In an article at the
Washington Examiner, Byron York argues that "Republicans deserve blame for Democratic excesses":
the GOP created the conditions that set in motion the electoral swings of 2006 and 2008, leading to the overwhelming majorities that allow Democrats to pass legislation the public doesn't want.
He states that today neither Democrats nor Republicans are finding favor with the public:
a whopping 35 percent have positive feelings toward the Democratic Party. And yet the public seems to like Republicans even less. Just 28 percent have positive feelings toward the GOP . . . that could lead to a dilemma for voters next November. Many will be fully ready to vote Democrats out of office but will not be fully ready to vote Republicans in. Faced with an either/or choice, they will weigh whether they want to get rid of Democrats more than they want to stay away from Republicans.
What York fails to note is that, confronted with a choice between Republicans and Democrats, voters face this dilemma in virtually every election cycle. There is no possible resolution to this conundrum within the confines of the duopolist order. Yesterday, I argued that those who dismiss third party and independent activism and support the Democratic or Republican Party on the basis of the assertion that one is less evil than the other do nothing more than hide their political cowardice behind a veil of political calculus. York's piece provides a perfect example of the corresponding intellectual cowardice. At
Smart Girl Nation, Susan Anne Hiller responds to York, writing: "Yes, Byron, the GOP deserves blame, but you need to go further." Ironically, Hiller does nothing but spread the blame to the "mainstream media," and thus fails to take his point any further. The first comment responding to York's article draws the obvious conclusion that these two duopolist hacks are either unwilling or incapable to countenance. Libertarian Mama writes:
There is another option besides the two evils - it's called third party voting: Libertarian, Green, Independent, whatever. I sincerely hope more people are waking up to the corruption on both sides and will finally make a better choice.
Update: Speaking of the twin evils represented by the Republican and Democratic Parties, at
An Ordinary Person, LAD argues that "settling for the lesser of two evils is the greater evil," concluding, in part, that the individual voter must:
cease thinking of him or herself as a captive of either major party who cannot deviate from either one or else disaster will strike. That puts the power — too much power — voluntarily in the hands of the major parties and their insiders and away from voters and ordinary citizens.
In the piece, LAD takes on three points of ideological resistance to independent political strategy commonly promulgated by proponents of the reigning two-party state.
Via RSS
Via Twitter
8 comments:
Actually, you should reread the article. I discuss the MSM, uninformed voters, the GOP, the McCain campaign, and more. But your shortsightedness blinds you because you're more interested in discrediting me. ~SusanAnne
I read her article, d. She wants Republicans who will run against the "MSM," which she, like just about everyone who uses the label, sees as a conspiratorial element out to advance a "liberal" agenda. But I don't think she should worry too much about Republican prospects. For many voters, it will probably be enough for the GOP to put forward new faces who can be assumed not to repeat the errors of past Republicans. The way to guarantee not repeating partisan errors, of course, is to vote outside the Bipolarchy, but too many people still seem inclined to entrust power only to those who have or have had it already.
Thanks for the reply SusanAnne. Actually, I read the article twice. Discussion of the GOP and the McCain campaign doesn't take York's point any further, since his point was precisely about the GOP. I did like your point that: "Voter’s tend to have very short memories and need a constant reminder that they possess the power rid the Congress of the far left and corruption." But this doesn't doesn't take us very much further, and therefore doesn't go nearly far enough, insofar as it would do nothing more than reproduce the ideology of the two-party state and the dynamics of the duopoly system of government. Rather, voters need to be reminded that they have the power to rid the Congress of the dictatorship of the Democratic-Republican Party and the duopoly system of government.
Shortsightedness is continuing to lend support to the Republican and/or Democratic Parties on the assumption that one is superior to the other, when in fact each is nothing more than a symptom of the other. I have no interest in or need to "discredit" you. If anything, your support for the GOP and therefore for the system that keeps Republicans and Democrats in power does this all by itself.
Sam, just saw your comment. "too many people still seem inclined to entrust power only to those who have or have had it already."
We could take this one step further too: people seem inclined to entrust power only to those who have abused it already.
"it will probably be enough for the GOP to put forward new faces who can be assumed not to repeat the errors of past Republicans."
Exactly, and the cycle repeats itself once more. And this is why it is of the utmost importance to remind voters that there are other options.
Discredit may be a strong word. My point was that the GOP let the left maul them with no fight. There were so many conservatives who ended up hating Bush for whatever reasons and went and voted for Obama. Also, an uninfomed voter is the worst kind--and there were many. But, I caution against a third party. That's the fastest way to give the left an automatic win. I did take York's points and build on them as you see, but there are other points about Katrina that noone ever talks about--like the personal responsibility and violation of the evacuation orders. The MSM only needed a trigger to unleash their wrath onto the GOP and Bush for the 2000 election, etc. We all forget that Bush did win 2 elections. I just think the left was so angered by his 2nd win in 2004 that when the opportunity came, they pounced.
You make a good point that the MSM is biased. The media's liberal or conservative bias is a constant topic among Democrats and Republicans. What is left out here, and what such criticisms fail to recognize, is that the media's most basic bias is in favor of the two-party state and the Democratic-Republican duopoly system of government.
You caution against third party activism because it gives the left an "automatic win". So you don't think Nader spoiled the 2000 election? Third parties and independents don't spoil elections. Politics in the United States has been spoiled if not poisoned by the Republican and Democratic Parties. I caution against first and second party activism because when Republicans and Democrats win, everyone loses, except for their corporate sponsors. I've written before that if you want to defeat either the Democrats or the Republicans, you have to defeat both the Democrats and Republicans, because they are two-sides of the same wretched coin. I urge you to reconsider the third party and independent option. The only wasted vote is a vote for a Republican or a Democrat. Take a look around here at Poli-Tea. Thanks for keeping the discussion going.
The "MSM" is no more biased for the Bipolarchy than civilians are. Media people simply partake of the same complacency and the same unwillingness to take new voices seriously until they have credentials (i.e. power) apart from their ideas.
That's a good point Sam, bias in favor of power, but I wonder whether that bias is more pronounced in the media. I'm not sure there's a good way to quantify it either. A good example was the recent "debate on the debates" in the MA special election, where the Boston Herald did not come out in favor of including the libertarian independent Joe Kennedy until after the Globe came out against it, none of which would likely have even been an issue unless the Democrat had not explicitly demanded Kennedy's inclusion.
Post a Comment