I am 100% in the camp that supports Bernie Sanders severing himself completely from the hopelessly captured and corrupt Democratic Party and launching an entirely new movement. I’ve spent a lot of time since the 2016 election writing about how worthless the Democratic Party is and why it will never fundamentally change. The sad truth when it comes to American politics at the moment is “we the people” have no political representation whatsoever. Both the Republican and Democratic parties are corporate and oligarch donor owned, and will never push forward the sort of sweeping change average Americans need in order to enjoy a higher quality of life.
This post isn’t meant as an endorsement of Sanders or all of his policies, but it’s an endorsement of creating something new so that the public can enter a new era in which the needs of the people are addressed. Truth be told, we’ve been fooled into thinking that we have two distinct political parties proposing vastly different policy solutions to help the public. The reality is we have two political parties proposing various solutions to help the donors. Nobody represents the people. We need to discard these parties and form new ones, and the sooner we do so, the better.
As I wrote in the post, In Defense of Populism:
Despite my refusal to self-identify, I am comfortable stating that I’m a firm supporter of populist movements and appreciate the instrumental role they’ve played historically in free societies. The reason I like this term is because it carries very little baggage. It doesn’t mean you adhere to a specific set of policies or solutions, but that you believe above all else that the concerns of average citizens matter and must be reflected in government policy.
Populism reaches its political potential once such concerns become so acute they translate into popular movements, which in turn influence the levers of power. Populism is not a bug, but is a key feature in any democratic society. It functions as a sort of pressure relief valve for free societies. Indeed, it allows for an adjustment and recalibration of the existing order at the exact point in the cycle when it is needed most. In our current corrupt, unethical and depraved oligarchy, populism is exactly what is needed to restore some balance to society.
Whether people identify as on the “right” or the “left” there’s general consensus (at least in U.S. populist movements) of the following: oligarchs must be reined in, rule of law must be restored, unnecessary military adventures overseas must be stopped, and lobbyist written phony “free trade” deals must be scrapped and reversed.
Trump was the first President in my lifetime to win the office on a populist wave. Unfortunately, his actual style of governing in practice looks a lot like authoritarian-corporatism, an ideology and mindset which I find nauseating and dangerous. As such, the best chance of an alternative populism in the near-term would come from a Bernie Sanders led party.
I seriously hope he takes the plunge, because as recent reports from a Florida lawsuit against the DNC demonstrate, the Democratic Party is beyond repair.
As the Observer reports:
On April 28 the transcript was released from the most recent hearing at a federal court in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., on the lawsuit filed on behalf of Bernie Sanders supporters against the Democratic National Committee and former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz for rigging the Democratic primaries for Hillary Clinton. Throughout the hearing, lawyers representing the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz double down on arguments confirming the disdain the Democratic establishment has toward Bernie Sanders supporters and any entity challenging the party’s status quo.
Shortly into the hearing, DNC attorneys claim Article V, Section 4 of the DNC Charter—stipulating that the DNC chair and their staff must ensure neutrality in the Democratic presidential primaries—is “a discretionary rule that it didn’t need to adopt to begin with.” Based on this assumption, DNC attorneys assert that the court cannot interpret, claim, or rule on anything associated with whether the DNC remains neutral in their presidential primaries.
Later in the hearing, attorneys representing the DNC claim that the Democratic National Committee would be well within their rights to “go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way.” By pushing the argument throughout the proceedings of this class action lawsuit, the Democratic National Committee is telling voters in a court of law that they see no enforceable obligation in having to run a fair and impartial primary election.
That’s your “Democratic” Party.
As a result of the obvious sham, there’s a new movement afoot to “Draft Bernie” into a new political party. Its founder is Nick Brana, and here’s a great interview of him by Jordan Chariton.
Here’s my bottomline. If Sanders doesn’t do something like this and do it fast, the Democrats are going to nominate another corrupt loser in 2020, and Trump will win a second term no matter how unpopular he might be.
If you enjoyed this post, and want to contribute to genuine, independent media, consider visiting our Support Page.
In Liberty,
Michael Krieger
Donate bitcoins: 35DBUbbAQHTqbDaAc5mAaN6BqwA2AxuE7G
Follow me on Twitter.
While I agree with your views about the Democratic Party, I don’t think a 3rd party is solution. The problem with that strategy is that the current two parties are much too powerful to be taken on directly. Instead, they must be taken down from within. The Tea Party and the Freedom Caucus have laid out the path forward, and it’s very telling that the Indivisible movement has drafted Tea Party strategies to make their voices heard.
Once the populist movement gains hold within the Democratic Party, the next step is for populists within both major parties to put aside their differences on social issues (abortion, LGBT rights, etc) and to work together where they agree on economic issues (tax reform, corporate welfare, trade).
In the Uk the established Labour Party has been effectively taken over by the “radical left”. They have proved inept in opposition and are about to be wiped out in the General Election – because of personalities and perceived incompetence. The policies are not getting much of an airing but are on the left.
In my opinion a radical takeover of the Democrats need to be led by someone with more steel than Sanders. He let Clinton off the hook with his “emails” comment and has shown insufficient political savvy to take on the party machine. Frankly he also too old.
The Democrats have proved to be the party of global money, pretending to stand for minority rights and various victim groups. They need to reform or die. There is a respectable center left option for the USA but the Dems are not it. In reforming or a third party formation, it will split the current anti-GOP vote for a period and entrench them in office for maybe two terms. However that may occur anyway. So the Dems need to decide whether their problems are temporary or deep seated. My guess is they will think the former and suffer 3 or 4 terms out of the Whitehouse.
Also, thanks for the link to the Observer article
Bernie COULD do it, but he won’t. It SEEMS like he acted as a sheepdog in the last election. The dems are UNSALVAGE-ABLE. Occupy was a good blueprint for change, no leaders, why do we need to keep doing like the old way, where a flawed human carries the burden of the populace . remember Eugene Debs? They just put him in jail…..no People need to choose where their taxes go… on the actual tax form, with real time posting of the money flow. This would be democracy in capitalism. we no longer need representatives, who are corrupted. black box it so it is unhackable. bernie can die, or be bullied. Which has been done many a time. we keep doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result. the systemic corruption is too far advanced. I have No confidence it can change. It has not in the 50 years i have been alive….
Good Gawd I hope not!! Sanders may speak in the language but when the chips are down where is he? Sucking up to those that have kept him in a career. If he was the true orange socialist he feigns to be he would have had a Democrat running against him at some point over the last thirty years or so. Sanders IS a known quantity within the Washington establishment and WAS valuable in the fact he lent some legitimacy to the democratic image of the Washington consensus posed. Why just a short while ago Sanders said “i’m with her” while selling out his base and those that had worked very hard on his campaign. Sanders is a ‘political animal’ as a term of defamation and gives me the creeps.
Now if a Kucinich were to cobble something together we might be talking turkey but I doubt D.K. would want to end up like the rest of the people’s leadership end up when they threaten the plutocracy.
The situation will probably have to get much worse before the people band together and begin organizing in a self preservation mode. Or they may just sit still and take it depending on how the plutocracy makes their moves.
BRF,
I agree entirely! Bernie Sander is a war monger. You cannot fix an imperialist death cult with a war monger.
Further, he disenfranchised his own voters. When they wanted to fight to count their votes, he said–stuff it, vote for Clinton. How can a person who told other people their vote will not count be looked to as a leader of a true “alternative” party? I just don’t get that.
The lefty media is hawking Bernie as the new savior. He’ll draw people not to the cause of justice but to the cult of personality. Then, when the time comes, he’ll bow out again and betray his followers once more.
“Viva Bernie”! How hip. It’s Spanish you know. and he even has followers called Sandernistas, Right???? What a revolutionary!
Change will not come from well groomed hawks who play at being a revolutionary. It will come from people who actually care. They won’t necessarily be famous. They won’t sell out. They’ll mean what they say. They won’t be imperialists. They won’t love war. They will love justice. They may not succeed but they will be the people we should join with.
Queen Jill offered Bernays the top spot on the Green ticket. He didn’t take that. Why is it different now? I don’t get this fascination with Bernays. I truly don’t. It’s as if we are taught their must be a savior who we must follow. I suggest we stop thinking this way and simply work together for our common good. We don’t need betrayers. We need people who actually care, who want the best of each other and this planet. Bernays? How do people think he is that man?
Aye, you have portrayed Sanders perfectly and understand the situation. The fascination with Sanders is that someone somewhere is spending money and/or influence to keep him in the eyes of the public. But knowing what we do about Sanders and his continuing pontificating act as a bonafide sellout and /or hustler I find him completely creepy and wholly unsuited to leading anyone, anywhere, anytime.
So you want the socialism party? Interesting.
I’ll never understand why so many people like this clown. He’s just another crummy option like Killary and Trump. Free health care! Free college! Increase minimum wage to some dart board decided value! Tax everyone into oblivion because of naturally occurring changes to the climate! Add zillions of regulations to everything!
Oh and why would things change even if someone like Bernie started a new party? It’ll be the same thing if someone of that party got put in office and would then drown in the swamp. The entire system needs to be blown up and Bernie or anyone else leading a third party isn’t going to magically do that.
In the land of free money and cronyism, why not?
In our recent report, Banks Are Evil,
we pulled no punches in making the accusation that the financial system is the root cause of injustice in today’s society.
It’s a good blood-boiler. You should read it if you haven’t already.
Its main premise is this:
In my opinion, it’s long past time we be brutally honest about the banks.
Their influence and reach has metastasized to the point where we now live under a captive system.
From our retirement accounts, to our homes, to the laws we live under — the banks control it all. And they run the system for their benefit, not ours.
While the banks spent much of the past century consolidating their power, the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999 emboldened them to accelerate their efforts. Since then, the key trends in the financial industry have been to dismantle regulation and defang those responsible for enforcing it, to manipulate market prices (an ambition tremendously helped by the rise of high-frequency trading algorithms), and to push downside risk onto “muppets” and taxpayers.
Oh, and of course, this hasn’t hurt either: having the ability to print up trillions in thin-air money and then get first-at-the-trough access to it.
Don’t forget, the Federal Reserve is made up of and run by — drum roll, please — the banks.
https://www.peakprosperity.com/blog/108623/sympathy-devil
There’s an old L. Neil Smith saying that’s appropriate here. “Voting will be outlawed if it really ever threatened to change anything.” Look at the blocks that are placed in front of the Televised Presidential Debates which are designed to stop any minor party from ever getting a fair chance to give their side up on the stage with the demopublicans..
To follow the DNC Fraud lawsuit:
https://twitter.com/hashtag/DNCFraudLawsuit?src=hash
The mainstream U.S. press does not appear to be covering this, as attny Jared Beck has pointed out many times:
https://twitter.com/search?q=%40jaredbeck&src=rela
He makes a great point:
If Madoff demanded “unity” from his victims, MSM would have called him insane in the brain. Why is the DNC any different?
Bernie is no different then the party or politicians we know that cause the problems we have now. I hope he does start his own party that was the Democratic Party will be damaged further.
bernie starting a third party movement left of democrat would be a rejuvenation of the green party and nothing more.
A third party of any ability to challenge the status quo would have to be a unity party.
think about the identifying policy of both sides of libertarian and socialist types. most of it would be divisive. these policies must be set aside to form a unity party that could MEANINGFULLY challenge the republicrat duopolytique (i made that up just now, fake word)
consider the following as long hanging policy fruit to set aside.
ON the left, set aside black lives matter and transexuals and gay rights and womens rights (exclusive of abortion). ( identity politics in general) . set aside unions/labor/minimum wage.
On the right, you are going to have to set aside privatisation of healthcare, privacy policy. tax reform, sound money, gun control, financial stabilization of the u.s. budget, entitlement reform.
all of those ‘compromises ‘ would be necessary just to form a unity party that could agree on one basic premise of decorrupting the u.s. political system which would focus around, getting money out of politics, reforming the cooperate political donation system at the electoral collage level, opening up the electronic voting system to public audit, passing laws prohibiting corporations from exercising superhuman status, and then finally passing a slew of laws prohibiting the anti-competitive cartel cooperation between the republican and democrat establishment to diminish and effectively prohibit diminish and obstruct the political participation of other parties. at the national and state level.
oh yea, and what would a unity party ‘agree upon’ with respect to the military? i don’t even know you want to touch that. ironically, there is much the left and right can agree on about the military, but there is so much they disagree on that attempting to inject ‘noninterventionism’ into a unity party would likely destroy it, especially since the nsa cia and military will already be plotting against any unity party that meaningfully seeks to challenge the duopolytique. if you add noninterventionism into the unity platform , you’re inviting an even higher level of targeted subversion upon your head.
remember, it’s a ‘unity’ party . the major prerequisite accomplishment of forming such a party is putting away most of the things that already have defined the left and right so that they could agree on enough things to actually succesfully CHALLENGE the republicrat anti-competitve duoply.
it’s basically impossible because you are asking leftists not to be leftists. and libertarians not to be libertarians.
if you ask me, this is a 2nd order effect of egotism and identity politcs, applied to political identity that is hard for many people to get past. what kind of leader of a unity part could be taken seriously by people seeking reaffirmation of the ego and identity in a political leader?
there is too much rationality in such an attempt at ‘unification’ for it to make political sense. where is the motion? where is the ego appeal?
i’ve met lawrence lessig in person. i can tell you i dont’ think harvard professors and other intellectuals are any ‘smarter’ in this regard of being able to be stoic and rational about their political ideas. it can even be argued that adademics can be even more stubborn and emotional than ordinary salt of the earth types.
but still, you would need someone with unbelievable qualities to make it happen. a unity party certainly could not happen without a charismatic leader, which, to being with, makes it quite vulnerable and fragile.
people like to talk about the bull moose party. i’m honestly not so familiar with it, but i have a hard time believing there is a truly rich history of unity parties succeeding in the goal of unseating established duopolytiques. rational and critical thinking types are always drawn to this possibility, but it is more of a fantasy of what would make good sense rather than a reality.
A lot of thought went into your comment. While I agree that the people need some sort of political representation of their concerns and grievances the political structure of the state in all its reality would tear apart a typical political entity like a unity party let alone allow it to compete.
As you outlined the ‘left’ leaning in the American population have been handed a plethora of non Vital issues or dead end NGOs to keep them occupied or to bleed off energies, anger and any pointed dissent. These are the identity politics you describe that do not go near the fundamental issues of how the state is run and in whose interests. The ‘right’ leaning and religious conservatives are also handed a set of issues to keep them likewise occupied. Both are set against each other as they clamor to have their non Vital issues addressed, attack the other’s position, while all are held in suspense as the careerists in Washington serve the real power structure that operates there.
Rather than attempting to have the various factions give up on their deeply held , contrived and implemented issues it might be better to find those issues most could agree upon and to try and work out such a political platform that crosses the ‘left – right paradigm’ lines which might possibly look a lot like a blending of the rhetoric issued by both the Trump and Sander’s campaign shtick, neither really believing that the state would adopt little if any of their respective platforms but holding the population in suspended anticipation of the illusion offered.
What we are talking of in constructing a unity political platform is of course political revolution and it will not be accomplished without masses of people in the streets demanding a wholesale reboot of how the Republic works. Without a massive grassroots action committee to frighten the state what are we left with but a status quo of third party capabilities?
Some of the points you made would fit very nicely into such a political platform: getting big money out of politics, public control of the election process, new legislation to reset the monopolistic looting system in place. I would add another that supersedes all these in importance which is the nationalization of the currency and credit mechanisms that control the entire economy, corporate, household and governmental. What good would these hard won battles be if the international financial money masters simply plunged the American economy into a disastrous depression or hyper inflationary spiral and then offered their solution to a starving population? Can any of us imagine the size of the revolt needed to Fix this situation and the violent reaction of the money masters to such a revolt? Other wise we are really just tinkering around the edges with reform a la’ the 1930s and the plutocracy will simple move to economically crush such a revolt by the people or simply wait it out until they can again implement their dominance a la’ the 1970s forward to today.
oh yea , tulsi gabbard from hawaii is going to run against elizabeth warren for democrat primaries. tulsi is not who she says she is and used to be in military intelligence. she is another psyop canidate like barrack obama, manufactured by the cia.
elizabeth warren is hillary clinton from harvard law school and not even pretending to be anything but another paul ryan lie your ass off ambitious soulless robot.
That would make Bernie the second president with Jewish roots in the history of the US…Trump (err…Drumph) being the first.
The parties are what they are because they have been bought. Do you really think a new party won’t be bought?
“Nobody represents the people. We need to discard these parties and form new ones, and the sooner we do so, the better.”
Our ancestors were wiser than we are. They realized that political parties did not represent the people. How do political parties benefit the citizenry? They are merely fronts to represent the entrenched powers that be.
No more political party’s, third, or otherwise.
There is only one man who could run as an independent and actually win a presidential election, and that is Ron Paul.
Bernie is a far left socialist. As a result he would drown in his own fantasy land Valhalla bullshit.
Brf, a unity platform could not focus on the fed. The fed exists because of its charter. First you take control of the political system. Then subsequent arguments can be hashed out. Any unity party that took on the fed let alone the MIC would fail. The sole focus if unity is chwllenging the duopoly and ensuring it can be fought off. Elections, money, transparency, and punishment for bribery (lobbying). Focussing on the policies that would eventually be subject to change is putting the cart before the horse of any hypothetical unity party. Of course the above issues can be used to point to the duopolys problems but making them core policys in a unity party would be disaster.
And your suggestion,of nationalizing the central bank might or might not change much. You have an idea in your head how it would go down. Ideas of how are not core to a unity parties attempt to fight against the duoupoly.
The procedural and systemically irganjzed rules which allow rthe duopoly to remain in firm grasp of all power are the only issue related to challenging them.
Hi everyone, I have never done this before, but based on the overall tone and substance of the comments to this post, I feel I owe it to everyone to further explain my thought process. I didn’t fully do it in the post, so I will take the opportunity to do it here.
Before I do that, I just wanted to say thanks to all of you for adding so much value to this website with your comments. When I first began the blog in 2012, there were very few regular commenters and all sorts of trolls trying to take the space over. I have worked very hard at making sure people who are just here to disrupt and cause fights are not ruining the opportunity to engage in genuine thoughtful debate and dialogue. A comment section can be a great place for interaction and exchange of ideas, but it can also become a total cesspool as I have witnessed all too many times on other websites. So thank all of you for challenging me and each other respectfully and intelligently. We may not all agree all of the time, but we all want what is best for America and the world.
As far as my comment that I am 100% in favor of Sanders being recruited to start a third party, it has to do with the process of it all over any specific policy platform, and an empowerment of new movements in a world where we all feel so screwed over, helpless and isolated. Of course, I do not see Sanders as some sort of savior who will make America great. Our problems are so deep and systemic there needs to be a multi-pronged approach to life and activism in all areas of existence to ultimately transform the world into a better, more sane and enjoyable place for everyone.
As an example of what I mean, despite having a strong dislike for Donald Trump, I still thought him winning the GOP nomination was good for U.S. democracy. In fact, I wrote an entire post about why.
Here it is. Why Trump Winning the Republican Nomination is Good for American Democracy:
https://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2016/05/04/why-trump-winning-the-republican-nomination-is-good-for-american-democracy/
Although I think Trump is a fake populist, there’s no denying that he was swept into power by a grassroots wave. A wave that was sick of the GOP establishment and told the party’s preferred candidates where to shove it. Although I am not pleased about the person who did it, I am still happy it happened.
Likewise, I think the next step from a national political standpoint perspective within the system in which we reside is to put both the Democrats and Republicans out of business once and for all. Given the utter worthless joke that is the Democratic Party, I think we should start there. It’s low hanging fruit, and unless we want to wait another decade, Bernie Sanders in my opinion has the supporters, the popularity and the message to start a third party tomorrow and make it competitive. I’m asking you to put aside what you think about Sanders and his policy positions to see the bigger picture. Just as I put aside my dislike of Trump to feel pleased that he won the GOP nomination, I ask the same when it comes to Sanders being the vehicle by which to put the Democratic Party out of existence once and for all.
Here’s how I see it. If Bernie Sanders or someone else fails to start a competitive third party before 2020, we are looking at Donald Trump vs. some terrible hack like Chuck Schumer or Adam Schiff.
Would you rather see Trump vs. Schiff in 2020, or Trump vs. Schiff and Sanders? Which of those two situations would be healthier for democracy? Which of those two outcomes would set the entire country up to be more open to many more competitive parties, which would be more vibrant and competitive in the 2020-2030 period?
This is how I am looking at the situation and why I want it to happen, and happen soon. If Sanders started a new party tomorrow, he would have plenty of time to get his act together in time to compete in 2020.
I think we would see a situation where Trump could get 49% of the vote, Sanders 40% and the Democratic hack 11%.
As opposed to what is likely to happen, Trump 51% and the Democratic hack 49%.
There is no doubt in my mind that the former scenario is much better for the country than the latter. It will propel us forward even in some small way, and then someone younger and with less baggage can take over what Sanders started.
I’d hope and assume that such success would encourage other political parties to emerge as well and we could put the GOP and Dems out to pasture once and for all.
All that said, I also get that these new parties could be easily corrupted right away and we could be back at square one very fast due to the systemic nature of the stench that is modern America. I don’t dispute this, which is why I don’t think we should be putting all of our energy into national politics.
The main reason I am writing this note is to explain in more detail to readers my strategic rational for the post above which generated so many comments.
Thanks to everyone for reading and commenting and taking the entire conversation forward.
Best,
Michael Krieger
Michael,
Thank you for your thoughtful posts and for creating such a good space for ideas and discussion. I cannot agree with you here.
The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. Bernie will not create a third party. He will lead his people to the slaughter all over again. Black Agenda Report called him a sheep dog a long time ago. His job isn’t to make something new, it’s to keep people herded back into the fold (the Democratic party). If he wanted to create something new, he could already have accomplished that goal. He could have started his own movement or he could have taken the top spot handed out to him by Jill Stein. He’ll turn on people again and tell them to vote for whomever he’s told to tell them to vote for.
I also feel the situation regarding Trump and Sanders are not really similar. The left is really confused right now in a way that I have never experienced before. The right is confused as well (for example, your article on Ty’s site got tons of comments calling Bernie a socialist when in fact, he’s a crony capitalist just like the rest of them). Confusion seems to be the norm at this time. However, I do think the right has a better sense of where they want the nation to go than the left does. The left is now pro-war, pro surveillance, pro-deep state and pro crony capitalism. It’s bizarro land.
Thus many people who voted for Trump have been able to criticize him for breaking just about every promise he made. On the left, there are still people who don’t know Obama didn’t really earn his peace prize! I’m not kidding. I live in a primarily Democratic area. Many people were originally for Bernie. They have no idea of his legislative record or what he stands for.
When he told them to march over to the Clinton camp, they said, how fast would you like me to go sir! These people do not know basic information about Obama’s time in office. They love him and feel he can/did not/ do anything wrong. They do not know the things Clinton did. They do not know about Bernie’s record. It’s one thing to hold you nose and hope for the best, as many Trump voters did. It’s another to do as one is told because one “believes”. I know this isn’t the case with every Bernie supporter but it’s the case with many of them. Having obedient, uninformed voters will never create an alternative to the current system. It is the current system.
Further, I will say that no person ought to follow someone who betrays others at such a deep level as to tell them they should not push to have their vote counted. Nor should people follow someone who says, I know you hold certain “values” but I’m asking you to ditch those values because I say so. Trump ditched his voters values. Bernie demanded his voters ditch their own values. That’s a real difference.
He will be able to create a large movement of uninformed voters. That will not translate into an alternative because we need informed voters, He will tell them to stay uninformed and obedient and they will do this. That’s a kind of mass movement, but not one that will bring change. It only brings in more slaves for the master or if one prefers, more recruits to the cult!
I better option would be a 3rd party that has both a Democrat and a Republican on the ticket that would take votes from both parties. They would be united on the issues you mentioned, but would leave it to Congress and the states to decide on issues they can not agree on. The president would be there to carry out the wishes of Congress, which was the intent of the founders.
The two to be on the ticket that first come to mind is Senator Rand Paul and Representative Tulsi Gabbard.
The economic system is unsustainable also. The bookk “small is beautiful”, 1973,
schumacher, is just one explaiing it. HH-
Tribalist and North
european
I must disagree with the statement made above: “Nobody represents the people.” I voted for President Trump, and he is representing my views very well. I do wish for a new political party however – one formed by President Trump, which would facilitate his agenda more rapidly and thoroughly.
“All that said, I also get that these new parties could be easily corrupted right away and we could be back at square one very fast due to the systemic nature of the stench that is modern America. I don’t dispute this, which is why I don’t think we should be putting all of our energy into national politics”
The problem with political parties of any stripe is they attract self-serving narcissistic Statists like Bears to honey, who don’t care about anything other than their own personal advancement regardless of how that negatively effects other people.
Fortunately both the Democrats and the Republicans are already coming apart at the seams and have sown the seeds of their own destruction. But it is still going to take some time. Because Statists never give up their power without a fight.
Eventually the US Constitution will be rewritten as a result of a Constitutional Convention forced by the People using their individual States to force it.
Personally I’m partial to the guillotine for the much more rapid removal of the Statists.But that’s no longer an option.
I never liked Bernie. He’s just an ole’ time Communist. And I’m sure he knows that politics is a nice living. I remember reading many years ago that Sanders net worth was a little over a million dollars, being from a state that’s not really swimming in wealth. Then when he was running for president, I read that he’s now worth about half a million. Where did that other half million go? Makes me wonder if he’s trying to hide something. When you’ve been in the business of politics for as long as he has, I’m sure he’s picked up a couple of pointers here and there to make certain topics, like personal wealth, kind of…disappear. Good luck Bernie…Viva La Revolucion! HAA!!!
mikes,
kudos for the follow up comment, but i have to agree with JJ more than anything you put forth.
there can be valid disagreements over what constitutes the ‘bigger picture’ .
the way i see it, democracy simply isn’t the be all and end all of a just system.
if democracys tend to get corrupted for the same reasons that non-democratic societies tend to get corrupted, then there is nothing sacred about populism.
i don’t see the idea of ‘waves of grassroots’ populism being a good thing on its own , unless the populace that is engaged and participating has good ideas.
what if 90% of the population were engaged in supporting bad things, like genocide?
the very idea of the ‘public’ and the ‘populace’ is really just the idea about what happens when you get people who don’t have a grip on power into larger and larger groups to establish power.
these are just objective descriptions , and thus for me, don’t carry subjective value.
it is all about what the populace’s goals and methods are . i do not worship the ‘populace’ and that doesn’t make me an elitist. it makes me someone who refuses to worship demogoges, elitists, cults, myself, a so called biblical and angry god, and of course, ‘the people’ .
wisdom dictates that we must weigh the populace just as we weigh the elites to judge whether they are to be supported, praised, or derided.
and it is all too easy, when looking at large groups of people, to take on the mindset that by sheer virtue of the size of the group, ——–that they are above resonsibility and rapproach for their collective ideas. it is all too easy to simply blame away social responsibility upon nurture and general social conditions.
that may be the case that the easy path of blame is in fact partially correct at times and partially incorrect at times. but still, one must also consider the difficult side of ascribing GROUP responsibility to the populace, which means you must look into the individuals subscription to the collective platform of ideas and make categorical judgements upon the group.
that is OK. it’s the very essence of appropriately difficult group social examination that we use of the word of to judge. this is conflated with attribution of bias and the very word itself has been corrupted by the overtones of political correctness, but we must not only look at large groups of human beings as products of circumstance, but also as collections of individuals with responsibility for their choices, for their own discrimination about the groups they belong to , and those they reject.
and therfore, along these lines. i have judged that worshipping the idea of third parties simply for their own sake is not a worthy cause. the third party must at least exist for a stated and MVP, minimum viable party (mvp is a startup term for minimumviable product) =——————–and for me , the only mvp that is minimmally barebones worthy, is creating a meaningful challenge to the duopolytique. not the fed, not the MIC, not any specific part of the large picture that comprises the many problems our societys are facing. —–but a very narrow set of policies all focussed around only one goal of fighting systemic factors allowing duopolytique control. as such, i describe this idea as being a ‘unity party’. and i don’t think bernie is incapable of helping to form one. neither is ron paul. but i think both of these leaders are incapable of forming meaningful challenges to the duopolytique on their own . and as such, i give no weight or value to their efforts more than i would to trumps.
i voted for trump only as a middle finger to the clintons. but i was never a big supporter and i still don’t think he is substantially different in policy narrative than the status quo of all the past presidents since kennedy. and bernie or ron paul are incapable of changing any of this with their own hypothetical attempts at populism party’s . any such parties would wind up precisely achieving the same results as the trump party.
Teslark, I agree with much of what you wrote.
But the USA is not a pure Democracy. Technically it’s a Democratic-Republic because of the individual States.
Which is why I brought up the Convention of States.
Michael,
I think you are on the right track here. I agree with 95% of what you are saying. I came to the conclusion we need a new party along time ago. I got involved in the green party for a while. I heard how they weren’t ruled by the elites and how they don’t take money from the establishment.
Everything was great until Jill Stein came a long. First chance she gets she takes the establishment money. And for what? to put a green party member in office? NO, She takes the money to do a recount. She was bought and paid by the establishment. And she did a great job working for her new elitists bosses. First she only chooses to recount states where Trump has narrow victories. She lies to the public saying she is doing the recount to keep our election campaign fair and expose fraud.. And when corruption is exposed in Detroit on the democrats side she follows orders from her bosses and keeps her mouth shout. A huge chunk of precincts in Detroit had more voters than registered voters. A lot more democrat votes in Detroit. Either they voted more than once or a lot of people who aren’t legal to vote there voted.
I marched down to the dmv immediately to change my voter registration card and officially drop out of the green party.
Once these fringe political parties get anywhere, the elites come along throw money at them and they just turn around and kiss there feet.
How do we keep the greed and corruption away from a new party?
The one good thing about Sanders is he didn’t take their money. He was always true to his cause. He was honest. He worked for the people. And he came very close to being President. Sanders proves it is possible to save this country. That is a big important first step. Sanders is to old. We need a younger version of Sanders. A new Sanders to step up now and launch this new party.
Mike just point me where to go and sign up and I am willing to help.I will do my part to save our future for our kids.
I meant to say “Keeps her mouth shut”
ruhke gets it. green party is bullshit so is libertarian party.
PARTIES are by nature co-opted. they are all bullshit in the context of our current manufactured system of manufactured consent and manufactured discontent production. a hypothetical ‘unity’ party is a theoritcal platonic ideal of what kind of party would be self reflexively defined as non-bullshit in the face of hegemonic duopolytique.
it’s a platonic ideal in the idea of party politics. democracy is flawed. and within this realm, the platonic ideal of a ‘resistence’ party is a concept beyond practical reality. it is , essentially , bullshit.
yes, i am partially advocating doing nothing at the political level of democracy and party participation. sometimes it is ok to defend the stoicism of allowing one to passive watch a democracy die. there are other ways to be active in ones life, besides feeling the need to vote in a rigged system. that said , all systems have turning points. democracy’s turning point usually involves forms of participation that do not include voting.
i’m not a revolutionary. i’m just saying that’s the general pattern and it reflects the reality of how democracies devolve into hopelessly undemocratic rigged systems whose primary output is to provide the appearance of participation (voting has value) as long as reasonably possible.
consider taking the current trajectory of democracy and the franchise to its absurdist limits.
why not let teenagers, babies, non-human a.i. , and even non human primates vote. as long as we make them americans first. hell, we are just about to let illegal aliens vote. people who break the law to work in the country and receive its benefits are about to get rights to participate in a ‘democracy’. why not let tourists vote for president?
if we’re going that far. let’s just let all 7 bililon vote and even the whole planet vote for president. gaia can vote as well. and let ghosts angels cherubs and demons vote.
keep feeding those voting machines. they are hungry.
Carlin – “Politicians are put there to give you the illusion of choice. You have no choice”.
Bernie and Jane Corrupt! Shocker!! http://stevepieczenik.com/bernie-and-jane-corrupt-shocker/