Will progressives finally declare their independence from the Democratic Party in 2010?

Progressive disillusionment with the Obama administration and majority Democratic Congress continues to lead to calls for third party and independent activism against the ruling Democratic-Republican corporatist coalition. At Firedoglake, El Duderino asks: "Will FDL support Green Party candidates in 2012 and 2012?" He writes:

The Democrat Party is useless. It cannot be relied upon to be a vehicle for progressive change. If it wasn’t evident when the party took power in Congress in 2006 only to continue propping up George W. Bush’s unconstitutional and illegal policies, or when the party actively protected him and his regime from prosecution, then there can be no more doubt in the wake of the failure of health care reform . . .

Simply running primary opponents against recalcitrant Democrats is not enough to push the party leftward. All that does is make it easier for conservative incumbents (or aspirants to office) to pander to the base while all the while fully intending once they have their nominations locked up to move to the political right. They can do this so easily because they know that no matter how much we might complain, Democrat voters will usually buckle under and support them in general elections . . .

if Democrats cannot be counted upon to do anything but stand in the way of progressive principles, and not voting is not a viable option, what is our recourse if not to support independent candidates from the left going into the 2010 and 2012 elections? The primary-them-only tactic has failed because we do not back up the threat of electoral defeat with strong independent candidacies from the left. The most logical and effective choice for progressive support is the party with a presence in enough states to seriously compete with the major players, and that is the Green Party.

In response, Ross Levin suggests a number of third party and independent candidates that FDL might consider supporting. Among them:

Rich Whitney, running for governor in Illinois. His run for governor in 2006 got him 10% of the vote and put the Greens on the political scene in Illinois . . . Hugh Giordano. I live near Philadelphia and have known Hugh for about a year and a half, so I was very excited when I heard he was running as a Green for state representative in Philadelphia. He’s running in a one-party Democratic district and there’s possibly no Republican running this year . . . Eliot Cutler, running for governor of Maine. I’m not sure how progressive he really is, but he’s running as a left of center candidate, was a powerful lawyer in Washington, and used to work for President Carter . . . The Progressive Party in Vermont. They’re the most successful third party in the country.

Progressives who are interested in finding more Green Party candidates for elected office this year should check out the Green Party's Election Database, which can be searched by state, office and candidate name.

Don't Call the Arsonists to Put Out the Fire: Democratic-Republican Government as On-going Criminal Enterprise in New York State

Due to a minor technical glitch, The Whig was down for a brief period over the holidays, but it's now back up and running. In a recent post, Septimus relays a NYT editorial calling on the people of New York to vote out all of their state legislators this year. Here are a few excerpts from what The Times calls "the worst of the worst" of the NYS legislature:

New York has been on the brink of economic collapse, but the Legislature blithely ignored the problem for months. When the deficit reached a truly alarming $3.2 billion, the lawmakers grudgingly agreed to last-minute fixes while carefully protecting their political buddies and donors . . .

Senate Republicans had abused their 40-year majority and secretly used state money to pursue party business. Among the discoveries: a secret plant, with 75 employees, to print Republicans’ mail to constituents; a Republican-only television studio; secret Republican Party research staff . . .

The Republicans’ longtime Senate leader, Joseph Bruno, stepped down in 2008 before he was indicted on eight counts of exploiting his office for personal gain. Earlier this month, Mr. Bruno was convicted on two felony counts involving “theft of honest services." . . .

let’s not forget the Republican coup in June, abetted by two of the least-qualified Democrats: Senators Pedro Espada Jr. of the Bronx and Hiram Monserrate of Queens. Never mind that Mr. Espada was — and is — being investigated for allegedly living outside his district and failing to report campaign contributions. And Mr. Monserrate already had been indicted for assaulting his girlfriend.

This is not the first time the NYT has made calls for blanket anti-incumbency. But, as Septimus argues, simply voting out incumbents does not go nearly far enough. From The Whig:

While replacing everyone might help in the short term, it doesn't get to the core of the problem. If you vote out all of the current crop of corrupt Democrats and Republicans, you will only be replacing them with other Democrats and Republicans, and the political machines that we call the two major parties will keep humming along under different names.

We need more profound and deeper change. It is becoming apparent that we need to rethink how we conduct the serious business of politics. Just replacing Democrats with Republicans, or vice versa, is not enough. If you replace an office holder with another who embodies the same political culture, you will get only a change of rhetoric, but not a change of any substance.

That is the main reason I am not more enthusiastic about efforts to simply vote out incumbents. One of the main efforts is at goooh.com. GOOOH stands for "Get Out Of Our House" and is an effort to replace incumbents. This effort does not go nearly far enough.

If we were to replace every Democrat with a Republican, and every Republican with a Democrat, the control of the House would change, and that would be about it. Not only did the corrupt political culture not change when the Democrats took over from the Republicans, but the downward trend of our politics only accelerated. Didn't the "Contract With America" Republicans of 1994 degenerate quickly into the corruption of Tom Delay?

Replacing one with the other is not the answer. We need more political competition. Only this will produce the fairness, common sense, and moderation we need so badly.

Happy New Year: the Resolution of Independence

Dear readers, a new year is upon us. It is a time for reflection on the past and resolution for the future. Whatever the new year may bring, let us resolve to maintain and renew the spirit of independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Anti-Incumbency and Independent Ascendancy

A new survey from the Pew Research Center highlights "widespread anti-incumbent sentiment" among likely voters and the electorate at large:

Only about a third (34%) of registered voters say they think most members of Congress should be re-elected next year, which is on par with ratings during the 1994 and 2006 elections. Meanwhile, just 52% of voters say they want to see their own member re-elected, approaching levels in early October 2006 (50%) and 1994 (49%). [Emphasis added.]

In November 1994, 68% of Democrats and 55% of Republicans favored the re-election of their own member of Congress, which is comparable to the current figures (64% of Democrats, 50% of Republicans). But today, just 42% of independents want to see their own representative re-elected, compared with 52% of independents on the eve of the 1994 midterm elections.

Partisan feelings about incumbents were the reverse in 2006, when the GOP held majorities in the House and Senate. In November 2006, 69% of Republicans, 52% of Democrats and 45% of independents wanted to see their own member of Congress re-elected.

One of the enduring paradoxes of US politics under the conditions of the two-party state is the disparity between individuals' attitudes toward the Congress as a whole, on the one hand, and their own representatives, on the other. This disconnect can go some way toward explaining the power of incumbency even in times of widespread anti-incumbent sentiment. Meanwhile, support for third party alternatives to the Democratic-Republican duopoly system of government is holding steady. A majority of Americans support the idea of a major third party:

Just over half (52%) of Americans say the U.S. should have a third major political party in addition to the Democrats and Republicans, while four-in-ten (40%) disagree. This is little changed from last year, when 56% favored a third party and 38% opposed the idea.

Support for a third party continues to be widespread among independents. As was the case last year, 70% of independents say we should have a third major political party. Just 44% of both Republicans and Democrats agree. There is also a consistent difference between younger and older Americans. In the current poll, 63% of Americans under age 30 support the idea of a third political party, compared with just 37% of those ages 65 and older.

Given such numbers, one might wonder why support for actual independent and third party alternatives to the stooges of the Democratic-Republican Party remains relatively low. This disparity, at least at the national level, is at least partly explained by the ideological diversity of political independents. At FiveThirtyEight, Nate Silver recently provided a helpful typology of independent voters, writing:

the category of ‘independents’ includes:

1) People who are mainline Democrats or Republicans for all intents and purposes, but who reject the formality of being labeled as such;
2) People who have a mix of conservative and liberal views that don’t fit neatly onto the one-dimensional political spectrum, such as libertarians;
3) People to the extreme left or the extreme right of the political spectrum, who consider the Democratic and Republican parties to be equally contemptible;
4) People who are extremely disengaged from politics and who may not have fully-formed political views;
5) True-blue moderates;
6) Members of organized third parties.

For local and state level polities, however, the ranks of independents are likely somewhat more homogeneous. Consider two recent polls tracking support for gubernatorial candidates in the Northeast. In Massachusetts, support for independent candidate Tim Cahill puts him in a statistical tie with the incumbent Democrat Deval Patrick's likely Republican rivals. From Rasmussen, via The Thirds:

Patrick now captures 34% of the vote against either possible Republican challenger, Christy Mihos or Charlie Baker, when newly announced independent candidate Tim Cahill is added to the mix. Mihos earns 23% of the vote in a three-way race. Baker picks up 24% in a contest with Patrick and Cahill. In both scenarios, Cahill, the state treasurer who was elected as a Democrat but quit the party this summer, gets 23% of the vote and 19% are undecided.

In a recent poll from Rhode Island, independent gubernatorial candidate Lincoln Chafee is leading both likely Democratic rivals and the probably Republican candidate. The Thirds sums up the findings:

The poll has independent former Senator Lincoln Chafee leading in races versus Republican Rory Smith, and Democrats General Treasurer Frank Caprio and Attorney General Patrick Lynch. The poll shows the former Republican Chafee getting 36 or 37 percent of the vote depending up on the match-up. In a race versus and Attorney General Lynch and Smith Chafee leads 37-24-15. The match-up is much closer with the Democrat being General Treasurer Caprio, but Chafee is still in the lead 36-34-8. In the poll undecideds are still in the 20’s.

These are two races to keep an eye on.

The Connecticut for Lieberman Party: Toward a Green-Independent-Libertarian Alliance

The Connecticut for Lieberman Party was founded following the Senator's defeat in the 2006 Democratic primary by Ned Lamont. Lieberman, of course, went on to win the race, and now describes himself as an 'independent Democrat.' Because of Lieberman's win, the party is guaranteed a slot on the next statewide election, which is to take place in 2010. Ironically, however, since Lieberman is not a member of the party, but rather a registered Democrat, it has been appropriated by independent activists aiming to unseat Democrat Chris Dodd in the 2010 elections. At the Fairfield Weekly, Gregory Hladky details the state of the party and its internal politics:

The Connecticut For Lieberman Party began as a Joe Lieberman vehicle, was transformed into an anti-Joe Lieberman joke, and is now attempting to transcend Joe Lieberman entirely. It’s a mutation that has left some of Lieberman’s harshest Democratic critics frustrated and worried about what this new CFL might do to the reelection chances of Connecticut’s other Democratic U.S. Senator, Chris Dodd.

“If [Dodd’s] race comes down to the wire, we don’t want a half a percent of voters to hit the joke line and cost us a Senate seat,” said Edward Anderson, a liberal Democratic activist from New Haven.

John Mertens, a Trinity College professor who is running on the CFL 2010 ballot line as a U.S. Senate candidate against Dodd, believes he has a real chance to shake up Connecticut’s political status quo. “This isn’t about Joe Lieberman. This is about turning this party into something real,” Mertens insisted. He claims the CFL offers an opportunity to change a political system festering with corruption and ineptitude. Several of his former activist colleagues claim he’s simply on a monster ego trip . . .

Upon his return to the Senate, where he called himself an “independent Democrat,” Lieberman forgot about his little party of convenience. But some of those anti-Lieberman Democrats didn’t. It was especially fascinating to them because, under Connecticut election law, any party whose statewide candidate draws 1 percent or more of the vote in one election automatically qualifies for a spot on the next statewide election ballot. If they could find a way to get that 1 percent in 2010, they could run an anti-Lieberman candidate against Lieberman in 2012 on the Connecticut For Lieberman line. Led by Fairfield University Professor John Orman, a few of those Lieberman critics took over the dormant CFL to continue their anti-Joe crusade.

“That’s what it was all about,” said Sue Henshaw, a liberal Democrat from Trumbull who was one of Orman’s original CFL allies. Henshaw said Orman “signed over” the leadership of the CFL to Mertens with the understanding it would retain its anti-Lieberman character. Orman died in July . . .

Mertens argues the point is to break through the self-protection barriers created by major parties, and he claims Orman supported a CFL challenge against Dodd. “I disagree with the position that the party exists solely to run against Joe Lieberman,” said Mertens, who is current CFL chairman.

The CFL Web site, however, opens with a denunciation of Lieberman for the “fraud perpetrated on members of this party and the citizens of Connecticut when he used creation of this party to get on the general election ballot in 2006.”

Mertens wants to get several established minor parties, including Connecticut’s Greens, the Independent Party and the Libertarians, to back only one minor party candidate in each big 2010 race. His theory is that would give each of those candidacies (particularly his own) a better shot.

He says most of the minor parties agree “that the two-party system isn’t working … that we’re all against corruption, and all against the encroachment of our personal liberties.” . . .

Mike DeRosa, co-chair of the Connecticut Green Party, said Mertens’ plan “doesn’t impress me too much.” “What are we uniting for?” he asked. “What do [all these minor parties] have in common? If we’re simply doing it as a tactical move, I don’t think it makes sense. … I think our parties need to stand for what they are.”

The idea of a Green-Independent-Libertarian alliance is an attractive one. It would be a major victory for third party and independent politics if Connecticut activists could pull it off in time for the 2010 elections, despite their reservations.

Declarations of Independence for Governor, 2010

The D.C. establishmentarian publication Politico finally takes notice that independent candidates "are poised to run serious campaigns for governor in at least a half-dozen states." The article highlights the campaigns of Chris Daggett in NJ, Lincoln Chafee in RI and Tim Cahill in MA, and speculates on the prospects of independent campaigns for governor in Maine, Minnesota and Vermont. At IPR, Peter Orvetti supplies some details and background:

the article mentions the possible gubernatorial candidacies of businessman Peter Vigue in Maine, former U.S. senator Dean Barkley in Minnesota, and Anthony Pollina of the Progressive Party in Vermont. In 2008, Pollina finished second in the race for governor with 21.8 percent of the vote, leading the Democratic nominee by 257 votes in a race won by incumbent Republican Jim Douglas. Douglas will be retiring at the end of his current term.

Independent in a One-Party State II: Duverger's Law and Third Party Activism

At CQ Politics, Emma Dumain reports positively on the outlook for Lincoln Chafee's independent campaign for governor of Rhode Island in 2010. As I argued in 'Independent in a One-Party State,' using Rhode Island as an obvious example, on the basis of Duverger's Law one could reasonably conclude that third party and independent candidates stand the best chance of success in states or districts with radically lopsided majorities in favor of one major party or the other. This may appear counter-intuitive to some. Duverger's Law is often referenced by partisans of the reigning two-party state to dissuade others from engaging in third party and independent activism. They maintain that because plurality voting systems like that in the United States tend to result in a two-party political system, third party and independent activism is doomed to failure. However, like the spoiler argument, Duverger's Law cuts both ways. Because the duopoly system of government has devolved into a one-party, monopoly-style system in many districts across the country, Duverger's Law suggests that a third party or independent movement should arise to fill the political void left by the deterioration of the locale's second party. Such a development seems to be afoot in Rhode Island. In the CQ Politics article, Dumain provides further substantiation for the claim:

State Rep. Joe Trillo, meanwhile, is the only Republican so far to express sincere interest in the race. But many agree that he does not have the name recognition, the financial cushion or the support he needs to be a formidable opponent. Unless a strong Republican candidate comes along, the race could come down to the Democratic nominee and Chafee. [Emphasis added.]

This appears much more likely given the most recent voter registration data from the state. Dumain again:

Unaffiliated voters constituted 48 percent of registered voters in June 2009. Registered Democrats make up 42 percent, while Republicans count for only 10 percent.

Illinios Green for Governor, 2010

To the list of states with promising third party or independent candidates running for governor, we may add Illinois, where Rich Whitney has announced that he will seek the office on the Green Party Ticket. Though Whitney is considered a long shot, if he garners more than five percent of the vote, as the state's mandatory minimum ballot access laws dictate, the Greens will remain an "established" party and have one fewer hoop to jump through in the next election cycle. Whitney ran for governor in 2006, and received more than ten percent of the vote, but was soundly defeated by the now disgraced Democrat Rod Blagojevich. Mike Riopell has some more details and context on Whitney's bid for governor:

Rich Whitney announced Wednesday he is making another bid to be Illinois governor in 2010 as a member of the Green Party. It's the Carbondale attorney's second attempt at the office. In 2006, he surprised many observers and captured more than 10 percent of the state vote, falling behind Democrat Rod Blagojevich, who won re-election, and the Republican challenger, then-state Treasurer Judy Baar Topinka. Whitney rode what was considered to be a wave a general dissatisfaction with the two candidates and state government in general. Now, with controversy swirling around the state budget and former Gov. Rod Blagojevich's arrest and removal from office, Whitney told reporters 2010 could be similar, if not better, for the Greens. "I have to think people are going to be ready for a substantial change in 2010," Whitney said. The 2010 election will be an important one for Whitney and the Illinois Greens. Whitney needs to get 5 percent of the vote for the party to remain an "established" one in Illinois, meaning Greens can get their names on ballots for other state offices more easily. His 10 percent tally in 2006 meant the Green Party was able to easily put up candidates for Congress and the Illinois General Assembly in the 2008 election. None won, but the party will work this weekend on a slate of candidates for the state's top jobs and U.S. Senate.

Independents for Governor

Races for the 2010 gubernatorial elections are already beginning to take shape across the country (in Maine and Idaho, for instance), driven in no small part by the number of independents who have put themselves in the running early, likely in order to overcome the various hurdles to independent bids erected by the duopoly state apparatus. This past week two independent candidates made headlines in Massachusetts and New Jersey. Massachusetts State Treasurer Timothy Cahill has withdrawn from the Democratic Party and registered as an independent. At Massachusetts Conservative Feminist, Tina Hemond provides us with some context:

Timothy Cahill the current Massachusetts State Treasurer plans to leave the Democrat Party this week, according to the Boston Globe. Cahill, who is apparently fed up with the tax and spend party policy, will most likely run as an independent against Governor Duvall Patrick. Patrick, who also faces a challenge from Republican Christie Mihos, has been losing popularity as the State's financial woes continue unabated.

Shortly after Cahill made his move, Republican Charlie Baker announced that he would seek the Republican nomination and oppose Mihos in the party's primary. The Sun Chronicle reports:

Republican Charlie Baker's decision to run for governor days after state Treasurer Tim Cahill made a move toward an independent bid sets up a potentially titanic three-way race with incumbent Deval Patrick, local political activists said Tuesday . . . Baker, a former state government official, is stepping down as head of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care to seek the Republican nomination for governor in next year's state election. Businessman Christy Mihos is also running as a Republican.

Meanwhile, in New Jersey, independent candidate Chris Daggett has just reached the fundraising threshold to qualify for state matching funds in the 2009 gubernatorial election. The Philadelphia Inquirer reports:

Independent candidate for governor Chris Daggett announced yesterday that he has raised enough money to qualify for matching state funds, earning a spot in the two official general-election debates. At a news conference on the steps of the Statehouse, Daggett made the argument that neither Democrats nor Republicans are willing to fix the problems that face the state. "If we are going to make New Jersey an affordable place to live and work, we have to elect a governor who is free of the special interests that have created our current fiscal crisis," Daggett said. Daggett, of Bernards Township, said he expected to raise $3.6 million, which would earn him twice that in matching funds . . . He will face off in the official debates with Democratic Gov. Corzine and Republican candidate Christopher J. Christie. Daggett becomes the first independent candidate to qualify for taxpayer-funded campaign funds in time to get into the state-sanctioned debates.

The rise in the number of registered and self-described independents across the country has likely changed the political calculus for potential candidates who, like many Americans, are fed up with the two-party system of favors and trade-offs, and have thus seized the opportunity to challenge entrenched duopoly powers ahead of the political curve leading up to 2010.