political progress

i am not a democrat. i am not a republican. my political concerns could, in minds that can only accept life in established definitions, make me look like a democrat, but i am not. i was once a registered green, until i noticed that one of the party's tenets is feminism. i believe in feminism as much as i believe in masculinism.

at times in my life, i have called myself an anarchist - until i realized that anarchism is impossible for the simple fact that, while having been a member of an anarchist collective - there are so many egos, factions and so much in-fighting, the inevitable result of any anarchism is fascism. i thought i was a socialist at one point too until i met a girl from switzerland, who would go on about how boring it all was. in my teens, following my father's lead, i was an ultra-conservative republican. then i took mushrooms.

i am none of these, yet took bits and pieces from each of them. over the years, i have come to understand that a prefabricated definition or term for my political beliefs does not exist and this suits me fine.

while i may not be able to easily define what i am, i have very strong political beliefs. i believe in the legalization of drugs, prostitution and alot of other things of this nature. i think that all aspects of automobile ownership should heavily regulated, if not outlawed. i don't believe in private land ownership, yet i do believe in other forms of private property. i, as thomas jefferson believed that all laws should self-destruct after 19 years so that one generation doesn't have to pay for the previous generation's mistakes. this means that the constitution should be thrown in the waste paper basket. those laws are over 200 years old. libertarians miss the point that he was trying to avoid the mistake of christianity - living their lives according to 2000 year old laws. the constitution is the new bible, a fallacious document on freedom, written by slave-owners. the bible, a fallacious document on piety, written by sinners. speaking of religion, i believe that freedom of religion does not include the obligatory tax-free status which it now enjoys.

what are these beliefs? are they democratic? republican? i am perfectly happy not fitting into one of my 2 options.

this is the great irony of the united states - in a country so obsessed with freedom of choice, as is guaranteed by the very government that limits our availability of choices, we don't have any choices. we are forced to funnel all of our convictions into one of 2 available parties, if we want to be represented. we are not allowed to participate, if we don't play by the rules. the soviet union had one party. we have two. sure, there are fringe parties, like working families and the libertarians, but the electoral system ensures the continued domination of our 2 parties on a national level. consider that in 1992, ross perot won almost 20% of the popular vote and zero electoral votes.

what happens when cousins have children cuz that's their only option? they have deformed, fucked up babies.

surprisingly, cops are union members. cops are notoriously racist and homophobic. unions are labor organizations, but cops are republicans. the democratic party is the labor party. gay folks need representation. the republican party - the party responsible for the end of slavery should be the party to represent gays and any other group demanding acceptance and representation, but that party was overrun by religious bozos because, back in the day, the democratic party became aligned with the secular left. religious nutjobs needed representation, so they fled to the republican party and turned it into what it is today. everything they stand for is in direct opposition with true republicanism.

while the republican party's roots are in well defined - republicanism has existed since the romans - the democratic party has no easily identifiable roots. it is simply the party that is the opposite of whatever the republican party is, which makes it a party of a thousand parties and causes.

since the death of the soviet union, the democratic party has been a ship without a captain. in the mind of americans, socialism lost. the democratic party was america's socialist party, or at least pathetic interpretation of one. it is attempting to redefine itself, but has no idea of what it is to be. is it the environmental party? maybe, but big business will not allow any oversight - the gay rights party? touchy subject, gay marriage anyone? - the labor party? the labor movement is dead - animal rights? fringe cause - anti-corporate fraud? kiss any corporate backing goodbye - is it pro-israel? most jews were democrats until the neo-cons appeared and made american jews anxious about israel - anti-israel? jimmy carter hates jews(kidding of course) - does the democratic party stand for the poor - another losing battle, poor people are republicans now, dollar dollar bill y'all. the democratic party is afraid of being any one thing for fear of alienating itself, so the democratic party becomes a party of a thousand causes, while the republicans have it easy.

the republican party is the party of god and money. oddly, if one studies economics, one finds that god and money are like oil and water, not milk and corn flakes. adam smith's capitalism was intended to be a humanist alternative to the tyranny of government and religion. capitalism, by it's very nature is secular. using adam smith's idea of mutual partnership and benefit, arabian gulf sheiks are creating their own successful secular meccas, whose god is money, while the united states, slides simultaneously into theocracy and financial armageddon. another way in which american republicans differ from the archetype is their belief in a strong executive branch, which renders our governmental model after the same constitutional monarchy that thomas jefferson fought so hard to deny.

al gore's loss to george bush in the 2000 election shed a lot of light on the disfunction of the american political process.

first off, al gore won the election. he won the popular vote, but not the electoral vote. the same electoral system that ensures the continuing existence of the democratic party cost them the election and history. the system is set up to give more voting power to folks who live in low density areas. low density areas are overwhelmingly republican. so the system is set up to favor republicans. the 2000 election is proof positive. i remember shortly after the election, there being discussion regarding this in the media. and then of course, it stopped once britney got laid or something. nothing to see here.

instead of taking a hard look at the electoral system and that bullshit that went on in florida, democrats focused their gaze upon ralph nader and blamed him for all their problems, then pathetically stood by as george bush, in full view of the world, stole the american presidency. this inability to assert itself benefitted the republicans in ways too numerous to count. americans respect power and are willing to forgive shortcomings, like being able to use words properly or construct sentences that aren't word salads or the fact that they have never been successful at anything in their lives, of folks who properly exhibit the illusion of power.

--

do i have an answer to all this? not really. i like some of the european countries' versions of democracy until i look at a country like italy, with how many governments in how many years? no form of government is a cure for our inadequacies, but some governments seem - on the surface at least - to work "better" than others.

i just know that the current system does not work for people like me - people who don't fit easily into one thing or the other. no-one is willing to take any steps in any direction in an effort to move our country forward. that is what this country is about, right? progress? voting is not obligatory and until i see a candidate that interests me, or the system is changed to allow folks like me to be heard, i will sit this nonsense out.

link | rss | share | posted: 2008-01-06 14:18:59