The Beginning
1 In the beginning Gov created the rulers and the ruled
2 And the ruled were without order, and void; and darkness was upon the minds of the sheep. And the spigot of Gov opened upon the faces of the flock
I am well aware that I may offend the sensibilities of some with this crude mocking of the book of Genesis (KJV). I do not set out to deliberately provoke the ire of any who may take offense, though still, I make no apology either. I use this merely as a vehicle for illustration. Besides that, I am quite confident that by the time we arrive at the end of this tale, I will have offended multitudes.
The two verses above might easily be the opening lines of a bible adopted by any political party. I must beg of the audience to suspend their notions of the right/left paradigm and be wholly clear on what political parties actually are. If governments are established that lesser men might prevail in an otherwise free contest of authority, then political parties are nothing more than the vehicle of lesser men. Political parties extol the virtues of the collective whilst diminishing the individual. This narrative suits the lesser man completely. Couched behind the smiley face of "the common good" are the jealous insecurities of the lesser man. And guilt. Lots and lots of guilt, which the lesser man feels yet can not express, but by projecting this guilt upon others. It's a powerful tool, as witnessed by the fact that we are thousands of years into civilization and churches are still raking it in.
In a tactical sense political parties are formed that competing ideas might have a means by which to contend with one another. In a forum that is unfiltered and unrestricted this contest is allowed to occur. This renders a degree of transparency and accountability to the parties engaged. That is, at least ideally, how political parties are supposed to work. In theory. So much for theory.
Theories, in order to be determined valid, must survive collision with reality. In most theories this is the point where things go sideways. Political theory is no exception to this. In a theater where a narrative is crafted and curated by the players on the stage, where all parties are working from the same script, the theory need not survive collision. Instead, it endures by collusion.
Nominally speaking, a great deal of the world is governed by single party rule. Whether this comes in the form of the CCP's monolithic communist state; or by a hereditary based despotism; or even the last man standing in a war lords' cage match, it boils down to the original equation of the rulers and the ruled. The flock and it's shepherd. Here in America we have (again, nominally speaking) a two party system. This two party system is the shepherd. It wears two hats. One hat tells the sheep that they are protected from wolves. The other hat tells the sheep that they shall only be sheared. Both hats mean only to slaughter the lambs, though neither ever admit this. Regardless which hat this shepherd wears, the shepherd is doing the bidding of others than the flock. The shepherd does not serve the flock. The shepherd serves his master(s) and, by extension, himself.
A term has grown more common in recent years: uniparty. It is a good term to express the reality on the ground in Washington. While we may have designations of republican or democrat, these are distinctions in little other than name. The public facing policy debates taken up between these two parties are mere theater, mostly raw, red meat for the respective constituencies they have crafted. The ruling power, irrespective of party affiliation, are those who serve at the pleasure and do the bidding of their masters. This uniparty, an unincorporated and unchartered party, is the de facto ruling party in Washington. It operates the federal government to serve their patrons, their masters who buy policy. The uniparty is the tool of lesser men, men who could not prevail upon the merit of their ideas.
I don't support the republican or the democrat party. It is my most sincere and fervent wish that they should both wither, die and begone from us forever. If there is to be a set of party factions to contend within a legitimate republic, then we should return to the original contest of federalist versus anti-federalist. That would be a good start for framing any national debate, but it soon becomes equally important for this philosophical reset to occur at state and county levels as well. Where some burden or injustice from federal authority is relieved, one should expect that corrupt tyrants at the state or local level will reflexively assume the imposition of these burdens as their own.
I don't believe in political parties. I believe that political people are poison by nature. I do not participate in the process. My existence is not dependent upon the state or any of it's processes. While every single one of these statements is true, I can also confidently say that this does not mean that I am unknowledgeable on these matters. So it is then, against all better judgement, that I will now offer some suggestions for the democrat party and their long road to redemption. I'll trust that none of them would ever heed any of these suggestions, so what harm could it do? We can still have fun considering the possibilities if they did.
The leadership in any political party serves as the face and the voice of that party, for good or ill. The prevailing narrative is that these leaders have attained their position by virtue of having prevailed within party debate, thus earning the right to guide policy. They are the compromisers, the consensus formers who bridge the divide between the desired and the possible. This is true in theory only. In reality this narrative is patently false.
For those participating in this giant charade it is a game. In a game it is the object to win and to win one must know the object of the game. The political game is not a game of chance, nor is it a game of sport. The political game is, first and foremost, a sales game. The measure of victory in a sales game is to have the most sales. If one is selling ideas, then a vote can equal a sale. If one is selling influence, then money seems to be the preferred medium of exchange. Party leadership serves as the voice and the face of the party. Party leadership also serves as the voice and the face of those buying the influence. Policy is not made, it is purchased.
Populism is the antidote to the uniparty. Populism seeks to upset the sale of influence and return the political game to a contest of ideas, where constituency is currency, not the other way around. Those who seek to purchase policy have no party loyalties. They know that they can shop either side of the aisle, both sides more than happy to take their money. The self-financed, populist candidate is their worst nightmare. When the self-financed, populist candidate wins and becomes the face and voice of a political party? That is their worst nightmare come to life. Not for political reasons, rather it is a simple rule of economics. There remains that same level of demand, but with only half the market to shop in. Instead of the market competing for buyers, the buyers are left to compete among themselves to even secure access to the market.
In order to regain their footing in that marketplace, the democrat party must have something to sell. Right now, the brand is stale. Donald Trump became the leader of a populist movement for one very simple reason: he is the consummate pitch man. He has only replicated in politics what he has done throughout his career in the business world. Regardless of the enterprise, his role has always been to create and promote the brand with a successful pitch. Once one has succeeded in selling an idea, there are always others to do the work of making the idea manifest. This is the crux of what is called MAGA.
The one and only thing I hear in common between those who identify as either republican or democrat, is their great frustration with the leadership and hierarchy of their respective parties. As well they should be, for reasons we've already noted. In terms of your party platform, I'm afraid that I have nothing to offer. From where I see it the democrat party platform is like last year's strands of Christmas lights when first pulled out of storage. It's a confused, tangled mass, wrapped around itself so many times that one can not even guess which strand to pull on first. I'll leave that task to your brightest minds to sort out.
You folks need to create a MAGA of your own. Maybe something like DAMMA, democrats are making money again. Or, DAMAGE, democrats are making a great effort. It's branding. It has to be simple, it has to say what it is, and it has to form a snappy anagram. And then you need a solid pitch man. It's a long shot. I'm not sure they'll even agree to it, but at this point I can see no other alternative. Desperate times call for desperate measures. Forget about the mid-terms. You need more time to regroup for 2028. That is why you must, at the earliest possible date, launch the next big campaign...
McConaughey - Harrelson '28
Stay tuned
