Continuity (Un)interrupted

In duopoly politics, the appearance of opposition obscures the practical collusion of both parties in instrumentalizing the popular will to the benefit of special interests directly opposed to those of the populace at large. In this vein, Vox Popoli sees the 'counter-push principle' at work in the Obama administration's continuation of the Bush administration's response to the crisis of global capitalism: "The party which is supposedly against something is used to punch a hole through the wall of popular opinion, then the other party exploits the breach." In terms of foreign policy, on the other hand, Buelahman's Redstate Revolt observes, "most Americans believe we have a two-party system of politics. In actuality, this is far from being true because the owners control both parties and the results are basically the same when either party controls congress or the Whitehouse . . . They are being paid to carry forward the empire and the US citizenry is doing the paying . . . even if the empire is funded by corporate cronies and bankers, ultimately they get the money from us."

Ideological Maintenance

The liberal and conservative critique of mainstream media often focuses on questions of journalistic practice on the one hand (bias), and the industry's systemic conflicts of interest on the other (corporatism). Yet it is in the form and framing of its discourse that it reproduces the ideology of the duopoly. In a tryst at the Washington Post, Tucker Carlson and Ana Marie Cox answered some readers' questions for a piece called 'Balance of Power,' perfectly instantiating 'he said/she said' style reporting, only without the reporter. (If the one came from Crossfire and the other from Swampland, what does that make of the Post?)

Though the two are supposedly on opposite sides of the political spectrum, a reader's question on the two party system revealed their common program by asking "do you believe the political system we have now is working or has it failed America?" on the assumption that the correct answer is the negative. Closing ranks, Cox and Carlson agreed amongst themselves to disagree with the reader, and look on the bright side. Cox wrote:

It's possible for a political system to not be serving a country without either the system or the country "failing." I mean, despite all the terrible things out there, we're still working our way forward, no riots or concentration camps or wheelbarrows full of money.

While Carlson solidified the position with a rear-guard action:

I don't have much to add, except the obvious: Vigorous debate over bills produces wiser laws. It doesn't bother me when politicians argue about policy. It's when they agree (on the Iraq war, the bailout, the internment of the Japanese) that we're in trouble.

Together these two set a pretty low bar. With the tacit admission that failing to serve the people or the country represents the success of the two-party system, and the implication that we are "in big trouble," they cynically paraphrase Winston Churchill: duopoly is the worst form of party system, but it's the best we can do.

Sustained, effective critique of the two-party system must, of course, allow for the idea that 'things could be worse.' For example, in a Boston Globe article on the politics of Tamil opposition to the Sri Lankan government, we read: "Some Tamils maintain that the Tigers do not really use suicide attacks. Others say the Tigers are the lesser of two evils - and the only hope for self-government and respect" (emphasis added). While in Ecuador, as one observer puts it, "there is really no legitimate opposition party to the incumbent Correa because it is not a two-party system, but rather a limitless and infinitely continuous party system." Yet in terms of political practice, such comparisons offer only trite consolation coming from the mouths of apologists for the duopoly, and serve to reinforce an attitude of resignation toward the status-quo, which is one of the primary mechanisms by which the two-party system maintains its hold on power.

Politics without Politics

I have remarked before how the bipartisan front masks political artifice in the guise of technocratic administration. An article in the Philadelphia Enquirer on the Bucks County judicial election provides another illustrative example.

The race has been enlivened by charges of political chicanery . . . Democratic and Republican leaders struck an agreement to endorse the same slate of candidates - two Republicans and one Democrat - for three judgeships on the May 19 primary ballot. "The party bosses have rigged the game," said candidate Lawrence Otter, a Democrat who was not endorsed. "A backroom deal cut by the party bosses," declared First Assistant District Attorney David Zellis, a snubbed Republican candidate. Proponents say the endorsement removes politics with its bipartisan support of well-qualified candidates. (Emphasis added.)

Interestingly, in this instance, the bipartisan consensus has been met with bipartisan opposition, which is not surprising. It is the height of irony for Demoblican and Republicrat party leaders to eliminate competition before a vote by jointly deciding their endorsements, and then justify it by claiming it removes politics from the process.

Curse in Disguise

In a piece on the "Danger of the GOP's Demise," Reasonable Insights considers a number of arguments against the two party system, but they all boil down to one objection: the two party system is ultimately already a "one-party system tending toward corporatism." If both parties are of equal strength, Perkinson writes, "they may gradually become very similar to compete for votes, resulting in a gradual trend toward a one-party system." On the other hand, when the parties are of unequal strength, due to weakness of the one, or the strength of the other, the outcome is more or less the same, "a dominant-party system may develop." If this is the case, then the GOP's rise or demise, which of course correlates to the Democrats' demise and rise, is nothing more than a modulation of the same paradoxical function, which both prevents unity and fosters division, to the benefit of corporatist interests. In this sense, there is no danger in the GOP's demise, except, perhaps in the rise of the Democrats, who continue their common work.

Opt Out

This past week saw the publication of two noteworthy letters to the editor. A reader of Florida's TCPalm, Steve Adams of Palm City, argues for congressional term limits and the formation of a viable third party:

Congress just doesn’t get it. When our forefathers drafted our Constitution, they never intended for there to be career politicians. You serve your country and move on. With all the disgust with our representatives and their involvement in the financial mess, maybe it’s time to push term limits. Congress will not support this, so we have to be crafty in forcing our hand. Voters should form a new party, the sole purpose of which is to truly represent us and protect our Constitution.

In Kansas, a reader of the Lawrence Journal World points out that the duopoly is effectively owned and controlled by the interests corporate capital, and decides to opt out:

It does not matter who you support in the two-party system. Your taxpayer money is funneled to members of Congress regardless of their positions. Corporations whose policies you may oppose take your money and curry favor at your expense. The only plausible alternative is new parties. I’m switching to the Green Party; maybe Libertarian is for you.

The (Global) Warfare and (Corporate) Welfare State

Yesterday, Stop the ACLU linked to a CS Monitor article on supposed conflicts within the anti-war movement generated by the Obama administration's escalation of the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, on the one hand, and its planned de-escalation in Iraq on the other. Predictably, Stop the ACLU rhetorically asked whether the movement would have assumed such a 'wait and see' attitude if McCain had been elected over Obama. However, since the CS Monitor for the most part quoted only elected Democrats, and the folks at Stop the ACLU likely do not follow the anti-war movement very closely, all failed to notice that large anti-war rallies were, ironically, taking place across the country while they wondered whether it would maintain its momentum in the upcoming years.

The rallies held yesterday were organized by United for Peace and Justice, the International Action Center and Bail out the People, while International Answer held a large anti-war rally and march on the Pentagon two weeks prior on the sixth anniversary of the start of the Iraq war. From the very beginning, the contemporary anti-war movement was organized by groups independent of the two-party system, many of them actual socialists. Seeking their own advantage, Democrats have parasitically co-opted the message of this movement to consolidate their own power. But as many in the anti-war movement know very well, the duopoly effectively functions as a one-party state, the party of global warfare and corporate welfare.

Politics and Truth

In a column for the Chicago Tribune, John Kass reflects on the indictment of former Governor Rod Balgojevich, and concludes that it is rather an indictment of the system itself.

Thursday's massive 75-page federal indictment of former Gov. Dead Meat and his crew exposed once and for all that there is no true two-party system in Illinois, but rather a bipartisan Combine of insiders who gorge on public dollars and public trust.

In this sense, Illinois can hardly be distinguished from most other states in the union, or even from the Union itself. Kass's quaint notion of a "true two-party system" refutes itself. There is no opposition to the duopoly combine inside the duopoly combine because the "bipartisan combine of insiders who gorge on public dollars and public trust" is the truth of the two-party system.

Stepping Aside

Newt Gingrich has sparked a fair amount of chatter with his recent warning that the Republican Party is vulnerable to a third party insurgency in the coming years. The reactions on both sides of the duopoly prove instructive, and expose the difficulty of breaking through the two-party delusion.

Here's one example. At the Huffington Post Dan Sweeney ironically agrees with the former Speaker of the House, and current television talking head. He writes,

Maybe Newt Gingrich is right. Maybe it's time to start thinking outside the two-party-system box. But Gingrich is mistaken about a mere third-party run. I think we need about ten of them, maybe more. Proportional representation, instant run-off voting, all the multi-party system goodies.

Maybe? Despite his suspicions, in the deed Sweeney is unable to wiggle his way out of the two-party strait-jacket, admitting that bringing about such change would be virtually impossible. But the reasoning behind this thought is telling. He continues,

Of course, as both political parties stand to lose from such a system, it would find no one in Washington to get behind it.

In other words: we need a strong multiparty system to counteract the pernicious effects of two-party rule at both federal and state levels. But the Republican and Democratic parties would never go along with it. So it'll never happen. The contradiction here is readily apparent: this is exactly the point of breaking with two party rule! Of course they wouldn't go along with it. It would undermine their hold on power and the influence of their corporate bosses, their special interests, and their party machines. It would reveal the extent to which they instrumentalize the constitution, the law and mechanisms of government in the interest of augmenting their own power and influence, to the detriment of the people they supposedly represent. They will not willingly step aside. They have to be pushed aside.

The Bipartisan Front

Like fear and loathing, hypocrisy is built into the structure of the two party mind-set. The Angry Pundit is fuming about the hypocrisy of the bipartisan charade. He writes, "this is why I hate the two-party system. There is no compromise when one views the opposition as COMPLETELY wrong," which, of course, is often the case with Republicans and Democrats. If one does not view the opposition as wrong though, there would be no need for compromise, and so the 'opposition' would collapse. This is perhaps one reason why today 'bipartisanship' means forcing the other side to embrace one's own agenda.

The Congressional-Lobbyist Simplex

The way Republicans whine and Democrats bray about bipartisanship, you'd think they simply never get along. But as The Captive American points out,

When it comes to tossing tax dollars into the black maw of the Pentagon, Democrats and Republicans get along just fine. Forget the furor over bailouts and bonuses. The Military-Industrial Complex has been enjoying the fruits of a sixty year stimulus plan by now and neither party shows any sign of stopping the fun.

With the recent GAO findings that 70% of Pentagon weapons systems are over budget by some $300 billion, any call for a reduction in defense spending will draw bi-partisan opposition in Congress, once the lobbyists, contractors and hawks put their machine in motion.

Declarations of Independence

In a post on the rise of the independent movement, Reddragon62 calls for the overthrow of the two-party system:

We have seen that putting our trust and our beliefs in the two party system has gotten us nowhere . . . When will you finally free yourselves from the bondage that is the two Party System? Do we not hold the power to force change? Have we forgotten what it means to hold these elected whores responsible? These "political prostitutes" are beholden to you and me, not to Big Money!

The problem, of course, is that the "political prostitutes" are in fact not beholden to you and me, but rather to big money. That is, until you and me stop voting them into office. In a different vein, likening politicians to whores and calling the apparatchiks of the duopoly "political prostitutes" is degrading and insulting . . . to sex workers.

Working Wonders

To paraphrase Hegel (paraphrasing Kant), duopoly ideology is a whole nest of casual contradictions. A post by Lydia Scott on the upcoming tea party protests at Campaign for Liberty asks: "Are we going to talk it or walk it?" meaning, "what are we going to do after April 15th?" She advocates continuing on with everyday organizational work, and then, under suggestion #5, writes: "Like it or not we have a two party system and the only way we are going to change that is from within. We are not going to change it from outside the system." The implication, then, would be that the only way to change government or policy for the better is by infiltration, and the usual ways and means of two-party politics, ostensibly because third party activism has little to no effect on the system itself, and is incapable of effecting change. Yet, in the very next sentence, she continues almost as an afterthought,

Although here in Indiana we do have a strong third party presence in the Libertarian party. It is worth noting that the presence of a strong third party can do wonders in shaping up the other two parties. If they see the 3rd party as a threat then bam, they start watching the p's and q's.

So, we cannot change the two party system from the outside, we must work within the confines of the two-party straitjacket, and play by 'their rules' because that's just the way it is, but third parties are a veritable force in our politics, to which duopoly politicians strategically respond, and third party activism can work wonders!

Spoiling for a Fight

Sam's Blog makes a good case for third party voting and argues that such votes clearly affect the major parties: "if you vote with your convictions, even if your candidate does not win, the major parties attempt to gain your vote for the next election by adopting your principles." This is not always true however. It is just as likely that before the next election the duopoly parties in a given locale will tighten restrictions on ballot access, or make a greater effort in opposing the petitions of third party candidates to get onto the ballot. Examples abound. Libertarian Party candidate Eric Sundwall was forcibly excluded from the ballot in the recent special election in the 20th CD in New York, while South Carolina is working on bipartisan legislation that would make such efforts unnecessary ("If passed, two bills in the Legislature would reinforce a two-party system in a state with a strong tradition of supporting independent and third-party candidates.")

Nonetheless, Sam's point is well taken and indicates a tension inherent to duopolist ideology. In arguing against a third party vote, it is often maintained that to vote outside the two-party system is to waste a vote to no effect, and that voting for a third party could spoil the entire election.

Throwing Your Vote Away

In a post on the "Plague of the Two Party System," Dragan at Dreams of Freedom provides an account of two conversations (one with a Democrat, the other with a Republican) intended to broach the issue of third party politics. After probing the Republican's views (the Democrat proved to be more or less clueless), Dragan pointed out that the Republican party did not in fact jive with the policies and positions he himself espoused, and received the canned response: "He got the point, and humorously told me a third party would not make a difference apart from taking votes away from the "parties that actually have a chance"." (Emphasis added.) The two-party ideology here rears its ugly head, for this is exactly the point of supporting the candidates and party which actually represent your views, rather than throwing your vote away on the duopoly candidate and party you find less disagreeable than the other.

Economism

The JKHC Forum presents a proposal outlining potential responses to the "financial tsunami," including each item's pros and cons. Among them are restoring confidence in the system, loosening up credit markets, introducing a new regulatory regime, capping excessive executive pay, and boosting public spending, among others. In making the case for these measures, however, JKHC implores, "this is no time for politics or ideology." The interesting thing about such a statement is the implication that the arguments for and against the proposed measures, not to mention the details of their deployment and implementation, are neither political nor ideological. Like calls for bipartisanship, or, more ridiculously, post-partisanship, such claims represent an arch-political gesture masquerading as technocratic objectivity, notwithstanding the speaker's good intentions: let's put politics aside and carry out my agenda.