Heads They Win, Tails We Lose
The political cartoon above is from 1944 (If you don’t see it, open in your browser). It is called “Metamorphosis”, and it observes how much the two parties have become alike. BTW, this is the original, which I just happened to come across and bought it.
But, were the two parties so much alike? ARE they so much alike? That would depend on who you ask. Those who are neck deep in politics would likely say that there are vast differences, spanning lethal chasms of political ideology.
Yada, yada, yada. Here’s my view: Consider a football game. In the stands on one side, you have the fans of the “Redbirds”. In the stands on the other side, you have the fans of the “Bluebirds”. In the chasm between them you have two teams, each with eleven men on the field at a time. They are essentially identical and certainly they are all playing the same game with the same objectives. I like football. I’ve been in the stands. I get excited when my side makes a great play. I’m upset when they don’t make that great play. But I never forget that it’s a game. I always realize that those fans across the field are just like me, but supporting the other team. I know that when I shout with joy, they will be groaning, and vice versa. Do you know who is NOT in the stands? All the people who don’t like football, that’s who. For all the contention out there, there is a commonality in that stadium. They are all far more alike than different. They are all football fans.
Does this apply to politics? I would say so. So would a lot of people. You wouldn’t think so from all the media that seems to make it seem that politics is all that any of us cares about. There’s a term for that; Marketing. Politics is big business. It's big, BIG business. Just like the NFL. Right about now, the NFL is really kicking in. Try to find a news broadcast right now that doesn’t have NFL coverage. Does everybody care? Of course not. I tried to find data on how many people regularly watch NFL games, but could only find that viewership per game is around 19 million. But fans regularly watch more than one game so it’s impossible to say what part of the total population regularly watches any games at all.
But, hey, this piece isn’t about football. This is about how we are led to believe that EVERYBOY cares about politics. Well, near as I can tell, the majority of people are disgusted with politics and wish it would all go away. But, you say, free citizens have an obligation to participate in government. Yes, we do have an obligation to participate in government, but not in politics. But they are one and the same, you say. No, they are not. There really is no politics in the USA, except for the two parties out there in the stadium, duking it out. And (here’s the big one), the two parties are NOT part of government. They are special interest groups. They have no constitutional basis. They are not branches of government. They are entirely OUTSIDE OF government. So, good, free citizens have an obligation to participate in government, but they have no obligation to participate in Demublicrat politics any more than they are obligated to participate in football. Constitutionally, do you know how many are elected to represent a political party? NONE of them, that’s how many. Politicians run to represent their state or their district, but NOT a political party. Or so it’s supposed to be.
And speaking of the constitution, it was created BY THE STATES and not The People, as a means to have an authority that could act on behalf of the states, not be in control of the states. That authority is the federal government. Constitutionally, it is entirely under the control of the states. There are 536 elected officials in the federal government. Do you know how many were elected by the USA citizenry? That’s right, NONE of them. They are all elected as representatives of their STATE, and are sent to DC to represent their STATE. The one exception is the president, who is elected by the STATES (the electoral college). That’s not to say that nearly every elected official doesn’t put their party ahead of their government, but that’s just a measure of how perverted our political system has become. One more time, for the slow learners, elected officials in the federal government (senators and congresspersons) are elected to represent their STATE, not their PARTY.
Our “system” has become quite perverted. We are supposed to have fifty autonomous states who send their own representatives to DC to represent their own state, and nobody else. That barely resembles the current reality. Now, politicians in congress represent their party far more than they represent their state. That is unconstitutional. Constitutionally, each representative is REQUIRED to represent their state, and is under no obligation to act on behalf of a political party. Here’s a trick question: What is most likely to get an elected official in hot water, failure to properly represent their state, or failure to represent their party? Vice versa, which will move them out in front of the pack; an excellent job of representing their state, or an excellent job of representing their party? No need to delve into that, right?
It is not the people that hate politics who are failing our country, it is the people who submit to politics who are failing our country. And I do mean our COUNTRY. Our country is not the government, and the government is not our country. The federal government is supposed to answer to the states, and the states are supposed to answer to their citizens. If only. George Washington warned, in his farewell address, that political parties were becoming too powerful. And it's gotten far worse since then.
Which of course brings up the European Union. Why?, you ask. Because the European Union resembles what the USA is supposed to be, is constitutionally chartered to be. Each of the twenty-seven states of the European Union is of course an independent country. They joined together to form the EU for the purpose of common defense and as a trading block. But does that mean that France has government in common with Italy, or Italy with Greece, or Greece with Germany? Nope. They are entirely independent states with entirely independent governments, just like the United States. United States is PLURAL. Isn’t that a clue? No political party operates uniformly across borders in the EU, although there are complementary unions in various of those states.
We’ve had over two hundred years of political parties insinuating themselves into government. Most Americans now accept political parties having full control of all government. And that is unfortunate. We have government by the parties, of the parties, and for the parties. And it is all 100% unconstitutional. Al Capone controlled Chicago government for over a decade. He of course had no authority to do so, he just did it. We have had various similar political machines at other times. There was Tammany Hall in NY, The Curly machine in Boston, and the Cox machine in Cincinnati, among others. In every case, the machines were illegitimate and operated only because nobody stopped them. How bad does it have to get, before we stop the two really big machines? Is it already too late? I for one, refuse to give up. I’d rather go down fighting than give in.
Here’s a thought: It is easy enough to make a case that political parties cannot practice politics across state borders. Likewise, they can’t practice politics simultaneously at both the state and federal levels, since that is a conflict of interest. They bust up capitalist monopolies all the time. They’re working on busting up Google right now. So, they should bust up the Demublicrat party in a similar manner. Who has the power to do this? That’s right, the Demublicrat party. They aren’t going to limit their own power, so we have to limit it for them. Just as the Wizard of Oz said in the movie, the power was never within the Wizard, it was within each of the individuals. Believe in yourself, not in political parties. Grow a pair, and take them on...
Genius cartoon and genius article!
I'd never heard the term "Demublicrat" before. Your last post seemed almost like a rant - albeit a perfectly justified one - but this, in my opinion, is much more profound and concise.
I recently wrote a short piece for Facebook. It outlines a similar situation - the mental health debate. In this case, the difference is that neither side appears to secretly share anything in common. I post it only because it reminds me of our political system.
Here it is:
____________________________________________________________________________
My name is Marvin Haines, and I turned 17 several weeks ago.
At the age of 15, I was diagnosed with ASD. My family was surprised – they had never truly considered the possibility of me being on the Spectrum. I was certainly a social wreck, but they attributed that to anxiety.
Recently, I joined several Facebook groups dedicated to understanding autism. I expected to meet other people on the Spectrum – people who talked with insight and reason, with whom I could share thoughtful conversations on the subject and learn more about myself.
What I found instead was disheartening, to say the least.
As I’m sure many of you are aware, the “autistic community” is irreversibly split into two parties of an almost religious nature who define themselves by their hatred of the other.
The two camps are divided over what seems – at least to any outsider – to be a ridiculously simple matter: how autism should be treated, or if it should be treated at all. One camp claims to be the progressive truth-holders, while the other labels itself as a kind of resistance – a resistance against the perceived radicalism of the first camp.
As I soon discovered, the fire and fury doesn’t end there. No, it gets worse and worse, degrading to the level of – wait for it – a semantic argument! Certain words or phrases deemed offensive in one group have become the accepted jargon of the other. To take one example, the phrase has autism, which is quickly becoming taboo in the more progressive group, has been lovingly embraced by the resistance. And don’t get me started on the controversies surrounding the organization and slogan “Autism Speaks.” It is a hot mess.
All this is to say that I am thoroughly disappointed by the state of the autism population today. I don’t claim to be a member of either camp – I find them both distasteful and their ideas ill-conceived – but one thing I know for certain is that if we want our voices heard, we’d better damn well learn to talk with civility. Otherwise, the neurotypical world will continue to fail us, as they have countless times before.