Anonymous and the Greens

The Greens appear to be reaching out to Anonymous, or is it the other way around?  Or is it just plain satire?  From the Seattle PI Ethicist blog:

We don’t need a “new” party, we need to vote for a party that already exists and represents us. Vote Green. The Green party is in 49 states. Anonymous should vote Green. If you like Anon, you should vote Green. If you want a transparent government, Vote Green.

Do you like torture? Go on and vote Democrat.
Do you like being broke? Vote Republican.
Do you want to work at Walmart when you retire? Vote Democrat.
Do you want to see your children working as slaves? Vote Republican.
Do you hate having health care? Vote Democrat.
Do you love chaos and anarchy? Vote Republican.
It doesn’t really matter whether its Dem, or Rep, they’re two sides of the same coin: Corruption.

The Green party will ban lobbying INSIDE government offices. The Green party will make it illegal to vote on any issue for which large donations were paid, or to submit laws written by lobbyists.  Do you want GOVERNMENT, or this Fourth-Reich divine right insanity? America is already a Tyranny, already Fascist, already over the edge. It’s time to change. Obama had his chance and failed miserably. He extended the Patriot Act. he allows torture, and rendition. Look at how he treats Manning. Look at how he plots against Assange. Someone told the truth? How evil of them.
VOTE FOR CHANGE. Vote Green.

This ad paid for by Anon

For Democrats and Republicans, Failure is Success

From Ezra Klein, on debt ceiling negotiations:

What the two parties are really doing is trying to position themselves politically to survive the consequences of their failure. We don’t yet know if we’ll get to the point where the market will panic, but it could. We’re very likely to get to the point where we have to stop funding certain government services, which could mean as little as delaying payments to military contractors and hospitals or as much as halting Social Security checks. Either way, the public is likely to ignore the political breakdown until the consequences begin. At that point, both parties are hoping they will have framed the debate such that the electorate’s fury falls squarely on the other’s shoulders . . . .

IN: Libertarian Strategy and Social Liberalism

From the Courier Press:

Though the Indiana Libertarian Party has not landed a candidate for the 2012 governor's campaign, it has identified an opening to influence the race. On social issues, the major parties' leading candidates Republican U.S. Rep. Mike Pence and Democratic former Indiana House Speaker John Gregg take conservative stances. So the Libertarian candidate could be the only one who offers a significantly different position on issues such as abortion and gay marriage.

Libertarian Party of Florida on the Trouble with Libertarians

From the LP Florida:

There is a paradigm shift in this country happening, it’s not Republican/Democrat or Left/Right, or Conservative/Liberal. The people are realizing that there is now a war between those who love liberty and all it entails and statists who want to control everything. The Libertarian Party should take advantage of this paradigm shift, but as our 40 year history has shown, we once again we shoot ourselves in the foot. We have again furthered our image of Amoral Atheistic Anarchists. This unfortunately accurate combination of descriptors will insure that the American people will only rarely elect Libertarian candidates. Ron Paul, arguably the most successful candidate wearing the libertarian moniker, is not a member of the Libertarian Party. Because he has realized that to win elections and have a positive affect for liberty for all Americans, he had to abandon the LP. Americans will not elect Amoral Atheistic Anarchists . . .

Constitution Party of Delaware Condemns Tea Party Factionalism

A post at Smart Girl Politics relays an "official statement from the Constitution Party of Delaware" by the party's state chair Earl Lofland condemning the recent announcement by the chairman of the Tea Party Express that the TPE will support "whoever the GOP nominates" in 2012.  Excerpt:

This week Amy Kramer, Chairman for the Tea Party Express stated "Tea Party Group Says It Will Support Whoever The GOP Nominates, Eve..."  Last year, when the TPE came to Delaware, to pull for Christine O'Donnell, I was very skeptical of their motives, asking the question; were they looking to support and defend the Constitution, as the founders originally intended, or was TPE only a shilll organization working covertly to promote the same initiatives and agendas that have been ongoing for at least 90 yrs...(reflections on the discovery by Mr Quigley in his book Tragedy and Hope)

It now is verified theTPE only endorses partisan views of one faction, and are not basing their decison on fundamental logic within the boundries of a limited government outlined in the Constitution. For the recent decison of TPE's Chair peson to make her decisions to discriminate any other candidates from other political factions, as the Chairman of The Constitition Party of Delaware,

If you are a member of, or support the views of the Tea Party Express; You are an enemy to the US Constitution. And are partakers of an organization who has infringed upon the rights of individuals to assemble based upon their affiliation to other political factions or having no affiliation to any faction at all. In Violation of what was erected when the Founders first declared Independence from a totalitarianism being forced upon the colonies by a tyrant in England.

The Constitution Party of Delaware therefore condemns the current decision of Amy Karmer in her decisions, and her organizations decisions of considering or disqualifying someone as a candidate for any elected office based upon the persons party affiliation and not upon the persons principles - whether or not they would uphold the oath to a sovereign God; to Support and Defend the Constitution against all its enemies foreign and domestic without any mental reservations.

GOP Dead-Enders Plead with Libertarians to Abandon their Party

The dead-enders of the Republican party are pleading with Libertarians to abandon the Libertarian party in particular and third parties in general, and instead vote for the GOP.  At the Bastiat Institute, Matt Welch responds:

I'm certainly no LPer, but my answer to this is a three-part "no." 1) I want more, not fewer, political groupings competing for my vote. 2) The presidency is just one of, what, more than a half-million elected offices in the United States? When we no longer have uncontested elections for Congress (a shockingly routine occurrence in Southern California, for example), let alone state and local offices, then maybe I'll be more open to the idea of contraction. Though probably not. And 3) while I'm seriously thrilled that there is so much libertarian flavoring in the current stew of GOP politics, it's going to take more than some scattered brave talk during the wilderness years to make me forget the explicitly anti-libertarian strategizing and governance of GOP scoundrels from 1997-2008. Unilateral disarmament at this time does not strike me as advisable . . .

An Organized Protest Vote in 2012?

From FireDogLake:

our political system is controlled by legalized bribery of various forms.  Politicians feel free to act in their own interests after getting elected rather than actually representing the people who elected them.

More and more Americans from all across the political spectrum are waking up to this fact.  This is leading to both cynicism and sometimes a sense of hopelessness. I strongly believe the first step we need to take as a citizenry is to join together in a way that sends a strong and clear message to our country and the world that says Americans want a government that is actually responsive to the people that are governed. . . .

In this post I will lay out a strategy that I believe is pragmatic, practical, and has a reasonable chance to work.  The basic idea is to run a campaign not for a particular candidate but instead against both the Democratic and Republican parties.  The genesis for this idea is that both parties are rather hopelessly corrupt and non-responsive to the citizens at this time, yet the structure of our system does not offer meaningful opportunity for 3rd party or independent candidates . . . 

CA: the Top Two Primary and Third Party Strategy

From my article this week at CAIVN:

The first special primary election for a Congressional office under California’s top two open primary system has been scheduled for May 17th . . . if no candidates withdraw from the race or are struck from the ballot, voters in the district will have a wide array of candidates to chose from in the primary: five Democrats, six Republicans, five candidates designated as having “no party preference,” one Libertarian, and one Peace and Freedom Party candidate.  Observers predict that, due to the high number of candidates in the race, no one will win an outright majority.  The top two vote-getters in the May primary will proceed to the special general election scheduled for July 12th.

The partisan breakdown of registered voters in the Democratic-leaning district is reflective of the state as a whole.  Of the district’s nearly 350,000 registered voters, 45% are Democrats, 27% are Republicans, 22% decline to state a party preference, and the remainder are registered with third parties.  Given this fact, it appears likely that this will be the first instance in which two candidates from the same party face-off in a special general election.

Yet, it is safe to say that no one really knows what will result from the first such election under the top two open primary system, or any other for that matter.  It substantially changes the strategic calculus for parties and candidates alike. Under the old system, the conventional wisdom was that candidates should play to the party’s base in the primary and pivot toward the center for the general election.  In the top two open primary, candidates compete with all the other candidates in the race in addition to those of their own party while appealing to voters regardless of their party affiliation.

Let’s assume, for the moment, that all five Democratic candidates in the current race were competitive among Democratic voters, and that all six Republicans were equally favorable to GOP voters.  It is possible that no Democrat would receive more than 9% of the vote and that no Republican would garner even 5%.  If an Independent or third party candidate in such a race had the backing of just one in ten voters, he or she would be assured a place on the general election ballot.  The diluting effect of multiple candidates from both major parties thus provides a potential strategic opening to Independent and third party candidates . . .

Read the rest.

Green Party Strategy in 2011

From Michael Kwiatkowski at FireDogLake:

I’m going to be attending a meeting of the Northeast Ohio Green Party on the 18th of January. We’ll be discussing strategies for future elections in Ohio, particularly Northeast Ohio. This is especially important in light of the GOP’s efforts to remove two of Ohio’s Democrats from Congress by way of redistricting, likely Dennis Kucinich, Marcia Fudge, Betty Sutton, or Marcy Kaptur. Any two of these four Democrats could be on the Congressional chopping block. This means even less representation of the public than we have currently, and we haven’t much to begin with.

But it also presents Greens with an opportunity to expand our own efforts in Northeast Ohio. With legislative districts being redrawn to favor Republicans and hurt Democrats, areas that were previously closed to third parties because of strong Democrat presence may open up. This means we can run truly leftist candidates in areas where Democrats simply don’t bother or have been pushed out because of the redistricting. Also helping is the official ballot recognition of third parties in Ohio, which allowed Greens and other outside political parties to obtain ballot access for the first time last year.

The time to build up progressive political parties is now . . .

Leader of Sweden's Pirate Party Steps Down on Party's 5th Anniversary

From Torrent Freak:

Five years ago the first Pirate Party was founded in Sweden. In the years that followed the Party shook up the political climate in its home country and the European Parliament where it holds two seats. Now, five years later, founder and chief architect Rickard Falkvinge is stepping down as leader. He will focus on promoting the Pirate position internationally, while Party deputy Anna Troberg will take over the reins . . .

Communist Commentator Calls for Unity with Obama Democrats

On the left, the Communist Party have been consistent supporters of Barack Obama and the outgoing Democratic ruling majority.  From Jarvis Tyner, from People's World, a CPUSA publication:

I think most left people understand that the main danger to democracy and progress is coming from the extreme right, GOP/tea party and their powerful corporate backers. The Communist Party will not agree with our liberal allies at every turn, but we keep pushing for unity, we keep working to find the tactics that keep a broad labor and people's coalition, that keeps the movement for change going. . . . If  we want to win more economic and democratic rights for working people, minorities, women, young people, etc., it is self defeating to use this tax compromise difference to "break" with Obama. . . . Communists say that even though we are not in agreement with the president on many basic issues, he implemented many of his campaign promises. Progressive researchers who track that sort of thing give him pretty good marks. . . .

The Case for a Third Party Tea Party

Mitchell Langbert makes the case that the tea party movement can only be a force for freedom if it recognizes the tyranny of the two-party state for what it is.  Excerpts:

I have been following politics on and off for forty years and I still can't grasp why Americans favor a two-party system.  It has resulted in their being taxed to fifty percent of their incomes to get a garbage government. Garbage at the federal level; garbage at the state level; and garbage at the local level.  Despite the complete failure of the two party system Americans remain much more loyal to it than they do to liberty. . . .

The two-party system has caused America's decline because both parties are responsive to interest groups.  The special interests that are subsidized by the Fed, to include the banking system and Wall Street, the media, government, and much of big business, all contribute heavily to Republicans as well as Democrats. . . . To be committed to a two party system is to favor the status quo. . . .

Compromise between two big government parties is not "moderate." The people in Washington and the state capitals are socialists, fascists and totalitarians. They are not moderates.  The only way that change can occur is through a rethinking of the smug, insipid policies of the past 50 years.  That will require change without compromise. 

Speaking of the threat to freedom and liberty posed by Democratic-Republican party politics, the construction of the militarized police- and surveillance state continues apace.  From the Washington Post:

Nine years after the terrorist attacks of 2001, the United States is assembling a vast domestic intelligence apparatus to collect information about Americans, using the FBI, local police, state homeland security offices and military criminal investigators.

The system, by far the largest and most technologically sophisticated in the nation's history, collects, stores and analyzes information about thousands of U.S. citizens and residents, many of whom have not been accused of any wrongdoing.

The government's goal is to have every state and local law enforcement agency in the country feed information to Washington to buttress the work of the FBI, which is in charge of terrorism investigations in the United States. . . .

Technologies and techniques honed for use on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan have migrated into the hands of law enforcement agencies in America . . .

The FBI is building a database with the names and certain personal information, such as employment history, of thousands of U.S. citizens and residents whom a local police officer or a fellow citizen believed to be acting suspiciously. It is accessible to an increasing number of local law enforcement and military criminal investigators, increasing concerns that it could somehow end up in the public domain.

The Party is Over

From Matt Bai at the NYT, on the recent No Labels launch and ongoing speculation as to the presidential ambitions of NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg, despite the latter's categorical denial that he aims to seek the office:

Those who think Mr. Bloomberg would want to build a similar kind of [third party] organization, be it No Labels or something else, are assuming that the growing power and disaffection of independent voters who identify with neither Democrats nor Republicans make a third party more viable than it has ever been. In fact, though, the rise of the independents represents a movement in exactly the opposite direction — away from party organizations altogether. . . .

What the current moment might offer, then, as Mr. Bloomberg surely knows, is an unprecedented opportunity not for a new party, but for an independent candidate who represents a break from the dictates of any party organization, mainstream or otherwise. In the current environment, the less of a party apparatus an independent candidate carries, the better his chances of success may be. . . .

Progressives Preparing Primary and Third Party Challenges to Obama?

From FireDogLake:

Rather than a two-track approach, I favor a comprehensive one, whereby our challenger – in order to become our challenger in the first place – must not only agree to run against Obama in the primaries, but to run as the new party’s candidate in the general as well. . . .

Over the past few weeks, I’ve been working on seating a steering committee of prominent, respected Lefties for this effort. So far I’m batting 1.000 – the first two people I’ve approached have agreed. They are names you will immediately recognize, and while I am not ready to disclose them just yet, here’s the key point: One is willing to participate only if the goal is the establishment of a new party which seeks to bring together the disparate factions of the Left, toward the greater objective of giving the Left a real voice again. This person is even averse to a primary challenge, but would be willing, I think, to support it as a strategic first step – provided the ultimate goal is to give Lefties a unified voice which is not tied to the Democratic Party.

AL: Time for an Independent Party of Alabama

From a lengthy commentary in the Montgomery Advertiser by Artur Davis, Congressman from Alabama's 7th District. He was a Democratic candidate for governor this year:

For the hundreds of thousands of Alabamians who believe our state is capable of fundamentally changing the way we govern ourselves and the way we educate our children, and who desire a politics that is not anchored to special interest groups, there is a powerful case for an independent movement in time for the 2014 elections.This movement, which would recruit and sustain candidates in targeted statewide and legislative races, has the potential to advance Alabama in ways that are impossible under the constraints of partisan politics.

Its principles would include an overhaul of a tax system that privileges out of state and absentee interests at the expense of low-income wage earners; the redrafting of a constitution that centralizes too much authority in the hands of the Legislature rather than local communities; the adoption of incentives that will empower entrepreneurship and high tech development; and reinvesting in our universities rather than demonizing them as elitist rivals to our K-12 system.

An independent party that is not dependent on AEA for endorsements or money can revise tenure laws that safeguard substandard teachers and can emulate models of achievement that are succeeding over the opposition of both unions and bureaucrats.


Neither a Democratic Party that fought so hard to preserve its power, nor a Republican Party that will fight just as hard to stay in control, could be expected to limit the terms of state legislators or to develop a merit-based system for appointing nonpartisan judges.

Manski: On the Separation of Party and State

From The Cap Times, an op-ed by Ben Manski, an attorney and director of Liberty Tree Foundation. He ran for the Wisconsin Assembly in District 77 as a Green Party candidate:

In most states, voters individually mark the names of candidates. But in Wisconsin and other “straight party” states, voters can mark the name of the party, and whoever that party has nominated gets their vote. Those straight party votes accounted for nearly half of the total votes for Hulsey, and a third of the votes for Republican Dave Redick.

The result? On Nov. 2, there were two outcomes. My campaign achieved success among voters who indicated a preferred candidate. But Hulsey was elected to the Legislature. The fact that those two wins are not the same victory is a product of one of the enduring problems of our political system, which is that it perpetuates and protects itself against demands for reform.

My campaign overcame major obstacles regularly faced by independent candidates. We showed that the race was “winnable” by securing endorsements from three of Madison’s four daily newspapers, three labor unions, and dozens of state and local elected officials. We raised more than $45,000, and attracted the active support of more than 200 volunteers. We made a big dent in political partisanship, with many committed Democrats deciding to back me over their party’s nominee.

But we could not overcome election rules that reward what one commentator called “political tribalism” in the form of straight party voting. . . .

NY Green: Spring a Leak

From Peter LaVenia, co-chair of the NY Greens, at Dissident voice via IPR:

Wikileaks is the most important thing to happen to the cause of democratic rule since the multitude of grassroots uprisings in 1968. Even sympathetic commentators miss the fundamentally radical threat to the existence of the bureaucratic state it represents; Wikileaks is most powerful contemporary weapon in the arsenal of radical, grassroots transparency advocates and democrats. A decentralized plethora of Wikileaks-type websites focused on local, state, and national affairs in every nation, scouring for document leaks from governments, corporations, and organizations has the potential to shatter an intrinsic part of the modern state’s anti-democratic structure: the ability of bureaucrats and officials to hide decisions and actions from the demos itself. Not only can this be done with the tools now available to us, it must be done. . . .

David Nolan, Founder of Libertarian Party, Passes Away: The Case for a Libertarian Political Party and the Myth of the Two-Party System

From Wes Benedict, at the Libertarian Party blog:

We have received news that David F. Nolan, a founder of the Libertarian Party, passed away this weekend. The Libertarian Party was founded in 1971 in Mr. Nolan's living room. He had remained active with the Libertarian Party including currently serving on the Libertarian National Committee and running for U.S. Senator from Arizona in the recent elections. He is survived by his wife Elizabeth. He will be dearly missed by the Libertarian Party and the liberty community. We'll have more information about David Nolan soon.

See also Independent Political Report, Ballot Access News, and Uncovered Politics.  Uncovered Politics has re-published a seminal article by Nolan, entitled The Case for a Libertarian Political Party, from 1971.  In a central passage of the article, Nolan elaborates upon the idea that the "two-party system" is a myth:

The Myth of the Two-Party System

This statement may seem a little strong, at first reading – especially as most of us have been raised from first childhood to believe that the two-party system is The Best Of All Possible Arrangements.

We are told, for instance, that it is the hallmark of a free society – with the Soviet one-party system held up as its antithesis. Conversely, we are told that a multi-party system produces “chaos”, which in turn means loss of freedom for those persons so unfortunate as to live under such a system.

The fact of the matter, however, is that, logically speaking, if a one-party system is tyrannical, a two-party system is only one step removed from tyranny. And empirical evidence shows that citizens of a country which has a multi-party system can be just as free as we are here in the United States; such countries as Germany, France, and Australia, while hardly libertarian nirvanas, are not significantly more repressive than our own country – and Switzerland, which has a four-party system, is probably the least despotic of any of the world’s major nations.

The second popular argument against a multi-party system – that is produces “chaos” – is, from a libertarian viewpoint, actually an argument in its favor. The prospect of a coalition government, where any of a number of small parties can veto legislation, is far from horrifying to anyone who is inclined toward a limited-government (or no-government) philosophy.

A third argument, often brought to bear against anyone who advocates the establishment of a third party here in the United States, is that (historically speaking), third-party candidates “can’t win”. This argument has two basic flaws in it, however.

First, third-party candidates CAN win – especially in local or nonpartisan elections. Even at the national-government level, it happens occasionally. Third-party candidates have been elected to Congress more than one hundred times in this century, and there are two “third-party” Senators (Buckley and Byrd) in office at this very moment.

And second, “winning” (in the sense of electing someone to office) is not the only reason for having a political party – especially in the short term sense.

In fact, this very mania for “winning now” is one of the factors that makes both of our present major political parties unlikely vehicles for libertarianism. Both the Democrats and Republicans are so concerned with “winning” that they are almost rabidly hostile to the idea of candidates who would “rather be right than President”. A third party, in contrast, can take a long-range approach – running candidates with no intention of immediate victory, for the purpose of building up support and organization for future elections.

GA: Four Reasons for "Unprecendented" Libertarian Success at the Ballot Box

From Savannah Now:

Surveying the results, state party chief Daniel Adams called them a base "with which to move forward." Maybe, but it's a slender base, and the Libertarians have a long way to go before they can really compete with the major parties. Credit them for energy and skill, but four other things also helped them do better at the polls this year.

First, the greater number of televised debates that included Monds - who often did well - gained him and his party unprecedented exposure.

Second, speculation that he might siphon off enough votes to deprive the frontrunner a majority and force a runoff drew additional attention.

Third, Monds was an alternative for people who didn't like Deal or Barnes.

Last, the Libertarians seeking other offices faced long odds, but - except in the U.S. Senate race - not as long as they might have been.

Sure, voters knew almost nothing about them, but they knew little more about the major-party hopefuls, except for GOP Sen. Johnny Isakson.

NJ: Councilman's Resignation Leads to Calls for Non-partisan Town Council

See this post at Poli-Tea for background.  From North Jersey news:

An Englewood Cliffs councilman resigned from his seat recently saying he was fed up with the borough's two-party system's focus on political victories rather than serving the community efficiently. While the borough's Democrats and Republicans have argued about who is causing the problems, this brings up a point.

Political parties may play a role in setting the government's agenda on the national level, but town councils do not need Democrats and Republicans. They need open-minded leaders to responsibly deliver their communities a good quality of life.

There are certainly examples of mayors and council members working across the political aisle, but there are just as many instances of block voting by party members.

Voting on ordinances shouldn't be done by party line. It should be done on what the person thinks is best for the residents.

You'd think that we would want elected representatives voting in favor of what is best for constituents, rather than some party, at all levels of government.  Our state legislatures, governor's houses, the US Congress and White House don't need Democrats and Republicans either.