in ,

Politics: The Cancer that must be Eradicated once and for all

Democrat vs. Republican

The 2016 election of Donald Trump as president set off a tidal wave of anger and resentment that has divided America into two bitterly opposed camps. Those on the left consider Trump to be the embodiment of evil whereas many on the right see him as a “disrupter” and champion of the common man. The recent mid-term elections revealed that this conflict between pro-Trump and anti-Trump forces continues unabated. The political divide in America now is characterized by revenge-minded Democrats who are determined to remove Trump from office and those who will fight to prevent this from happening. As a result, the country will be mired in a lengthy political power struggle while important issues affecting the lives of millions will be neglected. America – sad to say – is currently a nation in crisis.

If a team of scientific crisis management experts were assembled to assess the cause of this problem they would surely arrive at the conclusion that it is “politics” pure and simple. The solution, therefore, would be the abolition of all political parties.

This is actually not a new idea. The French philosopher Simone Weil made this suggestion more than seventy years ago. This seemingly radical proposal has been resurrected and supported by the award-winning Canadian journalist Andrew Nikiforuk. As he pointed out this past summer:

“In the United States two political parties have now divided the nation with the kind of violent partisan rhetoric that erupted just before the Civil War. Across the Western world, political parties have turned parliaments into digital circuses, provoking waves of contempt among ordinary people…by actively preventing party members from speaking for truth or justice, modern political parties cultivate mendacity the way cell phones archive selfies. Party politics demand that politicians must, on a daily basis, lie to the party, lie to the public and lie to themselves.”

This is a damning indictment of politics not just political parties. And it should be clear to any clear-thinking citizen that the time has come to abandon this morally bankrupt system that has mismanaged our affairs through influence peddling and legal bribery innocuously labeled “campaign contributions”.

Weil and Nikiforuk are not anarchists and they are not proposing some form of extreme libertarianism requiring the dismantlement of government. Governing should be left to capable administrators and professional managers who are not beholden to wealthy donors or special interest groups. Rather than being “elected” they should be hired, paid a decent salary and evaluated for performance by a non-partisan committee of informed citizens.

If we fail to take this step then we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes of the past – suffering from a deeply flawed system that only produces corruption, conflict and economic woe.

We must declare total independence from the tyranny of politics before we are crushed under its weight. To borrow the immortal words of Thomas Paine: “The blood of the slain, the weeping voice of nature cries: ‘tis time to part”.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!

Report

What do you think?

17
Leave a Reply

avatar
13 Comment threads
4 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
15 Comment authors
JayPJ LondonStunned_at_SunsetJamesDonna Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
JNDillard
Guest
JNDillard

“Governing should be left to capable administrators and professional managers who are not beholden to wealthy donors or special interest groups. Rather than being “elected” they should be hired, paid a decent salary and evaluated for performance by a non-partisan committee of informed citizens.” Hmmm…what system of governance in the world today does this remind me of…China???? NO WAY!!! Seriously, looked at through this lens, we see one explanation for the amazing and continuing success of the Chinese economy. But of, course, ideologically pure Westerners will have none of it. The result is that China is going to rule the… Read more »

Vera Gottlieb
Guest
Vera Gottlieb

Whether we like it or not, China is the upcoming ’empire’.

Vera Gottlieb
Guest
Vera Gottlieb

And greed and corruption also play a sad role. With over 350 million inhabitants, America needs more than just 2 political parties to really represent the electorate. What choice is ‘either or’? No wonder so many people no longer vote.

Harry Flashman
Guest
Harry Flashman

Voter fraud also helps dilute the citizenry’s control of politicians.

Alyson McVitty
Guest
Alyson McVitty

i love this idea. bring all the forces back to home base, exclude the us of a from any international group, shut down all us government departments, in other words send the us of a to the corner of the class room onto a chair until they grow up and become mature enough to recognise their shameful folly, aaaahhhhhhhhh relief! peace, cooperation amongst all nations. this world would be a better place.

niveb
Guest
niveb

In fact, far from being divided in any serious way, the US populace are indifferent to most of the ‘political’ debate. Turn out is low. Registration is spotty. And the policy differences between the parties are almost unmeasurable. Are there two parties on the question of imperialism? No. Is there a real divide over Health care or taxes? Not at all, Trump’s policies follow logically from Obama’s continuation of Bush’s neo-liberalism which came straight out of Clintonism. The oligarchy running the USA loves to read about the divisions that you describe. It rubs its fat hands at the prospect of… Read more »

Flying Gabriel
Guest
Flying Gabriel

For millennia we have convinced ourselves that “systems” are at fault rather than people.
The stubborn pride-filled grip we have on this notion is still here – and not going anywhere soon. Tolerating liars, cheats and thieves to rule us – means we get everything we deserve.

Harry Flashman
Guest
Harry Flashman

Yeah, just look at the voter fraud being committed in Florida, Georgia, and Arizona as we speak. Election fraud is treason and needs to carry the death penalty.

Sean
Guest
Sean

I have seen this same claim many times over the past 50 years, ie, that “managers”, “professionals”, and “businessmen” should run a country. This is a definition of fascism. How would the people have control of these people? It sounds good in principle, but, when you look into it, there are many problems. I agree that the party system – – in all countries – – is corrupt and does not serve the people, but, would we be substituting it with something worse if we changed it? Elected representatives should serve their constituents without being members of political parties. Can… Read more »

Paul Kindlon
Guest
Paul Kindlon

Hey Sean I never mentioned business people running our government – that is what we have now behind the scenes . Politicians are PR puppets working for oligarchs and foreign governments like Saudi Arabia and Israel. Think dude. Does a company hire someone based upon their political ideology or ability to help the company succeed ? We need to hire people to Manage cities and states without being subject to party politics and wealthy patrons who influence policy

Shaun Ramewe
Guest
Shaun Ramewe

The two-party system is nothing but an anti-democracy fraud.

penrose
Guest
penrose

What we have now is not working. What is one definition I have heard of insanity?

Donna
Guest
Donna

The weakest point in this argument is in the so-called non-partisan committee of informed citizens that will evaluate the administrators and professional managers who will govern all the rest of us. The flaw is that, first, no one in America today is non-partisan. That ship has sailed. Second, “informed citizens” depend on an informed and unbiased media…which also doesn’t exist in America today. Third, the administrators and managers will not be accountable to the people, but only to the “non-partisan committee,” which itself will be, what — elected? appointed? Either way, this business model removes representatives even farther from the… Read more »

James
Guest

Mussolini eradicated politics in Italy in 1922, Salazar eradicated politics in Portugal in 1934, Hitler eradicated politics in Germany in 1933, Franco had eradicated politics in Spain between 1936 and 1939, Stalin eradicated politics in the Soviet Union starting in 1923 and ending with the show trials of 1937-1938, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi eradicated politics in Iran in Iran 1953 and Pinochet eradicated politics in Chile on 11 September 1973. I don’t think the eradication of politics did any more for those countries than the proposed eradication of politics will do for the United States. For now, humanity’s best hope stands… Read more »

Stunned_at_Sunset
Guest
Stunned_at_Sunset

It isn’t “pre-CIVIL WAR rhetoric.” It is “pre-BOLSHEVIK UPRISING rhetoric.” There is a very big difference and most of us, who practice situational awareness, understand this. After all, access to the history of the BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION is commonplace and Nevin Gussack has documented its radicalism and fifth column sedition in many of his books. International Communism never died as many would have us believe. It adherents simply became the psychopaths under the bed–as J.R. Nyquist often pointed out in his essays. Western Democracy is in a lot of trouble and it will remain so until the public becomes aware of… Read more »

PJ London
Guest
PJ London

” … He started by dividing everything into one of three groups, but found this to complicated for most people so he reduced his divisions into two groups. Everything had to be one of two choices, a dichotomy one can see to this day. Republicans and Democrats, Labour and Conservatives, Pro Life and Abortionist. Only the extremes are permitted, what happened to the vast ground in between? Plato in teaching rhetoric called it ‘Argument by excluded middle’. What about recognising that both extremes have positive and negative aspects? Why not settle in the centre, why not embrace the positive and… Read more »

Jay
Guest
Jay

No, none of this is new. The “democrats” called Bush a “fascist” (thus implying that me and my fellow vets were also fascist for following his orders) and then proved they were never serious when they refused to investigate him and put him on trial. This is how “democrats” loose.I am no fan of Bush, I did not vote for him and would love to see him on trial. But it is clear he was correct about one thing, the leftists who opposed him only opposed him out of hatred for their own country, otherwise they would have stuck to… Read more »

ANTIFA cowards threaten Tucker Carlson at home: Try to scare America into silence

Amnesia & Lack of Accountability Reign as Wall Street Celebrates Halliburton’s 100-year anniversary