Debunking Myth #1: The 2-party system

We—here in these United States of America—no more have a 2-party political system than the Tooth Fairy buys infant teeth or the Easter Bunny hides eggs.

We have two major sets (teams) of politicians in contests for political offices and all the spoils that go with these offices—not to serve the public (as in real "servants of the public" for the collective good) but to advance their personal political careers. As soon as a candidate starts believing that the first step in serving the public is to get her/himself elected, the public is no longer served.

What would a real 2-party system look like from my point of view? It would be divided along the lines of the dynamic dialectic inherent in capitalism, between the interests of entrepreneurial ownership on one side and labor on the other. ( Note: I personally believe it is this dynamic dialectic that has produced the great advances in freedom, knowledge, and the standard of living for the average person in societies where the dialectic has been kept in rational equilibrium by an active participatory democracy for all.)

By the way, "dialectic" as used here is simply the the tension or struggle resulting from the opposition between two sides to an issue. The "dynamic dialectic inherent in capitalism" is the tension over how the wealth produced by labor is to be divided between entrepreneurial ownership and labor.

The problem for capitalism is how to keep the dialectic in rational equilibrium. As I wrote in my note, I believe the best means is an active participatory democracy for all.

Some assertions:

1. Simply having the right to vote does NOT define a democracy.

2. Being able to listen to and read "news" is not freedom of speech.

3. If citizens (we, the people) abrogate our active participation in the governance of our community or, in other words, do not interact actively with our neighbors in the political affairs of our community at all levels, then we are not doing our part in preserving democracy by effectively representing our interests. This will in turn upset the rational equilibrium which capitalism needs to avoid falling into monopolism (entrepreneurial owners dictating governing policy) on one hand or communism (workers dictating governing policy) on the other. (Note: I purposely avoid the use of "socialism" because there can be rational public ownership of shared resources agreed to by both interests ... highways, ports, and airports are some resources that I think we can agree are most often best developed under public ownership.)


Addendum: More to follow on this and other myths.