Arr Matey! Pirate Party Making Waves in European Politics

This is an interesting story from the Personal Democracy Forum on the Swedish and German Pirate Party, anti-Establishment political parties primarily made up of young voters, who have experienced rapid growth in recent years. The Swedish Pirate Party experienced its first taste of success in June of this year when the Pirate Party earned its first seat in the European Parliament.

Key quote from the article:

The “pirates” connect with young people using cultural expressions of political rejection with a sense of humour and intelligent criticism. They have traded in the stone-throwing and barricades typical of the German anarchist or antifascist movements that used to fascinate a sector of the German critical youth for smiles, jokes and digital culture. Young agitators, for example, have followed Angela Merkel to all her meetings to applaud her by shouting “Yeaaah”. Without disturbing public order but putting themselves in the public eye through aesthetic parody, they have organised a voting “flash mob”, a carnivalesque movement organised and announced electronically via mobile phone and the internet that “followed” the candidate. As a result, they have become part of the electoral landscape and their mocking and joking presence has been echoed in the media. Even Angela Merkel herself, to her credit, has greeted them from the podium on more than one occasion (“My young Internet friends”). The “alternatives” know how to communicate.

But what is important in political terms is that a party that emerged from the web is achieving a political presence in Europe not only due to young people’s discontent with the politics of the traditional parties with regard to the internet, but also because of their discontent and indifference towards those traditional parties themselves as well as their politics. The fact that, for the first time, a “native” internet organisation especially committed to the most progressive aspects of the web reached the heights of parliamentary representation is a historic landmark that may be the path of the future.

In a time of increasing alienation and rage at the politics of the two major American political parties by American voters (and general public), it is interesting to see if a similar political phenomenon occurs in the US as the Pirate Parties of Europe in the near future.

Full story at the Personal Democracy Forum

The Tea Party Movement: A Populist Potential?

It is very easy to dismiss the Tea Party protesters as a bunch of racist, xenophobic, gun nuts with paranoid mindsets who have a deep, irrational hatred of liberals and President Barack Obama because he is African-American. Judging from the hateful signs, open display of guns in healthcare town halls, and blatant use of racist and offensive imagery and symbols, calling them a bunch of yahoos and dismissing their perspectives as irrelevant is very easy.

That’s not what I am going to do here. I am actually going to try and take their perspectives seriously for a moment and think about what they potentially mean for American politics and how it is currently practiced as a contest between the two major political parties.

If you wade through all the racist and offensive garbage that is being spewed, you will find that much of the Tea Party anger has a familiar, populist ring to it. They are mad about the state of the economy, about the deteriorating state of American institutions and the country’s diminishing standing on the world stage. They are anxious about bread and butter issues, and they see the Washington DC establishment as corrupt, overrun by special interests and as a place where the interests of ordinary, working Americans are ignored. They see American democracy as broken, therefore, and in need of serious fixing. These perspectives are not that different from what I — an immigrant, minority, and a self-professed Progressive liberal — have been blogging about for some time now.

Thus, these Tea Party folks marched in Washington on September 12 — many of them people who have never participated in a political march before — to show that they are mad as hell, won’t take it anymore, and are ready to do what it takes to take America back. It is very easy to see and hear the shrillest and most militant among them, who hold the most extreme views, and see the kooks as representative of what the Tea Party movement is all about.

Let me know if you think I am totally off-base. But I actually think the Tea Party movement, because it is successfully tapping into a vein of populist discontent and anxiety about the state of American society, has the potential to develop into a legitimate, populist political entity that can present a real challenge to the dominance of the two major parties.

The societal anger and anxiety the Tea Party movement is tapping into is real. Many people are feeling very insecure about the state of America in 2009 and are feeling powerless to do anything about it and are finding in the Tea Party movement the vehicle for expressing this populist discontent.

I have written a lot about third parties and political movements outside of the two major parties. I see the Tea Party movement as an entity with the potential — I stress that point, the POTENTIAL — to mount a legitimate, populist challenge to the dominance of the two major parties. They aren’t there yet and much of the blatant bigotry and hate-mongering turns me off but something about their populist anger rings true and familiar to me.

As a Progressive, do I see myself working with or being sympathetic to Tea Party folks if they do develop into a legitimate political organization? What about the hatefulness, bigotry and blatant anti-social messages? What about the displayed contempt they have for liberals, Progressives, minorities and immigrants like me?

My answer to those questions:

1. If Tea Party folks forego racism, gun fetish and virulent hatefulness so they can work with their fellow political outsiders on serious and real reform (for example, the types of reforms I talk about in this post) I would work with them.

2. Political outsiders who disagree on specific policy issues have one big thing in common. They are political outsiders. Therefore, it benefits them to lay aside their differences in favor of working together on issues that have the potential to open up the political playing field for ALL political outsiders.

3. Greens, Libertarians, Socialists and independents have all experienced the same types of structural obstacles in the American political system. Yet these different groups have banded together on occasion to pool their resources and fight together in court for more equal treatment for minority political parties. Just because you disagree politically doesn’t mean you can’t find common cause with other political outsiders on issues that impact all who are outside the duopoly.

4. Third parties like the Greens, Libertarians, Socialists, etc., have been in the front lines of electoral and court battles for opening up the political system for years. The Tea Party folks, if they ever develop into a legitimate political entity, cannot afford to ignore the collective experience of these groups.

The Republican Party is already trying to hijack the momentum of the Tea Party anger for its own gains. I am making a bet that there are enough politically astute folks in the Tea Party movement whose anti-establishment anger are real and will see co-optation by the Republican Party of their efforts as a betrayal. There is, after all, nothing anti-establishment about supporting either of the two establishment political parties.

I am also making the bet that the anti-establishment populist anger driving the Tea Party movement — if you separate out the hate and bigotry and gun fetish — is the same anti-establishment populist anger that drives people like me to reject the two major parties and make the conscious choice to be independents or join a third party. And I am making the bet that sooner or later, many Tea Party folks will be making a similar connection in their minds. What happens after that? Well, that is something I would very much like to see.

My hope: that it lead to the formation of a true populist challenge to the two major parties. My fear: that hate and racism become its driving force and it evolve into a militant, virulent, blatantly racist, xenophobic organization — but one with resources and with a big megaphone in the Glenn Becks and Rush Limbaughs of the world. As a populist I would rather the see a Tea Party movement that develops into the former rather than the latter.

Progressives and Independents

I: Kicking the Left with Impunity

There was an interesting discussion at the Open Left blog today in the wake of Barack Obama picking conservative evangelical pastor Rick Warren to say the convocation at his Presidential inauguration:

[T]here are clear benefits for Democrats who are able to generate public, left-wing outrage against their actions…This is a widely held view, and is openly shared by Democrats as high ranking as Rahm Emanuel. As long as the generation of public, left-wing outrage toward their actions is understood to be politically beneficial to Democrats, then many Democrats will continue to undertake actions that have the direct or indirect goal of generating public, left-wing outrage at their actions. This is pretty straightforward. As long as the cost of annoying progressives is not only zero, but actually a net positive, then Democrats will continue to annoy progressives ad infinitum.

For a solution, the article argues:

Progressives must make the political cost of such actions unacceptable to the Democrats who are willing to undertake such actions for political benefit. At the congressional level, I accept kos's premise that the only means of holding Democrats accountable for angering progressives are primary challenges (sitting on your hands or supporting third-party candidates just doesn't work). Or, to be a bit more accurate, the only way for outsiders like us to engage in progressive accountability for Democrats in Congress is to spend actual resources attacking a member of Congress in his or her district.

The commenter “leftvet” observes:

The only accountability that works for politicians are political consequences. The left is currently unable to exact political consequences on any politician, so we are, of course, ignored or vilified. Chris has summed it up very well. Progressives have no real choice but to continue to support mainstream Democrats, no matter how many times they f**k us over, because there is no other electoral option available to us. The Dems know it, and continue to exploit that situation.

This conversation is fascinating to me on so many levels. As someone who self-identifies as a Progressive, it is truly maddening to witness case after case after case of Democrats kicking Progressive values and politics to the curb once they get elected even after they ran on the promise and symbolism of Progressive idealism. It is as if once elected, the best way to gain political credibility is to take gratuitous potshots at liberals and left-wingers who supported them in elections.

The discussion at Open Left, although it hits upon many of the right points, completely misses a very big point -- not everyone agrees the best strategy to enact a Progressive agenda is to elect Democrats into office. Many people who are potential supporters of any Progressive movement are NOT Democrats, have absolutely no intention of being Democrats, and do not have any particular loyalty to the Democratic Party given the party’s record on many issues Progressives care deeply about.

No one seems to be seriously talking about appealing to and bringing Independents into the fold -- and this comes at a time when satisfaction with government is at an all-time low and the number of people who are self-identifying politically as anything other than Democrats and Republicans is at an all-time high. I don’t claim to be an all-knowing political guru but I am tired of Progressives getting their asses kicked by Democrats in the process of playing by the rules of the game of American electoral politics.

Is the only viable goal for Progressive activism to elect Democrats into office (even if they are better Democrats)?

II: The Fight for Open Primaries

Here’s an idea: how about Leftist Progressive activists join Independents in efforts for radical structural reform? One effort they can join very easily right now is the effort by Independents for Open Primaries. A petition is circulating right now to ask President Barack Obama to:

• Initiate and support federal legislation to create open primaries for election to federal office in all 50 states that guarantees full access for independent voters;

• Establish a Presidential Task Force on Political and Electoral Reform that includes representatives of the broad movement of independent voters to consider sweeping nonpartisan reform of the electoral process and its administration;

• Use the bully pulpit to speak out on the importance of open primaries and the inclusion of independents in all aspects of the electoral and political process.

They are trying to reach 1,000 signatures by Inauguration. This is one way Progressives can get themselves introduced to the burgeoning movement among Independents who, increasingly, are becoming aware of their political potential. It is one way Progressives can form a bridge with Independents to join in an effort they care about (and which stands to benefit voters and political parties who seek a viable alternative to the Democrats).

Book Review: In the Balance of Power

In the Balance of Power: Independent Black Politics and Third Party Movements in the United States by Omar Ali

In the Balance of Power was a fascinating book. It is, on one level, an historical account of African-American participation in the American political process, written from the vantage point of African-Americans’ history as independents -- outsiders to the political system dominated traditionally by two major parties. It starts from slavery in the 1770s, to the Civil War and Reconstruction, to the major hallmarks of U.S. history as it relates to African-Americans’ historical struggle for equality: the collapse of reconstruction, Jim Crow and segregation, the Civil Rights movement, the social and cultural upheavals of the sixties and seventies, through the present-day Independent movement of the Ross Perot era and the various organizations that were offshoots of that effort. It culminates in Barack Obama’s historic, insurgent candidacy and win over Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party’s nomination for President in the 2008 Presidential elections.

If one reads the book as a chronological history of African-American political participation, one can still come out with a rewarding experience and perspective. I derived an appreciation for the role of third parties and independent movements in pushing the envelope of political discourse to make certain things we take for granted a reality – the eight-hour workday and civil rights, for example, or womens’ suffrage.

I found myself constantly bowled over by one unexpected historical insight after another on the political activity of African Americans. More than just being passive, oppressed subjects as traditional historical accounts have tended to portray them, African-Americans have a rich history of organized, anti-Establishment political activity dating back to the days of slavery and through modern times.

For most Americans, their familiarity with African-American political activity begins with the Civil Rights Movement, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks, etc. But African-Americans, historically, have been active participants in the country’s democratic political institutions even at points when they were most marginalized.

As early as the 1700s all the way to the 1900s and beyond, African Americans were forming political parties, having political conventions, running for office, running sophisticated political campaigns and forging alliances with other insurgent political movements and political parties. Most amazingly, there were actual instances of these efforts winning and African-American candidates taking office as early as the 1800s on the local level and even at the state level.

Most telling were the risks and opposition that these efforts faced which can run along the lines of unfair practices to keep them out of participating in electoral politics, restrictions to ballot access, disenfranchisement of their voting rights, to the more crude threats of lynchings, harassment, death threats, and organized mob violence. Most interestingly, much of this opposition was state-sanctioned and came from the highest levels of the major parties at the time.

I also found insightful the later accounts of African-American political participation in the post-segregation era. Martin Luther King Jr. warned of the perils of over-reliance and dependency on one major political party (in this case, the Democrats) and to pin all of one’s hopes and political efforts in that arena. Ali describes a disconnect between younger generations who do not necessarily have a loyalty to nor a perception of the Democratic Party as being the best vehicle for African-American political expression and the old guard of the Civil Rights era who are overwhelmingly loyal to the Democrats.

This disconnect touches upon my own thoughts and interests as an Independent that I have written about frequently. I do not consider myself a Democrat -- I will support Democratic candidates and politics. But I have found that my brand of Progressive politics plays only a marginal role, at best, in the Democratic Party. Moreover, as a Progressive, I do not see myself in any capacity supporting Republicans. Where does that leave me politically but supporting marginal third parties or not voting at all?

This dilemma mirrors the options Ali laid out (p. 151) on the options to African-American political empowerment in the post-Civil Rights era as they evaluate the role of political participation in their community and the Democratic Party:

1) Instigating Black-led reform of the Democratic Party
2) Forming a Black political party
3) Practicing political eclecticism and putting support on whoever can be most helpful to you at the time
4) Charting a course that is most beneficial to the black community and the Republican Party
5) Following the fusion populist approach: building a base for independent politics among African-Americans and creating coalitions with white independents

In the Balance of Power deserves to have a wide readership. As an academic study and as a work of political analysis the book is an example of top-notch scholarship. More than a scholarly work, the subject matter is timely and relevant to current events as:

Increasingly less tied to the Democratic Party, black voters have been looking for new electoral options in the face of bipartisan failures at home and abroad. Sixty-six percent of all Americans believe that “the nation is on the wrong track;” 89 percent disapprove of the job being done by Congress; 71 percent disapprove of the job being done by the president. Among African-Americans, the feeling and experience are even stronger. Whether people are concerned about the failure of our public schools, our health care system, or the war in Iraq, there is widespread recognition that the two-party establishment is either unwilling or unable to address the current state of affairs in a developmental or democratic manner (Ali, p. 2).

The Liberal Arts Dude gives In the Balance of Power five stars out of five.