|
If you know real electoral history,
you know that the "middle of the road"
theory doesn't WORK.
Look at Congress. If "middle
of the road" worked in real elections, most
people actually elected to Congress would be middle
of the roaders. But in the real world, in both houses
of Congress, the overwhelming majority of people
actually elected are solidly liberal or solidly
conservative.
In real world presidential elections,
as the last article pointed out, when Republicans
go middle of the road, they don't just get beat,
they get stomped.
But the "middle of the road"
theory sounds so logical it seems like common sense.
We picture the political spectrum as two-dimensional:
liberals are on the left and conservatives are on
the right. If you look at the world that way, most
voters must be moderates.
In a left-right view of politics,
the "middle of the road" strategy seems
obvious. It always convinces Republican pinheads.
Ladies and gentlemen, if what seems
obvious from your picture of the world doesn't ever
WORK, then there is something wrong with your picture
of the world.
My first book was dedicated to showing
that real American politics is not just between
conservatives and liberals. As I explained in some
60,000 words, there are two more political positions:
3) that of the moderates and 4) that of the people.
The moderates and the people are as opposite as
are liberals and conservatives.
Liberals accuse professional conservatives
of representing big business and big military expenditures,
the "military-industrial complex." They
are perfectly correct about that.
But in my first book, I explained
in detail how liberals represent an even bigger
establishment, an even bigger power group than the
military-industrial complex. This is what I call
the education-welfare complex.
The education-welfare establishment
is bigger by far than the military-industrial complex.
What is more important in political terms is that
every dime the education-welfare establishment spends,
every iota of power it has, is the direct result
of political decisions. Its power and almost all
of its money depends directly on political leftism.
For the above reason, the education-welfare
establishment is more politically ruthless than
is the military-industrial complex. There are some
liberal generals and leftist businessmen. But on
college campuses, ALL opposition is crushed and
silenced. No matter which way politics goes there
will be a military and businessmen will make a profit.
But the government's education-welfare establishment
is completely dependent on government programs that
don't WORK.
The education-welfare establishment
lives almost entirely on liberal politics.
So liberals say conservatives just
represent the military-industrial complex. Conservatives
say liberals don't care about the people, they just
care about bureaucrats and liberal theories.
My first book stated that THEY ARE
BOTH PERFECTLY CORRECT.
The title of that book was A PLAGUE
ON BOTH YOUR HOUSES.
This shows that the two-dimensional
theory of politics, with only the left and the right,
is dead wrong. There are
1) liberals, who represent the education-welfare
establishment and,
2) conservatives, who represent the
military-industrial complex.
BUT THERE ARE TWO MORE POLES:
3) moderates, who represent a compromise
between those two establishments, and there are
4) the true populists, whose primary
concern is "We, the People of the United States
of America" They feel that "The People"
should dedicate themselves to the interests of"Ourselves
and OUR Posterity."
In other words, the true populist
position is a direct quote from the Preamble to
the United States Constitution.
Most of the positions of group 4)
have been declared unconstitutional.
If you want a perfect illustration
of four poles, look at immigration: 1) liberals
want open borders because it brings in blindly obedient
leftist voters from the third world. They will vote
for things that sound good but don't work. THAT
IS THE MAIN REASON THEIR PART OF THE WORLD IS SO
POOR ITS PEOPLE HAVE TO LEAVE.
On the other hand, a massive influx
of cheap labor is great for short-term profits,
which is what 2) big business, is concerned with.
In the long run, massive third world
immigration will make America a third-world country,
and 4), the people, don't want that.
But no one is more fanatically pro-immigration
than 3), a "middle of the roader."
Moderates and the courts have declared
that any discrimination between "We the People"
or "Ourselves and Our Posterity" on the
one hand, and illegal aliens on the other is directly
contrary to the United States Constitution.
Why? Because the moderate represents
a THIRD POSITION. The moderate is halfway between
the military-industrial complex and the education-welfare
establishment. On immigration, both establishments
want open borders, so moderates want open borders.
In other words, the moderate is the
exact opposite of the interests of the people. That
is why both conservatives and liberals love them
and court them. That is also why the people don't
vote for "middle of the roaders."
The big example of a "shift in
the middle of the road" right now is Jeffords
leaving the Republicans. But, if Senator Jeffords
of Vermont is the middle of the true American road,
why doesn't Jeffords represent a big, representative
electorate?
Vermont is so tiny that it only has
one representative. Vermont's only congressman is
also the only outright socialist in the Congress
of the United States. Like Jeffords, he calls himself
an Independent and votes with the Democrats.
Vermont is supposed to represent the
true American "middle of the road," but
it is actually a tiny, isolated stronghold of New
England Yuppie Yankee leftism. So how in heaven's
name does the media get away with calling Vermont
the typical American electorate?
Yankee leftism sounds like the middle
of the road to conservatives and liberals because
they have a two-dimensional view of the electorate.
That doesn't just make them wrong. That makes their
whole political outlook insane.
|
