“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.” – Charles Mackay

With election season in full swing, and both camps in a state of frenzy over the choice between two mostly indistinguishable plutocrats, it's time to step back and observe what is really going on here, from a larger psychological and sociological perspective.

In order to understand what is driving the behavior of most Americans, we have to understand how our political system is constructed. We have two political parties presented to the people as polar opposites, with each citizen firmly placing themselves in one of the two camps, like fans at a football game between two rival colleges. By all indications to the public, these two camps appear to be at two opposite ends of the political spectrum, with the democratic candidate, Barack Obama, painted as the extreme leftist, and the republican candidate, Mitt Romney, playing the role of far right winger. The media plays its critical role in crafting this appearance, complete with televised conventions, “debates”, and analysis ad nauseum by journalists discussing an extremely narrow range of topics and asking questions loaded with false assumptions. Each citizen takes a side in this epic battle between left and right, good and evil, with the victor coming away with the power to change the world. And who doesn't love a good battle between rivals? Darth Vader vs. Luke Skywalker; Frodo vs. Gollum; Ohio State vs. Michigan. And so it goes: the battlefield has been set, the warriors have been chosen, and now it's time do our part and participate in the democratic process by exercising our right to vote for one of two men with critically different visions for the country.

This is the theater that is our political system, and sadly, it is nothing more than a menagerie created by big business, with the media they control, and the politicians who will represent their interests, regardless of which one wins. And they accomplish all of this by creating what is called a “frame”. A political frame, much like the picture frame that hangs on your wall, creates a set of boundaries that restricts and controls its contents.

In the case of your picture frame, the contents are obvious. In the case of the political frame, its contents are the political parties and their representatives, the range of ideas and issues that are discussed, as well as who is allowed to participate. And the frame itself is the media and the political system, both of which are controlled by a relatively small group of billionaires who run the media and who control the political system with their campaign financing and lobbying dollars.

The frame they have constructed is extremely limiting; in the larger scheme of political philosophy, the presidential candidates represent a very narrow range of viewpoints, from “extremely conservative” to “slightly less conservative”. Barack Obama, for example, has brought us such “progressive” policies like the indefinite detention of American citizens without due process, the sole authority of the President to assassinate anyone, including American citizens, the practical control of our food system by GMO corporate insiders, and the prosecution of more whistleblowers than all other Presidents combined. You will certainly never hear the Socialist party representative being interviewed by Wolf Blitzer (yes, there is a Socialist party), and there is good reason that Ralph Nader (no Socialist by any stretch) was never invited to participate in the presidential debates: his viewpoints, though highly sound and reasonable, fall outside the narrow range of thoughts allowed by the system controlled by big business. Put simply, if the American people were actually exposed to these very reasonable ideas and the two corporate party representatives were forced to respond to them in front of millions of television viewers, the people might actually begin to discover the inherent corruption in the system that Ralph Nader has been talking about for decades.

Let's say you go out to eat at a restaurant, and the waiter hands you the drink list, which consists of the following choices: Coke and Coke Classic. And then he gives you a colorful pamphlet that describes in great detail all of the drastic differences between the beverages, and the manager comes by your table and shows you a very persuasive video on the pros and cons of each. And these choices are the only ones offered, not only at this restaurant, but at every restaurant in every town. Given the narrow frame in which your drink options are placed, their differences, though subtle and mostly meaningless, are accentuated.

Of course, we know that these two beverages are practically identical, because there is no such frame that restricts our viewpoints. Not so in the world of government and politics. Your perceptions, opinions, and thoughts are heavily influenced and controlled by a very small handful of people, and they don't have your best interests in mind. Otherwise, the American people would be presented with a larger range of ideas and discussion that would expand our minds, not restrict them.

Unfortunately, the American people, by and large, have been conditioned to think in these narrow terms, digging themselves into one ideological trench or the other, as if there are no other ideas or possibilities outside of this frame. And as such, because they have aligned themselves so firmly in these camps, they cannot see outside the confines of that frame. And that's the beauty of our system, from the perspective of those who control it: the American people remain divided against one another, as they squabble over a false choice between two members of the same clan, all the while confined to their ideological cages that distort their vision and enslave their minds. Meanwhile, the plutocrats keep cashing in with no real threats to the system, as the people keep blindly participating in it, which further entrenches the plutocrats' power and validates a corrupt system. After all, it's a win-win for them, since both teams are on their side. And make no mistake; there is only one team, and it's not the team of the people, for the people, or by the people.

No one likes to believe they have been manipulated, and as Mark Twain aptly pointed out, it's easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled. The plutocracy has certainly fooled the American people, and sadly, it's not likely they'll wake up before November.

References:

• http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/06/obamas-whistleblowers-stuxnet-leaks-drones
• http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/
• http://www.greenchange.org/article.php?id=5713
• http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/214295-holder-clear-authority-to-kill-citizens