Our Five Parties Part One

Author’s Note:
At the time of writing there was pending legislation in the Congressional to ban a certain phrase from all media and hearsay. This phrase, and its use, is the result of a subsequent ban of a particular word. There is little doubt that this new ban will be as wise and beneficial as the previous, however, this piece was written using interviews in which subjects involved, some of them, make use of this soon-to-be banned phrase. Barring any difficulties with censors, this author strongly believes that, despite the eventual ban, this writing should remain intact on the basis that it is the voice of the people of this great land; it is not only the collective thought of this country, it is the political core of our existence. The way this certain phrase is used in these interviews is only everyday and casual, no rhetoric, no anti-campaigning; it is spoken without rancor and usually employed to represent the ban itself and not the particular word.

Forward:
Initially this writing was intended as an over-view of the various similarities and differences among the local level people of our five political parties. Instead, as interview transcripts were sifted through and writing began, this project became the exposure on paper of the socio-political undercurrent, a vein if you will, of our country and its population. Despite the existence of five separate political parties, a trend toward unity among the parties emerged from the words of the people who do the grunt work. Astoundingly, the similarities between party participants outnumber the significant differences nearly two to one.
Naturally not all members match this trend toward unification and strangely almost all are vehemently and sometimes violently against it. For example, former No party member, Frank Mandel, Brooksburg, Cs., after walking out in the middle of the No party March Convention said,
--The whole Capital, party headquarters, the goddamn legislatures, every fucking political institution in this country should be burned to the fucking ground.
Obviously a man not feeling the unity, and it was last reported that Mr. Mandel was arrested after running his car through a restaurant window while screaming for a valet.
Or there is Utility member Shane Thombkins, Up, Fellbert, Bt., who says,
--Unity? Unity with what? The Utility party is the only party and everyone knows the other parties are just a blind.
Spoken like a true Utility party member. Most of these detractors are members of either the No party, which makes sense, or the Utility party, which at first seems problematic, but after further examination and an understanding of the present Utility-and-nothing-else attitude, these detractors begin to make sense. Most, not all, anti-unity citizens originate from these two parties but the noted exceptions are a little surprising: John Pinkery, Qp, Aleusha, Mb., thinks,
--What use for politics do I have? I own no multi-national, I don’t belong to an organization that can afford lobbyists, and I sure as hell don’t care who is Executive.
One’s first thought may be, ah youthful disillusionment, but Mr. Pinkery is a thirty-eight year old graphic designer who does very well for himself.
The Quiet party exception is only really surprising in that this negative sentiment was expressed at all, let alone to someone who would write it down. Now the exception from the Sanctity party is a surprise. The Sanctities are known for being very positive, however some adherents believe that the Sp doctrine of the Mutation of All Parties to One does not intend unity, but instead abolition. Kathy Ringler, Sp, Mang’s Cove, Nl.,
--If we’re going to have one party there will be no five parties to unify. Plain as that.
To be sure not all Sp’s are this obtuse, but see their party’s work as an approach to unity and the sanctification of our political landscape.
After conversing with several members from all five parties, one gets a sense of the unflagging dedication involved at all levels within the parties. These people work long hours in sometimes unpleasant conditions for no pay. This dedication operates only to further the partys’ agendas, One For All! as the Utility party motto goes. This revelation would seem to make pointless the government’s plan to make party membership mandatory. One would be hard pressed to find (outside the Fair Wells that is) a citizen that is not an active member of a party. Of course having on file an individual’s political outlook, social statistics, and personal philosophy does appear to be a sound idea, but if every citizen is already a party member, then making participation mandatory would not make much of a difference.
This endeavor should be considered as a facile probe; one that just breaks, while at the same time giving a complete view of, the surface of our political livelihood. Such things as party histories, party demographics, and funding procedures could only be vaguely included while the wealth of information exhibited herein originates from the common party members, the people in the trenches, the people who compose the very fabric of our society and is in and of itself absolutely priceless.