Off the Cliff: How much longer will you play follow the leader with the Democratic-Republican Party?

Though Aristotle could indicate the truth in matters such as ethics only roughly and in gross outline, the Judeo-Christian tradition allows us to do so with great precision. In response to my previous post in favor of political independence from – and against opportunistic infiltration of – the Democratic-Republican Party, Mitchell Langbert writes:

David Hume said that skepticism did not prevent him from making merry with his friends. For truly believing radical skepticism otherwise would paralyze him. Hume's skepticism denies the possibility of science. We all know that science works. Nor would Hume say that it couldn't work, rather that it is based on non-rational assumptions. As Aristotle said about ethics . . .

To argue that radical skepticism regarding the present in the face of historical precedent denies the possibility of science is definitely an uncharitable reading of Hume. One could argue, on the contrary, that the proposition rather implies the necessity of experimentation. In the present context, the results under consideration are clear. The ongoing experiment in representative government that is the Democratic-Republican global warfare and corporate welfare states demonstrates that Democratic-Republican Party government is an abject failure: the centralization and monopolization of political power by the Democratic and Republican Parties itself represents a threat to constitutional republican government. And it is not possible to restore constitutional government by means of the Democratic and Republican Parties because the very form of Democratic-Republican politics today functions to undermine constitutional government. This is but one reason why political independence from and active political opposition to the Democratic-Republican two-party state and duopoly system of government should be preferred to opportunistic infiltration of the Democratic and Republican Parties. The problem represented by the Democratic-Republican two-party state and duopoly system of government cannot be solved within the confines of the Democratic-Republican two-party state and duopoly system of government. Langbert insists that any third force in American politics that could challenge the two party system must have a national leader:

To focus a movement of millions of people requires a focal point that is easily grasped. It requires a symbol. Few Americans know who their state assemblyman is, but most know who the president is because the president is an easily understood human symbol. We are all limited beings. A leader identifies the movement or organization. He or she provides a personality.

Mr. Langbert perfectly describes how the Democratic-Republican duopoly system of government has inverted the relationship between the people of the United States and the government of the United States: the function and order of political representation has been short circuited and replaced with a set of imaginary and symbolic identifications. People do not even know the name of their most direct representative, but they're on a first name basis with the president. Of course, the more people are alienated from government in this way, the more likely we are to see apathy and indifference – and irrational violence, one might add – as the result. The Democratic and Republican Parties have an active interest in maintaining such apathy and indifference; arguably, it is a condition of their continued existence. Ironically, however, for this precise reason it is not necessary to galvanize "a movement of millions of people" to defeat the Democratic-Republican political charade. Many, if not most, elections are decided in the end by thousands or hundreds, or even, pathetically, by only dozens of individuals. In the recent special election in Missouri's 62nd district, under 1500 out of 30,000 eligible voters cast a ballot. Langbert concludes:

So where will the Tea Party find its leader? Necessarily in the rank-and-file of the Tea Party itself.

Here we see yet another argument against infiltration. As the establishmentarian machine eats up the movement, it is likely to result in the production of "leaders" and "personalities" not out of the dynamics of the rank and file, but rather by the calculus of the party apparatus in conjunction with the corporate media and in the service of the ruling political status quo. There is no lack of leadership in the United States. There are right now literally hundreds, if not thousands of independent and third party candidates for office at all levels of government. We don't need more leaders, we need to stop playing follow the leader with the Republican and Democratic Parties. They are leading us off the cliff.