Let’s Talk About A ‘Third Party’

I have had it with the talking heads who pound their podiums and tell you that a ‘third Party’ cannot and will never work. If this is true, then we only have one Party — the Democrat Party. This is because the GOP started as a ‘third Party,’ but, since third Parties cannot and will never work, that must mean the GOP doesn’t exist, because it can’t and never will. Therefore, those of us who have been saying a vote for the ‘R’ is really a vote for the ‘D’ have been right all along. Or, we can stop mentally masturbating to defend our favorite political tribe and get serious — for a change.

Let’s start by presenting the ‘other side’s’ case: that a third Party will never work. And let’s present it by letting one of their best spokesmen make his best case against a third Party. Furthermore, let’s present an argument against third Parties that is relevant to this time in our history. I give you, Dan Bongino:

Dan Bongino explains why Donald Trump was smart to disavow the Patriot Party.

OK, now, let’s not play intellectual games in which we try to prove Bongino correct or prove him incorrect. Let’s just apply logic to what we have actually observed in American politics. Do third Parties work? Looking at the times when independent candidates have run for the Presidency, the answer would appear to be, “No!” But notice what I just said: when they run for the Presidency. Well, excuse me, but this is a fallacy. Framing the question in this way guarantees your argument will appear to be correct. But the question is not whether or not a third Party will work to win the Presidency, but whether or not a third Party can even be viable in our political environment. When we do this — when we frame the question correctly — the answer then becomes, “It depends.”

Now, stick a pin in that thought for a moment: we’ll come back to it in a bit. Let’s consider the argument that so many like Mr. Bongino offer as the solution to a third Party. Rather than trying to build a viable alternative to the D’s and R’s, the argument is always to ‘Change the Party from within.’ Here is where we are going to apply logic to real-world observations.

Since Rush Limbaugh first appeared on the scene in 1988, he has been arguing for Republicans to change the Party from within by using the Party system of primaries. Others have joined their voices to Limbaugh’s, to include Mr. Bongino. So, for the past 32 years, Republicans have been working to move the Party to the right. How well has that worked? If you look at where the Republican Party is now, and you are honest with yourself, you’d have to conclude it hasn’t worked at all. Yes, there have been apparent victories along the way, but they were illusions. Shortly after the ‘victory’ is achieved, it is then quietly reversed; just as soon as something else takes the voters’ eyes away from it, the Republicans either delete or allow the Democrats to reverse the ‘victory.’ It is all political theater meant to keep the voters of both Parties voting for the candidates that the Parties feed to them. And this whole time, both Parties have moved steadily to the Left. So, I ask you, what good does it do to try to change a Party from within when history tells us it does not work?

The question we must ask ourselves next is, “Why can’t we change the Party from within itself?’ Ah, this is actually an easy question to answer. You can’t change the Party because it is a corporation, and voters are never allowed to own stock or sit on the board of that corporation. Let me explain.

Our political Parties are actually corporations. Hence, they are ‘private’ businesses. They have the exact same structure as, oh, say, Facebook and Twitter. Now, if we think of voters as the ‘users’ of the Party’s product (i.e. its platform), then voters will be similar to users of Facebook and Twitter. Now, Facebook and Twitter are actively operating as political Parties, but nothing is being done to them because they are ‘private’ businesses. This means that Facebook and Twitter are simply ignoring the complaints of their customers in pursuit of their own agendas. But isn’t this exactly what the Parties do: ignore the will of their voters in favor of their own agendas?

You see, to become a candidate of a Party, you do not need the support of the voter, you need the support of the Party, itself. If you have that, then the voters don’t matter because the Party will make sure you are the candidate that gets pushed onto the ballot. Again, if anyone doubts this, they need only look to what the Democrats did to Sanders in the last two primaries. If one looks into the GOP, one will find the GOP does the exact same thing. But why would this surprise us? The Parties are ‘private’ corporations with their own agendas, so why would they allow anyone to tell them what to do unless that person first swore allegiance to the Party? And, if a candidate needs to prove their allegiance to the Party first, then how can that candidate then place loyalty to their State, Nation or Constitution before the Party without ending their political aspirations?

Are you starting to see the picture yet? The idea that you can change a corporation from within simply by voting is an illusion. You can’t. If you could, then the GOP would have been changed by now. It’s simple logic applied to actual, real-world observation. This is why President Washington warned us not to fall into a Party system.

Now, a little more logic applied to actual observation. Let’s go back to Facebook and Twitter. At once, they are similar but different forms of social media. But are they? Are they really? They appear to be different, but they aren’t. In reality, they are both political businesses. They collect and sell the personal information of their users, then use the profits from this operation to push their political agendas. The question then becomes, do these two political businesses work in opposition to or in cooperation with each other? In the case of Facebook and Twitter, it is obvious: they cooperate with each other. But what about the two Parties? When we look at how they actually operate, they give the appearance of opposing each other, but then, when we look at what they actually do over several election cycles, we will see that both Parties are moving in the same direction. This is cooperation. This then means that the two Parties may appear to be separate but, in practical terms of their agendas, they are the same. This then means that we are not arguing for a third Party, we are actually arguing for a viable second choice.

Finally, there is one more observation we need to acknowledge. Even if we built a viable second Party — a true opposition Party — it would still fail. But it would not fail because an opposition Party is impossible, but because the American People no longer hold enough of the ‘Founding Spark’ of America to join that opposition Party. In short, we no longer have enough Americans left to out-vote the AmeriKans. Unless and until that changes, all this talk about changing the political spectrum is as I said before: mental masturbation over our favorite political tribe. Nothing will come of any of it because, even in the process of arguing for change, we keep playing their game which, sadly, includes the assassination from all sides of anyone such as myself who dares to call for a break from this circular trap. We speak up, all sides stop their quarreling long enough to beat us into oblivion, then everyone goes right back to where we see them now: arguing over the next election cycle even though they know it is now a fact of life that every election from here on in will be rigged.

It’s just logic applied to actual observation, folks…