![]() |
By Martin Zehr (about the author) Page 2 of 2 page(s)
First, people need to grasp the futility of avoiding the issue and the failure of alternative strategies. Political parties require active leadership, mass support and financial resources that have long been directed to other forms of organization. For all the good that has been accomplished, we would be advised to review the existing allocation of time, energy and resources. The options are like buckets without bottoms: you could pour water in them for eternity and never fill the bucket.
Looking back at 2000 and 2004, we saw people come forward with efforts to avoid the issue of duopoly power by trying to devise campaigns that were based on vote trading or "safe-states". The obvious weakness in this approach is that there is no way of evaluating its success. There are only the results and they have resulted in losses in both presidential campaigns. In spite of ABB, the Republicans continueD to win. In spite of lesser-evil strategies, the greater evil continues to do what it needs to in order to claim victory. Like focusing the vote on a few, select "progressive" candidates, "safe-states" has already proved its uselessness. It is a loser because it still seeks to keep the basic playing field the same. Even when the Democrats do win, as in 2006, there is no accompanying agenda for change that has been mandated by the voters. If anything, the Democrats remain "lost in the 60's" and unable to project a new vision of America that will rally voters.
Some groups, like the Democratic Leadership Council, Progressive Democrats of America and the Christian Coalition have sought to influence the two-parties internally through allocation of funds and support of candidates. These groups both were structured on pre-conceived agendas and constituencies that had demonstrated some degree of stability in electoral politics. Their position, even in the most favorable of times, is to be a minority within the parties. The premise that ideological driven PACs will one day take priority over corporate contributors, without significant changes made first, is not one that stands the reality test in electoral politics. The fact is that their existence works against opening up the system of representation by continuing to provide a mechanism for the two-parties to raid nascent forms of political organization in primaries for their own benefit. The Kucinich and Robertson campaigns are examples of the sociology of how the two parties drive the sheep into the fold.
The existence of NGOs and advocacy groups is another example of how the activists have consciously sought to negate the political character of political organization. Instead, these groups seek to litigate, legislate and endorse duopoly candidates that meet their criteria. This is not politics at all. This is nothing less then the splintering of allies and an avoidance of the issue of political power. In parliamentary systems of government there are divergent parties that are accorded their proportional representation. These parties have distinct agendas and constituencies. Alliances are formalized as needed. This helps to provide third parties with the leverage needed for enactment of desired policies and appointments at the Cabinet level that ensure implementation of desired policies.
Efforts in the US at fusion, such as the New Party, or Green-PDA coalitions are just another expression of the lack of basic democratic rights needed to empower constituencies. Where they are formalized they represent essentially nothing more then a short-term ideologically driven support for particular candidates. While this may be desirable at times, there is no way to guarantee the platform and agenda of the candidate once he or/she is elected. After all, broken promises would hardly be a new phenomenon. Also, many of the efforts at fusion that have been made have sought to avoid existing channels of leadership. This only undermines both the source of the demands and the capability of either side deliver the goods, even if elected.
There is no substitute to winning elections through a third party. There is no shortcut to change. The lesson being what is known from the first step into politics: "Power concedes nothing without a struggle." Frederick Douglass.
1 | 2
Martin Zehr is an American political writer in the San Francisco area. He spent 8 years working as a volunteer water planner for the Middle Rio Grande region. http://www.waterassembly.org
His (more...)
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
View Authors' Articles |
| 3 comments |
Want to post your own comment on this Article?
|
||||
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |