Are political centrists in America without a political home? Do we need a third-party presidential candidate to represent those socially progressive, fiscally austere voters who find our two parties too extreme? Los Angeles Times OP-ED Entry by Harold Myerson, (March 20, 2012)
This column’s been noted for its Conservative nature in the past. My belief system isn’t so much rooted in concrete terms as it is in belief in the Constitution of the United States.
The Constitution offers American citizens the right to a government they desire. It doesn’t demand we accept any government offered up by one group of self-serving politicians banded together against another group of self-serving politicians banded together. Their dialogue with the American people shows equally egregious, narrow mindedness of opposite polarities.
But, the difference between the two majority parties in America is negligible. The Republican and Democratic Parties are designed to supply government to the people, upon the backs of the people and without the control of the people. Government’s meant to be controlled by the members of the governmental party in power. They both stand guilty of violating the Spirit of Freedom through Constitutional Government. They slither beneath the protective fence line the Constitution and Bill of Rights offer in order to wrest control of government from the people by selectively controlling a particular dogma.
The problem with the parties isn’t their extreme differences. It’s a problem noted in the fact they have few differences. In much the same manner an American of New England descent has a specific dialect and differs from an American hailing from the Deep South; they speak the same language. Their words sound different when filtered through a seine of influence and dogma particular to the folks controlling the dialogue.
The powers that be make their appeal as noted in the quotation at the masthead. The quotation makes mention of “Do we need a third-party presidential candidate to represent those socially progressive, fiscally austere voters…?”
The NO is qualified by the mention of the THIRD silent party participating in the contest: the Progressive Party. This is a party with NO base. They have no PACs or Committees. Few Progressives state themselves as such, they indicate their ideal all men are equal under government and as such are responsible to that government. Check the policies of Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and EVERY subsequent presidential administration backed by the Republican and/or Democratic Parties. Each has steadfastly worked to convince the American people they need to be cared for by government rather than managing that government as directed by the historical edict of this nation’s great documents.
Progressivism isn’t actually a party. It’s a political ideology advocating social, political, and economic reform/changes and opposition to other specific antagonistic ideologies.
Progressivism today stands in opposition to the theories of self-government in the classical federal sense. It seeks to create government directing the policies of the people rather than the people directing government. Progressivism is in opposition to traditional conservative responses to social/economic issues. It’s noted to be more left-wing and supportive of social change pursuing a more egalitarian society.
Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton were noted for their Progressive policies and programs such as The Square Deal, The New Deal, The Great Society and supporting Universal Healthcare.
But where the Democratic Party under Barack Obama is recognized as Progressive, many members of the Republican Party espouse similar desires for egalitarian societies and greater centralized governmental controls. They think themselves moderates. The differences are negligible.
More and more during campaigns and at the culmination of the contest, people enter the polling places, searching the ballots for the solution to their problems. The problem unfolds in the fact there’s NO solution available under the present system. You choose from Yin or Yan, Black or White. There’s no choice beyond the “advertised” differences offered up during the media barrage designed to swing your emotions one way or the other.
There’s no choice: “none of the above” as a protest against the unsympathetic beast we know as American politics.
Thanks for listening.