Why Both Conservatives and Liberals Are Pushing 'The Big Red Button' Of Self Destruction

The month of November is here, which means the political season is officially upon us.  By this point in time people should be sick of hearing about politics, candidates, and policies.  The last thing they should want to hear, read, or watch is yet another diatribe on political issues.  Understandable.  Let’s face it, at this point in the ‘game’ it would probably be best if everyone just kept their mouths shut and, to quote Jiminy Cricket, let their conscious be their guide.

Yet, here I am blogging on politics five days before the election.  Why would I do such a thing?  Shouldn't I take my own damn advice?!?  Rest assured, I’m not writing this blog in attempt to sway votes or to convince you, the reader, to see things my way; quite the contrary actually.  I am writing this blog to encourage you to disagree with me, with others, and with whatever you may hear, read, or watch in the America media.  Crazy? You might ask… Well, not as crazy as you might think.

The fact of the matter is the current political climate in America is certainly problematic, but not for the reasons many may assume.

In most cases, when it comes to complaining about politics it usually involves one side complaining about the other side and concluding that if those idiots could just see things their way, everything would be fine and wonderful with the country.   The truth is both sides couldn't be more wrong.

Practically speaking, the likelihood of anyone changing their political position over a heated conversation, a lively political debate, or even a well written article or book are slim.  Politics seems to be the only area where normally reasonable people falsely assume they can change someone else’s values if they just speak loudly or clearly enough.  Can you imagine if we approached the other ‘no-no’ topic of religion in the same way?  Can you imagine a devout Christian converting to Islam after reading a compelling article, or a Hindu becoming an atheist after listening to an informative radio interview.  No, that’s absurd.

The same is true of one’s political values.  People certainly change sides, from time to time, but not without much exposure, usually gradually over long periods of time, along with deep prolonged reflection.   In short, snappy sound bites ain’t gonna cut the mustard. So, why do parties place so much emphasis on commercials, advertisements, debates, personal appearances, and television news programs?

The truth is these programs do less to convince members of opposing parties and do more to convince those who already align themselves with a particular party.  Everyone likes to hear someone else affirm their own beliefs… especially if the person doing so is famous, important, educated, or attractive.  That’s just human nature.  When one hears their views being reiterated in a clear concise and articulate manor they tend to find themselves identifying with the individual who is speaking.  The importance of this point can’t be overstated.  In sum, the person is not only identifying themselves with an idea or political view; they are identifying themselves with the person who is saying these things.

Have you ever been in a foreign country?  Chances are if you have and you came across another American you felt a sense of ease, a sense of comfort, and a sense of connection with them even though they were a total stranger.   Undoubtedly, you feel connected to them because you both share a common connection as American citizens who are visiting or living in a foreign or unfamiliar territory.

People experience a similar sense of connection when they hear someone share their common beliefs.  Politicians need their voting public to feel connected to them.  After all, they are going to be making all the important decisions.  Accordingly, campaigning becomes of monumental importance; But, as already articulated, this importance has less to do with winning over the opposition and more to do with creating a false sense of connection with all their constituents.

But, my blogging digresses because the real issue I intend to address today has less to do with the similarities, or lack there of, that politicians share with their public, and it instead has to do with celebrating the differences found within the mass populace. So, let’s get back to the task at hand.

Democracy, Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism all share one common goal: to prevent Totalitarianism.  Yet, they each go about this task in very different ways, and, interestingly, they can all collapse into Totalitarianism if not carefully maintained.

The Communist works to eradicate government all together.  They aim to hand the power back to the public so that each person controls their own freedom.  That isn’t to say Communism supports individualism.  Quite the contrary.  Communism supports communities of people, working together, sharing what they have for the greater good of everyone.  Unfortunately, once governments have power, it’s very hard to take it away from them which is why Communism always runs into practical and logistical problems whenever it is attempted to be implemented.  That’s where Socialism comes in.

Socialism is the modern world’s attempt to build a bridge towards Communism.  In short, Socialism attempts to use the already established governmental system to distribute the surplus wealth and goods to other communities within the country so that all are provided for equally.  Yet, in one of life’s great ironies this has often, at least historically, back-lashed into Totalitarianism.   This is because once the government has control of all the nation's wealth they usually distribute it poorly.

In the case of Capitalism, the distribution of power is linked to the freedom of the economic market.  The basic premise is that with wealth comes power.  If everyone is given an equal playing field, i.e. an open, or free, market economy, they can acquire their own wealth through private business enterprises, etc.  As their business expands, so does their wealth, and so does their power.  But, the problem with Capitalism is that it too can quickly collapse into Totalitarianism.

From the inception of Capitalism, many were very critical.  They however were not critical of the movement in its earliest stages.  Opening a free market where all are allowed to buy and sell goods as they please certainly has many positive attributes.  We as Americans have spent the last two hundred years reaping those profits.  The problems inherent to Capitalism only emerge in its late formation.  This has come to be known as Late-Capitalism.  What theorists and critics have correctly anticipated since the inception of Capitalism is that over time certain business will gain more wealth and inevitably more power.  Once this happens, they will control the market and the economy.

Think of an avalanche.  An avalanche can begin with several small snowballs rolling down a hill.  As each individual snowball progress down the mountain side it accumulates more snow, growing bigger and stronger.  Eventually however, all the snowballs collapse into one big avalanche and everything is destroyed.

The same is true of Capitalism.  At its inception many, arguably most, people will do very well.  They will turn profits, make a healthy living, and accumulate wealth.  But eventually some businesses become bigger and stronger than others.  We now refer to these big businesses as Corporations.  Eventually, all the small independent business are subsumed under the power and force of major Corporations, and these Corporations wield all the power and, ultimately, control everything...  including both the distribution of goods and the market economy itself (which is why they get all the bailouts when the market crashes).

In America, we are just now beginning to see the early signs of Late-Capitalism.  Corporations are now controlling elections and deciding which laws get past.  Both parties in America are financed by the same interest groups.  These Corporations donate billions of dollars and rarely care who is elected… as long as their agenda is supported.

Similar to Capitalism, Democracy suffers from the same inherent flaws. We now speak of the bipartisan consensus that can be found in our democratic government.  This is usually viewed as a positive development in modern politics, suggesting that both parties in America are coming to a common ground on certain important issues.  After all, this is the ultimate goal of every politically motivated person, i.e. to convince others to share their common beliefs and values.

This is also the end game of democracy.  Let the majority win.  The bigger the majority, the bigger the win. For this reason, it makes sense that Capitalism and Democracy work so well together.  Both start out well, but both end by one dominate group dominating and controlling everyone else.  When Democracy was first implemented as a governmental system it worked well because there were as many beliefs and practices as there were people in the country.  Continuing with the avalanche metaphor used in reference to Capitalism, inevitably certain parties have become more dominate, over time, and have therefore won out.

In our modern democratic system we have only two dominate parties to choose from.  Now, even these two parties are coming to a general consensus on key issues.  This isn’t, however, the failure of Democracy; it is in actuality the result of Democracy reaching its zenith.  The dangers however are obvious. As the power balance continues to be reduced, one or two parties end up controlling everything, and like Socialism, a democratic country can quickly collapse into a Totalitarian state.

In short, there is no perfect form of government, as governmental systems are by their nature flawed.  And, every system of government will ultimately fail if left to it’s own devices.  This includes both Democracy and Capitalism.

This however does not suggest that we as American citizens should just give up and throw in the towel. If Americans really want to fight the pitfalls of their government they need to start embracing all of those who share different views than their own.  What America actually needs right now is a wider opinion base.  We need more parties who aren’t controlled by the same interest groups.  Instead of fighting and bickering over our differences of opinion in a two party system, we should be looking for more differences and celebrating and expounding upon them.  We should be welcoming new parties and new agendas.  Otherwise we are willingly handing over our freedoms and rights to one of two parties who are controlled by the same Corporate interest groups.

This might be helpful to keep in mind the next time you attempt to embark on yet another political argument... I mean 'discussion.'