Name That 'Toon: Why There's No Still No Vital Third Party
Oh how I've agonized and remonstrated, wailed and gnashed, shook my poor, tired rhetorical finger in your faceless mugs. If I were to lay awake at night obsessorating (sorry, George) about something, that something would be the dreaded "third party" monster lurking behind the closet door or under the futon.
I actually don't toss and turn about it, but Pliva, Astze, and Wyeth are responsible for that, rather than any left-handed, enlightened political leaders. Um, so maybe they should be our third party? Well, since they and their pharma phriends already own a sizable stable of both elephants and donkies, that ho won't stroll. Sigh.
I'm not, of course, a learned political analyst, 'though I do play one here, so I'm not going to forward a complex and formidable theory as to why we remain stuck, at least at the presidential and congressional level, with just the Dumbocrats and Repugnantcans. Nor will I even mention the argument that these are not really two, but actually only one entity. God forbid. There are really only two factors: stupidity and laziness. How else to explain the Left's reliance on "reforming" the Blue Party through Howard "The Scream" Dean? If you look in the dictionary for the definition of "boondoggle" you get a pic of "Wowie" Howie hiding under a desk with the Illuminati symbol on it. 'Course, this is what the Dumbs have always done best . . . identify and espouse the least effective option, then shoot absolutely everyone involved with it. But I digress. Or do I?
OK. I'm not gonna put myself in the "stupid" category. After all, I toedja that course was a no show. I am, however, including myself in the "lazy" section. The next few paragraphs are based on a direct lift (can you say "plagiarism"?) from Wikipedia's "List of political parties in the United States". Almost everything in their article has links, so go there and use them, 'cuz I'm just too lazy to reproduce them there. I'm also not going to blockquote this stuff - just assume it's theirs . . .
The Wickos break it down into several categories, the first three of which delineate the present status this way: (1) current major parties: Democrats and Republicans; (2) current third parties: Constitution, Green, and Libertarian; and "current minor and regional parties that have endorsed candidates":
* Alaskan Independence Party
* Aloha Aina Party
* America First Party (2002 - Present)
* American Party (1969 - Present)
* American Independent Party (1968 - Present)
* American Heritage Party
* American Nazi Party
* American Patriot Party
* American Reform Party
* Charter Party of Cincinnati, Ohio
* Christian Freedom Party (2004 - Present)
* Communist League (US)
* Communist Party USA
* Connecticut for Lieberman Party (2006 - Present)
* Conservative Party of New York
* Covenant Party (Northern Mariana Islands)
* Independence Party of Minnesota
* Independence Party of New York
* Independent American Party
* Independent Citizens Movement (US Virgin Islands)
* Labor Party (1995 - Present)
* Liberal Party of Minnesota
* Liberal Party of New York
* Liberty Union Party (Vermont) (1970 - Present)
* Marijuana Party
* Marijuana Reform Party (New York)
* Moderate Party
* Mountain Party (West Virginia)
* New Party
* New Progressive Party of Puerto Rico
* New Union Party
* New York State Right to Life Party
* Peace and Freedom Party (1967 - Present)
* Personal Choice Party (1997 - Present)
* Pirate Party
* Popular Democratic Party of Puerto Rico
* Populist Party of Maryland (Nader 2004-affiliated, unrelated to earlier so-named parties)
* Populist Party of America
* Prohibition Party (1867 - Present)
* Puerto Rican Independence Party
* Reform Party of the United States of America (1995 - Present)
* Republican Moderate Party of Alaska
* Socialist Action (1983 - Present)
* Socialist Alternative (1986 - Present)
* Socialist Equality Party (1953 - Present)
* Socialist Labor Party (1876 - Present)
* Socialist Party USA (1972 - Present)
* Socialist Workers Party (1938 - Present)
* Southern Party
* Southern Independence Party
* United Citizens Party
* Vermont Progressive Party
* Voter Rights Party
* Workers World Party (1959 - Present)
* Working Families Party
* Workers Party, USA
Wouch!
Note, please, that the Wixards admit that this is an "incomplete" list. That's pretty scary. Then they go on to list, by chronology, most, if not all of the political parties that have existed since the beginning of American time, no matter how obscure, short-lived, narrow-minded single-issue-limited, or down right ridiculous. Names, names, names . . . er . . . NAMES!! Ho! That's IT!!! The fatal problem is that we can't figure out what to name the (truly) damned thing. What name can we come up with that would attract a seething, purposeful critical mass of the disinterested, disenfranchised, disappointed, disillusioned, distracted, disembodied, and disgusted?
OK, before I got serious about this and tried to concentrate, I almost settled on The Dissed Party. Clever, eh? Actually, I think it has some promise; let's hold it in cage-rattling reserve.
If it ever has, reality (rather than realpolitik) no longer works in 21st Amerikca. It is the age of the meme.
Meme-er-meme-er-meemmmmmmmm-er.
Let's start by ruling out some non-starters:
- Forget about anything that begins with Neo (or New for that matter). Ever since Neo-Nazi, "neo" has had nothing but evil connotations. Think about it . . . Neo-Liberal, Neo-Conservative. See what I mean?
- Democrat and Republican or any derivation or combination are out, out, out.
- Likewise, Progressive. The Saint Peter-like, cowardly Liberals/Neo-liberals crushed that one, but good.
- Run, do not crawl away from American [...] Party. Look at the list. Anyway, we know it's an American party, fer god's sake . . . we don't want to insult the collective intelligence too much.
- Unfortunately, Social makes the rejected list, too. Way too scary for too many people.
- Populist won't fly, either. The sentiment is attractive, but (1) there's already a Populist Party and (2) below the surface, its politics are dicey. At the surface, they advocate direct popular involvement in the democratic process. But they also say . . .
In reading through this website, it will hopefully become apparent that the Populist Party of America is neither left nor right; and is inclusive of, and open to, all social persuasions.
Also, its hard to tell the difference between them and the Libertarians. Furthermore, in the 1980s, right-wing extremists ruled the party, fielding candidates like David Duke and Bo Gritz. More recently, however, Ralph Nader has been their hero, and in some states they have sought an alliance with the Greens and Libertarians. - For obvious reasons Worker and Labor are dead forever. A shame.
- I never could figure out "Independent". Isn't "Independent Party" a contradiction in terms?
- Not Anti-[anything], especially Anti-War. My question is always, "Are you anti-all-war, or just this one?" I really like the Antiwar.com website; but I'm also aware that righties like Pat Buchanan abound there.
- Unity would be terrible. Too much bi-partisan connotation. We're not about unity, reconciliation, and compromise right now. (Well, we are about trying to unify the Left, so maybe some combination of buzz words: Social Unity, for example).
- Finally, I'd add Liberty, Justice, National, Coalition, Patriot(ic), and Front, although maybe some combination of those with other more palatable terms is possible.
- Finally, it's too bad Radical won't work.
The Greens have opened up the possibility of finding a color, but you can see the drawbacks. Reds, Blues, Whites, Blacks, Browns, Yellows , Oranges . . . oof. Purple would force us to run Prince.
Maybe animals . . . nah, professional sports got that puppy tied up, and I don't think we could revive the Bull-Moose Party.
Speaking of sports, how about The NASCAR Party, with the slogan Drive Fast, Turn Left! The national convention, held at Talledega in July, would be loads of fun. It'd give Richard Petty another chance, after getting trounced in a run for North Carolina governor a few years ago. Everybody'd get a free pack of Goody's Powder to counteract all the Budweiser.
OK, I don't have a bunch of good ideas. With the box so big, it's hard to think outside of it. What we need is a name that could unite folks on the Left under a common and common sense banner. One that would promote clarity of purpose and discourage the tiresome nit-picking and circular firing squads that so often disable us.
I can think of only one new one and one existing party. The new one would be The Jeffersonian Party. The Jeffersonian tradition has been trampled and wounded, but might be infused with new life.
The existing party is The Peace and Freedom Party. (The Wiki info is here) The name, I think, is perfect, but their history might deter self-inclusion by not-so-hard-left folks. Wouldn't it be more exciting and productive, though, to try to "re-form" the PFP than the Democratic Party?
Other than The Dissed Party, mentioned above, I have only one other suggestion . . . The P!arty.
I can see it now . . . thousands of folks, young and old, so many different skin colors, walking around in bright red T-shirts with a big, fat, white P! on the front and "An Asylum for Broken Rabble" on the back. No, I'm not running; it's not even tempting.
If you've got ideas, have your say.
Categories: meme, political+parties, third+party, elections, politics















7 comments:
Nice essay - informative and some good perspective. One quick note - the Populist Party is in no way associated with, or advocates, the Greens, Bo Gritz, Ralph Nader - or any political movement from the 1980's.
Peace,
Kevin
Populist Party of America
info@populistamerica.com
Kevin:
I appreciate your comment.
I think my main point in the essay (or at least one of them) is that there seems to be no real alternative to establishment politics.
My suggestion that the problem is "what should we name it?" was only partly satirical, given the mind-set endemic to americanism.
I can buy that the present configuration of the Populist Party is as you say. But you must admit, I hope, that the party's history has been erratic.
Thanks for your follow up. I can't disagree with your statement, and did find your post here to be well-done. Just posted the comment to ensure that at least some of the confusion was clarified.
Keep up the great work there. Always good to find another person who wants some real change in this country.
Peace,
Kevin
Populist Party of America
info@populistamerica.com
Thank you, Kevin
A thought . . .
Is there any way that, say, The Populists, the Peace and Freedom folks, Libertarians, The Greens, the Socialists, and the smaller splinter groups and parties could unselfishly and in the national and international interest, forge a unified alliance and party based on common principles.
Could they set aside lesser, fine-point ideological differences and concentrate on humanitarian commonalities?
Only once the common principles are established would the alliance approach potential candidates. Not Nader, for god's sake . . . someone known and dynamic who could exemplify the principles. Since Bill Moyers refuses to run, I don't have any suggestions as to who that would be - but the principles come first.
If this is just a damned pipe dream, at this point I can only cry "why?"
Interesting. I think that you'll have a hard time getting Libertarians or Greens forming an alliance.
To do so, they would have to care more about defeating the incumbent parties than serving the American people. In my opinion, this is exactly what is wrong with the existing two viable parties. They focus on defeating each other to the exclusion of all other goals.
I don't believe you can build a quilt out of small parties that have formed around one idea. There are some people trying that, including the highly outrageous Unity08 coalition that is attempting to combine a Republican and Democrat on one Presidential ticket.
At the Concord Party we believe that consensus politics can only happen from the ground up, with a commitment to a cooperative rather than competitive mindset. Our planks must be approved by 2/3 of our members, but can be repealed by 1/2. This guarantees that our party positions will always gravitate back to consensus.
Eric Decker
Concord Party Chairman
Eric:
Thanks for your comment. I looked into the Concord Party and actually loved what you stand for and how you operate.
Here's the other side . . . Eric, we've got do do SOMETHING!!!. Either third-parties are going to take the risk, back off of the defeatist, "that won't work attitude", and reach out, or we're fucked. Period. End of story.
Do you doubt this? The major parties are great at "defeating the other guy." Third-parties have to grow the fuck up and take another path.
If you're chairman of a good party like the Concord, I think you're probably a really smart guy. So how about you and I take the lead to at least try.
This is not 1992, or 2001, it's 2006. Without us trying, defeat and catastrophe are certain.
Do you wanna just say, "Don't blame me, it's everyone else that's fucked"? We'll all be sitting around fires in craters in bombed-out strip malls telling each other that.
Am I pissed? You bet. Do you want to be just another cog in the broken wheel of American "realpolitik" (yukk) or do you want to change something.
Shit, man. Email me!
I want to sincerely apologize to Eric (and all of you) for my language in my previous comment. It was uncalled for and rude.
I can only say that I am both passionate about the subject and very frustrated at the Left's seeming immobility.
I hope you will forgive.
Post a Comment