My name is Paul Timmermans. Student ID 871007906. My email is ptimmerm@du.edu.Please print the following message:

Dear Editor,

We display our political affiliation by means of stickers and posters. DU students are no exception to the rule of adherence to either guzler-bizz or bizz-lite. However, none appear to have displayed any posters calling for alternative parties, for libertarians, greens, socialists, anti-shoppers, or consumer advocates. There has not even been a DU debate or panel to discuss the views of these parties. Though for example even Ralph Nader made it to the ballot in Colorado, the hegemonic voicein the press is that the race will be cutting edge and that we each ought to support OUR ONE PARTY only. And that therefore we can not express, let alone ‘waste’, our own political ideas, hopes and dreams. This argument rests on a prime fallacy, namely: in order to advocate change, one must not change oneself. Suppose we continue to argue that in order to make the US a better place for future generations, we ought to not change our leaders, nor our political ideals. We ought to not think ‘outside the box’ and we ought not to question those in charge of our tax money, and our most valuable resources. This simply in order to make certain the US WILL be a better place to live. Suppose we keep this up for decades. Can this come to mean that we admit that an entire population’swell-being can be subject to change, but that the principles behind our leadership are not to change, or at least not toodramatically? This would be an INVERSED or NEGATIVE DEMOCRACY! It begs the question: who sets the pace of the drama; who selects the actors? In my personal opinion, it is the people thatdecide (POSITIVE DEMOCRACY). A president, asenator or a city councilwoman are equallyrepresentatives of us all together. Their office is constituted by means of the will of you and me: we ask them to implement a policy that adheres to OUR needs. Now, if it is their (!) need to keep other voices and aspirations off the ballot, out the debates and thepress, they can hardly be considered to be ourrepresentatives, for they do no longer follow the most important DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLE. All voices ought to be heard, and the more voices come to agree openly and publicly on certain points, the more democratic our country is ruled. I do not think I am slamming shut open doors: I reiterate them. Without the UK, the US would be the last two-party system in the Western world. To me, it is a law ofnature that duopolies tend to monopolize force better than strict monopolies, or even than cartels. This is because they appear to alternate, to be in flux, andto provide change, but in effect are merely offering more of the same. It is without doubt that some candidates are better in designing and managing policies than others (Duhhh!), but the question we must pose is whether they are ready to follow OUR CONCERNS rather than their CONSCIENCE of creating successfully appearing to make sound policies. I urge you to think of three policy goals you would like to see enacted within the next thirty (yes, 30) years. Be creative. Use whatever funds you can. Use all taxes ever paid by the top one percent of the population. Have you taken a day or two to think this through? Congratulations! You probably ended up in a category of 98 percent of Americans who want practically free college education and health care for all their (grand) children, a greener environment, more cultural respect, and more dignity -especially abroad. And who realized that this indeed would not need to cost much at all. That was not too hard. Now, how would we get to this point in time within 15 instead of 30,40, 100 years? Let’s demand a multi-party system from ourrepresentatives BEFORE we are forced to stand with our neck underneath this cutting-edge sword they have forged -without our consent!

Paul Timmermans