Two Party System

Political fortunes ebb and flow over time; we pull to the left and then the pendulum swings to the right and then back again.

What matters is having a leader, not a politician, assume political office. And so I suggest that people look to break out of the two-party trance and take on a pro-active role in taking your government back to serve You, your family, your friends, your community.

There comes a time during just about every general election cycle when a faction of progressive Democratic voters begin to harrumph and gripe about the two party system. Specifically, the following remark jumps back into popular discourse: "we're choosing between the lesser of two evils."

We might not all agree on which politician is best for any given office, but we can all agree that every politician is made worse by the two-party system. So let's at least get rid of that before we do anything else.

Americans can no longer afford to be forced to choose between the lesser of two evil candidates who pit the private sector against the public sector, set the rich against the poor, and maintain a climate of political and social unrest.

It's true that our politicians are providing a lot of great material for Jon Stewart, Steve Colbert, and our stable of late-night talk show hosts, but isn't it time we cut the comedy and usher these clowns off the national stage?

If Americans were told to choose between two cars, shirts, colors or family sizes, we'd rise up in revolt. Tell us we have only two parties, however, and we accept it as though any alternative is unimaginable.

We will look back and know that when the debt ceiling issue was in play, the Republicans made their case, but nobody in a position of power made the opposing argument. The Democrats just went along and will have to live with the consequences, along with the rest of us.

The two-party system has not just narrowed our choices, it's narrowed our thinking. It has deeply infected our political discourse, our media, and our politicians.

Political handicappers are so intent on trying to quantify Democratic losses in the midterm elections that they are missing the bigger picture: America's radical center is in a permanent state of revolt.

History buffs, take note: the odds are you won't see anything like this again even if you live to be 100.

Our country needs a third political party based on the explicit rejection of lobbyist money as its fundamental, unwavering principle.

America is indeed "exceptional." Our parties have all but duopolized the electoral system, making ballot access for "third" parties prohibitively difficult. The result is that large swathes of the electorate are effectively disenfranchised.

If history is the best predictor of the future, and it usually is, the "Tea Party" will have a short shelf life. Beginning well before the Civil War, such movements have come and gone.

There is a gay boycott of the Democratic Party afoot, and it has the potential to turn into something that leads to real change in American politics.

If both political parties split at, America would probably adopt a coalition government; the newly- formed Progressive and Conservative Parties might even ally on issues like taking on Wall Street.

I have not heard an intelligent, free-thinking statement from anyone in Congress for so long I am now convinced it is not possible in the current environment. And that is the real problem.

Maybe Newt Gingrich is right. Maybe it's time to start thinking outside the two-party-system box.

Obama is hardly an outsider. He's an elite member of the establishment, a product brand, as Noam Chomsky claims, packaged by investors to sell and control the public.

The Obama machine does not require the services of the Democratic Party to fundraise or organize. It has become its own gatekeeper, providing itself with more leeway as to how it governs.