I was put into Little Flower Catholic grade school in Billings, Montana, at age six. I also attended Billings Central Catholic High School. My teachers in grade school were Dominican nuns. That order would not normally have come to Billings, but my maternal great aunt, “Sister Faith,” was the Mother Superior of that order, and so had the power to send her foot soldiers our way as a special favor to our family. This is what my mother told me, anyway.
Catholics at that time were protective of their youth. Deep religious indoctrination was a common practice, and thought to be a good thing. It protected us from worldly influences. Our school had its own special bus, even though public school buses were available. They scheduled the school day so that we did not get out at the same time as Garfield, the public school one block away. They did not want us mixing with the public school kids on a daily basis.
It all seems innocent, and the nuns I had for teachers were wonderful people. They had the best of intentions. We were taught that the Catholic faith was the “one true faith,” and that once we became aware of that fact our choices were to stay in the faith or leave the faith and face eternal damnation. There was a real place called “Hell” that had real fire that really burned, forever.
It scared the shit out of us.
Most kids I went to school with are still Catholics. Even as mature adults that fear-based indoctrination resides in our subconscious. Leaving the Catholic faith, which I did at age 38, was stressful. 
I was afraid that I was going to be punished and that my life might be destroyed. I took a leap of faith, so to speak, to the other side.
As it turns out, the “other” side is a nice place. But I could not know that. Youthful indoctrination kept me in the faith for twenty years after the end of my Catholic education.
That’s a common experience, but perhaps my family was more religious than most, so I got a heavier dose. That lock they had on me – a child’s fear of burning – is extremely powerful. Richard Dawkins has gone so far as to call it child abuse, and I tend to agree, but only to to a degree. Most people who lead the mainstream religious faiths are not bad people. They love their flocks, and recognize the flaw in human nature: The need to follow and obey authority. To the extent that they lead people to better and happier lives, they can be forgiven. To the extent that they use this power to take our money, bugger our children or taint our world outlook to their political liking, they should burn in hell.
All of this leads me to what made me sit down here – thought prisons. Over the past few blogging years I have had numerous encounters with both Democrats and Republicans, and have found the former resolute and certain of their beleifs. Most Republicans are not conflicted by party adherence. Being a Republican appears easy, and these folks generally have no trouble punishing leaders who do not adhere to the faith. Also, they don’t much question the faith. That’s really comfortable.
Democrats are different. They are faced daily with contradiction, as their leaders behave like Republicans even as they talk like Democrats. This creates internal discomfort, or cognitive dissonance. So the party is constantly torn apart by internal dissension. Will Rogers’ lament that he did not belong to an organized party, but was rather a Democrat, hints that this is not a new phenomenon.
If not a Democrat, what am I? I have but two choices. If I leave the party, there is … nothingness, a void, a form of hell without flames. So party faithful are caught in a mind prison not much different than the conflict of the captured Catholic child. Staying is comfortable, but thinking is not allowed. Leaving is scary, and thinking is hard, even painful.
So, to my Democratic friends and enemies alike who continually ask me “If not this, then what?”, I answer “Uncertainty. Can you deal with it?” It’s not easy not belonging, to have to think and judge independently. Abstaining from casting a vote for either party seems nihilistic, but if neither offers anything productive, is that not nihilism as well?
The two-party system is a natural byproduct of money-control of politics, as no third party can amass the resources to gain critical mass and challenge it. But we don’t have to belong. It might appear that outside the two-party system there is nothing. But it is inside the two-party system where nothingness resides. Outside that system is eternal optimism of the spirit coupled with pessimism of the intellect. There is life out here, just as there is life for young Catholics if only they are willing to take a leap of faith, and leave the faith.
Piece of Mindful 
I finally broke into the prison
found my place in the chains
even damnation is poisoned with rainbows – L Cohen from the song “The Old Revolution”
Leonard Cohen Biography : Leonard Cohen was born to a Polish father and a Lithuanian-Jewish mother in Quebec in 1934.
There are always contradictions and perhaps that is the greatest prison of all. Of course the bigger the prison the better as I see it.
i have to confess, my 2000 vote for Ralph Nader was the first and only time I ever voted for the person i actually wanted to be president and it felt really good. it was also a vote free of consequences because it was clear going into the voting booth that Bush would win Montana.
In 2008 I voted for Obama knowing full well that Gramps would win Montana yet taking part in the opportunity to vote for America’s first black corporate president in the general. That felt good, too, even though i knew Obama might end up to be a corporate tool. Which seems to be the case. i still believe it’s better for a lot of reasons that Obama is in instead of Clinton, and of course that Gramps and his also ran didn’t ascend.
I regret neither vote and would vote the same in retrospect. My criticism of Nadar is that he could have done a lot more to push the Greens into 5% in some states if that had been his goal. instead he kind of used and abandoned the Greens.
Efing humans…. I still like Ralph and like to hear what he has to say. I doubt I’d vote for him again. Age is a factor and also he doesn’t seem to have an organization that’s up to it.
My favorite prison and my solution to the other prisons is fusion. Fusion voting would give an opportunity for much greater political pluralism. it would allow a space for other political parties to exist free of the 3rd party killing spoiler effect. it would allow more accountability from elected officials to the voters.
It would allow a flourishing of organizing activity and provide a way to get some more and faster movement on issues.
it’s also the easiest solution to implement, requiring little legislative work or clean up.
Because the biggest barrier to third parties isn’t self imposed prisons. It’s the very real and practical consideration that 3rd parties too often result in minority electoral victories by the worst possible candidate. (which is of course a subjective judgment, yet relevant to the problem of how third parties can operate in their members interests.)
The problem we currently have is so what if a third party were to come in second? the other people are still in power. no we need a way to increase political pluralism, not to insure minority control of elected offices.
Fusion fits that need.
LikeLike
Often the greater evil is the one that appears lesser. Our job as citizens is to ride herd on them and discipline them when needed. That requires withholding votes from Democrats. Because that is never done the problem is exacerbated. Democrats are too afraid of mean old Republicans. That is the best thought control device that I see in use.
Fusion voting would bring down the parties. For that reason we have to overcome both to get it enacted. Tall order but a worthwhile pursuit.
LikeLike
Fusion used to be common, now it’s still used in NY and a few other states, I think.
And you are right, the two main parties outlawed it most places.
But it’s not a novel nor foreign concept. As such it has a leg up over other possible solutions.
LikeLike
SW,
With Nader, I think you missed completely what was happening. You only saw a man, when he was showing you a path out of your “prison.” It’s a path that is still there, however overgrown with weeds. He could have done more? Who has done more? McKinny, Kucinich? You tell me. You wanted (want) a saviour when what you could really savor is something infinitely more possible. This special sauce is not served in prisons — anywhere.
LikeLike
Ladybug;
Actually, ‘ol Perot did more in terms of 3rd party building than Nadar did. It was the main reason that when Ralph ran again in 2004 he didn’t get the Greens nomination.
LikeLike
That’s a really good point Steve (addressed to lb, I know), as Perot is the reason we had eight years of Clinton, who got 38% of the vote in 92, and 48% in 96. But Perot was about top-down party building, and Nader bottom-up. Both failed.
LikeLike
Mark –
It’s interesting, your reasoning sounds a lot like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and yet the conclusions to which you come are very different.
LikeLike
Huh?
Hey, isn’t having the 100 most influential people list a bit like saying “here’s how I see it, and here are some people who say it better than me?”
LikeLike
? I am merely comparing your and her attitudes towards religion.
LikeLike