The Only Alternative is All the Alternatives: Against the Democratic-Republican Global Warfare and Corporate Welfare State

The Democratic-Republican two-party establishment is the primary political organ of the reigning global warfare and corporate welfare state. As such, the Democratic and Republican Parties cannot adequately represent the interests of the people of the United States, indeed, the duopoly system of government forwards interests that are inimical to those of the people of the United States. Widespread recognition of this fact is evidenced by third party and independent activism across the political spectrum: the California Peace and Freedom Party has begun a campaign to create a unified party of the left; independent conservatives have renewed efforts in the Constitution and American Conservative Parties; centrist and moderate groups such as the Modern Whigs are stepping up their organizational activities. Currently, however, the third party debate seems to be most dynamic among conservatives. At Common Sense Citizen, Donald Borsch considers third party activism but is attracted to the idea of infiltrating the GOP:

I am an Independent Conservative, meaning that no political party speaks for me 100%, and I believe in no political party 100%. I do, however, admire The Constitution Party and The American Conservative Party, but even with them I am not full-on sold-out. Nothing against them, to be sure. They're both fine organizations. I hope they succeed and their memberships swell. But I am not a member of either. Logic says I should be a member of the GOP, as I am a Conservative. I do not, however, support the GOP as I see it today . . . Could all of us, the Independent Conservatives, actually go to the GOP and remake it in the image of a True Conservative Party again? It seems risky.

For those who advocate or have been duped by the duopolist ideology of the Democratic-Republican Party and fully embrace an infiltrationist strategy, the very idea of third party activism is an absurdity. The Cranky Conservative, for instance, argues that third party activism is the height of folly, concluding: "It’s agonizing to have to defend the current two-party system, but it’s even more agonizing to ponder the alternatives." The active support and defense of the ruling two-party state against one's better judgment is perhaps the most widespread effect of the utopianist delusion that the Republican and Democratic Parties represent anything other than the entrenched political establishment, that they are amenable to reform, that they can be "taken back" and that there is something of them worthy of being salvaged. There is no future in the politics of the Democratic-Republican Party. There is only the assertion that there is no alternative to the duopoly system of government and the political status quo.

Toward a Green-Libertarian Anti-War Front: Against the Global Warfare State

With its announcement of an escalation of the war in Afghanistan, the Obama administration demonstrates once again the continuity of policy between the Democratic and Republican Parties in favor of the global warfare and corporate welfare state. Both the Libertarian and Green Parties have taken strong stands against the expansion of the war in central Asia. In a press release from late September, the Libertarian Party stated its opposition to the McChrystal strategy:

You may have heard today's prominent news stories about President Obama's military commander in Afghanistan, Stanley McChrystal, and his request to greatly increase the presence of U.S. armed forces there. The Libertarian Party opposes this plan. We want to end the war, not escalate it. In September 2008, the Libertarian National Committee adopted this resolution:

WHEREAS the government of the United States should return to its historical libertarian tradition of avoiding entangling alliances, foreign quarrels, and military adventures; and

WHEREAS the stability and security of Afghanistan lie outside the jurisdiction of the government of the United States; and

WHEREAS the Libertarian Party recognizes that the only legitimate role of the military is to defend America against direct attack or the imminent threat of attack;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Libertarian National Committee calls on the government of the United States to withdraw the armed forces of the United States from Afghanistan, without undue delay.

Democrats often claim to oppose foreign wars. But after eight months in total control of Congress and the White House, Democrats have done nothing to end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Green Party has now issued a press release calling on President Obama to reverse his Afghanistan policy and announcing that the group will be participating in upcoming anti-war protests:

Green Party leaders called on President Obama to reverse his Afghanistan policy by pledging an immediate cease-fire in the Afghanistan war and a complete withdrawal of US troops and military contractors, when he addresses the nation on Tuesday, December 1.

During the speech, President Obama will announce his intention to send 30,000 more troops, raising the number of US personnel in Afghanistan to over 100,000.

"Millions of Americans voted for Barack Obama in 2008 under the impression that he was an 'antiwar' candidate, even though Mr. Obama supported the war in Afghanistan and favored a limited withdrawal from Iraq. Troop escalation will not 'finish the job' in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan. Unless he surprises us in his speech on Tuesday, we'll be further mired in a war that shouldn't have happened in the first place," said Rosa Clemente, the Green Party's nominee for Vice President in 2008 (http://www.rosaclemente.com).

The Green Party of the United States will participate in antiwar protests scheduled for Saturday, December 12 in Washington, DC, and other locations throughout the US.

The Third Party Tradition in American Politics: Against Duopolist Historical Revisionism, Part 2

Since at least the middle of the twentieth century, political historians of the United States have employed the "party system" concept in conjunction with that of the "realigning election" to periodize the history of US politics, yielding the delineation of five or six different party periods. The Wikipedia entry on the US party system quotes from Benedict, Burbank and Hrebenar's Political Parties, Interest Groups and Political Campaigns:

Scholars generally agree that realignment theory identifies five distinct party systems with the following approximate dates and major parties: 1. 1796-1816, First Party System: Jeffersonian Republicans and Federalists; 2. 1840-1856, Second Party System: Democrats and Whigs; 3. 1860-1896, Third Party System: Republicans and Democrats; 4. 1896-1932, Fourth Party System: Republicans and Democrats; 5. 1932-, Fifth Party System: Democrats and Republicans.

Needless to say, the party system model privileges the major parties in its theorization of American political history. Even though it obscures the third party and independent tradition in American politics, it can also be read against the grain. See, for instance, Dale Sheldon's Brief History of Political Parties in the United States, which I excerpted over the summer in a post on political fragmentation and partisan realignment. However, some contemporary historians are acutely aware of the limitations of the model. In "The "Third Party Tradition" Reconsidered: Third Parties and American Public Life, 1830-1900," Mark Voss-Hubbard argues that:

A principal weakness of the party period concept is that phenomena that lay outside "party" are often subsumed into it or made idiosyncratic by definition. (p. 122.)

This, Voss-Hubbard suggests, has led many historians to discount, or trivialize the importance of non-conformist, third party and independent political movements throughout US history:

Little in this revisionism treated third partyism as a phenomenon that illuminated mass belief about politics and governance. Instead, third parties were cast as anomalous examples of extremism in a normative political tradition that was pragmatic and liberal capitalist. (p. 125.)

Scholars identified "systems" of major party voting alignments, then folded them into a larger "realignment synthesis" in which certain critical elections marked the transition from one alignment to the next. Central to the interpretive framework were the major parties – their policy orientations, legislative behavior, and relationship to voters serves as the point of departure for historians of nineteenth century politics . . . despite their emphasis on the major parties, new political historians also fitted third partyism into their long-range model. Certain third party movements – notably the Antimasons and Know-Nothings – seemed best to represent the ethnocultural bases of nineteenth-century voting behavior and, most important, were pivotal transition parties in the realignment synthesis. However, more penetrating insight into third partyism has proved disappointingly elusive . . . a research agenda that promised to organize political history around long-range systemic patterns that defined a regime was bound to deflect attention away from traditions of popular antipathy toward the regime. (Emphasis added, pp. 126-128.)

Published in The Journal of American History in 1999, Voss-Hubbard's article begins from the assumption that an independent third party tradition is central to American political history. It is on this precise point that he links up with John D. Hicks's work on The Third Party Tradition in American Politics, excerpted here the other day in the first post of this series. Voss-Hubbard writes:

To Hicks and others of his generation, third party movements were important subjects of inquiry because they represented Americans' frequent dissatisfaction with the major parties and the government – both state and national – that those parties almost always controlled. Hicks thus implied that a defining characteristic of the nation's populist, third party tradition, popular anger at the two-party regime, was a vital and recurrent theme of the party period. (p. 121-122.)

However, while Hicks focused almost exclusively on official minor parties, Voss-Hubbard widens the scope of analysis to include independent and non-partisan political associations, uniting all three under the banner of what he calls "anti-partyism":

The anti-partyism that concerns us here was not the same as classical antiparty belief. By the 1830's few raised the fundamental objections to political parties that James Madison and other thinkers of his generation had . . . The anti-partyism I will focus on was a secular discourse that communicated deep frustration with the immediate political and governmental context while also marking third parties as social movements, not conventional political parties. Nineteenth-century third parties defined themselves as antiparties, reaching beyond party politics to politicize other dimensions of thought and experience in American public life. (p. 124.)

Though variations on the theme abound, one pattern emerges clearly: significant numbers of nineteenth-century Americans swarmed into independent movements when the major parties failed them. (p. 128.)

The history of independent and third party activism demonstrates not only the continuity of opposition to the two-party regime, but also of the continuous corruption of the two-party regime:

third party movements, including those commonly thought of as farmer- or worker-based, assailed corrupt politics as often as they attacked corporate greed or exploitation in the private sector. Indeed, the antiparty belief that government was overrun by tainted politicians and the special interests that controlled them stands out as a central theme in the public cultures of virtually all nineteenth-century third parties. (Emphasis added, p. 129.)

Above all, third party movements crystallized anger with a system of politics and governance that failed to address felt needs. Antipartyism reflected the belief among third partisans that the current political regime lacked a broad moral purpose; that short-sighted politicians, preoccupied with patronage and other petty partisan intrigues, were out of touch with popular needs and concerns. (pp. 130-131.)

Because women were denied the vote, Hubbard argues, they were a driving force behind non-partisan political reforms (for example, abolition, temperance, prohibition), and lent strength to third party efforts against the entrenched two-party regime:

In the 19th century a framework of nonpartisanship may well have been as robust and influential as the partisan framework of national two-party politics. The ideals learned and experiences gained from nonpartisan public activism helped guide Americans' consideration of many governance issues. When third party movements set out to politicize their agendas for new governmental policies, they drew largely on the nonpartisan framework of thought and practice . . . third party movements, with their origins in extrapartisan reform organizations, built upon these nonpartisan ideals and impulses. They turned nonpartisan expectations of governance against the regime by poiticizing their issues in antiparty terms. (pp. 140-141.)

Voss-Hubbard concludes by arguing that the strength of independent and third party movements was, paradoxically, also their greatest weakness:

Just as antipartyism was central to the rise of third party movements, so too did it figure in their usually rapid demise. The story of third party defeat is a familiar one. The seeming ease with which the two-party regime co-opts the third party agenda and beats back thoroughgoing change is a stock conclusion in the history of third party movements. To explain third party defeat, scholars invariably emphasize daunting systemic obstacles. The nation's single-member, winner-take-all system of election and representation and the presence of obdurate major party organizations, each with a corps of well-helled operatives, a profusion of party mouthpieces, and near monopoly control over patronage ensured that insurgency took place within a hostile environment . . . Third parties faced long odds, but the numerous issues they raised and the ease with which they mobilized locally and statewide illuminated the considerable potential for challenging the regime in nineteenth-century America. (Emphasis added, p. 142.)

As they developed into organized parties, making direct and indirect appeals to other insurgent movements and pockets of discontent, third party movements tended to become sprawling supercoalitions of the disaffected. Antiparty claims of allegiance to the public good facilitated the initial mobilization . . . but antipartyism also masked the ideological diversity and social divisions within third party organizations. (pp. 143-144.)

In the next installment of the series, we'll look at a few articles considering the American third party tradition in the twentieth century.

Illinois: Third Party and Independent Candidates for Governor 2010

At the Columbia Chronicle, a student newspaper of Columbia College Chicago, Patrick Smith reports on the spectrum of third party and independent candidates for governor in Illinois in 2010, including independent Michael White and Libertarian Lex Green:

According to White, a veteran of the U.S. Air Force and the Illinois National Guard for more than 20 years, voters are eager for a candidate who is not affiliated with the two major parties, Republicans and Democrats.

Libertarian candidate for governor of Illinois, Lex Green, said he has seen the same interest from voters. “I’m seeing a growing number of people who have become energized,” Green said. “It seems to be a very positive experience for me.”

White said he believes the “majority of Illinois voters consider themselves Independent.” He also said the voters he spoke to opened up to him when they found out he was not affiliated with either major party . . .

In addition to Green and White, there are two other third-party candidates. Randy Stufflebeam is the candidate for the Constitution Party, and Rich Whitney is running as the Green Party Candidate. The Green Party will be on the ballot as an official third party in 2010, because the party received 11 percent of the vote in 2006 . . . The last time Illinois had an official third party on the ballot was 1986.

Third Party and Independent Web Roundup

What's going on in the third party and independent web today?
In the news:
• Ballot Access News points out a lengthy article in City Hall on the Working Families Party in New York State.
• At Independent Political Report, Kimberly Wilder relays a report from Ballot Access News stating that "minor party and independent candidates are involved in constitutional election law cases in at least 21 states."
• The Thirds is following news on the campaign to draft Ralph Nader to run for Senate in Connecticut.

From the parties:
• The American Centrist Party features a Blog Talk Radio interview with the group's National Chairman Andrew Evans on "shared sacrifice."
• The American Conservative Party features a letter by Alan Reasin to his Congressional delegation and the president.
• In its Thanksgiving message, the Constitution Party states that "Americans can give thanks the US is not limited to two parties."
• The Green Party relays a press release from the CT chapter stating that "Connecticut Greens would welcome a Nader run for Senate."
• The Libertarian Party blog reports that the Maryland chapter has nominated their candidates for governor and lieutenant governor.
• The Modern Whig Party has announced that its first national conference will be taking place in December in Washington D.C.
• The Pirate Party provides a rundown of the Orphaned Works Act.
• The Socialist Party calls for opposition to an escalation of the war in Afghanistan.

In the blogs:
• Attack the System relays its extensive weekly news digest.
• At Bonzai Mike Farmer reflects on the implications of increased dependence on government.
• Bulls Eye Politics outlines "what we all can (and must) do," a letter to a local 9/12 organizer.
• Green Party Watch reports on the party's petition drives in Hawaii and Arizona.
• The Hankster reports that independents are gaining influence in Atlanta, Utah and NYC.
• At Humble Libertarian, W.E. Messamore has updated his list of the top 100 Libertarian blogs and websites.
• The Jacksonian Party reflects on "decades of horror."
• At Mirror on America, Liberal Arts Dude compares Obama with Brazilian President Lula and argues that the latter is "what a left-wing presidency looks like."
• At On the Wilder Side, Kimberly Wilder draws attention to upcoming World March for Peace events.
• At Polizeros, Bob Morris makes the case for left-wing populism.
• Ross Levin calls for a re-awakening of the anti-war movement and reports on upcoming anti-war protests.

The Third Party Tradition in American Politics: Against Duopolist Historical Revisionism

When partisans of the Democratic and Republican Parties seek to discourage others from engaging in third party and independent political activism, they return time and again to what I call the historical argument, which seeks to prove that third party and independent movements will necessarily fail in the future because they have never succeeded in the past. Historical fatalism of this sort is foreign to the foundational spirit of the United States and is symptomatic of the degeneracy and decline of popular political thought under the reigning duopoly system of government. Furthermore, and like so many of the propositions put forward by the propagandists of the Democratic-Republican two-party state, the argument does not even possess the virtue of being true. Over the next few days, I plan to provide excerpts from a number of scholarly articles detailing the third party tradition in the United States in order to counter the revisionist tendencies of duopolist ideologues, who seek to erase or otherwise obscure the third party and independent political tradition in the United States in the interests of short term political gain aimed at nothing more than maintaining the two-party political status quo. My starting point will be John D. Hicks's seminal article "The Third Party Tradition in American Politics," which appeared in the Mississippi Valley Historical Review in 1933.

Hicks's article provides a history of third party politics in the United States from around 1800 through 1930. Over the course of the paper, he discusses no less than fifteen minor parties and argues that such groups have had an impact on the course of US history that rivals those of the major parties. In his historical sketch, Hicks details the influence (among others) of: the Tertium Quids, the Anti-Masonic Party, the Liberty Party, the Free Soil Party, the Know Nothings, the Constitutional Union Party, the Liberal Republican Party, the Grangers, the Greenback Party, the People's Party (i.e. the Populist Party), the Socialist Party of America, and the Farmer Labor Party.

In his introductory paragraphs, Hicks writes:

Possibly a good many intelligent voters would be surprised to learn that the two party system was not ordained by the Constitution, and that a division into political parties was not even desired by some of those who first guided the nation's destinies . . . Far more depressing to the ordinary elector, however, would be the discovery that the United States has never possessed for any considerable period of time the two party system in its pure and undefiled form. It is a fact, easily demonstrated, that at least for the last hundred years one formidable third party has succeeded another with bewildering rapidity; and that, contrary to the customary view, these third parties have seriously affected the results of presidential elections, have frequently had a hand in the determination of important national policies, and have played perhaps quite as important a role as either of the major parties in making the nation what it is today. (Emphasis added, Hicks, pp. 3-4.)

In the final pages of the article, Hicks concludes:

To the superficial observer the history of American third party movements might appear to be only a long succession of jeremiads. It is true enough that the successes of these parties at the polls have been ephemeral and their hopes of endurance unfounded. But their chronic re-appearance is a factor in American history that cannot be overlooked. In three-fifths of the presidential elections held during the last hundred years the candidates of significant, and at least temporarily powerful, third parties have been before the voters. In possibly half a dozen instances the third party vote has snatched victory from one major party ticket to give it to the other. Innumerable state administrations have been in the hands of third party men, and in spite of the late Democratic landslide a Farmer-Labot governor still rules in Minnesota. To dismiss third parties lightly under these circumstances is to show a lamentable disregard for the facts. [Emphasis added.]

But it is not so much in the terms of victories won and candidates elected that the importance of third party movements should be assessed. What is of infinitely greater consequence is the final success of so many of the principles for which they have fought. It is almost a law of third party history that the triumph of the third party cause means the death of the party, and the reason why this is true is self-evident. Let a third party once demonstrate that votes are to be made by adopting a certain demand, then one or the other of the older parties can be trusted to absorb the new doctrine. Ultimately, if the demand has merit, it will probably be translated into law or practice by the major party that has taken it up. Not all third party ideas endure, and it is a good thing they do not; but the list of third party principles that have finally won out it formidable. The abolition of slavery, the restoration of "home rule" to the South, the regulation of the railroads by state and nation, the revision of the banking and currency systems to secure a more adequate and a more elastic supply of money and credit, the various attempts to curb the "trusts", the conservation of natural resources – these reforms, to mention only a few of the most obvious, made headway at first mainly through third party agitation . . . . The chronic supporter of third party tickets need not worry, therefore, when he is told, as he surely will be told, that he is "throwing his vote away." This backward glance through American history would seem to indicate that his kind of vote is after all probably the most powerful vote that has ever been cast. (Emphasis added, Hicks, pp. 26-27.)

In attempting to account for the continuous succession of third party movements in the United States, Hicks discounts economic arguments, and instead suggests a structural mechanism is at work:

There is more merit in the theory that American third parties have come about as natural by-products of our diverse sectional interests. Major parties must command support in every section, and must manage somehow to collect everywhere the maximum number of votes. That one man's meat is another man's poison has frequently been true as between the various sections of the United States . . . Let a whole section begin to feel that its interests are being permanently discriminated against by both old parties, and the time for a plain-spoken third party, organized mainly along sectional lines, is about ripe. (Hicks, p. 28.)

Glenn Beck and the Destruction of the Two-Party System: Gabbo, Gabbo, Gabbo!

Reflecting on coverage of Glenn Beck's recent book launch in Florida, Chuck Cummins of the Chuckwagon Journal wonders if the talk show host "is starting a third party." Chuck writes:

according to the [Orlando] Sentinel, Beck hopes "to transform his personal celebrity into political action and has begun to assemble a movement to 'change America's course.'" While in Florida recently promoting his new book, "Arguing with Idiots," Beck said "America, we cannot wait for a leader anymore. The people must lead, and the leader will follow." . . .

Conscientious voters across the nation should be encouraging Beck's success. Republicans made a big deal of Obama's lack of leadership experience and disparaged his community organization background. But, they had to notice that that very background led to one of the most skillfully crafted and organized campaigns in recent history. Beck seems to have taken notice, at least, and wants to organize Conservatives in a similar manner. Regardless, any attempt by any person to get Americans off their duffs and actively participating in the process of nominating, electing and monitoring our government officials has to be a good thing.

Unquestionably, Beck has shown an increasing hostility toward the two-party system. Following an interview with David Horowitz, he recently sketched out what it means to "effectively organize your community":

It's demanding sanity with spending. It's demanding that we fight to win every war we get into. It's asking and demanding that we hold people accountable, that people who break the law or don't pay their taxes go to jail, not the cabinet.

It's demanding that we call terrorists by their names, terrorists. And if we demand that people stop calling tea partygoers terrorists, angry mobs, but rather what they are, concerned citizens that have had enough, if that's what destroys the two-party system, so be it. They should be destroyed. [Emphasis added.]

In response, the dead-enders of the Republican Party have reluctantly come to the defense of the GOP. Some conservatives have even gone so far as to defend the very existence of parties as such in the face of Beck's antics. At Commentary Magazine, Peter Wehner writes:

For Beck to put forth the argument he does, in the manner he does, is evidence, I think, of a kind of animus toward political parties . . . Contrast Beck’s attitude toward political parties with those of a founder of modern conservatism, Edmund Burke . . . Burke understood that parties were not always right . . . genuine conservatives understand the important role parties play in organizing people of similar beliefs to do the practical, and often the slow and imperfect, work of advancing an agenda that can eventually be translated into governing . . . It’s also worth pointing out that many of our greatest figures in American political history were men who proudly associated themselves with political parties.

Though it may well be the case that Beck is serious when he states that we have to start "thinking like the Chinese" – he has, for instance, called for summary executions of captured enemy combatants – his most recent publicity stunt, in which he announced but did not unveil "The Plan," resembles nothing so much as it does the marketing strategy of Gabbo, the ventriloquist's dummy whose popular program forces Krusty the Clown off the air in an early episode of The Simpsons. The first five minutes of the episode are well worth (re)viewing. The parallels are striking.

WSJ Op-Ed Page Discovers Independents in New England

Either folks at the Wall Street Journal and the Cook Political Report have been reading Poli-Tea or the burgeoning independent insurgency in the northeast can no longer be ignored by the mainstream press and professional political analysts. In an opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal, Jennifer Duffy of the Cook Political Report writes that "independents are gaining traction in New England":

Third-party candidates rarely win elections. So what does it say about the deep blue states of Massachusetts and Rhode Island that they now have credible independents running for governor next year? While politics is often messy and even contradictory, third-party candidates tend to run strong when one party becomes so dominant that it becomes comfortable pushing unpopular policies. That seems to be happening now in the Democratic stronghold of New England.

In Massachusetts, state Treasurer Tim Cahill resigned from the Democratic Party recently to make a bid for the state's top job as an independent . . . In Rhode Island, former Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee is looking for a political comeback as an independent . . .

In Massachusetts, 50.2% of voters are registered as unaffiliated with either party (up from 42.2% in 1990). In Rhode Island, 50.1% are unaffiliated. Those numbers tell us that a majority of voters are somewhat disaffected with both parties. Messrs. Cahill and Chafee are hoping to stitch together a coalition of these voters.

This is not implausible in New England. Maine elected James B. Longley in 1974 and Angus King in 1994 as independent governors. In 1990, Connecticut elected Lowell Weicker governor as an independent, while Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman currently represent Vermont and Connecticut, respectively, as independent U.S. senators.

Of course, none of this is news to regular readers here at Poli-Tea. I've been following these developments since at least last spring (see, for instance, Independent in a One-Party State) and noted the regional trend over the summer in guest posts on the independence of independents for The Hankster and the Rotterdam Windmill. What is news here is the fact that cognizance of this independent movement is beginning to penetrate the consciousness of the national media.

Primary Follies: "Top Two" in California

In The Los Angeles Times, Jean Merl reports on the state of the debate surrounding California's proposed "Top Two Primaries Act" that would create a form of open primary system in which the primary voters' "top two" choices would advance to the general election. The measure was crafted by the state's new Lieutenant Governor, Abel Maldonado, and is opposed by Californians for Electoral Reform. Merl reports:

In June, Californians will decide whether to bring back a version of the open primary for regular state and congressional elections . . . The Top Two Primaries Act would require that all candidates compete in a single primary open to all registered voters -- similar to the way special elections are run. The top two vote-getters would advance to a runoff . . .

Former Democratic state legislator Steve Peace has led efforts to fashion a new open-primary proposal since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled an earlier voter-approved version unconstitutional. Surveys by the Field Poll and the Public Policy Institute of California this year found voter support for the June measure, but the major political parties are vigorously opposed. [Emphasis added.]

They say that omitting party affiliation would deprive voters of important information about candidates. In addition, California Democratic Party Chairman John L. Burton said, candidates would have to raise more money to reach a larger pool of voters, opening the door wider to special interests, a major source of campaign contributions.

"It also freezes out third-party candidates, who will never make the runoff," Burton said. "They ought to have a shot." [Republican strategist] Hoffenblum calls the third-party argument "a ruse" by the two major parties, whose leaders "like the system the way it is."

"These third parties are not really relevant to the process anyway," Hoffenblum said. If they "want to become viable, they need to come in first or second" in an open primary.

The Fantasy of the Ideological Other's Agency in the Mentality of the Duopolist Dead-Ender

One of the great ironies of the duopoly system of government is that partisans of the Democratic and Republican Parties have become some of the staunchest, if inadvertent, detractors of the two-party state, and this is not only because what passes for political discourse among them could be Exhibit A in the case of the People of the United States versus the two-party state. The synthesis of the partisan Democratic and Republican treatment of two-party politics results in nothing less than an indictment of the Democratic-Republican Party.

Consider the conservative and progressive duopolist critiques of the Republican and Democratic Parties. The conservative Republican complains that the Democratic Party has been hijacked by radical leftists and that the Republican Party has been taken over by RINOs. The progressive Democrat growls that the Republican Party is beholden to right wing radicals and that the Democratic Party has been captured by corporate interests. (And, of course, for the conservative Republican, progressive Democrats are the radical left, while for the progressive Democrat the conservative Republican is the radical right, and so we see, yet again, how two-party politics runs the gamut from A to B.) In other words, the conservative Republican claims that the Democratic Party is the agent of the progressive movement, but the progressive Democrat maintains that the Democratic Party stands opposed to progressive interests and concerns, while the same time, the progressive Democrat claims that the Republican Party has become the agent of the conservative movement, but conservative Republicans assert that the Republican Party serves interests that are not in line with conservative values.

Thus, conservative and progressive duopolists each perceive the other as the central agency within their preferred party, but each side perceives itself as a marginalized constituency which is exploited or otherwise taken advantage of by that party's establishment. Arguably, this fantasy of the other's agency binds duopolist dead-enders to the Democratic-Republican Party and blinds them to the obvious truth of the proposition that the two-party system simply does not and cannot effectively represent the interests of the people of the United States whatever their ideology may be.

In the disconnect between the average voter's perception of the Congress as a whole and of their own representative in particular, we may see one practical result of this ideological formation. At The Whig, Septimus brings together a number of recent polls and draws the decisive conclusion:

60 to 69% of American disapprove of the job Congress is doing.

58% of Americans disapprove of the job Republicans in Congress are doing.

55% of Americans disapprove of the job Democrats in Congress are doing.

It is time to realize that your member of Congress is part of the problem.

I am tempted to take this point one step further: until you realize that your member of Congress is part of the problem, you are part of the problem.

The Socialist Alternative to the Democratic Party

Over the past months, much of the national discussion on the potential for third party and independent politics has been focused squarely on the right, emphasizing the tea party movement's relation to the GOP establishment, libertarian disillusionment with two-party statism, independent discontent with the duopoly's alternative to the Democratic Party etc. Yet, while Republican operatives continue to pretend that the Democratic Party is pursuing a radical left-wing agenda, actual leftists as well as mainstream liberals and progressives are growing ever more frustrated with the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress's agenda of maintaining the global warfare and corporate welfare state. As Sam Wilson points out, the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. In the Socialist Worker, one disillusioned Democrat, Donna Tara Lee, explains why it has become imperative for the left to take on the Democrats from the left:

I would like to say that I have been a lifelong Democrat since I was first eligible to vote in 1969 . . . These were the politics I was brought up with and learned at the dinner table . . . as I got older, I have been an unabashed liberal. I have been active in all the following causes dating back to the 1960's: civil rights, antiwar, feminism, pro-choice, the farmworkers movement ( I boycotted grapes for years), no nukes, free speech, justice for the Palestinians, anti-imperialist, anti-apartheid, and, lastly, the LGBTQ movement . . .

So why am I now thinking of leaving the party after our biggest electoral success since 1964? I have become so disenchanted that the changes we were promised instead seem to be more of the same old politics as usual. The lobbyists are still in control . . .

Personally, I don't support the health care bills out there. I favor a single-payer, cradle-to-grave health care plan, like they have in all other industrial countries. I believe the Obama administration has basically caved in on real health care reform to achieve a non-achievable bipartisan law . . . huge sums of bailout money were given to the big corporations that got themselves and us in this mess by their greed. But there have been no regulatory reforms passed to make sure the banks can no longer fleece us. So it's back to business as usual on Wall Street . . . The repressive and unconstitutional USA PATRIOT Act remains in effect, and lawbreakers of the previous administration go unpunished. Hate crimes against LGBTQ people are on the rise . . . There is no real climate reform. Unemployment continues to rise, and our major parties are more partisan toward each other than ever. In foreign affairs, the wars go on, taking more of our treasury, and the death toll among our soldiers grows higher. We still support regimes that persecute women for being women, and that are repressive and corrupt . . .

Except for some cosmetic changes--you could call it a new brand of make-up--what has changed? Nothing is my brutally frank answer. These failures have led me to rethink my political philosophy . . . I will be leaving the Democratic Party soon and registering as a socialist. I do this with a heavy heart, but I am convinced that the only way now to a peaceful and economically just society is through socialism.

Independent Political Report

I was recently invited to become a contributor at Independent Political Report and happily accepted. As you're probably already aware, IPR is geared toward straightforward news items relating directly to third party and independent politics. So if you've got a good news tip, or come across something which isn't getting as much attention as it should, or want to get out the word on the activities of a group or campaign you're involved with etc., send me an email or leave a comment at the Poli-Tea News Tips and General Comments page.

The Pirate Party, Copyright and Virtual Freedom

The Pirate Party blog links an op-ed from the Financial Times by Christian Engstrom, the deputy chairman of the Swedish Pirate Party, who was elected to the European Parliament earlier this year. Engstrom argues that "copyright laws threaten out online freedom" and provides an overview of the aims and ends of the Pirate Party:

Copyright was meant to encourage culture, not restrict it. This is reason enough for reform. But the current regime has even more damaging effects. In order to uphold copyright laws, governments are beginning to restrict our right to communicate with each other in private . . . technology could be used to create a Big Brother society beyond our nightmares, where governments and corporations monitor every detail of our lives. In the former East Germany, the government needed tens of thousands of employees to keep track of the citizens using typewriters, pencils and index cards. Today a computer can do the same thing a million times faster, at the push of a button. There are many politicians who want to push that button.

The same technology could instead be used to create a society that embraces spontaneity, collaboration and diversity. Where the citizens are no longer passive consumers being fed information and culture through one-way media, but are instead active participants collaborating on a journey into the future . . .

The public increasingly recognises the need for reform. That was why Piratpartiet – the Pirate party – won 7.1 per cent of the popular vote in Sweden in the European Union elections. This gave us a seat in the European parliament for the first time.

Our manifesto is to reform copyright laws and gradually abolish the patent system. We oppose mass surveillance and censorship on the net, as in the rest of society. We want to make the EU more democratic and transparent. This is our entire platform. We intend to devote all our time and energy to protecting the fundamental civil liberties on the net and elsewhere.

The Leader Principle and the Messianic Impulse in Democratic-Republican Politics

The authoritarian tendencies of the Democratic-Republican Party, the duopoly system of government and the two-party state are perhaps nowhere more clear than in the cult of the executive that views all political antagonism and struggle through the prism of presidential politics. The fantasy of the "great leader" capable of resolving irreducible conflicts by means of charisma and force of will is as at home in the Republican church of Ronald Reagan as it is in the Democratic myth of Camelot. The nostalgia for a golden age that never existed is the flip-side of the utopian desire for that which will never come. And these people call themselves pragmatists!

This messianic impulse also conditions the conception of the potential for third party and independent politics among those who have yet to fully liberate themselves from the ideology that sustains the two-party state. At The Whig, Septimus excerpts an article by Mort Kondracke, executive editor of Roll Call and cable news talking head, in Real Clear Politics entitled, "Economy is Weak, Voters are Angry – Time for a Third Party?" Yet, when Kondracke says "third party" what he means is "a candidate for president who is neither a Democrat nor a Republican." He writes:

with Republicans and Democrats fighting all the time and improving nothing, there's an opening for a third-party challenge as strong as Ross Perot's in 1992 . . . The likeliest figure to seize upon this opening is populist demagogue (and self-styled "Mr. Independent") Lou Dobbs, formerly of CNN, so let's hope a better alternative appears - or the direction of the country improves.

The very way in which Kondracke substantiates his argument reveals his capitulation to the authority of the executive. The bulk of the piece relays the social-political analysis of his "favorite economic guru, David Smick":

Smick agrees that the moment is ripe for a third-party candidate - "a problem-solving, no-nonsense leader who can come to Washington to clean out the swamp created by both political parties." . . . He's not talking about Lou Dobbs here. Or former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R). And unfortunately, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I) and Gen. David Petraeus don't seem to be running. But there is an opening. Help wanted.

Given that Glenn Beck has just announced his "100 year plan," Kondracke might also have added this talk show host to his list as well. Nonetheless, the false premise underlying this speculative line of argument is perfectly clear, namely, that this is within the power of the President of the United States. The United States does not need more leaders it needs fewer followers. The only people who can "clean out the swamp" in Washington DC are the people of the United States, who would need only to cease voting for the stooges of the Democratic and Republican Parties election after election to achieve such a remarkable result.

However, for those who have not yet fully liberated themselves from the straitjacket of duopoly ideology, the latter appears possible only on the basis of a mass movement subsumed under the leader principle. The paradox here is readily apparent: the devolution of power is conceived as contingent upon its gross consolidation. This bias reveals one of the more insidious aspects of the Democrat-Republican two-party state. The point of the separation of powers, constitutive of the United States, is to diffuse power. Insofar as the Republican and Democratic Parties represent, and aim for, nothing more than the accumulation and concentration of power, the two-party system is antithetical to constitutional government.

Wanted: Anyone But These People II

Ballot Access News reports on the results from a poll in Michigan which found that an absolute majority of voters would consider voting for an independent gubernatorial candidate in 2010:

54% of Michigan voters consider it “likely” or “very likely” that they would consider supporting an independent gubernatorial candidate in 2010. Only 12% said it is “unlikely” that they would consider that idea . . . Also, when voters are asked which major party they intend to support in 2010 legislative races, 25% say Democratic, and 24% say Republican, with the remainder saying they don’t know or “someone else”.

Unfortunately, in Michigan there are no declared independent or third party candidates for governor next year, at least as far as I am aware, and there is but one such candidate for Congress. Scott Aughney is running for office in Michigan's 7th CD as an "independent conservative."