Opposition to CT Sec. of the State's Major Party Propaganda Campaign and Recruitment Drive, "Affiliate and Participate," Gains Traction and Momentum

Opposition to "Affiliate and Participate," Connecticut Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz's major party propaganda campaign and recruitment drive, continues to grow since her office launched the effort earlier this month. On Monday I reported that Daniel Reale, an Independent candidate for Congress in CT-2, filed a formal complaint against Bysiewicz charging her with misuse of public funds for political ends, among other things. (See TPID's interview with Reale discussing the complaint.) Shortly thereafter, the Green Party candidate in the same race, Scott Deshefy, told TPID that he concurred with the substance of Reale's critique, and stated that the Green Party may join in a legal action against Bysiewicz. Now the Free and Equal Elections Foundation has issued a statement on the "Affiliate and Participate" program:

“Bysiewicz is clearly asking independents and voters in other alternative political parties to join the Republican or Democratic Parties,” said Christina Tobin, CEO and founder of Free and Equal Elections Foundation. “Joining one of the two power parties is only one way voters can affiliate and participate in our election process. Bysiewicz is blatantly failing to educate voters about all of their options by concentrating her message to urge people join the two political parties she mentions.”

“Many candidates from several alternative political parties are collecting petition signatures right now trying to get on the ballot,” Tobin said. “Voters can also go affiliate with those other parties or participate in choosing which candidates compete in the November election by signing the petitions to put those candidates on the ballot. Bysiewicz is using her office to solely promote membership in the Republican and Democratic Parties with this public campaign and I believe that is wrong. Why isn’t she running TV commercials asking voters to participate in candidate selection by signing petitions for Green, Libertarian, Independent, Working Families or Connecticut for Lieberman party candidates?”

Free and Equal also interviewed Reale on their radio show:

Dan Reale is a Libertarian currently petitioning to be on the ballot for U.S. House in Connecticut’s 2nd Congressional District. Dan was a recent guest on our Free and Equal radio show and that interview can be heard at our website.

Progressive CT political blogger Jon Kantrowitz, whose posts on "affiliate and participate" first brought the campaign to my attention, has now picked up the story from TPID, here and here.

CT: Secretary of State Launches Aggressive Propaganda Campaign Against Political Independence

Connecticut's primary elections are scheduled for August 10, 2010. If recent voter registration trends in the state hold, unaffiliated voters will soon outnumber registered Democrats and Republicans combined. They already constitute the largest bloc of registered voters. According to Pollster.com, as of late last year, independents accounted for 42.5% of registered voters in the state, with only 36.8% registered Democrat and 20% registered Republican. For the Democratic-Republican establishment and ruling political class, this represents a veritable crisis, precisely because it reveals that Democratic-Republican party government represents a crisis of democracy.

Connecticut has closed primaries. Thus, almost half of all registered voters will be ineligible to vote in the major party primaries, whose nominees will therefore be decided by a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of registered voters. The Democratic and Republican nominees for numerous offices will be lucky to garner the support of even 10% of registered voters in their respective primary races. In such a situation, the fiction that the Democratic and Republican parties are capable of providing representative government to the people of Connecticut can no longer be maintained, if only because the people clearly no longer subscribe to that particular fiction. Rather than vote with their feet, or even their ballots, they are voting with their registration cards. Advocates of open primaries may find fertile ground in the Constitution State.

Rather than open the primary system, however, Connecticut's political establishment has instead chosen to begin brow beating voters to register with the Democratic and Republican parties. Late last week, Democratic Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz held a press conference (.pdf) with leaders of the state's Democratic and Republican party establishment to demand that voters give up their independent affiliations and enroll in the Democratic and Republican parties ahead of the primaries. From the press release:

Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz today urged unaffiliated voters across the state to enroll with the Democrat or Republican Party by August 9th at 12:00 p.m. so they can vote in the statewide primaries Tuesday August 10, 2010. Connecticut's closed party system does not allow unaffiliated voters to cast ballots in the primaries, therefore unaffiliated voters must enroll as either Democrats or Republicans to cast a ballot in the primaries.

“I urge Connecticut’s 840,000 unaffiliated voters – the largest group of our state’s nearly two million active registered voters – to enroll with the Democratic or Republican parties so they can cast ballots and make sure their voices are heard in the primaries,” said Secretary Bysiewicz. “The 2010 election cycle is one of the most exciting we have seen in a long time in Connecticut, with many open seats and closely contested primaries on the Democratic and Republican side for Governor, U.S. Senator and many other important offices. Don’t let this chance to help choose leaders of our state and country pass you by. Affiliate by August 9th at 12:00 p.m. so you can and participate in the primaries August 10th!”

At a news conference in Hartford, Secretary Bysiewicz was joined today by Connecticut Democratic Party Chairwoman Nancy DiNardo and Connecticut Republican Party Vice Chair Catherine Marx, Tony Esposito, President of the Registrars of Voters Association, and representatives from the Connecticut Town Clerks Association, the Connecticut Chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the African American Affairs Commission, and the Latino and Puerto Rican Affairs Commission.

To get the message out to voters, Secretary Bysiewicz has been engaged in a public awareness effort to get unaffiliated voters to enroll as Democrats or Republicans through Public Service Announcements on radio and television, and newspaper Op-Eds, meetings with Editorial Boards, radio and television interviews throughout the state.

In other words, the Connecticut Secretary of State has begun an aggressive and wide-ranging propaganda campaign aimed at cajoling voters, who obviously know better, into supporting the Democratic-Republican establishment and ruling political class. At My Left Nutmeg, Jon Kantrowitz states flatly that "the Secretary of State has no business doing this":

Urging people to join only 2 of the many parties in Connecticut, just because those 2 are the only ones having primaries, is just, in my humble opinion, wrong, wrong wrong for an official elected to uphold the integrity of elections for all parties and participants.

At Corrente, lambert adds:

If you ever had any doubts that the two legacy parties prop each other up, this little episode should remove them, eh? And the good news is that they're worried. Let's hope they panic!

So kick the props out from under one of the parties, and the other one collapses. It doesn't matter which one of 'em goes first.

This cannot happen soon enough. Today, political freedom and independence begins with freedom and independence from Democratic-Republican party government, from the Democratic-Republican establishment and ruling political class. If you are not independent, you are co-dependent.

Taking Our Country Back from the Democratic-Republican Party and Ruling Political Class

Over the past ten years, one of the most common political slogans employed by the supporters of the ruling parties exclaims that it is time to "take back" the country, or the levers of power, or the party itself. During the Bush administration and Republican majority Congress, the rallying cry of liberal Democrats was that it is time to "take our country back from theocrats, neocons and fascist Republicans." Under the Obama administration and Democratic majority Congress, the rallying cry of conservative Republicans is now that it is time to "take our country back from radical leftists, socialists and fascist Democrats." Isn't it about time that the people of the United States finally stand up to "take our country" back from Democrats and Republicans, from the inane politics of the ruling parties and political class, from the corporate oligarchy that they perpetuate and the coalitions of reactionary activists that support them?

In this context, consider two recent articles, one by a conservative leaning independent candidate for governor of Colorado, the other from a Libertarian activist based on Florida. At the Tenth Amendment Center, independent candidate for governor of Colorado, Rich Hand, writes "Independent Thinkers Needed":

There are 1,078,896 Colorado residents that have chosen to be unaffiliated voters. Compared to people that have chosen the Democratic Party, 1,058,785 and 1,048,669 in the Republican Party. The Unaffiliated voter group is bigger than either party. These statistics from the Secretary of State’s office tell a story that must be told. We need to ask ourselves as voters why we continue to invest our votes in a party when we have chosen not to associate with that same party organization. This year I am doing my part to represent the unaffiliated voter; the largest group of voters in Colorado.

This is NOT a third party movement; it is a movement to elect candidates that are not tied to the special interests of either party. In the traditions of one of the greatest political thinkers of all time, Thomas Jefferson, I am reaching out to individual voters of every party to stand as Coloradans against the tyranny of an out of control federal government. We must rally around our founding principles and stop the division fueled by our party system.

At Libertarian Viewpoint, a site dedicated to forwarding liberty and Libertarianism in opposition to "our current two-party system," Jonathan Raof takes a similar rhetorical tack, arguing that the rise in independent voters and increasing calls for alternatives to Democratic-Republican Party government is evidence not of a "third party movement" but rather a "third option movement." Via Third Party and Independent Daily Raof writes:

people are starting to dismiss the Political Party system and turn to a Unique Grassroots system. This Unique grassroots movement is one driven by the politics of a community; it implies that the creation of the movement and the electorate supporting it are natural and spontaneous, highlighting the differences between themselves and a movement that is orchestrated by traditional power structures . . . people are dismissing the Party Name, the silly Cliches, and becoming one common Electorate in search of one common goal, Liberty . . . elections are starting to finally be about the electorate, not the Party, or the Establishment entirely . . .

What is going on in the Status Quo is NOT a Third Party movement, but a Third Option Movement, and it has never been more robust. Candidates realize they cannot engage in the typical, mundane campaign – a campaign in which candidates feel they are guaranteed their base and a percentage of undecided voters; in which candidates can no longer exploit voter ignorance; in which candidates are accountable to their word; in which candidates are called out on a campaign of rhetoric. This phenomenon is the future of the political pseudo-game.

Perhaps the people of the United States would only ever support what is in effect a third party movement if they believed that it was not in effect a third party movement. After all, Americans have long supported a political establishment that is overtly hostile to constitutional republicanism and popular democracy but calls itself Democratic and Republican. On the other hand, once the people of the United States recognize, en masse, the folly of continuing to support the Democratic and Republican Parties in any way, shape or form, and begin to vote for superior alternatives to the stooges of the ruling political class, it is none other than the Democratic and Republican Parties that will be dismissed as the lunatic, fringe, third party groups that they are.

The Professional Propagandist vs. the Critical Commentator: Co-dependence vs. Independence, a Comparison

Given the dwindling number of duopolist dead-enders in the United States – that is, those who continue to advocate for the reproduction of the ruling Democratic-Republican two-party state –, one might reasonably wonder just who those people are. There are quite likely a great many others who find it virtually inconceivable that any thinking adult would still actively support the Democratic-Republican political establishment and ruling class in their ongoing war against the US Constitution and the people of the United States. We may soon reach a point, if we haven't already, at which the only people willing to support the Democratic and Republican Parties are paid political operatives and the corporatist interests forwarded by Democratic-Republican Party government. Compare two recent editorials, one by a professional Republican fundraiser and propagandist, the other by a freelance conservative speaker and commentator. The former, Noelle Nikpour, writes in the Florida Sun Sentinel that tea party activists should help "keep Republicans honest, but also keep them in office." We read:

In 1992, voters had a choice between an imperfect Republican in President George Bush, a charismatic Democrat in Bill Clinton, who would try to remake the nation's health care system soon after being elected, and a third candidate, Ross Perot, who was more Republican than Democrat. Perot siphoned off enough Republican votes that Clinton was elected. We all know what happened next . . .

Tea party activists should be Republicans. They want what Republicans say they want: less government, less spending, a balanced budget and a return to individual responsibility. But Republicans haven't always followed through on their promises.

Because they were so complicit in creating a culture of deficit spending and ever-increasing government, conservative Americans who rose against Obama's agenda decided they needed somewhere else to go besides the GOP. It's time for Republicans to give them a reason to vote for them.

Meanwhile, tea party activists should continue working at the grassroots level to keep Republicans honest, allying with them when they are right and distancing themselves when they are not. They should focus their energies on electing small government Republicans nationwide rather than trying to run third party or independent candidates when they don't like either of the alternatives. Otherwise, they will stop acting like a grassroots movement and start acting like a third party.

So, according to the establishmentarian propagandist: Republicans cannot be trusted, but we should support them anyway. This is the demonic doctrine of lesser-evilism, the first refuge of the political scoundrel who seeks to gain another's trust by admitting to being a compulsive liar. Compare this piece with one by Betty Rosian, published in the Pennsylvania Tribune Democrat, and entitled: "Time is ripe for a major third party." Rosian writes:

If anything has come to the fore in recent years, it’s the need for a strong third party that would build on the strengths of both the Republican and Democratic parties. The extremes of both are clearly not representative of the majority of Americans. What’s more, there is neither logic nor consistency to the platform of either.

The pro-life party is in the pocket of the National Rifle Association, fighting for the right to bear arms with weapons frequently used in mass murders. On the other hand, the party strong on environmental and animal protection dismisses the rights of unborn babies. One party promises more jobs while knocking down those who would provide them. The other party provides jobs while ever increasing the gap between the rich and the poor . . .

The Tea Party began in 2006 as a completely independent movement. Fast forward a few years and find that the Republican Party has embraced this faction, being fully aware that as an adversary, they are both dead in the water.

Are the Republicans now promising to revamp their agenda? If the GOP will simply resurrect its defeated candidates from 2008, what degree of change can we expect next? And will it be the balm for our woes?

While the Tea Party, by any other name, is not fully representative of America’s majority, it is an inspiring indication of what people can do when they work together for a common cause. It’s time to develop an entirely new party that would listen to the populace and present more viable candidates in 2012 – now, while we’re fired up enough to see there is a possibility of giving America back to the people.

On the basis of a reflective critique of the two-party state, Rosian calls for political independence and demands consistent support for the protection of rights and liberties, fully recognizing that the Democratic and Republican Parties are more likely to threaten those rights and liberties than secure them. The professional propagandist, on the other hand, reflexively regurgitates duopolist cliches and demands political co-dependency despite her recognition of the fact that the Democratic and Republican Parties cannot be trusted to represent the interests of the people of the United States. Today, political freedom and independence begins with freedom and independence from the Democratic-Republican two-party state and the tyranny of the reactionary ideology that sustains it.

Political Parasitism, Duopolist Propaganda and the Ongoing Hijacking of the Tea Party Movement by the Republican Party

Propagandists of the Democratic-Republican two-party state and duopoly system of government aim always to ensure that energies focused on disrupting the reproduction of the ruling Democratic-Republican regime and the political class it serves, are redirected into channels that will bolster the ruling regime and the political class it serves. Of course, political parasitism of this sort is nothing new. It is standard operating procedure for the Democratic and Republican Parties. Consider a recent op-ed by Dan Quayle in the Washington Post, in which the former Vice President exhorted tea party activists not to "go Perot" but rather remain within the confines established by the Democratic-Republican political establishment. He wrote:

So successful is the tea party movement that there is speculation it might launch a political party . . . The emergence of official tea party candidates would be very welcome news in the Obama White House. . . . There's a well-worn path of third-party movements in American history, and it leads straight to a dead end.

At Ballot Access News, Richard Winger remarked in response:

Quayle repeats the cliche that a minor party or independent candidate always injures the major party closest (ideologically) to that minor party or independent candidate. Social science and historical research substantially rebuts that idea.

Obviously, however, the results of social science and historical research are of secondary importance to the propagandist, if they are taken into account at all. Quayle's article must be seen as part of the Republican Party's ongoing co-optation and hijacking of the tea party movement, the goal of which is to ensure that everything changes just enough so that everything remains the same. As I noted back in January, Quayle has explicitly endorsed the co-optation strategy:

Neil Cavuto recently interviewed Dan Quayle and asked the former Vice President about "that whole tea party stuff" and whether it represents a "potent third party." Dan Quayle came right out and said it:

here's the challenge of my Party, is basically to co-opt the populist movement, the so-called Tea Party Folks whether they are Republicans or Democrats.

Obviously, however, such a strategy would be ineffective were it not supported by the efforts of establishmentarian activists on the ground across the country. Grassroots in Nebraska, a group advocating constitutional limited government and opposed to parties as such, documents an ongoing hijacking ahead of upcoming tax day tea party protests:

I am aware of concerns and confusion about an apparent alignment of Grassroots in Nebraska with the Republican Party and AFP (Americans for Prosperity) to organize a Tea Party event on April 15. Please be assured that Grassroots in Nebraska will stay committed to being a truly grassroots group of Nebraska citizens committed to a return to a Constitutional, limited government. When we organize a Tea Party, we will abide by the no political party, no politician policy we’ve had since the beginning . . .

The Republican Party of Lancaster County, AFP Nebraska, and a handful of individuals are attempting to hijack and crush our event and group. There can be NO other interpretation.

Read the rest for the gruesome details. It should be noted in closing that Quayle received a fair amount of resistance to his thesis in an online chat following the publication of his article. His responses perfectly illustrate the position of the reactionary establishmentarian and apologist of the ruling political class:

Manassas, Va.: When is it okay to support a third party when one is totally disgusted with the two major ones? With your logic, both major parties will never be able to be replaced.

Dan Quayle: The two-party system has served America very well. We always have political movements one way or another but the evolution of a lasting third party probably will not happen. . . .

New Braunfels, Tex.: From a fellow displaced Hoosier: Do you think a third party could field candidates at a local level election, gain momentum with city/county victories, and go on to buck the two party system and/or replace one of the existing parties?

Dan Quayle: No.

Like so many duopolist ideologues, Quayle finds it literally unimaginable that Americans would or could liberate themselves from the tyranny of the Democratic-Republican two-party state. He may well be taken by surprise one fine day.