So I write this article last Thursday, in a nutshell calling out the Republicans as being hypocritical for not reducing government spending, yet beating the drum for reduction of government waste and spending. Lo and behold, on Saturday night at CPAC, Glenn Beck comes out, levels his anger at many people and ideologies, but saves a special piece of it for the GOP saying “One party will tax and spend; one party (the GOP) won’t tax but will spend: It’s both of them”. Obviously, he reads my blog for talking points (I wish).
Seriously though. While I think Beck can be a little over-the-top, I do like the fact he is non-partisan. He is very intelligent, and speaks in plain terms so most people can understand. He further goes into depth of the process behind things (often on his signature blackboard), which backs up his contentions which seem out-of-this world… until he maps it out for you. I’m sure he ruffled a lot of feathers at CPAC as I’m guessing that conservatively (yeah, I know) the CPAC is comprised of 50% or greater Republicans. However, I fully believe that people like Beck are needed to not only shock, but also truly educate people on some of the atrocities committed by our politicians while We The People have been asleep at the wheel… especially those that are his biggest fans.
Interestingly, at CPAC, Ron Paul won the Presidential Straw Poll, which further validates the CPAC’s validity (in my mind anyway) as Paul is a black sheep by GOP standards and has been a member of the Libertarian Party, which seems to better reflect his principles. This shows that, speaking of sheep, there aren’t that many at that convention.
But I broke out my drums again when I saw Beck, and started beating the non-partisan beat. See, the two main parties want people to think in two-party rigid thinking as it’s so easy to target only one foe. If there are three, four or ten, they then have to either take a back stage to the candidates’ issues, or focus more on their own reasonable message rather than “blue is the better color than red” or the other way around. What these two particular parties have done, which makes them so dangerous is assimilate other parties. As a third party rises, which ever of the two main parties loses votes to them, typically tries to lure their supporters while also discrediting the party either as not able to elect a candidate, or targets the leadership personally. Look at Ross Perot’s Reform Party, largely discredited for not only receiving zero electoral votes in 1992 but for luring enough votes away from George Bush to allow Bill Clinton to win. Ralph Nader was vilified by Democrats for the same reasons in 2000. Instead of figuring out in 1992 that nearly 1-in-5 voters in the country wanted Ross Perot, and deciding that there were in fact other options, GOP voters, and many sleepy-thoughted independents brushed the Reform Party off as usurpers of the Republican Party and were galvanized in their efforts to strengthen the GOP.
What we have here folks is collusion, plain and simple. The dominant party doesn’t want the weaker of the two to completely faulter as then they would have to debate on issues. The weaker can’t split as “who would fight the other party”? The real quandary is not in reality, but in the two-party mindset of the lazy public. So what if a 3rd, 4th, or 5th party gain office? Really. So what? Does this hurt our country? Or is it truly more representative of our people, and not just either-or corrupt politics?
Filed under: Politics Tagged: | Beck, Centrist, Conservative, CPAC, Democrat, Glenn, Indepependent, liberal, moderate, Politics, republican, Third, united states
Beck is entertaining……I am not convinced that he believes his own stuff….but your point is taken…I did enjoy his speech……at present I am working on a thing about party politics and does it have a future…..but so far I have found more questions than answers……
I look forward to reading it. Agree, or disagree, I always appreciate the thought and process behind your posts. You can read his posts here: http://lobotero.wordpress.com/
‘I don’t see how “Libertarians” are going to convince people they can ban abortion or gay marriage with a straight face and call themselves “small government.”’
I definitely get you there. I don’t know if it’s a ploy, or legitimate, but most like Paul say it should be left up to the states, and therefor they get both. I think if Ron Paul severed ties with the GOP, he’d drop his stance on both issues. Problem is, to be elected without the massive spending of one of the two parties is nearly impossible. Yet another reason to distance from the parties: Their money causes candidates to deviate from their moral path.
Ron Paul won the straw poll, but in other polls of front runners nbody seems to get a serious majority. It’s always like 15% for eight people. I don’t see how “Libertarians” are going to convince people they can ban abortion or gay marriage with a straight face and call themselves “small government.”