Presidential candidate statement: Bill Kreml

kremlI did not intend it but my life has been a living dialectic. Raised in a family of both academic and political background, I sustained myself with academic work for a half century but interspersed that livelihood with what I felt were necessary forays into the real world of politics. Overeducated, with both a J.D. and a Ph.D. in political science, I found myself teaching politics in such a way that almost forced me to go before the public to promote the ideas I espoused behind the ivy.

In 1977, for example, my Anti-Authoritarian Personality completed the principal model that linked psychology with politics by extending the variables found in the classic Authoritarian Personality across the ideological range. The need for power and order, for example, rise and decline as one dances across ideologies. Does the American political system favor certain personalities along that continuum?

In 1980, taking LWOP, I entered a U. S. Senate race to discuss the imbalances of American politics and propose needed remedies. That campaign was covered by The Christian Science Monitor, the TRB column in The New Republic, The Washington Post, and other journals. I called for a bicentennial review of the American constitutional order, that call leading to the formation of the prestigious Committee on the Constitutional System which presented its findings and recommendations to the president and congressional leadership in 1987. Neither corporate party responded.

Taking LWOP again, I campaigned in selected presidential primaries in 1984, and again in 1992, speaking to the dysfunctionality and inequity of the political system while expanding on the importance of psychology to political ideology in books like Relativism and the Natural Left (1984), and Psychology, Relativism, and Politics (1992), both published by NYU Press.

Also troubled by what I saw happening to the middle class, I wrote America’s Middle Class – From Subsidy to Abandonment in 1997, three years before Professor, now Senator, Elizabeth Warren’s work on the middle class, she citing me generously in her work.

I entered but one presidential primary in the year 2000, engaging in civil disobedience by intentionally violating several F.E.C. regulations and being written about by Molly Ivins for doing so. I sought a legal battle to challenge the infamous Buckley v. Valeo campaign finance case that I saw underpinning an inexorable drift into oligarchy that unlimited campaign expenditures were leading to. The F. E. C. did not bite. In 2007, I published The Twenty-First Century Left – Cognitions in the Constitution and Why Buckley is Wrong. Three years later, the Supreme Court issued its odious opinion in F. E. C. versus Citizens United, an utterly predictable case.

In sum, I know of no political figure, in the Green Party or any political party, that has anticipated, may I immodestly say acted as a first responder, respecting three core public issues, a) governmental gridlock, b) the decline of the middle class and c) the prostitution of our electoral system, in both writings and political activity.

To 2016. Approaching age 75, I weighed carefully whether to become a Green Party presidential candidate. Surely, the energy level has declined. Memory sometimes fails. Yet, buoyed by the open mindedness of so many Green Party members, I chose to take one more turn at bat, espousing four levels of understanding that I believe to be foundational if this country is to pull itself back from the oligarchy that academic studies and prominent political figures now say engulfs us. I shall be brief, pointing out that just as all knowledge is not of the same order of importance, so too political issues import a hierarchy of concerns. I candidly disclose that my campaign is primarily concerned with the first two of the four levels. I do this because I feel them to be the most important, and because I agree with other candidates in large measure at the third level, the fourth level being small in size.

First, I submit that the very paradigm of political ideology is changing, rapidly. My half century of ideologically-centered writings, along with the new realities of something like voting behavior, point to the fact that the principal ideological variable is now subjective rather than objective, a matter of the mind rather than matter. In the year 2000, the principal correlate for voting right or left switched from income, or SES, to whether or not one regularly attended religious services. That is a significant change. Let us build on the research that demonstrates the superior complexity of the progressive mind and its attention to a greater number, and more sophisticated, variables.

Second, I submit that the same structural and procedural difficulties that were cited in the CCS report mentioned above have only worsened. Simply put, centrifugal forces have overwhelmed centripetal forces, providing even more vulnerable access points for powerful interest groups to unduly influence legislation and regulation in ways that further imbalance income and wealth distributions. We must make constitutional level changes that lead to something closer to the functioning European parliamentary systems.

Third, contemporary or topical issues, still have importance. As above, I do not have significant differences with, say, Jill Stein, a leading presidential candidate. Where I find need for expansion of our view is in the matter of the so-called Middle East. I have long suggested that problems in that area will be solved only by the residents of the Levant, and that the patriotic position for our country is to unwrap the divided loyalty hands of groups like the Israeli Lobby that have contributed to our unwise involvement in other people’s wars. We are still in the grip of the Military-Industrial-Religious complex. Disclosure: I am a Taoist, with no theocratic linkage to this seemingly everlasting arena of conflict.

Finally, I suggest that the Green Party reconsider one Key Value, that being the value of decentralization at the national level. We are shooting ourselves in the foot. The most decentralized government on the planet no longer works.

My thanks.

Bill Kreml – Green Party Presidential Candidate


  1. Dear Bill,
    . . . Not having read your other publications, I can only presume what I have read here represents your style of writing. Like you, I have a superior command of the language, and understood all the words you used — unlike, in my opinion, the majority of everyday people who bother to pay any attention to politics these days. I am not entirely in support of Jill Stein, but the fact that she has led a campaign that has tried to create the very-necessary base network of state-by-state organizations, and has travelled extensively to meet people face-to-face discussing concerns, is to her credit. No candidate can succeed in this day and age without at least that much, in an arena where the Duopoly has set all the rules for its own benefit in financing and media-support, both to the exclusion of any “third” parties.
    . . . For that reason alone, I cannot support your candidacy as being a serious one in terms of electability. But I support your continued efforts as a candidate to project your ideas and analysis of our political structure and its problems. To reach more people, you’ll have to “dumb-down” to their vocabulary for understanding; ditch the academic-scientific words and “speak plainly” addressing their needs.
    . . . Similarly, there is an independent candidate who has “a snowball’s chance in hell” of actually getting elected, and is doing little to appeal to specific subgroups of the general electorate, in part because his solutions for the bribery and corruption, energy-generation, and ecology are all so dynamic that they would change all of society, if only he could overcome the limitations of getting his message out. Harry Braun has for decades been a proponent of a Solar-Hydrogen Economy, and increasingly has pushed for a U.S. Constitutional Amendment that (unlike the well-organized but largely ineffective Move To Amend organization) would bypass Congress altogether (we agree that Congress will never “bite the hand that feeds it” in campaign financing by corporations, PACs, and bribing lobbyists) by using a method allowed by the Constitution to create a Constitutional Convention through approval in the States. I urge you to study and critique his proposed 28-word 28th Amendment (and maybe even use his downloadable Citizen Ballot to be sent to your state’s Attorney General) at https://DemocracyAmendmentUSA.net … there are links to his other websites growing out of his published book, The Phoenix Project, but he never fails to include most of his important reasoning on each linked site’s page in one long scroll. A scientist affiliated (as I am) with the International Association of Hydrogen Engineers (IAHE), he does not hold back in describing the exponential brink of widespread extinctions and disaster we now are at, if we don’t radically change energy policies, and that starts with The People regaining control over Congress and other branches of government. I think he’s unrealistic in hoping for a sweeping adoption of this by voters before the election next November, but he’s trying! Please do give it a read.
    . . . Thank you,
    GP-TX National Delegate Alán Alán Apurim
    1434 Nicholson Street, Houston, TX 77008-4134
    iPhone: 832-288-0575 (24/7 o.k.). My home location:
    29.7974° north latitude, -95.4055° west longitude
    26 meters above sea level, near Cat. 6 evac. zone
    “You never change things
    by fighting the existing reality.
    To change something, build a new model
    that makes the existing model obsolete.”          
    — R. Buckminister Fuller    

    “To succeed in adaption by a society,
    a new technology must make the task 
    both easier to do, and less-costly for all.”
    — Alán Alán Apurim 
    . . .
    . .
                        = = конец = =  

  2. Bill Kreml says

    “I suggest that the Green Party reconsider one Key Value, that being the value of decentralization at the national level. We are shooting ourselves in the foot. The most decentralized government on the planet no longer works.”

    This is the 3rd time I’ve seen/heard Dr. Kreml make this (controversial and intriguing) claim without substantiating it. Dr. Kreml or someone associated with and/or supporting the Kreml campaign, would you please elaborate on why you feel this way? How, in your opinion, does the Green Party need to change to become a more effective organization?

    • I as well would like to see an answer to this question. I will admit that this statement alone ensures that I would not support one who utters it. (As with anything, this is not set in stone, but I have yet to come across an even remotely approaches a convincing argument to support it.)
      The problem with centralization is easy to understand when one realizes that parties, movements, and indeed governments are networks. When one centralizes a network, that gives the network a single point of failure. Thus, all it takes to take down or highjack a network is to destroy or compromise the central core of the network (popular examples would be napster, megadowload, etc, or, in political examples, the death of MLK is a good example). Decentralized networks are resiliant, adaptive, and thus more effective and reliable (think torrents, tor, p2p, or in the political realm, Occupy, Black Lives Matter, Idle No More, the anti-globalization movement).

      One glaring example in the non virtual world would be the famines in places like China and the USSR, which, despite the claims by some that these were intentional massacres, based on all evidence, were actually caused by the slow reactions of a centralized beauracracy.

      To make the claim that because the US is theoretically decentralized that the low degree of decentralization is the cause of the problems we face is disingenuous at best. The largest source of problems, for instance, are the MIC and Wall Street, neither of which could rationally be referred ro as being decentralized. Another example is the current federal bill prohibiting states from banning toxic chemicals.

      I welcome the debate if this candidate actually answers with an attempt to eludicate his reasoning, I suspect it will be quite informative for those who hold his position.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.