During World War II, the German industry was driven by experts, well
trained in virtually all aspects of their construction project. The
American industry was driven by non-experts, working on an assembly line
and possibly only knowing a single task they learned in a single morning.
The American mass production system has been credited with being the single
most important reason America defeated the Germans.

Before the PCP, all political parties in America have run like the German
system. They have a general philosophy and a long list of specific
applications of that philosophy. Candidates and members are expected to
embrace the big picture and then become experts on the details. The
Personal Choice Party is entirely different. It isn't on the Nolan Chart
often used by Libertarians. It isn't about having a big picture or any
specifics. The phrase "Personal Choice" is sufficient. Each candidate and
member brings to the party whatever "Personal Choice" issue or issues they
support. They don't need to take the time to become experts on each others'
issues so they can agree as a group. Each issue is carried by those who
choose it. I think this application of the American assembly line approach
to politics will take hold and defeat all the old parties who stick with
the German "experts only" system.

Some may say the PCP is not being honest when it refuses to take sides on
specifics. They say that honesty is a good thing to embrace. I say it is
highly likely that if more than three diverse people agree on more than
three diverse issues, someone is probably lying to get along. It is
dishonest to embrace a party or its platform when it contains planks one
opposes. It is immoral to be more loyal to the party than the principle.
The American political party system today virtually guarantees liars and
hypocrites and almost nobody agrees with every detail on the political flag
they salute.

The PCP isn't about discussing the issues on which we disagree so we can
convert each other. It's about discussing the issues on which we agree so
we can cooperate and make something happen.

Example: Person "A," a polygamist, believes homosexuality is evil and
would like to see gay marriage and gay practices remain illegal. But,
Person "A" also wants polygamy to be legal and puts more value on
legalizing polygamy than keeping homosexuality illegal. Person "B" is gay
and has identical feelings about polygamy. They work together to prevent
any constitutional amendment that would restrict their freedoms, even
though they would like to see the others' freedoms restricted. They
disagree strongly on whether the other has a "right" to be different. They
disagree strongly on whether the other's lifestyle is evil. Yet, they work
together in the Personal Choice Party to save their own Personal Choices.
If the party had sought consensus, it would have failed in both polygamy
rights and gay rights. Or, even worse, one or both "A" and "B" would feel
unwelcome and leave, rather than stay with a party that takes a stand in
favor of the other. They stay and they work together and they win each
other's freedom because the party allows each of them to choose exactly
what "Personal Choice" means to them. The Utah amendment will likely pass
if the gays and polygs are unable to cooperate to defeat it. The PCP is the
only party in the world, I know of, in which this can happen.

You see, we have found a new way to skin this cat. Liberals and
conservatives can work together for each other's Personal Choices without
agreeing on one single issue. All I ask is that the liberals value behavior
freedom more than property control and that the conservatives value
property freedom more than behavior control. I don't know how many liberals
and conservatives are ready to play this game, but I do believe it has
enough potential to warrant giving it a try.

Ken