Thoughts for a new political system

Why do we vote for a candidate and not the issues? Why am I forced to vote for a candidate who I like for one reason but disagree with on another? Why do I have to vote for someone who will best ‘represent’ my interests, instead of voting for the best person to implement my interests? Why do we still exist in this antiquated system of representation when we have the capability to vote on every issue?

For years I’ve been party to the idea that we need more political parties. That in the current two party system a lot of voters, like myself, get left out in the cold. There has never been, and never will be, a candidate who accurately represents the needs of the nation. The belief has always been that if there were more parties, there would be more representation, and create more competition and balance amongst the parties. But I don’t see it that way at all anymore. In fact, I think there should be no political parties.

There should no parties. Citizens should vote for two things. The top 10 issues we want our government to address, and the most capable people to get those 10 items accomplished. Every four years we would all vote to determine if anything new needs to be prioritized or added to the list, and vote whether to keep the current politicians in office, assuming they’ve done a good job, or replace them with new candidates. And of course all positions would be subject to limits on their tenure. Politicians will still have the power to make decisions, act autonomously, and to make deals with other countries, companies, etc… but only as it relates to advancing the 10 things the nation voted for.

Because right now there are a number of issues that the majority of Americans agree on, like universal healthcare and childcare, like reducing the deficit, like ending the practice of unprovoked wars, but there is no one candidate that will focus on what the majority want, not as long as they are considered ‘representatives’ rather than implementers. As a representative it is inevitable that they will stray from the will of the people and make deals based on what serves them. 

So rather than seeing progress around the issues we all agree on as a nation, we’re forced to sacrifice our needs by choosing a candidate who is the closest to what we want. But it never works.  Do we want to vote for a republican because they’ll lower taxes? Or do we want to vote for a democrat because they’re trying to pass universal healthcare? I want both, but I can only get a candidate who represents one. Forcing me to choose and forcing us to remain divided.

This idea for a new political system, a vision for whaat democracy actually looks like, would eliminate that problem and serve the interests of the citizens, allowing us to unite around the common issues the majority of us face and want resolved.

Direct your anger appropriately

I get a lot of slack for being really hard on the democrats, and really easy on the republicans, and most people assume it’s because I’m a republican. They also assume that republicans are to blame for all of the problems in this country. But for me to be mad at the republicans would be like growing up a Mets fan and being mad at the Atlanta Braves. I might be mad that they keep winning, but being mad at the Braves isn’t going to make the Mets a better team. Calling out all the things I hate about the Braves organization and their players, is not going to make the Mets better. And that’s how I feel about politics and political parties.

If I had to be a fan of one team it would be the democrats. Despite the fact that they seem to get nothing accomplished, I still agree with the ideologies they supposedly uphold. And I disagree with republicans on just about every issue. So if forced, I’d say I’m a democrat fan. But the problem is they suck and I can’t help but call it out and yell at them.

I’m mad at Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, Pete Hegseth, and every other person on his administration pushing forward this insane agenda that I vehemently disagree with, but it does nothing to make my party better. And lest we forget, the only reason that we are in this situation to begin with is because of the failures of the Democratic Party. Specifically doing two things this time around to get Donald Trump elected. One, standing in lock step with Israel’s relentless assault on the Palestinian people by repeatedly sending money and arms to support it, and vetoing every UN resolution to stop it. It’s hard to convince people you’re the party of ‘morals and integrity’ after that. 

Mistake number two was putting all their money, resources, and support into a candidate that was not up to the task. Not once, but twice. First with Joe Biden, who we all knew was incapable of running again, and probably shouldn’t have run the first time. Second, with Kamala Harris. A candidate who presidential campaign four years earlier failed so miserably that she pulled out before delegate votes were even cast. “Trump bad, we’re good” was only going to work the first time and not after what we all witnessed during the Biden/Harris years.

And so while I’m mad right now at the situation this country finds itself in, the question I keep asking myself is what are the democrats doing? What is there plan to win seats in the senate and the house to maybe take some power back? Do they have a plan? Are they thinking about a plan? Are they grooming someone to be the next democratic presidential nominee? Or are they just going to wing it like they’ve been doing for the last 12 years? What is the plan?

Because if there is no plan, and they throw out another hoard of candidates who are incapable of standing up to the republicans and winning, then you can’t be mad at the republicans. You need to be mad at your team and the stakeholders of that team and ask “what the fuck are you doing?” And even if they do win, you need to ask “what the fuck are you doing?” Because since the democrats showed their willingness to support and defend the destruction of Gaza, the reality is with democrats in charge life will only get better for some of us, and the rest of us will continue to suffer no matter who’s in charge. Improvement is only relative.   

Incompetent or in on it?

I got a check from New York State for $150 as part of the state’s “ongoing battle to fight inflation.” One hundred fifty dollars, imagine that. It’s laughable and embarrassing that they think that for $150 we’re going to believe that they’re actually doing something to help people. My household is just my fiancee and I, and we can’t go to the grocery store without spending $100, and that doesn’t even include meat and fish which I buy separately. And we’re going to the grocery store 2 - 3 times per week. So where does $150 get someone really?

It’s crumbs compared to what the government pisses away on a daily basis. But crumbs for the people is the history of this country. Politicians hand out crumbs to shut people up, and we accept those crumbs as something being better than nothing, and forget what it is we have been fighting for.

The timing of this check is interesting because the hope of crumbs is what the Democrats accepted to end the government shut down. A lot of people are pissed off about it (watch Jon Stewarts excellent take). They think that they sold out the American people, but the reality is they never actually cared about the American people. If they did then we wouldn’t be in a position as a country where food insecurity persists, and millions of people remain without health insurance, and millions more can barely afford the insurance they do have.

If they cared, they would have shored up those basic rights years ago when they were in control, the way Republicans are now in control. Everyone on the left wants to blame the right for the lack of progress in this country, but I blame the left. They too have controlled all branches of government multiple times in the last 50 years and yet they have never accomplished any of the things they have promised. Always instead blaming the republicans for holding up their agenda. And yet when the Republicans take control, they seem to to get done what they want.

So which one is it? Is the right blocking their agenda? Is the left too incompetent to get anything done? Or do they just not actually give a shit as long as they’re able to stay in power? I think a $150 check to fight inflation is all you need to know to figure out the answer.

It blows my mind how our government lets people go hungry

It's unfathomable to think we live in a country where there are organizations fighting to end hunger while our government is simultaneously starving people. We all support organizations fighting to feed people while pretending it's ok that millions of people in this country fail to get their daily nourishment, and that it’s normal that this responsibility falls on the shoulders of everyone but the organization we pay trillions in dollars to. The government.

It blows my mind how easily we all turn a blind eye and pretend like its ok. Like all the money spent on wars, destruction, and to further line peoples pockets instead of helping people is just the way it is. Why? Why do we pretend like it is? Why do we pretend like it's just the way it has to be.

I read a few articles about Zohran Mamdani and his ideas for NYC. I didn't think any of them were crazy. Raising the minimum wage to something livable, where people would only have to work one job to have a life. Funding groceries stores with tax dollars so everyone can eat. Freezing rents for people living in rent controlled apartments. All these things to help the people that are struggling and the response I read from the people who's taxes would increase is I'm going to leave the city. Businesses whose taxes would increase are going to leave the city.

Rather than being part of something historic, and helping to pick people up, people and businesses are like no we're just going to leave, and then what will you do? How unwell do you have to be for that to be your stance? You're a millionaire, a billionaire, and rather than fork some more money into the pot you want to leave to prove a point.

People are sometimes shitty, but people are waking up to that realization. As the divide grows bigger so does the number of people who are struggling and who are realizing that they have to band together to protect themselves by electing people who will fight for regulations that serve them. That they need to stop pretending like living in the richest country in the world and not having anything to eat or anywhere to live is ok.

That's what the election of a Democratic Socialist in New York City says, and that's what the overwhelming support of propositions in Colorado to support free school meals for kids k-12 says. That we're sick and tired and we won’t stand for it any more.

1 percent rejoice, 99 percent starve

Two headlines appeared in my news feed today. The stock market hit all time highs, while the most vulnerable portion of our population is in danger of losing their food benefits. How could those two things be true at the same time? How could a small but powerful percentage of our population be celebrating, while the large and vulnerable percentage of our population is no doubt riddled with fear and anxiety? What does that say about the direction, or current state, of our country?

I read the other day that 50 percent of the spending in this country is from 10 percent of the population. Let that sink in. How sustainable of a situation is that when 10 percent of the population is propping up the economy? What could possibly go wrong?

On my local ballot for this election period is two questions. One, do you agree to let the state keep excess tax collected above projections to pay for food for children in the upcoming year. Two, do you agree we should raise taxes on households making more than $300,000 to fund food for children in the years to come? And I'm torn on the second one.

While I want every kid in this state, in every state across the country and the world, to have all their meals for free, I struggle with the idea of raising taxes to pay for it when I know how misallocated billions and trillions of tax dollars already are. Funding foreign wars in the last 2 – 3 years alone has cost of over $250 billion as a nation. The proposal to bail out Argentina could cost us another $30 billion.

We already have the money to feed everyone in this country but time and time again we choose not to, and instead fund destructive wars, or provide aid to everyone but our own. And every year its a question of whether or not we can pay for safety net program like SNAP, like Medicaid.

So how do I continue to vote to raise taxes when I know that at some point down the line, even if this ballot measure passes and funds school meals for now, it will eventually be used for something malevolent. It's a shitty and maddening position to be in. And they know that. That's why the opposition to the measure isn't to reallocate funds away from wars and corporate greed. The opposition is: taxes bad.

And I agree, new taxes are bad. But in this case not providing meals to children is far worse and I figure I'll let someone else figure out why we're pissing our money away to foreign countries for purposes of destruction and corruption instead of actually helping them. And in the interim I'll vote yes to raise taxes and feed children.