See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: The Political Cartel Of Republicrats and Democrats
Source:
Conspiracy Archive
URL Source: http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Commentary/Political_Cartel.htm
Published: Aug 30, 2008
Author: Phillip D. Collins
Post Date: 2008-08-30 23:52:32 by F.A. Hayek Fan
Keywords: None
Views: 314
Comments: 29
With the presidential elections steadily approaching, a question is being asked with increasing frequency: Who are you voting for? Personally, this questions aggravates me. Why? Because it is framed within a distinctly Hegelian framework. This framework consists of the confining dialectics of left vs. right, liberal vs. conservative, and, of course, Democrat vs. Republican. The latter of these dialectics is, for me, the most frustrating. Why? Because there's no real difference between Republicans and Democrats. Whenever the religious adherent of partisan affiliations attempts to "convert" me to their creed, I direct him or her to a quote from an obscure book entitled Tragedy and Hope. In this book, Georgetown University Professor Carroll Quigley writes, "The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea. Instead the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can 'throw the rascals out' at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy…It should be able to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which … will still pursue with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies." In truth, the purpose of a two party system is the maintenance of a political cartel. Within such a framework, viable alternatives are overlooked and the same logically bankrupt status quo remains enshrined. To qualify this contention, I will briefly examine one major issue that occupies the mind of the voter: the war. To be sure, this is not the only point of convergence for the Democrats and Republicans, but it is one of the most transparently fraudulent dichotomies on the political landscape. The dominant perception holds that Republicans are "hawks" while Democrats are "doves." However, history does not bear out this dualistic portrait. It was Republican President William Taft who endeavored to keep America out of unnecessary and costly wars. Now, under the sway of Jacobin-esque neoconservative warmongers, the Republican Party supports militaristic campaigns abroad and a meddlesome interventionist foreign policy. A natural correlative of this ongoing war has been the expansion of an already burgeoning government. Gee, aren't Republicans supposed to oppose Big Government? Look for more of the same with a McCain presidency. John McCain has candidly stated that the so-called "War on Terror" could last a hundred years. This statement carries with it some truly Orwellian implications. Those who have read 1984 will recall the centrality of perpetual war to the maintenance of a police state. In light of the unprecedented infringements on civil liberties facilitated by the Patriot Act, it would appear that dystopian fiction is becoming an ominous reality. Historically, external threats have provided an expedient pretext for the dismantling of individual freedoms. This contention was eloquently synopsized by James Madison in a letter to Thomas Jefferson. In that letter, Madison wrote, "Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged against provisions against danger, real or pretended from abroad." Meanwhile, the Democrats are no more devoted to preventing needless wars than the Republicans. Howard Dean supported the Clinton Administration's military intervention in Bosnia, which represented a blatant violation of the country's national sovereignty. Worse still, Dean advocated further unilateral intervention because he was dissatisfied with the multilateral action taken against Bosnia. Ironically, the same political Left decried America's unilateral initiation of military action against Afghanistan and Iraq after September 11. Oh, yes, and lest we forget, Hillary Clinton voted for the war in Iraq. Now, this Democratic presidential candidate decries the war in Iraq as though she had had nothing to do with it. Hmmm. Methinks such protestations are just a little bit disingenuous, especially when Hillary vows to destroy Iran if it should go to war with Israel. And, no, Barack Obama will not bring the troops home. To be sure, Obama has promised a lot of things, but America's withdrawal from Iraq is not one of them. In fact, Obama has pledged to maintain a military presence in Mesopotamia to prevent al-Qaeda from establishing a foothold there. Behind Obama's messianic facade is the same imperial hubris endemic to the Republican Party. Such hypocrisy is nothing new. During his presidential debate with George W. Bush, Kerry chastised the Commander-in-Chief for the quagmire of Iraq. Simultaneously, he admonished audiences about the supposed threat of Syria. Evidently, the antiwar mantras of the Democrats amount to little more than empty rhetoric. They are simply more selective about who they rattle their spears at. One must wonder if the political Left would have objected to the war in Iraq if it had been initiated multilaterally by the United Nations instead of the United States. For some inexplicable reason, in the Leftist mind, war attains a euphemistic veneer when its combatants are adorned with blue helmets and armbands. In a recent article, Robert Kagan correctly observed that "In 2008, as in almost every election of the past century, American voters will choose between two variations of the same worldview." What is that worldview? The answer is sociopolitical Utopianism. Both parties are committed to tangibly enacting their anthropocentric vision of "heaven on earth." War represents one point of convergence between the two because, from their Enlightenment universalist perspective, war is an instrument for the exportation of democratism. Many of those Democrats and Republicans who don't subscribe to this worldview attach themselves to those that do for purely pragmatic purposes. In fact, many Democrats and Republicans even share membership in organizations devoted to dismantling national sovereignty and amalgamating America in some form of global governance (e.g., the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission). Of course, they either forget or ignore all those who stand to lose from globalization. Besides, you and I are just uneducated citizens who don't know what's good for us. This paradigm represents the nadir of Utopian fanaticism. So, who should America vote for in 2008? Here's an idea… someone who will restore the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. What a concept! Such a lofty mandate is conspicuously absent from the party platforms of both the Republicrats and the Democans. Ultimately, the choice is not about left or right, but right and wrong.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Hayek Fan (#0)
This is an excellent overview of the political/government status of this country. Sadly most here will not read, and few will comprehend.
Kagan is CFR, and this is the same thing that Quigley says. A majority of CFR members are Jews.
Americans that were paying attention way back in 1952 saw "both so called parties" offer the candidacy for President to Eisenhower. Eisenhower was put on the republican ballot by Bernard Baruch a democrat. Did this set off alarm bells in the heads of Americans????? No. Consequently nearly 60 years later American voters are still slaves to the so called "two party" system.
The American people want to be slaves and they want their masters to be the two party fraud in DC. Freedom and liberty requires too much work and as long as the master pipes in American Idol and give them enough money to by the newest Playstation, they are happy and content. I met a person the other day who didn't know who Obama or McCain were. He bragged about not watching or reading the news for more than five years. He was actually bragging about it.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976
Terminal frustration has set in with many Americans. Reform from within has not been possible since the Civil War, so that is not an option. Those that do vote are proving nothing. The "system" is in charge and it will maintain itself at all costs.
bump this reminder to the top. sigh.
Do You Know What Freedom Really Means? Freedom4um.com
www.quoteworld.org/quotes/7642
at least he won't be voting
Do You Know What Freedom Really Means? Freedom4um.com
the Kennedy quote?
Do You Know What Freedom Really Means? Freedom4um.com
Are you sure?
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
Yeah.
With vigor????? What a laugh. With lifetime professional politicians with a death grip on power, we are going to have change????? Some have been there 50 long, long years. Some are nearing 100 years old. Vigor?????. More like the death rattle of this once great country.
That's the first thing I asked him after he told me he didn't watch or read the news. He claims he doesn't vote because the government has "no effect on his life." I told him that was the stupidest thing I'd ever heard and began ticking off exactly how the government is affecting him. He wasn't interested. Sometimes I wonder if I would be better off if I lived my life with my head stuck in the sand like that. My stress level would decrease and I would probably be a lot happier. I just can't bring myself to do it though. I just HAVE to know how the government is screwing me, even if there's nothing I can do to stop it.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976
The mass distribution of media appears to be the kingpin of this thing. The control it exerts is extremely refined. I think the Palin nomination and the response we're seeing right here on 4 (not to mention lP) is indicative. This is the nut we have to crack. Obviously Ron Paul did well online, and future generations are going to be moving in that direction, which is good. But the owners of conventional media will control new media, as well. I fought hard against 'net neutrality' on lP but no one would listen. When MTV tells you you need something, you really, really, really don't. In fact, you definitely don't.
Rupert Murdoch owns 150 newspapers worldwide. Owns Direct TV and endless cable channels. One man. Lot of influence there.
There are 2 public acts that I perform with some regularity: buy American-made cars and vote. I suspect that neither of the 2 is very consequential but it doesn't hurt doing them and, as far as I know, no one gets hurt in the process.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
What do you consider an American made car?
Why? Doing away with net neutrality is the fist step to corporate or government control.
The term neutrality is deceptive here. It means that corporations would not be allowed to deliver services based on profit. In other words, it's socialism. The big problem is that it's the camel's nose under the tent of regulation. Once the government can tell companies how and when to distribute performance, they can start regulating content next.
See I disagree. What we have now is net neutrality. Data is data. Your data is not more important than my data. Right now everybody flies coach. You do away with net neutrality and now you have those who can pay for it flying first class. While that might seem appealing in a free market sense I see more danger than benefit. Right now the net is more anarchyish. Doing away with net neutrality turns it into a controlled medium. You'll only get information they want you to have. Ron Paul's message wouldn't have gone where it did without net neutrality.
I think you may misunderstand what's going on. We do not have net neutrality now. We have a free market. We have something that works, though. They want to change that by "regulating it" into "neutrality." Think about it. And watch the video.
You're definitely getting the MTV version of this. We have a completely unregulated delivery of services today. And they are tailored as the providers see fit. This is absolutely non-neutral. It's all divvied up any way that the suppliers decide is equitable to them. The thing that brought us Ron Paul and Google/Youtube video is the lack of government regulation, and the motivation of the providers to give their customers what they pay for. Bring in the notion of socialized leveling of performance, and next you'll have censorship as well.
Correction. American brands, made mostly in the USA - no Toyotas, that is.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
I don't think so. I haven't watched your video entirely yet. Here is what Wiki says. (ok I know it's wiki)
I understand what you are saying. I still disagree.
Funny you should mention that. I wanted to buy a truck actually MADE in AMERICA. I ended up buying a Toyota Tundra, built in Indiana. Go figure...
#2. To: Hayek Fan, Cynicom (#0)
In a recent article, Robert Kagan correctly observed that "In 2008, as in almost every election of the past century, American voters will choose between two variations of the same worldview."
#3. To: buckeye, christine, hayek fan (#2)
A majority of CFR members are Jews.
#4. To: Cynicom (#3)
Consequently nearly 60 years later American voters are still slaves to the so called "two party" system.
#5. To: Hayek Fan (#4)
(Edited)
#6. To: Hayek Fan (#0)
"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea. Instead the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can 'throw the rascals out' at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy…It should be able to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which … will still pursue with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies."
#7. To: christine (#6)
#8. To: Hayek Fan (#4)
I met a person the other day who didn't know who Obama or McCain were.
#9. To: buckeye (#7)
#10. To: christine (#8)
#11. To: christine (#9)
#12. To: christine, buckeye (#6)
It should be able to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which … will still pursue with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies."
#13. To: a vast rightwing conspirator, christine (#10)
Are you sure?
#14. To: Cynicom, christine (#12)
#15. To: buckeye (#14)
The mass distribution of media appears to be the kingpin of this thing. The control it exerts is extremely refined.
#16. To: Hayek Fan (#13)
I told him that was the stupidest thing I'd ever heard and began ticking off exactly how the government is affecting him.
#17. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#16)
buy American-made cars and vote.
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#18. To: buckeye (#14)
I fought hard against 'net neutrality' on lP but no one would listen.
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#19. To: farmfriend (#18)
#20. To: buckeye (#19)
The term neutrality is deceptive here. It means that corporations would not be allowed to deliver services based on profit. In other words, it's socialism.
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#21. To: farmfriend (#20)
#22. To: farmfriend (#20)
Ron Paul's message wouldn't have gone where it did without net neutrality.
#23. To: farmfriend (#17)
#24. To: buckeye (#21)
I think you may misunderstand what's going on.
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#25. To: buckeye (#22)
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#26. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#23)
 | Gold and silver are REAL money, paper is but a promise. |
#27. To: Hayek Fan (#0)
Good article.
In truth, the purpose of a two party system is the maintenance of a political cartel.
Mark
If America is destroyed, it may be by Americans who salute the flag, sing the national anthem, march in patriotic parades, cheer Fourth of July speakers - normally good Americans who fail to comprehend what is required to keep our country strong and free - Americans who have been lulled into a false security (April 1968).---Ezra Taft Benson, US Secretary of Agriculture 1953-1961 under Eisenhower
#28. To: farmfriend (#25)
You are aware that you're taking a position advocating government intervention though, correct? Do you also recognize that current conditions are laissez faire in practice? I continue to hold the view that freedom is fraught with problems, and that equal opportunity (egalitarianism) can suffer under a laissez faire system. Monopolies, which have nothing to do with so-called net neutrality, are an entirely different topic. Monopolies depend on a regulatory climate that favors those with advanced legal and accounting practices. Consider the possibility that Intel and Microsoft could never get started today given the laws they have encouraged in order to stifle competition. These things are never as simple as they seem, and like the global warming hysteria, Net Neutrality is a poison pill for socialism and decreased competition.
I understand what you are saying. I still disagree.
#29. To: buckeye (#28)
You're probably right.
These things are never as simple as they seem, and like the global warming hysteria, Net Neutrality is a poison pill for socialism and decreased competition.
"You have delusions of adequacy."
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest