Dinosaur Democrats

"The old parties are husks, with no real soul within either, divided on artificial lines, boss-ridden and privilege-controlled, each a jumble of incongruous elements, and neither daring to speak out wisely and fearlessly on what should be said on the vital issues of the day." - Theodore Roosevelt

I'm here today to tell you the real reason that establishment Democrats will turn through any number of hoops to ridicule the idea of a strong third party or coalition of third parties on the Left at this stage of the 21st Century - they could lose their constituency and be consigned to the pages of history.

Now that's a pretty bold assertion and it's going to take a bit of proving, so please bear with me.

It began with various posts by left-wing bloggers that led my to post my own call for a Coalition of The Left this weekend and continued on other bogs as leftwing and liberal bloggers added their thoughts. (You can follow where the conversation is going at Shakespeare's Sister). One of those blog posts, by political science lecturer and Democrat Kenneth Quinnell, was a classic defense of two-party politics as promulgated by the Democratic Party. Its incredibly useful in that it reguritates pretty much every Democrat mainstream argument against third parties all in one place to such an extent that I am not sure if Kenneth is simply taken in by the talking points or is knowingly promulgating circular and illogical arguments. I promised Kenneth a detailled opinion on his essay and that will form the greater part of this post but I also hope to show how and why the current Democratic Party lives in fear of a leftwing breakaway.

The main thrust of Kenneth's argument (and its also the main thrust of the official Democrat position) is that "the primary reason we should stick with the Democrats is that we have no other choice. Not at the national level we don't. A viable third party will not arise on the left in our lifetimes. It won't happen because it can't happen." He then goes on to give as his reasons that the law is overwhelmingly in the favor of the two-party system; that "the people" think the two-party system works just fine; that the media always treats third parties as curiosities and "punchlines"; that "overwhelming majority of people who vote in this country place themselves in the middle and few would be willing to vote for a third party simply because they wouldn't want to be seen as extreme" and finally that their power-base is too geographically diffuse to win elections and "without winning elections, third parties are devoid of any power to change things."

Lets look at those one by one:

The law. Kenneth is right that most States do have strong laws protecting Democrats and Republicans and keeping out any other groups and that these laws are created or destroyed by Democrats and Republicans, who have a vested interest in keeping them. Rather than rail against his chosen party for being so determined to block electoral freedom and grassroots democracy he seem to think that its acceptable behavior which doesn't in any way conflict with the Democrats' stated beliefs. He conveniently ignores those States where third parties find it rather easier to exist, and thus implicitly discounts the idea that a third party could succeed in those places and effect the national agenda thereby - without argument. Moreover, he states that " the only chance of changing any of these laws is to convince Democrats it's the right thing to do" with the unstated caveat like that's ever going to happen. Bully tactics leave a bad taste in leftwingers mouths at the best of times and this is no different. I will return to why and how Democrats could be given a wake-up call on those laws later.

The people. Kenneth's claim is that "that they think the two-party system works just fine. Any study of attitudes of the public on the two-party system gives overwhelming results that people support it, think it's the best way to do things and would find more choices confusing, which would give them even less reason to vote." Did you get that? You are too dumb to count to three. The claim is unbacked by any cite whatsoever. It seems to just be opinion presented as fact. Maybe that's because the facts contradict the line - in 1999 a Gallup/CNN poll that found predictable two party splits between Bush and Gore also noted that two out of three polled wished more third party candidates would enter State, Congress and Presidential races. Further, as Richard Winger has pointed out, third parties increase the electoral turnout and "actually enhance the positive consequences of a two-party system".

The media. the media has only ignored recent third party Presidential runs because they have been based on a charismatic person instead of a grassroots movement. To be honest, the same has become more than partly true of Democratic Presidential campaigns, which is one reason they have fared so badly against a Republican Party that always seems to be dicating the agenda. A grassroots campaign is formed, by definition, from potential viewers and readers - no media company will willingly ignore what their customers want to see or read about.

The electorate. Nice to see Kenneth accepts that the electorate and the people have ceased to be the same things. He says "the overwhelming majority of people who vote in this country place themselves in the middle and few would be willing to vote for a third party simply because they wouldn't want to be seen as extreme." I agree with him although I would point out that it is Party apologists like him who consistently try to paint third parties as "extreme" - for which we are invited to read "fringe whackjobs". Further, he ignores the evidence I presented that a leftwing coalition would find the greatest part of its constituency in that portion of the people who do not form part of the electorate at present. People who don't vote right now becuase they have no-one to vote for.

Lastly, geography. "Liberals are dispersed throughout the country. There are few places where the concentrations of liberals are high enough to win elections." Maybe so - but who is talking about liberals here? I am talking about the true left wing and its natural constituency - the working class and the poorest segment of society. No geographical concentrations? How about Detroit, Philly, Cleveland, San Antonio, and every inner city area, not to mention the great unemployment-plagued agricultural areas impoverished by agri-businesses? Nonsense.

Now to be fair, Kenneth and the Democratic Party machine agree that third parties are not entirely useless. They think it makes sense to vote for third parties in local elections where they can win but maintain that they cannot win at a national level and so "without winning elections, third parties are devoid of any power to change things."

There are a couple of reasons that isn't true. The first is that even without winning a third party can have an enormous effect on national politics. Simianbrain points to the successes of the Working Families Party in the Northeast and puts it thusly:

An American Solidarity movement, without even being a political party, could pattern itself on the Working Families Party in the northeast, endorsing candidates based not on a raft of issues but merely one or two. Will a candidate co-sponsor living wage laws, for instance. Or state tax credits for child care. Or whatever targeted legislative effort will give the bottom third of the country both assistance in conducting their lives and a reason to go to the polls.

This would also be the most efficient way to pressure Democrats on changing those self-serving laws on third parties. No changes? Then no funds, no door-knockers, no votes.

The second is that third parties can indeed succeed on a national basis. American history is not entirely bereft of examples, contrary to what Kenneth says, but if one looks at the situation in another first-past-the-post democracy across the pond, the UK, one can see that even without proportional representation smaller parties can win at a national level if their vision is strong and can have huge effects thereby. Look at the successes of the Scottish National Party or the current Liberal Party for inspiration.

Finally, having exhausted all the usual scare tactics and untruths against third parties, Kenneth proceeds to a lengthy apologia for the Democratic Party based around the central thesis that you go to the elections with the Party you have, not the Party you want. Much of that apologia is quoted from Barack Obama - a man whom Kenneth feels -

is a man we almost all respect, a man who knows what he is doing and a man who is dedicated to progressive values and a better America. Maybe he knows what he's doing and saying and maybe we should listen to him

This despite Kenneth's own exortation to his students to be wary of the "Argument from Authority" -

The acceptance of a statement by someone who is in an "authoritative" position by virtue of education, experience, station in life or other reason. This is faulty mainly because no one knows everything, regardless of the topic. This can be manifested, among other ways, by the acceptance of a wrong idea just because it comes from someone we respect or the rejection a right idea just because it was supported by someone we disrespect.

However, I think I will allow Kos to answer Obama, vox populi against vox pontifica, and turn myself to Kenneth's other arguments.

No-one on the Left is arguing that the Republicans are in any way a better alternative than the Democrats. We are simply arguing that Democrats' actions leave us with the unenviable feeling that they are not worth our time, money and loyalty. Kenneth instead asks if the number of "liberal" activists (I assume he means leftwingers) actually aiding the Democrats is worthy of the Party's loyalty - a ludicrous question given how much money was raised through leftwing websites during the last election cycle, giving Kerry a 7 to one advantage in internet fundraising over Bush, and given how much traditional leftwing organisations like the unions have contributed in both manpower and money over the decades. Corporations do not advocate for the Democrats in writing for others nor do they put people on doorsteps. If it were purely down to those two factors the Left would own the Democratic Party. It doesn't, and we are entitled to be pissed about that fact.

Then Kenneth gets a bit confused. He tells us that "some claim that Democrats have abandoned liberal values, but I don't think that's true. Most Democrats have never had liberal values" and then spends at least three paragraphs trying to show that Democrats don't sell out the liberal agenda at the drop of a hat. He argues that the Democratic Party has "clearly and concisely stated their agenda for the party, made it publicly available and made it logically and morally correct" yet when one reads it one will find not a damn thing that shakes a single tree for the 30% or so who are the poorest part of America and at present overwhelmingly don't vote.

The truth is, Kenneth follows the Party line in wanting to have his cake and eat it too. Their arguments are tired, circular and often downright insulting - telling you the voter you are too stupid to understand more than two parties at once. They are well aware that the current system makes them one of only two big fish and that their core agenda is moderate, middle-class and corporate. However, the Democratic Party is also aware of a political and historical truth - that a third party would force them to evolve and might just send them the way of the dinosaurs:

"Third parties are important in American historybecause the national third party as opposed to a regional third party emerges in a time of a conflict of visions over the American idea...a conflict that's deep-rooted, that's powerful.We have them in the Civil War, right before the Civil War, 1896,1930s. The third party is a transitional device for Americans to playout this conflict of visions. What happens often is that it serves as a way of getting things defined so that it comes to terms in a critical election, where one of these visions predominates. And at that point, once you have one vision triumph, those who are opposed to that vision still or who believe differently tend to take the opposition side and you go back to two parties again." - Michael Vlahos, senior fellow at the Progress and Freedom Foundation

Its about time that the American Left woke up. Surely, post-Katrina and so many years of the poorest being ignored the time of a "conflict of visions" is now. The Democrats are not your natural home but have pretended to be in order to garner your time, money and votes. They are aware that, should an effective party representing the working class, the poor and those currently without a party to support be allowed to grow then they will naturally become the party of the "middle class with a conscience" as the Liberals have become in the UK after the rise of the Labour Party. One would think that this would please them as it would nicely resolve the current conflict within the Democratic Party - the Left could go their way and the Democrats could go theirs - but they believe that a party of the true Left, riding on its currently untapped constituency, would eclipse them in power and that they would be sidelined. Thus the circular arguments against a new leftwing grouping - essentially that since a true broadbased party of the Left doesn't exist it cannot get elected and since it cannot get elected it should not exist. The hereditary rich leaders of the Democrats are quite happy with the status quo, even though they are simply not electable in competition with the Republican Party under current demographics. Current polls show that even McCain would beat Hillary Clinton in a Presidential race and Guilliani would leave her eating dust. Every other Democrat hopeful fares even more poorly. Yet the Democrats would rather see Republicans continually win than split their power with a broadbased Left coalition which, by activating a whole new constituency, could actually beat the Republicans in alliance with the Democrats.

Don't let the entrenched self-interest of a few wreck this country by handing it to the Republicans again and again. Get active, and form a coalition of the left - an American Solidarity.

"It was third parties who first introduced ideas like restricting slavery, granting suffrage to women, establishing minimum wages and controlling child labor... The difficulty of getting on the ballot state-by-state is surely a barrier deliberately erected by the major parties to keep third parties out of the field of play." - American University Professor Allan Lichtman on The Jim Lehrer Newshour, Oct. 22, 1996

Addendum 3rd Sept.

Evolving The Dinosaur

Although I remain unconvinced by the standard arguments advanced against third parties ever being successful on a national level, I recognise that some feel it is too early to say that the Left should abandon the Democrats. For the sake of the Left rather than the sake of the Dems we don't need a schism between those two opinions that would weaken our voice. I think therefore it makes sense to say "well, let's give it four years". If, by mid-2009, the Left has not managed to convince the Democratic Party to move towards a more liberal and leftwing agenda that seriously addresses poverty in this country as a primary concern then we can say "enough".

Hopefully by 2009 we will have cajoled, argued, pressured and activated both the Democrats and, by a shift in policy, a huge new constituency of voters who are currently inactive. We will have helped the Democrats to victory in both Congressional and Presidential elections - we will have proven our bones. If on the other hand we have advocated, funded, turned out voters and the Democratic leadership is still deaf to the left's calls for fundemental action to reform the nation then I think it would be fair for the cynics amongst us to turn to those who argue that a third party success is impossible and say "well, we stuck by you - now youare the cynics and it is we who propose a way forward. Give us now the same courtesy and commitment we gave you."

Fair enough?

The objective, then, is not to convince the left to join the Democratic Party but to convince the Democratic Party to wholeheartedly join the left. The internet and advocates for the left such as bloggers will have a huge role to play in this effort. We must outreach to the unions, to interest groups, to smaller parties of the left and to Democrats and forge a true leftwing coalition. By not being part of the Democrat party apparatus we can advocate for fusion politics. We can convince Greens and Dems not to run against each other but instead to put up the best candidate and party in any given election, for instance. We can help workers unionize or at least organize in trade associations. We can aid the Coalition for Change to become stronger by backing their campaigns and by encouraging them to remain independent of party affiliation while aiding all parties of the left with funding and manpower in campaigns. We can form a fundraising base, a think tank and a possible pool for future staff and even elected officials who hold the interest of the people as paramount as well as being a voice to the media or in the absence of mainstream media coverage. We can be facillitators of communication and policy reform at every level.

Shamanic of Simianbrain tells us how we can have most effect:

An American Solidarity movement, without even being a political party, could pattern itself on the Working Families Party in the northeast, endorsing candidates based not on a raft of issues but merely one or two. Will a candidate co-sponsor living wage laws, for instance. Or state tax credits for child care. Or whatever targeted legislative effort will give the bottom third of the country both assistance in conducting their lives and a reason to go to the polls.

While most states do have their electoral process locked up, there's always room in America for organizations to rate candidates and so forth. Moving towards the formation of one that worked for the bottom third is a healthy advance in America's historical struggle to create a fair and humane society, especially as we move into an era where energy and housing costs are driving up all prices and already putting a dangerous squeeze on exactly those Americans.

The beginning will be small - a group of leftwing bloggers who will at least begin the process, outreach to other groups, talk about the possibility of change. Those bloggers would become one of the core groups of an American Solidarity movement - a movement outwith the usual party-defined boundaries which brings everyone together to talk about and organise for a brighter future. I believe such a thing is possible, but we will never know if we don't try.

What say you?