REPUBLICANS: The Republican Party claims to be a party of smaller government
and low taxes and fiscal responsibility but this is definitely not the case.
To be competitive within the two-party stranglehold, Republicans embrace big
government and pork to please various factions in order to stay in
power. They offer the voter similar social programs that Democrats bribe
their constituents with. The Republicans are the more mercantilist of the two
parties and get support from the moralist and religious strains of society.
Republicans want to use the government to enforce their moral, religious and patriotic
authoritarian views on the personal habits and lifestyles of citizens. Republicans have no
true intention of instituting a truly free market place, preserving personal
freedoms nor practicing constitutional rule. They abandon our
border security and certain of our citizen rights while saying that's what our troops are fighting for overseas.
The GOP is rightly or wrongly perceived as plutocrats & country clubbers. They constantly fail to fight for
reform despite having had a majority. Brittle weak
Republicans fear substantial change to the status quo.
They are the draconian fools who gleefully support the war on drugs which
exacerbates the problem and the unintended consequences like higher black market profits for
narco and Islamofascist terrorists. The destruction of the opium and coca cash crops
in Afghanistan and Latin/South America causes resentment from the simple war-torn peasants trying to make a livelihood
who will consequently give allegiance to the enemy. This type of meddling undermines
any just causes we have for being there. At home, we suffer the Republican malignancy of our trampled rights by their abusive, Nazi-like tactics
in the name of ending all drug use which is tactically impossible and unnecessary in a
free, tolerant country of personal liberation. Note especially the current administration's persecution
of medically valid medical marijuanna users who simply want to medicate themselves from the ravages
of chemotherapy and other ailments. Why would tolerant people in this regard bother to vote Republican? Probably because in the two-party entrapment
it is easier to hide drugs from the intrusive Republicans than one's paycheck from the Democrats.
DEMOCRATS: Democrats are the Marxist wing of the two-party system and
masquerade as challengers to restricitive social impositions of government
and society. They also embellish themselves as the sole defenders of civil rights and the
harbingers of social justice. In fact, what they mainly do is institute theft
by confiscating earned income and redistributing it to those who are unwilling to
be self-sufficient or to those who have been indoctrinated into submission and dependency on government
social programs -- thus ensuring a considerable mass of bribed or intimidated voters
for Democrats. These methods are further used in the arenas of racial scapegoating,
anti-corporate theatrics and parasitic business overregulation. Though they act
as the defender of the common citizen, they themselves* are more involved in questionable business
deals, corruption, fraud, trickery, racial bias, impoverishing the masses and tyranny
over the individual all through government immunity. Democrats are sympathetic
to the questionable antics of trial lawyers and union thugs. They pursue a paper tiger foreign policy
which encourages the enemy to hold out and continue to attack us. In a war notable Democrats approved,
the Democrats are abandoning victory and creating a quagmire.
* {i.e. cash-in-freezer William Jefferson, Joe Wilson, cop-slapping Cynthia McKinney, secret-documents-in-pants Sandy Berger, New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin,
Duke lacrosse prosecutor Mike Nifong, former NC House Speaker Jim Black, New York governor/prosecutor Elliot Spitzer, Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick,
Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, John Edwards, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, etc.}
GREENS: The Green's main focus appears to be saving the environment and protecting the masses
against the ravages of big business. Yet in actuality, the Green's radical environmental
plans are built on shaky evidence and their designs for the economy would bring a communist-inspired
economic implosion. Their imperative is to progressively barrage business capital
for the cause of living wages, 'corporate responsibility', secure living standards and negative
income tax. This would be done to distribute resources for the 'right' to food, housing, medical care
and education. They call for a RADICAL PARDIGM SHIFT in order to "restrict the
accumulation of excessive individual wealth". This is something Marx and Lenin would
envision and would bring us to the state of economic collapse that the former
Soviet Union experienced and which Cuba and various socialist African nations
enjoy today. Harsh restrictions on industry would be justified of course by the impending environmental disasters
that the Green movement warns about, but little true scientific justification exists
for such radical change -- especially when it is utilized by the ecoMarxists. While they may address some true environmental
concerns and social freedoms and civil justice, their system as a whole would
result in tyranny and economic disaster despite their well-intentioned altruisms.
Note too, that socialist/communist countries throughout the world have some of the worst environmental records and human squalor.
To be fair, there are actually two Green parties -- one more extreme than the
other. If a candidate or faction arises that is more free market friendly and pursues
only applicable environmental concerns moreso at the local and regional levels, then there is a more desireable third-party Green movement.
Desirability increases if they pursue a centrist to reasonably strong defensive foreign policy, personable social policy
based on individual responsibility and originalist constitutional intents mixed with their
current human rights concerns and opposition to the drug war. Invoking such a movement that realizes that only adequate
government, not social programs government, will allow for a cleaner environment and enable the
masses to bring about the commerce that will sustain their needs. Such a pro-business, pro personal property rights
Green faction would be more attractive as an alternative.
REFORM: In its first incarnation, the Reform Party did capture the
imagination of the American electorate desperate for something else than the
usual two-party fare. While substantial reforms were touted, the Reform
movement had no solid constitutional approach to governing. It still accepts
unconstitutional programs like Medicare and Social Security (in reformation) and seeks to abolish
the electoral college. After power struggles and implosion, the party was captured by more right and theocratic
forces that too could be susceptible to using overbearing government on some issues. The various
reforms and shifts of the party are more populist in nature and can not adequately
guarantee a real adherence to a constitutionally limited government on its own. Still, they
do have good ideas and with their penchant for proper change certain forces within the
party could be considered assets in heading towards a generally reservist government.
NATURAL LAW: The Natural Law Party seems to be the holistic approach
to politics. The party is now a world movement spurred by a quasi one-world
philosophy. Meditation is advocated as a way to lead to the solutions for
humanity. While they are surely very nice people, one has to ascertain what
would be the driving source for leadership decisions within this mystique movement?
Are they prone to cultish gurus, underworld spirits or even extraterrestrials using mind control? What about our sovereignty
and one-world governmental movements?
Some of the policy proposals make sense but rely too much on the end of social
ills being brought about by meditation, creative energies of the populace and the
realization of pure or collective consciousness. In their utopian quest, unconstitutional programs are
merely adjusted or enhanced instead of abolished. However, since they are open to ideas they should
be reasonable towards instituting constitutional policies in a coalition government. With some mutual agreement, rational concurrence and
oversight they could possibly be an enlightened part of a coalition government.
CONSTITUTION PARTY: While it does seem to want to follow the constraints of
the constitution, the Constitution Party does have a very strong theocratic
nature to their approach in governing. There is nothing wrong with a party or
its candidates giving credit to God or to the Judeo-Chrisitian ethic. Yet, it appears
that this party has theocratic tendencies. For example, back in the day they advocated
capital punishment for larger amounts of drug distribution. Tyranny of a religious
order would be suspect under the Constitution Party. Any more laid-back members of the party
who adhere more towards personal religious freedom in the political arena instead of policing against vice would be
more acceptable. They could still be 'fishers of men', sharing their faith while letting
God sort everyone else out. There would be less resentment towards their message.
This is how they should share in a coalition government. This would be the best approach since
only God can run a Theocracy!
SOUTHERN INDEPENDENCE PARTY: The SIP desires a seccession of the southern
states back into the Confederacy under true Jeffersonian constitutional rule.
This technique is understandable with the current state of the American Union. The SIP
has no intentions of bringing back slavery or racial injustice, though this
would be a difficult misperception to overcome. While slavery was wrong and it needed
to be abolished, the South did have other valid complaints against the Northern
states and the constitutional trespasses of federal government during the 'Civil War' era
and now. Note the SIP concentrates only on the southern states and does
not run candidates for federal government offices. They seem to solely favor
secession as opposed to the exportation of Southern values
within a reformable Union. Part of their argument
is that the South is a different culture compared to the rest of the nation.
Admittedly, their separatist approach is becoming more valid with the current state of the Union and the two-party regime. The Commonwealth Party however entertains the secession
of any or all of the current 50 states should it come to a head -- that is ideally all of America
should secede from itself and reconfigure into the Commonwealth. We'll settle for just a few factions whenever the time comes though. Nonetheless,
the Commonwealth Party would support the secession of the southern states should they be determined to do so as
outlined on the SIP site.
INDEPENDENCE: The Independence Party was inspired by Jesse Ventura who used
to associate with the Reform Party. The Independence Party too dabbles with
some populist proposals that would not bring true constitutionally limited government
nor eliminate government involvement in the economy ( i.e. ensuring high-speed internet access across Minnesota
and public support of certain agricultural products ). The party platform though innovative, is
a platform determined of populist degrees more so than principles. After Ventura won office, he reneged
on cutting taxes. Still, they call for important improvements and seem genuinely
interested in preserving America and solving problems.
LIBERTARIAN: The Libertarian Party is perhaps the most sincere about adhering to
constitutionally limited government and they deserve much credit for their advocacy of civic freedom and
economic reason. However, in some of their means they are purely objectivist
and thus would not retain some of the systematic orders and safequards that
would keep the order of freedom intact. They sometimes employ a stringent textbook dogmatism
that still works for the law-abiding, freedom functioning citizen in general but they
also leave the citizen vulnerable to adversaries and forces who will threaten
that freedom by taking advantage of the absence of systematic safeguards. For example,
the overemphasis of the 'right' to immigrate, the aversion to
pre-emptive strikes and perhaps unchecked trade with adversarial nations makes the Libertarian system an easier target for insurgent invasion,
enemy attack or subjection to hostile foreign forces that are strengthened by trade with the domestic economy.
All of this can come about even though the constitution has not been violated. What
is needed is to keep check on these scenarios while still following the constitution.
Note too, their current plank does have some good proposals for border control yet it states: 'Repeal all measures that punish employers for hiring undocumented workers.'
The party at times apparently functions as a front for the objectivist philosophy but there are occasions
when some subjectivism is needed for balance. They would serve as an ideal part of a coalition
government if properly mixed with other officeholders for oversight on some issues
or through favoring the election of certain Libertarian factions for office.
OTHER PARTIES: To investigate and compare other third parties, visit
Politics1 for more party listings and descriptions. They
also have election coverage for all states with candidate listings and a wealth of other election
information.
