The Rapture: Zombie Apocalypse in Times Square?

There was a strange atmosphere in New York City yesterday, fostered in no small part by the prediction that the end of the world was set to begin.  DJs hosted end of the world dance parties.  Bars offered judgment day drink specials: "Last call?!"  Christian choirs assembled for impromptu performances in subway stations.  And zombies roamed Times Square:




Shortly after these zombies staggered by at 6pm, a large gaggle of locals, tourists and reporters swarmed around Robert Fitzpatrick, the Staten Island man who said he had "independently confirmed" the end times prophecy of Harold Camping, and had spent his life savings to spread the word to all those who had ears to hear and eyes to see.

Fitzpatrick expressed surprise and confusion that the world had no ceased to exist, and answered questions from anyone who was willing to ask.  There was no lack of hecklers in the crowd.  One sarcastically demanded to know: "Why are we still here?"  Another pointed out the inaccuracy of the prediction: "Your calculations are all wrong man!"  And yet another lamented that we all have to go to work on Monday now, to boos and hisses from the crowd.  Here's a pic of Fitzpatrick (bottom right) surrounded by reporters and onlookers as the Times Square news ticker above asks whether this really is the end of the world:

Will Social Media Kill the Two-Party System?

Joe Trippi seems to think so, and he predicts it will happen within the next two presidential election cycles.  From Politico:

Democratic political consultant Joe Trippi said Sunday that it’s just a matter of time before a third-party candidate comes out of nowhere to upend a presidential front-runner . . . Speaking at the South by Southwest Interactive conference about how social media continues to transform politics and campaigns . . . He said some underdog candidate is going to seize on social media tools in ways that no one has even thought of. . . .

Trippi went on to predict that a third-party candidate will soon raise so much money through the Web that Obama’s 2008 haul will look modest by comparison.

“There's going to be a moment, and it could be in 2012 – you know for my party’s sake, I hope it's in 2016 – but some independent candidate is gonna just come out of nowhere and raise a billion dollars on the Internet, saying ‘screw both these parties, it's you and me baby, let's go change this thing.’”

Trippi predicted this would have a radical impact on politics, as we know it. “It will be the end of the two parties,” Trippi said.

It can't happen soon enough. 

CAIVN, the Tea Party Movement and a Contrarian View of the Prospects for Third Party and Independent Gains in 2010

Since adding my submission to the California Independent Voter Network's call for video declarations of independence, I have begun to write for their main site. My first piece went online earlier this week, and provided an overview of the tea party movement and the prospects for independent and third party candidates for office. Many of the more general points will be familiar to regular readers of Poli-Tea, but, in preparation, I contacted Darcy Richardson to see if he would be interested in supplying a comment for quotation. His considerable, critical response touched on everything from the Florida Tea Party to the more prominent independent candidates for governor and US Senate, from the notable failures of the national third parties to the outlook for promising individual third party candidates, among other things, and thus went well beyond what could have been reasonably worked into the article – so I asked him if I could publish it in full at TPID and he obliged. If you're interested, check out the piece at CAIVN and then head over to TPID to read Darcy's "contrarian view."

The Only Good Democratic-Republican Politician is an Ex-Democratic-Republican Politician

Of the few things any Republican or Democratic politician could do in order to make him- or herself into a figure worthy of respect rather than simply contempt, resigning an office is likely one of the most effective. On his way out the door of the Senate, Democrat Evan Bayh suggests the current state of the Democratic-Republican duopoly system of government has created an opening for third party politics. Via HuffPo:

In an interview with Charlie Rose, Bayh took pains to emphasize his support for President Obama's re-election, but said disarray within both political parties has created an opening for a third-party contender. Bayh called it "a Ross Perot Moment" -- a sentiment that has been echoed recently by New York Times columnist David Brooks.

From Bayh's interview with Charlie Rose:

Sen. BAYH: Well, there's a high level of frustration with the two-party system out there. And the public voted--concluded the Republicans weren't doing a very good job of solving our challenges. They're giving our party, the Democrats, a chance. I think the president very much wants to be a change agent. He's making a sincere effort. Not enough members of Congress are listening, either because of partisan or ideological reasons. his is, in some ways, another--for lack of a better phrase, "a Ross Perot moment." You remember back then, the deficit was unsustainably high. The economy was struggling. People had a sense that Washington was just broken, and they looked for someone from completely outside the system . . . if the economy does not improve . . . . that could be the kind of thing that, in spite of everyone's efforts, would really galvanize public opinion against everyone in Washington, regardless of party.

In a letter to the editor of Indiana's Lacrosse Tribune, a reader considers Bayh's retirement and argues that "the two-party system is the problem":

The two-party system is the primary problem with American politics. During the past 20 years, this has been exacerbated by the inexorable convergence of Republicans and Democrats. Despite what the lunatic fringes holler, it is exceedingly difficult to discern an average Dem from an average GOPer. The electorate will be better served if at least one viable third party emerges. An America with left, center and right parties will provide two more choices than what is currently realized.

Three Can Play This Game: the Logical Fallacy of Faulty Generalization

Of the many logical fallacies that masquerade as analysis in the duopolized discourse of Democratic-Republican politics, generalizing from the particular is one of the most common. It would not be much of an exaggeration to state that in the corporate media, but most egregiously on cable news programming, fallacious generalizations from the particular constitute political commentary as such. In this, the talking heads are difficult to distinguish from the public relations flacks of the parties themselves. Consider the response to the results of a special state senate election in Minnesota held earlier this week. The seat opened up after career Republican politician Dick Day resigned to pursue his dream of becoming a lobbyist. In the three-way race that ensued, Republican Mike Parry garnered 43% of the vote, defeating Democrat Jason Engbrecht, who ran second with 37%, and Independence Party candidate Roy Srp, who was supported by 20% of the voting electorate. Politics in Minnesota relays the official Republican and Democratic Party responses to the results:

The state Republican party issued a statement lauding Parry’s victory:

Senator-Elect Mike Parry’s victory tonight is the latest indication that 2010 will be a great year for Minnesota Republicans as nearly two-thirds of the voters in Senate District 26 rejected the tax and spend policies of the Democrats in St. Paul . . . Following impressive Republican victories in deep blue Massachusetts, New Jersey and Virginia, Mike’s victory shows Republicans have all the momentum this year . . .

The DFL also issued a statement from party chair Brian Melendez:

In a district with so many Republican voters, Jason Engbrecht certainly had the deck stacked against him . . . it was an uphill climb from the start. But with hard work, good ideas and by talking directly to the voters in Senate District 26, Jason Engbrecht ran a campaign to be proud of and has a bright future in politics.

But three can play this game. At the Pioneer Press, Jason Hoppin has a different view of the race. He writes:

First, to get to the two-thirds number Republicans say rejected the tax and spend policies of Democrats, you'd have to add Parry's figure (43.1) to Independence Party candidate Roy Srp's (20.3). That gets you almost to 64 percent. The Democrats could just as easily crow that an overwhelming majority (56.8 percent) rejected the anti-tax stance of Republicans in St. Paul, by adding Srp's totals to Jason John Engbrecht's (36.5).

After breaking down the results of the race by county and comparing them with those of the 2006 election, Hoppin concludes:

It's hard to see a great deal of Republican momentum here. They won a seat they had, by a margin they could have expected. If anything, this special election bodes well for third-party candidates.

Politics and the Information Age

At Scoop 44, Ryan O'Neal foresees "the rise of the third party" as a likely consequence of the transformation of social and political relations in the information age. Some excerpts:

I can’t wait until one of the two major political parties implodes . . . The power to create information is in the hands of more people than ever before. The amount of information in the world is now much larger – and gets dispersed much faster – than fifteen years ago. In one year, the amount of new information discovered or created is 37,000 times that which resides in the Library of Congress. The possibilities for fifteen years from now are mind-boggling.

That sheer abundance of information is what will eventually lead to a party implosion. Copious amounts of information leads to copious amounts of different opinions, which leads to Republicans who can’t find a figurehead to rally around and Democrats who can’t decide what to include in a health bill that may or may not even get passed, despite a heavy congressional majority . . . There are many well-educated people out there whose views lie somewhere in that blurry area between acceptable Washington fare and lunatic delusions, ideas that most of American society understands but voters in some of those key demographic categories don’t, thoughts that would enrich American life if it weren’t for a small number of power players in Washington . . . with a rise of new leaders and new modus operandi, a third or fourth party offers us something that Barack Obama – who turned out to be just another Democrat – couldn’t quite follow through on: Hope that there was someone in Washington that would help us do it our way . . . as those conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans mingle online with those libertarians, those progressives, or those moderates, we’ll see something that has been promised to us for a while now: change.

It’s inevitable. The people will demand a new party sooner or later, and it will most likely stem from one of the two that already exist. I’m not saying it will be the Libertarians or Greens – it may be a party that doesn’t exist yet. I’m not saying that they will take over Congress or win the presidency. But one of the many subgroups of American politics will see its voice grow to a degree that the District of Columbia will have no choice but to respect it.

Politics Abhors a Vacuum

The adage which states that nature abhors a vacuum dates back at least to the Renaissance, and is likely derived from Aristotle's reflections on physics. I wonder whether the ancient Greek philosopher ever brought this idea to bear on politics and culture. A certain form of horror vacui may account for the proliferation of theories attempting to make sense of Sarah Palin's resignation as governor of Alaska, since her Independence Day eve press conference has raised more questions than it answered. Though most if not all of these theories are nothing more than speculation mixed with pseudo-psychology, one of them nonetheless touches upon the subject of these pages, namely, that Palin may be opting out of the two-party system to pursue future efforts in independent or third party politicking. It would not be invalid to conclude as much from her remarks. She delivered the speech on July 3rd, emphasized her independence as well as the bipartisan nature of the legislation passed during her term, and repeatedly stressed that she is not interested in "politics as usual." On this reading, the key quote from her address is undoubtedly the following:

I will support others who seek to serve, in or out of office, for the right reasons, and I don’t care what party they’re in or no party at all. Inside Alaska – or outside Alaska. [Emphasis added.]

Of course, commentators on both sides of the political spectrum are already musing over the meaning of this possibility for the 2012 presidential election. At Daily Kos, purplebird writes:

She knows her base intimately. It’s a base prized by the Republicans, but one that would choose her over the party, even in an election she could not possibly win. She could run on a third-party ticket, or, with the right kind of organization . . . in a true, 50-state strategy as an independent. She’d make waves. She could get twenty percent of the vote, perhaps. Maybe twenty-five.

Glenn Reynolds at Pajamas Media, on the other hand, highlighted speculation that Palin may become involved with the Tea Party movement, which held angry demonstrations in numerous cities and towns over the weekend: "The only way a new TEA Party can field candidates who will win is if they have a strong national leadership and access to a lot of fund raising power. In other words, Sarah Palin." Though I do not agree that local third party and independent campaigns require a strong national leadership (or any for that matter) to win elections, such a possibility is certainly intriguing in this case. Palin's support could very well change the fortunes of third party and independent campaigns in conservative locales, but it may also serve to reinforce the prejudicial and stereotypical image of the generic third party or independent candidate fostered by the duopoly system nationwide.

Update: At The Whig, Septimus has also been reflecting on the possibility that Palin may align herself with the Tea Party protesters, and the post is well worth quoting at length:

At first, I thought that it might snuff out our attempts to revive the Whig Party, as the far right sloughs off and joins the Palin Party, and the moderates regain control of the Republicans. But upon reflection, I grew more hopeful. Such an act might well be the nail in the coffin for the increasingly decrepit GOP. From the political chaos that would ensue, there would be opportunity in the uncertainty. It also illustrates one of challenges with the Modern Whig Party. We are truly a grass roots effort, with no central political figure, and no hidden Mr. Moneybags pulling any strings, either. Now, I like this; it is one of the things that attracted me to the effort, but it does present a challenge, as it would be easier to create a new party around a charismatic figure, and not an idea. [However] I distrust a personal political party, as I think it is unhealthy for our politics, being a feature of less developed and more corrupt electorates. It is better to be organized around an idea, or set of ideas, than to be beholden to the personal whims and idiosyncrasies of a single ambitious individual.

According to The Thirds, the Modern Whigs are currently backing two candidates in the upcoming House elections, Paul McKain in Florida and Adam Kokesh in New Mexico.

Libertarianism v. Centrism?

Considering the current state of the Republican Party in particular and the duopoly formation in general, Jenny Kakasuleff wonders whether 2012 could be the 'year of the Libertarian,' but suggests that a centrist or moderate candidate would stand a better chance:

If they are to stand a chance, the task for Libertarians is to convince Americans that the federal deficit, and the national debt, should be their two most pressing concerns; making this argument stick will be based partially on the political climate in the summer of 2012. In addition, they must convince a majority of the electorate that the only way to fix this mess is to terminate all social programs, including food stamps, Medicare/Medicaid, social security, and education—this will be a tough sell. Three years is a political lifetime. The GOP has plenty of time to get their ducks in a row, but they are surely dragging their feet. If a third-party candidate were willing to move toward the center—as we well know, it’s the moderate candidate who can garner support from a majority of Americans that will win—then we may see the first third-party presidential victory. However, the ideas of Ron Paul will never resonate with a majority of Americans.

This juxtaposition of predictions raises a number of questions about the relationship between libertarianism and the so-called political center. Would not a strong libertarian candidate for national office change our very notion of what or where the "center" is?