Another Malware Trait Of Our Democracy

Though America prides itself on being a democracy, it shouldn't. Its democracy is weak if it exists at all. And it is plagued with at least 3 malware operating traits that we seem too arrogantly stubborn to even acknowledge let alone address.

The first malware trait of our democracy is that we employ a lazy democracy. Democracy for us is voting every x number of years for officials whom we hope to be able to ignore until the next election. If what these officials do does not negatively interfere with our pursuit of happiness and wealth, we are content. If not, generally speaking, we store up our anger for the next election. 

The second malware trait of our democracy is that it is bipolar. That is we keep switching between the leadership of one of two political parties: the Republicans and the Democrats. This puts these two parties in a co-dependent, job security relationship where their failures ensure future work for the other party. The so-called independent voter is a bipolar voter, while those who vote for one party or the other find themselves choosing between political tribalism and voter resignation.

Now if those two malware traits were not bad enough, we have another one that sabotages democracy by ensuring that only an elite-centered rule emerges despite, or perhaps because of, our democratic processes. This third malware trait has more to do with the behavior of our 2 major political parties. To different degrees, our two major political parties act as proxies dressed up in vanguard clothing.

So what does it mean for a political party to act as a proxy? It means that its actions and what it advocates are directed by others. And here, in particular, those directing our political parties are not the voters, but are one or a few small interest groups. This consolidates political power so that our government employs elite-centered rule that revolves around the interests and welfare of a few "exceptional" people who call the shots (click here for America's democratic status).

Both of our major political parties serve financial elites before they serve us. One party serves these elites more than the other, but both are pretty much under the control of the financial elites in our nation--here, we should note that sometimes there is a conflict of interest between different sets of elites.

So we have both political parties whose main purpose is follow the directives of our nation's financial elites when writing and passing legislation. Why would we voters support such political parties with our votes? It is because disguise their allegiances by putting on their vanguard clothing over their proxy clothing. 

What is a vanguard? The Meriam-Webster Dictionary defines a vanguard as 'the forefront of an action or movement' (click here for the reference). The vanguard of a political group is a small group that sets the pace for the larger group while claiming to represent the larger group. And it also markets itself as a vicarious leader in that how one reacts to the vanguard is interpreted how one reacts to the larger group.

A perfect historical example of a vanguard was seen in Lenin and the Bolsheviks as they led, or hijacked, the Russian Revolution. Those who opposed them, even if they were fellow Socialists,  were then portrayed and treated as if they opposed the Revolution and its people. This mentality caused a great number of purges among the Socialists in Russia.

Now it's not like we see purges in our political parties here. But both the Republican and Democratic Parties have portrayed themselves as vanguards of different movements. The Republicans claim to be the vanguard for the anti-abortion segment of the Pro-life movement as well as for American traditionalists. The Democrats claim to be the vanguard for minorities and human rights. However, both parties act more as proxies for the financial elites than as vanguards though being a vanguard can sometimes take a little away from being proxy. That last point helps explain the difference in how much more the Republicans act as a proxy for our nation's financial elites than how the Democrats act.

The problem with relying on the vanguard, however, is that it still  utilizes an elite-centered rule political structure. Vanguards rely on a few to represent/rule over many. And any elite-centered rule political structure allows for minimal input and participation by the masses.

I suppose that when the masses are so interested in or, by necessity, forced to focus on, making a living, they are prohibited from being more politically involved. As a result, depending on vanguards makes a certain amount of sense. The problem is that such a setup carries all of the baggage that the elite-centered rule of allowing vanguards involves. And since being proxies are these political parties' alter-egos, being vanguards enables these parties to pretend to care for the masses while they cater to the needs and even whims of the few. Certainly we don't see the kind of control over dissent exercised by the example of a vanguard which was mentioned earlier. We don't see the purges within either political party that Lenin instituted among the Socialists of his day. But we see half-hearted, if that much, representations of the masses by those claiming to be vanguards while at the same time our participation and voices are greatly reduced.

The Trump Presidency has moved more and more people to call for change. But the change begins with us. The change means that we must become more politically active than just voting every x number of years. The change includes a rejection of our bipolar democracy by investing in and voting for 3rd party candidates. And the change also involves refusing to let our political parties act as vanguards for the groups we belong to. If we make these changes, then perhaps our political parties will not just shed the vanguard apparel, it will forsake its proxy roles and look to represent the general public rather than some elite sector of the population.