The Big Tent Myth

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

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Tuesday night 6-7:00pm, 1370 WSPD, Toledo  www.wspd.com

It's My Party

If you are sick and tired of being given the same old choices when you go to cast your vote, your state legislature and the two old tired dominant parties are generally at fault. For more than 150 years the Democrats and Republicans have been taking turns holding power nationally and in most states. There have been periods of time when one party or the other dominated the political scene in various states and the country. Most of us, I suspect, would not consider one-party rule a healthy prescription for good government. Two party rule is marginally better…especially when the two parties have become so similar to one another. Two party rule does not serve the electorate when the parties collude on the practice of governing even if they openly disagree on the policies for governance.

In 1854 at Ripon, Wisconsin, the Republican Party was formed, and their 1860 candidate for President, Abraham Lincoln, was elected. Although several upstart parties have through the years attempted to crack the vise-grip hold of the two decrepit parties, they have generally been unsuccessful. The GOP bills itself as the party of small government and economic prosperity yet it joins hands with the Democrats to enlarge the federal government to an uncontrollable level while approving legislation that negatively impacts the abilities of Americans to earn and to prosper. The Democrats, on the other hand, claim to be the party of the “little guy,” but they insist on promoting intrusive Nanny-state government that over taxes and limits freedom for most of our citizens. The Republicans often follow their lead to increase the scope, power and oversight of the government while severely curtailing the rights and freedoms of the people.

The two party system can be a workable one IF the two primary parties provide contrasting visions for the country. While the current two parties do use their public relations units to articulate varying positions, their actual practice is to share an unyielding commitment to bigger, more intrusive and more powerful government. Words do matter, but “actions speak louder than words.” The actions of BOTH parties lead to a loss of individual liberty, economic freedom and property rights for every citizen of our once-great republic. While pretending to differ about the important philosophical questions that face our nation, they have willingly and knowingly colluded to undermine the Constitution of the United States and the God-given unalienable rights of our people. How long will we continue to endorse this insane path to our country’s destruction?

Because of their monopolistic/oligarchic practices the two parties collude by limiting third party access to the balloting process in many of our states. If a third party cannot achieve ballot access in several states, it limits that party’s opportunity to challenge the status quo on a nationwide basis. The two old parties control the election apparatus lock, stock and barrel. While “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” were guaranteed to us at our founding, the two old parties have joined together to de-value life by allowing babies to be killed, our liberties to be eroded through the growth of large intrusive government, and our pursuit of happiness to be defined by government edict rather than via individual choice. Open the windows of freedom, fellow citizens, and let in the fresh air of liberty. Demand that your states allow real choice at their ballot boxes. Third party candidates can provide the constitutional balance that has been sacrificed by the two old parties. Third parties can hold the old two-party oligarchy accountable. Third party candidates can advance the ideal of “we the people” that has been lost by the two old parties.

We citizens can continue doing things the same old way with the same old results, or we can insist that our states open the padlocks of access so that we have real choices when we vote. Merely changing the names and faces within the two-party structure is similar to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The two old parties have guided us toward the iceberg and have not shown that they have the courage and the wisdom to change course. Opening the system by allowing more legitimate parties who respect the Constitution and smaller government may be our last best hope. You can wager your bottom dollar (a worthless one) that the career politicians of the two old parties will not be around to mourn when our ship of state collides with the iceberg of reality.

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com     or   www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com