Americans may seem resigned or doomed to lesser of two evil men politics, but in a representative democracy, that could not persist. While elections are a battle of roughly half the electorate splitting votes over evil men, the system can grind along. A radical woman running for President could catch the attention of many disgruntled women nonvoters, as well as alarm Democrats. That might get mass media worried enough to cover her, to find ways to discredit her or link her to scapegoated labels like socialist, anarchist, or America-hating. If she could keep on message, persevering through all the frenzied storms of hostile scrutiny, she could win. This novelty of a candidate with solid ideas about significant changes could become controversial or notorious, intriguing nonvoters who give scant credence to the same old pious promises, with a few new twists masquerading as new or better ideas, passing for politics virtually unchallenged time after time. Politics could be about a fair contest of political ideas, instead of raising money and public relations gimmicks.

The gender gap is the flippant name given to women skeptical of male wisdom, but this discontent has important implications. After suffering from male control of human affairs for thousands of years, it is time for women to counter that at every level. Men are more likely to favor the Pentagon line. Those hawks look primed to provoke a world war. Blind patriotism is typical of patriarchy, making just about any nonsensical propaganda seem plausible, like how the women of Afghanistan are so much better off since America liberated them. Blind rebellion is another side of that coin, typically categorizing feminist issues as secondary, petty, annoyances, or detrimental to male ego.

Radical women have good reasons to ask hard questions. One is, why do women still not get near equal time, pay, recognition, respect, opportunity, or influence? Why has USA created such hostility? The Free Soil Party exists to throw these bums out, not just for these reasons. The gender gap shows women are more involved than men with certain issues. The pattern deserves notice. For instance, with the usual exceptions, in general, women care more than men about what is happening to this planet, as well as issues directly affecting women.

The women’s movement is political by nature, but its diversity prevents any one party from grabbing it, try as they may, those Democrats and Greens. Such poor choices lately, dull men letting this son of spy chief pseudo tough guy win, while Greens ran the once reluctant candidate, crusader for citizen power and corporate reform with some of the usual blind spots, then another dull man of the safe-state persuasion. Even Greens got stuck on keeping men in the spotlight. This is no big surprise. Male environmentalists, like the male left, are often lukewarm or worse on feminist issues.

The Free Soil Party strives for equal time for women, as soon as possible. Taken to mean historically equal, equal time translates into mostly women Presidents and legislators for at least the next 230 years. The current strategy is to run as many radical women as possible, to get as many as possible elected, at least until scales of power balance. Democrats expect feminists to trust empty words, since the obvious alternative is worse. This is blatant coopting, but since feminism is a noteworthy force on the political scene these days, all manner of knaves will try to ride that force for their benefit.

No man can speak for a feminist vision. Men can only represent male points of view. However a man may support women, or find inspiration, is no comparison to a woman who lives her feminist vision, knows what it means, how it feels. Many men oppose restrictions on abortion, for instance, knowing in theory such laws would not be good for them or women they care about. Anyone can oppose war, think it wiser to try diplomatic channels before military response to a shock attack, or find it inhuman or illogical to consider killing off all enemies possible, let alone a good solution to extreme forms of predictable widespread resentment of empire building. Radical women go to the roots to see how men glorifying domination, violence, death can make either side of this death power struggle seem plausible.

Men are trained to trust military authorities without question, so those who dare to question are not given as much press as a free press interested in controversial views would give. The gender gap includes skepticism of some forms of high risk technology, such as nuclear energy and bioengineered food. That someone is a well trained scientist does not imply knowing all about predictable outcomes and consequences of experimental procedures, and unpredictable effects cannot be evaluated for risk. Radical women understand such things as limits of science, while many men, living in ignorant fog of high-tech worship, do not understand there are no heroes, miracle fixes, or scientist worth the name who can defend this increasing planetary poisoning and looting going on in the name of science, war, religion, and free enterprise.

Men have made such a mess of the world. It is about time a woman takes center stage in America, but not some moderate affiliate of the old boy network. Male politicians can talk a good game about equal rights for women, but actions tell a different tale. Foreign policy is grossly belligerent and getting worse, while on the home front patronizing politicians rush towards a patriotic police state, as if people will believe this will prevent expected dire consequences of the foreign policy. Women would be represented more fairly if political parties were more interested, but the glass ceiling prevails. That may change superficially if Hillary Clinton can outpoint fellow weaving moderates. To smash the glass, once and for all time, the Free Soil Party promotes electing radical women to all offices as appropriate strategy, especially the highest offices.

Few women politicians currently in office have much interest in shaking things up. Only a radical woman can credibly represent a feminist vision to supplant conventional wisdom, because she has direct motivation to question everything and develop better ideas. Politics has become so stale and corrupted, it seems that task would be less difficult than getting people behind radical change, partly due to distortion of radicals by mass media.

Free Soil, as a political philosophy, has its own meaning for radical, which may not be representative, but when radicals get associated with hating America, it is time to clear the air of all this manufactured confusion. In this view, a radical disbelieves any person or group has a monopoly on knowledge about anything beyond personal experience. A radical is wary of things easily twisted for private or political gain. Nothing is sacred or beyond criticism, since reigning concepts are based on intentionally unbalanced principles. A radical may choose to defend what rightfully belongs to all people, privately and as necessary for survival of the species, from autonomy over the body to quality of life, health to quality of local and global environment.

It takes a radical to call for research into all methods of preventing and treating diseases, not just the latest in slash and burn with toxic medicines and radiation. People should not be pushed into any treatment on blind faith. Fully informed consent is important, but people usually trust doctors more than their ability to comprehend relevant information. Some popular practices have underpublicized severe risks, such as taking tamoxifen to prevent breast cancer, breast X-ray, hormone replacement, rash diet plans. Throw in those gems of dentistry, putting fluoride in water and mercury in fillings. Mental health treatment is another dark minefield, with its long vicious history of electric shocks, lobotomies, and drugs to make people docile. Now powerful mind-altering drugs are forced on children judged abnormal, along with multiplying vaccines. In medicine as in any other business, a customer must beware hyperbole.

Legitimate issues have been raised about many standard medical protocols. The party contends these issues should be thoroughly independently investigated, to establish whether these procedures do more good than harm. Instead big money rolls in while government health watchdogs with conflicts of interest look the other way, heaping scorn and harassment on competitive approaches. Pesticides are another abuse of chemistry out of control. Most scientists like making money as well as new toys. They get paid well to create ever stronger weapons against hostile armies or pests, or play make new more profitable forms of life games with genetics.

It takes a radical to propose changing bottom line rules of doing business so as to make pollution illegal or unprofitable, in proportion to toxicity, compensating all women’s work fairly, prizing old trees far more alive than chopped up. It takes a radical to cut through the fog of symptoms of human misery to the source, this miserable model of human relations and values based on battling for dominance, power over losers. The model of free enterprise is warped way beyond the scope of laws or regulations, futile like tattered patches on gaping festering loopholes. When the operating principles of the model get this perverted, radical redesign is in order. Radical meaning determined to question or challenge any assumption regardless of source, so one can look for truth, meaning, and solutions from a perspective independent of defective philosophies. This can lead to new ways of looking at things, such as a value system that makes sense for once, minimizing authority to what is strictly necessary to protect rights.

Feminists are not necessarily radical, and a self-styled radical may be feminist in name only, or not at all. A radical woman is likely more radical as a feminist, backing bolder, wider strategies or goals, than mainstream feminist groups. Too many radical men have downplayed or scorned feminism. Free Soil defines its vision as multi-issue feminist-centered radical, meaning radically skeptical of conventional male wisdom on all fronts. It would take such a courageous radical President to really shake things up in America, which may seem unlikely. Yet the numbers, if nonvoters get stirred up, could easily make a mockery of all the predictions.

Convention says most people dread change, preferring misery to taking a chance on an unknown. That all depends on sufficient substance backing that alternative. People cannot be expected to vote for a pipedream, but radical women do have lots of good ideas. Most people are tired of stale, posturing chameleons asking for blind trust. The Free Soil Party will nominate women wishing to represent their feminist vision. The party is not looking for blanket agreement across the board. No one could agree with every statement on the web site, but underlying themes explained and defended there may resonate. The party will defend this feminist vision as practical and overdue. Part of the site describes an economic model based on different values to make that possible.

This is not to say this is the only way, or that this vision is representative of the feminist vision. There are many feminist organizations, differing in priorities, goals, and strategies. Many concentrate on a few specific issues. Democrats and Greens claim to be feminist organizations, but feminism is generally a side issue, typical of male progressives trying to coopt feminists. For instance, Ralph Nader is not particularly radical or feminist. He might seem a bit radical in contrast to Democrats. He does get some big crowds, but there was no huge groundswell of nonvoters excited enough to vote for once. Yet another male reformer who could be corrupted is not challenging enough, while people and most living beings are slowly mutated and tortured to death by persistent poisons and radiation. Women rarely get fair recognition or compensation for their work. Parasitic corporations take full advantage of this economic model skewed to reward their corruption and abuse of power, including inflating profits by deliberately irresponsible land and people management.

Prevalent models of reality, particularly value systems, are core problems. While corporations can be forced to account for their actions, broken up, or liquidated, anything beyond token discipline rarely happens under this business model. The crackdown on corporate crime focused on stealing executives. Might makes right has been the operative principle, overtly or under the surface, since men took over civilization. This concept of conquest by superior force greases the wheels of capitalism and war, though it is finally officially repudiated as a resolution to the battle of the sexes. Still studies show typical men would rape if they thought they could get away with it, and too many do. Battering is illegal now, but that problem is far from going away. War is popular, violence in many areas of life is almost a given, and rich white men control most everything arrogantly, with transparent concern at best for others less fortunate.

This is how degenerated culture, competition, free enterprise, democracy have become, completely out of balance. America needs bold radical women to shake things up for real. Men cannot claim to monopolize any ability important in politics. Radical women cannot afford to trust men to get their act together in time to make a significant difference, before the planet’s ability to support life gets too far gone. There is too much at stake. Too many men think their stake is on the side of suicide, because money is concentrated on that side, skewed by the strange economics where money is made at the expense of quality, workers, and the environment, instead of boosting all concerned, since most of the true costs are off the books. An industrial process is more profitable the more pollution is allowed, by these rules. Quality takes a back seat to cost-efficiency. Free trade and deregulation mean still less protection, but bottom line, corporations like to write their own rules to maximize profits.

Things do not have to be run this way. This system is not inevitable, just a ripoff unimaginable in scale. Male power keeps it going. Woman power could destroy the gravy train, so men try to keep political women in line, moderate cooperative game-players, while radicals standing independent are supposed to keep fighting on the margin, like fringe groups. The people can judge who is more threatening to their peace of mind, a radical woman or someone like the President. He may stay popular while he can pull off the illusion of winning the war, but that may end suddenly. This foreign policy could prove disastrous, a fantastic gamble at best. Domestic policy is nothing to brag about. The bill of rights, as incomplete as it was, gets systematically torn down, arguably beyond repair. The people could decide who could better get things turned around, a radical woman or a Democrat who stood by the Commander in Chief, letting all this happen. Time for a real change!