Via RSS
Via Twitter
You are just as likely to hear the argument for the infiltration of the major parties from Rush Limbaugh as you are from Markos Moulitsas. The reason for this is quite simple. The likes of Markos Moulitsas and Rush Limbaugh share the self-same goal: ensuring the reproduction of the Democrat-Republican two-party state and duopoly system of government. The infiltration of the major parties by free thinking, independently-minded individuals and groups is not the means by which the major parties are reformed and resuscitated. Rather it is the means by which free-thinking, independently-minded individuals and groups are smothered and castrated by the entrenched interests represented by the ruling party establishment.
However, in an interesting post at The Daily Mush, Jim Hlavac takes the infiltration argument and puts it in the service of the political opposition to the dictatorship of the two-party state. He argues that the wide swath of Americans who are not represented by the "socialists and theocrats" in the Democratic and Republican parties should infiltrate the Libertarian party. Excerpt:
So us 65% or so in the middle are forced, by current election rules, to either vote for Republicans, which empowers the theocrats on that side, or the Democrats, which empowers the Socialists on that side. And because the two fringes have so successfully insinuated themselves into the party power structure, and because the election laws are rigged in the parties favor, then it becomes almost impossible to get any sort of reasonable practical stuff done. And instead, the two fringes work their magic on gaining more control over the government, the law, the public purse and over the lives of the people . . . .
The only other party structure that is up and running is the Libertarians. Technically even the third largest party in America. And it’s time to consider us rational people taking over the moribund thing with its lots of ballot access and make it truly about what America is about – leaving people alone to do what they want to, so long as they cause no harm, and believe as they want to, and otherwise do nothing except handle the violent criminals, and defense, and adjudication of natural disputes from the course of the people’s activities, and help the most truly unfortunate. . . .
So why not take over the Libertarian Party and stop arguing within the elitist two party power structure and start arguing with it as a third party? Now that would be audacious hope for change.
6 comments:
A decent piece with some good advice, but it has some seriously flaws. First off, the Democrats aren't "socialists", nor are the Republicans truly "theocratic", despite what you think of the two parties (I hate them too), that is a very shallow, and I think ultimately inaccurate portrayal of these parties. The first one is easiest to debunk. Democrats, socialists?? A quick rundown of their policies for the past *twenty* years, let alone since 06' quickly disproves this notion. All I have to ask is, what were the nationalizations that happened under their watch, if they're such "ardent" socialists? And if someone thinks the PPACA counts, they clearly have no idea what that legislation really is. There's only one I can seriously recall, and it was sort of a half nationalization (Stafford and Perkins loans), and was really just removing the option to get it through private banks at extra tax payer costs. An "socialist" wouldn't even bother with student "loans" though, they'd work to make higher education a universal right. (Whether you disagree with that goal or not is besides the point, it's what a socialist would do). Now the idea of the Republicans being "theocratic" is a bit trickier to address, because it is true that many Republicans have ties to actual religious conservatives, however those ties are largely the basis o f political trickery. It's worth noting that many head Republicans, like Paul Ryan, have a certain hero named "Ayn Rand", who was not only an atheist, but an outspoken one, and was very very critical of religion. In fact, I believe it's required reading for Ryan's staff to read "Atlas Shrugged", Rand's premier manifesto. More telling though, there's a book that was released some years back titled "Tempting Faith, written by David Kuo, former assistance director of the Faith Based Initiative, and self-described conservative Christian, which claims that the Bush administration has been using Christian conservatives to gain votes, while actually ridiculing them as "nuts" and using Faith Based funds for campaigning and political propaganda instead of for charity programs. The typical “moderate” narrative in the US I found to be rather unfounded, that both major parties represent different extremes at odds with one another and their ensuring battle is destroying the nation in the middle of it. There's a fair argument that both parties do represent a particular extreme, but if so, I'd argue they're pretty much the same extreme, rather than two opposing extremes. The reality is, we have a plurality in the American politik, one shared by most legislators (at least on a national level, and a good deal on a state level) and most individuals who hold executive branch (whether presidents, governors, state treasurers, whatever), that whether willing, or because of their own cynicism and feeling of helplessness, generally pursue that one goal, which is, laws favorable to a particular special interest class that are abnormally powerful in this particularly interesting age in American history. Or as Tommy Douglas put it, cats make great laws for cats, but they don't make good laws for mice, it's unfortunate that it's a nation of mice in question. A plethora of examples can easily demonstrate this. The much vaunted “SOHALIZED HEALTHCARE” legislation abbreviated “PPACA” is ironically, mostly copied from conservative dreamboy, and former governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney's healthcare reform packaged he sicked on MA during 03', and was in some form or fashion, touted by arch conservatives as the “alternate” to “socialized medicine” as a means of reforming the nation's healthcare, dating all the way back to Nixon.
Yeah sure, the republicans certainly played off opposition to it, but it's pretty much all for show, since again, their party, and their shill “think tanks” promoted the plan for years on end, and in a delicious show of irony, are now proposing it as an alternative to Medicare, dubbed the “premium support”. Again, this is simply one example out of many, many examples that prove economically,as among other groupings, they pretty much have a plurality. Second, in what way is the Libertarian Party “moderate”? (This is in no ways meant as an insult, simply a fact) It's an rather solid, perhaps at times extremist, “Free Market” party, along with rather extreme social liberal (liberal as in the actual sense, not the new American term to mean leftism) policies in regards to narcotic use and the like. Regardless of your opinion's on their positions, it's not a “moderate” party, not that I have any problem with it. Still, I think he's right in his core direction, one shouldn't try a method that is doomed to failure, and trying to bend the curves of politics, or change the course of the boat with the established powers that be that simply do not want to change is rather silly, and will take a new approach, and a new way of thinking from the established American politik to succeed.
Aaaaand sorry for the very verbose response, but I had some time between studying and thought I might as well hammer out something worthwhile..(hopefully) :)
Thanks! Definitely some very good points in there. I think the platform of the Libertarian party is almost inconsequential to the argument put forward by the author of the post above (though he himself clearly has libertarian leanings, as seems to be indicated in his Dem/Rep socialist/theocrat thesis). To me it seemed like an almost completely utilitarian calculus: because the Libertarian party already has ballot access in all 50 states, it is the ideal vehicle to launch a nationwide campaign against the major parties. At the same time, an influx of new membership and activists would likely change the party as well.
Good point, I probably missed that aspect myself. Indeed, the Libertarian party is the biggest, and most established, third party nation wide, and I'm certainly open to working with them, and think our nation would do very well if they had more influence. But, I don't think it should be the *only* party we work with, while their organizing ability certainly leaves a lot to be desired (with a few state chapters being exceptions) the Green Party is also probably worth our attention as well. We shouldn't put all our eggs in one basket, and there are genuine political differences between the unrepresented camps that should lead to working in multiple parties (though working with each other as well on issues of electoral reform and ballot access, after all, the enemy of my enemy is my friend), in which genuine political ideas can meet the battle ground of politics and hopefully, determine what's the best course for our nation.
"there are genuine political differences between the unrepresented camps that should lead to working in multiple parties"
This is an important point. The corporate media and the strategists of the major parties often speak and act as if independents are a monolith. But they are not. Self-described Independents and unaffiliated voters span the political spectrum, and are actually more representative of the American public than the membership of either major party. This is a strength and a weakness, and poses strategic organizing problems. But at the district and local level, it is probably safe to say that Independents are a bit more uniform in their views, which is why, imo, a bottom-up strategy is necessary.
>which is why, imo, a bottom-up strategy is necessary.<
100% agreed. I'm for what I call a "dissensus" approach, a messy bottom up approach to politics in America, with a general focus on state legislatures and otherwise state government (initiatives & referendums for example) that are much more amendable to reform given the more lenient laws and constitutions in effect. That's the low hanging fruit I think for third parties & Independents, and we should seize it!
Post a Comment