The Grand Illusion - A Short Piece on the Two-headed Coin of Politics in the US

The two current major political parties, essentially, have become two means to the same end.  The Democratic and Republican parties have largely become the same political viewpoint, and the illusion that they are separate comes from tradition, deceptive politics, and fallacy.  What follows is a critical view of the two major parties' viewpoints (#1) and how they maintain the illusion of differing viewpoints (#2).  Finally, I will offer my viewpoint (#3).  Whereas #1 and #2 will be based in fact and logic, #3 will be purely my own opinion, and I do not expect the reader to take that part as fact.  If you have any questions, concerns, or criticism, I want to hear it!  Email me at thedude37@hotmail.com .

1.  How are their political viewpoints essentially alike?

One needs only to look at the 2008 election process, specifically the John McCain/Barack Obama debates, to see the glaring similarities between the parties' chosen candidates.  For this exercise, we shall look at foreign policy and education.

On foreign policy, McCain maintained that a continued US presence in Iraq is necessary. Obama countered by saying that it was time to leave Iraq, but a continued US presence in Afghanistan is necessary.  At first glance, it would seem that the candidates differ on the position of war.  However, neither major candidate really offered an alternative to war; they only differed in their opinion on where armed conflicts should happen.  Neither Obama nor McCain mentioned a non-interventionist policy; instead, it seems that both candidates solely supported continuing armed conflict.  In this way, no matter which major candidate won the election, a war-oriented President would be elected.

On education, Obama asserted that disadvantaged youth should receive the opportunity for government assistance to assist them in paying for higher education.  McCain countered by suggesting that an already-in-place school voucher system (government money given to those electing to send a child to a private school) would help more.  Again, both candidates appeared to differ on a point on which they actually agree: that the government should offer financial assistance in the educational sphere.  Neither candidate addressed any other alternatives (abolition of public schools, nationalized colleges).

2.  How do they maintain the illusion that they are different?

To keep up the illusion that they have their own positions and views, Democrats and Republicans take up opposing viewpoints on certain hot-button issues and campaigning against what they view as an injustice.  Again, let us look at the last 2008 debate, specifically, on the issues of abortion and socialism.

On abortion, Obama has always been an outspoken pro-choice candidate, and he made no qualms about his stance.  McCain used this as an opportunity to pander to pro-life moderates by attacking his voting record on bills involving abortion, including the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.  However, McCain did not mention his own views on abortion, in particular, his belief that abortion should be available for special circumstances, such as rape or incest.  By omitting this information, McCain maintains the illusion that he is a pro-life Republican, when in reality, he is not.

On socialism, McCain took special care to paint Obama as a man who advocated radical wealth distribution.  At least a dozen times during the debate, he asserted that Obama wanted to

"spread the wealth around".  Again, McCain failed to present key information concerning socialism, in particular, that he has advocated socialistic agendas as well.  In the fall of 2008, both McCain and Obama voted "yes" on the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which essentially allows the government to buy bad loans from the banking system.  McCain's omission helps maintain the idea that he is a fiscal conservative, when in reality, he is not.

3.  How do others help this illusion continue? (NOTE: this is an opinion segment)

The 21st Century has given rise to the political pundit - that special man (or woman) that espouses a particular viewpoint, and relates that viewpoint to the world of politics.  According to viewer ratings of such shows on CNN, FOX, and MSNBC, about 25 million people tune in for these shows.  Of course, this means that the views of these pundits, whether fact-based or opinion-based, are presented to a large group of people, without any guarantee that the viewpoints given have any basis in fact.  Of course, freedom of speech is paramount, and certainly, some people take these opinions as what they are.  However, some viewers will just accept pundits' viewpoints as "fact" without verifying that for themselves.

When this sort of thinking is applied to partisan viewpoints, we begin to see a proliferation of stereotypes and assumptions about an opposing viewpoint, and it follows anyone who espouses that viewpoint.  As a result, we arrive at blanket labels like �liberal" and "conservative".  We THINK we know what they mean, but really, we have been duped into thinking they mean more than what they really are - just words.  In reality, these labels do not take into consideration the infinitely varied personalities, experiences and viewpoints in our modern world, and consequently, fall far short in doing the job we

expect them to (convenient recognition of one's personal values and viewpoints).

Of course, these labels do help both major political parties, who use concepts like "small government vs. big government" and "socially liberal vs. socially conservative" to create a fallacious "false dilemma" argument - only two viewpoints are taken seriously, while the rest are not.  As a result, those two viewpoints are represented as the only options in our political system.  This is not inherently a problem, since we have seen moderates and radicals on both sides of the aisle take office and become the voice of their constituents, thereby preserving some individuality in government.  However, as I illustrated above, it seems as if the viewpoints of the two political parties are actually becoming the same viewpoint (i.e. conflict in Iraq vs. conflict in Afghanistan - either way, it's still conflict).  This collision of the political parties ultimately undermines the concept of differing political parties, and dulls the political spectrum we are presented with.

The future of politics in the United States, one would hope, will more closely model the true wishes of the taxpaying citizens who vote their representatives in.  Of course, for this to happen, the current model must be seen for what it really is.  We, as the true leaders in our own democracy, must take action, either by reforming the two major parties, seriously considering viable third-party alternatives, or rejecting the two-party system entirely.

Home