely but can happen!
Change is most effective when such is mandated through consensus building rather than through predatory fearmongering. The latter is used effectively to sway public opinion but seldom has any lasting effect. This authors manipulative use of terms like “running over freedoms” and “planks of the Communist Manifesto” are sad excuses for the real information we all need in order to be better consumers of political rhetoric. I fear that articles like this will only help to obfuscate truth and pour gas on the flames of ignorance that embroil the current political landscape. This article includes poor analysis, poor choice of words, dubious source material and is demonstrative of all that is lacking in news media today.
@Robert, I’m with Cale, explain a little please. Thanks
Robert,
Which truth do you fear this article will obfuscate? What type of ignorance embroils the current political landscape? I ask because I would like to understand your point of view.
I believe that the far-right and the far-left may have “supremely ideological” motives in the voting booth, however the people in between voters or not see the election process as political sports and they want their team to win at any cost.
I have family members and neighbors that favor one party over another and never vote themselves.
They could not tell you the names of office holders today, but are full of criticism base on hearsay.
There is only one consideration and that is which party is willing to follow the rule of law, our Constitution. If neither then how can we vote for either as we would be aiding and abeting treason.
It is time to expect no less than politicians, every one, to keep that oath that they make to the American citizen and to God when they place that hand on our Bible. The rules are there in the enumerations as to what the President and the Congress are authorized. Those laws should be strictly followed or changed through the legal Amendment process.