Monday, July 11, 2011

Paying for Parties


Quick! How many of you are aware that the two old parties’ quadrennial conventions are subsidized by taxpayers? For you more conservative followers of the GOP are you now all-a-tingle knowing that your (borrowed) taxes were used, in part, for John McCain’s grand RINO march across the stage in St. Paul while fiscally responsible and possibly lamenting Democrats all pooled tax dollars for Barrack Obama’s triumphant grand eloquence before the pillars in Denver? How do you feel now…knowing you helped pay for both huge events? How can it be in a country that is so broke and nearly bankrupt, we subsidize the two political parties who have controlled the electoral and governing apparatus for 150 years? This travesty is compounded by the fact that that one third of the voters identify themselves as Republicans, one third as Democrats and the final third is split between minor parties and independents. So, why subsidize a grand march and booze-ridden blowout for a party or any entity that represents a mere third of the voters? Also, the presidential nominees for both parties have usually been chosen via the primary and caucus process prior to the convention’s opening. The gripping national interest in the convention outcome is nonexistent….so, again, why should the taxpayers pay?

As a Libertarian, I am double-minded about this fiasco. If Big Brother is going to throw worthless cash around to benefit the national political system, some of those dollars should flow into the convention coffers of those of us who actually believe in the Constitution. But…my Libertarian principles prevent me from crying “for my fair share” because I truly desire Constitutional government, equity in government services and fiscal responsibility. This isn’t just about my political preferences, however, because so many voters self-categorize themselves as “independent.”  Independents have no convention, no nominating process and no structure for snookering the American people. Why can’t they have a huge party with the funny hats, rivers of lobbyist-provided booze and legions of hospitality suites… all provided by the taxpayers hard-earned money? You may not share my alarm and disgust that the two-party oligarchy dips into the public trough for their every four-year party parties, but the practice is not small “d” democrat nor small “r” republican. One party despotic states use the government’s resources to maintain power and crush opposition. The difference here in the United States is merely one of tone…not of practice. The two old parties and their buddy-buddy system have corrupted our government to the point that they believe they are entitled to do the Watsui, drink the Dom Perignon, and munch on broiled salmon at your expense.

Each of the fossilized controlling parties received $18 million dollars for their 4-day bashes. In the grand scheme of government waste 18 million is but mist in a bucket, but the principle of forcing United States taxpayers to underwrite a partisan convention, smacks of Soviet-style rule wherein one could not participate in the electoral process unless one belonged to “THE” party. In our case all taxpayers are required under penalty of law to shell out the fruit of their labor for ideologies, personalities and policies with which they may diametrically disagree. This is a free country, right?

This practice might not be so egregious if some semblance of equity were involved for those voters who object to the ruling duopoly. Just the opposite is true in many cases. For example the two old party career politicians have erected barriers and hurdles that make it nearly impossible for other representative parties to have ballot access. They claim these parties do not have much support ergo they haven’t earned a reasonable standard for ballot qualification. Clearly, our exalted careerist rulers are masters of circular reasoning: Minor parties cannot gain traction without appearing on the ballot, and they must have traction to meet the excessively restrictive criteria established by the duopolistic goons. The 156 years that the two ruling elites have held absolute power is not enough time. They need more time…just like Obama says does. The century and a half of deal-making, compromising and collusion have given us an ungovernable monstrosity in the halls of power.

If defunding sweetheart deals for the two tyrannical parties and allowing dissenters access to the process has an impact, what would it be? For one, some small savings would be achieved, and second, perhaps the career ruling elites may be forced to be more accountable because of their third-party challengers. Historically republicans run to the right in primaries then backtrack to the “mushy middle” for the general election. Democrats do the opposite, but the compromisers meet in the middle without very little distinction between them. Third-party candidates from the left and the right would encourage the two old party careerists to be more honest about their positions for fear of losing votes to a minor party. It’s time for the oligarchic duopoly to remove the pacifiers from their mouths, the tax-funded benefits from their party coffers, and the deal-making abuse of the people and our liberty. We have anti-trust laws, but they have exempted themselves. It’s standard operating procedure….sadly.


No comments:

Post a Comment