Chinese Democracy: the Two-Party System is a One Party State

The struggle for political independence from autocratic and dictatorial control of government by entrenched party elites is global in its scope.  Consider the recent news coming out of China.  From the Christian Science Monitor:

About 80 independent candidates for local Peoples' Congresses are using the power of social media in China to challenge the Communist party's lock on political office.  As local government elections get underway nationwide in China, a new breed of independent would-be politician is emerging to challenge the ruling Communist party’s near total stranglehold on political power. 

Harnessing the mobilizing power of social networking websites for the first time and attracting unprecedented attention to themselves, these candidates for local Peoples’ Congresses are posing a dilemma for the government.

“There appears to be some uncertainty and debate at the upper echelons [of government] about how to deal with this,” says Russell Leigh Moses, author of an upcoming book on the changing nature of power in China. . . .

That uncertainty appears to have already been overcome. From Xinhua:

China said Wednesday that there is no such a thing as an "independent candidate," as it's not recognized by law, amid ongoing elections starting this year of lawmakers at the county and township legislatures.

The Electoral Law stipulates that candidates for lawmakers at the county- and township- levels should be first nominated as "deputy candidate" and then confirmed as "official deputy candidate" in due legal procedures, said an official of the National People's Congress (NPC), China's top legislature.

As I have argued in these pages time and again, the two-party system in the United States has effectively transformed the country into a one-party state.  A comparison with China regarding the status of independents is highly instructive.  In announcing that "there's no such thing as an "independent" candidate," China's official policy is, disturbingly, in accord with the views of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo.  When he was recently queried as to how his new ethics law would affect independents, Cuomo was unequivocal in his answer: "They don't exist," he said, to gales of laughter from his allies in the Democratic and Republican parties.  Needless to say, Cuomo's statement – as arrogant as it was ignorant – is factually incorrect.

China's official statement on independents also bears a striking resemblance to policies and proposals that have recently been promulgated on the west coast.  In California, "Independent" candidates are, strictly speaking, no longer allowed on the ballot.  In Oregon, a proposal was recently floated to prohibit the use of the word "independent" in the name of a political party.  In numerous other states, such as Idaho and South Carolina, ruling party insiders and activists are working tirelessly to ensure that  independents are barred from casting ballots in publicly funded primary elections.  The New York Times adds a bit more detail to the situation in China:

At the same time, citizens still have a right to proclaim themselves “independent candidates,” Mr. Xu maintained, “just as they have a right to choose their own names.”. . .  In practice, candidates are largely handpicked by Communist Party officials and committees, and outsiders are frequently discouraged from seeking office. Candidates have run their own campaigns and won office in the past, but victories have been exceedingly rare and re-election even more difficult . . . Candidates who lack official favor frequently find their route to office blocked, even if they meet legal qualifications.

Does that sound eerily familiar to you too?  The parallels to the obstacles faced by independent candidates here in the US are difficult to ignore, aren't they?  An individual has the right to run for office as an "independent" candidate here too, of course.  But in practice, most candidates are largely handpicked by officials from the ruling parties, and outsiders are frequently discouraged from seeking office by insiders and party activists.  Independent candidates have run their own campaigns and won office in the past, but victories are rare, and re-election difficult.  Candidates who lack official favor from the party machines and their mouthpieces in the corporate media frequently find their route to office blocked – they are excluded from debates and ignored or dismissed by the press and polling organizations – even if they meet legal qualifications.  

The two-party system is a one-party state.  See the China Elections blog for profiles of some of the Independent candidates who are seeking to crash the party. 

The Trials and Tribulations of the One-Party State: the Dialectic of Ideological Extremism and Independent Moderatism

In the last month, district courts in Idaho and South Carolina have handed down rulings in Republican party lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of those states' respective open primary systems.  In both instances, the GOP made much the same case: open primaries violate their First Amendment right to free association since they allow voters who are not registered as Republicans to cast ballots in GOP primary election, also known as "cross-over voting."  Idaho's forty year-old open primary system was struck down as unconstitutional.  South Carolina's was upheld because the state allows alternative nominating methods, such as nomination by convention and nomination by petition.  Details on the two rulings can be found in this week's column at CAIVN.  Here, however, I wanted to emphasize a noteworthy passage from the ruling in the Idaho case in which the myth of the two-party system gives way to the reality of the one-party state.  In the case, ironically, it was expert testimony submitted by the defendant – Idaho's Secretary of State Ben Ysursa – that ultimately swayed the court. From the decision:

Defendant's own experts provide the Court with clear evidence of crossover voting.  Defendant's experts, Martin and Saunders, admit that "inside the Idaho open primary system, especially in a one-party state like Idaho where the Republican Party primaries are in most cases the 'only game in town,' voters do likely cross over; they have to in order to have any meaningful influence in elections and express their sincere preferences with regard to their own representation." . . . . Martin and Saunders note that Idaho is the most one-party state and least electorally competitive state in the United States. [Emphasis added.]

Steve Rankin writes at the Free Citizen blog that, "This is the first such case in which a party has presented empirical evidence that people not in sympathy with the party have been voting in its primaries."  The judge's opinion then goes on to lay out the state's political imbalance:

Republicans hold 28 seats in the Idaho State Senate, while Democrats hold only 7.  Of the 70 members of the House of Representatives, 57 are Republicans and only 13 are Democrats.  All statewide elected offices . . . . [are held by] Republicans.  Furthermore, since 1992, Idaho has had 35 legislative districts . . . totaling 105 seats. . . . Contested Republican primaries far outnumber contested Democratic primaries every year . . . Moreover, Republican candidates often run unopposed in the general election, making the primary that much more important.

In their testimony, Martin and Saunders estimated anywhere from 10%-30% of votes in GOP primaries are cross-over votes cast by Democrats, Independents and third party supporters, which could sway the outcome of a primary contest, and result in the nomination of a candidate who is not acceptable to the majority of Republican party voters.  The Secretary of State argued that closing Idaho's primary elections would therefore produce "more ideologically extreme candidates."  To which the judge responded:

At first blush, that would appear to be a strong argument for maintaining the status quo.  But, choosing ideologically extreme candidates is precisely what a political party is entitled to do in asserting its right of association under the First Amendment. [Emphasis added.]

Idaho's legislature is now moving toward the implementation of a system that would necessitate party registration in the state, and give parties the option of holding closed primary elections that would exclude Independents and members of other parties.  Mountain Home News writes:

Independents are going to be aced out and left with increasingly unacceptable choices in the general election. What's worse is the Democrats really can't offer up a viable alternative in the general election. The current Democratic Party in Idaho is a joke -- and a bad one at that.

Richard Winger suggests that this situation may result in the creation of a new moderate party in the state.  From Ballot Access News:

If the bill passes, it is not out of the question that Idaho voters who are not happy with this system will create a new party, perhaps named the Moderate Party. Rhode Island already has a ballot-qualified party named the Moderate Party, and Alaska once had a ballot-qualified Republican Moderate Party.

The lawsuit has already resulted in the creation of new Independent organizations in the state, such as the American Independent Movement, which intervened in the case.  From their mission statement:

THE INDEPENDENT MISSION is to open the political process to more Americans and select and elect Independent candidates to bring about structural political and government reform. In most parts of the Country  where Independents are not yet organized enough to select and elect Independent candidates we often support party candidates who more closely represent the interests of the people they are sworn to represent rather than the candidates who pander to and represent the extreme right or left of their respective parties and the special interests. Independents hold the view that the political process and our government should be controlled by the people not political Parties and special interests.

To Alter or to Abolish: "When the People Fear the Government, There is Tyranny"

If, as it is stated in the Declaration of Independence, governments are instituted among men to secure inalienable rights, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, then must we not conclude that the reigning two-party state and duopoly system of government has become destructive of these ends?  Over the last year, numerous polls have shown that a wide majority of Americans do not believe the US government has the consent of the governed.  Similarly, an absolute majority of Americans consider the federal government to be "an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens."

An overlooked aspect of the public response to the Tucson massacre reveals the extent to which the American people recognize the reactionary and hysterical character of Democratic-Republican party politics as a grave threat to rights, liberties and the rule of law.  Consider these lines from an NPR commentary by Daisy Hernandez:

I wasn't the only person on Saturday who rushed to her Android when news came of the Tucson shooting. I wasn't looking however to read about what had happened. My auntie had already filled me in . . . What I wanted to know was the killer's surname.

My eyes scanned the mobile papers. I held my breath. Finally, I saw it: Jared Loughner. Not a Ramirez, Gonzalez or Garcia. It's safe to say there was a collective sigh of brown relief when the Tucson killer turned out to be a gringo. Had the shooter been Latino, media pundits wouldn't be discussing the impact of nasty politics on a young man this week — they'd be demanding an even more stringent anti-immigrant policy.

Latinos were not the only folks who were concerned that their community would be demonized because of the actions of the lone gunman.  Muslim advocacy groups also likely breathed a collective sigh of relief when it was reported that "the Tucson killer turned out to be a gringo."  The relief among conservative Republicans was palpable as more details of the shooter's person and biography became public knowledge.  Indeed, in many quarters it turned to rage at their demonization by liberal Democrats, who were likely also relieved that Loughner was not obviously one of them either.  And reasonably so.  After it was reported that Loughner in fact had no party affiliation, none other than Rush Limbaugh launched a tirade against Independents and centrists.

Given the predilection of Democrats and Republicans to hysterical reactionism, many communities and advocacy groups remain justifiably concerned about a potential government-led backlash in the wake of the shootings.  Among them: free speech advocates, gun rights advocates, advocates of open government, advocates for the mentally ill, video game lovers, marijuana legalization advocates, just to name a few.  

It is no secret that the ruling political class, under the hegemony of the Democratic and Republican parties, legislates to the particular rather than the universal.  The immediate response on the part of public officials to any such incident – whether it results in a horrible tragedy or whether a potential tragedy is averted – is almost invariably to call for further restrictions on fundamental rights and liberties.  Americans know this all-too-well.  As Thomas Jefferson famously stated, "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."  It is time to declare our independence from the tyrannical and totalitarian politics of the two-party state.

Holiday Weekend Headlines

Some headlines for the holiday weekend:

• Third Party and Independent Daily is now on Twitter! I finally set up TPID's Twitter page the other day, just in time for the "official" campaign season.

• The Texas state legislature and the Democratic-Republican one-party state: "Let's focus on the 150-member House of Representatives . . . In 62 districts the Republicans on the ballot have no Democratic opponents. And the number of Democrats getting a free pass from Republicans is 45. This means that in 107 districts, or in seven out of every 10, the Republican or Democrat on the ballot should be getting ready for the 82nd Legislature."

• The Arizona state legislature and the Democratic-Republican one-party state: "two months before the general election, more than one quarter of the seats in the next Legislature are all but decided. For 22 candidates, the Nov. 2 election is less a contest and more a waiting game. They either have no challengers or face nominal opposition from third-party candidates who don't have the funding or the political-party apparatus to wage a competitive campaign."

• IL: Vote Third Party for Real Change: "Many say that voting for a third-party is throwing your vote away. Who buys in to that statement? The Democratic and Republican parties do. They don't want you to vote for someone else . . . I refuse to accept the lesser of two evils, to accept my vote doesn't matter, and to let the Democrats and Republicans continue to offer us subpar ideas, inaction, incompetence and corruption from their candidates. I'm voting Whitney."

• Illinois' third party candidates face a serious barrier in their lack of name recognition. According to a recent poll by the Chicago Tribune, the wide majority of respondents had never even heard of the Green and Libertarian party candidates for US Senate, LeAlan Jones and Michael Labno.

Happy Labor Day!

Andrew Napolitano: "We have a one-party system"

You are probably familiar with Judge Andrew Napolitano from his appearances on Fox News, where he can be relied upon to provide a more or less libertarian view on the issues of the day, thus balancing, to some extent, the corporate- and state-aligned propaganda fed to us by this particular cable "news" channel. In a recent interview with The Daily Bell out of Switzerland, Napolitano argued that the two-party system has effectively devolved into a one-party state:

We have migrated from a two-party system into a one-party system, the big-government party. There's a democratic wing that likes taxes and wealth transfers and assaults on commercial liberties and there's a republican wing that likes war and deficits and assaults on civil liberties. Neither of them is interested in true freedom. The separation of civil liberties from commercial liberties is what as enabled this to happen.