Co-dependency and the Independence Caucus: Complete Dependency on the Democratic and Republican Parties is not Political Independence

Speaking of pretend-ependents, if you recall, last month I argued that the so-called Independence Caucus could be more appropriately termed the codependency caucus: though the group claims that its aim is "to take our government back from the "big money" special interest groups," in practice the organization actively supports two of the most pernicious "big money special interest groups" in the United States today, namely, the Democratic and Republican Parties. The Political Blotter reports on the group's efforts in California:
I spent a couple of hours yesterday with Bob White, the volunteer Northern California director of the Independence Caucus . . . The Independence Caucus was founded by a pair of Utah men, Frank Anderson and Monte Bateman . . . The idea [behind the organization] is that most, if not all, long-time incumbents on either side of the aisle are beholden to special interests, and that no incumbent is safe if citizens put enough time and effort behind a candidate they believe in . . . White . . . is responsible for California congressional districts 1 through 27. He’s been putting a lot of mileage on his car, crisscrossing the state’s northern half to hit every conservative gathering he can find, trying to identify potential “citizen candidates.” The only criteria, he said, are a commitment to fiscal responsibility and “adherence to the Constitution” – the candidate could be Democrat or Republican, he said, so long as they stick to those two tenets.
The central contradiction inherent to this position is plainly obvious: the group recognizes the failure of the Democratic-Republican duopoly system of government ("most, if not all, long-time incumbents on either side of the aisle are beholden to special interests"), but its solution is to support the reproduction of the problem by strengthening the dictatorship of the Democratic-Republican Party ("the candidate could be a Democrat or a Republican"). By excluding third party and independent candidates from consideration, and thus making membership in the Democratic or Republican Party an explicit criterion for consideration, the group makes a mockery of its moniker, pretending that complete dependency on the Democratic and Republican Parties is the criterion of political independence.


Alessandro Machi said...

I totally agree with your headline. We cannot keep "teaching" one party by voting for the other party whenever the first party screws up.

We need some semblance of a third party, even a third party of unconnected pieces, to reign in the two main parties.

But I do believe Hillary Clinton would have been a much better alternative to Barack Obama simply because Hillary Clinton got more money from people who could not afford to give it to her than Barack Obama did.

Hillary Clinton would have been more beholden to main street, not wall street, than Barack Obama even seems capable of.

The internal political manipulations that went on to defeat Hillary Clinton put into play a system of graft and corruption in the democratic party of vile proportions.

Reid and Pelosi MUST go.

If anybody has a third party candidate who would like a free listing at My Third Party just let me know, or post the link here and I'll add it.

Alessandro Machi said...

I just found the link to many candidates that was sent to my third party. When my fingers warm up a bit I'll post them.

And I'm embarrassed to say I'm not in snow country so my apologies to those who are actually weather very cold temperatures.

d.eris said...

The lesser evil is the enemy of the greater good. And yes, the list I keep here? It should be fairly helpful for you. You might be interested in checking out the Rough Guide to the Third Party Blogosphere too.