Among the criticisms I receive at this blog is that the only way people can debate with me is to agree with me. I regard that notion as classic projection, as they only way I can make headway with any of the noted skeptics of my thinking is to draw back into the crowd, start talking D v R, and get with the program.
D v R is the framework for all debates. The R side is one of honesty and openness, that is, R leaders are allowed to be openly goofy, extreme in their thinking, and even stupid. The D side is a bit more nuanced, as D’s imagine themselves more intelligent, so that their leaders have to play to that vanity. D’s are no less ill-informed and deluded as the R’s. Consequently, an Obama or Clinton, two people who are indeed smart and well-educated, truck well as D’s, but would be regarded with suspicion on the other side.
As nuanced as management of the D’s is, R’s go down one further layer. George W. Bush, for instance, was perceived as dumb, and D’s loved to ridicule him. Some of his notable gaffes were probably deliberate. Such deeds at once reinforce the perceived intellectual superiority of D’s, and also bring about the “circle the wagons” reaction. R’s want regular people in office, people who are “like” them. Condescension enrages them and reinforces the script.
Candidate debates on the R side are quite the spectacle, each one trying to out-dumb the others. It’s difficult to judge who among them is really that dumb, or really that smart.
The D v R dichotomy is purely a psychological affair, another aspect of thought control. The two nominal parties are social groupings. I marvel at the inability of either group to grasp the complexities of public policy or to see that while they taunt each other, their leaders carry out the same policies.
Not voting means having no voice. Voting also means having no voice. If a vigilant citizen wants to make a difference, avoiding party politics is the first step. The realization of powerlessness is a more informed position than the contrary position, the illusion of empowerment.
Piece of Mindful 
Montana voters will have a chance to vote for or against a “Top-Two” system, which virtually eliminates any chance that a 3rd party or independent will ever again appear on a general election ballot. Of course, in the U.S. 2=1. So, if voters choose a one-party oligarchy in November, 2014, what is left to control? I suppose then we could turn elections over to the Dept. of Livestock and save a lot of unecessary public-sector employment, and a few million bucks each biennium.
LikeLike
On NPR last week they said that “early polls” show Marco Rubio as the “frontrunner” for the Republican nomination.
Translation: Please remember the name Marco Rubio, so that when pollsters ask you who you favor, you’ll remember it is him.
LikeLike
http://prorevnews.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-corporate-civil-war-against-first.html
“The People” lost this war long ago according to Sam Smith at Undernews/Progressive Review
LikeLike
Great article. Self employment is a wonderful state of existence, allowing one to see without the cloud of needing to please the boss. People do not realize the extent to which their lives are in the control of others, or at least accept it as normal. Even as an employed Republican in my youth, I wondered why it was that I was only allowed to call two weeks out of the year truly my own. Worse than that, I had slowly begun to adopt the attitudes and ideas of those I worked with and for. As a self-employed man, I was able to stand up at a public meeting and speak out against the activities of oil and gas people who wanted onto the Rocky Mountain Front. An employed person would not enjoy such freedom. I paid a price of course, but freedom is a delicious meal.
LikeLike