I propose a NEW two-party system.

[metapunditedgy]

Maybe we can't change the power structures that are demonizing the progressives right now, but we CAN change the way those power structures are advertised.

Let's reorganize American politics into two different parties: the Corporatist Party and the Non-Corporatist Party. We'll take each Congressperson and assign them to one of the two parties. (Obviously, the NC party will be primarily Democrat, but the corporatist Dems will be ranked with the Republicans in the Corporatist party, as they should be.)

Right now, we're fed a lot of false debates (think Ground Zero Mosque) to keep us distracted from the most important issues that "professional liberals" are concerned about.

Let's re-cast the news stories and vote tallies to show how the Corporatists and Non-Corporatists really interact. I think the results will be revealing.

[still_one]

1. It isn't that simple. Incidently the almost "ground zero Mosque" is a real issue. It is about our

Constitution, and which party is willing to protect and defend it

[metapunditedgy]

3. Sure, but it's also a planned distraction from much more fundamental issues that Robert Gibbs

so kindly alerted us to last week.

[still_one]

4. The Gibbs issue is internal to a party, this issue is a Constitutional one /nt

[metapunditedgy]

7. Religious and racial conflict are just tools in the larger battle.

Is the larger battle a "class war?" Maybe... I'm not sure that captures the whole thing.

It's obvious to me that the (so-called) mosque should go forward, but any politician who makes that debate fundamental to their campaign is intentionally obfuscating.

[still_one]

11. True. /nt

[Capt.America]

2. Howard Scott said --

“A criminal is a person with predatory instincts who has not sufficient capital to form a corporation.”

[Confusious]

5. F the two party system.

It's the soviet system with 1 extra party.

[Imajika]

6. Changing the debate is important, I agree...

Calling the opposition "corporatist" whether they be Democrats or Republicans is also fine. Calling us "non-corporatist" may be a fine definition, but you'd need a better catch all name than that. The term "corporatist" is very much an inside baseball term, most people won't have a clue.

Yes, BOTH sides (right and left) are unhappy with big business - so this is an area of unity. The problem is, if the solutions you propose are mostly just government taking over more control of the mechanisms of productivity and job creation your going to fall flat with the American public.

Virtually everyone is angry at CEO's making huge salaries and businesses outsourcing jobs, so regulations on that front are possible and even unifying. However, about half the people (and perhaps more of the really motivated ones) also oppose growing government into many/most of the various roles many here would like to see.

How do you deal with things like bailing out the auto companies. That is just flat out unpopular with probably half or more of the American public - yet it saved a hell of a lot of union jobs. So it seems to have been the right thing to do, however that is government working closely with big business. If your really going to try to create a movement which blasts corporations and deals between government and corporations, you can't very well propose more deals between corporations and government because those happen to the be deals you like.

The question here is are you just trying to change the terms of the debate to advance the very same agenda we already tend to support? If so, you will win some converts if your successful but it won't fundamentally shift the positions/worldview of the American people in the near term.

You mention this mosque issue as a distraction, but how do you get around the fact that most people just flat out oppose it? Call it a distraction all day, but human nature is what it is and if "non-corporatist" becomes associated with the position "we have no problem with this mosque" then your just not going to get very far. Unfortunately, the right thing to do simply doesn't always or even often win out with the voters come election day.

Want a real revolutionary movement, your going to have to appeal to populism and sometimes simply avoid discussing anything that would alienate large numbers of people. Such is life. It is one reason conservatives win - failed ideas and all. Human nature hasn't changed in probably thousands of years, and probably won't for thousands more. If you want to get things done, you either harness it and give yourself a chance to succeed, or fight against it and probably fail.

[Tesha]

9. It's not an accident that many of the lefty parties in the world are called "Labour".

One party stands for capital and one party stands
for the workers.

Tesha

[metapunditedgy]

12. Thanks for the detailed and thoughtful response! I'm thinking we have little control over

who goes on the ballot. (A little bit of control, but not much, given corporate financing of elections.) And we have zero control over the backroom deals made in DC.

What we *do* still have control over is what goes on in our heads. How *we* perceive politics.

So I'm not really thinking in terms of how to sell a campaign to Americans. I certainly haven't picked the most winsome terminology. :-)

But we can "de-brand" American politics and re-frame the debate along more realistic lines.

Consider if we had "truthified" the HCR headlines. Instead of reading this:
"Democratic Majority Bargains for Votes to Avoid GOP Filibuster"
we read:
"Corporatist Majority Struggles to Find HCR Bargain that Mollifies the Vocal Left, Voters"

Which is more accurate?

[Fumesucker]

8. Well, you're going to end up with about 99% of the politicians in one party then..

With about 99.9% of the financing.

[Tesha]

10. Perhaps it's high time people realize that that's the situation then?

That 99% of our elected politicians *ARE NOT* on
our side?

(I'd actually say 95%, but I take your point.)

Tesha

[metapunditedgy]

13. And we *do* still control our own minds, after all.

See my response #12. What would the dialog look like if we refused to accept the false terms that it is currently framed by? (Grammar notwithstanding.)