By Mitch Gurney
October 15, 2010
The article featured here, Voting for the lesser of two evils won’t save this country is spot on and interestingly was written in 2004. For some of us this really isn’t new news. And this is an issue I’ve written about on numerous occasions. Voting for the lesser of two evils is a loser’s game and unfortunately is part and partial of our political process both at the local level and the national level.
With most of our elections a herding sort of manipulation is at work and functions as explained in the article as follows:
The herding technique is one of the most effective methods of manipulating those to be conquered into the [desired] …direction.
The power brokers behind the scenes make sure their puppet candidate is the only one offered up to the voters on a party ticket. The voters of either party (Democrat or Republican) don’t want that candidate, but feel they have no choice. Then comes the pressure about party loyalty and in the end, the people are manipulated into voting for a candidate they don’t want, but the power brokers got exactly what they wanted.
And in this respect this election season is no different from any of the others and as usual the stakes are high. As our country falls into an avalanche of more spin and deepening financial disaster all our candidates can manage to do is what they have always done; fault the other guy for all that ails us and offer up empty, worthless 30 second sound bites that are supposed to serve as solutions and plans to fix the mess. But we have seen this many times before and yet here we are once again being herded into making choices between the lesser of two evils.
Our elections are rigged we know it yet do nothing about it. The article explains it this way:
Our nation was built on ‘citizen candidates.’ For the past 50 years, only those vetted by the machine that will march to the orders given by the shadow government ever make it on Election Day. This is a direct result of vote fraud and the unwillingness of Americans to stand up for what they believe and cave into party loyalty pressure. I maintain that it is un-American to continue voting for the same individuals who are destroying this country because the party is everything, win at all costs. Such foolhardiness has damn near destroyed this Republic.
While it is fairly common for most of us to think of this country as a democracy we are actually a republic and there is a clear distinction:
In the Pledge of Allegiance we all pledge allegiance to our Republic, not to a democracy. “Republic” is the proper description of our government, not “democracy.”
A republic and a democracy are identical in every aspect except one; in a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group.
Republic: That form of government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated.
Democracy: That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. [NOTE: In a pure democracy, 51% beats 49%. In other words, the minority has no rights. The minority only has those privileges granted by the dictatorship of the majority.]
Elections in this country are limited to wealth and party. Candidates are not chosen by the people but by an elitist group of corporate America and members of the two parties. There really aren’t two parties it’s just a mirage. There is only one and corporate American owns them ‘both’.
For example, earlier this week the third and final debate was held between California’s two key governor candidates, Republican Meg Whitman and Democrat Jerry Brown. Portions of the debate may be viewed here and here. As is typical for debates, whether local or national, this one lacked substance of any sort. I haven’t any better idea what these candidates “plans” are for the State of California than I did before the darn debates began. The follow up reporting of the debates by the MSM media only highlight the sparing between the candidates. But this is nothing new. We’ve all been insulted in this manner thousands of times
Here in California we have plenty of very serious issues that need to be discussed so substance shouldn’t be hard to come by. But apparently the public doesn’t really want substance because we don’t demand it thereby the candidates don’t deliver it and the media, as usual is MIA.
Ms Whitman has spent over $120 million of her own money plus raised millions more in campaign contributions as has Jerry Brown, and this is for a governors position. If that doesn’t tell you how far off the tracks we are I don’t know what will.
Whitman like others before her promises more jobs while making other equally vague “promises”. Brown is just a vague. No one asks the hard questions, like where and how will they create jobs? Is Ms Whitman going to tell her corporate cronies to stop outsourcing our jobs? Is she going to ask 3rd would countries to demand higher wages so as to narrow the gap in the wage disparity between U.S. workers and those of the 3rd world countries? What she promises is to lower taxes, reduce government, and regulations. What she proposes is immigration visas to permit workers to legally work in California. Unemployment in California is over 12 percent. Don’t we have enough of our own who need jobs? Do we really need more permit visas? We have heard all this crap before, many times. It clearly does not and is not working.
In this election as with others we once again face a choice between the lesser of two evils. There are 4 other candidates running for governor but we haven’t heard anything about any of them nor have they been permitted to participate in the governor debates. It was announced before the debate began that one of the candidates, Green Peace Laura Wells, was arrested for demonstrating against having been denied access to participate in the debate. Again this is nothing new. These ‘other’ candidates are excluded mainly because they haven’t the money or the special interest support which would entitle them to get the exposure necessary so we can make a fair evaluation of ALL the candidates.
I don’t know how much longer American voters will put up with this crap but given that we have for a very long time it’s anyone guess when we’ll finally hit the boiling point. Given the massive sums of money spent during these campaigns, pound for pound, we get plenty of expensive but wasteful BS. We need election and campaign finance reform and we need it now.