For Liberty and Union: Paper No. 4

(by An American Citizen)

On Faction and Representation

The American political system has evolved into something the founders would neither recognize nor tolerate. Not through conquest or revolution, but through the slow consolidation of a two-party duopoly that serves itself rather than citizens.

The evidence is overwhelming. In 2024, Goldman Sachs donated $3.4 million to Democrats and $1.8 million to Republicans. JPMorgan Chase split $2.7 million nearly equally. Google, Amazon, Microsoft—all fund both parties substantially. These aren't ideological investments; they're access purchases. As Trump himself admitted in a 2015 interview: "I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And you know what? When I need something from them, two years later, three years later, I call them. They are there for me."

This isn't conspiracy—it's documented strategy. The same corporations that fund both conventions, both inaugural balls, both party infrastructures, somehow always win regardless of electoral outcomes.

The Theater of Opposition

Watch C-SPAN long enough and patterns emerge. Fierce debates on abortion, guns, and God generate fundraising emails and mobilize bases. But on the votes that matter to donors—surveillance expansion, bank bailouts, war funding—bipartisan consensus emerges mysteriously.

The PATRIOT Act passed 357-66 in the House, 98-1 in the Senate. The 2008 bank bailouts found rapid bipartisan approval despite 70% public opposition. The recent Surveillance Expansion Act of 2025, introduced three days after Kirk's death, passed 87-13 with leadership from both parties arm-in-arm at the signing. When Trump declared cities should be military "training grounds" on September 30th, the bipartisan response was telling—theatrical opposition from Democrats, qualified support from Republicans, but no serious legislative action to prevent it.

Notice the rotating villains? When Democrats need to fail, Senators Manchin and Sinema emerge. When Republicans need cover, Romney and Collins appear. Always just enough defectors to stop reforms that threaten power, never enough to stop what donors demand. It's not coordination—it's convergent evolution. The system selects for those who preserve it.

The Executive Ratchet

Every president condemns executive overreach while campaigning, then exceeds his predecessor once in office. Obama criticized Bush's signing statements, then used them himself. Trump campaigned against Obama's executive orders, then governed through them. Biden condemned Trump's emergency declarations, then declared his own.

The pattern is consistent: Democrats expand social control, Republicans expand security power, both keep what the other added. The ratchet turns one direction only—toward more executive authority, less legislative relevance, minimal judicial restraint.

Congress could stop this tomorrow. The power of the purse, oversight authority, and legislative supremacy all remain technically intact. But why would they? Executive orders let legislators grandstand without voting. Presidential overreach lets them fundraise without delivering. They prefer complaining about tyranny to preventing it.

The Social Architecture of Power

Behind the theatrical opposition lies a unified social class. Their children attend the same schools—Sidwell Friends, Dalton, Exeter. They summer in the same places—Martha's Vineyard, the Hamptons, Jackson Hole. They belong to the same clubs, invest through the same firms, retire to the same boards.

The Trump-Clinton relationship exemplifies this perfectly. For decades, genuine friendship: Hillary attending Trump's 2005 wedding, Trump donating to the Clinton Foundation as recently as 2014, their children remaining friends throughout the "bitter" campaigns. The enmity was performed for cameras; the friendship was real behind them.

This isn't unique. McConnell and Schumer's wives served together on corporate boards. Pelosi and McCarthy attended each other's family events. The "socialist" AOC and "fascist" MTG tweet vicious attacks while co-sponsoring bills on veterans' affairs.

They're not enemies—they're competitors within a shared framework, like Coke and Pepsi fighting for market share while opposing regulations that would allow new beverages to compete.

The Business Case for Reform

Ironically, even Wall Street should want political reform. The current dysfunction costs the economy an estimated 2-3% of GDP annually through policy uncertainty. Every election brings wild swings in regulation based on who wins rather than economic reality. This volatility suppresses investment and rewards political connections over innovation.

Countries with genuine political competition, transparent governance, and peaceful transfers of power consistently deliver better returns. Singapore, Switzerland, and New Zealand outperform because their systems are predictable and clean. The American duopoly's manufactured crises—debt ceilings, shutdowns, impeachments—destroy value while enriching insiders who can anticipate the choreographed outcomes.

Reform isn't revolution—it's an operating system upgrade. Keep the constitutional hardware, update the electoral software. The result would be more predictable policy, genuine competition for ideas, transparent governance, and better returns for everyone except those profiting from dysfunction.

Breaking the Monopoly

The duopoly isn't natural law—it's maintained by rules both parties wrote. But states are proving it can be broken.

Alaska's ranked-choice voting produced a Congress member who represents actual Alaskans rather than party leadership. Maine's system forced candidates to appeal beyond their base. Nevada and Oregon are implementing open primaries. These aren't theories—they're working models producing better representation.

The Commission on Presidential Debates, controlled by Republicans and Democrats, excluded third parties through arbitrary thresholds. When the League of Women Voters ran debates, multiple voices were heard. The duopoly took control in 1987 and hasn't allowed real competition since.

Ballot access laws make it nearly impossible for alternatives. In Pennsylvania, major parties need 2,000 signatures for ballot access; third parties need 25,000. In Georgia, it's 7,500 versus 85,000. These laws were written by incumbents to prevent competition.

But the monopoly is cracking. Five states have now adopted alternative voting methods. Seventeen have ended partisan gerrymandering. Twenty-three allow citizen initiatives to bypass captured legislatures. The system can change—when citizens force it.

State Sovereignty as Solution

States don't need federal permission to reclaim sovereignty. The 10th Amendment still exists, even if ignored.

North Dakota proves state banks work—they weathered 2008 better than any state. Seventeen states have passed laws recognizing gold and silver as legal tender, preparing for dollar alternatives. Interstate compacts on everything from nurse licensing to river management show states can cooperate without federal oversight.

This isn't secession—it's substitution. Not rebellion—replacement. Not revolution—restoration of constitutional balance. Make the federal government irrelevant by making it unnecessary.

When states assert sovereignty, federal power becomes academic. When communities solve problems locally, Washington becomes irrelevant. When citizens build alternatives, the monopoly breaks.

The Path Forward

Stop watching their show. Stop believing their conflicts are real. Stop participating in their theater.

Every donation to major parties funds the duopoly. Every vote for their selected candidates legitimizes the system. Every angry tweet about the other side strengthens the divide that maintains their power.

Instead:

• Support alternative voting methods in your state
• Vote in primaries for genuine outsiders
• Fund candidates who refuse corporate money
• Build local political organizations independent of national parties
• Create state parties that aren't subsidiaries of Washington

They need you to believe the show is real. Once you see it's theater, their power evaporates.

Washington warned against parties in his farewell address: "They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party."

Adams predicted: "There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other."

Jefferson observed: "Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes; and those who identify themselves with the people."

We ignored their warnings. Now we live their nightmare.

Conclusion: Ending the Show

The evidence convicts them. Both parties. One system. One deception.

Elections don't matter when both candidates serve the same donors. Debates don't matter when both sides read from the same script. Votes don't matter when outcomes are predetermined by money rather than majorities.

But the show ends when the audience leaves.

The curtain falls when you stop watching. The actors panic when ratings collapse. The system crumbles when legitimacy evaporates.

See through the lie. End the show. Reclaim your republic.

The tools exist—alternative voting, open primaries, ballot access reform, campaign finance limits. The models work—Alaska, Maine, Nevada prove it. The only question is whether you'll use them.

Execute the sentence: End their monopoly through peaceful reform while peaceful reform remains possible.

For Liberty and Union

Signed,
An American Citizen

Demanding Real Representation

September 25, 2025