Tag: duopoly

How the Republican Party is Ruining America

By Manuel Martin | United States

The Republican party is ruining America. It’s time for the GOP to go the way of the dinosaur or endorse Joe Biden. In my past, I have actually been a Republican myself. At the age of 21, I started a local tea party chapter and volunteered with my local GOP central committee. I gave speeches to hundreds of Republicans, pumping them up to fight for smaller government and more freedom. In fact, I even ran for state assembly in California as a Republican.

I was an above average GOP solder. I would get mad when someone “disrespected the flag”, pledging my proud allegiance to it. My long-winded conversations with Republican senior citizens often included trading sentences like, “kids in school don’t even do the pledge of allegiance, can you believe what’s happening to the country?” I was that guy who thought that my flag worshiping was superior to another team’s.

Unfortunately for the Republican Party, I paid attention to what they did, not what they said.

The Republican Party and Big Government

Almost all modern Republican officials simply conserve the expanded power of government. The Democrats before put the policies in, and the Republicans do nothing to repeal them. In many cases, they even implement their own additional expansions. Be honest and ask yourself something: What major agencies or legislation have you seen the GOP shut down or repeal? The GOP had the House, Senate, and Presidency with the clear mandate of repealing Oabamcare, but they still haven’t. Why would the GOP not do what they promise? The answer is simple: because they lie. The GOP is not the party of small government; they are the party of rhetoric.

Republican apologists are allowed to have their opinions, but not their own facts. Simply put, Republican administrations in recent history have actually outspent their Democrat rivals. While Carter, Clinton, and Obama increased the national debt by 43%, 32%, and 74%, respectively, the recent Republicans did far worse. In fact, Reagan, H.W. Bush, and W. Bush raised the national debt by 186%, 54%, and 101%. This all adds up to a grand total of 149% and 341%. Of course, neither number is in any way tolerable. However, it is especially despicable that the party of small government raised the debt more than twice as much as Democrats.

The Democrat-Republican Cycle

America! The game Washington is playing with you is simple. Democrats advance a more intrusive and regulatory government while not getting too carried away with spending. Then Republicans, once in power, tend to maintain the size of government (sometimes slowing regulatory growth). But, they do nothing to remove newly established agencies or laws while exploding government spending. When Democrats find themselves back in power, they now have (thanks to Republicans) more money. Thus, they can build new government programs and agencies, furthering control over your life.

Two key factors make this Democrat-Republican cycle possible. First of all, that voters listen to what politicians say, not what they do. The second factor is that voters believe politicians govern according to the rhetoric they espouse. Unfortunately, voters do not pay attention to how politicians govern. Instead, many simply listen to what politicians say and prescribe their economic results to the politicians’ narratives. Because many voters don’t pay attention to details, Republicans can get away with governing like socialists but campaigning like capitalists.

Obama and Republicans

While Obama’s administration was running havoc over the economy, remember, Republicans in Congress passed budgets authorizing all of the abuse and waste. Yes, Obama spent hundreds of billions bailing out Wall Street. But who abandoned free market principles to save the free market system again?

A False Sense of Freedom

Republicans verbally campaign to shrink government and legislate like ardent supporters of big government. As a result, voters never get a chance to experience free market principles in action. Because Republicans are the fake opposition, party voters always experience big government, with or without the brand. Of course, big government will always win when it’s competing against itself.

Republicans are ruining America by tricking voters into attributing controlled-market economic results to free-market capitalism. Constituencies never actually vote for or experience free-market capitalism. Thus, they can never learn the vast differences between it and the two parties’ government-based solutions.

Voter Misinformation

Because of the Republican Party’s fake opposition, voters simply toggle between two parties of controlled markets. The only difference is that Republicans claim to be supporters of capitalism. Is it any wonder that the government continually grows when voters do not have another viable option? Schooling, media, and politicians all teach that the Republicans believe in a free market. How can we expect voters to believe any different? How can we not expect them to misunderstand what a free market really is?

The electoral cycle is eroding a once free and prosperous nation. It unfolds like this: the people vote for Democrats. When their policies fail, the people look for something else. Then, the people vote in Republicans who promise free market solutions. But, the Republicans legislate like Democrats, causing the people to wrongly prescribe the resulting economic failure to free market capitalism. Lastly, the electorate returns to the Democrats to fix the alleged free market inadequacies. Rinse and repeat until the government demands 40% of your income and permanent rent on your home, until they demand that your kids learn their curriculum, until they instill the false belief that without them, society would collapse.

The Republican party is ruining America by promising capitalism and delivering more government. Without a doubt, the great, unspoken truth in politics is that Republicans lie.

Get awesome merch. Help 71 Republic end the media oligarchy. Donate today to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!

Featured Image Source


Joe Hannoush – Libertarian for Florida House District Twenty-Five

By John Keller | Florida

Joe Hannoush is the Libertarian candidate for District Twenty-Five of the Florida House of Representatives. He has been involved with libertarian politics since 2011 and seeks to bring that change to the state of Florida.

Keller: With a plethora of career options, what inspired you to seek a career in politics?

Hannoush: I am not pursuing a career in politics per se. I want to do what I can to inform others of a better solution to issues we face today. Running as a candidate for elected office is a great way to spread that message. I want to be the change I want to see. I am tired of complaining without offering a solution. I didn’t like the choices I had on my ballot, so I gave myself another option to vote for!

Keller: Many people when they think of government they think of Congress or the presidency. Why is politics at the state level, and in the state House of Representatives, so important and motivated you to get involved?

Hannoush: There is a saying “all politics is local”. To a certain degree, I agree. When it comes to the everyday things, it is usually the local government decisions that have the largest impact on an individuals life.

Keller: For over 150 years the United States has been locked in the two-party duopoly. What turned you on to the Libertarian Party?

Hannoush: In 2011, I took an online political quiz www.isidewith.com. The results told me my views most closely agreed with was the Libertarian Party. So I did more research on their platform and looked into the presidential candidate on the Libertarian Party ticket, Gary Johnson. I liked him a lot and found I agree on almost everything. So I voted for Gary in 2012 and the rest is history!

Keller: Being a swing state, Florida has both strong Democratic and Republican support, as well as significant moderate support. Why is a new voice, such as a libertarian, necessary in the two-party system in Florida?

Hannoush: The two-party system is not a good one even if the two parties are Libertarian and Anarchist. I believe in more choices and I know others do as well. I don’t care if I agree with other political parties or not, they deserve to get the same media exposure and debate and ballot access as the Republicans and Democrats currently do.

Keller: Florida is often brought to the political forefront, and were put into the national spotlight during the sanctuary city debate, a debate that still exists today. Where do you stand on your critical issue?

Hannoush: I believe an individual, whether they are a citizen of the United States or not, deserve the same freedoms I have. My parents left an oppressive government and came to the United States shortly before I was born. Because of that freedom to act for the betterment of life, liberty, and happiness, I have a freer life. I want that opportunity to exist for others as well.

Keller: Our Founding Fathers even disagreed on how to interpret the Constitution, shown in the Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist debates. What is your interpretation of the Constitution, and how does that influence your view on government?

Hannoush: My view of the Constitution is what I believe the Founding Fathers generally intended. That is that individuals have inherent rights and the Constitution instructs the Government on how to preserve those rights for the individual. 

Keller: Libertarians tend to believe less government is better government. What is one area of government, however, you would like to see operating?

Hannoush: I do believe that national defense is the responsibility of the government.

Keller: Branching off of the last question, what is one area you think there should be cutbacks or even elimination in the state of Florida?

Hannoush: Florida, being a “swing” or “purple” state has led to the two major political parties here to be very divisive. There is too much power in the “leadership” of the political parties. No one is defending the rights of the people. The letter next to a person’s name holds more power than what that individual believes. I want to end partisan politics in Florida. A candidate that is giving the libertarian message will win every time.

Keller: What can the people of District 25 expect should you be elected?

Hannoush: That I will be a voice for the individual. I won’t vote based on what party leadership or lobbyist agenda is being pushed.

Keller: If someone was interested in getting involved or donating, how can they reach out to your campaign?

Hannoush: paypal.me/joehannoush

Keller: Do you have any final remarks for the readers?

Hannoush: I am currently pricing campaign materials and need as much funding as possible to help spread the message. Please donate to my campaign at paypal.me/joehannoush and follow my campaign at facebook.com/joehannoush and email [email protected] Thank you!

I would like to thank Joe Hannoush for his time. Be sure to visit his website and get involved!

Taking on the Duopoly – Bill Weld Sues the Winner-Take-All System

Early this month, on February 21st, Bill Weld filed to sue the state of Massachusetts to overturn the winner-take-all system for assigning electoral votes in Massachusetts. This system is used in 48 states, including Massachusetts. The suit claimed:

“The predominant method in America for counting votes in presidential elections violates the United States Constitution; it also distorts presidential campaigns, facilitates targeted outside interference in our elections, and ensures that a substantial number of citizen voters are disenfranchised when their votes are tallied in early November, only to be discarded when it really counts in mid-December”

It is believed that Bill Weld will be using the Equal Protection Clause of the XIV. Amendment to overturn this rule in Massachusetts, and as a result, America. The Equal Protection Clause is written as follows:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Based on the current “winner takes all” system in America with the electoral college, it is possible for over 50% of Americans votes to not be represented when the electoral college casts its votes in December. With a re-examination of the 2016 Presidential Election this trend is very clear, based on data provided by Politico.

In 2016, if an at-large by state electoral system, over the winner takes all system, was enacted no candidate would have gotten 270 electoral votes and they would have been distributed as such: 262 for Clinton/Kaine (D), 258 for Trump/Pence (R), 15 for Johnson/Weld (L), 5 for Stein/Baraka (G), and 1 for McMullin/Finn (I). If the electoral votes had been distributed, although unrealistically, nationally, then 31 electoral votes would have been awarded to third party candidates. Due to the winner take all system, Donald Trump won the presidency with 306 electoral votes (56.88%) despite winning only 46.09% of the popular vote.

In the winner take all system only the ticket with the most votes can get the electoral votes. As a result, in 2016 only 74,211,186 voters (57.60%) were represented at the electoral college. This means that 42.6% of votes had no effect, and essentially, didn’t matter in the election. With the implementation of the system Bill Weld is fighting for in Weld v. Massachusetts, only 5,335,130 (3.89%) of votes in the 2016 election would have not been represented in the electoral college.

Because of the winner-take-all system every person’s vote is not equal, thus their votes, and in turn their political voices, are not equally protected as guaranteed by the XIV. Amendment. 

The day after he filed suit, Bill Weld tweeted the following:


In the upcoming case the defendants of the law is Governor Charlie Baker (R), Bill Weld’s former Lieutenant Governor, and the state Attorney General Maura Healey (D). This case is one of the most important cases prior to the 2020 Presidential Election, almost just as important as the gerrymandering cases that are reaching the Supreme Court, as well as State Supreme Courts, prior to 2018 Midterm Elections. If the winner-take-all system is overturned, alongside the gerrymandering cases, the two-party duopoly will have a realistic chance of ending. If Bill Weld is successful, Weld v. Massachusetts will revolutionize America’s constitutional republic for hundreds of years, and potentially, forever.

Duopoly: The Republicans and Democrats May As Well Unite

By Austin Anderholt | USA

Many Americans are highly conflicted when it comes to voting for a political party. Many Republicans will boast that “Liberals are brainless!” while many Democrats will tell you that “Republicans are evil!”, when in reality, you’re all being played by your politicians.

Let’s start with a lie. This lie is so vital to the survival of the two corrupt powerhouses of which we call “The Major American Political Parties” that democrats and republicans alike are both brainwashed into believing it. What is the lie? It’s simple: “a vote for a third party is a wasted vote!” This lie itself is a catch 22: “People don’t vote for third parties because they don’t get voted for. Why don’t they get voted for? Because people don’t vote for them.”

This paradox is what keeps Americans who are (unbeknownst to themselves) libertarians in the mindset that “I need to vote for [insert useless political party] because the opposing party hates freedom.” Many people on both the American right and left have very libertarian values, but they don’t know it. Because of this, they will keep mindlessly voting for the same two parties that only advance bigger government. If you’re reading this, chances are you’re either

  1. A liberal who thinks “Conservatives hate freedom!”
  2. A conservative who thinks “Liberals hate freedom!”

If you are either of those, then riddle me this: Even though the past 100 years of American history have been pretty evenly republican as it was Democrat, why has big government shot up? Simply because both parties are for the biggest government. They are one in the same! They might have tiny political differences just so that the citizens think their vote matters, but they’re really one in the same:

They both are doing nothing about the fact that every second, America goes 5 grand deeper into debt.

They both are doing nothing about the endless wars that we have intervened in, killing our troops, innocent civilians, and destroying peaceful nations. If they do anything at all, they simply say “the other side is for this, surely I am not!”, and then they proceed to do nothing.

In order for a presidential candidate to be able to debate in a presidential debate, they must be polling at 15% during election season.

“That’s good. That way, parties that nobody has heard of don’t waste time debating in front of a national audience.”

Wrong. This is but another catch 22:

“Third party candidates don’t get enough exposure, therefore they shouldn’t be allowed to debate. Why don’t they get that exposure? Because they’re not allowed to debate!”

The next time you see a republican or democrat campaign sign, remember that they are both on the same team of big government. They don’t care about winning your vote as long as they’re always in power. They aren’t really different at all. They are a puppet democracy. People only vote for them out of fear and logical paradoxes. Don’t let two party candidates win, vote third party. Raise awareness for third parties, and let third parties debate! Let us take back our nation.

Choosing Between the GOP and the LP

By Charlie Gengler | USA

Many libertarians have straddled with this choice for a while in recent years.  Which party to choose?  There all factors from every corner.  Which is more useful for advancing my ideology, for instituting my beliefs and/or desired policies?  Which is more consistent?  Which is more dominant, more greedy, more influential and successful, showing stability?  All these questions play into the choices and voting decisions and donations people make.  They’re important.

Certainly, both have their pros and cons.  From a pragmatic point of view, the Republican party is on top, as it has a much larger base.  It holds the position as one of the top two parties, and the most successful party in history, with nineteen total presidential victories since 1861.  This size has its drawbacks, however.  The sections and divisions in the party are anything but equal and have radical differences among them.  The groups that inhabit the GOP share some common ground, but not always much.  There is the religious right, whose only motivation is to protect and/or promote/enforce their personal religion.  Another group is the neoconservatives or ‘establishment’, who hold most of the political power and are most likely to get elected.  Most libertarians cannot identify with these groups and other more authoritarian and obscure subsects within.  There are groups within the party who not only share positions with the LP and most libertarians but are gaining ground in the party.  You have the Freedom Caucus, headed by Mark Meadows, and the TEA party.  The TEA party gained (and held) a lot of ground in the party during Obama’s presidency.  Their platform of lower taxes shares a lot of ground with libertarians and like-minded individuals.  Besides all of this, the LP’s major drawback is its minuscule chance of ever winning, due to the inability of third parties to rise in the modern system.

Although the LP has a relatively small base, it still has divisions and several opinionated sides dwelling within.  It houses several left-wing caucuses, such as the Libertarian socialist caucus.  It also claims home several groups whose sole goal is the legalization of drugs, specifically marijuana.  While there is nothing intrinsically wrong with this, I do feel that it detracts from the message.  This leads into my larger problem with a large base of the party, most exemplified by the most recent candidates Gary Johnson and his running mate Bill Weld, which is the watering down of the libertarian position and its principles.  The standpoint has been simplified into a packaged and marketable ideal, “socially liberal and fiscally conservative.”  While not entirely wrong, the idea that this is what libertarians want is not only nebulous but just not entirely true.  We want freedom and security for our basic human rights.  But more than this, we want the NAP to be the guiding principle in our society, and subsequently, for aggression to be minimized to the lowest possible, or ideal, amount.  The idea that all we want is gays to get married and to smoke weed is flat-out ignorant of the libertarian ideology and shows either a lack of understanding or a false and poor pragmatic plan to market our views to a more liberal generation, thus becoming a fusion of both parties.  Rather, it could be its own party, different and independent of both parties.  This has problems of its own, but before that, there’s more on that phrase often used to describe libertarian perspectives.  Socially liberal does not encompass all libertarian views.  Libertarians are pro-second amendment, pro getting government out of marriage, not just inclusion of same-sex couples.  We are not for the censorship and speech control often used by the left.  We are also far more ‘extreme’ in our economic policies than the GOP, wanting much lower taxes on almost all fronts, and proposing more radical changes than the tax cuts seen by the Republican party.

The LP also has major hurdles in front of it if it plans to become independent, more of its own thing.  Major players in the party, Weld, Johnson, Petersen, etc. are Republicans.  This leads to the party being hugely reliant on the GOP.  Almost all of the successful candidates, candidates who win big positions, win not so under the banner of the Libertarian party, but under that of the Republicans.  Unless someone runs for Congress or governor or some other likewise position under the libertarian party, the party can not and will not grow.  It must differentiate itself from the Republican party to gain disillusioned Democrats and to define itself more.  It must also distance itself from the Democratic party, not only to gather Republicans but to purge itself of socialists and other economic authoritarians.

With all of this considered, pros and cons weighed, the choice is muddied. There is certainly up for debate, and both sides have valid arguments.  I will put my support behind the Republican party with two contradictory hopes.  One is for the LP to absorb itself into the larger GOP, and begin to dominate its politics.  This solves the third party problem and also settles grievances I have with both parties, given they abandon each of their views I disagree with.  This first solution is unlikely at best, too much wishful thinking and utopian dreaming.  The second solution is for the LP to gain steam among the younger generation and for more candidates focused on freedom and rights, rather than appealing to all sides.  I feel that if they focus their sights on settling a base ideology that is more consistent and more right-leaning and also more realistic and put together.  Right now they have a series of jumbled policies that I agree with but for the wrong reason.  The Republican party is certainly the best hope and most likely party to institute change and reform for a smaller government, especially on the economic front, but the Libertarian party is a closer representation of social policies and freedom, and it holds radicals with views of government very ideal.