Skip to comments.To Party or Not to Party...
Posted on 07/20/2014 10:17:09 AM PDT by mononymous
The term paramountcy of the party is often touted by totalitarian regimes in which the government and its bureaucrats are solely comprised of members of a single party. The ruling class is comprised entirely of party members, the elites are party members, the military is a wholly owned subsidiary of the party, in every facet of life the favored are members of the party; the party is the state. Whatever other options there are, they are there simply for show and few of the members ever dare to oppose their oppressive regimes. One needs to only look at the history of, for example, any of the former Soviet Republics, China, Cuba, etc., to gain an understanding as to what happens to dissenters. Then, there is the United States of America.
A two party system each practicing its own version of the paramountcy of the party and the outcome is in some ways the same as in the totalitarian, uni-party, systems. Once in Washington, D.C., the primary preoccupation of elected politicians is maintaining permanency of their status; party affiliation is rigged to favor incumbents. One needs to only look at what has happened in the Cochran-McDaniel race in Mississippi to understand the advantages of being a Washington insider and a member of the favored class. (To digress, the question that needs to be asked of any six term incumbent towing his/her party line, what is it you expect to accomplish in D.C. in another term that you havent been able to in six terms?) The bureaucrats who populate the various agencies of the federal government are probably 9:1 members of the Democrat party. The elites will remain elites regardless of which party is in power and the favored class all play the crony capitalists game. The military, certainly under this administration, is susceptible to being purged of dissenters. In this mix, the best interests of the country and its people are secondary to that of the entrenched parties and their friends in and around Washington, D.C.
It seems, therefore, that the time has come where people ought to run for office without the use of the party system. It is quite obvious that there are certain benefits to using the party apparatus, but folks ought to stand on their own. There is and really should be no Tea Party clearly, it is easier to demonize an entire brand rather than a single person. There are simply ideas and people who believe in certain things, for example, the constitution, the rule of law and the proper role of the federal government. Gather signatures to get on a ballot, explain to the electorate who you are, what you stand for, what you will oppose, what you will propose and ask for their vote. Go to D.C., caucus with those with whom you agree the most, stand for your beliefs and refuse to be whipped into voting for anything but what your conscience and needs of those you represent dictate. Country first, the people you represent second and let the party go to hell. Imagine the freedom this brings to a politician and the potential for this union of the States.