"Indi" is for Individuals.
"Crat" is from the ancient Greek "Kratos" meaning Rule or Strength.

Unlike "Demos", ancient Greek for "People" (as in Democrat),  Indicrat means power to the individual or individual rule.
The rallying cry of the Leftist Democrat is "Power to the People!"
The rallying cry of the Indicrat is "Power to the Individual!"

You can't go wrong when you focus on empowering individuals as opposed to empowering "the people" which is just a one size fits all concept that never works.

An Indicrat is a Pro-Defense Libertarian with a better name and a more focused ideal.
First, if you are a person that is unfamiliar with the term "Libertarian" you'll have to read to the very bottom of this to get a sense of it, and then it would behoove you to google "Libertarian".

The main concern of the Indicrat is individual freedom, not individual rights. Ultimately, your rights come from God*, not from the state. However, human understanding of God is subjective and limited.
It is easier for all humankind to objectively see, and agree on what frees a person, rather than to agree on what a person's God given rights are. Every religion and philosophy differ on what rights humans should have. But anyone with a logical mind can see what frees a person.
So the Indicratic system is one that seeks to allow maximum individual freedom to the point that one person's freedom does not curtail the freedom of other individuals. It is a constant balance for individuals to have equal opportunity and equal justice in life.

However, the Indicrat may use the term "rights" when speaking legally, as in, our inalienable rights spoken of in the U.S. Constitution. In the legal realm, the word "rights" is a useful term, but in the philosophical realm, the word "freedom" is better.

An Indicrat is a pro-active Libertarian when it comes to foreign affairs. Many generic Libertarians have an isolationist streak in them when it comes to the military and foreign affairs. People like Ron Paul call for disengagement, and in essence, abandonment of our allies across the globe. They say, "Let them fight their own fights, we shouldn't get involved in other people's wars." That's the same as saying, "Who cares if there's an Ebola outbreak in Africa, let them deal with it." This attitude is myopic and foolish as the following analogy demonstrates...

Imagine we lived in a forest, and in the next valley there was a forest fire. We would be stupid not to help our good neighbors put it out (where needed), because that fire would burn itself right through our own land eventually. Also, our good neighbors would be gone and if there were any left, they probably would not be too keen on helping us when we needed a favor. But more importantly, what does it say about us as a people that we don't protect our friends from the barbarians at the gates represented by this fire, whether they be called communists, fascists, or other? No one group of people can be an island unto themselves in this world anymore than one person can. We are all interconnected by geopolitics and a global economy. We must be proactive and involved, constantly vigilant in our learning and understanding of what may be the next threat to individual freedom. There will always be a new threat.

Unlike some generic Libertarians on this issue (maybe most of them), the Indicrat stands up for individual freedom everywhere in the world, not just at home. That is how we gain friends and guarantee freedom eternally. And beyond gaining friends and security, it is simply the right thing to do.

The Indicratic Party was founded June of 2010. An Indicrat is what I jokingly call a Jingoistic Libertarian because an Indicrat President would never be stupid enough to let the tyrannical regime of Iran get a nuke, like Ron Paul would if he were president.

Libertarian journalist John Stossel once pleaded with his audience to come up with a better name than "Libertarian" to define Libertarianism. He said he didn't like the name Libertarian. So, being a fan of Stossel I decided to create a new name that sounded better, or at the very least had less syllables. 
The leftists have appropriated the word "Liberal" even though they are not very Liberal as I will explain below, and the Right has the word "Republican" even though they lean so religiously conservative that they are not champions of a Republic where an individual would be truly free in private life. A Libertarian or INDICRAT is a True Liberal and a True Republican at the same time. Let me explain how this is so.

First lets talk about so called "Liberals". The people that call themselves Liberal these days are not very Liberal at all, and it's a shame that conservatives have helped these people appropriate the name Liberal by calling them Liberal. "Liberals" are pretty much only Liberal about sexual issues, drugs and immigration. They are not very Liberal about anything else with regards to their own countrymen.

They won't let parents have school choice.

They restrict what jobs you can do without joining a union.

They restrict health care choices and won't let you buy insurance over state lines.

They restrict your gun rights.

If you are successful they won't let you keep your hard earned money. They will arrogantly redistribute it by force, instead of letting you decide what to do with it.

They want to tax you just for dying. It's called the estate tax.

They regulate the hell out business and restrict the free market.

They heavily restrict our ability to tap our own energy sources here in the U.S. We have to spend a trillion dollars a year importing energy, when instead, we could be saving all that money while providing jobs at the same time. Also, we wouldn't have to fight wars for oil and contribute to pollution by getting oil from 3rd world nations that have way worse pollution standards than we have in the U.S.

An Indicrat is Pro-choice when it comes to abortion but an Indicrat is also Pro-religious conscience. "Liberals" wont let people of conscience be exempt from paying for things they don't believe in like abortion. Many "Liberals" are disdainful and INTOLERANT of Christian religious symbols and expression in the public square even though the constitution does not say there should be separation of Church and State. The Constitution simply says the government cannot favor one religion over another. We have freedom "OF" religion, not freedom "FROM" religion. 

"Liberals" tend to be pacifists and appeasers which enable tyrants to subjugate millions of people, causing those innocent masses to lose their LIBERTY.

"Liberal" feminists will only stand up for women if they have the same political views, but if a conservative woman is abused by the media for example, the liberal feminists are completely silent and happy about it, as in the case of Sara Palin or Michelle Bachmann.

"Liberal" Al Gore has never once actually debated a climatologist that doesn't agree with him, and his supporters have called serious climate experts "Knuckle Draggers" and "Flat Earthers", trying to squash any opposing view. "Liberals"are intolerant to scientific ideas that do not support their own.

Hollywood "Liberals" like Oliver Stone and Sean Penn will praise the Venezuelan thug, Hugo Chavez, and bash Bush in the same sentence. Even though Chavez would do everything he could to destroy them if they were influential Venezuelan citizens bashing him in his country. This, while Bush invites Colbert to make fun of him to his face at a Correspondent's Dinner.

According to other Hollywood "Liberals" like Morgan Freeman, Samuel Jackson, Bill Maher, Janeane Garofalo, etc. (as well as non-Hollywood "Liberals"), if you oppose Obama you must be a Racist. And they call you a "Teabagger" or whatever insult they can think of. To them, dissent is only patriotic when "Liberals" do it.

They won't champion the legal rights of their fellow countrymen over the desires of illegal aliens.

Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore are the most mind blowing hypocrites on the planet. Chomsky made millions off the pentagon while decrying it and Michael Moore happens to be a great stock picker, and has made lots of money off them according to his tax returns. Yet, he says he doesn't own stock and no one else should either..."That's the rich man's game."

If that's Liberalism count me out.

Now lets look at Republicans and/or Social Conservatives. They allow individuals to have what "Liberals" won't let individuals have. But, because Republicans mainly are socially conservative and religiously conservative, they tend to restrict what some "Liberals" do allow. That is, great latitude on sexual and drug issues. Yet, this is against the notion of the inalienable rights of the individual, in a Republic. It is an inalienable right that a person have domain over his or her own body, as long as it does not harm the public's safety. However, most Republicans, on religious and conservative aesthetics alone, object to people having the right to do what they want with their own body, ie. prostitution, drugs, abortion, even homosexuality.

We used to have a Jeffersonian Republic and our original republic has been destroyed not only by Progressives and big government Democrats, but by pseudo Republicans that foist their religious ideology on their fellow citizens (as government policy) while knowing full well that Thomas Jefferson wanted individuals to be free from government backed religion.

It is hypocrisy from these "Republicans", claiming to be defenders of the constitution, who say we should follow it (including it's secular tenants) on the one hand, but modify or ignore our originally founded way of governance to suit certain beliefs about abortion on the other.  The longest-serving Supreme Court justice, and Republican, Antonin Scalia said, “My view is that regardless of whether you think prohibiting abortion is good or whether you think prohibiting abortion is bad--regardless of how you come out on that--my only point is the Constitution does not say anything about it. It leaves it up to democratic choice. Some states prohibited it, and some states didn’t. What Roe v. Wade said was that no state can prohibit it.”

An Indicrat says you can do whatever you want with your body as long as it doesn't harm the public. Granted, you know what you are doing, meaning, you are an adult of sound mind and understanding. An Indicrat will argue in the case of abortion the individual rights of a fully developed human being trumps the rights of an embryo or fetus growing inside that individual.

An Indicrat is also for gay marriage. Marriage is an exclusive arrangement involving intimacy that is transcendent of physicality. Therefore, physicality should not be its basis or a defining factor. The state should not tell private individuals how they should define their relationships.

So today's Republicans are not fully champions of a republican society of individual rights, and "Liberals" are glaringly un-liberal. Really, it is the Libertarian or INDICRAT that is a true Liberal and a true Republican.


In a Democracy you can not have Snob rule, meaning, the Ruling Elite or Monarch can not go against the majority (the people). The majority overrules the Snob.

However, in a Democracy you can have Mob rule, and the Mob can be just as tyrannical, if not worse than a Snob. The Founding Fathers of the United States warned against pure Democracy for this reason.

In a Republic, you can not have either Snob rule or Mob rule. In a Republic there is a Constitution, and in U.S. law a "bill of rights", guaranteeing individuals certain unalienable rights that can not be be taken away by the Snob or the Mob. A Democracy has no such protection against mob rule. The Founders made sure that the word "Democracy" was not in the Constitution, nor is it in any of the Constitutions of all 50 states.

This is why the Republicans fought to free the slaves from the Democratic south in the U.S. civil war. The Democrats wanted to keep their slavery economy because they thought it was good for the Mob. They didn't care about individual rights.

This is why all the first Black Senators, Congressmen, Governors, and other Government officials were all Republicans. The Republicans inspired U.S. blacks to be strong individuals and leaders. However, later, the Democrats inspired blacks to be dependent on the welfare state and take on the role of victims. In the early 1900's blacks switched and became Democrats.

This is why so many Conservatives (whatever creed or race) are Republican, because they share the same core values of individualism and personal responsibility.

It all boils down to a simple rallying cry. For the Democrats it is "Power to the People!" and for true Republicans, Libertarians and Indicrats it is "Power to the Individual!"

Below is an excerpt from "Overview of America" produced by The John Birch Society. It is narrated by John McManus. The American Form of Government - Plus music video, Yankee Doodle (Tea Party mix) at the end, not from JBS. And below the video are additional notes about Democracy versus a Republic.

In a pure democracy 51% beats 49%. Socrates was executed by a democracy. Though he harmed no one, the majority found him intolerable. A Republic could have saved Socrates but it is important to note one major concern about Republics which is the following...

Although it is true that a Republic is the best way to secure individual rights, not all Republics WILL secure individual rights. Some Republics have constitutions that are tyrannical and other Republics simply don't follow their constitutions or are fake Republics.

Iran is a good example of a pseudo republic. Article 23 of the Iranian constitution states- "The investigation of individual's beliefs is forbidden, and no one may be molested or taken to task simply for holding a certain belief." Who in their right mind believes for one second the Iranian government is upholding that tenant? This is a country that will execute you for apostasy. This is a country where the president says there are no gay people in Iran. This is a country that uses snipers on peaceful demonstrators. These are religious zealots. How can religious zealots uphold a constitution that protect basic individual rights? It's not possible. This is why a Republic cannot be non-secular. A republic that protects individual rights can only function under secularity.

East Germany during the cold war called itself a Republic and so does North Korea. In both cases, individual rights were and are virtually non-existent. The only point of having a constitution is to protect individual rights. A nation can call itself whatever it wants, but a good Republic is measured by the present rights of its individual citizens.

Also, there is a term bandied about which is a "Constitutional Democracy". This term is either one of two things. It is either an oxymoron, because the mere fact that you have a constitution negates the power of a real democracy, or it is simply another way of saying "a Republic". People that don't like the word "Republic" may use the term "Constitutional Democracy" as a substitute, but this is just political semantics.

~Dhruva Aliman