The Two Party Political System is Like a Barrel Full of Monkey Vomit

"To vote or not to vote."

"Only a candidate from the two major parties can hope to win."

"Does our (essentially) two-party system require voters to choose from the lesser of two evils?"

"How is this a real "choice" in a republic that is a self-declared democracy?"

As I tune-out ramblings from the mainstream media and focus on what ordinary folks have to say, I hear the increasing lament over historically lame choices for POTUS. More and more, it's not the lazy or disengaged folks avoiding the polls, but those who maintain a vote-of-no-confidence.

The field negro posted about John Edward's affair and McCain's need to not say a dang word for risk of looking like a hypocrite. Discussion in the comments led to lament over the dismal choices we're often have as voters in a two-party system.

One on-point comment (courtesy of hennasplace) explained why negative ads work so well:

I really do not understand [what] the independent voter is because we still have a two-party system, and the country does not vote best candidate, we vote because we do not like the other candidate. Two-party creates and promotes voting for the lesser evil. You are not voting republican because you like them, you just like the democrats less.

Either party are not talking issues, but negative campaigns works because it what the average American can understand. I do not pay attention to campaign ads because it's more about marketing and getting people to believe the perception. People believe that perception true, and that is our problem. [emphasis mine]

Out of the same discussion came the best analogy I've seen regarding "one party being better by degrees" aka lesser of two evils (courtesy of gwpriester):

Kind of like the old conundrum. You're in a barrel of monkey vomit up to your nose and somebody throws a load of horse shit at your face. Do you duck?

And if you take a moment to really think about it, don't you get that feeling of standing in that barrel... trying to make the best choice... knowing that either choice means a dollop of unsavory crap in your face?

While I know this feeling all too well, my support remains behind Obama because McCain vs. Obama is more like choosing between horse sh*t in the face vs. bird poop on the shoulder.

Comments

[blujewel]

honestly...i'm having such a hard time with this race. i'm so sick and tired of all the rhetoric, the gobs of bullshit being splattered, and each one doing whatever he can to outdo the next one.

yes, i realize it's all a part of the process, but if we're wanting to effect change, so badly, then let our actions speak, not the effin commercials.

sorry, but i guess, this has struck a nerve in terms of where the country is heading. sometimes, i wish i could afford to bounce and go live in Sweden.

love!

[Sheri D. Maple]

I came to read your blog after reading your comment on Field's blog today, and did not think anyone was paying attention to my readings enough to be quote. Thanks and it's a good post. It should get people thinking.

[Kelso's Nuts]

You can't have a multi-party system in America not for any sinister reason but because the two parties already are coalitions of a number of sub-parties. And so long as public finance is off the table, no newcomers need apply.

Yes, I thought that the two candidates with the best ideas were Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. I think some hybrid of McKinney, Barr and Nader is better than Obama or McCain in an ideal world. Living outside the USA in a direct democracy which has tougher campaign finance laws, you can get 5 party races for President and only needing 35% or so to win.

I written this everywhere but here I think. Take the two most Extreme Right Wing governments in the developed West, Colombia and Israel. While the PEOPLE of Colombia and Israel know that Barack Obama is the best choice for US president, neither country would ever elect him president and that would have nothing to do with his skin color. Barack Obama's views quite simply are so far to the right of anything Colombia has seen in almost 30years and Israel hsa never seen, that he'd barely get 5% of the electorate in either country.

Barack Obama would be poison as a candidate anywhere else in the developed free world because he is pro-death penalty. He is in favor of incarcerating juveniles with adults. He is opposed to single-payer health care. He is for continued war in Iraq and Afganistan and has been parrotting McCain on Central Asia. Obama does not believe in the separation of church and state. [Israel is a Jewish state but does not have an official religion -- any citizen may believe what he or she likes; Colombia does separate church and state]. Obama is in favor of subverting all rights to private America telecommunications. He is in favor of holding Muslims at Gitmo without charge indefinitely. His views on gay rights, sex and sexuality are informed by his rather extreme brand of Protestantism. Any one of those views would be too extreme for Colombia or Israel. How would those views play in Canada or France or Mexico which have center-right governments? No sale. Obama's views again would place him at the far right of anything a Canadian, French or Mexican voter has seen in 60 years. How would Obama's platform work in some of the center-left democracies: South Africa, Argentina, Australia, Chile? Horribly. Obama's skin is darker than the that of the Bothas but his views are certainly right of DeKlerk's. No shot in Argentina or Chile which have had recent experience with dictatorships. Obama's platform is a little gentler than Pinochet's or Peron's but not much.

I accept all of that and advocate strongly for Obama because (and this is very bizarre) the alternative could be the the institutionalization of the most destructive government the world has ever seen. For all of Obama's silly "Americanness" and compromises, the real person is very bright and sophisticated and probably hates having to represent ANY of those views let alone a cohesive platform right of Ronald Reagan. Obama's magnificent speech on race (probably the most sophisticated piece of political orator since King) and some of the stronger progressive positions (since abandoned) during the period between the Ohio primary and Clinton's concession showed me what kind of a thinker is inside. A responsible, thorough, careful one. I believe once he gets past THIS ELECTION SHOW, he can start to lead much like the last Democratic president did. [That this is an insult to a lot of Obama supporters instead of a compliment kind of explains why the rest of the world is different and thinks of Americans as sometimes lovable, sometimes detestable, always frightening, and always childish and burlesque.]

I look forward to Barack Obama's election with one caveat. If Colin Powell has any official or non-official role to play in an Obama campaign or an Obama administration, I'd advocated for Cynthia McKinney during the election and would consider an Obama administration to ALSO be an extension of W's.

You see I live in La Ciudad de Panama, Republica de Panama. To us, Colin Powell is perhaps what Rommel was to North Africa at best. Or maybe what, sure, Colin Powell and John Calley were to Vietnam but a lot more comprehesive and crueler. Or what McKinley was to all of Latin America.

In order to bring Manuel Noriega up on white collar federal charges in Miami, Powell and his famous "doctrine" slaughtered 10,000 civilians, made 100,000 homeless by continuous bombing and subsequent invasion of normal urban neighborhoods. He gave his troops free reign to run amok in the city defacing Catholic churches (because Noriega had been given sanctuary by the archdiocese) and terrorizing random people at will with the rebel yells, the war whoops and that southern rock blasted at high volumes.

Remind me of Powell's "doctrine" again. It's send in massive forces, kill everyone and get the children, too, isn't it? Or did I miss something?

If Colin Powell is a role model for anyone other than Satan's youngest son, I'm Superman.

[Hawa]

@bluJewel: Girl, I hear ya! The fact that Americans have short attention spans and salivate over "convenience" represents a major "plus" for those who sway public opinion with empty sound bytes. The typical person doesn't show evidence of an attention span that can digest meatier information.

The candidates clearly know this and boil down an entire campaign position to a 30-second smear commercial of their rival. ::sigh::

[Hawa]

@Sheri: When it comes to popular blogs like field negro, the magic starts in the post... but it keeps going in the comments. I pay just as much attention to the great comments as I do the original post. And I never let a good comment slip by.

I'm glad you had a chance to stop by and see your comment elevated to "post" level. LOL It sure deserved the spot.

If you ever read Denmark Vesey's blog, you can see that he features comments to his blog posts all the time - giving credit to readers for adding to the discussion.

And before I forget, thanks for the compliment. :-)

[GC]

where I come from, bird poop is lucky.

@GC: Ah. You caught the underlying sentiment. Although I don't like bird poopie on my shoulder, my fiance also tells me that it's very lucky. I don't think anybody else caught that. ;-)

[Buck]

I'm voting for Obama for all the wrong reasons. Because he's a black man and that opportunity may never present itself in my lifetime. But I don't agree with any of his policy platforms. Thing is, I don't much like McCain either. Especially his low-ball attacks. But I guess that's politics.

@Buck: I had to giggle. People have been voting for "all the wrong reasons" for years. I hate to say it, but Americans must corner the market on "fickle."

In this election, I think we've seen a crap-load of wrong reasons. Women wanted Hillary. Black women were split. And worse of all, right now, some Whites are willing to endure McCain just to avoid electing a Black man. Somewhere along the way, all of this must cancel itself out. hehe