Third Party Politics, or After the Republi-crat Orgy
Jean Baudrillard once posed the question to himself, what to do after the orgy? Tongue in cheek, yes, but the point is more profound that it at first reveals. First, Baudrillard meant 'orgy' - broadly construed, of course.
For him, writing on the cusp of 1990, and reflecting upon the previous century or so, the moment of excess in question was that of the liberation of everything - politics, production, war, destruction, sex, women, children, art, unconscious drives, capitalism and crisis - total liberation as acceleration into the void of possibilities. And then what?
The point is, for our purposes in considering American politics, the twenty-first century arrived and the Republi-crat orgy continues. As does the crisis wrought by every excess they have imagined and in many respects, realized. Most importantly, the uncontrolled and unrestrained stranglehold that Democrats and Republicans have on the political process in the US threatens to drive America off a moral, fiscal - and metaphysical cliff. What would that mean? It would mean the enactment of an 'America' in absentia. In fact, for may Americans, such is the reality as it exists already.
Few would argue that the two party system is a benefit to us, while we argue that monopolies are rotten for the maintenance of integrity and fairness in every other enterprise.
The two parties, taken together, constitute a systemic Republi-crat malaise, wherein each party - notwithstanding the frequently cute quarrels and media mudfests - essentially rubberstamps each other's policies by default. Difference in such a system is reduced to catchy, emotional sound bites, which serve to polarize viewers, spectators and ultimately, voters, while simulating difference - enacting a facade of political diversity.
In the end, the winners in such a set-up - that amounts to a perpetual, media-sparring match for cap feathers among the self-appointed wealthy and commercial society elected, or 'electable,' contestants - are the corporations, who infuse enough capital to the Republi-crat majority to decide the outcomes of political policy questions. So the corporations (and aristocratic interests) get what they want, at the expense of the rank and file public, year after year, ad infinitum.
Criticism of the Republi-crat system as it stands is muted as comedy, or essentially muzzled, by an equal process of elimination of all third party perspectives compliments of monopolized corporate media.
In 2010, voters should vote their conscience, by seeking out otherpolitical party options as a matter of principle. Expect different policies, when voting for different candidates, from different political parties. If you wish for more of the same policies that are running America into the ground - then vote, once again, for another Republi-crat.
But if you wish for the idea of progress that has disappeared, or the prospect of prosperity that has disappeared, or the idea of politics that has disappeared - and instead all of which continue, as Baudrillard once suggested, as a game in secret indifference to what is truly at stake in all of these concepts - then vote for a third party candidate who speaks to your heart. A guarantee for a progressive turn? No, of course not - but in all certainty, a viable chance, at least, that has not already been decided upon in advance by the Republi-crat involution.
Nicholas Ruiz III, Ph.D NRIII for Congress 2010 http://intertheory.org/nriiiforcongress2010.html ____________________________________ Editor, Kritikos http://intertheory.org
----- Original Message ---- From: Julio Huato <juliohuato at gmail.com> To: Lbo Talk Lbo Talk <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>; pen-l at lists.csuchico.edu Sent: Mon, December 21, 2009 11:07:12 PM Subject: [lbo-talk] Telling the U.S. left what to do
Nicholas Ruiz III wrote:
> so where do you stand on third party politics...?
This is probably obvious to readers here, but I'll state it anyway:
What is essential for the U.S. left -- and, underlying it, for the U.S. working people -- is not just *that* we unite. Just as essential is *how* we unite. To really build a robust, independent political force, our unity has to result organically, from an honest and -- hence -- prolonged process of collective self discovery, trial and error, etc. We have to gradually come to the realization that we share a common interest and, therefore, a common political fate, not through presumed revelation or mechanical imposition of one's truth upon others, but via each one's own experience and reflection. Because we come at this from very different angles.
Consider the case of immigrant workers. A few years ago, I was in a meeting with a Catholic group of Mexican and Central American workers involved in the 2006 marches and all that. Part of the discussion was basic chores and organizing. The higher end of the political discussion was about the difficulty of timing the U.S. political process, because the electoral and legislative tempos are very important to them, in terms of their ability and willingness to mobilize, which depends on how immigrants collectively feel they can affect policy in ways that make a difference to them. They feel they can only affect the process from the outside, which is very frustrating. Individually, they influence and are influenced by relatives and "paisanos" who are citizens, but they are outsiders in the process. Still, they try to affect it collectively, at a very high cost. They cannot be Republican, Democrat, or Independent. So, how would their movement fit into an insurrection within the Democratic Party? How can they build permanent political formations that may advance their interests through the thick and thin of the electoral, legislative and executive processes? If you add their own internal diversity and urgent needs (jobs!), you see how hard the challenges they face are.
So, back to your question, I have no problem with third party politics as an approach for people who may start that way, e.g. young people, etc. Or for people who, in particular places, are ready to challenge the two parties. At this point though, absent a nation-wide mass movement to energize it, the effort on third party politics has to be local. I have a NY friend who's been in Vermont lately, because he's heavily involved with organizing the VT chapter of the Working Families Party. I admire and support his work. I'm not sure how many young people will feel attracted to that kind of organizing work in mass, but people have to try things out. So, in principle, third party politics is fine.
The arguments I had were with people who dismissed the struggles within the Democratic Party, electoral politics, etc. as a matter of principle. I guess Shane Mage encapsulates their thesis when he says primary struggles within the Democratic Party *are* (not "have been" or "may be" or "are most likely to be" but "are") a blind alley. It seems to me that, if such approach had been pushed up to its ultimate consequences, we would be witnessing a rupture within the Democratic Party. To the extent this chasm exists (in embryo), that's because of those who within the party have kept up the struggle, because the (embryonic) chasm owes very little to nay-saying from what I call the superficially radical left.
So, where I come from, that notion of dismissing the actual struggles of the bulk of the politically active segment of the class is misguided. Because, if you look at the big picture, for the time being, most working people in the U.S. who may wind up doing left-wing politics in the foreseeable future can only come from the Democratic Party. I've said it here before: their first impulse is not going to be to discard a political formation they've used before with mixed results (if the results were not mixed, they would not be supporting the Democrats to start with), but to reform it. You can tell them, while supporting and encouraging their struggles, that their chances of reforming the party are slim. The difficulties of reforming anything are always easy to pinpoint. What you cannot do is deny that their struggle is very legitimately a part of the process of building the U.S. left. ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk