The midterm elections this fall will show Congressional leaders in Washington D.C. the frustration of the American people at the direction of the country. People are fed up with the expansion of government and the mortgaging of our future.
Do these statements sound familiar?
These are a couple of the tag lines we are hearing as politicians and the money behind them gear up for the 2010 elections. But history tells us there is a bit more than that behind the movement to rally conservatives to the ballot box this fall. Some would say the movement is a tried and true method to maintain control and the hierarchy that has been in place in this country from its founding.
The type of passive control our democracy fosters.
When President Obama campaigned on the premise of “change we can believe in”, it seemed like a catchy slogan fitting in such a time of uncertainty. Is it possible that his election, and the subsequent changes in policy and proposed legislation has awakened the establishment in a way even they did not anticipate?
Or is it possible the Democrats have been exposed as being every bit as much about the continuation of the establishment, as reflected in their willingness to compromise out of any sweeping change in legislation?
The Tea Party movement has been born from conservatives who feel there are too many current Republicans who are not conservative enough. But to hear this group of predominantly white, overwhelmingly wealthy people stand behind a party named after a movement to rebuke taxation without representation is strange, as they have more representation and pay proportionately less taxes.
This movement is very consistent with the selling of the establishment and exerting democratic control through the idea of freedom. Only in America can people form new political parties and challenge the establishment. But when you look at the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, and even the Independent Party, how much of an impact have they really had? No funding, no media attention, and, ultimately, only a handful of Congressional members reflect these mainstream alternative parties.
In the end, we are handed two viable candidates to “choose” from. Democratic control at it’s best.
When Ross Perot made a strong run at the presidency in 1996, it was ultimately viewed as a benefit for the Democrats and President Clinton. Freedom of choice is only sponsored when the choices are ultimately limited. This allows the establishment to maintain control while still promoting the illusion of choice.
In 2010, the midterm elections are all about the establishment regaining and retaining that control.
If people truly want to revolutionize the political process and campaigns, it is time they start looking at candidates based on their desire to change the system at its core. All candidates will state their opinion on hot button issues like the debt, health care, immigration and the like, but how do they feel about the issues regarding campaign financing and the lobbyist obstruction to populist will?
This is where a new, strong independent movement can begin to take hold. Instead of catering to the establishment and regurgitating the rhetoric of the day, let’s focus on the core of the problem. Let’s identify both major parties as what they are, the Establishment Party. Let’s stop simulating outrage over the talking point issues and take aim at changing the system.
It’s well past time for a new grass roots, populist movement that is not just a movement in name only.