power politics

On the way home Friday, John and I talked briefly about shifts of power. He argued that if World Power A and World Power B were feuding, whichever of the two who recruited Regional Power C would be the victor. Therefore, C would always be the winner. My take on it is that A and B would work together to nullify C in order to assure their stalemate and keep the power-struggle under their control. John commented that at that point, A and B had might as well be one and the same.

I immediately drew a parallel to the US political system. Democrats and Republicans hold all of the cards in our winner-take-all system. Which of them wins is not as important to them as keeping other contending parties out of the mix. Democrats block Nader. Neocon Republican organizations block Ron Paul. They are terrified of option C, that people will choose it, and that they will thereby lose their combined monopoly on political power. After all, what good is a Democrat or Republican who cannot make good on promises to their various corporate interests?

The “Ron Paul revolution” is important to this country because he represents that third option and its struggle for survival. Not only the struggle, however, but the wide appeal for more options than typical-Democrat and typical-Republican — both of which had might as well be collectively referred to as “typical-politician.”

This country does not need consensus. We do not need to stand united while ignoring the blood pooling at our feet. We need a dozen splintering points of view to choose from and determine the way to move forward for the moment. Only with this dilution of political power will we be able to regain a reasonable notion that said power is being used properly. Concentration of that power brings us only mass corruption — both in depth and breadth.

Those in power will never vote themselves out. It is up to us to ignore option A and option B and write in our own option C.