Via RSS
Via Twitter
On May 2, 2010 MoveOn.org launched its "most important campaign ever," an effort to "end the stranglehold that big corporations and lobbyists have on our government." MoveOn.org seeks nothing less than to "fix our democracy and put We the People back in charge." . . . . More than 40 percent of Americans now self-identify as independents . . . But for MoveOn.org, independents don't seem to exist. Their strategy has been (and remains) to mobilize the most left leaning elements of the Democratic Party base. . . .As Nancy Hanks writes at the Moderate Voice, "there is a growing anti-party movement in America that is independent not only of the two major parties, but independent of partisan politics and structures altogether" (also via Memeorandum). Indeed, this would seem to be virtually inevitable as more and more Americans begin to realize that the Democratic and Republican parties actively represent interests that are diametrically opposed to the interests of the people of the United States. Today, freedom and independence begins with freedom and independence from the tyranny of Democratic-Republican party politics, from the reproduction of the ruling two-party state and the deadlocks of the duopoly system of government.
If MoveOn.org is serious about revitalizing our democracy it can go beyond jeremiads against "big money" and "evil corporations," and join with us to support structural changes that bring our electoral system in line with where the American people are already at. This means giving up any kind of strategic bottom line of protecting the hegemony of the Democratic Party within progressive politics. . . .
The biggest impediment to the advancement of democracy in our country is the two major parties. By blocking efforts at structural change, they seek to perpetuate (and in some cases reinforce!) a system in which smaller and smaller numbers of people -- the most ideologically committed party activists -- determine who we can elect to office and how and whether legislation is considered from Washington to City Hall.
The Deadlock of Democratic-Republican Political Practice and the Necessity of an Independent Politics
One of the central deadlocks inherent to the politics of the Democratic-Republican two-party state results from a contradiction between the means and ends of political practice among the great majority of both progressive and conservative activists. Take two simple examples. Progressive opposition to "big business" is doomed to failure so long as the Democratic Party remains the vehicle for that opposition, as the Democratic Party, like the GOP, stands for nothing more than the reproduction and expansion of the global warfare and corporate welfare state. On the other side of the duopoly divide, conservative opposition to "big government" is similarly doomed to failure so long as the Republican Party remains the vehicle for that opposition, as the GOP, like the Democratic Party, stands for nothing more than the reproduction and expansion of the global warfare and corporate welfare state. In an article for the Huffington Post, independent political activist Jackie Salit challenges "MoveOn to Move On." Via Memeorandum:
The Zapatista Party Candidate for Governor of Ohio and the Necessity of Prison and Sentencing Reform
Sean Swain is probably the most extreme left-wing candidate for public office you've never heard of. And no, he's not a Democrat. In fact, he might have more in common with opponents of big government, insofar as he advocates the destruction of all government, that is. Swain is running for governor of Ohio from his prison cell in Toledo as an anarchist write-in candidate under the banner of the Zapatista Party. This is not Swain's first campaign for governor either.
In 2006, the convicted murderer publicized his gubernatorial candidacy in a number of letters to local media. Over the course of the campaign season and the following months, the Cincinnati Enquirer's Politics Extra blog relayed at least three of the inmate's letters: one announced his campaign ("I have no major party backing me; I will be excluded from the televised debates; by statute, you will not find my name on the ballot, and I am relegated to a write-in campaign. I am operating on a $17 per month budget from my prison cell"); another reported his intent to obtain the endorsements of Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez; and with a third letter, sent in the summer following the election, Swain declared himself "governor-in-exile" and stated that he had not yet conceded the race to Democrat Ted Strickland ("I have not conceded the election. In fact, I was sworn in as governor in a ceremony here in Toledo on the same day Ted Strickland moved all of his crap into my office"). In 2009, Swain was interviewed by Eli Braun of Waging Nonviolence for an article at Street Vibes detailing the horrors of solitary confinement. From the article at Street Vibes:
Swain appears to have been maintaining a campaign site until at least a few weeks ago, when the page went down. But sections of it can still be accessed via Google's web cache. In the "Affidavit of Sean Swain" he explains the circumstances of his arrest and conviction for murder and aggravated murder in the early 1990's, for acts which he claims were in self-defense. On the site's main page, Swain outlines his political platform under the headline: "Treason We Can Believe In." Here are a few choice excerpts:
Given the many problems that plague the American prison and criminal justice system, it is unfortunate, though perhaps symptomatic, that an individual like Swain has been driven to the advocacy of madness rather than that of prison reform. As is widely known, but rarely addressed, "With more than 2.3 million people behind bars, the United States leads the world in both the number and percentage of residents it incarcerates, leaving far-more-populous China a distant second," as the Washington Post reported in 2008. A report from Human Rights Watch adds: "Even more troubling than the absolute number of persons in jail or prison is the extent to which those men and women are African-American. Although blacks account for only 12 percent of the U.S. population, 44 percent of all prisoners in the United States are black."
Due to the inflexibility of sentencing guidelines and the country's extremely high rates of incarceration for even the pettiest offenses, among other things, many American prisons are also dangerously overcrowded. It is not difficult to comprehend that crowded prisons make for insecure and violent prisons. Numerous studies have found that well over 100,000 incarcerated men, women and children have been the victims of rape at the hands of other inmates as well as corrections officers. Characteristically, under the influence of the prison industry lobby, including both public and private sector organizations, political leadership in the Democratic and Republican parties are more likely to respond to this crisis with calls for more prisons rather than reasonable reforms. If we allow for the breakdown of civilization behind bars, it should be no surprise that those behind bars will call for the end of civilization on this side of them.
This article is a cross-posting, originally written for Uncovered Politics, where it was featured in the Oddball of the Week section.
In 2006, the convicted murderer publicized his gubernatorial candidacy in a number of letters to local media. Over the course of the campaign season and the following months, the Cincinnati Enquirer's Politics Extra blog relayed at least three of the inmate's letters: one announced his campaign ("I have no major party backing me; I will be excluded from the televised debates; by statute, you will not find my name on the ballot, and I am relegated to a write-in campaign. I am operating on a $17 per month budget from my prison cell"); another reported his intent to obtain the endorsements of Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez; and with a third letter, sent in the summer following the election, Swain declared himself "governor-in-exile" and stated that he had not yet conceded the race to Democrat Ted Strickland ("I have not conceded the election. In fact, I was sworn in as governor in a ceremony here in Toledo on the same day Ted Strickland moved all of his crap into my office"). In 2009, Swain was interviewed by Eli Braun of Waging Nonviolence for an article at Street Vibes detailing the horrors of solitary confinement. From the article at Street Vibes:
Since 1991, Swain, now 49, has been sent to solitary confinement “seven or eight times,” including a 144-day stint from May to October 2003. Most recently, he violated rules by “encourage(ing) prisoners to partake in a 30-day work stoppage,” according to the official conduct report.This year, Swain's candidacy is listed alongside those of incumbent Democrat Ted Strickland, Republican John Kasich, Green Dennis Spisak and Libertarian Ken Matesz at D.C.'s Political Report, the Green Pages and Politics1.
Swain appears to have been maintaining a campaign site until at least a few weeks ago, when the page went down. But sections of it can still be accessed via Google's web cache. In the "Affidavit of Sean Swain" he explains the circumstances of his arrest and conviction for murder and aggravated murder in the early 1990's, for acts which he claims were in self-defense. On the site's main page, Swain outlines his political platform under the headline: "Treason We Can Believe In." Here are a few choice excerpts:
• "I’m not talking about rocking the boat—I’m talking about sinking the motherfucker."Among other things, Swain calls for the pardon and release of all prisoners, the recall of the national guard from "the Oil Wars," and abolishing all government and state agencies to create an "Autonomous Zone." He concludes: "THE BAD NEWS: It will be the end of civilization as we know it. THE GOOD NEWS: It was never worth a shit anyway."
• "Democracy isn’t shit, I know. You choose your own slavemaster. Not cool. But just imagine if you could turn your ballot into a bullet and blow the government’s brains out, once and for all."
• "I’m running for Governor of Ohio from prison in 2010 as a Zapatista Party candidate. I don’t want to be Ohio’s NEXT governor; I want to be Ohio’s LAST governor."
Given the many problems that plague the American prison and criminal justice system, it is unfortunate, though perhaps symptomatic, that an individual like Swain has been driven to the advocacy of madness rather than that of prison reform. As is widely known, but rarely addressed, "With more than 2.3 million people behind bars, the United States leads the world in both the number and percentage of residents it incarcerates, leaving far-more-populous China a distant second," as the Washington Post reported in 2008. A report from Human Rights Watch adds: "Even more troubling than the absolute number of persons in jail or prison is the extent to which those men and women are African-American. Although blacks account for only 12 percent of the U.S. population, 44 percent of all prisoners in the United States are black."
Due to the inflexibility of sentencing guidelines and the country's extremely high rates of incarceration for even the pettiest offenses, among other things, many American prisons are also dangerously overcrowded. It is not difficult to comprehend that crowded prisons make for insecure and violent prisons. Numerous studies have found that well over 100,000 incarcerated men, women and children have been the victims of rape at the hands of other inmates as well as corrections officers. Characteristically, under the influence of the prison industry lobby, including both public and private sector organizations, political leadership in the Democratic and Republican parties are more likely to respond to this crisis with calls for more prisons rather than reasonable reforms. If we allow for the breakdown of civilization behind bars, it should be no surprise that those behind bars will call for the end of civilization on this side of them.
This article is a cross-posting, originally written for Uncovered Politics, where it was featured in the Oddball of the Week section.
Fusion Voting and the Oregon Gubernatorial Election
Last year Oregon passed a new law legalizing fusion voting. It will be put to its first high profile test in this year's gubernatorial election. In an article for the Seattle Times, Nigel Duara reports:
Update: Incidentally, it turns out that over 70 Democrats and Republicans candidates for public office are effectively begging for the endorsement of the Independent Party of Oregon. From Oregon Live, via TPID:
However, it is highly unlikely that other third party groups would endorse a Democrat or Republican if they are running their own candidate for the office:This year, a law adopted by the Legislature in 2009 effectively gives the major-party candidates a chance to run under the banner of minor parties, as well. For voters, this means ballots in what's called "fusion voting" may look slightly different. The Democratic nominee, Kitzhaber, says he'll seek nomination as the Independent Party candidate and expects he may win endorsement from the union-backed Working Families Party. That means his name could appear on the ballot with designations of three parties. The Republican nominee, Dudley, refused to comment on his strategy about fusion voting.
In discussions of fusion voting, media sources often stress the fact that fusion allows third party groups to have more influence within the major parties, since a major party candidate could potentially earn tens of thousands of votes from a third party's endorsement. While this is undoubtedly true, fusion also allows for the more interesting possibility of cross endorsements between and among third parties themselves. Given the often fractious nature of third party politics, this possibility is slight, but, under fusion voting, it nonetheless remains a real possibility that third party and independent groups could form an electoral alliance backing a true opposition candidate for elected office.Three parties have conventions this month and expect to nominate candidates for governor — Pacific Green, Libertarian and Constitution. Other parties have conventions scheduled later or, like the Progressive Party, said they're still thinking about it.
Another potential candidate is Portland lawyer John DiLorenzo, who has talked about getting on the ballot as an independent but said last week he has not made up his mind.
Candidates not affiliated with a political party can get on the statewide ballot in two ways, according to the secretary of state's office: holding a convention of 1,000 voters or collecting more than 18,000 signatures.
Update: Incidentally, it turns out that over 70 Democrats and Republicans candidates for public office are effectively begging for the endorsement of the Independent Party of Oregon. From Oregon Live, via TPID:
The Independent Party of Oregon today announced the names of 77 candidates seeking the party's nominations to run for seats in the Legislature. Among them are 39 Democrats, 32 Republicans, 5 Independents and a Libertarian.
Andrew Napolitano: "We have a one-party system"
You are probably familiar with Judge Andrew Napolitano from his appearances on Fox News, where he can be relied upon to provide a more or less libertarian view on the issues of the day, thus balancing, to some extent, the corporate- and state-aligned propaganda fed to us by this particular cable "news" channel. In a recent interview with The Daily Bell out of Switzerland, Napolitano argued that the two-party system has effectively devolved into a one-party state:
We have migrated from a two-party system into a one-party system, the big-government party. There's a democratic wing that likes taxes and wealth transfers and assaults on commercial liberties and there's a republican wing that likes war and deficits and assaults on civil liberties. Neither of them is interested in true freedom. The separation of civil liberties from commercial liberties is what as enabled this to happen.
On the Profession of Duopolist Delusion: Voter Turnout and the Question of Majoritarianism
In a post entitled "third party fantasies" at Outside the Beltway, Steven Taylor argues in favor of the ruling two-party state on the basis of what can only be called duopolist delusion. Taylor asserts that the main barrier to success for any third party is "math":
However, this is not the most deceptive aspect of Taylor's argument. The professor's main criticism of competitive multi-party electoral contests is that "the majority of the voters [have] a preference other than the winner." Indeed, in this election, 3 out of 5 voters did not cast a ballot for the winner. But let's take a closer look at the "math" involved. Though still embarrassingly low, voter turnout was actually quite high in this race, at least in terms of US standards. The Hawaii Board of Elections reported 54% voter turnout in the special election for Congressional District 1. Republican Djou received 67,610 votes, Democrat Hanabusa received 52,802, and Democrat Ed Case received 47,391; there was a total of 171,417 votes cast out of 317,337 registered voters.
Compare these results with those from the previous special election in the state, which took place in 2003 in Congressional District 2. This race boiled down to a two-person contest with the remaining 25% of votes dispersed in support of various alternatives. Democrat Ed Case won with 43.2% of the vote, soundly defeating his nearest rival, Democrat Matt Matsunaga, who received 30.2% of the vote, according to the Hawaii Board of Elections.
Thus Ed Case won the 2003 special election with more support (43.2%) than Republican Djou received in this year's special election (39.4%), when the latter beat both Case and Hannabusa. According to Taylor's logic above, the former race ended with a superior outcome, since the winner obtained a greater percentage of support, inching closer to an outright majority. However, almost 4 out of 5 registered voters did not cast a ballot in the 2003 election! Only 76,328 voters out of 348,342 participated in the election for a grand total of 21.9% voter turnout.
To summarize: in the competitive three-way race in 2010, the winner won with the support of 40% of 54% of registered voters; in the two-person one-party race in 2003, the winner won with the support of 43% of 20% of registered voters. Consider this comparison a different way. In the competitive three-person race, Charles Djou received 67,610 votes and won with 40% support. In the two-person one-party race, only 76,328 people cast a ballot at all! Democrat Ed Case won the election with the support of less than 10% of registered voters, while Republican Charles Djou won his election with the support of over 20% of registered voters.
It is therefore self-contradictory, if not outright deceptive, to argue against multi-party races on the basis of majoritarian principles as Professor Taylor does in the post referenced above. As a simple example, assume a district with 100 registered voters. One year there is a two-candidate contest. 11 voters cast a ballot for one of them and this candidate wins with 55% of the vote, because only 20 voters cast ballots. The next cycle, there is a three candidate contest, and 60 voters cast ballots. The winner is victorious with only 36% support, but receives 22 votes. According to Taylor's confused logic, the candidate who received 22 votes has less support than the candidate who received 11. A fine example of duopolist delusion.
While there is little doubt that there are cost (and legal) barriers to the creation of a third party, they are not the major barriers to a third (or fourth, etc.) party in the United States. The main barrier is math.An associate professor of political science, Taylor relies on Duverger's Law to make his case, reasoning that a competitive third party is a virtual impossibility because of the "incentive structure" within any first-past-the-post electoral system. He uses as his example the results of the recent special election in Hawaii, which Republican Charles Djou won with just under 40% of the vote, defeating Democrats Colleen Hanabusa and Ed Case, who were supported by 31% and 28% of voters, respectively. Taylor writes:
the introduction of three competitive candidates meant that, by definition, the winner would likely win with less than majority support. It is also a situation in which over the long haul the clear strategic choice for the Hanabusa “party” and the Case “party” would be to work together next time so as to capture the ~58% that they appear to represent.While Taylor assumes for the purposes of his argument that each of these candidates represents a different "party," he fails to maintain the assumption in his analysis, thus drawing the faulty conclusion regarding the "clear strategic choice" for the Hanabusa and Case "parties." The only reason this might appear to be a "clear strategic choice" is because Hanabusa and Case are both Democrats, and do not actually represent different parties, which, one assumes, would maintain different political platforms, governing philosophies etc. Taylor's analysis in favor of the two-party system results from a base duopolist logic, not the continued assumption of a competitive multi-party race, as he pretends.
However, this is not the most deceptive aspect of Taylor's argument. The professor's main criticism of competitive multi-party electoral contests is that "the majority of the voters [have] a preference other than the winner." Indeed, in this election, 3 out of 5 voters did not cast a ballot for the winner. But let's take a closer look at the "math" involved. Though still embarrassingly low, voter turnout was actually quite high in this race, at least in terms of US standards. The Hawaii Board of Elections reported 54% voter turnout in the special election for Congressional District 1. Republican Djou received 67,610 votes, Democrat Hanabusa received 52,802, and Democrat Ed Case received 47,391; there was a total of 171,417 votes cast out of 317,337 registered voters.
Compare these results with those from the previous special election in the state, which took place in 2003 in Congressional District 2. This race boiled down to a two-person contest with the remaining 25% of votes dispersed in support of various alternatives. Democrat Ed Case won with 43.2% of the vote, soundly defeating his nearest rival, Democrat Matt Matsunaga, who received 30.2% of the vote, according to the Hawaii Board of Elections.
Thus Ed Case won the 2003 special election with more support (43.2%) than Republican Djou received in this year's special election (39.4%), when the latter beat both Case and Hannabusa. According to Taylor's logic above, the former race ended with a superior outcome, since the winner obtained a greater percentage of support, inching closer to an outright majority. However, almost 4 out of 5 registered voters did not cast a ballot in the 2003 election! Only 76,328 voters out of 348,342 participated in the election for a grand total of 21.9% voter turnout.
To summarize: in the competitive three-way race in 2010, the winner won with the support of 40% of 54% of registered voters; in the two-person one-party race in 2003, the winner won with the support of 43% of 20% of registered voters. Consider this comparison a different way. In the competitive three-person race, Charles Djou received 67,610 votes and won with 40% support. In the two-person one-party race, only 76,328 people cast a ballot at all! Democrat Ed Case won the election with the support of less than 10% of registered voters, while Republican Charles Djou won his election with the support of over 20% of registered voters.
It is therefore self-contradictory, if not outright deceptive, to argue against multi-party races on the basis of majoritarian principles as Professor Taylor does in the post referenced above. As a simple example, assume a district with 100 registered voters. One year there is a two-candidate contest. 11 voters cast a ballot for one of them and this candidate wins with 55% of the vote, because only 20 voters cast ballots. The next cycle, there is a three candidate contest, and 60 voters cast ballots. The winner is victorious with only 36% support, but receives 22 votes. According to Taylor's confused logic, the candidate who received 22 votes has less support than the candidate who received 11. A fine example of duopolist delusion.
CAIVN, the Tea Party Movement and a Contrarian View of the Prospects for Third Party and Independent Gains in 2010
Since adding my submission to the California Independent Voter Network's call for video declarations of independence, I have begun to write for their main site. My first piece went online earlier this week, and provided an overview of the tea party movement and the prospects for independent and third party candidates for office. Many of the more general points will be familiar to regular readers of Poli-Tea, but, in preparation, I contacted Darcy Richardson to see if he would be interested in supplying a comment for quotation. His considerable, critical response touched on everything from the Florida Tea Party to the more prominent independent candidates for governor and US Senate, from the notable failures of the national third parties to the outlook for promising individual third party candidates, among other things, and thus went well beyond what could have been reasonably worked into the article – so I asked him if I could publish it in full at TPID and he obliged. If you're interested, check out the piece at CAIVN and then head over to TPID to read Darcy's "contrarian view."
Guns Don't Kill People, Paramilitary Police Units Kill People
You've probably heard about Aiyana Stanley-Jones. She is the seven year old girl who was shot and killed during a SWAT team raid of her family home, which did not contain the suspect sought by police. In news reports of the incident, the reader cannot help but be struck by the awkward circumlocutions and passive constructions employed to avoid ascribing any agency or responsibility whatsoever to the paramilitary police officer who put a bullet through her head. Consider just a handful of examples:
• Detroit Free Press: "Detroit police say an officer’s gun accidentally went off"Most Americans have probably heard some version of the old NRA slogan: "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Here we have a perfect example in which all responsibility and culpability for this killing are ascribed to the gun or bullet, which mysteriously "went off" or "unintentionally discharged." This is the language with which our corporate media avoid confronting the disturbing realities of the national security police state that has been constructed in this country over the last thirty years. William Grigg writes at Lew Rockwell:
• Associated Press: "Detroit police, searching for a homicide suspect, burst in and an officer's gun went off"
• Winston-Salem Journal: "A sleeping 7-year-old girl was killed when an officer's gun went off"
• CBS: "a police officer's bullet killed the child . . . when the gun went off"
• Huffington Post: "an officer's gun discharged, killing the girl"
• NPR: "An officer's gun went off, police say it was accidental"
• WSJ: "according to police, an officer's gun discharged unintentionally and the bullet struck Aiyana Jones in the head as the child slept on a couch."
[Emphases added.]
In the antiseptic and completely dishonest language favored by the state-aligned media, the officer's gun "went off." This means, apparently, that the inanimate object simply discharged sua sponte, independent of intentional or negligent action on the part of its owner . . . Firearms in the hands of the hoi polloi, we are told, have a way of spontaneously firing and killing innocent children.One can imagine other ways of describing the incident, for instance: a paramilitary police unit serving a no-knock warrant ambushed a home with stun grenades and gunfire, shooting dead a seven year old girl as she slept on the living room couch. But perhaps that is an unfair characterization of the situation. Radly Balko writes of so-called "militarized police" raids:
A couple of years ago after I'd given a speech on this issue, a retired military officer and former instructor at West Point specifically asked me to stop using the term "militarization," because he thought comparing SWAT teams to the military reflected poorly on the military.A new article at Alternet argues that "paramilitary policing is out of control." This is the inevitable result of the Democratic-Republican party government's policy consensus in favor of the national security police state. Consider just one statistic:
In 1980, 2,884 SWAT deployments were recorded nationwide; the number today is estimated by experts at 50,000 annually or more.There's probably one going on right now. Actually, there are probably five or six going on right now. And how many firearms are "just going off"?
Orwell in New York: Predictable Partisanship and Non-Partisan Elections
As you may or may not know, the mayor of NYC, Michael Bloomberg, has assembled a commission to review and suggest reforms to the city's charter. Among the most prominent issues being considered by the commission is that of nonpartisan elections. New York is one of the few cities in the country which still has partisan elections. According to statistics at the National League of Cities, of the nation's ten largest urban centers, only three still retain partisan elections: New York, Chicago and Philadelphia. A proponent of non-partisan elections, Nancy Hanks has been following the commission very closely over the past few weeks at the Hankster, be sure to check in there for updates on that front.
In early May, an article in the New York Times laid out some background issues on the measure and the coalitions that were likely to take shape both for and against the idea. Ironically, the antagonism has coalesced along a predictably familiar partisan fault line: leading Democrats and the Working Families Party are strongly against the reform, while Republicans and the Independence Party have come out in support of it. From the NYT:
The Democrats' defense of "democracy" here demonstrates the willingness of the ruling political class to engage in outright falsification of reality to maintain the system that ensures their hold on power.
In early May, an article in the New York Times laid out some background issues on the measure and the coalitions that were likely to take shape both for and against the idea. Ironically, the antagonism has coalesced along a predictably familiar partisan fault line: leading Democrats and the Working Families Party are strongly against the reform, while Republicans and the Independence Party have come out in support of it. From the NYT:
Several Republican leaders have also expressed openness to the idea . . . Many of the city’s Democratic leaders are steadfastly opposed to nonpartisan elections.Yesterday, Democratic leaders held a press conference to voice their opposition to nonpartisan elections in NYC. Revealingly, however, rather than defend partisan elections, speakers instead emphasized the virtues of the two-party system, which is not surprising, but all the more absurd, given that New York City has a one-party state. The New York City Council has 51 members: 46 Democrats and 5 Republicans. From the New York Observer's report on the press conference:
supporters, including leaders of the city’s Independence Party , said that party politics had outlived its usefulness in city elections . . . In a strongly worded letter to the Charter Revision Commission . . . leaders from a cross section of groups, including the Working Families Party, the N.A.A.C.P. and Common Cause New York, said that asking voters to consider nonpartisan elections “strikes us as highly cynical” [Emphases added.]
Outside New York's Municipal Building on Wednesday, Public Advocate Bill de Blasio stood at the podium--backed by Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer, Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz, and former comptroller Bill Thompson--to dismiss the notion of nonpartisan elections . . .Are such statements not perfectly Orwellian in character? The professed deference to the two-party system is nothing but a cynical defense of the ruling political class – which, in this case, comprises a one-party state. Further, imagine the gall of any Democratic or Republican leader who would defend the two-party system's one-party state by implying that it is not dominated by wealth, that it doesn't suppress voter turnout, that it does not work against the interests of minority candidates. This disconnect is particularly obvious in the case of New York City. As mentioned above, one party has monopolized the city council. The mayor's office was purchased by Michael Bloomberg for $102 million in 2009. Voter turnout numbers in 2006 reveal that roughly 2 out of 3 New Yorkers opted not to cast a ballot (these are numbers for the state, but are likely comparable with the city). Finally, even despite the successes of minority candidates, structural racism is indisputably endemic to the ruling parties, their politics and their policies. We have not even broached the topic of topic of independent or third party politics, ballot access issues etc.
"Nonpartisan elections undermine our democracy," said the towering Mr. de Blasio, who appeared to have something of a sunburn. [He continued:] "They create a system that is dominated by wealth, suppresses voter turnout and makes it harder for minority candidates to compete." . . . "I think we can all agree the two-party system has served America and served New York pretty well," Mr. Markowitz said.
The Democrats' defense of "democracy" here demonstrates the willingness of the ruling political class to engage in outright falsification of reality to maintain the system that ensures their hold on power.
NY: Third Partisanship and Political Strategy on the Right in the Empire State
At Think 3 Sam Wilson takes a look at the disarray in the Republican and Conservative parties in New York and sees a potential opening for the Constitution Party in the race for governor:
If the nominee of the Republican and Conservative parties ends up insufficiently conservative for some people, what is to be done? This would seem like the moment for the Constitution Party to raise its public profile by running to the right of both ostensibly conservative parties. The party already has a gubernatorial candidate, Jan Johnson . . . In theory, there should be no better time for the Constitution ticket to present itself as a vigorous alternative to Lazio, whom many find an uninspiring candidate. Whether they have the resources or the creativity to do so is another story.Sam isn't the only one who's thinking along these lines. Maggie Haberman writes at her Politico On New York blog:
GOP county chairmen just broke from a preconvention meeting with state chairman Ed Cox, who, I hear from sources, said he's looking at creating a third-party line, apparently to compete with the Conservative Party, which backed a slate last week that may look very different than the GOP's . . . The idea would be to siphon votes from Long's party [i.e. the Conservative Party] — and, presumably, help certain candidates Cox supports, such as Steve Levy [i.e. against Lazio].
Are Rand Paul's Most Extreme Views those which are in accord with the Democratic-Republican Political Establishment's Policy Consensus?
Though somewhat belated, I've been meaning to touch on this story for a number of days now. Since Rand Paul's victory in the Kentucky Republican primary election last month, and the ensuing controversy over a number of positions he holds, both Republican and Democratic commentators have sought to tie his overall policy stance to libertarianism. The motivations of such commentators are not difficult to discern: Republicans seek to distance themselves from his controversial views, while Democrats seek to associate Republicans with them. The great irony, however, is that the controversial views for which Rand Paul has been most publicly criticized are not libertarian in character. This is not surprising for at least two reasons: 1) Rand Paul is not a libertarian; and 2) ideologues of the two-party state and duopoly system of government are not generally known for their intellectual honesty. Back in March Time Magazine, of all outlets, published the following refutation of Paul's alleged "libertarianism":
Paul is edging toward the center: Pure libertarians, he says, believe the market should dictate policy on nearly everything from the environment to health care. Paul has lately said he would not leave abortion to the states, he doesn't believe in legalizing drugs like marijuana and cocaine, he'd support federal drug laws, he'd vote to support Kentucky's coal interests and he'd be tough on national security.Last week the Libertarian Party of Kentucky published a lengthy press release demonstrating that Rand Paul is not a libertarian, but rather just another statist Republican. Moreover, the release also reveals that many of Rand Paul's most controversial views are actually in perfect accord with the official policy consensus of the Democratic-Republican Party political establishment:"They thought all along that they could call me a libertarian and hang that label around my neck like an albatross, but I'm not a libertarian," [emphasis added] Paul says between Lasik surgeries at his medical office, where his campaign is headquartered, with a few desks crammed between treatment rooms. "Frankly, I'd rather be coming from the right than from the left like [Republican primary opponent] Grayson, who not too long ago was a Democrat and Bill Clinton supporter."
The real question, then, is the following: when will Democrats and Republicans alike distance themselves from Rand Paul's most extreme mainstream views, for instance, his support for the PATRIOT Act, his opposition to closing Guantanamo Bay, his support for continuing the failed war on drugs, and his opposition to free choice and equal rights?Rand Paul is not a libertarian. There are clear differences between the Libertarian Party, including the philosophy upon which is it based, and the philosophy and campaign rhetoric of Rand Paul. While the Libertarian Party shares some stances traditionally associated with the Republican Party, the LP also shares common ground on positions traditionally associated with the Democratic Party, and not always for the same reasons. We are an alternative to the two party system, not constrained by the model that defines both major parties.
Libertarians want a complete repeal of the PATRIOT Act, closure of Guantanamo Bay, and an end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Rand Paul has stated that he wants to continue military detentions at Guantanamo Bay, a retroactive official declaration of war by Congress, and has denied that he seeks to overturn the PATRIOT Act.
In further contrast, libertarians want to provide a mechanism by which non-traditional couples can receive equal protection under the law. Rand Paul has voiced his support of the discriminatory “one man, one woman” definition of marriage and his opposition to any other civil contract option.
In 2009, social conservatives in Kentucky outlawed adoption by anyone not living in a traditional, legally-recognized marriage – a concept so extreme that even family counselor and conservative talk-show host Dr. Laura Schlessinger has opposed it. The Libertarian Party stood in strong opposition to this legislation. Rand Paul has acknowledged that he agrees with his party in this, squarely placing himself at odds with the Libertarian Party of Kentucky and libertarians nationwide, who have a strong record of fighting these inequities . . .
Rand Paul’s statements regarding all forms of discrimination are not consistent with, nor do they reflect the views of, the Libertarian Party of Kentucky. Rand Paul does not speak for us or for our party. We condemn all bigotry based on any and all factors.
Memorial Day Weekend Message from the Modern Whig Party
From the Modern Whig Party:
The Modern Whig Party pauses this Memorial Day weekend to recognize the sacrifice of our nation's fallen, as well as the prime place in American society that our veterans and active/reserve service members hold.
The Modern Whig movement was revived by veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan. Those veterans quickly built a growing national movement that was recognized as a viable and mainstream political phenomenon. Its moderate stance and common sense, rational approach quickly inspired a diverse array of Americans of all political stripes.
Since 2010 began, the party began building its infrastructure in order to scratch its way back into the mainstream conscience. However, countless members have clamored in recent months for the current wave of Modern Whig leaders to be more action oriented and "lead from the front." Not surprisingly, these demands came largely from veterans -- many of whom participated in the numerous 2008/2009 Whig gatherings that quietly took place overseas in places such as Iraq.
These concerns have been heard loud and clear. Various active duty, reserve component personnel, and veterans are joining with non-military individuals to once again grab the reins of this historic movement.
The country needs a non-fringe movement that values common sense, rationality as opposed to partisan bickering and ideology. The Modern Whig Party will continue to build and inspire.
Modeling Independence and the Failure of the Democratic-Republican Party Politics
In a discussion of Charlie Crist's independent candidacy for US Senate in Florida, I noted in a comment here the other day that, however one might interpret his declaration of independence, "whatever Crist does will likely become a media template for what independence is" if only because there is no single effective model for political independence. That template is already being constructed. Today, Independent Political Report highlights an editorial by Mary Ann Lindley at Tallahassee.com arguing that "a Crist victory could change politics." Some excerpts:
This election year could be just a bizarre as 2000, but in a different way, with Gov. Charlie Crist leading us into what may be a new way of electing leaders outside of the traditional and over-stuffed two-party system. The governor was brave enough to abandon the Republican Party, or acknowledge, I think fairly, that the party had already abandoned him. Its hard-right turn has also put off many moderate Republicans who crave a more centrist alternative, though not necessarily Crist. . . .At Pollster, Michael McDonald supplies the full voter registration statistics for all states that track party registration. As of March 2010, Florida logged 4,621,362 Democrats, 3, 974,019 Republicans, 2,121,636 independents (i.e. unaffiliated) and 354,529 minor party registrants: 46% Democrat, 36% Republican and 22% independent or third party. A recent poll by the St. Petersburg Times finds that Crist is currently pulling support from across the political spectrum:
Sending an independent to the U.S. Senate would change the face of elections for years to come in Florida, and maybe nationwide. That increasing numbers of people are disenchanted with two-party politics — tired of their financial power and predictable, unbending ideologies — is reflected in voter registration numbers. According to the state elections office, the fastest-growing group of Florida voters isn't those registering as Democrats or Republicans but as "no party affiliated" people, such as Crist. . . .
the more dramatic and long-lasting change will occur if Crist shows that an independent candidate can win . . . it will free up a lot of people to run for office who are interested in serving, but just don't want to be a party to either party. Seeing more plausible independent candidates would be a big change.
Of the registered voters surveyed, 30 percent were for Crist, 27 percent for Republican Marco Rubio and 15 percent for Democratic front-runner Kendrick Meek . . . The secret to Crist's success so far: his broader appeal across the political spectrum in the newly reconfigured three-man race. He is backed by 39 percent of independents, 38 percent of Democrats and 26 percent of Republicans. Rubio, a former House speaker from Miami, and Meek, a Miami congressman, are drawing most of their support from members of their own parties.With the continuing decline in the number of duopolist dead-enders, that is, those who still cling to the thoroughly discredited model of Democratic-Republican Party politics, it will become increasingly difficult for any political hopeful to build an electoral majority primarily on the basis of support from members of his or her own party.
Free Thinking and the Logic of Loyalty in the Two-Party State
A satirical opinion piece for Oregon's Lake Oswego Review by local high school student Parker Angelus exposes the absurdity and superficiality of the reactionary ideology that sustains the ruling two-party state and duopoly system of government:
This rigid belief system, carefully crafted and handed down from generation to generation, is set in place by the order of the almighty overlord of your choice – the elephant or the donkey.Let’s say you choose the donkey: It means that you must vote for whomever represents the likeness of donkey in the upcoming election – no exceptions. Disregard any conflicting viewpoints you may have with this well-groomed “candidate,” you chose to lead the life of a Democrat, sealing in this vote and all of your votes of the future, too. By becoming attached to a political party, you’ve taken a bold step into becoming a freely-thinking individual.
Here’s the deal: It’s of the utmost importance that you vote. Even if your decision is made with poor reasoning, adhere to the two-party system at all costs.
Let’s say you don’t like a Republican candidate (here’s where the proverbial lightbulb should be going off in your head – think vindictiveness). Since you highly disagree with the viewpoints of one party, it only makes sense to vote for the opposing one out of spite. After all, you only have two options, so voting for the party that you dislike the least seems like a sound compromise. It shows a complex thought process when one votes for someone by default.
The Hermeneutics of Independence in the Context of the Two-Party State: the Case of Crist
In a post at the Think 3 Institute on "moderate independence and the spirit of compromise," Sam Wilson takes issue with an op-ed by Douglas Schoen and in the process touches upon what might be a definitive tension within the theory and practice of independent politics today. The question at issue is deceptively simple: what is independence? Following Schoen, Sam takes the case of Charlie Crist in Florida as his example, and writes:
It is thus not enough to simply call oneself an independent. If you maintain your identification and affiliation with the Republican or Democratic Party, while supporting the ruling parties and the reproduction of the two-party state, but call yourself an independent – as Scott Brown did, for instance, in his campaign for US Senate –, you are not an independent. You are delusional or a fraud. However, there is a performative linguistic dimension to political independence; independence must be declared; but such declarations are little more than empty slogans if they are not supported by actions. Crist, for example, not only calls himself an independent, he actually left the party, changed his affiliation, lost his donor base in the GOP (while keeping their money!), and is now struggling to define himself independently of the Republican and Democratic candidates in the race. Just today he reversed his position on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
Coincidentally, in a comment to a post here yesterday, Shawn of Ranger's Arrows would seem to concur with Sam's position regarding Crist above:
Given the totalitarian character of the Democratic-Republican two-party state and the strength of the ideology that sustains the ruling duopoly system of government, it is not likely that any movement toward real political freedom and independence in the United States will be born whole, as it were, like Athena from the head of Zeus. We must be wary of Democratic and Republican charlatans who don the mantle of political independence only to ensure the reproduction of the political status-quo, but we should also be cognizant that not all independents worthy of the name will be free of any past association with the ruling political establishment.
Schoen describes Crist jumping ship as his having "eschewed the partisanship he once championed." But how has Crist changed? If the Republican party in Florida has changed, then the GOP itself no longer embodies "the partisanship he once championed." If it has changed, and he hasn't, how has he become independent? By saying so, apparently. . . .We do need new people at the table, but this, in itself, is not enough. New representatives can be ushered in within the Democratic-Republican schema, via primary challenges, or upsets in which a seat changes hands from one party to the other, etc. Yet, this strategy is doomed to failure, as it only reproduces the problem that is the Democratic-Republican two-party state and duopoly system of government. In order to address this problem, and potentially break open the duopoly lock on elected office, the new people at the table cannot be representatives of the problem and complicit in its reproduction.
A readiness to negotiate and compromise is often an admirable trait, but praise for compromise begs the question: who's at the table negotiating? Praising the likes of Charlie Crist (or even less plausibly, Andrew Cuomo) as true independents misses the point that we need new people at the table.
It is thus not enough to simply call oneself an independent. If you maintain your identification and affiliation with the Republican or Democratic Party, while supporting the ruling parties and the reproduction of the two-party state, but call yourself an independent – as Scott Brown did, for instance, in his campaign for US Senate –, you are not an independent. You are delusional or a fraud. However, there is a performative linguistic dimension to political independence; independence must be declared; but such declarations are little more than empty slogans if they are not supported by actions. Crist, for example, not only calls himself an independent, he actually left the party, changed his affiliation, lost his donor base in the GOP (while keeping their money!), and is now struggling to define himself independently of the Republican and Democratic candidates in the race. Just today he reversed his position on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
Coincidentally, in a comment to a post here yesterday, Shawn of Ranger's Arrows would seem to concur with Sam's position regarding Crist above:
While I agree that Crist is not the 'de-facto Democrat,' I disagree that Crist augers well for true third-party politics. . . . Crist is an Establishment Republican who's been tossed out by the groundswell of the populace. If anything, supporting Crist as a third party alternative is, to my mind, antithetical to our long-term goals, since he's not a committed independent/third party candidate. He's a committed Establishmentarian, who's trying to pull a Bloomberg to be in office.Even granting these points, it is nonetheless still worth considering to what extent a change in an establishmentarian candidate's political identification, from Republican or Democrat to Independent, can transform that individual's candidacy and even that individual him- or herself. What begins as nothing more than an ancillary appearance can become an essential existential anchor. As Kurt Vonnegut wrote in Mother Knight, you are what you pretend to be. A new poll commissioned by the Libertarian candidate in the Florida Senate race finds 40% of respondents now in support of Crist, giving him a significant lead over Rubio, his nearest rival.
Given the totalitarian character of the Democratic-Republican two-party state and the strength of the ideology that sustains the ruling duopoly system of government, it is not likely that any movement toward real political freedom and independence in the United States will be born whole, as it were, like Athena from the head of Zeus. We must be wary of Democratic and Republican charlatans who don the mantle of political independence only to ensure the reproduction of the political status-quo, but we should also be cognizant that not all independents worthy of the name will be free of any past association with the ruling political establishment.
Duopolist Bias and the Creeping One-Party State: the Example of the US Senate Race in the Sunshine State
The inability of the establishmentarian political observer to conceive the very possibility of a politics that is not constrained by the logic of duopoly ideology is revealed in a recent article on the Florida race for US Senate by Eric Kleefield at Talking Points Memo. With polls placing Democrat Kendrick Meek far behind independent Charlie Crist and Republican Marco Rubio, Kleefield inexplicably construes the independent as the "defacto Democrat." He writes:
In the two months since Gov. Charlie Crist began building up to and ultimately did switch from Republican to independent, he appears to have overtaken Rep. Kendrick Meek as the de-facto Democratic candidate in the race against Republican Marco Rubio, according to the polls.In reality, of course, Crist is not a "defacto Democrat" but rather a Republican-turned-Independent, whose political maneuvering has basically displaced what would have been a Republican primary contest, which Crist most certainly would have lost to Rubio, to the general election, which Crist may well win. In this way, the actual Democrat in the race has been almost wholly eclipsed by his Independent and Republican rivals, trailing both by double digits. From a recent Miami Herald poll:
Of the registered voters surveyed, 30 percent were for Crist, 27 percent for Republican Marco Rubio and 15 percent for Democratic front-runner Kendrick Meek.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
