Republican-Democrat Party Politics Is the Politics of Fear

In "The Foundation of Government," from 1776, John Adams wrote:

Fear is the foundation of most governments; but it is so sordid and brutal a passion, and renders men in whose breasts it predominates so stupid and miserable, that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution which is founded on it. 

Today, fear is among the primary motivations for the continued support of the ruling factions in government.  Partisans of the Democratic and Republican parties do not advocate for the candidates of their preferred party but rather call for reactive negation of the candidates of the other major party.  To vote for a Democrat is, first and foremost, a vote against the Republican.  To vote for a Republican is, first and foremost, a vote against the Democrat.  This is the fundamental basis of reactionary, negative politics in the United States today.  It is a politics based on fear.  It paralyzes voters and ensures the continued joint misrule of the Republican and Democratic parties.

Consider a recent article at PoliticsUSA laying out "A Possible Nightmare Scenario for America in 2012."  The piece takes a look at the possible outcome of a successful or semi-successful third party presidential bid by the candidates of Americans Elect as laid out in an analysis of "the pitfalls of a third party presidential candidacy" published at the Brookings Institute.

Regular readers will surely be familiar with each of the possible scenarios laid out in the paper.  A third party candidate could very well accomplish the impossible and win the presidency.  But he or she would then be politically isolated by the partisan composition of the House and Senate.  "Few in the House or Senate would feel allegiance to or affinity for the newly elected president," we read at the Brookings Institute.  Is this not the very definition of putting party before country?  This, in itself, should be reason enough to vote for alternatives to the Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate.  If you are considering a vote for a third party or independent candidate for president, it only makes sense to consider alternatives to the Democrats and Republicans down the ballot.  

In the second scenario, the third party candidate receives a modest amount of support, but one of the major party candidates still wins a clear electoral victory but "with diminished popular support. The reduced popular support would undercut the legitimacy of the result and curtail momentum for the victor."  In a country where only around 60% of registered voters turnout for presidential elections, and only 71% of eligible voters are even registered, it is absurd to claim that any president has "popular support."  In Barack Obama's "landslide" victory in 2008, he garnered just over 50% support from 60% of 71% of eligible voters.  Less than a quarter of eligible voters cast a ballot for Barack Obama in 2008.  The partisans of the two-party state would have us believe that this equates to  "popular support."

It is the third scenario, however, that scares the author at PoliticsUSA most.  In this case, no candidate receives a majority of electoral votes and the election is decided in the US House.  From PoliticsUSA:

You see where they are headed with this? Who controls the U.S. House of Representatives? The extreme right – Tea Party fanatics, demonstrated nihilists. Who elects the president if this is no clear majority? The U.S. House of Representatives. . . . Our political system is a mess. . . . But there is real danger in monkeying with the works. People generally don’t tend to think ahead about the consequences of their actions; we find out about those later – the hard way. . . . That’s where we are with this potential fix to our ideologically driven gridlock in Washington. The gridlock is bad. But as the old saying goes, the cure might be worse than the disease.

Fear raises its ugly head.  Sure, our system is a mess, but let's not even try to clean it up.   That is the moral to this story.  It is noteworthy, given the recent discussion of centrist strategy here at Politea, that this Democratic commentator holds that Obama is the centrist candidate in 2012: "In 2012 we have a centrist president who steers from the extremes of either party. If ever there was an awkward time to attempt this [i.e. a centrist third party bid for president], it is now."  

The Third Party Dialogue: How Can Centrists Reach the Democrats?

Happy New Year!  As noted last week, the New York Times held a readers' dialogue on the issue of third party politics that began with a letter to the editor by Robert Levine calling for a centrist alternative to the Democratic and Republican parties.  Over the weekend they published nine responses to the original piece plus a response from Levine himself.  It may be interesting to simply layout the general tendency of each response, letter by letter, to see the breadth of opinion and overall tendency of the discussion.

1) Historical determinist argument against third party activism, i.e. third parties have failed in the past, therefore they will fail in the future.  Third party advocacy will further splinter the electorate.  It is better to work within the two-party system.
2) Disagreement with Levine's assumption that we need a third party of the center, states that Democrats and Republicans are already centrist-oriented.  Rather, we need a third and fourth party of the left and right to more adequately represent the breadth of opinion and interests among the people.  We need campaign finance reform and electoral reform to level the playing field.
3) Any third party strategy should focus on the US House not the presidency.  Reformers can also target competitive primary elections in the major parties to oust incumbents. 
4) Third party representatives would be just as corrupt as their Democratic and Republican counterparts, and would be sucked into the establishment's political machine.  Democrats and Republicans need to reform their respective parties and institute campaign finance reform.
5) "Centrism" got us into the current mess.  The problem isn't lack of centrists, it's obstructionism on the part of Republicans.  We need real opposition to the political and economic establishment in the form of a progressive third party.
6) A third party is not the answer and the barriers to entry are too high in any case.  Independents need to become involved in the major parties' primaries to moderate their extremes.
7) The United States already has numerous third parties but they are ignored by the media and marginalized by the political establishment.  We need to hear all positions across the political spectrum and not presented with a false choice between Republicans and Democrats.
8) The Democratic Party is already "the" centrist party.  Republican obstructionism is the problem.  History implies that third parties will not win and act as spoilers.
9) The Democrats are already "the" centrist party.  We need multiple viable alternatives to the major parties.  For that to happen we need serious electoral reform: campaign finance, voting systems etc.  

Read Levine's response.  One issue he does not touch on in his response to the response is the argument that the Democrats are already "the" centrist party.  This is a very common argument, at least in the mainstream liberal Democratic blogosphere, and directly contradicts the centrist position that the Democratic party has been captured by its far left progressive wing.  One obvious retort that one often hears in centrist circles is that the Democratic base is so far to the left that they think their party is centrist!  This argument leaves much to be desired as it relies on nothing more than the assertion of political relativism and ideological false consciousness.  Given that, politically speaking, Democrats are much less independently-minded than even Republicans, centrist third party advocates are going to need to develop arguments to appeal to those who would otherwise continue to cast their ballots against the Republicans by voting Democrat.  Ideas?

The Two-Party System is Not Constitutional

In an opinion piece for the Huffington Post, Tina Marie Labruzzo argues that "we need a "middle child" in American politics," and calls for a moderate alternative to the bipolar deadlock between the Republican and Democratic parties.  Excerpt:

The fact that the Republicans and Democrats in our Congress can't and won't work together to tackle extreme challenges that threaten the welfare of our country is proof we need a third political party. The third political party can be a middle child of sorts, comprised of a more moderate position. This moderate position can help bring Republican and Democrats together by providing an alternative to the American people, who actually prefer some combination of Republican and Democrat policies.

This sentiment, or something very similar to it, is supported by a large proportion – if not also the majority – of the American public, if years' worth of public surveys and polls saying as much can be trusted.  There is broad support for alternatives to the Democrats and Republicans, and there is no lack of demands and calls for "a third party" even in the mainstream media.  What is lacking, however, is any specificity about what that "third party" should be.  Labruzzo concludes:

The American people need a third political party to ensure Republican and Democrats cross party lines to make the tough decisions needed, now and in the future, to tackle the issues that threaten the country.

Interestingly, however, "to ensure that Republicans and Democrats cross party lines" it doesn't really matter what third parties are represented in government.  It would suffice to elect enough third party and independent members to our legislative bodies to prevent the Republican or Democratic parties from possessing a majority of seats in those bodies.  In the Congress, this would require the election of only a few dozen third party or Independent candidates to the House and just a handful to the Senate.  But to this end, abstract calls for an alternative to the Republicans and Democrats, without any specificity regarding the who or the what, are of little help.  Of course, it does not help that so many people appear to believe that the two-party system is enshrined in the constitutional construction of the United States.  Labruzzo writes:

The American government was created to provide checks and balances to make sure the system worked effectively and to curb power from residing in any one area of government. The problem that couldn't be avoided is what happens when the system is in perfect balance -- caught between two extreme positions -- hindering legislative action during crucial times when decisive action is needed.

Labruzzo here confuses the constitutional system of checks and balances in the United States with the extra-constitutional two-party state that has been constructed by the decree of Republican and Democratic lawmakers.  The system is not "in perfect balance," rather the constitutional system of the United States has been systematically undermined by the dictatorship of the Republican-Democrat two-party state.  For this reason alone, we are in desperate need of real political alternatives. 

The Republican Presidential Primary and Its Discontents

As the corporate-sponsored clown and puppet show known as the Republican presidential primary race lumbers forward, perhaps we can take comfort in the fact that we will not be subjected to a comparable spectacle by the Democrats.  Moreover, the exclusionary character of the contest may well produce a number of worthwhile third party and independent candidates for the presidency.  The Daily Caller reports that Gary Johnson may seek the Libertarian Party's nomination for president and Buddy Roemer may go Independent or seek the nomination in the Americans Elect online primary.  On Gary Johnson:

Long excluded from the Republican presidential debates, former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson is now seriously considering a third party run for president in 2012. . . . 

Faced with either continuing his quixotic run for the Republican nomination, launching a third party effort, or just giving up, Johnson now says he has been receiving overtures from the Libertarian Party, which will be on the ballot in all 50 states next year.

“One thing I would make clear is that, if I did decide [to seek the Libertarian nomination], that’s nothing that’s pre-ordained,” Johnson told TheDC. “That’s something that I would have to go out and work for. And I would do just that, I would go out and work for that.”

On Buddy Roemer:

In an ideal world, Republican presidential candidate and former Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer would like Senator Joe Lieberman as his running mate, but the Connecticut senator is not necessarily on the same page.

“Senator Joe Lieberman’s reputation as a reformer and a man of integrity is unrivaled in American politics. He is unequivocally my first choice for a Vice Presidential running mate,” said Roemer in the statement.

The two men’s differing party affiliations — Roemer is a Republican, Lieberman is an independent and formerly a Democrat, seems to actually be something Roemer sees as a plus. For one thing, he touted their shared history of switching parties — Roemer served as a Democratic congressman, and then switched to the Republican Party midway through his gubernatorial reign . . .

If Roemer did decide to go after the Americans Elect nomination, he could continue to run in the Republican primary, which Roemer would certainly do at least through New Hampshire, where, in Sierra’s words, the campaign is “going all out.”  Roemer has actually moved to New Hampshire for the election, and as soon as his campaign qualifies for matching funds, they will make ad buys in the first-in-the-nation primary state. “I think they kind of compliment each other,” said Sierra of the Americans Elect nomination and the Republican nomination.

Like the Democrats, the Republican Party is fundamentally opposed to constitutional government and the basic rights and liberties it is meant to protect, as evidenced by their full-throated support for the global warfare and corporate welfare state.  Johnson's libertarianism and Roemer's moderatism have no place in either of the major parties. 

From the Top Down: the Root of Failure for a Radical Moderate

In an opinion piece for the New York Times earlier this week, columnist David Brooks took issue with what he called "The Milquetoast Radicals" engaged in the ongoing Occupy Wall Street protest in downtown Manhattan, arguing that "the moderates in suits are much more radical than the pierced anarchists camping out on Wall Street or the Tea Party-types."  The funny thing though is that the anarchists camping out on Wall Street have created a discursive space for the articulation of the policies espoused by the "radical suits" celebrated by Brooks.  I can only conclude that Brooks has not spent much if any time down at the demonstration's encampment, otherwise he might have learned that there is no lack of "radical suits" to be found there.  

Indeed, those who are most critical of the occupation protests often appear to be the most ignorant of them.  As I noted the other day, Herman Cain has asked why people are protesting on Wall Street but not at the White House.  Cain clearly has no idea what he is talking about, as Occupy DC has been camped out a block away from the White House for two weeks.  Alex Jones has argued that the Occupy Wall Street protesters are pawns of George Soros, since otherwise they would be protesting at the Federal Reserve.  Yet OWS protesters have staged numerous demonstrations outside the Federal Reserve building in New York, as have protesters in Boston, Chicago, Washington DC and elsewhere.  One of the most common criticisms that has been leveled against the protests is that the demonstrators are "disorganized and incoherent."  Yet they are organized and coherent enough to have created an infrastructure to maintain their presence for a full month while gaining the attention of the national and international press.

But back to Brooks.  There is a critical contradiction at the heart of Brooks' analysis.  He is among the handful of commentators in the corporate media who have come out in support of Americans Elect, along with other moderate and centrist advocates such as Matt Miller at the Washington Post, John Avlon at The Daily Beast and Tom Friedman at the New York Times.  As regular readers will surely understand, I am not unsympathetic to this position.  In his article, Brooks backs a recent piece by Miller.  He writes:

Look, for example, at a piece Matt Miller wrote for The Washington Post called “The Third Party Stump Speech We Need.” Miller is a former McKinsey consultant and Clinton staffer. But his ideas are much bigger than anything you hear from the protesters: slash corporate taxes and raise energy taxes, aggressively use market forces and public provisions to bring down health care costs; raise capital requirements for banks; require national service; balance the budget by 2018.

But what are the reforms that Brooks himself champions?  He writes in his intro:

Do tax reform, fiscal reform, education reform and political reform so that when the economy finally does recover the prosperity is deep, broad and strong.

Let's put aside the fact that there are already organized working groups at Occupy Wall Street that are specifically devoted to fiscal reform, education reform, political reform and so on.  Notice anything missing from the NYT columnist's list of necessary reforms?  That's right, electoral reform.  If we are going to break free from the Republican-Democrat political straitjacket that has paralyzed our politics and emaciated our political discourse, if we are going to implement the ideas that can be found in the ideal "third party stump speech," it will require serious electoral reform.  It will require experimentation with everything from alternative voting methods to ballot access reform to proportional representation to independent redistricting reform to open primaries and so on.  Yet such ideas are nowhere to be found among the proposals forwarded by Brooks, though they are common currency among the real radical moderates in the third party and independent blogosphere.  The operative flaw in Brooks's analysis becomes clear in the concluding lines of his article.  He writes:

Don’t be fooled by the clichés of protest movements past. The most radical people today are the ones that look the most boring. It’s not about declaring war on some nefarious elite. It’s about changing behavior from top to bottom. [Emphasis added.]

False.  It's about changing behavior from the bottom up!  The notion that the types of reform advocated by Brooks himself can be accomplished "from top to bottom" reeks of authoritarianism and the delusional messianic faith in the imperial presidency common among Republicans and Democrats alike.  Real change will begin from the bottom up.  And it will begin with reforms that level the playing field for the 99% who are unrepresented by the two-party state and duopoly system of government.  Brooks may fancy himself a radical but he fails to get to the root of the problem.

NYC: Occupy Wall St. Protest, a Day 1 Recap, #occupywallstreet

Thousands of people converged on the financial district in downtown Manhattan on Saturday to protest the influence of Wall St. on our nation's politics.  Billed as the US Day of Rage by organizers, the protesters' united being one single, simple demand: free and fair elections.  An excerpt from the original call to action:

Legitimate government is born of the self-interest and will of the people expressed by its citizens in free and fair elections. It does not spring from a tyranny of special interests, patronage, or a system or ideology that runs counter to the aims of life.

The institutions of government were designed to protect the principles of our democratic republic and to serve the will of citizens.

Corporations, even those owned by foreign shareholders, use money to act as the voices of millions, while individual citizens, the legitimate voters, are silenced and demoralized by the farce.

Free and fair elections inspire good citizenship and public service, because they engage the intelligence and genuine good will of the American people.

Protesters can be found on Wall St. on any given day of the week. And large demonstrations against the big banks and the undue influence of corporate interests take place in the financial district on a fairly regular basis.  The Occupy Wall St. protests are different, however.  The protesters have not gone home.  In fact, they are still there right now.  They are streaming their assemblies live if you want to check in.  Here are some of my pics from the day. 

Their immediate tactical goal is to occupy a space in the financial district and hold it.  None of their actions have been technically permitted, in the sense that no permits were obtained ahead of the protest action, as would normally be the case for a fairly large protest and demonstration.  But, aside from a couple tense moments over the course of the day, the NYPD appear to have been fairly accommodating to the protesters thus far, though they did shut down all the streets immediately surrounding the New York Stock Exchange to all traffic except for those who live or work in the area.

Around midday protesters gathered at Bowling Green for an impromptu rally with an open podium.  By 2pm, a few thousand people had assembled.  I happened to catch Rev. Billy, the Green Party's candidate for NYC mayor in 2009, speaking to a small group of independent media reporters who asked him about everything from the relationship between the major parties and the big banks, environmental policy, manufacturing and even the two-party duopoly.  I'm sure you can guess which question I asked:



At around 3pm, the assembled crowd marched from Bowling Green up Broadway to Zuccotti Park, also known as Liberty Plaza, in the shadow of the World Trade Center site.

Excelsior at the WTC site, from the NW corner of Liberty Plaza

At Liberty Plaza, folks milled about for a while, talking and chanting.  A quick general assembly was held, and people then broke up into smaller discussion groups.  So who was in the crowd? There were people from all over the country and, of course, New York City, which means that there were also people from all over the world.  There were no mass-produced signs, as one can often find at large demonstrations, a potential indicator that this was not a top-down organizational affair.  In terms of political ideology, there were anarchists, socialists, libertarians, Greens, Ron Paul supporters, Independents, and a fair number of folks from Anonymous in Guy Fawkes masks.  One Anon said he was a construction worker who helped dig out the Ground Zero site following 9/11, if I heard correctly.  He spoke about civil liberties and support for Ground Zero workers in one of the discussion groups at Liberty Plaza:

An Anon addresses a discussion group.

Discussion in the groups inevitably turned to the topic of what to do next.  Many decided to hold a spontaneous march back down to Wall St.  As Wall St. had already been walled off by the NYPD, the chaotic march snaked through the financial district.  The most tense moments of the march took place when protesters were blocked from heading up toward the stock exchange at the corner of Wall St. and William St.  That also just happens to be where Cipriani Wall St. is located.  Partiers at the posh restaurant headed to the balcony to see what all the ruckus down on the street was.  In formal attire, with more than a couple holding martini glasses, they were greeted with boos and chants from the crowd.  Eventually, the march made its way back up to Liberty Plaza.  People hung out until about 7pm, when another general assembly was called.  Hundreds of people remained in the park as darkness fell.

The assembly was very well-run, especially given the fact that there were hundreds of people there, and no amplification was allowed since there were no permits.  A handful of organizers moderated and facilitated the discussion within the large crowd using a consensus-based discussion and decision-making model.  People were fairly disciplined, maintaining both order and high spirits.  They discussed everything from organizational strategy to sleeping arrangements to NYC laws governing political protest on the streets, to media strategy, potential demands, strategy and tactics moving forward and so on.  I'm sure you can find it all on Twitter under #occupywallstreet, if you're so inclined. 

People gathered for the evening general assembly.

Two incidents in particular highlighted the discipline of the assembled crowd.  At one point, none other than Jimmy McMillan, former NY gubernatorial candidate for the Rent is Too Damn High Party, appeared at the edge of the assembly accompanied by two others.  Folks were initially excited about his appearance, but it quickly became apparent that he wanted to go "up on stage" and speak to the group.  What he didn't understand was that there was no "stage", that the people standing in the middle of the group were only facilitating the discussion for the rest.  People basically told McMillan to back off, yelling that if he wanted to address the group, he would have to follow the procedures that had been set out at the beginning.  He opted to leave instead, apparently.  A similar incident happened a bit later on when a local reporter from ABC News disrupted the proceedings by walking to the middle of the crowd with a camera and microphone.  They were shouted down and told to get in line if they wanted to talk.  They opted instead to leave the assembly and ended up interviewing a number of folks on the edge of the crowd.  

By the end of the general assembly, the group had decided to pursue a non-confrontational posture toward the police, and to march on Wall St. if they were ordered to disperse from Liberty Plaza before the night was through.  They plan on continuing their protests tomorrow and into the workweek on Monday.  Many state that they are prepared to maintain the protest for days, weeks and even months.  There were probably well over a thousand people still there Saturday night.  I'll head back down in the coming days to see what's up. Stay tuned.

I left the protest at around 10pm, shortly after the nearly three hour assembly broke up into smaller working working groups focused on practical and organizational concerns such as acquiring bedding and food, developing media and communications strategy, and so on.  You might be wondering what I did all day between the marches and assemblies.  I was handing out copies of the first and second issues of Third Party Independent, which you can find embedded below:

Marginalized, Moderates Consider Third Party Option

From a letter to the editor of LJ World:

The real problem is those extremists in both parties that drive our debate. In an environment where the majority of our national legislature is assured election by political association, the extremes in the two parties dominate.

While the majority of the electorate self-identifies as moderate, they seem to have little influence with the party leadership loyal to those extremes. The old not-so-sneaky trick of splitting the national leadership in the search for compromise no longer works. On the contrary, compromise may be fatal to the political survival of an elected official.

Perhaps the only way we can address hard problems like our debt crisis in the political environment prevailing today is to establish one or more centrist parties to which the moderates can gravitate. The abrupt and erratic progress when the electorate infrequently grants political control to one of the existent parties may just be too disruptive to justify the continuation of our two-party system. We might learn from our many democratic allies that a multiparty system better serves the public interest.

The piece has sparked an interesting discussion in the comments section as well.

Centrist Alliance Looks to Unify the Political Center

This week's column for CAIVN takes a look at the newly formed Centrist Alliance, an emerging coalition of third party groups which currently includes America's Third Party and the National Centrist Party.  Excerpt:

A new coalition of moderate, centrist third parties called the Centrist Alliance is aiming to fill the void that separates Republicans and Democrats.  Following on the heels of organizations such as No Labels and GOOH, the Centrist Alliance is the most recent in a series of newly formed political groups emphasizing moderatism, centrism and a pragmatic approach to politics.

With the official launch of the organization’s website on Independence Day, the Centrist Alliance is working to organize the moderate center by coordinating the efforts of the numerous centrist parties that are active in the country.  Currently, there are two member parties in the organization: America’s Third Party and the National Centrist Party . . .


On the issues, the Centrist Alliance is currently maintaining a relatively open platform emphasizing a strong national defense, immigration reform, a sensible and pragmatic foreign policy, energy independence and electoral reforms that would encourage civic participation and provide an equal place at the table for alternative parties and Independent voters. The influence of other relatively new moderate, centrist political groups is apparent in the Centrist Alliance’s statement of principles, which echoes the motto of the No Labels organization – i.e. “Not left. Not right. Forward.” – in its concluding lines.

“We support a pragmatic approach that looks forward. Not to the left or to the right of the political spectrum. We support independent political thinking and independent political action,” states the group on its website.  “We have kept some of our principles purposely open so that individual parties can expand on them as they like,” said Hyman, who personally emphasizes the importance of ballot access reform.  “Simply passing a federal law that says the state [ballot access] laws must be the same for any candidate for the same office would be a huge step in the right direction,” he said.

The parties in the Alliance are currently working together to obtain ballot access in the 2012 elections and cross-endorsing one another’s candidates . . . 

The Homeless Moderate

From a commentary by Bill King at the Houston Chronicle:

if you believe both that Roe v. Wade should not be overturned and that the federal government needs to balance its budget, you have no political home in today's bifurcated partisan political landscape.  I do not think that I am alone in feeling disaffected in the current bipolar political dynamic. A number of organizations and even some third parties have recently been formed seeking to provide an alternative.

I recently spoke to a young lady who was involved in the organization of a third party known as the Moderate Party in Rhode Island's 2010 elections. What the party's name lacked in originality was made up in large measure by its motto, "Fiscally Responsible, Socially Tolerant." It describes very much my sentiments while avoiding the confusion attending the politically charged terms of "conservative" or "liberal".

Unfortunately the Moderate Party had modest success. It only polled a little more than 6 percent in the Rhode Island governor's race, but that was enough to secure it a place on the ballot in the next election. Interestingly, the governorship was won by Lincoln Chafee, an independent. Chafee and the Moderate Party candidate together polled more than 42 percent of the vote, 10 points ahead of the Republican candidate and 20 points ahead of the Democratic candidate.

Still, it is not easy to break the Democratic/Republican partisan oligarchy. The two dominant political parties have laced the elections statutes with provisions that stack the deck against third-party or independent candidates. For example, in Texas an independent candidate must collect about 50,000 signatures to get on the November ballot and the petitioners cannot have voted in the primary, a daunting task to say the least.

But it seems likely that the current dissatisfaction with the contemporary political landscape so dominated by bipolar extremism will find some form of expression. Whether that takes the form of the rise of a third party, more independent candidates or a repositioning of one of the two dominant parties, I cannot predict . . . .

Where do pragmatists and moderates get a fair hearing? Nowhere?

The California Moderates blog is devoted to the proposition that removing the Democratic and Republican parties from power is "fair payment for their corruption and failures."  In a post on "why political parties can't change," Calmod argues that moderates and pragmatists need to form their own party if they desire reasonable and responsible political representation.  Excerpt:

Consider the Democratic and Republican parties. Who has real power and influence? Outsiders and newcomers? Life-long insiders, hard core partisans and major campaign contributors like MoveOn.org, American CrossRoads, Crossroads GPS, the American Enterprise Institute or Emily's list? Neutral and objective analysts? People like you? People like me? Common sense argues the real influence is with the money and life-long or partisan insiders. The money probably carries the most weight. . . .

How can anyone reasonably expect that to change? Why should it change? Money is a major pillar of the two parties. Without it, they would have to survive more on the merits and less on the publicity spin that hundreds of million of dollars buys. If the two parties had to survive on the merits, they would die. The money is critical life-support. . . . 

The post concludes with a call to third party action:

So, where do pragmatists and moderates go to get a fair hearing? Nowhere. No major third party is free of ideology. That seems to be why pragmatists and moderates slosh back and forth between the Republican and Democratic parties. Neither party represents their views, but there is no other place to go for political power. Nationally, people registered as independents are on a par with Democrats and Republicans. Despite the parity, pragmatists and moderates get no fair hearing for the most part.

Until pragmatists and moderates understand that the two big parties and the third parties do not share their views, those viewpoints will be largely ignored. The only way to change that is to form a third party based on (1) pragmatic thinking and politics and (2) rejection of special interest "access" bought by special interest money.

Fortunately, it is not necessary for moderates and pragmatists to form a new party.  An alternative already exists!  Reading Calmod's post, I couldn't help but be reminded of the platform for the Modern Whigs.  They already have a California affiliate.  Calmoderate should check out the California Modern Whig Party:

California Modern Whig members are independent-minded voters who want to be affiliated with a moderate common-sense party. We believe that independent voters are the silent moderate majority and all-to-often have to settle for the “lesser of two evils.” We also realize that establishing a new party is an uphill climb under the current system. This is why our growing membership is key.

The California Modern Whig Party is geared toward those independent voters who want to be affiliated with moderate state party.Our goal is to obtain ballot access for the Modern Whigs in California; we hope to obtain that status by 2012. We know how hard it is to establish a viable alternative to the major parties. But strength comes in numbers. We are also not delusional in believing that people will flock to our party, we know that we have to earn you support and your trust. Our goal is to express our common-sense ideals and slowly gain ground into the mainstream consciousness. In short, the California Modern Whig Party is the party for everyday Californians.

The Absent Center of the Two-Party State

At the Wash Park Prophet, Andrew Oh-Willike reflects on the "entrenched disconnect" between the people of the United States and the elected representatives of the Democratic and Republican parties.  He argues that the two-party system has led to the systematic under-representation of moderates throughout the country.  Excerpt:

Actual partisanship in legislative districts has a bell curve distribution. Elected legislators have a bimodal distribution, like a two humped camel. The political middle is systemically underpopulated by elected officials, despite the fact that the vast majority of voters are in the political middle between the typical elected Democrat and the typical elected Republican on the spectrum of ideology from the political left to the political right.

Oh-Willike then goes on to argue that there are electoral and legislative structural biases against moderation.  Electorally, he faults single member district plurality voting for "naturally gravitating toward" a two-party system.  I would argue, on the contrary, that there is nothing "natural" about this process whatsoever, since it is entirely controlled by the interested parties themselves.  But Oh-Willike would seem to agree, as he admits SMDP doesn't "necessarily" result a two-party system:

Single member plurality district election system naturally gravitates towards having two dominant political parties in any one geographic area. . . . [but . . .  The single member plurality district system doesn't necessarily have to create a two party system. It can support regional parties that have majority support in a particular area, like a Quebec Nationalist party or Irish Republican Party. It also doesn't require that the party of the right be the same everywhere, or that the party of the left be the same everywhere.

As potential fixes, he suggests a majority requirement, i.e. runoff elections, to ensure that elected officials have the support of over 50% of voters, or proportional representation, which he terms the "strong fix."  Oh-Willike then goes on to argue that the two-party state has a legislative bias against moderation as well, since political polarization and the ideological "realignment" between the major parties has resulted in the systematic purging of moderates from elected office.  Excerpt:

Today, after a process called "realignment" that has largely run its course, this isn't the case any more. There are few notable blocks of "moderates" in either the Republican Party or the Democratic Party in Congress who deviate from their party in a systematic way on a particular way.

He then elaborates on the biases against moderation in majoritarian legislative processes, and the risk of legislative gridlock, and concludes that the two-party state traps American voters in a Catch-22:

in American politics, voters are left between insisting that government function with deals negotiated between the left and right in exchange for a risk a damaging deadlock, within divided government, and government by a right of center, or left of center consensus with little to encourage it to be inclusive.

Read the whole thing.  It's a lengthy blog post that should make for interesting reading in the context of the ongoing discussion of moderation, centrism and independent political strategy that has taken place in the comments here over the last few days.

The Case for Multi-Party Government: Republicans and Democrats Simply Cannot Be Trusted

At Rise of the Center, Solomon makes the case for multi-party government on the basis of one simple fact: the Democratic and Republican parties cannot be trusted with power.  Excerpt:

There are assuredly a whole slew of lessons to be learned from the ongoing mess in Wisconsin, but one of the bigger ones is we just can’t trust either party with power anymore.

Just a few short years ago we gave George W. Bush and the republican party near total control of Washington and we got record spending, a series of tax cuts we couldn’t afford and a long list of foreign policy mistakes that we’ll be dealing with for generations. The American people got sick of their overstep and split government for a few years, then gave the democrats a shot, with the rise of Barack Obama.

It didn’t take long for the Democrats to take their own version of partisan arrogance to the next level, ignoring the will of the people on legislation like the health care bill’s individual mandate, overpromising ad under delivering on the stimulus and racking up deficit spending unlike anything we’ve seen since World War II.

Give either party total control in Washington and they will trample over the will of the people without batting an eye, to hand over as much as they think they can get away with to their supporters and network of special interests that keep their party structures afloat.

Now in Wisconsin . . . . 

He concludes:

We need to elect more moderates and centrist independents, and we need to not allow either party to have complete control of government anymore. We need to have split government at every level, to at least force the two parties to have to gain the support of a handful of non members to pass anything.

They just can’t be trusted anymore.

Political Self-Interest vs. the Public Interest

From California Moderates via Rise of the Center:

One can argue that given our current situation the two party system has some real failings, despite our advantages. There is real discontent with both parties. This suggests some sort of problem. Reasonable questions include asking how and why we got here. Although there are multiple reasons, three major factors keep coming up: Special interest money, rigid political and religious ideology and self-interest before public interest.  The last one is hard to pin down. Politicians in office rarely admit they put self-interest above the public interest. However, politicians out of office occasionally do . . .

A recent example is comments made by former California legislative leader Willie Brown, who recently said that the the civil service system was "set up so politicians like me couldn't come in and fire the people (relatives) hired by the guy they beat and replace them with their own friends and relatives. . . . . . Talking about this is politically unpopular and potentially even career suicide for most officeholders." . . .

Another example is from former senator Max Cleland (D-Georgia). . . . After losing his senate seat to Saxby Chambliss in the 2002 elections, Mr. Cleland admitted that he voted in favor of invading Iraq, even though he was not convinced by the Bush administration's evidence for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. He admitted he did that partly because of deference to the Bush administration and partly because of political self-interest. . . . .

So, what can be done? If this really is a human trait, it won't go away. As argued here before, one way to affect political behavior is to increase transparency. Obviously, that won't be completely effective, but it would help. . . .

Civility, Brutality and the Politics of the Two-Party State

This week's column at CAIVN discusses the No Labels launch and the reaction from the dead-enders of the duopoly parties:

 . . . Just as Independents are marginalized by Democratic-Republican party politics even though they constitute a significant proportion of the electorate, our nation’s political discourse is dominated by conservatives and liberals, though over one-third of Americans consider themselves moderates.  However, despite persistent speculation that No Labels will provide the organizational infrastructure for an Independent presidential candidate in 2012, the organization’s leadership has consistently stated that it does not aim to build an Independent alternative to the Democratic and Republican parties, but rather seeks to galvanize a movement to “change the culture in Washington” by organizing support for politicians who “put their labels aside and work across the aisle to solve problems.” . . .

Ironically, the group has already succeeded in uniting partisan Democrats and Republicans in opposition to their effort to build a movement of moderates. . . . In response to the organization’s launch, one of the most common criticisms leveled by Republicans and Democrats alike is that No Labels is “unserious.”  At the influential Republican website Red State, CNN contributor Erick Erickson summed up his take on the group under the title “An Unserious Circle of Smug Seriousness.”  At Salon, the self-described “typical effete coastal liberal elitist” Alex Pareene submitted a piece on “The Unseriousness of No Labels.”  Of course, such a reaction was only to be expected, as this is the “culture” that No Labels seeks to transform.  In the puerile commentaries of so many Republicans and Democrats, to be “serious” is to be a slave to some faction of the ruling two-party state, and to show requisite concern for the pet issues of that party’s most rabid partisans and vocal activists. . . .

Read the rest.  It goes without saying that No Labels will only be as successful as its grassroots organization.  Being in NYC, and having a bit of time on Monday, I was able to swing by the launch event for a little while.  By my count there were probably around 1000 people in attendance from across the country.  Among them were a number of folks from Independent Voting and the network of centrist/moderate/independent bloggers Solomon Kleinsmith has dubbed the Centersphere.  In the end, the big names on stage at the event – which was newsworthy if only for the fact that it explicitly included Democrats, Republicans and Independents – are helpful for capturing the attention of the corporate media, but it is the organizing work of individuals on the ground across the country that makes the difference between success and failure for any nascent political movement.  Perhaps the biggest challenge for those within the No Labels movement will be to live up to the organization's name.  A commenter at CAIVN writes:

How can you call your organization "No Labels" when more than half of your members are all registered D or R to begin with? . . . If they wanted to break a few paradigms, it would have been better to require a pledge to change their party affiliations to independent or DTS [decline-to-state]. Think of the effect THAT would have. 

Coincidentally, I had been planning a future post on the group with this precise focus.  If a group like No Labels does nothing more than strengthen the two-party state, if it cannot empower independents to elect independents, then it will have been nothing more than a tool of that which it claims to oppose.  When Democrats and Republicans put their differences aside to work together, we get unending wars at home and abroad, bailouts and get-out-of-jail-free cards for the criminal corporate-political class, all-out assaults on rights, liberties and the rule of law etc.  What good is civility in politics if it does nothing more than put a happy face on the brutality of accepted policy?

Update: Solomon, who has been active within the group for a few months, has begun a series of posts critically reflecting on the launch.  He writes: "I think it is appropriate to start a series of posts breaking down what we’ve seen from No Labels so far by taking a bitter pill of honesty. While I think they’re off to a good start, they have made what appear to me (and others) as mistakes."

No Labels and the Need for More Party Animals

As you may know, the new No Labels group was officially launched yesterday in New York City.  Upwards of 1,000 activists from across the country gathered at Columbia University with the stated goal of restoring civility to the politics of the two-party state by "putting our labels aside to do what's best for America."  The group's leadership appears adamant that they are not seeking to form a nascent third party movement but rather aim to bolster moderates and centrists whether Democrat, Republican or Independent.  Ironically, however, the organization's first mini-scandal has inadvertently underscored the desire and need for third party and independent alternatives to the Democratic-Republican two-party state.  One of the group's signature designs was lifted whole cloth from the work of designer Thomas Porostocky.  The NYT City Room reports that elements of the No Labels website and the set design at the launch event:

included a grabby graphic of a menagerie of animals — giraffes, seals, dogs, butterflies, moose, hippopotami — that are blue on top and red on bottom like the standard Democrat donkey and Republican elephant.


If the graphic looks familiar, that’s because it bears a very, very striking resemblance to one that is at least five years old — and belongs to someone else. The older graphic was created by the designer Thomas Porostocky and included in a book compiled by the graphic artist Milton Glaser titled “The Design of Dissent.” Since 2008, Mr. Porostocky has been using it as the logo of his own political organization, More Party Animals, the mission of which is also to encourage the development of alternatives to Republican and Democrat.  [Emphasis added.]

The No Labels design team has now admitted that the imagery was cribbed and apologized to the original artist.  Again from the NYT:

The advertising agency veteran whose firm designed the graphic for the fledgling centrist political organization No Labels acknowledged Tuesday morning that his design was taken whole cloth from the logo of another political group.

The ad man, Dave Warren, said this morning that a designer he hired had grabbed the logo featuring red-white-and-blue animals from the Web site of the group More Party Animals and incorporated it in the design. 

The stated purpose of More Party Animals is to foster the development of new political parties and aid in the development of alternatives to the dictatorship of the two-party state.  From the group's website:

Let's face it, a two-animal circus is pretty lame.  So why aren't there more animals in the US political ring?  More Party Animals is an apolitically-political idea born out of heartfelt disenchantment with the status quo.  As the current system continues to polarize this country, we strongly believe America is in need of a wider selection of political parties.

We say our idea is apolitical because More Party Animals is steadfastly devoted to being policy-free.  Our animals represent a potential symbol for new beliefs, not the beliefs themselves.  That, we leave up to you.

Our purpose is to encourage and help people start their own parties, promote their own ideas and create a genuine alternative that might actually catch on.  More choice leads to better results . . . it's the American way.  

As Talking Points Memo reports, No Labels has now scrubbed the animals from its site.

No Labels and the Rise of the Center

The No Labels group is set for its official launch in New York City early next week.  The organization states, "We are Democrats, Republicans, and Independents who are united in the belief that we do not have to give up our labels, merely put them aside to do what’s best for America."  It has been denounced as a liberal front group by Republicans and called a conservative ploy by Democrats.  Solomon Kleinsmith, who maintains Rise of the Center and is a contributor to Third Party and Independent Daily, has been involved with the group for a few months, and will be traveling to New York to attend the organization's launch.  Solomon was invited to write a commentary on the group for WNYC's politics blog, in which he explains, "Why I'm coming from Nebraska to help launch a centrist movement." Excerpt:

These people [partisan Democrat and Republican nay-sayers] cannot possibly know if there is a hidden agenda behind No Labels, nor can they know who the financial backers are who haven't come out publicly, but this doesn't stop them from pretending. Many are claiming that No Labels is a political party, laying the foundation for a Bloomberg Presidential run in 2012. If this had any truth to it, I'd actually be all for it, but they conveniently are ignoring that No Labels is a 501c4 (commonly called super PACs). I directed a "c4" in 2008, and two minutes of research would show that such organizations have strict limits on how much they can spend on partisan activities, not to mention outright bans on much of what political parties do. . . .

No Labels doesn’t fit into their artificial ideological worldview, so they pull off mental gymnastics to invent wingnut conspiracy theories about how the group must be a puppet of dark forces from the other end of the political spectrum. . . .


These ad hominem attacks are one sign that No Labels is my kinda group. I put up with the same attacks every day myself. I’ve been praying for years for a well organized, well funded and professionally run political organization that centrist independents like myself could genuinely be a part of without being treated like second class citizens. I’m happy to see them attempting to create a big tent where moderates from both sides can work together with centrist independents. If I were to put together a MoveOn for moderates, as some aptly are calling No Labels, it would look largely like what I have seen from them thus far.

Read the whole thing.  

It's Time to Scrap the Two-Party System

From a commentary by Bob Iozzia for Patriot News at Penn Live:

I believe I can speak for my fellow disenfranchised central Pennsylvanians who try to vote for the candidate, not the party; who perhaps are liberal on some issues and conservative on others; who might have experienced first or secondhand downsizing or outsourcing because of the greed of hypocritical politicos; who are sick and tired of being sick and tired; who want to send our children to college without paying an arm and a leg. If we don’t have a good leg to stand on, it will be a challenge to remain upright — and if we fall, the nation falls. . . .

We are a nation divided into so many pieces whose rounded edges have been sharpened, that how the puzzle will be made whole is puzzling. As long as greed (for money or power) and arrogance are the backbone of our system of government, we are screwed.

It’s time to scrap the traditional two-party system so that the ponderous machine of government can finally be towed from the mud. Perhaps if the people we elect are not guided by the “gang mentality” imposed by party lines and labels, meaningful progress will be made. A nonpartisan form of government is a pipe dream, I know. But a disenfranchised moderate can dream, can’t he? Come on, man! [Emphasis added.]

The Paradoxical Necessity of an Immoderate Moderatism

In recent months there has been a fair amount of speculation among political observers regarding the possibility of an emerging moderate movement for political independence from the Democratic and Republican parties.  The evidence is difficult to ignore.  It seems like not a week goes by without any number of articles considering possible moderate, Independent candidates for president in 2012.  As perceived moderates are purged from both the Democratic and Republican parties, there is literally nowhere for them to go, except third party or Independent.  Lincoln Chafee won Rhode Island's gubernatorial race by running as a moderate Independent alternative to the stooges of the Democratic and Republican parties.  Moreover, in the very same race, the Moderate Party of Rhode Island secured enough votes to be assured ballot access in the state for the next four years.  In Maine Eliot Cutler came within two percentage points of winning the state's gubernatorial race following a very similar strategy to that of Chafee.  Earlier this year, the Centrist Party merged with the Modern Whigs with the aim of building a national moderate alternative to the Democrats and Republicans.   Jon Stewart billed his Rally to Restore Sanity as the Million Moderate March.  New groups like No Labels reject the failed politics of the Democratic-Republican two-party state.  And so on. 

Moderate and centrist bloggers have recently begun a discussion of the so-called "moderate brand," or rather, the lack thereof.  Late last month, at The Pragmatic Center, Nick Goebel asked, "Moderates: What is our brand?"  Goebel writes:

The biggest problem that voters have with moderates is that they seem to be “wishy-washy.”  Moderates never seem to have principles.  They sit on the fence playing politics instead of promoting the issues.  They lack character, decisiveness, and strength. . . . Conservatives market themselves as the small government, less taxes, free trade candidates.  Progressives market themselves as being on the side of the “average American” and utilizing government to help all people not just those at the top.  But what are we?  As moderates we are “wishy-washy.”  Not very appealing.  My opinion isn’t that we should “rebrand” ourselves; it’s that we never learned how to market ourselves in the first place.

In response, Solomon Kleinsmith at Rise of the Center notes that managing the perception of moderates "will be essential as the groundswell of moderates and centrist independents begins to coalesce into a movement in more places around the country."  It is difficult to quibble with Goebel's proposition that moderates cannot "re-brand" themselves because they never branded themselves in the first place.  Indeed, moderates have effectively allowed themselves to be defined by the dead-enders of the duopoly parties, the partisans of the Democratic and Republican political brands.  Self-described liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans each define themselves, first and foremost, in opposition to the other.  Secondarily, however, they position themselves against the moderates in their own parties, painting the latter as virtual turncoats, lacking character, decisiveness and strength. 

On this view, moderate Democrats are not "real" Democrats, they are Blue Dogs, Republicans in disguise.  Similarly, moderate Republicans are not "real" Republicans, they are RINOs, Republicans-in-name-only.  Insofar as the Democratic and Republican parties in particular, as well as Democratic-Republican party politics in general, are defined and controlled by their respective activist bases, this assessment should probably be considered correct.  If you consider yourself a moderate independent, for all intents and purposes, you cannot belong to the Democratic or Republican party.  How could things be otherwise if moderate independents are in fact marginalized by the process of Democratic-Republican party politics? 

If moderate, centrist independents want to rehabilitate their brand, as it were, they must cease to allow the advocates and supporters of the Democratic and Republican parties to define it for them.  They must take control of it for themselves, and, in addition, they must define their opposition.  The simplest and most straightforward way to accomplish both of these goals at one and the same time is to declare political independence from the Democratic and Republican parties and the politics of the two-party state. 

So long as Democratic-Republican party politics is definitive of politics as such, our politics will exclude and marginalize those who advocate moderation, centrism and independence.  Compromise between Democrats and Republicans does not equal moderation.  Their common solution to every problem is the further expansion of the global warfare and corporate welfare state.  The political center is not where the Democratic and Republican parties meet.  It cannot be, if only for the simple fact that the politics of the two-party state is radically decentered, because it is bipolar.  However, the partisans and proponents of the Democratic and Republican parties are unified in their opposition to moderation, centrism and political independence.  So long as moderates continue to provide political cover for the Democratic and Republican parties, until they offer alternatives to the reproduction of Democrat-Republican party government, they will in all likelihood be incapable of controlling their own political reputation, if not also their political destiny. 

The Million Moderate March

From the New York Times media blog:

Jon Stewart announced his much-awaited “big announcement” on Thursday’s edition of his late-night program, “The Daily Show.” He plans to stage a rally in Washington to counter what he identified as extremists on either side of the political spectrum.

Mr. Stewart told his audience the show had secured the National Mall on Oct. 30 for what he called “The Rally to Restore Sanity.”

He later labeled it a “Million Moderate March.” The purpose, he said, is to counter what he called a minority of 15 percent or 20 percent of the country that has dominated the national political discussion with extreme rhetoric. He tarred both parties with that charge . . . [Emphases added.]

Stephen Colbert also announced that he would be holding a counter-protest and march to "keep fear alive." In rallying against the 15-20 percent minority on either side of the political spectrum that dominates our political discourse, is one not in effect rallying against the Democratic and Republican parties themselves? against the mindless politics of the two-party state and duopoly system of government? against the corruption and deception we have come to expect from the representatives of the global warfare and corporate welfare state?

The Moderate Movement for Political Independence from the Ideological Shackles of the Two-Party State

From this week's column at the California Independent Voter Network, on the rise of the moderates:

In today’s political environment, it can be easy to forget that more than a third of Americans consider themselves to be moderates. Moderates are, of course, (in)famous for their rejection of partisan politics and their critique of the ideological and political polarization we have come to expect from the Democratic and Republican parties.

While moderates still constitute a significant proportion of both Democrats and Republicans (32% and 29% respectively), they can be found in the largest numbers among self-described Independents, of whom nearly half identify themselves as moderate (48%) . . . If current trends continue, we are likely to see an increase in moderate third party activism, as well as more high profile Independent candidates for office who seek to create a political base for themselves with the help of the moderate activist and voter.

The piece goes on to discuss the ongoing organizing activities of the California Modern Whig Party, high profile candidacies of moderate independents on the east coast, and some new developments in the centrist and moderate political blogosphere. The article quotes Alan Reynolds, Deputy State Chairman of the California Modern Whig party. Head over to Third Party and Independent Daily to read the full e-interview I conducted with him over the weekend. From the intro there:

The Modern Whig Party received a boost last week with a front page article in the Wall Street Journal that profiled the group and detailed its efforts to "tap the angry middle." The story led to coverage of the group by a number of other media sources, including the Daily Show's Indecision Forever blog, and Brian Lehrer's morning program on NPR in NYC. One of the Modern Whigs quoted in the WSJ story was Alan Reynolds, the Deputy State Chairman of the party's California affiliate. I contacted Mr. Reynolds, and he kindly agreed to answer a few questions via email. Our discussion covered his response to the WSJ article, his motivation for getting involved with the Whigs, their immediate plans in California and his take on the state's gubernatorial race, among other things.