Each of the dinosaur political parties claims to promote a “big tent” philosophy. Following their primary and caucus battles for the nomination, they scramble to the “center” to appeal to a broad sector of the American electorate. The flaming lefty Democrats attempt to appear more sane and reasonable, and the great Republican Establishment wants to be viewed as more “compassionate” and “inclusive.” If they were selling breakfast cereal, The Federal Trade Commission would cite them both for fraud and misrepresentation. Historically, two major parties have contended for the hearts and minds of the United States’ voters, and the Republicans and Democrats have dominated the political scene for the past 156 years. There have been attempts by third parties to crack the vise-grip hold of the two parties, but their efforts have altered outcomes without winning the elections.
On a superficial level there seems to be some logic behind the “big tent” mentality. After all a nation of 312 million people is difficult to govern without a consensus, so broadening the party’s appeal to reach a significant portion of the electorate seems to be a valid formula for legitimacy. The problem, however, is that the effort to reach a large portion of the population dilutes the message and purpose of each respective party. They transform from a robust meal of solid menu selections to a one-item fare of gruel. Both of the traditional parties play the game in such a fashion that their gruel offerings are very similar. The only detectable difference is that each type of gruel has a somewhat varying consistency. One grows the size of government geometrically, and the other a tad bitter slower.
The attempt to “be all things” to the most people leads to the erosion of philosophy, principles and standards as the guiding directives for a party. Some of the parties’ central beliefs are diluted to widen their appeal, and other planks are added to attract specific demographic groups in the country. All in all the result is that the two parties surrender their basic core values and become caricatures of themselves and near carbon copies of one another. The strategic efforts to erect the big tent often come down to a serendipitous event, an exposed scandal or a subtle shift in the economy as deciding factors for the peoples’ choosing one party or the other. The big tent approach results in voters not having a true clear choice between the two oligarchic parties. Their decisions are based upon false data and perceptions that are driven by highly-paid marketing and advertising experts. The “big tent” is in essence a big corral as the peoples’ choices and opportunities are limited by the two parties’ simultaneous attempts to convince the mushy middle and the special interests to give them power.
The stratagem employed by the two old parties begs the question: can a party with a strong principled foundation attract enough voters to be viable? Are principles, standards and strong beliefs possible in a nation as large and as diverse as the United States of America? Do strong positions that are based on unchangeable principles cause many voters to be wary and suspicious of the party that promotes them? Or are we condemned to our inevitable slide toward more government control over our lives……a form of socialism or fascism? By continually appealing to a mythical middle and governing via soft tyranny, the desire for bold action or the firm restoration of first principles is thwarted. Minor advances or retreats are hailed as great victories by both parties, and the people know it’s all a mirage. Indecision and cowardice replace morality and principles as the attributes of our “best’ political leaders. We lose sight of what really matters and endorse politicians who can “win.” By living so willingly under the big tent, we lose our view of the horizon.
When the herd is gathered under the “big tent,” true leadership will break from the herd and forge a new direction for freedom. The big tent forces each of us to conform to the assumed will of all the others. In reality the big tent creates a false consensus because we believe that others wish to be there too, and their desires are met under the big top. More probably, each of us yearns to grow, to develop and live in our own fashion without arbitrarily being identified as just like everyone else under the tent. The big tent smothers originality, creativity and individual liberty. The big tent is nothing more than a control mechanism to convince us to submit our own preferences to those of the group….the collective, the society and government. The larger the tent the smaller the opportunity is for individual fulfillment. Big tents create a national consensus that is miles wide, but has no depth or no core. I prefer to live in my own tiny tipi and to not be a burden for my neighbors. Save the big tents for the circus….that’s where the clowns are.
Comment: cearlwriting@hotmail.com
Tuesday night 6-7:00pm, 1370 WSPD, Toledo www.wspd.com
No comments:
Post a Comment