Comment on this article |
Email this article |
Ow, Ow, Ow; Ouch, Ouch, Ouch
by Sudhama Ranganathan
Email: uconnharassment (nospam) gmail.com
04 Feb 2012
When candidates for the presidency go through peaks and depressions during a campaign, we often see them do well then struggle; while sometimes recovering and others not. We don't like to think of elections this way, but typically there are the establishment candidates vs. everyone else. Somehow, no matter the gaffes, mess ups, political failures or other foul-ups, establishment candidates somehow rise above it all. We're told they are the establishment favorites and almost always they get the spot the establishment wants for them, be it in the lead up to the primaries or in the general elections.
They to do well, unless there is a group of people calling the establishment on their manipulation of the free choice voting system in favor of a seemingly more malleable or centrist candidate, or if the particular election year has an electorate demanding one from the start. At such a point, the establishment can always fall back on a Plan B, and they can always have a Plan C etc. I'm not talking trilateral commissions or illuminati or any other conspiracy theories that I personally don't subscribe to. That's all the stuff of UFO's, ghosts, bigfoot, superpowers, SyFy channel original movies and so on - IMO.
I'm talking the stuff pundits and talking heads refer to on the regular news channels and programs. It's not hard to find, and a google, yahoo, facebook/bing, or any other type of online search will bring up credible information on such things. In the lead up to the primaries, they can always have a roster of candidates with one they have been talking about for well over a year before the primaries even started and others that, though many different factions of that party (one of only two we are allowed to have in this country) may gravitate to one or the other of the candidates due to their positions. In the end most people within that party usually feel only one would do well in a general election overall. This can be especially true in election years when an incumbent is running for reelection.
The establishment wants the one that is not only the most pliant, but most centrist and with a proven track record of being so. If there are too many complaints from the rank and file, there are choices. The choices depend on whether or not the overall establishment pick is the incumbent running for reelection, from the other party in an election year when there is no incumbent in the race or if it is a specific choice from within the party in question. If the overall choice is with the incumbent or a person from the other party, then going with a more controversial choice could be just the thing.
It can give the appearance of free choice if needed, it can satiate the rank and file and make the election of the overall establishment pick, if that pick is not from the party in question, that much easier in a general election. Tidy. In earlier years before the internet became such an eye on the eye, it was easier to just kind of lead folks along, and then usher them through to the desired outcome. Things just moved more slowly.
Before the internet, if you had an inkling telling you, "why does this all seem a little too easy, convenient and just sort of neatly packaged?" there really was no one but your immediate friends and/ or loved ones to talk with about it. The media simply made it seem like everyone else was going the other way. So you kind of felt like you were in it all alone. There weren't a whole lot of twists and turns and it was just two folks battling it out like polished gentlemen, no hard feelings until the end. Shake hands one accepts the loss one accepts the win - ovah.
Now, with the internet, people can read what other people think through facebook, tweets, blogs, forums, alternative media etc. People see that not only aren't they the only ones thinking that way, but in some cases there are millions of people thinking that way. It's much harder for the establishment to get ahold of things and control the message. Now it's not just CBS, NBC or ABC news and their pundits. Or even the emergence of FOX as a fourth option and then the cable news outlets CNN, MSNBC and FOX News, etc.
Those were and are all run by corporations and in the end, they follow the script whether they like it or not. The boys at the top get educated in the same places, come from similar backgrounds/ families often and have boards above them that are similarly connected and move in even tighter circles. In fact, before leaving and upon arrival home from assignments abroad journalists are most often interviewed and debriefed. This is not some conspiracy theory stuff, it has been going on for quite some time. They won't talk about it because it would make them look like - well less than impartial and free to say what they like. They are even "asked" to do work on behalf of certain branches of the government with the unspoken understanding of what will happen if they refuse. (http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php)
The source for this is not what some looney conspiracy theorist, schizophrenic blogger or moonbat raging about the mainstream media. It comes from Carl Bernstein, one half of the famous journalistic duo that uncovered the Watergate scandal and brought down former President Nixon, from an article published in Rolling Stone Magazine.
Accordingly, the advent of the internet brings more twists and turns, and there have to be. People are keeping up and watching every second. Even then it often seems like a predictable plot that was not well written enough to keep people guessing until the end. Nowadays they're pretty easy to predict.
This election cycle the incumbent is the establishment's overall pick. The reasons are many, including the need to project to the rest of the world that America is not like the America shown under the Bush administration. To have a candidate that came up from being a community organizer, isn't part of the establishment - or wasn't from his introduction - and comes from perhaps the most oppressed group in American history, or certainly one of them, definitely puts a face on the brand that says to the world we can change. Simultaneously it says to the world the old USA they all thought of as the land of opportunity where anyone can make it, is alive and kicking and he's proof.
Bill Clinton's favorite conservative, Charles Krauthammer, predicted the economy would improve before the next election. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/09/AR201012) It is getting better and the timing couldn't have been more perfect - in fact, he said it would come in 2012. Even if it slides back a little now, it still shows the policies of the current administration have worked, even though it was Republicans that actually made it possible as Krauthammer pointed out.
This isn't to say anything bad about the candidates personally, it's just the way it is. In the end they are all just people doing the best they can each of them with flaws and underlying issues.
To break this two party cycle means finding ways to begin breaking up the monopoly. It means running serious candidates. Independent presidential candidates that enter the race would need to be serious candidates. To have Donald Trump as an independent candidate for conservatives? He's popular, but a birther for president? Not serious. There was talk of Michael Bloomberg running as an independent at one point, but if the overall pick is Obama with the field of Republican candidates currently left running and Bloomberg enters, who would win? Obama or the Republicans? Lol. What do you think?
The best thing to do for the establishment if it wants to try and say it's not in favor of the two party system, is fair and anyone can run, is to either allow people in that the vast majority of Americans would laugh at if they heard they were running, be able to be convinced were too extreme/ kooky or that would be taken seriously mostly by one side to siphon enough votes off to ensure a victory by the overall establishment pick. Simple math.
To start breaking up the system by electing a third party or independent presidential candidate would be to give the establishment the opportunity to say, "see, what did we tell you. It only makes things worse" - unless they were very well respected in Congress by both sides already. There's been polarization in Congress and difficulty getting legislation passed since January 2009. If an independent is elected now with no significant members in Congress from their party to back them up guess what will happen? We will have a three way log jam. What needs to happen is there needs to be significant numbers of people from third parties - maybe two or three parties - in addition to those already in existence to ensure we begin to break up the system and and have checks on the system.
It will hurt those used to having sole power and keeping it, and there will be push back just as Occupy Wall Street was treated like dirty smelly hippies that were a nuisance in the media while those doing the exact same thing in the Middle East and North Africa were treated like peaceful freedom seekers and democracy seeking heroes by the media and both political parties.
We can do this with the one thing we still have that holds weight - our votes. Adding more political parties to Congress will ensure more diversity in legislation, and will ensure bills will still pass if one party decides to fold its arms, shake it's head and stubbornly refuse to eat any veggies - no matter how good for the nation the veggies are.
To read about my inspiration for this article go to www.lawsuitagainstuconn.com.
This work is in the public domain