The Lie of the Electoral System

The farce continues. The dancers spin 'round the floor once more. It is of little surprise that the electoral system trudges on, dragging along both the willing and the unwilling.

What is surprising is the opposition to the system itself this year. Even at my most inebriated I wouldn't have suspected this to occur, but I am pleased that it is happening. To stoke those fires further I would like to submit this reminder about the failure of democracy through the example of recent history.

Much hay has been made in the seemingly endless string of debates, speeches and advertisements about the difference between the platform of the Democrats and that of the Republicans. Obama is this; McCain is that. My ears bleed and my eyes ache from the bombardment.

The truth is that, if you do vote for any of these clowns, you're only endorsing the system that has bankrupt America through its economic policy, killed Americans (and everybody else) with its war-mongering, and enslaved Americans with its invasive legislation.

It isn't "Coke versus Pepsi," it's Coke versus New Coke, a cunning propaganda designed to make the average individual feel as if his vote makes a difference, when in truth they're both wholly-owned subsidiaries of the same corrupt entity. It's all meant to stir up outrage against one product and drive you to demand the "opposite."

The Clinton administration, regardless of his rhetoric, was an eight-year continuation of the Bush administration (which really started under Reagan), and Bush the 2nd is just more of the same. Same policies, same attitudes, same power structure. They even vacation together.

• Much of the Patriot Act was devised by Clinton Administration staffers during his years in office. It was a laundry list of invasive government that was almost passed following Oklahoma City, but there wasn't enough public support. 9/11 "changed" people's minds.
  http://www.villagevoice.com/2003-07-29/news/power-over-the-people/
  
• The war in Iraq had been planned since 1998 when Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act and promised an overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Additionally, aggression against the country never ended as bombing runs continued against Iraq throughout Clinton's reign.
  http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Iraq_Liberation_Act_of_1998
  
• Alan Greenspan was a Reagan appointee to the Federal Reserve. He continued as banking czar for the United States through Bush I, Clinton and Bush II. He is responsible for the greatest inflationary bubble in the history of the United States, a bubble that he kept from bursting completely during his term by continuing to permit the U.S. to kite more checks without sending an overdraft notice. He has been hailed by both parties as an economic guru and hero, in spite of the evidence that the blame for our severe correction lay at his feet.
  
  Just because the checks finally bounced while Bush was writing them doesn't mean they were ever worth anything.

Oh, yes. The differences between McCain and Obama exist. Minor issues, which take center stage in the discourse abound. Gay marriage, abortion, school funding, these are treated as major matters. However, Obama and McCain both:

• Agree the surge worked in Iraq
• See Iran as a threat that must be stopped militarily
• Wish to see an increase in military spending and staffing
• Want to increase troop presence in Afghanistan
• Support bailing out Wall Street by picking the pockets of the weak
• Voted to extend the Patriot Act
• Have massive banking interests as their campaign backers
• Have major oil interests funding their campaigns

I'm sorry if I don't care to taste the difference between a turd sandwich made with Miracle Whip versus one made with mustard.

As for "third parties," the term itself explains their purpose in the system as well. They don't exist to change the power structure. They exist as an outlet for the voter to feel as if he is able to vote his "conscience" while achieving a zero net effect. No true "third party" has ever won a major election in the United States. The Republicans of 1860 were merely the Whigs repainted and the Whigs were the Federalists with a racing stripe.

Fascism and Socialism aren't opposites. They are both totalitarianism with different flavors. Fascism supports a close working relationship between massive corporations and strong central government while traditional socialism simply removes the corporations from the equation and assumes control of industry, converting all of the corporate executives into bureaucrats. They all still sleep in the same palaces, they just cater to different tastes.

This election means even less than any election in the past, because just like in every election, it doesn't matter for whom you vote; in the end the people lose and the government wins. The state gets more of your money, kills more people, further invades your privacy, and strips away more of your rights.

Really want to Rock the vote? Read Thomas Paine and stay the f--k home.

--M.A. Hargett