Party Of 2

8/16/4

The two-party system is flawed. On paper, it looks like it could work, but not in practice. The idea is that two parties will debate their opposing ideologies and the masses of America will ultimately choose the most appropriate one for the country; a natural “majority rules” situation. The elections are not completely limited to the two parties alone; a third party is allowed to vie in the competition if enough members of society disapprove of the original two parties. Like I said, it looks good on paper.
Over history, the two parties have shown their differences, but often without straying to far from the mainstream. The problem arises when the parties cede from debating and instead compete for orthodoxy. This is seen in parts of history and, most strikingly, today. The battle is no longer which party has the most qualifications or the best ideas for improving our nation, but who is more “moral” and who is more “American”. Democracy doesn’t function when the major parties agree in their political ideologies and the debate is over which party can fulfill the ideology best.
The answer, it seems, would lie within a third party ticker. Indeed, in most elections, there is usually some sort of third party that opposes the ideology upheld by both leading parties. Many Americans watch as the major parties agree on more issues than they disagree and recognize the opposition posed by a third party. Yet, they still insist that voting in favor of a third party is “throwing your vote away”. For this I largely blame the mainstream media.
I do not believe in a “media conspiracy”. Rather, I believe the media is following it’s natural course in a capitalist society. It is not as simple as saying the mainstream media has a “left-wing bias” or a “right-wing bias”. Any bias should ultimately be viewed as a “corporate bias”. This is due to the fact that our American media corporations are just that: corporations.
When you watch a commercial for a Mickey Mouse (Disney) movie or a Loony Toons (Warner) show, you understand that the companies advertising themselves are selling American commercialism as well. What you might not realize is that the media harbor these aspects as well. And why shouldn’t they? If a mindless TV ad can successfully instill the “wonders of American technology, shopping and expansion” in the public mind, imagine the power of this ideology, not only in the form of advertisements, but also through the respected media. For these reasons I consider the corporate controlled media a menace to democracy.
With this in mind, there is no reason to expect political issues to be raised other than the “issues” already brought up by the two parties (i.e.: who is more orthodox, American, moral, etc.). After all, this pseudo-debate fits perfectly in line with the status quo, largely preserved by the media’s corporate stratagem.
A third party, also, need not be given much airtime and when it is, it should be in the context of how “voters feel the party is stealing votes from the socially apt Democratic party.” The issues raised by the third party should not be mentioned. After all, why should the media feel obliged to cover a third party if it only accounts for a small percentage of votes? The problem with this thinking is that, more than anything else, the opinion the public has of a candidate is determined by how they are portrayed by the media and how much coverage they receive. Unfortunately, it is not the other way around. We live in a society in which reading is at an all-time low. The only “information” Americans are receiving comes either from the candidate’s mouths or from the corporate run media. Is this a true democracy?