Skeptical observers of the current political landscape may disdain all politicians as sold out shadows jockeying for popularity and pork barrel, or for the few a bit idealistic, a place at the table to bring up a protest once in awhile. Questioning established dogma behind political reality is not on the agenda of any party media gives credence, beyond possible spoiler role. That is left to independent thinkers. Being outside the mainstream is a sign of potential, but no guarantee, of being more representative of the best interests of the people, or true to stated intentions and principles.

There is a significant difference between trying to lead people and representing the best interests of the people. The Free Soil Party is modeled on representing women, not men leading women around by the hook of threatened reproductive choice while serving the agenda of promoting business as usual and going out of their way to sound tough on terrorism and crime. Women require no less than fair representation, not a new hero to the rescue from the latest band of obnoxious crooks running things. Hero worship is nothing new, or feminist.

Leadership can come in many forms, historically littered with maniacs, knaves, tyrants. Feminism is not about leaders and followers, rather women innovating ways of looking at reality. Women can forge any combination of radical versatile rebellious idealistic skeptical wild innovative thoughtful trailblazing deep empathetic intuitive sensible visionary passionate intrepid audacious dreamer practical compassionate ingenious and so on feminist revolutionary, all outside limits of conventional standards of leadership. This perspective means feminists are all in unique ways leaders outside the box imposed by convention, so feminist leader in the conventional sense is an oxymoron, a popular feminist chosen by mass media to target for attack, hoping to pigeonhole feminism into has been irrelevance. Leadership shows its ugly side when spin masters spin it into a campaign issue. What passes for leadership in this fog of propaganda is patriotic bluster, USA is number one belligerence. Substance and honesty are unrealistic to expect in this high stakes game of who can be made to appear best qualified to wage this undefinable unwinnable war.

There are significant distinctions between having principles and believing in dogma. Solid principles are more like sound ideas, in that where they apply they make sense, rationally and intuitively, while dogma must appeal to faith in ancient male wisdom claiming to know the way to interpret reality. Faith misplaced will lead one nowhere, but some seem content with that. Ignorant bliss may be silly, but is relatively harmless compared to ignorant strength, the support network of tyranny. It is always possible to educate, but until ignorant people choose to pull the wool off their eyes they will not realize they have been had. Politicians are for the most part political con artists, thriving on ignorant people believing what they hear from their favorite voices, while dismissing contrary ideas and information casually, as a matter of indifference or contempt, as mere prattling of irrelevant impractical dreamers.

Capitalism as we know it is touted as the practical model of economics, rational way to do business. One issue is how far capitalism has strayed from its own model, lost its checks and balances along with whatever sense of perspective, honor, or fair trade it may once have honored. Beyond that, an economic model cannot be based on sound principles if, for instance, men are valued more than comparably qualified women, ancient trees are worth more dead than alive, genetic pollution from engineered crops is encouraged to get out of control to destroy natural varieties, a few corporations get way too influential through devouring competition and lobbying, nuclear energy is valued despite the risk of accidents and host of related quandaries, big agribusiness is lavishly subsidized to produce a surplus to dump overseas to ruin local farmers in the name of Free Trade. That such travesties as these routinely go on demonstrates how thoroughly this economic system has gone to rot. Credit ingenuity and hard work for legitimate accomplishments in spite of all the system rigging and attendant corruption.

No one person or organization can claim to represent the best interests of women in all their diversity, but politicians act like being a leader means they are specially qualified to pontificate on what is best for all their flock. Since the personal is political, just about any woman with a reasonably informed sensible independent point of view, and fair communication skills, could represent women better than those pretenders. That some women are visionaries, or have better ability to articulate ideas about issues that matter to many others, does not mean they must become typical leaders. That is a trap, one of many paradoxes of power. One needs a strong character to resist temptations of power, avoid corruption or falling prey to the familiar sour ego trip imprisoning one in a vain shell of dogmatic hypocrisy.

The point is people have different talents. Some have talent expressing what a cause is about in speaking or writing, which can help a movement get its message out. Many rebels are wary of all political organizations, rightly so. Yet women organized politically ultimately could not be stopped except by internal divisions. By choosing a few central issues and principles to rally around, less important differences of opinion need not be an obstacle to women making clear compelling demands for fair representation. The powers that be will not meet these demands voluntarily, so it could not be that hard to send packing the clowns who run this nation. Mass media likes to ridicule most attempts at dissent, but fast loses credibility as it goes along to get along, shirking its duty to keep government and big business honest unless it smells a scandal it cannot afford to let slide.

Independent media efforts have responded to that void, but the powers that be act as if people do not matter, since big media and big politics converge on the side of promoting big business. The few exceptions are scant consolation for resulting abuses of women, workers in general, and the Earth, while takeovers and undercutting quality for quantity, better known as merger mania and cutthroat competition, make fair competition a sham, all this proceeding merrily along regardless of which party thinks it is in charge. Neither is motivated to do much more than hinder these from becoming big issues, so the parties make a show of fighting while cooperating behind the scenes to keep the good times rolling for the old boy network inside their cozy house of cards.

The powers that be will not discuss the real economic crisis or its cause, this way of doing business that supposedly has no alternative since the Soviet Union fell apart. That is another sham. Any thinker knows there must be multiple alternatives to any method. The harder part is getting ideas down in words that resist corruption. That is another conundrum of language. Words do not keep their meaning, since only the originator can hope to fully understand what they were meant to say in the first place. Words can be powerful regardless, as tools to illuminate or deceive, or in subtler ways. Taking back issues and language from political fog is an integral part of a nonviolent revolution.

Capitalism has to be so corrupt because its definitions encourage all the familiar abuses. Valuing old trees only for commercial potential makes it profitable to log them. If only the oxygen an old tree produces were valued fairly, logging would not be profitable, let alone its niche in its local ecosystem. This principle applies to all kinds of unnecessary wasting of environmental quality. The bottom line has gaping holes in its calculations that make such shortsighted practices temptingly profitable. Plug those holes and free enterprise just might not have a motive to dump on the Earth, out of sight, out of mind. Regulations are mere legalese set up to make it look as if the people are in good hands, patching loopholes, a minor inconvenience for big business to evade or pay fines. Only with a root change in the definition of profit, forcing business to value the ingredients and side effects of production fairly, could free enterprise hope to be diverted from its appointment with the consequences of recklessly trashing the nest we all have to share.

Free Soil does not have leaders as men would categorize, but recognizes women have different talents, and some have lots more talent to articulate issues that matter to women than the current crop of politicians. Altogether those can claim to be popular with about half the voting eligible population, when discounting enough voters holding noses to pick the lesser of two evils. Free Soil has a novel view of running for office. If a woman thinks she can make more sense than the President, she ought to have an opportunity to try to demonstrate that, at least in a legislature. If she thinks an outsider party makes more sense for her, that might fit better than trying to compete inside the system. It cannot be unusual to make more sense than this President. It may be harder, require stronger nerve to run for office as a feminist revolutionary. People have gotten assassinated or framed, for agitating about what really goes on, all the trashing of people and Nature. The rules of this system are backward, crafted to favor the top of the food chain, compound imbalance. While typical politicians make noise about reform but lack the courage or will to challenge the system, women can run as representatives who will, a new breed of politicians who dare represent the interests of real people, not special interest campaign contributors currying favors.

Democrats and mainstream economists like to claim a monopoly on alternatives, revealing their arrogant pretense passing for leadership. They know better, but knowing enough people accept what they are told blindly, their spin games can hold onto unfounded credibility. When reckless warmongers are in power, obstinately stuck on disastrous policies while making fresh threats, and leaders of the opposition are more or less colluding, women revolting against warmongers could get attention, exposing the travesty that leadership has come to, supporting counterproductive unwinnable wars. Every woman has reasons to revolt against this travesty, though these reasons are as independent as individual women are. This power women could harness has been muted by the old boy network by various subterfuges to divide and conquer women. When reasons to revolt are too clear to ignore, women may discover reasons to cooperate in a revolution that will make fighting over details just part of the messiness of real change. Women convincing reluctant sisters to make the revolution real at the polls will make the difference. Politicians rarely make a difference, but when they do, usually propose a solution worse than the problem they purport to fix, such as this war on terror that can only help recruit more enemies.

This signifies the ultimate failure of the hierarchal model. The system has failed for a lot of related reasons, but this model of power has led directly to this state of affairs. The President has way too much power, as Congress has abdicated too much over to him. Congressional oversight is a joke, token investigations of what went down behind the scenes finding lots of skeletons notwithstanding. The United States could renounce all efforts to dominate the world, but that kind of principle is inconceivably radical for its alleged leaders, Republican or Democrat. The myth of the popularity of war has been shattered again, yet these leaders quibble over lies skeptics knew at the time as lies crafted to expand the war on terror to the next enemy nation deemed a top supporter of terror, Iraq. Politicians could look for alternatives, diplomatic approaches to hear out and settle grievances with enemies, but prefer refusing to negotiate in good faith with any enemy called terrorist.

Politicians prefer to pretend there are no legitimate grievances, that negotiating with such fiends could only appease enemies who hate Americans for all kinds of irrational reasons. When politicians in power and out are bent on winning this kind of war, these are not leaders women can trust. Reasons for women to revolt run beyond enumeration in this cultural model encouraging devaluation and domination of women, the poor, Nature, and competitors. War, male violence against women, corruption, waste, poverty all flourish. Women do not have to stand for this travesty of leadership. Women have developed better ideas, ways out of male quagmires, since a feminist revolution requires that better ideas and ways flourish. Leadership does not have to be about climbing up in a hierarchy. Women lead by contributing better ideas and ways, so unique perspectives can be combined to solve problems. The model of the man at the top of the hierarchy making final decisions has found its ultimate expression in the current President, but his exalted position as chief puppet of the warmongering money masters was made possible only by uninspired unprincipled opposition. Whoever runs to succeed him will not enjoy such fortune.

Feminists are not bound by political reality, since women have virtually no hand in shaping that. Feminists challenge all kinds of things taken for granted as conventional wisdom, such as male models of reality, power, love, economics, politics, godhood, spirituality, and every other concept invented by man. Despite the advent of quantum physics, deterministic models persist. Men take refuge in the black and white world of two sided predictable logic, without a clue what gets lost in that world. Human affairs cannot be reduced to follow any form of logic. Unlike machines, people are not meant to be consistent with any theory, system, or ism, and those pretending to know what is best for everyone, or what everyone should believe, deserve no credibility. It is only possible to strive to represent what is best for most constituents from one's own point of view. That may be obvious, and a representative deserving that title will know that, instead of acting like a know it all that knows what is best for the whole world so clearly he has the right to try to impose it, by force, in the name of God and national security. War is not the last resort for warmongers, protest though they may, while finding some way to convince people there is no other way to protect national security. That may be the favorite excuse of these war crazy politicians for exacerbating problems they claim to be working hard to solve.

A feminist representative might talk about finding a way to live and let live with bitter enemies. It might not have come to this dreadful pass if US foreign policy had been substantially different, but having such enemies is not surprising under the burdens created by that history. To end the war on terror it may well be necessary to renounce the entire direction of US foreign policy, away from expecting to dominate the world toward standing up for principles of respect, tolerance, fair competition, restitution for legitimate grievances, no unilateral or avoidable interventions. This means minding its own business when strongly requested by friends and foes not to meddle. This is not appeasement, but recognition of reality, inevitable consequences of a war that cannot be won, convincing more Islamic moderates to become enemies every day it goes on. To stay this course is not remotely in the interests of ordinary people, but some of those well connected old boys are making a bundle off this exercise in futility, battling evil their actions can only incite. If leadership is measured by ability to deceive the public, these rich fellows should be leading the world, and some say they are at least running things behind the scenes.

One purpose of a feminist revolution is to put the old boy network out to pasture, along with its leadership model, where might makes right, abuse of authority is rewarded. Their philosophy draws some lines, such as rules of war, but these can be disregarded if too inconvenient. This is the philosophy of a bully, batterer, power maniac. This is what passes for leadership in a President, determination to win the war on terror, beating the enemy into submission by any and all means deemed necessary, including torture and dirty weapons. Feminist philosophy is about ending oppression of all kinds, a different model of power, not getting even by oppressing men. For instance, Free Soil calls for all political prisoners to be freed, including women imprisoned for self-defense in abusive relationships. To repudiate the Patriot Act, all files accumulated on people for political reasons should be packed up without alteration or delay and sent to them. USA is hardly a beacon of liberty, fairness, or personal freedom, and for women and other minorities it never has been.

This is not to say no men are distressed by such extremes. The President is less popular now that it is undeniable conquering Iraq is impossible, foolhardy intervention, illegal, and not going well. But that also applies to Afghanistan, and Democrats who virtually all went along with the initial response to attack, and most also with this next phase. What did they think Bush had in mind when he started speaking about the global war on terror, a manhunt? A leader who thinks he has the right to start a war with any nation he finds uncooperative is the worst kind of leader, a tyrant leading his nation straight to doom along with as many as he can take down with him. The ability of the world to support life cannot survive much use of modern weapons of war, but true to the dogma of valuing utility despite the risks, what matters to military brass is how effective a weapon is.

This situation demands strong opposition, but the opposition party is hopelessly split, agreeing only that things could have been conducted better. This has created a classic power vacuum, yet the media stranglehold has so far managed to keep politics confined within its view of political reality. This cannot hold up much longer, since media can no longer control the flow of information, due to the Internet. The free flow of information makes new ways of organizing available to feminist revolutionaries creating a fresh political reality. The established media can think it can dismiss its alternatives, but when feminist revolution starts creating headlines, everyone will have to pay attention. Cindy Sheehan is a taste of what one woman can do. Once viable political opposition takes hold, nothing will be capable of holding back the tide.