An outside movement has to have a party to get elected. If your goal is morph existing parties, one needs to work within the system. Reagan pointed out that politics as the second oldest profession has more in common with the first. That's the bottom line. If you gather a sizable bloc of voters under a common banner and get the DNC or GOP to court your vote OR can become a SIZABLE funding source for the party, you have a chance of making a difference.

If you play the Perot or Nader game, both parties and the media are going to be quick to trivialize you and and your group.

Money wins Robert. I know you hate hearing that but it's true. In a capitalist system, more and more dependant on enormous media pushes to get any thought to stick in the head of a vegetative public, money makes it happen. Too many folks simply are not on the web or talk politics or anything resembling a 'weighty' topic. These folks do vote, even if mainly for local measures, and their beliefs will be molded by who can place something in front of their eyes.

Money provides that opportunity.

Now I know your reaction - that this is horrid and somehow unfair, but it's not. If your ideas are popular they can generate money and donations. If your group is swift (pardon the joke;-) they can use money to capture some of the public's attention.

Money and the commercial media is actually a DEMOCRATIC equalizer. It is a tool which can be used to make the small, unknown voice equal to the famous, well-born celebrity. Probably never thought about it that way, did you? In the olden days if you were not titled or a powerful force in business, your voice was near meaningless and any ideas you had were kept within those you could address and speak to or correspond with.

All that has changed.

Wealth is a tool of freedom. Without money, the class structures would dominate. Creative and sexual freedom, women's rights and equality only came about through the power of money and media.

You see the power of wealth as some sort of exclusive control on society, I see that without capitalism and wealth, the USA would still resemble the early Puritan colonies!

Think about it. Could the roaring twenties, rock & roll era, free-spirit 60s came about without the power of money?

The record companies, radio stations, tv stations, publishers and agents, etcetera all with $$$ motivations, loosened up the starch collared uptightness of the previous generations. That's just one example of how money and capitalism help promote diversity, publicize creativity and generally enrich the world.

Sure, there is a downside. There's exploitation, manipulation and the weakening of moral structures going on simultaneously. How many folks watched Wall Street and saw Gordon Gekko as a role model? How often does art lead to imitation and spur Columbine like incidents?

And in a world with increasing numbers of technologies and diversions, it clearly can retard the intellect of sizable portion of the electorate.

But that's the price of freedom. That's capitalism at work, employing folks for things that have little consequence in the scheme of things and yet providing an opportunity that no other political or economic system can provide.

So be happy that wealth controls society. ;-)

ANY other type of control (i.e majority rules) would severely hamper freedom and diversity. If you can think of a system that's more free, more tolerant, more creative, than capitalism and money...let's hear it.