Looking at this statement again, it appears to have things backwards. It is the ideological rigidity of those who support and vote for Democrats and Republicans, among them many greens and libertarians, that reproduces a politics which has failed us over and over again.

It is also not entirely clear that Shireman is talking about the Green and Libertarian Parties at all, rather than about greens and libertarians in the Democratic and Republican parties, urging them to take a stronger stand within the duopolist order.

Responding to an Obama critic at Huffington Post a few months ago, Shireman — apparently with a straight face — said that it was wrong to criticize the President for accepting campaign contributions from wealthy interests, arguing that such criticism would “give ground to the radical right.” Oh, dear. He then preposterously asserted that Obama had accepted fewer contributions from the privileged interests than “almost any predecessor.”

Not sure what universe he’s living in, but Shireman’s statement was sheer nonsense. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Wall Street fell in love with Obama early on, having contributed at least $37.6 million to the President’s state and federal campaigns during his relatively short political career.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, for example, a number of Wall Street executives — including Louis Susman of Citigroup, Gary Gensler and Bruce Heyman of Goldman Sachs, and Mark Gilbert of the failed Lehman Brothers firm, to mention only a few — bundled large sums of cash for Obama’s presidential campaign.

It’s hard to imagine any politician more beholden to those responsible for our current economic crisis than the present occupant of the White House. His selection of Larry Summers — a man probably more responsible for the country’s current economic mess than any other individual — as chairman of the White House Economic Council, pretty much says it all.

Given the fact that Obama had never worked in the private sector and possesses only a rudimentary understanding of economics and finance, they viewed him as easily influenced and pliable to their will. They got their wish and Wall Street has been partying ever since, courtesy of U.S. taxpayers.

Though almost entirely ignored by the mainstream media, several of the firms that received TARP money and Federal Reserve largesse in the form of cash infusions, loans and loan guarantees, are outsourcing jobs to Mumbai and Bangalore in the middle of this economic crisis — and they’re doing so on our dime and without so much as a murmur of protest from the Obama Administration.

Obama’s economic policies — a continuation of the disastrous Bush policies — have created a situation in which the investor class is enjoying unprecedented prosperity during a period in which unemployment is at a 26-year high and most working people in this country are struggling, many of whom have had their hours and benefits cut drastically. Enjoying a 62% market rally since March of this year, Wall Street is absolutely giddy about this new-found “jobless prosperity.”

On the other hand, this is a point I’ve been making for years, and well worth spreading more widely…

We often think the greens and libertarians are at the opposite ends of the spectrum. But at their root, they’re not. Greens celebrate the free ecosystem – its extraordinary complexity, how it provides for 99% of our needs with no effort on our part, and why it is so costly to cavalierly dam up its natural flow.
Libertarians celebrate the free market – its elegant complexity, its invisible hand that provides for our needs with no one in control (no, not even giant corporations), and why it is so costly to intervene cavalierly and try to improve on its natural flow.

In reality, greens and libertarians appreciate two views of the same system – the ecosystem, economic and ecological. They know it is beyond our capacity to control that system, and that attempts to do so will often backfire. And they know that our real hope lies in understanding, aligning with, and harnessing the benefits of those systems, not in controlling them.

…also would have killed us to get a link to the original huffPo enclosure in the article?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-shireman/as-congress-collapses-a-c_b_387544.html

I thought I linked it. Thanks, fixed.

The author was kind of condescending about third party politics.

He was kind of like a new person who walks into a meeting and is like, “Why aren’t more you guys in office? It’s easy, why don’t you try xyz….”

I would dare say that the author has not tried local organizing or political organizing.

I do think that the Green/Libertarian alliance will be of use. But, if you start by calling the values that created these parties rigidity, you ain’t going to go far in convincing people. And, I am not sure that what they need to do is LET GO of their firm beliefs. The answer closest to that is probably that they have to sort out how to implement their beliefs without violating other important principles.

Glad the article was written. Glad it gave third parties attention on Huffington Post. But, I did not blog about it onthewilderside or here, because I found it to be somewhat political naive and somewhat insulting to our hard work.

Unfortunately, today’s drama — alarmists v. deniers — tends to crowd out more fundamental discussion.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-shireman/as-congress-collapses-a-c_b_387544.html

“Ideological rigidity” isn’t what “prevents them from gaining” power.

I’m with Paulie @10: author doesn’t comprehend the structural problems that empower a two-party system.

The thing everyone seems to ignore when looking to government to “solve problems” is the fact that the State has always existed to serve the power elite: it matters not whether it is a monarchy, an empire, a dictatorship or a “demoncrazy” — the king’s courtiers make the rules for everyone else, curry favor with the throne and keep the vassals and proles under control mostly.

It is only the combination of localized, grassroots activism, consensus-building and decisionmaking (there can be dissent to a policy being carried, but only to the point of grudging acceptance), and personal sovereignty among peaceful non-aggressive persons that will ever change any of this.

When it is less important who rules in Washington, DC (or even the state capitols) than how communities have taken charge of their own local issues (and done so non-coercively), we will see the revolution in progress …not before then!

This is an extremely insightful analysis. Green libertarianism is the answer, but most people don’t understand the question. Shireman does.

He’s on the ball there. I’m not so sure he understands the structural problems faced by all alternative parties in the US electoral system, though.

http://earthfreedom.net/green-libertarian-values

Doubleplusgood

the future of freedom is green

Yes