America’s Most Powerful Unions

When a new or unfamiliar political view is presented, it is inevitable that people will start to question where it fits in the political landscape. Indeed, I have been asked that question even without mentioning my political views. Perhaps it is a sign of the times, but now a new acquaintance is asked whether they are a Democrat or a Republican, a liberal or a conservative, with as much regularity as one was once asked what sign one was or what one did for a living. My impression is that the answer to the partisan question not only decides the progress of romance, but also the progress of conversation. Anything a Republican says is dismissed by a Democrat and vice-versa. In this way, the partisan question resembles the sports fan question. Forbid thought, lest a Bosox fan say anything favorable about a Yankee player, a Republican about a Democratic President, or the respective vice-versa.

This places “Popular Capitalism” in the awkward position of having to actually delineate some portions of the Democratic and Republican creeds, in order to explain its position of being heretical to both, while failing to explain the main point of contention with both, namely the validity of the partisan question itself. The modern mindset has difficulty comprehending this challenge. I have seen it everywhere. I have mentioned my views about political parties. I say “anti-partisan” and everyone hears “bi-partisan” or “non-partisan” meaning “bi-partisan”. I have said that I supported one party at one point because it looked like it might be “the party to end all parties” and what was heard was “all other parties”. I say I want a “party-less state” and people think I want a “one-party state”. I describe some reform and people note with alarm that it will hurt “the two-party system” as if I should find that to be a criticism. When I mention running for office, the history of third parties and their candidates is immediately proffered.

Let me express my position simply. I am against political parties. This stand does not come from the actions of the current political parties in power. It will not be discarded if a different political party comes into power or if one or the other party becomes “reformed”. I am fundamentally opposed to political parties because Populism, of which Popular Capitalism is a branch, is fundamentally opposed to political parties. This is because populism is an advocate for all the people, individually and without exception, and the parties are primarily advocates for electoral candidates and especially those candidates who get elected. Put more bluntly, political parties are labor unions for officeholders and career politicians. This has made all Populists highly suspicious, if not deeply antagonistic, to political parties and Popular Capitalists are no exception. The opposition of Popular Capitalism to partisan politics is made all the greater because of its capitalist sentiments, because of the diversion of capital to the wasteful enterprise of electioneering. If one truly wishes to serve the interests of the people and is qualified to do so, there is no reason to conduct polls to fish out the issue that will garner a majority vote. You should know what you want to do, tell the people those goals and let the people decide. Anything else is waste as far as the people are concerned.

But what of the underlying liberalism and conservatism which the party creeds endorse? Can the popular capitalist find common cause with those philosophies and achieve their goals with the closed union shop of Congress? Sadly, no. If we strip the party labels off of the political philosophies, there is still no home for the popular capitalist. The conservative will not admit that there is a cost of sovereignty nor that the people bear a tax in bearing that cost themselves, but foolishly thinks that peace and order can survive the wrath of a populace which has been taxed into poverty and their consequent exploitation. The liberal also does not admit the cost of sovereignty, but thinks that the people need to be “entitled” to receive the bread that keeps them from starving. This bread, the liberal believes, comes from government, so that their separation from partisan career politics is incomplete. A more centrist or “moderate” position uses employment as a way of getting bread to the people. The manipulation of the market or wasteful public spending by which they “generate jobs” are far more costly than simply paying for the bread, thus making the country poorer and less able to afford that bread.

The Popular Capitalist is vehemently opposed to all of these because they do not serve the people. Popular Capitalism seeks power for all of the people, individually and without exception, with more power to those who more enhance the lives, well-being and power of their neighbors. The weakest among us should not be fed to the sharks, as the conservative will do. They should not become beggars seeking alms from the state, as the liberals want. They should not become the slave of an employer propped up by our taxes and credit, through the legerdemain of the moderates. They should not become slaves, beggars or casualties. Popular Capitalism wants the people, even the weakest, to be free, alive and able to work where they can be most productive, being fairly rewarded for their success and fairly bearing the cost of their failures.

The question remains: how do we fulfill the popular capitalist goals without latching onto one party or the other? The answer is in ourselves. However much the political parties have rigged the electoral game to favor their candidates, it is still possible for ordinary citizens to gather signatures to petition placement on the ballot for every office except President and Vice-President. For the two highest offices in the land, ordinary citizens must instead petition to be electors, who would then vote for President and Vice-President.

But what of the cost of the election “campaign?” For a candidate who is not an incumbent and is satisfied with holding the office for one term, the cost can be minimal. These candidates can “campaign” by being out and about in their community, talking with their neighbors instead of hounding “voters”. They do not need “campaign” posters littering the lawns of their neighborhoods, because their neighbors and their neighbors’ friends have met and talked with the candidates before if not during the “campaign”. That is because they are not staging a war, as the word “campaign” implies and with all the expense that entails, but offering themselves up for public service to their communities. They do not have a political career that will be damaged by losing the election and which they value above their friendship with the other candidates. They have no need to communicate with their neighbors through expensive television ads. They get more than enough fame by being interviewed on the local news show, about which they will get ribbed by their friends. All in all, it is not only possible, but preferable, to run for office without spending a cent more than what is spent in living one’s normal life.

Once the neighbor candidates are out there, there is one other thing that the voters need to do and that is to vote for them. The voters have to realize that the United States is being destroyed by the most powerful unions, the most powerful combinations in restraint of the people to ever beleaguer this country. These unions are not defending poor and powerless workers against the rich and powerful. They do not deserve our sympathy or support on that basis, but just the opposite. These unions are preserving the rich and powerful in their positions as career politicians, exploiting the poor and the powerless toward that end. If there were ever any unions which needed to broken and destroyed, these are them. Thankfully, and as further proof that these unions hold no legitimate interest, they can be broken with nothing more violent than a vote. The people must reject, without exception, any party candidate for any office. If there are no candidates other than party candidates on the ballot, they should write in a candidate, themselves if need be.

If this electoral mission is fulfilled, there will at last be a political environment suitable for popular capitalists and populists, in general. Until such time, Popular Capitalism will be philosophy from which good ideas might be drawn by the current politicians. I certainly will not resent any use of my advice, as I do not wish to have a career in politics. By the same token, I will not support any political party based on their endorsing any portion of the Popular Capitalism program because Popular Capitalism is fundamentally opposed to these most powerful unions.