A need for new political parties

Discussions about creating political parties - other than Republican and Democrat - are growing louder and more widespread. Most of the chatter focuses on having three or four parties. The way I see it, we need at least eight.

For some time now, there appears to have been an Independent Party (I), which seems to serve mainly to siphon needed votes from Republican candidates, thus resulting in a default election of a Democrat, which the Independents generally don't want.

During the recent election, wherein Republicans beat out Democrats in two pivotal gubernatorial contests, I even noticed a "C" used to designate political affiliation. That letter seemingly stands for "Conservative," which now must apparently be differentiated from "Republican" or "R." That split arose as more and more so-called Republican politicians unashamedly shed their conservative robes, hastily wrapping themselves in the new, centrist, liberal Republicanism, which was seen as a safer, if unethical and unconscionable place to be at election time.

Now, if we are to have both Republicans and Conservatives, do we not similarly need a Liberal (L) party, in which to accommodate Democrats unsatisfied with even the present abundance of liberal government programs and controls over our lives?

R, D, I, C and L: We're up to five parties already, and I'm not finished.

As was clearly demonstrated during the presidential contest in 2008, the two most popular parties were "Us," and "Them." This is a strange pair, because, in practice, only "Us" has actual, living followers, which are, quite simply, adamantly and emotionally opposed to "Them," which no one claims as their party.

Us and Them populations will shift with the times. Currently, Us are the majority, and they consist primarily of inadequately educated, welfare-supported persons. "Them" are the workers, the savers, the fiscally responsible, which pay most of the taxes that support the Us.

From what I witnessed last year, in several cities in the southeast, political activist organizations (such as the now-exposed and disgraced ACORN) loaded buses with voters (some of those were actually alive), which had been preconditioned to vote for "us," (Democrats), rather than have to live with the terrible "them" (Republicans). Legions of uneducated and often illiterate persons were registered for the first (and often several) times, with no understanding of the issues at stake, other than that "You don't want 'Them
to be in power over you."

That U vs. T approach to politics may be productive in nations where large segments of the population are illiterate and uninformed (such as is common throughout much of South and Central America, where voters are urged to make their mark next to a colored square or an easily recognized icon, such as a star, rooster or hammer and sickle), but it leads eventually to despotic, dictatorial, socialist governments. Sadly, as more and more illegal immigrants (from places such as Mexico) participate in our elections, and as millions of persons that have never had any interest in government, politics or the national welfare are exploited for their ignorant votes, the Us Party will be composed of great masses of ignorant voters, which will support the party, for the same reason they'll get excited by some team of professional, mercenary athletes kicking a ball around a cow pasture.

The Us Party is now a mindless but powerful force; it will become even more significant in days to come, as it is continually exploited and controlled by amoral opportunists on the left.

There's still one more new party we need to establish: "Me," or "M." Far too many politicians seek high office more for what it can do for them, than for what it would allow them to do for their constituents, cities and nation. They usually have no significant economic, philosophical, sociological or political convictions - other than a burning desire to be elected. So they'll hitch their cart to whichever party seems the most likely to propel them into high office.

These are often the very rich, which eye the power of public office as the only thing they haven't yet been able to buy. Many office seekers pour millions of their own funds into political campaigns, merely to purchase perceived power and prestige. Others, while not possessing great wealth, have what it takes to convince others to invest in them, so that they might be awarded with that irresistible mantle of power over the people (which they later share with their backers).

Sometimes it is painfully obvious whom those persons are, because news media often report the millions of personal funds they're spending on a campaign. On the other hand, some are unmasked by regularly sprinkling their prepared speeches with personal pronouns.

President Barack Obama is a clear example of this latter egotistical characteristic. Were he to run again, he would be best represented by either the Liberal or Me parties, rather than by the Democratic Party, which he used the last time around.

So there you have it: In order to properly categorize and discuss actual, functional political groups, we need to officially recognize and report on the activities of Republicans, Democrats, Liberals, Conservatives, Independents, Us, Them and Me.

I have met the enemy, and he is Us. Woe is Me!