It Ain't Much of a Two Party System

I've often been accused of being a Republican. That's understandable, considering a few of things: 1) I used to be a registered Republican; 2) the Republican party overwhelmingly consists of conservatives; 3) I cannot stand the Democrat's platform on social issues.

Yet, years ago I lost faith in the two party system and dropped my political party affiliation to become a registered independent. (Keep in mind that independents are not a political party in the sense of Republicans or Democrats.)

Why would I do such a thing? Why would I abandon the party of Reagan and disenfranchise myself from the powerful two-party system? The answer lies with the Republican party. I didn't leave it so much as it left me - becoming a party of neo-cons (liberal conservatives?) who were all after the same statist control over social programs and economic meddling as the Democrats had been for years and years beforehand.

Fiscal irresponsibility certainly has a lot to do with my position against big government, whichever party is in control. During the Bush years, the mainstream media certainly didn't let us forget the huge spending and debts Congress under his administration incurred. And now, as we stand at the brink of economic collapse with Obama's brave new world of spending, we just might soon see the damage of such liberal fiscal policy.

I have always been a fiscal conservative, believing that responsible spending and low taxes are better for our country than the inconceivable deficits we now "enjoy." Yet, this is only one side of the break I have with modern liberalism.

I break with the two party system, as well, over the bankrupt social policies that endanger the Constitution through a constant and unrelenting push for government to control every aspect of our lives. Let's face it, both parties want to remain in power, to the exclusion of any other possible political party, and both show different sides of the same coin. Each vie to attract voters by offering carrot incentives. The Democrats, of course, do this much better than the Republicans - attracting most of the minority vote with the promise of entitlements and presenting the liberal doctrine of "fairness" over all.

As I stand back and take a look of what's offered, I cringe at the damage such doctrine does to the foundational principles of the United States.

A case in point is the liberal ideal of gun control. The concept is compassionate, yet based on completely false ideals: Since guns hurt people, let's take away guns. We can only restrict guns by damaging the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution - arguing that only militias should have guns (which idea the Supreme Court struck down two years ago) or arguing that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to the modern day. Either way, such attitudes ignore the founding principle of the right to keep and bear arms in order that a country's population my protect itself.

In order to follow such a train of thought, we must pretend the original intent of the Constitution doesn't exist anymore, convince ourselves that it it irrelevant, or convince ourselves that we are so much smarter than those who founded our country in the first place. Such a position holds a certain unacceptable duplicity. These are the ones who want all of the benefits of a free and democratic system without any of the responsibilities of its protection.

The duplicity of liberalism arises with the modern social ideals and steps on the founding principles. Our Declaration of Independence established the concept of inalienable rights, such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Yet modern liberalism trumps the right of life with the concept of right of women's choice.

"Fairness" or "Equality" trump liberty. Modern liberal attitudes consider that government exists to make sure everything is fair between people. While the concept of fairness is a utopian pipe dream, it also damages the principles of our democracy by substituting legislation with judicial fiat. Yes, the courts have established great work with regard to establishing civil rights, but when we turn to the courts to establish all fairness, we disregard the legislative process and turn over our future to an elite oligarchy. US District Judge Walker's farce of a court case regarding California's Proposition 8 is a blatant example of the elite versus the people's vote.

Such liberal ideals can only survive by stepping on the rights of others - holding the duplicitous view that equality means us but not you. The feds don't want automobile manufacturers to fail? Go ahead and have government take over General Motors and step on the rights of corporations to succeed or fail on their own. Pets are mistreated in San Francisco? Take away pet sales and step all over the pet industry operating in the city. Don't like Arizona's attempt to control its own borders with Mexico? Sue the state for racial profiling. Don't like current marriage laws? Establish the irrelevancy of sex and gender within marriage and disenfranchise religious people. Medical expenses are too high for some people? Establish a government-run system that punishes some in order to reward others. Worried about global warming? Take away all incandescent light bulbs (that'll fix it!).

The list goes on and on when describing modern liberalism. It's a system with no consistency, except to establish the political power of the ideology over all others. It's also a failed system, considering the fiscal implications of our modern debt. It's time to supplant this duplicitous and bankrupt ideology with something new and something that doesn't do violence to the foundational principles of the Constitution.