The One Party State

My Recent Posts

Here’s a quick summary of the rhetoric we hear from the partisans of Party ABC:

  • The people in Party XYZ are fools.
  • The people in Party XYZ are inept for governance.
  • The people in Party XYZ are corrupt.
  • The people in Party XYZ are secretive.
  • The people in Party XYZ are uncompassionate.
  • When Party ABC is in power, it has to fix all the mistakes made by Party XYZ.

And, of course, this is a two-way street. Party XYZ is saying the same thing about Party ABC. It seems this rhetoric is a necessary part of winning of elections. Politicians and political parties who do not denigrate their opponents are probably not all that electable.


Let’s analyze the partisans: the hard working and ambitious party members vying for influence in the party, their supporters who delight in shouting over differing viewpoints and pasting vile and simplistic memes on the internet, and those not-so-neutral personalities in the field of journalism. All these partisans seriously believe they are holding the truth. If so, then don’t they have a moral imperative to work towards to shutting down the opposing party, who are obviously spreading falsehoods?   


With such moral imperative, should Party ABC ever seize some degree of power, should it not:

  • shut down all media who speak unfairly of the ABC?
  • suspend the rights of the people who voted for XYZ for these voters are obviously incapable of voting wisely?
  • put all XYZ party members on a list of possible subversives for surveillance and limiting their opportunities?
  • put the treasonous XYZ leaders in jail, even to the point suspending their legal rights?
  • abolish XYZ, thus turning our nation into a one-party state?

If ABC is indeed holding all the truth, then the one-party state is an obvious goal for ABC, right?


Most readers recognize that western democracy has various checks-and-balances to minimize the likelihood of a one-party state. Even the partisans themselves, outwardly at least, would not attest at that condition. Inwardly and subtly, I think, the partisans enjoy the competition too much to want a one-party state.


So why do partisans engage in rhetoric that has a one-party state for a logical conclusion?


Because political parties win elections with this rhetoric, that’s why! Here is how it works. The rhetoric of Party ABC will not get any more votes; the voters who like ABC will still vote for ABC regardless of how much rhetoric ABC spews. Nor will the rhetoric get any votes from the cynical, apathetic non-voters as the rhetoric only serves to remind this demographic that parties are not worth the effort to vote. But the demographic the rhetoric does influence is the “soft” support of XYZ. This group believes in its civic duty to vote and have made a decision for XYZ, often rationalizing their vote as the lesser of two evils. However, that psychological drive to make the trip to voting booth and cast a vote towards XYZ is not that strong. If enough rhetoric against XYZ is implanted in their minds, this group is less likely to make the effort. If this happens, Party ABC’s rhetoric has served its purpose by having fewer votes cast for XYZ.


So here’s a democratic paradox. Western democracy requires multiple parties, high voter turnout, and the truth to find the right decisions, right? Yet the rhetoric of political partisans suggests one or more parties are lying, some voters are convinced not to vote their preference, and a one-party state is a logical outcome.

Are these not signs something is wrong with western democracy?  



Benjamin Goldstein Added Sep 2, 2017 - 10:52am
Actually your constitution does not require any parties. There are primaries not only for presidential elections but for parliamentary elections, too.
I think your text is only a sign that you have not quite understood western democracy.
Joe Chiang Added Sep 2, 2017 - 1:24pm
The nut of the text says BOTH parties and their media representatives are liars.  What BOTH groups want the least is for the people to hear the truth!  "The truth will st you free" and BOTH parties want the people as their slaves, not free.  What the people get is lies, distortions, and fake news all claiming to be truth, and they are NOT!
Dino Manalis Added Sep 2, 2017 - 1:33pm
There are two parties, but they spend their time bickering and criticizing each other, instead of focusing on the people's business.  It's frustrating!  Both parties have to come together and do what's right, like President Clinton and Speaker Gingrich did despite political differences.  Maybe, they share Southern values!
George N Romey Added Sep 2, 2017 - 5:03pm
There is no credible reason for political parties other than the preservation and advancement of the Deep State.
Joe Chiang Added Sep 2, 2017 - 6:16pm
Dino, may I provide evidence.  The blue party alone brought the US ObamaCare.  Then the red Party took control of the House.  They could have de-funded ObamaCare and ended it right then.  They did not.  The red party instead funded ObamaCare.  Then they were given a red House, Senate, and President.  And instead of eliminating ObamaCare, they voted to make sure it would remain a part of the US government obscenity.  So what is the difference between the blue party passing it and the red party making sure we cannot get rid of it?
We could go through this process with Common Core.  The blue party brought it to us.  Then the red party made sure we kept it and could not get rid of it.  What is the difference?  Each has its job under the One Purple Liberal progressive Party agenda, to bring us these big government grabs, and make sure we must keep these government power grabs, a government that we do NOT TRUST!
Lady Sekhmetnakt Added Sep 2, 2017 - 8:05pm
The so called two party system is indeed a tool of the Deep State establishment. It is indeed one party with two heads, neocon and neoliberal. Both with the same goals of subjugation of the population for the benefit of the few. 
Jeff Jackson Added Sep 2, 2017 - 8:37pm
Having studied some about political parties in America, I can say that their dominance of the electoral system is thorough. You can't get on a ballot unless you pay, and when you take money, then you owe someone who is looking for favors if you get elected. This is why some folks give money to both parties for the same political position, so that they're covered no matter who gets elected.
The positions of the third parties, if they become popular enough, are then taken up by the GOP or the Dems, and they lose their impact and following. The last third party candidate that had a lasting impact was Ross Perot, who split the Republicans enough that Republican George H.W. Bush lost the election to Democrat Bill Clinton.
Dave Volek Added Sep 3, 2017 - 12:48am
It sounds like most of you commentators need to read "Tiered Democratic Governance". If built correctly, this system of governance will correct many of the things you are complaining about.
TDG will be built for the people BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY
Dave Volek Added Sep 3, 2017 - 12:52am
. . . . by the people. (Sorry, I must have hit the wrong key).
The people are going to have put some effort into this process. There is no political messiah to build the TDG for you. 
Benjamin Goldstein Added Sep 3, 2017 - 6:02am
John G. Yeah, Libya worked like a charm! So does North Korea, Venezuela, China, and Vietnam. Eastern Germany was so successful that they built an anti-fascist protection wall (the official name of the wall) to keep us western fascists out of their paradise.
opher goodwin Added Sep 3, 2017 - 6:43am
The party system operates through the funding it attracts. That funding comes from interested parties who then control what happens in that party and its policy. That is pernicious.
We should do away with parties and have representative individuals who look at each issue on its merits. And there should be no donations or lobbying from big business or wealthy people. It should be funded from the state with limits.
opher goodwin Added Sep 3, 2017 - 6:44am
John G - I agree - a good dose of social democracy like Libya had in its early days before Gadhafi became a dictator.
Benjamin Goldstein Added Sep 3, 2017 - 6:47am
opher goodwin: There are no parties in the US. It's mind boggling that most of you demand something that is in place. Bernie Sanders was an independent who almost made it into the White House. Trump was an independent before he quickly registered with the Reps. There is no party control over individuals.
There is a problem with big donations and I'd suggest a change in legislation. There is also a problem with the lack of parliamentary term limits. There is no problem with "parties". Your "parties" are just vague descriptions of milieus and schools of thought.
opher goodwin Added Sep 3, 2017 - 9:02am
Benjamin - I am not so familiar with the American system as I am with the British. From my perspective there are two parties - the Democrats and Republicans. Sanders and Trump might well have been independent to start with but were (not in Sanders case) endorsed by their parties. Sanders ran against Clinton in the democratic party and Clinton was endorsed - Sanders stepped down. Trump was endorsed by the Republicans. Both parties attract huge funding and have a vast network of supporters/workers. To run totally independently is nigh-on impossible. The two parties supported and worked for their candidates. It was Republican against Democrat.
Benjamin Goldstein Added Sep 3, 2017 - 11:25am
opher goodwin: Unless you want a dictatorship all political actors need to have a backing from many supporters on the ground. You can't be SOOO independent to lack all support.
The issue is about financing. That is really all there is.
opher goodwin Added Sep 3, 2017 - 11:56am
Benjamin - I think it is about funding as well as a huge network of activists. Those are the guys canvassing in the streets, knocking doors, leafletting, providing transport, sending the tweets and emails, designing the posters and gimmicks. I don't think you can't get elected without them and you can't buy in a ready-made bunch of passionate amateurs..
Micahel Dolan Added Sep 3, 2017 - 12:25pm
I do not see two parties, I see one huge corrupt government politicians who take care of themselves. The fall of America keeps coming day after day-and everyday the politicians get richer- some politicians get caught stealing-some get caught having sex with under age girls and boys-and they get away with it.
Stephen Hunter Added Sep 3, 2017 - 1:18pm
Great thought starters Dave, we definitely need to improve the system so that emotional thoughts/solutions are vetted and facts checked, before a logical decision making process can take place. 
Dave Volek Added Sep 3, 2017 - 4:35pm
When the parties spend so much of their time and effort trashing each other, they cannot find enough of the truth to make a good decision.
TDG representatives will not be elected based on their party affiliation. They have no loyalty to the party.
"For starters", hmmmm. I wrote the first version of the TDG in 1997. The fourth version is to released soon.
In the book, I say one of the disadvantages of the TDG would be the loss of entertainment value that current politics gives us. Things won't be so controversial and newsworthy in a TDG.
Saint George Added Sep 3, 2017 - 6:02pm
A one party state can and usually will be a more democratic state than under a 2 party arrangement.
You mean as in Nazi Germany, which only had a National Socialist Party? Or the former Soviet Union, which only had a Communist Party? Or North Korea, which only has a Communist Party? These are examples of countries that were, or are, "more democratic" than contemporary U.S.A.?
You truly are a vile, evil, cognitively-fucked-up, morally reprehensible skid-mark, tin-pot-tyrant, john-g.
Saint George Added Sep 3, 2017 - 6:04pm
shut down all media who speak unfairly of the ABC?
If all media are privately owned, how can government (comprising any party) shut them down? By means of physical force or the threat thereof?
opher goodwin Added Sep 3, 2017 - 7:02pm
John G - Baaaa Baaaaa.
Saint George Added Sep 3, 2017 - 8:56pm
A singular party can host far broader ranges of opinion and be far more meritocratic than in two party states.
But they have never done so and don't do so today. So who gives a shit what "can" be in a utopian fantasy situation.
That's like saying, "A benign, wise, benevolent, omnipotent ruler 'can' ('could', 'may', 'might') host far broader ranges of opinion and be far more meritocratic than in two party states". Yeah, except that there's little personal incentive for an omnipotent ruler to do any of that when he has unlimited power. Instead, omnipotent rulers like to throw their weight around to remain in power as long as possible, while spewing geysers of propaganda to convince others how benign, wise, and benevolent he is.
I guess you're just plain ignorant about history. Doesn't surprise me.
Saint George Added Sep 4, 2017 - 7:22am
And over on the other thread, you're lauding the Chinese Communist Party for their economic development policies.
Policies that happen not to be communist. A small point you're conveniently ignoring.
Laughing at you Rand boy.
Back at you, fascist-fag.
You're the propaganda spewer here, sweet cheeks.
And what "propaganda" would that be, skid-mark-g? The propaganda that individual rights are more important than mob rule by the majority? I'm sure all black, Asian, and Native American minorities would say a polite and silent, "Fuck you, john-skid-mark-g!"
Israeli state propaganda 
I see. So what you hate about Israel is the fact that it is NOT a one-party political system, but allows many parties.
You're a sick fuck-all, john-g, with a perverted sense of morality.
Saint George Added Sep 4, 2017 - 11:53pm
The argument is about one party states. Not communism.
Communist states are one party states. Can you name a one-party state that is not communist, socialist, fascist, or collectivist?
I didn't think so.
And I have no idea who Corey is. Obviously, skid-mark-g, he or she got under your thin, unwashed skin.
Joe Chiang Added Sep 5, 2017 - 10:27am
We have a media that is privately owned, but the owners all have the same agenda, liberal progressive.  Thus, they give free exposure to liberal progressives lies, but demand payment from conservatives.
The US elections has eroded to money, who has the most money.  It used to be who could raise the most money and as pointed out, businesses contributed to both sides so they did not care who won, what government did would be the same either way.
But now, individuals with a lot of money feel they can buy the Presidency.  Perot was one of the first.  He was a liberal running as if he were a conservative for the purpose of splinting the conservative vote so Clinton could be elected.  I do not believe he was running to seriously win, just to get his friend Clinton to win.
Now we have Tump who is also a liberal running as a conservative.  Under his leadership, we still have ObamaCare and Common Core, the two BIG liberal accomplishments.
Now I hear rumors that Zuckerburg is thinking of buying himself our country.  I am sure he will sound like a conservative when he runs, but he is also a liberal, a far left liberal.  But the liberal media will never tell the voters the truth.  So I think the voters will be duped again.
The American people are being played by people with an agenda, an agenda to subjugate the USA to a One World Government (see UN Agenda 2030). 
"Do you trust your government?"  Then why vote for the same kind of people who make that government you do not trust bigger and stronger.  Are we stupid or something?

Recent Articles by Writers Dave Volek follows.