Episode 26 August 30, 2019 Topic Category Democrat Party Socialism Title: What Political Party Defends Individual Freedom In America Against the Democrat Socialists?

Episode 26 August 30, 2019

Topic Category Democrat Party Socialism

Title: What Political Party Defends Individual Freedom In America Against the Democrat Socialists?
Our podcast today expands on the news story, by Ellis Rua, that young people are attracted to the socialist ideology of the Democrat Party by explaining that, for the past 50 years, the socialists had the battle field entirely to themselves.

It is not difficult to win the hearts and minds of the young people, if they only hear one side of the story.

Our podcast today explains why the Republican Party never defended individual freedom from the socialist attacks.

In the article about socialism, Ellis Rua, of the AP, cites the case of 21 year old Andy Vila, as a part of a wave of young Americans openly supporting socialism.

Rua writes,

“College course readings led Vila to question his beliefs further. He started attending left-leaning campus events, interacting with students of varying racial and socioeconomic backgrounds…By year’s end, he had developed a disdain for capitalism and the political right. Now the sociology and geography major wants sweeping reforms, including Medicare for all, free access to higher education and a Green New Deal.”

In response to Rua’s article, several commenters laid the blame for Vila’s attraction to socialism on several causes:

“I blame parents, and I blame schools, and mostly I blame teachers on all of this insanity. And I blame education systems in general for not teaching the ills of socialism, communism and the destruction of major nations who took everything from some, to give it all way for nothing to others.”

Another commenter blamed the Republican Party.

“This cancer of socialism was allowed to fester and grow while the Republicans handed us a McCain and Mitt Romney, or a George Bush. These are the same fake power grabbing money hungry rinos who like the Clinton’s are all from the same political families.”

Blaming the Republicans is partially correct.

But, most of blame, and the genesis of the Millennial’s socialist fantasy, occurred as a result of events much earlier in the nation’s history, than McCain or Mittens.

Our podcast concludes with an answer to Rich Johnson, in his comments, after he had read the article by Rua.

Johnson asks “How do we take back our country?”

Rich, you take our country back beginning at the point in history of the Declaration, in 1776, and the nation’s first constitution, adopted in 1781, and attaching that state sovereignty Constitution to a natural rights democratic republic.

Madison’s representative republic of 1787, ended in a centralized tyranny of global elites, who operate disconnected from the consent of the governed.

In terms of protecting individual freedom, it does not matter if Madison’s apparatus is under the control of globalist Democrats or globalist Republicans.

Madison’s constitution would allow either party to operate the centralized tyranny.

The only solution to Madison’s centralized representative republic is a new state sovereignty democratic republic.


The Flaws in Madison’s First Past the Post Two Party System

During the time of Vila’s conversion to socialism, where was the countervailing political force that defended individual liberty?

Young people, like Vila, have faced an unrelenting assault on individual freedom from dedicated, ideologically-rigid socialists, who deeply believe that they are the only ones that can correct America’s racist, slave-based founding.

The Republicans never intervened with a countervailing ideology of individual liberty because Madison’s constitution did not require that of them.

Madison’s two-party system of politics was based upon social class competition between the natural aristocracy and the common citizens, not on the pursuit of individual liberty.

Madison substituted class competition between the elites and common citizens for the individual natural rights of the Declaration.

Madison’s system of elected representation left out a political party that defended and protected the natural rights of citizens.

As a historical outcome of Madison’s flaw, the Democrat socialists today share no common cultural values about the mission of individual liberty with other American citizens.

As President John Adams wrote in a letter to Benjamin Stoddert, the two political parties that had come into existence had defined financial goals, not the goal of protecting individual liberty.

“The reason,” noted Adams, “is that we have no Americans in America. The Federalistists have been no more Americans than the anti-federalists…Jefferson had a party. Hamilton had a party, but the commonwealth had none.”

In other words, under Madison’s class conflict model of government, liberty would have required its own political party. Liberty would be seen as just another special interest, like the financial interests of the natural aristocracy.

For example, the reason that the Republican Party never pushed back against Obama’s transformation of America is that the Republicans were only required to translate the political desires of the corporate, wealthy class into social and political policy, not to protect the citizen’s loss of fundamental natural rights to a totalitarian socialist ideology.

Over time, the corrupt special interest political system, called “the spoils” system, led the Republicans to collaborate with the Democrats in keeping the special interest gravy train on track.

Both parties agreed that the spoils system was ultimately essential to making the political system work, for them. They both agreed that whoever won an election, that the winner could distribute the spoils to their own special interests.

Under Madison, there is no political party that protects the sovereignty of the citizens, or the sovereignty of the nation, from a globalist ideology.

In his review of Hamilton’s Federalist Papers, Richard Bernstein posed the basic political question addressed by Madison and Hamilton:

“Was it dangerous in a democratic government, to have important officers insulated from control by the people, or was it necessary to accept that risk in order to protect fundamental rights from infringement by popular passions or political intrigue?”

The young people, like Vila, have never heard the other side of the story about individual freedom because there is no countervailing political movement in America that defends individual freedom.


What is new in American politics, since the election of Obama in 2008, is the compatibility in promoting globalism between the goals of the socialist Democrats, and the goals of Republicans.

In Madison’s two party system, the outcome of voting for either the Democrats or the Republicans means the same outcome: globalism.

The true distinction of the American political system, wrote Madison in Federalist #71, “lies in the total exclusion of the people, in their collective capacity in any share in the government.”

The consequence of Madison’s two party system is that after the globalist elites obtain centralized power, the citizens do not have a method of regaining citizen sovereignty.

Madison’s rules were the instruments to balance and check factional financial interests in order to insure that social elites, the natural leaders, who made important decisions on behalf of all society, were insulated from the tyranny that could be imposed by the people.

Today, the Democrat socialists also believe that their natural leaders should make all the important decisions on behalf of all citizens. insulated from the tyranny that could be imposed by the people.

In his book, The Articles of Confederation, Jensen writes,

“…the federalists adopted a theory of the sovereignty of the people, in the name of the people, and erected a federalist government whose purpose was to thwart the will of the people in whose name they acted…”

As Gordon Wood has pointed out, in The Creation of the American Republic, not only did Madison’s scheme provide for a system dominated by

“…natural leaders who knew better than the people as a whole what was good for society, but it also succeeded in removing the non-natural leaders from the political process.”

Wood noted,

“In fact, the people did not actually participate in government any more…The Federalists had taken the people out of the government altogether.”

Once either party was the first past the post, citizens were left defenseless to protect individual liberty because they do not get to vote for a political party that defends individual freedom.

As Sean Wilentz wrote, in The Rise of American Democracy,

“The people had no formal voice of their own in government. And, that was exactly how it was supposed to be – for once the electors had chosen their representatives, they ceded power, reserving none for themselves until the next election…The people, as a political entity, existed only on election day.”

Madison’s first-past-the-post, winner-take-all special interest corruption model, empowers either the Democrats, or the Republicans, to override the will of the citizens, after the election.

In Madison’s first past the post model, one political party receives a majority of the vote, and that party gets to form the new government. In the winner-take-all system of electing candidates to office, the losers have a very limited role in governing.

At least the losers have a limited role. The citizens who value freedom do not have a vote, at all because they cannot vote for a political party to defend liberty.

Under Madison’s flawed, truncated, two-party arrangement, given the absence of a citizen liberty party, natural rights conservatives have no alternative, except to vote for candidates of the Republican Party.

As Robert McChensey wrote in his book, Dollarocracy, the difference between Democrat or Republican control is “whether AT&T openly or covertly writes the laws.”

This is the only system that a young socialist, Vila, knows and he has never heard the other side of the story about American liberty.

This is my conclusion.

When the lunatic socialist professor from Duke showed up on national media to compare the killings caused by Trump to the killings caused by communists dictators, the Republican National Committee did not push back.

The only side of the story that Vila heard was the argument offered by the Duke professor, that Trump’s ideology kills people.

Trump has been very consistent in his argument that the global trade policies sold out the American middle class, without ever identifying who it was that negotiated the bad trade deals.

One of the benefits Madison’s first past the post two party system is that there are only two choices for identifying what political movement sold out American sovereign economic interests.

It was either the globalist crony capitalist Republicans, working secretly through their front groups, like the Business Roundtable.

Or, it was the globalist socialist Democrat Party, working to undermine American sovereignty, working secretly with globalists to destroy American sovereignty with mass illegal immigration.

Young socialists, like Vila, are attracted to socialism because they only hear one side of the argument.

There is no political party that defends freedom from the globalist onslaught.

The nation is irrevocably split over irreconcilable differences about the mission of America.

To paraphrase John Adams,

“The reason that we do not have an America is that Americans are not represented by either the Republicans or the Democrats. The Republicans have been no more American than the Democrats. But, the commonwealth of America does not have a political party.”

The main threat to individual liberty today is not simply from a dedicated ideological, left-wing political movement that seeks to undermine a legitimate constitutional government.

The main threat to liberty is that there is no organized political party that defends American sovereignty from the combined globalist threat of Democrats and Republicans.

Madison’s flawed document of 1787, signed in secret by 37 self-selected elites, did not provide a framework of government that protected American individual liberties.

To answer Rich Johnson, the only solution to Madison’s centralized, two party, representative republic straight-jacket is a new constitutional democratic republic, based upon the framework of a decentralized federalist system of states, that the authentic American founding fathers devised in 1776.

In that first American Constitution, citizens had the power and authority to defend their freedoms from the agents of an all-powerful central government, a lesson in history that a young socialist, like Vila, has never heard before.

I am Laurie Thomas Vass, and this podcast is a copyrighted production of the CLP News Network

You can subscribe to all of the audio and text of our podcasts, for $30 per year,  at our website.

You can join the political movement to create a natural rights republic and contribute our mission at CLPnewsnetwork.com

You can learn more about the Democratic Republic of America at GABBYpress.com

Thank you for joining me today and please visit our entire archive of podcasts at clpnewsnetwork.com