The Democratic-Republican Two-Party State is Inimical to Representative Constitutional Government: Declare Your Independence

The extent to which the ideology of the two-party state warps and distorts the thinking of so many Americans is evident not only in the contradictions generated by duopoly ideology, but also, and more significantly, in the fact that these contradictions are often not even perceived as such. For instance, a recent post at Government is Not Your Daddy appropriates the worn out slogan that it is time to "take our country back" to argue in favor of supporting the Republican wing of the ruling political class. Consider the logic employed in its opening paragraphs:
If we truly want to take our country back, and restore it to the Republic that our founding fathers intended, we need to do it within the framework established by our founding fathers. That means we do it by voting. Voting alone is not sufficent, however. We need to get actively involved. Setting aside wishful thinking, and acknowledging the reality of our two-party system, if we want to effect change in our government, we need to control one of the two major parties.
So, the goal is to "restore the Republic intended by the founding fathers" but the immediate imperative is to infiltrate and gain control over one of the two major parties. The contradiction is readily apparent: representative, constitutional republican government cannot be achieved by means of the Republican and Democratic Parties because Democratic-Republican Party government and the political apparatus of the two-party state are literally at odds with, and actively undermine, any and all efforts toward representative, constitutional republican government. The reason for this is simple: the centralization and monopolization of political power in the hands of the Democratic and Republican Parties serves only to empower the narrow factional interests served by the Democratic and Republican Parties, namely, those of the ruling Democratic-Republican political class, and these interests are diametrically opposed to those of the people of the United States. At This Has Got to Stop, John Constitution comes to the same conclusion by means of a different argument. He writes that "voting out libs will not win our country back":
Those of us who wish to return our country to its constitutional roots have a lot of work ahead of us. We all understand the necessity of voting the libs (or socialists, communists, whatever your cup of tea) out in November and making certain that Obama is a one term president in 2012. But saving our nation from the Democrat Socialists in power right now and handing her over to the GOP is kind of like saving your prize laying hen from the wolf and returning her to the coyote for protection . . .

It seems obvious to me, the GOP is much more concerned with the status quo than they are with electing principled conservatives who will vote those principles rather than the party line. It seems obvious to me that the GOP wants to make sure that they will have the votes next time they want to pass a multi-trillion dollar unfunded entitlement or to write a check for a trillion dollars or so to bail out their friends . . .

The Republican Party is no more the friend of the Constitution than are Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. I do not include all Republicans in this statement, but what I am saying is definitely true of a large number of the Republicans who currently hold positions in the Senate and House of Representatives. The message here is caveat emptor! Buyer beware!

It is likely that anyone who seriously commits to critical reflection on the nature and history of the Democratic-Republican two-party state and duopoly system of government cannot help but conclude that it is a threat to Constitutional government, individual rights, liberties and the very rule of law. It is no wonder that John has declared his independence:

Today, April 22, 2010, I, John Constitution, signed my personal Declaration of Independence! I have been a registered Republican ever since I first registered to vote in 1972. For many years I voted along party lines and was always proud when a Republican was elected over a Democrat. But for quite a few years now, I have found myself voting for the Republican candidate, not because they represented my beliefs, but because they were the lesser of the two evils . . .

Today, I officially changed my voter registration from the Republican Party to the Constitution Party. That is what I meant when I said that I signed my personal Declaration of Independence today. I vow today, never again will I throw my vote away by voting for a candidate that does not represent my views. I vow today, never again to believe the lie that a vote for a third-party is a vote for the opposition. I know, if I’m the only one doing this, then my vote is truly wasted, but at least I will have voted my conscience. But, what if everyone did it?

That is certainly an interesting question. If everyone who voted for the lesser of two-evils between the Republicans and Democrats simply stayed home, how low would voter turnout be? We have already reached a point at which 54% voter turnout is considered high or heavy. If habitual lesser-evilists stayed home, one would be left only with die hard duopolist dead-enders. And what percentage of the eligible voting population do they constitute? 40%, 30%, 20%, 10%? On the other hand, if all eligible voters were to cast a ballot, but did so for the candidate who best reflected their views, is it not likely that the majority would vote for someone other than the Democrat and Republican in any given race? Today, political freedom and independence begins with freedom and independence from the Democratic and Republican Parties, from the tyranny of the two-party state and duopoly system of government. Vote third party and independent.


Samuel Wilson said...

I assume the emphasis on reality is in the original in your first quote. Well, we can't deny the reality of the Bipolarchy as it exists, but we can't affirm it and also restore "the Republic that our founding fathers intended." To accept a need to "control one of the major parties" is to be controlled by it.

d.eris said...

Yes, the emphasis is in the original. It is basically the old infiltration argument with a twist.

"To accept a need to "control one of the major parties" is to be controlled by it."

One of the most succinct summary definitions of the infiltration paradox yet!