The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!
75 votes

The Three Political Parties of America

There are three political parties in the United States today, and they are all fielding candidates for the presidency.

The parties are the Republicrats, the Scared Religionists, and the Freedom and Peace Party.

By far the largest party is the Republicrats, who have held sway with their current platform since at least the 1940s. They are offering two candidates for president in 2012: their names are Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.

Being such a large party, they have adopted a clever means of ensuring that they hold power perpetually: they split themselves into two wings called "Democrat" and "Republican." This rather clever setup allows them to compete with each other in the formal competitions of American democracy by emphasizing different pieces of the platform, while ensuring that one of the wings will always hold sway, allowing them to implement their shared social democratic platform.

And what is this platform? It is a corporate socialist one. They stand for enlarging government, the replacement of individual civil rights with centralized programs, the redistribution of wealth from working individuals to the non-working but mostly corporate and special interests (their main sponsors) and a military presence throughout most of the world.

There are a number of ways to tell that their two candidates, Romney and Obama, are from the same party. They have the same major donors (big banks, and other multinationals) -- and the most important legislation that they both favor includes the Patriot Act, the National Defense Authorization Act and most other bills that reduce our liberty (but always for our own good, and usually for our own protection).

The other two parties are smaller. They each have one candidate in the race for president. There is the Scared Religionist party, represented by Rick Santorum, and the Freedom and Peace party, represented by Ron Paul.

If you were to put the three parties simplistically on a one-dimensional spectrum -- a single line -- the Scared Religionists would be at the authoritarian end, and the Freedom and Peace party would be at the opposite, libertarian end. Between them, but closer to the Scared Religionists, would be the aforementioned Republicrats.

The Scared Religionists deserve credit for the clarity of their message, if not necessarily for the consistency of its content. Their view of the world was wonderfully encapsulated by their candidate, Rick Santorum, who recently said:

I am hopeful that some of the things we're seeing with respect to the nuclear program [,] the United states is involved in -- which, is on occasion, scientists working on the nuclear program in Iran turn up dead. I think that is a wonderful thing ... And if people say you, well, can't go around and assassinate people, well, tell that to Al-Awlaki. We've done it. We've done it to an American citizen.

Clearly, members of the Scared Religionists are sure they know best for everyone, and so do not have to worry about such traditional limitations as due process or respect for life. (The last one is a little ironic.) Consistent with his view of how the universe is run, Santorum would seek to run the nation in a way that ensures, by force if necessary, that everyone else behaves "rightly." To many non-members of this party, there is an apparent paradox that the Authority whose earlier work provided large lists of what is right, in some of His other books, asked that the judging be left to Him, and to leave everyone else to make their own choices.

Although the Scared Religionist party are all about the aforementioned ends (and The End, itself, for that matter), they are somewhat too scared to follow fully the aforementioned means (free choice, judge not etc.) -- mostly because they are scared of how things could go down in the meanwhile if people very different from them get a big bomb, or God forbid, get married to a dog -- I mean daughter -- I mean member of the same sex...

Not only is the desired political ends of this party somewhat absolutist, its means are absolutist too: pre-emptive strikes and assassinations have, after all, rather "absolute" consequences. Of course, there is a very high bar that must be overcome for such extraordinary actions: the religionists must be really, really sure that they are right about the need for them. It is a bar they are good at jumping. (They have had a great deal of practice and jump it so the rest of us don't have to.)

Last, but not least, there is the Freedom and Peace party. Their current candidate is Ron Paul. The media won't say much about them, but when they do, you will hear that they are extremists. For example, they believe that we should be governed by law, including the Constitution, to ensure that we are not governed by the interested preferences of men -- powerful or rich or both -- since that would be tyranny. They don't believe in going to war unless it is "just" and their elected representatives declare it. Related to that word, "just," is their belief that people shouldn't have their life or liberty removed without due process. They also believe that laws should not be so many and so complex that all citizens are in violation at some point in a typical day, since such a situation gives authorities undue power over citizens, and that too is tyranny. They also believe that the people who make the laws should read the laws that they vote on. (That they haven't been very successful is indicated by the fact that last January, 43,000 new laws came into force. One wonders how on earth we held the country together without them.). One of their most extreme views of all is that if you make money honestly, you should be allowed to keep it, and if you lose it -- and especially if you lose other people's -- you should be left to go bankrupt.

Paul's platform, like that of Obama and Romney, is reflected in the origin of the donations he received: most of his money comes in small donations from individual Americans. From those who are defending with their lives the values of the Freedom and Peace party -- the US Navy, Army and Airforce -- he receives more donations than do all the other candidates put together.

Although the Republicrats have held power for many generations, they have made huge progress since 2001. From that year onward, the politics of fear have allowed them to move forward on massive violence internationally (against people) and domestically (against our way of life). The bailouts, TSA, elimination of 1st, 4th, 5th and 7th amendments (under the Patriot Act, National Defense Authorization Act, and other legislation) are all acts of fear as they all try to prevent bad things from happening. Only the Freedom and Peace party believes that the political energy used doing this could have been better used to make good things happen -- which is done best by letting honest Americans get on with their lives without the imposition of thousands of unnecessary laws and the taking of trillions of their dollars.

I believe that not enough Americans are sufficiently mistaken to deliver a Santorum victory: culturally, his regressive party is in regress. And if enough of the USA stays sufficiently scared or absorbed in American Idol, Farmville and whatever other mass hypnotic media output is current prevailing, then the Republicrats will win again -- this time. But all monopolies end eventually, and the most interesting aspect of US politics is its firmest long-term trend: all the polls say that the Republicrat and Scared Religionist parties are shrinking, most rapidly among those who will lead our great nation in decades to come, and that it is that third party that is taking up the slack.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


It's interesting how many people read that as "sacred" instead. Surely that means something....

Good article.

What is begun in anger, ends in shame.

Need 5

If political parties in our nation were representing their constituents and no one else then we would have 5 parties:

Global Corporatist
Cultural Conservative
Green Peace

Of course the faction represented by the first on this list represents very few people but has co-opted both major parties which is why we need them bust up into these five.

i find this BORING and a DISTRACTION from what is important

this is a prime example of how we waste our valuable time and energy recycling the same old talking points that are mentioned over and over every day. there is nothing useful here. instead, especially at this time, we need to be focusing our attention on coming up with new ideas, new methods, and new strategies for winning elections, breaking the power monopoly of the republicrat establishment, and otherwise effecting real change for restoring the constitution and the principles of liberty.
futhermore, calling people "sacred religionists" could easily be taken by some as being offensive and is only going to make it more difficult for us to reason with many of the people (the majority of republican voters) we need to reach if we are to achieve our goals. if i could, i would give this writing a triple vote down. if we keep up spending our time and energy on things like this, we will continue to see the same disappointing results again and again from the primaries and caucuses.


Another chart

I rather like this other chart, in the form of a quiz:
because (1) it's orthogonal, and I'm an engineer, and (2) it's been around longer. :-)

Freedom is my Worship Word!

It would be interesting to map Pew's voter groups

Pew divided the electorate into 9 blocks. See I would guess they map like this:

Republicrats: Main Street Republicans, Solid Liberals (25%)

Peace and Freedom: Libertarians, Disaffecteds, Post-Moderns, Hard-Pressed Democrats, Bystanders (55%)

Scared Religionists: Staunch Republicans, New Coalition Democrats (19%)

That the Republicrats win an overwhelmingly majority in each election despite being outnumbered 2-1 by Peace and Freedom sympathizers reflects the fact that the Peace and Freedom coalition doesn't recognize their shared interests or have any high profile leaders. Which is due to the fact that the Republicrats control all the major media and institutions and set the terms of debate.

Excellent article!

Excellent article! Especially love the Scared Religionist Party!

BTW, and just by chance, I found a video that illustrates your point about the Republicrats perfectly! It's from the 2000 election, but it does the job perfectly! I about died laughing watching it!

Very good

Excellent in the way you define the distinction between the 3.

I'd add that the Republicrats are the largest only because the game is rigged.

Those choosing not to affiliate are larger in number if you consider those people in states which allow registration by party...the largest number of voters choose not to affiliate than go to either of the 2 majors.

We need to get parties off the ballot altogether. They may exist but we should not subsidize them.

Tom Mullen's picture

Brilliant article, Robin

I laughed - even though it's all true.

"That they haven't been very successful is indicated by the fact that last January, 43,000 new laws came into force. One wonders how on earth we held the country together without them."


The end is nigh...for our overlords!

Great article, I posted it on

Great article, I posted it on Face Book along with my comments. However, my comments were deleted??

I am a Christian

and a moral conservative. I find that the only way to spread the Gospel is the way Jesus taught, through rhetoric not violence.

'Scared Religionists' should be moral fascists... who care not about what Christian doctrine says, but only care about the power as an ends to a mean. Any Christian should be against moral fascist as Jesus was. (Think about the whore who was going to be stoned)

Moral fascists are not Christians, and I argue their ranks could care less about the state of the Faith.

Point being, the are no different from the 'scared atheists' who trample over people of faiths first amendment rights to express their faith in public. They are in literal fear that merely tangentally contacting religion would cause them harm.

I think 'scared religionists' are also a tropism to radical and violent atheism. When religion becomes a subject to be put in a tiny corner and is walled in from society into tiny enclaves, people who are of faith lash out because as others are able to express their moral and philosophical positions as people of faith cannot.

Moral fascism will be used by the powers that be through clergy response teams to control the populace for the 'republicrats'. I see this as no different when the eugenicists were infiltrating the Church back in the day.

Anyway, this is some obsolete man ranting about the marginalization of religion.

May the LORD bless you and keep you
May the LORD make His face shed light upon you and be gracious unto you
May the LORD lift up His face unto you and give you peace
Follow me on Twitter @

Moral fascists is a much

Moral fascists is a much better term. Scared moral fascists is probably a better term if three words are allowed. Christianity doesn't advocate anything Santorum wants to do. Christianity isn't even a religion.

St Augustine called them

Libido Dominandi. There is a great AND AWESOME tradition of liberty in the Christian faith. People just have to re-discover their Christian roots and not connect themselves to the whore of Babylon aka America.

May the LORD bless you and keep you
May the LORD make His face shed light upon you and be gracious unto you
May the LORD lift up His face unto you and give you peace
Follow me on Twitter @

I'm not, but....

I just want to chime in here; no particular point other than to mention that Freedom is my Worship Word. I don't call myself "Christian," but I don't deny Jesus; I simply don't worship him; I think of him more as a brother. And by golly, no matter how much I scour the Bible, I can't find the part where Jesus said, "Go half-way across the world and murder people."

I like that part about "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone," and especially "You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

Free Will is God's Will, after all.
(my "medicinal" just chimed in with, "well, Free Will was God's Will before All, too, you know.")

Freedom is my Worship Word!

Very True

I am a Christian as well and glad to profess my faith in Christ. Not all people of faith are crazed far right/left nutjobs. Many of us are awake and realize whats going on and taking action against the tyrannical machine that is taking us over. I think the misconception that people of religion just watch fraux news and follow the establishment GOP candidate is an outdated thought.

Isaiah 2:4
And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

Words of wisdom from a brave man...

"Trust in God, but keep you powder dry." ~ Oliver Cromwell

I think there are just 2...

I think more & more are waking up. I think that the Sacred Religionist Party is just the Republicrats trying to get in front of that point of opposition and lead; i.e. Fox News is supposedly the conservative unbiased channel (just another example of leading the opposition). Thus the Republicrats have created a dividing point with social morals. Just like the dividing points of race, green movement, etc... Please don't lump all who are religeous into the Sacred Religionist Party. Perhaps it is taking longer for some of us to wake up, but be certain we are awake and speaking for liberty.

Speaking of leading opposition, one of my greatest fears is when will the opposition begin to lead the Liberty Movement? Will they be able too? They certainly got in front of the Tea Party.

We must all be aware of how an enemy works to control opposition by leading it.

I agree

with you. Not all religious or people of faith are neoconservatives. Many, like myself, who are Christians or of different faiths, are awake and realize that peace and an end to the wars is the right stance. I agree with all of Ron Paul's positions on the issues and even most of Murray Rothbard's. I'm not to the point of believing in complete anarchy yet though...

There are only 2 sides of this coin and you can see that from most any point of view. Those wanting to control our lives and those wanting to let our freedom of choice/free will prosper. Lets just hope that if we get the freedom we desire that we will have the right moral compass to guide us.

Isaiah 2:4
And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

But the uneducated fall into the trap of thinking that "If I

don't like the Democrat in power, I will simply vote of the Democrat." and vice versa. The two parties and the press lull them into the ignorance of thinking that the system gives them easily identifiable choices. Hit button "A" or "Alternative button A" seems to satisfy 90% of the electorate.

Priests and pastors, of course, guide people to the Sacred Religionist Party candidate (who is really an understudy for the Republicrat Party candidate anyway.

But who is going to tell the public about the Freedom and Peace Party? The corporate media certainly won't and we don't seem to be able to get our voices heard.

Pretty good, but you missed one.

These "parties" aren't hard to spot if you use a political compass. They're the Progressive Liberals (Top Left), the Neoconservatives (Top Right), and the Libertarians (Bottom Right). Of course, there is a fourth corner you forgot to mention, and that's the Socialists (Bottom Left), with people like Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader.

Honestly, though, I have trouble telling apart the "Republicrat" and "Scared Religionist" factions. Both believe in the authority of the state. Both use inherently moral arguments for coercive action, whether religious or utilitarian. Which moral arguments they use should have little bearing compared to the actions they take due to them. I'd put both groups closely scattered around the top central axis and merely call them Statists.

I would, though, give religious statists one point over their secular brethren for their opposition to abortion. Other than that, any moral similarities we may have are merely cultural, not political.

Great read.

Knocked this one out of the park. Thanks for sharing!

Unfortunately only football fans get my comparison, but I liken

the Presidential Election to the Super Bowl.

At one time the Super Bowl was a pretty big deal. It was the NFL champion - going against the champion of an entirely different football organization - the AFL.

But then the NFL and the AFL merged into the NEW NFL - and it is comprised of two similar divisions that intermingle on every level, the NFC and the AFC. They play games against each other every week and nobody cares. They switch players back and forth.

The the biggest, most meaningful, most promoted game of the year - the Super Bowl - is played between teams that very likely might have met during the regular season. Whats the point?

Great article. Sent to a lot

Great article. Sent to a lot of my chat sites, hope the republocrats read it.

I'd like to start my own polical party

Read all 2 opinions
I have a vision... since all entitlement liberals HATE all greedy wealthy republicans. and visa versa.

I want to start the "COMMON SENSE PARTY". I figure the only people that would hate my party are stupid people and the clueless.

In both cases, I can handle them by simply ignoring their moronic view point.

my party will stand for the following:

1. balanced budget.. I personlly have to have one so shold my party.

2. Personal freedom. If you want to make stupid non-common sense choices, you are free to do so. However if you make a non-common sense choice, you have to live with it and not expect those with common sense to run to your aid.

3. if you display no common sense, then you are open to ridicule. If you can prove your lack of common sense as being a valid decision, then you will receive an appology regarding your position and it will be posted as a common sense standard.

4. All Common Sense decision makers (judge, police, government official, teacher, etc.) Will prove their understanding and demonstrate Common Sense standards established by the People. (this is one of the hardest parts). The Constitution will be the corner stone of the standards.

(feel free to add your own addendums to our core beliefs)...

Some examples..

If you frying pan catches on fire and you throw water on the fire thus causing your house to burn down... your insurance company has a right to void or negotiate a settlement.

If you buy a house next to an airport, you have no right to complain about noise, nor force the airport to accomidate you.

If you want to build a house in Idaho, The Government cannot interfere with that process unless there is sufficient proof that there is a serious consequence in doing so.. You will have the right to debate the conflict in an open forum with all interested parties to have input. An impartial and common sense judge/jury will determine outcome.

there shall be no laws that state you MUST wear a seatbelt as an adult. (children are exluded and must wear a belt as the do not understand the consequences). If you choose not to wear a belt, and have an accident resulting in injury similar conversatio between you and the insurance company. Many states do not require motorcycle helmets but all require seatbelts... seems to be a common sense.

Banks that are forclosing on a home MUST ensure there is just cause for such an act. The police are NOT to be an agent of the Bank. Police are only to be involved protect and/or defuse hostile conflict (mediator). if the home is occupied the owners can not just be physically thrown out without due process.

If a media person wishes to call someone names, there only 2 parties involved in the situation. If a dispute arises from the situation, the party receiving can rebut those statement via Common Sense Court.

The rule of laws will be based on the statement... " No victim, No crime".

Obviously my thought is just a sudden brainstorm or braincloud. And since I (we) all have been controlled, manipulated, brainwashed since birth, any new and radical idea will meet a lot of resistance, and would required a lot of thought to account for how to implement.

I need to remember that the official law is "COMMON SENSE". the hardest part is an actual definition and completely objective guidelines

In some strange ways, I can see validity in the message behind "The Rent is too Damn High" party. there is underlying truth to that statement (economically, racially, politically, etc)

If you want to start a new party,

then the easiest place where you can do it is Israel.

Israel has thirteen political parties in its congress including two Arab parties. They have even more parties, but those do not get into Congress since they do not get enough votes.

But I see no reason not to vote for Gary Johnson if RP is not running in November. Write-in may produce zero impact since attention will be on newly elected president.

We Have A Choice Between Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumb.....

The Romulans vs. The Obamanoids...

Wait! There is a better choice..Dr. Ron Paul, "The True American Populist, The Classical Liberal, and True Conservative, Pro-American...

Do you want to reverse course for a better american?, then vote for the only candidate that menas what he says, and says what he means...

Your a great american Robin. Keep up the good work.

In Liberty,


The "Romulans!!" That's gotta be a classic! I'm glad I wasn't sipping my beverage just then!

Romulans. Heh, heh, heh.

Thanks Again!

[1] For those of you who are still wondering, it's "Rolling On Floor Laughing My Arse Off Peeing In My Pants."

Freedom is my Worship Word!

Spot on! I shared this on fb

Spot on! I shared this on fb and emailed it to as many people as I can think of.

Excellent article Robin, keep

Excellent article Robin, keep em comin!!