Monday, March 21, 2016

The Progressive Party Day One

What I am calling for today is a new party, conceived in the original intention of the founding fathers, except not owning slaves and not deciding only rich white land owners vote. Shall we say, for the sake of my argument, an ACTUAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY, but since that name has already been copyrighted by people who now seem to be moving towards the same fascism which is disturbingly familiar in the hearts and minds of Republican candidates for the past 20 years, I am calling for a new party. Right now there is a split between progressives and Democrats. All this need for a party split is going to change the face of politics.
The Clinton-ese establishment DINOs, (Democrats in name only) have become a blue coated branch of the right wing. Basically, they are undercover Republicans and many of them have been exactly that since the sixties and only used the name to give us the illusion of caring about the middle class and not being racist.


I think they actually have deluded themselves into believing having two parties on the same side of ideological thinking is a democracy BUT those of us who view pro-corporate policies for the dictionary version of corporatism: ( corporatism  [kawr-puh-ruh-tiz-uh m, -pruh-tiz-]  noun 1.  the principles, doctrine, or system of corporative organization of a political unit, as a city or state.  ) don't want that as our version of democracy. (democracy [dih-mok-ruh-see] noun 1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.)
You see, people who are democratic believe in actual government for the people (and that means ALL of the people) and not for the corporative powers because that word in itself means the same thing as fascism. (fascism [fash-iz-uh m] noun  1. a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.) That definition, in thinking about it, is what some people call communism and uninformed people on the right now believe that's Democratic socialism means, even though it is the opposite.
So in order to maintain a fascist state, one must be a dictator, not a governing servant of the people, although no fascist state comes right out and says that's what they are. When I was a kid, I was told one of the biggest differences between wonderful old U.S.A. and the other countries is that we have "free elections" and other more communist countries had "controlled elections" where the people didn't really have a say it in who won. Then I got to be around 13 years old and asked a pertinent question about "the electoral college" when I was being taught about that. I asked my 'Social Studies' teacher, "Do the electoral candidates necessarily have to vote the way the people of their district vote?" and I was told, "No, they don't. They can vote however they want."  That is number one on my list of "points of corruption" in the system.
Then there are Political Action Committees or PACs as they are referred to. My question is, why are these legal and not regulated the way they should be? And now there are PACs and SuperPACs so anyone who wants to start one can go to the election commission and start one. Stephen Colbert proved that a few years ago when he started one. It is illegal to bribe a government official. But any special interest, private citizen, corporation lobbyist, etc. can go to a PAC and tell them that if your elected official/officials don't vote the way I want, I won't donate this suitcase full of money to their campaign.
Soft money contributions are now unlimited and unregulated, as of Citizens United. The reason Mitt Romney cut his campaign staff off immediately (leaving them to pay their own hotel bills) when he lost to Barack Obama in 2012, is that he / the candidate, is able to keep any monies left over at the end of campaign expense. In this manner, many candidates run for office, never expecting or even wanting to win, only to get rich by collecting soft money contributions and keeping the remaining proceeds.
Also, there are the ultra-rich, who influence the elections through political advertising, which in my opinion, should be illegal. The person who can afford the most advertising, should not be able to control information to the public without anyone regulating whether or not there are ethics involved and the ads are true. This corruption allows the same people who sell us unhealthy foods, drugs that are dangerous, liquor, cigarettes/tobacco in any form, and anything else we shouldn't be doing by lying to us in advertising - to sell us a legal policy, candidate, or politician. 
Caucuses are corrupted. The horror stories emanating from that circular firing squad were really evident in states where the "district leaders" never showed up so no one knew how to regulate the vote and therefore had questionable motives/actions throughout.
Voting machines should be illegal. They have been hacked and corrupted in EVERY election since their inception. Also, the delegate system that Debbie Wasserman Schultz made us all painfully aware of is corrupted when someone can - or even assumes that they can do what they want despite the will of the people: her actual statement was, “Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists,” (which is what we were told Barack Obama was) So she just said that the Democratic Party voting in NOT DEMOCRATIC. She needs to be removed from her position first. I don't know how she/whoever gets appointed or elected to office or by whom she did.
Also, is she saying that President Obama was NOT a grassroots candidate and that the whole "grassroots" campaign we heard about was fake?  I think that question needs to be addressed. The main reason it needs to be addressed is so we can return to a real democracy. When that happens will be determined by us, the voters. I think we need a new party with the name "Progressive Party" to verbalize the actual change, ideologically, of what our founding fathers would have wanted, it they weren't some slave owning White Supremacists.
In my opinion WE ARE BETTER BECAUSE WE HAVE EVOLVED so our political party should also. No more two party system. When the actual system is divided by many parties on both sides, we can't let the lines be blurred or let wealth influence us. Also, in my opinion, the guy we need to fashion and lead this party in his own incorruptible image is Bernie Sanders. Please tell me what you all think.
On my last note, I will say, Bernie Sanders is right. It is high time for a political revolution in this country and no one in congress is going to pay any attention to us until about one million of us (I would suggest several million.) show up at congress doorstep and ask them, "How do you plan on getting home tonight?" Bring a fresh rope, actually more like several. Maybe we could set up and build several gallows on the front lawn of the capital building. Start discussing a date or dates (at least one week) and we should all start organizing transportation.
Welcome to the revolution. The time has come. Let's do this.
UPDATE:
Okay, today is March 25. 2016 and something happened. For those of you who don't know, the video has gone viral of Bernie Sanders at one of his election rallies and as he was speaking a tiny bird flew near him. As the crowd said something, Bernie stopped and asked, "What?" and then he saw the bird, As he was saying, "That bird doesn't know it..." the bird flew up and landed on the podium, watching him. The video is cute, here:

Some people on social media (Facebook) came up with this emblem for the Progressive Party:

So, another update today. This is the sort of flier for the progressive party that surfaced on Facebook today: 


1 comment:

  1. I prefer the first bird. It is less "logo-y" than the second. Also, while I understand their reason for making it face left, our eyes move left to right and it seems off bc of that.

    ReplyDelete