Not Us, You

So when, as is likely, the nomination is stolen from him at the Democratic
Convention, will Bernie Sanders 1) concede as he did in 2016 and try

to get the "us" in his campaign slogan to fall in line behind Joe Biden or Michael Bloomberg or whatever member of the kleptocracy the Democratic poobahs have chosen as designated hitman (which millions of "us" will probably perceive as a betrayal); 2) lead his delegates out of the convention to continue the fight in the streets; 3) declare the Democratic Party null and void and conduct an independent campaign; 4) convert his campaign into an independent political movement to organize the people to take on the political class; or 5) use his political organization as the starting place to create a new progressive party to take on the parties of the center and the right in 2022 and beyond?

The Party’s Over: Bernie’s Last Dance With the Dems by Jim Kavanaugh (CounterPunch)

Should there be an independent left outside of the Democratic Party?

"The Democratic Party is now the full-throated proponent of neoliberal austerity at home, aggressive militarism abroad, and the ubiquitous national security state. Democrats gave landslide approvals to a record high war budget and renewal of the Patriot Act, while Pelosi’s 'pay-go' act doomed prospects for future progressive legislation. The last Democratic president’s deportations, drone strikes, wars in seven countries, multi-trillion-dollar upgrading of the US’s nuclear war fighting capacity, multi-trillion-dollar quantitative easing gift to finance capitalists, extension of the tax cut for the rich, and so forth also rise – giving credit where credit is due – to the level of catastrophe."

The rest of the story:
✓ The Imminent Threat of Trump and the Value of Progressive Third Parties by Roger Harris (CounterPunch)
✓ An Open Letter to the Green Party for 2020 by Noam Chomsky, Barbara Ehrenreich, Bill Fletcher, Leslie Cagan, Ron Daniels, Kathy Kelly, Norman Solomon, Cynthia Peters and Michael Albert (TruthDig)
✓ The Green Party Is Not the Democrats’ Problem by Howie Hawkins (CounterPunch)

Won't be fooled again?

According to Gallup, 60% of Americans want a third party candidate for 2016. Even so, in the fall of 2016, we will be warned once again (by The Nation, Daily Kos and their ilk) that -- once again -- we must must must vote for the Lesser-of-Two-Evils -- a Wall Street-militarist-security state Democrat -- or face Catastrophe -- a Wall Street-militarist-security state Republican.

Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result isn't really the definition of insanity. But it is the definition of stupidity.

See, In U.S., Perceived Need for Third Party Reaches New High: Twenty-six percent believe Democratic and Republican parties do adequate job (Gallup).

To run or not to run, that is the question

As Sen. Bernie Sanders considers a run for president, his big concern is whether the infrastructure exists to support an independent candidacy. It seems to me that his decision to run would be favorably influenced if the Peace & Freedom Party were to endorse him now. Not only would it nudge him in the right direction, but the fact that he would be on the ballot in the nation's largest state would encourage third parties in other region's to get on board.

Movement politics may be the only route to social and economic justice.

Both parties having become irrelevant and unresponsive to the majority's political needs, and with neither seemingly capable of learning from experience, the time seems ripe for a new politics. Or, more likely, a new politics is inevitable. The Greens are still active and the Working Families Party is demonstrating growing strength and relevance. The question for the Big Two is whether they will adopt the demands of a growing popular resistance -- the GOP by becoming more rightwing, the Democrats more progressive -- or, like the Whigs, to resist change and wither away.

How much better we would be served as voters, if there were -- at least -- three parties: a reactionary Republican Party (to absorb the anger and frustration of the tea party and provide a vehicle for the fantasies of libertarian fundamentalists and the brotherhood of Ayn Rand); the centrist Democrats as currently configured (to represent the interests of militarists and security staters, neoliberals and the free markets cohort, and conservatives-formerly-known-as-Republicans); and on the left a Progressive People's Party (for the middle class and working poor, New Dealers, traditional liberals, progressives, social democrats and the rest of the 90% or so of the people presently unrepresented by the two establishment parties).

It has been more than 40 years since the U.S. began its long, slow decline into militarism, corporatism and the cult of laissez-faire, and it's unlikely that the Republicans and Democrats can fix problems they made. Decades of austerity for the poor and socialism for the rich have left them compromised and bloated by self-interest. It is now up to an angry citizenry to compel change.

The rest of the story:
-> "Today, the labor movement has been largely subdued, and social activists have made their peace with neoliberalism and adjusted their horizons accordingly. Within the women’s movement, goals have shifted from practical objectives such as comparable worth and universal child care in the 1980s to celebrating appointments of individual women to public office and challenging the corporate glass ceiling. Dominant figures in the antiwar movement have long since accepted the framework of American military interventionism. The movement for racial justice has shifted its focus from inequality to 'disparity,' while neatly evading any critique of the structures that produce inequality. The sources of this narrowing of social vision are complex. But its most conspicuous expression is subordination to the agenda of a Democratic Party whose center has moved steadily rightward since Ronald Reagan’s presidency." -- Nothing Left: The long, slow surrender of American liberals by Adolph Reed Jr. (Harper's).
-> "[I]f f there’s one thing the left needs, it’s a serious talk about its future. The alternative is the continued fragmentation of an inchoate movement, accompanied by a never-ending rightward shift in American politics and the continued ascendancy of corporate economic power." -- Has the Left Surrendered? The Overdue Conversation We Need by Richard Eskow (OurFuture).
"We need to talk about transformation – social, economic, and political." Enough Recrimination. Let’s Build a Populist Movement. by Richard Eskow (OurFuture).

Third Parties Can Win

"When the major parties agree, as they often do in supporting, say, corporate-style education reform, a third party can promote ideas and issues that would be otherwise neglected. In Oregon, for example, the [Working Families Party] worked with local student groups to put forward a plan for rethinking college funding. They found a WFP-backed Democrat to sponsor it, and the measure wound up passing unanimously in the state legislature. The party is now working on a bill that would

The Working Families Party's Sauda Baraka 

create a state bank to invest Oregon’s public money at home instead of with Wall Street and provide cheaper loans to state residents. Such proposals are unlikely to come from the major parties, which each receive massive campaign contributions from big banks, even at the state level.

"Around the country, the party also backs familiar proposals like paid sick leave and an increase in the minimum wage. Though these initiatives didn’t originate with the WFP, the party’s 15 years of clout has given it enough leverage in the states where it works to demand politicians take a position. Elected officials who have had or want the WFP’s backing— which means on-the-ground support come election time as well as a stamp of progressive approval—have an incentive to back its policies.

"'Power has both an ideological element and a straight political muscle element,' says [WFP co-founder Dan] Cantor. 'Can you actually deliver the energy, ideas, troops, money, tactics, morale, volunteers that are needed in any given fight? The fight might be an issue campaign or an electoral campaign. What I think is quite delightful about Working Families is we do both.'”

The rest of the story:
With new strategies, the Working Families Party is shaking up the two-party system: The Third Party That’s Winning by Sarah Jaffe (In These Times)

Third party? Now? How about now? No? Maybe now?

The arguments for a People's Party become ever more compelling. Clinging to the faith that the Democrats any more than the Republicans will dismantle the corporate-security state is like believing in angels.

In a new book, Ralph Nader reminds us that the militarization of American diplomacy began with Bill Clinton and that Obama has doubled down on the excesses of George Bush and Dick Cheney. In Unstoppable, Nader demands an end to “unconstitutional wars and unchecked militarism.” Barack Obama, he writes, “has extended the Bush doctrine by declaring his unilateral right, as secret prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner, to destroy anybody, anywhere in the world, including American citizens, suspected to be engaged in alleged terrorist activities, all this vaguely and loosely defined as anti-U.S. security," extending the illegal reach of wars of choice, invasions, incursions, and drone attacks, without regard for international law or national boundaries.

For the average citizen, the growth of corporate power bolstered by the security apparatus has been matched by a corresponding decline in quality of life. Enough is enough. Building new organizations, like a third party, and restoring old ones, like the Labor Movement, to challenge the status quo will not be easy. But without that effort, our national decline, now in its fifth decade. will continue until it is irreversible.

Unstoppable: The Emerging Left-Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State by Ralph Nader (Amazon Kindle).

Lesser of two evils? Really?

Like Bill Clinton as president (you remember: banking "reform," telecom "reform," welfare "reform," WTO, NAFTA -- that Bill Clinton), President Obama has tried to deflect criticism by adopting the policies of his opponents, in effect, as used to be said, being more Catholic than the Pope. In domestic affairs, this has led to passivity and inaction, allowing the Right to stake out the parameters of the political debate: the pursuit of austerity; the advancement of tax cuts (more of a muddle now that candidate Obama is a born-again populist); the promotion of the health of the insurance industry ahead of the health of the people; the setting "on the table" of cuts in Social Security and Medicare.

But, as troubling as the administration's domestic agenda has been, it is in the area of foreign policy that its behavior is most distressing. Not wishing to allow criticism from conservatives, Obama has not just continued George W. Bush's Long War, but has enlarged it both in scope and in ferocity. The legal and physical framework established during Bush's reign, from the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act thru Gitmo to drones, not only remains in place, but has been extended to include contract killings and a list of conflict points that looks like the departure board of an international airline.

So where does that leave the Left in November 2012? True to form, the presidential wing of the Democratic Party is campaigning on the shop-worn "lesser-of-two-evils" platform, even though it has become so threadbare the only part not in tatters is the fear-mongering about appointments to the Supreme Court. (And, by the way, how different is jazzing up the Democratic base over Roe V. Wade from the GOP's cynical use of "social issues" to get its base hyperventilating? Here's something you can put money on: whether Obama or Romney is president, the next appointee to the Supreme Court will be a reliable defender of corporate interests and the status quo.) Even if you're appalled, as you should be, by the idea of Mitt Romney in the White House (and Paul Ryan a heartbeat away), how can you vote for Obama without endorsing his policy choices?

The answer, of course, is that you can't. In 2008, it was possible to convince yourself that the Democratic candidate's general blandness ("hope," "change," "yes we can") and specific conservatism (missile attacks on Iran, more war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, advocacy of the death penalty, deliberate blurring of the clear language of the 2nd amendment, bipartisanship as a policy goal) was a disguise intended to slip him past voters on election day, a "whites of their eyes" strategy as it is (now wistfully) described to get hold of the reins of power before turning the carriage of state down the road to peace and economic justice. In 2012, deluding yourself that Obama is the candidate of change is no longer possible. No wonder the campaign is spending its millions demonizing the hapless Romney (Obama has been supremely lucky in his opponents, but never more so than this season); what else is there to talk about?

If you're not a supporter of fiscal austerity except when it comes to funding endless war, what do you do? In some states, third party candidates will be on the ballot (in California, no joke, Roseanne Barr was nominated for president last week by the Peace and Freedom Party, which also has in Marsha Feinland a first rate candidate for U.S. Senate against that pillar of the status quo, Sen. Diane Feinstein; Barr is also working hard to get on the ballot in other states; and the Green Party has a worthy candidate in Dr. Jill Stein). In most of the places where where liberal disappointment in the president is greatest -- New York, Illinois, California, New England and the Pacific Northwest, the distortions of the electoral college have rendered votes in the Obama-Romney contest so meaningless that even progressives persuaded by lesser-of-two-evils argument can cast a third party protest vote without worrying. There also are numerous opportunities to affect the much more important matter of who gets to serve in the national legislature: in addition to such obvious choices as Sen. Sherrod Brown, Elizabeth Warren, and Alan Grayson, scores of federal and local progressive candidates need your support: you'll find most (or all) of them at the fundraising site ActBlue. And you can work to build a third party more in tune with the your politics than the duopoly; get involved in local politics; join the struggle to create alternative power bases, for example in labor or community organizations; pursue change in specific policy areas (such as militarization or the environment); assist civil rights and civil liberties defenders like the Southern Poverty Law Center or the American Civil Liberties Union.

Or you can take to the streets.

What you can't do, it seems to me, is sit passively in the audience of our political theater; what you can't do is agree to business as usual; what you can't do is once again accept without resistance the lesser of two evils.

Can Bloomberg Run as an Independent in 2012?

This is a long shot, but "[l]ooking to 2012, with no real standout on the right, while Pres. Obama continues to struggle and the economy dipping again, there is a growing vacuum in the political dialogue for an Independent candidate to rise up. Of course, we’re talking about Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a potentially dangerous opponent for both big two parties, because not only will Bloomberg have many business and Wall Street allies on his side, but he’ll take his share of the Jewish vote as well. Howard Wolfson made an appearance on 'Morning Joe' Friday, acquitting himself very well as deputy mayor and someone who would be an able asset to Bloomberg if he does jump in. After his leadership on the Cordoba House, New York’s mayor also likely made some Muslim friends in Michigan."

The rest of the story: 2012: Room for growing as an Independent by Taylor Marsh (Taylor Marsh from Washington D.C. 2010-08-22).

Third Parties: He who laughs last...

In what appears to be a massive protest vote, Iceland's satirical Best Party won the most votes in the recent elections in Reykjavik, propelling the party's founder, comedian Jon Gnarr into the mayor’s office and winning 6 seats on the 15-member city council. Now that they have won the election, will they take their new jobs seriously? Here's how Gnarr tried to calm fears that it's all a big joke:

No one has to be afraid of the Best Party, because it is the best party. If it wasn’t, it would be called the Worst Party or the Bad Party. We would never work with a party like that.

-- Adapted from Political Irony: Humor and Hypocrisy from the World of Politics (The Best Party, The Best Quote 2010-06-27).

Electoral Politics: New Labor Party Emerging In North Carolina

by Julie Rose

The passage of the new health care bill is expected to have a wide-ranging effect on members of Congress during the next cycle of elections. In North Carolina, one of the nation's most powerful labor unions has decided to play a bigger role in the campaigning. The SEIU is helping to create a new political party to challenge several Democrats they helped elect just two years ago.
Listen to the Story. Transcript.

Fundraiser: Make A Difference

Here's a chance for those who support a broader menu of choices at the polls to get behind a worthy and viable alternative to the sorry offerings of the establishment parties -- and have fun doing it! Labor activist Cindy Varela Henderson is the only candidate in the 26th with a program for change. It's just a bonus that the benefit's comedy and music line-up includes some of the finest performers in L.A. Not to miss.*

Comedy Night Fundraiser
a night of political
comedy to benefit the
CINDY VARELA HENDERSON
for State Senate
campaign

Featuring:

-> Rick Overton
-> John Fugelsang
-> Jann Karam
-> Ann Randolph
-> Bill Bronner
-> Judith Scott
-> Gary Gordon

-> with Jeff Norman, MC

-> and Special Music Guest Suzy Williams

Fanatic Salon, 3815 Sawtelle Blvd.,
just south of Venice Blvd.

Sunday - May 3 - 7:30 p.m. - $15

Proceeds go to the Cindy Varela Henderson for State Senate Campaign

* And, if you have to miss, send them some money anyway
info: 310-568-9622 or http://www.votecindy4senate

Loyalty, as defined by Democrats

Jeff Norman writes: According to a new Gallup poll, 28% of Hillary Clinton supporters say they will vote for John McCain if Barack Obama is the nominee, and 19% of Obama supporters say they will vote for McCain if Clinton is the nominee. These people are, of course, DEMOCRATS whom one might reasonably EXPECT to show some allegiance to the DEMOCRATIC nominee. By contrast, Ralph Nader is NOT a Democrat, yet he was crucified for his "failure" to show allegiance to an OPPOSITION party, while no such public condemnation has been heaped on all these wayward Democrats. Why not? What about the importance of Supreme Court appointments and the whole "progressive" agenda, blah blah blah? Why is there no uproar about these REAL traitors? Could it be that Ralph was/is right, and Democrats and their enablers are a huge part of the problem? Nah, that couldn't be!

As the saying goes, read it and weep: <http://www.gallup.com/>

2008: What's a poor progressive to do?

For me, Barack Obama's singular achievement has been to make Hillary Clinton look good. Say what you will about Hillary, as a lifetime wonkette, at least she has some politics.

That said, I want to pass along these off-the-cuff notes to portside from D.C. Statehood Green Party activist David Schwartzman (he's responding to a pro-Obama brief that I won't burden you with), that make a couple of points in favor of voting for Obama, at least in states that might otherwise go to John McCain:

Obama "progressive" ?!!! To argue that Obama is the best choice out of the three offered by the two war parties is well supported, but lets be clear why. It is not because he is "progressive," unless in some Bizzaro World being progressive includes support for expanding the military-industrial complex, the death penalty, the US/Israeli axis of human rights violation, voting for funding the war and the Patriot Act, opposing a universal single payer health plan, pretending clean energy includes nuclear power and corn ethanol, i.e., having a platform almost identical to Hillary Clinton's. Rather, Obama is preferable because:

1) He is a Democrat, so with a Democratic President and Congress there will be no more excuses that it is all the Republicans' fault that the Iraq War/Occupation continues, urgent domestic needs are unmet, etc.

Actually, I disagree with this part of Schwartsman's argument: because, when he was their president, Bill Clinton was able to neuter Democratic progressives in Congress; there is no reason to believe this would not happen in a triangulating Obama administration actively pursuing a consensus with the GOP.

2) He is more likely to beat McCain, according to most polls.

Not to be argumentative, but Obama has enjoyed a free ride up to now: there is no telling what his standing in the polls will be after the Right's slime machine is through with him.

3) Expectations are higher that he will end the Iraq war/occupation, hence a case can be made that the millions inspired by Obama's campaign will hold him accountable after his election with the help of the real progressives and thereby avoid more imperialist interventions.

Okay. By now you're wondering why I'm sending you this piece at all. It's because I think Schwartzman does make the best case there is for supporting Obama. However:

The peace movement has already given up whatever leverage it might have had over the very junior senator from Illinois by prematurely -- is that the word? -- embracing BHO in order to stop Clinton. What possible reason does he have to meet their expectations now? Far more important to address the needs and wishes of the conservative congressional majority and the DNC who will be in a much better position than the peace movement to make his life miserable for the next four years.

4) And last but by far not least, the election of an African-American as US President will be an historic blow to racism despite his colorblind campaign.

True enough, except the exact same argument can be made about Clinton and gender bias. But, and here's the real point,

preferring Obama should also mean voting strategically, so that the only really progressive party on the US scene, the Green Party, can grow and challenge the corporate duopoly. Hopefully many voters especially in safe states will make that choice by voting for the Cynthia McKinney for President, assuming she will be chosen by the Green Party Convention, and putting more Greens into local office.

Hear, hear.

With this caveat: Schwartzman is thinking nationally and as a Green Party activist; but it's true that, although its commitment to economic justice is essentially untested, for now the Green Party is the only potentially viable national party of the Left. In California, however, it may also be worth casting a vote to keep the Peace and Freedom Party alive. And in some states the Socialist Party USA is on the ballot. So if the Dream Team is not your dream ticket and you decide to look elsewhere for someone to support, consider all the options.

2008: Green Party Event (Bay Area)

This was sent over by our friends at the Green Party:

Green Campaign 2008: A Presidential Debate that Matters

Come See And Hear . . .

Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, Jared Ball, Kent Mesplay, Kat Swift, Jesse Johnson

. . . Talking about the issues of the day!

All seven people who are on Green Party's February 5th California Primary Ballot have been invited to the Debate. The six people named above have confirmed their participation (previously announced speaker Elaine Brown has withdrawn from the race).

Hosted and moderated by

Cindy Sheehan, Aimee Allison, Gayle McLaughlin, Ross Mirkarimi, Mark Sanchez, Matt Gonzalez

Sunday, January 13, 2008 2 PM

Herbst Theater, Veterans Memorial Bldg, 401 Van Ness (opposite
City Hall), San Francisco (3 blocks from Civic Center BART
station)

--- $10-$25 Donation at the door (sliding scale) ---

<http://www.acgreens.org/debate>