The Professional Propagandist vs. the Critical Commentator: Co-dependence vs. Independence, a Comparison

Given the dwindling number of duopolist dead-enders in the United States – that is, those who continue to advocate for the reproduction of the ruling Democratic-Republican two-party state –, one might reasonably wonder just who those people are. There are quite likely a great many others who find it virtually inconceivable that any thinking adult would still actively support the Democratic-Republican political establishment and ruling class in their ongoing war against the US Constitution and the people of the United States. We may soon reach a point, if we haven't already, at which the only people willing to support the Democratic and Republican Parties are paid political operatives and the corporatist interests forwarded by Democratic-Republican Party government. Compare two recent editorials, one by a professional Republican fundraiser and propagandist, the other by a freelance conservative speaker and commentator. The former, Noelle Nikpour, writes in the Florida Sun Sentinel that tea party activists should help "keep Republicans honest, but also keep them in office." We read:
In 1992, voters had a choice between an imperfect Republican in President George Bush, a charismatic Democrat in Bill Clinton, who would try to remake the nation's health care system soon after being elected, and a third candidate, Ross Perot, who was more Republican than Democrat. Perot siphoned off enough Republican votes that Clinton was elected. We all know what happened next . . .

Tea party activists should be Republicans. They want what Republicans say they want: less government, less spending, a balanced budget and a return to individual responsibility. But Republicans haven't always followed through on their promises.

Because they were so complicit in creating a culture of deficit spending and ever-increasing government, conservative Americans who rose against Obama's agenda decided they needed somewhere else to go besides the GOP. It's time for Republicans to give them a reason to vote for them.

Meanwhile, tea party activists should continue working at the grassroots level to keep Republicans honest, allying with them when they are right and distancing themselves when they are not. They should focus their energies on electing small government Republicans nationwide rather than trying to run third party or independent candidates when they don't like either of the alternatives. Otherwise, they will stop acting like a grassroots movement and start acting like a third party.
So, according to the establishmentarian propagandist: Republicans cannot be trusted, but we should support them anyway. This is the demonic doctrine of lesser-evilism, the first refuge of the political scoundrel who seeks to gain another's trust by admitting to being a compulsive liar. Compare this piece with one by Betty Rosian, published in the Pennsylvania Tribune Democrat, and entitled: "Time is ripe for a major third party." Rosian writes:
If anything has come to the fore in recent years, it’s the need for a strong third party that would build on the strengths of both the Republican and Democratic parties. The extremes of both are clearly not representative of the majority of Americans. What’s more, there is neither logic nor consistency to the platform of either.

The pro-life party is in the pocket of the National Rifle Association, fighting for the right to bear arms with weapons frequently used in mass murders. On the other hand, the party strong on environmental and animal protection dismisses the rights of unborn babies. One party promises more jobs while knocking down those who would provide them. The other party provides jobs while ever increasing the gap between the rich and the poor . . .

The Tea Party began in 2006 as a completely independent movement. Fast forward a few years and find that the Republican Party has embraced this faction, being fully aware that as an adversary, they are both dead in the water.

Are the Republicans now promising to revamp their agenda? If the GOP will simply resurrect its defeated candidates from 2008, what degree of change can we expect next? And will it be the balm for our woes?

While the Tea Party, by any other name, is not fully representative of America’s majority, it is an inspiring indication of what people can do when they work together for a common cause. It’s time to develop an entirely new party that would listen to the populace and present more viable candidates in 2012 – now, while we’re fired up enough to see there is a possibility of giving America back to the people.
On the basis of a reflective critique of the two-party state, Rosian calls for political independence and demands consistent support for the protection of rights and liberties, fully recognizing that the Democratic and Republican Parties are more likely to threaten those rights and liberties than secure them. The professional propagandist, on the other hand, reflexively regurgitates duopolist cliches and demands political co-dependency despite her recognition of the fact that the Democratic and Republican Parties cannot be trusted to represent the interests of the people of the United States. Today, political freedom and independence begins with freedom and independence from the Democratic-Republican two-party state and the tyranny of the reactionary ideology that sustains it.

No comments: