Democratic-Republican Politics and Homegrown Suicide Terrorism: Cause and Effect?

The immediate politicization of Joe Stack's final act by partisans of the Democratic and Republican Parties simultaneously demonstrates both its success as an act of political terrorism and the degeneracy of Democratic-Republican politics. Examples are not hard to come by. At No More Mister Nice Blog, Steve M. writes:

So how do you think the more shameless howler monkeys of the right blogosphere and punditocracy are going to react? They're going to accuse Stack of "class warfare." They're going to say he hated God. In other words, they're going to call him "Liberal Terrorist Joseph Stack" -- probably before the day is out, and for weeks to come . . . And so it begins:

Andrew Wilcow of the Sirius XM Conservative Talk Radio Show - The Wilcow Majority, was able to pull down a copy of Joseph Stack’s "manifesto," before the FBI pulled it off the web. It proves Joseph Stack was anti-Bush, anti-founding fathers, anti-constitution, pro-Obama and pro-communist. The left wing will get their ass handed to them on a platter when they suggest that he was an anti-establishment "tea bagger." He was in fact a left wing radical domestic terrorist.

On the other side of the duopoly divide, Michelle Malkin writes:

within minutes of the story breaking, a furious, left-wing blogger at the popular Daily Kos website – where countless Democrat leaders have guest-posted – fumed: “Teabagger terrorist attack on IRS building.” . . . At the eponymous mega-website of Arianna Huffington, a 2,000-plus comment thread was filled with allusions to “teabaggers”: "I would bet he has a membership card to teabag nation and the Glenn Beck fan club!" . . . "I hope teabaggers are proud!!" . . . "Great opening day for CPAC [the Conservative Political Action Conference] isn’t it??" . . . "He was a Tea Party Terrorist."

The obvious glee among Democrats and Republicans as they each identify Stack's motivations with the ideological impulses of the other is matched only by the clear enjoyment they extract from the act of denouncing the other for doing so. When confronted with the absurdity of ideological Rorschach phenomena such as this, sometimes the most appropriate response is simply to consider the two lines of attack together and take them to their logical conclusion. To wit: suicide terrorism is the result of Democratic-Republican Party politics. Stack implies as much in the opening paragraphs of his suicide letter:

While very few working people would say they haven’t had their fair share of taxes (as can I), in my lifetime I can say with a great degree of certainty that there has never been a politician cast a vote on any matter with the likes of me or my interests in mind. Nor, for that matter, are they the least bit interested in me or anything I have to say.

There are likely a great many Americans who would basically agree with this statement. Indeed, consider the results of a Rasmussen poll released today:

Seventy-three percent (73%) of U.S. voters agree . . . that “Washington right now is broken.” . . . 75% of all voters now say they are angry at the government’s current policies, up four points from late November and up nine points since September. Sixty percent (60%) think neither Republican political leaders nor Democratic political leaders have a good understanding of what is needed today . . . Scott Rasmussen observes that the American people are “united in the belief that our political system is broken, that politicians are corrupt, and that neither major political party has the answers.” He adds that “the gap between Americans who want to govern themselves and the politicians who want to rule over them may be as big today as the gap between the colonies and England during the 18th century.”

The longer the Democratic-Republican political class is allowed to wage its undeclared war of attrition against the people of the United States in the interests of maintaining and expanding the power of the global warfare and corporate welfare state, the more likely we are to see a rise in acts of violence directed at the symbols of state power.

Connecticut Independents Organize Against Democratic-Republican Ruling Coalition

Last summer, in a post on grassroots independent and third party activism in Connecticut, I wrote:

It should come as no surprise that one of the two Independents in the US senate represents the state of Connecticut. The majority of voters in the state are not affiliated with any political party whatsoever. And their numbers are growing. In 1989, Independents accounted for 33% of registered voters in the state. In 2004, 44% of registered voters in the state were not affiliated with any party . . . Late last year, the Stamford Plus reported that there were twenty-four active parties in Connecticut. This year has witnessed the foundation of at least two more. The Milford, Connecticut Independent Party was launched in April, and now residents in the town of Chester have launched the Common Ground Party.

The New Haven Register reports that the Milford Independent Party is currently in the process of formalizing its organizational structure to put themselves in a position to defeat the ruling Democratic-Republican establishment coalition:

The Milford Independent Party is planning to create a more formal organizational structure, which leaders hope will put them on an equal playing field with Republicans and Democrats. At a meeting Monday, the party will form a town committee, adopt bylaws, elect officers and attempt to recruit a full slate of candidates for state and local elections . . .

Stephen Borer, an organizer who ran for the Board of Aldermen from the 1st District in November, said it’s time to offer another alternative. “People are tired of the two-party system not working for them,” he said . . . Borer added that the party will seek to nominate a full slate of candidates for state and local elections. The Milford group will become affiliated with the state Independent Party.

Off the Cliff: How much longer will you play follow the leader with the Democratic-Republican Party?

Though Aristotle could indicate the truth in matters such as ethics only roughly and in gross outline, the Judeo-Christian tradition allows us to do so with great precision. In response to my previous post in favor of political independence from – and against opportunistic infiltration of – the Democratic-Republican Party, Mitchell Langbert writes:

David Hume said that skepticism did not prevent him from making merry with his friends. For truly believing radical skepticism otherwise would paralyze him. Hume's skepticism denies the possibility of science. We all know that science works. Nor would Hume say that it couldn't work, rather that it is based on non-rational assumptions. As Aristotle said about ethics . . .

To argue that radical skepticism regarding the present in the face of historical precedent denies the possibility of science is definitely an uncharitable reading of Hume. One could argue, on the contrary, that the proposition rather implies the necessity of experimentation. In the present context, the results under consideration are clear. The ongoing experiment in representative government that is the Democratic-Republican global warfare and corporate welfare states demonstrates that Democratic-Republican Party government is an abject failure: the centralization and monopolization of political power by the Democratic and Republican Parties itself represents a threat to constitutional republican government. And it is not possible to restore constitutional government by means of the Democratic and Republican Parties because the very form of Democratic-Republican politics today functions to undermine constitutional government. This is but one reason why political independence from and active political opposition to the Democratic-Republican two-party state and duopoly system of government should be preferred to opportunistic infiltration of the Democratic and Republican Parties. The problem represented by the Democratic-Republican two-party state and duopoly system of government cannot be solved within the confines of the Democratic-Republican two-party state and duopoly system of government. Langbert insists that any third force in American politics that could challenge the two party system must have a national leader:

To focus a movement of millions of people requires a focal point that is easily grasped. It requires a symbol. Few Americans know who their state assemblyman is, but most know who the president is because the president is an easily understood human symbol. We are all limited beings. A leader identifies the movement or organization. He or she provides a personality.

Mr. Langbert perfectly describes how the Democratic-Republican duopoly system of government has inverted the relationship between the people of the United States and the government of the United States: the function and order of political representation has been short circuited and replaced with a set of imaginary and symbolic identifications. People do not even know the name of their most direct representative, but they're on a first name basis with the president. Of course, the more people are alienated from government in this way, the more likely we are to see apathy and indifference – and irrational violence, one might add – as the result. The Democratic and Republican Parties have an active interest in maintaining such apathy and indifference; arguably, it is a condition of their continued existence. Ironically, however, for this precise reason it is not necessary to galvanize "a movement of millions of people" to defeat the Democratic-Republican political charade. Many, if not most, elections are decided in the end by thousands or hundreds, or even, pathetically, by only dozens of individuals. In the recent special election in Missouri's 62nd district, under 1500 out of 30,000 eligible voters cast a ballot. Langbert concludes:

So where will the Tea Party find its leader? Necessarily in the rank-and-file of the Tea Party itself.

Here we see yet another argument against infiltration. As the establishmentarian machine eats up the movement, it is likely to result in the production of "leaders" and "personalities" not out of the dynamics of the rank and file, but rather by the calculus of the party apparatus in conjunction with the corporate media and in the service of the ruling political status quo. There is no lack of leadership in the United States. There are right now literally hundreds, if not thousands of independent and third party candidates for office at all levels of government. We don't need more leaders, we need to stop playing follow the leader with the Republican and Democratic Parties. They are leading us off the cliff.

On Political Independence: Against Infiltrationism, Charismatic Authoritarianism and Historical Determinism

Mitchell Langbert has responded to my post on "tea partisanship and the necessity of resisting the temptation of infiltration" by arguing that "tea parties should work within the GOP." Mr. Langbert puts forward two interrelated arguments in favor of infiltration and against political independence: 1) there is no national leader to galvanize a third party movement, and 2) historically, Americans have demonstrated a commitment to the two-party system. He writes:

It is unlikely that the Tea Party will ultimately constitute a major party. The reason is its inability to find a national leader . . . There are several reasons why a third party will not work. First, Americans have been committed to a two party system almost since the first Congress . . . If you look at the history of the parties they were all started by charismatic or special leaders . . . Second, there is a long history of third parties playing a prodding role in American history . . . [but] the major parties have been good at integrating insurgent interests. In contrast, insurgents have been generally poor at building independent parties . . . Infiltration of the GOP is possible . . . That is a more fertile strategy for the Tea Party than to start a third party.

Langbert thus advises accommodation with the Democratic-Republican two-party state and the duopoly system of government on the basis of charismatic authoritarianism and historical determinism. Each of these arguments is easily refuted and I have dealt with each at some length before. In the present historical juncture, the central contradiction inherent to charismatic authoritarianism is not difficult to discern. From a post on the leader principle and the messianic impulse in Democratic-Republican politics, last November:

for those who have not yet fully liberated themselves from the straitjacket of duopoly ideology, [freedom from the Democratic-Republican Party] appears possible only on the basis of a mass movement subsumed under the leader principle. The paradox here is readily apparent: the devolution of power is conceived as contingent upon its gross consolidation.

The historical argument, on the other hand, is negated by the very existence of a third party and independent political tradition in the United States; and, though it was revived by doctrinaire Marxists over the course of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the sort of historical determinism it presupposes was refuted by David Hume in his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding from 1748, where the Scottish philosopher wrote:

That the sun will not rise to-morrow is no less intelligible a proposition, and implies no more contradiction than the affirmation that it will rise.

Finally, Langbert simply does not account for the fatal flaw inherent to all infiltrationist strategy, namely, its capitulation to the ruling political establishment. Rather than confront the greatest political problem facing the people of the United States, infiltrationism reproduces the greatest political problem facing the people of the United States: the dictatorship of the Democratic-Republican Party and the duopoly system of government. The infiltrationist prefers political co-dependency to political independence.

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

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

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

From Bayh's interview with Charlie Rose:

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

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

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

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.

Utah Group Declares Independence, Begins Independent Petition Drive

In Utah, a group called The People's Right has begun an organizing campaign geared specifically toward the election of independent candidates for office. The Salt Lake Tribune reports on the launch of the effort on President's Day:

One grassroots group took advantage of Presidents Day as the opportune time to launch its own brand of revolution. "In honor of the first president, George Washington, it is the right and duty of the people to declare independence from partisan politics," said Dale Ure of The Peoples Right. Citing a section of state law that allows an organization of voters to qualify independent candidates outside the established party system, The Peoples Right announced the Utah Independent Project, with its chief aim to run a no-strings-attached candidate for governor and other high-profile offices. "We are not looking for the traditional politician," said Alton resident Sharla Christie, a regional coordinator for The Peoples Right. With that in mind, the group said that self-nominations will be rejected at its regional and statewide meetings to be held Feb. 27 at the Territorial State House in Fillmore. "We will have 70 to 100 meetings in the next two weeks," Christie said. "We don't run this -- the people do. We just give them the tools." The group's new Web site, www.utahlive.us is key to building momentum to meet the March 19 filing deadline for state and federal races, Christie said.

On the site's "About" page we read:

The Peoples Right is a group of Utah voters whose purpose is to promote, find and support independent candidates for public office who will take an oath not to accept bribes “corporate donations” or become corrupted with personal use of campaign funds.

As I wrote early last month in a profile of Utah's independent candidates for congress, it is anybody's game there.

Ross Levin on the Vicious Circle and Third Party Politics

As part of a Green Change campaign to raise awareness of issues relating to electoral reform, Ross Levin has penned a lengthy article on the necessity of thinking beyond the two-party system, that covers everything from the perception that there's no difference between the Republican and Democratic Parties to the power of incumbency, ballot access restrictions, gerrymandering and district rigging, the devolution of the system into a one-party state, and voting system reform. Some excerpts:

I’m not going to pull any punches here. I detest the two party system. I believe that it undermines representative government. It makes our government more responsive to corporations than to citizens. It decreases the chances of progress and it results in many good ideas being shut out of the national political debate.

The limits imposed on this nation by the two party system are slowly leading to its demise. Partisan gridlock in Washington, outright corruption, the absurd difficulty of kicking out incumbents, corporate control of Washington, and the infamous backwardness of many local governments (among many things) are all symptoms of this same disease. And I do not use that language lightly . . .

Basically what I’m saying here is that the two party system is not as much of a naturally occurring phenomenon as many people believe it is. There are many laws and practices in place that create a vicious cycle of third party failure. . . .

A few months ago I spoke to Terry Bouricius over the phone about the Progressive Party’s success in Vermont. Terry is rare, politically. He was actually a successful third party politician, elected to ten years on the Burlington City Council and five terms in the Vermont House of Representatives. He ran as an independent, and then later as a Progressive. Now, the Vermont Progressive Party is the most successful third party in the nation. Terry told me that one of the three most significant factors in that success was that when it started in Burlington, the city was filled to the brim with Democrats and no one else. Voters wanted choices, and they were sick of the comfortable Democrats not listening to their demands. So the Progressives stood up and successfully filled that gap. They now hold the mayoralty of Burlington, along with two city council seats there, five seats in the state House of Representatives, and one seat in the state Senate. Not to mention, although he’s not officially affiliated, US Senator Bernie Sanders is closely associated with them. They are a political force in Vermont.

The whole piece is definitely worth a read.

Tea Partisanship and the Strategic Necessity of Resisting the Temptation of Infiltration

In April of last year, following the tea party tax day protest, I argued that there were three distinct emerging camps within the tea party movement:

1) Republicans who argue that the current crop of GOP representatives need to be challenged in upcoming primaries; 2) independents who recognize that their interests are not served by either of the duopoly parties, but who have yet to break from the system as such, and could conceivably vote Republican, Democrat or even third party in future elections; 3) activists who have broken with the two party system, and advocate third party insurgent campaigns.

Almost a year later, we are now witnessing the institutional articulation of these differences as they are translated into actionable political strategy. Yesterday, I highlighted how tea party activists in South Carolina and Nevada were fighting to maintain their independence from the political apparatus of the Democratic-Republican two-party state, the former by resisting the state GOP's attempt to absorb the grassroots groups' umbrella organization, the latter by registering their organization as an official political party. Today, the LA Times reports on "tea party activists filtering into the GOP at the ground level," which is for the most part a profile of groups using the precinct strategy to infiltrate the Republican Party, the National Precinct Alliance, headed by Philip Glas in particular. The piece specifically highlights infiltrationist movements in South Carolina and Nevada:

In South Carolina, a coalition of tea party groups has made a formal agreement with the state GOP to urge its members to get engaged at the precinct level. In Nevada, a group of "constitutional conservatives" working under the tea party banner has already taken control of the Republican Party in the Las Vegas area, gaining enough strength to elect six of the seven members of the county executive committee.

In both of these states, then, we can see a clear tension between GOP infiltrationists and those advocating independent or third party strategy. Interestingly, and perhaps inadvertently, the article also reveals the fatal flaw at the heart of the infiltrationist strategy. If the tea party phenomenon is an anti-establishmentarian movement, its infiltrationist factions have already been defeated:

Many Republican Party leaders have welcomed the activity, particularly because they worried that the energy driving the tea party movement might create a third party that would split the conservative vote.

As thinkers have known since at least the time of Sun Tzu, the highest form of strategy is one that attacks and undermines the opponent's strategy. Infiltrationist strategy, however, plays right into the hands of the ruling political establishment: filling out the apparatus of the Democratic-Republican Party political machine is literally exactly what the ruling political establishment wants you to do!

Tea Party Groups Maintain Independence from the GOP

Tea party groups in South Carolina and Nevada are demonstrating their independence from the political apparatus of the Democratic-Republican duopoly system of government. The Politico reports on a failed attempt by the South Carolina GOP to hijack the state's grassroots tea party organizations:

The alliance between the South Carolina Republican Party and the state’s tea party organizations seems to have lasted less than a week, as grassroots groups chafed at the idea of being absorbed into the party apparatus . . . The partnership announced Monday by state GOP Chairwoman Karen Floyd and Harry Kibler of the Upstate Coalition of Conservative Organizations, an umbrella group of tea party organizations, was intended to create liaisons between the state party and the grass roots . . . But after getting calls from tea party groups across the country accusing the South Carolina organizations of selling out to the GOP, Kibler and the groups he represents are backing away from the state party . . . Kibler sent a press release Thursday blasting Floyd’s “misrepresentation of facts,” and announced he would be holding a news conference Friday to discuss the relationship. It seems that many who did not trust the GOP’s intentions from the very beginning are now convinced that the GOP’s intent continues to be to confuse, divide and hence conquer this Liberty Movement of which they appeared to be frightened not only in South Carolina, but also all over the nation,” he added.

Meanwhile, it appears that tea party groups in Nevada will attempt to register as an official third party and run their own candidate in opposition to Democrat Harry Reid:

Sun columnist Jon Ralston is reporting that the Tea Party has qualified as a third party in Nevada and will have a candidate in the Senate race to battle for the seat held by Majority Leader Harry Reid. The party has filed a Certificate of Existence but needs to get 1 percent of the electorate to vote for its candidate in November to permanently qualify, according to the report. Ralston reported that Jon Ashjian will be the Tea Party's U.S. Senate candidate on the November ballot. Ashjian still must declare his candidacy. There are six other third-party candidates going through the verification process to appear on the ballot as U.S. Senate candidates — one Reform Party hopeful and five as independents, Ralston reported.

The Green Party and Independent Progressive Political Strategy

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

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

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

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

The Democratic and Republican Parties Have Outlived their Usefulness for the People of the United States

In a commentary for the Demopolis Times, David Snow argues that the two-party system is "flat out broken" and urges his readers to vote for unaffiliated and independent candidates in future elections:

I am a registered voter, but I am not registered with any party. Political parties seem to have outlived any use they may have had and have certainly gone beyond any purpose in governmental actions (which is, these days, a contradiction in terms). Not only are the two major parties spending every waking moment butting heads, but voters who are registered with one party will often vote for the other party if their registered party isn’t doing well or isn’t popular during Election Day.

The two-party system is not just malfunctioning; it’s flat-out broken. Neither party is getting anything done, and the entire span of a Congressional term is being used to campaign for oneself and against the opposing party instead of working to achieve. It’s getting — or has gotten — ridiculous. Politicians have become all about the party and none about the purpose.

I think the best way to get government working again is to vote for someone who is not affiliated with any major party. Do some research prior to the state primaries this summer and find a candidate who has good ideas but is not beholden to promote partisan politics as the members of the major parties apparently are.

First Step Toward Real Political Reform: End the Democratic-Republican Monopoly on Elected Office

In an article calling for thoroughgoing political reform, Jonathan Turley argues in an op-ed for the LA Times that the Democratic-Republican duopoly system of government is the primary barrier to any substantive substantive improvement to our politics and its process:

Many of our current problems are either caused or magnified by the stranglehold the two parties have on our political system. Democrats and Republicans, despite their uniformly low popularity with voters, continue to exercise a virtual monopoly, and they have no intention of relinquishing control. The result is that “change” is often limited to one party handing power over to the other party. Like Henry Ford’s customers, who were promised any color car so long as it was black, voters are effectively allowed to pick any candidate they want, so long as he or she is a Democrat or Republican.

Both parties (and the media) reinforce this pathetic notion by continually emphasizing the blue state/red state divide. The fact is that the placement of members on the blue or red team is often arbitrary, with neither side showing consistent principles or values.

Turley then goes on to list a number of potential reforms, beginning with the easing of ballot access restrictions for third party and independent candidates for office:

Remove barriers to third parties. Independent and third-party candidates currently face an array of barriers, including registration rules and petition requirements, that should be removed. Moreover, we should require a federally funded electronic forum for qualified federal candidates to post their positions and material for voters. And in races for national office, all candidates on the ballot in the general election should submit to a minimum of three (for Congress) or five (for the presidency) debates that would be funded and made publicly available by the government. . . .

He also calls on the US electorate to: "end the practice of gerrymandering. . . . change the primary system . . . abolish the electoral college. . . . require a majority for presidents to be elected."

The Ensuring Liberty PAC: Dedicated to Ensuring the Tyranny of the Democratic-Republican Two-Party State

Numerous reports on the Tea Party Convention in Nashville, Tennessee noted that organizers were also developing a political action committee to facilitate the election of "tea party candidates" for political office. On February 5th, the New York Times reported:

Organizers of the convention announced on Friday that they were forming a political action committee to raise money and provide political consulting and campaign management for Tea Party-approved candidates. The PAC, an offshoot of a newly incorporated 501c4 called Ensuring Liberty, will seek to raise $10 million this year to spend in races in the 2010 Congressional elections.

New details have now emerged on the organization's mission and goals, which clearly demonstrate that it is nothing more than front group for the Democratic-Republican Party, dedicated to ensuring the reproduction of the two-party state and duopoly system of government. At Big Government, John Loudon describes the new organization's structure, aims and goals. It should probably come as little surprise that a group supposedly dedicated to "Ensuring Liberty" explicitly supports nothing more than the continued dictatorship of the Democratic-Republican Party:

Ensuring Liberty will target a limited number of key races in 2010 with a plan to target many more in the following cycles and fully restore America to her first principles. Activists in Congressional districts unlikely to change will be steered to support candidates where ELPAC is at work. ELPAC plans to work within the two party system rejecting as counter-productive, any effort to create a third political party.

In other words, Ensuring Liberty does not seek to "ensure liberty" but rather aims to ensure our continued political dependence on the Democratic and Republican Parties. This is made all the more ironic by Loudon's strategic contextualization of the organization's mission. He writes:

Many pundits debated the lessons from the the New York “23rd race” and the heralded defeat of Dede Scozzafava and subsequent loss of Doug Hoffman. A couple things were clear. The Club for Growth money that went to Hoffman was not enough to bring home a winner. It was equally obvious from the loss, that the national outpouring of grassroots support from Tea Party activists all over the Country was not enough . . . The cash and volunteer support were in effect the automation that the Hoffman campaign desperately needed. The “machine” however, lacked the fine tuning . . . Hoffman had plenty of money and people but too little campaign. Next time, the Tea Party supported candidates will have all three elements. Enter, the Ensuring Liberty PAC.

So, Loudon justifies the group by arguing that it supplies precisely that which was lacking in Doug Hoffman's third party campaign in New York's special election last fall, and thus implies that Hoffman would have won if only an organization like Ensuring Liberty had been there to support the campaign, but he then goes on to explain that Ensuring Liberty would actually have been of zero help to Doug Hoffman's effort because the organization refuses to support anyone who is not beholden to the Republican or Democratic Party's political apparatus. Not only is this self-contradictory, it flies in the face of the impulse that motivated tea party activists to begin organizing against the Democratic-Republican political bi-poligarchy in the first place. Louden concludes with the following lines:

ELPAC is a resource to ensure that the best candidates run the best campaigns they can this fall. With your help, this time, I know our side will win.

Given the fact that ELPAC states that it will only support candidates who are completely dependent on the Republican or Democratic Party, how could it possibly claim to support the "best candidates" for office? Like the so-called Independence Caucus, which is explicitly dedicated to ensuring our continued political co-dependency on the Democratic-Republican duopoly system of government, the Ensuring Liberty PAC is dedicated to ensuring the continued tyranny of the Democratic-Republican two-party state.

Ballot Access Law and Third Party Strategy: How the Ruling Democratic-Republican Ballot Access Regime Produces the Spoiler Effect

The highly restrictive ballot access regime that has been constructed in virtually every state of the union is one of the primary means by which the Democratic and Republican Parties maintain their duopoly system of government. But ballot access law not only functions as an immediate objective hurdle to third party and independent political campaigns, it also has secondary effects that condition Democratic-Republican politics and warp third party and independent strategy. Consider the following hypothetical scenario. A relatively new state-level third party political organization has the choice between funding a number of candidates for local and state offices, in races which they have a significant chance of winning, or the organization can run a smaller number of candidates for higher level state and federal offices, in races they are much less likely to win. However, in certain of the latter races, even if their candidate does not win but still surpasses a certain threshold of support (say 5%), the group retains state-wide ballot access and recognition as an official party in the next election cycle. In such a scenario, the ballot access regime designed to maintain Democratic-Republican hegemony also effectively provides incentives for third party organizations to "spoil" elections by waging political campaigns that can be considered a success if they garner the support of only 5% of voters. However, the fear of the spoiler effect often leads voters to spurn third party candidates in favor of the lesser evil among the major party candidates, and so the third party organization may not retain ballot access even as it funnels resources away from contests it has the best chance of winning.

This situation is not dissimilar to the one faced by the Green-Rainbow Party of Massachusetts. At IPR, Ross Levin excerpts an article by progressive activist and publisher of Open Media Boston Jason Pramas, who asks: "Are Grace Ross and Jill Stein jumping the political gun by running in the Mass. gubernatorial race?" In the gubernatorial race, Ross has declared her intention to challenge incumbent Democrat Deval Patrick in the Democratic primary, while Stein will oppose him in the general election under the banner of the Green-Rainbow Party. Pramas argues that even if Stein wins, she will be hamstrung by the fact that there are so few Green-Rainbow Party members in elected office across the state. Pramas writes:

My main fear is not that Patrick will lose and that a Republican will be elected governor. Pretty much the same pro-business policies are going to result either way - although it will be somewhat worse in some important policy areas if the Republicans win. My main fear is that Ross and Stein wouldn't ever be allowed to govern even if they won - which speaks to the long arduous job that will be necessary to uproot the existing political establishment. Although it's hard to ask people who have already devoted a lot of effort to the higher level political campaigns they've mustered in the last several years to do even more hard work at the grassroots level before going for various higher level electoral brass rings. Nevertheless, I think that's the way it has to be.

Pramas has already sought out Stein and Ross's response on this precise issue:

When I brought these points up to Ross and Stein, both candidates basically said that they felt their political groupings would benefit much more from a statewide campaign than from lower level campaigns. Because they can definitely get a lot of attention paid to their ideas even if they don't get a zillion votes. And they can win a lot of partisans who will work with them over the long haul in the years to come if they do a credible job as candidates. Both women have shown they can more than hold their own in public debate against traditional and non-traditional competitors. Plus it's fairly clear that both candidates do believe there's a hope that they could actually win. And I don't grudge them that. It is indeed possible that one of them could, depending on the circumstances. But that possibility is a slim one at best.

On the down side, they can also burn out a lot of people that might work in their campaigns who will not return to their circles after the experience. And they can also lose serious points with the general public that might just view them as a sideshow - and dismiss them long after they've built a more polished and experienced multifocal electoral apparatus.

In the present context, however, the point is that even if the Green candidate were firmly convinced she couldn't win the election, there is still a strategic incentive to remain in the race: namely, to surpass the minimum threshold to retain ballot access. The MA Green-Rainbow Party first achieved official political party status in 2000 because Ralph Nader received 6% of the vote in the state on the Green Party ticket in the presidential race. Thus, even though Nader did not win the election and even though his campaign was widely seen as having "spoiled" it in favor of the Republican candidate, the effort may still be understood as a success, from the perspective of the MA Greens, insofar as it achieved ballot access for the party at the state level. Do not Democrats and Republicans thus have an interest in reforming ballot access laws which incentivize third party organizations to run campaigns which Democrats and Republicans argue only function to spoil elections?