Why haven't we started a Party?

[ddgrooves]

I've been thinking about posting this for a group of like minds - but there is no category better suited for this topic than this one.

If there are a million people following just this forum group. And we know how to use the subconcious and concious mind to creat intentions and a way for a better life on this planet -

Why don't we have our own political party?

Would anyone support a candidate that used Kinesiology (yes/no) described in "Power V.S. Force" Imagination described in Neville's "Awakened Imagination" and Wattles' "Science of Getting Rich" principles to create the purposeful use of our resources and take the reins out of the hands of the careless and uber moral self appointed "elite". So, I was a little bit judgemental there - but watching the tipping point before my very eyes leads me to believe that the planet is waking up. Rattling the cobwebs from our minds from the paradigms we have accepted as truth for so long. Our own experience is standing up and being recognized as the real truth here, and the NORMAL way is about to bite the dust. Do we take the advantage of the momentum while the people are still reeling and show them the way. That's all they really want.

Or do we have so much dissention within ourselves that we won't allow our own egos to back such a candidate to run our country (I'm from USA but it isn't limited to just my country). Are we just gratifying ourselves to think we are "smart people" in personal development looking to make a better life for the planet? Or are we subject to the same selfish matters like the "unsmart" people who will continue down this getting mentality rather than giving. (I'm calling black kettle on my little ol' black pot self, too.)

Alas, I don't know if there is such a person to run for such an office - but even if I were - would the "Smart People" like on this forum follow? Would you?

[ahimel]

Originally Posted by ddgrooves

Why don't we have our own political party?

In truth? Because most of us don't care quite that much. A person only has so much time and energy, and most of us are spending it on health and fitness, increasing productivity, mastering our internal state, getting our financials in order, developing relationships, increasing our spirituality, learning how to get what we want, and developing our psychic abilities. That doesn't leave time to run for office. And given the option between all of the above, and being in political office, I'm going to concentrate on mastering my internal state.

I also won't vote for anyone who thinks they have found "The Way" of truth. That means I despise ultra-conservatives who think they have the right to make me live by the Bible, and ultra-liberals who think they have the right to make me pay for your yoga class. I would NOT vote for a candidate who had "awakened" and was "enlightened" and whose platform was to force everyone to change their paradigm. Everyone's awakening has to happen at their own time.

But if someone (possibly on this form today) ran for office on a platform of enlightened caring, and understanding that each of us is interconnected yet still an important individual (as an individual or as an important aspect of his/her consciousness), with the goal to foster paradigm change for those who will and encourage understanding between people of different paradigms, who was still searching for truth and meaning... then, yes, I would vote for them. I'd even register as part of their party (if I knew about them early enough) to vote for them in the primaries.

Then I'd still vote against all their policies. I'm opposed to governments doing anything.

But if you see such a person, let me know.

[AndrewJ]

Sign me up for the PartyPartyParty party.

[Narz]

If anyone is having a party in Santa Cruz please drop me a line.

[searstower]

I second ahimel's post. I'm currently too busy doing what in my mind is 'more important work'. That may be selfish and/or small minded (because honestly, the political situation of my country is important to all of the rest of my work) but there it is.

Despite that and a general dislike for politics, I've had this strange thought multiple times that for some reason, I'm going to end up being president at some point in my life.

However, if there is anyone here inclined to organize something, then that could be very interesting. In fact, maybe in 2018 you all can vote me in as the US's first woman president!

Rebecca Beltran (future President)

[Brutha]

If you really want to change something it is easier to join an existing party and develop leadership qualities though PD and rise to the top.

The amount that a party of a few houndreds can do is much smaller than what a hand full of commited people who join existing parties can change.

[Erki]

Originally Posted by ddgrooves

I've been thinking about posting this for a group of like minds - but there is no category better suited for this topic than this one.

I think there is: http://www.stevepavlina.com/forums/c...-contribution/ In my opinion, politics shouldn't be about money and business. Politics should be about making people's lives better and contributing to the society.

There are voting coming up here and there are political campaigns going on everywhere and I thought, why all these money-wasting campaigns to get more and more votes when that same money could be used for more productive things - wouldn't that be the best campaign? This whole voting propaganda by different parties also made me think, why is there the need for all sorts of parties? What is there so fundamentally different between them? OK, showing my ignorance here now... but I get the feeling that half of the steam goes to competing and out-promising other parties, rather than (out-)doing.

[ahimel]

Originally Posted by Erki

... but I get the feeling that half of the steam goes to competing and out-promising other parties, rather than (out-)doing.

Half? You're optimistic. Or maybe Estonian elections are better than US elections.

I can't speak to the money going to waste on the campaigns. I have to agree that it could be better spent, but I really can't see a way to accomplish that. But maybe that's because I've lived in the US all my life, and I'm mistaking "familiar" for "inevitable."

I can tell you why I think we have two parties, though. It's because the US governmental system is built to a certain extent on conflict. As someone-or-other said (Voltaire? Twain?) "When you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to stop and reflect." It's when a society agrees completely on an issue that society is most likely to be wrong.

Having only one party also contributes to what Scott Adams calls the "Specialness" factor, the belief that people in your party/tribe/country/racial group/religion are special, and therefore it's OK to treat people outside your party/tribe/country/racial group/religion badly. Two-party politics doesn't stop the specialness effect from occuring, but it does prevent it from going anywhere. (Or, if you Europeans think Bush is bad now, imagine what would happen if he had 100% approval rating, instead of 33%.)

So yes, it would reduce a lot of conflict and save a lot of money if we didn't spend so much time demonizing the other party. But I believe that the money wasted on mud-slinging is better than the terror of having absolutly NO mechanism for making US politicians stop and think and have to justify their position before they do something.

[ahimel]

I've been thinking some more about it, and I have another reason that we haven't formed a party: most of us know it wouldn't do any good.

(Again, I speak only to the US, being completely ignorant of the government of any other country.)

You have to remember that our Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, concluded that there was nothing you could do to make a good government. So they instead focused their attention on preventing the (presumably bad) government form doing anything. The constitution, bill of rights, and all our political processes that have developed since then are all geared towards one thing: preventing the government from acting quickly, decisively, or effectively.

So yes, it's possible that you, or I, or Rebecca could do good things in office. If Rebecca runs, I'll probably vote for her. But do you honestly think that welfare has done as much good for poor children as Big Brothers/Big Sisters, Salvation Army, or Goodwill has? That the No Child Left Untest....er... Behind Act has helped as much as Sylvan Learning Centers? That Steve could accomplish half as much trying to mandate PD as he could writing more articles for those 4 years?

Most of us want to make a bigger contribution that a term in office will allow.