America’s Second Party

Caveat emptor: What follows is a flight of fancy, one of those fun exercises in which reason divorces common sense and goes out on a three-day bender. So relax, pour yourself a drink and enjoy the ride.

Every presidential campaign is the same. The public looks for a savior to rise from the tomb that is the American political system, and every four years its hopes are dashed. The only thing to rise from the tomb is the stale smell of cancelled checks, as Americans continue to yearn for a Prince Charming who will quell the nagging voice that tells them all is not well in America.

The qualities this prince (or princess) must have are charisma and a vision (any vision will do). Above all, he/she must be a manicured mannequin, smooth of voice and skin, well coiffured as she/he gives the impression that he/she “feels our pain” and is prepared to soothe it with his healing balm, even though the balm’s recipe is a proprietary secret, but trust him, we’ll feel nothing.

As for me, I am looking for an overweight candidate ugly as sin with an acne-scarred face, who speaks with a lisp and rather than feeling my pain is ready to kick some ass to alleviate it.

But alas, we are well into the 2008 beauty contest and the toxic fog of vapid platitudes is as thick as ever.

But this year, something has changed. Slowly the public is beginning to realize that America’s greatest shame is her government, so a few wisps of fresh air have managed to break through the fog.

There was Ron Paul turning Rudy Giuliani spastic by pointing out that, “If we think we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem. They don’t come here to attack us because we’re rich and we’re free. They come and attack us because we’re over there. I mean, what would we think if we were-if other foreign countries were doing that to us?”

Then there was John Edwards breathing some fresh air into the campaign when he stated the obvious:

The war on terror is a slogan designed only for politics, not a strategy to make America safe. It is a bumper stick, not a plan. It has damaged our alliances and weakened our standing in the world. As a political “frame” it’s been used to justify everything from the Iraq War to Guantanamo to illegal spying on the American people. It’s even been used by the White House as a partisan weapon to bludgeon their political opponents. Whether by manipulating the threat levels leading up to elections or by deeming opponents “weak on terror,” they have shown no hesitation whatsoever about using fear to divide.

How refreshing; it’s such a pity that both candidates have problems.

Ron Paul is a breath of fresh air with warts. He has run on the Libertarian ticket, is a little too attractive to racist organizations for my taste. He is also opposed to federal funding of the social safety net because he advocates shrinking the federal government.

Edwards’s biggest liability is he might win the Democratic nomination. If this happened, party consultants would descend on him like flies on a carcass, and before you could say “neoliberalism” he’d be touting the same party line that has led the Democrats to defeat in the last two elections.

Paul is a great Kamikaze candidate, one who will go down in flames for speaking the truth. Edwards, if elected, could never live up to his pre-nomination rhetoric.

There has been some talk about a third party, followed by the qualifier that there has never been a successful third party in our country’s history. However, the qualifier fails to understand that America is at a unique point in her history. For all practical purposes, we are now a one-party country, and that party is the Corporatist Party made up of two factions—hi Republicans and lo-Republicans. Instead of elections, we have shoving matches between Alpha pigs to see who gets first crack at the feeding trough.

So, what this country needs is not a third party but a second party, and in truth we already have one that is a dormant seed lurking in the American soul waiting for the right conditions to blossom. This party is an integral part of the American psyche, a psyche quite content to drift as long as all things are equal. We have seen this party before. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries it was the Populist/Progressive Party. In the 1930s, it was the New Deal. The problem is that when the crisis is over, the party goes dormant again. With the passage of time, the vermin who caused the original crisis crawl out of their holes and begin to gnaw at the repairs the party made to the system.

However, let life shift out of balance, let the public discover that the privileged classes are screwing them, and this party will reawaken with a roar and becomes a party that does not reason but demands, does not speak in polite, measured tones but shouts, it’s not quiet but loud. Finally, it is a party whose platform swims upstream of the conventional wisdom that has long clogged the arteries of the Beltway crowd. For now, we will simply call it the Second Party.

This Second Party is our only viable alternative because the various factions and splinter groups that make up America’s political scene all have issues. Liberals are embryonic Neocons in denial while progressives spend too much time arguing that progressives must formulate a position on (fill in the blank). Neocons are simply Pollyannas with PMS.

So, bear with me as I create a fantasy platform for America’s Second Party.

Public Financing of Elections

Capitalism is dead; it has been dead for over a century, done in by corporatism. Capitalism morphs into corporatism when it becomes addicted to the pathological pursuit of growth. As one sage put it, a belief in infinite growth in a finite world is the doctrine of a cancer cell.

The differences between the two are striking. Owners ran capitalism while the CEOs who run corporatist entities are employees. Capitalism accepted risk while corporatism eliminates risk by fair means or foul. Small businesses made up capitalism while corporatism chokes on its elephantine conglomerates. Capitalism’s relationship with government always swung between conflict and conciliation. Corporatism has absorbed the state, and the firewall between the two is no more. So we are stuck with a Corporatist State managed by a Corporatist Party.

The rise of the Corporatist Party took place because elections are so expensive they need corporate contributions to survive. And a campaign contribution is a polite way of saying “bribe.” If you take the king’s money, you work for the king. We will only break this parasitical relationship if we excise the corporate money by publicly financing elections.

A component of these publicly financed campaigns would be an FCC requirement that free airtime be given to qualified candidates. These are public airways for the people’s business, and an election is as about people-business as you can get. While we’re at it, let’s bring back the equal-time rule and get the partisan loudmouths off the air, those on the left as well as the right.

However, publicly financed elections will never happen unless we…

Put the Corporations back on the Leash

To paraphrase Michael Ledeen, every fifty or sixty years the American public has to grab big business by the throat, slam it against a wall and teach it some manners.

Guess what?

It’s time!

Ronald Regan introduced America to what he called “deregulation.” In truth, the term is a misnomer. Business was not deregulated; it simply traded a benign regulator, the government, for a brutal regulator, the marketplace. Under the rules the market regulator plays by, if you screw up, you lose. In theory…except…

…in 1984, the Continental Illinois National Bank of Chicago made a few too many bad loans and went under. It was the largest bank failure in the history of the FDIC.

It was simply too large to be allowed to fail.

So, the government shoveled out two billion dollars of our tax money to bail the bank out, and the FDIC promised to reimburse out everyone regardless of the size of their deposit.

And it was bye-bye to the invisible hand of the market—as long as you’re big enough.

This lesson was not lost on the Savings & Loan industry that proceeded to go belly up in 1987. Once again, we had a business that was simply too big to abandon to the invisible hand of the market. The Corporatist Party was quick to create Resolution Trust Corp, which supplied fifty billion dollars to the bail the fools out.

Now we have the subprime mortgage market ready to hold out its hand for some corporate welfare.

Sorry folks, but if my tax dollars are going to be used to bail out corporate ineptitude, I want some major oversight.

In spite of this, our leaders continue to assure us that the Invisible Hand of the Market will make everything just fine in the end. All we have to do is believe in it as we lose our jobs and our homes.

For those wishing to visualize the Invisible Hand of the Market, execute the following exercise: Place your elbow on a table with your forearm perpendicular to the surface; make a fist; now, extend your middle finger heavenward.

There you have it, the Invisible Hand of the Market.

So how should we relate to our corporations? Let me give you an example. I discovered a long time ago that I couldn’t drive nails with my forehead. Not only is it painful, but it’s downright inefficient. To drive nails I need a hammer. However, this doesn’t mean I worship the goddamn thing and build my entire life around it to the exclusion of all else. No, when I have to drive a nail, I take the hammer out of the toolbox, and when the nail is driven, I put it back. It’s a tool, no more.

Likewise, a corporation is a tool and nothing more. I expect it to put food on my table, a roof over my head and clothing on my back at a reasonable price. When it’s done that, it can return to its corner and sit quietly until I need it again.

So, what do we do with the darlings? A good place to start would be a constitutional amendment stripping corporations of their fictive personhood. And it is a fiction. The question of corporate personhood came before the Supreme Court in Southern Pacific Railroad vs.. Santa Clara County. The court never explicitly stated that a corporation was a person. That statement was made in a header, written by a court clerk that summarized the case. But that was enough to make it a precedent.

Once stripped of their personhood, corporations would no longer have any rights, only privileges granted by their charters, which could be revoked if they misbehaved. As it stands, the only rights corporations have are the ones they’ve bought and paid for—which is all of them, plus some.

Stripping corporations of their personhood is in line with the rightwing Doctrine of Personal Responsibility, which is the rationale for privatizing Social Security and shredding our social safety net. Why should we allow corporate executives to have their safety net while they take away ours? Personal responsibility is an equal opportunity ideal.

As long as they are considered persons, corporations would be able to challenge the public funding of elections by claiming that it infringed on their freedom of speech. However, if all they .have are privileges, then their freedom of speech is the same as a slug’s.

Terminate the Cold War and its Clones

Every time I look at the Pentagon, I see what could well be the world’s greatest indoor shopping mall. It has the square footage, it has the parking and it has a War Room that would make an awesome video game center.

It’s time we admit that the Department of Defense is a white elephant that is bleeding America dry. The Cold War is over; the Global War on Terror should be renamed the Eternal War of the Empty Policy. We no long need an engorged military establishment. All of the chatter about national security is code for spending taxpayer money to protect corporate interests overseas, just so the corporations can move their headquarters offshore so they don’t have to pay us back for protecting their sorry asses.

As for terrorism, it is not something a nation declares war on, it is a crime best handled by police and intelligence services. It is instructive to compare the 1993 World Trade Center bombing with 9/11. The only difference between the two is that 9/11 succeeded in bringing down the twin towers. The 1993 conspirators thought they would bring them down by placing their vanload of explosives against the north wall of the South Tower. It didn’t work.

What is interesting about this comparison is that all of the 1993 perpetrators were arrested, indicted and convicted without the benefit of a Patriot Act, a Military Commissions Act, torture, black holes or the suspension of habeas corpus. Yet after 9/11, even with all of the above, not one goddamn individual has even been convicted for their part in 9/11, and we are not even bothering to look for Osama anymore.

The most effective anti-terror weapon in existence is “playing nice” overseas. I realize this might shave a point or two off corporate profits, but this is a small price to pay for our security. As for now, I refuse to take seriously any politician who shills the threat of terrorism unless he first dons a fire-resistant jump suit and a crash helmet before getting behind the wheel of his car. The probability of his being whacked in an automobile accident is far greater than being whacked in a terrorist attack.

Some might argue we need a massive military establishment to control the world’s oil supply. This is nonsense. Amateurs discuss strategy while professionals sweat logistics. Looking at a globe, it becomes apparent that maintaining the supply line necessary to “control” the Middle East would be a Herculean task for the United States compared to the relatively short supply lines China, India, Russia or the EU would have to maintain. The bottom line is that it is a hell of a lot cheaper to fly a trade delegation over to the Middle East to cut the best deal it can, as in free enterprise. And it would burn a hell of a lot less fuel in the process. If we were to divert the billions we are wasting to control a vanishing resource, we would be able to develop alternatives that would reduce or eliminate our dependency on foreign oil.

There is an old saying that if you walk ten miles into the woods, you have to walk ten miles out of the woods. An immediate dismantling of the military-industrial complex would be economically traumatic. For a start, we could send the Pentagon to the end of the line when public money is handed out, and dump the pipedream known as the Starwars defense system. God knows we could use these resources to repair our frayed social safety net, although to do so would pop some Corporatist blood vessels since their game plan is to use the military-industrial complex to drain the treasury until we are forced to dispose of our safety net all together.

The Neocons tell us we are the world’s sole superpower. We are not; Iraq has proven that. We simply have more military hardware than anyone else in the world. The problem is that most of it is useless for the type of wars we have faced since Vietnam (unless we are kicking the ass of a postage-stamp size country).

The Neocons are mired in the nineteenth century and continue to believe that foreign policy is simply a chess game writ large. Unfortunately, the rules of the game have changed over the years. The lowly pawn now carries a Kalashnikov and can move with the same impunity as the queen. The pawn can also leave the board, hide behind the game box and blow away the king and queen as they pass.

The Neocons also cling to a belief in a Great Chain of Being that begins with the simple amoeba and ends in the heavens with God the Father Almighty. And tucked into God’s bellybutton, above all of creation, is the white male of Northern European descent before whom all lesser life forms are expected to bow.

What the Neocons call America’s destiny is nothing more than blind momentum driven by ego, greed and stupidity.

So, What do We Do?

For our Second Party to flourish, it must appeal to all sectors of society. It must appeal to the redneck swilling beer in his cabin, to the urban black with his doo rag, the Hispanic day worker standing by the curb hoping to get enough work to put food on his family’s table. It must appeal to the soccer mom, the NASCAR dad, the Hello Kitty™ toddler, and the motorcycle gangs of America.

This means only one thing—we’ve got to bring God on board. God’s downside, of course, is organized religion. God dies when the ego farts and the soul thinks the Breath of the Spirit is upon it. Thus is a dogma born, thus is a church born, and thus do the bodies begin to pile up.

The God of the Bible is a shape shifter, a multi-facet complexity of contradictions that can mean just about anything to anyone. To paraphrase the late constitutional scholar John P. Roche, the first precept of biblical interpretation is whose ox was gored. Biblical interpretation is always selective. To insist on the inerrancy of the Bible is to invite a schizophrenic episode.

That being said, let’s select.

The God of our party is the God who would not hesitate to destabilize a predatory economic system. When the Egyptians reduced the Israelites to units of productivity, God zapped them, big time. When Jesus trashed the temple, he went after the bean counters.

One of the ironies of the Religious Right is their efforts to place the Ten Commandments in public buildings. Anyone bothering to sit down and actually read them would discover that the Commandments are virulently anti-capitalist and anti-corporatist. The first three warn us against displacing God with materialism, a real blow to consumerism. The remainder are rules for communal living as opposed to a world grounded in Social Darwinism.

Basically, the Commandments tell us, God first, don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t lie and don’t exploit. How in the hell is a country supposed to build a corporatist world empire with commandments like that hanging around its neck.

Because of God’s radical nature, organized religion expends a great deal of effort to geld Him and reduce Him to a secularized idol whose sole function is to protect the status quo.

But, when religion takes a positive turn, it is a powerful force for good because faith brings to the political arena a poetic truth that can move mountains. Poetic truth is a greater force than objective truth. Martin Luther King taught us that this poetry could shake the status quo to its core. Only a poetic spirituality can neutralize the bile that is flooding the country, much of it released in the name of our Savior, Jesus Christ.

If there is no poetry, if there is no music, if there are no troubadours, no hymns, no songs of protest or songs of aspiration and hope, you end up with a sterile party whose idea of a good time is either to create a position paper or to run an attack ad. Poetry transcends both of them.

Religion can be a positive force only if it is grounded in the Beatitudes and not Leviticus. This means we are talking about a faith based on Judeo-Christian love. Now, 1967’s Summer of Love gave love a black eye because people came to associate it with a good-looking creature skipping through La-La Land with a beatific smile on her face. In reality, Judeo-Christian love means descending into the deepest pit of Hell and loving every low-life son of a bitch one sees there even though one’s knee-jerk reaction is to tear their frigging throats out!

Solidarity, hell! I may despise the bastard who lives down the street, but I’ll damn well demand that he be treated fairly, that he have food on his table, clothing on his back, a roof over his head, and that he be paid a living wage so he can raise a family without having to work three jobs.

It’s a Nice Dream!

The truth be told, all of the above is as utopian as it is delusional…


However, we must be grateful to our Neocon brethren for the valuable lesson they have taught us: today’s fringe is tomorrow’s mainstream. If their delusions can go public, ours stand a damn good chance of doing the same.

Something is working in our favor.

For the first time since the 1920s, Wall Street is once again a sheltered workshop for financial retards. Our wonder boys are up to their asses in hedge funds and esoteric financial instruments only a handful of people understand, while Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs) are spread through the system, carrying within them tumors of subprime mortgages. However, no one knows where the tumors are, how they have metastasized. Both publicly and privately, we are a half step away from the nearest debtors’ prison as we trash our treasury and our children’s legacy through ill-conceived foreign adventures and draconian tax cuts.

That is only one of the problems we face. There is a bigger crisis looming, one so pervasive it’s rarely acknowledged. We hear a lot about the bubble and the housing bubble. But we hear nothing about the fact that since Dec. 7, 1941, our economy has been propped up by a War Bubble, and this bubble is holding us captive. Some have suggested that the Great Depression never ended but is still waiting in the wings for the War Bubble to pop.

This bubble forces us to pursue a policy of confrontation and armed intervention just to keep it afloat. Were it to pop, the monster waiting in the wings would enter from stage left and draw the curtain.

In short, the system is ready to collapse, and when it does, America will finally realize that CEOs should not be allowed to leave home without adult supervision. In the chaos, confusion and pain of the collapse, our Second Party will stand a chance of being reborn.

Killing Time

So what do we do in the meantime?

Imagine, if you would, a balance scale. On one tray sits a bowling ball, on the other an empty bucket. Naturally, the bowling ball controls the scale. One day, a man sits down next to the scale and starts pitching B-Bs into the bucket. Day after day, he pitches one B-B at a time. Nothing happens, but still he keeps pitching, day after day. Then one day, the scale shifts, the bowling ball is lifted a fraction of an inch off the ground. After many more days of pitching B-Bs, the bucket is full and the bowling ball hangs in the air.

So all we can do in the interim is pitch B-Bs, throw darts, and fight our battles, some of which we’ll win and some of which we’ll lose. And we must remember that all power, no matter how entrenched and unbeatable it may seem, carries within it the seeds of its own destruction. For once power reaches a certain level, it comes to believe itself to be invincible, and that is when it oversteps and in doing so trips, stumbles and falls.

So we wait, and pitch B-Bs. And on every B-B is engraved the Second Party’s mantra: The Emperor is Buck-Assed Naked.

Case Wagenvoord is a political satirist who lives in New Jersey with his wife and two cats. You may contact him at Read other articles by Case, or visit Case's website.

9 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Mike said on August 17th, 2007 at 7:15am #

    Interesting… I agree with much of what you have to say. (I was a little worried for a paragraph or two that you were going to drift into socialism but realized you were arguing to strip personhood from corporations which is a key step to our future success).

    I do disagree with your statements about Ron Paul. And quite frankly, I don’t care who else supports him. I support his ideas. And from your very own logic, where you state we need someone to appeal to all from redneck to hippie to hiphop, but on the other side argue that he may have supporters that you don’t like (which I have yet to see any evidence to support that claim) so you won’t support him. Odd mix of logic.

    If anyone is allowed to speak long enough they will eventually start arguing with themselves though so I won’t hold that against you.

    Ron Paul embodies much, if not all of what you believe should be, so how about helping us pitch BB’s faster… 🙂

  2. Sam Marsh said on August 17th, 2007 at 8:40am #

    I have a problem with the idea of public financing of elections, although I agree that corporate money is a huge problem. With public financing, we’d be putting the power of selection of viable candidates in the hands of the FEC or some new government agency. Does anyone actually believe that this will result in anything but denial of funds to anyone considered “fringe”? Would Libertarians, most of whom would refuse the government money on principle anyway, then be forever banned from running for office on anything but a zero budget? Individuals should be free to support the candidate of their choice they way they see fit. I certainly don’t want my tax dollars supporting Repo-Crats. Why not just ban corporate, government and PAC money, and put the power in the hands of the people where it belongs?

    Much of what you have to say is in Ron Paul’s platform already. Freedom might well benefit some racists, but only because it benefits everyone. I’m OK with that. The social safety net is unconstitutional at the federal level, plain and simple. Either change the Constitution, or stick to it as it is. Ignoring it is what got us where we are in the first place.

  3. Case Wagenvoord said on August 17th, 2007 at 9:20am #


    Hell, I’m always arguing with myself. You raise a good point,though. If the second party hopes to generate cross-over support, we will take in some unsvory types. I believe it was FDR who said, “They may be bastards, but they’re our bastards.”

    My biggest issue with the Libertarian Party is that in advocating shrinking government, they fail to realize that if we are to restore our democratic freedom, we must reduce the size of our corporations as well. Free market ideology is choking us. I admit that I am not as well read on the Libertarian platform as I should be, so feel free to correct me.


    One of the keys of public financing of elections is the requirement that the FCC offer free airtime. This would greatly reduce campaign expenses. Who would be included or excluded would depend upon how the law was written. You are correct in saying that it is possible fringe candidates would be excluded, but they are certainly excluded under the present system.

    I don’t agree with your interpretation of the social safety net and the Constitution. The concept of a social safety net is embedded in our Declaration of Independence. When Jefferson spoke of the “pursuit of happiness,” he wasn’t refering to pathological consumerism. He used the work in the eighteenth century sense of the common welfare, or common weal as it was called. It meant that no community could be happy as long as one of its members was in want of life’s necessities.

    I would also draw your attention to Article IX of the Bill of Rights which states, “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Food, shelter and clothing are certainly basic rights to which all are entitled.

    Thank you for your stimulating comments.

  4. Paul said on August 17th, 2007 at 9:43am #

    A great article; but what’s with the “Ron Paul won’t win” thing? It’s still months and months away; the sky is the limit. His biggest opposition is this psychological warfare the media plays, saying that he’s a kook, who has a shot in hell.

  5. KES said on August 17th, 2007 at 9:46am #

    Nice article. I’m on the same page as you, but, like the other posters, I’m seeing Ron Paul as a mechanized B-B collector. Spread the message and you’ll be amazed at the number of B-B’s that will find there way into Ron Paul’s corner.

  6. Vanessa said on August 17th, 2007 at 10:02am #

    I hope you are wrong about John Edwards, but I suspect you are right…Still, I’ll probably vote for him if I hear something about returning SOME transparency to government….

    Anyway, I am reading Howard Zinn’s Peoples’ History of the United States 1492 – Present, and I have to say, while I think stripping corporations of personhood would be a bare beginning, the problems with this country go so much deeper than that. The founders and colonists of this country called themselves living Christian lives while they killed and enslaved. The first three chapters of Howard Zinn’s book are amazing in giving a frame of reference for us to understand the bind we find ourselves in, as a ‘nation’ today. We have all been played like cheap violins since forever and another way to appeal to every class of citizen is to use the ploys of the founding fathers, who were a group of rich men trying to establish their own status quo over England’s. They used the idea of Nation, and tricked people into believing that ‘national interests’ existed, as opposed to their own agenda. So why not take it back now? Unwinnable, endless wars waged against ideologies, why not flip the script? Using religion is too scary, too many variables.
    If you haven’t already, please check out Howard Zinn’s book. It’s like a natural precursor to your article, and the most concise explanation of the nature of our nation I have seen so far.

  7. Jim Syler said on August 17th, 2007 at 2:05pm #

    On your objections to Ron Paul: As the above poster implied, and as Ron himself has said, you don’t judge someone by who supports them, you judge them by who and what they support. That racist organizations support Paul (if they do) doesn’t make Paul racist any more than the fact that 9/11 truthers support Paul makes him a truther himself. It only means that they agree with enough of his platform to make him worth supporing in their eyes, NOT that he agrees with everything they believe!

    As for the social safety net, no sane libertarian is calling for its immediate repeal. The best plan–and what Paul apparently supports ( is to allow people to opt out of Social Security if they please. That leaves the so-called “safety net” intact for those that need it, and frees everyone else to invest their money as they see fit.

  8. Jeremy Wells said on August 17th, 2007 at 10:45pm #

    Your article’s title “America’s Second Party” caught my attention. Your realization that the Corporations rule the Federal Government through both corporatist parties, must now be considered a truism. What is the alternative? Some kind of economy that is not capitalist. That is, some level or form of socialism.
    The corporate-capitalist dictatorship, through it’s totalitarian ownserhip of the mass media, has so indoctrinated several generations of Americans that it is almost impossible to think critically about any socialist alternative whatever. The degeneration of the Soviet Union into Stalinism didn’t help!
    Today Hugo Chavez and “Bolivarian Socialism” has nationalized the resources of Venezuela to benefit it’s peoples. The Bush/Cheney oil corporatists are incensed, especially since one coup attempt failed. They see all their projected profits escaping! Vast sums going to help all thos e “pee-ons” that the U.S. has exploited for over a century! What an affront to greed!
    Socialistic ideas are as American as “apple pie”. Back in the pre-Marx colonial days, the word was “commonwealth”, which came from the use of a “commons” or common grazing area.
    Today we have public tax supported libraries, universal public education, public roads, public utilities, and Social Security. To libertarians and capitalist propaganda pundits (note the rants of the Ayn Rand Institute), such “socialistic” economic activities borders on “immorality” or is mortal threat to “freedom”.
    Putting aside the absurd rhetoric, capitalists (and their “Libertarian” appologists) intrinsically must oppose everything that in any way limits, restricts, or reduces the maximization of profit.
    Social services are supported by TAXATION. The corporations and individuals who have most of the wealth have generally been taxed more than the rest of the people who little or no income or accumulated wealth. Thus the unending cry of Randians, Libertarians, Republicans is to “Get Government of Our Backs!” And the cry is today under Bush/Cheney for Privatization! (read Plunder).
    We certainly do need a NEW PARTY, a party NOT FUNDED by corporate capitalism. Here is my fantasy:


    We the people, opposed to the destruction of the planet and it’s peoples, now atomized and powerless in “grass roots” and “special interest” groups, must unite our efforts and resources into a new party to replace the corrupt Democratic Party! A new party that rejects corporate funding in order to end the corporate plunder of the federal government.

    A new party explicitly opposed to the Project for the New American Century. Opposed to unending war for profit and power. Cut the military budget by 50%, shut down the 700 military bases around the world. Re-instate taxes cut by Bush gang.

    A new party that commits the entire resources of the country to end global warming, end imperialist wars, implements true non-profit universal health care. promotes mass transportation, develops renewable energy, and produces the essentials for human survival.

    A new party that promotes an economy that works towards fulfilling the economic needs of all the people, not just to profit a tiny minority of super wealthy. No more people living on the streets! No more hospitalized people being dumped into the streets when they have no money or health insurance! (See the film SICKO)

    A new party to unite all of the oppressed people of this country. A new party that cuts across all the false social and cultural divisions that keep us forever powerless (racial, ethnic, age, language, etc.). A new party to unite us against the unending destruction of peoples and planet.

    A SOCIALIST PARTY to promote the end of gangster capitalism, run-amok capitalism, which is supported by both Democratic and Republican parties.

    A new party to support the labor movement and all working people. We urge the labor movement to stop supporting the Democratic Party (already besotted by corporate money), and to focus its precious resources to fund a new national radio and television network. By being on the air 24 hours a day the labor movement can provide the latest news, information, education and current affairs analysis desperately needed by all working people. This effort, combined with the formation of the new party, will be a bold step towards reviving the organized labor movement.

    For years we have listened to radio programs like DEMOCRACY NOW! that has discussed with numerous “grass roots” groups desperately struggling to make a positive change in society. Anti-war protest groups, civil rights groups, union struggles, affordable housing groups, teachers unions, health care access, seniors about Social Security, have involved millions of people. Now is the time to unite the energy and resources of the people into a new party.

    The new party provides a means of uniting the “special interest” agendas of each group into the platform of the new party. The new party candidates, selected from the various individuals and groups, would become the candidates representing their cause and the new party. The new party will contest for office at every level of government in order to take power. The new party will provide the new leadership and new programs this country desperately needs.

    There is still time before November 2008 elections to start this process. Even the announcement and preparation for a founding convention of such a new party will shock both Democrats and Republican incumbents. They will know that their days are numbered!

    The needs of all previous “minority” and “special interests” people now become the platform of the new party representing the vast majority of people. Can the existing activists of so-called “minority” and “special interest” groups overcome their existing powerlessness, and link up with each other to start this new party?

    This all-inclusive struggle will attract millions of atomized working people, often non-voters and uninvolved people, who have been atomized, exploited, brain-washed by corporate media and ultimately destroyed by gangster capitalism.

  9. Sterling said on November 19th, 2007 at 6:44am #

    i liked your article , but dont agree with public financing of campaigns , i tend to go the other way. here are my ideals

    1. u can only donate to people u can vote for
    2. no pac’s, corporate, lobbyist, or foreign donations
    3. must be us citizen to vote
    4. unlimited donations but public list of the donors and how much they have given
    5. 6 month campaign cycle
    6. no matching federal funds
    7. no donations to political parties, the politicians can give a part of there raised funds to their own parties ( cause you cant vote for parties, but for people.)