Imagine, if you will, growing up with everyone in your family supporting a particular football team. Every game, your entire family watches their team perform a tackle, score a touchdown, or otherwise slow the opposition’s advance on the field. Your relatives (even if they aren’t excited by anything else) will jump up and shout with utter enthusiasm for the success of that team, regardless of a quality performance or even relevance to their own lives.
Mainline politics is much the same way; there are Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives. It is always presented as a series of binary options. There is never a “Third Way,” or even a glance into the vastness that is infinite possibility. This tiny box reality is anything but real, for the deliberate systematic narrowing of perception is about as heinous an act upon the liberty of human thought as can be conceived. This artificially dichotomous construct is known as the False Left-Right Controlled Paradigm.
Have you never wondered why there is a hegemonic, two-party system in America, or even political parties at all? A history lesson on the development of parties aside, a key reason that they exist in the first place is to actually support each other. If there had been a single party structure instead, the forces of popular resistance would be much more effective at toppling the power structure since those forces would be unified against a singular entity. However, the Democrats and the Republicans prop each other up, much like an archway. This way, resistance to them is significantly diffused and even set against each other.
Notice also that the Left-Right Paradigm is not limited to political parties alone. It also quite observable with political ideologies, or what passes for them. Watch any mainline conservative or liberal pundit and you’ll notice the same litany of talking points, as if from a recipe. Typically, they tend to agree on the important issues (which are seldom, if ever, discussed publicly) yet disagree on the minor ones, which, of course, are mentioned front and center on the public stage. Notice the “society of the spectacle” when it comes to public education, campaign finance, and gay marriage, but the obfuscation on foreign policy (war, diplomacy, and international trade), the deception concerning the domestic surveillance police state apparatus, and especially the stunning silence about the viability of central banking.
It has been assumed that the Left is composed of liberals and Democrats whereas the Right is composed of conservatives and Republicans. When you compare the more consistent ideological positions of say, Communism and Socialism on the Left, then Fascism and National Socialism on the Right, their core premise is the idea that the individual must be subject to the group and sacrificed if necessary for the greater good. The government (or, the State) is held as all-important; common law rights are simply considered only civil liberties granted by the State, and thus are not naturally inalienable. Upon objective scrutiny, the philosophical underpinnings of the Left and Right are, in fact, the same.
The Left-Right Paradigm is taken from the corporate world in the form of duopolies (i.e. Coke and Pepsi, AT&T and Verizon, etc). Customers, like voters, are given the illusion of a choice, since a duopoly looks a lot better than a monopoly. Given that voters are duped between “the lesser of two evils,” they are balkanized against each other alongside partisan lines, which do not represent genuine differences either in terms of philosophy or policy. Voters are literally stuck within this grand political ploy, since they are conditioned to believe that they have consented (by voting) to whatever the parties have done.
Worst of all, voters do not realize that there is a larger power structure sitting on top of the partisan archway, pulling the strings of the puppet parties. This cap on the archway is a conglomeration of special interests; some private, others corporate. So really, it is in fact all one unit that supports itself and is quite an effective apparatus for containing revolution.
If the Left-Right Paradigm (as I have explained it) is a true and accurate concept, then why does the populace continue to acquiesce to it? You must remember, that just as with corporate sports teams and overly priced universities, people have been conditioned to personally identify with one of the two political parties, usually through their family acting as a socialization agent towards an individual member (especially a child). Because of this, people typically grow up to become straight ticket voters, supporting a party because their parents did; this can be observed with the 2008 presidential election when the Republicans “opposed” Barack Obama in just the same way the liberals “attacked” John McCain, especially considering that each figurehead was essentially a “daddy-figure” to their own hapless partisan followers.
Breaking out of the Left-Right Paradigm involves a paradigm shift about the nature of politics itself. For instance, political discourse a century ago was not based around “conservatives” and “liberals,” but about liberty and tyranny. It wasn’t about social engineering schemes, but about how much State intervention was present in the lives of the population. The proper role of government was absolutely paramount to the security and prosperity of its citizens, for without it, democide (death by government) became the most dangerous threat to life, liberty, and property (as was evidenced by the death tolls and property destruction caused by the various wars of the 20th century).
Once you stop being psychologically dependent on the dominant political parties and their corporate media pundits, then the very beginning of your own personal Renaissance can begin.