Third Party & Independents Archives

A TEA Party Or A Third Party

TEA parties in significant numbers have been held across the land with many thousands participating. The participants weren’t just protesting taxes. The signs they carried point to contention regarding many of the hot topic issues; healthcare, cap and trade, stimulus funds, TARP funds, the Recovery Act, and others. Many folks demonstrated that they were mad as hell and they weren’t going to take it any more!

We are seeing similar protests at the various town hall meetings taking place. While most were relatively civil they have figuratively thrown the kitchen sink at some legislators who dared show up. Protesting on such a broad range of issues goes more toward reform than change.

I believe the time is right for a third party to come to the forefront. The Republican Party appears weakened and perhaps at a historical low point relative to exerting political clout. And, as the months roll by the Dem’s GPA is heading South. The in-party must lead to succeed and right now that is not happening. From my perspective neither party has sufficient political strength to pull a wet string out of a sick hen’s butt.

There are some that would like to dispense with the political party system and have people stand for election based on their own ideology and merit. Doable, but I think it would lead us right back to the situation that prompted the organization and support of such parties . When people feel disenfranchised and unsatisfied with government they will look for a way to influence government to act more to their liking.

Interesting that George Washington opposed political parties and hoped none would come to fruition. During his tenure as President, faction’s, or small groups of like-minded people began to form seeking to gain more influence over legislation. In response, Alexander Hamilton, Washington’s Secretary of the Treasury who favored a strong central government formed the Federalist Party in 1789. This led to the formation of the Democratic-Republican Party, 1792, founded by James Madison and Washington’s Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, who opposed Hamilton’s agenda. In the mid 1820’s the Democratic-Republican Party split into the Jacksonian Democrats and the Whig Party led by Henry Clay. The Democrats opposed the Bank of the United States and the buildup of Industry, which they believed, would work to the detriment of the taxpayer. This ushered in the Jacksonian era and our first populist president. The Whig Party faded away in the 1850’s morphing into the Republican Party, 1854. Lincoln was elected the first Republican President in 1860. Noteworthy that during this period the conservatives served the Democratic Party and the more liberal minded served the Republican Party. Since 1852 the Democratic and Republican Parties have controlled the Presidency and from 1854 the two parties have controlled the Congress as well.

Ross Perot received 18.9% of the popular vote in his 1992 bid for President. Most third party efforts have received less than 1% of the popular vote. The reason for such poor showings suggests poor organization, lack of funds, unrealistic objectives, single initiative agendas and others. I believe a major reason lies with the lack of trust in politicians in general based on the voting public’s long experience with politicians in government. In my opinion voters no longer trust the government to do the right thing, even as they continue to re-elect their incumbent representatives 90-95% of the time.

Recently, I’ve read and heard more references to “replenishing the tree of liberty” than I’ve observed in my lifetime. Today’s Wash. Post, ‘A’ section, includes an article about a blogger who was upset about three judges who had ruled against the NRA in a case before the court. In a blog post, on June 2nd, the man wrote “Let me be the first to say this plainly: These Judges deserve to be killed.” “Their blood will replenish the tree of liberty. A small price to pay to assure freedom for millions.” On the front page of the “B’ section is an article relating to a fellow who wore a sidearm strapped to his leg while protesting outside a building where Obama was speaking. He had carried a sign that read “it is time to water the tree of liberty.” I sense that people are more dissatisfied with government now than at any time during my lifetime. Why should we not look to a third party for revolution, to give us a new start, a new direction? Thomas Jefferson suggested that every 20 years we should indulge in the manure of revolution. We’ve suffered the duopoly for about 150 years. Is it not time?

Posted by Roy Ellis at August 16, 2009 1:19 PM
Comment #286376

Someone who carries a gun outside of Obama’s rally with a sign saying that the tree of liberty needs to be watered doesn’t mean much to me intellectually. I believe in the right to bear arms and taking your firearm with you to a town hall meeting used to be normal I’m sure, but to come to a town hall armed and carrying a sign demanding bloodshed for no specific reason other than because it hasn’t happened in a while and the fact that it was a cool quote during a horrible time in history is just mindless.
Do you think this man was this dissatisfied during Bush’s tenure?
The judges that passed a local law that turned out to be unpopular to some is one thing, but calling for their deaths is a crime in this modern society.
I’m not sure if you are saying this third party, for which I agree there is a strong need, should be populated with such extremist individuals. I think their home in the Republican party is a good fit right now.
I’m sure you weren’t trying to argue for a third party recruitment drive among the psychotic fringe training badly in the woods with their AR-15s and AK-47s. These are the people that have been reading about the day of the rope in the Turner Diaries. Wake up!
If you want to discuss an independent third party made up of people who respect the rule of law, then let’s talk. I don’t want a violent revolution, sorry. Those that felt safer under W. Bush than they do under Obama now have different issues with their own disinformation and the Fox brainwashing machine.
They somehow believe Obama got us here on purpose through his own ineptitude and has plans to breakdown our country and take away our freedoms. For them to think this is in Obama’s interest is illogical.

I would rather have people that have felt just as unsatisfied with Bush as they do with Obama because of more systemic reasons. People who fear the democratic and republican parties equally. The sane middle would be the strongest base for a third party. Pulling in the extremist violent revolutionary mind would flood this 3rd party with fringe elements and radicalism.
What about the people in the middle of the spectrum who’ve been watching this two party pendulum swing back and forth uselessly for the past forty years.
I just don’t get your mentioning of these extremists as evidence for a need for a third party.
There was a man in his fifties holding a sign calling for Obama’s death as well as the death of his wife and daughters. He makes the same point you reference above. He’s really crazy, perhaps you should make him your chairman.

Posted by: Fred at August 16, 2009 3:56 PM
Comment #286377

Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure many of the tea party goers would love a third party just fine. The point I’m making is that a third party should be between the dems and gop, not further to the right or further to the left.

Posted by: Fred at August 16, 2009 4:01 PM
Comment #286381

Fred, before the debate goes off track… not talking of a violent revolution or supporting a party comprised of radical lefts, rights, or centers. I used the Wash Post articles as an attempt to demonstrate that people are visibly dissatisfied with government. Let’s debate on the basis of a third party comprised of citizens who want a government that will lead from the center.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 16, 2009 5:19 PM
Comment #286382

Awesome! Thanks for the reassurance. I think this is the time in history for America to change forever and a big part of this will be the emergence of a third party.
The only problem we see is the breadth of opinion within the independents and the center. How can we mix center right and center left individuals let alone establish a political party.
My hope is for the further development of the sane citizen activist. The constant exposure of radical extremist views is, I think, disturbing to most Americans who would like to debate peacefully and reasonably.
I think we are developing this new sane citizen activist. The kind of person that reads this blog or the kind of person that watches Fox, MSNBC, and CNN because they don’t trust any one source.
Hopefully, a 21st century citizen that isn’t so easily fooled by misinformation and warped statistics will stand up and join hands to force politicians into more than just a constant reelection campaign.
It would also be useful to identify a few if not several unifying issues that a third party could coalesce around.
2nd amendment rights
Ending war on terror in this generation
Energy independence
? What am I missing?

Posted by: Fred at August 16, 2009 6:07 PM
Comment #286383
Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure many of the tea party goers would love a third party just fine. The point I’m making is that a third party should be between the dems and gop, not further to the right or further to the left.You might be surprised to find that many a the tea parties were actually Libertarians. Surprised because the news media didn’t mention it even though they have been having tea party events on April 15th for years…

Let’s see, 3rd party, unhappy with Dems and Reps, respecting the rule of law and adhering very much to non-violence (that is the one thing you must agree to before becoming a member)…

How doesn’t this fit your bill exactly?

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 16, 2009 6:38 PM
Comment #286390

Libertarians fit my bill:)
The tea party held by libertarians are a different story from this years gatherings and I think that’s a perfect dividing line.
Not that I could decide the make up of this party, but I can certainly decide if this is a group that I want to join and there’s the dilemma.

If we want to gather the left center along with the right center then you know there are people at those tea parties who’d be better off at a birther convention or militia meeting than a centrist party.

Their camo would scare away half the potentials.

Posted by: Fred at August 16, 2009 10:34 PM
Comment #286392

Again with impotent third party fantasies. I can’t speak for the Reps, but the Dems are open to change from those who take the time and effort to work toward it. As proof of that one need only to look at recent history. The dark horse BHO became president after bucking the powerful party establishment. Every county has public party meetings. To become an actual voting member one needs to run for election as a party delegate. This is often a formality as many positions go unfilled. Its hard work. It takes time. It takes compromise and forming coalitions but a committed group of like-minded individuals can and do effect party policy. Do not expect everyone to listen to your brilliant views instantly. Thats just an ego trip.If you are what amounts to being too lazy or arrogant to work within a party that actually might have a chance of putting policy concepts into practice then a third party makes sense, but only as a forum for fools and a sometimes calculated diversion as a spoiler.

Posted by: bills at August 17, 2009 12:00 AM
Comment #286393
If you are what amounts to being too lazy or arrogant to work within a party that actually might have a chance of putting policy concepts into practice then a third party makes sense

And that party should be the Democrats, right Bills?

Please… If the Republican Party can (and I think should) die a horrible death, there has to be a party to pick up valid opposition to the Democrats.

And don’t think for a second the Democratic Party isn’t ripe for being ripped apart either. The noble ego trip you are taking about how you all work together towards a common goal is going to be put to the test over the next 16 months.

Of course, the notion of Principle doesn’t really fit in with the established parties, so it makes little doubt that the notion of those ideals would seem so foreign to someone who belongs to one of them.

Least you forget, it is those of us who claim to be ‘independant’ or members of other ‘3rd parties’ that determine whether the Democrats or the Republicans are elected to any office. Telling them that they are on ‘ego trips’ and ‘lazy’ isn’t really the best way to go, don’t you think? Telling them they are nazis doesn’t seem to be going well either…

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 17, 2009 12:13 AM
Comment #286395

I was just going to point out who just put BHO in office. Thanks Rhinehold.
The task of both the Republican and Democratic parties now is to hold on their base of support while securing America’s political middle.
Their catering to the center shows evidence of an obvious potential to this group.

Posted by: Fred at August 17, 2009 3:18 AM
Comment #286397

bills, BHO won in 2008 because of his opposition. On his own merits alone, he would not be president. But, in contrast to the Schizo McCain/Palin ticket, and One more Clinton too many potential Bush/Clinton dynasty, BHO appeared to be the best choice for those whose votes made the difference, the third party and Independent voters.

I still believe he is the best choice of that group, despite his errors. I think you would do well to read Rhinehold’s comments above carefully, for the insight they provide to the current political landscape. He is in rare form (my opinion) above.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 17, 2009 5:52 AM
Comment #286400

If you believe the Dems are devoid of principle you are fooling yourself. The fundemental principles may not align with yours but they do exist and have consistently since for some time. I believe you are correct that a sensible opposition party needs to be part of the political landscape in the US. The Reps are failing in that regard IMO at this time. The Grand Old Party is in great turmoil. If they manage to take out the trash and move toward Powell’s wing, socially moderate with an understanding of the uses of EFFECTIVE governance and its limitations, this responsible opposition may arise. Hard to see at this point but it is still a more likely scenario than the emergence of a third party to fill the vacumn.The infrastructure is already there.
My comments above were addressing the opportunity we all have as citizens to effect party policy and therefore public policy. Again,its not easy,its not fast, but it is available for those willing to put in the time and work and its available through the big bad major parties. This toil BTW is performed daily by people WITH principles.

So no credit to the hundreds of thousands of Democratic volunteers or the huge number of newly committed first time voters or the revolutionary use of the internet to bring small contributers into the bastion of real political influence?
Was he helped by a weak opposition? No duh! as my daughter might say. If the Reps were capable of putting forth decent candidates that could have run on a sterling record of accomplishment for the last eight years then certainly BHO would not have won. That is not some great piece of political insight but a statement of the obvious. Independants and third party supporters that finally saw the light and voted to support the Democratic ticket were certainly important. Too damned bad they didn’t catch on in 2000 and spare the country and world eight years of tragedy.

Posted by: bills at August 17, 2009 7:06 AM
Comment #286406

The problem with this debate is that it still makes politicians the agents of change. That ain’t never gonna happen. We have a cultural problem in this country that has given us a government that responds only to corporate interests that funnel large checks into their coffers. We have, as a people, become intellectually lazy. We let morons and demagogues like Rush Limbaugh do our thinking for us removing the responsibility to read and do critical thinking on our own. If we, as a people were better informed we would have a more responsive government. The parties in place are not the problem, that is a convenient scapegoat. It is every person over the age of 18 who allows these people to continue in power when neither party has shown that they have our interests at heart. There are conservatives and progressives out there who aren’t corporate shills but they are not current office holders.

In schools, if you are smart you are labeled a geek or a nerd, cool kids get “C’s”. We elected the most intellectually un-curious president we have probably ever had … twice. Repeating talking points has replaced actual political thought in this country and until that is addressed, as Pete Townsend wisely wrote, “meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”

Posted by: tcsned at August 17, 2009 8:38 AM
Comment #286410

bills said: “So no credit to the hundreds of thousands of Democratic volunteers or the huge number of newly committed first time voters or the revolutionary use of the internet to bring small contributers into the bastion of real political influence?”

Of course, all these should be credited as having made the better choice. But, the choices were rather limited, don’t you think? McCain/Palin, Clinton/Bush dynasty, or Obama. Seemed like a no brainer to me, I voted for Obama.

My point was that if Obama had been running against Reagan or Dwight Eisenhower, he might easily have lost the race. Iraq and the Economy were the deciding issues, and McCain/Palin blew up on those issues running the opposite direction as the general public. No contest. Hillary would not commit to ending the Iraq War on economic issues, Bill Clinton already had his 8 years, so some folks were ready for a change and Hillary wasn’t enough of one.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 17, 2009 9:11 AM
Comment #286411

tcsned said: “The problem with this debate is that it still makes politicians the agents of change. That ain’t never gonna happen. We have a cultural problem in this country that has given us a government that responds only to corporate interests that funnel large checks into their coffers.”
Agree tcsned, Creates a great, great conflict of interest that, in my opinion, should not be tolerated. Matters little whether we have smart politicians, efficient coalitions and hard working folks at the grassroots level if all legislation pushed through the system is tainted by the Corpocracy. We are witnessing this full blow in attempting to change the status quo with health care. Another current example from Sunday’s Wash. Post. A petroleum industry trade group is asking oil companies to recruit employees and retirees to attend rallies attacking climate change legislation. Rallies to be held in 20 states during the final two weeks of Congress’s August recess. “Please indicate to your company leadership your strong support for employee participation in the rallies.”
Not enough that they cater to the every whim of every legislator 24/7, they want to put a human face on lobbying. Said Greenpeace: “It’s the most powerful among us, masquerading as grass roots outrage to stifle debate on global warming.” We have tolerated such activities for about 150 years. Are you willing to continue with the status quo? Could a third party play a roll here?

Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 17, 2009 11:22 AM
Comment #286412

When and if the Republican Party realizes that Trickledown Economics means that you have to support the foundation on which it is built remains to be seen; however, in order to challenge the Democratic Party and change the Public Debate any and all members of a third party is going to have to be able to look forward instead of living in the past.

For way many of the issues have a politically viable solution, getting Labor and Management to see what it takes to rebuild Americs’ Infradtructure for the 21st Commerce and Industry. Well, let’s just say that picture has yet to be completely drawn, but started.

BTW, just remember Fools Dream!!!

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at August 17, 2009 11:23 AM
Comment #286418

Henry, I believe that by pulling the plug on Corporate Personhood and Money is Free Speech the Corporations would immediately begin to operate based more on competition rather than intrenched belligerence and focused on lobbying and maintaining the staus quo. Can you see the duopoly abolishing Corporate Personhood and Money is Free Speech law? Could a third party be the mechanism by which such policy could be implemented?

Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 17, 2009 12:39 PM
Comment #286419

Sorry, but the Tea Parties, at least as they were held this last year, were an astroturfed arm of a Republican, economically elitist group called FreedomWorks, and Americans for Prosperity, which is no different in any important regard.

This is manufactured dissent, in order to drown out or steal attention away from what most people are really concerned about, what people really are thinking.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 17, 2009 12:42 PM
Comment #286425

I would love a more moderate third party. Perhaps a third party that stresses common sense over radicalism; whose policies are pragmatic rather than idealistic? A perfect third party in my eyes would fight for the regulation of corporate america without the destruction of capitalism. It would be free of corporate favors and make a point of advertising that it is. The perfect third party would hold personal liberties in high regard and work to make the government the regulator and protector of our economy. The republicans and democrats alike have neither comprehensive nor realistic economic policies. They seem to rely on complete freedom of market and pushing businesses under the public thumb respectively. A third party would be focused on teh idea of a fair market, with heavy regulation in the areas of our economy that lend themselves to great gain by defraudation and monopoly (basically any speculative market) and and more freedom in the supply and demand sector. I want a party that encourages immigration while discouraging illegal immigration, and encourages free trade without putting our economy at a disadvantage with another nation’s. But of course, these dreams are as a whole unattainable. With the stranglehold that the current political parties have on the American people and government I have no hope. None whatsoever.

Posted by: Doug at August 17, 2009 4:29 PM
Comment #286426

“If you believe that the Dems are devoid of principle you are fooling yourself. The fundemental principles may not align with yours but they do exist and have consistently since for some time.”

Let’s examine a couple of those principles,

Healthcare, the Democrats have gone from national healthcare to universal (not universal) healthcare to corpocracy healthcare.

Workers, The Democrats principles have gone from champions of the middleclass, the low income workers minorities and the poor to champions of NAFTA, illegal immigrants, the Chinese trade agreement and millions of jobs leaving the country. and their message to those that they used to champion is sorry about your luck but, we politicians, our corpocrarcy buddies and their New World Order is what’s best for you.
Change is a shared thing, the pain is not.

If the Democrats stop protecting the professional class and that class if forced to experience what the workers are going through, change will come.

I’m hearing people say that what this country needs is a centrist third party. This could be true only if we reconize that both the Democrats and Republicans are right of center.

When I here people say that the left has to much influence over the government, I say, how about supplying a list of all the left wing legislation passed in the last thirty years.

Governments need two things to function and in a two party corpocracy consent of the people is not one of them.

Our two party government needs power and gold which it derives from the guise of democracy.

Power and gold attract the greedy, the selfish and the wicked.

Third parties cannot compete in a rigged system.

Stephen, despite what you and I might think about the astroturfers, they have been quite effective. They have Obama and the Democrats running for shelter, couring behind the healthcare insurers.

Posted by: jlw at August 17, 2009 4:37 PM
Comment #286431

“This led to the formation of the Democratic-Republican Party, 1792, founded by James Madison “

Roy Ellis, please provide the earliest reference you can to the existence of any such thing as the “Democratic-Republican” party.

I’ve been to town hall meetings with my congressperson, and the mentality of those asking the same questions over and over is this: All levels of government exist only to serve me, my family and friends, and other people like me, but without any of us having to pay any taxes, and all foreign born people should just go away. The result is that you can request a meeting with a representative of the congressperson instead of going to a town hall meeting.

Posted by: ohrealy at August 17, 2009 5:00 PM
Comment #286435
This is manufactured dissent, in order to drown out or steal attention away from what most people are really concerned about, what people really are thinking.

You keep on thinking that Stephen, and then we’ll all be enlightened to see how you explain the nation turning so quickly against the Democrats in 2010. Here’s a hint. Most people in this country don’t like being accused of being a nazi…

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 17, 2009 5:16 PM
Comment #286436
If you believe the Dems are devoid of principle you are fooling yourself.

Can you point out a few of those ‘principles’ bills?

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 17, 2009 5:18 PM
Comment #286438

Better government will never, for long, come from a political party. Reason is that all political parties intrinsically serve only one principal, getting their members elected, and all other principals are compromised in favor of this overarching objective. Political parties exist for one reason, to get theirs elected and keep them in power through reelection. And they will compromise any and all other principals.

Better government in a democratically elected government has to come from the voters, who are educated and motivated enough to remove incumbents who are responsible for government failing to meet voter’s needs and expectations for responsible and effective government. This of course, presumes an electorate educated well enough to make such decisions on a preponderance of the evidence and in an objective fashion for the most part. This prescription clearly does not apply to America today. America is rapidly becoming one of the least effective and responsible democracies amongst 1st world democracies.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 17, 2009 5:24 PM
Comment #286445

Well said Doug. Moderate, pragmatic, regulation and oversight, liberty for all. Fair market, but not to our detriment. Immigration while controlling the border. Your post incorporates many of the benefits I believe, as you do, that can be gained through a third party. And, conversely, benefits that could never be attained through the Corpocracy. Understandable. Where we disagree is on your last sentence. You say there is no hope, whatsoever, of throwing off the Corpocracy and living the good life. I would say to you that we’ve not had a third party present a program that could gain the trust of the voting public. No party that can tell the people how they can reform government, what those reforms will be and how those reforms can be kept in place down through the years. Soon as one administration looses power the succeeding party sets about to repeal or overturn as much of the previous Party’s work as possible. Never mind the inefficiency and cost involved. Going on right now, as we blog.
Consider Perot’s results, 18% of the popular vote based pretty much on the basis that he was a fairly popular fellow with a lot of eye wash charts. Hang in Doug, keep thinking on it, and we will try to compare some third parties, check out the New Independent American Party and attempt to determine if a third party has the tools to deliver needed reforms as discussed.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 17, 2009 5:56 PM
Comment #286446

“If the Republican Party can (and I think should) die a horrible death, there has to be a party to pick up valid opposition to the Democrats.”

The Rpblcns are held together by single issue voters rallying around tax-rates and abortion. On 2nd amendment rights, I’m predicting that the majority Roman Catholic SCOTUS will turn on the right wing, the “right to bear arms” came from 17th century anti-Catholicism.

“On his own merits alone, he would not be president.” Posted by: David R. Remer at August 17, 2009 05:52 AM
Is this a new and improved David R. Remer?

“Repeating talking points has replaced actual political thought in this country ” Posted by: tcsned

It’s call PR, turning the “crap into credible, the dull into delicious”. like the 13 year old who asked BHO the health care questions. That one was pure DAxelrod.

” pulling the plug on Corporate Personhood and Money is Free Speech “

Ironicly, some of the third party efforts are financed by those who want the government’s power reduced so that corporations like Cargill and Koch can thrive with even less interference.

Posted by: ohrealy at August 17, 2009 6:05 PM
Comment #286449

The problem with getting a third party to appeal to a majority of voters isn’t the issues the party stems from. I would venture to say that the majority of people would agree with my dream party and it’s views on the government’s role in society. The big problem if how good the current parties are at framing the issues they clearly are at a disadvantage with. We would need serious cash to overhaul the political system, and with the majority of our wealth resting with the small percentage of people who run the political parties we have; there is no hope. We would need not just a philanthropic and starry eyed billionaire like Ross Perot, but a group of billionaires who are willing to back it. And finding a group of billionaires to agree that we should make the economic system in a fairer, more regulated image would be utterly impossible. One? Maybe. But that’s not enough.

It is the stranglehold that the rich and the corporations have on our government (and you can see the influence every day) that makes me feel helpless. Our laws are bypassed and curtailed every day to better serve the corporate office, with the rights and the wealth of the middle class syphoned into executive bank accounts. If they can get away with robbing the people without repucussion like in the financial sector bailouts, how can we expect the people to care enough to shrug them off our shoulders?

Posted by: Doug at August 17, 2009 6:33 PM
Comment #286460

Very good points coming to light. It’s clear that we will need to burn a coupla more threads re third parties to thoroughly debate the issues involved and hopefully arrive at some concensus on third parties. Don’t deny that it would be a real dog fight, wresting power from the Corpocracy. But, it’s just one person at a time being willing to join a movement having long term goals with broad appeal. A ‘field of dreams’ comes to mind. I can see where retiring baby boomers would want to volunteer their time and support in large numbers. Also, we should consider the power of the Internet as it relates to mass communications and at a small cost compared to main stream media. I can imagine a website supporting huge bandwidth with gigabits flying in all directions between politicians, candidates, members, political educational programming, grassroots party building, etc. The Recovery Act has funds to put broadband into each hospital and library, extending the Internet to localities from hubs within those major facilities. A Party website, or perhaps multiple websites would provide something akin to a cspan operating in each locality or county. Real candidates talking real middle of the road issues rather than people trying to filter information through watching the talking heads of hundreds of entities whose agendas cannot be discerned. Something like 80% of demreps campaign funds goes toward TV advertising. Done for the purpose of getting exposure for their candidates but also for stroking media for their support. Many of the ads they run or so crass as to be viewed by a relative few. I’m saying that if you can put together a robust program that can gain the peoples trust you don’t need the super bucks to compete and win. If people can see this Party is different, trust in and believe that through this Party reform of government can be achieved then they will seek out that Party. Remember too, such a third party would only have to fight the big bucks battle a time or two, until the party can gain enough clout to carry out reforms. At that point you would want reforms that provide free, or relatively inexpensive air time for viable candidates, etc. Think of the millions, just like us, out there blogging their fingers to the bones protesting this government in one form or another. Why so diverse and individualistic? There is no Party supporting mainstream politics. Build it and they will come!

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve!

Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 17, 2009 9:17 PM
Comment #286462

Sure. Since Kennedy/Johnson a commitment to minority civil rights. This was not without severe and lasting political cost. The Dems largely gave up the South politically for generations. Another example is solidly backing the rights of women to make procreative decisions with very limited government interference. This also has had a large political cost. Thats two. There are more,as you know.

Posted by: bills at August 17, 2009 10:59 PM
Comment #286473

Why limited in what I can say about Corporate Parenthood and Money as Freespeech, I do believe that under the proper conditions a third political party could use the fact that the Republican Party would not support riasing the minimum wage by #30,000.00/yr. in order that every American could have health insurance as a fair means to split those who believe in Trickledown economics ans challenge President Obama on how a Trickle-Up Economic Plan could be used to build a Better Health and Medical Care System over the next 40 years.

And thus, begins a debate of a problem the Southern Republican has had for years. For how can you support the idea of being Anti-Slavery and still say that it is ok to keep fellow humans economically enslaved?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at August 18, 2009 7:16 AM
Comment #286475

Agree Henry, beginning with the Regan administration the Corpocracy has been working towards ‘harmonizing’ or streamlining the worlds governments and economies to fit some business model. This includes, trade laws, patent laws, design and manufacturing specifications,removing ‘impediments’ to travel, creating regional trade zones and others. Much of this accomplished in secret meetings and with no public debate. Weakening our patent law is a biggie. Some major innovation and creation comes from the individual, Bill Gates or the Apple computer guy are examples. Japan’s patent law favors the corporation, thus Japan seldom invents anything, they copy or improve. But individual innovation is stymied.
Perhaps a better way to maintain a decent standard of living for Americans and simultaneously help the developing world is to control obscene pay outs at the top and promote a true living wage at the bottom. Help thos countries that want help by providing some things like infrastructure, graneries, farming implements and food processing plants. Provide tech support for developing a mining industry, etc. I’m not in favor of a world economy run by the WTO, IMF and world bank where lawsuits are settled in secret. One size doesn’t fit all. I’m not in favor of grass huts in Tanzania being covered with white vinyl siding. Unless that’s whatthe local people want.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 18, 2009 8:03 AM
Comment #286491

ohrealy, in using WIKI for expediency, I find: “The First Party System is a term of periodization used by political scientists and historians to describe the political system existing in the United States between roughly 1792 and 1824. It featured two national parties competing for control of the presidency, Congress, and the states: the Federalist Party (created by Alexander Hamilton) and the Democratic-Republican Party (created by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison)”. Also, “Initially calling itself the “Republican Party,” Jeffersonians were labeled “Democratic” by the opposition Federalists, with the hope of stigmatizing them as purveyors of democracy or mob rule.” And, “The Democratic-Republican Party was founded by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison around 1792.”

Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 18, 2009 3:37 PM
Comment #286502

Roy - that’s about how I remember it also remember there being some controversy when Jefferson was elected in 1800 since Aaron Burr essentially had the same number of electoral votes since there was no distinction between electoral votes for president and vice president. I believe Alexander Hamilton worked on behalf of his political rival, Jefferson to thwart his future killer Burr, whom he hated even more. Also making Dick Cheney the second sitting vice-president to shoot someone.

Posted by: tcsned at August 18, 2009 5:13 PM
Comment #286510

Well, I had it in my mind that Hamilton and Co. got together in cliches or factions, then Jefferson & Co. created the first party which was then countered by Hamilton forming the Federalist Party. Otherwise, these great men created a plan for government unequaled in history. And, against their clear and frequent warnings we have let her slide. Gone along to get along. Shame on us. Let’s throw in together and reclaim our Constitution, sovereignty and the democratic principles we have lived by.
“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” – by TJ, an old fellow who used to live down the road from me.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 18, 2009 5:52 PM
Comment #286539

R.E., I was just curious if you had some other reference that I wasn’t aware of, since we went through this several years ago here. The earliest references that I found to “Democratic-Republican” were post civil war, part of a historical revisionism claiming that Jefferson, Madison and Monroe weren’t really Rpblcns.

Using Wiki as a reference is the same to me as saying “someone at Comicon told me”, since well-educated people know that Wiki is a high school level reference.

Hamilton made a deal with Jefferson prior to his presidency which moved the capital closer to TJ’s wine cellar. Burr may be considered as the godfather of the Dmcrt party in NY politics.

Posted by: ohrealy at August 18, 2009 10:13 PM
Comment #286583

ohrealy, no scholarly views here. A little surfing leads me to believe that the ole Democratic-Republican Party under Jefferson was known more as the Republican Party. TJ, fer shure, expressed Republican views at the time. The Federalist died off leading to one-party rule and eventually, after James Monroe was elected, some began referring to themselves as National Democrats. And, some historians refer to the Democratic-Republicans as being more Democrat, splitting into two distinct parties during the Jacksonian era. Democrats supporting Jackson and the National Republicans or Whigs, opposing him. Jefferson, as I know it, supported Jackson’s populist position. Sure has me confused. I blame it on Jefferson for being so complex or perhaps flip-floppy. What I find interesting about Jefferson and Jackson is they both preferred ‘country life’ over life in Washington. These two men left a huge imprint on our history and on mankind, IMO.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 19, 2009 11:11 AM
Post a comment