"We Live In A Society!"

A Campaign Platform for Radical Centrism

If you’re a longtime reader of my Substack, you may have noticed a recurring subtext among many of my posts: namely, the idea that many of our elites and politicians are selfish narcissists who are making our society worse. I may have even come dangerously close to advocating for armed revolution in a few of my posts. Nobody likes a complainer who constantly points out problems but never advocates solutions, so it’s fair to ask me: Alex, how would you do things differently? If you were in charge of our society, what would it look like? That’s what this post is about: it’s a campaign platform for radical centrism. Anybody can stand against something but if you ever want to turn your political goals into a reality, it’s important to stand for something as well. So what do I stand for? If I were building a political coalition, what would be some of the tenets?

An End to Identity Politics

I believe identity politics is divisive and weakens America. Teaching people that their race is more important than their nationality weakens the bonds that tie American citizens together, and in fact it is arguable that the entire ideology of identity politics was started as a hostile foreign psyop.

Furthermore, identity politics erodes shared American values. America has always been based on principles like meritocracy and free speech, but now white people are expected to give up positions and power that they earned simply so that minorities can take their place - regardless of whether an individual of that minority is competent enough to hold it. How does it benefit society to have less-competent doctors or CEOs because of affirmative action? When a commercial airplane crashes because the pilot was a diversity hire, will our society be OK with that because it helped antiracism initiatives? Worst of all, if we criticize this deranged ideology that emphasizes equity of outcome in all things, we get accused of being racist and become subject to persecution. This results in a chilling effect on free speech.

The fact that identity politics is so antithetical to American values is why radical centrists like me need to eliminate it. I hope to ward off “wokeness”, exterminate “equity,” and make “DEI” die. Justice, whether “social justice” or otherwise, is entirely the purview of duly elected public officials, not unaccountable oligarchs. I plan to end the era of social media lynch mobs, and the way I would do this is by making anything you say and do outside of work a protected class - so that if your company fires you for a controversial Facebook post, you can sue them. Furthermore, I plan to take away the power of Silicon Valley oligarchs to censor people by stripping away their Section 230 protections if they attempt to censor people based on their political or cultural viewpoints. If Mark Zuckerberg decides a post is “too violent” or “too racist” to be on the internet, then as far as I’m concerned that editorial decision just turned Facebook from a platform into a publisher and now he’s responsible for all posts made on Facebook. I don’t believe in giving Silicon Valley corporations free speech protections if they won’t protect the free speech rights of their users. Corporate censorship is just as bad as government censorship and there is no excuse for it.

I would also disband affirmative action, which I consider to be part of identity politics. If we as a society agree that black people deserve compensation for their years of discrimination under Jim Crow, then it should be done with a targeted and limited scope payout, which is done in periodic installments that decrease over time. Discriminating against white people is an unfair and oppressive way to “correct” past discrimination against black people, and if so-called “antiracist” groups such as BLM insist on perpetuating bigoted stereotypes of white people, I believe that the government should treat these “antiracist” organizations just like any other hate group.

Stop Protecting Criminals and Decriminalize Vigilanteism

Our nation has a problem with crime: namely, the fact that our ruling class seems to think crime is OK as long as it’s “in a good cause.” If BLM or Antifa supporters burn down Portland every week, that’s somehow legitimate political action because it’s done in the name of “stopping hate", but if Trump supporters protest the vaccine or the election results that’s a dangerous illegal insurrection - unless of course you happen to be a Trump supporter in which case it’s the opposite way around.

My take is that breaking the law is bad no matter which group does it. Violence is not legitimate political action, no matter how righteous you think your cause is. If I am put in power, I promise you that whenever I see a violent protest, I will crush it with even more violence, until the protesters realize that the state has a monopoly on violence. If local governments are sympathetic to the protestors and attempts to stop the federal government from getting involved, I am happy to work with counter-protestors to achieve the same results. For example, suppose Antifa decides to burn down the center of Portland and the mayor tells police to stand down, and refuses to allow federal troops in. In such a situation, I would be happy to invite in an opposing activist force such as Patriot Prayer or the Proud Boys to inflict violence on Antifa, and if possible, I would bring criminal charges against the mayor. At the end of the day, I believe in punishing anybody who breaks the law, no matter what their excuses are or what political tribe they belong to. The era of slogans like “violence is the language of the unheard” is over, and I plan to replace that slogan with “play stupid games, win stupid prizes.” As far as I am concerned, our government is much too concerned with coddling criminals and making excuses for their behavior. I hope to make the health and well-being of law-abiding citizens the government’s top priority, and I will use any means necessary to force everybody - no matter their background or political affiliation - to respect the law.

On a similar note, if a private citizen sees a criminal committing a crime and takes violent action to capture them, I think they should be rewarded rather than punished. We see too many stories of good Samaritans intervening in crimes and being punished for it when the District Attorneys (a surprising number of whom are Soros-sponsored) choose to press charges against the vigilantes rather than the criminals. This needs to stop because it erodes unity in our society and makes people feel (quite justifiably) that they cannot count on anybody but themselves, building an atmosphere of fear and mistrust. I think that as long as it can be proven that a vigilante acted to enforce the law - something which is often trivially easy in the days of smartphones when any public incident is usually recorded by multiple people - we should praise these people instead of punishing them.

Most importantly, I don’t believe in a two-tiered justice system, where the elites get much more lenient sentencing while the average citizen is treated more strictly. Any government that has a different set of rules for different types of citizens - whether those rules are based on class, race, gender, or religion - is an illegitimate government, and we have no obligation to obey the laws of such a tyrannical society. On the contrary, it is the duty of every good patriot to treat anybody who belongs to such an oppressive government as an enemy combatant, who must be destroyed through any means necessary. America is the most heavily armed country in the world, and no tyrants can ever hope to control us if we are willing to do whatever it takes to make them fear us.

Create a Stronger Social Safety Net

We live in a time of great change. Modern AI is poised to replace approximately a quarter of our workforce in the next decade, with another quarter to follow in the decade after that. Yet none of our politicians seem to want to discuss this. Instead of discussing the enormous news that a quarter of our workforce could become unemployed in the next ten years, our politicians want to engage in struggle sessions over different races imaginary “privilege.” We need to have a national conversation about how our country is going to handle this massive transition without turning into a corporate state ruled by a handful of oligarchs while the unemployed beg for scraps or sell their bodies on OnlyFans.

For starters, I’d like to see more conversation about Universal Basic Income, also known to some as the Freedom Dividend. In a world where half of the jobs are going to permanently leave, we need some way to make sure unemployed American citizens can care for their basic needs, otherwise many of them are going to pick up guns, or drones, or will mix up some chlorine gas with ammonia and bleach, and they will take what they need the old fashioned way. This is a ticking time bomb waiting to go off and we need a plan. I know some people say the Freedom Dividend is unsustainable because it’s impossible to give everybody money. But that’s just a flat-out lie because having a Freedom Dividend doesn’t mean people are exempt from taxes. If somebody’s salary is over a certain point, they will still pay more in taxes than they would receive from the Dividend, so the government would still be getting revenue from them. In reality the Freedom Dividend is simply an alternative way to redistribute money from the haves to the have-nots, in much the same way as welfare currently operates today. The main difference is that it would be much more efficient than welfare, since it would eliminate many of the lazy bureaucratic middlemen whose sole purpose is to determine whether somebody qualifies for certain benefits. If you're an American, you support freedom by default, so when freedom prospers you should prosper with it. Additionally, the Freedom Dividend incentivizes unemployed people to work. Unlike traditional welfare - which cuts people off from most of their benefits once their income goes above a certain amount - people would continue receiving the Freedom Dividend no matter how much money they made. The way our traditional welfare system works, people who take on a part-time job might end up losing money because they no longer qualify for many of their benefits. This system strongly discourages welfare recipients from even looking for a job. But under the Freedom Dividend, the only drawback to making more money is that some of that money would get taxed under a higher tax bracket. There would never be a financial incentive to avoid getting a job under the Freedom Dividend.

Naturally, having a strong social safety net means that we can’t extend it to everybody. The Freedom Dividend would only apply to U.S. citizens, and we would need to reduce illegal immigration substantially in order to prevent illegals from stealing jobs from U.S. citizens. Maybe we could afford to turn a blind eye to this economic exploitation when our economy was stronger, but we’re sure not going to be able to afford it when half our workforce is unemployed thanks to robotics. That’s why I propose closing the borders. The advancements in AI that make the Freedom Dividend necessary also enable us to use AI security to make an impassible wall at the border: not a physical wall like the one Donald Trump suggested building, but a virtual wall made of steel and silicon. Our advancements in robotics have hit the point where this is easily possible. Let me put it this way: I can teach you how to build a drone for less than two thousand dollars that could easily take down Air Force One. So ask yourself what kind of tools I could build with two million dollars (ie, the resources of a small startup) or what we as a country could build with two billion dollars (which represents only a tiny fraction of our financial power). Needless to say, technological advancements are useless without the political will to implement them, so I would also empower ICE to do their jobs more easily, without frustrating “catch and release” programs. Finally, I would do everything possible to discourage sanctuary cities. I believe in a strong federal government, even though I disagree with how our government is currently being run.

Promote a Self-Sufficient Society and a Reevaluation of our Geopolitical Rivals

As long as we’re discussing immigration, it’s probably a good time to discuss foreign policy. I have some bad news: the globalists lied to us. They lied really badly. Using paid economist puppets as their mouthpieces, the globalists assured us that the globalist economy - which benefited them through outsourcing - somehow also benefited us as well. They told us that a global economy would prevent wars because nation’s economic interests would be tied to each other. But looking at the Ukraine conflict, does that statement seem accurate to you? The globalists also told us that global supply chains were “more efficient” for the end consumer. But during the height of Covid, when PPE gear was most critical in our hospitals and nursing homes, China constrained the supply of PPE so that they could keep the majority for themselves. How does that seem “more efficient?” To me, it look like the opposite of efficiency. And this isn’t some new thing - these exploitative globalist lies have been going on for a very long time. Twenty years ago, the globalists pretended that outsourcing their global supply chains to China would liberalize China and bring democracy to this authoritarian country. But today we can see that it has done exactly the opposite - instead of the United States exporting democracy to China, China has exported authoritarianism to us. It’s time to admit that the entire globalism experiment is a failure. We’ve been doing it for the past fifty years and the globalists have been caught lying time and time again. I suppose it’s in a snake’s nature to bite people, but if we still believe globalist lies at this point in time then we’re just dumb.

I think that we need to bring many of our global supply chains back in-house. We got lucky when it came to Covid, because it has a very low fatality rate compared to epidemics like the Black Death or Spanish Flu. But can you imagine if Covid had been as bad as one of those past diseases? How many U.S. citizens would have died because China created artificial constraints on our supply of PPE medical supplies? We can’t afford to be vulnerable by making ourselves so dependent on our main geopolitical enemy.

That’s right, I said it: the CCP is our primary geopolitical enemy. I know that it’s traditional to make Russia into our boogeyman - mostly because they’re easier to beat than the CCP, so our politicians can take home easy symbolic victories and pretend that they achieved something truly heroic. But I think we need to reevaluate our foreign policy. Vladimir Putin may not be the world’s nicest guy, but he didn’t use gain of function research to create a deadly virus that ended up killing seven million people. He doesn’t have a public Five Year Plan that sounds an awful lot like “We are going to seize global hegemony of the world from the United States by any means necessary.” And he’s not currently preparing to use military force in order to establish a monopoly of the world’s most valuable commodity: microchips. You don’t have to be a “Russian shill” in order to recognize that China is a much bigger threat to us than Russia is. Even though Covid - the result of a lab leak from their illegal biowarfare program - is barely in our rearview mirror, the CCP already has a new plan to seize power: by conquering Taiwan so that they can monopolize the chip manufacturing industry. When every major chip manufacturer is controlled by the CCP, they can embed their unique espionage hard tech on every hardware chip in the entire world, and then it is game over for the free world. The CCP will control our countries banking systems, our missiles, and our computers. Any individual or institution who speaks out against them will be crushed through cyberwarfare. After all, it’s not like the CCP has any qualms with operating outside of their territorial jurisdiction. This is why I would bring our global supply chains in house, especially for chip manufacturers. Encouraging more chip manufacturing in the U.S. is one thing I need to give Biden a lot of credit for. I consider myself a conservative but I think that when the other side does something right we need to acknowledge it rather than just opposing them reflexively.

Another key tenet of our foreign policy should be energy independence. Liberals say that they care about the environment, but then why do they oppose nuclear power three times as much as conservatives do? I would open more nuclear power plants and give America energy independence so that we no longer have to fear nations like Russia cutting off our gas or oil supply. The NIMBYs who say that nuclear power is unsafe are using outdated information. Compared to a modern nuclear power plant, even coal-based power plants emit more radioactive material, not to mention that they disperse it farther into the air.

Finally, the last part of our foreign policy that I would change is that I would put an end to American apologia and self-hate. For some reason, even though America leads the world in terms of our commitment to free speech, diversity, and equality, our politicians are always apologizing to morally inferior countries for “imperialism.” While I acknowledge that America could use some significant improvement - as could all countries - I don’t think that any country that is morally inferior to us has a right to criticize us about our values. For example, the Chinese government often talks about “sinophobia,” yet China is far more racist and intolerant than America is. Africans often claim that America owes them because of our history of slavery, yet their countries were the ones who initiated the slave trade in the first place, and profited the most from it. I’m tired of these hypocritical foreigners blaming us for behaviors that they themselves perpetrate far more than us, but what I’m even more tired of is our politicians acting like their accusations have any merit and apologizing to them. As far as I am concerned, America is the best nation in the world and we have nothing to feel apologetic about. “Imperialism” is just a word that third-world despots weaponize against us to shift the blame for their own countries being such utter shitholes, due largely to their own corruption. We are the world police, responsible for global security and stability, and it’s about time that foreign countries started being more appreciative of this role. Their freedom is ultimately paid for by our military, and if I were in charge of the United States I’d make sure they never forgot it.

Solve Easy Societal Problems

Did you know that one-third of Americans do not have dental insurance? And that one in ten do not even have medical insurance? This is a major problem. I believe that healthcare, housing, and food security are basic human rights, yet not everybody has access to these things, even if they are entirely willing to work. We need to offer a public payer option for healthcare and dental, similar to Romneycare. This does not mean eliminating private health insurance, it simply means offering an additional option for those who are unable to get private insurance. A public option will force the health-insurance companies to be more efficient because now they have more competition in the market.

The vast number of Americans who do not own property is another problem that is easy to solve. Our politicians have consistently tried to solve the problem of high home prices by allowing people to borrow more money for their first home. This is completely unsustainable because when we give home buyers access to bigger and bigger government-funded loans, that just incentivizes home builders to create more expensive luxury housing. The truth is that home prices are constrained by the laws of supply and demand, and the reason supply is so constrained is because of government regulators who make it almost impossible to construct low-cost housing. There are plenty of construction techniques out there which could result in beautiful low-cost homes, from modular housing to earthships to even 3D-printed houses. The problem is that every time the government inspectors see a house that is “non-standard” they inevitably put up a ton of bureaucratic obstacles to prevent it from being built. After all, they are liable if they approve the house and there is a problem, so they are highly incentivized to be overcautious and only approve the most conservative housing designs that have already been in use for thirty years or so. We need to stop being afraid of new building techniques. It is this massive overregulation of new housing that is creating a housing shortage. I refuse to believe that the only way to ensure a house is safe is to only approve designs that have already been in use for decades. If my radical centrist party even achieved power, I would ensure that all new building techniques and construction types were approved much faster. If NIMBYs disagreed, I would eminent domain their asses. Any sort of building project in New York City is a perfect example of how NIMBYs can raise the cost of construction by ten times or even a hundred times as much as it should be.

Early in this essay, I talked about how I would put an end to wokeness, but do you know why wokeness even exists in the first place? It is because by stirring up racial hatred, our oligarchs create a distraction from the massive class inequality that exists in America. I’m not a socialist, and I don’t think that there’s anything wrong about a wealth gap existing between the rich and the poor. When people benefit from their own intelligence or hard work, this incentivizes innovation. But what I find deeply unjust is when the rich are playing by a completely different set of rules than the poor. For example, the housing crisis and Covid pandemic showed how massive corporations get bailouts while smaller businesses don’t. And of course we’ve all seen plenty of examples of how the level of justice you receive in our legal system depends on how much justice you can afford to buy. I hope to change all this. No more preferential treatment for our elites. I would cheerfully use any political power I was given to terrorize any wealthy elites or institutions who act like they are above the law or deserve “preferential treatment.” Any career bureaucrats who attempt to implement a two-tiered justice system (such as Soros-appointed district attorneys, for example) would be taken out faster than Batman takes out a criminal.

Restore Public Trust in Science

Have you ever wondered why so much of the public has so little trust in our science? Obviously our scientific experts have a hypothesis, which is that the reason people distrust them is because of people like me who did a hecking misinformation. While it’s very flattering for me to be told that apparently I’m some sort of supervillain who took out the entire scientific community single-handedly, the truth is far more prosaic. The fact is that the scientific community destroyed its own reputation by collectively making a rapid-fire series of incredibly moronic decisions over the past several years.

For starters, our scientists have been continually wrong, and never face any sort of accountability for their mistakes. Social science in particular is notorious for doing this, to the point where the field has a replication crisis that has gotten so bad that at least half of the conclusions they draw turn out to be utter garbage. Would you trust a doctor who was wrong half the time? How about a pilot? Before scientists can complain about people not trusting them, first they have to demonstrate that they are worthy of our trust. While I understand that most of academia is based on a “publish or perish” model that incentivizes scientists not to fact check themselves too closely, we could easily change the incentives simply by punishing and publicly shaming scientists whose work is found not to replicate. Considering that half of their experiments in the social science field do not replicate - in other words, the conclusions that these “social scientists” draw are complete bullshit - it seems to be that we would be best served by funding replication tests for everything, drawing those funds by discarding about half of all social science jobs. Since their work doesn’t replicate anyway, eliminating them would be no great loss. Sure, financial constraints and fewer scientists means that we would only be able to perform half as many studies, but considering that under our current model half of the studies are completely worthless anyway, I think it’s worth the time to churn out these studies slower but a bit more thoroughly. As Covid proved to us, bad science is not a victimless crime. The Replication Crisis is a real crisis and should be treated appropriately.

Another way that our scientists forced the public to mistrust them is by continually politicizing their work. Science is not meant to be activism, and anybody who goes into science with the intent of proving a political point is absolutely the very last person you can trust to have the impartiality that good science requires. The best example of that is the transgender issue, where alleged “scientific experts” are telling us things that anybody with the slightest modicum of common sense can identify as flat out lies. I’m not going to debate whether legitimate transgendered people exist: that area of neurology falls so far outside of my expertise that I am unqualified to have an opinion on it. But doesn’t it seem really strange that the number of trans people in our society is growing exponentially, and the vast majority of these people are impressionable youths who are easily swayed by peer pressure? I do know quite a lot about statistics, and I can tell you that this is a really weird coincidence. And regardless of whether you consider trans women to be “real” women or “fake” women, it’s just common sense that they possess male muscles and bone density which is why it’s absolutely insane to suggest that they should compete in women’s sports against cis women, yet very few “scientific experts” are willing to publicly acknowledge this obvious truth for fear of being cancelled. If we can’t trust our scientific experts to tell us the truth when it’s unpopular, why should we trust them about anything? Why are they even alive if their only function is to parrot the existing social consensus? We need to stop letting these so-called “experts” use “science” as a pretext to groom our children into surgically mutilating their genitals or breasts. Just because a kid thinks that they’re a princess or cowboy at age 6 doesn’t mean that they’re transgender and when we let fake “scientists” push these harmful ideas unchallenged, we are allowing a great abomination to occur which our descendants will judge us harshly for.

Also, have you ever noticed that the people who push this fake science are never willing to debate their ideas openly in a public forum? Instead they try to deplatform or silence anybody who disagrees with them by calling them “bigots” or “conspiracy theorists.” Yet in recent times, many of the “conspiracy theorists” have turned out to be correct more often than the so-called “experts.” It seems like many of the “experts” aren’t really experts. Of course, we can’t criticize the experts publicly on most other forms of social media: if we do, we end up getting censored and banned for spreading “misinformation,” exactly like what was done during the Covid pandemic. This is a huge problem. Millions of people died during Covid simply because people like me were labelled “conspiracy theorists” and had our free speech crushed by unaccountable social media oligarchs who feared our truth. Americans must reclaim our free speech rights from the megacorps, and replace fake experts with real experts whose expertise is independently validated by prediction markets. Currently America is the only country in the world which bans prediction markets, due largely to lobbying by the fake “experts” who fear that objective measurements of accuracy would reveal their incompetence. The radical centrism party that I am proposing would not only legalize prediction markets: it would also use them as a benchmark of competence. I would also crack down hard on social media CEOs who are trying to undermine the First Amendment by suppressing any political speech that they disagree with. “Scientists” and “experts” will now have to defend their conclusions in the free marketplace of ideas. After all, any “science” which can’t withstand rigorous questioning and scrutiny isn’t really science at all.

Of course, no conversation about science would be complete without a conversation about our failed space program. A lot of famous people have been talking about colonizing Mars recently, yet despite all the hype, our scientists at NASA are doing very little that would actually make progress towards this goal. We know that no terraforming of Mars will work until we have managed to restore the red planet’s malfunctioning magnetosphere, but how much research has NASA put into that? Almost zero. We also know that even underground colonies cannot be self-sustaining because the soil of Mars has been irradiated till the microbiome is sterile, but how much effort has NASA put in to investigating ways to regenerate the soil so that it can be used for underground colonies? Again, the answer is close to zero. Instead of putting together a task list of the specific scientific advances we will need to permanently complete a space colonization project, NASA is basically doing random little experiments with no practical value: stupid experiments like “How can we grow crystals in space?” or “Do brine shrimp behave differently in low gravity environments?” Allow me to save billions of taxpayer dollars right now by providing you with the answers to both those questions: “Who cares?” Frankly, I think NASA needs to stop dicking around and start testing colonization strategies. It would be devastating if one of our geopolitical rivals managed to colonize space before we did.

Eliminate Divisive Rhetoric by Imposing Harsh Consequences for False Accusations

Do you know why our society is more polarized now than it ever has been? It’s because there is seldom any punishment for false accusations against somebody else, only rewards. Think about it. If you’re a Democrat and you can potentially gain more votes by falsely accusing a Republican of being a racist or misogynist - and there is absolutely no punishment for a false accusation - why wouldn’t you accuse everybody you dislike of being a bigoted Nazi? It’s just the mathematically optimized choice for winning votes! Similarly, if you’re a Republican and you can potentially gain more votes by falsely accusing a Democrat of being a pedophile, why wouldn’t you? That’s simply the equivalent rhetorical counter to the whole “everybody is a racist” nonsense. When people have a potential upside from falsely smearing their opposition - but zero potential downside to counterbalance their risk/reward calculation - then obviously false accusations are going to permeate our environment, because that’s the direction that the structure of incentives leads us towards.

If I were in charge of society, I would fix this problem by criminalizing false accusations. If somebody accused another person of a crime and it later turned out that they were lying about it, then I would have them face a penalty similar to the penalty of the crime that they falsely accused the other person of. For example, a false accusation of racism or sexism would be punishable by firing the false accuser. A false accusation of rape would carry jail time equivalent to rape itself, and a false accusation of pedophilia or murder would carry the same prison sentence that a pedophile or murderer would experience. My opponents, who enjoy drawing false equivalencies (and also enjoy child rape), will doubtless lie that such harsh punishment would discourage people from reporting real crimes. After all, what woman would report a rape if she could get twenty years in prison if the charges didn’t stick? What these people fail to understand (or deliberately misunderstand) is that finding somebody innocent of a crime doesn’t automatically indicate that their accuser is a liar. There are plenty of situations where a jury doesn’t have enough evidence to convict somebody, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that their accuser lied. All I am saying is that in the rare cases where it is proven that the accuser did lie, we need to stop letting them go with a slap on the wrist. This is a very reasonable position to take, which is why it’s completely unsurprising that my opponents would try to misrepresent me. After all, what else could we expect from such fascist pedophile groomers? See? I can do the false accusation thing too, and since our politicians are too stupid to criminalize such behavior, I encourage my supporters to make as many false accusations as possible. Maybe when everybody fears false accusations, we’ll finally have enough public outrage over this behavior to get something done about it.

To recap, here are my tenets of radical centrism:

1. An End to Identity Politics

2. Stop Protecting Criminals and Decriminalize Vigilanteism

3. Create a Stronger Social Safety Net

4. Promote a Self-Sufficient Society and a Reevaluation of our Geopolitical Rivals

5. Solve Easy Societal Problems

6. Restore Public Trust in Science

7. Eliminate Divisive Rhetoric by Imposing Harsh Consequences for False Accusations

I believe that by focusing our political platform on these seven key tenets, Radical Centrism can become a sweeping populist movement. It’s time to stop settling for the two-party system which keeps offering us inferior geriatric candidates instead of individuals who are actually ready to solve society’s problems.