Does the US need a third party to end the bipartisanship?

 

 

The Daily Journalist community opinion.

 

 

For more than a decade, George W. Bush and Barack Obama’s administration have received public criticism for dubious decision making.  Given the public opinion fiasco of both presidents, it has undoubtedly crippled the hope of the parties they represent in new search for positive reforms which never really live up to the political expectations these presidents set to accomplish as leaders.  

It looks like 2016 might bring a presidential battle between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Both candidates despite leading the charts on the electorates, and respected parties seem to concentrate a lot of criticism from the public, specially when dealing with immigration, taxes and welfare.

More than ever before, US citizens have lost faith on the Republican and Democratic Party, and many would rather not cast their votes and stalemate. Uncalled foreign wars, cuts on military spending, rise of violence nationwide, racial prejudice, lack of military enrollment, credit abuse, education, pension funds, welfare spending and horrible economic planning top the list of negative issues still echoing in the minds of people.

But despite the criticism, the economy has seen growth in the southwest, and south.

Possibly the worst present scenario is that the Joints chief of staff (the military command) and congress along with the executive branch are not seeing eye to eye with the executive branch on the strategically menace of Russia flirting with Europe and Alaska, with Russia even patrolling 3 nuclear capable air bomber’s 39 miles off the coast of California to wish America a happy “independence day” confirmed by NORAD a few days ago.

China is also behaving aggressively in the south sea illegally creating new islands to set up new military bases. Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam have raised battle alerts. Not to mention ISIS, that keeps extending territory in Lybia, Oman, Yemen and even fighting the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Not looking good!    

There is however a giant alternative beating underneath all the rubble democrats and republicans have created with their internal and international policies that should be considered as precursor of progress.

That is the creation of a “Third Party”, which given the circumstances could take by storm both traditional parties if things continue to worsen in the country.

In your opinion!

  1. Does the US need a Third Party to readjust the supremacy of democrats and republicans? Should a new party represent a leftist or rightist model? Do you see the rise of a Third Party happening soon?
  2. Are people tired of bipartisanship reign in United States?
  3. Is the rise of a third party taking seat in the White House even possible in the structure of American politics?
  4. Can Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton really save America from spiraling down, or are we waiting for another messiah?
  5. If a third party is created what 5 main issues should it address?

rsz_rosensteinweb

Peter D. Rosenstein.

(He is a non-profit executive, journalist and Democratic and community activist. His background includes teaching; serving as Coordinator of Local Government for the City of New York; working in the Carter Administration; and Vice-chair of the Board of Trustees of the University of the District of Columbia)

1. Does the US need a Third Party to readjust the supremacy of democrats and republicans? Should a new party represent a leftist or rightist model? Do you see the rise of a Third Party happening soon?

The US doesn’t need a Third Party.  The fights in the current two Party system have been going on for years and they have never spawned a winning Third Party. The only thing a third Party candidate does is shift the debate a little and allow one of the major Parties- Democratic and Republican to win the election without a majority of the vote. I don’t see the rise of a viable Third Party anytime soon.

2.  Are people tired of bipartisanship reign in United States?

I think some people in both major parties are tired of the partisanship they see but would actually like to seem more bi-partisanship in the Congress. Our form of government is set up to encourage compromise to get anything done.

3.  Is the rise of a third party taking seat in the White House even possible in the structure of American politics?

It has been shown over the years that forming a viable third party in national politics is very difficult.

4.  Can Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton really save America from spiraling down, or are we waiting for another messiah?

I am not sure where this question comes from. Is it assuming that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump will be the nominees of their respective Parties?  Whoever is assuming this is making a mistake. Donald Trump will not be the nominee of the Republican Party. Even he seems to understand that and has said he would consider running as a third party candidate. As Ralph Nader did and as Ross Perot did back in 1992. Nader caused Gore to lose to Bush and Perot ensured a win for Clinton. Anyone waiting for a messiah in politics is confusing politics with religion and that is always bad. Hillary Clinton who will be the Democratic nominee can make a difference but she won’t be a messiah. She will be a rational politician as she has proven to be over the years and may have the chance as a brilliant woman to bring some sanity back to Washington D.C. But some of that will depend on how her being on the top of the ticket impacts races for Senate and the House. She can’t do it alone.

5.  If a third party is created what 5 main issues should it address?

Not believing in creating a third Party I will pass on this question as it would relate to one. The current two parties and I believe the Democratic Party is focusing on these issues:  fighting income-inequality, working on how to combat climate change, focusing on full civil and human rights for all, dealing with the immigration issue and finding a pathway to citizenship for those who are here now illegally, growing the American economy by including everyone in it and using diplomacy and economic sanctions to work on the issues of war and peace rather than using the military as a first option.

 

Halyna Mokrushyna.

(Holds a doctorate in linguistics and MA degree in communication. She publishes in Counterpunch, Truthout, and  New Cold War on Ukrainian politics, history, and culture. She is also a contributing editor to the New Cold War: Ukraine and beyond and a founder of the Civic group for democracy in Ukraine)

“Before answering the question of whether the US needs a third party, one must first look at the electoral system in the US. It is costly and complicated, and most of all, it is undemocratic. A president is not elected by a direct vote with the participation of all voters, as it is the case in France, for instance. Primaries and caucuses do not include all of the Americans. Electoral College is not representative of all of the United States.

Second, one needs big money to be able to run an expensive electoral campaign, which means that only those who are rich themselves or have rich friends, can afford it. And then, if you win and get into the Oval office, who can swear on the Bible that you will forget about your rich friends and their interests? Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton do not represent ordinary Americans. They represent American elites who are ruling the country. The current political system in the US cuts off right from the start those who do not have big buck to nominate oneself as a presidential candidate.

The electoral campaign itself is to a significant extent not a campaign about important public issues, but a battle for votes. Presidential candidates do not bother to go to the states which they are not likely to win, because this is a loss of their money. Why fight, if your battle is lost before you even started? This does not encourage an all-American exchange of ideas that would provoke real change in the political dispositions of the American people. A true electoral campaign should be about publicly debating issues which are vital for the country as a whole, such as social policies, foreign policies, military spending etc.

A third party is very much needed in the States, because the choice that the Americans now have is not between a left and a right party, representing conservative and liberal ends of the spectrum. It is a choice between a more right and a less right political party. The States have never had a truly socialist or leftist party that would gain enough popularity to become a serious political player on the national level. If such a party arises, its grass-root support would come from the immigrants, Black Americans, and working white Americans. However, they do not form a territorial or historical community, as Quebec does in Canada.

National political scene in Canada has been for long dominated by two parties, Conservatives and Liberals, exactly as it is now in the United States. If Liberals were the ruling majority, Conservatives were in the official opposition, and vice versa. The Neo-Democratic party has always been a third player, standing by. However, it made a historical break-through in the parliamentary elections of 2011, thanks to the vote of Quebecers. They withdrew their support from the Bloc Quebecois who fell out of love with the Bloc Quebecois, a sovereignist party which represent Quebec on the federal level for over twenty years. Quebecers wanted a change, but the Bloc Quebecois was not able to offer a clear alternative to the Conservatives. The Neo-Democrats did. IN 2011 they got 59 seats in the federal government out of the total of 75 seats that the province of Quebec has in the Canadian Parliament. The total number of the NDP members of the Parliament is 103, so the Quebec was essential for securing the NDP success. The irony of the situation is that the NDP does not have one seat in Quebec’s provincial government.

In the US there is no a socialist-leaning party, like NDP in Canada. And it is not likely that such a party appears in the nearest future under the current structure of politicos in the US, which favor powerful and rich. It seems Americans do not mind having no alternatives to two Grand parties, otherwise it would already exist.

If such a party is created, five main issues on its agenda should be: 1) eradicating racism and stopping police violence; 2) increasing social spending; 3) more equity for immigrants 3) reviewing radically the American foreign policy in order to stop aggressive expansion of American neo-liberal democracy into the “third world” countries; 4) cutting military spending and investing in social welfare 5; reforming the political system so that it represents the interests of all  Americans – implementing a direct presidential election.”

 

rsz_kama

Nake M. Kamrany.

(He  is an eminent Afghan-American development economist with superior experience in economic development who is held in high esteem by the international development community, Afghan leaders, scholars, the private sector and intellectuals. He has more than 20 publications on the political economy of Afghanistan)

“1.     We should concentrate on only on five campaign issues that will be manageable:

A.    War and Peace:  The U.S. should withdraw from all tribal conflicts in the Middle east and Afghanistan and concentrate its defenses toward Russia and China – hopefully continue with detente and further reduce military budget. Avoid resumption of cold war.

2.      Obamacare (healthcare).  This is a good beginning but it must do two things:  reduce the cost of hospitals, insurance, medicine, doctors and lab tests.   The best way to resolve it to nationalize health care and expand  converge from cradle o the grave for everyone through Medicare.  Otherwise, healthcare will cause higher national debt beyond 20 trillion dollars..

3.      Raise minimum wage to living wage at $20/hr.  now and improve distribution through taxation.

4.      Get Mexico to prohibit their citizens who do not have passports and visa from crossing to the U.S.

5.       Reduce incarceration- currently the U.S. incarcerates 70 people for one person in Europe.  Non-violent offenses should not be felony nor drug use and distribution of it.  Modernize the legal system (judges, prosecutors and police functions consonant to a civil society.”

 

rsz_img_5708

Allen Schmertzler.

(He is an award winning and published political artist specializing in figurative, narrative and caricatured interpretations of current events)

“The problem with the American political system is not going to be resolved with just a third political party. Currently, many more political parties other than the Democratic and Republican exist. As well, there are legitimate factions within the existing two parties that have the potential to take control over the political platform of each party.

I would love to see at least a 3rd political party reach parity in our system, but a lot has to change before even a third can seriously shake up and challenge the current order.  There is a long history of multi-party politics in America. But along the way, embedded in the American psyche, the “unionism” of the two parties monopolized our political system. It is capitalism as its worst. The market has been cornered, all other parties have been marginalized, while the “system” established rules to neutralize the viability of a serious candidate that is not within the two party establishment.

The media, an insider player as the fourth branch of government, has investment as well in playing the two party game. In truth, there are legitimate factions within each of the two parties that do represent a wider spectrum of political ideology. Bernie Sanders, although in reality a Socialist and an independent from the two parties, has caucused with, and is now running as the Democratic Presidential candidate challenging Hillary Clinton. The issue is that most politicians have embraced the reality that to succeed, they need to remain attached to one of the two political parties, but then to also seem as if they are running against the “Washington establishment,” code for the two party monopoly, even if their views do push their party’s ideological boundaries.

Also, let’s not forget that Ralph Nader mounted a serious 3rd party rogue campaign and most likely killed Democratic Al Gore’s presidential aspirations in 2000. We have seen 3rd party candidates periodically, especially when cynicism about our political class in Washington D.C. runs high. Remember the non-politican and squeaky-voiced billionaire, Ross Perot, ran an attention getting third party candidacy for president, and who Republicans prefer to blame for George H. Bush’s loss to Bill Clinton in 1992, when in truth, he pulled essentially the same percentage of voters from each, and Mr. Bush lost because he was outclassed by the upstart Bill Clinton.

Jon Anderson, just to mention another, ran a strong outsider campaign as well, but only to fall victim to the overwhelming belief that no one can win the White House if they are not a Democrat or Republican. There was even Theodore Roosevelt, running as an outsider from the dogmatic two party system as a spoiler seeking a  third term, which, as all the other historic attempts met a similar fate and failed.

The real issue to focus on then, is not whether a third party is necessary to resurrect our proud political system to its former height, but what societal, cultural and visionary reforms need to be forced upon the established political power elites, to pry open the system. Willingness amongst those in the privileged ruling class to accept change that will in fact diminish their dominance just will not occur. A tsunami of humongous proportions must cleanse the seats of power and wash away institutional structures that prevent a more equal political playing field. America would benefit tremendously with a more open and serious competitive electoral process.

Many believe there is no difference between Democratic and Republican, which is not exactly accurate. But it speaks to there not being a wider spectrum of political ideology equally represented in the debate. Social media may have created another pathway for third and fourth parties to electoral success as an outlet to organize outside of the established media that is married to the two party system.

For real change to occur that will alter the two party control over American politics,  conditions for elections must uniformly change and become universal. First, we must follow the money. Money is the power. All political money must be capped, controlled and equalized, in a sort of “affirmative action” style. Eliminate the bogus argument that money equals “free speech” and change the paradigm to “freedom of speech equals freedom from corrupt influences of money in politics.”

If every candidate received equal funding from government taxpayer monies, and every other monies were established in the criminal code as illegal, and if every candidate was allotted equal limited media time,  we would immediately see our political landscape altered, inviting a broader debating of ideas that the public could chose from. We would most likely see a huge spike in voter registration and election participation. Presently, the two parties have such a gerrymandered and poll-driven command of their core constituency, that many people are disenfranchised from the political process. This makes elections more predictable for the parties, especially if voter turn out follows their perceived patterns. If millions more jumped into the process, the two party elites could lose their control.

There are many other reforms that can be discussed, but essentially, we must accept that America has been a multi-party political system forever, but the systemic infrastructure has been corrupted and owned by the unionized two parties, Democratic and Republican. Even if every American stayed home for an election as a form of protest against the lack of real diverse political parties, the rules for our elections are so perverted, that those owners of the politics would be capable to legally declare a “majority winner,” take the keys to the kingdom, command the military to suppress the outrage, and sleep soundly while their servants in the White House kept the household going.”

 

rsz_nelson

Nelson Hultberg.

(He is a freelance writer in Dallas, Texas and the Director of Americans for a Free Republic  www.afr.org. His articles have appeared over the past 20 years in such publications as The Dallas Morning News,American Conservative, InsightLibertyThe Freeman, and The Social Critic,as well as on numerous Internet sites such as Capitol Hill Outsider, Conservative Action Alerts,Daily Paul, Canada Free Press, and The Daily Bell)

1. Does the US need a Third Party to readjust the supremacy of democrats and republicans?

Yes, it most certainly does. This, in fact, is what our organization in Dallas, Texas (Americans for a Free Republic, www.afr.org) is all about. For the past five years we have been promoting the launching of a Third Party in the U.S. But we call it a Second Party because we no longer have two parties in this country. The Democrats and Republicans are really two wings of the same party, the Demopublican Party. Or as Patrick Buchanan says, “two wings of the same bird of prey.”

No matter which party wins at the polls, we always get more taxes, more inflation, more regulations, more bureaucracies, more wars. Each party relentlessly expands government in Washington. Each party has its own agendas and caters to its specific constituencies, but all policy enactments of Democrats and Republicans are for more and more statism. Never do they try to shrink the power of government in our lives.

So America most definitely needs a “Second Party,” or perhaps we should simply say an “Alternative Political Party” to the Demopublican monopoly on politics.

2. Should a new party represent a leftist or rightist model?

This new party must be based on a freedom model, which means a libertarian / conservative model. Thus I would say that “rightist” more accurately describes it. We already have a huge leftist model with its two collectivist Orwellian wings, the Democrats and the Republicans. So we certainly don’t need another one. We need a small government party that will begin the restoration of freedom in the economy and the society. This means the restoration of the American Republic that the Founding Fathers had in mind.

3. Do you see the rise of a Third Party happening soon?

We at AFR had great hopes of launching this Alternative Party in 2016. We even have it named and trademarked. It is the National Independent Party. We have written a 21-page report on its reason for being and what its strategy will be, along with its fundamental reform vision for the country. This report can be accessed here: http://afr.org/wp-content/uploads/reports/NI-Report.pdf

Unfortunately it hasn’t caught on yet, so we are gearing up for 2020. Victor Hugo wrote in the 19th century that, “there is nothing more powerful in history than an idea whose time has come.” Apparently the American people are not quite ready to abandon the Demopublican monopoly. But they will be.

4. Are people tired of bipartisanship reign in United States?

The people are tired of “big government bipartisanship.” They are tired of collectivism, socialism, welfarism, interventionism, etc. But most Americans don’t believe there is any answer to the massive statism that dominates our lives. They have not been convinced yet that individualism, capitalism, and strictly limited government are the only things that will ever work. We at AFR believe that the present collapsing American economy and the society surrounding it will gradually wake the people up to this reality over the next decade or two. It is then that Americans will join to support a Second Party challenge to the Demopublican monopoly.

5. Is the rise of a third party taking seat in the White House even possible in the structure of American politics?

Yes, it is possible. We are still free to speak, write, and vote. All that is necessary is for a maverick candidate to run a Ross Perot style campaign. But he needs to avoid the mistakes that Perot made. He needs to build his campaign on substantive changes that will reduce government. This Perot did not do. Our National Independent Report details that those changes are to our monetary, tax, immigration, and foreign policy systems. You can access it here:  http://afr.org/wp-content/uploads/reports/NI-Report.pdf

6. Can Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton really save America from spiraling down, or are we waiting for another messiah?

We at AFR had a momentary spell of hope when Donald Trump started lobbing bricks into the windows of the Demopublican establishment on the illegal immigration problem. But it is looking more and more like Trump will gradually bend to establishment pressures on the illegal issue and, thus become a standard amnesty supporter. As for Hillary Clinton, she can save nothing but the mega-state that she so dearly loves and has committed her entire life glorifying.

So, yes, we are awaiting a political visionary. We need a candidate who wishes to ride a “White Horse” into history, rather than sit in the “White House” for eight years of gridlock and continued decadence. We need a candidate who wants to do to the Republican Party what the Republicans did to the Whigs in 1860. We need the National Independent Party, which will gather together conservatives, independents, libertarians, and blue-collar democrats into one cohesive movement to dramatically reduce government and restore freedom to the American people.

7. If a third party is created what 5 main issues should it address?

We at AFR believe there are numerous issues that are crucial, of course. But there are four, which we feel must be dealt with if the country is to be saved. We term them the Four Pillars of Reform for America. They are the foundation of the National Independent Party, and are as follows:

Pillar # 1: Enactment of Milton Friedman’s 4% auto-expansion plan for the Federal Reserve. We must stop the Fed from expanding the money supply arbitrarily every year at 9%, 12%, 15%. This is what causes the relentless price inflation that plagues us. Our monetary base must be expanded every year at the same rate as goods and services are growing, which is 4%. This will reduce annual price inflation to zero and end the chaotic “boom-bust economy” from which we suffer. The 4% auto-expansion rate can be phased into so as to avoid crashing the economy. Ending the Fed totally would be a longer-term goal.

Pillar # 2: Enactment of a simplified 15% flat tax. All special privileges in our present tax code must be eliminated. Everyone above the poverty level of $22,000 for a family of four will pay a simple 15% equal-rate tax of their income that can be figured in ten minutes every April 15th. If we as American citizens are to have equal rights under the law, then we must eventually have equal tax rates for everyone with no special privileges in the form of deductions. However, the country’s not ready just yet for a total “no deductions tax.” The mortgage deduction, for example, will need to be retained (there are 87 million homeowners in America). But a simpler, flatter tax now will stop much of the unjust redistribution of wealth that creates the constant expansion of government in Washington today. Ending the income tax totally would be a longer-term goal

Pillar # 3: A vigorous crackdown on illegal immigration. This will be done through a three-point plan that will bring about “self-deportation” of the great bulk of illegal immigrants in America today. There will be no amnesty granted. In addition America must return to the pre-1965 Immigration Accords, which will restore the sanity of a small stream of “legal” immigrants every year (approximately 200,000) who wish to become Americanized, learn our language, and respect our Constitution. Immigration is not a “natural right.” It is a “privilege” granted by the citizens of the country involved. This was the view of Jefferson, Washington, and the Founders in 1787. It was the view of the Supreme Court in 1892. And it must become America’s view again.

Pillar # 4: A return to a “mind-our-own-business” foreign policy. This means ending our obsession with nation building and the role of policeman for the world. Such policies are bankrupting us both financially and morally. This does not mean isolationism. America needs the strongest military in the world. And there are plenty of crisis areas that need our concern to protect our security and survival. Help defend our strategic allies, yes, but stop the insanity of “nation building” and the neocons’ “militaristic global hegemony.” The dangers to America do not lie in foreign lands; they lie here at home in Washington.

 

rsz_2751878

Michael Hintze.

(He is the Wisconsin State Coordinator  for Tea Party Patriots, a 501(c)4 organization. Its core values are fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and free markets. He been involved in grassroots politics since 2009)

1.     Does the US need a Third Party to readjust the supremacy of democrats and republicans?

The US does not need a third party. Or, it might be more accurate to say that it would not need one if the Republican Party would actually pursue the policies while in office that it espouses while campaigning. The problem is that Republican Party leadership in the House and Senate continues to act as though it prefers to govern as a Democrat light party, rather than governing as the Republican Party that was in evidence while campaigning. The Republican Party leadership’s strategy of campaigning on the right and governing on the left-of-center is the major cause of the precipitous decline in the approval of Congressional Republicans evidenced in recent polling data.

However, the problem is not only evidenced by Congressional Republicans. The last two Republican Presidents, George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush, and its last two candidates for President, John McCain and Mitt Romney, also governed or campaigned differently than one would have expected from the standard bearers of the Republican Party.

Should a new party represent a leftist or rightist model?

If a new party does come to the fore, it will be because neither of the two existing major parties truly represents a conservative governing philosophy. Therefore, the party that emerges as the new major party should, and most likely would, represent a rightist model.

Do you see the rise of a Third Party happening soon?

No. A more likely scenario is that people involved in the Tea Party Movement will take over the Republican Party over time and elect candidates who will actually govern the way they campaign. The largest national Tea Party organization, Tea Party Patriots, has a strategy that includes telling Republican members of Congress to “Keep Your Promises.” Those members of Congress who continue to fail to live up to that Tea Party demand will, over time, find themselves on the outside looking in.

2.     Are people tired of bipartisanship reign in United States?

Yes. In the current political environment, bipartisanship is nothing more than a code word that means “Republicans, give up your position and move toward the Democrats’ position on the issue under discussion.” The Democrats never waiver or give up ground in order to be considered “bipartisan,” they merely mock the Republicans for not seeing the world as the Democrats do, and accuse them of being “partisan ideologues.” The true partisan ideologues are the Democrats. It is the Republicans who seem never to stand on their principles.

3.     Is the rise of a third party taking seat in the White House even possible in the structure of American politics?

Yes, it is possible. In fact, it has already happened twice since the adoption of the Constitution and organization of the first Congress under it. The likelihood of that happening, however, is low. It may change to a high likelihood, however, if the Tea Party Movement is unable to force the Republican Party to govern as conservatives.

4.     Can Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton really save America from spiraling down, or are we waiting for another messiah?

Neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton can save America; though if forced to pick one of the two, the odds on favorite would be Donald Trump. Mr. Trump would, if nothing else, bring a commitment to change to the office of President. If elected, Hillary Clinton’s policies would be largely a simple continuation and expansion of the policies of Barack Obama. However, I do not think either one will be their respective Party’s nominee.

With that said, we do not need, and should not be waiting for, another messiah. What we need are people who will govern from a commitment to the words and plain meaning of the Constitution. People whose every vote will be based on a set of principles at the very core of their being that are derived from the words and plain meaning of the Constitution, and who will never waiver from their commitment to and belief in those principles.

5.     If a third party is created what 5 main issues should it address?

a.  Term limits for Senators, Representatives, and members of the Federal Judiciary at all levels, including the Supreme Court.

b.  Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution that in addition to requiring the Federal Budget to be balanced, limits total federal government expenditures each year to no more than 12% of GDP. An exception to that limit would be allowed only in years during which the United States is at war as declared by Congress, and as such declaration of war is defined in Article I, Section 8.
c.  Elimination of all federal departments and agencies the purpose of which is not specifically one of the eighteen powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution in Article I, Section 8; e.g., the EPA, the Department of Education, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Energy, etc.

d.  A Constitutional Amendment that places under direct control of Congress any agency of the federal government with rule making authority, and denies to each such agency the ability to bring enforcement actions for violations of the rules issued by each. Any enforcement action for violations of the rules of such agencies would be required to originate from the Department of Justice, and all such cases would be required to be heard by the Federal District Court responsible for the jurisdiction in which the alleged violations occurred. Such a structure would return true separation of powers to the structure of the federal government.

e.  Repeal of the 16th and 17th Amendments to the Constitution.

 

rsz_6-7-sebastian-sarbu_tifet_679806b0f8

Sebastian Sarbu.

(He is a military analyst and vicepresident of National Academy of Security and Defence Planning. Member of American Diplomatic Mission for International Relations)

“We are assisting at the major shift of the poles in American politics in perfect sintonance with global changes.

My axiological and scientific option it is in the favor of a third party, but which way is the question .

We won’t further a political bipolar system. Its a waste of energy and a ‘jumping pumping’ power game without veritable solutions.

The elitization of American politics is a manipulation instrumented with the goal to compromise and block the access of the true elites of society in power with decisional structures to reform the system.

For me all the hopes should be directed to a real alternative of  technocracy and meritocracy movements to represent the third way of American politics.

Donald Trump is a trap. Money makes the rules of the game in politics, but then the values are overturned and democracy becomes an oligarchy.

The fight against corruption, principle of technocratic and transparent government, continue to promote human rights, limitation of economic abuses and ferity in external politics to represent the imperatives of new US leadership in 2016.”

 

rsz_z--rspor--small4

Robert A. Slayton. 

(Professor of History, Chapman University. Research Specialist in Housing, Chicago Urban League Author of seven books, including Empire Statesman: The Rise and Redemption of Al Smith)

“There is definitely an insurgent spirit loose among the electorate.  Both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, despite the gulf separating their politics, are riding this emotion.

The idea of a third party, however, in my opinion, is a bad one for America.  In many cases it is the reliable plodders who get meaningful, if incremental change.  A third party now would be too far from the center.  As such, however, it would also speak to a singular minority, one niche only, so is unlikely to win broad based elections (as opposed to some congressional ones).  My money is still on a Bush-Clinton race.

Having said that, Donald Trump will probably run as an independent.  Beyond all the other terms that describe him (of any nature), he is an advanced-case publicity addict.  Right now he is getting the fix of his life, and cannot help but do whatever he needs to, to maintain that high.”

 

rsz_mark-chapman-kremlin-stooge

Mark Chapman. 

(A ripening cynic opposed to irresponsible corporatism and journalistic toadying. Focused mostly on Eastern Europe and the relationship between Russia and North America. Frequent columnist at Russia Insider)

A third political party in the USA under its current political environment would make absolutely no difference, because the nation is so severely polarized; campaign after campaign of negative advertising has so infuriated Republicans against Democrats – and vice-versa – that there is no constituency left for a third party.

At the same time, there is very little difference between the major policies of Republicans and Democrats once either achieves power, because both are dominated by dynasties of political families and lifetime politicians who are well-connected with the business elite who really run the country. A third-party candidate who did not fit that mold would be a non-starter, while a third-party candidate who was as well-connected as the Republican and Democrat leaders are would govern exactly as they do.

There are several critical issues that need to be addressed, top of the list being the economy and averting a nuclear war the USA is at least pretending it is ready to fight. But the first thing a first-term president starts thinking about is a second term, and his or her agenda is going to gravitate to the issues that make that look favorable. It does not make the slightest difference who wins this election; the USA has overreached too many times, and its tenure as global foreman is drawing to a close.

 

rsz_jon

Jon Kofas.

(Retired Indiana University university professor. Academic Writing. International Political Economy – Fiction)

“THE TWO-PARTY SYSTEM Introduction

There is an underlying assumption that the more political parties a country has the more democracy it has, and that the more democracy it has the more social justice and egalitarianism it enjoys. If this were indeed the case, then a number of countries around the world with many political parties, including Italy and Greece, Israel and India, Philippines and Romania, to name a few, must be Paradise on earth.

There is no correlation between a multiparty system and greater “democracy” any more than there is a correlation between greater social justice and bourgeois democracy. This is a 19th century north-Western European concept when the urban middle class and capitalists were mainly Liberal while the aristocracy and rural classes were conservative, thus the two-party system reflected a socioeconomic and cultural divide where religion played a role in the rural areas and education in the urban ones.

A product of the European Enlightenment, the US followed the European political trends of creating bourgeois political parties representing capital. When the working class movement became a force in society owing to the changing division of labor under industrial capitalism, new ideologies emerged from Socialism to Anarchism and varieties of others on the left as well as extreme right wing ones, including Fascism that has its origins in the late 19th century. The evolution of bourgeois society gave birth to social groups that did not find expression in the traditional political parties and wanted to have their own voice at a time that minorities, women and workers were not represented. Despite pressure from the grassroots for representation, in the US the mainstream political parties always managed to co-opt third party movements protesting a particular facet of society.

Whether a country developed a two-party system or a multi-party system, popular rule expressing individual rights remained a core value of bourgeois democracy, rather than government taking into account collective interests. Under the political umbrella of any democratic system that has ever existed, capitalism has been at its core and this means a social order based on hierarchy of capital. During the 20th century, democracy became synonymous with capitalism not just in the US but in most countries around the world. One reason for the success of political parties claiming their allegiance to “democracy” is their embracing of a pluralistic value system under an open society where the consumer is synonymous with the citizen. The US has led the way in the effort to identify democracy with capitalism and the citizen with the consumer.

The phenomenal success of the two-party system rests in convincing the majority of the people that this is “the democratic process”, rather than representative of capitalist class interest factions. This has been achieved in the name of “nationalism” and “national interest” rhetoric, as the two-party system identifies itself with the nation-state and national interest that it equates with the market economy.

At the same time, the two-party system projects the image that a political party representing the working class is outside the constitutional and societal purview of the “national interest”, therefore, it lacks legitimacy. This was as true before the Bolshevik Revolution as it was after when the bourgeois political parties in the US as well as throughout the Western World stigmatized working class political parties as representing labor unions, as though labor unions were an anathema to society and only pro-capitalist political parties enjoyed legitimacy. 

The issue of legitimacy in the eyes of the public is of the utmost importance for a political party to succeed as much as is the need for the state claiming to be pluralistic to tolerate all voices to be heard. In the case of the US, this has not been the case throughout its history. Therefore, it is not surprising that a working class political party never developed. The government persecuted grassroots organizing of labor unions and political activists representing the working class, while the corporate media followed the government in doing its best to stigmatize any working class movement.

Having no political party to express their interests, the working class in the US and in many countries around the world turned to the two political parties representing capital. Labeling a political party “Labor” or “Socialist” as many have done in Europe and around the world is of course meaningless because their policies are anti-labor and anti-socialist as much as the policies of the US Democratic Party are hardly “democratic”. The median worth of a US congressman is $1 million and the total cost for the congressional races amounted to $3.7 billion in 2012, campaign contributions mostly from millionaires. Given the profile of the average US representative in Congress, and considering that a congressman has no chance of making a career unless s/he promotes capital through legislation to the detriment of middle class and workers’ interests how can such a representative claim to be anything other than an agent for capitalists?

Synoptic View of Third-Party Movements in America

Both George Washington and John Adams dreaded the idea of a two-party system, arguing that it was tantamount to a form of despotism for two factions to alternate power. John Adams wrote: There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution. Is the two-party system the reason that the vast majority of the people never realize the mythical American Dream because the two parties represent the capitalist class, or does the problem rest elsewhere?

Unlike Europe, the US does not have a history of multi-party system primarily because the media and mainstream institutions limit their focus on the two major parties. However, even in Europe, there is a two-party system that essentially entails alternating in government. This is as true of Great Britain as of France and Germany, but also of most countries, including southern Europe, although all of these countries have more than two parties. The common factor between the US two-party system and the Europe is that on both sides of the Atlantic the ruling political parties represent the same socioeconomic elites that make sure there is policy continuity. In short, the political elites alternating power make certain that the interests of the privileged socioeconomic elites are not compromised by a third political force representing the working class.


Within the varied interests of the capitalist class in the last two centuries there have been political parties that tried to break the monopoly of the dominant two-party system.  In 1848, the Free Soil Party, the first major third party won 5% of the vote. The Republican Party quickly absorbed it because Abraham Lincoln after all became the champion of the anti-slave movement and the Civil War obviated the need for the Free Soil Party. In 1892, the Populist Party, which derived much of inspiration from Jeffersonian democracy, finally merged with the Democrat Party at the turn of the century. This was during the Gilded Age when the very rich were enjoying institutional hegemony and it was clear that both Republican and Democrat parties represented the wealthy to the neglect of the rest of citizens at a time that the depression of the 1890s caused immense hardship across America.

Throughout the 20th century, from the Progressive Era when the lower middle class demanded representation to the early 21st century when the Green movement became popular, all third-party political movements have been co-opted by one of the two dominant parties that have faithfully represented the institutional structure. Franklin D. Roosevelt managed to co-opt the leftists and de-radicalize the general population while securing Democrat Party dominance from 1932 until 1952. The same pattern of co-optation that has been true of left-wing movements Absorbed by the Democrat party also holds true of right-wing parties that the Republic Party absorbs. In 1948, Strom Thurmond’s State’s Rights Party constituency became part of the Republican Party, as did George Wallace’s American Independent Party in 1968, although there were Democrat voters in both of those as there were in John Anderson’s Independent Party in 1980 and even in Ross Perot’s Reform party that was eventually absorbed by Republicans.   

In every election, there are many candidates for president, from serious to the absurd. The media, however, ignores all political parties, unless it is one that poses no threat to the status quo, such as the Libertarian or Green Party. By contrast, the Communist Party has usually run a candidate for national office, but no television, radio or print media would cover its issue. This does not mean that the Communist Party has always been serious about presenting a platform and candidates that would at least carry some political weight. However, about the only way the Communist Party could possibly receive media attention, even heavily biased one would be if it ran the Pope as a candidate.

Are Americans Hoping for a Messiah Politician? Donald Trump as a Self-Proclaimed Messiah

America has always romanticized what it calls its unique brand of “democracy” and the hero-politician that comes along to unify the country. Although there are the revered presidents that include Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln, for the most part politics in America has always been fragmented and not just in the post-Cold War era as some have suggested. Using foreign policy and foreign enemies to rally public support behind the flag has its limitations in time of relative peace. For this reason, politicians focus on targeted enemies within the country. The Republicans in the 1850s focused on slave-owners, while two decades later the enemy was the labor organizer. The Democrats in the 1930s focused on strengthening the central government to preserve capitalism while creating a social safety net to prevent revolution, while a decade later they focused on combating Communism at home by bringing dissidents before Congressional committees that blacklisted people who refused to accept bourgeois consensus politics.

The hero-politician in American history was not necessarily a president, governor or senator who was committed to social justice, but one who managed to transcend the individual interest groups and forge popular consensus so that the political economy could continue to thrive. Toward this goal of building consensus in a society that is politically fragmented largely because a substantial segment of voters remains apathetic, the strategy that has worked is populism (popular cause or causes among a segment of the voters), especially on the part of the Republicans from the Barry Goldwater candidacy in the 1960s until the Tea Party faction of the Republican Party today. Populism works not just in the US but in all countries, because it projects an image of “reform” in the interest of the people, but in essence its goal is to secure the election and continue to serve capital as faithfully as ever. Billionaire Donald Trump is such a person today who has chosen xenophobia as the focus of his campaign to excite the Republican Party base

Trump attracts attention for several reasons. First, he is a billionaire and a celebrity, something the mainstream media focuses on whether one is running for office or not because the purpose is to promote capitalism and its values. Second, Trump combined the traditional Rockefeller Republican because he is a New York billionaire with the appeal of a right-wing populist focused on xenophobia. Historically, the xenophobia issue has roots that date back to the 19th century and it also plays well not only with the racist crowd, but also the middle class that is looking for someone to blame given that the economy has recovered but living standards continue to decline amid a growing socioeconomic gap.  

In a recent essay I wrote that people not just in the US but around the world are looking for a Messiah politician and the one that presents himself or herself closer to the image will secure votes. On the Democrat side, Hillary Clinton is simply not capable of presenting herself and does not even try to do so as a Messiah politician, whereas Trump does and actually appeals to a segment of the social conservatives who do not like “Washington insiders” and they do not like the other Republican candidates because they are not giving the right wing someone to blame for all the problems society suffers. Although it is highly unlikely he will ever be elected president, Trump has chosen the right wing populist issue xenophobia as catalytic for his presidential bid in 2016

Xenophobia is a very clear issue that the average conservative voter understands as much in the US as in Europe where racism also runs very high among conservatives. Xenophobia serves as a cover for political, economic and social problems society faces, but which are difficult to solve under the existing system without harming the interests of capital. Running against Washington insiders as a protest candidate from the right, Trump is appealing to many Republicans especially since he is a billionaire who embraces the values of Wall Street. The idea that Trump is a deviation from the mainstream of the Republic Party is utterly absurd, because this is not the party of Eisenhower, but of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

In an interview, Trump vowed to “get the bad ones out,” meaning the bad illegal immigrants estimated at 11 million.  “I’m gonna get rid of the bad ones fast, and I’m gonna send them back. We’re not going to be putting them in prisons here and pay for them for the next 40 years.” Asked about the illegal aliens who are “not bad”, Trump replied:  “We’re going to see what we’re going to see. It’s a very hard thing from a moral standpoint, from a physical standpoint, you don’t get them out. …Some are going to have to go and some – Hey, we’re just going to see what happens. It’s a very, very big subject and a very complicated subject….The wall’s going to be built. We’re going to have a great border.

This simplistic racist perspective, if not completely unrealistic and impractical approach to a very complex subject with economic and social ramifications is rather typical of how a right-wing populist proposes to solve what his political party perceives as a problem that must be solved so that all of America’s problems simply melt away and every citizen can finally enjoy the fruits of the American Dream. Although there are those who argue Trump is doing damage to the party, in fact he is energizing the racist, xenophobic, warmongering base that is motivated by fear that there is an enemy out there – the Mexican, the Muslim, the outside world that has intruded into the American way of life and threatening it. It is not the neoliberal policies and the corporate welfare system that is responsible for the decline of the middle class, but the “outsiders” and those intruding in US soil.  If only they did not exist, America would have no problems. The GOP cannot discredit Trump because he is the mirror of his party, as the preliminary polls indicate nationally as well as in several states.

If a third party is created what 5 main issues should it address? 

If a third party is created, it cannot be a single-issue party, like that of H. Ross Perot who focused on the debt and built all other issues around that theme. A political party must have a popular base, and in my view the growing lower middle class and workers constitute the largest popular base. They are not represented by either political party, no matter the rhetoric from any candidate. Bernie Sanders is closest to this profile, but even his platform is not much different than that of the Republican Party in 1956. 

If there were five top issues on which a new political party could form its platform, my list would include the following. Not that the issues I have listed have even the remotest possibility that a third political party would adopt them, but they are at the core of challenges that America faces in the 21st century.

1

     Social Justice

This is almost an alien concept in the political dialogue of American politicians from both parties. The rights and general welfare of all people, not just one small social class that finances political campaigns in return for legislation that keeps this social class privileged while the remainder of the population suffers, is an anathema in political discourse. In fact, not even mainstream academics raise this issue publicly, because they know it does not pay to offend the establishment. What is social justice? Is it a utopian fantasy that advocates equality not just of opportunity, but at all levels as judged by outcomes in the social, political, economic and cultural domains? Social justice in a bourgeois society expects that the basic economic needs of human beings are met, and that society is free of poverty and violence, of xenophobia and racism, of sexism and homophobia, of social inequalities that private and/or public institutions promote.

2.      Downward socioeconomic mobilization

It is no secret that downward socioeconomic mobility is a reality in American society in the last four decades. This is largely because of the Reagan neoliberal commitment to transfer massive wealth from the lower classes to the elites, and to transfer public resources from social welfare to corporate welfare. Social programs, education and health care, social security, affordable housing, minimum wage and a massive gap between the highest paid corporate executives and the average worker are some of the reasons for the downward mobility in America. Some politicians on both political parties agree there is a problem with the declining middle class but not a single one, except Bernie Sanders, blames the capitalist system for it. Instead, the fault rests with government, as though this is an entity that comes to Washington from Mars rather than the lobbyist peddling influence. 

3.      Human Rights, Civil Rights and Police State Methods

Rights of political prisoners, civil rights of minorities, crime and justice are inter-related issues and have to do with the correlation between the institutionalization of the “war on terror” that has had an impact on the decline of respect for human rights, civil rights and criminalizing minorities and the poor. Police harassing, arresting, and killings black and Latino youth in cold blood is not an isolated event, but a pattern of behavior across the country. The statistics on the US prison population speaks very clearly about the racist criminal justice system that exists, even under a black president. The US refusal to respect UN human right charter also speaks volumes of the arrogance and duplicity of US policy, because the same government in Washington demands compliance with UN human rights by other countries, including Cuba and Iran. It is amazing that the US media has no sense of self-reflection when it demands that all other countries respect human rights, civil rights, women’s rights, and refrain from police state methods, but the US is guilty of the very things it accuses its adversaries. This is the ultimate absurdity of “American Exceptionalism”.

4.      Restructuring of the political system.

The existing political system is heavily dependent on financial contributions and lobbyists exerting policy influence. Despite many organizations trying to express their voice, everything from gay rights groups to environmental and labor unions ones, the voice that matters at the local, state and federal levels is that of large businesses. For example, if there is a choice for a city to invest in a new stadium for a football team versus public education, the money will go to subsidize the very wealthy owner of the football team at the expense of public education. Both the football franchise and education have their voices heard in government, but only that of the millionaire football owner matters. This is only a small sample of how government pours resources into the private sector at the expense of the public and calls it democracy.

Ending corporate control of the political process – campaign finance and government reform so that politicians are not accountable to the corporate sector but to the general public would go a long way in building democracy in America. All political candidates agree that the influence of money in politics is corrupting the system, but they have done nothing about it for decades. Beyond eliminating the direct role of private campaign money, the political system itself must be geared to serving ALL people and not merely the capitalist class as it has been and have the media call this democracy. 

5.      Foreign Policy and Defense

Foreign policy based on defense of the nation’s the territorial integrity ought to be the criteria and not “imperial” policies intended to expand US corporate interests throughout the world by any means necessary from direct military intervention to covert operations. The defense budget is the largest in the world for a country that clearly has very serious public debt problems eating away at the middle class socioeconomic fabric. The massive spending on defense intended to maintain the defense industries healthy and provide the illusion of security as well as leverage for the US to secure market share is unsustainable.

The reality of China as the world’ preeminent economic power in the 21st century is one the US helped create because it spent itself to second place during the Cold War and the manufactured “war on terror”. These are anachronistic policies, of the mid-20th century and have no place in our time. The behavior of the US in foreign affairs is very much reminiscent of the British Empire in its decline when it tried just about everything militarily, but still continued to decline. In the absence of crafting a new alliance system that rethinks the value of OAS, SEATO and NATO, the US will eventually spend itself to oblivion no differently than Great Britain.

Conclusions

The success of the major political parties in the US as well as in most countries around the world is indeed the co-optation strategy that manages to pay lip service to the middle class and workers but subordinates their interests to capital.  Democracy allows for open access into the system that projects the image of theoretical equal participation by all citizens and political movements when in reality participation is limited to representatives of capital. Given this reality, a multi-party system or a two-party system amounts to the same thing because ultimately the government will represent capital. If a government emerges in a country where it tries to compromise the interests of capital, the rest of the world, governments and international financial institutions, make it so difficult for such a government to succeed that it capitulates.

New political parties arise out of a need on the part of a segment in society that feels the existing political parties are not representative of all people. Influenced by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the Founding Fathers viewed political parties as factions unrepresentative of the general welfare. The reality of class politics meant that political parties were a necessary mechanism around which competing elites of the early American republic revolved to express their interests. Interestingly enough, throughout the republic’s two-hundred year history, many Americans unlike their European counterparts, do not have a strong party affiliation. Even today, between 40 and 50 percent of the citizens polled declare independent of party affiliation. This is in itself inactive that neither party particularly expresses their interests and aspirations, although most people vote their aspirations rather than actual interests.  

The third party in the US can either come from the conservative camp or from the left-of-center camp and it is highly unlikely to attract much popular support because the media inculcate into the public the idea that “consensus” politics is and must remain at the heart of American society. In other words, the implication is that a Socialist candidate whose platform could represent the majority of the population is not consensus because such a candidate would not incorporate the interests of the wealthiest Americans.  

We have evidence from history that small third parties act as spoilers for one or the other major parties, but they hardly make a dent in the political process or in society. In a country as large as the US, it takes an incredible amount of money under the existing system to finance a political campaign and run against the major parties that enjoy the backing not just of the media, but of the entire institutional structure. The two political parties have been operating on the assumption that the voters have two choices and of course both work within an existing political, economic and social structure intended to preserve the status quo, rather than change it. The entrenched two-party political system also serves capital that is behind the two political parties.

No matter how much these two try to differentiate themselves, their differences are mostly on social and cultural issues, rather than systemic economic and political ones. For example, even the platform of Democrat Bernie Sanders, a person the media sees as a Socialist, is actually about the same as that of the Republican Party in 1956 when Eisenhower was the incumbent president.  This is proof of how far to the right the left Democrats have moved and how far to the extreme right the Republicans have moved.

 Regardless of whether a third and a fourth party emerge in the US, the system will remain the same until such time as a major economic crisis results in a social crisis and the political system begins to crack while a new one emerges, presumably a system that better serves the majority and not just the top one-third of the population with one-percent owning most of the wealth and determining policy for the rest of the 99 percent because they are able to finance political campaigns.


A political party that is organized “top-down”, instead of emerging from the grassroots is obviously a reflection of the elites that created it to preserve and expand their interests. When a grassroots movement tries to organize because it feels marginalized in society, the result is that the mainstream quickly co-opts it and de-radicalizes its followers. This happened in the depression of the 1890s, the Great Depression of the 1930s, and the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s.

The dominant political parties have the party machine tools at the local, state and national levels to bring any dissident movement into the mainstream. Otherwise, with the help of the media, they destroy it. Therefore, I do not see a viable third-party movement or movements until the next deep recession in America later this century, perhaps in the 2030s or 2040s. Because deep recessions or depressions cause economic polarization, the inevitable result will be social and political polarization, the ingredients which we see present in American society today that is much more polarized just beneath the surface than the “consensus-oriented” political, economic and media elites would have the public believe.”

 

Jaime Ortega-Simo. 

(The Daily Journalist president and founder) 

“Curiously the constitution never mentions anything related with political parties. The founding fathers would have been troubled if they foresaw the rise of a bi-party system.

If I had to go against the odds, based on research I am confident Donald Trump will win the Republican nomination and will face Hillary in the final stage of the election. Bernie Sanders will also give Clinton a drive for her money, the new progressives wont hang with Hillary — she going to have a hard time with a democratic socialist. Likewise a new party will eventually emerge because the country has lost grip of its own ideological unity that once made it the greatest country in the world. The nation hangs on massive debt, and unlike the generation of the 50’s who rebuilt America after the Great Depression, this new generation does not have the capacity to restore our economy.  I predict a civil war.

In fact I will even go as far as to say, that the new political party in order to save the nation will have to have an autocratic flair to it. After Obama’s rise to the white house, the Republicans abandoned conservatism accused by the Bush era resulting with integration of liberalists ideas to renew their campaign model and gain more acceptances from the newer generations who get their news not from print or television, buy from NWO pragmatist in social media (if they even care). Politicians are not seeing the fact that this newer generation does not care at all about politics, and it’s a growing menace. The GOP has degraded itself with the rise of new forms od liberalism.   

I am not against liberalism, but I think that the newer generations are adopting dangerous leftist models thanks to social media that point to political conundrums like anarchism, Marxism and communism. Tons of uneducated people get their ideas from these neo-liberals, which ultimately helps derail their beliefs in government.  This might not be seen as a threat now, but we already live in a welfare state where 1/3 Americans are dragging down the economy and tax payers by never wanting to find a job comforted by free social benefits they feel entitled too. The welfare system is a sign of a proxy-anarchist model, just as much as socialism is shown with the Federal Reserve that acquired government stakes in private banking , thus dissipating the hopes of a pure free market system.    

The republicans repeatedly blame illegal immigration as part of the national economic aggravation, but fail to acknowledge that many US citizens are too lazy and to materialistic to work low paid jobs, demanding more wages and benefits being far less productive. Alabama has shown this problem rather clearly with their agricultural labor crisis. Democrats have also fail to address this issue to not lose favoritism in the sight of young neo-liberals.

Immigration, illegal or not helps raise the GDP productivity for small business, whereas the latter people, that is the Americans who are becoming lazy are sinking the GDP by not working at all and not paying taxes.  

Now the extreme liberals, piggy back on moderate liberals staging  a war against veterans and the military, condemning not the policies (which will be normal) but their actions, branding them as ‘traitors, killers and puppets of the NWO’; that has enraged the traditionalist, the federalist, the patriots and American conservatives who despise these extreme liberals and view them as enemies.

Like I said, the youth does not believe in government or politics, they believe the government as a bigger conspiracy for a larger evil agenda. Ideas shape political landscapes, and America is rewiring their ideological believe system in a dangerous manner.

With that said Obama’s administration has exacerbated their relationship with the military with arrogant decision making. The Rise of ISIS, cuts in military budget, cuts in military personnel and not responding to Putin and China have reinitiated their military apparatus. Bluffing aside the warnings of the very own US generals advice, John Kerri is about to sign Nuclear agreements with Iran.

The military and government are not Seeing Eye to eye, and that could become a dangerous cliff to fall into. while the populations ideological shift continues.  

But, it gets worst. The liberal media has staged a propaganda war victimizing African-Americans as the results of racial police brutality, excluding with filters all the black on white crimes which are published on a daily basis on social media outlets as a response to mainstream biased reports victimizing African Americans. That gives far less credibility to mainstream liberalist news. The racial tensions nationwide have sky rocketed, and the liberals will lose the battle because US citizens will back law enforcement, over what they consider to be gang bangers and criminal affiliated people.

With the welfare system, and the rise of credit materialist, the downgrade of the economy, the racial media war, immigration, the lashing against the military core, the rise of government distrust, high rate government conspiracies, low education, violent gangs, crime and high drug addiction (the state of Maryland as an example), poor foreign policy, cuts on military budget, grisly lobbying, the threat of China and Russia’s expansion, ISIS menace …And other factors will give rise again to an autocratic look alike party that will have to face reality and act forcefully to save the nation from preventing it to looming into socio economic chaos. 

A third party will arrive soon. Historically autocracies rise when democracies go too liberal. And in a few years from now it will be an ultra-nationalist campaign against a neo-liberal party since the conservatives no longer hold an edified ideology. ”   

Comments

What Next?

Recent Articles