Freitag, 16. Juli 2010

Comparison between GFL and american examples

As it becomes obvious, none of the smaller parties in the USA was ever able to achieve such a successful start as the GFL did. Some of the parties are existing for years and never even got on the ballot.

What could be the reason for this?


The USMJParty as well as the Workers Party are very restricted in their demands. They try to achieve their aims, which even partly sound ridiculous and unable to achieve. Take for example the demand of the Workers Party for secure jobs for everybody. This might be a good demand, but how is it achieveable? The USMJParty wants to legalize marijuana. But do they also care for other needs of the citizens? Who would actually vote for a party that only cares for legal drugs, especially in times of crisis?

Compared to the GFL there is a big difference in that. Of course, the GFL had their main aims as well, but they also care for other needs, listen to what people want and try to make life and politics as a whole better.

Caring only for ONE aspect or having a radical opinion about something (for example abolishing war as a whole, abolishing capitalism...) surely frightens off possible voters and excludes, right from the beginning, certain groups of people. It surely is no politics for everybody but only for a few, who share the same, drastic opinion.


It might also be negative, that those small parties in the US are not restricted to any local area but aim at the entire country right from the beginning.

It is compareable to a child, that is born and tries to walk immediately. Those parties are founded, but instead of trying to change life and politics in small steps, they immediately try to push their aims through: nationwide.

As the example of the GFL shows, they also disclaimed the option to take part in the mayor elections to be able to concentrate on the local elections, which was a better choice to fulfill their aims.

After all people don't seem to trust parties, which immediately reach too high. It might be a better idea to prove their abilities on a smaller basis so people can learn to trust.


It is great to have ambitious aims. But what does it help, if you do not have a good plan how to fulfill them? Some parties have great demands, some of them do even sound very reasonable. But if somebody only cries out what he wants but offers no plan HOW it is going to happen, nobody will vote for them.

See for example what Richard J. Rawlings, member of the USMJParty says: „I feel if we can raise the money needed to get on the ballot, we can get the signature's needed too!“

He „feels“ that they can do it anyhow. But how should people ever trust in someone who „feels“ they can do it, but never loses a word about „how“ it can be made possible? As a result, Rawlings was NOT able to raise any money:

The GFL, on the other hand, has concrete aims which are fulfillable, they are close to the citizens, are open for discussion and even make clear, HOW they want to change things.

This creates trust, as well as the competence they broadcast. To get a short impresssion of that, it might help to visit the various websites of the parties:


Workers Party:


As you can see, the USMJParty, as well as the Workers Party, have quite unstructured websites, full of propaganda. If you are really looking for information you are quite lost.

The GFL on the other hand provides a structured website that also gives a lot of detailed information which after all seems a lot more competent.

After all, the key to success seems to be competent, close to the citizen and, most of all, look out for aims that are fulfillable. Something, that even the big parties cannot handle and if they were not that big already, who knows if anybody ever voted for them.

Keine Kommentare:

Kommentar veröffentlichen