Galt helps he who helps himself.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure,” Jefferson. Until we listen to Jefferson we will never enact change and even if we do follow his advice. We can only pray that things might improve.

My theory is that the Democrats have been doing this for years, if not decades - a big part of why so many "Republicans" act so "inexplicably" once they get into office. Consider the simple example of John Boehner: Nothing he did while in office, particularly during his stint as House Speaker, made a bit of sense if you consider him a genuine Republican. Everything he did in office makes perfect sense if you consider him a Democrat mole. Admittedly difficult, in the devil's advocate sense, to prove these phenomena are not just cases of massive voids of principle. But in the case of Boehner I find it decisively impossible to believe he was that clueless. The man was not stupid, and any bright nine-year-old would've balked at several pivotal decisions he made against core Republicanism.

Total disagreement here, on both the idea of a new political party and on the idea of Congressional term limits. Both ideas are based on exactly the same catastrophically-mistaken premise. Which I'll get to in a moment. First some nuts-and-bolts points on pragmatic stategy.

So if you want to actively, aggressively assist with securing the across-the-board election of vast quantities of collectivists, yes, by all means split the Republican party in two.

As we have all seen, right there in plain sight for decades and decades (though the simple, incontrovertible evidence of history will not budge the True Believers,) we already have a "third party," nominally premised on individualism, liberty, Constitutional governance (well, excepting that whole "common defense" thing,) and... That party not only garners, consistently, election returns which rarely exceed the single digits, it has also served the purpose, just as consistently, of siphoning off just enough would-be Republican votes to allow victories for collectivist Democrats in close races.

And consider that that party - the Libertarian Party - is one that has a reputation (well-deserved, IMO,) for fringe-wackiness. Imagine the benefit to collectivists if a new, non-collectivist splinter party emerged that had significantly greater respectability in the public eye. Such a party would obliterate the anti-collectivist vote and effectively guarantee the full collectivist domination of the United States of America. In that context it's hard not to believe that if the idea were not hatched by Democrat socialists themselves, at minimum it has their enthusiastic support. If such a Republican splinter occurred it would be a massive, historical victory for collectivists in America.

The old principle of "divide and conquer" is no less effective today than it was centuries ago. People would be wise to re-familiarize themselves with the principle, and to heed it.

We have a political party that is in direct opposition to collectivist parties - nominally, at least. The rational strategy is to transform that existing party into a true opposition party, beginning with the clear, unequivocal identification of its core principles. To name them briefly without elaboration:

- Reality, not religion, as the foundation of politics;
- Individualism - acknowledgement of the individual, not any collective, as the fundamental unit of humanity;
- Humanism and Human Rights as absolutes - a rediscovery and re-embrace of the anthropocentrism of the Renaissance;
- Individual self-determination (a.k.a. egoism or "rugged individualism") as the bedrock of societal life and interaction - i.e., either we belong to ourselves, or we are slaves;
- The absolute necessity of a strictly-limited government, empowered to wield force in the defense of individual rights;
- Individual liberty and property rights as absolute, core sociopolitical pre-requisites for human rights in a social context.

On the idea of term limits: It's a direct attack on my right to vote for the candidate of my choice, ∴ a direct attack on my right to vote per se. I can't believe the idea is even being proposed on an Objectivist forum.

In the arts there is a veritable ocean of... stuff... that hovers between trivial fluff and outright garbage, versus a few droplets of valuable art. Much more so in politics: there are vast hordes of corrupt swine for every principled statesman - often with enormous periods passing before any of the latter even show up, but show up they do.

So along with ousting all of the corrupt swine, out too goes that one principled - or even semi-principled - politician for whom I wish to cast my vote. And for whom I have a right to cast my vote. He is prevented from running, and thereby removed from me as an option, by the brute force of law.

A term limits law is an assault on my right to vote, and yours. Period. Full stop. Everyone out of the pool. It's directly analogous to that Gramm-Rudman-Hollings bill that Congress shoved at the world in the mid-'80s, which instituted an automatic mechanism to force Congress to cut spending i... when they failed to do so voluntarily. That worked out swimmingly, didn't it?

The common flaw in both of these ideas:
The stunning presumption that "If only we can divorce ourselves from rotten politicians currently in office, the new politicians will all magically be wonderful, principled replacements, all will be well, and we will have a bright, rosy future."

Umm, on what basis, specifically, does anyone arrive at this presumption? We cannot so much as hope for better candidates (or wiser voters) - in any party - until we get Howard Zinn and Albert Gore out of our schools.

A new party - or an automated ouster mechanism - is not going to pull them out of a hat like so many magical rabbits.

/soapbox

One reason that we have two major political parties is that the media like it that way. It produces an "us vs them" team mentality. It helps in that like-minded individuals can support each other. A third party is generally ineffectual. Sadly, the Libertarian Party is an example. If we split a party in an election, almost always, the other side wins. The Democrat party split in '68 between Southern (Anti-Union, Anti-Integration) Wallace and Northern (Pro-Union, Pro-Integration) Humphrey. As a result, Republican Nixon won.

Yes and Woodrow Wilson's Committee on Public Information (CPI) propagandized for America's entry in Europe's war. https://www.thoughtco.com/committee-o...

It started around the turn of the 20th Century when the son of oil baron Rockefeller didn't know what to do with all his inherited wealth. Instead of using it to further scientific or other progress, he sought to promote the regressive and repressive ideas of socialists/progressives like Woodrow Wilson. They started approaching teachers with a new form of curriculum and were told to go pound sand. So they began writing their own "history" and other books and infiltrating the public school systems with these ideologically-slanted tomes. By the Second World War they had largely taken over the supply of informational and study texts to public schools. They also helped fund the Scopes "Monkey" trial and gained a huge benefit off its outcome as it furthered their agenda.

Please check out the video later when you have some time.

Thanks. I was familiar with all of that. We are now in the days of McCarthy x10, but in the opposite direction.

I know you are a busy man. I would recommend you take some time to listen to this information about how Trump assisted in sting operations to help the FBI takedown the mafia in Atlantic City as well as many in the Russian mafia during his pre- presidential life.
https://x22report.com/aiovg_videos/ep...
A side note Trump was advised for decades by Roy Cohn. It has been said that Cohn and Trump spoke upwards of 17x a day.
If you aren’t sure who Cohn is here is a little background.
Roy Cohn successfully prosecuted the Rosenbergs for treason in 1951. Roy Marcus Cohn (/koʊn/; February 20, 1927 – August 2, 1986) was an American lawyer who came to prominence for his role as Senator Joseph McCarthy's chief counsel during the Army–McCarthy hearings in 1954, when he assisted McCarthy's investigations of suspected communists. Modern historians view his approach during those hearings as dependent on demagogic, reckless and unsubstantiated accusations against political opponents. I will add that in fact we have been infiltrated by communists and unsubstantiated is more fake news perhaps even the beginning of fake news in the US. In the late 1970s and during the 1980s, he became a prominent political fixer in New York City. He represented and mentored the real estate developer and later President of the United States Donald Trump during his early business career.

You are welcome for the value I provide. It is getting harder to do so, both from a teaching standpoint and from my new business' standpoint. As my personality is a lot like Dagny's in that I will be among the last to "completely shrug", it will be bitter for a long time.

When all is said and done in this exorcism of Satanic swamp creatures we will know it had to be done this way. With all do respect this is the “uncivilized war” and it is not over , far from it. We may have lost some battles but no one in the fight has surrendered. Remember Muhammed Ali and his rope a dope. Unconventional tactics seem to be necessary. Optics are important. Many interesting aspects to this battle. Can former Presidents be impeached? Yes. Can politicians tax info be examined? Yes. Do we know how to make elections secure? Yes. Is everyone getting a good look at what the traitors are doing in selling out our country? Yes. Even in the Revolutionary War the patriots were getting their asses kicked Washington didn’t give up and he took a Durham boat and crossed the Delaware.
I know we still have a Durham and he has not set sail yet. Trump stated numerous times even as he exited the Whitehouse “THE BEST IS YET TO COME”!. I can’t believe he said that knowing Buy-den would reverse all his accomplishments.
There is a plan and if we knew it the scum fuQs would know it as well. Trump and the patriots will never give up and will go on a vicious offensive sooner than later imho. If I am wrong we are on the fast track to Technocracy and the Nazi World Order. We will never have a fair election again and it will be comply or die. Trump knows this as well or better than anyone.
Peace to Q Prof Brenner. Thank you for actually providing your students with a great value instead of damning dogma.

I've NEVER voted for a BUSH. Ross Perot got my vote. I know we handed it over to Clinton.

And frankly, I don't care if the Republicans win another race. The DO NOT DESERVE to.
The party REFUSES to make promises and stand by them. Repeal Obama Care? With the Presidency, The House, The Senate... NOPE.
Personally, I wished McCain succombed much earlier to his cancer. He "Served America Up on a Silver Platter" while profiting, and running the same games the Clinton's did. selling influence. Lying to us.

I refuse to be forced to vote AGAINST someone. And quite frankly, I'm tired of the one key fact:

THEY KOW we will FORGET, and they will AMP UP the 2-sided talking points. And keep us in our lane.
At a certain point, I say, we give EVERY DROP OF POWER to the POWER DRUNK DEMS. Every last drop.
And we watched the ENGINE COME TO A HALT. And we give them MORE POWER.
Until they are forced to go after their own, or they just keep going until EVERYONE sees the problem, and resists!

What's funny is that we have a CURRENCY Crisis masquerading as Covid and the shutdown. Civil wars start when you cannot afford to feed your family!

For now, I am buying popcorn. There is NOTHING left worth saving. The Courts are broken, the Judges are Corrupted/incompetent and the average person appears to need to get burned to learn a lesson. Our property rights have been PROVABLY eroded. (Lookup LEDER Technologies, whose patents were stolen by our government, and given to the tech firms to build the internet out!). Filing a patent can cause you to be stripped of your property!

Freedom of speech. I am old enough to remember when a PRIVATE COMPANY NOT SERVING A GAY PERSON was cause for UNIVERSAL UPROAR. Now the PRESIDENT is banned for life by a private company... And half the country cheers. The same half who attacked the bakers... Oh, how we have fallen.

Now the second amendment. The 4th was gone when the CIA/NSA captured all of our email, and the IRS Code LITERALLY SAYS "We can use ANY INFORMATION against you, EVEN THAT OBTAINED ILLEGALLY and without PERMISSION"

Our Votes... Don't get me started.

Break out the popcorn. The republicans are CORRUPTED JUST AS BADLY as the Dems. Hence the way MITTENS VOTES. Because his son is in one of the deals with the BIden and Pelosi Kids... LMAO. There are 2 parties. THOSE Having a Party (in office), and those PAYING for the party (The citizens). I am not sure where we get the 3rd party from, but something tells me if it affects the people in office, they might pay attention!

If all we accomplish here on Earth is to begin to turn the tide, then it is worth the effort.

" they have been given special legal privileges,...". They have taken or seized these legal privileges and are not likely to willingly give them back. We the People can no longer vote them away.

” Democrats recognized that they would have to co-opt the education system in order to change this and have been extraordinarily effective at pushing their agenda on kids - especially teens. They've been doing it for so long that they practically own a lock on ideological thought in public education. And it only gets worse as one moves to higher education where estimates are that more than 9 out of 10 professors lean left.”

Kudos for perception. If America is ever again to look to Educators to teach children to employ Reason and Aristotle’s Logic as a guide to running their own lives, it must begin with the recapturing of the Department of Education. Perhaps the only honest thing the Nazis did was naming their department the “Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda”. I wonder if there is enough time to do this peacefully? Or if a new beginning will require a violent destruction of Socialist institutions?

the purpose of a party today is mostly to provide money to pay for propaganda to get a group of people elected.

Its kind of a stupid and crooked system actually, being based on acceptance of propaganda. If our government wasnt set up to take from one and give to another, the consequences of an election would not be so important.

The president should be an administrator, not a king. The branches of government should NOT be able to tax me to pay for something that benefits you. Its a basic fault in our constitution right out of the gate. It took 250 years to reach where we are, which is to elect people who will give to ME at YOUR expense. So each of us votes for the goodies. Very bad.

Fivedollargold is a Whig. He is old school when it comes to politics.

Funny meme!

Purpose of third party is to steal votes from Republicans. If a third party or a takeover attempt becomes a threat it gets taken over like the Tea Party was.

I can visualize the next step, have a shill run as one particular party and actually being of the other. It doesn't seem to matter what you say anymore, but what party you are running on.

Think of it, an "R" running secretly as a "D", and the voters electing all "R's" for the House and Senate to "balance things out".

We do not need political parties. All we have to do is convince probably 3/4 of the nation to vote only on the principles and ideas of those running then hold them to it. But this time, somehow, we got a president that is in favor of taking away our arms, raising taxes, increasing government and government control of every aspect of our lives, and they actually won it on emotion that was created and allowed to take place because of the defined political parties. Parties only create division, division of man from his brain. I can actually go along with some ideas the D Party has, but then I'd be telling a lie, would you believe maybe I could go along with part of one of their ideas?

If you've taken any business marketing classes, one of the things that quickly stands out is how expensive it is to bring a new product to market: educating your potential audience/market is very expensive. New political parties are new products which have to be marketed. Even existing political parties like the Libertarian Party have to be marketed aggressively to expand their consumer base. I think that the Libertarian Party is beginning to understand this as they spent a lot of money on advertisements for Gary Johnson in 2016. But their pockets are relatively shallow compared to either the Democrats or Republicans.

The other problem lies with the type of message each can engage in. While the Libertarians have to focus much of their advertising on introductions of themselves, the Democrats and Republicans are spending their money promoting their viewpoint (and attacking their opponents). These are persuasive ad buys rather than informational advertisements and tend to be more effective than informational ads.

The major problem - of course - is trying to persuade people to leave what they know (D vs R) and join something else. THAT is an incredibly expensive proposition. Ask any religious proselyte and they can tell you that trying to persuade people to change their political affiliations is like asking them to change religions. Without some motivation from the individual in question, it's almost a non-starter.


Now to address your point of "safety in numbers" I might suggest that we substitute the word "power" for "safety." There is no question that in a representative government that power comes from numbers. And part of that is simply the generational education process: children tend to adopt the political affiliation of their parents. Democrats recognized that they would have to co-opt the education system in order to change this and have been extraordinarily effective at pushing their agenda on kids - especially teens. They've been doing it for so long that they practically own a lock on ideological thought in public education. And it only gets worse as one moves to higher education where estimates are that more than 9 out of 10 professors lean left.

Unless such a party also attracts a sufficient number of Democrats, it will do nothing but make life easier for "progressives". Remember Theodore Roosevelt and his "Bull Moose" party, which divided Republicans and led to the disastrous victory of Woodrow Wilson.

Political parties continue to exist because, like corporations, they have been given special legal privileges, and it is in the interest of politicians and lawmakers to maintain their continued existence. A majority of voters give lip service to the need for a third party (though few vote for candidates of actual third parties). Almost no voters consider the question of whether political parties should be abolished as privileged legal entities.