The Real Two-Party System: the Democratic-Republican Ruling Class vs. the Rest of Us

In recent weeks, Alan Keyes has published a series of articles on "America's Real Party System" at his blog Loyal to Liberty. Essentially, it provides a populist framework for conceiving contemporary and historical political antagonisms in the United States. In Part 1, Keyes argues that the Democratic-Republican two-party system obscures the primary political antagonism operative in the United States, that between the elites and the rest of us:

The liberal elite identified as the dog wagging rump of the GOP have their counterparts in the Democratic party. Behind the facade of the Democrat/Republican division, is an elitist division playing both sides to its advantage. Remove the overlay of the existing party labels and what we see at work is the real two party contest, more accurately labeled the elitists and the populists.

The populists are the de facto majority party. In a division of the house between the elitists and the populists, the elitists would lose routinely. In order to gain power, they must win the support of a sufficient number of populists to garner a voting majority. But if they do so frankly and openly, their populist allies would work against the stigma of being associated with elitism.

So the elite camp divides into two squadrons, each one assigned to forge an alliance with enough populists to achieve electoral success. One camp pretends to champion populist principles and values. The other pretends to champion the populist interest when it comes to the distribution of material goods. Meanwhile, in the background, both work to make sure that the elites protect and extend their power and control.

Part 2 deals with the history of the two-party state in the twentieth century and the rise of Barack Obama. Part 3 goes on to consider strategic possibilities for opposition to the ruling political class, specifically addressing the tea party movement:

If, during eras of elite ascendancy, the two most visible parties are tools of elite manipulation, then there is at all times a third party involved in all our political activities. It is the populist party, normally divided against itself by successful elite manipulation. In terms of its potential, it is always the majority party. The notion that “third parties fail” is therefore less an observation of fact than a statement of elite intention. . . .

It’s existence “hides in plain sight” the elite acknowledgment that the third party is not a possibility but an ever-present reality. The Tea Party label signifies the ambiguity of its existential status. It’s the Party that is not a party. It allows acknowledgment of the unified activity of the populist element, but with an irony intended to keep it from achieving, or even effectively aiming to achieve, a political result consonant with its real political strength. Though united in opposition to both the elite contrived parties, it exists in a form intended to prevent it from engendering and rallying around any leadership truly independent of their control.

Though it looks back upon, and forward to betrayal by the GOP, that party is supposed nonetheless to offer the only effective outlet for its unifying revulsion against the subversive elite agenda brought fully to light by the arrogant haste of the Obama faction. Tragically, if the populist element simply accepts the GOP’s plainly treacherous offer, the best it can hope for is to exchange the reality of America’s populist constitution for the virtual reality substitute of playing in a speciously contrived political sandbox. . . .

Keyes has also written a kind of introductory or summary article to the series at World Net Daily.

Toward a Popular Front for the Liberation of the People of the United States from the Apparatus of the Global Warfare and Corporate Welfare State

At Politics Daily, Donna Trussel considers the overlap between the demands of left- and right-wing populists on a number of issues, and proposes a third party alternative to the Democratic-Republican two-party state in an article wondering if "Dennis Kucinich is joining the tea party movement":

Democrats and Republicans are now so divided and partisan that no legislation can move forward. And yet, with a few notable exceptions, it seems both Democrats and Republicans represent not the small investor or the average homeowner or the laid-off worker, but rather banks and big business. That's a conundrum if I ever saw one. The Poland analogy – a government that cannot govern – sounds apt to me. . . . In catastrophe is opportunity, as the saying goes. Ten years ago a third party could not work, but now, just maybe it can. A third party that stands for campaign finance reform, a balanced budget, full employment, the break up of companies "too big to fail," health care reform that looks after people instead of insurance and pharmaceuticals, an end to pork, and a one-way ticket out of town for every lobbyist in Washington.

Imagine a 2012 ticket of libertarian-leaning Ron Paul and socialist-leaning Dennis Kucinich, where they run on their common goals rather than their differences . . . A new third party will need a good name, one with no baggage. A name that suggests a democratic republic, but of course Democrat and Republican are already taken, not to mention ruined . . . Start from your common ground. The whole country is angry, and rightfully so. To everyone who ever dreamed of a real choice on Election Day: This is your chance. Seize it.

Toward a Popular Opposition to the Democratic-Republican Two-Party State and Duopoly System of Government

At Polizeros, Bob Morris has been a consistent voice in support of a popular left-right coalition against the Democratic-Republican ruling establishment, and a critic of the left's general dismissal of the tea party movement. Today, he relays comments from a tea party activist brainstorming a potential left-right alliance against the political status-quo:

Let’s brainstorm: what would a left-right alliance look like? The Goals: Democracy as George Washington wanted it: End the party system. End the “culture war”. End bailouts, have bailouts payed back. Do some Teddy Roosevelt style trust-busting – if a corporation is too big to fail, it’s a monopoly. . . . Improve civil liberties, government transparency, get rid of voting machines, increase turnout with vote-by mail, holiday on election day etc. Cut taxes for the middle class. Pay for it by taxing the financial industry. What else can left and right agree on? The tactics: Vote out incumbents. Vote in primaries for politicians who follow our rules: no mention of irrelevant scandals, no talking about culture war issues, no changes to legislation on culture war issues. No donations from corporations, not being caught alive with lobbyists. Boycott partisan media. Boycott a short, easily remembered list of corporations. Mostly media and donors to the status quo. Call-in-sick days in corporations that donate to politicians. Protests/pickets at high-price fundraisers, banks, lobbying firms Form local juries to debate local issues and pass (non-binding, at the moment) legislation. Form/join local markets, militias, and local currency systems. Skill sharing: Right teaches military skills, left teaches misc. (civil disobedience, scientific method etc.)

Morris writes:

Works for me. Coalitions mean you you don’t have to agree on everything, just on some things. Imagine what could be accomplished by a mass coalition of left and right working together. Why, that would be the worst fear of both DC and the banksters.

Reflecting on a number of posts and the ensuing discussions here at Poli-Tea, Liberal Arts Dude did some brainstorming on this very topic last October, writing:

There are a lot of things where Left and progressive activists and sympathizers share common ground with Tea Party activists. For example, if you implement a large-scale survey on “big picture”questions to both populations, I bet you will find a lot of overlap between the Left and Right. Examples of such questions might be:

• Do ordinary people have a strong voice and power in American democracy? Should they?
• Do the two major parties actually represent the interests of ordinary people? Should they?
• Is the country is being led effectively by our elected leaders from either of the major parties?
• Should a wider spectrum of perspectives, viewpoints and solutions be represented in public discourse and institutions than just Republican or Democrat?
• Do the mainstream political parties care more for their own internal interests rather than the interests of the country as a whole?
• Will you be willing to join a third political party or vote for a third party or independent candidate in an election?
• Will you be willing to participate in political activities and actions that are designed to address the issues above?

My belief on that overlap is where my hopes for a Left-Right alliance comes from . . . I am still a believer on the prospects of such an alliance happening in the future. After all, political efforts that function outside the purview of the Democrat and Republican parties are effectively marginalized in American politics. It’s not a big stretch to then ask the question: why can’t marginalized groups from both Left and Right combine forces and work towards opening up the American political system?

The Andre Bauer Affair: Class Warfare and the Allegory of Elephants and Asses

The moral outrage that initially greeted the recent remarks by South Carolina's LT Governor Andre Bauer, in which the Republican gubernatorial candidate effectively compared families on government assistance with stray animals, has now given way to more nuanced political considerations. If you recall, at a town hall meeting in late January, Bauer related a childhood memory to illustrate a point about the "culture of dependency":

My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed. You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that. And so what you've got to do is you've got to curtail that type of behavior. They don't know any better.

Like so many of his fellow Republican and Democratic politicians caught in similar situations, Bauer defended himself by saying that his comments were "taken out of context." As reported by WSOC TV:

South Carolina Lieutenant Governor Andre Bauer defended the controversial comments he made about government assistance programs. He compared giving out government assistance to feeding stray animals. Bauer said his metaphor was taken out of context. He said it’s important that welfare doesn’t breed a culture of dependency.

At the Columbia Free Times, Corey Hutchins wonders whether the comments will help or hurt Bauer's effort in the Republican gubernatorial primary:

Is it possible that by not completely backing off his statements, Bauer could actually score points at the polls in the Republican primary on June 10? Retired Francis Marion University political scientist Neal Thigpen says maybe so. Because the voters in GOP primary elections in South Carolina tend to be very conservative, Thigpen believes Bauer’s stance could solidify support for him from those who share his views, much like U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson drew renewed support after shouting down President Obama. “My guess is there would be a lot of people who agree with him and it might be beneficial to him,” Thigpen says.

Indeed, it is not especially difficult to find commentary more or less in support of Bauer. In a letter to the editor of the Independent Mail, one reader writes that "Bauer Struck a Nerve":

The truth is always very hard for people to deal with, This is clearly the case regarding Andre Bauer’s comments. True, the choice of words could have been better, but the message is 100 percent on target. South Carolina has too many people dependent on the system. This costs taxpayers like my wife and myself plenty every year . . . The working people of South Carolina, the ones lucky enough to have jobs, cannot afford to keep handing out money to freeloaders.

In this response to Bauer's stated position, we see the political limit of the moral argument against his explicit statements, which can simply be brushed off by admitting to a poor choice of words, or by asserting, perhaps with some justification, that his comments were taken out of context. But effective political critique requires effective contextualization. A progressive with a sense of irony or a libertarian with a sense of principle might thus criticize the Lieutenant Governor for his willingness to engage in open class warfare against the poor even as his state provides massive welfare subsidies to multi-national corporations such as BMW and Boeing, and unabashedly feeds at the trough of the federal government: South Carolina is a free-loader state, which receives more money in federal tax dollars than it pays in federal taxes.

Further, should we not heed Bauer's grandmother's advice in partisan political terms as well? The stray animals of our political order are, of course, not mangy cats and dogs, but rather the elephants and asses of the Republican and Democratic Parties, whose lust for power leaves no house or home un-scavenged. Quit feeding these animals: because they breed. So long as they have a steady food supply, as measured in dollars donated and votes cast, they will continue to reproduce, especially those of them that don't think much further than the next election. We, the people, have to curtail this behavior because they don't know any better.

The Populist Impulse and the Dialectical Defense of Democratic-Repulican Corporatist Government

The reinvigoration of the populist impulse in American politics has the potential to upend long-standing assumptions that form the basis of the cliches that pass for conventional wisdom among professional political commentators and liquidate the ossified structures that maintain the ruling balance of power in favor of the Democratic-Republican duopoly system of government. However, there is a grave danger that it will be appropriated by the partisans of the two-party state and put into the service of the political status quo. In two recent posts at the Think 3 Institute, Sam Wilson reflects on the reactions to what we might call the populist insurgency by commentators on both sides of the duopoly divide. In the first, he considers a piece by E.J. Dionne:

Liberal pundits would have people direct populist anger at the corporations who are momentarily expected to flood the airwaves with brainwashing propaganda. E. J. Dionne is a representative specimen. His latest column calls on Democrats to wage rhetorical war on corporate lobbyists and a "fake populism" that might be described as Teapublican. This "fake populism" focuses traditionally populist anti-"elite" hostility on the government instead of what Dionne deems its proper target, Wall Street.

In the second, Sam thinks through a column by David Brooks:

[Brooks notes that] that much of the supposed populism we see today doesn't come from the grass roots, but from the top down . . . As Brooks puts it: populists (or pseudo-populists) of both major parties "describe politics as a class struggle between the enlightened and the corrupt, the pure and the betrayers." Brooks is trying to warn both parties off the populist approach . . . When he describes the stupidity of 21st century populism, however, Brooks seems to be referring only to the anti-wealthy populism of liberals, progressives or Democrats, not the anti-"elitist" populism of Republicans, Tea Partiers and most conservatives. He does take a swipe at Sarah Palin's divisive populism, but his main beef against populism is over its fundamental hostility to concentrated wealth.

Though Sam considered these pieces separately, placing them side by side proves illuminating. Perhaps the simplest way to understand how Democratic-Republican politics channels the populist impulse to the benefit of the ruling order and the political status quo is to consider the ideological division of labor between the Democratic and Republican parties and the resulting dialectic. In the first moment, Democratic populists rail against the evils of big business while their Republican counterparts rail against the evils of big government. In the second moment, the partisan Republican construes Democratic populism as an implicit endorsement of big government while the partisan Democrat equates Republican populism with an implicit endorsement of big business. The outcome of this constellation is all too predictable. Because of their ideological investment in and political commitment to the ruling Democratic-Republican two-party state and duopoly system of government, Democratic-Republican populism necessarily devolves into its opposite: the elitist defense of big government and big business. The end result of this dialectic is the reproduction of the ruling order, which is characterized, above all else, by corporatist government, crony capitalism and political cronyism.

Rhetorical opposition to the reigning Democratic-Republican political status quo is quickly becoming a condition for the reproduction of the reigning Democratic-Republican political status-quo.