Stephen Dohnberg writes at digitaljournal.com that Cindy Sheehan plans to start a new party after the November election. She hopes to escape the usual marginalization of being a third party in a winner-take-all system dominated by two major parties by calling her new party The First Party.
Anti War activist and challenger for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s Congressional Seat (CD 8, California), Cindy Sheehan has indicated her intention to launch a National political party after the U.S. Election of Nov. 4
Inspired in part by Mark Twain’s involvement in The American Anti Imperialist League in reaction to the annexation of the Philippines by the United States in the late 19th Century, Sheehan said that the party will have a progressive platform and that after Nov. 4, “no matter what happens, we need to consolidate the energy against Imperialism and work on building another party movement.”
While discussing a potential third party unity movement, Sheehan indicated that her own candidacy against House Speaker Pelosi has seen a broad coalition of support from Greens, independents, disillusioned Democrats such as herself (Sheehan left the Democratic Party in May of 2007 in response to the Democratic Party led House support for a funding bill to continue Iraq War funding), and Republicans, many of whom made up the traditional base of the GOP represented by Ron Paul.
Sheehan revealed that name of the new party would be The First Party. She reasoned “We don’t want to do third-party politics which has a stigma in the United States” The First Party, with a populist-progressive agenda, will be the first party that “cares about the people, will work for the people, and will actually be a viable party.”
“I have spoken to Green Party Presidential Candidate Cynthia McKinney and the Nader Campaign” and as disillusionment with the two party system increases,”this is the time to build on that energy.”
Reflecting on her own chances in unseating incumbent Pelosi, she is pragmatic and acknowledges it has been “upward momentum, the only way we could go” but believes the success of the recent $700 billion bailout proposal could turn the tide in her favour. “When we’re out on the streets, we have overwhelming support , especially since this bailout.” Sheehan indicates that she notices that “people have a new rage and a new fire in their belly because of the corporate bailout. People are just so angry”
14 responses so far ↓
1 Trent Hill // Oct 7, 2008 at 10:28 am
This is a dumb move, it will only serve to further split the progressives. The Green Party is obviously quickly becoming defunct and sort of the minority-rights party. The Peace and Freedom Party should take the mantle of Ralph Nader and most progressives should coalesce behind THAT national effort.
2 paulie cannoli // Oct 7, 2008 at 10:35 am
I like the name Peace and Freedom (too bad the libertarians lost it to the socialist faction in ‘74).
Calling a third party The First Party won’t change the reality of the uphill struggle it will face in getting organized.
3 Trent Hill // Oct 7, 2008 at 11:15 am
Paulie,
To be fair, the libertarians did take it over in ‘72…
4 Ross Levin // Oct 7, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Ah, you beat me to posting this.
I’ve heard rumors that other independent candidates around the nation are either thinking about starting their own party, or thinking of joining Sheehan in starting this party. I’m not sure which one, as the rumors (I’m stressing that it’s not fact) didn’t specify.
I’ve got to agree that starting another party is a bad move for nearly anyone. At this point, it just further splits a movement. The only way I could see doing it is if a lot of prominent independents and third partisans got behind the party and made it a (relatively) big deal from the moment it started.
5 Ross Levin // Oct 7, 2008 at 3:15 pm
I mean, if it was a party formed in order to unite people and replace other parties (ie, the Green Party, maybe the various Socialist Parties, and others), and it could do that effectively, then it would be worth starting.
6 paulie cannoli // Oct 7, 2008 at 3:22 pm
The key question is whether it would do that, or just add yet another splinter.
7 MattSwartz // Oct 7, 2008 at 4:36 pm
The Peace and Freedom party has the coolest name in the third party pantheon, no question about it. The LP could make it close if they ever wake up and start calling themselves the Liberty Party, or even the Gold Party, but as it stands, it isn’t even close.
8 JimDavidson // Oct 7, 2008 at 4:43 pm
So, Cindy is starting “the party of the first part,” huh? Well, the lawyers will love her.
Let me get this one out of the way. “The First shall be last.”
Okay, I’m done.
9 paulie cannoli // Oct 7, 2008 at 4:50 pm
First, but perhaps not fast.
If someone starts the Last Party, would it last?
10 Hugh Jass // Oct 7, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Why doesn’t she just join the Peace & Freedom Party or the Green Party? Is her ego too big to fit into those parties?
11 LaineRBT // Oct 7, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Well, I am interested in what her plans are but I do want a reason why she won’t throw her weight behind the Green Party. I too am afraid that this may just end up being another socialist-left party with no real national organization.
Nader, McKinney, Gonzalez, Sheehan and Gravel would all have to be behind an effort to build another progressive party for it to be worth the effort.
12 Ross Levin // Oct 7, 2008 at 8:51 pm
That’s what I was trying to say, LaineRBT. Although Nader and Gravel aren’t as socialist as Sheehan (not sure about the others) so it couldn’t be an explicitly socialist party. I know Nader has thought of starting a party, but I’m not sure if it’s related to this.
13 Melty Rox // Oct 8, 2008 at 2:00 am
great party name idea!
14 Action94103 // Oct 12, 2008 at 1:50 am
Hey, none of the other parties can materialize like the effort of these great leaders putting together the First Party.
March 20th, 2003: The day after the war in Iraq was launched; thousands and thousands of Nancy Pelosi’s constituents were in San Francisco’s streets protesting the illegal invasion. That same day on the floor of Congress, Nancy Pelosi condemned the demonstrators, and voted for a resolution declaring “unequivocal support and appreciation of the president … for his firm leadership and decisive action.â€
Nancy Pelosi:
• Pushed for the Bail-out of Wall Street! Voted for the war, and has consistently voted for funding the war with no occupation withdrawal timetable, Voted for every Bush administration Pentagon budget request since 2001,
• Refused to deliver and ignored promises made to American Voters in the 2006 mid-term elections to end the war.
• Pushed the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that repealed Glass-Steagall and allowed commercial and investment banks and insurance companies to combine; it opened the door for the worst financial abuses now apparent. Pelosi also owns ½ million dollars in AIG stock, a company she is pushing to be bailed out.
• Supported the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act with President Bush.
• Voted for the 2001 USA Patriot Act.
• Pelosi was briefed by top officials and knew secretly about torture in 2002, and did nothing.
• Pushed the 2006 Homeland Security Department Authorization Act: destroying Posse Comitatus, removing constitutionally sacred provisions of preventing the military’s direct involvement in domestic law enforcement.
• Passed the 2008 FISA Amendments Act - to weaken standards of proof and warrants required for surveillance and grant telecom companies retroactive immunity for warrantless spying post-9/11.
• Pelosi voted against withdrawing from the WTO, and has praised NAFTA.
• Voted and backed similar “free trade” agreements with Australia, Peru, Chile, and Singapore.
• As House Speaker, she declared that efforts to impeach George Bush are “off the table.”
• Voted for offshore oil drilling, San Franciscans do not support this at all.
Let’s put a real candidate on the ballot who will truly represent San Francisco.
Let’s send Nancy Pelosi home, and put a real representative in the House!
Cindy Sheehan
for the 8th District U.S. Congress
(www.cindyforcongress.org)
Leave a Comment