The Two-headed Monster (U. S. Politics)

I was discussing the Bush/Kerry controversy with my best friend a couple of weeks ago, and he told me that he didn't like either candidate, but that he was probably going to vote for Kerry just to get Bush out of the White House. I didn't think much of it at the time, because I'd been planning on voting for Kerry for precisely the same reason. Besides, I'd been hearing this line of voting logic since childhood--people saying, “When it comes to this year's Presidential race, I can't stand either candidate, and I think they're both crooked, lying snakes, but I'm going to vote for the lesser of two evils.”

You've just read the beginning of my post...and here is the rest of it.

It's not something I'd given a lot of thought to, until the other day, when I was at work and I asked an elderly co-worker whether or not he was registered to vote. With a scowl on his face, he said, “Yes, but I can't stand either one of 'em. I think Bush is a warmongering dictatorial asshole, but I don't think Kerry is much better. When it comes right down to it, they were both cut from the same mold. It doesn't matter what lies they tell us, neither one 'em gives a rat's ass about you and me; they're only looking out for the interests of the big corporations.”

I've always been one to respect my elders, and this guy is in his mid-eighties, so I took his words to heart. In addition to this, he told me, “You know, it didn't always used to be this way. It used to be, whenever a Presidential election rolled around, there would be four or five political parties involved, and we would get to hear what each one of them had to say. They were all in on the debates and everything.”

Now, that really got my gears turning. In 2000, I voted for Ralph Nader. I began to wonder about the other small parties and what they might have to say. I'd heard a couple of people complain to me about the fact that Nader hadn't been allowed to debate with Bush and Kerry this year, and they (like I) wanted to know why the voice of the Green Party wasn't being heard.

I went online, did some research, and was surprised to discover that Ralph Nader was no longer with the Green Party. In 2004, Nader is running independently (with no party affiliation), while the Green Party of the United States is being represented by David Cobb and Pat LaMarche. On the Green Party's website, I found some video links, wherein David Cobb outlined some of the key principles to his platform and beliefs. I watched these videos, and then I started digging for more information.

I discovered a website for a radio/television program, called Democracy Now!, and on their site was some video footage of a telephone debate between the vice-presidential candidates from the Libertarian Party, Green Party, and Nader's independent team. I listened to the debate, then moved on to discover an even better one. Hosted by an online news team, known as The Free Market News Network, I discovered a televised debate between third-party candidates. (Click here to watch the video.)

The original plan had been for them to include the Presidential candidates from the four largest third-party organizations in the U. S. Two of them would be filmed on-location, in the hotel, while the other two were to be included via satellite link. Unfortunately, the satellite link didn't work properly, so the only two candidates included in the televised debate were Michael Badnarik and David Cobb.

The debate was quite good, though there were a few questions I would have liked to have had answered (for comparison to Bush and Kerry), such as stem cell research, gay marriage, and abortion rights. I also would have liked to have asked all candidates (including Bush and Kerry) how they planned to eliminate the controlling influence of the Saudi government in U. S. Politics. Also (for obvious reasons), I would like to know whether or not any of the candidates would be willing to seriously consider revising American divorce law legislation, so that divorced men could be treated more fairly.

For me, a very interesting and educational thing occurred when former Presidential candidate (and former U. S. Congressman) John Anderson addressed the audience, prior to the debate. He told how, in 1980, he had run for President, as the Unity party candidate, against Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter. The first debate of the season was put on by the League of Women Voters, who thought a man who could get his name on the ballot in all fifty states and hold fifteen percent of the polls should be allowed to debate with the other two candidates.

Jimmy Carter refused to show up, saying that he refused to debate against two Republicans. John Anderson, who had been a Republican Congressman, was not running as a Republican--he was running as a Unitarian. He debated against Ronald Reagan, and not long after the debate, two politicians--one Democrat, the other Republican--got together and decided they couldn't let this happen again. They quickly formed The Debate Commission, with the sole purpose of doing everything they could to keep third-party candidates out of all future debates. Since that first debate in 1980, the only other third-party candidate to appear in a televised debate against the Republicans and Democrats has been Ross Perot, and that is only because he had so much money that he was able to create his own media awareness, driving up his popularity among voters to the point that if he had been forced out of the debates it would have caused serious problems for the other two parties.

I watched these debates between the small-party candidates, and I thought, “Man, Cobb sounds good. I like what he and the Green Party have to say, and I think they would do a good job.” I checked my informational brochure, which The League of Women Voters had given me when I registered to vote, and was disappointed to discover that the Green Party appeared nowhere on the list of candidates for the State of Missouri. Our ballot selections for 2004 in Missouri include the following parties: Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, and Constitution.

The deliberate and blatant efforts of the Republicans and Democrats to prevent third-party voices from being heard go even farther than not allowing them to appear in national debates. In some states, if a third-party candidate gets put on the ballot, they are forced to leave their party name off, so when you look at the ballot (for example), you might see:

George Bush - Republican
John Kerry - Democrat
David Cobb - Independent
Michael Badnarik - Independent
Ralph Nader - Independent

Most voters will not already know that Cobb is the Green Party candidate, that Badnarik is the Libertarian candidate, and that Nader is an Independent. For all most voters know, Cobb could be a Nazi, Badnarik could be a Communist, and Nader (in most people's minds) could be Green. So, rather than vote for somebody when they aren't sure what the candidate represents, most people simply go ahead and...vote for the lesser of two evils.

Another example of discrimination against smaller parties is that many states will apply different rules for getting a name listed on the ballot. A Democratic or Republican candidate might only need to collect one thousand signatures to get his/her name listed on the ballot, whereas any other party may need to gather ten thousand signatures.

You may be asking yourself, “Why would the Republicans and Democrats do this?” Think about what those two parties represent. While one party takes a conservative, right-wing view and the other party takes a liberal, left-wing view, they are two heads on the same monster. Despite what lies either party may tell us, neither party cares about the middle- or lower-class in The United States of America. Both parties are puppets, and the strings are being pulled by the wealthy and elite in huge corporations--and not just U. S. Corporations, mind you. This is a global network of super-corporations, which means (unfortunately and frighteningly) that much of America and American politics are currently being controlled by foreign powers.

If you don't think so, watch Fahrenheit 9/11. While I have a great deal of respect, admiration, and appreciation for Michael Moore and his efforts, I have to carry his observations on to a logical conclusion. The Saudi Arabian government is the largest single supporter of terrorism in the world, and they own seven percent (one trillion dollars) of the United States. The Saudi Arabians invested 1.4 billion dollars in George W. Bush, before he even became the governor of Texas. They have an embassy on Pennsylvania Avenue, and they get privileged, frequent visits into the White House. Do you honestly think the Republicans are the only party allowing this to happen?

The Saudi embassy didn't just spring up overnight. It's been there for years, and I'm pretty sure that they've been buying politicians from both of the major political parties--and why wouldn't they? After all, both the Democrats and Republicans have been accepting illegal bribes from lobbyists, special interest groups, and large corporations for many, many years--why not take bribes from foreign terrorists, as well? What's the harm in that?

It makes me sick in my stomach just to think about it. And the worst part of it is, despite how much we gripe and yell about the politicians and their mistakes--who elected them into office? Who has stood by, wringing their hands and doing nothing to stop this from happening again and again and again?

We, the people.

We, the people of the United States of America, have to stand up, accept responsibility for this horrible mess, and start taking corrective action. We need to send a clear message to Washington, to our fellow citizens, and to the rest of the world, that this kind of behavior is no longer acceptable. We, the people, will not stand for it. Our nation will no longer be a nation which serves the selfish, greedy, inhumane executives of large corporations, even to the point of endangering our own citizens (by harboring terrorists and their Kings within our own borders) or to the point of invading other innocent and sovereign nations, bombing and killing their innocent civilians (and, in the process, creating more terrorists than the world has ever seen before).

Changes have to be made, and they need to go far deeper than the surface, idealogical differences between the right-wing Republicans and the left-wing Democrats. In the United States, we need deep, resounding, systemic change. We need to seek ways to help our other political parties find their voice and receive equal representation in the political process...so that they can win votes and get elected.

Smaller parties are already getting candidates elected on the local levels. I'm not sure about the state level, but that would be the next logical step. From state to Congress, and from Congress to the Presidency.

In closing, I want to say what has become a popular saying among the smaller political parties here in the United States: "Remember, if you vote for the lesser of two evils, you're still voting for evil."