The Democratic Party used to act as an opposition party to the GOP and its Wall Street / Plutocrat pay

masters. The Southern Strategy, launched by Nixon, changed the game. It took the focus off of economic issues and instead leveraged social issues (primarily minority rights at the time + an attack on sexual promiscuity / freedoms). The Democratic Party lost its support. During the past 30 years, the Democratic Party has inexorably been brought to heel. We are now witnessing the final end game: Two parties. Both embracing the same economic philosophies which benefit the very wealthy and impose Austerity on the rest of the population. However, the people still need a choice when they get pissed. There needs to be a difference. Something concrete - something to focus anger at so that the subject of Economic Policy isn't the single focus of the voters' ire. Social Issues, to the rescue. GOP Platform Summary: The GOP takes the Plutocrat's Economic Policies to an "instant" Extreme and couples them with Social extremes driven by intolerance. Democrat Platform Summary: The Democrats take the Plutocrat's Economic Policies, toss in some minor spices (Social Security Payroll Tax Cut, for example) and couple it with Social Tolerance. Motivate The Right: The specter of illegal aliens, terrorists (read: brown people and people of color) are used as scapegoats to whip up uneducated voters into supporting the GOP plank. As these voters continue to economically suffer, they are given targets for their ire - but such targets NEVER interfere with the overall economic policies which will continue to destroy their economic viability. Motivate & Scare The Shit Out of the "Left": The specter of far-right social policies, intolerance, state-sanctioned religious dogma, and immediate obliteration (as opposed to gradual obliteration) of the remaining shreds of our social safety nets are used to ensure moderates and independents are kept in a state of heightened fear in order to ensure they stay within the two party system (Democrat).

Big Tent Philosophy: Within this Kabuki theater, both parties acknowledge the threat of their bases forming additional parties. In order to counter this, the parties DO allow "extreme" candidates to join (BOTH parties refer to themselves as "Big Tent" parties). Ron Paul & Dennis Kucinich Play Supporting Roles: "Extreme" members of the parties, such as Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, play a vital role in keeping the base hopeful that they have a voice in the party. The far right will rally to such "Extreme" members, proclaiming they need "more such 'REAL' Rethuglicans". The Left / Progressives will rally and intone the same chant: "BETTERDemocrats". The Big Tent philosophy is also used to keep the respective "bases" in line when they complain about party members who fail to represent the bases' interests.

More & Better is the rallying cry of both Party Leaderships both to keep the bases in check and to give them HOPE.

The problem is that in the end, both parties' leaderships are FIRMLY in the same camp. At the top of both parties, there is no difference - BOTH leaderships vie for the favor of the same wealthy interests. From a Plutocrat's standpoint, it is nothing more than a Grand Game. A jousting tournament, if you will. At the end of which (elections) the American Royalty returns to its gated communities, toasts one another, and discusses the winners and losers in the context of a sporting event. To Wit: Lieberman campaigned for John McCain - A Rethuglican. Yet, he kept his powerful Senate Chair over Homeland Security. Why? Obama renominated (and got confirmed) Ben Bernanke. Why? Tim Geithner, Wall Street's Bag Man, was made Treasury Secretary. Why? Eric Holder, who defended Chiquita against their hiring of Death Squads to kill indigenous organizers, was appointed America's Top Cop. Why? Obama used his Executive Power to create a Deficit Commission - and then saw that it was staffed with members who mostly were opposed to Social Programs. The Co-chair Obama SELECTED? Alan Simpson, a Rethuglican whose favorite target is the elimination of Social Security. Why? Bush was criticized for passage of a law which forbids negotiating drug prices for Medicare. Dick Cheney was criticized for meeting in Secret with Big Oil. Obama met in secret with Big Pharma. The ensuing "reform" was almost identical to that which the Heritage Foundation proposed in the 90's. The reform did NOT repeal the prohibition on drug price negotiation.

Why? Voters are/were outraged at the destruction wrought by Wall Street (the Plutocracy's main engine of financially command and control). Obama DEFENDED the Wall Street Thugs as "Savvy Businessmen" whose "Hard Work" led to their "Success". Obama subsequently appointed one his Chief of Staff (JP Morgan). Why? I was just remembering the Bush years.. when Bush was beloved by many, the country rallied around Bush & the GOP Majority... odd how they went after Social Security yet not much effort to make abortion illegal? Isn't the Supreme Court conservative now? Wouldn't that have just thrilled their base? Even if they failed... wouldn't it have stirred their base? Perhaps they were scared such an attempt would succeed. And then who would be motivated? Mr. Shared Sacrifice = the Pied Piper of Austerity. Such a beautiful performance, I can hardly resist clapping.