
Did you get anxious just reading my headline? Good, that was the point. If you're still reading, relax I'm not actually going to discuss either party... well not directly that is. This is not going to be an article on why one political philosophy is perfect in every sense of the word, and the other is worse than Ol' Beelzebub himself. It's going to be based off my observations and thoughts I've had. Some of them will be simple, while others a little more complex, but I think I can tie them all together to get my point across. If you disagree with me, that's great! I hope we can still be friends and have a beer, or coffee, but not tea...never tea...
Let's get started!
The Democrat and Republican Parties. Can't we agree that they are both dreadful?
Try to follow me on this one. First, separate your own political ideology with the political party that closest aligns with it. That's a mistake everybody makes; I'm guilty of it at times as well! Once a person assigns their personality to a party, they tend to see politics as a sport. It becomes an, Us vs. Them kind of mentality. Worse, a person that does this will run the danger of falling into a cult of personality. I find that when I talk to most people and we don't mention parties, and we don't mention candidates, we tend to agree more than we disagree. Do we agree on everything? No, but it would be awfully boring if we did. So then, why are people so venomous and angry towards the side they oppose?
And that's when it hit me.
Maybe both parties want us to argue with each other. That maybe the venomous is not a bug, but the feature!
Tinfoil Hat Time!
I remember a research paper that came out six years ago that really disheartened me. It was a research paper conducted by a professor from Princeton and a professor from Northwestern University. In it, it showed that the past 20 years of legislation favored the extremely wealthy as well as corporations. Ninety-five percent of the legislation that passed helped the top one percent, regardless of the political party in control. It didn't explain why, it was just cold, hard data. That's when I put my tinfoil hat on and started thinking...

Not all heroes wear capes.
Source
My Two XRPs
All this data lead me to a question. Why would the legislative branch not work on behalf of the people that got them there? I started to research any significant changes that happened to the American government around that general time period. I stumbled on a Supreme Court case from the 1970's that really caught my interest.
It was
In short, the ruling stated that money was essentially free speech, and therefore, a person could donate as much money as they want to a candidate. After this ruling, money started trickling into campaigns from very wealthy donors, to both political parties. Slowly but surely, the tax codes and laws were written to favor the ultra elite. These laws and tax codes were passed by both political parties. This was when the U.S. started its drift towards an oligarchy, a government that favors only the wealthy.
Then why give us two major political parties?
To give us the illusion of choice, you Silly Billy! If the citizens are unhappy, and there was only one political party, it would be pretty easy to identify the problem. That's why the donor class buys both parties, to give the illusion of choice, and to keep the average citizen arguing among each other. The donor class keeps the majority of the citizens divided by making the people argue over issues that they will never agree on. The parties use divisive topics such as gun control, abortion, or religious rights because they know half of the country feels one way on the topic, and the other half feels the exact opposite.
Here's a little test I want you to do, okay?
Take someone you know personally that shares different political views. It could be a family member, a co-worker, a friend, or whoever. Now, compare yourself financially with the person you've picked. Now, compare yourself financially with a lawmaker who shares your same political beliefs. Which one are you closer to financially? I'm going to wager it wasn't the lawmaker. I'd also wager that the person you picked probably has helped you on a personal level more times than the lawmaker has. Maybe they changed a flat tire, got your mail, bailed you out of the slammer. My point is, perspective is everything.
The donor class knows this and creates a narrative. The narrative delivers a very clear and concise message:
IF THE PARTY YOU OPPOSE GET'S IN, PREPARE FOR THE END OF TIMES!
Sadly, it works. The country is more divided now than it ever has been.
Citizens United made it even worse.
In 2010, money in politics got a shot of steroids when the Supreme Court ruled on Citizens United. In the ruling, they declared that the United States recognizes a corporation as living entity and therefore corporations may now donate to candidates.
Stop and think about that for a second.
In theory, a foreign company could form an LLC in the United States, and then donate to a candidate. Heck, why stop at a foreign company! Maybe a foreign country forms a corporation in the United States and donates to a candidate. It would all be legal.
So, we now have corporations essentially buying our politicians from both parties. If you still think your political party has your best interest in mind, here's a chart to drive my point home even more:

It's possible these companies' interests align with the common man's interest. I mean, when have the top banks, top social media, top pharmaceutical companies ever done something to lose the people's trust?
That's why it's all a dog and pony show, and main stream media does not help. Who do you think pays for the ads for corporate media? Other corporations! A news channel that receives ad revenue from a pharmaceutical company is not going to run a news story on how that pharmaceutical company is buying the politicians who write laws in its favor. If only there was a platform out there that didn't rely on advertisements to function...
So, that's the problem as I see it. Again, this is only my opinion, and I could be wrong. I'm sure the trolls will rip this article apart when I share it, calling me a political hack of some sort. All I ask is that you consider that maybe, just maybe, the problem could be bigger than this administration, or the last administration. We can't debate gun control, abortion, the budget, foreign policy, or any other topic unless we debate these topics in good faith. We're not going to have honest, productive debate if the people debating are disingenuous at best. How do you get people in office who care? Get the money out! I refuse to accept that the problem is too big to fix.
What can be done about it?
There are non-party affiliated causes that fight this very issue. However, I'm not going to share these groups or causes. Only because that wasn't the main point of this article. The point was to illustrate that it's not a one party problem. 2020 is an election year, which means the ads and political discourse is most likely going to be toxic at best. When all that noise is going on, try to remember what I said here. It's all nonsense until campaign finance is fixed, and try not to view your fellow countryman as the enemy. Do I think fixing campaign finance will solve all the problems in government? Absolutely not! I view democracy as a garden and corruption is the weeds. There is always going to be weeds; it takes constant upkeep and vigilance to have a thriving garden, or democracy.
Take it easy, but take it.
NickelNDime out!
Twitter
Youtube
Cinnamon
Subscribe to Coil to read more content!