American Solidarity Party

[little2add]

3 hours ago, little2add said:

(Defund )the electoral system.  The entire system is bias and non-representative.   Outlaw lobbyist,  special interest groups and behind closed door legislation.   

Starting with (mandatory) term limits and accountability of personal wealth acquired after becoming public servant, end lifetime career  politicians 

Fixed it

Edited June 29, 2020 by little2add

[ardillacid]

If Trump can manage to avoid any additional wars or expanding current ones, hes got my vote. Hillary and joe are both war mongers, so they are right out. 

If voting 3rd party eases anyone's conscience,  go for it. I've voted 3rd party (08, 12) and probably will revert to that once Republicans start putting up shiitake mushroom bushes again. 

Your vote is meaningless so please dont let it keep you up at night 

[little2add]

To paraphrase (one of) the endings of LOTR Return of the King: There may come a day when the Supreme Court revisits Roe v Wade, but … today is not that day. 
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-strikes-down-restrictive-louisiana-abortion-law-n1231392?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma

 

[Era Might]

Eric Hobsbawm 4 volume history of the "long nineteenth century" and the "short twentieth century," starting with "The Age of Revolution." Read it, best introduction to political and economic history.

[chrysostom]

On 7/1/2020 at 4:15 PM, Era Might said:

Eric Hobsbawm 4 volume history of the "long nineteenth century" and the "short twentieth century," starting with "The Age of Revolution." Read it, best introduction to political and economic history.

Ah, communism...

[Era Might]

20 hours ago, chrysostom said:

Ah, communism...

Hobsbawm covers the formation of capitalism, socialism and communism. That's the center of the story. He tells history from two angles, the French political revolution and the British industrial or economic revolution. This is the foundational story of all our modern politics.

On 6/24/2020 at 12:40 PM, dUSt said:

I found a party worthy of my vote: https://solidarity-party.org/

In 2016 I justified supporting Trump because I weighed the importance of pro-life issues against all the negative that came with Trump. For the most part, I was optimistic and erred towards giving Trump the benefit of the doubt. Two Supreme Court nominees later, multiplied by divisive, racist rhetoric, and absolute no humility, I can’t justify it again. 
 

Of course, Joe Biden and his less-obvious-but-still-racist and pro-abortion party isn’t any better. 

The American Solidarity Party, on the surface, seems like the dream party for any Catholic simply trying to vote their conscience. 

Also I just want to add we can rethink the purpose of a political party. We assume a party exists to elect candidates, but that is not the primary purpose of a political party. Its purpose is to educate its members in political action, so they can manage electoral politics. We should start thinking of political parties more like political brands.

[Aloysius]

12 hours ago, Era Might said:

Also I just want to add we can rethink the purpose of a political party. We assume a party exists to elect candidates, but that is not the primary purpose of a political party. Its purpose is to educate its members in political action, so they can manage electoral politics. We should start thinking of political parties more like political brands.

Sounds like what the idea of the Tea Party was back in the day.  Outside of whether you agree or disagree with it, it operated as a kind of organizing party-within-a-party.

Given that fashion might be a good idea.  Of course, how to avoid them being co-opted and sucked into the machine, as the Tea Party was. is an entirely different thing.

So for something like this Solidarity Party, it'd be good for them to work and have candidates and all sorts of things like that, but they should also if/where possible work to foment insurgencies within the two major political parties, maybe.  Not saying that has a high chance of success, Bernie tried it and Ron Paul tried it before him, but it's an interesting thought.

[Era Might]

7 hours ago, Aloysius said:

Sounds like what the idea of the Tea Party was back in the day.  Outside of whether you agree or disagree with it, it operated as a kind of organizing party-within-a-party.

Given that fashion might be a good idea.  Of course, how to avoid them being co-opted and sucked into the machine, as the Tea Party was. is an entirely different thing.

So for something like this Solidarity Party, it'd be good for them to work and have candidates and all sorts of things like that, but they should also if/where possible work to foment insurgencies within the two major political parties, maybe.  Not saying that has a high chance of success, Bernie tried it and Ron Paul tried it before him, but it's an interesting thought.

I don't think the Tea Party is a good model. The Tea Party was a special interest movement. It didn't like how society had developed and wanted to regain power or at least control in the system. It hearkened back to the myth of a federal republic of simple people, one man one vote. The Tea Party was Trumpism 1.0.

A better example of a political brand is Martin Luther King. He wasn't a politician, but he had a political brand, which was Christian/Gandhian nonviolence. That was his brand which he could suit to the moment.

Every political party is the work of some group in society that is seeking organized power. Third parties are irrelevant because they don't actually organize power. Abortion is not the basis of a civilization or a political party. It's a special interest for a certain segment of voters. 

[Aloysius]

Well I wasn't trying to say anything about the Tea Party's ideology, more about the way it operated as a movement.  It ended up subsumed, but it basically tried to do what you said in terms of "to educate its members in political action".

The Tea Party was definitely a brand for the people involved, on that level I don't see what makes it particularly different from the MLK 'branding' as you describe it.  there were tons of 'tea party' identifying people who got caught up in a brand as much as any, you point out the ideas of the brand being ones you disagree with, but it was certainly a 'brand'...it trained scores of people in political activism, got quite a few of its proponents into the halls of power, got its ideas and agenda into the national conversation, and created a whole social identity for a number of people, etc etc.  Again, I'm not talking about its ideas being right or wrong but about the organizational form it takes.

I bring up the Tea Party not just because it sounds like the kind of thing you suggest organizationally, but also because it's a cautionary tale, as it definitely got subsumed by the establishment of the two party system.  Just as the Ron Paul insurgency in the Republican Party and the Bernie Sanders insurgency in the Democratic Party, both a little more personality-based examples, got subsumed by the 2 party system as well.  the system eats social movements alive and uses them to sustain themselves, and it's not clear what it would take to avoid being chewed up and spit out. 

[Era Might]

34 minutes ago, Aloysius said:

Well I wasn't trying to say anything about the Tea Party's ideology, more about the way it operated as a movement.  It ended up subsumed, but it basically tried to do what you said in terms of "to educate its members in political action".

The Tea Party was definitely a brand for the people involved, on that level I don't see what makes it particularly different from the MLK 'branding' as you describe it.  there were tons of 'tea party' identifying people who got caught up in a brand as much as any, you point out the ideas of the brand being ones you disagree with, but it was certainly a 'brand'...it trained scores of people in political activism, got quite a few of its proponents into the halls of power, got its ideas and agenda into the national conversation, and created a whole social identity for a number of people, etc etc.  Again, I'm not talking about its ideas being right or wrong but about the organizational form it takes.

I bring up the Tea Party not just because it sounds like the kind of thing you suggest organizationally, but also because it's a cautionary tale, as it definitely got subsumed by the establishment of the two party system.  Just as the Ron Paul insurgency in the Republican Party and the Bernie Sanders insurgency in the Democratic Party, both a little more personality-based examples, got subsumed by the 2 party system as well.  the system eats social movements alive and uses them to sustain themselves, and it's not clear what it would take to avoid being chewed up and spit out. 

I understand your point, the Tea Party was a way of operating, one of many. But still I think you're stuck in seeing everything through the lens of electoral politics. If I could suggest, imagine the United States much as you would imagine the Soviet Union in the 80s, as a vast system that is ruled and even only understood by a small elite minority. The world of mainstream politics revolves around this tiny society, around Trump's rolodex. So I agree, in that context, a grassroots social movement will always be coopted, just like a startup that gets acquired. But if we extend our vision of politics, we see minority social movements growing and flourishing outside the electoral system. The Internet itself grew from a small group of geeks, nerds, etc. Social media has created economic and political power bases among ordinary citizens. Hip Hop has conquered the music industry and basically nationalized it for black ppl. The same with professional sports. These are huge industry, but the economic base of their industry grew from grassroots or minoritarian social and even economic movements, like turning black South Florida into an NFL training ground. That takes a vast network of organization to mobilize young black men in the athletic system. But it starts locally with youth leagues, etc. Anyway the point is that minoritarian social movements have to think in terms of entrepreneurship rather than electoral politics, because this country is ruled by a very small class of ppl like Trump. He's running a vast Wrestlemania, so unless you want to join the circus, better to focus on local entrepreneurship. It's been shown that when unemployment goes up, so does domestic violence. If you think of abortion  and other moral issues in terms of electoral politics, you'll always play the fool.

[Luigi]

23 minutes ago, Era Might said:

round Trump's rolodex.

 

24 minutes ago, Era Might said:

this country is ruled by a very small class of ppl like Trump.

Or Bill & Hillary's, or Nancy Pelosi's, or any of a number of other people. 

But you are correct, that this country is ruled (and "ruled" is indeed the correct word) by a very small class of people. Most are wealthy, white, male (though less so than previously), and graduated from mostly eastern name-brand universities. It's an interesting exercise to make a list of familial and/or social relationships among the ruling class. For a few examples: 

- The Kennedys: one president, three senators, a representative, a first lady of California

- The Gores: father and son senators of Tennessee for how many years? 

- The Bushes: two presidents, two governors, an ambassador;

- The Browns in California: father and son governors, for how many years? And the daughter was also state treasurer, I think it was... or secretary of state? 

There are literally dozens of these connections. We now live in something closer to an oligarchy than a democracy or republic. 

 

[Era Might]

57 minutes ago, Luigi said:

Or Bill & Hillary's, or Nancy Pelosi's, or any of a number of other people.

I don't think so. Those ppl have power in the political class, but Trump came to power in opposition to the political class, or "the swamp" as he calls it. Trump built a personal brand and business empire and only then capped his career with the highest office in the government. Trump is old money, and now he's risen to be an equal with the Pope and the Queen of England, the other global power wielders. But Trump's power is personal. In fact, in a single election he destroyed two political dynasties: the Clintons and the Bush dynasty (Jeb is just another member of the Establishment now). Politicians like Biden and Pelosi are like the clerics of Europe in the 19th century, desperate to preserve their relevance. I think ppl misunderstand Trump. He's an anti-clericalist like Nietzsche. Trump hates politicians like Nietzsche hated priests. But fomenting popular hatred of politicians only works when the economy is buzzing. When it's not or a global crisis strikes, Trump loses power because the political class is as real and necessary as the lawyer class or the financial class. Trump knows this but he proved he's a class unto himself, he beat everyone at their own game.

Edited July 4, 2020 by Era Might

[Seven77]

Can't believe my eyes… Era Might posted.

 

[Era Might]

1 hour ago, Seven77 said:

Can't believe my eyes… Era Might posted.

 

Somebody gotta teach these youngins.

[little2add]

On 6/25/2020 at 4:34 AM, dUSt said:

https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-usa/2020/06/catholics-respond-to-landmark-supreme-court-ruling/

One small victory for trump

Just a few moments ago,the Supreme Court handed down a ruling on the Little Sisters of the Poor and their case. The Little Sisters have been battling over 7 years and 2 times to the Supreme Court arguing that they should not be forced to provide contraception or abortion insurance to their employees because it goes against the teachings of the Church. The court sided with the Little Sisters 7 to 2. This is a testimony for all of us never to lose faith or shy away for standing up for our faith and belief. God Bless all who offered prayers and masses for The Little Sisters of the Poor. Praise be to God in thanksgiving for this blessing.

Amen