Both political parties of today -- the Democrats and the Republicans -- are controlled by the CFR from above and have a common agenda, that of globalization and the expansion of government. The Democrats (aka, Left, Liberals and Progressives) are basically the party of the Poor/Newly Rich and the Republicans (aka, Right, Conservatives and GOP) are basically the party of the Rich.
Since people who have become rich got there via the extant system, they don't want to "change" the system, thus they are "conservatives." They want to conserve, keep, the system.
People who are poor, on the other hand, don't like the system because it's keeping them poor and thus they want to "CHANGE" the system, a lot (liberally), if possible. They are thus "progressive" about "improving" things, improving things for themselves. Their attitudes are thus the opposite of the conservative attitude: be "liberal" about change and new ideas.
Those who manage to go from poor to rich (such as celebrities who can have millions suddenly dumped on them by studios), are caught in the middle. Most of their family and friends are still poor. They sympathize, but even though they are physically rich, they are still mentally poor. Since they still have a poor mindset, they remain in the Democratic party . . . at least for a while.
As time goes by, the newly rich get used to being rich. They begin emulating their rich friends more than their poor friends. Eventually they manage to dump their poor friends (even the ones that got them to where they are) and begin to associate with people who are "older money" or more "established." Soon they forget their "frivolous" ways of "liberalism" and begin to get serious about CONSERVING their money. Often keeping what they have becomes more important than making new money. They thus become obsessed with T-Bills and taxation, for afterall, their old Liberal friends, through the government, are now seeking to TAKE what they are now seeking to CONSERVE. They are now a conservative. Their new "conservative" friends tell them how to avoid all these horrible things (making certain that they relate the finer differences between avoiding and EVADING taxes). Soon the Newly Rich Democrat becomes an Old(er) Money Republican. On the way to their new political caste, the Newly Rich person may become a Neo-Conservative, one making the transition but who wants to retain some of their traditional values yet fit in with the old money.
So, what is going on is this: Savvy political scientists charged with obfuscating the truth and expanding government, have become geniuses at exploiting the age-old, rich-poor dichotomy. They have, in essence, managed to take Plato's old war, the one where he says:
"Any city, however small, is divided into two; one the city of the poor, the other of the rich; these are at war with one another."
And re-package this rich-poor "war" in terms of political parties. In this case it's the Democrats and the Republicans, again, referred to as the Left Wing and Right Wing, or Liberals and Conservatives. In other words, political tacticians have managed to keep the public fixated on the same class warfare that citizens in Plato's time have been fixated on but to obfuscate the game, they have changed all the terms.
The political scientists of our time know the rich-poor war is a deep and emotional issue. They know it's an issue that gravely concerns almost all citizens of any state. They know, therefore, it's the perfect way to keep the citizenry fixated on an issue that will not remedy the GENERAL WELFARE of the country, but it will keep the government in power and constantly expanding. Were citizens to be able to remove their attention from the political spectrum defined by wealth (rich-poor aka Dems-GOP) and place it on the political spectrum defined by government size (big-small), they would be in a position to actually remedy their respective problems, for the SIZE of a government has more impact on the GENERAL WELFARE of citizens than any other attribute.
Unfortunately, a favorable remedy for the citizen spells the demise of big government. To the degree citizens become able they have little or no need for government entitlements. To the degree citizens become ethical, they have little or no need for external laws and regulation. To the degree citizens can solve their business transactions amongst themselves and there is little or no scarcity, they have little or no need for government "justice." It is thus in government's interest to make certain none of these things happen in any significant ways. To this end, it is practical for a government to make certain citizens -- with a little help from the government-licensed media -- have their attention riveted to the false political spectrum of Plato's time (supplimented by all manner of violence, death, destruction, chaos, blood-sports, sex and scandal the corporate media can scrape out of existence) and away from the Real Political Spectrum.
And the Real Political Spectrum is NOT rich vs. poor, Dems vs. GOP, Liberals vs. Conservatives, but Big Gov vs. Small Gov. It's just that simple.
HOW BIG SHOULD A GOVERNMENT BE TO SERVICE X NUMBER OF CITIZENS?
That's the question the Real Political Spectrum deals with.
In addressing this one salient question, other questions unfold.
What's the cost of government per citizen? Since we have a gov that costs (taxes) about $3 trillion per year and services about 300 million citizens, the cost per citizen is about $10,000. What should this cost be? Higher or lower? How much government do the citizens want to pay for? How much security do the citizens want to pay for? How many benefits and entitlements do the citizens want to pay for?
The answers to THESE questions are part of the debate that forms the Real Political Spectrum, for the answers to these questions seek one solution: HOW BIG SHOULD A GOVERNMENT BE TO SERVICE X NUMBER OF CITIZENS? and the answer to this questions leads to the quality of life the citizen will have. This is what is referred to in the U.S. Constitution as the GENERAL WELFARE.
All other focus points and debates are basically irrelevant, derivative or trivial.