Or you can mail donations to Henry Shivley at P.O. Box 964, Chiloquin, OR 97624

Good News: Young Americans Want a New Political Party

The Ron Paul Institute – by Ron Paul

Do we need a third major political party? I often joke that I’d be happy if we actually had a second party, as when it comes to the big issues – war, monetary policy, civil liberties – the Republicans and Democrats are more alike than different. Perhaps that’s why a recent NBC News poll has found that nearly two-thirds of young people surveyed do not believe either the Republicans or Democrats are doing a good job and that a third major political party is needed.  

I think this is an encouraging sign. I suspect the NBC News poll result reflects the fact that young people are not as easily hoodwinked by the mainstream media and by the two-party duopoly charade in Washington. This generation has grown up with the Internet and the abundance of alternative media that challenges what really is a one-party system in the United States. They have been exposed to many new ideas, including good ones like libertarianism and non-interventionism.

Currently, mainstream politics in the US is all about power – how to get it and how to keep it – and not at all about philosophy or ideology. It is about selling out principles at every turn in order to chalk up another point in the “win” column. On issues like war and spending, it’s incredible how easily the two major parties are able to “compromise.”

A serious effort to create a new political party could be very exciting, but only if that new party is based on real ideas rather than simply the desire for power. Creating a viable third party will not be easy. While there is plenty written in the media about foreign collusion in US elections, the real collusion is between the Republican and Democratic Parties to prevent new parties from joining them on the national stage and the ballot.

Unfortunately the Libertarian Party has failed to live up to what should have been its role as an ideological alternative to Washington’s one-party system. As was quite obvious in the 2016 presidential election, the Libertarians yielded to prevailing attitudes on war, welfare, the Federal Reserve, and more. In believing that winning was more important than standing for something, they ended up achieving neither.

I would still like to have some hope for the Libertarian Party, but to really fill its role as a challenger to our two party system (that is actually a one party system) it would need a major overhaul. It would need to actually embrace the core libertarian principles of non-aggression and non-intervention in the affairs of others.

At the end of my 2008 presidential campaign, I brought together the candidates of the “minor” political parties and proposed that we agree on some basic principles regardless of whether we are libertarians, conservatives, progressives, or greens. Among those was the idea that we should never go to war unless we were directly attacked or threatened, that the Federal Reserve should not be allowed to benefit the rich by creating money out of thin air, and that we should not endorse deficit spending.

If a new party could come together and agree on these basic principles while agreeing to disagree on other, less important priorities, we could begin a formidable movement toward peace and prosperity.

Let us hope that this NBC News survey provides the inspiration to a real pro-peace, pro-prosperity movement in the United States. I have much confidence in the youth of our country!

Copyright © 2017 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.


This entry was posted in News. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to Good News: Young Americans Want a New Political Party

  1. Darzak says:

    Until the R.P.I. Begins to expose the UNITED STATES CORPORATION and call for a return to the People’s Republic, I consider this type of “news” as controlled opposition and disinformation.

  2. Samuel says:

    Sure, I’ll vote for an Anarchy party as long as they are true anarchists and fully fund the militias, then disband the federal government and themselves.

    • Henry Shivley says:

      Anarchists are f#@king communists, collectivists, and they will never rule in my country.

      • Samuel says:

        Actually they are not. Communists use a block that they incorrectly term as anarchists, but are in fact fascists, such as ANTIFA. True anarchists believe in no government, no man may rule over another. Justice is served by the community as they see fit. Ex, someone harms a child or robs someone, then natural law will deal wit the offender. Does this invite gang land rule? Sure, so people must learn to cooperate and form their own security. This is true freedom.
        This is effectively what we have already, gang land rule. The only difference is that the majority of people on this planet sheepishly believe that the gang in Washington DC has their best interest in mind. So, the difference would be that a gang of the people, for the people would oust the gang in DC and publicly announce that gangs in DC are banned. Of course this would require that people forcefully enforce that declaration. So, truly the only difference would be that the sheep would no longer be wearing blinders.

        • Henry Shivley says:

          Yes by God they are communists.

          It will be individual rights and freedoms, free of any collective, or it is treason. The Bill of Rights doesn’t allow for gang rule. And any gang that wants to put itself together to inflict their gang law on me will find out how fast and how true I can shoot.

          • Samuel says:

            But Henry, it is already gang rule. It always has been. There never will be individual rule, not at the level of security. There will always be groups who will try to impose their will on others. While there is more than one man alive on this planet, one will attempt to subjugate the other. It doesn’t make it right, but it is a fact. I prefer my gang to be in charge, or at least to have the bigger numbers, the bigger guns. That would mean that my gang can enforce peace and enforce the rule of “leave everyone the F alone”. As far as wikiJewias as definitions, they can go F themselves. They also have hanged the definition of fascist over the last 20 years to mean militia. Anarchy in its truest sense is no government..which as I stated above is not really possible. But at least we could be part of the ruling class so that at least our values are law and enforced.

          • Henry Shivley says:

            Samuel, you are right, we have been ruled by gangs since the beginning, but that is because our true founders failed to go to Philadelphia and finish the job.
            You can’t say the Bill of Rights won’t work when the people as an informed body have never had the chance to use it.
            This is a fight for individual freedom and liberty. It is a fight for the Bill of Rights, which is the foundational law of this country.
            Any any any individual or group that advocates for an alternative to the base law of this country is guilty of sedition and is the problem, not the solution.
            You obviously do not understand the Bill of Rights or you would understand it can’t be any other way. We don’t have to live like animals, we just have to destroy a handful who would use the gang mentality to deny us our natural right to be left alone. There will be no anarchy. Any one that tries it will die.

        • Jolly Roger says:

          Anarchy sounds nice, Samuel, but I think I’d much rather have unalienable rights clearly defined, as we have now in the Bill of Rights.

          “Justice is served by the community as they see fit.”

          Without the Bill of Rights, a “community” could unleash all manner of horrors against any individual they didn’t like, regardless of whether he’s guilty or innocent.

          • Jolly Roger says:

            And here you made the perfect argument for why we need the Bill of Rights, and why anarchy would be a nightmare:

            “There will always be groups who will try to impose their will on others. While there is more than one man alive on this planet, one will attempt to subjugate the other.”

            Only unalienable rights can prevent this.

          • Samuel says:

            I’m just going to post this last time regarding this subject. I’ll let y’all do the research to decide for yourselves. I believe you all, and all patriots are anarchists. But, you all are confused by the jewocracy reterming and redefining the meaning and concept of anarchy. For example..these quotes are from a well known anarchist writer..
            “Anarchism is not a romantic fable but the hardheaded realization, based on five thousand years of experience, that we cannot entrust the management of our lives to kings, priests, politicians, generals, and county commissioners.”
            “Anarchism is founded on the observation that since few men are wise enough to rule themselves, even fewer are wise enough to rule others.” Edward Abbey.
            This sure sounds like self determination to me.
            Here are some more..then I’ll leave you to explore what real anarchy is and decide for yourselves…
            “An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny.”

            “Guns don’t kill people; people kill people. Of course, people with guns kill more people. But that’s only natural. It’s hard. But it’s fair.”

            Ted Kaczinsky
            “The big problem is that people don’t believe a revolution is possible, and it is not possible precisely because they do not believe it is possible.”

            Not all anarchists have the same goal, and in the case of Ted, they are contrary to individual rights, in a way, but the concept of self rule, self determination is consistent with our founders ideals, regardless of their treacherous actions (Hamilton, Washington, etc)

          • Henry Shivley says:

            Samuel, the Bill of Rights is the system of common law. It is absolute law. Anarchy is no law. Mob rule.
            Straight up, right here, right now, which do you support?

          • Samuel says:

            We’ll it won’t let me reply to you Henry. I support no law. I support my conscience. In life, I am now, beholden to no man’s law. Laws are just words, they have no force without force. We need only one rule in this life, the golden rule. But do I believe that the bill of rights are laws? No. Nor do I believe that they were intended to be laws. The founders simply felt compelled to reiterate what was already natural rights so that when they installed what they had to have known would become a tyrannical structure, people had a guide post upon which to point and say, “step beyond here, and you are a tyrant.”. The bill of rights need never have been written though as any thinking person knows when they are being abused.

  3. Martist says:

    And people in hell want ice water?!! Like all things given to them by this occupying govt, it will exist for THEIR gain and purpose.

    Criminy, they’re the same brand of delusional as the hopey-changey crowd and just as useful for the commie-joos. WTFU

  4. Sunfire says:

    There should be NO parties period! Of course, seeing how America is essentially Israhell’s bitch, I don’t see things changing anytime soon.

  5. H D says:

    What every body said

  6. Norm says:

    Yeah sure Paul, you and your traitor sons can all hang alongside Alex Jones and all like you…

    you got a lot of good folks fooled…but we ain’t fooled by your snake tongues or your Trumpraeli…with No respect whatsoever, GFY’s all and DTTNWO

    I dream of a day when we are truly free from all you who believe that Me and mine, must live under your version of freedom…

  7. # 1 NWO Hatr says:

    “… nearly two-thirds of young people surveyed do not believe either the Republicans or Democrats are doing a good job and that a third major political party is needed.”

    And it would also create the false left-right-middle paradigm.

    “I think this is an encouraging sign.”

    I think you’re unmitigated moron for saying so.

    “… the fact that young people are not as easily hoodwinked by the mainstream media and by the two-party duopoly charade in Washington.”

    The fact that they actually believe a third party would make one whit of difference proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that they ARE easily hoodwinked.

    Especially if they listen to @ssclowns like YOU.

  8. NC says:

    Why do we need political parties at all? Where in the Constitution does it state that we need a political party to run it?

  9. BMF says:

    We really shouldn’t need any political parties at all, but as long as the Republicrat Party exists, I see nothing wrong with the creation of a new party to oppose the evil status quo. Just call it the “Bill of Rights Party” or something, and get as many people on board as possible. It could run on a straightforward platform: working to restore the Bill of Rights in full while pointing out the hypocrisy of the Republicans and Democrats (and their police and military enforcers) who violate their oaths of office each and every day.

    • Enemy of the State says:

      Or no parties at all

      I’m in the party of cleaning house , and leaving nothing but dust and blood

      Than steering this country back to its Republic
      And it’s founding documents and very very minimal government

      How about the Don’t Tread on me , party?

    • # 1 NWO Hatr says:

      “Senator Charles F. Meachum: There are no sides. There’s no Sunnis and Shiites. There’s no Democrats and Republicans. There’s only HAVES and HAVE-NOTS.”


  10. Ed Teach says:

    How about we just shoot the ones we have and then see if any others pop up.

  11. Henry Shivley says:

    You obviously do not understand the Bill of Rights. That right to redress mentioned in the 1st Article is achieved through the procedures outlined in the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Articles. This is how we hold court, otherwise how do we decide what is right and wrong when we are presented with a conflict?
    Under your theory, mob A kills mob B and in reality cannot explain why and thus justify the action. If we are to be free individuals, we must have a way to litigate our differences, with the decider being our fellow nationals judging our assertions of rights as weighed against their own.
    The Bill of Rights contains the maximums in law and the procedures to litigate. It is absolute written law and when we still had courts, every action had to be based and presented in writing as written in the Bill of Rights. It is law, absolute, for every purpose and definition of the word law. It isn’t a reiteration of what we already know. It is maximums and written procedure. And the only way we can be free as individuals is to enforce it as the absolute law it is. We write the writ and we enforce the writ, and we have to have a procedure to do that.
    If you cannot understand this, I’m sorry, but you are in the wrong place.
    Again, there will be no anarchy in this country. Those who try it will die and their deaths will be executed through the authority of that document you dare to say has no power.

Leave a Reply