OCCUPY WALL STREET

[Slater]

I’ve been mulling over the discussion of 3rd party candidates but haven’t had time to comment until now. I certainly think we would benefit from having more than just two parties/candidates to choose from. I do, however, think that most 3rd party Presidential undertakings are largely vanity campaigns (e.g. Nader in 2000) that effect very little positive change and can be damaging in a bunch of ways. They are damaging in that they help perpetuate the notion that 3rd party candidates are not (and by extension, never will be) viable candidates. But they are also damaging because, you know what, the lesser of two evils can still be a hell of a lot better than the greater of two evils.

I know a lot of other factors contributed to the results in 2000 (suspect counting in Florida, the archaic Electoral College system by which a candidate can get more votes and still lose, etc), but none of that would have mattered had Nader not been on the ticket. Gore would have won the state conclusively, even with only a portion of Nader’s 97,000+ Florida votes.

With Gore in the White House, we don’t go to war in Iraq, and those thousands of lives and trillions of dollars would not have been needlessly squandered. With Gore in the White House maybe 9/11 is averted (the outgoing Clinton administration warned the incoming Bushies that Al-Qaeda was where they needed to focus their attention, the Bushies said, basically, "Fuck off.") but even if it isn't, do we honestly think Gore would have torched the subsequent global goodwill as quickly and thoroughly as Bush did? Or that Gore would have so shamelessly exploited the tragedy to militarize law enforcement, justify torture, etc? And those are just a few things off the top. Would the EPA have been defanged, or the response to Hurricane Katrina been so anemic, or the home loan mess/stock market crisis been handled the way it was?

I think 3rd party Presidential candidates can play a valuable role even if they are not viable, as pot-stirrers. They can put questions on the table, or in some debates put them directly to the other candidates, that the two major parties would prefer to avoid and that the corporate media is uninterested in asking. But once that role has played itself out, they need to step out of the race unless there truly is so little difference between the two major party candidates that it literally does not matter which one wins (and when has that been true??). To remain in the race for the hell of it strikes me as ego and/or as a way to pad the future book deals and appearance fees.

As I said, I think we would benefit from have viable 3rd (and 4th) party Presidential candidates. But we are far from that being realistic, and we are moving further from it, not closer. Campaign finance has always been a monumental hurdle for candidates outside the 2 parties, at least for those who are not billionaires, and that situation has only worsened with the easing of restrictions on corporate donations to campaigns. The Electoral College structure itself bolsters up the two party system and if no one candidate receives a majority of Electoral College votes (a plurality is not sufficient) then the House of Representatives choose a President. So a 3rd party candidate would have to win the EC outright, not just get more votes than any of the other candidates, because realistically the House is going to choose based on party affiliations rather than who received the most votes. That doesn't even address the fact that if an outsider somehow managed to win the Presidency, they would have few if any allies in the House and Senate and their ability to get things done with be severely compromised.

So before we start getting too excited about the possibility of 3rd party Presidential candidates, I think we need to look at some serious, far-reaching campaign and election reform, and we need to focus on getting 3rd, 4th, and 5th party candidates into the House and Senate in noticeable numbers. That would yield immediate results because then neither of the two parties could count on gaining clear control of the House and Senate and they might be forced to engage in actual governing. Once those pieces are in place, I think we can start talking about a real 3rd party Presidency.

[Corkey]

Dylan, MSNBC had one guy on, wish I could remember his name, independent and supported all the things I am for, like gmo lgbtqi rights and environmental regulations. But for the life of me I can't remember his name or his party. It's CRS folks, don't get old...

[Corkey]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...ical-third-way

Found it! Rockey Anderson.

[SoNotHer]

Good article and info, Corkey. Thank you!

"In the next year, he'll have to harness both that experience and savvy for the task he has now set himself: launching a new political party, the Justice party, and running for president in 2012.

His agenda is a familiar one on the left. Broadly speaking, he wants to break the hold of corrupting corporate influence on the two main parties and give a voice to ordinary working people. It also chimes with the general thrust of the Occupy movement, even though the latter has steered clear of engagement with electoral politics."

Originally Posted by Corkey

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...ical-third-way

Found it! Rockey Anderson.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by Slater

I’ve been mulling over the discussion of 3rd party candidates but haven’t had time to comment until now. I certainly think we would benefit from having more than just two parties/candidates to choose from. I do, however, think that most 3rd party Presidential undertakings are largely vanity campaigns (e.g. Nader in 2000) that effect very little positive change and can be damaging in a bunch of ways. They are damaging in that they help perpetuate the notion that 3rd party candidates are not (and by extension, never will be) viable candidates. But they are also damaging because, you know what, the lesser of two evils can still be a hell of a lot better than the greater of two evils.

I know a lot of other factors contributed to the results in 2000 (suspect counting in Florida, the archaic Electoral College system by which a candidate can get more votes and still lose, etc), but none of that would have mattered had Nader not been on the ticket. Gore would have won the state conclusively, even with only a portion of Nader’s 97,000+ Florida votes.

With Gore in the White House, we don’t go to war in Iraq, and those thousands of lives and trillions of dollars would not have been needlessly squandered. With Gore in the White House maybe 9/11 is averted (the outgoing Clinton administration warned the incoming Bushies that Al-Qaeda was where they needed to focus their attention, the Bushies said, basically, "Fuck off.") but even if it isn't, do we honestly think Gore would have torched the subsequent global goodwill as quickly and thoroughly as Bush did? Or that Gore would have so shamelessly exploited the tragedy to militarize law enforcement, justify torture, etc? And those are just a few things off the top. Would the EPA have been defanged, or the response to Hurricane Katrina been so anemic, or the home loan mess/stock market crisis been handled the way it was?

I think 3rd party Presidential candidates can play a valuable role even if they are not viable, as pot-stirrers. They can put questions on the table, or in some debates put them directly to the other candidates, that the two major parties would prefer to avoid and that the corporate media is uninterested in asking. But once that role has played itself out, they need to step out of the race unless there truly is so little difference between the two major party candidates that it literally does not matter which one wins (and when has that been true??). To remain in the race for the hell of it strikes me as ego and/or as a way to pad the future book deals and appearance fees.

As I said, I think we would benefit from have viable 3rd (and 4th) party Presidential candidates. But we are far from that being realistic, and we are moving further from it, not closer. Campaign finance has always been a monumental hurdle for candidates outside the 2 parties, at least for those who are not billionaires, and that situation has only worsened with the easing of restrictions on corporate donations to campaigns. The Electoral College structure itself bolsters up the two party system and if no one candidate receives a majority of Electoral College votes (a plurality is not sufficient) then the House of Representatives choose a President. So a 3rd party candidate would have to win the EC outright, not just get more votes than any of the other candidates, because realistically the House is going to choose based on party affiliations rather than who received the most votes. That doesn't even address the fact that if an outsider somehow managed to win the Presidency, they would have few if any allies in the House and Senate and their ability to get things done with be severely compromised.

So before we start getting too excited about the possibility of 3rd party Presidential candidates, I think we need to look at some serious, far-reaching campaign and election reform, and we need to focus on getting 3rd, 4th, and 5th party candidates into the House and Senate in noticeable numbers. That would yield immediate results because then neither of the two parties could count on gaining clear control of the House and Senate and they might be forced to engage in actual governing. Once those pieces are in place, I think we can start talking about a real 3rd party Presidency.

I have often thought about if Gore had won, we would not have gone into Iraq. Imagine....

But what you say about serious election reform is the number one thing that has to happen for any 3rd (or 4th, etc.) party to emerge and become viable. Our campaign funding as it is, especially post the Citizens United decision, must be changed in order for this to happen. It can only change with an amendment to the Constitution and that is a long haul plus, think of the lobbying that would go on to stop such an amendment. The 1 & 2% do not want such reform because they would lose the strong hold they have on politics. Bought and paid for.

You get right to what really hinders our being able to assemble a 3rd party that could actually build momentum. Thanks.

[Truly Scrumptious]

75 Years Ago Today, the First Occupy ...a note from Michael Moore

Friday, December 30th, 2011

Friends,

On this day, December 30th, in 1936 -- 75 years ago today -- hundreds of workers at the General Motors factories in Flint, Michigan, took over the facilities and occupied them for 44 days. My uncle was one of them.

The workers couldn't take the abuse from the corporation any longer. Their working conditions, the slave wages, no vacation, no health care, no overtime -- it was do as you're told or get tossed onto the curb.

So on the day before New Year's Eve, emboldened by the recent re-election of Franklin Roosevelt, they sat down on the job and refused to leave.

They began their Occupation in the dead of winter. GM cut off the heat and water to the buildings. The police tried to raid the factories several times, to no avail. Even the National Guard was called in.

But the workers held their ground, and after 44 days, the corporation gave in and recognized the UAW as the representative of the workers. It was a monumental historical moment as no other major company had ever been brought to its knees by their employees. Workers were given a raise to a dollar an hour -- and successful strikes and occupations spread like wildfire across the country. Finally, the working class would be able to do things like own their own homes, send their children to college, have time off and see a doctor without having to worry about paying. In Flint, Michigan, on this day in 1936, the middle class was born.

Full article here:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mi...y-first-occupy

[AtLast]

Wondering about how important it might be to block as many GOP candidates from office on the way to building a viable 3rd Party? That way, at least less damage will be done to many of the core issues for the OWS movement.

Also involvement in local politics as a building block toward this aim.

Just thinking about this- one for actual ways to see an actual path created that will speak to Occupy issues and solutions.

There has to be a way to bring this movement to a place that effects real change.

[Cin]

http://www.alternet.org/news/153613/..._iowa_caucuses

Occupiers from Around the Country Descend on Iowa Caucuses
The "people's caucus" is also going on in Des Moines.

A good friend of mine, Aaron Jorgensen-Briggs, gave the opening welcome for the People's Caucus on Tuesday night. The following was his statement (as seen on C-Span):

Friends, neighbors, members of the press, visiting Occupy delegates, honored guests, welcome. I’d like to begin with some words from a great American leader of the past. He wrote:

'I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money-power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.'

These words of President Abraham Lincoln, in 1864, resonate loud and clear tonight, in Des Moines, Iowa, in 2011.
We have gathered here tonight because the political system in the United States no longer represents the values of the American public. Just as President Lincoln predicted, the money-power of the country now resides in the hands of a tiny portion of the population, the 1%.

We are here tonight to overthrow money-power with people power. We are here tonight as citizens and patriots to preserve our democracy from the corrupting influence of Wall Street and big corporations. We are here tonight to raise our voices in defense of the American dream. We are here tonight to restore the American political system and American society, to make it human-centered, not profit-centered. We are here tonight to follow through on the vision of our founders and the vision of the great American social movements of the past, the movements that ended slavery, gave women the right to vote, ended racial segregation in our communities, established safe working conditions and good wages for hard-working Americans and their families. We are here tonight, because our political leaders are no longer able to lead us.

Now is the time for us to lead, for the people of the United States, the 99%, to rise up, and restore America, to recreate it, truly, as a nation of opportunity, equality, and justice. Honored guests, members of the 99%, we are here tonight because of you. 'Join Us!' we cried, and you have answered. And for that, we thank you, and we bid you welcome to the first-in-the-nation People's Caucus!

[Cin]

Occupying the Conventions? How Protests Will Change Politics-as-Usual in 2012

Four years after the moment of "hope and change," the 99% is set to alter the dynamics of presidential elections.

http://www.alternet.org/story/153575...ange_politics-
as-usual_in_2012

Occupy the Caucus: 12 Arrested (Including 14-Year-Old Girl), Demonstrators Say They Will Participate, Not 'Disrupt'
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews...%27disrupt%27/

[SoNotHer]

U.S. (Hearts) Progressives



Americans remain ambivalent about both socialism and capitalism - roughly split, with each end of the political spectrum leaning the way you'd expect - but more approve of the term “progressive” than any other political label, according to a new poll from the Pew Center. That's a hopeful 67%-22%.



Taken from - http://www.commondreams.org/further/2011/12/29-0

[Cin]

Originally Posted by SoNotHer

U.S. (Hearts) Progressives



Americans remain ambivalent about both socialism and capitalism - roughly split, with each end of the political spectrum leaning the way you'd expect - but more approve of the term “progressive” than any other political label, according to a new poll from the Pew Center. That's a hopeful 67%-22%.



Taken from - http://www.commondreams.org/further/2011/12/29-0

I'm having trouble seeing the hopeful part when more than twice as many people in the U.S. see as positive conservative politics over socialist ones. I have nothing against conservative and liberal or any other persuasion mentioned in the poll as an ideology. However, it is clear to me that there is a connection between the conservative politics of smaller government and the privatization of prisons, public education, foster care, the military, etc. which has led to a country (dare I say world) owned and run by corporations.

Corporations don't have allegiances to countries. They own governments; governments don't control them. Corporations are against America. They are against freedom. They are destroying the infrastructure of the United States, the middle class, education and the economy as well as our environment. Why don't I hear people say stuff like that when they talk about what is anti american? Because truly I believe that the behavior of corporations run by socially conservative minded people is destroying our country. Socialism isn't anti American. Conservative/liberal politics that renders government for the people, by the people and of the people impotent is anti American.

So called liberal politicians are liberal in name only. They are all owned by corporate America. It is safe to say that most people involved in the corporate world are social conservatives. Their financial actions, the ones that have pretty much destroyed the world economy and made the government pick up the tab, make it difficult to see them as fiscally conservative. The humongous and grossly unfair tax breaks they take that leave our government floundering make it even harder to call them fiscally conservative. They are, however, quite fiscally conservative when it comes to giving anything back to their government. And they like the idea of fiscal conservatism by the government toward the 99%. And they love, love, love, even adore, social conservatism. Which translates into mucho austerity measures for the 99%

But according to this poll most Americans still don't get it. That doesn't feel very hopeful. But then there have been some hopeful things this past year. I guess I'll focus on those.

One more thing comes to mind when looking at this poll. The percentages are very confusing to me. Ideologically speaking, progressivism is generally believed to be in direct opposition to conservatism, so how can 62% of Americans view conservatism positively while 67% view progressivism positively? That would mean a percentage of people view both conservative and progressive ideology in a positive light. That's like saying that a percentage of people believe in both a woman's right to choose and criminalizing abortion. Odd.