For years there has been a constant debate concerning the role of Third Parties and whether or not they play an active role in American politics. For the past six years Ralph Nader has been subjected to numerous efforts both legal and through the media to not only discredit his standing as a candidate but to deny him his rights as an American citizen. Mr. Nader has become aware of the limitations of advocacy in the 21st century in America. He has raised the banner of electoral politics not only because the foundations are currently in a financial crunch, but also because the road to power is the only one capable of accomplishing the legislative and structural changes now needed to move America forward.
Standing in opposition to this road have been long-time Democratic stalwarts, Barney Frank and Tom Hayden. They are apparently the designated hit-men for the Democrats when it comes to trying to marginalize third party efforts such as the Greens. Their credentials have established them a base among liberals and new century radicals. They're actions indicate profound hesitation towards an agenda that can implement change in the 21st century.
The situation being what it is there can be no illusion that there is not a potential for either a left of center third party such as the Greens, or a right of center party, such as the Reform or Libertarian Parties. The question is why doesn't it happen?
The two party system is the political paradigm that represents the emerging multi-national corporate state. Its function is to represent corporate interest, not the interests of stakeholders or citizens. As a result there remains a significant body of citizens and residents in the US who are not represented in the decision-making process. The term "marginalization" has long been used to describe people with no voice in the political process. Democracy is determined by the dollar amount that one can contribute to the campaigns of candidates.
This transformation of the two major political parties into contributor-based organizations has resulted in a shift away from traditional constituency groups. Instead, campaigns consist of fund-raising contests in which millions of dollars are put on the table in the pursuit of favorable governmental allocations and regulations for the economic interests of a privileged oligarchy.
As constituency groups (defined simply as voter blocs) disappear in significance, there is an increasing convergence of interest of the two political parties seeking financial support from the same sources. In this context, the platforms and political policies of the two parties are increasingly homogenized. Trade policies, monetary policies, entitlements, the social safety net, foreign policy, and environmental policies become less based on whom the parties are representing, than who is signing the checkbook.
As the power of the two parties and their financial supporters increase, there is less willingness to analyze the circumstances of the body politic, and more of a desire to obfuscate the dynamic that seeks to preserve the prerogatives of the few. To do this, new interpretations of Constitutional law are required and changes are needed in existing language.
THIRD PARTIES MAKE THEIR OWN SPACE
In a survey published in July 2004, the AARP found that 56% of baby boomers (ages 40-57) support a strong third party, see http://www.seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Politics/4-07-20Survey.htm . In recent elections for President in 1992 and in 2000 there has been a third party constituency with representation at the ballot box. Getting 19% of the popular vote in 1992, billionaire candidate H. Ross Perot demonstrated both the limited access to the presidential ballot, by using his own fortune for his campaign, and the constituency that is accessible to third parties. As the candidate for the Reform Party, he is never tied to the description of "having been thought by many to have caused the election of Bill Clinton as President". Getting less then 4% of the vote in 2000, the same can not be said of the Green Party candidate for president, Ralph Nader.
The election of reform Party candidate Jesse Ventura in 1998 as Governor of Minnesota is a demonstration on the state level of the potential of third parties and the electability of third party candidates. The mayoral runoff of Democrat Gavin Newsome against Green Matt Gonzalez demonstrated that third party candidates have their own constituencies that represent very real and present dangers to those vested in the political machines of duopoly-controlled cities and states. New Paltz, New York elected third party mayor, deputy mayor and the majority of the city council. New Mexico's third party candidate for governor in 1992 received 11% of the state vote, and a third party candidate for Congress received 15% in one election and 17% in another.
From this contention has emerged faint but distinct voices of opposition from parties that are not completely focused on constituent-based electoral politics. The Libertarian Party demonstrated itself as a small presence, but a significant force in the Presidential campaign by the willingness of its candidate to raise opposition to the war in Iraq in his campaign. The Reform Party sparked a national debate on the budget deficit in 1992, and gained a vote sufficient to receive matching funds in 1996. "In 1996--for the first time in the 20-year history of public funding--a non-major party Presidential candidate qualified for general election funding before the election. The Commission certified Reform Party nominee Ross Perot as being eligible for roughly $29 million on August 22." http://www.fec.gov/info/arch2.htm .
In 2000, Green Party candidate for President Ralph Nader received 2,882,955 or 2.74% of the total popular vote. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html . A new citizen voice has arisen out of these campaigns and from the local grassroots engagement in Nader's state campaigns. There is no question that four years of the ABB public relations campaign to blame Nader for GW Bush's election produced its desired effects. In 2004, Nader paid the price for his persistence in upholding the right of the American people to vote for the candidate of their choice and insisting on the right of candidates that are qualified to be given ballot access. This, in spite of, numerous efforts to deny him the opportunity to be on the ballot through high priced lawsuits. "Moffett says his group has raised about $100,000 to fight Nader and is relying on pro bono work from lawyers across the country who have contributed up to $2 million worth of labor." http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A26933-2004Aug23
The point is that the new opposition is a real threat to the two parties. The anti-war organizations preferred to remain mute and not make a public display of support for the Libertarian's anti-war position. By abandoning the effort to swing public opinion as an integral part of a Presidential campaign, they essentially justified GW Bush's invasion of Iraq through their silence and acquiescence. The Reform Party was taken out of the picture by Patrick Buchanan by 2000.
In 2006 once again the Democrats emerged from hiding. Unfortunately, they never demonstrated any willingness to unite around a common agenda. They were against the war, but were not for withdrawal. They were silent on Kurdish autonomy and appear falling behind the Iran Study Group simply because it proposes something concrete to them that they have not been able to develop on their own.
POLITICAL POWER IS THE DETERMINING FACTOR
There is a continual effort to circumvent the issue of political representation through parties, especially from those "progressive" centers of power that currently benefit from the status quo. But, even they are unable to successfully accomplish their stated objectives. Some try to be tricky in developing strategies based on cross-party alignments. Some look disdainfully at electoral politics and seek scenarios that have been tried and tested and found lacking despite the best of intentions. The third-party strategy is based on the premise that political power is the determinant factor. And just as many victories of the past have been taken away by those who achieve power subsequently, it is just as true that new alignments of constituencies are capable of redefining the political agenda.
Third Parties Can Prosper When People Get Their Heads Out of
Only by enacting Campaign Finance Reform and turning over the 1896 law that recognises corporations as individuals can we take the corporate candidates out of elections. The corporate politicians will not turn against their benefactors by making changes and enbracing reform so they must be made to do so. As someone that has tried to start a third party I know it's almost impossible. The sad thing is that there is hardly a shade of difference between the two major parties.
I would go so far as to say that it's legalized bribery. From the online dictonary answers.com we have this as a definition of political bribery:
"Politicians receive campaign contributions and other payoffs from powerful corporations or individuals when making choices in the interests of those parties, or in anticipation of favorable policy. However, such a relationship does not meet the legal standards for bribery without evidence of a quid pro quo. See also influence peddling and political corruption."
It is only barely not bribery. So how long before we wake up and change this situation? I guess when everyone in America gets their heads out of their asses.
"The reform that makes all other reforms possible"
by
Timothy V. Gatto (348 articles, 177 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 575 comments)
on Friday, January 5, 2007 at 12:56:51 PM
THERE ARE NO SMALL CHANGES WITHOUT BIGGER CHANGES FIRST
THERE ARE NO SMALL CHANGES WITHOUT BIGGER CHANGES FIRST
The ability of the two party system to dominate is based first and foremost on structural mechanisms built into the system of election law in the US. Around the world parliamentary systems have comfortably adapted to systems of proportional representation without any difficulty. Political parties, once apportioned their number of representatives, are then able to develop distinct policies that represent the needs and concerns of their constituents and advocate on behalf of them. "On November 2, 2004, San Francisco voters made history when they went to the polls and used ranked choice voting (also known as instant runoff voting) to elect seven members of the Board of Supervisors (city council)." http://www.fairvote.org/sf/ Such a giant step in American politics stemmed from the inherent and deliberate inequities of the American political system. Without a willingness on the part of American voters to establish new ground rules in the electoral system, it cannot respond to the new agendas of broad sections of people.
The same contributors that enable their election tie Democrats and Republicans into the structure. In Maine, when a third party candidate got elected to the state legislature, the immediate response of the Democratic Party was to gerrymander the district to make it harder for his re-election. "In 2003 redistricting in Maine threatened to unseat Eder by separating him from his base of support in Portland's West End. The redistricting was seen by many as a deliberate effort to oust Eder. In response, Eder moved his residence to rejoin the district he had previously represented and face off against Democratic incumbent Rep. Edward J. Suslovic. In the end, however, redistricting helped rather than hindered Eder's effort to keep his spot as the only Green Independent in the legislature and was the undoing of his Democratic opponent, who found he couldn't compete against Eder's strong base of support. Eder won with 51 percent of the vote, compared with 41 percent for Suslovic and 8 percent for Republican Arvina Magno." It should be noted that this year lost in his election bid for a third term by about 60 votes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Eder
Domination by the two parties extends itself through the large contributor base of the two parties that is used to dominate elections from the Federal level down to the local municipal level. Public financing, such as Maine's Clean Elections Act, is needed to transform that character and content of US elections. http://www.newrules.org/gov/clean.html As things stand, PACs and NGOs play an increasingly dominate role in defining candidate's political agendas and platforms of political parties because of their financial support.
Ballot access is restricted in many states with the dominant political party using it to limit and stifle the access of other parties to the decision-making process. State definitions of political parties and major party status, state registration laws and regulations, and requirements of candidates and parties to be placed on the ballot have long been manipulated by the major parties to control ballot access of smaller parties and prevent their ability to deepen their base of support in elections.
The effort to democratize the electoral structure directly confronts the corporate interests whose vote equals its dollar contributions. Their disproportionate investment skews policy-making and creates a scenario that continues to marginalize large segments of the American people from having their voice heard and their concerns addressed. "The elected municipal officials of Porter Township, Clarion County - a municipality of 1,500 residents an hour north of Pittsburgh in Northwestern Pennsylvania - became the first local government in the United States to eliminate corporate claims to civil and constitutional privileges." click here Such a measure demonstrated the significant change needed to facilitate the engagement of the American public in the political system and represents the shot heard round the world for the new effort of the people for democratization of the American electoral system.
by
Martin Zehr (36 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 75 comments)
on Friday, January 5, 2007 at 1:24:25 PM
The party system is inherently divisive.
Party loyalty ends up being emphasized over, and eventually trumping citizenship as the individual's first sense of identity. It's much like "churchianity". Ask a churchgoer what religion they are, and nine times out of ten they'll tell you their church affiliation. "Christian" is an afterthought. What divides or distinguishes them from others comes first, not what unites them. Political party members do the same thing.
Add in the fact that their purpose is to get things done, and the result is an organization whose first concern is necessarily power. Most of it is already in someone else's hands, so taking comes before giving. . .
Parties are beggars, not choosers.
That vulnerability applies across the board. In our present socio-economic context, parties have no way to be financially independent. Call the process "contribution" if it makes you feel better, but parties end up being paid to do what others choose.
What we need is a renewed sense of citizenship, on every level of the society-- political, economic, and individual. As stated in the preamble of the Constitution, the purpose of the government is to promote the general welfare. There is an attendant and sadly neglected responsibility on the part of the public to promote the nation's welfare. We don't need any more politicians who are party loyalists first, nor businessmen who are corporate loyalists first, nor any more "ordinary people" who are consumers first and citizens second.
It's time we grew up, not time to develop a new co-dependency.
Regards,
Al J
by
Alan James (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments)
on Saturday, January 6, 2007 at 1:22:33 PM
