When you think about it in a historical context, there are only two kinds of people: those who believe in the sanctity of others’ right to life and liberty; and predatory, opportunistic scum. This may be something of an oversimplification, but it’s surprising how many issues wind up being far less complicated than some would have us believe.

That “some,” more often than not being among the aforementioned predatory, opportunistic scum.

We find that the religious doctrines with which most of us are familiar, and which have determined the direction of Western civilization for the last 2,000 years, are more than loosely based on promoting the individual’s right to life and liberty; they were finally codified into government documents in modern times in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

This is where the wisdom of the founders of this nation came in. Men who were both educated and men of the soil, they knew their world was a frontier at a crossroads. Rule didn’t work – not for the people. Governance was the answer. They reasoned that although a government of men could never be perfect, they might craft a “more perfect” one.

And it was more perfect, considering the short order in which it was corrupted by glory-roaders and narcissistic politicians (more predatory, opportunistic scum, if you’d not caught on already). The closer one looks at our nation’s history, it’s a wonder that it lasted into the 20th century as something resembling a republic. I believe wholeheartedly that if the founders of this nation somehow came to power tomorrow, only about a couple dozen or so members of Congress (House members as well as senators) would escape hanging.

And that includes both parties.

The mud-wrestling match that has been the race for the Republican nomination is definitely one for the books. In the grimy, slimy fray, it has been nearly impossible for all but the deliberately informed voter to determine who is who, and align themselves accordingly. It might indeed spell the beginning of the end for the GOP, or at least the two-party system in America.

The reason I say this is because the struggle between the ideologically weak but politically strong party leadership and the rank-and-file has never been more apparent; it is most assuredly more furious than any struggle between the two parties at large. The premise touted by the GOP leadership concerning what constitutes electability has been accepted by far too many likely Republican voters, and the records of prominent candidates have been so obscured, one wonders if they aren’t using Obama’s 2008 playbook. I do understand how much of a necessity it can be to work within a structure, or a political machine, if you will. After all, that’s how the radicals co-opted the Democrat Party. It was done insidiously, incrementally.

America’s gravitation toward socialism did not occur in a vacuum, however. This was not a case of well-meaning, but somewhat naïve and unsuspecting Republican leaders being overtaken by well-closeted radicals operating amongst Democrats. While no one can argue that Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney are Marxist-Leninists (like our current president), they are indeed big-government elites.

And – like an increasing number of horrified conservatives have discovered – so are most of the lawmakers in the House and Senate, and just about anyone anywhere who aspires to such a position.

Even iconic conservatives are being revealed as faux conservatives – liberals who have done no more than masquerade as conservatives – and they occupy the realms of politics as well as the conservative media. Perhaps the grave nature of our situation made it too difficult for them to convincingly maintain the charade any longer. Whether they have done this intentionally, to re-define what conservatism is, or if they have deluded themselves into believing that they are truly the genuine article is not yet clear, but it will be a game-changer for many conservatives.

It also rather conveniently relegates many constitutionally-minded Americans – such as those in the tea party – to the status of radicals, and this is something that we must carefully and deeply consider. While voters who are aware that we must oust Obama are settling for what they’re being offered in terms of Republican candidates, the men to whom they are pledging their votes are still committed to our enslavement – for reasons of necessity, if not ideology. And the tea party members among those voters need to know they’re going to be the first ones under the bus.

So, again we find ourselves on a frontier at a crossroads, saddled with those who would rule rather than govern on both sides of the aisle. Our choice is much bigger than that of choosing a GOP nominee.

I’m not saying that casting a vote for Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney in 2012 will be a moral failure. I simply maintain that those who do so should be aware of what they’re getting, and that it should only be considered but one step toward ridding our government of predatory, opportunistic scum.

If they’re not aware of what they’re getting, then they’re only choosing between two different plantations.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.