Reactionism: the Iron Law of Duopolist Punditry, Part I

It is an iron law of political punditry that, whenever discussion of third party and Independent alternatives to the Democrats and Republicans breaks through the mainstream media's exclusionary duopolist filter, we are sure to be inundated with innumerable articles and commentaries regurgitating the ideological dogmas that sustain and maintain support for the two-party state and ruling political class.  Most recently, the phenomenon is apparent in the reaction to support for Americans Elect among a handful of mainstream political commentators (in the present case, Thomas Friedman and John Avlon among others) who are not as slavishly devoted to the Republican-Democrat duopoly system of government as the majority of their colleagues.  For the present, let's consider one example from The Atlantic.  In the next post, we'll dissect another exemplar of the genre from The American Prospect.

In The Atlantic, Wendy Kaminer argues that "a third party is no panacea."  She thus begins by setting up a straw man.  Who claims that a third party is a political cure-all?  One is much more likely to encounter such an arrogant self-opinion among the professional partisans of the Democratic and Republican parties who openly assert that they have all the answers to all our political problems, when in fact they themselves are both cause and symptom of those very problems.  Supporters of third party and Independent alternatives, on the other hand, are much more likely to make the modest point that they are simply not represented by the corporatist stooges of the ruling parties.  Kaminer's position is symptomatic of a political fight or flight response.  Her position is conditioned, above all else, by fear.  She writes:

divided government too easily devolves into dysfunctional government. So count me out of efforts to create a strong third party: I suspect that increasing the divisiveness -- splintering Congress into three formal parties instead of two -- would only increase the dysfunction.

Of course, there is no evidence to support this claim, it is nothing more than a suspicion, as she herself says.  The opposite suspicion is equally justified, namely, that if a third party were represented in the Congress, such that no party had a majority, all legislation would be the result of political compromise, thus decreasing divisiveness and dysfunction.  The reason why Kaminer would suspect the former and not the latter is simple to determine: she is ideologically and financially invested in the universality of dysfunctionality.  As her bio states, she is the author of a book entitled I'm Dysfunctional, You're Dysfunctional.

Kaminer's post is instructive, however, because it reveals that even critics of third party and Independent political advocacy implicitly accept the most common critique of the two-party system.  She continues:

liberals complain repeatedly, we don't quite have a second party. The complaint is hyperbole: there are clear differences between Congressional Democrats and Republicans on economic and social issues. But, like a lot of hyperboles, it's partly true: Democrats have not pursued their policy preferences as doggedly and effectively as Republicans, (which is how we ended up with the Bush/Obama tax cuts and a chasm between rich and poor;) and the parties are generally united in their hostility or indifference to civil liberty and their reflexive support for the national security state.

One might add here that many conservatives complain that they don't have a second party either.  Ironically, however, Kaminer does not seem to recognize that with these lines she has contradicted the argument she desires to forward.  She says it's false to claim that there are no differences between the Democrats and Republicans, but then she admits outright that Democrats and Republicans are both enemies of civil liberties, reactionary supporters of the national security police state, and united in their support for monied corporate interests over those of the American people!  Kaminer calls herself a "civil libertarian."  But from her own analysis, it is clearly apparent that no civil libertarian should support the Democrats or Republicans.  She concludes with a jab at the alleged hubris and arrogance of third party supporters.  Excerpt:

perhaps the greatest fallacy of the third party movement is the unspoken, perhaps unacknowledged, underlying assumption that members of a third party would be more informed, intelligent, and rational and less self-interested and demagogic than members of the first and second parties.

If you reject the Democratic and Republican parties, and advocate third party and Independent alternatives, you are more informed, intelligent and rational than members of the Democratic and Republican parties, many of whom continue to believe, against all the evidence, that Democrats and Republicans represent the interests of the American people.  Indeed, it is precisely out of self-interest that we should support alternatives to the Republicans and Democrats.  For example, if you are a civil libertarian, it is highly irrational and against your self-interest to support the Democrats and Republicans, even though you recognize that the Republican and Democratic parties are enemies of civil liberties.

See Part II.

The Rapture: Zombie Apocalypse in Times Square?

There was a strange atmosphere in New York City yesterday, fostered in no small part by the prediction that the end of the world was set to begin.  DJs hosted end of the world dance parties.  Bars offered judgment day drink specials: "Last call?!"  Christian choirs assembled for impromptu performances in subway stations.  And zombies roamed Times Square:




Shortly after these zombies staggered by at 6pm, a large gaggle of locals, tourists and reporters swarmed around Robert Fitzpatrick, the Staten Island man who said he had "independently confirmed" the end times prophecy of Harold Camping, and had spent his life savings to spread the word to all those who had ears to hear and eyes to see.

Fitzpatrick expressed surprise and confusion that the world had no ceased to exist, and answered questions from anyone who was willing to ask.  There was no lack of hecklers in the crowd.  One sarcastically demanded to know: "Why are we still here?"  Another pointed out the inaccuracy of the prediction: "Your calculations are all wrong man!"  And yet another lamented that we all have to go to work on Monday now, to boos and hisses from the crowd.  Here's a pic of Fitzpatrick (bottom right) surrounded by reporters and onlookers as the Times Square news ticker above asks whether this really is the end of the world:

Free Speech may be the First Casualty in the War on Violence

When I wrote yesterday that Democrats and Republicans would declare a "war on violence" this week, I was only half-joking, but it looks like this one is already coming half-true.  Today, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin have begun to style themselves as born-again peace activists.  From Business Insider:

Beck was notably silent about the Giffords shooting over the weekend but jumped in to the deep end today on his radio show reading aloud some emails he exchanged over the weekend with Palin.  According to Beck he wrote to her saying: “Sarah, as you know, peace is always the answer. I know you are felling the same heat, if not much more on this. I want you to know you have my full support." . . . Palin responded via email, which Beck read out loud: "I hate violence. I hate war. Our children will not have peace if politicos just capitalize on this to succeed in portraying anyone as inciting terror and violence."

Meanwhile, Democrat Robert Brady has stated that he is preparing a bill to criminalize speech offensive to the ruling political class.  From CNN:

Rep. Robert Brady, D-Pennsylvania, said he will introduce legislation making it a federal crime for a person to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a Member of Congress or federal official.  [Emphasis added.]

Of course, given that warfare is the preferred policy solution of the Democratic and Republican parties on everything from poverty to drugs to terrorism, any statement from those quarters professing a hatred of violence and love of peace is highly suspect.  On the other hand, given that the Democratic and Republican parties have long been at war with constitutional rights, fundamental liberties and the  rule of law, any threat against the first amendment should be taken very seriously.  

Political Circlejerk: Democrats and Republicans Argue Over Partisan Leanings of Assassin

Following the shooting of an Arizona congresswoman, a federal judge and up to ten others outside a supermarket in Tucson, it didn't take long for the deluded partisans of the Democratic and Republican parties to begin their now formally ritualized circlejerk on the political motivations and partisan leanings of the shooter.  For Democrats, naturally, the shooting is the result of Republican policy and rhetoric.  One angry graphic activist has even gone so far as to save Sarah Palin the trouble of updating her controversial "hit list."  Via Reddit:

Republicans, on the other hand, have already convinced themselves that the shooter was "a loony leftist," and some are speculating about the possibility that he was a Daily Kos diarist.  Weasel Zippers asks, "Is this [the shooter's] Daily Kos page?" and supplies the following screenshot of a recent post at the popular Democratic website:

Both Democrats and Republicans seem to agree, however, that the suspect in question is an extremely disturbed individual.  This may go some way toward explaining their difficulty in determining whether he is a Republican or Democrat: it's a toss-up.

The 2010 Elections and Democratic-Republican Bipolar Disorder

Following yesterday's general election, the 112th Congress will begin with a Democratic majority in the Senate and a Republican majority in the House.  This will be the second time the corporate parties have exchanged majority control of the House in the last five years.  While many Democrats were naive enough to believe, or cynical enough to pretend, that their victories in 2006 and 2008 were the result of something other than a simple rejection of undivided Republican Party government, this year the GOP is all-too-aware that their victory was ensured by voters' rejection of undivided Democratic Party government.  The Hill quoted John McCain admitting as much just yesterday:

The 2010 election results should not be interpreted as an "affirmation" of Republicans, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said Tuesday. . . . "The moral of this story is that this election is a repudiation of Obama and the Democrats," McCain said on Fox News. "It is not an affirmation of Republicans. So Republicans have got to come through and satisfy this outcry — this anger and frustration — that's been expressed."

Republican-friendly pollster Scott Rasmussen made much the same point in an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal on Monday, in which he argues that these quickly shifting majorities express a fundamental rejection of both ruling parties:

tomorrow Republicans will send more Republicans to Congress than at any time in the past 80 years . . . This isn't a wave, it's a tidal shift—and we've seen it coming for a long time. . . . But none of this means that Republicans are winning. The reality is that voters in 2010 are doing the same thing they did in 2006 and 2008: They are voting against the party in power.

This is the continuation of a trend that began nearly 20 years ago. In 1992, Bill Clinton was elected president and his party had control of Congress. Before he left office, his party lost control. Then, in 2000, George W. Bush came to power, and his party controlled Congress. But like Mr. Clinton before him, Mr. Bush saw his party lose control.

That's never happened before in back-to-back administrations. The Obama administration appears poised to make it three in a row. This reflects a fundamental rejection of both political parties.

A new poll from Rasmussen indicates that the American public does not expect to be adequately represented by the new governing majority:

Most voters expected Republicans to win control of the House of Representatives on Election Day, but nearly as many expect to be disappointed with how they perform by the time the 2012 elections roll around.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds, in fact, that 59% of Likely U.S. Voters think it is at least somewhat likely that most voters will be disappointed with Republicans in Congress before the next national elections. That includes 38% who say it is Very Likely.

These quickly shifting majorities indicate the fundamental inability of the Democratic and Republican parties to adequately represent the interests of the people of the United States.  Trapped by the bipolar logic of the two-party state, the only way for voters to express their discontent with the current Democratic majority was to cast their ballots for a party they favor even less.  As CNN reports today:

Democrats have a 10-point favorability gap: 43 percent of voters have a positive opinion of the party, while 53 percent aren't thrilled. The Republican Party also gets a thumbs-down from 53 percent of the nation's voters, with just 41 percent saying they're happy with the party.

Compare that with 1994 and 2006, when voters had a net positive view of the incoming party. The numbers suggest Tuesday night may signal a rejection of the Democratic Party -- but something less than an embrace of the GOP.

The American electorate clearly suffers from a form of political bipolar disorder, in which incidents of manic political enthusiasm alternate with lengthy depressive episodes.  The seriousness of the illness is all-too-clear from the fact that we have entered a lengthy stage of so-called rapid cycling, in which manic periods alternate ever more quickly with depressive episodes.  Today, Democrats are likely to enter a depressive state:

Signs and symptoms of the depressive phase of bipolar disorder include persistent feelings of sadness, anxiety, guilt, anger, isolation, or hopelessness; disturbances in sleep and appetite; fatigue and loss of interest in usually enjoyable activities; problems concentrating; loneliness, self-loathing, apathy or indifference; depersonalization; loss of interest in sexual activity; shyness or social anxiety; irritability, chronic pain (with or without a known cause); lack of motivation; and morbid suicidal ideation.

Republicans, on the other hand, will likely be found exhibiting signs and symptoms of mania:

Mania is the signature characteristic of bipolar disorder and, depending on its severity, is how the disorder is classified. Mania is generally characterized by a distinct period of an elevated, expansive, or irritable mood state. People commonly experience an increase in energy and a decreased need for sleep. A person's speech may be pressured, with thoughts experienced as racing. Attention span is low, and a person in a manic state may be easily distracted. Judgment may become impaired, and sufferers may go on spending sprees or engage in behavior that is quite abnormal for them. They may indulge in substance abuse, particularly alcohol or other depressants, cocaine or other stimulants, or sleeping pills. Their behavior may become aggressive, intolerant, or intrusive. People may feel out of control or unstoppable. People may feel they have been "chosen" and are "on a special mission" or have other grandiose or delusional ideas. Sexual drive may increase.

If someone you know exhibits any of the above symptoms, contact a political professional immediately for appropriate doses of partisan spin and propaganda.  Of course, this does nothing but mask the symptoms of the illness.  Political independence may be the only viable, long-term treatment for Democrat-Republican bipolar disorder.

Turnout in Alaska's Closed GOP Senate Primary Demonstrates that the Two-Party State is Incapable of Representing the People of the United States

As you may or may not know, or even care, in the Alaskan Republican primary for US Senate, challenger Joe Miller is maintaining a slight lead over incumbent Lisa Murkowski. The surprising result has led to speculation that Murkowski may pursue a third party or independent run if Miller in fact wins the GOP's nomination. According to comments at IPR, she could run as a write-in candidate, or obtain the Libertarian nomination if she got a nod from the party and their current candidate were to step aside, which is within the realm of possibility, if reports at Hot Air are to be believed.

Needless to say, self-described conservatives who have yet to declare their independence from the Republican faction of the reigning two-party state are none-too-pleased with this development. The Lonely Conservative, for instance, writes:

What is it with these politicians? . . . This is what is so disgusting about politicians. They’re so into themselves they’d rather screw up an election than just go away. This is different than the debacle that was the special election in New York’s 23rd Congressional District. In that case party bosses chose the most liberal candidate they could find in Dede Scozzafava. The voters had no say in the matter. Primaries are another story. When the voters of a party decide on a candidate the loser should walk away. Those that decide to run as third party candidates really show that they’re in it for themselves, and not the people they say they want to represent. Just look at Charlie Crist in Florida, he didn’t even give Republican voters a chance to tell him to go home.

Reading this, I couldn't help but be reminded of a point that has been made on a number of occasions by Sam Wilson at The Think 3 Institute. Unfortunately, I can't find a specific post at the moment, but the argument goes something like this: if a candidate for public office truly believes she is the best person for the job, shouldn't she have the courage of her convictions and let the voters have their say in the general election rather than allow her course of action to be dictated by a faction of a faction of some party's loyalists?

Far be it from me to come to the defense of Lisa Murkowski. From all appearances she seems to be nothing more than yet another self-entitled specimen of the Democratic-Republican hereditary ruling class. Shortly after being elected to the Alaska House of Representatives, Murkowski was appointed to the US Senate seat she currently holds by her father, who vacated the position when he was elected governor in 2002, whereupon he appointed his daughter to the office in a display of crass nepotism that is all-too-common in US politics today.

Nonetheless, the comment above by the Lonely Conservative perfectly illustrates a delusion common to partisans of the ruling parties that Democratic and Republican primary voters somehow express the will of the people, rather than the delusions of Democratic and Republican primary voters, who comprise a small and dwindling portion of the American electorate.

According to current unofficial results from the Alaska Board of Elections, Joe Miller leads Murkowski by 1668 votes: Miller has 47,027 votes to Murkowski's 45,359. As of April 3, 2010, there were 481,036 registered voters in the state of Alaska: 74,578 Democrats, 124,875 Republicans, 30,184 registered with a minor party and a whopping 251,391 unaffiliated independent voters. (See Pollster.com for totals.) In other words, just under 26% of registered voters in the state of Alaska are Republicans. Miller is currently the projected winner of the GOP primary having garnered the support of only 37.7% of registered Republicans, and the votes of just 9.7% of registered voters!

Because Alaska has closed primaries, 356,161 registered voters were prohibited from expressing their preference in the GOP primary. Thus 74% of registered voters were not allowed to cast a ballot in the race between Miller and Murkowski! Arguably, the only way for someone like Murkowski to demonstrate that she is "in it for the people she says she wants to represent" is for her to run an independent or third party campaign in the general election. It is time we stop pretending that the Democrat-Republican two-party state and duopoly system of government is capable of representing the people of the United States.

On the Profession of Duopolist Delusion: Voter Turnout and the Question of Majoritarianism

In a post entitled "third party fantasies" at Outside the Beltway, Steven Taylor argues in favor of the ruling two-party state on the basis of what can only be called duopolist delusion. Taylor asserts that the main barrier to success for any third party is "math":

While there is little doubt that there are cost (and legal) barriers to the creation of a third party, they are not the major barriers to a third (or fourth, etc.) party in the United States. The main barrier is math.

An associate professor of political science, Taylor relies on Duverger's Law to make his case, reasoning that a competitive third party is a virtual impossibility because of the "incentive structure" within any first-past-the-post electoral system. He uses as his example the results of the recent special election in Hawaii, which Republican Charles Djou won with just under 40% of the vote, defeating Democrats Colleen Hanabusa and Ed Case, who were supported by 31% and 28% of voters, respectively. Taylor writes:

the introduction of three competitive candidates meant that, by definition, the winner would likely win with less than majority support. It is also a situation in which over the long haul the clear strategic choice for the Hanabusa “party” and the Case “party” would be to work together next time so as to capture the ~58% that they appear to represent.

While Taylor assumes for the purposes of his argument that each of these candidates represents a different "party," he fails to maintain the assumption in his analysis, thus drawing the faulty conclusion regarding the "clear strategic choice" for the Hanabusa and Case "parties." The only reason this might appear to be a "clear strategic choice" is because Hanabusa and Case are both Democrats, and do not actually represent different parties, which, one assumes, would maintain different political platforms, governing philosophies etc. Taylor's analysis in favor of the two-party system results from a base duopolist logic, not the continued assumption of a competitive multi-party race, as he pretends.

However, this is not the most deceptive aspect of Taylor's argument. The professor's main criticism of competitive multi-party electoral contests is that "the majority of the voters [have] a preference other than the winner." Indeed, in this election, 3 out of 5 voters did not cast a ballot for the winner. But let's take a closer look at the "math" involved. Though still embarrassingly low, voter turnout was actually quite high in this race, at least in terms of US standards. The Hawaii Board of Elections reported 54% voter turnout in the special election for Congressional District 1. Republican Djou received 67,610 votes, Democrat Hanabusa received 52,802, and Democrat Ed Case received 47,391; there was a total of 171,417 votes cast out of 317,337 registered voters.

Compare these results with those from the previous special election in the state, which took place in 2003 in Congressional District 2. This race boiled down to a two-person contest with the remaining 25% of votes dispersed in support of various alternatives. Democrat Ed Case won with 43.2% of the vote, soundly defeating his nearest rival, Democrat Matt Matsunaga, who received 30.2% of the vote, according to the Hawaii Board of Elections.

Thus Ed Case won the 2003 special election with more support (43.2%) than Republican Djou received in this year's special election (39.4%), when the latter beat both Case and Hannabusa. According to Taylor's logic above, the former race ended with a superior outcome, since the winner obtained a greater percentage of support, inching closer to an outright majority. However, almost 4 out of 5 registered voters did not cast a ballot in the 2003 election! Only 76,328 voters out of 348,342 participated in the election for a grand total of 21.9% voter turnout.

To summarize: in the competitive three-way race in 2010, the winner won with the support of 40% of 54% of registered voters; in the two-person one-party race in 2003, the winner won with the support of 43% of 20% of registered voters. Consider this comparison a different way. In the competitive three-person race, Charles Djou received 67,610 votes and won with 40% support. In the two-person one-party race, only 76,328 people cast a ballot at all! Democrat Ed Case won the election with the support of less than 10% of registered voters, while Republican Charles Djou won his election with the support of over 20% of registered voters.

It is therefore self-contradictory, if not outright deceptive, to argue against multi-party races on the basis of majoritarian principles as Professor Taylor does in the post referenced above. As a simple example, assume a district with 100 registered voters. One year there is a two-candidate contest. 11 voters cast a ballot for one of them and this candidate wins with 55% of the vote, because only 20 voters cast ballots. The next cycle, there is a three candidate contest, and 60 voters cast ballots. The winner is victorious with only 36% support, but receives 22 votes. According to Taylor's confused logic, the candidate who received 22 votes has less support than the candidate who received 11. A fine example of duopolist delusion.

Orwell in New York: Predictable Partisanship and Non-Partisan Elections

As you may or may not know, the mayor of NYC, Michael Bloomberg, has assembled a commission to review and suggest reforms to the city's charter. Among the most prominent issues being considered by the commission is that of nonpartisan elections. New York is one of the few cities in the country which still has partisan elections. According to statistics at the National League of Cities, of the nation's ten largest urban centers, only three still retain partisan elections: New York, Chicago and Philadelphia. A proponent of non-partisan elections, Nancy Hanks has been following the commission very closely over the past few weeks at the Hankster, be sure to check in there for updates on that front.

In early May, an article in the New York Times laid out some background issues on the measure and the coalitions that were likely to take shape both for and against the idea. Ironically, the antagonism has coalesced along a predictably familiar partisan fault line: leading Democrats and the Working Families Party are strongly against the reform, while Republicans and the Independence Party have come out in support of it. From the NYT:

Several Republican leaders have also expressed openness to the idea . . . Many of the city’s Democratic leaders are steadfastly opposed to nonpartisan elections.

supporters, including leaders of the city’s Independence Party , said that party politics had outlived its usefulness in city elections . . . In a strongly worded letter to the Charter Revision Commission . . . leaders from a cross section of groups, including the Working Families Party, the N.A.A.C.P. and Common Cause New York, said that asking voters to consider nonpartisan elections “strikes us as highly cynical” [Emphases added.]

Yesterday, Democratic leaders held a press conference to voice their opposition to nonpartisan elections in NYC. Revealingly, however, rather than defend partisan elections, speakers instead emphasized the virtues of the two-party system, which is not surprising, but all the more absurd, given that New York City has a one-party state. The New York City Council has 51 members: 46 Democrats and 5 Republicans. From the New York Observer's report on the press conference:

Outside New York's Municipal Building on Wednesday, Public Advocate Bill de Blasio stood at the podium--backed by Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer, Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz, and former comptroller Bill Thompson--to dismiss the notion of nonpartisan elections . . .

"Nonpartisan elections undermine our democracy," said the towering Mr. de Blasio, who appeared to have something of a sunburn. [He continued:] "They create a system that is dominated by wealth, suppresses voter turnout and makes it harder for minority candidates to compete." . . . "I think we can all agree the two-party system has served America and served New York pretty well," Mr. Markowitz said.

Are such statements not perfectly Orwellian in character? The professed deference to the two-party system is nothing but a cynical defense of the ruling political class – which, in this case, comprises a one-party state. Further, imagine the gall of any Democratic or Republican leader who would defend the two-party system's one-party state by implying that it is not dominated by wealth, that it doesn't suppress voter turnout, that it does not work against the interests of minority candidates. This disconnect is particularly obvious in the case of New York City. As mentioned above, one party has monopolized the city council. The mayor's office was purchased by Michael Bloomberg for $102 million in 2009. Voter turnout numbers in 2006 reveal that roughly 2 out of 3 New Yorkers opted not to cast a ballot (these are numbers for the state, but are likely comparable with the city). Finally, even despite the successes of minority candidates, structural racism is indisputably endemic to the ruling parties, their politics and their policies. We have not even broached the topic of topic of independent or third party politics, ballot access issues etc.

The Democrats' defense of "democracy" here demonstrates the willingness of the ruling political class to engage in outright falsification of reality to maintain the system that ensures their hold on power.

If You Buy What the Democrats and Republicans are Peddling, You're Probably in the Market for a New Bridge as Well

In an article for the New York Times from 2005 reflecting on the history of an infamous New York con game, Gabriel Cohen summarized the plot of "Every Day's a Holiday," a comedy from 1937 featuring Mae West:

The year is 1899, and a saucy con artist named Peaches O'Day is trying to sell the Brooklyn Bridge. She succeeds, too, passing it off to a gullible fellow who pays her $200 and receives a bill of sale reading, "One bridge in good condition." As punishment, she is run out of town, but she returns in triumph, disguised in a black wig as the French entertainer Mademoiselle Fifi, and goes on to be elected mayor of the city.

If you're in the market for a new bridge, you might also be interested in what the Democrats and Republicans are peddling this year. Let's take but one easy example. Republican Congressman Eric Cantor writes at Big Government: "It's not the same GOP." He concludes his call to support the Republican Party with the following lines:

I am under no illusions – both parties have helped to create a debt that everyone knows is dangerously high. But only one of them is going to keep going down that path and taking our country with it. The other has learned its lesson and has reformed itself.

If Cantor is under no illusions, it seems he is counting on the fact that his readers are under at least one. Fortunately, not all Americans are gullible enough to fall for this particular con year after year. From a letter to the editor of the Cleveland Plain Dealer:

If the Republican Party is this country's only hope for limiting government, then the country is doomed to ever-expanding government. The best that can be hoped is that Tea Party supporters are serious about voting against all incumbents, whether they are Democrats or Republicans. The country needs to throw out all incumbents at all levels in 2010.

Of course, nothing will be achieved by throwing out Democratic and Republican incumbents only to replace them with their Republican or Democratic analogues. At Veterans Today, Sherwood Ross quotes extensively from Lawrence Velvel to make the case for the urgency of third party opposition to the Democratic-Republican global warfare and corporate welfare state:

both parties are “incapable of doing the right thing. They are too beholden to big money—money is virtually all that our politicians care about,” writes Velvel, dean of the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover. The political parties “have gotten too used to the ethically crooked, morally criminal ways of our system, (and) cannot even envision serious change in the political and electoral system.”

If you recognize Democratic-Republican Party government for the problem that it is, but nonetheless continue to vote Democrat or Republican, then you are the problem you seek to resolve. Fortunately, the solution to this problem is relatively simple: stop bailing out the two-party state, vote third party and independent.

Update: At Washington Monthly, Steve Benen comments on Cantor's article at Big Government, writing:

For voters who remember the last several years, it's awfully difficult to take the GOP seriously. The party that's running on a platform of fiscal responsibility was fiscally irresponsible. The party that's running on a platform of shrinking the size and scope of government grew the size and scope of government. The party that's running on a platform of competence, maturity, and integrity was incompetent, immature, and corrupt.

If Benen spent half as much time critically reflecting upon the hypocrisies of Democrats as he does those of Republicans, he might have to declare himself an independent. For those who remember the last several years, it's awfully difficult to take the Democrats seriously either. The party that ran against "Bush's war" has expanded it. The party that ran on openness and transparency continues to claim the privilege of secrecy. The party that ran against the erosion of rights and liberties continues to chisel away at them. The party that promised to combat the corrupting influence of lobbyists continues to endorse their proposals and accept their massive campaign contributions. The party that claims to fight for the interests of "the little guy" never fails to privilege the interests of multinational corporations. And so on. Support for the Democratic or Republican Party today appears to be predicated upon either willful ignorance or reckless irresponsibility or both. Or is it something else?

Democratic-Republican Party Government is the only Solution to the Crisis that is Democratic-Republican Party Government

You may be surprised to learn that I have just signed and sealed my first contributions to the Democratic and Republican Parties. The events of the last weeks, months and years have given some Americans cause for self-congratulation, others cause for alarm, and still others cause for calm reassessment. I find myself somewhere in between these latter two groups. As virtually every election that has been held over the course of my voting life has demonstrated, there is no question that Democratic-Republican Party government represents a grave threat to both the US Constitution and the people of the United States. Whichever corporatist faction constitutes the ruling majority, Democratic-Republican Party government leads, always and everywhere, to the ever quickening erosion of individual rights and liberties, to the consolidation of the national security police state and the expansion of the lawless voyeurism characteristic of a pan-optic surveillance society.

Yet, for all intents and purposes, the United States remains a two-party system, and the political opposition is always led by one faction of the ruling coalition. And so the danger to both the US constitution and the people of the United States represented by the Democratic Party can only be thwarted by supporting the Republican Party; similarly, the danger to both constitutional government and the people of the United States represented by the Republican Party can only be avoided by supporting the Democratic Party. Therefore, the only way to ensure that the United States is not brought to absolute ruin by the Democratic and Republican Parties is to support the Republican and Democratic Parties.

Perhaps one might object here that it makes no sense to support the Democratic and Republican Parties in order to protect against the threat to constitutional government and the people of the United States represented by the Democratic-Republican two-party state and duopoly system of government. The only possible alternative is to support third party and independent candidates for political office to create a viable opposition to the ruling Democratic-Republican political class. However, our political future is entirely determined by our political past. And in the past, the ruling parties have not been receptive to movements intent on removing them from power.

But since movements to change the balance of political power – to strengthen rights and liberties, and serve the interests of the people of the United States, rather than undermine the lot of them –, cannot garner the support of the ruling parties and political class, one might reasonably conclude that it is not guaranteed to succeed, and thus determine instead to work within the confines of the system that maintains the ruling balance of power. The Democratic and Republican Parties represent such a grave threat to our rights, liberties and the rule of law that our only option is to strengthen the Democratic and Republican Parties in their ongoing war against the US constitution and the people of the United States. I have thus just signed and sealed my first contributions to the Democratic and Republican parties.

Happy April Fools' Day!

Obamacare as Political Rorschach Test: End of History or End of the World?

We have reached a point in the development of the ideology that characterizes the Democratic-Republican two-party state, in which virtually every event – from the most trivial to the most significant – produces a bifurcated response that demonstrates the abject absurdity and intellectual bankruptcy of the politics to which we are subjected by Democratic-Republican Party government. The passage of Obamacare, for instance, was triumphantly lauded as the "end of history" by liberal Democrats and hysterically denounced as the "end of the world" by conservative Republicans. Let's begin with the liberal Democrat's declaration of the "end of history." On March 22nd, Kevin Drum wrote at Mother Jones:

There's plenty of work left to be done, but when it comes to the big ticket items we've gotten about 80% of what we set out to get over the past century. The one major item missing has been national healthcare. And now, finally, we're on the road to getting it . . . So over the next couple of decades we'll finish the job on healthcare, make continuing progress on gay rights, hopefully address climate change in an incremental way, improve our immigration laws, and so forth. But big ticket items? There probably aren't any.

In a similar vein, Matthew Yglesias declared final victory at Think Progress:

For the past 65-70 years—and especially for the past 30 years since the end of the civil rights argument—American politics has been dominated by controversy over the size and scope of the welfare state. Today, that argument is largely over with liberals having largely won . . . The crux of the matter is that progressive efforts to expand the size of the welfare state are basically done. There are big items still on the progressive agenda. But they don’t really involve substantial new expenditures.

The conservative Republican response to the passage of Obamacare was equally absurd: the event signals the beginning of totalitarianism and the coming of Armageddon. Politico reported Senator Orrin Hatch's articulation of the former talking point:

The health care law’s individual mandate is “what you call totalitarianism,” Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said Wednesday night . . . “They want to force people to do whatever they want them to do. That’s what you call totalitarianism. It is not really good government." . . . “And frankly, it would be the first time that your liberties would be taken away from you where you would be forced to do something you don't want to do.”

This is almost unbelievable. Hatch's assessment that the passage of Obamacare into law represents "the first time" liberties would be "taken away" from people by the federal government, "forcing" them to do something they "don't want to do" is, in its patent falsehood, as ridiculous as the above assertions that the progressive project is finished and Democrats will now cease to oppress us with ever greater demands for the implementation of their neo-liberal, technocratic, utopian agenda. But Rep. John Boehner and Michael Steele did Hatch one better, equating the passage of Obamacare with the end of the world. As TPM reported:

RNC Chairman Michael Steele told Fox News anchor Shepard Smith today that he agreed with House Minority Leader John Boehner's assertion that health care reform is akin to "Armageddon." Smith asked Steele, "Armageddon? Seriously?" Steele: "Yes!"

If only Steele were right, as, one assumes, the end of the world would imply also the end of Democratic-Republican Party government and hence our liberation from the dictatorship of the Democratic-Republican two-party state and the inanity of Democratic-Republican politics.

The Health of Warfare and the War over Healthcare: the Democratic-Republican Global Warfare and Corporate Welfare State

It is appropriate that the Congress voted on the health care insurance industry bailout plan on the very same weekend that we marked the seventh "anniversary" of the invasion of Iraq. It is a stark reminder that the Democratic and Republican Parties, indeed, Democratic-Republican Party government as such, aims at nothing more than the maintenance and expansion of the global warfare and corporate welfare state. As both anti-war and anti-Obamacare protesters descended on Washington D.C. to denounce the pet project of the ruling Democratic regime as well as that of its Republican predecessor, all should recall that no one is more deluded than the individual who believes that support for Republicans or Democrats will lead to anything other than the reproduction of the problem that is Democratic-Republican Party government. Today, political freedom and independence begins with freedom and independence from the Democratic and Republican Parties, from the dictatorship of the two-party state and the duopoly system of government. If you are not part of the independent opposition, you are a conspirator in co-dependency.
[Post bumped to top from weekend.]

How to Defeat Harry Reid Before Election Day Even Dawns, or, the Third Party Tea Party and the Democratic-Republican Conspiracy of Dunces Cont'd

Late last year, I noted the emergence of a conspiracy theory among Republican supporters of the two-party state alleging that independent and third party conservative activists are actually part of a Democratic plot to "destroy the GOP". Following the recent announcement that a newly formed third party Tea Party group in Nevada would be running a candidate for US Senate to challenge Harry Reid, duopolist Republicans needed only to fill in the blanks of their Mad Libs template to apply the theory in practice. CNN has now picked up on the story. Via Memeorandum:

So how is it possible to be an illegitimate Tea Party member? Ask Republicans in Nevada. Some are accusing Jon Scott Ashjian, a new Tea Party candidate running for U.S. Senate, of being a fake. The allegation? He was put in the race by agents of Senate Majority leader Harry Reid to siphon votes from the GOP.

Perhaps the most revealing variation on this particular theory asserts an "Armenian connection":

"No doubt about it", says Danny Tarkanian, one of the many Republican senate candidates hoping to challenge Reid in November. "Nobody in the Tea Party knows who he is. He didn't know any of the principles of the Tea Party," Tarkanian tells CNN. He even accuses "Harry Reid's staff, campaign, whatever" of picking Ashjian because he's Armenian, as is Tarkanian. He explains, "They know the Armenians are very close they'll vote for each other."

Theories of an "Armenian conspiracy" are nothing new. But its articulation in this context demonstrates just how hysterical and desperate Republican advocates of the two-party state have become in the face of serious independent and third party opposition to the duopoly charade. On the basis of the spoiler argument, Republican strategists assert that the existence of a credible third party Tea Party candidate in the race will "split" the conservative vote. There is even some basis for their concern. As the CNN report notes:

A recent poll conducted for the Las Vegas Review-Journal indicates [Republicans] Lowden and Tarkanian each beating Reid in one-on-one hypothetical general election matchups. But add a Tea Party candidate on the ballot and that siphons off enough conservative votes to give Reid a narrow victory. According to the survey Reid would grab 36 percent of the vote, the Republican candidate 32 percent and the Tea Party candidate 18 percent in a possible three way showdown.

Of course, if these Republicans are so concerned about "splitting the conservative vote" they could simply withdraw from the race and endorse a superior third party or independent alternative. They have a wide array of choices at their disposal. There are no less than nine declared independent and third party candidates for the seat currently held by Reid. Ironically, however, the conspiracy theory regarding Ashjian's Tea Party candidacy has clearly raised his profile at both the state and national level, eclipsing all other third party and independent contenders, if not also those running under the banner of the GOP. For his part, given the numbers above, Harry Reid has welcomed third party and independent candidates into the fray. From Fox News:

Facing dismal poll numbers in his home state, Nevada Sen. Harry Reid has devised a re-election strategy: welcome third party candidates who can split the opposition in the uphill battle to hold on to his U.S. Senate seat . . . "They have a right to file," Reid reportedly said of prospective third-party candidates. "You have to understand that this election is going to mean more than Democrats and Republicans . . . We have the third-party candidates. We have the American Independent Party. We have the Tea Party now," he said, according to the Las Vegas Review Journal.

Clearly, Reid shares his would-be Republican opponents' strategic assessment of the race. But is there not another possibility here? Could this not backfire on the Reid campaign? Given Reid's dismal approval ratings, is it not possible that he could soon find himself polling third, behind both the Republican and Tea Party candidates? With a strong organizing push and a bit of luck, conservatives, independents and third party activists in the state of Nevada could very well succeed in pushing the Senate majority leader out of serious contention for the seat he currently holds. In other words, Harry Reid can be defeated long before election day even dawns. But reactionary duopolist ideologues in the Republican Party seem incapable of grasping this simple fact. And the same can obviously be said of Reid himself. Thus, the third party strategist is assured the element of surprise.

The Illusion of Choice in the Two-Party State: Condition of the Democratic-Republican Political Class War Against the People of the United States

Emma Berry is running for congress as an independent in Texas's third congressional district. In a recent post on her website, she calls for opposition to the Democratic-Republican two-party state and urges voters not to "settle for their political cliches again," writing:

My hope is that Americans are ready to take charge of their votes and get off the Republican/Democrat see-saw. Year after year both candidates from both parties say and promise basically the same things and the majority of them end up doing the same thing when they get to Congress–represent their own personal interests and those of their friends or the highest bidder while pretending to be “for the people.” We do not have a two-party system, people. That is an illusion. We have a one-party system and currently it is driven by a core team of 263 multimillionaires in both chamber of Congress. And this core team is not a bunch of “liberals” or a bunch of “Conservatives”. It is a bunch of Wall Street multimillionaires–most of whom all have the same aim–to secure and grow their own personal wealth. Yes, there are notable exceptions, but basically this is the corrupt system in Washington DC that we face and must change. Our only weapon is our vote . . . [Emphasis added.]

F YOU ARE AN ORDINARY AMERICAN AND YOU WANT REAL CHANGE AND A REAL IMPROVEMENT IN OUR ECONOMY, YOUR FIRST LESSON IS TO STOP THINKING THAT THERE IS SOME SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A DEMOCRAT OR A REPUBLICAN or that the current mess of our economy is the fault of “the liberals” or “the conservatives” in Washington . . . As long as you shut out their rhetoric and just pay attention to what they actually do, you will see that there is barely a degree of separation between the two parties. The only noticeable difference is that the Democrats throw larger crumbs. As long as you don’t mind living off crumbs, then you’ll get by as long as the Democrats are in offices. As for me? I’ve decided that crumbs are not good enough. I want a real government–that works for all the people–not a government welfare feedbag for Wall Street corporations like Archer Daniels Midland and other convicted felons.

In denouncing the Democratic-Republican Party's political class war against the people of the United States, Berry is likely drawing upon a report from late last year by the Center for Responsive Politics, which found that there were 237 millionaires in the Congress. Politico summed up the findings:

Two-hundred-and-thirty-seven members of Congress are millionaires. That’s 44 percent of the body – compared to about 1 percent of Americans overall . . . Some lawmakers have profited from investments in companies that have received federal bailouts; dozens of lawmakers are invested in Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America.

It is no secret why the stooges of the Democratic-Republican Party cannot adequately represent the people of the United States: their interests are diametrically opposed to ours. The first step toward defeating the Democratic-Republican ruling coalition in their ongoing political class war against the people of the United States and the US Constitution is recognizing that they are in fact engaged in an ongoing political class war against the people of the United States and the US Constitution.

A Fable for Our Time: On the Democratic-Republican Political Class War Against the People of the United States and an Addendum on Object Permancence

If someone were to write the definitive political fable of our time, it would likely tell the story of how farm animals formed alliances among themselves in support of the two competing factions from the management at the local slaughterhouse. The most tragic tale would be that of the creatures who should have known they were being fattened for a feast, but simply couldn't help themselves every time they were thrown a bone. This is the sad situation of both progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans. As an example of the latter, consider a recent post at Charlie's Blog, entitled "The Libertarian Party Should Shut Down." He writes:

The greatest movement for freedom we have seen in some time has been within the GOP. Ron Paul and the Campaign for Liberty represents the spearhead for the libertarian movement. Dr. Paul's failed run for the presidency as a Republican has done more for freedom than anything the LP has done in almost 40 years. The LP served a function for a time including giving Ron Paul his first presidential run. But as it stands, libertarians would be better served getting behind pro-liberty Republicans and small government conservatives.

Of course, it borders on the absurd to argue that the Republican Party is a force for "liberty and small government." If anything, Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty has been a success despite the fact that he is a member of the GOP. Indeed, the Republican Party is overtly hostile to his message and its messengers. Ron Paul's victory in the recent CPAC straw poll, for instance, was met with heckling an boos and this response was happily touted by conference organizers in interviews with the mainstream media. On Monday, the voice of the Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh, explained away the result:

All I'll tell you is that any organization that has a straw poll vote on who the party presidential candidate ought to be and comes up with Ron Paul is not an organization of conservatives. I just tell you. Something's haywire there. I know the Ron Paul people go in there, but they had been attendees to get in there. Ron Paul winning a straw poll at a conservative conference? . . . if the Conservative Political Action Conference that ends ups with a straw poll vote saying that Ron Paul is the nominee of the party for president, something's gone haywire there . . . This is the Conservative Political Action Committee. It's not some group of Libertarians.

Limbaugh then goes on to explain what he would have said were he to have delivered a speech at the conference and inadvertently provides us with a rhetorical template for any duopolist discourse:

I would have acknowledged the people in the Republican Party who are fighting from within to take it back . . . I would have promoted conservatism and I would have reminded people conservatism is the solution. . . . I certainly would not have ignored the other team on the field, the Democrats. They're the only reason we're in this mess. The Democrat Party is the only reason we are threatened with the things we're threatened with . . . I think I know what's going on and why various people are doing what they're doing and taking positions that they're taking. But the best way to insure that Obama succeeds is to think that we need a third party.

With the appropriate substitutions, any Democrat could deliver the very same speech. The formula: herald ideological victory; defend one faction of the Democratic-Republican Party while blaming the other; and argue against any potential opposition to the two-party state and duopoly system of government on the basis of the spoiler argument. The false premise underlying Limbaugh's imaginary speech is, of course, that the Republican Party is capable of representing anything other than the interests of the Democratic-Republican political class and their corporate benefactors. Ironically, Limbaugh's favorite ideological enemy – the dreaded liberal – shares the same delusion regarding the Democratic Party. Ahead of predicted gains by the GOP in the 2010 elections, the Washington Post reports:

Commercial banks and high-flying investment firms have shifted their political contributions toward Republicans in recent months . . . The wealthy securities and investment industry, for example, went from giving 2 to 1 to Democrats at the start of 2009 to providing almost half of its donations to Republicans by the end of the year.

The reason why the Republican and Democratic Parties cannot satisfy any ideological constituency of the American electorate – whether conservative, libertarian, moderate, liberal or progressive – is because Republicans and Democrats do not represent the American electorate but rather their paymasters in the corporate bi-poligarchy, whose interests are diametrically opposed to those of the people of the United States.

Addendum: Yesterday, Limbaugh continued his assault on third party and independent activists, challenging listeners to identify any worthy candidates for public office who are neither Republicans nor Democrats, with the implication, of course, that none exist:

Now, if you happen to think a third party is the best way to go, then go out there and form it. You think a third party is needed? You go form it. You people who think everybody sucks, go show us how not to suck! You form a third party! Find your candidate, name your party. Go out there and name your congressional candidates and your Senate candidates. Show me how you're going to put together a third party governing force. Show me. You sit out there and saying everybody else sucks, then you say that I suck because I don't realize everybody else sucks . . . Okay. So if you're the only ones that don't suck then you go show us who do suck how not to. Do it! You got all the answers. . . . I want to hear who your third-party leaders are.

Rush Limbaugh has obviously never visited Poli-Tea's list of third party and independent candidates for office in 2010. It is due for an update, given the many newly declared campaigns out there, but as of January 10th it linked to almost 250 candidates for governor, US House and Senate in 42 states! The immaturity of Democratic-Republican Party politics may well be best demonstrated by the fact that the ideologues of the two-party state have yet to achieve a state of object permanence. The fact that they ignore third party and independent alternatives to the representatives of the global warfare and corporate welfare state does not mean that none exist.

On the Infiltration of the Tea Party Movement by Loyalists of the Democratic-Republican Two-Party State

Tea party activists who advocate infiltration of the Democratic-Republican Party rather than independent and third party opposition to the Democratic-Republican two-party state and duopoly system of government would do well to re-open their history books. Imagine if, in the aftermath of the Boston Tea Party, colonists had not maintained their determination to achieve political independence, but rather sought accommodation with the British parliament and crown. Imagine if these colonists argued that the best way forward was not opposition to and confrontation with the ruling political establishment, but rather that the best strategy was to join with the Tories and Whigs in the British Parliament under the heel of the King to cement the relations of power that led to the groundswell of political discontent in the first place. Of course, there were such colonists. They sided with the crown against the revolutionaries and were derided as Loyalists by the Patriots of the American revolution. Sadly, in today's tea party movement, true patriots can be difficult to find while loyalists are a dime a dozen. Worse yet, the latter are even celebrated for their political cowardice and their reactionary support for the Democratic-Republican two-party state and duopoly system of government.

Among the most vocal supporters of the infiltration strategy are Eric Odom of Tax Day Tea Party and Erick Erickson of Red State. Following this year's CPAC conference in Washington DC, both of these activists have reiterated their reactionary support for the reproduction of the Democratic-Republican two-party state and their opposition to freedom and independence from the ruling apparatus of the political class. Erickson's inability to properly diagnose the sickness ailing the American body-politic is perfectly clear when he writes:

it is not the Republican Party that is the problem. It is the Republican leadership . . . if you are tempted to go with a third party, don’t. Instead, get involved in the Republican Party. Change it.

The contradiction inherent to Erickson's position is revealed at the end of the piece, when he writes:

This year conservatives must take risks instead of staying with the status quo just because it is easier. Conservatism is on the ascendency. But it will ascend within the GOP, not via a third party.

So, the Red State duopolist ideologue argues that conservatives must "take risks" against the "status quo," but he advocates a strategy that requires immediate accommodation with the ruling status quo, as represented by the Republican and Democratic Parties, because it is the safe and easy alternative to struggling for real political freedom and independence! In a similar vein, Eric Odom argues that support for third party and independent alternatives to the Democratic-Republican establishmentarian ruse would be nothing less than a disaster:

Some tea party activists still think a third party is the right way to go. We get email every day that suggests the two party system has failed us and we should try a third party. The problem is, however, the third party route has already been tried and failed. Not only has it failed, it has never really had any success at all! . . . this is the time for us as a movement to choose the vessel most likely to carry new candidates into Washington. And more importantly, replace incumbents in Washington.

What Odom fails to mention in his revisionist history lesson is that infiltrationist strategy has also "already been tried and failed." Infiltrationist strategy does not even hold out the possibility of achieving freedom and independence from the ruling political establishment. Even if it is successful, an infiltrationist strategy ensures nothing more than the reproduction of the Democratic-Republican two-party state and duopoly system of government. Its success is failure. It neither confronts nor solves the political problem facing the people fo the United States, but rather re-creates it: the infiltrationist advises a strategy of capitulation from the outset. On the other hand, even if an independent, third party campaign is defeated, the result is effectively the same as that of a successful infiltrationist campaign – a Republican or Democrat is elected – but it nonetheless demonstrates real support for freedom and independence from the dictatorship of the Democratic-Republican two-party state and creates momentum and infrastructure necessary for the ongoing struggle against the establishmentarian political class. However, if any independent or third party campaign is successful, it strikes a blow for political freedom and independence from the Democratic-Republican two-party state and duopoly system of government everywhere and in its entirety.

Those who argue in favor of accommodation with and infiltration of the Democratic-Republican Party are actively opposed to political freedom and independence. They represent the betrayal of that which the Boston Tea Party stands for. They make a mockery of the American revolutionary tradition and the struggle for political freedom and independence. They are the loyalists of the two-party state and duopoly system of government.

The Ensuring Liberty PAC: Dedicated to Ensuring the Tyranny of the Democratic-Republican Two-Party State

Numerous reports on the Tea Party Convention in Nashville, Tennessee noted that organizers were also developing a political action committee to facilitate the election of "tea party candidates" for political office. On February 5th, the New York Times reported:

Organizers of the convention announced on Friday that they were forming a political action committee to raise money and provide political consulting and campaign management for Tea Party-approved candidates. The PAC, an offshoot of a newly incorporated 501c4 called Ensuring Liberty, will seek to raise $10 million this year to spend in races in the 2010 Congressional elections.

New details have now emerged on the organization's mission and goals, which clearly demonstrate that it is nothing more than front group for the Democratic-Republican Party, dedicated to ensuring the reproduction of the two-party state and duopoly system of government. At Big Government, John Loudon describes the new organization's structure, aims and goals. It should probably come as little surprise that a group supposedly dedicated to "Ensuring Liberty" explicitly supports nothing more than the continued dictatorship of the Democratic-Republican Party:

Ensuring Liberty will target a limited number of key races in 2010 with a plan to target many more in the following cycles and fully restore America to her first principles. Activists in Congressional districts unlikely to change will be steered to support candidates where ELPAC is at work. ELPAC plans to work within the two party system rejecting as counter-productive, any effort to create a third political party.

In other words, Ensuring Liberty does not seek to "ensure liberty" but rather aims to ensure our continued political dependence on the Democratic and Republican Parties. This is made all the more ironic by Loudon's strategic contextualization of the organization's mission. He writes:

Many pundits debated the lessons from the the New York “23rd race” and the heralded defeat of Dede Scozzafava and subsequent loss of Doug Hoffman. A couple things were clear. The Club for Growth money that went to Hoffman was not enough to bring home a winner. It was equally obvious from the loss, that the national outpouring of grassroots support from Tea Party activists all over the Country was not enough . . . The cash and volunteer support were in effect the automation that the Hoffman campaign desperately needed. The “machine” however, lacked the fine tuning . . . Hoffman had plenty of money and people but too little campaign. Next time, the Tea Party supported candidates will have all three elements. Enter, the Ensuring Liberty PAC.

So, Loudon justifies the group by arguing that it supplies precisely that which was lacking in Doug Hoffman's third party campaign in New York's special election last fall, and thus implies that Hoffman would have won if only an organization like Ensuring Liberty had been there to support the campaign, but he then goes on to explain that Ensuring Liberty would actually have been of zero help to Doug Hoffman's effort because the organization refuses to support anyone who is not beholden to the Republican or Democratic Party's political apparatus. Not only is this self-contradictory, it flies in the face of the impulse that motivated tea party activists to begin organizing against the Democratic-Republican political bi-poligarchy in the first place. Louden concludes with the following lines:

ELPAC is a resource to ensure that the best candidates run the best campaigns they can this fall. With your help, this time, I know our side will win.

Given the fact that ELPAC states that it will only support candidates who are completely dependent on the Republican or Democratic Party, how could it possibly claim to support the "best candidates" for office? Like the so-called Independence Caucus, which is explicitly dedicated to ensuring our continued political co-dependency on the Democratic-Republican duopoly system of government, the Ensuring Liberty PAC is dedicated to ensuring the continued tyranny of the Democratic-Republican two-party state.

Co-dependency and the Independence Caucus: Complete Dependency on the Democratic and Republican Parties is not Political Independence

Speaking of pretend-ependents, if you recall, last month I argued that the so-called Independence Caucus could be more appropriately termed the codependency caucus: though the group claims that its aim is "to take our government back from the "big money" special interest groups," in practice the organization actively supports two of the most pernicious "big money special interest groups" in the United States today, namely, the Democratic and Republican Parties. The Political Blotter reports on the group's efforts in California:

I spent a couple of hours yesterday with Bob White, the volunteer Northern California director of the Independence Caucus . . . The Independence Caucus was founded by a pair of Utah men, Frank Anderson and Monte Bateman . . . The idea [behind the organization] is that most, if not all, long-time incumbents on either side of the aisle are beholden to special interests, and that no incumbent is safe if citizens put enough time and effort behind a candidate they believe in . . . White . . . is responsible for California congressional districts 1 through 27. He’s been putting a lot of mileage on his car, crisscrossing the state’s northern half to hit every conservative gathering he can find, trying to identify potential “citizen candidates.” The only criteria, he said, are a commitment to fiscal responsibility and “adherence to the Constitution” – the candidate could be Democrat or Republican, he said, so long as they stick to those two tenets.

The central contradiction inherent to this position is plainly obvious: the group recognizes the failure of the Democratic-Republican duopoly system of government ("most, if not all, long-time incumbents on either side of the aisle are beholden to special interests"), but its solution is to support the reproduction of the problem by strengthening the dictatorship of the Democratic-Republican Party ("the candidate could be a Democrat or a Republican"). By excluding third party and independent candidates from consideration, and thus making membership in the Democratic or Republican Party an explicit criterion for consideration, the group makes a mockery of its moniker, pretending that complete dependency on the Democratic and Republican Parties is the criterion of political independence.

On the Delusions of Progressive Democrats: Contradiction in Terms

At TruthDig, David Sirota reflects on the Democratic Party's corporatist agenda, correctly noting that corporatistism is the ruling ideology of the Democratic-Republican two-party state:

Under Democratic corporatism, “government” is not what it used to be—it is not tough financial rules or public programs like Medicare. Instead, ”government” now means giving public dollars to private banking, insurance and drug firms, and then hoping (but not mandating) that such largesse compels those companies to change.

This public-private collusion, it must be noted, is not limited to one of the two parties—in today’s money-dominated politics, they both champion it when in power. Additionally, corporatism is neither “left” nor “right”—Barack Obama’s bailouts are no more “liberal” than George W. Bush’s corporate welfare bills were “conservative.”

Given his recognition of this fact, Sirota's clear bias in favor of the Democratic Party is virtually inexplicable, and completely undermines the next step in his argument. He continues:

The difference [between Democrats and Republicans] is that unlike business-affiliated Republicans, Democrats in 2008 explicitly pledged to fight such state-sponsored larceny, and America sees their subsequent betrayal as an unseemly attempt to feign concern for voters while enriching the party’s corporate donors.

As I noted yesterday, rhetorical opposition to the Democratic-Republican corporatist bipoligarchy is itself becoming a condition for the reproduction of the Democratic-Republican corporatist bipoligarchy. Thus, Republicans also explicitly pledge to fight "state-sponsored larceny," most obviously in the form of their supposed opposition to excessive taxation. They even occasionally act in accordance with such pledges. Recall, for instance, the original vote in the House rejecting the initial bankster bailout on September 29th 2008, before the Congress completely capitulated to the 'market terrorists,' as we might call them – following the president's lead, that is:

The U.S. House has rejected legislation to bail out the country's financial industry by a vote of 228-205. Of the House's 235 Democratic members, 140 voted in favor of the bailout, 95 against. Of 199 Republicans, only 65 voted "yea."

Though Sirota appears blinded by his antiquated notions of what the Democratic Party stands for (he invokes, for instance, both FDR and LBJ), others are not so naive or nostalgic. Under the headline "How this Administration is Creating Third Party Voters" at Crooks and Liars, Susie Madrak has published a comment that was left at Matt Taibbi's blog:

people are not fooled by Obama throwing out platitudes like “I didn’t run for President to please fat-cat bankers” and then appointing people like Tim Geithner of Goldman Sachs to Treasury, keeping Ben Bernanke around, and having people who caused the economic pain for so many people like Larry Summers and Robert Rubin as his economic advisors. And are not fooled when he does nothing but mouth platitudes, or makes a scene of phoning a bank to tell them not to buy a plane, as the largest round of banking bonuses is handed out the year after they did the financial equivalent of blowing up the world. And are not fooled when he gives a speech to Wall Street politely requesting them not to be so greedy, and that they don’t need to wait for him to enact legislation to change their behavior. And are not fooled when all the popular elements of reform like a public insurance option are gutted out of the health care reform bill in order to “pass something” and call it a win, and then lie that you “never campaigned on a public option” . . .

I think Obama and his circle really believed that if he just talked the talk, and acted more empathetic in his photo-ops, no one would notice they were carrying on with the contempt Bush and Republicans had for the general public. But people did notice, and people who they counted on before to volunteer and vote for them because “they have no one else to vote for” are sick and tired of playing that game . . .

I came of voting age just a little before 2000, and could never really understand why people would “waste” a vote on someone like Nader. And although I was a supporter of Kucinich in 2004, once he was out, favoring Kerry made sense to me. But I’d never really had a real opportunity to see the modern Democratic Party running things in my adult lifetime.

Now I understand why people vote third-party. When the country is teetering on the brink and can’t get by on non-solutions anymore, and avoiding failed-state status actually depends on starting to fix the problems rather than just pretending it’s trying, and EVEN THEN the Democratic Party can only respond by offering trillions to Wall Street and legally requiring people who can’t afford health insurance to buy it from private, oligopolistic, profit-maximizing companies, all because of industry’s hold on Congress… then there’s nothing else you can do. In such a sick system, all you have left is your integrity as the country goes to hell, and I understand with crystal clarity why people vote third-party. [Emphasis not mine. -d.]

To be a Democrat or a Republican today is to be nothing but an enabler and a facilitator of the Democratic-Republican Party's corporatist agenda, whatever your intentions may be. To vote Democratic or Republican, to support Republicans and Democrats in any fashion whatsoever, is to provide the political cover for the ongoing criminal conspiracy that is the two-party state and duopoly system of government. If you stand in opposition to the corporatist agendas of the Democratic and Republican Parties, and you do so as a Democrat or Republican, you are the problem you seek to resolve. It is that simple. Luckily, the solution to this problem is ready at hand. Declare your independence from the two-party system and the ideology that reproduces it. At Op-Ed News, Bill Willers has written an open letter to progressive members of Congress, calling on them to withdraw from the Democratic Party:

There has never been a better time for the emergence of a strong third party as a permanent entity. Objective critics of the "system" have now understood that it is rotten beyond repair. Corporate "persons" rule in this two-party setup. "Reforms" are hopelessly inadequate. It should not be necessary to elaborate. What is necessary is revolutionary transformation rather than "change" as a mere campaign buzzword.

As it is, truly progressive members of Congress who identify themselves as democrats are eclipsed -- virtual nonentities really -- by the Democratic Leadership Council which long ago took its place beside the GOP in the corporate sphere . . .

If a contingent of true progressives - that might include such representatives as Kucinich, Grijalva, Lee, Conyers, Baldwin - were to hold a press conference and announce the formation of a Progressive Party with platform to match, the earth would move. There would be a rush of support from progressives, the Green Party, unions, democrats who understand the betrayal from the DLC stranglehold, minority groups, independents seeking change and even from some "moderate" Republicans. And there would surely be renewed interest from the millions who have long since turned off in disgust over the systemic rot that has by now become utterly transparent . . .

The argument that a Progressive Party would rob support from the Democratic Party, thus ensuring Republican control, overlooks what multi-party systems employ all the time: coalitions. Two or more parties can come together to create a platform that will topple a single dominant party. An American Progressive Party -- not a barely visible caucus but a bona fide party created within Congress -- would be an entity to which the Democratic Party would literally be forced to appeal in the interest of its own well being. It would have to move away from the corporate clutches of the DLC and work on a platform that would be acceptable to progressive values -- something not possible given the present system.

Our country was founded by revolutionary idealists who did not even want political parties as such. But two emerged, and the corporate world has taken control of them even as Americans have been conned into the belief that a two-party system is mandatory. A Progressive Party formed from within the now-suppressed progressive faction of this disgraceful Democratic Party would be a major factor in any strategy to lead the U.S. out of its current predicament.

On the Inevitable Failure of Strategic Infiltration, or, the Degeneration of Tea Party Activists into Petty Party Functionaries

The state of moral, intellectual and political abjection that has been achieved by the Democratic-Republican duopoly system of government has become so deep that virtually every event of some political import leads to calls for third party and independent opposition to the two-party state. Indeed, the reproduction of the two-party state itself appears at this point to hinge on creating the appearance of opposition to the two-party state. For instance, Scott Brown's victory in the special election in Massachusetts was predicated upon his assertion, contrary to fact, that he is an independent and not, as is obvious from his record, a garden variety career politician in the duopolist mold. Perhaps at some point Brown will be forced to declare his political independence from the Republican Party in accordance with the old dictum, attributed to Kurt Vonnegut, that we are what we pretend to be. But, whatever the case may be in that regard, Brown's victory has led to a new consciousness of the power wielded by voters unaffiliated with either of the duopoly parties. CNN's Jack Cafferty, who certainly considers himself an independent, recently asked his viewers what it will take "to get a viable third party going in this country":

what we're seeing in places like Massachusetts, and also in those governors' races in New Jersey and Virginia, is swing voters swinging the other way. It's sort of like watching large groups of people rushing from one side of the Titanic to the other, causing the ship to lurch alternately from port to starboard - left to right. We just went through this a year ago when they all ran away from the Republicans and to the Democrats. Fact is, neither option is any good. Both parties stink. Our government is broken and no longer serves the needs of the people. Time for real change. Here’s my question to you: What will it take to get a viable third party going in this country?

Of course, this is precisely the wrong question to ask since there already are a number of viable third parties in the United States. The more pressing question is: what will it take to get US voters to end their abusive, co-dependent relationship with the duopoly parties? Consider how many tea party activists have proven incapable of liberating themselves from the ideology of the two-party state and now advocate an infiltrationist strategy that stands in direct contradiction with the movement's original opposition to Democratic-Republican politics as such. Ironically, if they continue down this road, they will likely suffer the same fate as the progressive anti-war movement, which was co-opted and then defeated by the Democratic Party. Support for Scott Brown's Senate campaign among tea party activists is a clear sign of the movement's degeneration. Many might be surprised to learn that the day after the election, Brown emphasized that he supports national health care, saying "there are some very good things in the national plan that's being proposed." But not all tea party groups fell for the ruses of the duopoly parties' propaganda machines. The Boston Tea Party, for instance, endorsed independent Libertarian Joe Kennedy's bid for US Senate in Massachusetts.

Establishmentarian Republicans no longer even hide the fact that they are explicitly pursuing a co-optation strategy with respect to the tea party movement. Neil Cavuto recently interviewed Dan Quayle and asked the former Vice President about "that whole tea party stuff" and whether it represents a "potent third party." Dan Quayle came right out and said it:

here's the challenge of my Party, is basically to co-opt the populist movement, the so-called Tea Party Folks whether they are Republicans or Democrats.

Naturally, tea party activists overtly and vehemently reject this notion even as they tacitly accept it. At Right Wing News, Warner Todd Huston writes of Quayle:

These guys just don't get it that the Tea Party goers have the political power here. They don't understand that their flawed Country Club Republican way of thinking has been rejected by the people. If they want to stay in power, the GOP better come to terms with the ideals and principles as espoused by the nation-wide phenomenon that is the Tea Party movement . . . You can't "co-opt" us, Mr. Quayle. You will be lucky if WE co-opt YOU!

But the co-optation of the tea party movement by the Republican Party is already in full swing, and is perhaps most clear in the adoption of the neighborhood precinct strategy. Bob Adelmann sums up the idea at the New American:

The strategy that has spread rapidly across the internet is “The Neighborhood Precinct Committeeman Strategy” which, according to the popular website Resistnet.com “entails a tried-and-true, peaceful, Constitutional, ballot box solution to our present political predicament.” According to the strategy, all one has to do is to “go to a Republican Party meeting or walk a precinct on behalf of a candidate.” According to Darla who outlined this strategy in detail, presidential candidate Obama used this strategy to defeat Hillary Clinton.

The infiltration of the Republican Party by tea party activists is the co-optation of the tea party movement by the Republican Party. Such groups are as deluded as their progressive counterparts in the Democratic Party. Their emulation and adoption of the Obama strategy, which they deride as "far left radicalism," is evidence of their complete capitulation to that which they claim to oppose. Instead of organizing real, independent opposition to the Democratic-Republican two-party state and duopoly system of government, these activists have chosen to accommodate the ruling political establishment by becoming its willing functionaries and call it resistance!