THE SYSTEM THAT FAILED
MONOLOGUE WRITTEN BY CLYDE LEWIS
In America and much of Europe, the vast majority of voters think they’ll be okay if their side wins the next election and fear hell on earth if the other side wins. They’re wrong. Pretty much the same thing is coming either way.
I have always pushed the idea that both the right wing and the left wing in its condition, as is, allows for the bird of destabilization and failure to fly.
Never has it flown so high in America that it is about to crash and break into differing factions far too extreme to be described in the present. That is why it is important to see the patterns for what they are and if you can set aside your bias, if you can put to bed your identity politics you will see that the two party system as it is, will eventually collide with our constitutional republic.
In the 1950 Volume of the American Political Science Review, there is a selection called “Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System,” and in it was recommended that there be a massive centralization of the two parties so that national party leaders could develop carefully researched policy alternatives, which voters could then approve authoritatively through a simple majority vote.
And if the American political parties failed to heed their advice? The authors issued a dire warning:
If the two parties do not develop alternative programs that can be executed, the voter’s frustration and the mounting ambiguities of national policy might also set in motion more extreme tendencies to the political left and the political right. This, again, would represent a condition to which neither our political institutions nor our civic habits are adapted.
Once a deep political cleavage develops between opposing groups, each group naturally works to keep it deep. Such groups may gravitate beyond the confines of the American system of government and its democratic institutions.
Assuming a survival of the two-party system in form though not in spirit, even if only one of the diametrically opposite parties comes to flirt with unconstitutional means and ends, the consequences would be serious. For then the constitution-minded electorate would be virtually reduced to a one-party system with no practical alternative to holding to the “safe” party at all cost.
In line with the political scientists’ advice, the two parties did indeed develop “alternative programs.” Without a doubt, we now have the clear choices the report’s authors recommended.
The problem, it turns out, was with the “can be executed” part. More coherent, non-overlapping parties did not give us “executable programs.” Instead, because our system of checks and balances and decentralized authority was designed specifically to prevent against the “tyranny of the majority,” polarized parties gave us gridlock, a steady erosion of procedural consensus, and mounting frustration.
The frustration and the division provided the needed schism to breed extremism and radicalism. The system has gone rogue and the two-party system is fragmenting to the point that those who see the extremism within their political parties are bowing out.
Identity politics can no longer be held in good conscience as our political system has caved to extremist views, on both the left and right.
The notion is an uncomfortable one, however, it is becoming apparent that a two-party system can no longer be efficient as there now is a massive split decision attitude within the parties and one can no longer agree with every radical view that is expressed from the established agenda.
In other words, it is impossible to identify or support every issue that is being drummed up or presented within the party.
For instance, Democrats have been staunch supporters of unfettered, borderless immigration over the last several years, often claiming that anyone against allowing undocumented individuals into the United States is a xenophobe and morally bankrupt.
An old video has been circulating that shows California Senator Dianne Feinstein stating in a candid interview that reducing the flow of undocumented migrants is a necessity for a variety of reasons, including budgetary considerations and lower crime.
Feinstein makes the exact same points President Trump is making today, except somehow now Trump is wrong for doing so.
Recently Feinstein was confronted by school children urging her to go forward and support the Green New Deal proposed by Alexandria Ocasio Cortez. The group who called themselves the “Sunrise Movement” was rebuffed by the Senator as they were campaigning and Feinstein on video excoriated the group by saying:
“I’ve been doing this for 30 years. I know what I’ve been doing,” Feinstein responds. “You come in here and say it has to be my way or the highway. I’ve gotten elected. I just ran. I was elected by almost a million vote plurality and I know what I’m doing. Maybe people should listen a little bit.”
I am sure they were dismayed by the response because they thought they had an ally since she was a Democrat – and of course, if one freshman Senator believes in the deal she should too right.
No, because what is happening is that the old school way of thinking is not welcoming the new more radical thinking.
Furthermore, a young female activist said to Feinstein “I hear what you’re saying,” but we’re the people who voted you, you’re supposed to listen to us.”
“How old are you?” Feinstein asks her.
“I’m 16,” the young woman responds.
“Well, you didn’t vote for me,” Feinstein says.
Later in the clip, Feinstein tells a young activist, “Well, you know better than I do. So I think one day you should run for the United States Senate and then you do it your way.”
“Great, I will,” the teenager responded.
Now arguably Feinstein was rude to the kids –and they walked away more than defeated.
But this type of treatment will happen on both sides of the political spectrum as both parties see radical ideas creeping in and thus we see many leaders in both parties excusing themselves from affiliation with anyone who are seen as extremists.
There was a time, several decades ago, when America’s two-party system was praised for its moderation. Unlike European parliamentary democracies where “dogmatic ideological parties” of Europe thrived, America’s winner-take-all electoral system seemed to reward and therefore encourage parties and candidates with broad national appeal. No party, it was argued, could simply give up on half of the electorate. Similarly, no party could convincingly win a majority by putting forward extremist anti-system candidates far outside the mainstream.
Obviously, something has gone wrong with this theory. Instead of being rejected as outside the mainstream, Donald Trump, an extremist anti-system candidate, simply redefined what “mainstream” is for almost half of the electorate.
We are also seeing cults of personality like Alexandria Ocasio Cortez pushing her own so-called radical views of Democratic Socialism and other democratic personalities like Ilhan Omar who now has been cited for anti-Semitic remarks.
This has forced Democratic Party leaders to confront a growing rift over race and religion.
This has threatened to hamstring the newfound majority.
This is why I have stated that the Left/Right paradigm is a losing concept – because one cannot in good conscience support every counterintuitive idea that is brought forth as party policy — it has never been party policy because no matter what happens the same basic policies are implemented – and those who are not on the inside fraternity are breaking the party monotony by being extreme.
At the top of the political pyramid, all the players support essentially the same policies of centralization and more power to the elites. But, at the bottom of the pyramid, there are numerous and legitimate divides among common citizens. The divides are real, not false, and it is these divides that the elites seek to exploit.
One divide that we are likely to hear much more about in the new election cycle is the divide between “old school” Democrats and the new “green deal” socialists/communists. Another more vitriolic divide is the one between common sense conservatives and the “double down” socialist cult within the Republican Party.
There is also the covert divide that is created with the other breed of conservatives called the neocons.
Unfortunately, the pattern that is usually observed is the run of the mill conspiracy theory that has kept most Q followers, and Alex Jones followers alive.
That is that sovereignty activists decided to unseat the old Republican guard and take control of the party through Trump during the 2016 election while pushing “populism” (Make America Great Again) to the forefront of the mainstream.
The strategy is to put in power an outsider who lo and behold starts presenting what appear to be extremist views on many things. The party out of habit sees this ray of sunshine and decides they want to give it a go they vote for Trump and all that he has sold the American people.
This upsets the left who thought they had this one in the bag.
In response, the left goes even more insane; Trump derangement ensues.
The left is in search for meaning in a world that basically gives them the finger.
They team up with the media editorialists and realize that in order to fight back they must act out in vengeance and in the process something that is not in their best interest.
So they declare that anything that espouses the conservative view of anything is tantamount to state media and then calls all alternative thinkers, purveyors of fake news. They even go as far as to concoct a conspiracy theory that the President is a Russian agent and a traitor.
Everyone that considers themselves card-carrying liberals join because they somehow are in agreement that in order to take down Trump they have to break down and ridicule the old way of doing things and rebuild the Democratic Party that aims to be more Democratic socialist. Conservatives see it as a push for Communism.
It may just be that the goal is to openly communist rather than closet communist.
Now some liberals can see this and they are concerned, while others will just go with the flow and think that this is the “New Deal”: when there is nothing new about it.
The New Deal is there to divide.
Trump didn’t push out the old guard neo-con Republicans. In fact, the elites run his administration today through globalist agents like Bolton, Pompeo, Ross, and Mnuchin. The Trump Administration, while perhaps rebellious in its rhetoric has not drained the swamp.
The Swamp Monsters we are told are being kept on a ling leash – others will argue that this is not the case, however, the reality has to set in and for many dyed in the wool conservatives it is anathema to point this out.
The neocons of the right are the same as the neoliberal communists on the left. They are now dividing and fracturing their own parties.
This is known as “Thinning.” It is a destabilizing tactic.
Who benefits from this breaking up of the ideologies?
The Globalists, of course.
This is why “socialists” like Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez receiving more public and media attention than ever, it is clear that there is an agenda by the establishment to generate manufactured excitement over socialist/communist policies.
While old school Americans see it as a threat, fed up Americans see it as a way to save America.
However it isn’t; in fact, it is a way to transform America into something that it hasn’t been for 241 years a Socialist country.
That is not to say that our country has not dabbled in socialist values. Big government interferes in almost every aspect of our lives.
The Green New Deal represents a full-blown Marxist approach to government control. It is essentially soviet level communism, repackaged as environmental socialism.
Simply put, it is everything that has been outlined in the Summit 2030 agenda.
Like the 2030 Summit proposal the “Green New Deal” promotes a broad, utopian-like future where magically everyone gets all their energy from non-polluting sources, everyone has a high-paying job with paid vacation, everyone has high-quality health care and everyone has retirement security. Not surprisingly, it does not spell out how the United States Government and its taxpayers are supposed to pay for all this.
Even the name “Green New Deal” contains the phrase “New Deal” which refers to the sweeping socialistic changes to US law and society made in the 1930s by then US President Roosevelt, which included starting the Social Security Administration, confiscating the gold of Americans and substantially expanding the power and jurisdiction of the Federal Government.
The truth is that the Green New Deal is just another incarnation of a far-reaching plan to bring about a One World Government via the United Nations plan to implement Agenda 2030 formerly Agenda 21. This Global Governance as they like to call it is planned to be a worldwide totalitarian socialist dictatorship; there is nothing utopian about it.
The Green New Deal states that it is the “duty” of the Federal Government to meet “100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources.”
Goal 7 of Agenda 2030 states: “Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all.” Now, this sounds great but who’s going to pay for it? What are we going to have to give up in order to get it?
Well, certainly the plan will be that the only way to get it is to move into an approved housing area such as a Smart city where this can be monitored and enforced. In the Smart City Mega City, we would probably have to submit to being on the grid 24/7 with Smart Meters mentoring and radiating us.
Why would the people of the United States want to give the UN the authority and jurisdiction to “care” for all their citizens like this? The more we allow these governing bodies to take responsibility for an aspect of life, the more power they assume.
Now the bigger question is do all of the left wing thinkers support giving up sovereignty?
The Green New Deal states on pg. 4 that “climate change constitutes a direct threat to the national security of the United States.”
Goal 13 of Agenda 2030 is to “take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts.” Notice the term keeps changing from “manmade global warming” to “manmade climate change” to simply “climate change” to continue the charade.
Of course, the climate is changing; it always has and it always will. Most skeptics of Anthropogenic Global Warming readily admit that the climate changes. The question is how much humanity is causing it.
The point is also that it cannot scientifically be due to the minuscule amounts of CO2 humanity emits. Note how both the Green New Deal and Agenda 2030 make sure to get the propaganda in that we must rally around saving the environment and submit to a New World Order in the process as a side effect.
The Green New Deal spares no exaggeration by saying that Climate Change, a rise of 2ºC will cause “mass migration from the regions most affected by climate change” and cost the US “$500 billion in lost annual economic output by the year 2100.”
It also blames climate change for “wildfires that, by 2050, will annually burn at least twice as much forest area in the western United States than was typically burned by wildfires in the years preceding 2019.
This type of doom wording is exactly why Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez believes that the world will end in12 years unless we adopt the “Green New Deal” – 12 years is just beyond the year 2030.
If this open push for the “Green New Deal” doesn’t cause an internal rebellion in the Democratic Party then there is something terribly wrong with America.
The political Left is more vulnerable than ever to this kind of transition. As noted above, they feel they lost the 2016 election because they ran an establishment candidate on policies that were not extreme enough, and some of them also still believe the debunked notion that the election was stolen by Russian hackers.
But, if they do campaign in 2020 on a socialist/communist platform, it will be the same old elitist establishment that benefits. The old guard will become the new guard, just as the old guard became the “new guard” when Trump entered office.
Now with Trump, we are seeing some internal rebellion rising from the proposed wall at the southern border.
There are eight House Republicans who voted against the measure to allocate $5.7 billion in border wall funding—not necessarily a big rebellion but it sets a precedent for what is to come.
We are in the middle of history – what you are witnessing is the attempt to thin out America, politically.
National politics today is more about how people identify with the candidate than the party.
There are complex, identity-based dynamics driving American politics today. That’s why we continue to see various groups vote against their economic interests across the political spectrum and irrespective of class: working class who vote for candidates promoting tax cuts for the wealthy; wealthy, white-collar professionals who vote for candidates that want to raise their taxes; and women and minority-owned businesses that vote for candidates who want to increase corporate taxes, payroll taxes, and regulatory costs.
We are witnessing the emergence of what will eventually be a multi-party system.
The unfortunate thing is no one represents the political middle. Not only isn’t there a leader emerging to capture that portion of the political “white space,” a “middle coalition,” committed to governance and solutions.
We are witnessing the fractured two-party system and obstructionist strategies by both Democrats and Republicans that will fragment it into many parties with many agendas.
We are witnessing a “middle” that is increasingly becoming an identity.
The bottom line is what we are witnessing is a struggle for the identity of America itself.