Skip to main content

The Accountability Party

"The Accountability Party? What's that?" you ask, puzzled, thinking you've missed some newsworthy "announcement". You haven't.

The Accountability Party is my little fantasy, created at this most opportune moment, when the Dems and Repubs are both out of favor. The Accountability Party is intended to be broad-based, having only two planks, so as to be robustly resistant to destruction -- or irrelevance -- by fragmentation.

The AP's two planks are Accountability and Jobs. Every other issue is relevant ONLY as seen through the lens of these two concerns. Otherwise the AP takes no position. "No position" means NO POSITION. No position means being "agnostic" on EVERYTHING else. Individual AP members have their own views of course, but as a unified organization, the AP takes no position on: abortion, taxes, gay marriage, gun rights, defense policy, campaign finance, racial discrimination, immigration, terrorism, hate-speech, Israel, education policy, environmentalism, global warming, etc.

The two issues to which the AP devotes its exclusive focus are: accountability and jobs.

ACCOUNTABILITY

No one is above the law. Everyone, but in particular persons in high position who have traditionally 'enjoyed' immunity from prosecution, will now have their get out of jail free cards voided.

And JOBS: everyone who wants a paycheck gets a paycheck. EV-REE-ONE.

Now you might well ask -- certainly others will -- "How you gonna implement the jobs program, and more to the point, how you gonna pay for it?" To which I reply, "You must always remember that the AP subordinates ALL OTHER ISSUES to paychecks/jobs and accountability, so the details of the fiscal policy behind the "JOBS" commitment is for the most part irrelevant. That said, the Treasury has a machine that prints checks, so the policy is secured, "Move right along. Nothing to see here." Whatever may be the details required to reconcile the jobs program with fiscal reality, the program itself is in stone, and non-negotiable. For the curious though, I would state the obvious: print the money, borrow the money, or tax someone. In terms of practical economics, it would be quite simple: The more robust the private sector economy, the greater the proportion of jobs it provides. The rest to be provided by govt, and financed,... however. (Personally, I like a progressive income tax, or a flat tax based on net worth, or a financial transaction tax, but I'll go along with whatever the AP figures out AFTER THE ELECTIONS HAVE BEEN WON.)

A major innovation: the AP does not conduct its campaigns by traditional methods. No TV, no radio, no interviews with mainstream journalists. TV, radio, and other conventional media are corporate. They are part of the illegitimate mainstream corporate and political power. They are part of the political opposition, they are gatekeepers of the process, and if you pay them for TV and radio ads, then you are feeding your political adversaries. The AP therefore, chooses to conduct its campaigns DIRECTLY with the voters, over the internet, no gatekeeper, no middleman -- no corporate mediation-for-profit of the political process. A not-for-profit political process is crucial to eliminating corporate/govt corruption and restoring a healthy society. In this way, the AP takes money out of the political process.

There's more, but this is a start.

Jeff Davis: jrd1415@yahoo.com

Tweet this message. Let's get things moving.

Comments

ruxpert said…
I Agree!
btw, anything recent/more re: 'TheAccountabilityParty' ?

Popular posts from this blog

The movement to free Julian Assange

In response to a similar comment by  ISHKABIBBLE   /   FEBRUARY 18, 2019 on Caitlin Johnstone's Website: https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/02/18/watch-my-speech-on-assanges-persecution-for-whistle-blowing-wikileaks-the-future-of-democracy/#comment-9130 I am comprehensively in agreement with you. For the last two or three years, I have entertained the same idea. So let me now expand on your — and my — suggestion. First of all, this undertaking should be done completely out in the open. There should be no secrecy involved. It should be a mass, overt, worldwide effort, with invitations to assemble in London for the event sent out to all those who support Assange. There should be no question whatsoever that it is an in-your-face repudiation and challenge to the British “Establishment”/Deep State. The action would be nothing less than a “Declaration of Independence” issued by the people of the world against the craven and unlawful imprisonment of by the UK...

re censorship at antiwar.com

Really, Thomas? Who is the drama queen here? You're embarrassing yourself with this name calling. My comment disappeared. What am I to think, you're on a coffee break? So I posted the link to my backup, my all-but-invisible, low-traffic,... make that no-traffic,... blog. The "rules" you cite give the Jews a free pass on their complicity in the Zionist project. It's ok to criticize Zionism or Israel, but not the Jews that make their crimes possible. That appears to be the rule, and it amounts to Antiwar.com caving to Jewish/Zionist intimidation. It may be discretion -- as in "discretion is the better part of valor" -- but absent the lethality of bullets-and-bombs-combat, it's cowardly. It was cowardly then, as it is cowardly now. That said, it ***IS*** Justin's website and he gets to decide on when "discretion" -- strategic restraint -- is called for. I've had this issue since before you were moderator. Someone Jewis...

Sunshine on the Suck-ups

In response to an article -- "a splendid little war could end Trump's presidency" --  by Jim Jatras https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/a-splendid-little-war-could-end-trumps-presidency-/ Jatras is a perfect example of the comprehensive cluelessnesss of the political class. Here, on display is the reason US foreign policy has been a flat out disaster for the last thirty years. Generations in the echo chamber of foreign policy "expertise", where the rule is bobble-headed yes-man servility and craven obsequiousness to the interests of the 1%, has lead US foreign policy to a place where an enforced and self-reinforcing notion of "expertise" is in fact zombified incompetence. Trump is in the big chair. That Jatras cannot see him except through the lens of "a shallow, superficial, unqualified Twitter-addicted unstable personality who never should have been allowed into the Oval Office..." clearly indicates that a war for the definition of ...