New party, anyone?
The Due Dissidence crowd was on Jimmy Dore's show discussing how Kamala Harris spent her $1 billion:
Here one recalls that there was a lot of discussion of "third party" politics in the early portions of the last campaign cycle. Andrew Yang, No Labels, RFK Jr., and of course the Greens, the PSL, and the Libertarians who were already there. Of course it must be said that none of this stuff will last long at anything more than a bare-ballot-access level without results of some sort. Thus, here's an actionable plan, for anyone with resources:
1) It shouldn't be too hard to hunt down Andrew Yang, who has (if circumstantial evidence means anything) been stymied by the Democrats for who knows how long. Yang cannot organize a third party, but he probably has a trail of connections which will lead to someone who can.
2) Someone in a megalopolis (Los Angeles is the best option, as the West is less worn-down than the East) can hunt down donors who are angry that they contributed millions of dollars to a campaign that blew through $1 billion in a really, really perfunctory way in only three months, lost, and wound up in debt. The Biden/ Harris team were and are the most flagrant of ripoff artists, and unfortunately for them their spree is coming to an end, at least outside of California, the DC area, or the Northeast. This leaves America with one major party that, though toxic as Hell, hasn't yet been brought to ruin through said toxicity.
3) You can assemble a team with the donor money and with this motivation: if we don't do it, the No Labels people will do it, and they stand for nothing even more resolutely than do the Democrats. What do the No Labels people really have, besides some retired old Democrats and Republicans and Joe Manchin?
4) It has already been revealed that, for a fair cross-section of the donor class, you can't get anywhere with the Democrats, and you can't go very far with the Republicans because they are like the Democrats in too many ways, and they're bad in ways uniquely their own. The most obvious manifestation of this basic inability to do their jobs is the Democrats'/ Republicans' failure to communicate. This has been clear since the neoliberal turn of the Seventies, but it has been especially clear over the last two years of the Biden administration. (Instead of communicating, they just lie to everyone, and then say, take it or leave it.) This revelation will become actionable once everyone has settled into the second Trump term and it becomes obvious that Trump won't fix it and America will continue to decline. Europe will continue to be the model, and the general atmosphere of grift that took over under Biden will continue. There will be donors who disapprove of this free-for-all, because they are not as clever at theft as the new ascendant class.
Here's Dmitry Orlov on the overall decline of the West:
Now, the rumor is that Kshama Sawant will be starting a new political party in February in Seattle. If this is true, she'll have to start again on this project later in the year -- nobody will want to deal with Seattle weather until the second week of April at the earliest. But it's clear that people who think like Sawant will try to create a new party. The PSL is too obviously wedded to the old model of war communism, and the Greens probably still have too many wannabe Democrats among their ranks. (I don't know for sure about present-day Greens, because there are no Greens here in southern Oregon that I know of.) And it's clear that Sawant is not the sort of individual who will give up.
So something will happen. Who has an idea here?
Comments
A new party could deal with climate change as a social problem
which is what it is. And so, for instance, you have a climate activist complaining on today's Counterpunch, and basically this is what they'll all be saying for the next four years:
But this is as nonsensical as the Trump attitude toward climate change. No such "international efforts" have accomplished anything, and they won't accomplish anything in the future either. Global responsibility is accomplished by proposing a society which can mitigate climate change, and backcasting from that proposal.
“When there's no fight over programme, the election becomes a casting exercise. Trump's win is the unstoppable consequence of this situation.” - Jean-Luc Melanchon
The big question on the Chinese forums I read:
The Chinese Internet asks: Can China intensify its record-breaking achievements in climate-protective technologies and global implementation enough to compensate for the US withdrawal from proactive efforts in correcting global warming???
China has said they will respond by expanding their efforts globally, although climate scientists say that emission reduction is already the key factor in mitigation efforts. One nation cannot suddenly decide to become a poisonous mass emitter because it is more profitable to do so. The existing global commitments for net-zero carbon emissions is a calculation based on the current available technologies for doing so.
I personally believe that China can and will figure out how to pick up the slack caused by conflicting US policies for increasing corporate profits. I see China's ever increasing innovation in this branch of science as a likely solution. Also, China's willingness to invest in new climate abatement infrastructure, on its own dime. In addition, China has been extraordinarily successful in developing agricultural systems that can turn deserts into nutrient-rich grasslands. Their impressive reforesting efforts can be seen from space.
IMAGINE if you woke up the day after a US Presidential Election and headlines around the the world blared, "The Majority of Americans Refused to Vote in US Presidential Election! What Does this Mean?"
Technology does not solve the climate change problem.
Mitigating climate change means that we, the human race, achieve a society capable of mitigating climate change. This society cannot do that.
Please see my 2016 piece on this matter:
CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION IN FANTASY AND REALITY
The password to open the PDF is: AddletonAP2009
“When there's no fight over programme, the election becomes a casting exercise. Trump's win is the unstoppable consequence of this situation.” - Jean-Luc Melanchon
Okay, thanks.
I'll check out your essay. I do see your point. In fact, I've made that argument myself, in the past.
It's tempting to present global warming as an unhealthy earth that has a disease that can be treated with a break-through vaccine. A revolutionary new technology. But there are so many problems with that approach. I mean, when you think about it, getting rid of humans would be the fastest and most efficient way to solve global warming and save the planet.
IMAGINE if you woke up the day after a US Presidential Election and headlines around the the world blared, "The Majority of Americans Refused to Vote in US Presidential Election! What Does this Mean?"
That's the solution --
offered by the character "Crake" in Margaret Atwood's Maddaddam trilogy. Wipe out the human race, but offer a superior human race in its stead. A definite must-read.
Also, if you haven't done so already, be sure to read Alan Weisman's The World Without Us.
“When there's no fight over programme, the election becomes a casting exercise. Trump's win is the unstoppable consequence of this situation.” - Jean-Luc Melanchon
digging a hole in the ground
is all I can see for the future of US
politics
unfortunately their shovels are too short
to cover their stinking corpus
since there are no decent choices left
voting is a mute option
how to solve this rhymes with anarchy
unorganized resistance is better than
blind obedience
I notice that dummy politics are fast becoming living Prophecies
Can anyone tell me which fundamental foreign policy Objectives — aside from a permanent state of war — did Democratic Party voters seek most ardently during the 2024 Federal Electron campaign?
Of the key foreign policy Objectives held by voters in the Democratic Party — which voter Objectives, or demands for change, were pushed hardest during the final massive spending extravaganza by the Democratic Leaders of the Harris campaign?
Listening to the first podcast you posted (thanks Cass, I found it very informative), I came away with the distinct impression that Red-County voters (nearly the entire US) were obsessed with domestic issues. while they were casting votes in the risky, high-stakes Federal election. I seriously doubt that voters were made aware that ignorance-based-participation in the 2024 Federal election could likely negatively impact the economic survival of the United States. This would render ineffective their personal aspirations for their family's future well being. If there is a high popular vote count, this will demonstrate to the world that Americans fully consented to the economic risk, and consented to the misfortune and political betrayal they may soon face.
On a side note, I wonder: Are Sheep Dogs and Border Collies the same animal? Do they compete for the same jobs?
IMAGINE if you woke up the day after a US Presidential Election and headlines around the the world blared, "The Majority of Americans Refused to Vote in US Presidential Election! What Does this Mean?"
Democratic Party voters have no political opinions, do they?
The voters? I'm not clear that Democratic Party voters are allowed to have opinions on politics. Trump is evil, and that's really all they need to know if they are to stay Democratic Party voters. Their party is composed almost entirely of careerists. How 'bout Harris' bff Dick Cheney, eh? Perhaps the ones with means will leave the country now that Trump has been re-elected. It's clear at this time that they have all been awkwardly surprised by the consequence of their collective failure to have an opinion.
A few days ago I posted a meme on Facebook that said: "Being taught to avoid talking about politics and religion has lead to a lack of understanding of politics and religion." Or -- perhaps avoiding discussions of politics and religion is actually a specific political and religious position in itself. This argument seems more in line with experience. See e.g. Nina Eliasoph's "Avoiding Politics."
As for the rest of your post (thank you for posting!), this sentence stood out:
My response was: who would pay them to say that?
“When there's no fight over programme, the election becomes a casting exercise. Trump's win is the unstoppable consequence of this situation.” - Jean-Luc Melanchon
By far the most dangerous mistake in the US Constitution
....is its abject failure to provide strict and comprehensive Election Rules that State and Federal governments must follow and that politicians and political organizations must obey — Rules that would support the People's confidence in the fairness and security of US elections; Rules that would standardize the funding of US elections and help prevent special interest financial corruption and political vote peddling.
Constitutional Election Rules and Public Campaign Funding are. arguably. the most important regulations in any nation's Constitution, for they define and protect the People's moral and ethical interests in the electoral process — and allow for the peaceful, trusted, and transparent continuity of government over time. The Election Rules in the Constitution — are second in importance only to the Constitutional adoption of the Universal Rules of Human Rghts, which were ratified unanimously by the People of all nations at the UN in 1948. The Human Rights Rules are irrevocable, and should be conferred upon the citizens of all nations. **
Again, a Constitutions is a set of Rules that must be strictly obeyed by the government and by government contractors, government employees, by elected or appointed officials, and by politicians who are running for public office. A good Constitution will also specify the parts of of people's lives and livelihoods that government employees and officials are not allowed to iouch or interfere with. Constitutions are generally written by the the People who are being governed or who are establishing a new government. The Constitution is not written by people affiliated with the government or subject to the Constitutional Rules. Thus, Constitutional Rules are not written by judges, legislators, politicians, police, intelligence agents, Courts, the military, politicians, prison guards, or by any employee in any agency that is funded by the government. Constitutions are designed to protect the people and their property from the wrongful actions of the government.
___________________________-
** In reality, the Rules of established Human Rights have been stubbornly omitted from the US Constitution. No effort has ever been made by the US to correct this legal negligence.
An assortment of Amendments have been made to the US Constitution to obscure the the deplorable injustices levied against US citizens while unprotected by Human Rights in the long-obsolete US Constitution. During the mid-Twentieth Century, following World War II, nearly every nation in the world modernized their constitutions. Most of them incorporated or referenced the Rules of Declaration of Human Rights Rules unanimously ratified at the United Nations in 1948.Declaration of were incorporated As a result of this deliberate brainwashing negligence, Human Rights have never been legally and irrevocably conferred upon American citizens, who, in their intellectual stupor, are rapidly losing what is left of their earlier rights.
IMAGINE if you woke up the day after a US Presidential Election and headlines around the the world blared, "The Majority of Americans Refused to Vote in US Presidential Election! What Does this Mean?"
Sounds great, but…
.
how does a party compete with AIPAC money and dark super pacs that can raise millions of dollars without disclosing who has contributed?
Lots of money doesn’t mean that party will win, but lack of it can keep other parties from getting anywhere. Until we get money out of politics we are stuck with the 2 party system.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
Your donation to the Democratic Party
will insure that the masses are resolutely discouraged from voting for anyone but Democrats. How, you might ask, are we going to do this? Why, we'll spend all sorts of money running ads against the Dems' third-party opponents (unintentionally revealing to the mass public who they are) while cozying up to the likes of Dick Cheney! That should do it!
As regards your question: The end of the Democrats and the beginning of the new party needs to happen on three fronts if it is to happen at all.
Front #1: the donor class needs to be approached. "Hey donor class! Did it make you feel GREAT that Kamala Harris squandered $1 billion of your money on a "makework" (that was Due Dissidence' word) campaign that stood for nothing and was granted only three months to make its pitch? Or would you rather donate your money to campaigns that actually matter to someone?
Front #2: people who are already trying to form "third parties" need to be approached. They need to be approached with a proposal that is better than the proposals that have been marketed so far. That shouldn't be hard: the proposals that have been marketed so far have all been either recruitment pitches for retired careerists ("No Labels") or glossaries of principle ("Green Party of the United States"). To those who would object to anything different from No Labels or GPUS it must be said: we are trying to form a SECOND party. Would you prefer the Democrats and their stupid wars?
Front #3: there will have to be a mass campaign to educate the public about Team Biden foreign policy, because this is the most obvious thing to run against. If you want to end up like Europe, spending money you don't have on energy bills while giving your wealth away to Ukraine so it can be bombed into oblivion by Russia, then vote for the duopoly. Otherwise vote for us.
I think it's doable.
“When there's no fight over programme, the election becomes a casting exercise. Trump's win is the unstoppable consequence of this situation.” - Jean-Luc Melanchon