Robert A. Sickler: Adapted from a portion of Thomas Pain's "Common Sense," 1776
Governments, such as those found with dictatorships and absolute monarchies have this advantage, they are simple; if the people suffer, they know the head from which their suffering springs, know likewise the remedy, and are not bewildered by a variety of causes and cures. But the American Government is so exceedingly complex, that the nation has suffered for years without being able to discover in which part the fault lies; some will say in one area and some in another. To placate the American people, the Republicans will blame the Democrats and the Democrats will blame the Republicans, whilst demons laugh at the ease by which Americans are fooled. Still, a sober mind cannot help but realize that complexity and multiple offered solutions are not suitable excuses, should a suitable excuse even exist, for the American people's willingness to continue suffering under the oppression of an abusive government.
I am persuaded that those still reading are probably of rational mind, for only those given to self-abuse would think that the current American political situation be one pleasant in it application. While it is true there are those who enjoy the domimatrix whip, with or without the wearing of leather, I would that such folk have little interest in the ensuing exchange. Therefore I write to those who do care about the American political system and are long past the frustrations of being burdened with a government that sees its people as a means to an end: rather than the people being the reason for government. So, let us examine together this source of ill and formulate together the only viable solution to our current political dilemma.
To begin with, in our representative democracy, to say that politicians are an extension of the American people's will, presupposes five things:
FIRST: That the collaborative institution of government intended by the nation's founders can exist in just a two party system, in a country as large and complex as the United States.
SECONDLY: That in a two party system the election of a Chief Executive Officer, the President, provides our constitutional government with the best leader our country can provide.
THIRDLY: That the personal thirst for money and power, of congressional members, will not influence their decision making and thus they can be trusted to represent the people.
FOURTHLY: That lobbyists are closer linked to the will of the people than elected politicians; and, this justifies flooding our political system with lobbyist.
FIFTHLY: That, even with only two parties, you will never find them both being manipulated by the same set of special interests or external weights.
I, for one, am not fully persuaded that our five suppositions can be declared honest and sound, with any degree of certainty; in fact, I am more disposed to shout that all five suppositions are blatantly false and only a moron would think them to be true.
Then, to say that the political system of America is a union of three powers reciprocally checking each other, is farcical, either the words have no meaning, or they are flat contradictions. The same constitution, which gives Congress a power to check the Executive Branch by withholding supplies, gives afterwards the Executive Branch a power to check Congress, by empowering the president to veto congressional bills; it again supposes that the President is wiser than those whom it has already supposed to be wiser than him. A mere absurdity!
Then, there is something exceedingly ridiculous in the composition of a two party system; it first excludes true representation of the people, yet empowers the two parties to act in cases where the highest judgment is required. A two party system forces the people into voting for the lesser of two evils, when in reality they wanted neither evil. How can a two party system, which is shut from the majority of American will, know it thoroughly; wherefore the two parties are unnaturally brought together by special interests, thus destroying the premise that they are representing the will of the people; this proves the whole character of a two party system to be absurd and useless.
Then, it is proposed that congress represents the will of the people; the Executive and Legislative the needs of the government; but this say I hath all the distinctions of a crooked roulette wheel. I will admit the Branches be pleasantly arranged; yet, when examined in the history of their performance, they appear ignorant of the will of the people and ambiguous in the execution of their own understanding. The nicest construction of words, produced by the most exalted author, when applied to the most distinguished actions of our current government, must reveal total ineptness or be a blatant lie. That the government functions in the interest of the people is but words of sound only, and though they may amuse the parasite's ear, they are a torment in the mind of those who's labors pay the bill. I will be the first to admit the arrangement of our government seems to be of sound principle, regarding its responding to the direction of the people; but in the execution of its duties, history proves our government to be filled with slobbering morons or could it be that they are playing to the directions of an unseen conductor … an external weight.
Ultimately, we are forced to admit that our best two-party endeavor at producing a republic, a representative democracy, is unequal to the task; the means either cannot or will not accomplish the end, or the whole affair is a 'felo de se.' Of course, what if our government does not intend to function in the best interests of those who provide it life giving currency; this is a thought almost too horrid to put into words. Yet, we must admit, as the greater weight will always carry up the lesser, and as all the wheels of a machine are put in motion by one, it only remains to know what power has the weight to provide motion in our government, for that will be the power that governs; and though the congress, or a part of them, may clog, or, as the phrase is, check the rapidity of governmental motion, yet so long as they cannot stop it, their endeavors will be ineffectual; the great unknown power will at last have its way, and what it wants in speed, is supplied by time. Thus, if the American people be not the power behind governmental motion, then perhaps the American government, thou it truly be a representative democracy, represents not the people but a power unknown to the people; who are beguiled into thinking that they are the power.
That our form of government was founded on the principle of elected individuals representing the people, rather than our nation being an autocracy or direct democracy, needs not be mentioned, and that it derives its whole consequence merely from being the executor of the people's will, should be self-evident, wherefore, though we have been wise enough to shut and lock a door against overt absolute government, we at the same time have been foolish enough to put the keys to our government in the hands of but two parties, which is the same as saying we have given to the external weight the keys to our government.
It goes without saying that the American people are proud of the governmental principles found in democracy, even representative democracy; although we must admit that our pride arises as much or more from national pride than reason. We cannot question the fact that our form of government offers the best opportunity for the will of the people to become the power behind governmental motion; all would be well if indeed it were the will of the people that powers the wheels of government. Instead, the American government is directed by a select few who have the weight necessary to influence the turning of wheels, and the movement of gears, to transform their desires into actions, which are then handed to the people under the more palatable shape of a bill wanted by the people. In our present political state, the American people's pride in government is about as justified as a puppet's pride in the quality of its dance.
It is a naive mind which thinks our current political system is a representative democracy, of the people; yet it is a more naïve mind which thinks the evil of representative democracy can be totally eliminated; for when individuals are given the freedom to act on the behest of their constituents or in response to other influencing powers the greater weight will always move the individual. Here in lies the hidden evil; Americans are lulled into thinking the greater weight is the combined will of the people when in reality the greater weight is the will of an elite few, with interests only inline with the people on rare occasion; when more often their interests benefits them at the expense of the people. As long as this external weight presses on but a single gear, or at worst case a few gears, the political machine will function as intended: at least for the most part. Should the external weight exert its influence over many wheels and gears, it can slowly redirect the functioning of the machine, until the time when the external weight becomes the prime mover and the people but an ancillary influence. With only two parties to deal with, an external weight, can concentrate its force and more easily achieve its objectives; this is the prime evil provided by our only having two parties. I will admit that we cannot totally eliminate the evil of external weights but we can regain control of the keys to our government by destroying the existing two party dictatorship.
Wherefore, laying aside all national pride and prejudice in favor of modes and forms of our current system, the plain truth is that: 'the fewer party options given to the people the easier it is for an elite group of individuals to totally control governmental functioning.' There you have it; it has been plainly said; now there are but two recourses for a people willing to risk it all in regaining control of a representative democracy. The first option offers the most certain, but most insidious, solution; that being an armed American populace regaining control of government through open rebellion. A far more civil, and certainly more enduring, means of regaining control is to minimize the influence of external weights through multiple viable political parties, which can so dilute the influence of the external weight as to make it impotent. Of course, for such an action to be truly effective it must be accompanied by a declaration of war against all lobbyists. That is why I encourage each and every true American to make a serious inquiry into the constitutional weaknesses of our present two-party system. An honest inquiry, by a healthy mind, will most certainly find favorable the need for their contributing to the formation of a third party, which is strong enough to break our current two party dictatorship. We will never be in a proper condition of doing justice to the concept of representative democracy, whilst we continue under the influence of some external weight; so neither are we capable of doing justice to ourselves whilst we remain fettered by any obstinate prejudice toward a two party system. And as a man, who is attached to a prostitute, is unfitted to choose or judge a wife, so any prepossession in favor of a two party system will disable us from discerning the benefit of a strong third or fourth party.
I strongly urge each and every voting American to cast off their ancestral party shackles; rise up from governmental oppression and vote into power a third party. I ask you: 'Do we want to pass to our children the yoke of a two party dictatorship; to place upon their backs that burden of serfdom we now bear? I think not! Too long have we bowed to the edicts of a two party dictatorship and now we stand up to declare ourselves, and our children, and our children's children, free. We will no longer support a two party system, which is moved by the external weight, the interests of an elitist few, we will rise in revolt through our right of vote. To do this we must ignore the establishment's party message: "voting for a third party is the same as voting for the party you don't belong to." This is an absurd argument! The differences between the democratic and republican parties are superficial; there are only cosmetic differences; both parties represent the external weight: not the American people. As for me, in consideration of the 3-leading third-party option, I am fairly persuaded to join the Constitution Party.
1. Constitution Party: You could probably classify this party as right wing. The party is strongly pro-life, anti-gun control, anti-tax, anti-immigration, trade protectionist, "anti-New World Order," anti-United Nations, anti-gay rights, anti-welfare, and pro-school prayer.
2. Green Party of The United States: This party is the informal US-affiliate of the leftist, environmentalist European Greens movement. The European Green Party is a transnational political party having as its members Green parties from European countries. It has a strong socialist agenda and a very strong environmental agenda. Perhaps one might even say a "New World Order" agenda.
3. Libertarian Party: This is the 'hippie party.' It is neither left nor rightwing. Libertarians believe in total individual liberty and economic freedom: pro-drug legalization, pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-home schooling, anti-gun control, anti-welfare, anti-government regulation of business, anti-minimum wage, anti-income tax, pro-free trade. In their words: "more freedom, less government and lower taxes."
At the present time, these are the three leading third-party choices. For Americans, who understand the unifying power of the constitution and believe in the words, which forged our great nation, there can be little need to labor over this issue any further. Perhaps not the best party human minds can conjure and perhaps not staffed with the greatest minds our country can offer; but certainly, the Constitution Party is currently the best candidate for our establishing a strong viable challenge to the two-party dictatorship.