How to Save the Legacy of the Boston Tea Party?

At The Moral Liberal, Jack Kerwick makes the case for the political independence of the tea party movement from the political opportunists in the GOP, and debunks two common arguments against third party activism and advocacy.  Excerpt:

If and when those conservatives and libertarians who compose the bulk of the Tea Party, decide that the Republican establishment has yet to learn the lessons of ’06 and ’08, choose to follow through with their promise [to form a third party], they will invariably be met by Republicans with two distinct by interrelated objections.

First, they will be told that they are utopian, “purists” foolishly holding out for an “ideal” candidate.  Second, because virtually all members of the Tea Party would have otherwise voted Republican if not for this new third party, they will be castigated for essentially giving elections away to Democrats. Both of these criticisms are, at best, misplaced; at worst, they are just disingenuous.  At any rate, they are easily answerable.

Let’s begin with the argument against “purism.” To this line, two replies are in the coming. No one, as far as I have ever been able to determine, refuses to vote for anyone who isn’t an ideal candidate.  Ideal candidates, by definition, don’t exist.  This, after all, is what makes them ideal. This counter-objection alone suffices to expose the argument of the Anti-Purist as so much counterfeit.  But there is another consideration that militates decisively against it.

A Tea Partier who refrains from voting for a Republican candidate who shares few if any of his beliefs can no more be accused of holding out for an ideal candidate than can someone who refuses to marry a person with whom he has little to anything in common be accused of holding out for an ideal spouse.  In other words, the object of the argument against purism is the most glaring of straw men: “I will not vote for a thoroughly flawed candidate” is one thing; “I will only vote for a perfect candidate” is something else entirely.

As for the second objection against the Tea Partier’s rejection of those Republican candidates who eschew his values and convictions, it can be dispensed with just as effortlessly as the first.

Every election season—and at no time more so than this past season—Republicans pledge to “reform Washington,” “trim down” the federal government, and so forth.  Once, however, they get elected and they conduct themselves with none of the confidence and enthusiasm with which they expressed themselves on the campaign trail, those who placed them in office are treated to one lecture after the other on the need for “compromise” and “patience.”

Well, when the Tea Partier’s impatience with establishment Republican candidates intimates a Democratic victory, he can use this same line of reasoning against his Republican critics.  My dislike for the Democratic Party is second to none, he can insist. But in order to advance in the long run my conservative or Constitutionalist values, it may be necessary to compromise some in the short term.

Read the whole thing.  Before the tea party movement was hijacked by Republican party hacks, there was a moment at which it appeared to hold the promise of a real movement for political independence from the misrule of the Republican and Democratic parties.  This latent possibility remains, and, the longer self-described tea party activists continue to demonstrate a  slavish allegiance to the Republican party, the greater will be the contradiction between the so-called "tea party movement" and its historical forebears in the American revolution.  The Boston Tea Party, after all, was part of a radical movement for political independence from an unrepresentative and tyrannical government.  How do we save the legacy of the Boston Tea Party from today's Tea Party Tories?

The Case for a Third Party Tea Party

Mitchell Langbert makes the case that the tea party movement can only be a force for freedom if it recognizes the tyranny of the two-party state for what it is.  Excerpts:

I have been following politics on and off for forty years and I still can't grasp why Americans favor a two-party system.  It has resulted in their being taxed to fifty percent of their incomes to get a garbage government. Garbage at the federal level; garbage at the state level; and garbage at the local level.  Despite the complete failure of the two party system Americans remain much more loyal to it than they do to liberty. . . .

The two-party system has caused America's decline because both parties are responsive to interest groups.  The special interests that are subsidized by the Fed, to include the banking system and Wall Street, the media, government, and much of big business, all contribute heavily to Republicans as well as Democrats. . . . To be committed to a two party system is to favor the status quo. . . .

Compromise between two big government parties is not "moderate." The people in Washington and the state capitals are socialists, fascists and totalitarians. They are not moderates.  The only way that change can occur is through a rethinking of the smug, insipid policies of the past 50 years.  That will require change without compromise. 

Speaking of the threat to freedom and liberty posed by Democratic-Republican party politics, the construction of the militarized police- and surveillance state continues apace.  From the Washington Post:

Nine years after the terrorist attacks of 2001, the United States is assembling a vast domestic intelligence apparatus to collect information about Americans, using the FBI, local police, state homeland security offices and military criminal investigators.

The system, by far the largest and most technologically sophisticated in the nation's history, collects, stores and analyzes information about thousands of U.S. citizens and residents, many of whom have not been accused of any wrongdoing.

The government's goal is to have every state and local law enforcement agency in the country feed information to Washington to buttress the work of the FBI, which is in charge of terrorism investigations in the United States. . . .

Technologies and techniques honed for use on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan have migrated into the hands of law enforcement agencies in America . . .

The FBI is building a database with the names and certain personal information, such as employment history, of thousands of U.S. citizens and residents whom a local police officer or a fellow citizen believed to be acting suspiciously. It is accessible to an increasing number of local law enforcement and military criminal investigators, increasing concerns that it could somehow end up in the public domain.

Poll: Majority Support for Third Party Alternative to Democrats and Republicans

A new survey commissioned by The Hill finds that 54% of likely voters want a viable third party alternative to the Democrats and Republicans:

A majority of likely voters think a viable third party would be good for American politics, according to a new poll of likely voters in 10 key open House districts. . . . Fifty-four percent of respondents in The Hill 2010 Midterm Election Poll said they’d like an alternative to the Democrats and Republicans.  That number rose to 67 percent for self-identified independents. But even a plurality in the established parties — 49 percent of Democrats and 46 percent of Republicans — said they’d like another choice.

The great irony, of course, is that if the majority of likely voters who want a third party alternative to the Democrats and Republicans actually voted for third party and independent candidates, in more than a few cases those candidates would probably win!  However, the article goes in a different direction, and makes for almost surreal reading.  The reporter, Sean Miller, quotes prominent Democratic pollster Mark Penn and the well-known Republican strategist Mark McKinnon talking about how these "record numbers" indicate an historic opportunity for third party and independent candidates to break the Democratic-Republican lock on elected office in the United States.  But then, rather than follow up on this possibility, Miller instead tracks down a political scientist and a supposed tea party activist who argue that there is no third party or independent political movement in the United States and there never will be.  Is it possible to be an historical determinist of this sort and still believe in the freedom of the will?  Nonetheless, the contradictions of the infiltration strategy supported by tea party activists who have proven incapable of maintaining their political independence are readily apparent in Miller's discussion of the tea party movement.  The infiltrationist doesn't want to be "co-opted" but then endorses a strategy which is predicated upon co-optation by a major party.  Miller writes:

Tea Party activists say their movement is unwilling to be co-opted into the traditional party structure anyway. “Not only no, but hell no,” Judson Phillips, the founder of the group Tea Party Nation, said when asked about the prospect of forming a third party. “Third parties are simply an invitation to disaster,” he said. “All a third party does is split the vote. “I am yet to meet anyone who wants to have the Tea Party as a [political party],” he said — the more appealing prospect is to “take over” the Republican Party.

Obviously, Judson Phillips' experience in the tea party movement is quite limited, as he appears completely unfamiliar with the third party tea party movement.  Thus, it is reasonable to wonder why Miller didn't choose a more knowledgeable source, say, someone who is familiar with the third party tea party movement.  They are not hard to find.  There is an officially recognized third party Tea Party in at least three states, and there are dozens upon dozens of third party and independent tea party candidates for office at all levels of government nationwide, and under a variety of political banners.  In fact, just last night, the Florida Tea Party's candidate for US House in Florida's 8th congressional district, Peggy Dunmire, participated in a debate with Democrat Alan Grayson.  It is noteworthy that the Republican candidate for the office refused to participate in the form.  From the Orlando Sentinel:

U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson, the firebrand Democrat fighting a conservative onslaught to boot him from office, sat next to an empty chair during the campaign's first debate Tuesday night. His Republican opponent, Dan Webster, didn't attend. . . . Grayson shared the stage with Peg Dunmire of the Florida Tea Party; George Metcalfe, an independent; and Steven Gerritzen, a write-in candidate from the Whig Party. Webster cited a scheduling conflict in not attending the debate sponsored by the Central Florida Urban League at the Citrus Bowl's Varsity Club. But his campaign has also made it clear that he won't debate unless the match-up includes only him and Grayson.

So the Republican, Dan Webster, states that he couldn't attend because of a scheduling conflict, but it turns out that even if there were no conflict, he wouldn't have attended anyway because the event included the Tea Party, Independent and Whig Party candidates in the race.  No doubt, the likes of Webster and Phillips above would rather engage in conspiracy theorizing about third party and independent candidates than engage in an exchange of ideas with third party and independent candidates.  Which only goes to show that they are not interested in ideas, but only in maintaining the reigning two-party state and duopoly system of government.  Someone should inform Phillips that the original "Tea Party" was part of a radical movement for political independence and not a movement aimed at providing political cover for the organizational vehicles of the ruling political class.

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.

Tea Party Tories: Co-opted by Loyalists, Tea Party Groups Betray Principles and Heritage

Though the tea party movement is often treated as a monolith, we should distinguish between at least three different types of groups that may be subsumed under that banner: 1) Republican Party front organizations – these make up some of the most well known tea party organizations in the country; 2) multi-partisan, grassroots, people-powered associations that have maintained their political independence and remain relatively open to a diverse array of political views and opinions; 3) third party tea party groups determined to provide a viable alternative to the Republican and Democratic parties. These fault lines were already clearly established as the tea party movement first began gaining steam in the spring of 2009, as I noted at the time.

In recent weeks and months, however, Republican Party operatives within the tea party movement have become ever more brazen, and even hysterical, in their opposition to independent and third party tea party organizations. The hijacking of the tea party movement by these individuals represents a shameless betrayal of the heritage of the Boston Tea Party and the founding principles of these tea party groups themselves.

Let's consider two examples: the West Orlando Tea Party and the Michigan Tea Party Alliance. Currently, both of these groups have devoted significant space on the front pages of their websites to the denunciation of independent and third party tea party organizations in their respective states. The West Orlando Tea Party reports as "Breaking News":

There is a political party in Florida that is on the November ballot that calls itself "The Florida Tea Party", but they are not a Tea Party as you know us, they are Tea Party in "name only".This political party has absolutely nothing to do with the actual Tea Party Movement, which includes the West Orlando Tea Party. None of the true Tea Party organizations in Florida endorse, support or are in any way involved or connected to this political party. And, we see such a third political party serving only as a tool to confuse voters and split the conservative vote.

Similarly, the Michigan Tea Party Alliance literally has its sirens blaring to report an "important announcement":

Event Description: Rally on steps of State Capitol to protest the filing of a political 3rd party named "The Tea Party" by a Mark Steffek who does not belong to any known Tea Party in the state.

WE NEED ALL TEA PARTY MEMBERS FROM ALL TEA PARTY and 9/12 GROUPS!!!

Bring signs protesting a Fake Tea Party, etc. Be prepared to give a statement in the board hearing at 10 am if we are allowed to. The purpose of the hearing is to decide how much time will be allocated to challenge the filing. Please encourage anyone who spoke to petition gathers and can speak to their deceptions to be there and speak to the board of canvassers.

Both of these groups have a clearly articulated statement of principles that serve as the foundational documents of their associations. Both clearly stipulate that they have no political party affiliation. The text of the West Orlando Tea Party's Promises and Covenants explicitly asserts that it has "no party affiliation":

No Political Party Affiliation~ This organization is not a political party. We are not, nor have we, nor will we be an appendage of, affiliated with or a component of any political party. Citizens of broad political leanings and various political parties (Independent, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, etc.) are all welcome to participate in our activities.

Similarly, the "Guiding Principles" of the Michigan Tea Party Alliance state:

Our member groups must be groups that are not tied to a political party . . . Our members must not be in favor of a third political party.

Their opposition to the local third party Tea Party organizations is thus in full accord with their statements of principles. However, their reasons for that opposition reveal their duplicitous betrayal of those very same principles. Their claim is effectively that any third party Tea Party candidate will take votes away from the Republican candidate in the same race, and thus act as a so-called spoiler; on the basis of this assertion they then allege that the third party Tea Party groups are actually nothing more than puppets of the local Democratic Party machine. The latter is not necessarily an unreasonable suspicion – one should never doubt the mendacity of Democrats and Republicans –, but the former reveals that these groups are indeed tied to a political party: they have allowed themselves to be hijacked by GOP operatives and turned into appendages of the Republican wing of the political class and ruling establishment.

On the event calendar of the Lakes Area Tea Party, a member of the Michigan Alliance, we find an explicit call for activists to do the grunt labor for their corporatist Republican Party overlords:

We all want to win in November, and it will not be possible unless we start working NOW towards Victory. We will be making phone calls and walking various precincts throughout Oakland county all day long. Please commit a few hours of your time this Saturday to come by and help. We need as many people as possible, we will be identifing ...voters who are dissatisfied with the current administration so that we can turn them out to vote Republican in November. [Emphasis added.]

This group is thus in clear violation of the Michigan Tea Party Alliance's statement of principles. Actions by the West Orlando Tea Party might be considered even more egregious. The West Orlando Tea Party has organized a "Town Hall Meeting" on August 12th that will feature the seven candidates for the Republican Party's nomination in Florida's 8th congressional district. Though the WOTP claims that it is not "an appendage of, affiliated with or a component of any political party," the fact that it has organized a Republican Party primary candidates forum belies their so-called principles. Furthermore, organizers of the "town hall" have also shown an unwillingness to allow representatives from independent and third party groups to attend the forum, calling the Florida Tea Party "an opposing political party no different from the Democrat party."

In their craven advocacy for the Republican Party and the reproduction of the tyrannical two-party state, the West Orlando Tea Party and the Michigan Tea Party Alliance have not only betrayed their own "Guiding Principles" and "Promises and Covenants," they have also betrayed their very heritage. The original tea party from which these groups derive their names is, of course, the Boston Tea Party. But the Sons of Liberty did not advocate accommodation with the British parliament and king. The Boston Tea Party was part of a radical revolutionary movement for political independence from a tyrannical government. By allowing themselves to be co-opted by the Republican Party, the West Orlando Tea Party and the Michigan Tea Party Alliance demonstrate that they have proven incapable of maintaining even a minimal level of political independence. They make a mockery of the Boston Tea Party's legacy. The patriots of the American revolution had their own terms for such individuals and groups: Loyalists, Royalists, Tories and King's Men. Indeed, they subjected such individuals to their own brand of punishment: they were tarred, feathered and forced to drink scalding hot tea.

On the Necessity of Opening Up Our Duopolized Debates to Third Party and Independent Voices

A dynamic three or four-person race looks to be developing in Virginia's fifth congressional district, for the seat currently held by Democrat Tom Perriello. Republicans have nominated careerist politician Robert Hurt, a move that grassroots conservatives promised to oppose by supporting an independent candidate for the office on the grounds that the likes of Hurt would not represent the people of the district but rather the interests of the Republican Party's political establishment. Tea party groups that have not sold their souls to the Republican party machine are now beginning to rally behind independent candidate Jeff Clark. An editorial in the Charlottesville Daily Progress criticizes the Republican's self-serving attempt to keep the independent out of any and all debates, and calls for his inclusion in such forums:

Is a political debate supposed to be for the benefit of the voters — or the politicians? Both, or else the politicians wouldn’t submit themselves to the process; after all, they want to win votes, not risk losing them.

But for the benefit of democracy, voters should come first. And for that reason, they should get the chance to hear all the candidates on the ballot, so they are better prepared to cast an intelligent vote.

State Sen. Robert Hurt, Republican, is currently locked in a debate about a debate: whether he is willing to allow third-party candidate Jeffrey C. Clark to join a session with himself and Democrat Rep. Tom Perriello, the incumbent. Mr. Perriello has agreed to Mr. Clark’s participation. Late last week, Mr. Hurt said that, no, he does not want a three-way debate. “We cannot allow the important debate in this election to be sidetracked by a candidate who is not serious about his campaign or his ability to win,” he said in a written statement. [Emphasis added.]

Mr. Clark was serious enough to get the requisite number of signatures on a petition to place his name on the ballot. He is a legitimate candidate. His ability to win? Doubtful. His Tea Party candidacy — if it runs true to the form demonstrated by previous third-party efforts — might be expected to pull no more than 3 percent of the vote.

But that doesn’t mean a third-party candidacy is valueless. If a third party can make a decent showing — even at just a few percentage points — it can send a real message to the winning side. Voters can register a strong statement even if their candidate doesn’t win. Thus they can affect, if not the election, then the direction of governance that follows the election.

But mainstream politicians often refuse to debate third-party contenders. They fear risking the chance that votes that might have been theirs would instead be transferred to the “nonviable” candidate. Because Mr. Hurt and Mr. Clark are both seeking conservatives’ votes, Mr. Hurt is perceived as protecting his own interests by refusing to let the Tea Partyer in on a three-way debate. In addition, he is embroiled in a further debate over whether he backtracked on an earlier statement that he would be willing to debate Mr. Clark. He was quoted as saying, “Absolutely.”

His campaign later said his answer was not meant to be a direct reply about whether he would allow Mr. Clark to debate, and that in fact he is not willing to debate him.
The statement also suggested that Mr. Perriello’s motivations for allowing Mr. Clark to debate were less than altruistic. If Mr. Clark’s presence could pull votes from Mr. Hurt, then that vote loss could help Mr. Perriello — and so it is to the incumbent’s advantage to allow the Tea Party candidate on stage.

This is an interesting sub-debate, but it is not the main issue. The main issue is the voters. And the voters would be best served by seeing and hearing all three candidates debate. All three will be on the ballot in November. Before they pull that lever, voters should be as well-informed as possible, and a three-way debate could be an immediate and effective form of political education.

This editorial is, of course, noteworthy for the fact that it calls for the inclusion of the independent candidate in the debate. More often than not, the mainstream media willingly collude with the ideologues of the two-party state in their efforts to ensure that as few people as possible realize there are alternatives to the stooges of the Democratic and Republican parties. Consider a recent example from Florida, which happened to be the subject for my most recent column at CAIVN:

Last week, the Florida Press Association and Florida Society of Newspaper Editors held their annual convention, where they hosted a forum for the Sunshine State's candidates for US Senate. Four candidates were invited, Republican-turned-Independent Charlie Crist, Republican Marco Rubio, and two Democrats, Kendrick Meek and Jeff Greene. One would not know it from this line-up, but there are more than seven declared third party and independent candidates for the office, including Libertarian Alex Snitker and Constitution Party candidate Bernie DeCastro, both of whom have qualified for ballot access.

Snitker attended the forum to protest his exclusion from the event. According to a press release, the Libertarian stepped up to the floor microphone and asked to be included in the forum, but the request was denied by FPA President Dean Ridings who called for security to escort Snitker from the room.

The organization's justification for excluding Snitker from the event reveals how the media actively support the ruling political establishment in the guise of impartial objectivity. Only candidates who had received 10% support in a major poll were invited to participate in the forum. This sounds reasonable enough at first. However, third party and independent candidates are rarely, if ever, included in any major polls! The majority of such polls, many of them commissioned by major media outlets themselves, allow respondents to choose between Democrats and Republicans by name, but only offer the choice of "some other candidate" as an alternative.

The Florida Senate race is admittedly something of an exception. Crist's independent candidacy simply cannot be ignored since he is the state's governor. Nonetheless, if inclusion in a forum is conditional upon demonstration of support in major polls, but candidates are excluded by name from those very polls, then this seemingly "objective" criterion of support is nothing more than a fraud by means of which independent and third party candidates are barred from consideration as viable or legitimate alternatives to their Democratic and Republican counterparts.

The article goes on to list a number of such incidents from recent years. In the comments, however, Richard Winger responded by arguing that the overall impression of the piece is "too gloomy," stating: "In 2002, at least one minor party or independent candidate for Governor, US Senator, or US House-at-large did debate his or her major party opponents in 30 states. In 2006, that was true in 19 states." Fair enough. But still, third party and independent candidates for office should demand that they be included in every possible candidate forum. Their explicit exclusion from such events reinforces the impression that they are not "serious" candidates, while protesting such exclusions can go a long way toward demonstrating that they are indeed "serious" candidates.

The Florida Tea Party, Republican Conspiracy Theory and the Loyalists of the Ruling Establishment

The Florida TEA Party has officially nominated twenty candidates for the state legislature. From a press release published at Third Party and Independent Daily:

Florida TEA Party Chairman Fred O'Neal announced that twenty (20) candidates for the Florida legislature met qualifying deadline today to qualify for the November general election. All would have the word 'TEA' appear on the ballot next to their name and are the official nominees of the TEA party.

"We promised months ago that Republicans that merely talked about lower taxes but then voted for bigger government would be targeted. Today, incoming Florida Speaker of the House Dean Cannon, incoming Florida Senate President Mike Haridopolos, and Democrat leader Ron Saunders all have Florida TEA Party opponents," said O'Neal.

"We will expose these RINO Republicans as the frauds that they are. Taxpayers have a right to a real choice and the TEA Party will give it to them."

This news will come as no surprise to regular readers of Poli-Tea and TPID. Darcy Richardson stated as much in a commentary published at TPID almost three weeks ago, in which he considered the prospects for third party and independent candidates for office this November: "The party's best showings, however, might take place in some of the state legislative races, where the Tea Party could end up with as many as twenty-five candidates." Not surprisingly, Republicans have responded to the official announcement by asserting that the Florida TEA Party is part of an elaborate Democratic conspiracy, aided by the help of the liberal media and the forces of darkness. From the Buzz Blog via Independent Political Report:

As election qualifying ended Friday, the dust settled with a dozen or more tea party candidates challenging state lawmakers in contested races.

Republicans see a conspiracy theory: a number of the tea party candidates are former Democrats, some appear financially strapped to pay the $1,800 filing and others are filing to run in districts far away from their listed address. A number of the seats are also targeted by Democrats for takeover.

"The recent flurry of last minute filings by so –called “tea party candidates” looks awfully suspicious," said GOP Chairman John Thrasher in a statement. "While a few tea-party candidates across the state do have ties to the tea party movement, in the majority of instances, it appears that the Democrats have coordinated a dishonest attempt to hide phony candidates behind the name “tea party” and to confuse voters who may be supportive of the tea party movement, effectively stealing votes from true conservative candidates and injuring the grassroots tea party movement as a whole."

Of course, Republicans seek to pretend that the only legitimate "tea party" activists are tea party activists who support the Republican Party. But any self-described "tea party activist" who is not an advocate of political independence but rather just one more mouthpiece for the two-party establishment is effectively a traitor to the revolution. As I wrote back in February:

Tea party activists who advocate infiltration of the Democratic-Republican Party rather than independent and third party opposition to the Democratic-Republican two-party state and duopoly system of government would do well to re-open their history books. Imagine if, in the aftermath of the Boston Tea Party, colonists had not maintained their determination to achieve political independence, but rather sought accommodation with the British parliament and crown. Imagine if these colonists argued that the best way forward was not opposition to and confrontation with the ruling political establishment, but rather that the best strategy was to join with the Tories and Whigs in the British Parliament under the heel of the King to cement the relations of power that led to the groundswell of political discontent in the first place. Of course, there were such colonists. They sided with the crown against the revolutionaries and were derided as Loyalists by the Patriots of the American revolution. Sadly, in today's tea party movement, true patriots can be difficult to find while loyalists are a dime a dozen. Worse yet, the latter are even celebrated for their political cowardice and their reactionary support for the Democratic-Republican two-party state and duopoly system of government.

Ballot Access Law, Political Sock-Puppetry and a Suggestion for a Divide and Conquer Third Party Fundraising Strategy

The ballot access regime that has been constructed in the United States over the last century aims primarily at keeping alternatives to the corporatist stooges of the Democratic and Republican parties off the ballot at all costs. In order to ensure the reproduction of the two-party state and duopoly system of government, the Democratic and Republican parties must keep political competition to an absolute minimum. Indeed, the logical conclusion of the political strategies that have come to characterize Democratic-Republican party government is the abolition of competitive elections as such.

However, it is also in the immediate interests of each ruling party if the other is forced to compete with third party challengers. Thus, Democrats should be among the staunchest supporters of libertarian and conservative alternatives to the Republican wing of the global warfare and corporate welfare state, just as Republicans should be among the staunchest supporters of liberal and progressive alternatives to the Democratic wing of the global warfare and corporate welfare state. The fact that this is not the case just goes to show how deeply invested Republicans and Democrats are in the reproduction of the duopoly system of government, and of the global warfare and corporate welfare state. But there are always noteworthy exceptions.

The Green Party of Texas is currently embroiled in something of a scandal following revelations that a Republican consultant from out of state organized a ballot access petition drive that will ensure they remain on the ballot through 2012. The Republican's logic is simple to discern: if Greens are on the ballot, they will take votes away from Democrats, thus aiding Republican victory. In accepting such a "gift" the Green Party's logic is equally easy to discern: if Greens are not on the ballot, they cannot compete; but if they are on the ballot, they intend to win, defeating both Republican and Democratic opponents. A lengthy editorial at Green Party Watch provides background and discusses the matter in some depth:

This week it was revealed that: a) a Republican consultant in Arizona arranged for… b) a non-profit corporation in Missouri to pay $200,000 for… c) a petitioning company “Free & Equal” to collect 92,000 signatures and… d) give them as a gift to the Green Party of Texas to get a slate of candidates on the ballot.

Are Democrats pissed? You betcha. They are suing the Texas Green Party, Free & Equal, and “Take Initiative America” to delay the balloting of Green Party candidates until they can determine the source of the funding, and they are pointing fingers at Texas Governor Rick Perry.

The Green Party of Texas is cooperating by agreeing to delay submitting their slate of candidates until the courts rule on the matter. kat swift, State Coordinator of the Green Party of Texas, has been reported saying that they believe the petition drive was legal, but will wait for written assurance of that fact. swift also said that once the petition drive is determined to be legal, the Green Party of Texas will field a slate of candidates regardless of what individual funded the petition drive . . .

This is not the first time that Republicans have “conspired” to help Green Party candidates to surpass ballot access barriers that they themselves have created. Republicans are accused of financially assisting Ralph Nader’s Independent campaigns for President in 2004 and 2008, neither of which tipped the election . . .

Each time there is outrage that Greens would accept Republican money to surpass ballot access barriers set by Democrats, but no efforts by Democrats to establish fair and equal access to the ballot. For Democrats and Republicans it is all about winning, not “principles”, but for the Green Party it is only about having an opportunity to appear on the ballot and appeal to the electorate. [Emphases added.]

While there seems to be no dispute regarding just who funded the Green Party petition effort in Texas, the same cannot be said of the Michigan Tea Party. Last month it was reported that Democratic party groups were likely behind efforts to gain ballot access for third party Tea Party candidates for public office. From the Detroit Free Press:

Michigan Tea Party activists were agitated Monday, convinced that a shadowy group of left-wingers was trying to hijack their identity and run faux Tea Party candidates for office to siphon votes from authentic, limited-government conservatives.

The fears were aroused by an apparent petition drive in southeast Michigan aimed at qualifying the candidates for the Michigan ballot under an official Tea Party banner. Leaders in the state's Tea Party movement said Monday they knew of no connection between actual Tea Party activists and the petition circulators. Backers of the petition drive have so far chosen to obscure their identity, declining to respond to news media inquiries or file paperwork with the state Bureau of Elections.

At least one of the activists behind the effort was revealed a few weeks later. Also from the Detroit Free Press:

A Tuscola County man unknown to local Tea Party activists has been identified as a contact person for the mysterious petition drive to qualify a Tea Party party for the Michigan ballot. . . .

Mark Steffek of Reese filed incorporation documents in April, registering the Tea Party name in Michigan. Last week, Steffek registered the Tea Party as political party with state elections officials. Mark Graham, who heads the Tea Party movement in Tuscola County, said this morning he’s not met or heard of Steffek . . .

Steffek’s political activity in the past appears to be limited to contributions to UAW and Farm Bureau PACs, and to the 2002 gubernatorial campaign of former Democratic Congressman David Bonior, of Mt. Clemens.

While such efforts are looked down upon in many quarters, they should not be dismissed out of hand. It is no secret that minor parties and their candidates for office face an uphill fund-raising battle against Democrats and Republicans. Why not openly pursue a divide and conquer strategy? Why shouldn't the Green party openly court top contributors to the Republican Party? Why shouldn't the Libertarian Party seek out contributions from leading Democratic campaign contributors? The fund-raising letters write themselves: help us defeat your enemy.

FL: Tea Party and Whig Party Challenge Democrat-Republican Rule in the Sunshine State

Given this week's tax day tea party protests, it is worth reiterating that any movement intent on fostering constitutional representative government is doomed to failure if it works within the confines established by the Democratic-Republican two-party state and ruling political class. Like untold numbers of anti-war activists during the Bush administration, many in the tea party movement have, unfortunately, been duped by the propagandists of lesser-evilism in the corporate media and the major parties. However, others nonetheless recognize that Democratic-Republican Party government is a threat to representative constitutional government, the principles of republicanism and the imperatives of democracy. As Jack Kenny writes for the New American, the two-party system is a "big government con-game." Recognition of this simple fact informs the efforts of two new third party opposition movements in the state of Florida.

The Ledger profiles Doug Guetzloe, a consultant and strategist for the new Tea Party of Florida, which has recruited its first candidate, Peg Dunmire, to challenge Democrat Alan Grayson in the state's 8th Congressional District. From the Ledger:

The Tea Party, which recently opened an office in downtown Orlando, just recruited its first congressional candidate. Peg Dunmire is challening U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Orlando, in the state's 8th Congressional District, which includes parts of Orange, Lake and Osceola counties, the theme parks and Lake Buena Vista, and the community of Celebration. Dunmire is running on a platform of scaling back on the reach of the federal government and eliminating the budget deficit – a platform that Guetzloe thinks could send her to Washington.

“If you look at the district, it's 41 percent registered Democrats and 38 percent registered Republicans,” Guetzloe said. “You've got a significant amount of non-party voters.” . . .

Between the Democrats being on the defensive about the soaring budget deficit and high jobless rate, and the GOP still trying to explain why spending rose so quickly under their own watch, Guetzloe says a third party has a better chance today than at any time since 1860 . . .

The Florida Whig Party hopes to capitalize on this situation as well, which is running six candidates for congressional and county offices. Craig Porter, who is running for Congress in Florida's 25th CD recently became the first Whig to qualify for federal office in over 150 years. From the party's press release:

Craig Porter filed on Monday as the first Whig to qualify for federal office since the 1850s. Mr. Porter, 49, is a contractor, lifetime resident of Miami, is married and the father of three children. With over 25 years of business management and ownership experience, community involvement, and a man who has the core values of “We the People” where principles come before a political party, the Florida Whig Party Executive Board welcomes the leadership and fortitude that Craig Porter brings to the Florida Whig Party, the State of Florida, and the 25th Congressional District.

There is no lack of third party and independent alternatives to the stooges of the Democratic and Republican Parties in the Sunshine State this year. Politics1 lists over 40 third party and independent candidates for governor, Senate and Congress in Florida this year, including Libertarians, Greens, Socialists and numerous independents.

Tea Party Anarchists? Anarchist News and Info-Shop News Respond to Tea Party Rally Story

Following the publication of an anonymous call for anarchist actions at tea party rallies on April 15th, the hysterical reaction of some mainstream political blogs resulted in a flood of new visitors and vocal commenters to anarchist websites. As I wrote on the initial engagement:

Tea party activists and supporters have now flooded the comments threads attached to the initial call to action at Infoshop News, though they do not seem to have yet discovered those at Anarchist News and Indymedia. The resulting "discussion" at Infoshop is a fascinating object lesson in the politics of mutual mis-recognition. I would relay a few choice quotes, but the page is now failing to load, likely due to unusually high levels of traffic. [Public Frenemy provides some more commentary on the possible future contours of the confrontation between anarchists and tea party activists.]

Info-Shop News has now published a statement on the "tea party rally story" to clarify a number of points about their news service for folks who are likely unfamiliar with the anarchist website. Here's the statement in full:

A recent story posted to the Infoshop News newswire about upcoming Tea Party rallies has generated quite a controversy beyond our website. Several false accusations have been published by other websites about our news service. We want to take this opportunity to clarify several things about our news service for people unfamiliar with Infoshop News.

Infoshop News is one of the oldest online news services, having operated since 1997. Infoshop News is part of the larger Infoshop.org website and is run by an editorial collective. We publish original news, reporting and opinion. Infoshop News also re-publishes articles and opinion from other sources and links to many stories published by independent and mainstream media. We rely heavily on user-submitted stories, including material from anonymous sources.

Infoshop News is run by anarchists and libertarians and features news and opinion from anarchists, libertarians and anti-authoritarians. The news service also includes material from non-anarchist sources, as we think it's important to provide news, information and opinion from different sources. We aim to buck the dominant trend among American political news projects, which focus on providing selective news and opinion for people who already agree with that news and opinion. We favor a cross-pollination of ideas, within some parameters. While our news service is popular with anarchists, we also have many readers from other political persuasions.

The story about anarchists and Tea Party rallies was not written or authored by Infoshop News. We may not be the first website or blog that posted this anonymous call. Since it wasn't written or authored by Infoshop News, it doesn't necessarily reflect the views of the Infoshop staff, volunteers or contributors. Therefore, “Infoshop anarchists” did not make any call to action, nor did this fictional group author the story about Tea Party rallies.

The Tea Party rally story was probably written by one individual, so people should assume it reflects the views of one particular, anonymous person.

Much of the fuss about the story appears to be directed at a paragraph that calls for a defense of liberal social programs. People seem to think that this is an example of anarchist hypocrisy about statism. Again, this story is the opinion of one person. Several anarchists we've talked to this week have expressed criticism of the call, pointing out that it represents a liberal take on the Tea Party movement. One anarchist pointed out that several of the links in the story point to articles on liberal websites.

Tea party activists unfamiliar with the site might be surprised by the fact that Infoshop's editorial team is quick to denounce liberal statists and has not effectively doubled down and endorsed the "call to action." It appears, however, that the Info-shop statement is also an indirect response to an article published at Anarchist News, which criticized Info-shop for "calling for “anarchists” to crash the Tea Parties for not supporting big government." Perhaps this author simply does not realize that the very same call was published at Anarchist News as well! Nonetheless, the article, which is entitled "Fake Anarchists Plan to Crash Tea Parties," warns that calls for violence and acts of violence may well be the work of "statist plants," and justifies the suspicion with numerous examples of government and police agent provocateurs infiltrating anarchist protests in the recent past. He writes:

This post is simply a warning that people calling for the initiation of violence may be statist plants, or simply misguided. It is my opinion that anarchists — of whatever variety — should not antagonize the tea partiers; who are already angry at the state, and some may be ready to reject it. My view is that anyone who heeds this call to action should attempt to reach out the tea partiers, and not to simply counter them for the sake of countering them.

That’s all we mean to communicate in this post. Kurt Nimmo and the sources/videos linked in this post may have other views; but they are posted here to illustrate proof of statist infiltration in the recent past. We believe in cooperation with anyone who wishes to get out from under the state system; so long as they don’t advocate initiating violence; or engaging in racism. — Ben

PS: If you do decide you want to interface with the tea partiers to try to win them over; the talking-points discussed here are perfect material for doing so.

We shall see if tea party activists and conservative Republican political bloggers are willing to continue to follow this story, or if they are merely interested in composing hysterical headlines.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Toward a Popular Opposition to the Two-Party State: Green, Libertarian, Tea Party and Independent Activsts Unite for Electoral Reform

At the Broward Palm Beach New Times blog, Gail Shepherd reports on a local event planned for this coming Saturday on "electoral disenfranchisement," that will bring together Green Party, Libertarian Party, Tea Party and independent activists:

[Green Party activist] Jayne King has banded together with some strange bedfellows: She says that the Electoral Reform event she's helping to organize for this Saturday has support from a whole spectrum of political activists.

Sure, members of the Green Party and the ACLU will show up -- you expected that, right? But so, King says, will Tea Party activists, Libertarians, Independents, and even a few Republicans. The common thread is that all agree that major reforms are due in our highly compromised elections system.

People are disenfranchised. Third- and fourth-party candidates are discouraged from running. The public is apathetic about voting. Lobbyists exert undue influence. And our state Legislature is stocked with millionaires who don't represent the will of the common people . . .

The event is the "kickoff," King says, for a series designed to get the public reinterested in its old civics lessons . . . In the future, the group will focus on at least ten areas of electoral reform.

Consider it a sign of the times.

The Third Party Tea Party and the Democratic-Republican Conspiracy of Dunces, Part III

The tension between those who demand subservience to the dictates of the Democratic-Republican two-party state and duopoly system of government and those who call for freedom and independence from the Democratic-Republican Party and political class is perhaps most evident today in the struggle over the future direction of the tea party movement. Earlier this week, I considered the conspiracy theories being spun by duopolist partisans of the Republican Party in Nevada regarding the state's third party Tea Party and its candidate for US Senate, Jon Ashjian. The phenomenon is not confined to the Silver State. Similar allegations have been leveled against Florida's third party Tea Party, headed by Fred O'Neal. In late February, Nevada News and Views summarized the controversy:

Trouble is simmering in the Tea Party movement over a struggle with identity theft. In Connecticut, Florida and Nevada, the Tea Party has been registered as a third political party for the 2010 election. All three parties are already involved in either recruiting candidates or preparing their campaigns for statewide races in November.

The problem? In Florida and Nevada, the newly formed third parties appear to have little or no connection to the actual Tea Party movement. Longtime Tea Party leaders say they were as shocked as anyone to learn of the third parties, especially when they found out that the people in charge had no previous involvement in Tea Party activities . . . “We believe the identity of the Florida Tea Party has been hijacked by cynical foes,” said Everett Wilkinson, chairman of the South Florida Tea Party.

Florida's The Ledger profiles O'Neal, the founder of the Florida Tea Party, and the efforts of his fledgling group:

O'Neal said, it's . . . disdain for both major parties and for incumbents in general that has him confident that the Tea Party can make a serious breakthrough this fall, and not end up like the Reform Party and other third party movements that never got off the ground. “I think the Tea Party has an appeal to independent voters,” he said. “Maybe they are independent because they do not like the Democrat or Republican parties.”

From his new office, O'Neal has gotten a lot of feedback from people interested in joining the movement – and even running for local office. “What we're doing is letting people run as a Tea Party candidate,” O'Neal said. “On our Web site, we have a place you can click and fill out a questionnaire, and we have had contact from over 50 people.”

The piece also reports on the paranoid response of partisan Republican ideologues to the third party cause:

O'Neal's efforts have also hit some bumps along the way – including lawsuits challenging the Tea Party itself . . . One of the plaintiffs is Tim McClellan of Pompano Beach, and a member of the Broward Republican Executive Committee. He said O'Neal and the other supporters of the Tea Party of Florida are using this movement to hurt the Florida GOP, and he noted that O'Neal used to be a registered Democrat . . .

O'Neal said these lawsuits and challenges are a silly distraction, and may be solely motivated by supporters of the Florida Republican Party, fearful that the Tea Party could steal votes from their candidates with its fiscally conservative, limited government platform. “We don't have a problem with Tea Party factions, except for some folks in Miami who are trying to make our life miserable,” O'Neal said.

In the analysis of duopoly ideology and practice, it is a general rule of thumb that when Republicans and Democrats accuse an ideological other of some insidious action, one can safely assume that the accuser is in fact guilty of that which he or she accuses the other. Thus, when Everett Wilkinson asserts that the "Florida Tea Party has been hijacked by cynical foes," as above, is it not entirely clear that partisan Republican duopolist operatives are the cynical ideological foes leading the hijacking?

The fact that one only sees homemade signage at tea party demonstrations has long been a point of pride for tea party activists and supporters, positively contrasting themselves with participants in demonstrations organized by liberal and left of center groups, which often have mass produced posters and placards. Only the hijackers themselves could take pride in the fact that the Republican National Committee is now paying for and printing signs for tea party groups. From the Daily Caller:

The Republican National Committee is paying for signs and political buttons used by Tea Party groups — despite widespread disagreement among the conservative, grassroots activists on whether the movement should work to elect candidates within the Republican party or steer clear from it. The items, paid for by the RNC, were on full display at a Friday press conference of Tea Party activists in Washington . . .

Michael Patrick Leahy, an organizer of the Take the Town Halls to Washington project that is bringing Tea Party activists to the capital to lobby Democrats on President Obama’s health-care bill, admitted that the RNC “did provide the signage,” but said he didn’t know the details of the arrangement with Republicans and couldn’t explain how the signs got there. “They just showed up,” he said.

Yes, "they just showed up."

Romney to Tea Party: "I'm glad you've stood up and spoken up. Now sit down and shut up!" Tea Party to Romney: "Go to Hell."

In a recent interview with NewsMax, Mit Romney continues the Republican Party's assault on independent and third party activism and expands the party's effort to dictate the political strategy adopted by tea party activists in order to ensure that all oppositional energies are safely diverted into channels conducive to the reproduction of the ruling Democratic-Republican political establishment. Romney is quoted by CNN stating:

"Hopefully Tea Party candidates will run in respective primaries and they will either win or lose. And if they win, they will go into the general. If they lose, they won't, and they will get behind the more conservative of the two finalists." . . . "I'm really pleased that the silent majority is silent no longer," he said, predicting that the movement "will have have an impact on this election."

Romney perfectly exemplifies the arrogant paternalism of the two-party statist: "I'm glad you've stood up and spoken up, now sit down and shut up!" Romney's demand for the reproduction of the Democratic-Republican two-party state and duopoly system of government is being met with some amount of resistance. At Red Pills, Gary Shumway points out the contradiction inherent in Romney's position:

No thank you, Mitt, I am not buying your propaganda. We have been the fools watching the same old dog and pony show for the last 100 years and we are on the verge of losing our freedoms. That should tell us that uncritically voting Democrat or Republican . . . isn’t working for us. VOTE PERSON, NOT PARTY. VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE – CONSIDER VOTING THIRD PARTY! . . . LOL .. the flip/flopper is glad you’re not quiet but he wants you to be quiet in the general elections! GO TO HELL, MITT!

The Libertarian candidate for US Senate in Florida, Alex Snitker, has also responded to Romney's misapprehension of the tea party movement in an open letter to the former governor:

I saw you speak on NewsMax about the tea party movement and tea party candidates who are running outside the Republican Party. I do not think you understand the tea party movement . . . This movement was started because politicians like you failed the American people. The Republican platform seems to be less about protecting the liberty of individual Americans, and more about regaining power at all costs. Regular Americans are turning to tea parties as an alternative to politicians like you, John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Mike Huckabee. Regular Americans are running for public office as third-party candidates, not because of a lust for power, but because of a sense of duty to preserve liberty for ourselves and our posterity . . .

You have dismissed the rise of the true Constitutional conservatives (libertarians) in your party. You imply that libertarians just do as they are told, and show up when summoned. You could not be further from the truth. I believe your attempt to marginalize the tea party movement is an extension of the deep concern you have for its implications.

Americans are beginning to vote principle before party. Republicans shoulder much of the blame for our problems, and a growing number of Americans no longer trust the GOP to do the right thing . . . In races that the best Constitutional conservative is running as a Republican, the people should vote for that candidate. By the same token, in races where the best Constitutional conservative is running as a third-party candidate, the people should vote for a third party. Voting for the lesser of two evils put us in the position we are in today.

How to Defeat Harry Reid Before Election Day Even Dawns, or, the Third Party Tea Party and the Democratic-Republican Conspiracy of Dunces Cont'd

Late last year, I noted the emergence of a conspiracy theory among Republican supporters of the two-party state alleging that independent and third party conservative activists are actually part of a Democratic plot to "destroy the GOP". Following the recent announcement that a newly formed third party Tea Party group in Nevada would be running a candidate for US Senate to challenge Harry Reid, duopolist Republicans needed only to fill in the blanks of their Mad Libs template to apply the theory in practice. CNN has now picked up on the story. Via Memeorandum:

So how is it possible to be an illegitimate Tea Party member? Ask Republicans in Nevada. Some are accusing Jon Scott Ashjian, a new Tea Party candidate running for U.S. Senate, of being a fake. The allegation? He was put in the race by agents of Senate Majority leader Harry Reid to siphon votes from the GOP.

Perhaps the most revealing variation on this particular theory asserts an "Armenian connection":

"No doubt about it", says Danny Tarkanian, one of the many Republican senate candidates hoping to challenge Reid in November. "Nobody in the Tea Party knows who he is. He didn't know any of the principles of the Tea Party," Tarkanian tells CNN. He even accuses "Harry Reid's staff, campaign, whatever" of picking Ashjian because he's Armenian, as is Tarkanian. He explains, "They know the Armenians are very close they'll vote for each other."

Theories of an "Armenian conspiracy" are nothing new. But its articulation in this context demonstrates just how hysterical and desperate Republican advocates of the two-party state have become in the face of serious independent and third party opposition to the duopoly charade. On the basis of the spoiler argument, Republican strategists assert that the existence of a credible third party Tea Party candidate in the race will "split" the conservative vote. There is even some basis for their concern. As the CNN report notes:

A recent poll conducted for the Las Vegas Review-Journal indicates [Republicans] Lowden and Tarkanian each beating Reid in one-on-one hypothetical general election matchups. But add a Tea Party candidate on the ballot and that siphons off enough conservative votes to give Reid a narrow victory. According to the survey Reid would grab 36 percent of the vote, the Republican candidate 32 percent and the Tea Party candidate 18 percent in a possible three way showdown.

Of course, if these Republicans are so concerned about "splitting the conservative vote" they could simply withdraw from the race and endorse a superior third party or independent alternative. They have a wide array of choices at their disposal. There are no less than nine declared independent and third party candidates for the seat currently held by Reid. Ironically, however, the conspiracy theory regarding Ashjian's Tea Party candidacy has clearly raised his profile at both the state and national level, eclipsing all other third party and independent contenders, if not also those running under the banner of the GOP. For his part, given the numbers above, Harry Reid has welcomed third party and independent candidates into the fray. From Fox News:

Facing dismal poll numbers in his home state, Nevada Sen. Harry Reid has devised a re-election strategy: welcome third party candidates who can split the opposition in the uphill battle to hold on to his U.S. Senate seat . . . "They have a right to file," Reid reportedly said of prospective third-party candidates. "You have to understand that this election is going to mean more than Democrats and Republicans . . . We have the third-party candidates. We have the American Independent Party. We have the Tea Party now," he said, according to the Las Vegas Review Journal.

Clearly, Reid shares his would-be Republican opponents' strategic assessment of the race. But is there not another possibility here? Could this not backfire on the Reid campaign? Given Reid's dismal approval ratings, is it not possible that he could soon find himself polling third, behind both the Republican and Tea Party candidates? With a strong organizing push and a bit of luck, conservatives, independents and third party activists in the state of Nevada could very well succeed in pushing the Senate majority leader out of serious contention for the seat he currently holds. In other words, Harry Reid can be defeated long before election day even dawns. But reactionary duopolist ideologues in the Republican Party seem incapable of grasping this simple fact. And the same can obviously be said of Reid himself. Thus, the third party strategist is assured the element of surprise.

NV: the Third Party Tea Party and the Democratic-Republican Conspiracy of Dunces

When Democrats and Republicans each denounce third party and independent candidates for office as tools in a conspiracy concocted to further the interests of the other, one should remain cognizant of the fact that Democratic-Republican politics aims, above all else, at furthering the conspiracy of dunces that is the Democratic-Republican two-party state and duopoly system of government. Following reports that a group calling itself the Tea Party had registered as an official political party in Nevada and would run a candidate for US Senate to challenge Democrat Harry Reid, the conspiracy theorists in the Republican Party immediately began to argue, on the basis of the spoiler argument, that the Tea Party was nothing more than a Democratic front group dedicated to reelecting Harry Reid. While no one should doubt the treacherous mendacity of any person or group associated with the Democratic or Republican Parties, at this point there is little evidence beyond the speculative conspiracy theories themselves that the Nevada Tea Party is a part of a Democratic effort to "split" the conservative vote. Indeed, one might reasonably wonder whether the libelous denunciation of the Nevada Tea Party as a Democratic Party front is not rather part of a Republican-orchestrated conspiracy to discredit the third party group in the eyes of independent and conservative voters as we head into this year's election season. More comprehensive media reports on the Nevada Tea Party and its candidate for Senate, Jon Scott Ashjian, are now beginning to find their way into print. The Las Vegas Review-Journal, for instance, has now published a profile of the candidate. Kristi Jourdan reports:

Ashjian says he's learning the ropes through this grass-roots movement, where he is his own communications director who answers the phone, relies heavily on family and friends for help and schedules his own TV and radio appearances, which are starting to pick up. Don't call him a politician, though. "I'm a frustrated patriot," Ashjian said. "I'm not a politician. I'm not savvy with radio and TV. But I believe I can make a change, and that's what I'm here for. I'm here to give people a third voice." . . . "We're not Republican or Democrat," Ashjian said. "We won't fold into one party or the other. We're a tax-paying party that can make a difference and a party of normal people who want change. Bigger government and higher taxes is not working. Right now we're at a real crossroads to make change, and the bottom line is there's never been so much disdain for politicians." . . .

"We understand what Harry Reid represents, and I'm the opposite," Ashjian said. "I've never met him, I've never talked to him, and I don't even know him." Ashjian admits he has not actively participated in Tea Party movement events, such as the 9/12 Taxpayer March in Washington, D.C. But he said he feels a growing frustration among his fellow Americans about the way elected officials on both sides of the aisle are representing voters, which is why he formed the Tea Party of Nevada in January. "I'm here to say there is a choice," Ashjian said. "If you want to stick to the status quo, pick the Republicans or Democrats, but don't complain. Nobody can do a better job than I can. "I fully expect to win. I expect all Nevadans to get behind me and vote. I want to be clear in every word that I expect to win this race."

Green Party Reaches Out to Tea Party Activists

Via IPR, On the Wilder Side reworks a Green Party press release reaching out to tea party activists:

Green Party leaders and candidates said that many Tea Party activists might be in the wrong party and urged them to consider going Green. Carl Romanelli, former Green candidate for the US Senate and a member of Health Care for All Pennsylvania (http://healthcare4allpa.org) said:

Not all Tea Party members are befuddled rightwingers screeching that President Obama is a socialist, fascist, pro-terrorist, or all of the above. Many Tea Partiers have legitimate concerns about how the Democratic Party’s health care reform plans will reduce Medicare and about trillion-dollar taxpayer-funded giveaways to Wall Street firms. They are as outraged as Greens are about how both Democrats and Republicans are coddling CEOs, major stockholders, and other wealthy elites while preaching sacrifice for the rest of us.

Greens said corporate royalists like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Sarah Palin who pose as populist leaders have hijacked the Tea Party movement. Rodger Jennings, Green candidate for Congress in Illinois, District 12 (http://www.rodgerjennings.org) said:

Republicans and rightwing ideologues in the media are thrilled with a Tea Party movement that will channel votes and money towards extremist GOP politicians. Their idea of the Tea Party has nothing to do with the 1773 Boston Tea Party. They prefer a movement full of people who would have denounced the original Boston Tea Party as leftist terrorism against the British East India Company. They would have criticized Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine for wanting to rein in what Jefferson called ‘the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations.‘* To these Tea Partiers, and to most Republican and Democratic politicians, restraints on corporate power are a symptom of ‘big government.’ Many of the Tea Partiers who vented their rage against health care reform at town hall meetings in 2009 were in effect defending the power of health insurance companies — the modern equivalents of British tea companies — to drive people who need medical care into financial ruin.

Green Party leaders noted that media coverage of health care reform gave a megaphone to the anti-reform Tea Partiers at town hall meetings, while mostly ignoring advocates of Medicare For All (Single-Payer national health care), including many Green Party members, who protested vociferously against the plans offered by President Obama and Democrats in Congress. Examples of such protests include Medicare For All activists disrupting Congressional hearings and burning insurance forms outside meetings of insurance company lobbyists.

Greens, like true fiscal conservatives, oppose subsidies for health insurance companies in the Democratic plans, including proposed ‘mandates’ that would require enrollment. The Green Party has warned that, whether Obamacare is enacted or Republicans succeed in blocking reform, the real winners will be the health insurance, pharmaceutical, and other industry lobbies.

Greens also compared the invasive homeland security measures favored by Republicans and Democrats to the bullying tactics of the British Army and requirement that colonists house British troops on demand.

“We need a Tea Party movement that opposes warrantless surveillance of American citizens, torture, invasion of other countries, and other violations of the US Constitution. We need a Tea Party that calls the ‘general welfare of the people,’ including the right to medical care, more important than the right of insurance and pharmaceutical companies to shake down patients and deny treatment. We need a Tea Party against predatory private prisons, the war on drugs, and mass incarceration of Americans. We need a Tea Party that defends future generations of Americans rather than corporate polluters,” said Lynne Williams, Green-Independent candidate for Governor of Maine. (http://www.lynnewilliams2010.org).

MN Independence Party Reaches Out to Tea Party Activists

One of the founders of the Minnesota Reform Party, Dean Barkley, has reached out to tea party activists with an open letter at Minnesota Tea Party Patriots entitled: "Don't start your own party! Take over mine!" Barkley writes:

Hello, my name is Dean Barkley. I have spent the last twenty years trying to change the ways things are done by our corrupt two party system. I began by forming the Reform Party in Minnesota. Later, we changed the name to the Independence Party, ran candidates, and eventually elected Jesse Ventura as the most widely known governor in America. Like you, the traditional political parties hated us. I just ran for the US Senate, and received 15% of the vote – with no money! The point it: change can happen!

People nationwide understand how bankrupt the two party system is (and has bankrupted America, too!). To be effective, this movement must transform into being a real political force and fast. To do so, it must create the legal, financial, and staffing infrastructure that a real political party has. The Republican Party is trying to lure some of you into its folds with pretty promises. But don’t be fooled. They just want your time, money, and votes. And they will continue business as usual – and run things their way!

I consider myself a political revolutionary, and therefore, I am one of you! I created the Independence Party in MN, and I have a plan. If enough tea partiers join the Independence Party, it becomes you! Think of it. YOU run the Independence Party, not the other way around! With all of the legal and political infrastructure elements it has. This will save lots of time and trouble. The scattered tea party people become The Tea Party – in name as well as fact. A real party – that can change things. You can do this in two weeks. Register online at MNIP.org. If three hundred do, and become delegates, they will own the Independence Party. They can change its name to Tea Party – and inherit all the party structure you need! Register to be a delegate. You can do it online. But hurry, the online caucus closes on 2/28/2010.

Let’s get back to the future and back to the United States Constitution, limited government, and the fiscal common sense of living within our means.

In a commentary for Minnesota Public Radio, the current chair of the party, Jack Uldrich, reiterates and refines Barkley's message:

Unlike the other political parties, the Independence Party truly espouses a "Big Tent" philosophy, and we welcome broad-based citizen involvement. That said, the Independence Party also understands it is no longer sufficient to only be against government; it is imperative that political parties also engage in the serious and difficult task of outlining constructive solutions. The Independence Party's rich tradition of putting forward serious and credible candidates every election cycle speaks to this proud history.

To this end, I'm confident that many individual members of the Tea Party movement are also serious about addressing real entitlement reform, controlling government spending, and putting forward meaningful electoral reform. On this basis alone, I encourage those associated with the movement to visit our website and review our party platform.

We don't expect everyone to agree with every platform plank. In fact, we only ask our members and candidates to be in agreement with 75 percent of our core planks and 60 percent of supporting planks. If any citizen, including members of the Tea Party movement -- or any other movement for that matter -- can live within these guidelines, and if they are also willing to engage in honest, constructive and respectful political debate on those issues on which they are in disagreement, then, by all means, the Independence Party welcomes them.

The two party system is failing Minnesota. It has already catastrophically failed at the federal level -- as witnessed by the $14 trillion (and growing) national debt. The Independence Party and the Tea Party movement are two different reflections of this reality. As party chair, I welcome any citizen who is serious about helping get this country back on a sound fiscal track.

On the Infiltration of the Tea Party Movement by Loyalists of the Democratic-Republican Two-Party State

Tea party activists who advocate infiltration of the Democratic-Republican Party rather than independent and third party opposition to the Democratic-Republican two-party state and duopoly system of government would do well to re-open their history books. Imagine if, in the aftermath of the Boston Tea Party, colonists had not maintained their determination to achieve political independence, but rather sought accommodation with the British parliament and crown. Imagine if these colonists argued that the best way forward was not opposition to and confrontation with the ruling political establishment, but rather that the best strategy was to join with the Tories and Whigs in the British Parliament under the heel of the King to cement the relations of power that led to the groundswell of political discontent in the first place. Of course, there were such colonists. They sided with the crown against the revolutionaries and were derided as Loyalists by the Patriots of the American revolution. Sadly, in today's tea party movement, true patriots can be difficult to find while loyalists are a dime a dozen. Worse yet, the latter are even celebrated for their political cowardice and their reactionary support for the Democratic-Republican two-party state and duopoly system of government.

Among the most vocal supporters of the infiltration strategy are Eric Odom of Tax Day Tea Party and Erick Erickson of Red State. Following this year's CPAC conference in Washington DC, both of these activists have reiterated their reactionary support for the reproduction of the Democratic-Republican two-party state and their opposition to freedom and independence from the ruling apparatus of the political class. Erickson's inability to properly diagnose the sickness ailing the American body-politic is perfectly clear when he writes:

it is not the Republican Party that is the problem. It is the Republican leadership . . . if you are tempted to go with a third party, don’t. Instead, get involved in the Republican Party. Change it.

The contradiction inherent to Erickson's position is revealed at the end of the piece, when he writes:

This year conservatives must take risks instead of staying with the status quo just because it is easier. Conservatism is on the ascendency. But it will ascend within the GOP, not via a third party.

So, the Red State duopolist ideologue argues that conservatives must "take risks" against the "status quo," but he advocates a strategy that requires immediate accommodation with the ruling status quo, as represented by the Republican and Democratic Parties, because it is the safe and easy alternative to struggling for real political freedom and independence! In a similar vein, Eric Odom argues that support for third party and independent alternatives to the Democratic-Republican establishmentarian ruse would be nothing less than a disaster:

Some tea party activists still think a third party is the right way to go. We get email every day that suggests the two party system has failed us and we should try a third party. The problem is, however, the third party route has already been tried and failed. Not only has it failed, it has never really had any success at all! . . . this is the time for us as a movement to choose the vessel most likely to carry new candidates into Washington. And more importantly, replace incumbents in Washington.

What Odom fails to mention in his revisionist history lesson is that infiltrationist strategy has also "already been tried and failed." Infiltrationist strategy does not even hold out the possibility of achieving freedom and independence from the ruling political establishment. Even if it is successful, an infiltrationist strategy ensures nothing more than the reproduction of the Democratic-Republican two-party state and duopoly system of government. Its success is failure. It neither confronts nor solves the political problem facing the people fo the United States, but rather re-creates it: the infiltrationist advises a strategy of capitulation from the outset. On the other hand, even if an independent, third party campaign is defeated, the result is effectively the same as that of a successful infiltrationist campaign – a Republican or Democrat is elected – but it nonetheless demonstrates real support for freedom and independence from the dictatorship of the Democratic-Republican two-party state and creates momentum and infrastructure necessary for the ongoing struggle against the establishmentarian political class. However, if any independent or third party campaign is successful, it strikes a blow for political freedom and independence from the Democratic-Republican two-party state and duopoly system of government everywhere and in its entirety.

Those who argue in favor of accommodation with and infiltration of the Democratic-Republican Party are actively opposed to political freedom and independence. They represent the betrayal of that which the Boston Tea Party stands for. They make a mockery of the American revolutionary tradition and the struggle for political freedom and independence. They are the loyalists of the two-party state and duopoly system of government.