The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewTed Rall Archive
Why We Need a New Progressive Party and How We Can Create It
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

There is no room for progressives in the Democratic Party.

No matter how many votes he or she gets, no progressive will be permitted to be the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party.

Progressives who try to work inside of, contribute to and support the Democratic Party have no real chance of moving its candidates or policies to the left.

Remaining inside the Democratic Party achieves nothing; to the contrary, it is insidiously counterproductive. Working for “change from the inside” strengthens centrist politicians who oppose progressivism with every fiber of their being.

If American electoral democracy has a future and progressives want to be part of that future, there is only one way forward: create and build a new party in which progressivism isn’t merely tolerated or partly accommodated as some fringe or necessary nuisance but is its core mission.

We need a New Progressive Party.

The reason is simple: Progressivism and corporate centrism are not parts of an ideological spectrum. Centrism isn’t watered-down progressivism; centrism directly opposes progressivism. Centrists want wars and don’t care about the poor; progressives want no wars and care deeply about the poor. There is no room for compromise between the two.

A New Progressive Party would go nowhere if, like the Green Party, it were poorly funded and disorganized and unable to field a slate of candidates across the boar, from city council to state representative to Congress. It must begin robustly; it must grow quickly; and it must be the only viable outlet for real progressives. Go big, or go home.

This could be done. Now is the perfect time.

Keep reading. I’ll explain how.

Anyone who believes progressives have a place inside the Democratic Party should reflect on the experience of Sen. Bernie Sanders. In both 2016 and 2020, Democratic-aligned media companies marginalized, misrepresented and deprived Sanders of coverage proportionate to his level of support in the polls. In 2016, the Democratic National Committee literally sold itself to Hillary Clinton’s center-right campaign apparatus, which conspired with the DNC to short Sanders on vote counts and deprive him of access to party data. In 2020, the DNC appears to have derailed Sanders’ front-runner status by arranging for candidates Pete Buttigieg, Beto O’Rourke, Amy Klobuchar and others to drop out and endorse Joe Biden one day before the key Super Tuesday primaries.

This is not one of those “better luck next time” scenarios. Sanders is too old to run again. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her fellow progressive Squad are too young to mount a serious challenge to the DNC moderate hierarchy anytime soon. Progressivism inside the Democratic Party is unlikely to again surge to Bernie levels for at least a decade.


Progressivism in general remains vibrant. Sanders, who has withdrawn, has 31% of the 2020 primary popular vote. Elizabeth Warren, who also withdrew, has 10%. Even if we assume that other former candidates like Buttigieg didn’t get a single progressive vote — which isn’t likely — at least 41% of Democratic primary voters currently support progressivism. That makes about 20% of the electorate overall. Roughly 20% of nonvoters, or about 9% of the total electorate, are progressive.

A New Progressive Party should therefore be able to count on roughly 1 in 5 voters out of the gate, with short-term potential of 30%. Not bad in a three-party system.

Now consider two factors that point to growth. As even corporate media concedes, progressive ideas like socialized medicine and a guaranteed living wage have suddenly exploded in popularity due to the coronavirus crisis and resulting economic free fall. Given the grim projections for the economy during the foreseeable future, 20% to 30% looks more like a floor than a ceiling.

There is greater potential of building a party from the grassroots than from the top down. Even while the presidency remains elusive, local politics are quirkier and thus offer opportunity for growth. Sanders began as mayor of Burlington, Vermont; AOC won a surprise challenge to a longtime incumbent Democratic congressman in Queens. A progressive farm team could and would spring up quickly in left-leaning college towns like Madison, Wisconsin, and Charlottesville, Virginia.

But how? The D-R duopoly has rigged the system in its favor. Ballot access is tough. They control the presidential debates and news media coverage.

As I wrote above, funding is crucial. The fact that Bernie Sanders raised over \$100 million in 2020 from small donors proves that progressives can raise cash for a cause they care about. So how do you start this new party?

The first step is to convene a founding meeting in a big venue like McCormick Place Convention Center. (Chicago is easy to get to from everywhere in the U.S.) Launch a Kickstarter to cover the cost of renting the hall: Unless there are enough pledges to cover the total, no one has to pay up, and the attempt is over. It serves as the first test of whether enough progressives are ready to break away from the Democratic Party.

The agenda of the first convention of the New Progressive Party will be dedicated to debating and agreeing to a platform, electing party officials and setting a strategy for the next election.

The newly elected officials then fan across the nation and start building local organizations in their own communities to recruit, fund and campaign for candidates for local and state office. Like the Democrats and Republicans, every four years there will be a national primary and convention to present a presidential candidate.

Some will argue that the creation of a party just for progressives will split the left. That assumes the Democratic Party represents the left. The truth is exactly the opposite: The Democratic Party is where the American left goes to die. If the left wants to live, it must fight and struggle for the things that it cares about on its own, in its own home.

Hide 58 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Good ideas, but how do you prevent the New Progressive Party from being taken over by pro-Israel Jewish members?

    And “Progressive” is dangerous. Too often, what has posed as socially progressive has been in fact socially subversive. Think of same sex marriage as social progress.

    I would call the party the Anti-Semitic Party. That would make it immune to accusations of breaking that particular taboo, immune to accusations of “anti-Semitism”, while openly taking on the issue of excessive Jewish power, and ending the treason of governments subservient to a foreign country. That would be made impossible.

    It would become a matter of debate rather than a taboo subject, but throwing around that label would no longer work.

    • Agree: T. Weed
    • Replies: @IvyMike
    , @paranoid goy
  2. Adrian E. says:

    I think we could see two quite different strategies. One is that there are quite a lot of safe seats in the House of Representatives and in the Senate. There would be many districts (and maybe even states for the Senate) where progressives can challenge Democrats without a big likelihood that Republicans would win (even under first-pass-the post, without ranked choice voting). Sometimes, there already are such challengers, but they mostly don’t receive much attention, even from progressive media.

    In principle that would be something similar to what Bernie Sanders did in Vermont a long time ago. But if it succeeded in several places, it could lead much further. Progressives could have their own caucus. For the time being, they would be a much smaller party than Democrats and Republicans, but the progressive party would have a presence in Congress, and it is quite likely that its vote would often be needed by one of the larger parties to get a majority.

    It may look like a modest proposal, and in the near future, the presidency would not be in reach, but it does not seem to unrealistic, and when there was a number of progressive lawmakers with their own party, this may well be a basis for growing at the cost of the Democratic party.

    This strategy would mostly be viable in mostly urban progressive districts. I think there would be another interesting project: a populist party that emphasizes economic populism, ending wars, interests of the working and lower middle class and de-emphasizes cultural wedge issues. This may be more promising in more conservative districts. In some districts that used to be safe Republican districts, such a populist party may have much better chances in challenging Republicans than Democrats who combine progressive rhetoric in some cultural issues with belligerent neoconservative foreign policy and economic policies with deference to corporate interests.

    Would the development of these two parties (the progressive party and the populist party) hamper each other? I don’t think so. The districts where they would have the best chances in the beginning would be quite distinct, and there would be areas where they could collaborate. The Progressive Party might be closer to the Democratic party on some cultural issues, but on many issues, the Populist Party would be its closest ally. For some time, neither the Progressive Party nor the Populist Party would have a chance of getting a majority in the House or the Senate, but it would be likely that the larger parties would need their votes, and if they use their bargaining power well, they might well have some chance of replacing the larger parties at some point in the future.

    • Replies: @Jedi Night
  3. T. Weed says:

    Yes, good idea, it’s what we need, but impossible without a leader for people to rally behind. Without a great leader, that people trust, even revere, such as Germany had in the ’30’s, we mill about like lost sheep. The saying, “without a vision the people perish”, is also true “without a leader…..”

  4. You can say exactly the same thing, Mr. Rall, about conservatives and the Republican Party

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  5. @Adrian E.

    a populist party that emphasizes economic populism, ending wars, interests of the working and lower middle class and de-emphasizes cultural wedge issues.

    Bingo, we have a winner.

    Unfortunately, the rubber hits the road in the issue of immigration, representing the nexus of racial and economic political problems.

    Sane progressive economic and environmental thinking is for restricting immigration. Then tell me why Bernie switched on that issue from 2016 -2020?

    So tell me, Mr Rall, let’s just cut to the chase shall we… Is your dream Progressive Party going to be for immigration or against?

    • Replies: @anonymous
  6. Jmaie says:

    The only way to break up the D-R duality is to develop a party which can draw voters from both. There are plenty of Republicans who agree with much the progressive agenda – better economic outcome for the 99%, reduced military spending, getting money out of politics. Unfortunately most (if not all) of the progressive leaders out there take a completely hardline approach to issues which are anathema to these potential allies – open borders and abolishing ICE, identity politics, etc. And they go about it in a way which seems calculated to most offend. That is why I find the “squad” so off putting even when in agreement with a particular issue.

    The prop 208 battle in California was a good example of what I mean. It turns out that telling granny that’s she’s a disgusting bigot is not a great way to change her vote.

    I’d suggest calling it the “Having an adult conversation party” but that doesn’t really roll off the tongue.

    • Agree: Malcolm X-Lax
  7. I wasted a lot of pixels back in the Kucinich/Firedoglake era trying to get disgruntled Democrats to bolt the Party. The DNC was shitting on them then just like it is doing now. Rush had given liberals a bad name so they were calling themselves progressives. Now that they are the anti-white party they say they are Socialists. But no matter what they call themselves they remain centrist (corporatist) Democrats. Fuck them!

    By the way. I’m looking at you AOC. You are nothing new.

  8. anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jedi Night

    Don’t hold your breath waiting for a straight answer. Look how he ended this column:

    If the left wants to live, it must fight and struggle for the things that it cares about on its own, in its own home.

    What “things,” Mr. Rall? Transgender statues and Confederate bathrooms?

    Self-identifying “Progressives” and “Leftists” include a substantial number of virtue signaling Candylanders. They can’t understand why the labels are toxic to the working class, about which they deep down don’t give a damn. They would much rather follow an old sheepdog — twice in a row! — to slaughter in the Democratic Party, and then bitch about the corruption of corporate money as he not only condones the process but endorses its result.

    Electoral politics are no more effective in changing the Establishment than a petition that never leaves the bulletin board at the \$5 coffee shop. The vote in the Senate to use a virus to (again) bail out Wall Street was 96-0. Voting actually secures the system by channeling and harmlessly blowing off dissent every two or four years.

    • Replies: @The Scalpel
  9. Midnight says:

    As long as most states have winner-take-all rules for electoral vote assignments, there will be a two-party duopoly. The only way this will change is via a constitutional amendment.

    • Replies: @WorkingClass
  10. @Midnight

    The only way this will change is via a constitutional amendment.

    Or secession.

    • Replies: @anon
  11. IvyMike says:
    @Ann Nonny Mouse

    Why does this particular conversation have to start with a bit of Jew bashing?

    • Replies: @Ann Nonny Mouse
  12. Daniel H says:

    A new progressive party. American labor. The ONLY issue in it’s agenda will be economic justice/inequality. Nothing to do with sex (abortion, womyns, gays, trannies, sex discrimination, etc), nothing to do with racial/religious identity (nothing for the blacks, latinos, asians, jews, christians, muslims, hindus, etc). The ONLY issue will be economic justice/equity. The ONLY issue will be economic justice/equity. The ONLY issue will be economic justice/equity. This party will be a winner and shake the country to its foundations.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
  13. Parties are by nature hierarchical and authoritarian. They create bosses and bosses sell them out. The history of political parties and of unions proves this beyond dispute. The bigger the party the more it needs big money. So it gets bought by the possessors of big money. Read Amos Pinchot’s History of the Progressive Party (1912-1916) for an example, and for wise counterproposals. The science of ecology demonstrates that as an organism (or an organization) grows, the energy it needs to maintain its internal structures grows exponentially while its size grows arithmetically. The bigger the organism the more energy it MUST devote merely to self-maintenance. So the energies of parties go, increasingly, as they “succeed,” into maintaining their internal structure — instead of forwarding their ostensible aims.

    What’s needed is a different organizational model, and American history provides one. The Committees of Correspondence, which created the movement that resulted in the creation of our country, are an example — a way of propagating at effectively SMALL SCALE the New England town meeting form of activism which was the cradle of our democracy. Small groups of activists working locally to forward a common agenda agreed on as their premise, in advance — not debating societies — activists acting.

    This form was adopted in the first decades after the Civil War, to resist the takeover by the Wall Street oligarchy of American government and economy, and its transformation of America into one big plantation with one big company store — adopted by movements like The Grange, the Wheel, the Associated Farmers — all of which had notable successes at the state and local level and almost managed to become effective at the national level by combining as the People’s Party in 1892 (they were diverted by “Free Silver” campaigners and coopted by the Democratic Party and its flimflam man Bryan).

    This same organizational model, employed by the Anti-Saloon League, passed Prohibition — a bad, stupid law, but a successful organizational model. Social Security was passed to derail a much better proposal that was forwarded by the Townsend Plan, which in 18 months in 1933-34 created over 3000 small, local “clubs” to exert pressure on Congress to pass it. FDR told his Labor Sect. Frances Perkins, as she relates in her memoirs, that he had to create Social Security to prevent something better being passed, replacing a proposal for a national pension, such as Germany had by 1888 and England had by 1914, with Social Security, a “pay as you go” “insurance hoax” funded by a poor tax. So again, the effectiveness of the organizational model was proven, but its object was derailed because it did not sufficiently realize the corruption of Congress and FDR and did not sufficiently supervise legislation.

    Small groups — a dozen activists acting — to insure fair elections, to educate fellow citizens, and, when sufficiently propagated, to offer Congressional candidates their votes — the only power we have that cannot be corrupted or bought, unless we let it — in exchange for their active support to pass the laws WE write first (like corporations do, to get the laws they want passed, by bribery — oops, I meant “lobbying”. The House turns over ever two years. It shouldn’t take such an organization more than a decade to enforce serious changes, the same way the ALS passed Prohibition, in about the same time.

    This is an organizational that history proves effective. History proves that parties are effective for the oligarchic minorities that control them and disastrous for democracy and for the general welfare — just as John Adams and George Washington said they were and would be. America’s first political party was an operation funded and controlled by Wall Street and its vicious, racist, elitist henchman, Alexander Hamilton, to pass a private banking act which, within one year of its creation, created a bubble, a panic, a collapse.

    Learn from history or go on as we are, raped and pillaged by one person in a thousand and their hireling whores. Your choice.

  14. Amos Pinchot and his associates, prominently the La Follettes, learned that what’s important for effecting progressive change is making and supporting specific proposals (“planks”) and a specific platform. Instead of debating and theorizing, arguing and chattering, wasting time and energy uselessly, the organizational model I suggest above STARTS with consensus-supported proposed initiatives, and works for their passage by legislators who either do it, or lose their next election.

    There was when Obamacare sabotaged it, and there is now, an overwhelming consensus favoring single-payer national health insurance — over 67% of us. The fact that it wasn’t and won’t be passed by either and both of “our” “two” parties proves the fundamental failure of democracy caused by a boughten Congress and by both boughten parties. So, make that plank number one.

    Make plank number two a law that allows home-owners at their individual option to buy out the mortgage of a primary residence with a new loan funded by Treasury issued credit (Modern Monetary Theory — greenback credit) credit at zero interest, and allows renters to do the same thing, and pay it off over 30 years. Let people who own their primary residence completely take out the same loan, for 100% of equity, at their option. Make home improvement loans on the same basis. And construction of new housing as needed, slum clearance under the control and at the option of slum dwellers, as needed.

    Make plank three a labor law that mandates that ALL JOBS pay a living wage, a middle-class living wage. In 1915 the Congressional Commission on Industrial Relations PROVED that there is more than enough to go around in America to provide EVERYONE a genuine “middle class” living There still is, and even moreso. But of course, not when 1% own 50% and 10% own 90% of all wealth. The investor class can more than afford to pay everyone a living wage. Any business that can’t afford that has a bad business model and shouldn’t be in business, shouldn’t be allowed to be in business. If their problem is huge debt overhead due to predatory monopoly credit, give them access to Treasury interest free loans if the continuation of their business is in the public interest. I

    Make plank four cancellation of all student loan debt and free higher education — college and technical schools — for all — like in Italy and France and other countries not totally under the thumbs of the predatory 1 in a thousand. What is more obscene than a system that turns its children into debt slaves to a tiny parasitical minority in exchange for basic access to livelihood — to “life,” as it’s called in the phrase “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

    Make plank five public works to revamp, restore and improve America’s infrastructure, funded by the same Treasury interest free loans. The construction industry will boom thanks to this and to plank three.

    Make plank six public buyout of all public utilities, so that Americans no longer have to pay a toll to the investor class (the 0.1%) for basic human necessities like water, power, transportation, communications, etc. Note that this requires nothing but a change of bookkeeping and management and then breaking up utility monopolies that prove to be inefficient at delivering services. Eliminating the costs of payments to extractive toll investors (dividends, interest, etc.) and the large share of “overhead” devoted to toll collection will seriously lower rates. And then utilities will also benefit from infrastructure improvements. This too, is funded by the Treasury’s issuance of national public credit interest free.

    Make plank seven reform of criminal “justice,” police enforcement, and the prison industry.

    And make plank eight serious environemtal protection.

    A moderate amount of adult to adult, face to face, neighbor to neighbor citizen self education will have no trouble creating an overwhelming majority consensus favoring all these proposals. They are basic obvious progressive nessities.

    Note that this doesn’t involve “nationalizing” anything or central management of anything. And it doesn’t mean suppressing private investment. Anybody who wants to keep paying a mortgage on their primary shelter, plus interest that doubles or triples the cost of time, will of course be free to do so.

    And note that credit issued into the economy to create infrastructure, goods, and services makes the real economy boom and does not cause inflation. What causes inflation is granting funds at interest to private banks that use them to bid up asset prices and create real estate and stock booms. Credit spent for goods and services circulates in the real economy. Credit spent on assets sits in back vaults and enables 160,000 parasites to extract tolls in perpetuity from 330 million of us.

    And note that 330 million Americans have plenty of collateral and therefore plenty of credit. Our republic — our res publica, our “public business” — has it by nature. That’s what a “republic” is. We don’t need to borrow a cent from 160,000 wealthy families (the 0.1%). Let them keep their wealth. They’ll even get richer when we buy out their ownership of public necessities and their tolls on shelter and education and all the rest. But they’ll stop exacting perpetual tolls on us for basic human needs.

    Of course, sold-out political parties and sold-out congresses and presidents and a lying boughten media will never do anything but work as hard as they can to prevent any such things. Only WE, as citizens, can do it, and only by ourselves, working together in small groups toward a common goal to educate each other and direct and mobilize our votes. It’s easy to buy out two parties, or three or four. It’s impossible to buy out a million groups of twelve thinking adults acting together and watching each other and keeping each other honest and true — not paying other people act, not protesting and whining, kicking and screaming, not listening to the hired liars of the media and boughten “educators” dinning lies in our ears 24/7 — citizens acting to make our constitutional democracy work for us, for the “general welfare,” in our common interest. That’s what it was created for. If we use it.

    The old question — quis custodet custodes — “who will watch the guardians” — has one one answer in a democracy — a working democracy, and it’s the only way democracy can work — and that answer is US, us citizens.

    President Eisenhower said “Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can COMPEL the proper meshing” of government to act in defense of our common security and liberty. He was a general, a great strategist, he knew what he was talking about and he gave us — the citizenry — the best strategic advice he knew how, in earnest. After 60 years which have, on the whole, been a disaster for Americans, for our general welfare and for our democracy, ISN’T IT TIME WE LISTEN TO HIM?

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @botazefa
  15. @Ann Nonny Mouse

    Mike, maybe it is because the moment the party opens its mouth against any particular thing, the first defence WILL be: “anti-Semite!!!”
    Besides, the author is adamant he needs lots of money, lots of money, lots of money, lots of money…
    Know anyone that is expert at “guiding things along by discretionary spending”? Got a ready name for them?

    • Replies: @Ann Nonny Mouse
  16. joe2.5 says:

    What does “progressive” mean? Any clear ideas?
    A warmongering liberal? Or a solidly anti-war “right-wing” type?

    So the main question is where is the platform? That’s way more important than any kickstarter or McCormick Place

    Why have a “progressive” party with a lot of requests? With 2 plartform points, you lose 50% of the support.

    One goal is enough. No War. No armies outside our borders. That’s the single most urgent thing for us now. I don’t give a rat’s bottom for anything else. Don’t care if progressive, regressive, retrocessive or inessive. Stop Wars. Stop Intervention. Back within our own borders and let the devil take care of the rest.

    I’m sure everyone else will have some other most important single priority. And this means the so-called System will screw up things again; even if you can pull together “progressives” there will be many in it like that warmongering old mountebank Sanders, who never saw a war or a coup he didn’t like.

  17. Now consider two factors that point to growth. As even corporate media concedes, progressive ideas like socialized medicine and a guaranteed living wage have suddenly exploded in popularity due to the coronavirus crisis and resulting economic free fall.

    That’s a boon for anti-liberals — liberalism understood here as an economic doctrine — but not necessarily for the Left as we know it today. Whoever is smart enough to form a radically anti-liberal party while weeding out all extraneous ´progressive’ doctrinal points from it, will win big.

    Note that anti-liberalism is a sure path to ending most present wars. As John Mearsheimer has pointed out, they are all attempts at liberalizing other countries.

  18. anonymous[116] • Disclaimer says:

    Even the most myopic neofabians are catching on.

    That is correct – as everyone knows who saw what Dems at all levels have done to Green candidates for decades.

    The purpose of the Democratic party is to absorb and destroy reform initiatives. The function of the Republican party is to threaten Democrats.

    The voter registration rolls are the opposite and complement of the main core database – they identify the most pliant and politically helpless element of the population.

    In abandoning the embalmed corpse of the Democratic party, people will need to associate based on the human rights principles Shivani defends. If your new fearless leader can’t quote human rights chapter and verse, he’s not fit to run for dogcatcher. If he doesn’t understand the institutional and legal underpinnings of human rights, he’s just another fake Dem phony.

    The only candidates who met that test were greens: Baraka, Honkala, McGinnis, Nader, and Stein. So get ready to get arbitrarily detained like Stein and Honkala, threatened with arrest like Nader, and investigated as a Russian spy and traitor. You will be the ultimate internal enemy.

  19. TG says:

    I hear you, and I sympathize, but even if a third party could manage to gain traction against all the forces the oligarchy has to offer, it will be easily corrupted and co-opted.

    The problem is that our entire establishment – not just the political parties, but the media, the universities, the non-profits – is corrupt and set against us. Progressives like FDR got traction because, even though they got heated opposition, they also had real support from major sectors of the establishment. No such support exists today.

    You talk about funding, but that’s old school. The biggest problem of a new party is that the media simply won’t give it any attention, and no measly hundred million dollars or so can overcome that barrier. A new party will not be covered or given any air time (can you spell Tulsi Gabbard?) and if so, will be slimed as racist/fascist/anti-semtic etc.etc. 24/7. It won’t go anywhere, it can’t.

    The Sierra Club used to be against the government using massive immigration to force population growth higher, for the simple reason that massive population growth is the biggest single threat to the environment (compare the environmental quality of Canada with India if you still believe that it’s all about individual consumption, that’s rubbish). Then a billionaire gave a hundred million dollars to the Sierra Club leadership in return for them no longer talking intelligently about population growth (google “Sierrans for Population Stabilization) and now an organization that used to oppose forced population growth now files lawsuits demanding it! The elites have too much power, they can and will corrupt and co-opt anything you build.

    I wish I had a solution but I don’t. It does seem to me that perhaps we are lecturing the wrong audience. People like me don’t matter. Maybe the key is to convince the elites that they are killing the goose that laid the golden eggs. They don’t care if their policies are immiserating you and me. They might care if they thought that their policies were killing the future wealth of themselves and their heirs, maybe.

    • Thanks: Ann Nonny Mouse
    • Replies: @J. Alfred Powell
  20. Dave B says:

    There was a time when this would have inspired me, back when I was a lefty. Before reality opened my eyes. The problem with this idea, Ted, is that progressives are a hodgepodge of old time leftists interested in economic issues and the lunatic Cultural Marxists. The first group consists of people with genuine concerns about the bad system we have now, and a lot of people who actually think that communism has some validity. The second group consists of many people who are basically virtue-signaling fools , and many people who are nihilists who would love to bring down western civilization, without thinking what comes after. As long as you progressives can only respond to arguments by screaming RACIST, SEXIST, HOMOPHOBIC, and the like then you are a cancer in our body politic. I shall vote for Orange Man just as a way of giving the finger to all you progressives.

    • Agree: John Johnson
    • Replies: @J. Alfred Powell
    , @anon
  21. A 3rd party is not an unreasonable proposal. Bolivia took over an unused right-wing party and won – after years of organizing. Solidarnosc destabilized the Polish state and took over as a recognizable party. Hezbollah began as a militia, consolidated support with civil society protection of economic rights, and grew a party. Sinn Féin gained power as the IRA’s negotiator, entrenched themselves by defending human rights, and have now grown into Ireland’s leading party.

    But the US case is different. CIA shored up its fake democracy after Perot scared them. The parties took the debates away from the League of Women Voters, making them a joke. State and local parties set up illegal procedural obstructions and election-rigging in breach of ICCPR Article 25.

    When the police state is too far gone you can’t dick around with elections. Die Abwicklung didn’t take elections. Europeans had to wreck the state. They stormed the Stasi. They executed Ceaucescu. They shelled the white house. They took over Yugoslav military detachments, closed the border, and seceded as Slovenes. They seceded from Czech CIA agents as Slovakia.

    What you will find is that the US CIA regime is too far gone to be affected by elections. You will have to destroy it first. If the USA exists when you’re through, that means you failed. If you get yourself wrapped around the party axle before you overthrow the CIA regime, you’ll just wind up as another pathetic puppet in your fake democracy.

  22. Antiwar7 says:

    One potential trouble: if the new party starts to get powerful, it will be infiltrated by people that agree openly with platitudes, but in essence oppose the main tenets of the party, like Blairites into Labour, or Sturgeonites into the Scottish National Party.

    Maybe exposing this scenario widely from the start could help prevent it from happening?

  23. botazefa says:
    @J. Alfred Powell

    Sounds great to me. Too bad no one has the money to get the ball rolling, eh?

    • Replies: @J. Alfred Powell
  24. “Progressivism” is just another name for Cultural Marxism/Bolshevism, and it totally misdirects white people who have a leftist predisposition in terms of the personality traits. In general, Christianity is far superior for such people – by miles.

  25. @botazefa

    No money required. Individual action is the basis & the sum of citizen action. No media required. Citizen communication and self-education is the basis & sum of citizen action. Each one teach one. Face to face self-monitoring, self-motivation, self-instruction. Americans could do it 150 years ago. We can do it now.

  26. @IvyMike

    Is it Jew bashing? Or a warning of what’s happened before, and the need to face reality?

    The members of the new party would need to be vigilant.

  27. @paranoid goy

    Is that a reply to IvyMike that you addressed to me by mistake?

    It’s a mark of the corruption of the US system, particularly its legal system, that realistically a new party would need lots of money. Otherwise it will be taken over by new owners with lots of money.

    • Replies: @paranoid goy
  28. @fatmanscoop

    Either you are utterly ignorant of the traditions of American progressive thought and activism or your comment is a spoiler.

    Fundamental texts giving access to American populist-progressive tradition include
    Henry George, Progress and Poverty,
    Laurnece Gronlund, The Cooperative Commonwealth,
    Edward Bellamy, Looking Backward,
    Robert La Follette, Sr., Autobiography,
    Amos Pinchot, History of the Progressive Party 1912-1916,
    Philip La Follette, Adventure in Politics,
    Richard F. Pettigrew, Imperial Washington,
    Russel B. Nye, Midwestern Progressive Politics,
    Kenneth Campbell MacKay, The Progressive Movement in 1924,
    Who Owns America, ed. Herbert Agar & Allen Tate,
    David Lynch, The Concentration of Economic Power …

    Some of these authors were Christians, none were Marxists.

  29. @Dave B

    Dave, before you attack America’s indigenous populist-progressive tradition, which dates from the 1870s, it would be wise (and more honest) to learn something about it. See, for example, some of the books I list above. Many people today calling themselves “progressives” are as much representative of (or informed about) this tradition as people who call themselves “Democrats” are representative of American traditions of democracy. I.e., not at all. But ignorance is not helpful, either.

  30. @TG

    Yes, parties are useless because they tend to hierarchical authoritarian organization and centralized control, and are therefore easy to take over, corrupt, co-opt, divert, wreck. As history amply demonstrates. That’s why we need to look to another model of political activism — one that is older in America than any of America’s political parties and has a promising record of successes. See my posts.

    • Replies: @paranoid goy
  31. @Ann Nonny Mouse

    Nah! Answering Mike on your thread, which I thought pertinent to the subject at hand.
    I also want to start a party/not-a-party. I also need money, but all I want with it, is to print a million dictionaries, and go around handing them out, so people can learn to hear what they are being told. Two caveats: That dictionary will contain a copy of the Protocols (know thine enemy, and he is not a Jew) and I want to retrofit a t-shirt gun to shoot these pocket-sized dictionaries. Straight into the face of every little scumbag that tries to rape language until it means whatever they decide on the day. Tomorrow the same thing will mean something else… to them. The dictionary supplies the real meaning, the cacstocracy know we don’t read dictionaries.

  32. @fatmanscoop

    Yo, fatman, you get it! Alfred Powell is just way too educated to listen to new information. While I don’t pretend i understand your last sentence, you seem to agree with me: There is no differnece between religion and political theory, just like there is no difference between a political party and a mafia gang. Nothing, nix, zilch.
    The problem with politics is not about which party whats. The entire concept of party politics is the underlying problem. I am not aware of any current political system that is not some form of ‘believe-this-or-perish’ dogma enforced by gangs of uniformed thugs in corporate debt.
    And please, America, get a dictionary! Socialism has nothing to do with communism, democracy has nothing to do with voting, and you-all are living in the cruelest communist collection of soviets the world had seen since the Bolsheviks got kicked out of Russia. You keep calling it socialism, socialism does not let people shit on the street, they go home, because they have homes. Only a Bolshevik would allow people to stand queue to sell their own blood to afford food and drugs. Only a communist hands out charity via the hands of those who hate poor people.
    And this will never change, as long as we allow criminal gangs to form political power blocks, and then we vote, chosing between the bastards! Because, because, uhm, we have to choose a party!
    Screw this for a lark!

    • Replies: @Ann Nonny Mouse
  33. @J. Alfred Powell

    ” That’s why we need to look to another model of political activism ”
    In other words, you feel the need for other, novel ways to gadfly government into doing… erm…
    Please, please, I implore you, study the Protocols. I don’t care what you’ve heard, but read it. It requires exactly that which you are asking for. Zion created the party system exactly because it ensures constant gadflying of the government. It is, after the stock market, the greatest weapon of our enemy: systemic distrust in our own governing institutions. By “activism” we shall eventually break down the last bastions of patriotism and freedom, to be replaced by loyalty and liberty. Go see a dictionary, you don’t want those.

  34. Another party, same system. Why would this party, when in power, represent the distant citizenry, over the near corporation? Systemic reform? Squashing the lobbyists, removing money from the election cycle? Sure, plasters over a mortal wound, but it would keep the system running a while.

    The problem is that the bureaucracy of government is a derived demand for the policies of government, and for all representative bureaucracies, this derived demand is positive. Same for a worker’s party – it would see the dead weight of its human and industrial capital as something good for society.

    This is upside down. You don’t need representatives to unilaterally lead you, you need society to march together towards goals, set and agreed on by all sections of the society. And you need both the top and the bottom to check each others’ actions and ideologies. And not through the violence of the Mandate of Heaven or the 2nd amendment.

    What would limit a worker’s party selling its soul to, not its corporate sponsors, but the party members’ own craving for their success? A bureaucrat’s success is not a worker’s success. They meet sometimes, but there is no direct link between the leaders and the led, not without a direct link being enshrined in law.

    We have in our representative democracies this link, enshrined in the spirit of the law – in that we get to choose the people who choose our laws, but we have no such link in the letter of the law – if our representatives shit on us, from a law making perspective, we can’t scrub the shit away. We can just tell em to go away and get some other representative to stand over us, in the hope that they give us some soap and water.. How is this different from dictatorship? We get to ask politely instead of chopping heads!

    There needs to be a direct, participatory, and evolutionary check and balance on the system of government as a whole. Without one, we are just spinning circles within various shades of tyranny.

    • Replies: @Ann Nonny Mouse
  35. The Scalpel says: • Website

    Voting actually secures the system by channeling and harmlessly blowing off dissent every two or four years.


    The sad fact is that a large percentage of people are ignorant sheep who are only comfortable and (sadly) happy when being led around by some (any really) leader. This is part of the human genome. As far back as biblical days religious leaders referred to people as sheep. Voting like bleating just blows off the excess energy.

    There is a small percentage of the phenotype “leaders” some who rise to the top and then proceed to use the mass of the flock to beat down the other phenotypic “leaders” thus protecting their position at the top of the pyramid.

    A small percentage of phenotypic “leaders” have unusually low need for followers. These are the individualists. That’s me. The best path for individualists is to stay off the grid as much as possible. The other leaders will not prioritize repressing those who are a minimal threat to their dominance of the sheep – who really want to be dominated anyway.

    Individualists can take pride and pleasure in being a sort of Morpheus attempting to cherry pick and save the limited number of individualists who find themselves among the sheep.

    • Replies: @paranoid goy
  36. @paranoid goy

    Democracy having nothing to do with voting is a good point. Representative democracy could work well by using a computer to generate random numbers to pick the legislators for a fixed but longish single term off the electoral rolls of districts large enough that the size of the parliament would not be excessive.

    It was voter-elected governments that took the world into World War One. It was the voter-elected Churchill and FDR who gave us World War Two. These people are dumb. Their skill is in debating, nothing else. People selected purely at random would give us ancient Athenian democracy, but representative.

    I’ve been hugely impressed by the comments here. Together they outshine the original article, except that that is what brought them here, so thanks, Trall.

    • Replies: @Ann Nonny Mouse
  37. @Ilya G Poimandres

    How is this different from dictatorship? I would much rather have Gaddafi ruling my country than any recent POTUS. He did very, very well. Free health care, housing, … What brought him undone was that he was independent of the USA, the only problem with Syria, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba. But Venezuela is vastly more democratic than the USA.

  38. @Ann Nonny Mouse

    The computer OS and the random number generator would need to be free and open source, not another Bill Gates monopoly, of course. Linux is the best OS candidate. So observers in each electorate could see the OS compiled and monitor everything, ensure that selection was not rigged.

    Compare the cost of that with the overall cost of current elections.

    • Replies: @paranoid goy
  39. @Ann Nonny Mouse

    Dictatorship is when either the head or the body has one way power to decide the law. In monarchy and representative democracy it is the head, in direct democracy it is the body.

    Gaddafi was a true leader for his people, and although he came undone by globalist robber barons, his system would not have long outlived him – because some elite would have become the head, and without a direct prodding mechanism from the population when they stepped out of line, they would have just stepped out of line until headchopping was the only option left for the citizenry.

    Great leaders are a rare treat – do you think Putin’s Russia will survive after him? I doubt it, he keeps the elites down even now, why won’t they work back all of his progress, plainly against the benefit of the population, and even though they won’t see it – against their own benefit in the long run?

    Venezuela, Cuba, Iran.. If their leaders changed, and became blood sucking vampires – what direct and non-revolutionary recourse would they have to affect their decision making? None. So the people watch a game of chance, just like ancient monarchies. Sometimes you get an Ashoka or a Charlemagne, mostly you get self serving fools not worth naming.

    But at no point can the citizinery directly change a law by saying “this law is tyranny, we won’t accept it within our society”.

  40. anon[154] • Disclaimer says:

    Or secession.

    How did that work out the last time?

  41. anon[154] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dave B

    The second group consists of many people who are basically virtue-signaling fools , and many people who are nihilists who would love to bring down western civilization, without thinking what comes after.

    It looks like this.
    Progressive entity in the background, ordinary woman in the foreground.

  42. @Ann Nonny Mouse

    Nonny, I am afraid I cannot agree. Random appointments, hoping for representation? Then we end up AGAIN, with people who need “guidance and advice” because they are too ignorant, uneducated or stupid to do the job of governence. That’s exactly how we got where we are, children and retards appointed to positions of power, then we “outsource” important public function, like, Delloitte and Touche, PWC and KPMG take turns to act as our Auditor General. Private foreign clerks running my economy, because, don’t you know, Economics is sooooo complex, no-one can understand it!
    The whole representative idea stinks. We have computers, we have screens looking into those computers. Scrap all forms of secrecy, the government has no secrets, only the corrupt officials do. If we open the public books of account on a read-only server, the country can see where every cent goes. Imagine a country where hundred of millions of auditors work for free, checking up every day where their taxes are going. That’s democracy, or a start, at least. I have decided to shorten my comments by adding links to where I have kotched out my brains before, so here is an introduction to a concept I bet you are very familiar with, but probably never thought to apply to sociopolitical issues:
    I gurgle lots on that subject, and seeing as communism and corporate-led government (globalism) is identical in form and substance, methinks the place to start our revolution is not the chambers of parliament, but the corporate boardroom.

    • Replies: @Ann Nonny Mouse
  43. @The Scalpel

    Individualism, unfortunatley, does not leaders make. It is the follower that makes the leader. “Staying off the grid” automatically disqualifies you from leadership. So, brother, crawl out of that hole, we all want to see your flavour of leadership, maybe we follow. Are do you get nervous when people start following you? Paranoid freak!
    Just kidding, but let me tell you, I am loathe to follow a dude that calls me or mine “sheep”. If you cannot respect me when our opinions differ, why would you respect me when I submit to your opinions? I know you disdain my intellectual capacity, am I good enough to follow you, even?
    But visit more sites like this, you seem to have a capacity for learning, maybe you will learn some compassion too.

    • Replies: @The Scalpel
  44. Drop open borders non-sense.

    Drop the anti-gun stuff.

    Drop 9 month abortion as a right.

    Stop blaming White people for all inequality.

    With those concessions you would have a party that actually wins elections.

    What you call “the left” has bought into globalist garbage that isn’t in the best interest of workers.

    That is really the main problem. Leftists believe that punishing racist cops and banning scary black guns as issues are just as important as health care. They want open borders even if they can’t explain how that helps labor. In fact the typical leftist gets mad if you ask them to explain the open borders position. Their genius response is to scream WAYCISS and run away.

    Any new left party has to be for workers first. That is the only way it will work. .

    I believe a third party or political movement is coming. It will most likely be a worker’s left or a populist right. But it could also be entirely new and beyond what we imagine.

  45. @Ann Nonny Mouse

    But Venezuela is vastly more democratic than the USA.

    It’s that type of denial that leads to the worst of leftism.

    Western leftists line up to defend countries that buck the capitalist system while looking the other way as journalists and dissenting political leaders are imprisoned.

    If you feel strongly in your political positions then you shouldn’t feel threatened by a free press or an open political system.

    The harsh truth is that the typical leftist isn’t certain that leftism is well grounded.

    That is why leftists lie in the media and in the schools. That is why Venezuela is locked down. Leftists really don’t seem to believe they can win in an open system.

    I am all for rethinking the system in the favor of workers but Marxism is a load of bulls— and leads to horrible thinking where people are executed without a trial in the name of the people. Journalists that dedicated their lives to the working class disappear overnight. Now tell me how the the US is just as bad because of (insert pathetic leftist attempt at moral equivalence).

  46. The Scalpel says: • Website
    @paranoid goy

    Uh, what? I don’t have any idea who you are or what you are about. So sorry if you took anything the wrong way. I am certainly not trying to define who YOU are. What I wrote is nothing new. See Julius Caesar by Shakespeare, for example. I do think you completely mistook my characterization of individualists. They are not followers, but the only ones they really care about leading is themselves. If others want to follow, great, if not, best of luck. It’s a “free” world.

    • Replies: @paranoid goy
  47. @The Scalpel

    Ooh, my, you are very learned, I see, but I made the effort of opening your website before I continued. One would think that a Distinguished Fella like yourself would do me the same courtesy.
    Especially, I expect a Learned Patriot not to fill his writings with insults to the general population. Yes, I understand, those reading you are not the senseless sheep you hate so much, only the ones who don’t agree with you are?
    That said, I repeat: You do seem to have a capacity for learning, now be compassionate, then you may start thinking twice about the very harsh judgements your writing philosophy rests on. Stiff struts are brittle, and you’ve seen what happens to people when they lose their foundations….
    …and I believe my initial JOKE was about that “lone individualist leader” trope? You realise having followers automatically robs you of individualist lonesomeness?
    Just between us, against Bernard Shaw and Terry Pratchett, most social philosophy is self-serving drivel. Now you know who and what I am: A Democratic Acoiitheist for Translucent Anarchy, Infantry veteran of two different wars, both fought to protect corporate interests I was too young and naive to even suspect. Just in case we are going to piss at a pole here…

    • Replies: @The Scalpel
  48. Centrists want wars and don’t care about the poor; progressives want no wars and care deeply about the poor.

    Progressives were quite happy about war in the 1910s and 1940s. They’ve been defaming the Lindberghs ever since.

    Conscription, which fueled all our big wars, was a progressive idea. Now they want to apply it to women. Where are the Ted Cruzes and Ben Sasses of the left to stand up to this sex perversion?

    Name a single progressive who called out George W Bush for his outrageous lie that “Islam is a peaceful religion”? Total silence.

  49. @Clyde Wilson

    You can say exactly the same thing, Mr. Rall, about conservatives and the Republican Party

    Old story, there. Both the Union and the Confederacy drafted white men and exempted blacks. (As Israel does today with their white women and Arab “men”.) Why the mollycoddling and race treason?

    At least the Union didn’t have that many blacks to stay home, twiddle their thumbs, ogle their women, and spit in their food. The free states were 98% white. Had the northern Whigs seceded when they had the chance, they’d hold power today, in a country whiter than Norway.

  50. Britain’s Labour Party is hopelessly under the thumb of Jewish/Israeli control. If anyone needs a new party for workers and progressives it’s the UK.

    Any new party that springs up will be set upon by Jewish operatives who will seek positions in policy, fund-raising, and communications. Eventually they will have J-power in the executive driver’s seat, supporting Israel and ‘combatting anti-semitism’. Only Shabbos goy puppets will be permitted.

    By that time it is no longer representing the people, its just another branch of the world-wide Jewish power structure. No matter who wins elections, Jewish influence will prevail.

    The only way whites can self-govern in their own interests is to form a party which restricts Jews from influence, and then vote for it as a racial block.

    • Replies: @Ann Nonny Mouse
  51. The Scalpel says: • Website
    @paranoid goy

    Frankly, I don’t give a damn about your writing. You strike me as being a fool. You are certainly a sensitive snowflake. I don’t care if you like my writing. Get it? If you like it great if you don’t fine. That’s up to you. I don’t need your approval. I don’t care about your approval or disapproval. I stand by my assertion that most people just want to be led – by anyone. Apparently, you see yourself some sort of defender of the sheep. I wish you the best. I would like to defend them also. But the Lord helps those who help themselves. It is up to the individual to take the first step, and not many people will.

  52. @Beavertales

    I suggested calling the new party the Anti-Semitic Party. That would empower the party to examine and record whether applicants were Jews and remain on the guard against Jewish influence. It doesn’t mean none could join, but not too many, perhaps.

    It would also spark outrage which would be good publicity.

    There would be a real risk of their meeting place being blown up. That has happened before with Holocaust revisionist printing works. But a political party would be safer.

    But “racial block” is wrong. The Jews are not a race.

  53. Hup,two three four!

  54. Derer says:

    In a democracy there is no restriction on how many parties aspire to seize the political power. It appears that Americans are satisfied with political duopoly from various reasons perhaps from deep seated tradition or even apathy. The first step for political diversity is to limit the insane amount of money needed for elections which is also influenced by the very long campaign. Candidates drop from the race not for lack of ideas but for lack of money.

    Direct voting is needed more than the creation of new parties. Politicians should be reduced to debating the issues but public would decide by Friday’s vote. Unlike in 1789 we have now means to do just that. That is the highest degree of democracy. No more special interest or minor parties blackmail – majority rules.

  55. @paranoid goy

    The two together would be needed. I didn’t go into those details. The person in your town elected by lot to represent the town might turn out to be in a padded cell, genuine lunatic. There would need to be means to de-elect such unsuitable random appointments. There’d need to be oversight by a corruption watchdog and the ability to de-elect and replace the corrupt. And I said longish single fixed term. Say 12 years. Someone picked off the street and put into the parliament with his consent, given a temporary new career long enough to make it worth while, paid the upper-quartile or upper-quintile wages for that time, with say an election by lot every 4 years for a third of the members, would first want to learn about the new job from those who had been there for 4 or 8 years. And give them all professional civil service advisors.

    To me that would be practical and they would be better legislators than a voter-elected parliament of career politicians. There would no longer be in the parliament cranks like Pelosi or the cranks who took us into WWI and WWII.

  56. @Ann Nonny Mouse

    That would give us something close to Marx’s “dictatorship of the proletariat”, the rule of the ordinary people rather than the plutocrats, which if it had ever been implemented anywhere would have been a more genuine democracy than any, anywhere in the world since his time. Genuine Marxism would be genuine democracy.

    But that’s just a side point.

  57. @Ann Nonny Mouse

    i’m just a simple guy that likes things simple. Tell you what, why don’t we hold someone accountable?
    Then, just to keep them on their toes:
    Anarchy is our only solution, instead Zion offers us only Anarchism.
    I like simple, it has little space for lies and deceit, the bully’s primary weapon.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ted Rall Comments via RSS
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
Becker update V1.3.2