I would first like to say I am very glad my opponent has been able to join the debate. He brings to the table important issues, and in a very well
reasoned way. I appreciate the opportunity to address these issues, as I feel it will strengthen the overall argument.
To begin, I would like to address my opponents Socratic questions.
QUESTION 1 - "Do you recognize a true ideological difference between liberalism and conservatism or do you think this ideological divide is an
illusion of some sort, or maybe just a great deal of confusion and misunderstanding advanced by such conspirators as is proposed, or something else?"
The short answer to this question is that I believe the true ideological difference between liberalism and conservatism relates to means
It would be difficult, and I think foolish ultimately, to attempt to argue that there are no
differences between the parties,
and I would like to be clear that that is not my argument. My argument is that despite differences between the parties regarding the means
which a true American democracy is undermined, and the people divested of the ability to make choices that reflect their own best interests, the
, an actual limiting of true American democracy that divests the American people of the ability to make choices in their own best interests
is one common to both parties.
Does this mean that every
member of each party is a conspirator? No. Just like every employee of a company convicted of price fixing need
not be involved in the conspiracy to fix prices, or every member of a "corrupt" police department need not themselves be corrupt, every member of a
political party need not be involved in the conspiracy to demonstrate that there is indeed a bipartisan conspiracy to undermine "true" democracy in
America. What needs to occur is that members of the party who are not complicit in the conspiracy must be marginalized, and not allowed into
positions where their lack of compliance can derail the overarching goals of the conspiracy.
I know it is difficult for the reader and my opponent to read numerous links provided in the alloted time, an so I will attempt to be sparing in this
regard. In order to demonstrate the principle I have outlined above I offer this article ;
"The illusion of choice in US elections: Does it herald the dissolution of these United States of America?"
By Mazin Qumsiyeh, PhD
My opponent also brings up the point that certain of the original founders of our nation were clearly not a part of any conspiracy to deceive the
public with an "illusory" two party system, and that they were legitimate in their idealogical stances, and not minions of some "other" power. I
would have to agree with my opponent on this point. Clearly the many of the founders founders intended an interplay and a repeated balancing of
multiple ideologies, though the actual parties themselves were not mentioned in the Constitution and formed only after ratification of said
Constitution. The stances of these ideologies and the titles assigned to them have shifted over time, the parties formed shortly after the founding of
our country were not labeled "democrat" and "republican," in fact the party of Jefferson was labeled, "Democrat-Republican" and the other
dominant party the "Federalists."
However these ideologies were labeled at the time, I agree that it is clear that there was some intent that the balancing of these ideologies was
intended to be a fair and legitimate one, that reflected the wishes of voters (at that time limited to white males of a certain age) with
Constitutional limits in place to moderate this and to protect the minority. This is demonstrated by the Constitution itself, and, as I pointed out
earlier, an amendment providing for for free speech, a free press, etc. If this were not the case, if they were not legitimate in this desire, I
would have no foundation upon which to build. For if they were not sincere in this desire for a free democracy that allowed the balancing of
ideologies, there would BE no "true American democracy" that I could then argue was being undermined by a conspiracy in the the years that followed
the creation of this democracy. So I will gladly concede my opponents point that the original intent of the founders was that there be in place a
means of balancing ideologies, and that the electoral system was intended to provide a mechanism by which these ideologies were moderated, balanced.
It would be difficult in the context of a debate with these constraints to cover all of US history in sufficient detail so as to prove the
of such a conspiracy to undermine true democracy, however I believe that demonstration of the origins
of the conspiracy fall
outside my burden of proof that there be one in the present.
It is not that I think such a discovery could not be made and proven, only that
the origin and history of the conspiracy and the fact that one currently exists is not possible with any integrity within the
character and resource usage limits of this debate. It appears to me that the conspiracy originated in one ideology, and then over time, with
evolution of the Corporation and the changes in the media, it has slowly evolved to its current form, with conspiracy now involving both parties
against a "truly democratic government."
My opponent then poses a second question;
Question 2 - Does membership in certain societies automatically include one in a conspiracy to undermine democracy?
For this question, I have a much shorter response. No. The definition of conspiracy does not require that ALL of any group participate. Nor does it
require that the goals of the conspirators be achieved 100% of the time. It requires a common goal, in this case the limiting of " a truly
democratic government in America," and it requires a pattern of participation in the furtherance of this goal by members of both parties. Success in
the furtherance of this common goal of the conspirators does make proof of the conspiracy more resounding, but, technically speaking, success in
achieving the "end" is not a requirement for proving a conspiracy exists. History is rife with examples of failed conspiracies, and if in doubt, a
quick search on the internet will remedy that.
So, I would like to address the last two points my opponent raises. I have already, in fact, addressed them in my last two posts, but I will
1) He brings up the problem of secrecy. He mentions that to be effective the conspiracy must be secret. I disagree. A fair percentage of Americans
do have a feeling or belief, to varying degree, that politicians are no longer acting in the best interests of the American people. That part is not
"secret" at all. What is concealed from the American people are;
a) The degree to which our press is "not free" by means of deregulation,
thus allowing the consolidation of media power to occur. The people, as I
stated earlier, are under the impression that they have a "free press" and
with that there is an assupmtion that they are getting unbiased coverage,
when in fact they get almost zero coverage of some, particularly foreign
policy, issues. Coverage of protests by the American people are also
aired, like the protests of Bush's inauguration.
b) That there are dissenting voices in American politics. Certain political
messages are simply not aired by the mainstream press. Examples in
c) Misleading messages, suggesting that "on the whole" our fellow
citizens approve of these policies, decisions, etc. are aired by the media
"nipping in the bud" any potential dissent. The idea is planted that; "If
the majority thinks this is ok, what can I do about it?"
Propaganda was refined to an art form by Hitler and his Third Reich, and the power of propaganda as a tool by which to control the masses was not lost
on our leaders. Modern lifestyles and the sheer magnitude of opportunities for media exposure have only increased its effectiveness. The
consolidation of the media into fewer and fewer hands has as well.
2) The existence of factions within political parties is "proof" that there could be no conspiracy. I would disagree. I would say that the
existence of diversity between individuals in the parties, and between individuals in separate parties, does NOT preclude the possibility of
conspiracy. Instead we have to look to see if there is some consistency, some common ideology in the candidates that make it through the
conspiratorial "filter" and actually gain power. The question we need to ask, is, given that there IS a great deal of diversity in political
opinions and ideologies, why do only those who further the interests of multi-national corporations at the expense of the American public gain high
office in sufficient numbers to shape policy? And why is this the case whether or not the majority of American people support this policy? I would
say if anything the existence of "factions" both within and between the parties acts to distract us from the fact that there is one common goal that
is being pursued and implemented by the conspirators. It is an illusion of diversity that never actually manifests in policy.
I would like to invoke my Socratic privilege.
1) Do you agree that it is impossible to win an election, Congressional, Senate, or Presidential, without access to television advertising in the US
2) If you do not agree with the above, can you provide examples of someone who has managed it?
3) Which recent President, (recent being within the last 30-40 years,) do you hold out as an example of someone NOT furthering the interests of
corporations at the expense of the American people?