A two-party system requires equilibrium.

[kentuck]

Equilibrium requires an efficient propaganda system.

The status quo, the establishment, desires equilibrium within the political system.

The propaganda system is run by people like Rupert Murdock, Roger Ailes, the heads of the networks - ABC, NBC, CBS, and other lesser knowns. They hand down the "news" to the talking heads that we watch on our television sets. Most of the talking heads are programmed sufficiently that they do not need to be coached.

At the present time, the "propagandists" are seeking equilibrium between the Republican Party and the dominant Democratic Party. One needs to be built up as the other is minimized or torn down. If there are serious problems in the country and one Party is not capable of fixing them, then the "media propagandists" will present the other Party as the desirable option. It is not acceptable for one Party to be too dominant.

We are in the process of looking for that equilibrium. That is why third parties are not permitted too much influence in our political process. They could interrupt the status quo and threaten the establishment and the powerful. And so it goes...

[RandomThoughts]

1. That arguement is used for Republican Democrat debate.

Even when they have the same positions on corporate issues.

It is a false paradigm, quite simply, the pull to democracy, and ideas of regulation on corporations is the balance, not some label of what party someone is in without regard to what they do.

Also breaking up media and corporate consolidations is part of the balance.

If you argue that government should be half Republican, half Democrat, you are stuck on labels, if they both are confined by money systems of propaganda, like the media you mentioned.


And I will bite the hint, and play a video again, even though it has pet doctrine, filters of violence, and a filter of sex, if you can find the emotion in it.

It is a pretty good movie.

Equilibrium "Requiem for a Dream"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWLQOD3cN60

[kentuck]

2. Clear as mud.

Thanks.

[Ozymanithrax]

3. The media did not tear down the dominant Republican party...

between 2000 and 2008. Except for a very few media outlets, they were lapdogs.

So I find your premise flawed.

I think the need for profits over anything else is the real villain. The media's desired demographic are titillated by dead naked white blond teenage girls (and don't give a damn about the mountain of dead naked black teenage girls under which their blond corpses are buried). So such stories are covered ad nauseam. If it bleeds it leads. Drama keeps eyes on TV, so they make everything a drama. I don't think the political leanings of most executives even make that much difference (with the exception of Fox, which has built their entire system around throwing red meat to slobbering idiots.) MSNBC is doing OK with the left, because FOX owned the crazy winger demographic and they were not going to make inroads there, even though they once hired Michael Savage and tried to take Fox's audience.

The media doesn't want equilibrium, they want money.

[kentuck]

4. No, they tore themselves down...

That is why they have to be built back up. And that is why the Democrats were so successful in the last 2 elections.

Distractions, such as football, also serve a purpose, I would agree.

But we should not overlook the fact that they operate in their own interests, and not in the interests of the people.

[Ozymanithrax]

7. Well of course they look after their own interest first.

In the 50's and 60's TV News was not expcected to be a money maker, and they were given limited hours to operate. Once media could take up entire channals and broadcast 24 hours a day, and competed they needed to be come money making entertainment. The Fox Demographic watch FOX because it justify's their world view and because they are entertained.

For the media to work as a news service, they need to place a higher value on information, a lower value on money, and no value on entertainment.

[kentuck]

8. How big of a role do they play in our society?

and in our political process, is the question?

[Ozymanithrax]

9. The media including Cable news, network news, talk radio, and...

Internet news outlets are the largest single force in created a public narrative about the world.

We individuals base our view of the world on home, work, and neighborhood; and that view comes together at the kitchen table. Our attitudes to what is happening now is focused and influenced by our choice of media. A member of the FOX demographic will vomit rather than watch Olberman or Rachel. Their kitchen table issues are tied into what they see in the media. What they see is an endless stream of images and statements that propel them.

The modern media is immensely influential. If we hear that Republicans/Conservatives/right wingers are enthusiastic to vote and Democrats/Liberals/progressives (socialist all of course) are unenthusiastic that becomes part of our thinking, part of our conceptualization. If we hear that spending all this money is bad because spending too much money in household is bad, we believe it. It doesn't matter that there is almost no relationship between the workings of a national economy and a family economy. The narrative creates this idea and doesn't try to inform people, only drive them to believe in a certain way. The media outlet will succede if it matches its message to its targeted demographic and makes money.

[kentuck]

10. As much as we would like to believe otherwise...

Television is still the biggest influence on opinions of most of America.

[RKP5637]

5. Yep, a two-party system with a MSM stranglehold on what we hear is a

bad situation and leads to a polarized system. I've often thought more political parties might lead to a more balanced system. Right now, we just get diametrically opposed views on just about everything. And today elections are basically bought and we have a bribed corporate owned system, for the most part.

It does not produce a healthy society IMO, but rather one polarized and often ignorant. Mostly we now hear bashing arguments rather than numerous meaningful and fair solutions.

The end result is unfortunately failure of a democracy, eventually, if some sense of equilibrium is not achieved.

As others have said, and I agree, we are currently on a race to the bottom. We will be ill-prepared for the 21st century. Democracies last in general an average 200 years, so I've heard. I am still hopeful we are the exception. To be exceptional, a lot of Americans need to chill-out and start working together for the good of the country. First step is to get the money out of elections, bribes in congress and basically the revolving doors.

The question I always wrestle with is where/how do we begin... I see us sliding more and more toward a fascist country and a powerful oligarchy with a police state down the road to enforce the status quo for the extremely wealthy and powerful... if it comes to that... If the R's fully gain control again, I think this country is in for a hell of a lot of grief.

[kentuck]

6. I agree.

I think we are headed toward some interesting times.