Abandoning our one party political system

In many context I have been forced to repeatedly state the reality of the world that what it is it is. The meaning behind this phrase is that regardless of the name or description given to an item or concept that does not change what it actually is. You have likely already heard it in the idiom -- call a spade a spade.

In our political system terms such as blue and red, right and left, conservative and liberal, and finally Democrat and Republican are juxtaposed for the purpose of contrasting opposing viewpoints. It is this constant bombardment of terms that has molded the consciousness of the American political system as being two embattled encampments seeking to protect and serve their represented constituency. However, I contend that we have neither two opposing parties nor representatives of the needs of the people.

Examples of how reality directly contradicts the image portrayed by political parties are readily evident in abundance. Recently dethroned six-term U.S. Senator Richard Lugar has long run on a campaign of Hoosier conservative values. The Republican Party has marketed itself as the representative of the conservative platform. When I first became involved in political campaigns, the year 1987, it was in support of a candidate running against Lugar. Lugar, whom I referred to as a liberal, is a lifetime politician who has a long track record of endorsing government price controls and opposing free-market capitalism. He has recently voted in support of Sonya Sotomayor for the appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court and reasoned that he is in no position to oppose a qualified candidate nominated by the president. Lugar also supported McCain-Feingold free speech restrictions. Yet, the Republican National Committee [RNC] funded a campaign to oppose Lugar's challenger and eventual nominee, Indiana Secretary of State Richard Mourdock. Another recent Indiana contest aptly demonstrates the coalition between Democrats and Republicans.

In 2009 a then member of the Indiana House of Representatives, Marlin Stutzman, announced that he would seek the Republican nomination to challenge Indiana U.S. Senator Evan Bayh. The following year during backroom chatter of Bayh's upcoming retirement announcement the RNC tapped a Washington lobbyist living in Virginia who was also a registered voter of that state to oppose Stutzman.

With strong financial support and significant public endorsements of Dan Coats, the RNC's hand-picked replacement for Evan Bayh, gained more support than Stutzman and replaced Bayh. But Dan Coats has stated that a "partisan mindset is irreconcilable with my philosophy of governance ." What this means is that Coats does not agree that legislators should be partisan -- relating to or excessively devoted to one party, faction, etc. In essence he is saying that he will not devote himself to a philosophy in opposition to his so-called opponent in the U.S. Senate.

When you have the national leadership of a political party vehemently opposing what it considers to be rogue candidates like Mourdock and Stutzman and instead supporting candidates who vote alongside the opposition on major issues or state that it is not consistent with their political philosophy to oppose the other party then you must call it what it is. What it is it is -- two factions of a one party system that maintains control by focusing the attention of the electorate on those opposing but philosophically aligned factions.

Clearly though the electorate does not support the collective agenda of the RNC and the Democratic National Committee [DNC]. Polling indicated that voters with high knowledge of the candidates supported Stutzman over Coats. It was name recognition among casual/uniformed voters that led to Coat's victory. Mourdock's stunning 61-39% win over the RNC supported U.S. Sen. Dick Lugar was the largest margin of victory in a primary election ever over a lifetime U.S. Senator.

To this day I still do not belong to or align myself with any political party and still decide which ballot to use in the primary election on the day I vote. I always remain open to the views of all candidates and the possibility of voting for any. I recently spoke with Rupert Boneham, the Libertarian Party candidate for Indiana Governor, which I will write about after a follow-up interview. I have often voted for Libertarian candidates, likely moreso than the two factions of the incumbent party.

While the waring factions of the incumbent party continue to draw wasted votes the Libertarian Party is gaining support and momentum. It is through a consistent commitment to an ideological platform that supports fiscal restraint, personal liberty and social justice that has led many to leave the one party fracas in search of a viable alternative.

Others remain unconvinced and often justify their allegiance to a faction of the Incumbent Party as the "lesser of two evils". I can think of no better way to waste a vote than to cast it for someone whom you consider "evil" unless you are evil. That is a significant demonstration of the moral depravity to which our society has sunk.

If you would like to see greater social justice, less intrusion into your personal life and have more control over your earnings then I encourage you to consider the Libertarian Party. You may already be a Libertarian and not know it -- take the test here.

For assistance in understanding how system dynamics work to limit your choices, how to gain complete control over your life and methods to improve your well-being please visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me.

If you would like to follow my activities more closely then send a friend request to my Political FaceBook page.

Subscribe to this blawg.

More information about child custody rights and procedures may be found on the Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates website.

©2012 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.