Skip to main content

There is an ancient chinese proverb that says...

When the Cove and the Mussel fight, it is the fisherman who benefits.

If you have two enemies, the most efficient way to defeat them is by getting them to fight each other. If you have only one enemy, then you must work to divide that enemy into two opposing forces and then turn them against each other. This is a war strategy that is called divide and conquer. And even though it's well known and has been around since the dawn of civilization, it is still used today with great success.

In pre-historic times, the wars were fought between the Haves and the Have Nots. The victor usually gained land or territorial rights or other tangible goods which could be used to make themselves more prosperous.

But in modern times, the fight has changed. There has been a paradigm shift in what we are fighting for. Instead of land and territorial rights, we now fight for ideologies. Instead of the Haves vs. the Have Nots, it is now things like individual freedoms vs. the security of the greater good. Instead of fighting over tangible resources that can increase our prosperity, we fight over principles on how people should be governed.

Yet, as we step through and beyond the looking glass of American politics, we can see that there is another war taking place.  Sometimes it's very subtle, but it is always there. We see that for all the ideological battles we wage in the modern era, there still exists the ancient war between the Haves and the Have Nots. It never stopped. It's just become harder to see. But, when we see this war and we look closely at it, it's clear that the Haves are winning.

Yes, the Haves are winning. To see this all one has to do is notice the direction that power and wealth have been flowing in. Generation after generation, the flow is towards an increasingly smaller group of people. This group is smaller, but wealthier and more powerful than any before it. We call these people The Super Elite. The Super Elites are winning because they are controlling more and more of the planet's resources. Another indicator you might also notice is that poverty is is spreading to an increasingly larger group of people. This is evidence that the Have Nots are losing control of the planet's resources.

How is this happening?

In America, there are really only two main political groups. They are called Republicans and Democrats. Republicans and Democrats are ideological based groups that have strong, polarizing positions on how best to govern the people. Many citizens remain unaffiliated with either group. Every election cycle is a battle to win over this large, unaffiliated group. The side that gains the most popularity amongst unaffiliated voters tends to be the side that wins the current election.

So which group is the Haves and which group is the Have Nots?

Both Republicans and Democrats are Have Nots. And, that is precisely the problem.

In America, we have become like two business partners that are engaged in an argument about how to run the business. While we argue back and forth about who is right, criminals are coming into our store and robbing us blind. Because we are arguing, we don't even notice this is happening. As you can see, regardless of who wins the argument, we both lose our business. But will the argument ever really end?

Indeed, the criminals hope the argument never ends. As long as Republicans and Democrats use all their energy and resources fighting each other, the Super Elite don't have to fight at all. All they must worry about is that we keep fighting each other. So, they feed fuel into the fire to keep it hot.

Once you see that this is what is happening, the solution becomes clear. What America needs is a political party that shifts the paradigm back to where it belongs. A political party that correctly re-draws the battle lines between the haves and the have nots. This is where the battle lines should be drawn because this is where the main battle is taking place. Until the people can unite under some kind of common umbrella, we will continue to squander our collective resources destroying each other. Eventually, the Super Elite will win.

What is this umbrella?

Not that the name is important, but I call it The People's Party.

The People's Party has only one goal; To eliminate the power and control that the Elite have over our country.

How would The People's Party achieve its goals?

For starters, The People's Party would not engage in ideological battles. It would literally have no stance on social issues like abortion or gay marriage or even health care. The People's Party would recognize that there are already plenty of resources and energy being thrown into these kinds of fights that it doesn't need to throw in more. Instead, The People's Party is looking to eradicate corruption in our government. It's looking for areas where our government has become too corrupted due to interference from Super Elite groups. Once it identifies those areas, The People's Party would work to support candidates and laws that would edge out the Super Elite's control over our government and our resources.

The great thing about The People's Party is that you can still be a Republican or a Democrat. Because it is not an ideologically based party, The People's Party is not in competition with either Republicans or Democrats. All citizens from any political party is welcome to join. The People's Party is where the left, right and independents come to do the work that we all want done. Check your ideology at the door, because it's not welcome here.

Slowly but surely, The People's Party would work to continually reduce and eliminate corruption in American government. Candidates would be supported based on their ability to accurately represent their districts, not their campaign donors. Laws would be supported based on whether the law increases or decreases the likelihood of corruption.

If a politician or a law gets an endorsement from The People's Party, it means that it is not corrupt (or that it will reduce corruption). Think of The People's Party like you would the FDA. Our job is to eliminate corruption as if it were a cancerous substance to our country. We do our job through funding and public exposure.

Think of it. A political party that unites the left and right without getting bogged down in ideology. To me, this seems like the way out of this mess. Americans will never agree on ideology issues. But all of us agree that corruption is a major problem. Indeed, it is The Main Problem.

In any event, there is no People's Party ...yet. It is only an idea. But it is an idea that I think needs to be heard and discussed. The name is not important, just the principle.

Thanks for reading.

p.s. Please take the poll and if you liked this diary please remember to tip and rec it. Thanks.


From the comments, I think there is some confusion on exactly what my idea is. I should have included an example of the kind of political action The People's Party might take. Here's an example...

Let's suppose there is a district with an incumbent (doesn't matter whether they be R or D). The incumbent has a history of voting against their constituency multiple times. We know this because The People's Party has polled the district and gathered their opinions on issues. So, The People's Party would target that candidate as being corrupt. Now, the challenger (be them an R or a D) has run an honest campaign and from our research it seems likely the candidate will not be corrupt. Okay, then the People's Party gives money to that candidate and or runs ads against the incumbent. See how it would work? The People's Party stays out of the ideological debates and focuses on whether a candidate is being true to the constituents. If there were only corrupt candidates running for an office, then The People's Party might consider running their own candidate.

That's one example of how a political party can eradicate corruption without getting bogged down in ideology.

Originally posted to theboneguy on Mon Jun 14, 2010 at 05:52 AM PDT.



America needs a non-ideological political party that focuses on eradicating corruption in government.

65%19 votes
34%10 votes

| 29 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Popcorn for everyone. (0+ / 0-)

  •  How Would the Party Get Elected Without Big Money (0+ / 0-)


    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Mon Jun 14, 2010 at 06:08:15 AM PDT

  •  Human Nature (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    There is no way to eradicate corruption from any institution.  Being in power will eventually lead to corruption.  In any system you will do things that benefits yourself or the people you feel a connection with.

    Your People's Party is already ideological.  Their first action would be advancing the power of their own party.  In doing so, they would wheel and deal like everyone else.

    You can't look to human beings to make government better.  You have to look at the system itself.  The system can't be perfected, but it can be balanced.  Having opposing views is not as problematic as you make it seem.

    The problem is that there aren't truly two parties in this country.

    •  I disagree with almost everything you wrote. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dr Teeth, thethinveil

      But I do appreciate the time and thought you put into it. Thanks for commenting.

    •  Everything you wrote is correct. We know (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dr Teeth

      this because every party ever created by human beings has had corruption. Corruption cannot be eliminated, but it can be controlled and minimized. Anyone who thinks that people from the left and right can get together and form a party based purely on honesty and integrity has great potential as a writer of science fiction.

      I'm in the I-fucking-love-this-guy wing of the Democratic Party!

      by doc2 on Mon Jun 14, 2010 at 06:16:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Utopia is (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dr Teeth

    ------------> that way , or wait, maybe it is

    <--------------------- that way.</p>

    •  That is the logical failure (0+ / 0-)

      People that believe Utopia is universal to all people, are charming but impotent.

      •  I seriously doubt (0+ / 0-)

        that there is any substantial group of American citizens that wants to see corruption in our politics and government. The only citizens that want to see that are the ones doing the corrupting.

        This should be the one area where all voters can essentially agree.

        •  Define Corruption (0+ / 0-)

          A conservative would say that labor unions are the largest source of corruption in the Democratic Party.  Are Democrats that listen to labor unions corrupt?

          Are conservatives that accept money from pro life PACs corrupt?

          Corruption to me is selling votes, regulatory control or government contracts.  To a connected business person, they might see that as part of the system.

  •  I think people are still (0+ / 0-)

    fighting over resources, the bounty, and using ideologies for cover.  

  •  Basically the Democratic Socialists of America. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dr Teeth, thethinveil

    Website here. It's not quite as focused as your proposal, but that's just a matter of self-consistency in the cognitive frame involved. If your whole thing is pro-have-nots, then it would be politically self-defeating to only focus on the Super Elite and ignore other forms of inequalitarianism in society.

    •  The other inequalities (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      would still be dealt with by the left and the right.

      I am not offering this as an alternative to being a Republican or a Democrat... being a member of The People's Party would be in addition to being a Republican or a Democrat. You don't have to give up your ideology to be a member because we wouldn't care what your ideology is.

      •  I strongly disagree with your first sentence. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        The American right is not equalitarian. What's more, you cannot gain political traction for just one specific kind of equalitarianism -- opposing the Super Elite -- with people who are still thinking and acting within anti-equalitarian frames in all of the other aspects of their lives.

        Also, since you re-iterated the part about your proposal being more like a caucus -- supplemental to your party, not a replacement for it --  I have to point out that the DSA are already just like that. It was one of the things that made me think of them when I read your diary.

        •  The basic jist of the idea... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          The People's Party would basically want to see elected officials honestly representing their constituents. If an elected official is corrupt, The People's Party would consider supporting the opposing candidate. If that candidate is also corrupt, The People's Party would consider running it's own candidate.

          That's the basic idea. It would work similarly with proposed bills.

  •  Only way to end two party monopoly is to (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dr Teeth, thethinveil

    end winner-take-all elections and come up with some kind of proportional representation. But, then a small group can have undue influence, great in the case of Green Party, bad in the case of Tea Party.

    I voted with my feet. Good Bye and Good Luck America!!

    by shann on Mon Jun 14, 2010 at 06:35:25 AM PDT

    •  Bad in any case (0+ / 0-)

      Every political philosophy has good consequences, bad consequences and unintended consequences.

      Allowing any philosophy to play out unchecked, dooms an entire society to the parts not thought through.

      •  Please read my update. (0+ / 0-)

        I think I am being misunderstood because I am calling it a "political party". I am not sure of the correct terminology for what I am trying to express. Perhaps it's more like a caucus than a party, but it's hard to categorize.

        •  Wait a second (0+ / 0-)

          The incumbent has a history of voting against their constituency multiple times

          Now this is ill defined.  Do you mean they vote against their district's economic interest?  Do they fail to impose the social agenda that their district tends to believe in?

          The Democratic Party doesn't represent me.  I choose to give them my vote or not.  After they are elected, I then assess whether they are voting in my subjective interests or not.

          My interests are not necessarily my neighbor's interests.

          What you are suggesting is a poll driven PAC.  You collect money, and then use polls to attack candidates, who don't comply with poll results.

          •  Yes. (0+ / 0-)

            Are they representatives in a democracy or are they CEO's of a given district?

            I believe very strongly that majority should rule and that the representative should be a reflection of their district.

            •  Then you are opposed to the republic (0+ / 0-)

              In a republic we elect people to make decision on our behalf.  That isn't the same thing as representing our opinions directly.

              I think you'll find most long serving incumbents actually match their district's majority opinions.  That doesn't mean those opinions are very well thought out.

              In my opinion direct democracy is probably the worst form of government imaginable.  I don't want popular opinion being the level of depth given to any decision.  Most people don't think before forming an opinion or consider the consequences of their opinion.

              •  I understand the difference. (0+ / 0-)

                But I disagree with the opinion that a direct democracy is the worst form of government. It is precisely because we allow representatives to make our decisions for us that we have become so lazy in our thinking (with regard to political decisions). If people voted on bills directly, we'd very quickly learn to become more responsible and put more effort into the research that helps us form our opinions. The reason is because we'd very quickly feel the consequences of our decisions. Most people only need to touch the hot burner on the stove once before they learn to be mindful of what they are touching.

                I am against representatives making decisions on their own because of the corruption factor. Even if we passed laws against giving elected officials bribes it would still happen. Our present system consolidates the power of over 300 million people into the hands of 535 millionaires. From where I stand, that seems to be the worst form of government imaginable.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site