The Bipartisan US Political Monopoly

Most Americans have been conditioned to think politically in terms of a "two-party system" in which the Republicans and the Democrats represent the opposing "mainstream" positions on relevant issues.

Year after year voters choose between the two "major" parties, without asking why there are (or should be) only two choices -- or whether both parties could be unacceptable in terms consitutional legality.

"Conventional wisdom" suggests while any other parties are free to join the contest, none have had a sufficiently compelling or popular platform to merit public consideration.  The government itself, along with the major media outlets, and much of academia, concur, further reinforcing popular belief in the "two-party system" as the American way.

What's wrong with this picture?

First, it is instructive to observe not only the differences, but also the many profound similarities, between these two parties.

For example, both parties have increased the size of the federal government; both have increased federal taxation; both have increased the size of the federal budget, the federal deficit, and the national debt; both have actively fostered the expansion of intrusive and meddling federal bureaucracies and police agencies; both have also been heavily engaged in the practice of "pork barrel" (tax-and-spend favoritism) politics, including corporate welfare when and where it suited their agendas (i.e., getting or keeping power).

Presidents of both parties have repeatedly used "executive orders" and "emergency powers" to wage costly, unconstitutional, undeclared wars abroad against opponents that posed no direct threat to U.S. security or sovereignty.  Likewise, these same presidents, often with no opposition from Congress, have given away billions in "free" aid and "loans" to foreign governments, much of which has never benefited the people over whom they rule.

In these practices, both parties have incurred an ever greater national debt, the ultimate liability for which rests not with any president, nor any other elected federal official, but with the people themselves -- who are given no opportunity to speak (or vote) on such matters.

No matter what their popularly touted campaign slogans and platforms might have been, both the Democrats and the Republicans have had various turns controlling the White House and one or both Houses of Congress.  Yet at no time did either party actually take substantial steps to reverse any of the above trends.  Instead, both have "pushed the envelope" in disregarding the legal limitations imposed by the U.S. Constitution, resulting in today's bloated, power-hungry federal government.

Furthermore, the parties themselves and much of the media, have jointly hindered other voices from reaching the ears of the American public.  While giving lip service to the Constitution and parroting phrases like "rule of law" (which carry little meaningful weight amidst a plethora of consistently unlawful actions), proponents and protectors of the bipartisan monopoly (both the deliberate and the unwitting) largely exclude "third party" challenges from serious public consideration.

A highly instructive example of this practice involves the "presidential debates" in which the two parties (and only the two parties) participate every four years.  It's no secret (though they don't publicize it themselves) that these carefully staged events are heavily controlled and protected by the two parties, shielding both parties' candidates from issues for which neither party wants to be held accountable.

Sound like another "conspiracy theory" to you?  The whole sordid scam is thoroughly documented at the website of Open Debates, an organization dedicated to exposing this farce and getting the voices of the "third parties" heard.  I urge you to take the time to study their coverage, and make your own informed assessment of the matter.

Candidate	Party	State Ballots	State Write-Ins	Electoral Votes
Bush	Republican	51	0	538
Kerry	Democrat	51	0	538
Badnarik	Libertarian	49	0	527
Peroutka	Constitution	36	3	407
Nader	Independent	35	5	363
Cobb	Green	28	7	396

Details of the 2004 presidential election (and "debates") provide further insight into the perpetuation of the bipartisan monopoly of what should be an entirely non-partisan event.  By mid-October, the "third party" candidates were on the ballots of U.S. states with potential electoral votes as indicated in the table above.

The number of electoral votes needed to win a presidential election in 2004 was 270, so every candidate shown in the table above would have technically been capable of winning the presidency, if it hadn't been for the fact that all but the first two were virtually ignored by the U.S. government, both major parties, and the media in general.  (How many times have you seen the "other four" viable candidates and their positions on any issues even mentioned (in any form) in the media [let alone on what are supposed to be non-partisan "debates"]?)

Suffice it to say that there is something terribly wrong when both public (taxes) and private funding are used to give the two largest parties additional, unnecessary and free advertising and exposure under the guise of "public debate," to the deliberate exclusion of four viable, officially registered, and politically competitive platforms.  The "news" media ought especially to be ashamed, since they pretend to offer balanced treatment of presidential elections, yet they largely ignore the presence and platforms of the "third parties," as well as the injustice done to them via such charades as the "presidential debates."