First Rule of the Dictatorship of the Democratic-Republican Party: Do Not Talk About the Dictatorship of the Democratic-Republican Party

The Democratic and Republican Parties benefit not only from the fact that they have objectively rigged our electoral and political system to their own advantage, but also from the many subjective taboos against criticism of and opposition to that very system. Perhaps some might object here that this latter point is nonsensical: as this site itself demonstrates, there is active opposition to, and a vocal articulation of the deep disgust with the Democratic-Republican two-party state and duopoly system of government across the political spectrum. But it is the language of this opposition and disgust that I wish to draw attention to here. An unspoken rule in this genre of criticism dictates that all calls for third party and independent alternatives to the Democratic and Republican Parties be hedged with qualifiers and softened by the subjunctive. Mainstream critique of the two-party system typically begins with a statement along the following lines: "Maybe it's time we begin thinking about whether or not we should potentially consider possible alternatives to the Democrats and Republicans." I exaggerate, of course, but not by much. It is a positive sign that the force of this taboo seems to weaken almost by the day. In a commentary for SanDiego.com, Mike Sager argues that American voters have developed something akin to a political Stockholm Syndrome. He writes:

If nobody else will come out and say it, I will: America’s two-party system has jumped the shark. I know you’re looking for a joke here, but the joke is on us. Party politics is toast . . . it has been very clear for some time: Political parties are corrupt machines, with a mission that puts party survival uppermost at the expense of good governance . . . We have come to an ugly ideological log jam. It’s time to dynamite the channel.

Like our representative democracy itself, parties place an extra layer of distance between ourselves and our government. (Speaking of layers, I won’t even get started on the Electoral College.) Parties make it so people have to chose sides. Parties put us in boxes with labels. Parties cause segregation. You’re either blue or you’re red. You’re either an elephant or a donkey. You can’t be a donkey with an elephant’s trunk. You can’t be an elephant the size of a donkey. You can’t be an individual with a choice. You’re just a foot soldier in the cause—and you have very little say about what that cause is, exactly . . .

The last time I looked, there was no mention of Republicans or Democrats in the U.S. Constitution . . . What if we had no parties at all? What if we were could all be independents? What if we didn’t have to choose between elephant or donkey. What if we could mix and match? . . . When we join a group and subscribe to its values, internalize its message—the way a fan roots for his hometown football team; the way a party member roots for his party—we succumb naturally to the symptoms of a condition well known as Stockholm Syndrome: We identify with our captors, we become true believers, we leave no room to see the world objectively.

Indeed. American voters have been held hostage by the Democratic and Republican Parties for so long, and identify with their captors and tormentors to such an extent, that many simply cannot even imagine a politics which does not aim, first and foremost, at the reproduction of the ruling Democratic-Republican two-party state and duopoly system of government. But there are positive signs indicating that many have begun to liberate themselves from the mental prison of duopoly ideology. A new Rasmussen poll finds that the number of self-identified Democrats and Republicans continues to decline, while the number of independents continues to rise: "In February, the number of voters not affiliated with either major party increased by half a percentage point as both Republicans and Democrats lost further ground."