NY-9: Socialist Candidate May Tip Scales in Special Election

Tomorrow, voters in New York's 9th Congressional District will head to the polls in a special election to fill the seat vacated by Democrat Anthony Weiner.  There are three individuals running for the seat, the stooges of the Democratic and Republican parties, and a Socialist Workers Party candidate who petitioned his way onto the ballot.  At the Battleground Blog, Darcy Richardson has an extensive article on Chris Hoeppner of the SWP.  Excerpt:

With Republican Bob Turner clinging to a narrow lead over Democrat David Weprin in New York’s 9^th Congressional District, little-known Christopher R. Hoeppner of the Socialist Workers Party could be a major factor in the outcome of Tuesday’s hotly-contested special election to replace disgraced former U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner. . . .

The son of a New York firefighter, the 61-year-old Hoeppner grew up in Woodside, then a predominantly Irish-Catholic neighborhood in Queens.  Involved in left-wing politics for forty years, he joined the Socialist Workers Party — or more precisely, the Young Socialist Alliance — when he was still in high school and actively participated in the antiwar movement during Vietnam.

Hoeppner, who ran for mayor of Seattle in 2005 before returning to his New York roots, has been waging a whirlwind campaign throughout the district, beginning with a Herculean petition drive over the Fourth of July weekend, a monumental task that resulted in 7,080 signatures on nominating petitions — more than twice the number required — to place his name on the ballot.

Despite uncomfortably, if not painfully, hobbling around on crutches — the result of a recently breaking his foot while returning home from work one evening — the low-key yet determined socialist has been campaigning like a man on a mission ever since . . .

Unlike the wealthy Turner, a retired advertising and television executive, and Weprin, a Wall Street favorite who once served as deputy superintendent of the New York State Banking Commission and chairman of New York’s Securities Industry Association, Hoeppner describes himself as the “only working-class candidate in the race.”

The little-known SWP is fairly active in local NYC politics.  Read the whole thing.

Dear Democratic Voters, Follow Obama and Biden's Advice: Consider the Alternatives . . . Green, Socialist, Libertarian, Independent etc.

Clearly concerned about the so-called "enthusiasm gap" between likely Republican and likely Democratic voters, the White House has effectively begun a new campaign to shore up support for Democratic candidates among the party's most vocal activists, and, by extension, its base.  The explicit message of this campaign is highly counter-intuitive, at least at first glance.  Its slogan: "Consider the Alternatives!"  The message is difficult to ignore: in the White House echo chamber, the Vice President echoes the President echoing the Vice President.  As ABC News reports:

At a fundraiser in Manchester, NH, today, Vice President Biden urged Democrats to "remind our base constituency to stop whining and get out there and look at the alternatives. This President has done an incredible job. He’s kept his promises."

The remarks, made to roughly 200 top Democratic activists and donors, recall comments President Obama made last week to “griping and groaning Democrats…Folks: wake up. This is not some academic exercise. As Joe Biden put it, Don’t compare us to the Almighty, compare us to the alternative.”  [Emphases added.] 

Take a moment to consider the implications of the fact that the most prominent officials of the majority party are literally imploring Americans to "Consider the Alternatives." Of course, in the Orwellian language that is appropriate to the bizarro world of Democratic-Republican party politics and government, the statement "Consider the Alternatives" means exactly the opposite of what it says.  The implied message is immediately apparent: there are no alternatives, or rather, there is only one presumed alternative, voting Republican, but the presupposition is that this is simply not an option and therefore not an alternative.  But how does a partisan of the corporate parties understand the message?  At The Reaction, Michael Stickings writes in a letter to the Vice President:

What's with telling the Democratic base, your base, to "stop whining"?  Sure, I get your point -- as inartful as it was.

If you put Democrats up against Republicans, and if Democrats are compared to "the alternative," the choice should be clear, and Democrats, suffering from a lack of enthusiasm, should step up and do what needs to be done to prevent the Republicans from winning big this November.

In a two-party system, you've only got two choices, and often that choice is simply the least bad of the two. Is that what you meant? If so, and it would seem so, that's hardly a ringing endorsement of Democrats, hardly an encouraging message to be sending.  [Emphases added.]

Given the subtitle to The Reaction blog, namely, "liberalism unbound," it is highly ironic how succinctly this passage demonstrates the liberal Democrat's mental imprisonment by the ideology of the two-party state.  The reactionary ideologue of the two-party state thinks he has a choice when in fact there are no alternatives.  Indeed, partisans of the two-party state are so enthralled by the ideology that maintains it, they see two choices where in fact there are no alternatives.  

The good news is that there are numerous alternatives to the false choice between the Democratic and Republican parties that has been forced upon us by the ruling corporate-political class.  From a principled liberal or progressive perspective, independents, the Green party, the Socialist parties, even the Libertarian party, represent a superior alternative to the reproduction of the reigning two-party state.  If you call yourself a liberal or a progressive, but you support Democrats, in what sense are you a liberal or progressive?  By your actions you do nothing but provide popular political cover for a primary faction of the global warfare and corporate welfare state.

The Illusion of Independence and the Myth of the Progressive Voter: an Example of Democratic Doublethink

It is a commonplace of establishmentarian political commentary that the ranks of American independent voters are grossly inflated, as the majority of independents end up casting their ballots for the stooges of the Democratic and Republican parties. Rarely, however, is it ever pointed out that the same can be said of American progressives, liberals, conservatives and libertarians. If the majority of self-described progressives and liberals vote Democrat and the majority of self-described conservatives and libertarians vote Republican, we can safely conclude that, in practice, very few if any of these voters should be considered progressive, liberal, conservative or libertarian. Indeed, a solid case can be made that these voters are in fact reactionary corporatists. How could we conclude otherwise from their support for the reproduction of the ruling Democrat-Republican two-party state and duopoly system of government?

Consider, in this context, an opinion piece by Katrina vanden Heuvel in the Washington Post. In the column, the "progressive" editor and publisher of The Nation magazine appropriates strategic advice from "conservative" activist Richard Viguerie, arguing that progressives must maintain their independence from the Democratic Party, just as Viguerie counseled that Tea Party activists should maintain their independence from the GOP. The great irony, however, is that both columnists essentially argue against independence from the ruling parties. Vanden Heuvel writes:

[Viguerie] urges activists to stay independent and remember that "the biggest mistake of the conservative movement was becoming an appendage of the Republican Party." At the same time, he warns against the "third-party trap," which would split the vote. Instead, he counsels, the movement should run "principled" candidates in the primaries and support the most like-minded main-party candidates surviving for the general . . .

this advice makes good sense in the context of the progressive movement. Progressives revived liberalism and Democrats by organizing independently, opposing the Iraq war, demanding action on global warming, challenging Wall Street's excesses and exposing the conservatives' misrule of the government they scorned . . . Now, with Democrats in power, we should not allow a popular president whom we helped elect to co-opt that energy. Progressives should remain independent . . .

I have exposed the contradictions and holes in Viguerie's strategic logic before. See, for instance, the Fractal Fallacy and the Illogic of Two-Party Ideology. Vanden Heuvel's case for progressive independence is in fact a recipe for the production of co-dependency and political pretend-ependence. Take the three examples she supplies. Independent progressives may have "revived the Democrats" with their opposition to the Iraq war, and their calls for action on global warming and against Wall Street's excesses. But the Democrats have expanded the war and done nothing to combat global warming or the excesses of Wall Street. This is the paradox of issue advocacy in the context of the two-party state and duopoly system of government. Paul Rosenberg has made the case for issue advocacy within the ruling parties in the following terms:

one should look for purity and unity of purpose in issue activism--and devote one's energy accordingly. Make the party a vehicle for advancing your issue activism, do not expect it to be more than that . . .

The paradox is clear, however: so long as the party does not achieve the outcome you desire on the given issue, it is assured of your support, even as it goes about enforcing the agenda of the reactionary corporatist interests that the ruling parties actively represent. This is as obvious from the experience of pro-life activists within the Republican Party as it is from anti-war advocates within the Democratic Party.

Following Viguerie, vanden Heuvel argues that progressives should support progressive primary challengers of entrenched incumbent Democrats, but then counsels that they support Democrats whether they are progressive or not. This is not independence, it is the very definition of political co-dependence. In yesterday's Democratic primary election for the US Senate race in Ohio, progressive favorite Jennifer Brunner was defeated by Lee Fisher. Vanden Heuvel would have everyone believe that Fisher is now the default "progressive" candidate in the race. Yet, nothing could be further from the truth. Socialist Party candidate Dan La Botz has written open letters to Brunner and her supporters, urging them not to give up the "fight for their principles" by supporting yet another specimen of the Democrats' corporatist "patronage machine" in the general election. That is progressive independence.

The condition of political independence today is practical independence from the Democratic and Republican Parties as such: support third party and independent alternatives to the false choice offered up by the political class and ruling establishment.

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.

On the Communist-Socialist Divide over Health Care Reform and the Convergence of Tea Party and Socialist Thought

When conservative Republicans denounce the Democrats' health insurance industry bailout measure as a communist-socialist policy victory, and liberal Democrats proudly tout the fact that the law was built upon principles, and includes numerous provisions, long supported by Republicans, who is willing to draw the obvious conclusion that the Republican Party is just one more communist-socialist front group? It is worth emphasizing in this context that, like their Democratic-Republican counterparts, actual Communists and Socialists are in fact divided over the issue of health care reform. As I've noted before, the leadership of the Communist Party have been vocal supporters of the Obama administration and the Democratic congressional majority. It is therefore no surprise that the editors of People's World, the party's mouthpiece, have come out strongly in favor of the new legislation. In an editorial entitled "Health Care Victory," they write:

We join with those who hail this legislation both as a measure that will save lives now and begin curbing the insurance industry, and as a giant first step to further reforms that will provide quality, affordable health care for every person in the United States.

The Socialist Party, on the other hand, strongly opposed the leading House and Senate Democratic proposals:

Unfortunately, the bill recently passed by the House of Representatives, The Affordable Healthcare for America Act (HR 3962), and the proposals being considered by the Senate will not provide the relief Americans so desperately need . . . The primary problem with HR 3962 and the Senate proposals is that all of the changes they propose are made within a for-profit system . . . The Socialist Party USA therefore encourages its members and supporters to continue their work in the single-payer movement and to pressure elected representatives to vote “No” on the Senate proposal and, eventually, on the merged bill.

On his New York Daily News blog, Michael McAuliff noted the apparent irony of the Tea Party and Socialist Party's shared opposition to Obamacare:

Looks like the Tea Party, GOP and Socialists have something in common — they all oppose the health reform bill. “It is a corporate restructuring of the health insurance industry created to protect the profit margins of private insurance companies,” says the [Socialist Party] press release, which is after the jump. Maybe there is hope for common ground after all.

Of course, the Tea Party and the Socialist Party did not oppose the legislation for the same reasons. Paradoxically, Tea Party activists opposed the measure because of its socialist character while Socialists opposed it because it lacked a socialist character. Nonetheless, this is not the only overlap between the positions espoused by tea party activists and their socialist counterparts. Bloomberg News reports on a recent poll which found that "Tea Party Backers who Scorn Socialism Want Government Jobs Push":

Tea Party activists, who are becoming a force in U.S. politics, want the federal government out of their lives except when it comes to creating jobs . . . 70 percent of those who sympathize with the Tea Party . . . want a federal government that fosters job creation. They also look to the government to rein in Wall Street, with almost half saying the government should do something about executive bonuses . . . The activists say they believe the government is on a path to socialism, although they don’t see all federal programs in that light.

In one of the more interesting contradictions from the reported results, 65% stated that Social Security was "definitely or sort-of" socialism, while only 36% stated that the expansion of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security amounted to socialism. Perhaps the greatest miscalculation of those who argued for opposition to the Democrats' health insurance reform plan on the basis of the claim that it amounted to socialism, was in assuming a common and consistent understanding of what exactly socialism is .

The Socialist Alternative to the Democratic Party

Over the past months, much of the national discussion on the potential for third party and independent politics has been focused squarely on the right, emphasizing the tea party movement's relation to the GOP establishment, libertarian disillusionment with two-party statism, independent discontent with the duopoly's alternative to the Democratic Party etc. Yet, while Republican operatives continue to pretend that the Democratic Party is pursuing a radical left-wing agenda, actual leftists as well as mainstream liberals and progressives are growing ever more frustrated with the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress's agenda of maintaining the global warfare and corporate welfare state. As Sam Wilson points out, the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. In the Socialist Worker, one disillusioned Democrat, Donna Tara Lee, explains why it has become imperative for the left to take on the Democrats from the left:

I would like to say that I have been a lifelong Democrat since I was first eligible to vote in 1969 . . . These were the politics I was brought up with and learned at the dinner table . . . as I got older, I have been an unabashed liberal. I have been active in all the following causes dating back to the 1960's: civil rights, antiwar, feminism, pro-choice, the farmworkers movement ( I boycotted grapes for years), no nukes, free speech, justice for the Palestinians, anti-imperialist, anti-apartheid, and, lastly, the LGBTQ movement . . .

So why am I now thinking of leaving the party after our biggest electoral success since 1964? I have become so disenchanted that the changes we were promised instead seem to be more of the same old politics as usual. The lobbyists are still in control . . .

Personally, I don't support the health care bills out there. I favor a single-payer, cradle-to-grave health care plan, like they have in all other industrial countries. I believe the Obama administration has basically caved in on real health care reform to achieve a non-achievable bipartisan law . . . huge sums of bailout money were given to the big corporations that got themselves and us in this mess by their greed. But there have been no regulatory reforms passed to make sure the banks can no longer fleece us. So it's back to business as usual on Wall Street . . . The repressive and unconstitutional USA PATRIOT Act remains in effect, and lawbreakers of the previous administration go unpunished. Hate crimes against LGBTQ people are on the rise . . . There is no real climate reform. Unemployment continues to rise, and our major parties are more partisan toward each other than ever. In foreign affairs, the wars go on, taking more of our treasury, and the death toll among our soldiers grows higher. We still support regimes that persecute women for being women, and that are repressive and corrupt . . .

Except for some cosmetic changes--you could call it a new brand of make-up--what has changed? Nothing is my brutally frank answer. These failures have led me to rethink my political philosophy . . . I will be leaving the Democratic Party soon and registering as a socialist. I do this with a heavy heart, but I am convinced that the only way now to a peaceful and economically just society is through socialism.