In a recent interview with Reason TV Glenn Greenwald spoke of the “suffocating two party system” and why any election focused on a lesser of two evils and short term gains will only ensure more of the same.
“Presuming that the Republican nominee in 2012 is also bad on civil liberties, what should a voter who cares deeply about these issues do?
A. That’s hard to say, because ultimately, elections are about comparative choices, making it difficult to assess what one should do against an unnamed opponent. If the GOP opponent is substantially worse, that would be a different calculus than if s/he is merely marginally worse or roughly as bad.
But what is clear is that, for a variety of reasons, the two-party system does not work in terms of providing clear choices. No matter who wins, the same permanent factions that control Washington continue to reign. That’s true no matter which issues one considers most important. At some point, it’s going to be necessary to sacrifice some short-term political interests for longer-term considerations about how this suffocating, two-party monster can be subverted. [...]”
The two party systems in America is nothing but an illusion of choice to support the “permanent factions” in Washington and the plutocracy. The same transnationalist financiers and corporatist pull the strings of all Washington puppets, regardless of party. The two party duopoly supports the status quo by acting as a counter balance to one another but offers no real choice. Anytime a crisis (which is almost always created by government) dislodges the incumbent party, the supposed saviors are just the same recycled faces from a prior crisis. The voters believe the incoming party will clean up the corruption of the ousted party. This never happens because the incoming party was once the corrupt ousted party and realizes they will be in that position in the cycle again. The Clinton Impeachment seemed to disrupt this cycle a bit but it would appear as if order has been restored since the Clintons and Bushes vacation together, Barbara calls Bill her “other son”, and George Jr. calls Bill his “brother”. Obama has solidified the reconciliation by blocking any chance of investigation or prosecution of Bush era cronies for torture related offenses or Due Process violations. Obama has carried on almost all of Bush’s policies while of course adding his own power grabs for the icing on the cake.
Former President Bill Clinton discussed his relationship with President Bush’s father last night on CBS LATE SHOW.
Clinton: “I think we’re good friends. I like him very much. I’ve always liked him. When he was vice president, I was still a governor. We worked together on a number of things. He hosted the governors, in 1983…at Kennebunkport.”
When they made an announcement about raising funds for Tsunami relief in Houston former First Lady Barbara Bush “announced us. And she said she has started to call me son. I told the Republicans there, I said don’t worry, every family has one, you know, the black sheep. I told them, this just shows you the lengths the Bushes would go to get another president in the family. I wish I could get them to adopt Hillary.”
But they sure put up a good show for the cameras and voters. The disagreements were admittedly rare. In dictatorships or single party “democratic” systems such as the U.S.S.R. where you only get one choice, Communist Red for example, the tide of revolution and disgust with the corrupt in power will eventually lead to the collapse of the single party. Consent of the governed is less necessary in a two party system due to what Greenwald called “partisan tribalism” which manufactures consent and a constant base of support. In a single party system there is no buttressing force such as a supposedly opposition party to brace the failing party or dictator. A complete removal and totally new form of government generally follows the collapse of the uniparty or dictator.
In the United States the two parties break each other’s fall so to speak. These two parties were once described by Governor Jesse Ventura as nothing but a wrestling match. They look like they are beating each other up on camera, but behind the scenes they all go to the same parties, run in the same elite circles and have the same financial benefactors. For the major policy decisions they defer to the same men behind the curtain. The policies of the two parties clearly reflect this congruence. The only real difference in the two parties is on the periphery of policy decisions. The choice is really between Huge Government Fascist Blue or Fascist Big Government Red. The appropriate question is not which party will erode the Constitution and seize more control, it is only in what arenas and how quickly will the Reds versus the Blues destroy freedom and individualism.