Getting Clear About Voting Independent

What matters is having a leader, not a politician, assume political office. And so I suggest that people look to break out of the two-party trance and take on a pro-active role in taking your government back to serve You, your family, your friends, your community.
This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

I should really title this "getting clear of fear about voting 3rd party..." because that's really all it is. It is my premise that we'll only find quality candidates in independent parties. We'll be hard-pressed to find them in the two, ol' boy clubs called the Republican and Democrat parties as the Republican Primaries have demonstrated explicitly and as for the Democratic Party the standing President has demonstrated implicitly through his saying one thing to get elected and doing quite the opposite. Just follow the money trail and you'll see!

Among some progressives (not real ones), there is a 'conversation' that goes on about "what if the Republicans win," oh my God! Disaster! Oh really? Do you really think that would be much different than what we have now? Think again! There may be a slight change in rhetoric but not action.

One of the greatest ironies these days is around the health care issue. This will help to make the point. Romney put into place a form of single-payer health care system in Massachusetts as governor. According to a seasoned and critical doctor I know there, it's working quite well, and offers some monetary protections to its citizens otherwise not there. Obama based his health care plan on Romney's!

But, due to his deep loyalty to some of his donors, e.g., the insurance industry, Obama innovated a new dimension for his bill, which is "Insurance for all!" leaving aside whether people, according to their own Constitutional and human right, even want insurance. That's another subject, but other than a few other similar points, the essence of ObamaCare is RomneyCare. One Democrat, one Republican. The difference please?

In fact, I'm all for 'what works' and crossing party lines all over the place. When it is for the People I applaud and I'd like to see more of it. I don't fault Obama for taking what works from Romney's plan at all.

But to make believe that these parties are two instead of one except at special moments is something we need to take a look at. Even if there are ideological differences, it doesn't matter because ideology couldn't be less relevant at this point in time. What is most relevant is that both parties are paid by the very same sources, and that is largely the major corporate players--banks, insurance, Big Pharma, security, military, agri-business, chemical and media--and the parties are there to "party" with their donors. We the People have not been invited!

Another example is the Keystone Pipeline. One fine, particularly political day Obama gets righteous and stands up against the Keystone Pipeline, a hotly debated issue between the duopolistic parties. About six weeks later, we see that his stance was actually based on some logistical/administrative quirk, not the ethical-environmental issue he made it seem his stance was about. And now, some brief time later, he is for the Keystone Pipeline.

Obama came into office promising to close Guantanamo. Four years later, we still pay the bills there. He promised to "green America" with clean technologies, yet then turns around and promotes nuclear energy--the most dangerous energy in the world (think 3-Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima, just to be obvious about it) as "green". Isn't it curious that the largest nuclear energy company in the country is one of his biggest donors. My how language changes when the native tongue is money.

Can we observe, stay aware of these fluctuations of mind, and truly digest them (we better have a strong stomach..!) to see that we are getting nowhere with, as Ralph Nader says, "Twiddly-Dee and Twiddly-Dum" two-party politics. Neither represent the People, so why do we keep going back to them? Do we like choosing between the 'lesser of two evils'?

Have we all been so traumatized in childhood that we continue to attract an abusive parent?

When Ross Perot was in the televised debates in the Reform Party, we had the best Presidential debate in recent history. Someone finally cared about the People. I'm suggesting that when John Hagelin ran for the Natural Law Party in 1992, 1996 and 2000, the same was true with him. Each time Ralph Nader ran, again, a relief to have someone speak "straight" instead of political rhetoric, which is a euphemistic way of referring to deceptive, self-serving, general, usually ambiguous speech.

And now, former Mayor of Salt Lake City, award-winning lawyer, humanitarian and environmentalist, someone who stands up for the Constitution and the rule of law, Ross "Rocky" Anderson, is running for President in the Justice Party. Contrast his speech with those of the two dominating parties who have a bond, a pledge, to keep third parties at bay, in the televised debates, and off the major, public, commercial airwaves except for token moments. I have two interviews with Rocky stating platform positions ( through which one can become acquainted with a breath of fresh air in the political arena, one that offers hope, because he has deliberately stepped out of the two-party system upon seeing that their corporate sponsors are in common.

What matters is having a leader, not a politician, assume political office. And so I suggest that people look to break out of the two-party trance and take on a pro-active role in taking your government back to serve You, your family, your friends, your community.

If we stay in the two-party trance, we get more of the same, with a slightly different tint. To vote for the "lesser" of two evils, the problem is, you still end up with evil. It's gotten us nowhere. Is it not time for a real change?

Go To Homepage

Popular in the Community