Reactionism: the Iron Law of Duopolist Punditry, Part II

As I wrote yesterday in Part I of this piece, it is an iron law of political punditry that, whenever discussion of third party and Independent alternatives to the Democrats and Republicans breaks through the mainstream media's exclusionary filter, we are sure to be inundated with innumerable articles and commentaries regurgitating the ideological dogmas that sustain and maintain support for the two-party state and ruling political class.  Most recently, the phenomenon is apparent in the reaction to support for Americans Elect among a handful of mainstream political commentators.  Part I dissected a recent post by Wendy Kaminer at The Atlantic, today we'll take a look at an article in The American Prospect by Ben Adler, entitled, "Crashing the Party System."

Much of Adler's piece is nothing more than a series of attacks against Americans Elect and "the views of people like [Thomas] Friedman and [Michael] Bloomberg."  Ironically, it appears Adler did not bother to research Americans Elect in any serious manner, or else he would have undoubtedly cited many of the concerns that have been raised about the group by people like Jim Cook at Irregular Times, who have been critically investigating it, rather than engage in the standard forms of political snark that pass for discourse among Democrats and Republicans.  Indeed, Adler does not even appear to have read the sources he does cite in the article.  He writes:

the repeated failure of the centrist third-party movement has not discouraged its promoters . . . The usual pundit suspects, though, are foolishly promoting Americans Elect . . . Other third-party proponents have also weighed in . . . At Tech President, Micah Sifry asserts that “the third-party moment is back,” and “Americans Elect is going to strike a nerve.”

It appears fairly certain that Sifry's prediction is already coming to pass.  Americans Elect has clearly struck a nerve in people like Adler.  If he had bothered to read Sifry's lengthy article, however, he would have learned that Sifry is a vocal critic of the organization and its method. Sifry writes:

Our country desperately needs more viable political parties to expand the political conversation and engage more voters . . . Unfortunately, I have severe doubts about the prospects of Americans Elect being that party . . . 

Of course, a shoddy method is only to be expected from the mainstream media's proponents of the two-party state.  Nonetheless, I have no interest in defending Friedman or Americans Elect.  I began relaying suspicions and concerns about the organization on the basis of ongoing investigations by Richard Winger and Jim Cook almost two months ago.  If folks like Adler get their news about third party politics from columnists such as Thomas Friedman, well, let's at least try to hold back our laughter.
 
In the rest of his article, Adler puts forward a number of arguments against third party politics and advocacy as such, many of which should be familiar to regular readers here at Politea, thus demonstrating once against the lack of imagination and creativity that characterizes the supporters of the Democrats and Republicans.  The first is a variation on what I have previously termed the historical argument, according to which all future third party and Independent movements will fail because many of them have failed in the past.  Adler writes:

But the repeated failure of the centrist third-party movement has not discouraged its promoters.

That is rather precious coming from a liberal supporter of the Democratic party, no?  Rather than address Adler's lack of political self-awareness and his brand of historical fatalism, let's move on to his main argument, which states that a "third presidential party" is neither possible nor necessary.  From Adler:

Supporters of third-party candidates ignore or gloss over the inherent reasons the American political system has had two major parties for the last 150 years.

False.  In fact, supporters of third party and independent alternatives to the ruling parties are much more likely than the average duopolist dead-ender to be intimately familiar with the ways in which the Democrats and Republicans have systematically rigged our political and electoral system to facilitate the monopolization and consolidation of power in their own hands at all levels of government over the last 150 years.  The dead-enders of the duopoly parties, on the other hand, ignore or gloss over this history, and prefer to frame the two-party state as if it were a metaphysical condition of politics as such rather than a contingent historical formation.  Adler continues:

In a system of winner-take-all elections, it behooves factions to join forces to create a plurality. Unless we switch to proportional representation, which would require a constitutional amendment, we simply won’t have more than two major parties . . .

Here we see a prime example of the procedural argument (see this post for elaboration), followed by a prescription for infinite deferral popular among those who recognize the deep flaws in the reigning two-party system but whose political cowardice enjoins them to lend it their support.  Our liberal Democratic friend then moves on to a consideration of third party strategy:

Anytime a third party emerges, it will ally with one party to form a winning team. Eventually, it will fold into the other party to bolster both their chances of winning. Anyone with a basic understanding of math, game theory, or political science should be able to see this.

False.  Adler here reverses cause and effect, as anyone with a basic understanding of history and logic can plainly see.  Historically, successful third party organizations in the United States do not tend to "ally with one party" to "form a winning team," nor do they tend to "fold" themselves into the other party to "bolster their chances of winning".  On the contrary, successful third party organizations have historically been co-opted by the major parties, when large portions of their platforms have been stolen by the major parties and incorporated into their own political programs.  Typically, as this process progresses, the major parties have tended, at the very same time, to pass laws and regulations making it even more difficult for third party and Independent candidates to obtain ballot access, participate in forums and debates and so on.  See, for instance, the history of the relationship between the Democratic party and the Socialist party in the first half of the twentieth century.  Returning to the article under consideration, the author then glances across the great pond:

If you want an example of a winner-take-all system in which three parties have actually managed to stick around for a long time, just look at the United Kingdom, where the Liberal Democrats never win national elections but several times they or their predecessor parties have siphoned enough votes from Labour to give the Conservatives a plurality, empowering the country’s conservative minority. Is that what Friedman wants to see happen here?

If you want an example of a winner-take-all system in which three parties have managed to stick around for some time, you need not look abroad, since Vermont provides us with an obvious case in point.  Not only has Vermont elected the longest-sitting Independent in the US Senate, it is also home to one of the country's most successful third parties, the Vermont Progressive Party.  But it is easy to understand why a dead-ender of the Democratic party would rather make the comparison with the United Kingdom, since, in this case, it allows him to forward the hackneyed spoiler argument. 

Adler then moves on to his second point, which he makes by arguing against a cliche and in favor of the ruling partisan primary process.  Excerpt:

The major complaint—and the reason often cited for supporting third-party candidates—is that the Democratic and Republican parties are calcified machines where cigar-chomping pols cut backroom deals; they’re insider affairs that don’t leave room for the “center.” But at the presidential level, there’s a lot more democracy than in, say, many urban political machines. The party nominees are chosen through caucuses and primaries.

Conveniently, Adler does not note that caucuses and primaries are themselves controlled by the most rabid proponents of the duopoly parties, and that Independents and third party supporters are, in many if not most states, prohibited from participating in them.  Turnout in primary elections hovers around 30%, which means that the candidates of the major parties are typically chosen by 6-8% of registered voters.  It is simply absurd to counter here that Independents and third party supporters can participate in these elections if only they would register with the given party, since that completely misses the point.  Why would you vote in the primary election of a party you explicitly reject, except perhaps to sabotage it?

In his mendacity, Adler even goes so far as to play the race card: "It’s no coincidence that the third-party trumpet is always sounded by white men," he writes.  Tell that to Alan Keyes, Cornel West, Lenora Fulani, Omar Ali, and the leaders of the Tequila Party.  The fact that Adler appears not to have any knowledge of these individuals only further demonstrates his ignorance of the subject matter.

Finally, in his concluding argument, Adler tediously returns to the spoiler argument, but not before he takes a  parting shot at Republicans:

Third-party advocates wring their hands over both parties being beholden to interest groups. But Republicans are beholden to something much worse, because you cannot appease it: irrational, anti-factual ideologues. A centrist, technocratic third-party candidate will draw approximately zero of their votes, which means his votes will come out of the 53 percent who voted for Barack Obama in 2008.

Of course, this argument is a red herring.  In 2008, there were more Americans who chose not to vote for either the Republican or Democratic party's candidate than there were who voted for Obama.  If any third party or Independent organization can succeed in organizing those who are have been disillusioned, the disaffected and disenfranchised by the Democrats and Republicans, they will win in a landslide.  But maybe there is hope for bipartisanship between the major parties.  If Republicans are irrational, anti-factual ideologues, it appears liberal Democrats such as Adler may have something in common with them after all.

Reactionism: the Iron Law of Duopolist Punditry, Part I

It is an iron law of political punditry that, whenever discussion of third party and Independent alternatives to the Democrats and Republicans breaks through the mainstream media's exclusionary duopolist filter, we are sure to be inundated with innumerable articles and commentaries regurgitating the ideological dogmas that sustain and maintain support for the two-party state and ruling political class.  Most recently, the phenomenon is apparent in the reaction to support for Americans Elect among a handful of mainstream political commentators (in the present case, Thomas Friedman and John Avlon among others) who are not as slavishly devoted to the Republican-Democrat duopoly system of government as the majority of their colleagues.  For the present, let's consider one example from The Atlantic.  In the next post, we'll dissect another exemplar of the genre from The American Prospect.

In The Atlantic, Wendy Kaminer argues that "a third party is no panacea."  She thus begins by setting up a straw man.  Who claims that a third party is a political cure-all?  One is much more likely to encounter such an arrogant self-opinion among the professional partisans of the Democratic and Republican parties who openly assert that they have all the answers to all our political problems, when in fact they themselves are both cause and symptom of those very problems.  Supporters of third party and Independent alternatives, on the other hand, are much more likely to make the modest point that they are simply not represented by the corporatist stooges of the ruling parties.  Kaminer's position is symptomatic of a political fight or flight response.  Her position is conditioned, above all else, by fear.  She writes:

divided government too easily devolves into dysfunctional government. So count me out of efforts to create a strong third party: I suspect that increasing the divisiveness -- splintering Congress into three formal parties instead of two -- would only increase the dysfunction.

Of course, there is no evidence to support this claim, it is nothing more than a suspicion, as she herself says.  The opposite suspicion is equally justified, namely, that if a third party were represented in the Congress, such that no party had a majority, all legislation would be the result of political compromise, thus decreasing divisiveness and dysfunction.  The reason why Kaminer would suspect the former and not the latter is simple to determine: she is ideologically and financially invested in the universality of dysfunctionality.  As her bio states, she is the author of a book entitled I'm Dysfunctional, You're Dysfunctional.

Kaminer's post is instructive, however, because it reveals that even critics of third party and Independent political advocacy implicitly accept the most common critique of the two-party system.  She continues:

liberals complain repeatedly, we don't quite have a second party. The complaint is hyperbole: there are clear differences between Congressional Democrats and Republicans on economic and social issues. But, like a lot of hyperboles, it's partly true: Democrats have not pursued their policy preferences as doggedly and effectively as Republicans, (which is how we ended up with the Bush/Obama tax cuts and a chasm between rich and poor;) and the parties are generally united in their hostility or indifference to civil liberty and their reflexive support for the national security state.

One might add here that many conservatives complain that they don't have a second party either.  Ironically, however, Kaminer does not seem to recognize that with these lines she has contradicted the argument she desires to forward.  She says it's false to claim that there are no differences between the Democrats and Republicans, but then she admits outright that Democrats and Republicans are both enemies of civil liberties, reactionary supporters of the national security police state, and united in their support for monied corporate interests over those of the American people!  Kaminer calls herself a "civil libertarian."  But from her own analysis, it is clearly apparent that no civil libertarian should support the Democrats or Republicans.  She concludes with a jab at the alleged hubris and arrogance of third party supporters.  Excerpt:

perhaps the greatest fallacy of the third party movement is the unspoken, perhaps unacknowledged, underlying assumption that members of a third party would be more informed, intelligent, and rational and less self-interested and demagogic than members of the first and second parties.

If you reject the Democratic and Republican parties, and advocate third party and Independent alternatives, you are more informed, intelligent and rational than members of the Democratic and Republican parties, many of whom continue to believe, against all the evidence, that Democrats and Republicans represent the interests of the American people.  Indeed, it is precisely out of self-interest that we should support alternatives to the Republicans and Democrats.  For example, if you are a civil libertarian, it is highly irrational and against your self-interest to support the Democrats and Republicans, even though you recognize that the Republican and Democratic parties are enemies of civil liberties.

See Part II.

A Tale of Two Committees: Bipartisan Bias in New York and California

Last week, in a discussion of California's newly-minted Citizens Redistricting Commission, I noted that even though the commission is multi-partisan in character – by law, it consists of five Democrats, five Republicans and five four individuals who are not affiliated with either of the major parties – reporters, commentators and even commissioners themselves have continually referred to it as a "bipartisan" group, thereby revealing the prejudicial character of the ideology that sustains the two-party state.  A more clear cut case of bipartisan bias – in which bipartisanship is falsely equated with non-partisanship – would probably be difficult to find.  This week, however, political leaders in New York have provided us with a complimentary example of ideological prejudice. 

On Monday, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo held a press conference with Democratic Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, Republican Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos and a variety of public interest groups to unveil a new ethics law intended to "clean up Albany."  Bloomberg News describes the plan:

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and legislative leaders agreed on an ethics law with stricter rules and enforcement for disclosure of financial assets and income.  The accord obligates legislators and public officials to name their business associates and requires lawyers such as Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver to reveal their clients. 

The law will also create a new, strictly bipartisan body with oversight powers that cover both the legislative and executive branches.  Bloomberg New continues:

The legislation proposed today would create a 14-member Joint Commission on Public Ethics, replacing the existing Commission on Public Integrity with a bipartisan panel. Six members would be appointed by the governor and lieutenant governor, of which three must be from a political party other than the governor’s. Eight would be appointed by leaders of each house of the Legislature.

The New York Times fills in some more detail:

The governor will have six appointees to the 14-member board: three Democrats and three Republicans. The speaker and Senate majority leader get three appointees apiece, while the minority leaders of each chamber get one appointee apiece. To undertake an investigation of any lawmaker, the votes of two of the four legislatively appointed commissioners who are in the same party as the lawmaker are required. As a result, three legislatively appointed commissioners could kill an investigation, even if the other 11 favor an inquiry.

Though the commission is strictly bipartisan in character, and therefore necessarily excludes independents and third party supporters, the governor and his allies have opted to frame it as an "independent" body.  From the governor's official press release announcing the agreement:

The Clean Up Albany Act of 2011 establishes an independent [emphasis added] Joint Commission on Public Ethics . . . .

"This bill is the tough and aggressive approach we need. It provides for disclosure of outside income by lawmakers, creates a true independent [emphasis added] monitor to investigate corruption," [said Cuomo himself] . . .

Steve Younger, Former President of the New York Bar Association said, "This is an historic moment for all New Yorkers. This new measure will enhance transparency in our government and ensure both independent [emphasis added] and fair enforcement of our ethics laws.

Of course, there is nothing "independent" about a strictly bipartisan body that is hand-picked by political leaders from the major parties in the legislature and the executive.  Indeed, such subordination is the very definition of dependency – never mind the fact that putting a commission composed solely of Democrats and Republicans in charge of ethics oversight is akin to appointing a gang of arsonists to oversee the local fire fighting brigade –.  Moreover, as it now stands, this "independent," bipartisan commission currently has no way of investigating officials who are actually Independent, i.e. who have no party affiliation or who are affiliated with a third party: "the votes of two of the four legislatively appointed commissioners who are in the same party as the lawmaker are required," as the NYT points out.  At Capitol Confidential, Jimmy Vielkind noted the obvious discrepancy earlier this week:

The bipartisan structure of the to-be-created Joint Commission on Public Ethics is carefully balanced (to the point some have criticized it) between the Republicans and Democrats, so neither party could conduct a “political witch hunt” against the other.  But what about lawmakers enrolled in one of New York’s minor parties? “They don’t exist!” Gov. Andrew Cuomo jokingly said Monday . . . But there is currently one lawmaker who is an enrolled Independence Party member: Fred Thiele, of Suffolk County . . .

The proposed system would require the sign-off of two commissioners appointed by the legislature from the same party as the would-be investigation target. As such, how could anyone sign off on a probe of Thiele? And what might he do with his ethical invincibility??!? “Well, I don’t feel like I’m above the law,” he told me on the floor yesterday, laughing. “I caucus with the Democrats, so I guess, for the purposes of the ethics law, that’s where I would fall.”

Despite Thiele's nonchalance, others are taking the situation much more seriously.  From The Wall Street Journal:

The new ethics law being touted by Gov. Andrew Cuomo parcels equal roles to Democrats and Republicans in investigating lawmakers of both parties suspected of questionable conduct. What about independents?

"They don't exist," Mr. Cuomo said at a recent news conference, at which point he and legislative leaders standing beside him broke into a hearty laugh. But constitutional scholars aren't taking the matter so lightly.

They're warning that the state's new ethics body may be destined for legal challenges in federal court. By enshrining into law the perpetual dominance of Republicans and Democrats in overseeing ethics codes, Mr. Cuomo and lawmakers could be infringing on the rights of unaffiliated and minor-party citizens . . .

The Cuomo administration and lawmakers were careful to distribute power on the board evenly between Republicans and Democrats. In doing so, they've appeared to nearly wipe out the possibility for independents to occupy seats on the board.

If board membership is restricted to Republicans and Democrats, the "doors of a federal court would be open" to such a challenge, said Floyd Abrams, a prominent First Amendment lawyer.

According to the latest enrollment statistics, just under three million New Yorkers profess no party affiliation or are enrolled with a third party.  That is nearly 26% of all registered voters.  In fact, there are more New Yorkers who have no party affiliation or who are enrolled with a third party than there are Republicans in the state!  Yet, 100% of the members on the new "independent" ethics commission are Democrats or Republicans.

Considering the examples from New York and California together, we see two complimentary ways in which the ideology that sustains the two-party state operates in our political discourse to falsify reality.  In California, a fairly independent, multi-partisan Commission is falsely portrayed as a strictly bipartisan body, while in New York, a politically dependent, strictly bipartisan Commission is falsely portrayed as an "independent" body.

There is No Monopoly on Right: Contradiction and the Ideology of the Two-Party State

A commentary in the Mercury News by Byron Williams succinctly demonstrates the hubris, arrogance and intellectual bankruptcy of the ideology that sustains the two-party state.  Entitled, "To thrive, the nation needs two strong political parties," Williams's article takes a critical look at the weakness of the Republican party and its field of presidential candidates, and argues that this is not in the interests of the Democratic party either.  Excerpt:

With the current political process being what it is -- showing the qualities of a spectator sport -- it is also doubtful that many politically left of center will lose sleep over a weakened Republican Party. . .  My desires for a strong Republican Party assumes two things:  it is currently a weak party in need of self-reflection and purging; the Democratic Party is the de facto stronger of the two.

Being the "de facto" stronger political party, however, does not denote any moral superiority. If anything, it breeds an arrogance and hubris that lulls one into believing that "right" exist only within their domain, alleviating any desires for self-reflection.  In a two-party system, it requires that only one party be overtly infected by perceived weakness to send both tumbling into the abyss of mediocrity.  [Emphasis added.]

Of course, it is a cliche of bipartisan political sloganeering that no party has a monopoly on the truth, that no party is politically infallible, that no party is in possession of the fabled "silver bullet," and so on.  Williams explicitly subscribes to this hackneyed view.  His eventual conclusion, however, is quite revealing.  He writes:

It would be foolhardy to believe the answers to the problems we face are exclusive to one political party. For the nation to be successful, both political parties must aggressively compete in the marketplace of ideas.

So, according to Williams, it is foolhardy to believe that the answers to the problems we face are exclusive to one political party, but it is enlightened rationalism to believe that the answers to the problems we face are exclusive to two of them!  The two-party state breeds an arrogance and hubris among Democrats and Republicans which lulls them into believing that "right" exists only within their domain, alleviating any desires for critical self-reflection.  Indeed, Williams appears blissfully ignorant of the absurd contradiction inherent in his assertion that, though no party has a monopoly on right, the Democrats and Republicans have a monopoly on right.  The ideology of the two-party state is a nest of thoughtless contradictions.

Neither Workable nor Sustainable: the Ideology of the Two-Party State and Duopolist Doublethink

Among Democrats and Republicans, the two-party state and duopoly system of government provides the absolute horizon of politics as such.  From this perspective, independents and third parties can suddenly appear in a menacing formation at that horizon, but for the most part they disappear beyond the committed duopolist's line of sight.  The ideology that sustains the two-party state has numerous internal blind spots as well.  Reflecting on the well-documented civic ignorance of the American public, Matthew Yglesias writes:

I’m never that upset about reports of Americans’ widespread civic ignorance. The nature of our party system means that a voter can really only express a very crude kind of thumbs up or thumbs down preference at the ballot box, so it’s not clear to me how a more nuanced understanding of the world would actually effectuate itself in terms of policy change.   But this is one of the reasons why I worry about the lack of accountability in our system. . . . . if things go well, then at the margin this helps incumbents. If things go poorly, then at the margin this hurts incumbents . . . That’s not necessarily ideal . . . but it seems workable and sustainable.

In other words, the two-party state thrives under the conditions of public ignorance.  And, as a supporter of the two-party state, Yglesias is effectively content with high levels of public ignorance because it is a condition for the reproduction of the two-party state.  On this view, the more informed a voter is, the more frustrated he or she is likely to be by the forced, false choice between the Republican and Democratic parties.  If things "go poorly," as Yglesias puts it, and a given voter is motivated to cast a ballot against his or her sitting representatives, the only choice within the two-party frame is to support the representative of the other major party.  Needless to say, this is not considered a viable option by most eligible voters, judging from the high re-election rates of incumbents and the high level of public discontent with the Democratic and Republican parties.

Rather than cast a ballot, the wide majority of eligible voters simply opt not to vote in the wide majority of elections.  Thus, in addition to public ignorance, low voter turnout is likely yet another condition for the reproduction of the reigning two-party state.  Of course, there are minor reforms that would improve significantly upon the "very crude kind of thumbs up or thumbs down preference at the ballot box," such as range voting, but incumbent lawmakers are hesitant to support such reforms for obvious reasons.  Interestingly, though Yglesias states that the current party system is workable and sustainable, he goes on to argue that this is not in fact the case.  He concludes:

What doesn’t seem sustainable to me is the system we’ve been evolving toward in which a legislative minority is able to block action and then reap the rewards of any policy failure that results. This feature of our institutional set-up, much more than public ignorance, threatens to wreck the “market” for sound public policy.

We are thus provided with a classic example of duopolist double-think.  For this supporter of the two-party state, the current party system is workable and sustainable, but it is in fact neither workable nor sustainable.

Putting Partisans on the Defensive: Political Independence and Its Discontents

One of the most promising signs in the fight for freedom and independence from the tyranny of the two-party state and duopoly system of government is that the supporters of the ruling parties have been put on the defensive.  Millions upon millions of Americans no longer accept the false choice represented by the opposition between the Democratic and Republican parties, and increasingly choose to identify themselves as Independents rather than associate themselves with the professional partisans of the ruling political class.  To even the most minimally observant individuals among us, it is clear as day that the Republican and Democratic parties no longer represent the interests of the people of the United States, but rather those of an entrenched political establishment whose moral decadence is matched only by its political degeneracy.  Arguably, the reigning party system is no longer accepted as the absolute horizon of our nation's political order.  The proponents of the ruling parties are on the defensive.  Today it is not enough for them to simply make the case that their preferred faction of the two-party state deserves the people's support.  They are increasingly forced to make the case in support of the party system as such, to justify its very existence. 

The most recent Intelligence Squared debate, which aired on CNBC last night, bears witness to this development.  The motion: "the two-party system is making America ungovernable."  One might quibble with any number of the assumptions presupposed by the motion, or with any of the arguments put forward by the pundits who argued for and against it, but the very fact that the two-party system is itself up for debate is significant in and of itself.  (I'll write more on this debate in the coming days.)  As the Independent movement gains strength and power, it is a safe bet that those who are invested in the party-political status quo will become ever more desperate in their attempts to justify the indefinite reproduction of the party-political status quo.  We can thus expect increasingly vicious attacks against political independence and increasingly hysterical defenses of the two-party state. 

Red State Diarist: We Need a National Conservative Party

Today, Red State diarist Nikitas3 has posted a lengthy entry on the site calling for the formation of a Conservative Party of America to act as a countervailing force to the Republicans and Democrats.  Excerpt:

It is time to establish a Conservative Party of America that will bring together all conservatives under one umbrella – Tea Party, 2nd Amendment, Constitutionalists, pro-life, pro-family, Christian, anti-terrorist, traditional marriage, private-property rights, secure borders, pro-military, pro-nuclear etc.

This would not be just another political advocacy group. It would be a whole new party to add to Democrats and Republicans. It could run candidates for everything from town council to president of the United States.

Today there is no such party. The Tea Party movement indeed represents conservatives, but it is not an official party and its focus is strictly fiscal. Even still, in its short history, the Tea Party helped to sweep hundreds of candidates into office in 2010. And we need to build on that success and that momentum. . . . 

Like the Tea Party, CPA will work with the Republican party when the GOP fields good candidates. No problem. Otherwise CPA can put up candidates and run them in Republican primaries or run them as Conservatives in general elections.

CPA candidates may be Tea Party or pro-life or pro-nuclear or whatever. But right now, many conservatives - in the pro-life movement, for instance - may not feel they really have a political home except in their own separate sphere of political influence. They may be well-spoken, but they see no way to expand their ideas to a bigger audience as a Conservative Party would allow them to, even to the national candidate level. CPA could begin showcasing intelligent conservatives of all stripes from all over the country, and bring out a whole new generation of activists just as the Tea Party did in less than two years. . . . 

The article then goes on to list nearly twenty reasons to support the idea.  Perhaps Nikitas3 is unaware, but Red State diarists are literally not allowed to advocate for any political party other than the GOP.  The site's rules dictate that all posts must be ideologically conservative and politically Republican, as reported here on a Red State post from last year advocating third party activism.  As I wrote at the time:

The two-party state and duopoly system of government is (re)produced and maintained, first and foremost, by a set of ideological fabrications and mystifications which aim to create the illusion that all resistance to the dictatorship of the Democratic-Republican Party is futile. However, the rules of our duopolized discourse are not laws of nature, they are artifices actively enforced by the ideological prison guards of the two-party state . . . 

The Politics of Psychosis: "I know you are but what am I?"

As Democrats and Republicans happily continue to play their game of partisan political ping-pong with the Tucson massacre, perhaps the most unwittingly ironic assertion is that which claims the assassin's act has little or nothing to do with mainstream politics because the assassin himself is clearly a deranged and mentally disturbed individual.  It is by means of this precise argument that the deranged and disturbed proponents of the Democratic and Republican parties seek to wash their hands of the bloody affair after first attempting to wipe them clean with the other side's dirty laundry.  Yet, the psychotic senselessness, the violence and brutality of the assassin's act stands as an appropriate metaphor for Democratic-Republican party politics and government itself, in which character assassination functions as both a primary means and end.

If psychosis is defined as loss of contact with reality, then Democratic-Republican party politics under the conditions of the global warfare and corporate welfare state has been psychotic for quite some time, complete with delusions of grandeur and paranoid hallucinations.  The self-satisfied authors of empire imagine enemies everywhere in the alternate realities they create for themselves.  Reflecting on Post-Tucson Partisanship and Pathology, Sam Wilson writes:

given how little reasoned discourse has emerged from the partisan camps since Saturday, shouldn't we question any distinction that privileges partisan ideology as rational in order to exempt it from association with the accused's mania?

The sick and twisted irrationality of Democratic-Republican party politics is never more clear than it is in moments of tragedy such as this.  It is as if the trauma provokes a psychotic break that lays bare the wholly mechanical nature of the procedures and formulas that animate what passes for mainstream political discourse.  Such scenes resemble nothing so much as Harpo and Groucho Marx's famous mirror shtick in Duck Soup:  Democrats denounce the violent rhetoric of Republicans, Republicans denounce the violent rhetoric of Democrats, Democrats denounce the conservative climate of hate, Republicans denounce the progressive climate of hate, and so on ad infinitum.  Democratic-Republican party politics is nothing more than an extended game of "I'm rubber and you're glue," or "I know you are but what am I."  

The Logical Conclusion of the Argument for Divided Government

The extent to which the ideology of the two-party state has eroded constitutional government in the United States is sometimes most clear in the off-hand comments of the apologists for the dictatorship of the ruling Democratic-Republican party.  1580AM radio, which syndicates Lou Dobbs' talk show, relays a Youtube video entitled, "Lou Dobbs Post-Show Debrief 1.3.11."  Here's the teaser:

Lou Dobbs talks about the ‘NEW’ Congress taking office this week and the country returning to an ACTUAL ‘two-party’ system of checks and balances with Democrats AND Republicans holding power in Congress.

In the video "debrief," Dobbs states:

We're coming up on a big week as we launch 2011.  Congress is coming back on Wednesday.  Can't wait.  Can you?  It's felt pretty good not to have them in session, I don't know how it's going to feel to have them back.  I'm sure of one thing: it's going to feel better than last year because this year we don't have one-party rule.  We're back to the two-party political system in our government, checks and balances, all that sort of thing.  It's a very very important development.  I think it's part of the reason I feel so good about this year . . . [Emphasis added.]

In this short statement, Dobbs manages to conflate divided government with the two-party system while confusing the two-party system with the system of checks and balances.  In effect, his working assumption is that only divided government provides the conditions necessary to ensure checks and balances.  Given that divided government has become the rule rather than the exception at the federal level over the last fifty years or so, it is likely that many American would essentially agree with this proposition.  If it is true, however, then we must draw the obvious conclusion that government by the Democratic and Republican parties has undermined the separation of powers in the United States.

The argument for divided government under the conditions of the two-party state is actually quite simple.  When the presidency and the legislature are controlled by the same party, the president will not check the Congress and the Congress will not check the president, but rather they work in concert for the benefit of their party and its primary constituencies, and the separation of powers will be undermined.  When the powers of government are divided between the parties, the argument goes, we are ensured an antagonistic relationship between the executive and legislative branches. 

Yet, though they pander to different segments of the public, the major parties ultimately serve the same interests, namely, those of the ruling criminal-political class, and thus a very similar argument can be made with respect to so-called divided government itself.  When the presidency and the legislature are controlled by different factions of the two-party state, the president does not check the Congress and the Congress does not check the president, but rather they work in concert for the benefit of the parties themselves and their primary constituencies, and the separation of powers is undermined.   Consider but one obvious example of such political malfeasance.  Arguably, the imperial presidency and the cult of the executive rival the two-party system itself as the single greatest threat to the separation of powers in the United States.  Support for the imperial presidency is rampant among the legions of executive cultists in both the Democratic and Republican parties.  The imperial presidency and the cult of the executive have thrived and metastasized under the conditions of divided government over the last fifty years, no matter which party has controlled the Congress or the Presidency. 

Perhaps, in this context, all that need be done is to take the argument in favor of divided government to its logical conclusion: no party should control the presidency, or the Senate or the House of Representatives.  An independent opposition is necessary to counter the enemies of constitutional, democratic, republican government in the ruling political class.

Two-Party Politics and the International Scope of Duopoly Ideology

Reactionary opposition between the Democratic and Republican parties is a defining characteristic of politics under the conditions of the two-party state and duopoly system of government.  Yet, the appearance of opposition and antagonism often serves to obscure a fundamental unity in support of consolidating the power of the ruling political class and expanding the scope of the global warfare and corporate welfare state.  A newly released Wikileaked cable sheds some light on how the constitutive dynamics of the two-party system affect our relations with other countries and influence the domestic politics of foreign nations.  As reported at Third Party and Independent Daily:

A newly released Wikileaked diplomatic cable from April 2009 details a meeting between Vice President Joe Biden and Spanish Prime Minister Jose Zapatero at a Progressive Governance Leaders Summit in Chile.  Discussion of the Obama administration's "new approach to foreign policy" appears to have dominated the meeting.  Biden stated that for eight years the doctrine of "my way or the high way" had been ascendant in American foreign policy, but that the Obama administration would seek collaboration and consensus.

For his part, Zapatero expressed high expectations in working with the Obama administration but admitted that "managing the relationship between the United States and Spain under the Bush administration was easy for him."  The cable states: "Whatever position the Bush Administration took, he would take the opposite and see his domestic poll numbers increase. Sarcastically, Zapatero said "for that I will always be grateful to the Bush Administration."  [Emphasis added.]

Zapatero, a member of the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party, was elected Prime Minister in 2004 and then re-elected in 2008.  During the Bush administration, he was an outspoken critic of US foreign policy and the war in Iraq.  See a cache copy of the cable at Cable Search.    

In 2004, Zapatero's opposition to the Iraq war helped assure his election to the office of prime minister and led him to publicly support John Kerry's candidacy for president.  The irony, of course, is that Kerry did not oppose the war in Iraq and stood by his vote in support of it throughout the 2004 campaign.  

Debunking the Myth of the Independent Voter

From this week's column at CAIVN: 

As the Independent movement grows in strength, a backlash from the partisans of the major parties and political status quo is only to be expected, for they have the most to lose in the face of a truly Independent electorate. However, the supposed “myth of the Independent voter” is perhaps the strongest piece of evidence that they are simply in denial.

In May 2009, the Pew Research Center declared: “Independents take center stage in the age of Obama.” In the months following the 2008 general election, Independent identification surged to its highest level in seventy years, surpassing that of both the Democratic and Republican party brands.  Since then, there has been a relatively steady supply of commentary and analysis arguing that, for all intents and purposes, the supposed “Independent voter” does not in fact exist, but is rather a long-standing myth of American political culture.   

Yet, our nation’s politicians continue to seek their favor, and the White House appears especially concerned about winning back the Independent vote following the Democratic party’s poor performance in the midterm elections.  Last week, The Washington Post reported that White House advisers are “deeply concerned about winning back political independents, who supported Obama two years ago by an eight-point margin but backed Republicans for the House this year by 19 points.”  In response, some liberal Democratic party strategists have resuscitated the myth of the “myth of the Independent voter” to aid in their opposition to this strategy.

In a widely circulated article published at The New Republic, John B. Judis seeks to correct the White House’s “misguided view of the Independent voter,” and in the process provides the reader with a series of arguments that have been common currency among strategists for the major parties since at least 1992, when a group of political scientists led by Bruce Keith published a work entitled The Myth of the Independent Voter.  Let’s consider a sample of Judis’s arguments.

Read the rest.  

David Nolan, Founder of Libertarian Party, Passes Away: The Case for a Libertarian Political Party and the Myth of the Two-Party System

From Wes Benedict, at the Libertarian Party blog:

We have received news that David F. Nolan, a founder of the Libertarian Party, passed away this weekend. The Libertarian Party was founded in 1971 in Mr. Nolan's living room. He had remained active with the Libertarian Party including currently serving on the Libertarian National Committee and running for U.S. Senator from Arizona in the recent elections. He is survived by his wife Elizabeth. He will be dearly missed by the Libertarian Party and the liberty community. We'll have more information about David Nolan soon.

From Tom Knapp at Independent Political Report:

I just received a phone call from R. Lee Wrights, who is en route home from the Libertarian National Committee meeting in New Orleans, Louisiana. Shortly after adjournment of the LNC meeting today, he was informed that Libertarian Party founder David F. Nolan has died. Steve Kubby has also reported this, and confirms it via conversation with Nolan’s wife, Elizabeth. Best wishes from everyone here at IPR to David’s family and loved ones.

From Richard Winger at Ballot Access News:

David F. Nolan, who founded the Libertarian Party along with a group of others in Nolan’s living room, died on November 21 at the age of 66.  He had just completed a vigorous and relatively successful election campaign for the U.S. Senate this month, receiving 4.7% of the vote in a 4-person race against incumbent Senator John McCain.  Nolan was two days away from his next birthday.  He lived in Tucson. Apparently he suffered a stroke while driving his automobile, on November 20.  On a personal note, this is very sad news.

From Austin Cassidy at Uncovered Politics:

Nolan was a graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and worked in the publishing and advertising industries for several decades.  He was a founding member of the Students for Goldwater group at MIT in 1964 and heavily involved in the “liberty movement” prior to 1971, when he served as the driving force behind the creation of the Libertarian Party.

Aside from his role as founder of the LP, Nolan is best known as the person who popularized the “Nolan Chart,” a diagram of political philosophies that goes beyond just liberal and conservative labels.

“He was sort of a guiding light,” Jack Dean, a longtime friend and political ally told the Arizona Daily Star.  “He was kind of our conscience. Dave was a presence at every national convention; everyone respected him. He kept reminding everybody what the goal was.”

Uncovered Politics has also re-published a seminal article by Nolan, entitled The Case for a Libertarian Political Party, from 1971.  In a central passage of the article, Nolan elaborates upon the idea that the "two-party system" is a myth:

The Myth of the Two-Party System

This statement may seem a little strong, at first reading – especially as most of us have been raised from first childhood to believe that the two-party system is The Best Of All Possible Arrangements.

We are told, for instance, that it is the hallmark of a free society – with the Soviet one-party system held up as its antithesis. Conversely, we are told that a multi-party system produces “chaos”, which in turn means loss of freedom for those persons so unfortunate as to live under such a system.

The fact of the matter, however, is that, logically speaking, if a one-party system is tyrannical, a two-party system is only one step removed from tyranny. And empirical evidence shows that citizens of a country which has a multi-party system can be just as free as we are here in the United States; such countries as Germany, France, and Australia, while hardly libertarian nirvanas, are not significantly more repressive than our own country – and Switzerland, which has a four-party system, is probably the least despotic of any of the world’s major nations.

The second popular argument against a multi-party system – that is produces “chaos” – is, from a libertarian viewpoint, actually an argument in its favor. The prospect of a coalition government, where any of a number of small parties can veto legislation, is far from horrifying to anyone who is inclined toward a limited-government (or no-government) philosophy.

A third argument, often brought to bear against anyone who advocates the establishment of a third party here in the United States, is that (historically speaking), third-party candidates “can’t win”. This argument has two basic flaws in it, however.

First, third-party candidates CAN win – especially in local or nonpartisan elections. Even at the national-government level, it happens occasionally. Third-party candidates have been elected to Congress more than one hundred times in this century, and there are two “third-party” Senators (Buckley and Byrd) in office at this very moment.

And second, “winning” (in the sense of electing someone to office) is not the only reason for having a political party – especially in the short term sense.

In fact, this very mania for “winning now” is one of the factors that makes both of our present major political parties unlikely vehicles for libertarianism. Both the Democrats and Republicans are so concerned with “winning” that they are almost rabidly hostile to the idea of candidates who would “rather be right than President”. A third party, in contrast, can take a long-range approach – running candidates with no intention of immediate victory, for the purpose of building up support and organization for future elections.

The 2010 Elections and Democratic-Republican Bipolar Disorder

Following yesterday's general election, the 112th Congress will begin with a Democratic majority in the Senate and a Republican majority in the House.  This will be the second time the corporate parties have exchanged majority control of the House in the last five years.  While many Democrats were naive enough to believe, or cynical enough to pretend, that their victories in 2006 and 2008 were the result of something other than a simple rejection of undivided Republican Party government, this year the GOP is all-too-aware that their victory was ensured by voters' rejection of undivided Democratic Party government.  The Hill quoted John McCain admitting as much just yesterday:

The 2010 election results should not be interpreted as an "affirmation" of Republicans, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said Tuesday. . . . "The moral of this story is that this election is a repudiation of Obama and the Democrats," McCain said on Fox News. "It is not an affirmation of Republicans. So Republicans have got to come through and satisfy this outcry — this anger and frustration — that's been expressed."

Republican-friendly pollster Scott Rasmussen made much the same point in an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal on Monday, in which he argues that these quickly shifting majorities express a fundamental rejection of both ruling parties:

tomorrow Republicans will send more Republicans to Congress than at any time in the past 80 years . . . This isn't a wave, it's a tidal shift—and we've seen it coming for a long time. . . . But none of this means that Republicans are winning. The reality is that voters in 2010 are doing the same thing they did in 2006 and 2008: They are voting against the party in power.

This is the continuation of a trend that began nearly 20 years ago. In 1992, Bill Clinton was elected president and his party had control of Congress. Before he left office, his party lost control. Then, in 2000, George W. Bush came to power, and his party controlled Congress. But like Mr. Clinton before him, Mr. Bush saw his party lose control.

That's never happened before in back-to-back administrations. The Obama administration appears poised to make it three in a row. This reflects a fundamental rejection of both political parties.

A new poll from Rasmussen indicates that the American public does not expect to be adequately represented by the new governing majority:

Most voters expected Republicans to win control of the House of Representatives on Election Day, but nearly as many expect to be disappointed with how they perform by the time the 2012 elections roll around.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds, in fact, that 59% of Likely U.S. Voters think it is at least somewhat likely that most voters will be disappointed with Republicans in Congress before the next national elections. That includes 38% who say it is Very Likely.

These quickly shifting majorities indicate the fundamental inability of the Democratic and Republican parties to adequately represent the interests of the people of the United States.  Trapped by the bipolar logic of the two-party state, the only way for voters to express their discontent with the current Democratic majority was to cast their ballots for a party they favor even less.  As CNN reports today:

Democrats have a 10-point favorability gap: 43 percent of voters have a positive opinion of the party, while 53 percent aren't thrilled. The Republican Party also gets a thumbs-down from 53 percent of the nation's voters, with just 41 percent saying they're happy with the party.

Compare that with 1994 and 2006, when voters had a net positive view of the incoming party. The numbers suggest Tuesday night may signal a rejection of the Democratic Party -- but something less than an embrace of the GOP.

The American electorate clearly suffers from a form of political bipolar disorder, in which incidents of manic political enthusiasm alternate with lengthy depressive episodes.  The seriousness of the illness is all-too-clear from the fact that we have entered a lengthy stage of so-called rapid cycling, in which manic periods alternate ever more quickly with depressive episodes.  Today, Democrats are likely to enter a depressive state:

Signs and symptoms of the depressive phase of bipolar disorder include persistent feelings of sadness, anxiety, guilt, anger, isolation, or hopelessness; disturbances in sleep and appetite; fatigue and loss of interest in usually enjoyable activities; problems concentrating; loneliness, self-loathing, apathy or indifference; depersonalization; loss of interest in sexual activity; shyness or social anxiety; irritability, chronic pain (with or without a known cause); lack of motivation; and morbid suicidal ideation.

Republicans, on the other hand, will likely be found exhibiting signs and symptoms of mania:

Mania is the signature characteristic of bipolar disorder and, depending on its severity, is how the disorder is classified. Mania is generally characterized by a distinct period of an elevated, expansive, or irritable mood state. People commonly experience an increase in energy and a decreased need for sleep. A person's speech may be pressured, with thoughts experienced as racing. Attention span is low, and a person in a manic state may be easily distracted. Judgment may become impaired, and sufferers may go on spending sprees or engage in behavior that is quite abnormal for them. They may indulge in substance abuse, particularly alcohol or other depressants, cocaine or other stimulants, or sleeping pills. Their behavior may become aggressive, intolerant, or intrusive. People may feel out of control or unstoppable. People may feel they have been "chosen" and are "on a special mission" or have other grandiose or delusional ideas. Sexual drive may increase.

If someone you know exhibits any of the above symptoms, contact a political professional immediately for appropriate doses of partisan spin and propaganda.  Of course, this does nothing but mask the symptoms of the illness.  Political independence may be the only viable, long-term treatment for Democrat-Republican bipolar disorder.

Toward a Taxonomy of Duopolist Talking Points: Countering the Ideologues of the Two-Party State

As election day approaches we are likely to see proponents of the two-party state publish more and more articles railing against third party and independent voting, against third party and independent candidates for office and against third party and independent politics as such.  Any thoroughgoing analysis of the ideology that underpins the two-party state and duopoly system of government would eventually have to produce a taxonomy of the duopolist ideologue's arguments against third party and independent political activism.  Longtime readers of Poli-Tea might recall any number of posts detailing the inconsistencies and weaknesses of the most common arguments put forward by partisan Democrats and Republicans to dissuade others from building a viable opposition to the tyranny of the Democratic-Republican two-party state and duopoly system of government.  For example:

• the historical argument states that because many third party and independent candidates have been unsuccessful in the past, they will never be successful in the future
• the tautological argument states that third party and independent candidates will never win an election because we have a two-party system
• the spoiler argument presumes that a vote for a third party or independent candidate is a wasted vote
• the procedural argument states that third party and independent candidates cannot win elections because the rules of the game are rigged against them
• the hysterical alarmist argument states that there is no time to build a third party or independent political movement because if we don't vote for a Democrat or Republican in the next election, we're all going to die
• and so on . . .

It might be rather interesting to construct a psycho-political profile of the duopolist ideologue from these various arguments.  One might easily conclude, for instance, that the proponent of the two-party state is:

• an historical determinist, a fatalist even;
• incapable of independently-minded critique of the antiquated institutional forms that dominate our politics;
• a reactionary eager to prop up the ruling party-political establishment;
• always on the lookout for a means of rationalizing his unwillingness or inability to declare his independence from the politics of the two-party state;
• a perennial political apocalypticist, without a historical sense
• and so on . . .

It may be helpful to keep these potential traits in mind when countering the ideologues of the two-party state.  The onslaught of 2010 is already in full swing.  Let's consider but two examples.  At the Orlando Tea Party, Judson Phillips demonstrates that this tea party group has effectively betrayed its historical namesake and allowed itself to become an appendage of the ruling political establishment.  Phillips' article does nothing more than regurgitate the talking points of the duopolist ideologue.  He writes:

within the tea-party movement there is a small but loud group calling on members not to vote Republican, but instead to vote for a third party, such as the Constitution Party or the American Independent Party. Those who call for tea-party people to vote for these third parties point out that the Republicans cannot be trusted. The last time the Republicans were in power, they were as bad as the Democrats. They are absolutely right . . .

Unfortunately, we have no alternative. . . . this is America. We have a two-party system. . . . For those who still support these third parties, let me point out that none of them has ever elected a senator, congressman or governor. I am not sure they have even gotten someone elected as dog catcher. . . . This year, we need to stop the Obama/Pelosi/Reid axis of fiscal evil. We do that by electing Republicans.

In the space of just a few hundred words, Phillips manages to hit no less than three of the arguments listed above:  the tautological argument (it's a two-party system), the historical argument (third parties have failed in the past) and the spoiler argument (a vote for a third party is a vote for Pelosi).  According to our profile, then, might one not conclude that Phillips is a reactionary historical determinist who is incapable of independent critique of the two-party state?  Moreover, Phillips reveals the difficulty of determining whether the ideologue of the two-party state is motivated by ignorance or malice.  He states outright that no third party "has ever elected a senator, congressman or governor."  Of course, this is patently false.  There have indeed been third party and independent senators, congressmen and governors.  Phillips is either completely ignorant of the matter at hand, namely, US political history, or he is consciously engaged in a dishonest and deceitful effort to rally support for one faction of the ruling political class.

For an example from the other side of the duopoly divide, take this recent article by Robert Parry at Consortium News, entitled "The Teach-the-Dems-a-Lesson' Myth."  Parry writes:

If my e-mail inbox is any indication, many American progressives plan to use the Nov. 2 election as an opportunity to “teach the Democrats a lesson” by either not voting or casting ballots for third parties, even if this contributes to the expected Republican (and Tea Party) landslide.

The thinking seems to be that the loss of the congressional majorities will punish the Democrats for accepting half-measures and compromises on issues from health care and financial reform to job stimulus and war. The Left’s hope apparently is that the chastened Democrats will then shift toward more progressive positions and be more assertive.

However, modern American political history tells us that this strategy never works. After the four key elections in which many progressives abandoned the governing Democrats – in 1968, 1980, 1994 and 2000 – not only did Republicans take U.S. politics further to the right, but the surviving Democrats tacked more to the center and grew more timid.

Parry's piece is thus an extended variation on the historical argument.  However, his choice of historical precedents is rather revealing.  Parry chooses to compare the 2010 elections with those of 1968, 1980, 1994 and 2000.  But only one of the latter is a so-called mid-term election, 1994.  In his discussion of the other three elections, Parry obviously focuses on the dynamics of the presidential race under consideration.  The flaw?  This is not a presidential election year.  Parry is a member of the cult of the executive that views all political antagonism and struggle through the prism of presidential politics.  In a response to Parry's piece, Digby from Hullabaloo provides us with an example of the type of pop-political psychology that is dominant among supporters of the corporate parties.  She argues that the opposition between Republicans and Democrats can be understood as some sort of metaphysical opposition between "the lovers and the fighters":

The two political tribes in America attract different kinds of people. Let's call them the Lovers and the Fighters. (I think you can figure out who's who.)  The majority of people in those tribes tend to react to pain differently. When the fighters feel pain they instinctively hit back. When the lovers feel pain they instinctively withdraw . . .  [etc.] . . .

Parry clearly lays out the case in his piece that this technique of "teaching the Democrats a lesson" has resulted in failure over and over again. They learn the opposite lesson we are seeking to teach them every time. And I guarantee you that once again, the lesson they will learn from this upcoming election will not be that they weren't liberal enough. 

What is striking about the latter passage, however, is how similar Digby's point is to that of Phillips above.  Phillips agreed that it is "absolutely right" to assert that "Republicans are as bad as Democrats," but concluded that "we have no alternative."  Similarly, Digby recognizes that attempts by liberal and left-wing activists to move the Democratic party in their favored direction have "resulted in failure over and over again," and that the Democrats will likely learn the "wrong lesson" once more.  But still, Digby continues to urge support for Democratic candidates. 

The likes of Phillips and Digby are equally incapable of liberating themselves from the ideology of the two-party state and both labor under the delusions propagated and promulgated by that very ideology.  Digby continues to believe that Democrats are the "liberal" party despite all evidence to the contrary, and, she presumes that she is a liberal despite the fact that she supports the Democrats, who, she agrees, are complicit with Republican in "taking US politics further to the right."  On the other hand, Phillips continues to believe that Republicans are the "conservative" party despite all evidence to the contrary, and, he presumes that he is a conservative despite the fact that he supports Republicans, who, he admits, are "just as bad as the Democrats."

I've said it before and I'll say it again:  the Democratic Party is not "liberal" and the Republican Party is not "conservative."  They cannot be.  They are the vehicles of the ruling corporate-political class in its ongoing war against constitutional government and the people of the United States.  If you support the Democratic Party, you are not liberal.  If you support the Republican Party, you are not conservative.  If you support the Democratic or Republican party, you are a reactionary supporter of the reigning corporatist state, and are providing popular cover for the ruling political class.  In other words, you are part of the problem.

The Partisan Pledge of Allegiance

Democratic and Republican politicians are highly defensive creatures when it comes to the question of patriotism.  The form of patriotism bred by the politics of the two-party state is perhaps best demonstrated by the ubiquity of the flag pin on the lapels of our nation's professional politicians.  The flag pin, one assumes, is meant to display a heartfelt allegiance to country, but it also serves a subtle ideological purpose, which is to guard against any attempt to question the political allegiances of those who wear it: "How dare you question my patriotism?!  I'm wearing a flag pin!"  But does not the very superficiality and defensiveness of this gesture itself raise a red flag, so to speak, concerning the political allegiances of the individual in question?  It is likely with good reason that Republicans and Democrats are so defensive when it comes to the question of patriotism.  It is all too obvious where their allegiances lie.

The Republican's Pledge of Allegiance

I pledge allegiance to the flag,
of the Republican Party of America,
and to the corporate agenda for which it stands,
coronation under the dollar, unprincipled,
with liberty and justice forestalled.

The Democrat's Pledge of Allegiance 

I pledge allegiance to the flag,
of the Democratic Party of America,
and to the corporate agenda for which it stands,
coronation under the dollar, unprincipled,
with liberty and justice forestalled.

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?

The Politics of Independence: a Nietzschean Interpretation of the Two-Party State

At The Think 3 Institute, Sam Wilson considers the possibility of "a Nietzschean interpretation of American politics."  The occasion is an op-ed for the Sunday Times Union by Jack Bronston, a former state senator from New York City.  Bronston argues that we must be careful not to fall prey to the form of resentment famously described and derided by German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche in the late nineteenth century.  Bronston writes:

One hundred years later, we can observe this potent combination of resentment, hatred and morality -- a feeling around the world that the helplessness of the average person in the face of events and economic forces is the product of immoral forces which undervalue and victimize that person. The modern politician understands very well how to play this card.

Sam provides a short summary of the theory of morality in Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals, and then engages Bronston, writing:

Bronston wants to oppose ressentiment to some simple idea of rationality, or some acknowledgement that opportunities still exist for free people, but the correct opposite to Nietzchean ressentiment is that pre-morality that exalts the strong and despises whatever falls short. Only libertarianism, perhaps, comes anywhere close to that dubious ideal, and I don't think that's what Bronston wants for America or the world.

On this score, I have to disagree with Sam, not regarding Bronston, but rather Nietzsche.  One can make a strong case that the "correct opposite to Nietzschean ressentiment" is not a return to pre-morality, i.e. the master morality of ancient Greece, Rome or Germania.  Arguably, such a return would be impossible if only because of the advent of a morality based on the distinction between evil and good as opposed to good and bad.  One might rather posit that, on Nietzsche's view, the best corrective to a morality of ressentiment is the drive toward a post-morality, or even immorality, as indicated in the title of the work that directly preceded the Genealogy of Morals, namely, Beyond Good and Evil. 

But what would a thoroughgoing Nietzschean interpretation of American politics look like?  In the current context, the question would be how to get beyond the form of political moralism that underpins the two-party state.  On the basis of the Genealogy of Morals, can one not develop a fairly strong critique of lesser-evilism, for instance?  I've relied on Nietzsche before in my critique of the reactionary character of Democratic-Republican party politics, but maybe it would be interesting to take that line of thought a step or two further.  One of the simplest ways to distinguish between the two primary modes of morality delineated by Nietzsche in the above work is simply to note that so-called "master morality" is active and affirmative, whereas "slave morality" is negative and reactive.  The former is based on the master's primary affirmation of himself and his mode of action as good, with the side-result that anything which is unlike him is considered bad.  The primary judgment that forms the basis of the slave morality, on the other hand, does not have anything to do with the slave himself. Rather it is a negative judgment of the master, and the judgment is that the master is evil.  From this it follows that, since he is unlike the master, the slave is good.

With that, do we not have the most concise formula of Democratic-Republican party politics?  Is not ressentiment the very basis of Democratic-Republican party politics, just as it is of Nietzsche's slave morality?  The partisans of the Democratic and Republican parties do not argue that we should support their candidates because they are good.  Their primary argument is not even that their candidates are worth actively supporting.  Indeed, truthful Democrats and Republicans, when they can be found, will even come right out and admit that their candidates are not any good; yet they still make the case that these candidates are worthy of support.  And we all know how they do so: they argue that we should support their candidates because the other party's candidates are evil!  Today, even the president and vice president can be found articulating a variant of this argument when they rhetorically urge disaffected liberals and Democrats to "consider the alternative."  To their credit, many Democrats and Republicans have enough intellectual integrity not to conclude that their candidates are good from the assertion that the other duopoly party's candidates are evil.  They are content asserting that they represent the lesser evil.  But how much longer can we possibly endure a politics that provides nothing more than a choice between admitted evils?  But what is the alternative?

There is only one real alternative to the negative and reactive politics of the Democratic-Republican two-party state.  And that is an active and affirmative politics of independence, liberated from the mental, ideological and institutional prison that has been imposed upon us by the ruling corporate-political class and their representatives in the Democratic and Republican parties.

Stepping Into the Breach: Speaking Up for Political Independence

The disparity between the high number of self-described independents among the American public and the dearth of independent voices in government and media is among the most glaring political contradictions in the United States today.  Of course, there is no lack of professional Democrats and Republicans who describe themselves as "independent."  And the same can be said of their lackeys in the mainstream media.  But, truth be told, if you have not liberated yourself from the ideology that maintains and sustains the reigning two-party state and duopoly system of government, if you still support the Republican and Democratic parties in their ongoing consolidation of political and economic power to the benefit of the ruling corporate-political class, you are not an independent.  You are an enabler of the corporate-political class in their ongoing war of attrition against the people of the United States and against the very existence of constitutional, representative government in this country. 

The lack of truly independent voices in our public discourse is too obvious to ignore.  And the longer the situation continues, the more likely we are to see individuals stand up and step into the breach.  Consider John Chaffee, for instance.  Chaffee is an independent singer-songwriter who has just launched a new website entitled Independent Lion.    In its description of "Who We Are," the site addresses political Independents while calling out the machine politics of the Republican and Democratic parties:

There's a growing segment of the population dissatisfied with the way things are going in Washington, our state capitals, and our city governments. It appears that neither party, Republican or Democrat, has the wherewithal to solve our problems, let alone the nerve to even address the more important ones. The elephant and the donkey just face off and butt heads...contentious, incapable, all their energies spent on a never-ending struggle with each other. 

Emerging from the plains and towns across our country is a new symbol, the mighty King of the Beasts, to speak for those who have no voice. We encourage Independent Lions to roam through a land of no red states, no blue states, but a United States, where respect for the Constitution, and each other, rules. And where good old fashioned common sense, which would dictate limited government, living within our means, and playing by the rules, ROARS.

In a press release announcing the new website, Chaffee describes the thought behind the effort:

“When it hit me that the number of independents is just about equal to those affiliated with either major party,” Chaffee says, “I realized this growing segment of Americans should have a powerful symbol to represent their point of view. Besides being individually strong, lions are social animals that run with and protect their prides. The lion seemed like the perfect symbol for freethinking defenders of our freedom and constitutional principles.” . . . 

“As a singer-songwriter who is also a concerned citizen, I simply want to give voice to those of us who are caught in the middle, feeling that our leaders and representatives continually fail to represent our interests,” says Chaffee.

Chaffee's signature tune appears to be "Play By the Rules," which became something of a Youtube hit over the last year or so, no doubt for its denunciation of the corruption, deceit and moral decrepitude that is definitive of the Democrat-Republican two-party state and duopoly system of government.