For anyone still following this thread, I highly recommend reading Ward Churchills, Pacifism as Pathology. I am also linking a book review off of Amazon that is accurate and powerful in my opinion. If you want to join the resistance movement, this is the opportunity to read something based on historical analysis, argument unsurpassed, logical, without any holes in it. Of course, you can follow the lead of Lindorff who is taking you by the hand into a dead end cul de sac of sterility and sentimentality. The choice is yours.

"One of the previous reviewers sums it up very well: In this book, and pulling no punches, Churchill lays out his case against white progressives-to be precise the liberal/social democratic complacent legions of mostly well-educated midlle and upper middle class activists-who are delusional not only in the ineffectual tactics and strategies they pursue (which the ruling elites are only too happy to accommodate as per a well-scripted minuet), but in the belief that they are actually performing revolutionary acts...So, like it or not, Churchill is correct in pointing out that these liberals will do everything except assume actual risk in opposing the system..and that, being mostly interested in practicing "comfort zone" politics, they will almost invariably indulge in essentially worthless "cathartic" posturizing instead of solid opposition. By the way, the same writer is NOT correct in saying that nonviolence has achieved huge transformations. The Iranian revolution (1979) was far from a nonviolent process: the Shah had been opposed for decades by above ground and underground groups, several of which practiced armed struggle and paid a horrific price for it, while the last month of his rule saw masses of people in most Iranian cities, but especially Tehran, literally storming strong points and tanks in the streets with their bare chests and being mowed down...until more and more soldiers simply gave up and melted away or switched sides. As for the collapse of the USSR (1991), that came about as a result of complex processes that did not involve invested CLASS PRIVILEGES, as we have here and in other corporate-dominated nations. As for South Africa, the end of apartheid did not issue from a nonviolent process. Decades-long protests against the fascist legislation escalated until 1958 when the tragedy of Sharpeville occurred. Soon thereafter the government tried to suppress opposition through the sledgehammer approach of bannings and systematic "targeted repression". The first to be hit were the ANC and the PAC, but such bannings merely caused the organisations to go underground and become even more militant. The "armed struggle" therefore began in earnest in 1958 and by 1970 was beginning to affect the South African economy as greater and greater manpower was required to maintain an ever increasing army. Thus, Mandela's organization, the ANC had both a civil and a military arm, even if the latter developed after all roads to a peaceful elimination of Apartheid had proved futile, and long after the beneficiaries of the status quo had demonstrated through their unrelenting savagery that only armed struggle would move history forward. As for the much revered Arundhati Roy I do not think for a minute that she got it right in her speech in New York, where she argued "that there is no way to defeat the Empire by force and that its component parts must be isolated and paralyzed one by one." Sounds terrific and we only wish it were true, but Ms. Roy is also, like her liberal counterparts, utterly delusional. Furthermore, all the acclamation in the chi-chi salons and media precincts she's accustomed to will not change that simple fact. How does she propose to paralyze these component parts of the most heavily armed, cynical, and ruthless class privilege system in history without some form of REAL confrontation? With 2-hour candlelight vigils and some symbolic arrests which, by the way, may or may not be reported by the corporate-owned media? If THAT was all that was required to get rid of an immoral, deeply rooted capitalist system, a Nazi terror regime, a vicious landowning oligarchy as in Salvador, and so on, humanity would have moved past these filthy horrors decades if not centuries ago. As Churchill points out in his book, Nazi Germany was defeated by the massive application of force; the racist American South was similarly juridically defeated in the 1860s by massive military force, by organized all-out violence, (I say juridically because in practice it took 100 more years of struggle that saw innumerable crimes before African Americans could begin to take their rightful place among their fellow citizens)...There is not a single case in history where a deeply entrenched system of class or racial exploitation was overthrown by moral suasion and symbolic protests...If real change came about it was because force was being applied somewhere else alongside the nonviolent tracks...That's the point that Churchill is making in this book. It's a discomfiting point, but I'm afraid it is a true fact. Social change does not come cheap. Well, I could go on, but if you're a liberal I'm sure that facts will matter far less than attachment to convenient fantasies."

Lindorff is right. I think I heard today that Israel has 12 parties. Look where they are. Further right than us.

USA is going to hell !! AMERICANS GLUTTONIC CITIZENS ONLY CARE ABOUT FOOD !!

americans are addicted to oreos, fig-bars, doritos, tostitos, corn-dogs, pancakes, duncan hines, pillsbury cakes, kraft cheese, Nabisco Ritz cookies, combos, oreos, fig-bars, pancakes, combos, corn dogs, burritos, tostitos, fajitas, calzonis, Cicis pizzas, Golden Corral, I-hop all u can eat buffets, potatoe salads, twinkies, little debbies, donkin donuts, pop tarts, struddles, apple jax, pecan pies

"Poor Mexico, poor Mexico. So far away from God, and so close to the United States." -Porfirio Diaz, Mexican Nationalist, Ex-President

.

Mr. Lindorff says "just don't spend your time debating party policies and platforms and ideologies". Isn't this precisely what the 2 major parties do?

I guess we should be left shouting anti-war slogans in the street or perhaps trying to "organize" unemployment lines. Is this some kind of joke?

What is needed is a disciplined party that does exactly what Lindorff says they shouldn't-debate policies and platforms. This should be done until this party starts winning offices. If it does, the debating should accelerate.

No more useless demonstrations in front of the Senator's office. No more mindless talk of "mass movements".

More updated articles of forced furloughs of state workers in California.... unbelievable, unbelievable:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jVA-73I3e4i3nzgMTJYOPJVs1cUQD968FU3G1

http://www.sacbee.com/737/story/1612307.html

Don't let it happen! This is the start of worse things to come for workers if they acquience and ultimately lose out. They can't lose this one. The governor should be forced to resign in shame for this. Where are the outraged unions? A twice monthly furlough for those already earning near minimum wage? And why doesn't he think to take them himself? Cut his wages and take a few days off with no pay... I'm sure this would save the state a rather hefty amount. Impose caps on actors' wages in Hollywood. Oh, I forgot, he's part of the gang who keeps putting out ever more worthless movies each year.

This alone should kick start a mass movement in California..to spread elsewhere.

Updated: well, some state workers are already complying without a fight. They are just trying to force more of them to submit to these furloughs. The sheeple have spoken and they don't want to lift a finger to fight for their wages, their livelihood, etc. I swear, middle and low income workers in the US make me sick. They almost deserve what they get for "complying" so easily.

Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power."

Lindorff says: "What we need to be focusing on is building a mass movement...that will bring masses of people onto the streets, especially in Washington, but in every city and town, too, to demand an end to this country's pointless wars, a huge cut in the military budget, a national health care system, a jobs program, a break-up of the large banking and other corporate monopolies, an end to the national security state, reform of the labor laws, and a restoration of a real progressive tax system."

That's a mighty complex list of objectives calling for sophisticated, persistent organization, communication and timing across what is currently little better than scattered rabble in the eyes of the government, Big Media and ruling oligarchs.

What I see Lindorff offering us is the choice between the currently failed, disorganized, localized micro-issue cells that are easily ignored or divided and conquered by the powers that be, and an illusion of these same micro-cells somehow mysteriously being galvanized to act as a disciplined organized partisan organization without being a Party.

Here's what I see looming: A Balkanized country with regional and local micro-factions of progressives that are increasingly deliberately divided, isolated as target cells, treated as terrorists and rounded up or attacked legalistically or militarily vs. a slim chance to organize as a functioning, persistently organized Party that can exert enough combined political presence to actually pressure the powers that be--whether it wins office or not. Because whether it wins office or not is not the main point. The point is to become big enough and organized enough to make the other Parties loathe to screw with it with impunity.

Alan MacDonald

Dave makes the valid point, "Third parties have not played a significant role in American politics since the 1930s."

That would be the 1930's in which the actions of a Wall Street plutocracy and what FDR rightly called the elite "economic royalists" caused the Great Depression and drove 'working class' Americans to stand-up for their political and economic rights in a real democracy --- correct, Dave?

Seems like we are quickly reaching that same point of deprivation, frustration, anger, and direct action today, Dave.

Maybe the time for third parties is coming back --- now that the GINI Coefficient of Income INEQUALITY and economic oppression is, for the first time ever in America, exceeding that of the Great Depression, eh Dave?

CAN WE CREATE A BLOG TO DISCUSS OUR ORGANIZING PRACTICES? We really need schools and workshops in every city. But a national discussion board might be a good starting place.

Since 385 contributions (and counting) have been posted here there is obviously a huge interest in a mass movement. (And I am especially impressed with you, Dave Lindorff, for hanging out with us in the commentary.) We need to LEARN and TEACH each other how to organize that mass movement wherever we are, starting, if necessary, with a handful of friends and working outwards. (Benjamin Franklin started with groups of 12, which he called "juntos.") Can we create a place to talk? I myself am a techno doofus, but someone has to know how to set up a site.

Interested?
Laurenceofberk@aol.com
or, God help me,
510-540-1975

I think, my first job as a radical is to reveal the truth as I see it. From there we can chose our options. Right now our options are limited for sure. I think a tactical vote for the Democratic party candidate is rational given that 3rd party viability is non-existent. But it's dishonest to pretend that this lack of 3rd parties is natural phenomenon. A certain kind of political reification happens on issues like this all the time. We pretend that what is man-made is merely “the way it is". So, let's back up a bit.

To wit: 3rd party in-viability is a direct result of Democratic party suppression both in codified legal infrastructure and illicit shenanigans. The political process itself is consciously rigged to exclude 3rd parties and while Democratic rank n' file types such as yourself will lament the 'reality' of our two-party system-- you won't demand anything better (i.e., anything more democratic) from the party. You tacitly approve of its tactics by continuing to vote for them.

Also, the media consciously and through more subtle filters (see: Chomsky's propaganda model) excludes 3rd party voices. This is no accident-- it is manipulation by the corporate press-- a press that is buttressed by the two-parties and the capitalist infrastructure; it is the apotheosis of cynical collusion. Thus, no amount of "pressure" from the left will ever have the same force as the entrenched and canonized interests of capitalism and the two parties. It's a systemic and permanent imbalance of power. Furthermore, it's an illusion that they will ever allow a 3rd voice (the Ventura model is the exception that proved the rule).

In fact Ralph Nader himself cites this very phenomena (see: Crashing the Party) as his raison d'être for getting into electoral politics in the first place. He listed, ad infinitum, the examples of inaction/obstructionism on progressive and popular policies by the Democrats. He noticed that left-wing/progressive ideas (ideas popular with large majorities of the population—but unpopular with big-business) were routinely shunned by the Democrats even and especially when they were in power. Nader cited several examples of Clinton/Gore ignoring him and his public advocacy groups (even refusing to meet with him in 1994) even when the programs Nader was lobbying for were very popular with the public. Nader smelled a rat—and if you have any grasp of the facts you will too.

Now, to be fair, some marginal gains can be made for sure through petition and protest once the Dems are in power. But marginal gains are not enough to pacify those of us you place under the rubric of "Nader advocates". As analog: for John Brown, slavery was evil and wrong and he wasn't happy with the 'liberal' incrementalism or the "delayed justice" of his milieu. His strategy of insurrection was unsuccessful-- but insurrection was/is a strategy; sometimes successful (see:1776, 1959, et.al.) and sometimes not. I'll return to this later, but I am attempting to answer your most salient points vis-à-vis "strategy" (Mel should take heed of this process-- it shows respect for one's adversary and intellectual honesty & discipline to boot!).

My point is that the mythology of the efficacy of "putting pressure from the left" on the Democratic candidate is so strong that it limits first your capacity for critical thinking on that particular candidate (e.g., Obama); and further, occults your ability to see how rigged the whole system is.

And since we radicals see the "pressure" tactic within a larger "from-the-outside-in" strategy as largely ineffective, we must attempt something else. You are willing to have Democrats in power forever and have more Progressive types put pressure on them from OUTSIDE. While you and I agree the 3rd party strategy is very ineffective currently, we radicals find it certainly more effective than your clearly impotent strategy of left-wing pressure on Democratic politicans. Frankly, they are BOTH ineffective. But, one strategy may have a future—the other does not (I believe that 3rd parties do have a future- I may be wrong, but I have a plan “B” if I am. I’ll get to that last.)

Look, it can apparently never be said enough: Obama is BETTER than Bush. But he's not "BETTER" enough. Mussolini was better than Hitler but I wouldn't vote for him and I wouldn't try to "work" with him and expect much. I know that syllogism is hyperbolic but you get my point. If you're a middle class white guy in the first-world, yeah, the Dems kinda do OK by you (when they aren't selling out your union job through NAFTA, or allowing you to become homeless over medical bills your insurance refuses to cover, or putting your black friend in jail at rates 10X's the rate of white people)-- but they don't really do much for the majority of people on this planet, they merely offer a softer glove over the iron-fist of capitalism and imperialist hegemony. For some of us (i.e., the "Nader advocates" this kind of sell-out to corporate power and proto-fascism is too much to bear ethically or even on mere practical grounds.

Some of us are literally dying as a result of neo-liberal economic policies married to military adventurism into the 3rd world. Many liberals can live with that compromise (you bourgeois liberals get your lower prescription drug prices, a less politicized DoJ, and the rest of the world gets continued US hegemony and State Department backed political repression at home [see: central America for example] or if they're really lucky a CIA-led coup that destabilizes the region!

Mr. Lindorff makes a number of errors in reasoning, but none of these are as problematic as his immediate signals that he intends to engage this subject in bad faith. Before we even get to the first sentence, his article title frames the discourse in terms of psychological disturbance, delusion, on the part of those who disagree with him.

Next, before the first serious claim, come the ritualistic insults and rhetorical positioning of the mainstream toward the progressives: umbrage and insult (which grew old back in 2000 but hasn't ceased since from the Dems). He accomplishes this with word choice like "bombarded," "insults," "obscenities," and so on. In fact, it takes until the eighth paragraph before we see a semblance of a main point.
The interim is devoted to claiming the turf of realism. It too easy to tell when someone wants to lecture at you rather than engage an idea; a discussant who doesn't credit you with realism isn't likely to listen.

Mr. Lindorff passes from the acceptable to the dubious when he notes the waning influence of US third parties and moves seamlessly into a falsehood: "The truth is that enormous progressive change has been wrought in the US, within the two-party system, ..."
To conflate a mass movement with the two party system is simply wrong. To imply that the absence of a third party vehicle means automatically that the two party system gets credit is either intellectually lazy or intellectually dishonest. Take your pick. "The truth is" that major parties accede to mass movements when it is safe to do so. Witness the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act years into the Civil Rights Movement.

The next error in reasoning is yet another cheap slam at those of us in the anti-war movement and whether we would have worked with Martin Luther King. Anyone who produces such a whopper has no business complaining about "infantile diversion." An actual good-faith engagement on this topic might have looked at the data, which certainly includes anti-war protestors being relegated to cages down the street from two consecutive Democratic conventions, and also the treatment of anti-war protestors like Medea Benjamin, who was dragged off the convention floor. Evidence matters more than flights of fancy.

As an adjunct to the previous point, it would also be useful to examine the evidence of the approach that Mr. Lindorff advocates. What reception has Dennis Kucinich had in his own party? Is he welcome in the new administration? Was he excluded from the candidates' debates? What were the Obama and Clinton positions about Kucinich's participation?
I think that the evidence here is not on Mr. Lindorff's side.

Another error in reasoning is the complete absence of cause-and-effect analysis for what he presents as his most important support: the lack of a strong labor movement. In the US, the labor movement has seen its loyalty to the Democratic Party punished with NAFTA and other policies of economic globalization. In the Clinton administration, they couldn't even get a ban on permanent replacement workers when Dems had control of both the legislative and executive branches. Any sober observer of Democratic Party politics over the last generation or so understands that the ascendancy of the DLC has made the party openly hostile to labor. Therefore, to argue that the Dems should benefit from no "real" third-party alternative is disingenuous.

To argue that a mass movement exists at the expense of a third party, or vice-versa, is a false dichotomy.

This response is not intended to be exhaustive. However, I do point out that I have thrown no "brickbats" at Mr. Lindorff. Similarly, if the column were mine to write, I would not fill half of it with umbrageous apologia. Again, evidence matters.

Good point, Dave. Now please show me your mass movement.

I still don't see it. I'm still looking.....

There have been some, of course: anti-war, anti-globalization, environmental, before that the labor movement. Each in turn has been captured by a Democratic presidential campaign and defused. Do you seriously think that's accidental? Remember, the Dems are just as dependent on big-business money as the Repubs; Obama did better than most at raising small contributions, but still the bulk of his money came from business interests - like, for instance, Wall Street. It's the only place to get the kind of funds he raised. They're working for the Man, in the literal sense of being paid by him. Sometimes they're pretty good at their job, as we just saw. Now Obama's throwing our trillions at the banks like wedding rice. Just like Bush.

I've been hearing this stuff about "moving" the Democratic Party for most of my life, 40-odd years now; and somehow, it's "moved" way to the right of Richard Nixon. Not much of a track record for Progressive Democrats, is it?

Is it really, really hard operating a 3rd party? Sure. I know - I'm an administrative officer for the Oregon Greens. We're doing pretty well, actually, if you can live with 5% in elections; but it's true, the national party is a mess, for the reasons Dave mentions.

So, with that point established: is it easy moving the Democratic Party to the left? Well, we already covered that.

The truth is that the Greens are in a holding pattern, holding it together and doing what we can until there's an opening. Iceland is an object lesson: they were the first and quickest victim of the financial crisis. They brought down their government with street actions we should probably study, and now the Greens are running the country and favored to win the new elections. Realistically, they were the last party left standing: both the "centrist" parties were implicated in the catastrophe, and now Iceland is ready to try something new.

No, Iceland is not the US. It's a small country where people have repeatedly starved en masse. The Icelanders have been severely selected for intelligence and survival skills. They get it. When will we?

So that's how it happens: at some point, there is a crisis so bad that most people realize they have to try something new. If there isn't a genuine electoral alternative ready to hand, we slip into Fascism. That one's always ready to hand, if not already upon us.

I can think of better ways to become a major party, but that's probably the main one, and the moment is even now bearing down on us.

Know anyone that survived the Great Depression? Go ask them how. And vote Green: it's our last chance.

Oregoncharles

for David....

'Are Bush's Secrets Safe With Obama?'

YES they are.

Major General Smedley Butler USMC

Throughout the years various men of military service have spoken up and spoken out against the actions of the American military. Some men speak up about atrocities that have gone covered up, about discrimination, about deceptions that have been used against the American public, and about actions that have been taken that are contrary to what they view as American principles. Major General Smedley Butler is one of the most outspoken military service men who opposed the actions of the military that he served in.

Marine Smedley Darling Butler is one of the most highly decorated military men from the pre-World War II era. He served from 1898 to 1931 and saw action all over the world.

Butler (second from right) in Veracruz, Mexico - 1914

Butler became a prominent political figure and was one of America’s important leaders of the liberal movement of the 1930s. Butler advocated military isolationism and was against American involvement in World War II. His isolationist views are certainly unpopular today, and in fact are not compatible with the current geopolitical situation. His views, however, developed from 33 years of serving as what he called “a gangster for capitalism.”

Smedley Butler at his 1931 retirement ceremony

Though Butler was not a member of the American Communist Party he did give speeches at Communist Party meetings in the 1930s as well as many speeches for the League Against War and Fascism. When asked about the company he was keeping he noted, “They told me I’d find a nest of communists here. I told them ‘What the hell of it!’”

Smedley Butler preparing to speak at one of his stops in the 1930s

All told Butler gave over 1,200 speeches in over 700 cities during his speaking tour of the United States.

In 1935 Butler published War is a Racket, which got high praise at the time, as well as strong criticism. The forward by Lowell Thomas spoke of Butler’s “moral as well as physical courage” and noted that “Even his opponents concede that in his stand on public questions, General Butler has been motivated by the same fiery integrity and loyal patriotism which has distinguished his service in countless Marine campaigns.”

What Butler fought so hard to do was to take the focus off of moral and ideological arguments for war and concentrate on the geopolitical factors that actually motivated war. He tried to raise awareness of what the real motivating factors of war were as well as the consequences of war. He was one of the first Americans to really bring the economic implications of war to the forefront of the public conscience. In War is a Racket Butler “names names” and lays out in wonderfully blunt detail how the American “military machine” was used to the benefit of wealthy American industrialists. He noted how proponents of war typically call on God as a supporter of the cause and how they embellish the mission as one of liberation and the spreading of freedom, but that these people tend to shy away from discussing the economic details of military ventures.

"Third parties have not played a significant role in American politics since the 1930s and earlier..."

That's just not correct. The writer of this article, like MSM, does not have his facts straight.

Fortunately, Mr. Lindorff wasn't alive back in the 1700's. Otherwise, we might still be bowing to the King and discussing ways to get one of our fellow peasants a seat in the House of Parliament.

In a country that has "literally" turned from a beacon of justice into a nation that starts wars, condones torture, and spies on its own, not only is a third party - or a remedy far more extreme - possible, but historically is almost inevitable.

Since I haven't seen reference to it thus far, let me point out one possible answer to saywhat's plaintive question ("Where did all the liberal boomers go?") which could be restated as "Why haven't we been as effective as we'd like?"

Every nascent movement that I've been involved with, be it electoral or otherwise, was at some point infiltrated by gov't operatives, whose purpose was to gather info on participants and goals and, if the movement seemed poised on the edge of effectiveness, to disrupt it.

Does anyone doube that this continues today?

On a related theme: By my unscientific calculation of progressive numbers during the 1960s, there were perhaps 10 million. My question is: where the hell did they all go? It seems very "liberal" boomer in America has a story about how they were involved in a protest or two in their day. Where the hell did they all go? Did they all make a lot of money and then start a "progessive" website? And what a terrible job the boomer activists did in training the next generation. It's an embarrassment, actually.

I want to thank you all for a most informative and interesting discussion. Though I pretty much agree with Mr. Lindorff's analysis of the Third Party movements, I've stayed out of this discussion because I had no intelligent comments to make about it, while many others did. (I know there are plenty here that would echo my "because I had no intelligent comments to make about it" in reference to all my comments, so I mention it to save you the trouble.)

Once again, thanks to you all for a discussion that should be a model for what CD should be for.

The third party is not the answer, even if victory were to happen at the highest office, we would only reap the benefit of gridlock, and not effectively transform government. This is not to say there should be no third party's, nor that a person should be abused for "throwing away his vote" when for act of protest a third party vote is cast simply to be counted. Tragically, many feel that the two party system presently in place no longer represents them. They may identify one as their party but often are more frustrated with that party than the opposition. Rather than tilt windmills with third party efforts, many should start at the local level. Make sure you elect progressives for school board, town councils, district representatives at the state level, and especially as far as possible to the conventions where the top leadership is selected and the policy agenda formulated. If we learn nothing from the Christian right, is should be that they have long known that there is no job to small in politics to put someone who will do their bidding into. This has allowed them to greatly leverage their political power at the national level. We need to get beyond the frustration of "working with dumb people on dumb things", and start serving at the grassroots level with intelligence, dedication and a progressive agenda. This small change faithfully carried out for a couple of decades, will turn the ship of state, and put us back n course.

A coupla practical things the left will have to figure out if we are going to build a movement...

1) The numbers problem. There ain't enough of us to raise the social costs to a point where the powers-that-be must listen.

2) Progressives love to beat up on ordinary folk i.e. their stupid etc., which is why they need to be "educated."

3) Progressive love to criticize "the media," as if it were a single entity not filled with mostly working-class people. The overwhelming majority of reporters make less than teachers do.

4) The very people who need to organize are too busy trying to make ends meet. Many progressives who scream the loudest have economic security in a way that most folks don't.

5) Progressive love to have big rallies with big analytical speeches, making ordinary people think that being a part of "the movement" means catching a bus they can't afford to DC and holding signs and placards at a rally.

Instead of getting into all of these highly-intellectualized theoretical debates, I would love to see someone actually address these very real obstacles to mass movement building.

An erstwhile Green, I was prepared to be annoyed by DL's piece, but it's a useful contribution to the ongoing process of trying to direct the growing energies spawned by increasing popular dissatisfaction, energies seemingly too easily co-opted my a mainstream political team with a genuine icon at its head(I'm sure someone has referenced Dave Sirota's new book on "The Movement" already--if not, there your basic text).

That said, my question is: how does this as yet unrealized movement exert pressure? I look to the Christian Right as an example. Their strategy has been: give us what we want or we go elsewhere/stay home. So they get their anti-abortion, anti-gay planks in each platform, they get a McCain to embrace the reprehensible John Hagee and to pick new far-right darling Sarah Palin as their rep on the ticket. Their own third party tickets (Taxpayers [Philips], Independent [Keyes]), etc.--fare no better than does Nader, but the point is that Dobson, Bauer, Perkins et. al. have something to point to: "give us X or we go there."

The progressive/leftist element in the Democratic Party, on the other hand, forever capitulates. Nader says that "If you grant the Democrats your vote, they'll take your vote for granted"--so progressives, who operate out of fear (we might wind up with the worser of two evils!) can be counted on to go to the polls and pull the right lever, holding their noses (2004) or not (2008). No concessions need be made because there's no alternative option.

I agree that extra-electoral movements are necessary. My own sense is that too many existing mechanisms are simply too indebted to the Democratic Party, for thier own reasons, to genuinely demand real change. They suggest them, but that's the extent of their power. I firmly believe that political forces only respond to force, and laugh behind their backs at impotence. Last June I wrote this:

________________
I have in front of me a page ripped from the July 8, 2007 Sunday New York Times, headlined “Through a Prism of 40 Years, Newark Examines Deadly Unrest” (“5 Days of Riots Driven by Race-Tinged Rage”). There’s a startling photo of a young black kid walking down the street followed by a squad of National Guardsmen with bayonets leveled, and there’s a discussion with one Junius Williams, today a thoughtful, successful non-profit director who was a very angry young radical in 1967. Mr. Williams “stayed after the fires died down, believing that what he called `the rebellion’ could be harnessed for political change”:

”When we sat down at the bargaining table, an unnamed person sitting with a brick was with us. The most important weapon was that there had been a riot and the powers that be were afraid of us. They would do anything to keep a lid on black anger.”

http://nosuppertonight.com/2008/06/10/ralph-nader-says-it-all-starts-with-fire-in-the-belly/
______________

We need a brick. We need to create fear. We have little besides our votes and campaign contributions. But--to reverse the metaphor--if enough of us pulled our bricks from the Democratic Pary edifice, it would crumble. Leaving, you'll say, a GOP triumphant: well, yes--but only if the Democrats allowed us to leave. We need--during the electoral season--to make it clear that the Dems need us to survive, and that without more than a few casual bromides tossed our way we'll walk. The existence of a viable--not powerful, but simply viable--third party crystallizes that option (ask yourself: why did the Dems spend ten million keeping Nader off the ballot in '01?).

We also need to begin to exert our influence electorally on the local level. Again, the example of Ralph Reed and the Christian Coalition is instructive--running candidates for school boards and town councils, county offices, the statehouse. Progressives lack such a mechanism.

Of course I'm talking here about electoral issues. I'm just not sure how you exert any kind of pressure outside of that admittedly narrow path. One commentator below asks if we've actually smelled the tear gas, and suggests it's the dirty kids in the streets getting gassed that are our only real representatives when it comes to defying the powers that be--I have plenty of respect for the anarchists among us, and I happily walk alongside them, but smashing up a few storefronts has done demonstrably little to decrease defense expenditures and turn the minimum wage into a livable wage. The literal brick doesn't work so well in America.

So I guess my question to Dave is--can't we have the equivalent of extra-electoral movements (antiwar, pro-immigrant, etc.) and still work on behalf of third parties? It seems to me that historically, movements work best when they have a political wing (ok, it helps to have a militant wing as well...). Far from being an "infantile diversion," a more robust GP can take "movement" agenda into statehouses and courthouses, can serve as the political umbrella organization for the motley collection of progressive groups.

Of course, that means a degree of compromise across the liberal-progressive-Left-radical-socialist-anarchist spectrum, and both you and various commentators have pointed out the obvious when it comes to turf squabbles and internecine warfare. The individuals involved leftist groups tend to be more interested in BEING Green, Socialist, whatsoever, than in effecting change. Resulting in politics-as-therapy, and the triumph of process over product--something we do not have the luxury of indulging right now.

A results-oriented politics is what's needed. I don't care how you label yourself--my question is always, what have you accomplished, or how do you intend to accomplish this specific set of goals? Looked at that way, we might want to strategically marshall all of our options, and a viable third party, with smart, experienced, stragegically-inclined, politically-savvy leadership will always be real plus when it comes to dealing with the powers that be.

Thanks again for your editorial, Dave--it's obviously sparked some commentary.

Respectfully,
Michael Horan

http://www.nosuppertonight.com

I think, my first job as a radical is to reveal the truth as I see it. From there we can chose our options. Right now our options are limited for sure. To wit: 3rd party in-viability is a direct result of Democratic party suppression both in codified legal infrastructure and illicit shenanigans. The political process itself is consciously rigged to exclude 3rd parties and while Democratic rank n' file types such as yourself will lament the 'reality' of our two-party system-- you won't demand anything better (i.e., anything more democratic) from the party. You tacitly approve of its tactics by continuing to vote for them.

Also, the media consciously and through more subtle filters (see: Chomsky's propaganda model) excludes 3rd party voices. This is no accident-- it is manipulation by the corporate press-- a press that is buttressed by the two-parties and the capitalist infrastructure; it is the apotheosis of cynical collusion.

In fact Ralph Nader himself cites this very phenomena (see: Crashing the Party) as his raison d'être for getting into electoral politics in the first place. He listed, ad infinitum, the examples of inaction/obstructionism on progressive and popular policies by the Democrats. He noticed that left-wing/progressive ideas (ideas popular with large majorities of the population—but unpopular with big-business) were routinely shunned by the Democrats.

Now, to be fair, some marginal gains can be made for sure through petition and protest once the Dems are in power. But marginal gains are not enough to pacify those of us you place under the rubric of "Nader advocates".

My point is that the mythology of the efficacy of "putting pressure from the left" on the Democratic candidate is so strong that it limits first your capacity for critical thinking on that particular candidate (e.g., Obama); and further, occults your ability to see how rigged the whole system is.

And since we radicals see the "pressure" tactic within a larger "from-the-outside-in" strategy as largely ineffective, we must attempt something else. You are willing to have Democrats in power forever and have more Progressive types put pressure on them from OUTSIDE.

Look, it can apparently never be said enough: Obama is BETTER than Bush. But he's not "BETTER" enough. Mussolini was better than Hitler but I wouldn't vote for him and I wouldn't try to "work" with him and expect much. I know that syllogism is hyperbolic but you get my point.

Some of us are literally dying as a result of neo-liberal economic policies married to military adventurism into the 3rd world. Many liberals can live with that compromise (you bourgeois liberals get your lower prescription drug prices, a less politicized DoJ, and the rest of the world gets continued US hegemony and State Department backed political repression at home [see: central America for example] or if they're really lucky a CIA-led coup that destabilizes the region!

These are compromises some of us are not willing to make. These phenomena happen on BOTH parties' watch. Foreign policy objectives (not tactics, but objectives) are almost monolithically agreed upon by the two parties. If one needs proof I suggest reading Jonathan Perkins’ account of economic to military hegemony in his book, Confessions of an Economic Hit-man and also any number of Noam Chomsky’s books on the subject (e.g., Culture of Terrorism, Thrid-world Fascism and the New Power Mandarins, Re-Thinking Camelot, et.al.)

However, you guys insist that it's good enough to "play within the system" and squeeze whatever blood we can from the stone that is the Democratic Party - if we just get them elected. But, time and time again, they ignore us and rightly/tactically so. Where are we gonna go, to the Republicans?

So it's not really an internecine battle as you posit. I do not really think the pusillanimous or reactionary liberals of the Democratic party are inside the Left-wing movement in any real way. They have shown their allegiance is to capitalism, state-corporate power nexus, careerism, and other right-wing values.

This impotency is why I advocate that serious people on the left read up on our historical precedents when the entrenched parties de jour (e.g., the 18th century British monarchy, the 20th century Batista regime, our 21st century DNC/GOP duopoly, et.al.) were unresponsive to the normal mechanism of democracy.

This lack of power in the contemporary hands of the left is why I first advocate for electoral participation by hook or crook i.e., by 3rd parties. It's the only way inside the process in which the Dems are forced to take the Left seriously—we already know the ‘pressure tactic’ is impotent.

Insurrections and rebellions from Cape Town, to the Moncada Barracks of Cuba, to Boston Harbour, have sprung up when people believed their fundamental rights and needs were being transgressed by their governments; when their natural rights were being usurped with impunity. It is the right of every people to rebel against tyranny, and its discussion as a concept and a legitimate political praxis, (in the abstract of course, heh heh), is very much within the bounds of legal discourse.

Furthermore, this is why I suggest reading Thomas Paine's Common Sense & Rights of Man, Fidel Castro's, History Will Absolve Me, Sgt Stan Goff's (US Army RET) Full Spectrum Disorder, Ward Churchill's, Pacifism as Pathology& On the Justice of Roosting Chickens. I suggest we pull our heads out of the sand (or our asses) and begin to look at the broad picture of history. There is a reason that historical analysis is so valuable-- it shows you the precedents for all the bullshit you will see and hear from Obama (Clinton, Carter, Johnson, et.al.) so you don't get suckered again.

While I think it is *generally* true that third parties are not effective means for bringing change in our political system, this might not always be true The Liberal Party of New York might provide a model that could work in some instances. They may run local candidates but for most elections they choose to endorse one of the major candidates. Since NY has had a tradition of liberal Republicans, there has historically ben some competition to get their endorsement and the LP endorsement of JFK has been credited with getting him over the top in NY in the 1960 presidential election. If the Green Party operated like this, they could function as part of a governing coaltion in some states.

"I don't fault third parties for their failure to rise to a position of political relevance. The system of winner-take-all elections is structured against them. But calls to change that system so that third parties might have a chance bump up against the reality that the two parties that have a duopoly on power have no interest in changing the rules of the game to make it easier to bump them off. It simply ain't gonna happen."

If the two major parties would rather lose to each other because of a third party candidate than allow a system that ends the "spoiler" issue and third parties to become viable, that tells us everything we need to know about them.

Actually, the state legislature in Vermont passed instant runoff voting for some statewide elections last year, but it was vetoed by the Governor. Many Democrats supported IRV because they were afraid of the threat posed by the Progressive Party. The Republican Governor opposed the bill because the current system works to his party's advantage in Vermont. Unfortunately, there were enough short-sighted Democrats who joined the Republicans to prevent the veto from being overridden.

In Alaska, the Republicans and all the other political parties except the Democrats supported a statewide IRV referendum in 2002. The Republicans were in favor of IRV because they were tired of Democrats getting into power by sneaking past divided conservative majorities. The Democrats opposed IRV because they would have a much harder time winning elections. The referendum lost, and the Democrats hypocritically attacked the Green Party's Senate candidate two years later as a potential "spoiler".

I think that electoral reform is essential for accountability in this country. If there are no third parties, then that means that as long as their is a United States, the Democrats and Republicans have an entitlement to power. No corporation has an entitlement to dominate their industry forever. No religion has an entitlement to be the largest in the country forever. Why should we allow such a situation in our government?

We just had a progressive mass movement for change. It worked. It's only been 3 weeks. Even Naders and McKinneys can't reverse Bushes in 3 weeks. And if these smaller parties want a chance, they should stop this procedure of Democrat bashing. Won't work.

And smaller parties seem way too touchy. Don't seem to be able to take any criticism or even observations at all. Hard to imagine them liking what will happen if a Nader or Mckinney is ever elected. Nonstop criticism for 4 straight years. Seems easier to stay in a peripheral position?

Anyhow, good work, Democrats. We just revived a party, created a mass movement, and actually elected a man whose race made him seem unelectable. The GOP is sputtering in rage. Limbaugh hopes he'll fail. We must have done something very, very right. Good work, all.

And no, it's not perfect. When that happens, we'll all own unicorns.

I think dlindorff might be dying for a mass movement. The key is to come alive for a mass movement.

The question that I am at this point repeating ad nausyum is how do we come alive? A tide of anger? Bile in our stomach?

In my opinion, and in my experience I come alive when I love something greatly, when a tide of hope, desire, will, and love fill me to the point I am moved beyond my fear, and anger.

What happens when snowflakes stick together?...............friends come together and have snow ball fights. :)

Leea

i think whatever hint of a people's movement brewing at the end of the Bush era was conscripted by the Obama campaign --and in the process, the fledgling movement and its resources were burned up over 18 months.... nearly 1 billion dollars raised.... there's your movement's worth. donations to the big tent party....

no platitude too big, no donation too small.

Because there is no real foundation to the movement -nothing to fall back on- there is too much risk for instant gratification. People so happy and excited with the election....we did it, people exclaim! and it's over. all used up before it even formulated a name, and an authentic cause rather than glamourous marketing technique. no, instead it was given phrases and was co-opted, and very likely conscripted.... great propaganda, you have to admit....

maybe there is a movement in all of this change. maybe Ivy League college graduates will begin signing up as enlisted soldiers at the rank of corp. or specialist....

WE NEED a LABOR - COMMUNITY COALITION. Organize workers, and link them up to to the surrounding community: neighborhood organizations, sustainability co-ops, food co-ops, tenant unions, anti-foreclosure unions, and student, minority and womens' groups.

And do it face to face. The reason the religious right has so much power is that church members see each other in person. They sing together, take communion together, and go on picnics together - regularly. The graduate student left, on the other hand, communicates by email, Facebook and blogs. No wonder we can't organize workers and communities.

This weekend I went to a post Obama election meeting on the economy and the "stimulus." Can we, I asked, decide which economic measures we favor, and then decide how to get the word out? No need, I was told, we can do all that by internet. And I was told in another context that we elected Obama by internet, so why do we need meetings.

Sorry friends. Before we can organize a mass movement we have a lot of unlearning and relearning to do. Third party, left Democrat; it doesn't matter. We have to teach ourselves and each other how to communicate.

Lindorff's examples of successful movements all happened outside of the Democratic Party. The problem with Lindorff's analysis is that he has no example of a push that didn't involve strong third parties or strong outside social movements.

Lindorff is actually making the case for voting third party, although he doesn't know it.

It's embarrassing for Lindorff, but we see no internal Democratic Party movement pushing Obama. Instead, Lindorff appeals to progressives here, not understanding what progressives already know - you can't motivate loyal Democrats. It's a losing proposition. They are content like cattle in the field outside a rendering plant.

-TIA

You are talking about two different, not necessarily ralated, things. Yes we need a mass movement to push Obama and the Democrats to the left. This is unrelated to the need for a third party, which is a gun held to the head of the Democrats if they don't move. We probably can't win an election, above the local level, but we can lose a close presidential election for the Democrats, and I would certainly be willing to do that. It's the only power we have, on the national level, so let's use it.

I will never vote for a Democrat who pledges to keep on killing foreigners. It's your choice Democrats: change or die. I'm willing to turn the country over to the Republicans, if that's what it takes to make you move.

Lynn Porter

WE NEED A THIRD UNITED SOCIALIST PARTY IN AMERICA, SPREAD THE IDEOLOGY OF SOCIALISM TO OTHER AMERICANS !!

Let others know about socialism! Spread the word... the more who know the truth, the greater the force against the capitalist system! Resistance forever!

......................./´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............

STICK UP YOUR MIDDLE FINGER TO US IMPERIALISM AND CAPITALIST OPPRESSION!

WHAT USA NEEDS IS A THIRD SOCIALIST UNITED PARTY

(Don't listen to Dave Lindor'f defeatism and negativism)

What USA needs is a socialist united party, that would work as a vehicle in which the masses, the majority of americans who would like a real social, democratic system in USA for workers, by workers and in favor of workers and people, would have an organization in which to caste their votes every 4 years. However there is a catch-22 with this solution. The catch-22 problem is that the USA corporate fascist system thru the media and its other evil things it has, will not permit a United Socialist Democratic party. The media apparatus would denounce it as a cult or an evil organization, and would spread dirty propaganda against it, just like it did and it has done many times against Ron Paul, Howard Dean and now against Obama.

But We first need: An educational-propaganda campaign

In order to create a third united socialist party we would first of all need an educational campaign in order to spread knowledge to the masses about the evils of capitalism, fascism and imperialism and the only alternative to it is participative democratic socialism. The American masses are real confused and ignorant about how the world works. Trying to wake up the masses from their delirium would pose us as a threat. I read the biography of Hugo Chavez and that's how he started his political program in order to change Venezuela. He first tried to wake up Venezuelan poors about the evils of neoliberalism, he talked about the importance of teaching the masses about capitalism vs. socialism. And then when Venezuelan's poors learned about capitalism, Chavez started to do his thing (To overthrow the fascist capitalist venezuela system)
And here in USA we gotta do the same thing that Chavez did, teach the US poor for some months or years what is capitalism and what is socialism before trying to do form any political party. Almost nobody in USA have taught the masses the evils of neoliberalism, not even Kucinich, Ron Paul or any other candidate. Ron Paul was the only one who talked about the US constitution and nobody listened to him, because he didn't teach the masses about the evils of capitalism, because of the fact that Ron Paul was a capitalist, not a real alternative for poor people. Only socialist and marxists parties do that in USA and they don't get much coverage in TV. So before starting a third party, i suggest to spend some months or years trying to teach the poor people of America about the evils of capitalism and the wonders of a participative democratic socialist system, a people's system

Dave: The problem is that you are too negative. Don't never say that something is impossible, if it was i would be real fat. I suffer from easy weight gain, but thanx to my possitive attitude and diet, i can be skinny. I was reading in the Che Guevara biography when he said that we shouldn't say that we cannot do this or that. Any thing in this world is possible if you believe real hard in them.

The problem with this theory is , that, the Dems, since, probably FDR, have been busily helping the gOP dissasemble the very safety net that FDR tried to put in place! We still arent even close to achieving what he dreamed of.(He thinks that HE has been cursed at! Try criticizing Obama in a roomful of neo-liberals!!)

The rest of the world marches on. If he doesnt mind haveing a tiny, rich elite at the top , and, the former working clsses living in Third World status, then stick with Dems. Even if I never "win" another election, I would rather spend the last half of my life working for real change in the uS. Dems are NOT going to do it.

Maybe he hasnt watched his family, which my father worked so hard to secure, fade away from middle class status forever, with medical costs, pensions lost and, endless loans and credit cards just to pay for an accident that I didnt cause and two cancers in my family that were not covered, even by half, by the very insurance industry the Dems support.

I am gr8ful for this article because it helped me clarify my views on why I support 3rd parties. My main reason is that I am passionate about democracy, and I believe that true representation is impossible in our current 2-party structure. Since I cannot fix all of the world's problems, I choose to focus on those that are most important to me. What I hear in this article (and the comments) is largely a discussion on the best strategies for getting certain policies passed i.e. universal healthcare, workers rights, etc. If these issues are your passion, then I think it is reasonable to consider all manners of accomplishing them (within the system or not); however, because my passion is organizing the government in a manner that really allows for the diverse views of the population to be represented, I spend my energy on how I think this may be accomplished, which includes supporting 3rd parties.

I would also like to add that progressives have been taking back the Democratic Party for 40 years! It was the precisely the lack of success in reforming the Democrats that has driven progressives into third parties. Many Greens that I know are veterans of insurgent Democratic campaigns, such as Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988 and Jerry Brown in 1992.

We do need a mass movement, but Lindorff doesn't seem to really comprehend just what an obstacle the Democratic Party really is to getting a Mass Movement started and underway! That being said, it would be better if all the Left effort put into elections, whether getting out the vote for the Democrats or whether trying to build some new and tiny electoralist Third Party of some sort or the other, actually was spent on Mass Movement building instead of being side tracked by electoral posturing.

We simply do not have a real democracy that can afford this inactivity positing itself as being essential politics. Better to simply admit that this country is not truly a democracy, tell the larger public that, and not get taken out every 4 years for a ride into pretty much total political oblivion.

How do you build a mass movement that is independent of the two major parties when you tell people that third parties are a distraction from supporting the Democrats? You can't be independent of the Democrats and guarantee them your vote. If Obama ignores our demands and we don't build a third party, then what are we going to do? Threaten to hold our noses when we vote for him in 2012?

There have successful efforts by third parties much more recently than the Socialists. George Wallace helped to pull the Republican Party to the right with his Presidential run in 1968. After the 1992 election, Bill Clinton did not suddenly scrap much of his domestic agenda and get religion about balanced budgets out of a sense of civic duty. He did it because Ross Perot got nearly 19% of the vote. In 1994, the Republicans tried to appeal to Perot voters by supporting Constitutional Amendments for term limits and a balanced budget.

For JoeHope and Dave Lindorff

"I voted for [Obama] because I trust his judgment and his ability to lead. Don't you?" -- joehope (somewhere down the thread)

The following (in quotes, do these comments allow hypertext markup for blockquoting, emphasis, etc?) is a pre-election comment I saved from a thread on the topic of 3rd parties over at the blog "A Tiny Revolution." To my mind, it describes most of the "pragmatic," "Obama is a good guy" folks like JoeHope. It also explains why nothing will fundamentally change as long as their mindset prevails. Do me a favor Joe and read this carefully and tell me what you think it means.

"Here's the problem: royalty rules apply. Humanity takes whatever rules for personal standards and healthy psychology and throw them out the window the moment the subject gains power. Then the masses are happy so long as the nobleman in question doesn't go on a raping spree. And even that will be forgiven if he doesn't rape anyone of means.

I think this monstrous flaw is really part of the human condition; every society on earth does it. Worse, it's usually combined with either optimism or pessimism, which are both the same thing (the same logical fallacy): the optimist believes we live in the best of all possible worlds; the pessimist fears this is true. In both cases, true hope is denied (since that would require imagination and spur action): in both cases, possibilities are forclosed.

a) The King is good! (He's gotta be, because he's the only king we have, cross your fingers. . .)

b) The King is bad! But hey, whattaya gonna do? I'm gonna go get mine.

c) Um, since the King is a mediocre prick, I'm going to kill him and replace him with at least two branches of government.

Option "c" is the cause of almost all of Western Civilization. Option "c" does not occur to either optimists or pessimists, imo. (And, because most humans slide into these mindsets, Western Civilization took a very long time to come about.)

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." -- George Bernard Shaw

But have a care, folks. Call things as they are and you're cynical! Use those facts to describe what beautiful and marvelous things could be and you'll be called a pathetic romantic (yes, by the same person in the same breath!). The result of this is that not a damn thing you just said will actually need to be analyzed by the person who just made the accusation. . . which was the point of the accusation.

That's why forty pages of political analysis and discussion of third party issues will always result in a poster claiming "you guys are just helping McCain."

Posted by: No One of Consequence at September 6, 2008 04:47 PM"

You are an "optimist" Joe and as a result you are, at the very least, in part, responsible for true hope being denied.

Dave Lindorff writes;

"third parties are a useless, even dangerous diversion. What we need to be focusing on is building a mass movement for progressive change-a movement that will bring masses of people into the streets, especially Washington, but in every city and town, too, to demand an end to this country's pointless wars, a huge cut in the military budget, a national health care system, a jobs program, a break-up of the large banking and other corporate monopolies, an end to the national security state, reform of the labor laws, and a restoration of a real progressive tax system."

Why can't the movement be made up off a coalition of greens, socialists, libertarians, anarchists, social democrats, or any mix thereof? Most seem to agree as to who and what our enemy is, so let's focus on that. Why trash the diversity within the movement? You want a "mass movement", great, but why suggest we all wear the armbands of a party of donkeys?

I think it might help bring a bit more clarity to the discussion if we talked a bit about the difference between a protest and direct action. Not trying to play semantics but there's a big difference between a bunch of people showing up to some public park and listening to rousing speeches and another thing when a disciplined non-violent army of millions shows up to, say, DC with the intention of SHUTTING THE CITY DOWN, until demands are met. What King and Gandhi and others were talking about and doing wasn't mere show protests "to make a statement," which the media can ignore. They were talking/organzing about massing armies of people to actually gum up the works of the system, shut the system down, which the media CANNOT ignore. You know, fill the jails, kinda thing. It seems to me the project of building a movement, as it were, to create change would require the latter and people in America who call themselves progressive are no where near that level of commitment; not even in the same ballpark; not even the same game, actually. If we're gonna be serious we got to be as serious and disciplined as the military. Making peace is at least as hard as making war. But, alas, progressives in this country are waiting around for someone to come up with THE PLAN, complaining all the while about how nobody is doing nothing. Where are the Kings? The Gandhis, we lament. Maybe that's the wrong question. Maybe we should stop waiting around for the Next Great Leader...

It is inconceivable that President Obama didn't personally approve of the recent airstrikes killing women and children in Pakistan. This being justified in the name of the Bush-created "war on terror"(which apparently Obama agrees is a war that must be continued, similar to the "cold war")

This one thing alone should make anyone with a conscience know that the Democratic Party is truly a hopeless cause. Mass movement or not, the Democrats will still be remain a party of militarism. This was the case during the Vietnam war. As war
protests grew, so did LBJ's escalations of the war.

Supporting candidates that oppose the 2 party system, can only be a good thing. Only a party that gains power, not a movement(which will not be taken seriously), can, perhaps change the political lanscape of our country.

Today's young voters are the most Democratic in U.S. history. So it may be a bad time to think about third parties--at least at the left end of the political spectrum.

In my view, we have a one-party system right now, with a criminal gang (the Repubs) constantly trying to cheat their way back into power.

Going Back in Time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naZdfGqZtJ0

Mass movements need a third party. You said your self that: "I know there are those, like Nader, who suggest that candidacies like his force Democrats running for office to adopt more liberal positions, but I see scant evidence of this. The most one can say is that a candidate like Al Gore, in order to prevent voters from straying to a Nader, might say a few more progressive things on the campaign trail, but once in office, such politicians quickly revert to form."

When a third party candidate is elected under a third party program, he/she will stay with the more liberal program or loose cred's with his/her party. When they loose cred's they will not be able to raise money or get re elected.

Get it?

I really see no point in participation in a party whose main goal is winning elections at any cost. The Democrats apparently have no core principles and - while some of their candidates have some significant positions close to mine it is rather pointless to vote for so many positions they hold that are "not open for discussion". I do not agree with all of the Libertarian party's positions but 80+ % agreement is pretty good.

I want my vote to count and when so many Democrats run away from most of the positions I care about like detention without limits, foreign military interventions in Afghanistan, the drug war scam - whole heartedly supported by all but a smattering of Democrats, the anti Patriot Act [supported by Barack Hussein Obama [BHO], the wiretap act [also a yes from BHO], continued funding for foreign interventions [voted yes by BHO], and a whole litany of Bush abuses. A vote for Obama would have been a vote against all my positions on all these issues. And now, I find out that he has picked a drug war liar[redundancy since all advocates for drug war are pro crime and dishonest - by definition - since policy is based totally on lies and promotes crime] for VP, Drug Czar and AG. At least I don't feel betrayed by someone I supported.

May God's will be done on earth and may it begin and end with yourself. If it happens any other way it's not God's will.

I agree that the third-party option is uphill to the extent that there must be a better way.

I propose a movement of NO MOVEMENT: a sit-down strike writ large, everyone refuses to go to work or participate in consumption. There would be no need of everyone congregating in Washington, or any one place, because we would all do it everywhere. This is the kind of thing that viral organizing on the net is made for. It would not need the corporate media.

Simply stop the country. It seems simple enough to me. If the former Soviet republics and client states can do it, surely we can.

What are Democrats going to do if they don't like what their elected officials are doing? Vote Republican? Abstain from voting? Run against them and lose to superior funding and media coverage? What are you going to threaten them with? "Oooooh, I'm going to vote for you, and you'd better do what I say, because if you don't, I'll still vote for you again since you're better than then Republican...but...but...you'd better do what I say...or else..."
What a threat! As soon as Obama clinched the nomination, he threw off his progressive base like a dog shaking off fleas. And guess what? THEY STILL VOTED FOR HIM!
And as we with sense watch from our small inflatable boats, there are people standing on the deck of this sinking Titanic yelling, "You fools! Your boats have no chance of going anywhere! You should have stayed on this one and helped us bail out water with these buckets. If we all bail together, we can keep it afloat and repair it!!!"

There cannot be a mass movement without leadership. There cannot be leadership without coalescing around some kind of ideological foundation that understands the nature of the system and what is required to build an alternative. Frankly, I read all these comments and have yet to see anyone who is the least bit informed about the real history of the progressive movement within the U.S.A. It's not surprising considering the fact that the educational system doesn't teach it and the mass media ignores it and those who consider themselves "progressive" only get whatever exposure they do get, if they've satisfied the establishment that they too are anti-communist. It is like the slate was wiped clean during the McCarthy period in the '50s.

What political party in the USA is responsible for building the industrial unions and leading the struggles of the unemployed during the Great Depression? What political party rallied the forces against fascism while the capitalist class in the West was still supporting it? What political party was really behind the civil rights movement? What political party started the struggle against nuclear weapons and organized the anti-war movement of the 60s? What political party belongs to an international group of political parties that had ties to the anti-colonialist struggles and anti-imperialist struggles of the 20th Century? Not a fucking mention of this party anywhere around here. It is no wonder the "progressives" and the "left" that hang around CD appear to be thrashing about trying to find a way forward. They just don't know the history of the progressive movement in the world or at home in the USA. Sad, really.

-----------------------------------------

What Is Marxism? - a short primer on a subject the working class needs to know.
http://www.marxist.com/Theory/what_is_marxism.html

Way to go, Lindorff! Now that's having the guts to tell it like it is! Do note, everyone, that "mass movements" to put pressure on the "most progressive party" not only changed laws but transformed the social landscape: Civil Rights Movement, Womens Movement, Farm Workers Rights, Rights for Handicapped, and even agitation to end the war (that other war, in Vietnam). More recently, Gay Rights movements are having the same effect. These have all been revolutionary breaks from the norm, all achieved through the current system.

The work of these revolutionaries (over the past 40 years) has created the possibility of Barack Obama and set the stage for the American Renaissance that Generation X now has an opportunity to create. This will require loud and vocal progressive voices that offer solutions and a way to resolution, so this country can move forward, imperfect as we and our system may be.

We now have an opportunity to roll back the huge wave of conservatism with which the Right has inundated us. Look around!! The rest of the world is enthralled with Obama and with the possibilities that his election creates for the improvement of the whole world, and it is up to us to make sure he lives up to his promises. Thanks to the web, this administration is the most open in history, and doing the most outreach to hear what We the People have to say. Let's use our energy to tell them! Patricia Kokinos, www.ChangeTheSchools.com

Given equal access to the mass media (the public's airwaves) a third party candiate could unquestionably compete for the presidency.

Ross Perot almost pulled it off in 1992.

And people are ten times as pissed today at the two Wall Street parties.

To prevent any modern day Ross Perot the system has been rigged (Commission on Presidential Debates) to exclude voices who don't read from the corporate script.

Heck, they censored Dennis Kucinich, a Democrat, from participating in the AARP sponsored debate because he might say two words not approved by the insurance lobby: Single Payer.

Then NBC took Dennis to court to prevent him from joining the Nevada debate (which they had previously invited him) because he opposed storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. (General Electric is in the nuclear power biz).

NBC removed the debate from their local affiliate station to avoid having to fulfill any community service requirements that might jeopardize their broadcast license. The debate continued, legally, on their cable television channel only.

How can a third party possibly compete in light of such hurdles?

Alternative voices within the party can't even be heard.

What we have is a media problem...

Solve it and anything's possible.

------------------------------

Whoever controls the media controls the country. Period.

HERE'S YOUR ANSWER, DAVE!

Greens are fragmented? Yeah -- so would any mass movement be -- in spades. And what sort of communication and decision-making structures would there be? What mechanisms for reaching consensus?

We have Greens, Socialist Party, Naderites -- probably others, and maybe not all electoral political groups -- who already have a number of members. Let them hold a conference and bang out a consensual platform (there is much which could be agreed upon) and organizational and operational structures and work together on those things. Then we can get something done. Once the basics are in place and the people have a voice, then disagreements can be addressed and factions can break off where it's necessary, but in the meantime we have something to work with, without having to start from scratch. Organize what we already have.

The Democratic Party serves a crucial function for the ruling elite. ...

Should things start "heating up" on the left, should economic turmoil, social unrest and the class tensions that inevitably occur given the inequalities inherent in a capitalist economy -- should such status quo-endangering rumblings develop into broad-based, progressive movements, the Democratic Party is there to co-opt, dilute and eventually betray those democratic, broad-based movements.

The first thing the Democratic Party and "DPAers" (Democratic Party Apologists such as David Lindorff) says to the people committed to these movements is "T.I.N.A." -- "There Is No Alternative" -- you have no alternative to the two-party choice; so you need to let the Democratic Party speak on your behalf.

The Democratic Party thus becomes a political "safety valve" for any status quo-endangering movement that may pose a threat to the economic elite. Acting on behalf of the economic elite, the Democratic Party's historic role has been to make sure that potentially radical, revolutionary movements don't get out of hand, don't go any further than the confines of their oligarchic agenda.

The Democratic Party has:

-- sold out the workingclass in the 1870s (re. Tammany Hall).

-- sold out the Populist movement in the 1890s.

-- sold out the labor movement in the 1930s.

-- sold out the civil rights movement.

-- sold out the environmentalist movement.

-- and sold out the antiwar movement -- many, many times.

The Democratic Party has betrayed the antiwar movement *four times* -- count 'em FOUR TIMES! -- in the past six years.

1.) In 2002, the Democratic Party told the voting public that that year's Congressional elections would *not* be about whether the US should invade Iraq. ... Invading Iraq was a done-deal, a bipartisan decision. ... Instead, we were told, and in no uncertain terms, that the 2002 Congressional elections would be about “other issues.” ... In other words, peace was, officially, “off the table.”

2.) In 2004, what could have been a national referendum on Iraq -- a war candidate, George Bush, versus a (sort of) peace candidate, Howard Dean -- soon became a choice between two war candidates, Bush and Kerry.

3.) In 2006, the Democrats captured both houses of Congress chiefly because millions of people were voting Democratic to end the War. However, in the days that followed, the Democratic leadership wasted no time making it clear that ending the War wasn’t going to happen.

4.) Which brings us to 2008-2009 and Barack Obama, the king of the con men. ... “Barack the Peace Candidate” has now become “Barack the Warmonger.” ... How thankful we should be that Barack Obama has “clarified” his position on Iraq -- his position now being that if the commanders in the field say we should stay in Iraq, we stay.

Obama’s now-clarified position is essentially the same as that of John McCain, George Bush, and his Secretary of State Hillary ("I'll Annihilate Iran") Clinton.

Obama supports two wars now in progress -- Iraq and Afghanistan -- and has indicated his willingness to engage in two more wars --Iran and Pakistan -- with the use of nuclear weapons as a military option.

The Democratic-Republican duopoly will never allow a national election to become a referendum on war or peace. Why? Because they know damn well that the American public will vote for peace every time.

-- We know Obama won't stand up to Big Oil.

-- We know Obama won't stand up to Big Pharma.

-- We know Obama won't stand up to the military-industrial complex. Like
John McCain and the Republicans, he wants to *increase* the Pentagon budget.

-- We know Obama won't stand up to criminally-complicit mainstream media.

-- We know Obama won't stand up to the Christian fundamentalists -- the Christian fundamentalist who want to turn the United States into a theocracy.

-- We know Obama won't stand up to the insurance lobby; in particular, the healthcare insurers. Like John McCain and Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama is against single-payer healthcare, albeit every advanced industrial country has it.

So what is the “CHANGE” Barack Obama talking about?

Genuine change would start with Barack Obama admitting that US foreign policy has, historically, been a policy -- a *bipartisan* policy -- of mass murder.

... Two to three million dead in Vietnam.

... A quarter of a milliom dead in Gulf War One.

... Over a million dead in Gulf War Two ...

... Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead as a result of Bill Clinton and Tony Blair-led economic sanctions.

... The Reagan Administrations's devastation of Central America.

... The Clinton Administration's rape of Kosovo.

These periodic genocides go hand-in-hand with US support of corrupt and murderous dictatorships throughout the world. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Colombia. To name just a few. And those genocides and corrupt alliances have been entered into under Democratic as well as Republican administrations. ... *Both* wings of the Business Party duopoly.

The only way real change will occur is when a third party movement becomes a genuine oppositional party -- an oppositional party vis-a-vis "The Business Party," a.k.a., the Democratic-Republican duopoly.

Third parties are common in other advanced industrial countries. They also regularly participate in political debates in other advanced industrial countries.

Like his fellow brethren at commondreams.org, moveon.org and The Nation magazine, David Lindorff is a DPAer, a Democratic Party Apologist. See "THE NATION AND THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN" http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/aug2008/nati-a27.shtml

See also "OBAMA'S TEAM OF REACTIONARIES" -- http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/dec2008/pers-d08.shtml