Left Wanting a Voice for the Everyman

A Political Essay by Jeffrey E. Poehlmann

Originally published by 3rdparty.org on January 1, 1999

A recent convening of "conservatives" in the Phoenix dessert on what many are calling an annual examination of their identity has left me asking myself an old question: Why do we label our politicians, ourselves, as conservative or liberal rather than humanitarian? Is not the purpose of government in this country to help and protect the citizens of this country? Surely the United States of America is beyond reproach when accused of the political infighting, power struggles and oppression of all opposition that marred monarchies and empires of centuries past or the dictatorial regimes of thoseless significant countries we relegate to the Third World. So why is it that our system has become in recent years so completely polarized in its struggle between the two dominant political parties to the point where a virtual coup has been attempted? Is it to protect the American People, as the proponents of this movement would have us believe, though the vast majority of the American People have spoken out in its opposition, or is this really just one more example (albeit a modern one) of the sort of political infighting and backstabbing that has brought down rulers through the ages? "Beware the ides of March," I say. It is time for the common man's voice to return to the seat of our leaders.

With a proliferation of loud, lurid and boisterous voices like those of Rush Limbaugh or former broadcaster turned Representative J.D. Hayworth filling our airwaves and riding high on their self-styled sense of political glory, it is sometimes hard to recognize that they are the voices of a minority. This bleeds over, naturally, into the most recognizable conservative contingent of the Religious Right. Here is a group of people hell-bent on bringing their own brand religious moralism into the halls of government, forcing their views upon a country that while largely Christian is by no means a Christian country. Since the start of the Clinton administration, they have been a force behind the President’s removal. For the most part, this movement has been largely unsuccessful. The curiously popular President, tagged "Slick Willy" over his questionable political maneuvering even before running for his first term in the White House, has wavered slightly in public polls but always appears to be favored by the majority. The fact is, our country has not suffered under his leadership except, perhaps, of embarrassment. And it is this opening that has given way to the foothold his opposition now uses to tear down his ranks. The question remains, however, to whose benefit this will be done.

And yet, the conservative contingent continues to express a general feeling that they lack leadership in their own ranks. While it seems unlikely that there could be any sense of organized coup by this ragged band, the overall climate remains one of systematic opposition and aggressive maneuvering against the nation’s leader. Meanwhile, the liberal backbone of American politics, embodied by the Democratic Party, has largely rallied behind the President’s leadership if for no other reason than to assume a united front in posture against their Republican adversaries.

What we are left with, as a nation, are two sets of politicians where the physical beings themselves now stand as more intrinsically important than the political ideologies that supposedly spawned the parties to which they belong. This means that men and women are banding together under their party umbrella so that they may belong to the winning side, or the "just" side, rather than following perhaps what is true to their own hearts. We are watching human-based ideologies crumble under meaningless rhetoric. Certainly there are still Republicans and Democrats alike who feel passionately in their parties’ ideologies, that their chosen political direction will lead to the betterment of all in this great nation, but the feeling garnered through our media is one of a divisive power struggle from which cousin will conquer cousin, whoever’s blood must drench the victor’s hands in the process. Does it come as a surprise then, that the most celebrated of politicians as we begin the year is none other than former pro-wrestler, Jesse Ventura, the new governor of Minnesota?

Governor Ventura is not the nation’s most articulate man, nor the most fashionable, nor the slickest. What he is, however, is just that: what he is. Here is an example of a politician without pretense. He admitted before hand that he would be making mistakes, and only promises to do the best job he can. He belongs to a fringe political party with a conservative founder but a centrist following. As he is a political enemy of both dominant parties during election, he is able to be equally in alliance with both during his term. He can only serve as a unifying force between Democrats and Republicans, and so it does them little good to fight against him – surely they could join ranks to remove him from office, but to do so they would not be able to also fight one another for the vacant leadership role once he was gone, and thus gain nothing. So the dominant parties will be forced to continue fighting between one another on the side and work with Governor Ventura as long as he remains in office.

This leaves the impression that our nation stands to gain much from this type of unaffected politician, of and for the masses. And the only possible gain we can make as a country is to use the tiny foothold being offered up by the dominant parties to wedge our way in during their infighting. If they remain so tightly focused on their "party" and not on the needs of their public, it will allow more neutral candidates to gain offices and continue to pave the way for a revolutionary wave in U.S. politics, where the people of this country can take back the Executive Office and be represented by a voice from amongst their own ranks.