Independent at All Costs

From Cody Willard's blog at a Wall Street Journal Market Watch network:

Time to vote independent at all costs.   I’ve been saying for three years now that over the next decade, we will see 30% or more of Congress winning on an Independent ticket.   The Republican/Democrat Regime has pushed their corrupt, corporatist, big money policies too far down our throats.  Here’s a discussion from my facebook page yesterday that underscores the anti-Republican and equally anti-Democrat movement.  And no, the Tea Party, which has been overtaken and subverted by the Republican side of the Republican/Democrat Regime doesn’t count as a third party anymore . . .

Once you sign up for a party and become beholden to its platform (and the money behind that platform) you are no longer beholden to your constituents now, are you? You’re either bought and sold by big money and the Republican/Democrat Regime or you are outside of it.

The Third Rail Movement to Derail the Two-Party State

The Liberty Coalition Third Party Alliance is a group that aims to facilitate the formation of a nationwide association whose primary goal is to defeat the Democrat-Republican bipartisan political front.  I've mentioned the group before in a short profile from last April.   From the group's webpage:

The Liberty Coalition is a third party alliance made up of Americans who support Liberty and oppose Big Brother.  We welcome all Americans, third parties and organizations who love Liberty and Constitutional Government. We can agree to disagree on minor, divisive issues while we band together for Freedom!  The Liberty Coalition will function as a Major Political Alliance to run Independent Liberty Candidates who support our Four Points of Unity as their top campaign agendas.  The Democrat and Republican Leadership have abandoned the Constitution and Liberty for bank bailouts and war.  As the Two Party Monster tramples on our civil liberties, Americans must unite and oppose Big Brother Government through the political process.  The Coalition will not supplant existing third parties, organizations, liberty movements or independents. It will empower them by joining forces in a grand cross-party alliance.

The group's founder is A.J. Arias, who has just published a lengthy commentary in a number of outlets calling for the creation of a "Third Rail Movement" in opposition to the Democratic-Republican two-party state and duopoly system of government.  Arias writes:

Americans need an “outside the parties” movement to secure the blessings of Liberty and Peace for our families, our children, our land, our income and our food. Big Brother Government has been on the move to grow the Empire and expand our wars – and all we can expect is more tyranny, economic collapse and danger from the unintended consequences of politicians. What is a “third rail”?  I define “third rail” as an issue so controversial or offensive that a civilized person generally avoids bringing it up in conversation. Today, third rail issues which incite great controversy include abortion, homosexuality, teen pregnancy, slave reparations and exit strategies to never-ending wars. But none of these tomfooleries are worthy of our time on a grand-scale.

There is one third rail issue which matters to all of us. It remains taboo in the media while whispered about in the halls of State Legislatures and pubs and homes all across America. America’s most pressing and sorely-needed third rail issue is the total defiance and defeat of the Two-Party System which controls both sides of the aisle and ensures tyranny over us all. We could debate ad nauseam the pet issues which divide us ― but at the end of the day, we will only win token battles while losing the campaign for Freedom. . . .

It is generally controversial to bring up any such maverick movement or rogue player in defiance of the Republican and Democratic parties. The truth is there is nothing “rogue” about a hand-picked, politically-groomed candidate like Sarah Palin or Barack Obama. They are just as genuine or real like the Disney stars and pop singers who fill our airwaves with carefully selected marketing and group psychology.

He concludes the lengthy article with a call to action:

The Liberty Coalition is specifically designed to attract Americans from the Left and the Right who are willing to put minor issues aside in order to fight for the crucial issues facing our tattered and beaten Republic. We have four points of unity on the issues of debt, war, banks and civil liberties.

This coalition will run candidates regardless of registered party affiliation, if any. It will downplay the party for the sake of the political integrity of the candidate. Such candidates must espouse our points of Liberty as their main talking points on the campaign trail. There will be no ambiguity as to where the candidate stands or what they will do once in office.

The Liberty Coalition will not become a separate registered third party; but an alliance of third-party-minded Americans who want to work outside the Two-Party turkey shoot. It will endorse any Libertarian, Progressive, Liberal or Conservative who can agree to primarily promote our Four Points of Unity.

Read the whole thing. 

TPID: Interview with Darcy Richardson (Update)

My three-part interview with Darcy Richardson can now be found in its entirety at Third Party and Independent Daily.  In Part I, Darcy describes his political career and, in the process, provides a short history of the Consumer Party. In Part II, he talks about campaign strategy and describes Farid Khavar's remarkable biography.  And finally, in Part III, Darcy gives a rundown of Khavari's economic proposals for the state of Florida, discusses the difficulties of overcoming mainstream media bias against third party and independent candidates, and gives his thoughts on the general outlook for independent and third party politics this year and beyond.

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.

Pirate Party Endorses at least Six Candidates Nationwide

Following my recent post on the Pirate Party's criticism of the Senate's efforts to create an internet "blacklist," and get its foot in the door on the censorship of online content, a commenter at IPR inquired whether the Pirate Party is endorsing any candidates for office this year.  From what I've been able to determine, the US Pirate Party has endorsed at least two candidates for US House nationwide, while the Pirate Party of Oklahoma has endorsed two candidates for US House and two candidates for state representative in the Sooner State.  Michael Meo is the Pacific Green Party candidate in Oregon's 3rd Congressional District.  Of his political experience, Meo writes in part:

My work in politics is connected with the Pacific Green Party of Oregon.  I've served since 2008 as elected co-chair of the State Co-ordinating Committee of the Party, and since 2009 as Executive Director of its Portland Metro Chapter.  I was nominated and ran for the US House of Representatives 3rd District seat two years ago, and am running for the second time this year.

The US Pirate Party endorsed Meo over the summer.  In their press release announcing the endorsement, we read:

Michael Meo attended the meeting on July, 13, 2010 of the United States Pirate Party. During the meeting, he was asked if he will support our party's platform, including personal privacy, government transparency, and copyright and patent reform. He said, "All of those things I agree with and will support."

He also explained that "Only with open availability of information, such as is only possible with Net Neutrality, can we obtain and enforce the accountability of both public officials and the Green Party."

During the meeting, Meo vehemently insisted that he would take no donations from any committee. In regards to donations from lobbyists, he stated, "Lobbyists are
only allowed to give me information, but not any emolument."

Michael Meo is a refreshing change from the trite political rhetoric that is far too prevalent these days. The Pirate Party asks that its members and supporters in the 3rd Congressional District of Oregon eagerly support this exemplary candidate.

The Pirate Party also appears to have endorsed Stephen Collings, the Libertarian Party candidate for US House in Tennessee's 5th Congressional District.  Collings describes himself as a 26 year old electrical engineer from Nashville, TN.  On his website, he writes:

Look at the last ten years. We've seen power swing all the way from one side of the aisle to the other. No matter which party won, we didn't get any of those things. The federal budget is still unbalanced, and getting worse every year. The financial sector is still behaving in the exact way that caused the original collapse and recession. Massive trade deficits are sucking manufacturing jobs out of the country at a time we need them the most. Health care costs are completely ignored, in favor of ideological struggles over universal coverage. Illegal immigrants and drugs pour into our country, while our guns and money fuel a Mexican civil war. And yet we re-elect the same people, year after year. 

Introducing visitors to his stances on no less than thirty different issues, Collings writes:

I am a member of the Libertarian Party, and have been endorsed by the Pirate Party. However, my campaign platform differs from that of either party on a number of issues. I am always more interested in finding practical solutions than in any ideology.

Unfortunately, I have not been able to find any confirmation of this endorsement at the Pirate Party's website.  However, it may have gone missing when the site was completely revamped earlier this year.  Emails sent to Renee Schroeder and Brittany Phelps at the USPP regarding Pirate Party endorsements went unanswered as of this writing. 

The Pirate Party of Oklahoma may be the most active state chapter of the USPP in the entire country, judging from its web presence and activity.  Earlier this month, the PPOK announced that it had endorsed four candidates for elected office in the Sooner State: two candidates for US House and two candidates for State Representative.  From the announcement at the party's blog:

After reviewing all the replies we received to our endorsement survey, the Pirate Party of Oklahoma is very happy to announce our support and endorsement of the following candidates running for office in Oklahoma. We urge you to click on each candidates name and review their responses to our survey:

• Angelia O’Dell, Independent / Libertarian, US Congress – District 1
• Clark Duffe, Independent / Libertarian, US Congress – District 5
• Edward Shadid, Independent / Green, State Representative – District 85
• Zachary Knight, Independent / Libertarian, State Representative – District 46

We feel very strongly that these candidates best represent the values the Pirate Party is fighting for, and that they will do whatever it takes to protect the privacy rights of all Oklahomans, that they will execute their office with full transparency, that they will fight to make Oklahoma a better democracy, and that they will push for copyright and patent reform. We urge all Oklahomans to take a closer look at these candidates and to consider them as your next elected official come November.

The endorsements appear to mirror the national party's affinity for Green and Libertarian candidates, which is not surprising given the Pirate platform.

TPID: Interview with Darcy Richardson

In a series of posts this week at Third Party and Independent Daily, I'll be publishing a lengthy interview with Darcy Richardson.  Darcy is a veteran independent political activist, a historian of the third party and independent political tradition in the United States, and an Independent candidate for Lieutenant Governor of Florida, running on the gubernatorial ticket of economist and author Farid Khavari.  He is perhaps most well known for his his multi-volume history of third party and independent politics in the United States, entitled Others, as well as for his numerous articles on historical and contemporary political underdogs, many of which can be found at Uncovered Politics, a political news and opinion website he co-founded by earlier this year.  Less well-known, however, is Darcy's long career of independent political activism.  In the first part of the interview, which I just published today, Darcy talks about his decision to join Khavari's gubernatorial ticket and his previous political experiences as both candidate and activist.  In the process, he provides a short history of the Citizens and Consumer Party from 1979 to 1987.  

Want to return to first principles and Constitutional government? Stop voting for Republicans and Democrats

Via the Hankster's weekend news roundup comes a link to a commentary in the Houston Chronicle by Bill King calling on independent voters to elect independent candidates who refuse to pledge allegiance to some factional interest group such as the Democrats or Republicans.  King writes:

Today the political parties enjoy a quasi-legal status. Their role in the electoral process is memorialized in federal and state election law and candidates in most states are allowed to identify their party affiliation on the official ballot. The "two-party system" is a standard subject in high school civics classes almost as if it is enshrined in the Constitution. But it was not so at the birth of our republic. . . . 

George Washington was quite pointed on his views on the subject, frequently criticizing any association with political parties. He saved his strongest condemnation of political parties for his famous farewell address, which was published in 1796 on the eve of his retirement from the presidency. . . . For the normally gentle-spoken Washington, his words are blunt even by today's standards . . . "they (political parties) are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government," . . . We may have to add "prophet" to Washington's accolades. And just in case you have not gotten his drift yet: "... the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it." . . . 

King concludes:

Washington must be rolling over in his grave today as politicians from both sides adamantly defend the highly partisan political life we now endure. Many argue that the parties are an essential element of the American political system to justify their quasi-legal status. Sorry, but our Founding Fathers disagreed and so do I.

We need more independents who claim no loyalty to any political party. Currently about one-third of us identify ourselves as independents and the number has been steadily growing for the last few years. Perhaps if the number continues to grow we can start electing some independent office-holders who will put their country, states and communities before a slavish devotion to a party platform.

The Democratic-Republican two-party state and duopoly system of government represents a threat to constitutional, democratic-republican, representative government in the United States. So long as you continue to support Republicans and Democrats, you remain part of the problem.  Declare your independence. 

Pirate Party: With proposed blacklists, Senate has its "foot in the door" on internet censorship

In yesterday's update on the national security police state and surveillance society, I noted that S.3804, a bipartisan bill aimed supposedly at "combating online infringement and counterfeits," represents a threat to freedom of speech online and would conceivably provide the government with the authority to target and censor groups such the US Pirate Party.  I contacted Marcus Kessler from the Pirate Party of Oklahoma and asked him for his response to the fact that this bill could result in the censorship of the Pirate Party's website.  Via email, he writes:

I honestly would not be surprised if the websites of the Pirate Parties would be some of the first sites that get taken offline due to this bill. If we take a look at the various "Internet Black Lists" that are used by numerous countries around the world, we find that many of sites listed do not fit the stated purpose of the list. In addition these lists are often the proverbial foot in the door, and once a system is put in place more criteria for inclusion are added. For example, after the passage of Germany's Internet Blacklist targeting child pornography, multiple groups started a push to include violent video games, online gambling, and political dissent as criteria for inclusion.

Even if this bill only blocks sites based on Infringement, this definition alone could be easily used as a justification to shut down the web presence of private competitors and political opponents. A perfect example would be the current gubernatorial race in Ohio where a political ad was taken off YouTube under a DMCA notice arguing infringing use, despite the fact that the use of copyrighted material falls under fair use. If the current DMCA laws are sufficient to remove a political ad from the internet, then it is very reasonable to believe that COICA [i.e. S.3804] can and will be used to silence political opponents. We hope that our politicians follow their own criticism of countries such as China when it comes to promoting open access to information for citizens and realize that without the free flow of  information, we cannot have democracy.

Thanks for your response Marcus!  Check out the Pirate Party's website.

The National Security Police State and the Surveillance Society: Another Look at the Bipartisan War on Rights, Liberties and the Rule of Law

When one opposes the Democratic-Republican party's bipartisan consensus in favor of expanding the police state and surveillance society, the most common response is a totalitarian cliche: "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to be afraid of."  In other words, the presumption of Democrats and Republicans is that the exercise of inalienable rights, such as those guaranteed by the fourth and fifth amendments, is in-and-of-itself a dubious or suspicious activity.  The great irony and hypocrisy, of course, is that many of the individuals who hold such opinions regarding the activities of their fellow citizens are quick to give the state and its agents the benefit of the doubt when they engage in even the most obvious and egregious abuses of their authority.  In the name of security, we are expected to acquiesce in the face of even the most outrageous infringements of our privacy and the security of our persons, houses, papers and effects, but we are also expected to acquiesce when the government hides behind the state secrets privilege to guard against even a fleeting glance at its assassination programs or its torture regime, for instance. 

Over the course of the last decade, under the Bush administration, the FBI as well as police departments all over the country systematically conducted improper and illegal investigations and surveillance of numerous peaceful activist groups across the country.  Yet, the response is not to reign in lawless agencies and departments, but rather to provide them with even more expansive powers.  The Obama administration wants to ensure that there is no communication that can take place outside the purview of the state's prying eyes and ears.  Glenn Greenwald writes:

the Obama administration will propose new legislation to mandate that the U.S. Government have access to all forms of communications, "including encrypted e-mail transmitters like BlackBerry, social networking Web sites like Facebook and software that allows direct 'peer to peer' messaging like Skype."  In other words, the U.S. Government is taking exactly the position of the UAE and the Saudis:  no communications are permitted to be beyond the surveillance reach of U.S. authorities.

Similarly, the state wants to be able to track every single electronic money transfer into and out of the country.  From the Washington Post:

The Obama administration wants to require U.S. banks to report all electronic money transfers into and out of the country, a dramatic expansion in efforts to counter terrorist financing and money laundering.

If any administration were in fact interested in countering terrorist financing and money laundering, they might rather begin by investigating their friends in the banking cartels and holding them accountable for their crimes.  But that is likely too much to ask.  From Polizeros:

Wachovia pays $160 million fine for money-laundering $420 billion in drug money. Avoids criminal prosecutions.  Western Union pays $94 million fine over money-laundering assumed drug and human smuggling money. Avoids criminal prosecutions. . . . Excuse me? $420 billion in money laundering and no one is going to prison? If this happened in a third world country we would snicker about what a corrupt, inept, useless system of justice they have. . . .

From a follow-up post at Polizeros:

HSBC USA in money laundering probe . . . of course there will be no criminal prosecutions. Gasp, that would be bad for the markets. So, it’ll be a a slap-on-the-wrist fine for HSBC and little will change.  This is what happened with Western Union, Wells Fargo and Bank of America too. Those banks were accused of laundering money for the drug cartels, paid a fine, yet no one went to prison. . . . The fix is in. But the feds do have the capacity to regulate and punish. However, they are choosing not to. In this the Obama Administration is no different from the Bush Administration.

The corporate connection to the unending expansion of the national security police state and surveillance society is too important to be overlooked.  Last month it was reported that "van-mounted body scanners" are being purchased in large quantities by law enforcement agencies across the country.  As reported by the US Pirate Party:

News of the mobile scanners has alarmed civil libertarians who worry the technology could be used to violate people's privacy without legal justification.  "If they are in fact being used on public streets, that would be a major violation of the Constitution," writes Jay Stanley of the ACLU's Technology and Liberty program. "In fact, it's hard to believe that any counsel at any government agency would sign off on allowing these vans to be used in that way."

The vice president of marketing for the company that sells the equipment, however, doesn't appear to see things that way: 

AS&E's vice president of marketing, Joe Reiss, said US law enforcement agencies have also bought the machines "to search for vehicle-based bombs in the US," Greenberg reports. . . . Reiss says his company's machines are not as intrusive as the body scanners being used in airports. He told Forbes' Greenberg that the machines can't reproduce images of people's faces and bodies as clearly as airport machines.  “From a privacy standpoint, I am hard-pressed to see what the concern or objection could be," he said.  [Emphasis added.] 

And thus we return to the old totalitarian cliche: if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to be afraid of.  We can see just how insidious the expansion of the national security police state and surveillance society is.  Every single encroachment upon rights, liberties and the rule of law erodes the opposition to further encroachments.  "We've already got highly intrusive body scanners in airports, what's the harm in deploying them on the streets, or at your place of work, or outside your home?" they ask, rhetorically.  Mary Starrett of the Constitution Party is an outspoken opponent of airport body scanners.  Earlier this year, she wrote:

X rays zapping us at airports and government buildings across the country and getting under our skin . . . are being touted as another small step toward a more secure America. In truth, they represent a giant leap toward slavery . . . Full Body Scanning is unreasonable as it presupposes guilt and ignores the aspect of our law that requires a warrant for searches. This full frontal assault on the Constitution aside, “backscatter” x rays could be a health risk. . . . As if the Constitutional and health aspects weren’t enough to scare the pants off us, consider the frightening prospect for millions of law abiding citizens should President Obama’s pick for TSA chief, former FBI agent Erroll Southers get the job. Southers is on record as saying it’s not Muslim terrorists who warrant closer scrutiny but “anti-government,”“anti-abortion,” “survivalist types” who are “Christian identity oriented.”

How long will it be before anyone who holds opinions outside the Democratic-Republican Party's zone of consensus and permissible disagreement will essentially be considered worthy of "scrutiny" if not outright censorship?  In truth, we likely reached that point some time ago.  Corporate interests backing expansive anti-counterfeiting efforts recognized the effectiveness of anti-terror and national security arguments to garner support for their preferred laws years ago.  From a report earlier this summer:

For decades, there's been a brisk global trade in illegally dubbed movies, knockoff apparel and other intellectual property (IP) theft. But what is changing, according to law enforcement officials and industry experts, is who is running these enterprises. Increasingly, it is terrorist organizations and organized crime groups. "Terrorist organizations are very similar to any other criminal organization. They need to earn money," said Jim Dinkins, director of the office of investigations at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, part of the Department of Homeland Security.

It is no surprise that there is strong bipartisan support for a new bill that supposedly seeks to "combat online infringement and counterfeits."  As is typical of legislation with bipartisan support from Democrats and Republicans, the bill represents a threat to fundamental rights and liberties, in this case, the freedom of speech.  If passed in its current form, the bill could likely result in significant censorship of the internet and provide the government with the authority to target and censor groups such as the US Pirate Party.  From the Electronic Frontier Foundation:

The "Combating Online Infringements and Counterfeits Act" (COICA) is an Internet censorship bill which is rapidly making its way through the Senate. Although it is ostensibly focused on copyright infringement, an enormous amount of noninfringing content, including political and other speech, could disappear off the Web if it passes . . .

The bill creates two blacklists of censored domains. The first is longer, and includes any sites where the DOJ decides that infringement is "central" to the purpose of the site. The bill gives ISPs and registrars strong legal incentives to censor the domains on that list. The Attorney General can also ask a court to put sites on a second, shorter blacklist; ISPs and registrars are required by law to censor those sites.

If this bill passes, the list of targets could conceivably include hosting websites such as Dropbox, MediaFire and Rapidshare; MP3 blogs and mashup/remix music sites like SoundCloud, MashupTown and Hype Machine ; and sites that discuss and make the controversial political and intellectual case for piracy, like pirate-party.us.  [Emphasis added.]

The so-called "war on terror" continues to be a highly effective cover for the war on rights, liberties and the rule of law being prosecuted by the Democratic-Republican two-party state and ruling corporate-political class.  Do you feel any safer?

Do you think Democrats are "liberal" or that Republicans are "libertarian"? I have a bridge to sell you

One of the more inexplicable aspects of progressive support for the Democratic party is that so many progressives readily understand the fact that the Democratic party's values and agenda are diametrically opposed to those of progressives.  And the same point can be made regarding conservative support for the Republican party.  Contrary to the primal myths promulgated by Democrats and Republicans themselves, the Democratic party is not liberal and the GOP is not conservative.  How could they be?  Their values and agendas are almost entirely reactionary and reflexively corporatist in character.  At My South End, Shirley Kressel (MA) makes the progressive case against a Democratic governor:

Is a vote for [incumbent Democratic governor] Deval Patrick really a step forward for progressive values? In 2006, Patrick was lofted to victory by liberals, hungry for clean government, a fair economy and social justice. As soon as he won, he told the Boston Globe that the biggest misconception about him is that he is a liberal. [Emphasis added.]  The Globe reported that Patrick vowed to work with business leaders, seeking to "shake his liberal label and govern as a pro-business centrist." And he has. Now, on four of the most important issues for progressives, Deval Patrick stands with the conservative camp.

He supports the charter school movement, whose goals are union-busting and privatization of public education.

Through various quasi-public authorities and councils, he has given away billions of dollars to private companies in tax breaks, land deals and deregulation, as did his Republican predecessors, and as would his conservative challengers.

He accepted Romney’s health insurance strategy - forcing every everyone to buy from an insurance industry (Baker’s) that gobbles up 15% of the state’s health care money, and blocking a single-payer "Medicare-for-all" system with a 3-4% administrative cost.

He supports gambling as a route to economic development, ignoring the economic and social devastation it has created in other states.

Third, and most important: This race is about more than filling the governor’s office. Our society has taken a dramatic shift to the right over the last 30 years, as corporate interests have hijacked our democracy. The notion that government should be run like a business, for business, and ultimately by business, has prevailed, eroding the concept of the public domain. Both the Democrat and Republican parties have been captured, and they’ve lost sight of the public interest.

The misconception that Democrats are liberals is likely just as common as the misconception that Republicans are libertarian.  If you support Democrats because they supposedly stand for liberal values or if you support Republicans because they allegedly stand for libertarian values, send me an email, I have a bridge to sell you. 

Structure, Tyranny and the Tea Party Movement

In an article at CAIVN, Bob Morris of Polizeros discusses the importance decision-making processes and organizational structures play in the development of any politically-minded group from a small circle of friends or like-minded individuals into a larger association that is not based on pre-existing social relationships.  In the process, Bob provides a quick rundown of an apparently classic work on the subject from 1971 by Jo Freeman, entitled The Tyranny of Structurelessness:

Her major points are 1) In the absence of formal structure, informal friendship structures will take over and will be used by a few to grab power because there's nothing to stop them from doing so. 2) Unstructured groups aren't effective in getting things done. Someone needs to be in charge and give directions with an assumption the work will get done. Otherwise it's like herding cats. 3) What makes some small groups highly effective cannot be duplicated in larger groups. Again, the processes do not scale. New processes, structures, and approaches are needed. 4) "The only groups that can organize a national activity are nationally organized groups." Sounds obvious, doesn't it? But unstructured groups sometimes think they can have a national impact. Not so.

Her thoughts on how to effectively organize a democratically structured organization or party are 1) delegate authority specifically and democratically, 2) require authority to be responsible to those who choose them (that's "require", not "ask"), 3) distribute authority among as many as possible, 4) rotate tasks often, 5) allocate tasks rationally, 6) diffuse information quickly, 7) give everyone equal access to resources.  To do this, the organization needs to . . . 

Read the whole thing.  Many of today's tea party activists and groups are well-known for their pride in the fact that the tea party movement has no overarching organizational superstructure.  Perhaps, more than anything else, it was this antipathy to a centralized form that allowed the movement to be so easily hijacked by supporters and partisans of the Republican party.  Understandably, the inclination toward radical decentralization was seen as a condition of political independence, but it paradoxically left the disparate groups across the country open to attack and infiltration by more efficiently structured and centralized organizations, in this case the GOP, which has significantly undermined, if not completely destroyed, the tea party movement's political independence.  So long as tea party groups allow themselves to be held hostage by the Republican party and the ideology of the two-party state, they will be neither free nor independent, and all their efforts will be in vain.  They will simply repeat the mistakes of the anti-war movement, which was hijacked by the Democratic party and then quietly put to death once the Democrats returned to power.

You're the Dog that Gets Beat: Declare Your Independence from the Two-Party Charade

In response to the liberal Democratic blogosphere's almost unanimous derision of Thomas Friedman's Sunday article suggesting a strong third party presidential candidate in 2012, Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight today argues that the "odds against a third party bid are not as long as they seem."  He writes:

I suspect these analysts are being too dismissive of the possibility of a “serious” third-party run of some kind in 2012, and that Mr. Friedman’s prediction has a reasonable possibility of coming true.

Silver then goes on to provide no less than fifteen reasons in support of his position, and emphasizes four of them:

Voters have extremely low opinions of both major parties — much lower than in the period from 1992-1994, when electoral constituencies were being re-shuffled and when Mr. Perot lost his bid. . . . The Republicans might field a particularly polarizing presidential nominee. Sarah Palin, in particular, were she to be nominated, might have trouble achieving 50 percent of the vote, even if Barack Obama were still fairly unpopular. . . .  There is one major issue — the national debt — that neither party has much credibility on. A candidate who presented a “serious” plan to balance the budget could possibly gain traction that way. . . . The Citizens’ United decision makes it easier for a third-party candidate to raise large sums of money from corporations.

In addition to the fifteen points provided by Silver, one could add many more.  It is also worth mentioning that, though the discussion here revolves specifically around the prospects of a third party presidential candidate, many of the factors that would create a hospitable environment for a strong third party presidential candidate would do the same for third party and independent candidates at the Congressional, state and local levels.

It is no surprise that the liberal Democratic blogosphere would overreact in such a fashion to Friedman's article.  Friedman himself is despised among this contingent, often with good reason.  More importantly, however, Democrats are among the least independent thinkers and voters of any partisan or ideological bloc in the United States.  They are most likely to believe all or most of what they see or read in any news source and they are least likely to consider voting for an independent or third party candidate for any office.  Faced with the record of the current Democratic legislative majority and presidential administration (not to mention those of the past), these duopolist dead-enders still think the answer is "more and better Democrats."  They really do believe, against all the evidence, that the Democratic Party stands for something other than the consolidation of power in the hands of political and economic elites and the expansion of the global warfare and corporate welfare state.  They are like badly abused dogs, and in this they resemble nothing so much as die-hard partisans of the GOP: no matter how many times they are driven out to the middle of nowhere and left for dead, they always happily limp their way back home to the party, wagging their tails in the false expectation that, this time, they will not receive yet another beating.

Fortunately, not all folks who would lean toward the Democrats are so deluded by the ideology that sustains the two-party state.  At Counterpunch, Richard Anderson-Connolly has composed "A Voter's Manifesto" aimed specifically at "rejecting the lesser-of-two-evils trap."  The piece begins:

Our climate of anger, disgust, and helplessness has produced three quite different exhortations regarding the election in November. All are understandable yet ultimately inadequate because they fail to recognize that the current economic disaster is nothing but the logical culmination of a political sickness rooted in the two-party system itself. If the objective is to prevent corporate rule then the most reasonable strategy in November is to cast a vote for a multiparty democracy. Other approaches merely tinker with the imminent expiry of what remains of American Democracy.

He makes a strong case for voting reform and supporting third party and independent candidates, and concludes:

we must reject the trap of the lesser-of-two-evils. Democrats are moving us toward corporate rule just as surely as the Republicans. If two cars are both driving toward a collapsed bridge one should hardly be excited about getting inside the vehicle that is traveling more slowly. Democrats who refuse to see the magnitude of the oncoming crisis, or who see it but do nothing to reverse course, have no moral claim to our votes.

We can make sense of our times only be recognizing that the root of our problem is a two-party system that has been completely captured by the economic elite. The solution will not be found by picking the best choice among the available options but rather by transforming the system into a genuine multiparty democracy. Therefore a vote in November for candidates who support voting reform is the most reasonable strategy for preventing corporate rule and for renewing our democracy.

On the issue of voting reform, see also David L. Wetzell's new article, "Toward a Winner-Doesn't-Take-All Electoral System."

The Politics of Independence: a Nietzschean Interpretation of the Two-Party State

At The Think 3 Institute, Sam Wilson considers the possibility of "a Nietzschean interpretation of American politics."  The occasion is an op-ed for the Sunday Times Union by Jack Bronston, a former state senator from New York City.  Bronston argues that we must be careful not to fall prey to the form of resentment famously described and derided by German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche in the late nineteenth century.  Bronston writes:

One hundred years later, we can observe this potent combination of resentment, hatred and morality -- a feeling around the world that the helplessness of the average person in the face of events and economic forces is the product of immoral forces which undervalue and victimize that person. The modern politician understands very well how to play this card.

Sam provides a short summary of the theory of morality in Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals, and then engages Bronston, writing:

Bronston wants to oppose ressentiment to some simple idea of rationality, or some acknowledgement that opportunities still exist for free people, but the correct opposite to Nietzchean ressentiment is that pre-morality that exalts the strong and despises whatever falls short. Only libertarianism, perhaps, comes anywhere close to that dubious ideal, and I don't think that's what Bronston wants for America or the world.

On this score, I have to disagree with Sam, not regarding Bronston, but rather Nietzsche.  One can make a strong case that the "correct opposite to Nietzschean ressentiment" is not a return to pre-morality, i.e. the master morality of ancient Greece, Rome or Germania.  Arguably, such a return would be impossible if only because of the advent of a morality based on the distinction between evil and good as opposed to good and bad.  One might rather posit that, on Nietzsche's view, the best corrective to a morality of ressentiment is the drive toward a post-morality, or even immorality, as indicated in the title of the work that directly preceded the Genealogy of Morals, namely, Beyond Good and Evil. 

But what would a thoroughgoing Nietzschean interpretation of American politics look like?  In the current context, the question would be how to get beyond the form of political moralism that underpins the two-party state.  On the basis of the Genealogy of Morals, can one not develop a fairly strong critique of lesser-evilism, for instance?  I've relied on Nietzsche before in my critique of the reactionary character of Democratic-Republican party politics, but maybe it would be interesting to take that line of thought a step or two further.  One of the simplest ways to distinguish between the two primary modes of morality delineated by Nietzsche in the above work is simply to note that so-called "master morality" is active and affirmative, whereas "slave morality" is negative and reactive.  The former is based on the master's primary affirmation of himself and his mode of action as good, with the side-result that anything which is unlike him is considered bad.  The primary judgment that forms the basis of the slave morality, on the other hand, does not have anything to do with the slave himself. Rather it is a negative judgment of the master, and the judgment is that the master is evil.  From this it follows that, since he is unlike the master, the slave is good.

With that, do we not have the most concise formula of Democratic-Republican party politics?  Is not ressentiment the very basis of Democratic-Republican party politics, just as it is of Nietzsche's slave morality?  The partisans of the Democratic and Republican parties do not argue that we should support their candidates because they are good.  Their primary argument is not even that their candidates are worth actively supporting.  Indeed, truthful Democrats and Republicans, when they can be found, will even come right out and admit that their candidates are not any good; yet they still make the case that these candidates are worthy of support.  And we all know how they do so: they argue that we should support their candidates because the other party's candidates are evil!  Today, even the president and vice president can be found articulating a variant of this argument when they rhetorically urge disaffected liberals and Democrats to "consider the alternative."  To their credit, many Democrats and Republicans have enough intellectual integrity not to conclude that their candidates are good from the assertion that the other duopoly party's candidates are evil.  They are content asserting that they represent the lesser evil.  But how much longer can we possibly endure a politics that provides nothing more than a choice between admitted evils?  But what is the alternative?

There is only one real alternative to the negative and reactive politics of the Democratic-Republican two-party state.  And that is an active and affirmative politics of independence, liberated from the mental, ideological and institutional prison that has been imposed upon us by the ruling corporate-political class and their representatives in the Democratic and Republican parties.

Third Party Strategy and the Cult of the Executive

There are a ton of articles and commentaries today discussing the possibility and necessity of a third party movement to confront the bipolar disorder of the reigning two-party state.  A commentary out of Georgia notes that Libertarians are "polling higher than ever," and argues that "the third party road is a tough one, but voters should have the option."  The Massachusetts Metro West News reports that there are a record number of independent candidates for office in the state this year.  At The Huffington Post, Charles Ellison argues there is a potential for moderate former Republicans to spearhead a third party movement.  And finally, Thomas Friedman sees a "Third Party Rising" in his New York Times column today.  In discussions of third party and independent politics, mainstream journalists tend to consult political scientists in order to regurgitate the conventional wisdom that maintains the structures of power that support the Democratic-Republican two-party state and buoy the ruling corporate-political class.  To his credit, Friedman finds a political scientist who is willing to speak the truth about the tyranny of Democratic-Republican party government:

“We basically have two bankrupt parties bankrupting the country,” said the Stanford University political scientist Larry Diamond. Indeed, our two-party system is ossified; it lacks integrity and creativity and any sense of courage or high-aspiration in confronting our problems. We simply will not be able to do the things we need to do as a country to move forward “with all the vested interests that have accrued around these two parties,” added Diamond. “They cannot think about the overall public good and the longer term anymore because both parties are trapped in short-term, zero-sum calculations,” where each one’s gains are seen as the other’s losses.

Friedman then proceeds to call for a third party movement to bust the Democratic-Republican party's monopoly on political power:

We have to rip open this two-party duopoly and have it challenged by a serious third party that will talk about education reform, without worrying about offending unions; financial reform, without worrying about losing donations from Wall Street; corporate tax reductions to stimulate jobs, without worrying about offending the far left; energy and climate reform, without worrying about offending the far right and coal-state Democrats; and proper health care reform, without worrying about offending insurers and drug companies. “If competition is good for our economy,” asks Diamond, “why isn’t it good for our politics?”

Interestingly, it is liberal Democrats who have responded most vocally, and critically, to Friedman's piece, arguing that were it not for the evil Republicans, the Democrats would have already succeeded in providing everyone in America with their very own "pony."  (I use the latter term so that Democrats themselves are capable of understanding this point; as this word has become something of a technical term among Democratic thinkers and strategists, it also provides us with some amount of insight into the level of thought common among liberal Democrats.)  See Memeorandum for an overview of the discussion.  Steven Taylor responds with a post entitled "Silly Third Party Musings."   Steve Benen writes at Washington Monthly:

To hear Friedman tell it, this mystery party is, in effect, needed to pass a bolder, more sweeping version of the Democratic agenda. Why not just elect more and better Democrats to make that possible? Friedman doesn't say.

Finally, a third Democratic Steve, Steve M. of No More Mister Nice Blog, writes in a similar vein:

If Tom Friedman knows how a centrist third party, even one run by a guy who's richer than God, can wave a magic wand and make Fox News/fat cat propaganda and demagoguery just go away, or at least render it unable to drive (and ultimately monopolize) the debate, I wish he'd explain a subsequent column.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this general response is what it reveals about the partisan Democrat's mindset.  Like their Republican counterparts, Democrats are true believers.  They really do think the Democratic Party stands for something other than the consolidation of power in the hands of the ruling corporate-political class, and the expansion of the global warfare and corporate welfare state.  If it didn't represent a serious threat to our rights, liberties and the rule of law, such political naivety might be considered charmingly quaint.  And the same might be said of Friedman's commentary as well.  While I obviously agree that the Democratic and Republican parties are enemies of constitutional government and represent interests that are diametrically opposed to those of the people of the United States, Friedman is a member of the cult of the executive, a proponent of the imperial presidency, a representative of the messianic impulse common to Democratic-Republican party government.  His discussion of third party politics focuses entirely on the presidency.  He writes:

Barring a transformation of the Democratic and Republican Parties, there is going to be a serious third party candidate in 2012, with a serious political movement behind him or her — one definitely big enough to impact the election’s outcome.

The fetishistic obsession with presidential politics is a lingering sign of Friedman's continued dependency upon the ideology of the two-party state.  As I've written before:

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!

Perhaps the greatest benefit of a third party or independent presidency would be its demonstration of the relative impotence of the president, as Democrats and Republican lawmakers banded together in opposition to to a leader who represented a real threat to the reigning party government and ruling political class.  On the other hand, would it not be highly ironic to see a third party or independent president consolidate all the powers that Democratic and Republican lawmakers have ceded to the executive in creating the imperial presidency, and wield that power against them?

NY: The Green-Libertarian Alliance Against the Two-Party State and Duopoly System of Government

This week, the Libertarian and Green party candidates for governor in New York held a joint press conference in the state capital of Albany to demand inclusive debates in the run-up to the November election and to call out the leaders of the Democratic and Republican parties for their abject failure to represent the interests of the people of the United States.  Sam Wilson writes at the Think 3 Institute:

Seeing themselves as the truly independent alternative parties, as opposed to such pretenders as the Conservative and Working Families parties, Greens and Libertarians have often taken a principled stand in favor of easier ballot access and equal participation in candidate debates for both parties, as well as other independents . . .

In Albany yesterday, Redlich [L] and Hawkins [G] challenged the imperative of ideological solidarity that sustains the Bipolarchy by each denouncing both Cuomo [D] and Paladino [R]. Simply by doing so, they prove the necessity they assert for their inclusion in any gubernatorial debates; "left," as defined by Cuomo, and "right," as defined by Paladino, are not the only options for New York . . .

We may perceive Greens and Libertarians as standing further apart from each other than Democrats and Republicans, but that's only when we plot them on a fictional left-right axis. If the two insurgent parties, and others with them, can find a common alternative language for articulating their principled differences while transcending the polarizing left-right paradigm, they might do their country a great service regardless of which one wins a big election first.

Here at Poli-Tea I have long been a proponent of a Green-Libertarian electoral and political alliance to confront the undemocratic and anti-republican character of the Democratic-Republican two-party state and duopoly system of government.  A Progressive-Libertarian Electoral Alliance is a PLEA for political sanity against the mechanical and mindless reproduction of the misrule we have come to expect from the ruling parties.