I have never been much of a politically oriented person. For many years I was a registered Republican, for no particular reason at all, that I can recall.
It was toward the end of George W. Bush’s last term wherein I made the decision to become a registered Independent. Increasingly, I found, his viewpoints and mine came into conflict. Reports of his religiosity in the beginning of the Iraq conflict, coming as they did, after the fact, lent to my decision to withdraw from the Republican party.
It was during this time that I also stopped listening to the likes of Rush Limbaugh. During previous years of listening I would accept anything he had to say without hesitation. However, leaving religion had ignited my mind, I had become a freethinker, I began to examine his assertions. Realizing that Rush was just an entertainer, as he had always maintained, allowed me to examine his motives. As a result of this fresh perspective from the seat of reason and common sense I have come to new conclusions. Rush is a habitual liar. He lies to entertain and manipulate an audience of bigots. He lies, to make himself rich at the expense of his audience of the religiously deluded who are functioning from the perspective of a slave-mentality. Religion creates this “slave-mentality” by asserting that everyone is unworthy, and in need of “salvation” for imagined sins. Rush… uses religion. By appealing to the religious, using their religion, Rush controls his audience. Those in the audience do not realize how Rush, a very rich man, is controlling them. Both Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck use this same method, appealing to the religious by manipulating the slave mentality of the religious. They demonize the Democratic Party in the same way religion has demonized any other group not sharing the same beliefs. In the same way they have demonized Barack Obama.
Both Rush and Glenn Beck are very successful businessmen. They speak for big business. Utilizing an appeal to the religious slave-mentality, which big business does as well, they have demonized Social Security, and the unemployment compensation system, as well as any type of public form of relief which might lessen the power of Corporations to pay the lowest possible wage. Worker unions are targeted for the same reason. Big business looks upon the masses, not as people, but as a commodity to be used, abused, and then when no longer useful, discarded. Hence the term “Human Resource”. Yes, sure they give to charitable organizations. Charitable organizations do not provide the levels of relief which make the “little man” less dependent on income provided by business, therefore maintaining the powerlessness of the masses to demand higher wages.
Rush advocates the rich as the “job-creators”. They do have the money to invest, to finance new business. However, as Rush has also said, they are not in the business to provide jobs. He has contradicted himself, having portrayed the rich as job-creators, and as also being in business to make a profit, with jobs being only a side-effect. Profit, not job-creation, is the motivation of the rich. The game as they see it is to create the greatest profit, while creating the fewest jobs (wage payouts) as possible.
Enough of Rush, Glenn Beck and their delusional little world. The main reason for this blog is my decision whether to go ahead, join the Democratic Party, or remain an Independent.
I so long for a third alternative. A party which conforms to the principles of our secular Constitution, instead of being manipulated by the constant lobbying of sectarian groups. This is where I find President Barack Obama’s greatest failings. His inclusion of “non-believers” in some of his speeches gave me hope that upon his Inauguration he would reverse Bush’s “Faith-based Initiatives”. The “Faith-based Initiatives” are clearly a violation of the Separation of Church and State, implied in the Constitution and later clarified by various declarations. Not only did Obama continue the initiatives, he expanded on them. Not only this but allowed those receiving taxpayer money to discriminate in the hiring of employees working in the organizations set up to administer the monies. In effect, everybody is supporting the growth of these religious institutions whether they want to or not, Atheist taxpayers included. I have written Obama off. He is a classic politician, catering to the whims of whatever he feels will perpetuate his tenure in office.
And yet, since there is no third, fourth, or any viable strong additional party which can challenge the this quasi-monopoly of the two parties, the dissenter must choose to either throw his/her vote away on a powerless party, or choose the lesser of two evils.
Obama is an individual. He is the top leader of the Democratic party as he is the President. Yet, he does not represent, I think, the main ideals of the Democratic Party. The Democratic party represents more or less the hopes of individual working class people. The Republican party stands for Corporate America. There was a time when the Republican Party was the working man’s party. This has changed.
The lesser of the two evils is the Democratic Party. I agree that it could be said that since our political system is set-up in such a fashion that great deals of money are required to elect any candidate, the rich in essence is in control of our political system. Nevertheless, Unions which represent the working class, support, financially, in the majority of elections, Democratic candidates.
Setting the stage a premise would have to be held: If I give my vote any value, I would have to conclude that the selection of candidates for any election is effected by my singular vote. I would have to envision that one vote can make a difference, regardless of the millions of votes cast. It is true that in some elections a singular vote has made the difference.
Should I remain Independent or become a member of the Democratic Party, based solely on the reasoning that they are the lesser of two evils? The truth is: I can still vote either way in the main elections, while maintaining Independent status. I simply cannot vote in parties in the primaries. This means that the candidates offered will be selected for each party without any input from me. If I maintain my present Independent status I would have to be content with the selected candidate and accept the decisions of party members voting in the primaries. Another “Obama” could result.
There is only one logical choice based on the whole of this reasoning.