Democratic Challengers or Third Party Alternatives?
In the construction of a debate there are three basic elements. One is a resolution in which a given statement is made that defines the parameters and issues covered in the debate. The others are simply the affirmative position supporting the resolution and the negative position rebutting the resolution and its defense. The case being presented might be stated as a resolution in the following manner: " Resolved: Increasing primary candidates in the Democratic primaries will produce a significant change in the campaigns' political discourse that will alter or change the political agenda in the election."
OpEdNews has worked tirelessly to get progressives to engage in the political struggle through elections within the Democratic Party. They have witnessed, as we all have, the deterioration of political opposition in the United States and the repeated violations of the Constitution. There does stand an organization that has already been created to change the Democratic Party from within, the Progressive Democrats of America. Based on that it is fair to ask whether it is truly just a matter of running candidates in the Democratic primaries, or whether there is a more substantive question that lies underneath. Why have there not been more significant voices raised when such an overwhelming majority of the American people stand opposed to the war in Iraq? Why is climate change and peak oil not addressed as a priority by the public officials in the US to an extent needed to address the science that has been put forward? Why are progressives so marginalized in campaigns and fail to come forward with significant constituencies capable of making an impact?
Maybe because it fails to examine the unstated premises of the resolution: that the Democratic Party is capable of being the agent for change in America and that the progressive agenda is a vibrant trend that is capable of exercising influence in the political arena in the electoral process. Does this make me on the negative side of the resolution? I would have to say so. No debate can proceed without agreement on the definitions and I for one cannot agree either that the Democratic Party is capable of presenting significant policy changes and structural reforms before the American people or that the Democratic primary system and candidates lie at the root of the failure to redefine the opposition in a manner to make it more relevant to the American people.
As a Green since 1992, I have engaged in organizing and supporting candidates in a third party challenge that has had to confront numerous efforts to marginalize Green opposition from Democratic progressives by attempting to restrict ballot access, and oppose needed reforms to open up a wider range of perspectives in the political debate. Many Greens whom I have associated with in the past changed their registration and former Green candidates went as far as to urge a cross-over in the Democratic primary in 2004 for Dennis Kucinich. Many Democrats who supported the Green candidacy of Ralph Nader in 2000 fell prey to the Anybody But Bush campaign by the Democratic Party and concluded that they were really the culprits responsible for electing G.W. Bush as a result of the massive campaign from 2000-2004 to isolate the Green Party and funnel opposition into the Democratic Party.
In 2008 there are primaries in every Congressional District in which qualified candidates can make their case within the Democratic Party. It is truly the case that it is not my job to try and do their work for them. Cynthia McKinney's announcement for the Green Party Presidential nomination is an expression of the narrowness of the debate within the Democratic Party and an affirmation of a viable, alternative strategy for change. Cindy Sheehan gave up her initial effort to engage Nancy Pelosi from within the Democratic Party. Like Ralph Nader, she did so not out of some martyr complex but simply as a concrete result of the repeated failure of the Democratic Party and its supporters and voters to propose options for reform and change. The debate is to find a strategy and an agenda capable of pulling together a new coalition of voter blocs that can successfully challenge the defenders of the status quo. Cynthia, Cindy and Ralph have dared to walk outside the boundaries that others defined for them. The message may resonate with many, but the actors have not yet integrated leadership with direction and agenda, policy with public appeal or strategy with organization.
If I were to write the resolution for the debate in a manner in which I could support the affirmative it would be: Resolved: "Political opposition in America needs to be redefined and re-integrated into the American mainstream by establishing and building political parties and forms of opposition that can effectively address the peoples' grievances, needs and concerns and develop a new agenda and strategies." The growth of advocacy groups and non-profits have de-politicized the major social issues of our day and obstructed the ability to present the case through political organization that can define itself and its priorities based on its constituencies. They have made organizers into activists, redefined political issues into cultural matters, prioritized direct action over electoral work and have directed policy and reform debates to die at the hands of the duopoly parties. In education, funding issues gave way to diversity curriculum; in foreign policy, Constitutional inadequacies were disregarded in favor of promoting the Democrats' wars over the Republican ones; and in health care minimalism replaced a comprehensive approach.
At this point a swing vote for a third party presents a more significant challenge to the current business as usual than do Democratic Party primaries. The DNC has used the stick against independents and Greens in an effort to marginalize their election impact. The challenges of state Democratic Parties have sought to limit the scope of policy debates and restrict ballot access. There is also a primary worth noting within the Green Party for the Presidential nomination that includes Cynthia McKinney, Elaine Brown, Jared Ball, Kat Swift, Jesse Johnson and possibly Ralph Nader.
It is good to center the political movement for change in the electoral arena. Democrats need to recognize the real odds of changing the role of the Democratic Party on the Iraq war, Executive power, defending the Bill of Rights and impeachment, as well as Republicans need to recognize the impact of Republican policies on Constitutional law, education, healthcare, foreign policy and energy transition. Those Democrats who come forward in the primaries can provide a voice in the internal debate. But as demonstrated by Dennis Kucinich's actions at the Democratic convention, the impact will be minimized and is clearly established to maintain the status quo and not to change the conduct of elected officials.
You remain addicted to the current political system which totally prevents true political competition. This two-party controlled system is nothing but a criminal conspiracy. Third party candidates cannot win important elections because the system is rigged against them. Only effective systemic political reforms achieved through constitutional amendments will create a trustworthy system that justifies voting in it. So please seriously examine our effort at www.foavc.org and become a member.
by
Joel S. Hirschhorn (126 articles, 31 quicklinks, 58 diaries, 508 comments)
on Monday, December 17, 2007 at 5:36:56 PM
A Constitutional Convention is a Viable Option for Change
Here is a post I made on an elist the same day as this article.
The US invasion and occupation of Iraq is one more act in the history of the Presidency that has demonstrated that the current powers of the Executive Branh of the US Government is not consistent with the Consitution. This evolution towards a Unity Executive has taken place during both Republican and Democratic administrations and represents the singular aspect of Constitutional law that needs to be addressed through a Constitutional amendment or a Constitutional convention. The discussion when it is focused solely on Afghanistan or Iraq fails to distinguish or define political objectives that present solutions to this usurpation of power. Impeachment of Cheney and Bush represents an avenue of redress more than a Constitutional remedy, but it is a provision of the Constitution that establishes authority for the Congress to act decisively. This would be step one.
Step two would be to begin to establish state powers and policies that provide them with the capacity to act within their own powers and authorities. The formation of civilian emergency response and fire corps in state establishes the needed manpower to replace the functions that are currently under the jurisdiction of the National Guard. There are sufficient examples to demonstrate that current deployments overseas undermine the states' ability to respond to emergencies and allocate needed manpower. Current US military deployments are heavily dependent on state units of the National Guard. Governors have been concerned for some time at the impact of deployments regarding the need for responses to natural disasters.
Regarding political solutions within Iraq, there is nothing that the US can do that will prove anymore helpful than the efforts of Britain and France after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire. It is inaccurate to say that the US has been promoting a breakup of the Iraqi state. It is inaccurate to say that the conflict between Shi'a and Sunni do not predate US invasion and occupation. It is inaccurate to say that Kurdish national aspirations are based solely on US occupation. It is also inaccurate to obscure and disregard the active roles of the governments of Turkey, Iran and Syria in the region. There should be NO U.S. alliance with the governments of these nations and all military aid to Turkey should be halted. Within the United Nations the issue of the indigenous nation of Kurdistan needs to be addressed. There is no political solution within the region that does not acknowlege the fundamental right of self-determination of the Kurdish peoples. US and British reparations should be disbursed to the regional capitals that function adminstratively for the various groups- that is Irbil, Basra and Baghdad.
Non-intervention is a policy that has been addressed directing by the former Libertarian candidate for President Harry Browne with a proposed Constituional amendment that is worth supporting.
The language reads: "Section 1. The United States shall be at war only after a declaration of war, naming the specific enemy nations, is approved by the President and by a two-thirds vote of the eligible members in both houses of Congress.
Section 2. The members of the House of Representatives and the Senate eligible to vote on a declaration of war are those who are between the ages of 18 and 35, or who have children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren between those ages.
Section 3. In the absence of a Congressional declaration of war, the President may deploy the military to repel an armed invasion of the United States, but may not deploy troops or engage in hostilities outside the United States.
Section 4. The United States shall enter into no treaty with any nation or organization if such treaty could oblige the United States to be at war without a declaration of war by Congress, and the United States shall not be bound to engage in war by any action taken by any organization of which they are a member.
Section 5. Except in time of war, as specified in Section 1, the United States will provide no weapons or other resources to foreign governments, will engage in no military action outside the borders of the United States, and shall deploy no military personnel or weapons outside the boundaries of the United States except that at any one time up to one thousand members of the military may be outside the United States for no longer than thirty days.
Section 6. Upon any violation of this article by the President, Congress shall institute impeachment proceedings within 14 days.
The Dems aren't screwing up, they're doing their job.
The Dem party behaves as if it has a deal with the GOP. Don't rock the boat, and pretend to be an opposition party, and keep new political parties locked out, and you can keep all those safe congressional and state legislative districts. We all get to share power with each other, as long as we prevent anybody else from getting any.
Look at it in that light, and suddenly the Dems' behavior makes perfect sense. They can "cave" on every issue that matters, and they're really not caving at all. They can run "progressive Democrats" like Larry Agran (remember him, cropped out of the Dem primary by the New York Times?) and Kucinich until the cows come home, as long as they never let them have any real power.
Kucinich has a special role. He makes it seem as if the Dems tolerate, and even listen to, internal dissent. But he's walled off like a tuberculosis node, neutralized.
This isn't a conspiracy theory. There is no conspiracy. Nobody ever got together in a smoke filled room and discussed this deal. All it takes is for the relevant individuals to know what they can get away with and what would be career limiting. Kucinich can "call for" ending the war all he wants, as long as after the primary he falls in behind whatever corporate-controlled warmonger the Dems elect. Kucinich knows where the line is, that he'll get the Cynthia McKinney treatment if he crosses.
Once you understand this deal, it's a lot easier to make rational decisions about "progressive Democrats" versus new political party candidates.
by
clsgis (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments)
on Wednesday, December 19, 2007 at 2:08:39 PM
3 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
