Beyond the Two Party System

http://www.minsky.com/crisis.htm

*TLL*

THE

CLINTON PRESIDENCY

AND THE

CRISIS OF DEMOCRACY

President Bill Clinton was reelected in 1996 with a distinct lack of voter enthusiasm. As was true in 1992 (when 19 percent of the voters showed their distaste for both parties by voting for a third party candidate, Ross Perot), the electorate was clearly not happy about its choices. Half of the eligible voters stayed away from the polls, and of those who did vote, only 49 percent chose Clinton over his lackluster opponent, Robert Dole. One bumper sticker read: "If God had intended us to vote, he would have given us candidates. "

At his second inauguration ceremony, Clinton spoke of the nation at the edge of "a new century, in a new millennium." He said, "We need a new government for a new century." But it was apparent from his weak support at the polls that Americans had seen nothing in Clinton's first four years to justify the claim that there would be a "new government."

It happened that the inauguration coincided with the nationwide celebration of the birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr., and Clinton invoked King's name several times in his address. The two men, however, represented very different social philosophies.

By the time King was assassinated in 1968, he had come to believe that our economic system was fundamentally unjust and needed radical transformation. He spoke of "the evils of capitalism" and asked for "a radical redistribution of economic and political power."

On the other hand, as major corporations gave money to the Democratic Party on an unprecedented scale, Clinton demonstrated clearly, in the four years of his first term in office, his total confidence in "the market system" and "private enterprise." During the 1992 campaign, the chief executive officer of Martin Marietta Corporation noted: "I think the Democrats are moving more toward business and business is moving more toward the Democrats."

Martin Luther King's reaction to the buildup of military power had been the same as his reaction to the Vietnam war. "This madness must cease." And: ". . . the evils of racism, economic exploitation, and militarism are all tied together . . ."

Clinton was willing to recall King's "dream" of racial equality, but not his dream of a society rejecting violence. Even though the Soviet Union was no longer a military threat, he insisted that the United States must keep its armed forces dispersed around the globe, prepare for "two regional wars," and continue the military budget at cold war levels.

Clinton had become the Democratic Party candidate in 1992 with a formula not for social change but for electoral victory: Move the party closer to the center. This meant doing just enough for blacks, women, and working people to keep their support, while trying to win over white conservative voters with a program of toughness on crime and a strong military...
http://www.zpub.com/un/zinn12.html

*

This study, called The Crisis of Democracy, is the work of scholars from the three trilateral regions. The crisis of democracy to which they refer arises from the fact that during the 1960s, segments of the normally quiescent masses of the population became politically mobilized and began to press their demands, thus creating a crisis, since naturally these demands cannot be met, at least without a significant redistribution of wealth and power, which is not to be contemplated. The trilateral scholars, quite consistently, therefore urge more "moderation in democracy."

The lesson is similar to one offered to the underdeveloped world by another distinguished political scientist, Ithiel de Sola Pool, who explained in 1967 that

in the Congo, in Vietnam, in the Dominican Republic, it is clear that order depends on somehow compelling newly mobilized strata to return to a measure of passivity and defeatism from which they have recently been aroused by the process of modernization. At least temporarily, the maintenance of order requires a lowering of newly acquired aspirations and levels of political activity.
This is not mere dogma, but what "we have learned in the past thirty years of intensive empirical study of contemporary societies." The trilateral scholars are proposing, in essence, that the same lesson be applied in the centers of industrial capitalism as well.
Earlier precedents come to mind at once -- for example, medieval attitudes towards the third estate. The "qualities which bring credit to 'this low estate of Frenchmen' " are "humility, diligence, obedience to the king, and docility in bowing 'voluntarily to the pleasure of the lords' " -- Huizinga's characterization, citing the chronicler Chastellain. Correspondingly, on the underdeveloped periphery of modern civilization, the natural state of passivity and defeatism must be restored. And at home, in the version of democracy expounded by the trilateral theorists, the commoners may petition the state, but with moderation. It is unnecessary for these scholars to stress that other social groups, somewhat better placed, will not temper their demands, though the American contributor does recall, with a trace of nostalgia perhaps, that before the crisis of democracy had erupted, "Truman had been able to govern the country with the cooperation of a relatively small number of Wall Street lawyers and bankers," a happy state to which we may return if the commoners cease their indecent clamor.

It is in this context that the Trilateral Commisssion study turns to the intelligentsia, who, according to their analysis, come in the familiar two varieties: (1) the "technocratic and policy-oriented intellectuals," responsible, serious, and constructive; (2) the "value-oriented intellectuals," a sinister grouping who pose a serious danger to democracy as they "devote themselves to the derogation of leadership, the challenging of authority, and the unmasking and delegitimation of established institutions" -- even going so far as to delegitimate the institutions that are responsible for "the indoctrination of the young" -- while sowing confusion and stirring dissatisfaction in the minds of the populace.

Listen, the Democrats have always opposed third parties. We can go back to the beginning of the 20th Century with the early Farm Progressive Party. Most of the Democrats (including most on this blog (I'm not saying that to be derogatory, it's a statement of fact)) are just as ignorant of the political history of this country as the Repugnicans. The "spoilers" (as they like to view us) are responsible for almost every progressive action of our government in the 20th Century. How many Democrats are aware of FDR having said to the Socialists that he agreed with what they were proposing (what became the New Deal), and then challenged them to make him do it. They did. Then the Republicans and Democrats did everything they could to water it down (including blocking nationalized health care) How many of those on this blog are aware of those that went to jail for opposing WWI and WWII. Those folks were not Democrats. They were primarily Wobblies and members of the Farm Progressive and Socialist parties. The Dems of those times reacted exactly the same way these Dems are now. However, like Republicans, rather than educating themselves to our history, they'll stick to their ill-informed diatribes (ala Eric Alterman, and others).
I'll be contributing to, and campaigning for Obama. I'll be doing the same for Nader and McKinney. I will be voting for McKinney. We need other parties (both Left and Right) to undermine the plutocracy.

The Democratic Party pundits have us frightened: vote for Democrats, lest the Republicans continue to win and , they tell us, make the country fascist. So we have to swallow every right wing position shift by democrats, and all of the triangulation. Yes. The Democratic Party is an obstacle to democracy. They are right about one thing, a progressive third party run can cost the Democrats in a close election. So if the Democrats want votes from progressives, they had better throw us some red meat.

1. Single-payer healthcare.
2. End Iraq War
3. Repeal taft-Hartley
4. Establish Instant Runoff Voting.

Can you add to the list?
*TLL*