God and the State: The Unholy Alliance between the Republican and Democratic Parties

It is widely understood that Republicans and Democrats elevate the interests of party above those of the people.  A new documentary by James Jaeger, entitled "SPOILER – How a Third Political Party Could Win,” argues that they also place party before God and country, and makes the Christian case for third party and independent political activism.  From Alex Murashko at The Christian Post:

In the film produced by Matrixx Productions and available on DVD, Jaeger said he explores the underlying causes of the welfare-warfare state ushered in by the Democratic and Republican parties over the past 98 years as a result of both parties failing to follow the moral principles in the Bible.

Jaeger enlisted the expertise of former presidential candidates running as nominees from third political parties, including Pat Buchanan and Chuck Baldwin. Also, seen in the 119-minute film is theologian Peter Lillback.

“We wanted the perspective of a presidential candidate and how tough it is to get in there,” Jaeger told The Christian Post. “The film is about the idea … that the Republicans and the Democrats are just simply not following the Constitution as well as they could be.” . . .

The film is Jaeger’s fifth documentary, much of the content being about the U.S. government’s out of control spending and increasing power over the lives of citizens.

“Both entrenched parties have grown the government way beyond that envisioned by the framers, and worse, they have placed the State in competition with the Church as the ‘author of all charity’ and the ‘source of God-given, inalienable rights,’” Jaeger states.

“Not only that, multinational corporations have hijacked Congress leading to laws that have outsourced American industry, undermined the middle class and eroded the family unit,” he adds. “SPOiLER lays out a strategy whereby a new, or existing, third political party could defeat the DemoPublicans and reinstate Constitutional principles based on traditional Christian values.”

It is Time to Break the Two-Party Duopoly

From a letter to the editor of Alabama News from Richard Rutledge, the Vice Chairman of the Constitution Party of Alabama:

Many of our Founders warned against allowing a two-party system to control our political system, but we refused to listen. Now, we have created a dual-headed monster and a ruling-class elite that are virtually unchallengeable by common men. This is the exact opposite scenario our Founders sought to create. . . .

The political gridlock in Washington, with the bitter, purely partisan battle over the budget and raising the debt ceiling, clearly shows breaking the monopoly the two-party system holds over our political system is essential to our survival as a republic. We must find a way to elect statesmen who will represent the interests of citizens who elect them, not the current crop of career politicians who answer only to party will and special interests.

Said Frederick Douglass: "Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle! Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will."

Chasing the Car: The Constitution Party of Colorado

In the Colorado gubernatorial election of 2010, if you recall, Tom Tancredo's entrance into the race on the Constitution Party ticket and his strong showing transformed the organization into a major party under Colorado election law.  Unfortunately, however, the party does not appear to have significantly capitalized upon Tancredo's success and still has only a few thousand members.  Furthermore, as a recognized major party, it is now required to fulfill the myriad obligations meant to regulate mass organizations with hundreds of thousands or millions of members, but, due to its small size, it is not equal to the task.  From The Republic:

The American Constitution Party . . . says it's fed up with the bureaucracy of being a major player in state politics — and besides, it can't afford it.  With only 4,134 members, the ACP has had to create a 21-member central committee, elect an executive committee and set up party committees in each of Colorado's 64 counties. In exchange, the party gets a place at or near the top of the ballot in the next gubernatorial election in 2014.

"We keep asking Secretary of State Scott Gessler what's the benefit of being a major party. We get a higher position on the ballot, but if that's the only thing, it's not worth it," said Amanda Campbell, the ACP's treasurer and an executive board member.

Being a major party brings major responsibilities, like filing detailed campaign finance reports, hiring lawyers to interpret complicated state and federal reporting requirements, and holding primaries and caucuses. But according to the secretary of state's website, the ACP had just $817 in the bank as of April 15 . . . . 

The Constitution Party of Colorado's situation is not very different from the dilemma faced by a dog that has successfully chased down a car.  What does he do with it once he's caught it? 

The National Security Police State and the Surveillance Society: Another Look at the Bipartisan War on Rights, Liberties and the Rule of Law

When one opposes the Democratic-Republican party's bipartisan consensus in favor of expanding the police state and surveillance society, the most common response is a totalitarian cliche: "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to be afraid of."  In other words, the presumption of Democrats and Republicans is that the exercise of inalienable rights, such as those guaranteed by the fourth and fifth amendments, is in-and-of-itself a dubious or suspicious activity.  The great irony and hypocrisy, of course, is that many of the individuals who hold such opinions regarding the activities of their fellow citizens are quick to give the state and its agents the benefit of the doubt when they engage in even the most obvious and egregious abuses of their authority.  In the name of security, we are expected to acquiesce in the face of even the most outrageous infringements of our privacy and the security of our persons, houses, papers and effects, but we are also expected to acquiesce when the government hides behind the state secrets privilege to guard against even a fleeting glance at its assassination programs or its torture regime, for instance. 

Over the course of the last decade, under the Bush administration, the FBI as well as police departments all over the country systematically conducted improper and illegal investigations and surveillance of numerous peaceful activist groups across the country.  Yet, the response is not to reign in lawless agencies and departments, but rather to provide them with even more expansive powers.  The Obama administration wants to ensure that there is no communication that can take place outside the purview of the state's prying eyes and ears.  Glenn Greenwald writes:

the Obama administration will propose new legislation to mandate that the U.S. Government have access to all forms of communications, "including encrypted e-mail transmitters like BlackBerry, social networking Web sites like Facebook and software that allows direct 'peer to peer' messaging like Skype."  In other words, the U.S. Government is taking exactly the position of the UAE and the Saudis:  no communications are permitted to be beyond the surveillance reach of U.S. authorities.

Similarly, the state wants to be able to track every single electronic money transfer into and out of the country.  From the Washington Post:

The Obama administration wants to require U.S. banks to report all electronic money transfers into and out of the country, a dramatic expansion in efforts to counter terrorist financing and money laundering.

If any administration were in fact interested in countering terrorist financing and money laundering, they might rather begin by investigating their friends in the banking cartels and holding them accountable for their crimes.  But that is likely too much to ask.  From Polizeros:

Wachovia pays $160 million fine for money-laundering $420 billion in drug money. Avoids criminal prosecutions.  Western Union pays $94 million fine over money-laundering assumed drug and human smuggling money. Avoids criminal prosecutions. . . . Excuse me? $420 billion in money laundering and no one is going to prison? If this happened in a third world country we would snicker about what a corrupt, inept, useless system of justice they have. . . .

From a follow-up post at Polizeros:

HSBC USA in money laundering probe . . . of course there will be no criminal prosecutions. Gasp, that would be bad for the markets. So, it’ll be a a slap-on-the-wrist fine for HSBC and little will change.  This is what happened with Western Union, Wells Fargo and Bank of America too. Those banks were accused of laundering money for the drug cartels, paid a fine, yet no one went to prison. . . . The fix is in. But the feds do have the capacity to regulate and punish. However, they are choosing not to. In this the Obama Administration is no different from the Bush Administration.

The corporate connection to the unending expansion of the national security police state and surveillance society is too important to be overlooked.  Last month it was reported that "van-mounted body scanners" are being purchased in large quantities by law enforcement agencies across the country.  As reported by the US Pirate Party:

News of the mobile scanners has alarmed civil libertarians who worry the technology could be used to violate people's privacy without legal justification.  "If they are in fact being used on public streets, that would be a major violation of the Constitution," writes Jay Stanley of the ACLU's Technology and Liberty program. "In fact, it's hard to believe that any counsel at any government agency would sign off on allowing these vans to be used in that way."

The vice president of marketing for the company that sells the equipment, however, doesn't appear to see things that way: 

AS&E's vice president of marketing, Joe Reiss, said US law enforcement agencies have also bought the machines "to search for vehicle-based bombs in the US," Greenberg reports. . . . Reiss says his company's machines are not as intrusive as the body scanners being used in airports. He told Forbes' Greenberg that the machines can't reproduce images of people's faces and bodies as clearly as airport machines.  “From a privacy standpoint, I am hard-pressed to see what the concern or objection could be," he said.  [Emphasis added.] 

And thus we return to the old totalitarian cliche: if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to be afraid of.  We can see just how insidious the expansion of the national security police state and surveillance society is.  Every single encroachment upon rights, liberties and the rule of law erodes the opposition to further encroachments.  "We've already got highly intrusive body scanners in airports, what's the harm in deploying them on the streets, or at your place of work, or outside your home?" they ask, rhetorically.  Mary Starrett of the Constitution Party is an outspoken opponent of airport body scanners.  Earlier this year, she wrote:

X rays zapping us at airports and government buildings across the country and getting under our skin . . . are being touted as another small step toward a more secure America. In truth, they represent a giant leap toward slavery . . . Full Body Scanning is unreasonable as it presupposes guilt and ignores the aspect of our law that requires a warrant for searches. This full frontal assault on the Constitution aside, “backscatter” x rays could be a health risk. . . . As if the Constitutional and health aspects weren’t enough to scare the pants off us, consider the frightening prospect for millions of law abiding citizens should President Obama’s pick for TSA chief, former FBI agent Erroll Southers get the job. Southers is on record as saying it’s not Muslim terrorists who warrant closer scrutiny but “anti-government,”“anti-abortion,” “survivalist types” who are “Christian identity oriented.”

How long will it be before anyone who holds opinions outside the Democratic-Republican Party's zone of consensus and permissible disagreement will essentially be considered worthy of "scrutiny" if not outright censorship?  In truth, we likely reached that point some time ago.  Corporate interests backing expansive anti-counterfeiting efforts recognized the effectiveness of anti-terror and national security arguments to garner support for their preferred laws years ago.  From a report earlier this summer:

For decades, there's been a brisk global trade in illegally dubbed movies, knockoff apparel and other intellectual property (IP) theft. But what is changing, according to law enforcement officials and industry experts, is who is running these enterprises. Increasingly, it is terrorist organizations and organized crime groups. "Terrorist organizations are very similar to any other criminal organization. They need to earn money," said Jim Dinkins, director of the office of investigations at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, part of the Department of Homeland Security.

It is no surprise that there is strong bipartisan support for a new bill that supposedly seeks to "combat online infringement and counterfeits."  As is typical of legislation with bipartisan support from Democrats and Republicans, the bill represents a threat to fundamental rights and liberties, in this case, the freedom of speech.  If passed in its current form, the bill could likely result in significant censorship of the internet and provide the government with the authority to target and censor groups such as the US Pirate Party.  From the Electronic Frontier Foundation:

The "Combating Online Infringements and Counterfeits Act" (COICA) is an Internet censorship bill which is rapidly making its way through the Senate. Although it is ostensibly focused on copyright infringement, an enormous amount of noninfringing content, including political and other speech, could disappear off the Web if it passes . . .

The bill creates two blacklists of censored domains. The first is longer, and includes any sites where the DOJ decides that infringement is "central" to the purpose of the site. The bill gives ISPs and registrars strong legal incentives to censor the domains on that list. The Attorney General can also ask a court to put sites on a second, shorter blacklist; ISPs and registrars are required by law to censor those sites.

If this bill passes, the list of targets could conceivably include hosting websites such as Dropbox, MediaFire and Rapidshare; MP3 blogs and mashup/remix music sites like SoundCloud, MashupTown and Hype Machine ; and sites that discuss and make the controversial political and intellectual case for piracy, like pirate-party.us.  [Emphasis added.]

The so-called "war on terror" continues to be a highly effective cover for the war on rights, liberties and the rule of law being prosecuted by the Democratic-Republican two-party state and ruling corporate-political class.  Do you feel any safer?

Evil is as Evil does: the Lesser Evil is the Enemy of the Greater Good

As I noted the other day, desperate Democrats are resorting to political histrionics in their efforts to convince voters to support the Democratic "lesser evil" over and against their Republican counterparts in their bipartisan conspiracy of dunces. In Colorado, embattled Republican gubernatorial candidate Dan Maes has taken Democratic-Republican political theology to a new level, effectively declaring that his campaign is a fight against evil as such. From the Boston Herald:

A defiant Dan Maes told a group of conservatives gathered in Durango on Thursday that the political process is surrounded by evil.

"I love that you opened with prayer because this is not just political war, folks, this is a spiritual battle," Maes said in remarks reported by the Durango Herald.

"There is evil out there. When I interact with some of these people, I can feel the evil. They’re not evil people, but evil finds its way into the system. And we must stand and fight this to the end."

Unfortunately, I have not been able to track down a full transcript to determine the entire context of these remarks. Nonetheless, Maes apparently does not grasp the irony of denouncing the "evil of the system" from his position as a gubernatorial candidate for one of the two primary political factions which constitute that very system. Perhaps Maes' rhetorical excess was necessitated by the triviality of his assertion. Or maybe he really does believe that the best way to fight the devil is to declare one's allegiance to Satan. This is, after all, one of the primary tenets of Democratic-Republican political theology. They make the lesser evil the enemy of the greater good.

The choice in favor of evil, whether the result is support for a Democrat or a Republican, may actually go some way toward explaining the lack of accountability in Democratic-Republican party government. In a discussion of Immanuel Kant's conception of autonomy in the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Paul Guyer recounts one of the German philosopher's arguments on the nature of evil and wrong-doing. He writes:

because no human being is simply unaware of the demand of morality - that is implied by the 'fact of reason' - acting immorally never comes from mere ignorance of the moral law, but rather from deciding to exempt oneself from this obligation.

Does this not perfectly explain the way in which an individual such as Maes can not only denounce the political system of Democratic-Republican party government as evil, but also assert that he is engaged in a fight against the evil of that system even though, as a Republican, his candidacy explicitly represents the reproduction of the evil that defines the system? One might take this line of thought a step further and argue that carving out exemptions from the demands and obligations of morality and reason is the defining characteristic of Democratic-Republican party government. Sadly, this point is so obvious it needs virtually no elaboration. It is succinctly encapsulated by the maxim which states that "if the president does it, it's not illegal." In theory, the latter is not true, but under the conditions of Democratic-Republican party government the evasion of accountability is a matter of course, even on matters of such grave importance as illegal wiretapping, torture and war crimes.

Fortunately, not everyone in Colorado will have to suffer a choice in favor of the evil that is Democratic-Republican party government when they cast their votes for governor. Prominent Republicans in the state have already opted in favor of the greater good over and against the lesser evil and thrown their support behind Constitution Party candidate Tom Tancredo. Grassroots libertarian-leaning groups, on the other hand, have come out in support of Libertarian Party gubernatorial candidate Jaimes Brown. From the Highlands Ranch Herald:

When Liberty on the Rocks — which Langford describes as a free-market, free-mind, Libertarian party — was founded in 2008, the group had trouble finding candidates to run for office. Two years and many meetings later, the Denver-based group has chapters in Colorado Springs, Fort Collins, Gelnwood Springs and Lakewood, as well as nationwide. Langford heads up the Denver Tech Center Chapter.

“Two years ago we were struggling for candidates, and we have virtually a full ticket this time,” he said. “People are coming out of the woodwork this time.” Langford says he will vote for Jaimes Brown, of Centennial, who is this year’s Libertarian gubernatorial candidate.

Given their options, for conservatives, libertarians and probably many other folks in Colorado, the choice in favor of the lesser evil between the Democratic and Republican gubernatorial candidates is in fact a choice to exempt oneself from the obligations and demands of morality and reason.

Illinois' Third Party and Independent Gubernatorial Candidates on Ballot Access and Electoral Reform

As I mentioned last week, I've been planning on writing up a substantive post on the most recent IL gubernatorial debate organized by Free and Equal. The debate was hosted at Chicago State University and moderated by Free and Equal Founder and Chair Christina Tobin, who is also the Libertarian Party candidate for California Secretary of State. All seven gubernatorial candidates were invited to the forum, but the Republican and Democrat declined to attend. On hand were: William “Dock” Walls III (Independent), Michael White (Constitution Party), Rich Whitney (Green Party), Scott Lee Cohen (Independent) and Lex Green (Libertarian Party). The candidates discussed and debated their proposals for dealing with the state's deficit, the necessity of ballot access and electoral reform, education, issues relating to minorities and single parents, their specific differences with one another and the major party candidates, the state's pension system, the possibility of founding a state bank, and gun violence, among other things. They covered a lot of ground.

The Free and Equal blog has already done an extensive round-up of mainstream media coverage of the event, and so, rather than write yet another overview of the debate, I've instead decided to post a transcript of the candidates' discussion of ballot access and electoral reform. The following is more or less a word for word transcription of the discussion, though there are probably a few errors here and there. I've emphasized points I found especially interesting in bold.

Christina Tobin (moderator): 45 independent and alternative party candidates just filed to run for office in IL. 42 of them are facing petition challenges. Many of them will be removed from the ballot even though it means incumbents will be running unopposed. What proposals do you have to improve democracy in IL?

Lex Green (Libertarian Party): Almost all of us here have been affected by these challenges. We need to implement new election law that is simply equal across the board. I have a perspective on this that has been ignored by some people. Our primary system is paid for by the taxpayers essentially to subsidize the Democratic and Republican parties and the Green Party now. Yet, at the same time, I was nominated at a convention that we paid for, the Libertarian Party paid for themselves. We're looking at a model that puts all election law, and laws affecting how Democrats and Republicans conduct their affairs, into state law, that is hardly a general purpose that is beneficial to the people of IL.

I do not have a specific proposal, but I would like to see a system where parties have their own conventions where they pay for their own selection process. Assuming this is politically undoable in the short term, we need to go to a fee based entry into the ballot. I don't have specifics, but, for example, 5000 dollars to get on the ballot, which is much cheaper than most parties and independent candidates have to pay for the process of balloting. That would make it even across the board, and I would also support a fee or signature option, 5000 dollars and 5000 signatures as long as its equal for all candidates.

Michael White (Constitution Party): I think we need to start with the Board of Elections and the statutes. The standards for the established parties and the standards for anyone else new on the scene are entirely different. 25000 signatures in 90 days for the rest of us, 5000 signatures in 90 days for Democrats and Republicans. New people coming into the political system are going to have a very hard time getting 25000 signatures. For new people coming into politics that is going to be very hard to accomplish, but that is what we need, new people coming into politics.

If you look at the primary, and as a voter I am upset, look at the primary, look at all the people who are eligible to vote, [but] the people who picked [Democrat] Quinn and [Republican] Brady only comes to about an 8% vote in [these] primaries, choosing who we're going to vote for. 8% of the people are telling us who to vote for! Like Lex said, they [the parties] might as well pick the people and save the state some money. If we do go on a fee based system, another bonus, the state is in financial problems, we have money coming into the state there. But if we don't change the Board of Elections to actually do the job and stop asking parties and people to go check through these petitions to determine what's good, it's a very ridiculous system. If I would have turned in 1 signature and no one questioned my petition, I wouldn't be having any problems at all, I would be on the ballot. Because even though the statute says you have to do these things, the only person checking it are those in the parties or individual citizens who determine to buy that petition and question it. We have to have the Board of Elections actually do work, count signatures, if that's what they want to do and do the work, and not put it back to the people of IL and the parties to go verify this information.

William "Dock" Walls (Independent): The laws of our Board of Election often serve as incumbency protection principles. They protect the people who are already in power. They make it almost impossible for you to get on the ballot as an independent. In fact, there's never been an independent candidate on the ballot here in IL for governor, as a pure independent. There have been alternative party candidates, but never a true independent. And that saps the possibility that everybody hopes for when they wake up in the morning. You want somebody fresh, you want somebody new, you want somebody who's out here fighting for you and fighting for the issues that are important to you and the communities that you serve and the interests that you represent. That doesn't happen in IL.

In other places like California for example, they require that you pay 2% of what the salary is of the position that you're seeking. So for example, for governor you come in and you pay 3,492 dollars and that puts you on the ballot. And then they also allow you to do a combination of fee and signature requirements. So it serves the purpose. They will tell you that the purpose is to keep "frivilous" candidates off of the ballot. And we understand that that's necessary, because otherwise you'd have a ballot that's as long as a baby's dream, but in fact there are better ways to do it than they do it here in IL, because if you're challenged, you go into an environment that is tilted against you, where you are now burdened with proving that all of these signatures that you submitted are legitimate and real. And that's done at a great expense to the tax payers. This process costs millions and millions and millions of dollars of tax payers' money at a time when we can't afford to spend it. So it's time to seriously educate the public and get people to understand that this principle isn't working for you, its working against you. And it only benefits those people who've been in power for way too long.

Scott Lee Cohen (Independent): I know the disparity better than anybody between the Democrat and Republican signature requirements. They're required to have 5000. As an independent, I was required to have 25,000! I was blessed to be able to turn in 133000, but the point is, as governor I would fight for legislation for the following. Number one is to have an open primary. Right now you go and you have to declare Democrat or Republican. Let's do away with that, let the people have their privacy, and go in and vote for whoever you want. Second, I would lower the threshold of third party and independent candidates so that its equal to the Democrats and the Republicans.

Or as it was said earlier, come up with a fee-based system based on what the salary of the position you're running for is. In other words, if I'm running for governor, and I'm going to get paid 150,000 dollars a year, then I would have to pay 10% or 15% of that as a fee to be put on the ballot. It could be either/or, but that is a phenomenal system. And again, as governor I will fight for equality. I've always been a believer that people deserve choice. You shouldn't be forced into a two-party system voting for Democrat or Republican and I will make it my mission to make this as open and equal and fair as possible.

Rich Whitney (Green): I think it's no secret how you address the problem. IL has one of the most repressive and restrictive ballot access laws in the United States, as everyone here at this table knows form first hand experience. We've heard about the 25,000 signature requirement. It's absurd. We need to reduce the ballot access requirements to something much more reasonable. I would suggest something on the order of maybe 3000 for a statewide race, 500 for a state rep or state senate race, and keep it much more reasonable and much more attainable. One thing we don't suffer from in our political system is too many choices. Certainly not here in IL. We have too few. As a matter of fact, we have the obscene spectacle of many places where incumbents are running unopposed. It's absolutely ridiculous. How is that in any way a democratic republic? How is that giving voters real choices? We need to reverse that.

We also need to reverse the change to the law that occurred just last year, that the Democrats and Republicans ganged up and pushed through, which changed the slating requirement. We called it in the Green Party, we called it the Protect Incumbents Act of 2009. Because what it did is, instead of, after the primary if you wanted to slate a candidate you had your committee get together and they could slate the candidate, and that way you'd have more competitive elections. Well they changed that so that in order to slate a candidate, now you not only have to have your committee meet and slate a candidate you also have to get the same number of signatures that you would have to get to run in the primary anyway, and you have to get it in 45 days instead of 90 days. The Democrats and Republicans ganged up and pushed that through. It was aimed at the Green Party after we won established party status in 2006, but it hurts all of us, it hurts all of the other parties, it hurts all of you as voters. So that's one thing I would do is fight to repeal that pernicious law as well as lower the ballot access requirements.

Was Scott Lee Cohen Drunk at IL Gubernatorial Debate?

On Thursday, the Free and Equal Elections Foundation held a debate for Illinois' gubernatorial candidates at Chicago State University. Five third party and independent candidates for the office participated in the forum, which the Democratic and Republican candidates opted not to attend, likely out of fear that doing so would raise the profile of the event, thus drawing attention to the fact that there are indeed viable alternatives to the nominees of the Democratic and Republican parties. As Joe Biesk wrote for the South Town Star in his report on the debate:

Pat Quinn or Bill Brady. Democrat or Republican. Illinois voters looking for another option in this November's governor's race - say a candidate from a political party that hasn't had a governor federally indicted in the past decade - have some choices.

On hand for the event were Green Party candidate Rich Whitney, Libertarian Lex Green, Michael White of the Constitution Party, Independent William Doc Walls and Independent Scott Lee Cohen. At this point, I've only had the chance to watch the first thirty minutes of the debate, which lasted almost two hours, so perhaps another more substantive post on the event will soon follow. But after listening to the candidates' opening statements, I found myself wondering if Scott Lee Cohen was a bit tipsy. Scott Lee Cohen is likely the best known individual in the group. The Democrat-turned-Independent won the Democratic primary for the position of Lt. Governor earlier this year, but withdrew from the race following revelations and allegations of domestic abuse and drug use, among other things. Soon after, Cohen declared that he would seek the office of governor as an independent, and has now filed the requisite paperwork.

In shirt sleeves, with a loose tie and a goofy smile, Cohen's appearance and demeanor was strikingly different from that of his rivals. His speech seemed slurred at times. But perhaps the former is nothing more than a matter of style, and the latter an effect of the medium itself (i.e. video with non-optimal audio at Free and Equal's website). In his two minute opening statement, Cohen addressed his falling out with the Democratic Party, criticized the incumbent Democratic governor Pat Quinn and argued that the state should be run like a business rather than a patronage machine. However, in those 120 seconds, he also managed to make no less than three embarrassing verbal blunders and stumbles:

• Cohen began by thanking the organizers of the debate, namely, Christine Tobin and the Free and Equal Foundation. Cohen: "Good evening, I'd like to start by thanking Christine for forming the organization, Free and Access, I believe that the choice, your choice to vote is very important this November . . ."

• Cohen went on to address his falling out with the Democratic Party, arguing that he is not a professional politician, but rather a political outsider. Cohen: "I wanted to lead the people in an honest and fair way, I didn't want to be beholden to anybody for any reason . . . the Demoprat, the Democratic Party couldn't stand that."

• Cohen then outlined the problems facing the state, and the Democratic governor's unwillingness to confront them. Cohen: "Right now Illinois has an 11.6% unemployment rate and a $14 billion deficit. Yet governor Quinn is handing out raises to his employees, and his staff, like handing children to a candy, candy to a chill- child."

Aside from the eventual self-correction and delivery, the latter would surely have been a worthy blunder even for former President George W. Bush. Could Scott Lee Cohen be presidential material? Though he continued to misspeak in answering the initial questions of the debate, Cohen seemed to come into his stride, and one could begin to understand his popularity among Democrats – or was he just sobering up? You tell me. The full debate can be found here at Free and Equal. Cohen's opening statement begins roughly 11 minutes and 10 seconds in to the video.

The Engaged Citizen vs. the Passive Consumer: Media Malpractice and the Illinois Senate Race

Among the most debilitating effects of the Democratic-Republican two-party state and duopoly system of government is the transformation of an ideally engaged citizenry into passive consumers of political infotainment and pliant objects of ideological manipulation. Yesterday, I noted that discontent with the Democratic and Republican candidates for US Senate in Illinois has led to a spike in support for Green Party Senate candidate LeAlan Jones (14% according to a recent poll). Support for the Green Party's gubernatorial candidate, Rich Whitney, is also now approaching double-digits (9%). Ross Levin writes at Independent Political Report:

Interestingly, Whitney was only seen favorably by 5 percent of those polled, much as Senate candidate LeAlan Jones only had 2 percent say they had a favorable opinion of him. For both Greens, 80 percent or more of the respondents didn’t have an opinion one way or the other, showing that the biggest challenge in their campaigns might simply be making the Illinois electorate aware that they exist as an option.

Ross is right on the mark here, but, as with so many things, this is easier said than done. Consider the following lines from a commentary by Chicago area columnist and radio host Ray Hanania. Hanania states that the choice between the Democratic and Republican candidates, Giannoulias and Kirk, constitute a "sad situation" for voters and then writes:

So what do we do as voters? We could vote for one of the Third Party candidates, but I really don’t know too much about them because they can’t seem to raise the funds to pay for the literature to tell me who they are. While they think it is the responsibility of the media to publicize their candidacies, it is their responsibility to win over the hearts and minds of the voters and get their support and campaign contributions. That is not going to happen. So, we’re stuck with Giannoulias and Kirk.

At the dawn of the so-called information age, it is difficult to imagine a more pathetic excuse to remain ignorant of the full range of choices one is afforded in the voting booth. Hanania's position effectively amounts to the following: "I am not going to consider voting for any third party candidates because they haven't sent me any junk mail yet." Hanania could have chosen to do a bit of work and read up on the third party candidates for US Senate in Illinois so as to inform his readers of alternatives to the stooges of the Democratic and Republican party machines. Instead, in the remainder of his column, he opted to regurgitate the sort of boilerplate that passes for "strategic" advice in Democratic and Republican circles.

If, as Hanania claims, it is not the media's responsibility to publicize the candidacies of third party political hopefuls, then it is also not the media's responsibility to publicize the candidacies of any political hopefuls, and so he probably should not have written the column at all. But this is absolute nonsense. Arguably, if a media organization is not simply an explicitly partisan political outlet, and at least pretends to some form of journalistic objectivity, then it has a clear and distinct responsibility to publicize the candidacies of all ballot qualified candidates for a given office. As Thomas Jefferson famously said, an informed citizenry is the bulwark of democracy. However, the ideology of the two-party state promulgated by the corporate media would have us believe that journalistic objectivity consists in nothing more than ensuring one queries a Democratic and a Republican source, whatever the issue at hand may be, as if every issue is exhausted once a Democrat and Republican come to an agreement or a disagreement, and as if no other perspective on the matter is possible.

In case folks like Ray Hanania are unaware, "literature" of all sorts can now be found on the internet, and indeed, candidates for public office have entire websites devoted to their campaigns where they explain who they are and what they stand for to anyone who's interested in finding out. There are at least seven third party and independent candidates for US Senate in Illinois:

• Randy Stufflebeam, Constitution Party
• LeAlan Jones, Green Party
• Michael Labno, Libertarian Party
• John Blyth, Independent
• Will Boyd, Independent
• Michael Dorsey, Independent
• Stan Jagla, Independent

In future posts, I'll take a closer look at a number of these candidates. Perhaps one or two would be interested in an interview.

The Democratic-Republican Two-Party State is Inimical to Representative Constitutional Government: Declare Your Independence

The extent to which the ideology of the two-party state warps and distorts the thinking of so many Americans is evident not only in the contradictions generated by duopoly ideology, but also, and more significantly, in the fact that these contradictions are often not even perceived as such. For instance, a recent post at Government is Not Your Daddy appropriates the worn out slogan that it is time to "take our country back" to argue in favor of supporting the Republican wing of the ruling political class. Consider the logic employed in its opening paragraphs:

If we truly want to take our country back, and restore it to the Republic that our founding fathers intended, we need to do it within the framework established by our founding fathers. That means we do it by voting. Voting alone is not sufficent, however. We need to get actively involved. Setting aside wishful thinking, and acknowledging the reality of our two-party system, if we want to effect change in our government, we need to control one of the two major parties.

So, the goal is to "restore the Republic intended by the founding fathers" but the immediate imperative is to infiltrate and gain control over one of the two major parties. The contradiction is readily apparent: representative, constitutional republican government cannot be achieved by means of the Republican and Democratic Parties because Democratic-Republican Party government and the political apparatus of the two-party state are literally at odds with, and actively undermine, any and all efforts toward representative, constitutional republican government. The reason for this is simple: the centralization and monopolization of political power in the hands of the Democratic and Republican Parties serves only to empower the narrow factional interests served by the Democratic and Republican Parties, namely, those of the ruling Democratic-Republican political class, and these interests are diametrically opposed to those of the people of the United States. At This Has Got to Stop, John Constitution comes to the same conclusion by means of a different argument. He writes that "voting out libs will not win our country back":

Those of us who wish to return our country to its constitutional roots have a lot of work ahead of us. We all understand the necessity of voting the libs (or socialists, communists, whatever your cup of tea) out in November and making certain that Obama is a one term president in 2012. But saving our nation from the Democrat Socialists in power right now and handing her over to the GOP is kind of like saving your prize laying hen from the wolf and returning her to the coyote for protection . . .

It seems obvious to me, the GOP is much more concerned with the status quo than they are with electing principled conservatives who will vote those principles rather than the party line. It seems obvious to me that the GOP wants to make sure that they will have the votes next time they want to pass a multi-trillion dollar unfunded entitlement or to write a check for a trillion dollars or so to bail out their friends . . .

The Republican Party is no more the friend of the Constitution than are Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. I do not include all Republicans in this statement, but what I am saying is definitely true of a large number of the Republicans who currently hold positions in the Senate and House of Representatives. The message here is caveat emptor! Buyer beware!

It is likely that anyone who seriously commits to critical reflection on the nature and history of the Democratic-Republican two-party state and duopoly system of government cannot help but conclude that it is a threat to Constitutional government, individual rights, liberties and the very rule of law. It is no wonder that John has declared his independence:

Today, April 22, 2010, I, John Constitution, signed my personal Declaration of Independence! I have been a registered Republican ever since I first registered to vote in 1972. For many years I voted along party lines and was always proud when a Republican was elected over a Democrat. But for quite a few years now, I have found myself voting for the Republican candidate, not because they represented my beliefs, but because they were the lesser of the two evils . . .

Today, I officially changed my voter registration from the Republican Party to the Constitution Party. That is what I meant when I said that I signed my personal Declaration of Independence today. I vow today, never again will I throw my vote away by voting for a candidate that does not represent my views. I vow today, never again to believe the lie that a vote for a third-party is a vote for the opposition. I know, if I’m the only one doing this, then my vote is truly wasted, but at least I will have voted my conscience. But, what if everyone did it?

That is certainly an interesting question. If everyone who voted for the lesser of two-evils between the Republicans and Democrats simply stayed home, how low would voter turnout be? We have already reached a point at which 54% voter turnout is considered high or heavy. If habitual lesser-evilists stayed home, one would be left only with die hard duopolist dead-enders. And what percentage of the eligible voting population do they constitute? 40%, 30%, 20%, 10%? On the other hand, if all eligible voters were to cast a ballot, but did so for the candidate who best reflected their views, is it not likely that the majority would vote for someone other than the Democrat and Republican in any given race? Today, political freedom and independence begins with freedom and independence from the Democratic and Republican Parties, from the tyranny of the two-party state and duopoly system of government. Vote third party and independent.

OH: Political Freedom of Choice Promises the Possibility of Freedom From Democratic-Republican Party Government

This year, voters in Ohio may be surprised by the choices afforded them on their primary and general election ballots, as six parties have qualified for ballot access this November. Back in January, John Michael Spinelli reported on the state's new ballot access regime at the Examiner, writing:

The Republican and Democratic Parties in Ohio will no longer have a lock on access to the ballot now that state election officials, making good on a court decision in the fall of 2006 that found the laws for political party formation and ballot access were unconstitutional, have enabled candidates running under the party name of Libertarian, Green, Socialist and Constitutional to join in the fun that is our representative system of government.

The good news for these outsider parties came in a state directive to all 88 county Boards of Election (BOE) that given that the General Assembly has not yet enacted a new ballot access statute following the September 6, 2006 court decision, and given the high likelihood of success on the merits of any new lawsuit to obtain ballot access, they are "hereby instructed to continue to recognize these political parties and to grant candidates of these political parties ballot access in the 2010 election cycle."

There are now four declared candidates for governor, including Green Dennis Spisak and Libertarian Ken Matesz. The most crowded race at this point appears to be the US Senate contest to replace Republican George Voinovich, who is retiring this year. Aside from the stooges of the Democratic-Republican political establishment, voters will choose from a wide array of candidates, including Eric Deaton of the Constitution Party, Socialist Party candidate Dan Labotz, and five independent candidates for the office, among them Stephen Lahanas, whose articles I have excerpted here at Poli-Tea before. (See Politics1 - Ohio, for a complete listing.)

Needless to say, many Ohioans are quite pleased that an unconstitutional law, once supported by the ruling Democratic-Republican political establishment, will no longer force them to choose between the lesser and greater of the two admitted evils that constitute the Democratic-Republican two-party state. At Veterans Today, Robert Hanafin profiles the Green, Libertarian, Constitution and Socialist Parties of the Buckeye State, in an article that asks: "Is the two-party system doomed?" Hanafin writes in part:

Since neither established political party has been able (or willing) to get us out of Iraq or Afghanistan except for lip service, promises, and more deceit, I’ve dreamed of the demise of two party political control over the American political system, because I see that having a multi-party system would be preferable to the one party dominance that the two party system represents.

For example here in Ohio, at least until NOW, the only way a third party or independent minded candidate (one not blessed by the Ohio state Democratic or Republican party apparatus) could get on the ballot was by running as lets say a Libertarian/Republican or Green or Socialist running as a Democrat. Now finally a slew of independent candidates from Tea Baggers to Socialist have gotten enough signatures to break dual party hold over the ballot box . . .

In Ohio for the longest or first time that I can remember, now that I’ve lost interest in supporting any of the two party candidates, because I can tell little difference between them, I’m thrilled to see the emergence of more than two parties making it on the ballot. My wife and I have not decided yet which party or candidate to support (well really candidate) but it will not be a Democrat or Republican nor some yahoo running as a Dem or Repub claiming to be an independent. We now have from the Independent, Socialist, Constitutional, Libertarian, Green, Democrat, and Republican parties to choose from . . .

Suffice it to say, at least from Ohio, I feel a warm and fuzzy that not only do I now have freedom of political choice, I’m finally seeing more than one flavor to register as. I for one plan on registering either as an Independent or Socialist. Socialist some of my former conservative friends would say, how could a retired military officer even think that way.

When all is said and done I am not arrogant enough to tell anyone how to VOTE, but only to ask our readers to VOTE SMART regardless if you endorse or worship the status quo of the two party system or are a anti-incumbent like me.

Political freedom and independence today begins with freedom and independence from the Democratic and Republican Parties. Vote third party and independent.

The Two-Party System: Bleeding at Both Ends (and from the Middle)

Opposition to the Democratic-Republican two-party state unites Americans across the political and ideological spectrum. On the left, Political Junkie writes:

Liberals, we need to move on -- the Democrats are no longer capable of governing so we must regroup and focus our efforts and resources elsewhere to channel our collective power and vision for the 21st century. I'm talking about taking the control out of the hands of the elitists in D.C. who have twisted the constitution in knots and putting it back in the grip of the people who build and sustain this countries back-bone, goddamn it!! That's why I'm putting my full support into the Green Party -- a party that refuses corporate money . . . It's time to shake up the system and show the robber barons and Boss Tweeds of our government that we're coming and their days of control and corruption are numbered.

PJ follows up in another post on "Republicrats and Demoblicans":

I just can't fight anymore for a party that doesn't fight for me. I know the Green Party doesn't have the best chances within our current system. However, I'm just tired of supporting a party, which takes my vote and then turns around and does the opposite of what they said to get my vote . . . The Greens aren't as powerful but they do stick to their convictions unlike the corporatists in D.C. I'd rather spend my life working to affect institutional change in fighting for a multi-party system than continue to suck it up and pretend I'm not being abused and taken advantage of by the Democrats.

On the other side of the political spectrum, Donald Borsch writes at Common Sense Citizen:

I had posted an earlier blog regarding my out loud thinking about if a Third Political Party had viability, or should I heed the words of Rush Limbaugh and throw my energies into the GOP. Tonight, Monday 7 Dec 2009, I came to my decision. I shall endorse, support, and throw myself into The Constitution Party.

You might remember Donald from a comment he left here a few days back. In a follow-up post on the decision, he argues against the assertion that third party and independent conservative activism guarantees Democratic victory, exlaining:

I disagree with Rush Limbaugh in that I do not believe it is a bad thing for there to be a Third Party to enter the political arena. I do not believe it will guarantee a victory for the liberals . . . since there are more Conservatives than liberals, let's look at what could happen if a TP were to rise. The GOP would lose members. Big deal. I believe in a Free Market and I also believe in what I call "Free Market Politics", meaning that if Party C happens to put out a better ideological product than say, the GOP, I will go with Party C, period. Nothing personal against the GOP. This is all about what I believe is best for America, not what is best for the GOP . . . You will have, of course, many who will decry the rise of a TP and say that anyone who walks in a TP is hurting the Conservative Movement. How so? I mean, if I, as a Conservative, cast my lot in with a party that is not a household name or has extreme brand-familiarity, how can this be construed as me hurting the Conservative Movement? Perhaps it's time for those who are embroiled in "business as usual" and have resigned themselves to either being Democrat or Republican to wake-up and smell the coffee.

Given their respective positions, I imagine that Donald and PJ would strenuously disagree on any number of policy prescriptions, yet they converge in opposition to a common antagonist. Taken together, they demonstrate that the two-party system is incapable of adequately representing the interests of liberals and conservatives, progressives and libertarians. The reasons for this are entirely clear: the two-party state is incapable of representing the interests of the people of the United States because it represents interests that are opposed to those of the people of the United States.

Update: It should also be noted that the two-party system is not only "bleeding from both ends," as it were, but also from the middle. Centrists and self-described moderates on both sides of the duopoly divide also welcome the prospect of third party and independent opposition to the two-party state, from the middle. Ed Gurowitz writes:

I'd love to see the moderates, centrists, and yes even liberals in the GOP form a new party that will stand for the values that the majority of Americans stand for – tolerance, responsibility, accountable government to name a few. I'd also like to see the Democrats suggest (after all, liberals don't command) that the likes of Joe Lieberman, Mary Landrieu, and Blanche Lincoln form a party that will stand for whatever it is they stand for. Maybe then we will have political parties that are FOR something rather than merely AGAINST.

Meanwhile, Ortho Cuban states:

There are many of us who are moderates, but, as the article explains, are forced to choose between alternatives that are phrased only in the catch phrases of the radical ends or each party . . . there is even outright lying going on in both parties. Each party uses only the most radical members of the party in order to make their point. And, sadly, all too often the most radical members of each party are the ones who write the platform that many in the party have no intention of supporting once elected. I am one of those who is about ready for a third party alternative if neither party can find a way to moderate its tone and to build a true coalition.

NC Constitution Party Chairman: Two-Party System is a Sham

In North Carolina's Statesville Record and Landmark, Jim McNally reports on a meeting of the Constitution Party of North Carolina:

The CPNC leaders who spoke at the Golden Corral . . . [pointed out] the folly in supporting either of the two major political parties that have had a stranglehold on the electorate for the past century and a half.

"We're pretty upset at the way the government is going," said Mike Moorefield of Statesville. "And we think it's time to change."

And CPNC State Chairman Al Pisano did say things as they now are will continue unless like-minded people ban together and stop "picking the lesser of two evils" when they mark their ballots in the voting booths.

"This so-called two-party system is a sham," Pisano said, and he went on to point out that the United States' Founding Fathers and the writers of the nation's most esteemed documents would be appalled by what has become of their handiwork.

"We've gotten away from the meanings behind the Declaration of Independence and the true meaning of the Constitution," Pisano said. "And that's how we got into the mess we're in." . . .

Based on the speeches given Tuesday, the written material distributed at the meeting and other information found on the CPNC Web site, the party could be classified as being staunchly conservative . . .

"The only wasted vote," [Pisano] said, "is the one you cast for someone you don't truly believe in."