When Partisan Loyalty Stops Making Sense

It's surprising Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich continue to stay loyal to their respective parties when they have been shown absolutely no love. If they want to create real change in this country, they should drop out of politics.
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 hope you weren't surprised when MSNBC filed an appeal to keep Democratic senator and presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich out of a nationally televised Nevada debate.

Nor should you have been surprised when Fox News barred Republican candidate Ron Paul from debating before the New Hampshire primary, even though his poll numbers there were better than actor-turned-presidential hopeful Fred Thompson and he'd just come in ahead of Rudy Giuliani in Iowa. This was the third debate that Kucinich has been excluded from in this cult of personality circus that passes as a serious primary campaign season.

This is all par for the course. In a winner takes all political system, the ones with the most money are usually the ones who stand for the least amount of change. Makes sense when you figure that those like Kucinich or grassroots Republican revolutionary Ron Paul, who believe in redistributing the wealth and/or creating radical change in how things are done are actually seen as viable threats to those candidates who except money from the obscenely wealthy corporations and the top 2% that control the vast majority of this country's wealth. I guess being excluded from a debate is a backhanded compliment of sorts. As I've stated in earlier blogs, Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, and others like them represent a body of ideas that buck the system and challenge the status quo..

The only real surprise is that Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich continue to stay loyal to their respective parties when they have been shown absolutely no love. Unlike families, you cannot only pick your political affiliation, but you can change it at any time. Its as if neither one wants to admit that at the end of the day, both the Dems and Repubs will rally behind whichever candidate they think has the best chance of defeating the other party, regardless of public opinion.

Public opinion is be manipulated by both parties, who have major influence in media coverage and debate access. If they don't want you voting for particular candidates like, lets say Kucinich or Ron Paul, they simply give them less exposure. They know damn well most people will base their vote on who's face they see in the papers or on the boob tube. This is how we end up with someone like Great Democratic Hopeless John "how the hell did he end up with the nomination?" Kerry in '04, when the better choice may have been Howard Dean, who was actually more popular among the voters. But as I said before, it's a race between the two parties who are fighting over who gets to enjoy being king-of-the-hill next, kind of like the one dollar bet between Randolf and Mortimer Duke in Trading Places. Considering the insensitivity the Duke brothers display not only towards the darker skinned guinea pig in their human experiment (Eddie Murphy's Billy Ray Valentine) but also towards their number one company man (Dan Akroyd's Louis Winthrop III), does it really matter which one wins? In other words, how many political slings and arrows will Dennis Kucinich suffer before he finally decides its time to take out some knee caps? Why is he naïve enough to think he can win within the very corrupted system he wants to radically renovate?

My advice to the Ron Pauls and Dennis Kucinichs is this: If you want to create real change in this country, drop out of politics. Seriously. We do not need any more politicians. We need leaders.

With Martin Luther King Jr.'s day of remembrance approaching, it is good to remember that King was not a politician. He did not seek an elected office or to be a leader. He simply responded to injustice as a human being who firmly believed in peace, liberty, and justice for all. He was a man of integrity who walked his talk and was thus recognized for it. Even when he was talking, his words were poetic, not rhetorical. It was straight from the heart and as clichéd as this has become to say nowadays, he was speaking truth to power. He spoke out against the war in Vietnam and reminded America of her ugly, Imperialist tendencies every chance he got. He ultimately died for it.

How many presidential hopefuls today would be willing to go that far?

Popular in the Community

Close

What's Hot