The goal of politicians and political parties is to prey on the apathy and ignorance of the public in order to achieve its primary mission: acquiring more power and money. In any scenario in which organizations are in competition for the attention and resources of people, it benefits those vying for such attention to ensure their audience has as few options as possible. This is true for all organizations, and political groups are no different.
If there must be competition among those who deal in power and control, limiting the field to only two groups is obviously the optimal number.
This is a benefit to political entities because the fewer the parties or teams, the more chance a particular organization has to recruit more people. For example, consider a scenario in which there were only two baseball teams in the entire country; one from the East and another from the West. What are the odds that those who live on the East will purchase the souvenirs, team shirts, playing cards, and the nearly infinite number products of the team on their Coast? Quite likely close to 100%. Maybe some people who live on the border, or those that migrate from one coast to another will not, but without question the money to be made and the fan base to amass will be much larger when the market for fans is limited to either X or Y and no other.
Political teams are no different. Power and money is what most politicians desire, and like any other market, it is most easily amassed when people believe there are only two groups for which power can be granted. Most people know this, yet most people do not understand how this is accomplished. Without a basis for such reasoning, they simply accept it.
How limiting the marketplace of political leadership is accomplished
At its core, limiting the options of voters is accomplished by convincing people there are only two options to choose when voting, based upon some meaningless scale. In politics today, this is the fallacy that there is a left and a right side of the political spectrum; a scale that has no relevance in regard to any true differences in ideology, and therefore conveniently opens the door to distractions that ensure people do not notice anything but superficial differences between the two teams.
Does anyone really know what the labels “Left” and “Right” inherently imply in regard to politics? No, because there is no relevance and therefore a perfect means of limiting the marketplace of ideas. What options does one have when the scope is limited to left and right? The middle? What does that mean in regard to governance? Still nothing.
Americans conjure their own interpretations of what these words mean in regard to their political teams, and they often do, but the concepts themselves have no inherent meaning in regard to governance. Therefore the interpretations of what the labels mean are so numerous the result remains the same – a meaningless spectrum open to any interpretation.
If the spectrum of political ideas actually reflected the marketplace of ideas, politicians would be stuck having to square their advocacy with what actually matters as opposed to the whims of their constituency and whatever way the political winds are blowing, as it is today. Meaningless labels like “Left” and “Right” are a very convenient means of ascribing any actions or advocacy to the issue du jour, no matter the principle they are based.
The goal of using this language is to form a common vernacular that, in reality, means nothing so teams can form and no one asks too many questions or delves too deep into what is actually occurring. A convenient two-sided scale to minimize the competition and amass what is desired mainly by most politicians – money and power.
Face it, thinking is difficult. Most people will not admit this, but it is true. It is much easier to simply accept what we perceive and move forward. This is why great thinkers like Albert Einstein, Mark Twain, and Confucius are remembered from generation to generation while the rest of the world is forgotten in a blink of an eye historically speaking.
Politicians know this. Why not profit from people’s laziness than make the effort to cater to their intelligence? Most people do not wish to exert such effort anyhow. Simply by convincing people there are only two teams and these teams have some arbitrary label like Left and Right or the Celtics and Lakers, everyone wins. Everyone except of course those who think.
The fact is that there is no political left, no political right, and no middle. There are only collectivist and individualist; people who believe that the majority should serve the few or the few should serve the majority, and those who believe no person should be forced to serve anyone.
Does it serve those who deal in the currency of power and control to point this out? Of course not.
What serves the politician is a superficial label and a spectrum that means nothing, coupled with a facade of hatred and disgust for the other team. Much like the sports fan who willfully defends their team whether they are right or wrong, Americans too busy working until May just to pay their taxes and all too willing to absorb every distraction sent their way, pick one of the two options for power and control over their lives and defend their team to the bitter end.
People, as we see today, place their political party over everything just for the sake of expediency, over their lives, their children, and the future for their country.
How meaningless labels serve the American Corporate State
Quickly, in relation to history and time, American politicians realized that selling the idea of independence and self determination to voters, as well as the risks and responsibilities inherent in such a society, was a very hard sell. They found it far more advantageous to sell the idea that with enough power granted to them by their constituents, the politician on the Left or the Right could impose the will of their constituents upon the other group. Morally, the two political parties became the same, empowered by a meaningless political spectrum that never held them to any moral framework or principle.
To ensure the population does not take notice of this reality, politicians inject into the public discourse issues which will never find consensus. Enter the ideas of legalized abortion couched in the general concept of choice, evolution vs. religion, and the environment vs. industry – all issues that will never be settled, never have consensus among voters, and conveniently strike hard at the emotions of people. Thrusting these debates into the spotlight by creating phony crises, riles up the masses and pits people against one another. Without a moral basis for politicians to project their advocacy, the debates conveniently continue endlessly devoid of progress.
Over the years as these battles are waged, the backroom deals and the union between the two parties grow to the point in which our constitutional amendment protections are destroyed, the Ninth Amendment is ignored and therefore we must somehow justify every right by stretching the Bill of Rights, and even the meaning of the words mean nothing. Citizens, consumed by a few emotionally charged issues, are completely and utterly distracted by the noise, while both parties conspire to destroy the very foundation of the protections endowed to every American by our Founders.
With distractions abound and constitutional protections systematically stripped away from every American citizen, political power seeks the one element it cannot produce – wealth. Enter corporatism. Cloaked in the veil of protection of certain groups, more affordable health care, insurance or whatever, and anything that can be construed as in the interest of the “general welfare,” big business and politicians conspire to create at best oligopolies with a long term goal of monopolies within nearly every essential industry. Big corporations receive the gift of limited competition and politicians enjoy the benefits of more power and financing from their corporate conspirators.
Americans must wake up, stop being distracted by issues in which there will never be consensus, and focus on the principles and mechanisms left to us by our Founders in order to save our republic. It is nearly too late.