The Binary Fallacy and the End of Both Parties

The Binary Fallacy and

The End of Both Parties

Michael Collins

(Wash., DC) The results of eight years of Bush-Cheney at the helm make the demise of the Republican Party an easy call. Our financial system is on life support. The major banks are insolvent, according to banking and legal authority William K. Black. If they're not, they're in intensive care. No matter how many trillions of dollars worth of infusions they receive, they're not making loans. The economy is in a free fall with growth down 6% a quarter and job losses running at nearly 600,000 a month. We're stuck in two catastrophic wars. Despite President Obama's election, we're viewed with suspicion and disregard throughout the world.

The public knows which party bears the primary blame for all of this and they're not about to forget any time soon. The Republican Party is headed for the political graveyard.

They're not going to rely on past achievements though. Through their self-proclaimed national leader, the odious Rush Limbaugh, they've chosen to attack the first Latino nominee to the Supreme Court, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, for being a "racist." Former Oxycontin addict Limbaugh said, "She brings a form of bigotry and racism to the court." He went on to say that nominating her was like nominating Klansman and Aryan Nation advocate David Duke for the highest court.

These charges are quite literally bizarre, particularly with Limbaugh calling anyone else a racist. Newt Gingrich has joined Limbaugh in a duet of stupidity. This is appropriate since Gingrich is the architect of the power and policies used by Republicans to drive the nation into its current crisis.

The political impact for Republicans will be devastating. Sotomayor is the first Latino nominated to the Supreme Court. Latinos represent the fastest growing ethnic group in the United States. They went for Obama 67% to McCain’s 33%, and comprised 9% of the electorate in 2008. Among Latino youth, the fastest growing segment of the Latino population, the choice was 76% Obama compared to 19% McCain.

Sotomayor is also a woman nominee. Women comprised 53% of the electorate in 2008 and they went for Obama 56% to 43% for McCain. Many of those women are working and struggle with fools like Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich on a regular basis.

The Republicans are like an early adolescent frenetically trying on new identities, each seemingly stranger than the last. Led by the Southern wing, the party began by opposing the bailout for the big three U.S. automakers. Acting as though the nation doesn't need any heavy industry or a few million people don't need a job, their mask of fiscal rigor hid the fact that key southern states have the manufacturing base for major foreign automakers.

They then turned to Rush and, at the same time, held a national protest in April. Sparsely attended, this nationwide event acquired the unfortunate name of "Tea bagging." It failed to produce anything more than some Jerry Springer quality footage for a brief spot on local news. Recently, the national Republican Party, backed by early presidential aspirant Gingrich, tried to rename the Democrats as the "Democratic Socialist Party." There is no end in sight to this parade of irrelevant, out of touch efforts.

We're now seeing the final phases of the Republican dance macabre. The Limbaugh-Gingrich anti-Latino campaign is so dangerous that some Republican senators, including right wing Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), are moving away from the slanders against Sotomayor. John McCain (R-AZ) also sees the implications for his party. He's signed up to attend the National Council of La Raza conference this summer to counter the anti Latino rhetoric spread by other Republican leaders.

Democratic loyalists are acting as though the Republican demise is an accomplishment on their part. It is as though their understated -- but very complicit -- support of the Republican policies of empire and wealth transfer to the ultra wealthy will go unnoticed.

Congressional Democrats voted in the majority to authorize the Iraq invasion. They voted in the majority to fund the Iraq adventure long after the lies leading to war were well known. A majority of Senate Democrats voted for the Patriot Act. A Democratic controlled Senate allowed further government spying on personal communication (FISA Amendments) in 2008 and a third of Senate Democrats supported the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which gutted habeas corpus, and

Democrats voted for the initial Wall Street welfare bill; also know as the bailout. Right now, the Obama administration is responsible for doubling the Bush administrations cash transfer form the U.S. Treasury to Wall Street and the banks. Democrats failed to pass the only major bill to ease rampant foreclosures. This left 1.7 million families likely to lose their homes. Democrats did pass a credit card reform bill but forgot to cap those 29% interest limits that the banks arbitrarily assign.

There was an announced policy to leave Iraq. To date, all we've seen are plans to open up a new phase of the Afghan war with tens of thousands of troops simply switching job assignments from Iraq to an even more treacherous landscape. Ominously, we now have plans for super embassy in Pakistan to rival the fortress constructed in Iraq.

Democrats don't want people to see pictures of Bush-Cheney torture from the prison at Guantanamo, probably because it occurred with funding that they helped provide. They don't want to close that facility if it means housing prisoners in the United States. This forced their president into the extraordinary and troubling position of maintaining current prisoners in Cuba. As the Democratic Senators participated in the 90 to 6 vote to refuse President Obama funds to close Guantanamo, they were resolute in failing to mention that only10 of over 400 prisoners there are charged with a violent crime. To borrow an appropriate response, You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, at long last? Apparently not.

Democrats won't even talk about the deaths of over a million Iraqi civilians due to civil strife caused by the war that they funded. Failing to talk about it means it never happened, they hope.

Despite all of the alleged but obvious crimes of Bush-Cheney against people here and around the world, the Democrats want to "look forward" and bypass prosecutions of any sort against the Bush administration.

The Binary Fallacy

The binary fallacy is the crude dialectic that assumes that the two political parties are the only choices for voters and that what's bad for one party will always be good for the other. As evidence for this, we have Nixon's Watergate scandal followed by huge Democratic victories in congressional elections. President Carter's economically distressed four years begat the Reagan revolution and so forth.

Democrat Party operatives see the collapse of the nation and attendant pain as working against the Republicans since they were in control when the decline was assured by Republican sponsored programs. The situation is so bad, they argue, no one will take the Republicans seriously over the near and midterm. Add the highly favorable demographics among youth, women, and the emerging Latino population and you've got the dominant political party of the next few decades.

Republican loyalists speak of the risks that the Obama administration has inherited. When he falters, as he may given the circumstances that Republicans know all too well, his failure will assure a Republican comeback they argue.

Both parties fail to realize two flaws in their embedded fallacy.

First, the fallacy became a manufactured truth over decades due to the rigged game of U.S. politics. Funding and access to major media presume membership in one of the two major parties. Third party candidates need to poll equal or ahead in the public opinion polls, as Ross Perot did in 1992, in order to get any media attention or money. When the system is heavily rigged to exclude third parties, then, of course, there are only two choices.

The second flaw in the binary fallacy is embodied by our current troubles. The fallacy does not take into account successful performance during extreme crises. We're either in a depression or we're in the most severe financial crisis since the Great Depression. Times are desperate for tens of millions. The vast majority lives in fear of entering the world of the unemployed, homeless, and bereft. Iraq is the biggest foreign policy disaster in modern times. Our new plans for an Afghanistan adventure have the potential to equal Iraq in terms of national loss and increased threats of blowback.

One party created the current disaster. The other has embraced the broadest parameters of the policies that created the disasters that voters want fixed -- wealth transfers to the ultra rich while the vast majority gets just about nothing plus mindless, counter productive fantasies of empire through war.

The two parties and the elitists who look down their noses on the overwhelming majority of citizens assume that the people will simply tolerate the creation of a catastrophe by one party and the perpetuation of that grave injustice to citizens by the other.

When you're broke, you know it.

When you're out of work, you know it.

When there are no jobs, you know it.

And when the country continues to fight overseas but does nothing to protect economic security at home, you know it.

The game is up. The party is over. The people have a fundamental right to survive, at the very least. If both parties continue to promote policies that leave out almost all citizens, as is now the case, there will be alternatives that look nothing like the current two political parties. The binary fallacy and the two parties that fail to address our crises will be no more. Relying solely on the failures of the opposing party while embracing their programs will soon be defunct.


Special thanks to Kathyn Stone for her helpful comments.

Images: Gingrich Geithner-Obama

Permission granted to reproduce in part or whole with attribution of authorship and a link to this article.

Collectively, the public is being very stupid

Collectively, the public is being very stupid - e.g., in primary day in PA, recently, only 20% turned out to vote

That means that, assuming about a 50-50 split in 'prefer Democrats' vs. 'prefer Republicans' voters*, you could easily have the 'prefer Republicans' determining the Democratic nominee, and the 'prefer Democrats' determining the Republican nominee. (Most likely, they'd have to register as members of the opposite party.) Recent figures showed that nationwide, about 27% were independent (i.e., didn't self-identify as Democrat or Republican). So, you could also have people who, in their hearts, are independents, determining the nominee of either the Democrats or the Republicans (though not both) in most primaries. I'm not familiar with the rules in all states, but recall that some states even allow open primaries, where you can cross party lines in a primary vote. Recall that this was used to knock Cynthia McKinney out in a primary in Georgia in 2002.

So, if you want to know who's at fault for a corrupt, 2-party system, look in a mirror. Of course, I mean that we, collectively, have failed to act as responsible citizens. Instead of taking over the 2 dominant parties from below, we prefer to tune out and/or whine.

Just defeating incumbents in primaries won't solve all our problems. Who are you going to vote for, in their stead? An even worse bozo? Are you aware that in some states that have enacted term limit laws, the efforts back-fired, and led to worse corruption? (Sorry, I don't have a link handy.)

So, we need

1) decent candidates
2) crowd funding of those decent candidates' campaigns
3) a way to lower the cost of campaigning (more specifically, cost per vote) for the decent candidates.
4) a way to increase the cost of campagning (i.e., make the campaigning less effect, effectively increasing the cost per vote) for indecent incumbents

Regarding 2), see this link. (see 9:50 into the video). Obama may have exploited crowd-sourcing very effectively by filling the electorate with "hope" for "change", but these often were poorly defined visions that allowed 'brand Obama' to facilitate the projection of the electorates' fantasies onto Obama. There is no reason, however, that crowdfunding can't be exploited by non-corporatist candidates.

Regarding 1), whether or not the decent candidate should run as a Democrat, Republican or other party is not something I want to get into. I will simply state that, due to hurdles that Democrats and Republicans have erected in many precincts, I think it's a much smarter strategy to concentrate on taking the dominant parties over. If you don't think that your ethical 3rd party will not be targetted for corruption once it attains a big enough size to make a difference, you're sadly mistaken.

I have also defined a 'Pre-Candidate and Candidate' pipeline project, at, to solve 1). No work done on it yet, but hopefully it, or something similar, will take off. The internet lowers the barrier to entry in providing information to a mass audience to a very low amount. Amazingly, IMO, that wasn't done for maximum effectiveness by either McCain or Obama in '08. I say that based on the paucity of videos that were available on their own campaign web sites.

Regarding 4), I have proposed an Ostracism Project (link here), which I ran by Lawrence Lessig, of Change Congress, who pronounced it "very cool".

* I didn't bother looking up the exact demographics. With numbers close to ones as dramatic as these, there's no need to.

What would I say to Steny Hoyer?

"Have you no sense of shame, at long last." That's what I'd say to almost all of Congress.

They failed to investigate the most important event, the author of our current troubles, 911. They failed to stop a war they had to know was based on lies before they voted for it and which they certainly knew was based on lies shortly thereafter. And the accelerating degradation of the environment is of environmental

That is a failure of both parties but now that the "magic number" of 60 approaches, there will be some who expect real performance. That number is a fiction.

The reality is Geithner running Treasury and Summers as chief economic guru. In the first hundred days, Treasury payments and Fed lines of credit are exceeding the last days of Bush. Where is Congress? Where is the debate within the party?

I'm going to take a good look at your links. Frankly, I think the the only hope for the Democratic Party is the removal of some members in a way that scares the rest into line. Unfortunately, there's no "into line" coming from the White House.

After I'd finished this article, I saw this:
WASHINGTON -- As the Vermont Army National Guard prepares to send up to 1,800 troops to Afghanistan, Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont said Monday that he expects "more (rather) than less" of that number to be deployed.

"There is a need for them, and they (military officials) are very eager to have the Vermonters there," Leahy, a Democrat, said in a conference call with reporters..

BurlingtonFreePress.Com June 2, 2009

What on earth got into him?

Thanks for the resources.

You can't remove a sitting member of Congress

I did a modest amount of research on that, a few years ago, when Nancy Pelosi came out with her "impeachment off the table" comment. AFAIK, no state can recall either a sitting member of the House of Representatives, or the Senate. Apparently, this is federal law, as interpreted by federal court cases - you can't just pass a state law to make it possible in your state. Eventually, the Constitution needs to be amended to allow for that. It's particularly awful in the case of the Senate - why should a citizen of any state be stuck with the same Senator for 6 years, if they turn out to be particularly bad? You want a stable system, so removal should require a super-majority. But, it should be available in some attainable form.

Hence, it's that much more important to make sure that bad incumbents can't get re-elected. It's quite obvious that large percentages of the Congress feel secure in their jobs, and the main reason is that they have established relationships with lobbyists who will ensure that their re-election campaigns are fully funded. Also, nowadays, 50% of them who leave Congress either voluntarily or through the rare loss in a re-election, go into lobbying. Hence, if they are corrupt, and believe that they are likely doing their last term, their voting will likely be worse. It's their last chance to really ingratiate themselves with some lobbyist firms, the public be damned.

I've heard that there's also a huge problem with Congressional staffers looking ahead to careers as lobbyists. Congressional legislation is typically written by Congressional staffers, not members of Congress (that's my understanding, anyway; also, recall Rep. Conyers in Michael Moore's films Farenheit 911 says, "Fahrenheit 9/11 “sit down, son. Most of us don't read the bills we pass”). I haven't really studied this problem, but it certainly sounds plausible.

End Both Parties?

We need to do much more than just end both parties. The entire system must be thrown into the scrap heap of history. Not just here in the States but world wide. We must start from scratch. It's a big job but if we the people on this planet would just through our differences aside and unite we can do it. We must do it or none of us will survive. The best way to start is to expose to the world the truth about 9/11 and who was really behind it. We must NEVER quit in our efforts to spread the truth about 9/11! This would break the back of the NWO boys.

How? Wave a magic wand?

I'm sorry, but handing out 911 DVD's isn't going to do that, either. The system is corrupted principally by money, though I assume that there's a drive for sheer power that's more of an addiction for some players than just $$.

From the video:

The 2008 elections were the most expensive in US History. At a cost of 5.3 billion dollars, that breaks down to 14 million dollars a day. Members of Congress now spend a quarter to a third of their time raising money.

That's after they've been elected. Before they get elected for the first time, the situation is worse. From David Sirota's Hostile Takeover: How Big Money and Corruption Conquered Our Government--And How We Take It Back

Added to this is a political system that requires candidates to raise huge amounts of money to run for office, whether at the local, state, or national level. When congressional candidates start their campaign, they are told by their political parties that the most important priority is getting on the phone and calling big donors and corporate political action committees to ask for huge contributions - contributions that will pay for expensive television advertising. By election night, typical candidates have spent most of the race not meeting voters, not giving speeches, not touring their districts, not researching issues - they have spent most of their time on the phone or at fundraising parties shaking down donors for cash.

(emphasis mine)

Yes metamars

It is ALL about power but WE give them the power by going along with them. All of us have to grow some balls and say no to them. NEVER let fear get in the way. Do what you know is right no matter what. Sure it's not easy but it sure is worth it in the end. Remember what MLK said. "Free at last! Free at last" It cost him his life but he did what he knew in his heart was right. Resist the NWO every step of the way. I would gladly give my life to defeat this evil that has consumed mankind. Without hesitation.

Taking over primaries is a MEANS of taking power from elites

You haven't commented on my point of determining the nominees of Democrats and Republicans in who will end up in Congress, via primaries, as a means of ceasing to hand over power to "them".

Why is that? The math is certainly suggestive.....

I'm not questioning your motives, but I have to wonder about your political acumen. The 911 Truth movement has been very ineffectual, politically. That is a fact, at least if you measure effectiveness by the numbers of Congressmen and Senators who will even open their mouths about the so-called 911 investigations. And I think part of the reason that it is ineffective, politically, is the same reason that a lot of high-minded activist movements are not effective. And that is, they are being frustrated by those powerful gatekeepers of power known as Congressmen and Senators, who are more beholden to financial interests than they are to "we the people". And, also, they are not being brutally honest with themselves about their degree of success, politically. If they were more brutally honest, they would think harder about changing the parameters of the system that they operate in. (The definition of insanity being, "doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result.")

Don't you think that if you want a responsible government, you will have to "throw the bums out", somehow? They are failing us on a lot more issues than 911, but I don't hear many apologies coming from either the Democrats or Republicans.

What plan or strategy do you suggest to "throw the bums out"? Are you simply saying that we need to have massive street marches, like MLK used to lead, and that there's no point in determining nominees for the most powerful political positions in the land?

Quote What plan or strategy


What plan or strategy do you suggest to "throw the bums out"?

End Quote

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

The answer to 911 is 1776.


"The 911 Truth movement has been very ineffectual, politically."

End Quote

"Secret Service agent we had interacted with before the press conference came walking out. He smiled and pointed at us, "Great work guys!" then he saluted us! Yes, a Secret Service agent saluted us for asking the Vice President a hard question about scientific proof of the controlled demolition of the towers on 9-11. Bruno called out to him "Thank you! You did a great job running a smooth operation!""

There will be NO Political Solution to 911.

Only a Constitutional One.

People on the Inside.

Deep Inside.


Not Politicians.

The 911 Truth Movement HAS BEEN ULTRA EFFECTIVE.

The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it

It's a crime just like the sequel, the invasion of Iraq

The Constitution contains the elements necessary to deal with this. Unfortunately, Congress gave up its most important power by allowing presidents to wage war in behalf of the interest of his donors. This is concise summary of how long we've dealt with an imperial presidency:

"In those days when the magic glow of FDR still flickered in our memories when Eisenhower reigned with paternal benignancy and the Kennedy's appeared on white chargers with the promise of Camelot, it was possible to forget the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, who had taught us to mistrust power, to check it and balance it, and never to yield up the means of thwarting it." [|J. William Fulbright]

The releast of information that is by right the property of the people is the only way I can see us getting from the present situation to where we deserve to be - seeing the truth and acting on the facts that outline the betrayal of 911.

Absent a violent revolution, I meant a plan which works through

Absent a violent revolution, I meant a plan which works through existing institutions

A violent revolution is extraordinarily unlikely to work, under current conditions. It would most likely end up the way that Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion did - with the current Federal government still completely in charge, and completely unchanged. (Shay's Rebellion was put down by local local militia and state army forces; the Whiskey Rebellion was put down by federal forces, under order of President George Washington).

Regarding Shay's Rebellion:

Thomas Jefferson, who was serving as an ambassador to France at the time, refused to be alarmed by Shays' Rebellion. In a letter to a friend, he wrote that "a little rebellion now and then is a good thing. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

So, maybe the problem here is that you are too much like Thomas Jefferson, and quite unlike George Washington. :-)

Even aside from the question of whether a violent revolution can possibly succeed, doesn't it make sense, first, to see if there's a peaceful way to accomplish lasting change for the better? If there are not enough patriots in the country to "throw the bums out" at primary time, why would anybody think that there are enough patriots to "throw the bums out" by force?

Non-Violence–The Greatest

Non-Violence–The Greatest Force

M. K. Gandhi

Mohandas K. Gandhi was one of the towering figures, not just of the twentieth century, but of all time. The nonviolent struggle that he led for Indian independence provided peace groups in other countries of the world with hope and a practical model for achieving that hope. Others before him had articulated and even used nonviolent tactics in opposition to oppression, from the Hebrew midwives to Jesus, and Gandhi learned much from them. But no one had been able to operationalize nonviolence, to make it the basis of an ongoing movement, and at the same time the basis of a philosophical and spiritual way of living. The FOR lionized Gandhi, and its magazine ran over thirty articles and even whole issues about him. But no one was able to figure out how to transfer his earnings elsewhere until Martin Luther King, Jr., and the bus boycott in Montgomery. When one regards the work of Gandhi and King from a historical promontory, the creative genius of these two innovators is breathtaking. (The World Tomorrow 9 [October 1926], 143)

* * * * *

Non-violence is the greatest force man has been endowed with. Truth is the only goal he has. For God is none other than Truth. But Truth cannot be, never will be reached except through non-violence.

That which distinguishes man from all other animals is his capacity to be non-violent. And he fulfills his mission only to the extent that he is non-violent and no more. He has no doubt many other gifts. But if they do not subserve the main purpose–the development of the spirit of non-violence in him–they but drag him down lower than the brute, a status from which he has only just emerged.

The cry for peace will be a cry in the wilderness, so long as the spirit of non-violence does not dominate millions of men and women.

An armed conflict between nations horrifies us. But the economic war is no better than an armed conflict. This is like a surgical operation. An economic war is prolonged torture. And its ravages are no less terrible than those depicted in the literature on war properly so-called. We think nothing of the other because we are used to its deadly effects.

Many of us in India shudder to see blood spilled. Many of us resent cow slaughter, but we think nothing of the slow torture through which by our greed we put our people and cattle. But because we are used to this lingering death, we think no more about it.

The movement against war is sound. I pray for its success. But I cannot help the gnawing fear that the movement will fail, if it does not touch the root of all evil– man's greed.

Will America, England and the other great nations of the West continue to exploit the so called weaker or uncivilized races and hope to attain peace that the whole world is pining for? Or will Americans continue to prey upon one another, have commercial rivalries and yet expect to dictate peace to the world?

Not till the spirit is changed, can the form be altered. The form is merely an expression of the spirit within. We may succeed in seemingly altering the form but the alteration will be a mere make believe, if the spirit within remains unalterable. A whited sepulchre still conceals beneath it the rotting flesh and bone.

Far be it from me, to discount or under-rate the great effort that is being made in the West to kill the war-spirit. Mine is merely a word of caution as from a fellow seeker who has been striving in his own humble manner after the same thing, maybe in a different way, no doubt on a much smaller scale. But if the experiment demonstrably succeeds on the smaller field and, if those who are working on the larger field have not overtaken me, it will at least pave the way for a similar experiment on a large field.

I observe in the limited field in which I find myself, that unless I can reach the hearts of men and women, I am able to do nothing. I observe further that so long as the spirit of hate persists in some shape or other, it is impossible to establish peace or to gain our freedom by peaceful effort. We cannot love one another, if we hate Englishmen. We cannot love the Japanese and hate Englishmen. We must either let the law of love rule us through and through or not at all. Love among ourselves based on hatred of others breaks down under the slightest pressure. The fact is, such love is never real love. It is an armed peace. And so it will be in this great movement in the West against War. War will only be stopped when the conscience of mankind has become sufficiently elevated to recognize the undisputed supremacy of the Law of Love in all the walks of life. Some say this will never come to pass. I shall retain the faith till the end of my earthly existence that it shall come to pass.


The 21st Century 1776 may very well be different from the 18th Century Equivalent.

Time and History will Tell.

The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it

Voting in a primary is completely non-violent

And even, done in the right spirit, an act of love. (Though we need quality candidates for whom to vote.)

Do you think Ghandi would agree with my statement that voting in a primary is completely non-violent?

"Those who cast the votes

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing.

Those who count the votes decide everything."

Josef Stalin

American Blackout

The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it

And your point is?

Vote fraud and voter disenfranchisement is real. If it was so extreme that the effects could never be overcome, why did Cynthia McKinney run for President in 2008? What point are you trying to make?

We have to both.


And hold those responsible for the tally accountable.

The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it

Thom Hartmann on "taking over" the Democratic Party

(note: How timely. This came out just today.)

According to him, the Republican Party was "taken over" by movement conservatives, already. In point of fact, there's probably a huge group of Ron Paul supporters who could take over a large part of the Republican Party. IMO, the neocons helped destroy the Republican Party, and the Republicans stand no chance of resurrecting their prior status unless they are "taken over" by folks with a more populist bent.

More at The Real News

According to the libertarian website, a lot of the neocons have exited the Republican Party, and are looking to manipulate the Democratic Party.

Whatever the details are, there's no secret to how it's done. As Ralph Nader said (and Thom Hartmann and I would agree), the first rule is to SHOW UP.

Systemic change is the key, you're right

The end of the parties is part of that. How will that happen?

Here's a very interesting scenario from one of the best posters on the economy over the past few years,
Numerian -- The unraveling