Sunday, October 26, 2014

Anarchy in DC Now: A Presidential Bid


Proposal: An independent write-in campaign for the presidency of the United States of America. For anarchy in Washington, DC now.


Program:  Revolutionary transformation of society. Wealth redistribution, elimination of pollution, health care and housing for all, freedom of speech and assembly, jailing of banksters and war criminals, end of prohibition, reparations, open borders, marriage equality. Read more here.

Campaign Album:

Campaign Playlist

Why run? Every four years, for over a year, the corporate and “public” media talks about almost nothing other than what the presidential candidates said today. I figure I might as well join the circus.

What would a Run With Rovics campaign look like? From January 2015 until Hallowe'en or so, I'd get to as many primaries, debates and conventions as possible. I'd perform and speak as a candidate and musician wherever I could make a proper nuisance of myself – in music venues, community centers, churches, union halls, college campuses. And most especially, on the streets and sidewalks, with a battery-powered sound system, standing on a soapbox, Anarchy in DC Now banner behind me, wherever primaries, conventions, or debates are happening. As close as I can get, and as loud as I can get, without getting arrested too often.

How is a campaign like this going to happen realistically? If it happens, the only way it's going to happen is with your financial support. Just getting to most of the primaries and other events will, by my calculations, involve around $20,000 just in transportation expenses. I will only embark on this presidential campaign project if I get close to 1,000 total subscribers by July 4th, 2015. I have over 300 subscribers already, so I'm on my way... If I don't reach my goal by July, 2015, then I'll probably aim for a presidential bid in 2020, but I'm hoping other people will like the plan and support it for the next round of electoral madness.

1 comment:

emily said...

I think you might have meant non-INTERvention instead of non-invention in the foreign policy statement...Otherwise A-OK!!