If the two-party system is the disease, political independence is the cure.

At Townhall, radio entertainer Michael Medved reveals the thoroughly reactionary character of duopoly ideology in a piece arguing that "the only way to beat Obamanism is to elect more Republicans." Ironically, this is the exact same logic by which Democrats came to power over the last four years, hypnotizing liberals, progressives and even moderates with the propagandistic mantra stating that "the only way to defeat Bushism is to elect more Democrats." The duopoly system of government, the organized exploitation of the people of the United States by its miniscule political class, reproduces itself not with positive programs but by a process of dialectical reaction. Medved's piece makes this perfectly clear. His position is determined first and foremost in negative reaction to a fantasy of Democratic strategy and psychology:
An internally divided, cynical conservative movement scares big government liberals far less than a hopeful, united coalition that emphasizes common principles rather than shortcomings or minor disagreements . . . When activists and media personalities say we hate both major parties equally, and the Republicans are no better than the Democrats it doesnt scare the liberals in power it reassures them. When Democrats hear conservatives running down the GOP, they take the conservatives less seriously, not more so a political ideology without an institutional home or a guaranteed place on the ballot looks far less formidable than a major party that still commands vast resources of money and organization. [Emphasis added.]
This is essentially nothing more than a veiled form of the old lesser-of-two-evils argument that duopolists have utilized to dupe the people of the United States into supporting the political status quo for decades. However, reading the piece, one begins to suspect that it is Medved the duopolist shill who is afraid, and he's not afraid of Democrats. He's afraid of voters declaring their independence from the duopoly charade.
If the public fails to elect GOP candidates for the Senate, the House, governorships, state legislatures and, ultimately, the presidency there is simply no way to derail the leftist agenda that menaces liberty and prosperity. Many sincere patriots will object to this formulation, insisting that we must elect more conservatives, not just more Republicans.
It is thus that Medved spends a significant amount of time arguing against third party and independent activism, and berates "disgruntled conservatives who irrationally resist the iron logic of electing Republicans as the only counterweight to Obamanism," concluding, "no third party in the history of the nation has ever won success on a national basis." Given both his historical fatalism and his incomprehensible loyalty to party, Medved would have made a fine Bolshevist.

Let's consider a practical example for the application of his strategy: the upcoming special election in NY's 23rd congressional district, a three-way race between Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava, Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman and Democratic candidate Bill Owens. Medved's duopolist strategy would have conservatives vote for liberal Republican Scozzafava over the conservative Conservative Hoffman and the conservative Democrat Owens.

Ultimately, and despite Medved's hysterical reactionism, like Bush's undivided Republican government, Obama's undivided Democratic government is little more than a symptom of the disease ailing US politics: the two-party system and the reactionary ideology of duopoly that sustains it. Independence is one potential cure.


Samuel Wilson said...

Duopoly apologists have conflicted attitudes toward their preferred parties. Conservatives often argue as if the Republican party rightly belongs to them, and owes them ideological fidelity, but Medved shows the other side of the coin, arguing in effect that conservatives owe unconditional fidelity to the Republican party. In either case there's an assumption that the GOP is somehow the natural and only vehicle for conservative aspirations, rather than the deceptively convenient tool it really is. Medved himself demonstrates that he is more interested in power than principle, in scaring liberals (if not beating them)rather than inspiring conservatives.

Paul Kroenke said...

Flattery will get you nowhere, Damon. Or is it everywhere?

d.eris said...

Wherever it goes, I'm not in a rush.

Regarding Sam's point . . . the same could be said of the relationship between liberals/progressives and the Democratic Party, and the tools who demand nothing but loyalty to party.