America's Best Kept Secret: The Vermont Progressive Party

The Vermont Progressive Party is one of the most successful third party groups in the county.  It currently has two elected officials the State Senate, five in the State House and three in local office across the state.   What is the secret of their success?  In a new piece for Third Party Independent, Liberal Arts Dude interviews the party's director, Morgan Daybell, to find out.  Excerpt:

I recently corresponded with VPP Party Director Morgan Daybell and he was gracious enough to answer a few of my questions for Third Party Independent. Chief in my mind was finding out if there is a formula for the VPP’s success in Vermont and if it is possible for other political parties and organizations which seek to challenge the Republican-Democrat duopoly to duplicate that success elsewhere.

Q: What would you say are the key factors to the VPP's approach to electoral politics that has established it as a force in Vermont state politics and which sets it apart from other efforts by third parties who have not been as successful?

The major difference between our approach and those of many other third parties is that we have stayed focused on local/state races. In those elections corporate money has a smaller influence, and over many one-on-one conversations with voters, you can begin to overcome the brand-awareness the Democrats and Republicans enjoy. You can't do that at the Federal level without huge amounts of money . . .

Read the whole thing. LAD also inquires about how the VPP counters the spoiler argument, how it recruits and develops candidates, how it decides which races to run a candidate in, what electoral reforms it backs, and whether it's been involved with any local Occupy protests. 

Learn More about the Vermont Progressive Party

• Vermont Progressive Party Website
• Vermont Progressive Party Platform
• Vermont Progressive Party Blog
• Vermont Progressive Party on Wikipedia

NYC: Occupy Wall St. Protest, a Day 1 Recap, #occupywallstreet

Thousands of people converged on the financial district in downtown Manhattan on Saturday to protest the influence of Wall St. on our nation's politics.  Billed as the US Day of Rage by organizers, the protesters' united being one single, simple demand: free and fair elections.  An excerpt from the original call to action:

Legitimate government is born of the self-interest and will of the people expressed by its citizens in free and fair elections. It does not spring from a tyranny of special interests, patronage, or a system or ideology that runs counter to the aims of life.

The institutions of government were designed to protect the principles of our democratic republic and to serve the will of citizens.

Corporations, even those owned by foreign shareholders, use money to act as the voices of millions, while individual citizens, the legitimate voters, are silenced and demoralized by the farce.

Free and fair elections inspire good citizenship and public service, because they engage the intelligence and genuine good will of the American people.

Protesters can be found on Wall St. on any given day of the week. And large demonstrations against the big banks and the undue influence of corporate interests take place in the financial district on a fairly regular basis.  The Occupy Wall St. protests are different, however.  The protesters have not gone home.  In fact, they are still there right now.  They are streaming their assemblies live if you want to check in.  Here are some of my pics from the day. 

Their immediate tactical goal is to occupy a space in the financial district and hold it.  None of their actions have been technically permitted, in the sense that no permits were obtained ahead of the protest action, as would normally be the case for a fairly large protest and demonstration.  But, aside from a couple tense moments over the course of the day, the NYPD appear to have been fairly accommodating to the protesters thus far, though they did shut down all the streets immediately surrounding the New York Stock Exchange to all traffic except for those who live or work in the area.

Around midday protesters gathered at Bowling Green for an impromptu rally with an open podium.  By 2pm, a few thousand people had assembled.  I happened to catch Rev. Billy, the Green Party's candidate for NYC mayor in 2009, speaking to a small group of independent media reporters who asked him about everything from the relationship between the major parties and the big banks, environmental policy, manufacturing and even the two-party duopoly.  I'm sure you can guess which question I asked:



At around 3pm, the assembled crowd marched from Bowling Green up Broadway to Zuccotti Park, also known as Liberty Plaza, in the shadow of the World Trade Center site.

Excelsior at the WTC site, from the NW corner of Liberty Plaza

At Liberty Plaza, folks milled about for a while, talking and chanting.  A quick general assembly was held, and people then broke up into smaller discussion groups.  So who was in the crowd? There were people from all over the country and, of course, New York City, which means that there were also people from all over the world.  There were no mass-produced signs, as one can often find at large demonstrations, a potential indicator that this was not a top-down organizational affair.  In terms of political ideology, there were anarchists, socialists, libertarians, Greens, Ron Paul supporters, Independents, and a fair number of folks from Anonymous in Guy Fawkes masks.  One Anon said he was a construction worker who helped dig out the Ground Zero site following 9/11, if I heard correctly.  He spoke about civil liberties and support for Ground Zero workers in one of the discussion groups at Liberty Plaza:

An Anon addresses a discussion group.

Discussion in the groups inevitably turned to the topic of what to do next.  Many decided to hold a spontaneous march back down to Wall St.  As Wall St. had already been walled off by the NYPD, the chaotic march snaked through the financial district.  The most tense moments of the march took place when protesters were blocked from heading up toward the stock exchange at the corner of Wall St. and William St.  That also just happens to be where Cipriani Wall St. is located.  Partiers at the posh restaurant headed to the balcony to see what all the ruckus down on the street was.  In formal attire, with more than a couple holding martini glasses, they were greeted with boos and chants from the crowd.  Eventually, the march made its way back up to Liberty Plaza.  People hung out until about 7pm, when another general assembly was called.  Hundreds of people remained in the park as darkness fell.

The assembly was very well-run, especially given the fact that there were hundreds of people there, and no amplification was allowed since there were no permits.  A handful of organizers moderated and facilitated the discussion within the large crowd using a consensus-based discussion and decision-making model.  People were fairly disciplined, maintaining both order and high spirits.  They discussed everything from organizational strategy to sleeping arrangements to NYC laws governing political protest on the streets, to media strategy, potential demands, strategy and tactics moving forward and so on.  I'm sure you can find it all on Twitter under #occupywallstreet, if you're so inclined. 

People gathered for the evening general assembly.

Two incidents in particular highlighted the discipline of the assembled crowd.  At one point, none other than Jimmy McMillan, former NY gubernatorial candidate for the Rent is Too Damn High Party, appeared at the edge of the assembly accompanied by two others.  Folks were initially excited about his appearance, but it quickly became apparent that he wanted to go "up on stage" and speak to the group.  What he didn't understand was that there was no "stage", that the people standing in the middle of the group were only facilitating the discussion for the rest.  People basically told McMillan to back off, yelling that if he wanted to address the group, he would have to follow the procedures that had been set out at the beginning.  He opted to leave instead, apparently.  A similar incident happened a bit later on when a local reporter from ABC News disrupted the proceedings by walking to the middle of the crowd with a camera and microphone.  They were shouted down and told to get in line if they wanted to talk.  They opted instead to leave the assembly and ended up interviewing a number of folks on the edge of the crowd.  

By the end of the general assembly, the group had decided to pursue a non-confrontational posture toward the police, and to march on Wall St. if they were ordered to disperse from Liberty Plaza before the night was through.  They plan on continuing their protests tomorrow and into the workweek on Monday.  Many state that they are prepared to maintain the protest for days, weeks and even months.  There were probably well over a thousand people still there Saturday night.  I'll head back down in the coming days to see what's up. Stay tuned.

I left the protest at around 10pm, shortly after the nearly three hour assembly broke up into smaller working working groups focused on practical and organizational concerns such as acquiring bedding and food, developing media and communications strategy, and so on.  You might be wondering what I did all day between the marches and assemblies.  I was handing out copies of the first and second issues of Third Party Independent, which you can find embedded below:

Democratic Party Dead-Enders Against Independent Progressivism

Apparently, there is some controversy circulating among dead-enders of the Democratic party in the liberal blogosphere over the fact that an Obama campaign director from New Mexico has taken a couple more shots at what the Obama administration has previously termed the "Professional Left."  An excerpt from Huffington Post:

The Obama campaign's point person in New Mexico recently sent an email to supporters defending the president's position on the debt deal and bashing the Nobel Prize winning New York Times columnist Paul Krugman and the "Firebagger Lefty blogosphere."

'Firebagger' is, of course, a derogatory combination of 'Fire Dog Lake,' the progressive website, and 'tea bagger.'  Jane Hamsher, founder of FDL, responds to the statement made by the director of Obama for America NM, and suspects it is part of a strategy to attract independent voters:

But if this is a brilliant political strategy on the part of OFA, someone is going to have to explain it to me.  I know the goal is to attract the much-prized Independent for 2012.  But who do they think is keeping Obama’s poll numbers afloat?

If Democrat dead-enders such as Hamsher believe the Democratic party prioritizes Independents over dedicated progressive partisans, the appropriate strategic response by progressives should be self-evident.  They should declare their independence from the Democratic party.  Coincidentally, the email from the Obama campaign director in New Mexico was sent just days after the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party passed a resolution calling for a primary challenge against Obama next year, which happened to be the topic of yesterday's column at CAIVN:

The fate of the California Democratic Party's Progressive Caucus remains uncertain following its passage of a resolution calling for a primary challenge to President Obama late last month. . . .

On July 30th, as the White House and Congressional leaders were engaged in last minute negotiations that ended the first round of the debt ceiling debacle, the Executive Board of the California Democratic Party was meeting in Anaheim.  At that meeting, roughly 75 members of the California Democratic Party's Progressive Caucus passed a resolution stating that they would begin exploring the possibility of backing a primary challenge against President Obama for the nomination of the Democratic party in the 2012 presidential election.

The negotiations in Washington DC were clearly on their minds. The resolution criticizes President Obama for "negotiating away Democratic principles to extremist Republicans." At the top of their list of grievances stands the "unilateral closed-door budget offer to slash Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, thus endangering The New Deal and War on Poverty safety nets."  Additionally, the CDP Progressive Caucus resolution decries the Obama administration's "unauthorized wars," its extension of the Bush tax cuts and Patriot Act, its refusal to include a public option in the health care reform act, and the privatization of public education and housing, among other things.

Needless to say, not all members of the CDP's Executive Board agreed with the resolution.  "This was kind of seen to some people as pretty seditious, to others, they completely agreed with it," said Karen Bernal, a delegate in the California Democratic Party and Chair of the Progressive Caucus, in a telephone interview with David Swanson earlier this week.  The response from the leadership of the California Democratic Party was swift.  The Progressive Caucus was singled out and refused recertification at the meeting, even as other caucuses received the routine certifications.  Thus, technically, the California Democratic Party's Progressive Caucus no longer exists, though its status will be reconsidered at an Executive Board meeting this November.

John Burton, the California Democratic Party chair, was clearly not pleased by the measure.  Asked by the San Francisco Chronicle's Politics Blog whether a primary challenge would help the President's chances of reelection, he stated, "F---- no, what is that going to do?"  Burton did not hold back in the interview:  "A lot of people are frustrated about the war. People talk about cutting Social Security and they're not talking about paying for the war. People are frustrated about a ton of stuff," he told Joe Garofoli.  "It's how they feel. There's discontent," he continued. "There's a frustration in the country. Look at the f------ polls. So f---, that's news to somebody?"

For her part, Karen Bernal of the Progressive Caucus does not appear to disagree with Burton's assessment, though her language is less colorful.  As she told David Swanson: "We are simply a reflection of the unhappiness that everyone knows about, we just brought that heat inside . . . it was definitely a strategic decison on our part that this heat out to exist inside the party as well, and that was one of the reasons why," they determined to pass the resolution.

Among those who have been the most vocal in calling for a primary challenge against President Obama from the left is former presidential candidate Ralph Nader.  In an interview with the Daily Caller earlier this month, Nader stated that he has no plans to run for president again, whether as an Independent or a Democratic primary challenger.  However, he predicted that a primary challenge against the president was a veritable certainy in the wake of the debt ceiling debacle.

“What [Obama] did this week is just going to energize that effort . . . I would guess that the chances of there being a challenge to Obama in the primary are almost 100 percent.”

The CDP Progressive Caucus's resolution may well provide a major boost to the effort.  Reporting on the resolution at Democracy for New Mexico, one progressive activist writes:  "Similar questions are being asked right here by members of the Democratic Pary of New Mexico, and I imagine similar concerns are being discussed among Democrats all across the country. I'm not the only one who thinks the horrible handing of the debt ceiling "negotiations" was the straw that broke the camel's back."

One person who is often mentioned as a possible challenger to Obama is Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.  His name tops the list of potential candidates at Stop Hoping, a website devoted to organizing a primary or Independent challenge against the President.  There are likely a great many progressive Democrats who wonder why their party's representatives do not measure up to a dedicated democratic socialist such as Sanders.  The answer is probably quite simple.  Sanders is not a Democrat.  He's an Independent.

The Lesser Evil is the Greater Evil

More liberals and progressives appear to be waking up to the fact that they are not represented by the Democratic party.  In the Huffington Post, Bob Samuels, the president of the University Council for the American Federation of Teachers, makes the case for a third party challenge to Obama from the left.  Excerpt:

Many progressives and liberals have been coming to the same conclusion: someone has to challenge President Obama from the left. One of the main reasons for this move is that people are starting to realize that Obama has pushed through an agenda that only a conservative can love. While Republicans have tried for thirty years to destroy the welfare state and to push more wealth to the richest Americans, only Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have been able to achieve these goals. . . .

If it is true that Democrats are the most effective representatives of the conservative agenda, then it is clear that we need to promote a candidate who is not tied to either party. . . .

The main criticisms of this push for an independent campaign is the fear that a challenge on the left will undermine Obama and help elect a crazy on the right. Yet, this desire to go with the lesser of two evils means that we are still only hoping for an evil, and as argued above, it is only the lesser evil that can enact the policies of the greater evil.

If You Support the Democrats or Republicans, You Are the Problem

FireDogLake is known as one of the more independent Democrat-leaning progressive community blogs on the web, but nonetheless it remains in many respects hopelessly hung up on maintaining the two-party state and duopoly system of government.  Contributor Jim Moss vents his frustration with the Democratic party and the false appearance of political independence within the progressive movement.  Excerpt:

On the surface, FDL appears to be a fiercely independent progressive outlet – ready to challenge Republicans and Democrats alike – to challenge the status quo system as a whole. Obama is regularly criticized on these pages for his plethora of betrayals. One finds here some of the most intelligent and passionate articulations of progressivism that run the gamut of social and political issues . . . What concerns me has to do with the continued support, implicitly and explicitly, for the two-party system that is slowly grinding our economy and our culture into oblivion. . . .

How many times, on these pages, have the failings of the Democrats been recounted – only to be shouted down by cries of “the Republicans are worse”?  How many times have we progressives had to swallow the bitter pills of compromise, delay, and defeat – even when the Democrats held the White House and historic majorities in Congress in their hands? . . .

What I realized, over time, is that FDL – despite all the good it does – is a part of the very system that it so often speaks against. In implicit and explicit ways, it condones the Democratic Party structure that has proven to be so ineffective to progressive aims. FDL, on the whole, is not willing to tear down the system, because in many ways, it and many of the people who write for it benefit from the system. When the chips are down, most of the people here will run back to the Democrats and will not support a true reform movement. FDL, on the whole, is not interested in discarding the old two-party system and building something new and better.

Ironically, however, the remainder of the post explains Moss's return to the site after a long hiatus sparked by disillusionment with Democrats and the two-party mindset of establishmentarian liberals.  Just as a dog returns to its vomit, Americans across the political spectrum keep returning to the Democratic and Republican parties.  How many more "last straws" could there possibly be?  Folks like Moss should seriously consider joining the third party and independent movement to build a viable opposition to the two-party dictatorship rather than continue to be a part of the problem.

Toward a Libertarian-Progressive Alliance

An article by Ted Becker at The Last, Lost Empire argues that the basis for a "real" third party can be found in the convergence of libertarian-leaning Republicans and progressive-leaning Democrats, in other words, the libertarian-progressive alliance.  Excerpt:

The Real Third Party, whatever it finally calls itself, will be a previously implausible coalition that will span the political continuum from Libertarianism to Social Democracy.  The major themes that their president and Congressional candidates will run on will include most of the following:

• Ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq—all troops and security guys out
• Ending the war in Libya—no military or covert action funds spent there
• No more “Imperial Presidency” wars; Return the war power to Congress
• Radical restructuring of The Fed—investigate lack of transparency and clear conflicts of interests between Wall Street and Main Street
• Rebuilding the American capitalist infrastructure and manufacturing base;
• Balancing the budget immediately;
• Start to deal seriously with climate change as a major national security issue..

Do most Americans trust either President George W. Obama or the Congress run by either the Democrats or Republicans to do any of these things? Public opinion polls repeatedly show a big majority would say “No way.” More than 80% think that the United States is headed in “the wrong direction.” So, if not the Dems and the GOP, then who?

The piece goes on to detail the convergence of opinion between the likes of Ron Paul and Ralph Nader, Rand Paul and Dennis Kucinich, and so on.  It concludes:

Our point is that many very prominent, articulate Americans—who are politically visible and who hail from widely variant ideological positions are now deeply contemplating their mutual antagonism towards the Democratic-Republican regime that controls all three branches of the federal government  What is crucial is that they are doing this, not by arguing, but by exploring innovative solutions, from their divergent points of view. They are emphasizing similarities, not differences.  This has been at the heart of all successful third parties in the U.S.  Such a Third Party can either win or change the game, put in play major solutions, policies and/or constitutional amendments that the established parties ignore. Anyone who thinks this is impossible or even improbable does not know his or her American history . . .

Update:  Via email a reader asks if Politea has discussed this general topic in the past.  Indeed, we've discussed the progressive-libertarian alliance strategy at some length before.  Long time readers might recall my PLEA for political independence with the Progressive Libertarian Electoral Alliance, or the libertarian-progressive populist front against the two-party state.  See also past posts on the Green-Libertarian alliance strategy.

Independent Progressives to Challenge Democrats from the Left

Last Monday, I highlighted the burgeoning independent progressive movement at FireDogLake.  The group is more organized than I had realized.  Last December, FDL activists began a push to mount a primary challenge to President Obama in 2012 under the moniker 'New Progressive Alliance.'  From the group's first manifesto, published on December 16, 2010:

Voting took place last week here at MyFDL to choose a movement name and platform topics in the effort to mount a primary challenge to Barack Obama in 2012. The results are now tabulated, and “MyFDL” commenters chose “New Progressive Alliance” as the effort’s name, and rated the following five topics as those most important to the Progressive cause:

1) Full Employment
2) Medicare for All
3) Civil Rights/Human Rights/Civil Liberties
4) Fair Trade
5) End the Wars Now 

The organization's website went online earlier this month at newprogs.org, with this announcement:

What began over a year ago at FireDogLake has grown into a determined effort to add more straw to the straining back of the camel that is our sold-out, two-party system. . . .  The NPA welcomes the energies, insights, ideas, and innovations of true Progressives everywhere. It's going to take all these things to achieve our goals, but this week's vote in Canada - like the uprisings in the Mideast and our own Midwest - shows that the Left will not accede to the plutocracy seeking to finally and forever consolidate its control over working men and women. Thanks for stopping by, and please, share NewProgs.org with your friends, neighbors, and family.

The group's political independence is clearly apparent in its strategy, which does not shy away from declaring the necessity of third party and independent political advocacy:

This effort has two main objectives:

(1) To supercharge the founding and growth of a viable third party representing the American Left; and/or
(2) To return the Democratic Party to its historically underpinning ideologies of unremitting support for the working class, dogged regulation of commerce, reluctance to enter into armed conflict abroad, conservation of our environment; and equal opportunity for all . . . 

Consider the degree to which third parties have been successful up ’til now, and why. The answers to these questions are “not very” and “bad strategy,” respectively. Most efforts have followed the same flawed plan:


(1) Build a movement
(2) Name a candidate
(3) Get trounced

This effort turns that approach on its head, to wit:


(1) Network with other progressives – common people – to identify and rank potential candidates with proven, uncompromising records of activism strongly espousing progressive thought.
(2) Write the platform.

(3) Approach the desired candidates, one at a time, first choice first, second choice second, etc., until one agrees to run. 

[The NPA] seeks to recruit warriors, already hard at work fighting for progressive values, to the national stage in order to bring a progressive party to national prominence. We will do this by explaining the following rationale to each prospective candidate:

Because the Democrats, the defacto “Left” party in this country, have lost their way, we seek to run a TRUE Lefty for the party’s presidential nomination. We believe the Democratic Party needs either to be killed or wholesale inundated by a new party – rendering it, in its current form, obsolete.

Other third-party efforts have failed because they ignore the realities of the electoral system in this country, specifically, that if you are not initially competing head-to-head within one of the two major parties, you WILL be ignored. Even those who have done so and then ran in the election as Independents suffered from the lack of a party identity.

We therefore aim to give the Left that identity – a real, uncompromising voice – by challenging the spineless, utterly captive Democratic Party. Our effort may result in one or both of the above goals, and you’ll notice that getting elected is not one of them at the moment. We will use the electoral process in building a movement; a coalition of all the Lefty parties now at work in this country: Greens, Working Families, Socialists, etc. In short, a 'new progressive alliance.

The group has apparently already begun its search for a presidential candidate – where else? – on Craigs List NYC, via Pushing Rope. The ad reads in part:

for an NPA candidate who is fully on board with the program, committing political suicide as a Democrat is not only of no concern, but in a sense welcome. That’s because it is anticipated that any NPA approved Democrat primary candidate must, if they fail to win the Democratic Party’s nomination (as everybody expects will be the case), turn around and give their endorsement to an NPA approved progressive Presidential candidate, running under a third party, such as the Green Party, or as an independent.

The NPA's steering committee has a number of well known third party and independent-leaning political activists, including Richard Winger, Cindy Sheehan, Jill Stein, Alan Maki and Cornel West.  Perhaps this partly explains why West has been under attack from the dead-enders of the Democratic party in recent weeks.

Progressive Independence at FireDogLake

Unlike the Daily Kos and Red State, which explicitly aim to do nothing more than reproduce the reigning two-party political status quo, FireDogLake does not appear to have a policy prohibiting independent thought or third party advocacy.  At the very least, Greens and Socialists who write there  need not hide their affiliations for fear of expulsion.  It seems in recent days there has been a significant uptick in third party and independent agitation at the progressive site.  Some excerpts:

From Jeff Roby:  "How to destroy the Democratic Party and build an independent alternative"

Democrats and independents, and Democrats getting religion and newly proclaiming their independence, continue to act out an oft-repeated ritual.  Democratic loyalists point out that they can influence policy from within and, more importantly, that’s where the working class can be reached, for better or worse.  Independents point out the utterly craven sellout by the Democratic Party where corporate America holds the high ground and has abandoned any pretext of progressivism.  Both are correct.  Both perform their rituals of beating their heads against a brick wall until their heads bleed, Dems begging for crumbs, independents settling for their sub-1% of the national presidential vote.

In the past, I have argued for a progressive* Democratic/progressive independent alliance.  Still a good idea — Dump Obama has been its tactical embodiment.  But Dump Obama is dependent on a challenger entering the Democratic primaries.  So what we need is a plan that goes beyond 2012, and is not dependent on the whims of even most progressive Democratic politicians.  So we need a better look at what we are up against.

A follow-up post from Roby:  "You say you want a revolution" 

I’ve taken a look at various 3rd party programs, and would like to focus on the Greens, as their program is the most developed. While it is not explicitly socialist, it nonetheless raises the issues and contradictions endemic to even an explicitly socialist party.  Many of their platform points are quite good, sensible environmental measures, clean government processes, logical corporate regulations, i.e., liberal reforms, the perfection of capitalism. Others are what I would call system-busters — changes that would not be able to be implemented within the boundaries of capitalism as we know it, or changes that would be system-busters if rigorously carried out, such as the Greens “Participatory Democracy, rooted in community practice at the grassroots level and informing every level, from the local to the international.”

From jest:  "On the cataclysmic realities of a 3rd party"

what the most influential portion of the party has become: a maimed, old, disgrace of its young former self. And unfortunately, it has metastasized, and spread to base of the party, and the Left in general.  An instructive case of this was the AR senate race, won by John Boozman-R . After the departure of Bill Halter in the primary, many on the left were dejected as there was no progressive candidate to support in the general election; the Republican cruised to victory with nearly 60% of the vote. That’s probably how the history books will be written, but that is not true at all.

There was a progressive candidate in the AR senate general election who had legislative experience, supported Medicare for all, curbing corporate abuses, and all the ideals we hold dear. I think you know where I’m going with this: John Gray-G, the complete opposite of the Dorian Gray-esque Lincoln who lost the race.

There is a lot of censorship in the media regarding independent candidates, so there is not much coverage on him. But he more than held his own at the AR Senate debates, where most of his focus was not about environmental issues, but economic ones, despite what most Green Party detractors believe & expect.

So, how did progressives in AR react to having a sensible alternative to the reprehensible corporatist Lincoln?

Progressives preferred the corporatist Democrat, Lincoln, who also had no chance of winning, by a factor of 20. Gray got less than 2% of the total vote. 100% of the people in the Democratic party found this man’s message abhorrent.  Think about that. . . .

And yet these same “progressives” complain that they have no candidates on the ballot to vote for.   What about the 2010 SC senate race between DeMint & Greene? No options for progressives?  Wrong . . . .

From Liz Berry:  "The majority of Americans are fed up with the Tea Party/Republican and the Democratic parties"

Those who say that the USA are polarized are correct, but it is NOT the 50/50 polarization that is implied to us via the propaganda of mainstream media. If you were to believe them you would think that American opinion is split right down the middle. This is a perfect example of the propaganda technique of telling half the truth and not the whole truth. American is polarized all right–but it is damn sure not “down the middle.”

We are polarized 70/26 with 3% on the fence. THE MAJORITY FAVOR DUMPING BOTH PARTIES. The only question remaining is how do we organize to create a real democracy.

From Matthew J:  "No Confidence Protest Vote 2012"

our political system is controlled by legalized bribery of various forms.  Politicians feel free to act in their own interests after getting elected rather than actually representing the people who elected them . . . 

I strongly believe the first step we need to take as a citizenry is to join together in a way that sends a strong and clear message to our country and the world that says Americans want a government that is actually responsive to the people that are governed . . . . .

In this post I will lay out a strategy that I believe is pragmatic, practical, and has a reasonable chance to work.  The basic idea is to run a campaign not for a particular candidate but instead against both the Democratic and Republican parties.  The genesis for this idea is that both parties are rather hopelessly corrupt and non-responsive to the citizens at this time, yet the structure of our system does not offer meaningful opportunity for 3rd party or independent candidates . . . .


To my knowledge there has never been a coordinate protest vote (or no confidence) campaign (please share in the comments if you are aware of such a movement).  This would be a new experiment in grassroots democracy.  A coordinated protest vote campaign would encourage as many voters as possible to cast protest votes for actual people, but people who are not affiliated with the Democratic and Republican parties.  Rather than promoting a specific candidate such a campaign would encourage voters to cast a protest vote for any 3rd party, independent, or write in candidate they wish.  It would be extremely important that these votes are valid and counted.

Wisconsin Activists Plan Formation of Labor Party USA

From an article by Dan Riehl at Big Government:

Shankman also claims to be one of approximately ten individuals who have recently started a new movement they hope to grow, ”Labor Party USA.” He also claims to have once been a member of the International Workers of the World, saying his membership is not current but he may join again. I believe this is it.

This is the official web-page of the International Workers of the World, IWW/AI – affiliated to the IFA – L’Internationale des Fédérations Anarchistes – The International of the Federations of Anarchists – The International of Anarchist Federations (IAF) and the Anarchist International (AI). For the history of IWW/AI in general, see link to the history of IFA/IAF/AI, at “Links” below. The Confederation consists of anarchosyndicalists in the Anarchist Federations of Denmark, Finland, Norway, Finland, and in several other countries of the Anarchist International broadly defined, from Iceland to the New Artisan and Workers’ Union in Mauritius (click on: NAWU ), etc. i.e. world wide.

Shankman doesn’t see much of a difference between Republicans and Democrats, but feels it’s only Progressives that are trying to fix things in America.

Do you think Democrats are "liberal" or that Republicans are "libertarian"? I have a bridge to sell you

One of the more inexplicable aspects of progressive support for the Democratic party is that so many progressives readily understand the fact that the Democratic party's values and agenda are diametrically opposed to those of progressives.  And the same point can be made regarding conservative support for the Republican party.  Contrary to the primal myths promulgated by Democrats and Republicans themselves, the Democratic party is not liberal and the GOP is not conservative.  How could they be?  Their values and agendas are almost entirely reactionary and reflexively corporatist in character.  At My South End, Shirley Kressel (MA) makes the progressive case against a Democratic governor:

Is a vote for [incumbent Democratic governor] Deval Patrick really a step forward for progressive values? In 2006, Patrick was lofted to victory by liberals, hungry for clean government, a fair economy and social justice. As soon as he won, he told the Boston Globe that the biggest misconception about him is that he is a liberal. [Emphasis added.]  The Globe reported that Patrick vowed to work with business leaders, seeking to "shake his liberal label and govern as a pro-business centrist." And he has. Now, on four of the most important issues for progressives, Deval Patrick stands with the conservative camp.

He supports the charter school movement, whose goals are union-busting and privatization of public education.

Through various quasi-public authorities and councils, he has given away billions of dollars to private companies in tax breaks, land deals and deregulation, as did his Republican predecessors, and as would his conservative challengers.

He accepted Romney’s health insurance strategy - forcing every everyone to buy from an insurance industry (Baker’s) that gobbles up 15% of the state’s health care money, and blocking a single-payer "Medicare-for-all" system with a 3-4% administrative cost.

He supports gambling as a route to economic development, ignoring the economic and social devastation it has created in other states.

Third, and most important: This race is about more than filling the governor’s office. Our society has taken a dramatic shift to the right over the last 30 years, as corporate interests have hijacked our democracy. The notion that government should be run like a business, for business, and ultimately by business, has prevailed, eroding the concept of the public domain. Both the Democrat and Republican parties have been captured, and they’ve lost sight of the public interest.

The misconception that Democrats are liberals is likely just as common as the misconception that Republicans are libertarian.  If you support Democrats because they supposedly stand for liberal values or if you support Republicans because they allegedly stand for libertarian values, send me an email, I have a bridge to sell you. 

The Illusion of Independence and the Myth of the Progressive Voter: an Example of Democratic Doublethink

It is a commonplace of establishmentarian political commentary that the ranks of American independent voters are grossly inflated, as the majority of independents end up casting their ballots for the stooges of the Democratic and Republican parties. Rarely, however, is it ever pointed out that the same can be said of American progressives, liberals, conservatives and libertarians. If the majority of self-described progressives and liberals vote Democrat and the majority of self-described conservatives and libertarians vote Republican, we can safely conclude that, in practice, very few if any of these voters should be considered progressive, liberal, conservative or libertarian. Indeed, a solid case can be made that these voters are in fact reactionary corporatists. How could we conclude otherwise from their support for the reproduction of the ruling Democrat-Republican two-party state and duopoly system of government?

Consider, in this context, an opinion piece by Katrina vanden Heuvel in the Washington Post. In the column, the "progressive" editor and publisher of The Nation magazine appropriates strategic advice from "conservative" activist Richard Viguerie, arguing that progressives must maintain their independence from the Democratic Party, just as Viguerie counseled that Tea Party activists should maintain their independence from the GOP. The great irony, however, is that both columnists essentially argue against independence from the ruling parties. Vanden Heuvel writes:

[Viguerie] urges activists to stay independent and remember that "the biggest mistake of the conservative movement was becoming an appendage of the Republican Party." At the same time, he warns against the "third-party trap," which would split the vote. Instead, he counsels, the movement should run "principled" candidates in the primaries and support the most like-minded main-party candidates surviving for the general . . .

this advice makes good sense in the context of the progressive movement. Progressives revived liberalism and Democrats by organizing independently, opposing the Iraq war, demanding action on global warming, challenging Wall Street's excesses and exposing the conservatives' misrule of the government they scorned . . . Now, with Democrats in power, we should not allow a popular president whom we helped elect to co-opt that energy. Progressives should remain independent . . .

I have exposed the contradictions and holes in Viguerie's strategic logic before. See, for instance, the Fractal Fallacy and the Illogic of Two-Party Ideology. Vanden Heuvel's case for progressive independence is in fact a recipe for the production of co-dependency and political pretend-ependence. Take the three examples she supplies. Independent progressives may have "revived the Democrats" with their opposition to the Iraq war, and their calls for action on global warming and against Wall Street's excesses. But the Democrats have expanded the war and done nothing to combat global warming or the excesses of Wall Street. This is the paradox of issue advocacy in the context of the two-party state and duopoly system of government. Paul Rosenberg has made the case for issue advocacy within the ruling parties in the following terms:

one should look for purity and unity of purpose in issue activism--and devote one's energy accordingly. Make the party a vehicle for advancing your issue activism, do not expect it to be more than that . . .

The paradox is clear, however: so long as the party does not achieve the outcome you desire on the given issue, it is assured of your support, even as it goes about enforcing the agenda of the reactionary corporatist interests that the ruling parties actively represent. This is as obvious from the experience of pro-life activists within the Republican Party as it is from anti-war advocates within the Democratic Party.

Following Viguerie, vanden Heuvel argues that progressives should support progressive primary challengers of entrenched incumbent Democrats, but then counsels that they support Democrats whether they are progressive or not. This is not independence, it is the very definition of political co-dependence. In yesterday's Democratic primary election for the US Senate race in Ohio, progressive favorite Jennifer Brunner was defeated by Lee Fisher. Vanden Heuvel would have everyone believe that Fisher is now the default "progressive" candidate in the race. Yet, nothing could be further from the truth. Socialist Party candidate Dan La Botz has written open letters to Brunner and her supporters, urging them not to give up the "fight for their principles" by supporting yet another specimen of the Democrats' corporatist "patronage machine" in the general election. That is progressive independence.

The condition of political independence today is practical independence from the Democratic and Republican Parties as such: support third party and independent alternatives to the false choice offered up by the political class and ruling establishment.

Health Care: Why Progressives Should Support the Green Party

As a follow-up to my recent post asking if progressives will finally declare their independence from the Democratic Party in 2010, perhaps it is only proper to elaborate why the Green Party would be a better home for progressives than the Democratic wing of the corporatist two-party state. Let's look at but one issue: health care reform. Many progressives opposed Obamacare because it does not "guarantee affordable comprehensive health care," but rather requires everyone to purchase a health insurance industry product, or else. In the above-mentioned post, I quoted El Duderino at Firedoglake, who wrote:

The health insurance boondoggle that passed into law last month was a monumental failure in what passed for the push for reform. This is largely because the American left is wholly subservient to the Democrat Party.

The little dude suggested that FDL explicitly support Green Party candidates like those suggested by Dave Schwab in his article on five Green gubernatorial campaigns to watch in 2010: Rich Whitney (IL), Jill Stein (MA), Laura Wells (CA), David Curtis (NV) and Dennis Spisak (OH). Unlike so many if not all of their Democratic counterparts, every single one of these candidates actively and vocally supports universal single-payer health care, which is not surprising since universal health care is a primary plank in the Green Party's platform. Some excerpts from each of these candidates stances on health care:

Rich Whitney (IL): "the Illinois Green Party stands squarely, unequivocally and explicitly in favor of a single-payer universal health-care system, that will provide comprehensive, high quality physical, mental and dental health care, and eye care."

Jill Stein (MA): "It’s time to act to provide affordable, quality health coverage to all our citizens . . . There is a proven way to achieve all this while saving billions of dollars. It involves a Medicare-for-all system that pays for itself simply by cutting out the insurance company red tape."

Laura Wells (CA): "Polls have repeatedly shown that Californians (and the U.S. population as a whole) support Single Payer Universal Health Care. As Governor, Laura Wells will: Actively support establishing a Single Payer Universal Health Care system . . . That system must offer a comprehensive benefit package."

David Curtis (NV): "All Nevadans will have access to affordable, quality and comprehensive healthcare. “Nevada shall have a public option for all Nevada residents. Nevada can pioneer a single-payer health care system or a greatly simplified system."

Dennis Spisak (OH): "Key Features in an Ohio Single Payer Health Care Plan: Universal, Comprehensive Coverage. Only such coverage ensures access, avoids a two-class system, and minimizes expense No out-of-pocket payments; co-payments and deductibles are barriers to access, administratively unwieldy, and unnecessary for cost containment; a single insurance plan in the state, administered by a public or quasi-public agency."

Sadly, many progressives have allowed themselves to be convinced by professional propagandists that the Democratic Party stands for something other than the indefinite reproduction of the global warfare and corporate welfare state. In this, they are not so very different from their conservative and libertarian counterparts in the Republican Party. Coming up: why conservatives and libertarians should support the Libertarian Party, health care edition.

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.

The Progressive Opposition to the Democratic Party's Health Insurance Industry Bailout Plan

Last August, in a post relaying a progressive declaration of independence from the Democratic Party, I noted that progressives were drawing a line in the sand on health care reform. For many, that line now appears to have been crossed. Consider two recent posts at FireDogLake. Steelydan3 argues that progressives should support efforts to run third party challengers against corporatist Democrats, especially those [challengers who are] backed by organized labor, as the SEIU recently threatened to do in New York. Steelydan3 writes:

I totally and wholeheartedly support labor if it decides to make third party runs at the congressional level. The easiest and quickest way for third parties to make a splash is running at the congressional level. Labor should have its own party, period. Especially now.

Steely then goes on to debunk four popular misconceptions that bind liberals and progressives to the Democratic Party, despite the fact that the Democratic Party is actively opposed to their values, interests and agenda:

Misconception one: Third party runs are always losers . . . Misconception two: People just love the two party system . . . Misconception three: A third party has to win every single seat in every single race to be effective . . . Misconception 4: Progressives can only win within the Democratic Party.

In a similar vein, fflambeau argues that it is time to "make the Democrats pay for their sell-out to corporate interests." Some excerpts from an 11-point argument:

1) acceptance of reality is the first step in making any true change. The reality is that the Democratic Party is little more than another wing of the corporate party . . . 2) the Democratic party should not be supported in any form. No money for them, their candidates and their causes . . . 4) support existing third parties (like the Greens) in preference to the Democrats . . . 6) concentrate our actions on the state and local levels. Building alternative parties-structures begins there . . . 8) Blue Dogs and their ilk should face primary challenges from progressives. If the progressives lose those challenges, they should then run (as 3rd party candidates) against the Blue Dogs.

Liberals and Progressives Slowly Realizing Democratic Party is Neither Liberal nor Progressive: WA Group Launches Independent Campaign for Senate

Two stories today highlight how recognition that the Obama administration and Democratic congressional majority stand for nothing more than the reproduction of the global warfare and corporate welfare state is leading liberals and progressives to seek out third party and independent alternatives to the Democratic-Republican Party. USA Today quotes one long-time Democratic activist who could no longer deny the obvious, and finally decided to join the Green Party. Via Memeorandum:

a growing number of liberal groups and activists say they've had enough of Democrats who break their promises or cater to conservatives. "The liberal wing of the Democratic Party is now in shock," says longtime Democratic activist-turned-blogger Chris Bowland, 52, of Santa Rosa, Calif. "It's very clear the party hates us and has no respect for its base."

Bowland, who this month changed his party registration to the Green Party, says the Democrats are going to pay for it at the polls in November. "Who is it that shows up to man your phone banks and who goes knocking on your doors? Unions and left-wing activists like me," he says. But Obama has broken his campaign promises and now, "we've had it. I'm done."

Meanwhile, in the Seattle Times, columnist Jerry Large reports on the Washington State Progressive Electoral Coalition's campaign to challenge Democratic Senator Patty Murray from the left:

The Washington State Progressive Electoral Coalition is running a candidate against Patty Murray for a U.S. Senate seat. They vow to run against the current political system, to be civil, honest and open in the campaign and to be true to their word once elected. They are anti-war, pro-environment, against the war on drugs, and favor allowing same-sex couples to marry. Richard Curtis, the candidate, is a 45-year-old philosopher whose current job is teaching at Seattle Central Community College.

Curtis's campaign website is still under construction. His personal website, however, features the formal press release announcing the group's intentions:

On January 10, 2010 a group of long time activists from inside and outside the Democratic, Green, and Progressive Parties united to form a broad coalition. This coalition, composed of Democrats and Republicans, individual activists , and third-party supporters, has united to support an independent candidate for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Patty Murray. This campaign will serve as a protest movement against the corporate-owned political system currently in the hands of the Democrats and Republicans. We invite all interested persons and groups to join the coalition . . .

The Government is not working! Well, perhaps it is working for a very wealthy few, but most definitely not for most people, and this is the core problem today. We all know this and can see the activity around the country expressing outrage. This is the 2010 issue and we intend to make this campaign a resolution on the two party system.

Interestingly, in his interview with Jerry Large, Curtis stated that Washington's relatively new "top two" primary system figured positively in the group's strategic calculus:

they have come to believe the coalition has a real chance to win. First, Curtis said, "We realized the top-two primary has changed the dynamics." He said maybe voters won't worry about taking a chance on him if they know Murray also will advance to the general election. Second, new technology, Facebook and Twitter for instance, makes it easier to run a grass-roots campaign without a lot of cash. Third, is the timing. Many voters are angry with the two major parties.

Toward a Progressive-Libertarian Coalition Against the Democratic-Republican Two-Party State and Duopoly System of Government

In a lengthy post at Dissenting Leftist, Quantum Tuba urges progressives and libertarians to "unite around common goals" because "Democrats and Republicans are largely united against our interests." Some excerpts:

For more than a century, we have oscillated between the Democrats and the Republicans, and despite their hatred of one another, the similarities are more striking to me than the differences. Under both parties our troops were sent on superfluous and imperialistic missions. Under both parties the CIA has deposed democratically elected governments, propped up tyranny, and generated blowback which later endangered our national security. Under both parties torture and war crimes have never had any chance of being prosecuted provided they were committed by the US government. Under both parties corporate welfare distorted the market and defiled the public interest. Under both parties "tough on crime" politicians compete to see who can do the most to overcriminalize, take away more of our Fourth Amendment rights, militarize our police force, and incarcerate more of our citizens. Peel away the differences in rhetoric, and underneath you have two parties opposed to peace, equality, and freedom in shockingly similar ways. . . .

Neither libertarians nor the independent left are truly represented by either major party. And even if they were, such a narrow political spectrum would be anathema to the values of both groups. Libertarians should understand that a maximization of competition and free discourse are both desirable. The independent left, in its desire both for free exchange of ideas and a functional and participatory democracy, should revile the two party system as well . . .

Civil liberties, imperialism, and the unsatisfactory nature of the two party system are the sort of problems you'll find discussed regularly in both Z Magazine and Reason Magazine. Where libertarians and the left tend to disagree is economics . . . While there are some cases, such as welfare, health care, and worker protection laws, where libertarianism and leftism arguably are opposed, the litany of largely ignored cases where big government distorts markets and defiles property rights to favor big business means that libertarians can often find common ground with the left even with regards to economics.

Toward a Progressive-Libertarian Coalition Against the National Security Police State and the Pan-Optic Surveillance Society

Though it remains fashionable to denounce Democratic-Republican partisanship in Washington D.C., Democratic-Republican bipartisanship represents the greater threat to rights, liberties and the rule of law. Advocates of the national security police state and the pan-optic surveillance society achieved yet another political victory with the renewal of the Patriot Act last week, which easily passed the House and Senate with bi-partisan support and which the president signed into law without fanfare. Those who are unwilling to sacrifice liberty in the name of security theater might find common cause in their opposition to the Democratic-Republican elite consensus on this issue. At the progressive Alternet, Doug Robertson highlighted the Obama administration's hypocrisy:

Back in 2005, then-Senator Barack Obama had this to say opposing The Patriot Act when it came up then for reauthorization: “We do not have to settle for a Patriot Act that sacrifices our liberties or our safety. We can have one that secures both.” Throughout his entire presidential campaign, Obama often railed against the Act, criticizing it giving authorization for the Bush administration to secretly spy on U.S. citizens, illegally and unconstitutionally and with little or no judicial or congressional oversight. He pledged that he would institute “robust” checks and balances if he got elected, explicitly promising to overturn its unconstitutional sneak-and-peek provisions toward citizens not even suspected of a crime. “Warrantless surveillance of American citizens, in defiance of FISA, is unlawful and unconstitutional,” he said.

Libertarians at the Cato Institute were equally disappointed. Julian Sanchez writes:

It looks as though we’ll be getting a straight one-year reauthorization of the expiring provisions of the Patriot Act, without even the minimal added safeguards for privacy and civil liberties that had been proposed in the Senate’s watered down bill. This is disappointing, but was also eminently predictable: Between health care and the economy, it was clear Congress wasn’t going to make time for any real debate on substantive reform of surveillance law. Still, the fact that the reauthorization is only for one year suggests that the reformers plan to give it another go—though, in all probability, we won’t see any action on this until after the midterm elections.

Sanchez further provides a helpful link reminding us of the kinds of abuses that quickly became a matter of course under the Patriot Act surveillance regime. From Wired, last month:

An internal audit found the FBI broke the law thousands of times when requesting Americans’ phone records using fake emergency letters that were never followed up on with true subpoenas — even though top officials knew the practice was illegal . . . A proper NSL authorized under the Patriot Act allows agents to secretly get an individuals’ phone and financial records with a self-issued subpoena so long as they are “relevant” to an official, ongoing investigation.

That was supposed to prevent FBI agents from getting someone’s phone number just for exercising their First Amendment rights. But the standard was low enough that agents began issuing tens of thousands of NSLs a year, with not one being checked by a judge. But even those rules were too stringent, and the New York-style “exigent letter” — an understandable shortcut after the 9/11 attacks — graduated from being temporary and was adopted by employees in Washington, D.C.

The Green Party and Independent Progressive Political Strategy

Late last week, Jeff Roby at FDL sketched out a proposal for an independent-progressive revolt against the Democratic Party with the goal of creating an organizational structure capable of mounting serious challenges to the Democratic-Republican two-party state in future elections. He writes in part:

I think the times they are a’changing, and 3rd party politics needs a new look. Three changes: (1) having spent years in the wilderness, Democrats have elected a Democratic president and Congress, and it has turned to ashes in their mouths; (2) self-declared independents, amorphous, once marginal and still largely unorganized, have become the largest single bloc among American voters; (3) the teabagger movement has shaken us, both because they pose a real fascist threat, and because we sense that many of them are our sisters and brothers and would be with us now, if only we could have controlled our laughter at their silly signs and seen the valid fear and rage behind them at a government out of control.

The critical alliance is between independent progressives, and the left wing of the Democratic Party. . . . Central to the Full Court Press is building infrastructure. . . . . An question that keeps popping up in the discussions I’ve been having is how the Greens will relate to this, and how we may want to relate to the Greens. . . . Options:

(1) Go with the breakaway, the most mainstream elements of it. This is where the action will be, the chance to influence large numbers into something new. The Full Court Press, while taking no position, is well-positioned for this. (2) Go big into the Greens. This can take two forms: (2a) Assume that the Dem breakaway will dissipate itself despite all the hoopla, and dig in to build the Greens long-term. (2b) Go into the Greens with the intention of influencing them to back the breakaway. If I were going into the Greens, that would be my instinct. (3) There is also the option of sticking with the Democrats completely.