On the Necessity of a State-Level Electoral Reform Movement

From Miles Townes at The Violence of Nations:

The problem is that our electoral system is biased towards a two-party system. Plurality voting and single-member districts are as much of a guarantee of bipolarity as you’ll get from an electoral system . . .  a national-level fix to national institutions would be rather difficult. However, one of the quirks of our system is that lots of responsibility for national-level institutions is left to the States.  In particular, the Constitution in Article 1, sect. 4 says this: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.” . . .

The principle goal of a state-centric reform movement would be to lower the bar for political parties to enter races. We like to vilify political parties, but they are absolutely necessary to a functioning democracy. No voter has the time or intellect to learn enough about the set of candidates they are expected to vote for each election season; parties provide a handy identifier, greatly reducing the cognitive burden on the voter. The real problem is that we have only two parties, and those parties are extremely broad . . .

A state-level electoral reform movement – focusing only on making the machinery more representative, more democratic (little ‘d’) – would not only appeal to the existing third-parties, but would not necessarily require reform-minded members of the other two parties to abandon their tribal loyalties. Nor should these reforms be limited to Federal offices; they could apply all the way down to city dogcatcher. At its best, such a movement would be a genuinely trans-partisan, Americans-united-together effort to make our government work better.

Read the whole thing.  

Poll: 72% May Consider Voting for an Independent or Third Party Candidate for President

From a new poll by Reason-Rupe:

The latest Reason-Rupe poll results reveal a potential opportunity for a third-party presidential candidate. Seventy two percent of Americans say they would or might consider voting for a third-party presidential candidate, while 48 percent of Americans say they would support a presidential candidate who was “conservative on economic issues and liberal on social issues.” Eighteen percent of Americans said they would strongly support such a candidate, and this is presuming the candidate ran under the banner of a third party. Finally, 37 percent of Americans said they would consider voting for a third-party Tea Party candidate if she or he entered the race against President Barack Obama and the Republican nominee in 2012. These are significant chunks of the population willing to consider and potentially vote for a non-conventional candidate.

Several factors are likely driving this support for non-conventional presidential candidates.
First, there is overwhelming evidence that the American electorate breaks down into more than just simple liberal or conservative blocs. ABC News analyst Matthew Dowd finds that 51 percent of Americans do not fit into conventional liberal or conservative buckets. Gallup finds that at least 44 percent of Americans do not fit this mold. The Reason-Rupe poll also finds that 44 percent do not fit this conventional division. These numbers suggest that traditional Democratic or Republican presidential candidates may not represent the political views of nearly half of all American voters . . .

Huntsman as Independent Candidate for President?

An op-ed from LZ Granderson at CNN bemoans the forced choice between the Democrats and Republicans, and argues that John Huntsman should run as an Independent candidate for president in 2012:

Primaries have an assortment of personalities to sort through early on, but at the end of the day, the general election often forces us into a this-or-that, the lesser-of-two-evils scenario. . . .

Huntsman's showing a bit more personality now, and he is unveiling a jobs package ahead of Obama and Mitt Romney. But the reality is, it doesn't matter. He effectively eliminated his chances of making conservatives swoon, and thus winning the GOP nomination, when he tweeted that he believes in evolution and global warming.

But in closing the GOP door, he opened the independent window. It would seem that if Huntsman is still serious about being the next president of the United States, then instead of trying to win over the social conservatives who never liked him anyway, he should reboot his campaign and run as an independent . . .

When voters are forced between what they believe is right for the country and their civil rights or the civil rights of others they're not really weighing legislative options, they're deciding which limb to cut off . . .

Like Perot I don't know if Huntsman is the best person for the job, but what I do know is compare his on-the-job performance with the rest of field, and you will see he is not out of his league.  He's just playing for the wrong team.

Some might question whether it is already too late for someone like Huntsman to pull an Independent campaign together for the 2012 election, securing ballot access across the country etc.  However, as we all know, Americans Elect is already working to gain ballot access in all 50 states.  So the question becomes: can someone like Huntsman win the Americans Elect direct primary?

Abolish the Department of Homeland Security

The National Security Police State is a threat to constitutional government.  From the Los Angeles Times:

A decade after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, federal and state governments are spending about $75 billion a year on domestic security, setting up sophisticated radio networks, upgrading emergency medical response equipment, installing surveillance cameras and bombproof walls, and outfitting airport screeners to detect an ever-evolving list of mobile explosives.

But how effective has that 10-year spending spree been?

"The number of people worldwide who are killed by Muslim-type terrorists, Al Qaeda wannabes, is maybe a few hundred outside of war zones. It's basically the same number of people who die drowning in the bathtub each year," said John Mueller, an Ohio State University professor who has written extensively about the balance between threat and expenditures in fighting terrorism. . . .

Like the military-industrial complex that became a permanent and powerful part of the American landscape during the Cold War, the vast network of Homeland Security spyware, concrete barricades and high-tech identity screening is here to stay. The Department of Homeland Security, a collection of agencies ranging from border control to airport security sewn quickly together after Sept. 11, is the third-largest Cabinet department and — with almost no lawmaker willing to render the U.S. less prepared for a terrorist attack — one of those least to fall victim to budget cuts.

The expensive and time-consuming screening now routine for passengers at airport boarding gates has detected plenty of knives, loaded guns and other contraband, but it has never identified a terrorist who was about to board a plane. 

Run For Your Lives!

Goaded by the professional hysterics in the corporate media, New York City is in full crisis mode ahead of hurricane Irene.  But if there is any group of people who are less reliable than political prognosticators, it is weather forecasters. 

Polling a Three-Way Presidential Contest

Public Policy Polling has released the results of a survey gauging support for particular third party Independent candidates in next year's presidential election.   Excerpt:

we took a look at seven possible independent candidates against Obama and his strongest GOP challenger, Mitt Romney, and found that the chances of defection by GOP-inclined voters are stronger than are cracks in the Democrats’ armor. Despite their grumbling, Democrats remain pretty united behind Obama, and six of the seven possible independent candidates would hurt Romney more than the president. 

The seven potential Independent candidates mentioned in the survey were: Michael Bloomberg, Jon Huntsman, Ralph Nader, Sarah Palin, Ron Paul, Bernie Sanders, and Donald Trump.  Bloomberg (10%), Palin (21%), Paul (15%) and Trump (18%) broke through to double digits.  You have to be careful with PPP surveys though because their samples always skew toward the Democrats and Republicans.  While most polls these days find that 40% of their respondents identify themselves as Independents, only 21% of the respondents to this survey were Independents.

Poll: 57% of Voters Want a Third Major Party

From an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by Douglas Schoen and Patrick Caddell.  Excerpt:

The United States is in the midst of what we would both call a prerevolutionary moment, and there is widespread support for fundamental change in the system. An increasing number of Americans are now searching beyond the two parties for bold and effective leadership. . . .

What's more, a poll of 1,000 Americans conducted by Douglas E. Schoen LLC in April found that a solid majority of Americans are now looking for alternatives to the two-party system. Overall, a majority (57%) of all respondents said there is a need for a third party.

More than half (51%) of voters favored having a third major political party. Nearly one-third (31%) said that having a third major party in our country is very important. Voters favored having a major third party run a candidate for president in 2012 58%-13%—with one in five saying they were absolutely certain or very likely to vote for a third-party candidate.

In line with these findings, 52% of all respondents in a May Gallup poll said there is a need for a third party, and for the first time in Gallup's history, a majority of Republicans embraced the idea. In a June Rasmussen poll, 30% of respondents said they would consider voting for a third-party candidate for president in 2012.

Action Alert: Pressure the Pollsters

From today's column at CAIVN:

Four contenders for the GOP's presidential nomination are polling competitively with President Obama among registered voters, according to a new Gallup poll.  How do potential Independent or third party presidential hopefuls match up against the candidates of the major parties?  We don't know, because the pollsters never ask.

The new survey, published on Monday, asked just over 1000 registered voters how they would cast their ballots if the 2012 presidential election were held today, matching up the President against four potential rivals from the Republican Party's primary field: Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann.

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney ran at the head of the pack, closely edging out the President 48% to 46%.  Texas Governor Rick Perry polled evenly with the President 47% to 47%.  President Obama had a narrow edge over Texas Rep. Ron Paul 47% to 45%, while outpolling Minnesota Rep. Michelle Bachmann by a more comfortable margin 48% to 44%.  All four results were within the poll's margin of error of +/- 4%.

While Republican and Democratic respondents dutifully fell out along partisan lines, supporting their own by massive margins, Independent opinion more closely resembled the larger sample.  Interestingly, however, among Independents three of the four Republicans outpolled the president.  Once again, Mitt Romney led the pack.  Independents preferred the former Massachusetts governor to President Obama 47% to 44%.  Ron Paul was also more popular than the President among Independents.  The longtime Texas Congressman came out in front of Obama by three percentage points, 46% to 43%.  The margin between Obama and Perry was slightly tighter, though Independents still preferred the Texas governor to the incumbent, 46% to 44%.  The only Republican whom Independents did not prefer over the President was Michelle Bachmann, who garnered just 42% support to the president's 48%.

Unfortunately, the survey did not ask respondents if they would have preferred an Independent or third party candidate to any of the the representatives of the major parties, despite the fact that a majority of Americans consistently tell pollsters they would consider voting for an Independent or third party candidate for President.  Indeed, a Gallup poll from May found that 52% of all respondents and 68% of Independents said that the Democrats and Republicans do such a poor job representing the American people that the country needs a third major party.

Perhaps one might object, in defense of the pollster, that there are no high profile Independent or third party presidential hopefuls who have definitively thrown their hats into the political ring.  But has that ever stopped a pollster before when it comes to gauging support for Democrats and Republicans?  Like many other polling organizations, Gallup routinely measures support for the President against a "generic" rival from the other major party.  As Gallup's report on the most recent survey states, the organization has already conducted six surveys this year asking respondents whether they would be more likely to vote for Barack Obama or "the Republican Party's candidate for president" in 2012.
If polling organizations were to find that there is signficant support for an Independent candidate for President, even a generic one, it could very well change the shape of the race, and lead individuals who are considering an Independent run to take the leap.  Isn't it time that polling organizations begin measuring support for alternatives to the Democrats and Republicans, especially given the historic levels of frustration and discontent with the major parties?

There are more Independents in the United States today than there are Democrats or Republicans.  Shouldn't the Independent option get a fair shake in the polls?  Back in April, Ryan Jaroncyk composed a template letter for Independents to send to Gallup urging them to "conduct more regular surveys regarding the option of a third party presidential candidate in 2012, as well as a third major party in national politics at large." Why not consider dropping them a message?

Stasiology and the Two-Party State

'Stasiology' is likely one of the least known terms in contemporary political science.  Indeed, the term does not appear anywhere on Wikipedia, and a Google web search returns less than 6,000 hits.  And no, it does not refer to the study of the old East German Ministry of State Security.  Stasiology is the study of political parties.  According to an article in the Journal of Politics from 1957, the term was coined in 1951 by the influential French sociologist Maurice Duverger in his early work Political Parties.  One of the few online dictionaries that contains the word, the Free Dictionary, defines 'analytical stasiology' as "an attempt, through the construction of conceptual frameworks, to develop a science of political parties."

The etymology of the term is worthy of consideration.  It is derived from the ancient Greek word for faction, 'στάσις' [i.e. stasis], which denoted "a standing still."  The Greek στάσις is also the origin of the English word 'stasis,' which is defined as a state of inactivity or of equilibrium in which opposing forces cancel one another out.  For the ancient Greeks, the term did not have a positive connotation.  In his History of the Peloponesian War, Thucydides identifies stasis as a severe internal disturbance in both individuals and states.  Wikipedia defines the term as it was used in the context of ancient Greek political history.

Stasis is a term in Greek political history. It refers to the constant feuds between aristocrats in archaic Greece, struggling about who is the best (aristos is Greek for "the best") both in terms of prestige and property. It led to various civil wars and the establishment of tyrannies in many cities of ancient Greece, most notably the Tyranny of Peisistratos in Athens.

In Of Myth, Life and War in Plato's Republic, Claudia Baracchi emphasizes the term's negative valence.  She writes in a footnote:

Notice that the Greek word for faction στάσις [i.e. stasis] suggests that sedition is a matter of taking a stand, of a position that comes to be rigidly, statically maintained.  Faction thus constitutes a block in the moving order of the πόλις [i.e. polis], an obstruction of the movement of gravitation around the πόλις [i.e. polis] . . . Socrates uses the word στάσις [i.e. stasis] also to indicate division, disorder, and conflict . . .

Given this etymology, it becomes easier to understand why the founding fathers, who were steeped in the classics, were so profoundly suspicious and skeptical of parties and faction.  At the same time, it may also shed light on the fact that the term appears not to be in wide usage despite the many studies of the history, structure and organization of political parties that have been published in the last sixty years: the term reflects poorly on the very notion of party, which does not jive especially well with the deep intellectual and ideological investment in the maintenance and reproduction of the two-party state common among American political scientists.

Despite the almost universal consensus that the party organization is an integral component of modern politics and government, it is surprising to learn that this sub-field of political science is not particularly well-developed.  Indeed, it did not even have a name until the middle of the 20th century!  Scholars have yet to even agree on a working definition of stasiology's primary object of study, the political party.  In Comparative Politics, published in 1982 by J.C. Johari, the author writes:

The progress that has been made in the study of political parties has been attained despite continued inability to resolve a number of key conceptual problems.  Most prominent among these are – how to define a party, how to classify or categorize parties and party systems, how to conceptualize the environment or context within which a party functions including the operation and impact of a party and the interaction between it and its environment.  The surprising development in this regard is that, despite all these difficulties, students are engaged in making an empirical study of party politics with the aim of refining the discipline of stasiology.

Over the last thirty years, the students of political science do not appear to have made much progress in resolving these key conceptual problems despite their empirical efforts.  Consider the following course description for a graduate seminar on American Political Parties which begins this week at the University of Georgia School of Public and International Affairs.  Professor Audrey Haynes writes:

Because political parties have played a central role in American politics since shortly after the beginnings of the Republic, the study of political parties has long been a key sub-field of American politics.  The exact specification of what should be encompassed in this sub-field, though, is a subject of dispute because of alternative conceptions of what political parties are . . . [Emphasis added.]

Haynes proposes an ad hoc definition for the course itself:

While we will discuss the many conceptualizations of political party, for organizational and pedagogical purposes, in this course, we will consider the party a tripartite entity – a coalition of voters (party in the electorate), a coalition of political leaders (party in government), and an organization of activists (party organization) separated from its other parts.  And at times we will think of political party as the sum of all its parts.

Needless to say, the course places great emphasis on the American Political Science Association's "Report of the Committee on Political Parties," which has served to indoctrinate generations of political scientists into the ideology of the two-party state since the document was originally published in 1950.  The syllabus also contains an extensive bibliography if you are interested in checking out any of the scholarly literature in the field.  

Though researchers in the field of stasiology have yet to agree even on a definition of the object of their study, Thucydides provided us with a thick description of the most extreme effects of faction and stasis almost 2500 years ago.  A lengthy excerpt from the discourse on stasis in Book III of The History of the Pelopennesian War:

"Words had to change their ordinary meaning and to take that which was now given them. Reckless audacity came to be considered the courage of a loyal ally; prudent hesitation, specious cowardice; moderation was held to be a cloak for unmanliness; ability to see all sides of a question, inaptness to act on any. Frantic violence became the attribute of manliness; cautious plotting, a justifiable means of self-defence. The advocate of extreme measures was always trustworthy; his opponent a man to be suspected. To succeed in a plot was to have a shrewd head, to divine a plot a still shrewder; but to try to provide against having to do either was to break up your party and to be afraid of your adversaries. In fine, to forestall an intending criminal, or to suggest the idea of a crime where it was wanting, was equally commended until even blood became a weaker tie than party, from the superior readiness of those united by the latter to dare everything without reserve; for such associations had not in view the blessings derivable from established institutions but were formed by ambition for their overthrow; and the confidence of their members in each other rested less on any religious sanction than upon complicity in crime.

"The fair proposals of an adversary were met with jealous precautions by the stronger of the two, and not with a generous confidence. Revenge also was held of more account than self-preservation. Oaths of reconciliation, being only proffered on either side to meet an immediate difficulty, only held good so long as no other weapon was at hand; but when opportunity offered, he who first ventured to seize it and to take his enemy off his guard, thought this perfidious vengeance sweeter than an open one, since, considerations of safety apart, success by treachery won him the palm of superior intelligence. Indeed it is generally the case that men are readier to call rogues clever than simpletons honest, and are as ashamed of being the second as they are proud of being the first. The cause of all these evils was the lust for power arising from greed and ambition; and from these passions proceeded the violence of parties once engaged in contention.

"The leaders in the cities, each provided with the fairest professions, on the one side with the cry of political equality of the people, on the other of a moderate aristocracy, sought prizes for themselves in those public interests which they pretended to cherish, and, recoiling from no means in their struggles for ascendancy engaged in the direst excesses; in their acts of vengeance they went to even greater lengths, not stopping at what justice or the good of the state demanded, but making the party caprice of the moment their only standard, and invoking with equal readiness the condemnation of an unjust verdict or the authority of the strong arm to glut the animosities of the hour. Thus religion was in honour with neither party; but the use of fair phrases to arrive at guilty ends was in high reputation. Meanwhile the moderate part of the citizens perished between the two, either for not joining in the quarrel, or because envy would not suffer them to escape.

"Thus every form of iniquity took root in the Hellenic countries by reason of the troubles. The ancient simplicity into which honour so largely entered was laughed down and disappeared; and society became divided into camps in which no man trusted his fellow. To put an end to this, there was neither promise to be depended upon, nor oath that could command respect; but all parties dwelling rather in their calculation upon the hopelessness of a permanent state of things, were more intent upon self-defence than capable of confidence. In this contest the blunter wits were most successful. Apprehensive of their own deficiencies and of the cleverness of their antagonists, they feared to be worsted in debate and to be surprised by the combinations of their more versatile opponents, and so at once boldly had recourse to action: while their adversaries, arrogantly thinking that they should know in time, and that it was unnecessary to secure by action what policy afforded, often fell victims to their want of precaution.

"Meanwhile Corcyra gave the first example of most of the crimes alluded to; of the reprisals exacted by the governed who had never experienced equitable treatment or indeed aught but insolence from their rulers — when their hour came; of the iniquitous resolves of those who desired to get rid of their accustomed poverty, and ardently coveted their neighbours’ goods; and lastly, of the savage and pitiless excesses into which men who had begun the struggle, not in a class but in a party spirit, were hurried by their ungovernable passions. In the confusion into which life was now thrown in the cities, human nature, always rebelling against the law and now its master, gladly showed itself ungoverned in passion, above respect for justice, and the enemy of all superiority; since revenge would not have been set above religion, and gain above justice, had it not been for the fatal power of envy. Indeed men too often take upon themselves in the prosecution of their revenge to set the example of doing away with those general laws to which all alike can look for salvation in adversity, instead of allowing them to subsist against the day of danger when their aid may be required."

The Third (Straw) Man and the Art of Controversy

When the apologists of the two-party state and duopoly system of government confront advocates of third party and independent politics, one of their most common strategies is to set up a third party straw man.  The straw man fallacy is one of the most common rhetorical sleights of hand employed in our political discourse.  Instead of confronting an argument head on, and directly refuting it point by point, the speaker misrepresents the position he is arguing against, and then refutes the misrepresentation without ever addressing the actual point(s) of contention.  In his Eristical Dialectics, widely known as The Art of Controversy, Arthur Schopenhauer likens this stratagem to a diversion:

This trick consists in stating a false syllogism. Your opponent makes a proposition, and by false inference and distortion of his ideas you force from it other propositions which it does not contain and he does not in the least mean; nay, which are absurd or dangerous. It then looks as if his proposition gave rise to others which are inconsistent either with themselves or with some acknowledged truth, and so it appears to be indirectly refuted. This is the diversion, and it is another application of the fallacy non causae ut causae.

We find this strategy at work in an opinion piece for North Carolina's Times-News Online by Stephen Black.  Typically, a rhetorical sleight of hand is cleverly hidden within an argument or discourse.  Surprisingly, however, Black's argumentative strategy is effectively announced in the very title of the article: "Third-party miracle workers? Yeah, right."  Try as I might, I have yet to find a single article on the internet in which a third party or independent advocate asserts that third party or independent politicians are capable of performing supernatural acts, though this position is imputed to them on a fairly regular basis by the apologists of the Democratic and Republican parties.  Black writes:

We need a third political party, the columnists and talking heads shriek.  Yes, friends, it is the cry of the desperate once again. Let us have a third party made up of members of the same human race that has bollixed things up so hopelessly in the past.  Oh, but these third-party members will be different. Somehow. They won't be tempted by booze, sex, money and power like those Democrats and Republicans.

These third-party boys and girls will be decent and idealistic, unlike the Democrats and Republicans. The third party will be made up of members with no thought of being re-elected or rewarded like the Democrats and Republicans. Their only goal is to steer America into a problem-free future. No recession. No racial issues. No war. Only peace and prosperity.  In other words, third-party members won't be human with the same nature as Democrats and Republicans.  Let us visit Mars. Perhaps we can find some creatures on that planet who resemble third-party members . . .

Politicians, believe it or not, are ordinary human beings. Third-party politicians would have to be, if not Martians, then angels. They would have to be if they are to be different from the regular two-party politicians.

So, the argument here is that supporters of alternatives to the Democrats and Republicans believe that third party and independent politicians would be superhuman representatives capable of resolving the problems of war and peace, racism and discrimination, wealth and poverty, and so on, by mouthing the proper incantations and waving the magical political wand.  Of course, this argument is completely absurd, which is why it is a straw man.  Ironically, however, it may well be that there is an element of projection at work here as well.  Is this not precisely how Democrats and Republicans portray their own favored candidates?  Is this not the foundational belief for the Republican Church of Ronald Reagan, the Democratic mythology of Camelot, and the Cults of George Bush and Barack Obama? 

The difference between a third party or independent representative on the one hand, and a Democrat or Republican on the other, is not ontological.  It is political!  And that is the point.  An Independent politician will not be able to magically resolve the wars abroad.  But he or she would likely forward a position that is excluded from our discourse by the Democratic-Republican party duopoly.  An Independent politician will not be able to magically solve the nation's economic problems.  But he or she would be able to address them from a position that is not hobbled by the ideological orthodoxies of the major parties.  And so on.  The election of third party and independent candidates to the US Congress, state legislatures and local councils would not automatically result in the passage of landmark legislation.  But it would change the balance and relations of power in those institutions, while providing a voice for those who are unrepresented by the Democratic and Republican parties. 

Aside from his specious arguments against third party and independent political advocacy, the commentator above provides only one argument in favor of supporting the two-party system.  Actually, 'argument' is probably too charitable a term, since the claim is another fallacy, namely, the appeal to tradition.  Another excerpt, now from the conclusion:

We the people must understand that the two-party system made up of saints and sinners and every which way in-between is a system that has worked in the past. . . . We the people, however, must learn to instruct our leaders to compromise, not draw lines in the sand. . . . Compromise makes sure that everybody gets something. That is healthy government. . . . We the people who are deeply concerned about our nation can change our government for the better. We must, however, utilize the two-party system and the politicians we already have. We do not need to usher in a new system or another party. To believe this will change the direction our government is heading is merely sticking our heads in the sand.

The appeal to tradition – i.e. we must stick with the two-party system for all time because it worked at some point in the past and is the system we are stuck with in the present – is a fallacy because it rests on the denial of circumstantial, situational, historical, political and social change.  A bipolar, two-party state is literally incapable of representing the myriad interests that make up a diverse, multi-polar society like the United States today.  Arguably, the majority of Americans go without representation in government, whether adequate or inadequate.  To believe that doubling down on the Republican and Democratic parties will change the direction our country is headed is to stick one's head in the sand.

The Two-Party System is Like a Supermarket in Communist East Germany . . .

Via Rise of the Center, the Daily Show correspondents explain the two-party system:

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Are You Independent In Name Only?

If you call yourself an Independent, yet continue to vote for Democrats and Republicans, in what sense are you an Independent?  From a letter to the editor of the DesMoines Register:

If there’s blame to be placed for the polarization of American politics, it lies squarely with the independent voters. Like it or not, we have a two-party system, and independents either have to deal with that fact or get involved and try to change it.

If you want more moderate, effective representation, pick a party and engage yourself in the process. Otherwise, the fringe elements of each party will continue to select the candidates you vote for.

If the “moderate middle” truly makes up 70 percent of the electorate, imagine the power that segment of the population has in choosing our candidates or working toward loosening the corporate, two-party grip on our democracy.

Yet independents continue to remain on the sidelines until the general election and then complain about having to choose between “the lesser of two evils” when entering the voting booth — if they vote at all.

— Steve Berry, Des Moines

On the Radar

In the wake of the debt ceiling debacle, the S&P downgrade and continuing volatility in the markets, there seems to have been a sharp uptick in criticism of the two-party state and duopoly system of government.  Here's a small sampling from the Politea News Share in recent days:

• The Globalist: "For the longest time, it was all those other nations, particularly those of the "old world," that were in desperate need of modernization, whereas the ways and means of the United States were ingeniously modern. That long-held presumption is what's changing today. Case in point: the two-party system." 

• The Kansas City Star and the Philadelphia Inquirer: "The Democratic-Republican duopoly now appears bent on alienating as many voters as possible . . .  We've long been comforted by Winston Churchill's assertion that "democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried." But these days, much to our detriment, the duopoly seems to be woefully short of democratic values."

• Op Ed News: "As our elected Republican and Democratic elected officials in Congress become more and more dysfunctional, coupled with a President who appears either bought and paid for or incapable of making any sound decisions, many people among the citizenry are thinking about enlisting a Third Party candidate in hopes of putting the brakes on the downward spiral of our nation."

•Yankton Daily Press and Dakotan: "Perhaps during the 2012 election cycle, America should commemorate the 100th anniversary of the strongest third-party presidential bid in history by rooting for a viable alternative to the two-party monopoly to make a run at the White House.  Impossible, you say? Well, you’re probably right. But if ever an electorate was primed for a third option on their presidential ballots, next year might be it."

• A letter to the Las Vegas Sun: "The only things bigger than our national debt are the egos of the politicians and pundits — and the stock market only reflects the actions of people trying to make a buck without actually working to earn it. Hence the ups and downs. I think our two political parties should be abolished. Everyone running for office should be an independent so he or she can vote for the good of the country, not their parties. If Ron Paul would change to an independent instead of a Republican, I would vote for him in a heartbeat."

Democratic Party Dead-Enders Against Independent Progressivism

Apparently, there is some controversy circulating among dead-enders of the Democratic party in the liberal blogosphere over the fact that an Obama campaign director from New Mexico has taken a couple more shots at what the Obama administration has previously termed the "Professional Left."  An excerpt from Huffington Post:

The Obama campaign's point person in New Mexico recently sent an email to supporters defending the president's position on the debt deal and bashing the Nobel Prize winning New York Times columnist Paul Krugman and the "Firebagger Lefty blogosphere."

'Firebagger' is, of course, a derogatory combination of 'Fire Dog Lake,' the progressive website, and 'tea bagger.'  Jane Hamsher, founder of FDL, responds to the statement made by the director of Obama for America NM, and suspects it is part of a strategy to attract independent voters:

But if this is a brilliant political strategy on the part of OFA, someone is going to have to explain it to me.  I know the goal is to attract the much-prized Independent for 2012.  But who do they think is keeping Obama’s poll numbers afloat?

If Democrat dead-enders such as Hamsher believe the Democratic party prioritizes Independents over dedicated progressive partisans, the appropriate strategic response by progressives should be self-evident.  They should declare their independence from the Democratic party.  Coincidentally, the email from the Obama campaign director in New Mexico was sent just days after the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party passed a resolution calling for a primary challenge against Obama next year, which happened to be the topic of yesterday's column at CAIVN:

The fate of the California Democratic Party's Progressive Caucus remains uncertain following its passage of a resolution calling for a primary challenge to President Obama late last month. . . .

On July 30th, as the White House and Congressional leaders were engaged in last minute negotiations that ended the first round of the debt ceiling debacle, the Executive Board of the California Democratic Party was meeting in Anaheim.  At that meeting, roughly 75 members of the California Democratic Party's Progressive Caucus passed a resolution stating that they would begin exploring the possibility of backing a primary challenge against President Obama for the nomination of the Democratic party in the 2012 presidential election.

The negotiations in Washington DC were clearly on their minds. The resolution criticizes President Obama for "negotiating away Democratic principles to extremist Republicans." At the top of their list of grievances stands the "unilateral closed-door budget offer to slash Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, thus endangering The New Deal and War on Poverty safety nets."  Additionally, the CDP Progressive Caucus resolution decries the Obama administration's "unauthorized wars," its extension of the Bush tax cuts and Patriot Act, its refusal to include a public option in the health care reform act, and the privatization of public education and housing, among other things.

Needless to say, not all members of the CDP's Executive Board agreed with the resolution.  "This was kind of seen to some people as pretty seditious, to others, they completely agreed with it," said Karen Bernal, a delegate in the California Democratic Party and Chair of the Progressive Caucus, in a telephone interview with David Swanson earlier this week.  The response from the leadership of the California Democratic Party was swift.  The Progressive Caucus was singled out and refused recertification at the meeting, even as other caucuses received the routine certifications.  Thus, technically, the California Democratic Party's Progressive Caucus no longer exists, though its status will be reconsidered at an Executive Board meeting this November.

John Burton, the California Democratic Party chair, was clearly not pleased by the measure.  Asked by the San Francisco Chronicle's Politics Blog whether a primary challenge would help the President's chances of reelection, he stated, "F---- no, what is that going to do?"  Burton did not hold back in the interview:  "A lot of people are frustrated about the war. People talk about cutting Social Security and they're not talking about paying for the war. People are frustrated about a ton of stuff," he told Joe Garofoli.  "It's how they feel. There's discontent," he continued. "There's a frustration in the country. Look at the f------ polls. So f---, that's news to somebody?"

For her part, Karen Bernal of the Progressive Caucus does not appear to disagree with Burton's assessment, though her language is less colorful.  As she told David Swanson: "We are simply a reflection of the unhappiness that everyone knows about, we just brought that heat inside . . . it was definitely a strategic decison on our part that this heat out to exist inside the party as well, and that was one of the reasons why," they determined to pass the resolution.

Among those who have been the most vocal in calling for a primary challenge against President Obama from the left is former presidential candidate Ralph Nader.  In an interview with the Daily Caller earlier this month, Nader stated that he has no plans to run for president again, whether as an Independent or a Democratic primary challenger.  However, he predicted that a primary challenge against the president was a veritable certainy in the wake of the debt ceiling debacle.

“What [Obama] did this week is just going to energize that effort . . . I would guess that the chances of there being a challenge to Obama in the primary are almost 100 percent.”

The CDP Progressive Caucus's resolution may well provide a major boost to the effort.  Reporting on the resolution at Democracy for New Mexico, one progressive activist writes:  "Similar questions are being asked right here by members of the Democratic Pary of New Mexico, and I imagine similar concerns are being discussed among Democrats all across the country. I'm not the only one who thinks the horrible handing of the debt ceiling "negotiations" was the straw that broke the camel's back."

One person who is often mentioned as a possible challenger to Obama is Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.  His name tops the list of potential candidates at Stop Hoping, a website devoted to organizing a primary or Independent challenge against the President.  There are likely a great many progressive Democrats who wonder why their party's representatives do not measure up to a dedicated democratic socialist such as Sanders.  The answer is probably quite simple.  Sanders is not a Democrat.  He's an Independent.

Lesser Evilism and the Psychopathology of Political Life

Lesser evilism is a primary component of the bipolar mentality that sustains the failed Republican-Democrat two-party state.  And like the duopoly itself, the lesser-evilist is two-faced.  On the one hand, partisans of the Republican and Democratic parties paint the choice in favor of the lesser evil as pragmatic and realistic.  "Like it or not, we have a two-party system," they are fond of saying.  In a rare moment of honesty, they will admit that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans represent the interests of the American people, they might even state outright that the reigning two-party system is inimical to democracy and republicanism itself, but then in the very next breath they will go on to argue that one side of the duopoly divide is not as dangerous as the other, not as intolerable as the other, not as objectionable as the other.

Despite recognizing the failure of the two-party state, the subject is incapable of liberating him- or herself from the behaviors that reproduce it.  This mentality is akin to a form of political obsessional neurosis insofar as it reveals a "poor ability to adapt to one's environment, an inability to change one's life patterns, and the inability to develop a richer, more complex, more satisfying [political] personality."

On the other hand, we can distinguish this form of lesser evilism from its primary counterpart, which begins not from a more or less pragmatic and realistic appraisal of the two-party state, but rather from an hysterical and psychotic obsession with the party that represents the greater evil for the subject.  A key characteristic of this mentality is the condensation of personal and political anxieties, which are then  projected onto a single figure who comes to represent an existential threat for the subject.  The removal of this threat becomes the primary goal of all political activity, with the result that the subject perceives any alternative as incomparably preferable, thus leading to the embrace of the lesser evil.  We might liken this brand of lesser evilism to a form of obsessional psychosis.  Bush Derangement Syndrome and Obama Derangement Syndrome are common examples of the disorder.  At Salon, Glenn Greenwald provides us with a concise description of the phenomenon:

Every four years, The Other Side is turned into the evil spawn of Adolf Hitler and Osama bin Laden.  Each and every election cycle, each party claims that -- unlike in the past, when Responsible Moderates ruled and the "crazies" and radicals were relegated to the fringes (the Democrats were once the Party of Truman!; Ronald Reagan was a compromising moderate!) -- the other party has now been taken over by the extremists, making it More Dangerous Than Ever Before.  That the Other Side is now ruled by Supreme Evil-Doers means that anything other than full-scale fealty to their defeat is viewed as heresy.  Defeat of the Real Enemy is the only acceptable goal.  Election-time partisan loyalty becomes the ultimate Litmus Test of whether you're on the side of Good: it's the supreme With-Us-or-With-the-Terrorists test, and few are willing to endure the punishments for failing it.  It's an enforcement mechanism for Party loyalty that -- by design -- breeds slavish partisan fealty.

None of this has anything to do with reality.  For as long as I can remember, Republicans -- every election cycle -- have insisted that the Democratic Party has "now become more radical than ever," while Democrats insist that the GOP has now -- for the first time ever! -- been taken over by the extremists.

Together, the neurotic and psychotic lesser evilist form a binary totality not dissimilar from the relation between the masochist and the sadist, and constitute a threat to representative, democratic, republican government.  If you or anyone you know shows signs of neurotic or psychotic lesser evilism, it is most likely an indication of a deeper political imbalance.  Contact an independent political psychologist for consultation immediately.