Derek at the Maine View considers the rise of independent activism and disillusionment with the duopoly charade across the political spectrum and asks:
Is this a sign of the extremes in each party breaking off on their own? We may already be seeing that in the Republican party, why shouldn't we expect something similar in the Democratic party. I have read many articles about how the far-left is becoming disillusioned with the Obama administration, as I'm sure you all have too. If there was any time for third parties of similar interest to unite and make a good run at some national seats, its 2010. 2010 is shaping up to be an interesting election.
Indeed, the liberal and left-wing fascination with the Obama-phenomenon has already begun to devolve into disenchantment.
A dejected Kos diarist, Babe the Blue Ox, writes:
Watching Republicans take firm control of the political debates in this country, such as on the stimulus bill, what seems like the total capitulation to the insurance industry on healthcare reform, and now overwhelming caving into the Republican talking points for closing GITMO, I see no point in continuing to participate in our political process. Why vote? There's only one political party, in reality and it's the Republican Party. The Democrats are their bitch and will do what the Republicans tell them to do. Voting for more Democrats won't change a damn thing. They are as much a part of the problem, as anything. If there was a third party that could get on my ballot, I might reconsider, but as it stands now I think all the votes I cast for Democrats are wasted votes.
Given the fact that such sentiment is not confined to the left (ironically, with the appropriate substitutions, one could easily imagine the exact same piece written by a partisan of the conservative right), the elections of 2010 and 2012, may provide independents and third party candidates with the opportunity to begin breaking open the duopoly state. In this vein, something along the lines of Robert Milnes'
Progressive Alliance Strategy may prove to be a promising formula for an independent, third party front.
Via RSS
Via Twitter
4 comments:
The problem with Obamania is this; everyone saw what they wanted in Obama. He became this progressive super hero. There was no wrong he couldn't and wouldn't right.
Obama himself always professed to be moderate or centrist or whatever you want to call it. He is doing basically, as I've said before, what he said he would during the campaign.
It's a bit delusional for people to be all up in arms that Obama isn't the liberal savior people began to paint him as. It's easy to see how revisionist history can easily slip into vogue.
Did you watch Face the Nation this past Sunday? Colin Powell was on. You should google the video, watch the first part, read my post on it, then tell me what you think.
I should stop writing such long run-on sentences.
"The problem with Obamania is this; everyone saw what they wanted in Obama."
That is exactly why his campaign strategy was so effective. He functioned as a screen onto which the public could project their own desires and fantasies, across the political spectrum.
"[Obama] functioned as a screen onto which the public could project their own desires and fantasies, across the political spectrum."
This is how the Bipolarchy survives. Voters are always able to convince themselves that they're choosing people rather than parties. It's OK to go back to the Democrats because Obama isn't Clinton, or back to the Republicans because Bush wasn't his father. There is enough truth to the presentation each time that people keep falling for it without realizing that the Bipolarchy is a structure (not a "conspiracy," Mr. Tremlett)that inevitably compromises the autonomy of any candidate.
Post a Comment