People Before Parties: Politics and Electoral Reform Group Releases Recommendations for Electoral Reform at #OWS

Two weeks ago, I relayed a number of recommendations for electoral reform being considered by the Politics and Electoral Reform group at Occupy Wall Street in NYC, in which I have been active.  This past Sunday, the group came to full consensus on the proposal, which has now been posted in full on the group forum at NYCGA.net.  That document is published here in its entirety.  Please distribute widely.


People Before Parties: Recommendations for Electoral Reform
A proposal of the Politics and Electoral Reform group at Occupy Wall Street

Free and fair elections inspire good citizenship and public service.  They engage the intelligence, good will, and real interests of the people.  Free and fair elections ensure that citizens can control their own political destiny, and make genuine contributions to society through sound self-government.  Free and fair elections can remedy myriad ills and counteract the abuses of a government that has come to prey upon the resources and spirit of citizens.

The centralization of political power in the hands of two narrow political factions at all levels of government is neither democratic nor republican. Lawmakers representing these factions have rigged our electoral system to ensure their continued monopoly on public office in the United States.  No party system whatsoever is mandated by the U.S. Constitution.  Government of the people, by the people and for the people has been transformed into government of the people, by the parties, for entrenched interests.

Whatever our political differences may be, surely on this we can agree: our government does not represent the interests or will of the people. It is time to institute free and fair elections in the United States.

A vast majority of Americans are dissatisfied with the way the country is being governed.  Americans are not apathetic.  They have been demoralized by a forced choice between two corrupted political parties. The two-party system is incapable of providing adequate representation for the many diverse interests constitutive of the American electorate. This is a crisis of democracy and representation. It is a crisis of government.

In the federal system, the states are the laboratories of democracy. We urge the people of states, localities, and General Assemblies nationwide to begin a series of bold new experiments in democratic self-government, to open our political system to the millions of people who go unrepresented by the entrenched factions.

We call for experimentation with reforms to create a level playing field for all voters and for all candidates for elected office – whatever their party affiliation may be, or whether they have none at all –, and to curtail the influence of corporations and narrow political factions over our system of government.

We recommend experimentation with (in no particular order):

• Alternative voting methods. Our voting systems should promote honest participatory democracy.  There are alternatives to plurality voting, such as ranked choice voting, approval voting and range voting, liquid democracy and so on.

• Independent, nonpartisan redistricting. Voters should choose their representatives, lawmakers should not choose their own voters.  A bipartisan commission is not a non-partisan commission.  Independent council and computer drawn districts can remove partisan bias from the redistricting process.

• Smaller and more localized districts.  It is time to expand the number of representatives in local and state government and in the House of Representatives. This will ensure a closer relationship between the people and their elected officials, putting the latter on a shorter leash.

• Proportional representation. Winner-take-all, single member district plurality voting has allowed narrow political factions to wield disproportionate influence within our system of government.  Proportional representation has been used in the United States in the past to break up party monopolies.  It can be implemented again.

• Expansion of franchise.  Laws that restrict the right to vote should be repealed.  Those who are denied the right to vote because they have, for example, served time in prison, should be re-enfranchised. Participation can be encouraged through simple reforms such as election day voter registration.

• Term limits. Election to public office is not a lifetime appointment.  Fortunately, the people need not wait for officials to implement laws limiting their own terms.  The people can impose term limits at any election by voting for alternatives to the representatives of the entrenched factions.

• Ballot access reform.  Ballot access laws that favor the major parties and discriminate against independent and third party candidates, which are common in all fifty states, should be repealed and replaced with fair and reasonable alternatives. The default state of the ballot should be open.

• Primary election reform. A public election should be open to the public.  If parties desire to hold closed primary elections, they can provide for their own caucuses or conventions.

• Initiatives and referenda. The people retain the right to originate ballot initiatives and referenda and to recall any elected official.

• Vote counting.  Electronic voting machines are produced, operated and serviced by a small number of corporations with significant ties to powerful political factions.  Unless there are significant controls to protect against the rigging of such machines, hand-counted paper ballots should be re-introduced into our voting systems.

• Holiday voting. Voting should be encouraged not discouraged.  Election day should be ruled a holiday to encourage voter turnout.

• Fusion voting. Parties should be able to nominate the candidates of their choice across party lines.

• Combination and synthesis. A liquid democratic primary with an instant runoff between the top four candidates from the primary in the general election. Countless other possibilities.
This list is not exhaustive.

We urge assemblies across the country to deliberate on reforms that can help break the ruling political monopoly in government through free and fair elections, and put people before parties. We urge the people of states, localities and general assemblies nationwide to demand the implementation of electoral reform and begin a series of bold new experiments in democratic self-government, from the bottom up.
-------
This proposal was developed by the Politics and Electoral Reform group at Occupy Wall Street between September and November 2011. It contains input from well over 100 individuals who attended group meetings in Liberty Plaza as well as many others from across the country who influenced the proposal through online discussions.  The document was produced through a collaborative writing process.  It was approved by the Politics and Electoral Reform group with full consensus support on November 6, 2011.

Seeking Input for Electoral Reform Wish List: What Say You?

Since the Occupy Wall Street protests began in downtown Manhattan on September 17th, I have noted on a number of occasions that there is an inspiring amount of independent and third party activity and organizing taking place at the demonstrations.  Members of the Green, Libertarian, Socialist and Reform parties, among others, have been involved in the movement from the very beginning, in addition to legions of Independents. 

Much of the organizing work being accomplished at Occupy Wall Street is being done within autonomous working groups and caucuses.  There are working groups devoted to everything from media and internet to outreach, direct action and reform.  There are a number of groups, of which I'm aware, that should be of special interest to independents, third party advocates and opponents of the two-party state.  Over the next couple days, I'm going to provide some info on these various groups and relay portions of the documents and proposals they have been working on, all of which can be found through the New York City General Assembly's website for Occupy Wall Street.

Today, the focus will be the Politics and Electoral Reform group – in which I have been active for a number of weeks.  The group is working on a proposal recommending electoral reforms that could be implemented by states and localities to level the playing field for those who have been marginalized, and whose interests are not represented, by the Republican-Democrat two-party state. Numerous reforms are being considered by the group, which is collaborating on a working draft document for the proposal.  Here is an excerpt from the section of the document specifically devoted to the recommendations for reform:

• Alternative voting methods. Our voting systems should promote honest participatory democracy.  There are alternatives to plurality voting, such as instant runoff voting, ranked choice voting, approval voting and range voting, liquid democracy and so on.

• Independent, nonpartisan redistricting. Voters should choose their representatives, lawmakers should not choose their voters.

• Smaller and more localized districts.  Expansion of the number of representatives in local and state government and in the House of Representatives. This will ensure a closer relationship between the people and their elected officials, putting the latter on a shorter leash.

• Proportional representation. Winner-take-all, single member district plurality voting has allowed narrow political factions to wield disproportionate influence within our system of government. There are alternatives.

• Expansion of franchise. Those who are denied of the right to vote because they have, for example, served time in prison, should be re-enfranchised.

• Term limits. Election to public office is not a lifetime appointment. Term limits should be imposed by law or by the people at the ballot box.

• Ballot access reform. All should be equal before the law regardless of party affiliation or lack thereof.  Ballot access laws that favor the major parties and discriminate against independent and third party candidates should be repealed and replaced with fair and reasonable alternatives. The default state of the ballot should be open.

• Primary election reform. A publicly funded election should be open to the public.  If parties desire to hold closed primary elections, they can provide for their own caucuses and conventions.

• Initiatives and referenda. The people retain the right to originate ballot initiatives and referenda.

• Vote counting. The reintroduction of hand counted, paper ballots, or the introduction of significant controls to protect against the rigging of electronic voting machines, which are produced, operated and serviced by corporations with significant ties to powerful political factions.

• Weekend or holiday voting. Voting should be encouraged not discouraged.

• Fusion voting. Parties should be able to nominate the candidates of their choice across party lines.

• Campaign finance. Publicly funded election campaigns, or matching fund systems that allow candidates who refuse to accept corporate donations to compete on a level playing field with candidates who are heavily financed by corporate interests.

• Combination and synthesis. A liquid democratic primary with an IRV runoff between the top four candidates from the primary. Countless other possibilities.

(Note: the proposal is a living document, and any of the above could and probably will be changed by the group at some point.)  I'm relaying this excerpt because many readers here at Politea have thought long and hard about a lot of these issues, and could provide some interesting suggestions that could be taken up by the group.  So what say you, folks?  What do you think of the recommendations as they stand?  Should any be amended? or dropped? or edited?  Are there any important potential reforms that are missing from the list?

Cornel West Blasts Obama, Two-Party State: The American People "Deserve Better"

From FireDogLake, lengthy quotations from an interview with Cornel West on Democracy Now:

Friday Civil Rights activist Cornel West told Democracy Now!‘s Juan Gonzalez that, like President Bush before him, President Obama’s policies discriminate against African-Americans. West said the President’s neglect of the poor and of poverty programs has enormous racist effect, in that they disproportionately hurt Blacks, who are more likely to be more impoverished than Whites. . . .

“… Citizens are so disgusted with the system in which we find ourselves … In the last election, 53% of the voters had no confidence in the Democratic Party and 52% of the voters had no confidence in the Republican Party. … We’re seeing the slow demise of a two-party system. The Tea Party movement on the Right is going to end up just as disappointed with the Republican establishment as progressives like myself are disappointed with the Obama Administration. You’re beginning to see possibilities of new kinds of motion, momentum, maybe even movements against the Two-Party system, because the two Parties themselves are so corrupt: Mean-spirited cold-hearted Republicans and spineless milquetoast Democrats. What about poor people?! What about working people?! They deserve better. We deserve better.”

Dr. West is Professor of African-American studies and Religion at Princeton University.

A Libertarian's Declaration of Independence from the Republican Party

At Students for Liberty, UC Berkeley, Casey Given declares his independence from the Republican Party in a post entitled "The Myth of the Two-Party System."  He writes:

Having moved to a new place for the school year, I recently re-registered to vote for the upcoming election. Alongside my change of address, I also decided to change my party, switching from Republican to Libertarian, thus concluding my indecisive wavering for the last two years over which one to choose. . . . it seems now that whenever my “Big L” Libertarianism comes up in conversation, several of my friends seem to have the same punch line for me: “You shouldn’t have switched. Sure, Republicans are bad, but at least they’re lesser of the two evils, and they have an actual chance of winning!”

Given argues against siding with the lesser evil on the basis of the fact that they are admittedly still evil, and then asks whether there is indeed a difference in the degree of evil between the twin evils of the Democratic and Republican parties:

Perhaps I’m just blind, but I fail to distinguish any semblance of dissimilarity between Republicans and Democrats in modern politics. On the federal level, both parties have supported foreign interventionism in Iraq and Afghanistan, massive bailouts via the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), violations of our civil liberties via the PATRIOT Act, and secretive prisons overseas such as Guantanamo Bay. And, mind you, this is under both Bush and Obama. Similarly, on the state level . . .

The now-standard Republican rejoinder to this argument admits that the GOP "lost its way," but then pleads for "one more chance," and points to the rhetorical opposition of Republicans to the Democrats' evil agenda.  The association between American voters and the major parties resembles nothing so much as a violently abusive relationship.  The partisans of the two-party state rely on the voters' imaginary identification with their captors, the ideological prison guards of our political system, to force acceptance of an intolerable status quo and state of affairs.  Freedom and independence today begins with freedom and independence from the Democratic and Republican parties.

You're the Dog that Gets Beat: Declare Your Independence from the Two-Party Charade

In response to the liberal Democratic blogosphere's almost unanimous derision of Thomas Friedman's Sunday article suggesting a strong third party presidential candidate in 2012, Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight today argues that the "odds against a third party bid are not as long as they seem."  He writes:

I suspect these analysts are being too dismissive of the possibility of a “serious” third-party run of some kind in 2012, and that Mr. Friedman’s prediction has a reasonable possibility of coming true.

Silver then goes on to provide no less than fifteen reasons in support of his position, and emphasizes four of them:

Voters have extremely low opinions of both major parties — much lower than in the period from 1992-1994, when electoral constituencies were being re-shuffled and when Mr. Perot lost his bid. . . . The Republicans might field a particularly polarizing presidential nominee. Sarah Palin, in particular, were she to be nominated, might have trouble achieving 50 percent of the vote, even if Barack Obama were still fairly unpopular. . . .  There is one major issue — the national debt — that neither party has much credibility on. A candidate who presented a “serious” plan to balance the budget could possibly gain traction that way. . . . The Citizens’ United decision makes it easier for a third-party candidate to raise large sums of money from corporations.

In addition to the fifteen points provided by Silver, one could add many more.  It is also worth mentioning that, though the discussion here revolves specifically around the prospects of a third party presidential candidate, many of the factors that would create a hospitable environment for a strong third party presidential candidate would do the same for third party and independent candidates at the Congressional, state and local levels.

It is no surprise that the liberal Democratic blogosphere would overreact in such a fashion to Friedman's article.  Friedman himself is despised among this contingent, often with good reason.  More importantly, however, Democrats are among the least independent thinkers and voters of any partisan or ideological bloc in the United States.  They are most likely to believe all or most of what they see or read in any news source and they are least likely to consider voting for an independent or third party candidate for any office.  Faced with the record of the current Democratic legislative majority and presidential administration (not to mention those of the past), these duopolist dead-enders still think the answer is "more and better Democrats."  They really do believe, against all the evidence, that the Democratic Party stands for something other than the consolidation of power in the hands of political and economic elites and the expansion of the global warfare and corporate welfare state.  They are like badly abused dogs, and in this they resemble nothing so much as die-hard partisans of the GOP: no matter how many times they are driven out to the middle of nowhere and left for dead, they always happily limp their way back home to the party, wagging their tails in the false expectation that, this time, they will not receive yet another beating.

Fortunately, not all folks who would lean toward the Democrats are so deluded by the ideology that sustains the two-party state.  At Counterpunch, Richard Anderson-Connolly has composed "A Voter's Manifesto" aimed specifically at "rejecting the lesser-of-two-evils trap."  The piece begins:

Our climate of anger, disgust, and helplessness has produced three quite different exhortations regarding the election in November. All are understandable yet ultimately inadequate because they fail to recognize that the current economic disaster is nothing but the logical culmination of a political sickness rooted in the two-party system itself. If the objective is to prevent corporate rule then the most reasonable strategy in November is to cast a vote for a multiparty democracy. Other approaches merely tinker with the imminent expiry of what remains of American Democracy.

He makes a strong case for voting reform and supporting third party and independent candidates, and concludes:

we must reject the trap of the lesser-of-two-evils. Democrats are moving us toward corporate rule just as surely as the Republicans. If two cars are both driving toward a collapsed bridge one should hardly be excited about getting inside the vehicle that is traveling more slowly. Democrats who refuse to see the magnitude of the oncoming crisis, or who see it but do nothing to reverse course, have no moral claim to our votes.

We can make sense of our times only be recognizing that the root of our problem is a two-party system that has been completely captured by the economic elite. The solution will not be found by picking the best choice among the available options but rather by transforming the system into a genuine multiparty democracy. Therefore a vote in November for candidates who support voting reform is the most reasonable strategy for preventing corporate rule and for renewing our democracy.

On the issue of voting reform, see also David L. Wetzell's new article, "Toward a Winner-Doesn't-Take-All Electoral System."

Democrats and Republicans Come Together in Support of Military Spending Binge

In a show of bipartisan support for the reproduction and expansion of the global warfare and corporate welfare state, Democrats and Republicans in the House came together yesterday and overwhelmingly agreed to tack another $59 billion onto the national debt in order to extend the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. [Oops, false, make that $37 billion. -d.] Many commentators wondered whether the most recent Wikileaks document drop would "end the war," thus demonstrating how little they understand of the Democratic-Republican party's zeal for fighting wars Americans don't support with money we don't have. Given the Pentagon's history of financial mismanagement and faulty accounting, in the end, we probably won't know what it will have paid for either. From the AFP:

The Pentagon cannot properly account for nearly nine billion dollars in Iraqi oil revenues and other funds received for reconstruction programs after the 2003 US invasion, a US audit found Tuesday.

"The breakdown in controls left the funds vulnerable to inappropriate uses and undetected loss," the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction said in a report.

The Pentagon received 9.1 billion dollars in 2004 from the fund set up by the US-led occupation authority to benefit Iraqis with Iraqi oil and gas revenues and assets seized from the ousted regime of Saddam Hussein.

But the audit found the Pentagon cannot properly account for 8.7 billion dollars because defense agencies that received the money failed to set up required Treasury accounts and no single organization was created to manage the funds.

The audit found that "weaknesses" in the Department of Defense (DOD) financial and management controls meant it could not account properly for the funds.

If You Buy What the Democrats and Republicans are Peddling, You're Probably in the Market for a New Bridge as Well

In an article for the New York Times from 2005 reflecting on the history of an infamous New York con game, Gabriel Cohen summarized the plot of "Every Day's a Holiday," a comedy from 1937 featuring Mae West:

The year is 1899, and a saucy con artist named Peaches O'Day is trying to sell the Brooklyn Bridge. She succeeds, too, passing it off to a gullible fellow who pays her $200 and receives a bill of sale reading, "One bridge in good condition." As punishment, she is run out of town, but she returns in triumph, disguised in a black wig as the French entertainer Mademoiselle Fifi, and goes on to be elected mayor of the city.

If you're in the market for a new bridge, you might also be interested in what the Democrats and Republicans are peddling this year. Let's take but one easy example. Republican Congressman Eric Cantor writes at Big Government: "It's not the same GOP." He concludes his call to support the Republican Party with the following lines:

I am under no illusions – both parties have helped to create a debt that everyone knows is dangerously high. But only one of them is going to keep going down that path and taking our country with it. The other has learned its lesson and has reformed itself.

If Cantor is under no illusions, it seems he is counting on the fact that his readers are under at least one. Fortunately, not all Americans are gullible enough to fall for this particular con year after year. From a letter to the editor of the Cleveland Plain Dealer:

If the Republican Party is this country's only hope for limiting government, then the country is doomed to ever-expanding government. The best that can be hoped is that Tea Party supporters are serious about voting against all incumbents, whether they are Democrats or Republicans. The country needs to throw out all incumbents at all levels in 2010.

Of course, nothing will be achieved by throwing out Democratic and Republican incumbents only to replace them with their Republican or Democratic analogues. At Veterans Today, Sherwood Ross quotes extensively from Lawrence Velvel to make the case for the urgency of third party opposition to the Democratic-Republican global warfare and corporate welfare state:

both parties are “incapable of doing the right thing. They are too beholden to big money—money is virtually all that our politicians care about,” writes Velvel, dean of the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover. The political parties “have gotten too used to the ethically crooked, morally criminal ways of our system, (and) cannot even envision serious change in the political and electoral system.”

If you recognize Democratic-Republican Party government for the problem that it is, but nonetheless continue to vote Democrat or Republican, then you are the problem you seek to resolve. Fortunately, the solution to this problem is relatively simple: stop bailing out the two-party state, vote third party and independent.

Update: At Washington Monthly, Steve Benen comments on Cantor's article at Big Government, writing:

For voters who remember the last several years, it's awfully difficult to take the GOP seriously. The party that's running on a platform of fiscal responsibility was fiscally irresponsible. The party that's running on a platform of shrinking the size and scope of government grew the size and scope of government. The party that's running on a platform of competence, maturity, and integrity was incompetent, immature, and corrupt.

If Benen spent half as much time critically reflecting upon the hypocrisies of Democrats as he does those of Republicans, he might have to declare himself an independent. For those who remember the last several years, it's awfully difficult to take the Democrats seriously either. The party that ran against "Bush's war" has expanded it. The party that ran on openness and transparency continues to claim the privilege of secrecy. The party that ran against the erosion of rights and liberties continues to chisel away at them. The party that promised to combat the corrupting influence of lobbyists continues to endorse their proposals and accept their massive campaign contributions. The party that claims to fight for the interests of "the little guy" never fails to privilege the interests of multinational corporations. And so on. Support for the Democratic or Republican Party today appears to be predicated upon either willful ignorance or reckless irresponsibility or both. Or is it something else?

On Socialism, Corporatism and Democratic-Republican Party Government: Of the Corporations, By the Corporations, For the Corporations

Partisan Republican propagandists of the corporatist two-party state and duopoly system of government continue to press their long-standing talking point that the Obama administration and Democratic-majority congress are on a steady "march toward socialism". In the last week, for instance, Newt Gingrich has offered an explanation for "How America became a secular-socialist-machine" in the Washington Post. In Commentary Magazine, Jonah Goldberg asks, "What kind of socialist is Barack Obama?" and concludes:

Still, the question remains, What do we call Obama’s “social-ism”? John Judis’s formulation—“liberal socialism”—is perfectly serviceable, and so is “social democracy” or, for that matter, simply “progressivism.” My own, perhaps too playful, suggestion would be neosocialism.

One might predict two potential unintended results of this rhetorical-political tactic: 1) supporters of the Democratic Party and the Obama administration may become more comfortable with the term itself, if not also more supportive of an explicit, aggressive socialist agenda; 2) opponents of the Democratic Party and the Obama administration may compare their policies and proposals with those of the Republican Party and draw the conclusion that the GOP is also to be rejected for its socialism. Glenn Beck, for instance, recently denounced George W. Bush for his progressivism. Via Think Progress and Memeorandum, Beck states:

What has [Obama] done that is different? I think he’s done exactly what George Bush was doing, except to the times of a thousand. I mean we’re talking about a progressive. And George Bush was a progressive. It’s the difference between a steam train and the space shuttle.

A recent post at the American Conservative argues that Barack Obama is the most socialist president since George W. Bush:

Barack Obama is the most socialist president in American history. Before Obama, George W. Bush was the most socialist president in American history. Before Dubya it was Bill Clinton, then Bush, Sr., Reagan, and so on . . . Conservatives who continue to make the case that Obama is worse than Bush are right, but that Rush and like-minded pundits and politicians still can’t find fault with the last socialist Republican president, is a pretty good indication as to what you can expect-and what they’ll tolerate-from the next one.

Of course, not all Republicans are in agreement with this take on socialism. Ron Paul, for instance, has consistently argued that, like those of the Republican Party, Democratic Party policies are more appropriately termed 'corporatist'. At the SRLC, Paul stated:

The question has been raised about whether or not our president is a socialist…. I am sure there are some people here who believe it. But in the technical sense, in the economic definition of a what a socialist is, no, he's not a socialist . . . He's a corporatist. And unfortunately we have corporatists inside the Republican party and that means you take care of corporations and corporations take over and run the country.

Paul elaborates on this position a bit more in a post today at Lew Rockwell on "Socialism vs. Corporatism." Interestingly, actual avowed Socialists would seem to agree with Paul's assessment. CNN recently interviewed Billy Wharton, co-chair of the Socialist Party USA, who stated that Obama "isn't even a liberal":

Wharton, co-chair of the Socialist Party USA . . . [has] seen people with bumper stickers and placards that call Obama a socialist, and he has a message for them: Obama isn't a socialist. He's not even a liberal. . . . Obama's opponents have long described him as a socialist. But what do actual socialists think about Obama? Not much, says Wharton. "He's the president whose main goal is to protect the wealth of the richest 5 percent of Americans." He and others say the assertion that Obama is a socialist is absurd.

In a recent interview with John Michael Spinelli of the Examiner, Socialist Party candidate for US Senate in Ohio, Dan La Botz, concurs, stating that the Obama administration has followed the Bush administration's lead in privileging the interests of multinational corporations over the interests of the people of the United States. I contacted Mr. La Botz by email, asking for his response to the claim that the Democrats are on a "march toward socialism." In his reply, Mr. La Botz writes, in part:

The Obama administration, which came to power in the midst of a severe economic crisis, has demonstrated that its principal preoccupation has been to save American capitalism, the banks and corporations. Billions of working peoples’ tax money has been redistributed to banks, insurance companies and corporations, but we have not gained any control over those institutions. On the contrary, they continue to exploit working people and to block the road to reform.

This excerpt, however, cannot do justice to Mr. La Botz's lengthy response, which I have published in full at Third Party and Independent Daily.

No More Bailouts for the Democratic and Republican Parties: Break Up the Corporate Bipoligarchy, Declare Your Independence

The Democratic and Republican Parties are too small to succeed: no more bailouts for the politically bankrupt. With the Senate poised to consider financial and banking reform, over a year and a half after a handful of politically connected multinational corporations successfully looted the US treasury with the help of their criminal co-conspirators in the leadership of the Democratic and Republican Parties, perhaps it is only appropriate to ask how long it will be before the people of the United States break up and dismantle the corporatist oligarchy that is the Democratic-Republican Party. The Democratic-Republican two-party state and duopoly system of government poses a systemic risk to constitutional government in the United States and represents a threat to individual rights, civil liberties and the rule of law.

Though the people of the United States continue to bail them out election after election, there is no sense in which the Democratic and Republican Parties are too big to fail, at least if we define success as facilitating representative, democratic-republican constitutional government. Indeed, in this regard, Democratic-Republican Party government is nothing less than a catastrophic failure. On the other hand, if success is defined as the reproduction and expansion of the global warfare and corporate welfare state, in conjunction with the ongoing centralization and monopolization of political power in the hands of the ruling political elite, not to mention the maintenance of the reactionary corporatist bipoligarchy that has become synonymous with Democratic-Republican Party government, – well, then the Democratic and Republican Parties are indeed too big to fail.

And this is why they need to be broken up and dismantled: they pose a grave, systemic risk to constitutional government, human rights, civil liberties and the rule of law. How different is the atmosphere of everyday Democratic-Republican politics from that which dominated the country at the height of the financial crisis? The professional propagandists of the Democratic and Republican Parties are always effectively in a state of hysterical overreaction, framing the opposition between one reactionary faction of the ruling corporatist elite and the other as that between life and death, good and evil, reason and insanity. Yet the result of Democratic-Republican Party government is always the same: the expansion of the global warfare and corporate welfare state, the further empowerment of the ruling political class, the trampling of rights and liberties for the rest of us.

It is long past time that the people of the United States cease bailing out the Democratic and Republican Parties, which are nothing more than the intellectually, morally and politically bankrupt organs of narrow corporatist interests. We must cease returning them to power election after election, cease donating hard-earned dollars to fill the slush-funds of the party committees and the campaign coffers of professional politicians, cease buying the cheap arguments sold to us by the hysterical propagandists in both the mainstream and independent media.

Today, political freedom and independence begins with freedom and independence from the Democratic and Republican Parties, from the politics of the two-party state and duopoly system of government. Support third party and independent alternatives to the reproduction of the status quo.

When hypocrisy is the rule rather than the exception, does anyone really have any reason to vote Republican or Democrat?

Among the many manufactured political scandals over which the professional hysterics in the Democratic-Republican commentariat are hyperventilating today, one swirls around recent statements made by RNC Chairman Michael Steele, who said that African Americans "really don't have a reason" to vote Republican. The Chicago Sun Times reports:

Why should an African-American vote Republican? "You really don't have a reason to, to be honest -- we haven't done a very good job of really giving you one. True? True," Republican National Chairman Michael Steele told 200 DePaul University students Tuesday night.

Steele is, of course, entirely correct. Indeed, one might rather quibble that his statement is far too timid. Why should anyone vote Republican or Democrat for that matter? We really don't have any reason to, as the Democratic and Republican Parties represent, first and foremost, the interests of the ruling political class, which are diametrically opposed to the interests of the people of the United States. Consider, however, the response of Faiz Shakir at Think Progress to Steele's comments:

anytime Democrats make similar arguments, Steele is quick to accuse them of issuing “blind charges of racism, where none exist.” Steele himself claims not to “play the race card,” but in addition to his comments last night, he has said that he has a “slimmer margin for error” because of his race and that white Republicans are “scared” of him.

With this specimen of race-baiting duopolist gotcha politics, playing the race card in the guise of the partisan hypocrisy card, it is difficult to imagine a more concise demonstration of the inanity of Democratic-Republican Party politics. Shakir's response perfectly demonstrates how duopolist politics systematically avoids confrontation with the primary political problem facing the people of the United States, namely, the problem that is Democratic-Republican Party government. As the legions of professional propagandists for the Democratic and Republican Parties themselves demonstrate on a daily basis, hypocrisy is not the exception but rather the rule in the Democratic-Republican political class.

When you say you would vote for a "viable" third party or independent candidate, just what do you mean, exactly?

Among the greatest paradoxes to result from the ideology that sustains the two-party state is the fact that though a majority of the public reject both the Democratic and Republican Parties, refusing to identify themselves with the aims and ends of either, only a small fraction of that same public support third party and independent alternatives to the representatives of the ruling Democratic-Republican political establishment. While browsing the news yesterday for reports on the recent LibDem surge in the UK, I came across a video of John Cleese's "party political broadcast for the Liberal Democrats" from 1997 (via Robert Mackey). In the video, Cleese hones in on this precise paradox, effectively framing it as a constitutive but completely irrational element of the viability hurdle faced by all third party and independent candidates for political office. The comedian states:

People like our policies, so what's the problem? The problem comes because you like our policies. The polls show that half of you prefer LibDem policies and would vote for the Liberal Democrats if you thought we could win. Do you see the problem? Half of you prefer LibDem policies and would vote for the Liberal Democrats if you thought we could win.

That means if you did vote for us, we would win. Right? I mean, not just do well, but actually win. In fact, half the votes would give us the biggest landslide this century. We should be so lucky. So look, when you say that you would vote for us if we could win, I'm not being rude, but what do you mean, exactly?

The Boortz Affair: Libertarian Politics and the Evils of Democratic-Republican Party Government

Unless you're a fan or a connoisseur of talk radio, you are probably not very familiar with Neal Boortz. Though he holds a number of Libertarian-leaning positions, the radio entertainer and political commentator is a staunch supporter of the global warfare state who allies himself with conservative Republicans, justified on the basis of a misguided analysis of Democratic-Republican Party politics. On April 2nd, Boortz announced that, though he is a Libertarian, he is against any and all advocacy of third party politics. Boortz stance is conditioned by his hysterical embrace of lesser-evilism:

I'm a Libertarian. I'm a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party. I've voted for Libertarian candidates on the federal and local level for the past 15 years. Now what I'm going to say here is going to earn no small amount of rage from fellow Libertarian Party members . . .

I believe with every fiber of my being that the survival of our Republic is dependent on removing as many members of the Democrat Party from the Congress as possible. The Party of Big Government must be removed from power. I'm not at all confident that America could survive another two years of Democratic control. This means that we must say no to third party movements. No doubt, the Republicans have been a huge disappointment. They vastly expanded government size and spending during the years they ran the show. They promised to get rid of the Department of Education. Instead, they doubled it's size. Not good. The Republicans say they've learned their lesson. Have they? Don't know. What I do know is that the Democrats are hell-bent on destroying economic liberty in this country.

Boortz was right in thinking that Libertarians would not be pleased with his capitulation to the logic that sustains the Democratic-Republican political establishment, the two-party state and duopoly system of government. Many Libertarians have long been uncomfortable with Boortz's positions relating to both foreign and domestic policy, see for instance the Boot Bortz Blog, which was maintained throughout 2003 and 2004 in opposition to Boortz's scheduled appearance at the 2004 Libertarian Party national convention.

Boortz was also scheduled to speak at this year's Libertarian convention. On April 5th, three days after Boortz stated his opposition to third party advocacy and his reactionary embrace of duopoly ideology, the Libertarian Party announced that Boortz would be moved from his scheduled speaking slot. From the LP Blog, via Independent Political Report:

Our speaker lineup continues to evolve and is always subject to change. One recent change is that Neal Boortz has been moved from the Sunday evening banquet dinner speaker position. We do expect Mr. Boortz to speak in a different time slot.

Five days later, a press release from the Libertarian Party of Texas announced that Boortz had in fact been removed from the speaker's lineup. From Independent Political Report:

Syndicated radio talk show host Neal Boortz, a Libertarian Party member, has been uninvited as a speaker to the Libertarian Party’s national convention in St Louis the weekend of May 28 -31. Boortz stated on April 2 that voters should not support third parties in the 2010 and 2012 elections in order to get Republicans elected.

Boortz had been a regular national convention speaker for the Libertarian Party through the 2004 convention in his home city of Atlanta. In 2008 he cancelled his appearance shortly before the convention to schedule some medical treatment. When the Libertarian Party removed him from the 2010 convention schedule due to his recent comments, Boortz removed himself again claiming he had medical treatment scheduled. [Emphasis added. Rumor has it that Boortz used the same excuse to get out of serving in Vietnam. -d.]

“We do not need an unreliable and reluctant individual promoting the Republican Party to be given a speaking slot at our convention” said Texas state chair and national party committee member Pat Dixon. “We will have a great convention in St Louis and continue to offer voters a choice that neither the Republicans nor Democrats offer.” . . . .

Dixon concluded “Neal Boortz has a very entertaining show has has been a great supporter of our party. Of course we respect anyone’s decision to support the candidates or party of their choice. We also get to choose who speaks at our convention, and at this time Neal is not a good choice.”

Incidentally, it is worth noting that aside from a few warfare statist Republican Party trolls, the response in the comment thread at IPR is overwhelmingly in favor of Boortz's removal from the speaker's lineup. Yesterday, however, Boortz defensively emphasized that he withdrew from the speaking position and was in no way "removed" from the event, stating in reference to the press release at Independent Political Report:

Sorry Mr. Butler, but you have this a bit wrong. Last week I instructed Belinda to inform the Libertarian Party that I would be unable to keep this speaking engagement for personal reasons." According to Butler The Libertarian Party "removed me" from the schedule because of comments I made regarding voting for a 3rd party this November. Whatever, Mr. Butler. If you want to say that I was "booted" from the schedule, have at it. It's your credibility that suffers, not mine.

Boortz also reiterated the logic that motivates his support for the Republican wing of the professional political class and ruling establishment, but attempted to salvage his reputation among Libertarians with an addendum:

We cannot afford a 3rd party effort this year if it is going to leave one single Democrat in office who otherwise might have been removed. I still plan to vote Libertarian in local elections

Next he'll be telling us that some of his best friends are Libertarians! Nonetheless, Boortz has done a service in providing such a succinct articulation of the reactionary political practice that is lesser-evilism. His support for the Republican wing of the ruling corporatist party is not predicated on support for the Republican wing of the ruling corporatist party – indeed, he admits that Republicans cannot be trusted either –, but rather on rejection of the Democratic wing of the ruling corporatist party. So long as American voters continue to allow themselves to be manipulated by the imaginary calculus of the greater and lesser evil that is Democratic-Republican Party politics, we will never be free of the evil that is Democratic-Republican Party government.

Democratic-Republican Party Government is the only Solution to the Crisis that is Democratic-Republican Party Government

You may be surprised to learn that I have just signed and sealed my first contributions to the Democratic and Republican Parties. The events of the last weeks, months and years have given some Americans cause for self-congratulation, others cause for alarm, and still others cause for calm reassessment. I find myself somewhere in between these latter two groups. As virtually every election that has been held over the course of my voting life has demonstrated, there is no question that Democratic-Republican Party government represents a grave threat to both the US Constitution and the people of the United States. Whichever corporatist faction constitutes the ruling majority, Democratic-Republican Party government leads, always and everywhere, to the ever quickening erosion of individual rights and liberties, to the consolidation of the national security police state and the expansion of the lawless voyeurism characteristic of a pan-optic surveillance society.

Yet, for all intents and purposes, the United States remains a two-party system, and the political opposition is always led by one faction of the ruling coalition. And so the danger to both the US constitution and the people of the United States represented by the Democratic Party can only be thwarted by supporting the Republican Party; similarly, the danger to both constitutional government and the people of the United States represented by the Republican Party can only be avoided by supporting the Democratic Party. Therefore, the only way to ensure that the United States is not brought to absolute ruin by the Democratic and Republican Parties is to support the Republican and Democratic Parties.

Perhaps one might object here that it makes no sense to support the Democratic and Republican Parties in order to protect against the threat to constitutional government and the people of the United States represented by the Democratic-Republican two-party state and duopoly system of government. The only possible alternative is to support third party and independent candidates for political office to create a viable opposition to the ruling Democratic-Republican political class. However, our political future is entirely determined by our political past. And in the past, the ruling parties have not been receptive to movements intent on removing them from power.

But since movements to change the balance of political power – to strengthen rights and liberties, and serve the interests of the people of the United States, rather than undermine the lot of them –, cannot garner the support of the ruling parties and political class, one might reasonably conclude that it is not guaranteed to succeed, and thus determine instead to work within the confines of the system that maintains the ruling balance of power. The Democratic and Republican Parties represent such a grave threat to our rights, liberties and the rule of law that our only option is to strengthen the Democratic and Republican Parties in their ongoing war against the US constitution and the people of the United States. I have thus just signed and sealed my first contributions to the Democratic and Republican parties.

Happy April Fools' Day!

Obamacare as Political Rorschach Test: End of History or End of the World?

We have reached a point in the development of the ideology that characterizes the Democratic-Republican two-party state, in which virtually every event – from the most trivial to the most significant – produces a bifurcated response that demonstrates the abject absurdity and intellectual bankruptcy of the politics to which we are subjected by Democratic-Republican Party government. The passage of Obamacare, for instance, was triumphantly lauded as the "end of history" by liberal Democrats and hysterically denounced as the "end of the world" by conservative Republicans. Let's begin with the liberal Democrat's declaration of the "end of history." On March 22nd, Kevin Drum wrote at Mother Jones:

There's plenty of work left to be done, but when it comes to the big ticket items we've gotten about 80% of what we set out to get over the past century. The one major item missing has been national healthcare. And now, finally, we're on the road to getting it . . . So over the next couple of decades we'll finish the job on healthcare, make continuing progress on gay rights, hopefully address climate change in an incremental way, improve our immigration laws, and so forth. But big ticket items? There probably aren't any.

In a similar vein, Matthew Yglesias declared final victory at Think Progress:

For the past 65-70 years—and especially for the past 30 years since the end of the civil rights argument—American politics has been dominated by controversy over the size and scope of the welfare state. Today, that argument is largely over with liberals having largely won . . . The crux of the matter is that progressive efforts to expand the size of the welfare state are basically done. There are big items still on the progressive agenda. But they don’t really involve substantial new expenditures.

The conservative Republican response to the passage of Obamacare was equally absurd: the event signals the beginning of totalitarianism and the coming of Armageddon. Politico reported Senator Orrin Hatch's articulation of the former talking point:

The health care law’s individual mandate is “what you call totalitarianism,” Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said Wednesday night . . . “They want to force people to do whatever they want them to do. That’s what you call totalitarianism. It is not really good government." . . . “And frankly, it would be the first time that your liberties would be taken away from you where you would be forced to do something you don't want to do.”

This is almost unbelievable. Hatch's assessment that the passage of Obamacare into law represents "the first time" liberties would be "taken away" from people by the federal government, "forcing" them to do something they "don't want to do" is, in its patent falsehood, as ridiculous as the above assertions that the progressive project is finished and Democrats will now cease to oppress us with ever greater demands for the implementation of their neo-liberal, technocratic, utopian agenda. But Rep. John Boehner and Michael Steele did Hatch one better, equating the passage of Obamacare with the end of the world. As TPM reported:

RNC Chairman Michael Steele told Fox News anchor Shepard Smith today that he agreed with House Minority Leader John Boehner's assertion that health care reform is akin to "Armageddon." Smith asked Steele, "Armageddon? Seriously?" Steele: "Yes!"

If only Steele were right, as, one assumes, the end of the world would imply also the end of Democratic-Republican Party government and hence our liberation from the dictatorship of the Democratic-Republican two-party state and the inanity of Democratic-Republican politics.

The Lesser Evil is the Enemy of the Greater Good: Support for an Independent Alternative to the Evil that is Democratic-Republican Party Government

In a piece offering "some thoughts on "lesser of two evils" voting" at Docudharma, cassiodurus considers the "rationality" of lesser evilism and strategic voting:

"Lesser of two evils" voting offers a rational model: you vote for the lesser of two evils to avoid the greater catastrophe . . . The problem with "lesser of two evils" voting is that it cedes the high ground . . . All the "lesser of two evils" really has to do is to be less evil -- actually doing good does not have to be a prerequisite for obtaining (or maintaining) political office. If you vote "lesser of two evils," then, your politicians are beholden to you for nothing.

Paradoxically, however, the author contrasts lesser evilism with "voting your own interests":

Optimistic voters would contrast "lesser of two evils" voting with the idea of "voting your own interests." Their theory is as follows: you vote for whomever is the best candidate, regardless of her or his chances to win. The only way you're going to get what you want from government is if you continue to demand it in election after election regardless of the consequences. This is often a strategy adopted by third-party candidates.

The paradox should be readily apparent: the "rationality" of lesser evilism is irrational insofar as it specifically precludes "voting your own interests." Cassiodorus fails to note the doubly negative character of lesser-evil voting: the vote in favor of the perceived lesser evil is, first and foremost, a vote against the perceived greater evil. It is for this reason that the politics of Democratic-Republican Party government are almost wholly reactionary in both theory and practice. This may well also go some way toward accounting for chronically low voter turnout in the United States: the moral and ethical obscenity of perpetuating a system which only offers the individual a choice between two evils likely figures in the rationale of many non-voters. Unfortunately, this is difficult to quantify, as media and polling organizations generally tend to obscure the crisis of democracy represented by the majority's consistent refusal to actively support the reproduction of Democratic-Republican Party government. Though it specifically tracks opinion relative to the 2012 presidential election, a new poll by the Clarus Research Group, however, finds that a large majority of Americans are willing to consider independent alternatives to the stooges of the Democratic and Republican Parties. Via TPID:

Twenty-five percent of the nation's electorate said they would "definitely" consider voting for "an independent candidate with moderate views on most issues" in the 2012 presidential race, and an additional 42 percent said they would "probably" consider doing so. Twenty-eight percent said they would "definitely" or "probably" not consider voting for an independent candidate.

"This poll shows that a serious independent candidate would have a shot at 25 percent of the vote, maybe more," said Faucheux. "This is 6 points higher than the 19 percent independent Ross Perot received in 1992. Of course, it ultimately depends upon the qualifications and appeal of the actual, flesh-and-blood candidate and whether he or she has the resources to mount a full-fledged nationwide campaign."

The Health of Warfare and the War over Healthcare: the Democratic-Republican Global Warfare and Corporate Welfare State

It is appropriate that the Congress voted on the health care insurance industry bailout plan on the very same weekend that we marked the seventh "anniversary" of the invasion of Iraq. It is a stark reminder that the Democratic and Republican Parties, indeed, Democratic-Republican Party government as such, aims at nothing more than the maintenance and expansion of the global warfare and corporate welfare state. As both anti-war and anti-Obamacare protesters descended on Washington D.C. to denounce the pet project of the ruling Democratic regime as well as that of its Republican predecessor, all should recall that no one is more deluded than the individual who believes that support for Republicans or Democrats will lead to anything other than the reproduction of the problem that is Democratic-Republican Party government. Today, political freedom and independence begins with freedom and independence from the Democratic and Republican Parties, from the dictatorship of the two-party state and the duopoly system of government. If you are not part of the independent opposition, you are a conspirator in co-dependency.
[Post bumped to top from weekend.]

Independent Voters and the Crisis of Democracy that is Democratic-Republican Party Government

For Pennsylvania's The Morning Call, Christopher Borick reports on the results of a poll surveying attitudes of the state's independent voters:

According to the commonwealth's secretary of state, there are about half a million residents of the Keystone State who have registered to vote as independents. Because state election laws prohibit independents from voting in party primaries, the percentage of independents in the state is low in comparison with many other states . . .

The president's diminished standing among Pennsylvania independents has not translated to support for the work being done by Republicans in Congress . . . Simply put, the commonwealth's independent voters do like much of what they see happening in the nation's capital . . .

With all the dissatisfaction and conflicted views regarding the two major parties, it is understandable that a solid majority of the state's independent voters maintain the view that a third party is needed to represent the American people. But even as these voters seek something different, there is a hesitancy to throw their support to third party or independent candidates for fear that their votes would lead to their ''least favorite'' candidates winning elections.

In other words, Pennsylvania's independent voters are held hostage by the Democratic-Republican two-party system and the ideology that sustains it. But this particular poll raising an interesting possibility: with the widespread recognition that that the Democratic and Republican Parties represent a set of twin evils, are we not approaching a situation in which the logic of strategic voting simply breaks down? Strategic voters do not cast an affirmative vote for their favorite candidate, but rather choose the 'lesser of two evils' from the duopoly parties in a defensive vote against the major party candidate they dislike more. This is also known as 'favorite betrayal' – a phenomenon that could be neutralized simply by the implementation of approval or range voting.

Consider a simple example of such betrayal. There are four candidates in a given race: a Republican, a Democrat, a Green and a Libertarian. An individual whose views are best represented by the Green Party candidate in a given election will instead vote for the Democrat in a strategic maneuver against the Republican. Similarly, an individual whose views are best represented by the Libertarian Party candidate will instead vote for the Republican in a strategic maneuver against the Democrat. However, when such voters realize that voting Democrat or Republican is not an adequate defense against Democratic-Republican Party government, they often simply do not vote rather than vote for the candidate who best represents their views and interests. The reproduction of the two-party state and duopoly system of government hinges upon a crisis of democracy.

Making the Lesser Evil the Enemy of the Greater Good: Mystical Realism and Other Common Mystifications of Duopoly Ideology

At Manly's Republic, Manly provides a thorough summary of our ongoing debate in his response to my last post on the folly of two-party statism. Unfortunately, however, aside from a false analogy, Manly does not supply anything other than common duopolist mystifications – with which we are already familiar and which I have refuted in the past – to make his case in support of the Democratic-Republican two-party state. In response to my proposition that duopolist historical revisionism results in political determinism, he holds that the United States has always effectively had a two-party system and displaces the opposition between the Democratic and Republican Parties onto the philosophical-political opposition between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists – thus providing one more piece of evidence in favor of my position. Manly writes:

There is no “revisionism” here, there is only history and D. Eris need only avail himself of the Federalist papers and Anti-Federalist Papers for the foundation of my argument. The fact remains that two major schools of thought emerged regarding the form and substance of a federal government long before the constitutional convention assembled and these are best summed up by comparing and contrasting the Jeffersonians with the Hamiltonians . . . The fact remains that the factions which contended with each other during the administrations of both Washington and Adams eventually emerged as political parties . . . The fact remains that Americans are used to two major political parties because these represent the two differing approaches to the size and scope of the federal government. [Emphasis added.]

This, of course, is also a clear instantiation of what I call the "brute fact argument". From a post on the common mystifications of duopoly ideology, last September:

When pressed to defend their opposition to third party and independent activism, partisans of the Republican and Democratic Parties . . . will often simply assert the brute fact of the two-party system . . . they state that because we have a two-party system, we have to work within the two-party system.

Manly transposes the brute fact of the opposition between the Democratic and Republican Parties onto the early debate between the federalists and the anti-federalists on the "form and substance" of federal government. But this comparison does not hold; it is a false analogy. Take the Massachusetts Compromise, for instance: the federalists demanded a strong federal constitution and the anti-federalists demanded a bill of rights explicitly limiting the power of the government created by that constitution. On even a cursory glance, it quickly becomes clear that the Democratic and Republican Parties cannot be equated with either side in the Federalist/Anti-Federalist dispute because Democrats and Republicans are not concerned with the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. The fact remains that the Democratic-Republican two-party state and duopoly system of government is conditional upon contemptuous disregard for the Constitution and the active erasure of the protections codified in the Bill of Rights. If anything, the Democratic and Republican Parties today could be more appropriately compared with the Whigs and Tories in the 18th century Parliament of Great Britain: increasingly distant, increasingly irrelevant, increasingly bankrupt, increasingly arrogant.

Manly admits that he is attracted to the Conservative Party and the Constitution Party, but rejects them on the basis of the assessment that "neither has a chance in hell of gaining national traction." The fact remains, however, that having "national traction" is not a necessary condition for elected office at the local, city, county, district or state level, which is to say, for almost all elections. Why would one view all politics through the prism of national, presidential politics? It is likely no coincidence that Manly subscribes to Hobbes' deterministic view of human nature and history, as he stated in his initial post. The Hobbesean view of human nature and history led Hobbes himself to advocate authoritarian monarchism, of course. How different is that really from the cult of the executive fostered by Democratic-Republican Party government? Manly justifies support for the two-party system, as we shall see, on the basis of what I've previously alluded to as duopolist mystical realism. He writes:

unlike D. Eris, I know and understand both history and human nature. In any constitutional representative republic, partisan politics will always emerge insofar as two schools of thought will always exist regarding the degree to which the government of that republic governs. One school will argue for a stronger and larger central government while the other will argue for a weaker and smaller central government. It has been that way in our own nation since before the Constitution was ratified and, much like human nature, is a state of political nature that will never change.

Yes, the Democratic-Republican two-party system is eternal! The position refutes itself: on this view, political history is seen as a-historical. He continues:

The difference between us is that I’m a realist who is willing to work with the tools and materials at hand in an effort to get as close to that goal as I can. I accept whatever good I find whenever I find it and refuse to make that good the enemy of the perfect. As it happens, the best shot we have at making an effort to return to the type of government that more closely resembles what the Founders envisioned lies with the Republican Party - more specifically, a reformed and Reaganized Republican Party.

The partisan of the Republican Party (or the Democrat, as the case may be) is a realist! Regular readers of Poli-Tea might recall that I have confronted duopolist mystical realism before, with Hume. From a post last December:

it is a mystical dogma of duopolist ideology that the two-party system is a quasi-eternal condition of politics as such. Among partisans of the reigning duopoly form, this mystical dogma goes by the name of realism. Its primary function is to transform discontent with the dictatorship of the Democratic-Republican Party into support for one of its factions via the illusion of opposition to the other.

Ironically, Manly calls me a dreamer. He wites:

D. Eris, on the other hand, is a dreamer. He makes the good the enemy of the perfect because he refuses to settle for anything less than a trouble-free glide path back to the year 1789. In spite of the ideological chasm that now separates the Democrat and Republican parties he insists on conflating them. He offers no concrete strategies or detailed plans for achieving his constitutional desideratum - only criticism of those involved in the fight and a desperate wish for a return to the “good old days.”

Obviously, I disagree. I rarely engage in nostalgic longing for a non-existent past. This is a duopolist pastime, as exemplified by self-described FDR Democrats and Reagan Republicans, among others. And, clearly, Manly has never read the strategy pages here at Poli-Tea. Continuing in reverse order: the "ideological chasm" separating the Democratic and Republican Parties is a reflection of the ideological division of labor between the Democratic and Republican Parties in the reproduction of Democratic-Republican Party government and the relations of power that sustain the ruling political class: the Democratic Party dupes liberals while the Republican Party dupes conservatives. In this way, all those who vote Democrat or Republican make the lesser evil the enemy of the greater good. Given the conscious pursuit of evil required by the politics of the two-party state, the fact remains, we may well have to conclude that the Democratic-Republican two-party system is demonic.

On the Antiquation of Democratic-Republican Party Politics: Corporations for Congress

In a commentary for the San Francisco Chronicle, Abe Silvers and Ian Mitroff consider the assumptions and presumptions underlying Democratic-Republican Party politics and conclude that, "The need to move beyond these two worldviews has never been greater." They write:

Because assumptions are the basic elements of worldviews, it behooves us to examine them and to see how they shape important issues. Furthermore, because each party takes its assumptions for granted, they are rarely examined systematically, let alone side by side . . .

we are not restricted to these two worldviews. This is in fact one of the major reasons independents have become a powerful force. They are not willing to subscribe fully to either view. (We exclude Tea Partiers because their worldview is even more extreme than that of Republicans and hence admits of no compromise.) The need to move beyond these two worldviews has never been greater. For this reason, we believe that a national conversation (not merely summits) to formulate new perspectives is a priority of the highest order. In the best of all worlds, it could lead both parties to adopt new policy positions. If it doesn't, the case for a new third party, or parties, will be strengthened immeasurably.

In Maryland, Murray Hill Inc. is pushing this conversation forward. The corporation has decided to run for congress itself, rather than simply sponsor a Democratic or Republican candidate to represent its interests. Via Drudge Retort:

Murray Hill might be the perfect candidate for this political moment: young, bold, media-savvy, a Washington outsider eager to reshape the way things are done in the nation's capital. And if these are cynical times, well, then, it's safe to say Murray Hill is by far the most cynical.

That's because this little upstart is, in fact, a start-up. Murray Hill is actually Murray Hill Inc., a small, five-year-old Silver Spring public relations company that is seeking office to prove a point (and perhaps get a little attention) . . .

"Until now, corporate interests had to rely on campaign contributions and influence-peddling to achieve their goals in Washington," the candidate, who was unavailable for an interview, said in a statement. "But thanks to an enlightened Supreme Court, now we can eliminate the middle-man and run for office ourselves."

William Klein, a "hired gun" who has been enlisted as Murray Hill's campaign manager, said the firm appears to be the first "corporate person" to run for office and is promising a spirited campaign that "puts people second, or even third."

Murray Hill Inc. has already released their first campaign advertisement, which is well worth a view:

On Political Independence and the Dictatorship of the Democratic-Republican Two-Party State

One of the most curious paradoxes in American politics is the disconnect between public dissatisfaction with the congress as a whole and the public's dissatisfaction with their congressional representatives in particular. Consider the findings from a recent poll commissioned by CNN:

The CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll, released Tuesday, indicates that only 34 percent feel that current federal lawmakers deserve re-election, with 63 percent saying no. According to the survey, 51 percent feel their own member of Congress should be re-elected -- also an all-time low in CNN polling -- while 44 percent say their representative doesn't deserve to be returned to office in November.

So, to recap: 63% say federal lawmakers should not be re-elected, but 51% say their own representative should be re-elected. What this disparity represents is the unwillingness or inability of the American voter, in the aggregate, to admit responsibility for the reproduction of the problem that is the Democratic-Republican two-party state and duopoly system of government: it is always someone else's representative who is the representative of the problem. But the reality is exactly the opposite. If you are dissatisfied with the federal legislature, and you continue to vote for Republicans or Democrats, you are the problem.

The political apparatus of the Republican and Democratic Parties, bolstered by the ideology of the two-party state, is dedicated to making you complicit in the reproduction of the problem that is the dictatorship of the Democratic-Republican two-party state. There is no lack of examples in this regard. The Progressive Professor, for instance, argues that third party and independent activism is futile:

This concept going around that an “Independent” or third party can somehow win over enough support and revolutionize the party system we have had since 1854, when the Republican party was created, is a fallacy, as our political system has never allowed for such a concept, certainly not for the White House, and only very rarely for a seat in Congress or a Governorship.

Apparently, it is progressive to profess reactionary support for the two-party state on the basis of the assertion that the two-party state "will not allow" even the "concept" of third party or independent opposition to the Democratic-Republican duopoly system of government. However, the Professor immediately goes on to admit that there are currently two independents in the US Senate and that three independent or third party governors have been elected in just the last twenty years. So it is impossible to elect third party and independent candidates for office, but it is not impossible to elect third party and independent candidates for office. The professor falls prey to one of the most common mystifications of duopoly ideology.

Ironically, in calling upon independents to declare their political co-dependency with the Democratic and Republican Parties, the so-called Progressive Professor's position is virtually indistinguishable from that of Republican duopolist ideologue Sarah Palin. CBS reports the former Vice Presidential candidate's remarks on the independence of the tea party movement:

"Now the smart thing will be for independents who are such a part of this Tea Party movement to, I guess, kind of start picking a party," Palin said. "Which party reflects how that smaller, smarter government steps to be taken? Which party will best fit you? And then because the Tea Party movement is not a party, and we have a two-party system, they’re going to have to pick a party and run one or the other: ‘R’ or ‘D’."

Perhaps the only people who are more deluded than conservatives who believe the Republican Party stands for small government and the principle of freedom are progressives who believe the Democratic Party stands for civil rights and the principle of justice. In their common demand that independents declare their dependency on the Democratic or Republican Party, the "progressive" professor and the "conservative" commentator demonstrate that the ideology undergirding the Democratic-Republican two-party state is neither progressive nor conservative, but rather reactionary and dictatorial.