Our political commentators are becoming fuddled by a phenomenon that, while not even close to being new, has been markedly increasing over the past decade. In the great game of party politics, American voters are refusing to play along.

For nearly sixteen decades, the Democrat and Republican parties have been playing to a captive audience, as it were. Naturally, when you only have one rival your platform consists largely of announcing in firm, stentorian tones how wonderfully different you are from this lone rival and, failing all else, pointing out that at least you are not as bad as the sole other option. As the differences between the two parties shrank down to the microscopic, American voters have been treated to proportionally greater emphasis on the latter, and entire elections have devolved into campaigns which can be summarized best as, “Sure, I’m no prize, but at least I’m not quite as bad as that other jackass.” The problem inherent in being forced to choose between the lesser of two evils is that your choice is still pro-evil. The only real surprise is that it has taken Americans 158 years to tire of this game.

Perhaps there existed an iconic age when Democrats and Republicans presented two distinct choices cognizant of and reachable to the American Everyman commonly known as Joe SixPack. I don’t know, I’m not really that old, despite what my knees tell me. For most of my adult life, at least, the political game has been about the illusion of choice. Quick, name the political party full of wealthy people and sexual scandals! Quick, name one presidential election that did not have rich old white men in power ties on both sides! Quick, name the politician who is the single biggest recipient of campaign donations from Wall Street banks!

But that’s different. Why, we’re not sure, but the TV says the parties are different and TV would never lie to us. The Democrats are anti-warmongering and for social safety nets, and the Republicans are for fiscal responsibility and old-fashioned interpretations of the Constitution. Then Clinton targets aid to needy families and bombs Sudan, and Bush 2.0 sends deficit spending into the stratosphere and calls the Constitution “just a goddamned piece of paper”. Amnesty for illegal immigrants? A progressive Democrat platform, last given to us by Reagan. Voters grew so disgusted with Bush Jr’s policies they voted a wide swath of Democrats into office, who in turn so disgusted voters that they were replaced with Republicans, who have so disgusted voters that Democrats seem poised to take back the House. Is anyone detecting a pattern here, or is that just me?

While the many heads of the political hydra continue to spout soundbites on social issues to distract us, the Beast itself has devoted more than thirty years to pro-bankster legislative policies which have effectively siphoned the wealth and capital of the American public to elite financiers. The wages and net worth of voters have gone down, and inflation has eroded the purchasing power (i.e., value) of those dollars you manage to hang onto, and yet at the same time mega-corporations have grown more profitable and monolithic. This is not a bug, it’s a feature. Only those with a severe lack of critical thinking skills will offer any excuse that such a long-term policy stance comes from one side or the other, as both “parties” have encouraged and facilitated this economy-destroying position as they trade control of our legislative and executive branches between them like a game of Hot Potato.

And yet, the Hydra wants us to believe that the left-right paradigm is so compelling that we have no choice but to buy into it. We are not supposed to be for student vouchers and also for gay marriage. One is a conservative stance and the other liberal, and agreeing with both is not allowed. If you’re for gay marriage, then you’re a Democrat and that means you have to accept every other position on their platform. Deciding that our liberal politicians are deficit-spending our children’s future away in order to gain the political benefit of programs today that they refuse to fund sounds too much like asking for a balanced budget, and a Republican once backed balancing the budget so you have to be against that. You’ll just have to change your mind and either hate gays or be in favor of Democrats financially raping your children.

Conservatives are not allowed to support Occupy Wall Street. A conservative Occupier? Sacre bleu, c’est impossible! That’s what the Tea Party is for, innit? Ah, and now we see how neatly we are manipulated. A false dichotomy has been put into place, and the stooges in the corporate media even assure us that we have no choice but to participate in the “proper” section for our protesting. Liberals over here, conservatives over there. Ne’er the twain shall meet. Benjamin Franklin, after signing the Declaration of Independence, was quoted as saying, “We must all hang together, or we will surely hang separately.” The entire notion of political opinion being an either/or proposition, a compelling dichotomy in which we must hang all of our faith, is nothing more than a lie. It is a means to manipulate the public. Divide us, segregate us into smaller sections, and once weakened we are more easily conquered. All those who doubt this, raise your hands if you’ve voted some utter jackass into office who signed legislation you hated, all because s/he was the lesser of two evils. Congratulations. You were defeated by the Hydra.

It is striking, how those centuries-old quotes from our Founding Fathers have so much relevance in these interesting times. Truly, we have come full circle. Recognize the false dichotomy for exactly what it is, and learn to think independently. Hell, learn to think at all. The alternative is going to the gallows separately, still complaining that balanced budgets are Republican and Occupy Wall Street is an Obama conspiracy as the bank-owned noose goes around your neck.

Contributed by on the ground correspondent, Jo Newton