Posted at Poli-Tea:
American Idolatry considers the future of the “liberty movement” inspired by the presidential campaign of Ron Paul in 2008, and argues that beyond vetting potential movement favorites for president in 2012 (with specific mention of Gary Johnson) a top priority of the movement should be “challenging the two-party system”:
Another top priority for the liberty movement is to start challenging the two-party system. This may be the easiest to accomplish. The majority of Americans don’t belong to a party, and it’s becoming very popular for pundits to come out as independents as well (see Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck). I would prefer to see more Independent candidates, but if it takes an actual third party then so be it. There’s a push to make the Tea Party movement a formal political party. Good idea, but as I may have mentioned here before (and certainly have in conversation), the Tea Partiers seem to love Sarah Palin, and that would be one step forward and two steps back. She’s just a neo-con who likes to talk about being a maverick. Regardless, our goal should be a massive reform of the Commission on Presidential Debates. The Commission claims to be non-partisan. They aren’t. They’re bi-partisan. Created by the DNC and the RNC in 1987, they have a vested interest in making sure that no third party or independent candidates are included in the debates (Ross Perot not withstanding). This should be the biggest movement in America. Regardless of ideology or issues stances, Americans know that they are not represented by the two major parties. Our goal for 2012 is to have made major headway in raising awareness of this issue, and by 2016 to have full representation of viable third party and independent candidates at the presidential debates.
The rigging of the presidential debate process by the Commission on Presidential Debates is listed on Project Censored’s Top 25 Censored Stories for 2010, which provides a short history of the CPD (via Jaundicedaye):
The Obama and McCain campaigns jointly negotiated a detailed secret contract dictating the terms of the 2008 debates. This included who got to participate, what topics were to be raised, and the structure of the debate formats.
Since 1987, a private corporation created by and for the Republican and Democratic parties called the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) has sponsored the US Presidential debates and implemented debate contracts. In order to shield the major party candidates from criticism, CPD has refused to release debate contract information to the public.
In 1986, the Republican and Democratic National Committees ratified an agreement “to take over the presidential debates” from the nonpartisan League of Women Voters. Fifteen months later, then-Republican Party chair Frank Fahrenkopf and then-Democratic Party chair Paul Kirk incorporated the Commission on Presidential Debates. Fahrenkopf and Kirk still co-chair the Commission on Presidential Debates, and every four years it implements and conceals contracts jointly drafted by the Republican and Democratic nominees.
Before the CPD’s formation, the League of Women Voters served as a genuinely nonpartisan presidential debate sponsor from 1976 until 1984, ensuring the inclusion of popular independent candidates and prohibiting major party campaigns from manipulating debate formats.
For more information on the movement to reform the presidential debate process, check out Open Debates.
13 responses so far ↓
1 Glen // Dec 28, 2009 at 9:17 pm
The new third party movement is an immediate loser. The Libertarian Party has run candidates for 40 years and can’t get out of single digits.
The only way a political movement can get control of anything is to first get control of one of the two old parties. Elections are stacked in their favor. They have immediate ballot access and the electioneering infrastructure to run candidates.
The only thing the most successful populist third party movements do is tip the election in the direction they don’t want it to go. Witness Perot tipping it to Clinton and Nadar tipping it to Bush.
Any new political party will spend all of their resources on arcane ballot access while the two old parties fight the fight.
Don’t try to take a general election away from the two parties. Try to take the party itself. The primaries offer much more opportunity than a general election. Its easy to get your candidate into a primary debate. It’s next to impossible in a general election debate if he hasn’t won the primary.
The electioneering infrastructure of either party is what has to be taken over. Once you get that you have a 50-50 chance. And you take that over by winning a primary.
Here’s a good example. Ron Paul was on the ballot in all 50 states in the 1988 general Presidential election as the Libertarian Party candidate. Nobody noticed.
Ron Paul also ran for the 2008 Republican nomination. He lost. But that exposure gave his cause incredible exposure and he is way more recognised as an expert for what he stands for than he ever was before. Sometimes the movement can be moved forward even though the candidate can’t.
I want to hear about a back room meeting between a certain OB-GYN docter and a woman named Sarah.
2 Richard Winger // Dec 28, 2009 at 10:21 pm
Ron Paul was not on the ballot in 1988 in all 50 states. He missed West Virginia, Missouri, North Carolina and Indiana.
It is not true that Ross Perot preferred George H. W. Bush to Bill Clinton. In all 3 general election debates in 1992, Perot attacked President Bush mercilessly and didn’t attack Clinton at all. Also, when Perot pulled out in July 1992, he hinted to people that they should vote for Clinton. He specifically said how the Democratic Party had refreshed itself by nominating Clinton.
Minor parties can have major impact on policy even if they only get 2% for president. The Prohibition Party spoiled the Republican Party’s presidential chances twice, in 1884 and again in 1916. The first time, Republicans burned the Prohibitionist in effigy, or hung him in effigy, in hundreds of cities, after the election results were known. But the 2nd time, in 1917, Republicans in Congress voted for the prohibition amendment to the Constitution (although they didn’t expect the states to pass it). They were simply sick of losing presidential elections to the Prohibitionists, who never got more than 2.2% for president. The prohibition amendment had been pending in Congress since 1875 and it had never made any headway thru any committee at all, until 1917.
3 Don Lake .......... More Libs Lacking a Lib Perspective // Dec 28, 2009 at 10:28 pm
More locally there is an entire back story on ultra conservative San Diego County going Dem in 1916!
4 Don Lake .......... More Libs Lacking a Lib Perspective // Dec 28, 2009 at 10:35 pm
Glen // Dec 28, 2009:
“The new third party movement is an immediate loser. ”
Well if things did not ‘gel’ in P2008 then 2010 and 2012 [Oh no!] will probably be a wash. But the herculean task of taking over an entire major organization is guaranteed failure!
5 d.eris // Dec 28, 2009 at 10:44 pm
Glen, there are numerous problems with an infiltrationist strategy like the one you propose: “getting control” of a major party is arguably a more difficult task than building a new one; primaries are the means by which the Democratic and Republican Parties co-opt and deplete energies that would be better spent organizing outright opposition to the Democratic-Republican Party; but the greatest flaw of any infiltrationist strategy is that it is incapable of addressing the problem that is the Democratic-Republican two-party state and the duopoly system of government.
6 ken moellman // Dec 29, 2009 at 12:45 am
I disagree with a 3rd party not being viable. I’ve been writing a series on the history of party politics for a local publication. I highly recommend checking into the history of party politics in America.
We have seen it multiple times in our limited history, and particularly in times of great strife, the one or two major parties break into many pieces and realign again.
There is hope outside of the two old parties.
Subversion attempts will only lead to disappointment again. See also: Goldwater, ‘68.
7 Steven R Linnabary // Dec 29, 2009 at 12:58 am
I agree that Ron Pauls participation was the high point of the republican debates. But the republicans DID try to keep him out and nearly succeeded.
The democrats are no better:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Agran#Presidential_candidacy
PEACE
8 NO THIRD PARTIES! // Dec 29, 2009 at 3:42 am
The way things are set up, third parties are automatically unsuccessful.
The best thing to do is to infiltrate and reform a current party. Since the Dems are taken over by the progressive global communist shadow corporatists like Soros, et al the rest of the banking oligarchy, perhaps the GOP should be purified and made to stick to their actual platform.
This is being done successfully already by the majority of conservative voters who are just sick of both parties.
Tea Party people beware — 3rd party is no good…
9 Robert Capozzi // Dec 29, 2009 at 6:21 am
In some ways, “insurrectionism” or 3rd party are BOTH failures and BOTH successful. Changing the prevailing political regime is no easy task, and is a long slog. The real question is are ideas strong and viable, and are they being well marketed.
Both our ideas and marketing are getting better.
10 paulie // Dec 29, 2009 at 9:32 am
False.
Two examples –
1. Republican Party started as a third party, became a major party
2. Socialist Party a hundred years ago. They did not become a major party, but they were successful enough to put enough pressure on the major parties to enact most of he changes they wanted.
Have you read their platform? No way I would want to enact anything like that kitchen sink of warmongering, social repression and corporate welfare.
Many of us are libertarians, not conservative.
Finally, something we agree on
11 paulie // Dec 29, 2009 at 9:47 am
By the way, not sure you noticed, but dumping the duopoly of the Republowcrap/Demipublican party is what this site is all about.
Look around at the front page and all the other posts.
12 jason // Dec 29, 2009 at 10:34 am
@#8
“Dems are taken over by the progressive global communist shadow corporatists like Soros,”
AHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! This is probably the funniest thing I’ve read all day, probably because of its inherent contradictions. Communists cannot be corporatists (that’s fascism, an ideology that is a very strong enemy to communism). I will agree, however, that the Democrat Party has been taken over by corporatists. This is why the Democrats and the Republicans are the exact same, it just took a little longer for the Democrats to be taken over (friends of labor, my ass).
13 d.eris // Dec 29, 2009 at 2:04 pm
@8: “the GOP should be purified and made to stick to their actual platform.”
lol. Seems like Republican propagandists trot that line out every couple years. Go ahead, throw your vote away.
Leave a Comment