Independent Media, Independent Political Movements and Independent Electoral Activity is the Path to the Paradigm Shifting Change America Needs
If I had to pick one word for Americans who want real change, it would be independence.
Not only because the United States was founded on the idea of independence but because those of us who work to try and change the country for the better and have studied American history have learned this has always been the critical ingredient for real change.
First, we need independent media. Web based outlets like this one are a critical ingredient to the success of advocacy efforts. Like so many businesses in the United States, the media is controlled by concentrated group of corporations. A handful of companies own all the hundreds of television stations on your cable TV. The same is true of radio stations. More and more newspapers are part of syndicates. These conglomerates has resulted in homogenized that only reports a concentrated corporate perspective.
The media does not report on the incredible activism taking place all around the country. They don't want America to have another Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, Ralph Nader and so many others who in the past helped to move the United States in part because the media reported on their activities. Now we only hear about corporate CEO's and elected officials elected due to corporate donations - otherwise it is sports stars and entertainment. The truth is there is more activism and organizing going on than even those of us working for change realize. If you attended the U.S. Social Forum in Detroit this month you could see it - at least 12,000 people attended, almost all were parts of organizations representing many more people, each working on a range of issues from housing and banking, to peace and criminal justice - people working to transform the American economy and political system. Did the media report on this conference? Does the media report on the movements these people are part of?
This leads me to the second area of independence we need - independent political movements. Throughout history it has been independent movements that made paradigm shifting change happen. Woodrow Wilson worked to prevent women from getting the right to vote. Leading suffragists were jailed and tortured during his presidency for protesting outside the White House. But in the end, woman got the right to vote while he was president. LBJ was a member of a political party dominated by southern segregationists. They opposed African American voting, ending Jim Crow, blacks and whites living together, going to school together, eating in the same restaurants - but LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act because an organized, independent civil rights movement demanded it. Richard Nixon, a war hawk did not want to end the Vietnam War admitting defeat of the U.S. military. He was forced to by a persistent and independent anti-war movement that criticized both political parties for their support of the war. The peace movement - and the people in Vietnam resisting U.S. aggression - forced Nixon to end the war.
The Obama era has shown many Americans that advocacy groups that work hand in glove with the Democratic Party sell out their base and claim false victories. A prime example is the health care bill. This "reform" protected the status quo - health care dominated by private insurance was the problem before reform and remains the problem. The bill will result in hundreds of billions of dollars going to the insurance industry every year in tax payer subsidies and Americans being forced to buy their flawed corporate products. The cost of health insurance was not controlled, tens of millions will be left without insurance ten years from now and every regulation of the insurance industry in the law contains a poison pill that protects the insurance industry. The coalition, Health Care for America Now, spent tens of millions of dollars, donated by donors allied with the Democratic Party, to support the Democratic leadership bill. It was a sell out of their constituents who needed real reform. Americans will not receive better health care, health care will devour more and more of the GDP, and deficit spending by government will continue because of a fraudulent "reform" that preserved market dominated health care. This is happening on issue after issue - corporations win, the people lose, and organizations supposedly working for the peoples necessities claim victory while selling Americans out.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Americans need to declare their independence from two parties dominated by concentrated corporate power. Both parties take tens of millions from big business interests every year, elected officials, their staff members and sometimes their spouses profit going to work for corporations they "regulate" in the revolving door between government and concentrated corporate interests, receiving big checks for serving on their boards and feeding off the trough of crony capitalism.
This is not a new problem for America. Big business interests have always dominated government and the two parties have consistently represented status quo business interests, but throughout our history we have seen the people transform the government by creating independent political movements that challenged the two parties.
When the most valuable industry in the United States was slavery, the two parties - the Democrats and the Whigs - conspired to ensure that abolition of slavery would not be considered in Congress. The Democrats, dominated by slave holding plantation owners, and the Whigs, dominated by Northern industrialists who profited from cheap cotton, did not want to see slavery end. More than a hundred years of abolition advocacy was unsuccessful in breaking the grip of two parties whose political power came from slavery. Some of those who opposed slavery decided to challenge the two status quo parties. They formed abolition parties and ran to end slavery. They were called spoilers - just as Ralph Nader is called a spoiler for challenging the corporate parties today - but they ran and ran. They never won. But gradually the Whig Party weakened. Finally, the abolitionists evolved into the Republican Party and the most successful third party president in history, Abraham Lincoln, was elected president and slavery finally ended.
Looking back at this history would you have voted for either one of the slave parties? Or, would you have voted to end slavery even though your candidate had no chance of winning?
Look at many of the major paradigm shifts in history - farmers fighting banks that were foreclosing on them, workers not allowed to unionize and forced to work long, unsafe hours, the creation of Social Security, health care for the poor, ending child labor - the list goes on and on. All of these major changes in American history were first brought into the electoral arena by independent electoral efforts.
The government is dysfunctional today. It is unable to deal with pressing problems facing the country. People are losing their homes, declaring bankruptcy, dying from lack of health care, suffering from endless wars - but elected officials are stuck in inaction or fake action that protects the status quo. Independent politics means recognizing we have two corporate dominated parties and that we need to have at least one party not dominated by concentrated corporate interests in order to make progress on the urgent necessities of the American people. Independent politics does not necessarily mean winning elections, at least not right away. It may mean that the greater evil gets elected - an evil that will fund war and dole out taxpayer dollars to corporate interests - much like the lesser evil will do. But the path to paradigm shifting change has always included people willing to fight in the electoral arena even if they lost the election. These parties lost the election, but won the argument and in the end won real reform.
It is becoming more and more evident to Americans that the issue of the day is concentrated corporate power. We are in the midst of a major paradigm shift that will end corporatism - the combination of government and concentrated corporations working for their interest and not ours. Will you continue to vote for one of the corporatist parties? Or, will you do as our ancestors did and create the paradigm shift we need by challenging the powers that be.
So, on Independence Day remember the roots of the United States declaring independence from the most power imperial power of the day, remember Americans throughout history challenging two parties that protected the status quo and look at the lessons of the last year when the lack of independence has only led to change that corporations can believe in.
This weekend - Declare Your Independence - and work for the real change we need.
At any rate, I am one who thinks like you.
No Kevin's piece is not about Ralph Nader. It is about all leaders who have had the courage to step outside of the mainstream and walk an independent path.
Scott: Just capitalism and socialism? just two voices - come on - don't pretend to understand history. If that is your theory - then we only have capitalism in this country, we have one corporate party with two vaguely different representations.
Kevin's call is for an independent movement to rise up in this country. A movement independent from the corporate duolopoly of the Democrat and Republican parties, independent from the corporate control which is strangling democracy and independent thinking of the electorate. Yes, Nader has called for the same thing. He has been one dependable voice for independence in political thinking and action. For that, if nothing else, he should be honored and respected.
I would like to put my entire force behind Keven's words. Although he and I have disagreed about one or two things in the past, we are in complete agreement about this. This is the kind of independence that will honor the meaning of this hallowed day. Wake up now, and make it happen.
Regards,
proclus
http://www.gnu-darwin.org/
Let me guess -- you're a Democrat! I don't put Ralph Nader on a par with Martin Luther King, Jr. (both are very different but both are also important figures) but instead wanted to point out how the media prevents another Ralph Nader or Dr. King from developing. Your post is a good example. Nader works every day with a wide variety of organizations on a variety of issues but you seem to think he only comes around every four years. Why? Because the media is only forced to cover him when he threatens the two status quo parties. Otherwise you don't hear what he is doing. That is why we need an independent media so we can report on the activities of citizens who are relentlessly trying to improve the country.
And, what about employee owned businesses, yes a form of capitalism, it allows private property ownership but no doubt pure capitalists would call it a form of socialism.
The differences are not as clear cut as you imagine. I expect the future of the U.S. economy will be a post-capitalism, post-socialism blend that you can see already developing. So, look for the nuance in the economy.
And, yes, business power has always been important in government, but at various times in history the people have gotten organized and have balanced business power bending policy in the direction of peoples necessities. See, e.g. the Populist Movement, Non-Partisan Leagues as two examples of many electoral movements that balanced the power of business interests.
Slavery was the most valuable business of the day. Combine the values of railroads, banking and all of manufacturing and slavery was more valuable. The south saw their economy build on the cheap labor of slaves. If you don't think economics played a role you're blind.
The second point I wish to make, is that if big business has "always dominated the government," please name the alternative. In my understanding of politics, the only alternatives are capitalism or some socialsit set up (fascism/communism). Otherwise, you will always have business owners involved in politics whether its for protection from special interest groups, or if its protection from competition.
So, socialism or capitalism. Thats all there is, I mean, if you'd like to be logical and just get to the point already.
Let me add, briefly, in only one of these systems does an individual have any rights (remember, your right to own property is the manifestation of all your inherent rights, think about it) and I'm not going to say which one, maybe you should think and figure it out.
"Nixon . . . did not want to end the Vietnam War [but] was forced to by [the] anti-war movement."
Ford ended the war, not Nixon. Mainstream America was so alienated by SDS that their protests actually prolonged the war: public opinion turned only after Life magazine had run the photographs of hundreds of war dead, one issue, and a decorated young Naval officer from Massachusetts had protested the war in uniform on television: John Kerry, a Democrat.
"[T]he Republican Party [had] the most successful third party president in history, [who] was elected president and slavery finally ended."
The GOP had supplanted the Whigs as our second party by the time of Lincoln's election. He won mainly because the Democrats had splintered and ran three different candidates that year. His election didn't end slavery: he was willing to support whatever would save the Union--even preserving slavery--and said so. Our Civil War ended slavery.
American third parties fail--unless they supplant a major party--as we have neither a parliamentary system nor proportional representation. Fifty-six million citizens in California and New York have four Senators; the five million from our seven least populous states have fourteen Senators; the five million from from DC, Puerto Rico, and Guam, none--and our undemocratic Senate's filibuster rule enables lobbyists to buy the votes of forty-one willing old rural guys and block whatever legislation they please.
To solve any problem, first recognize its complexity!
Good point on Nixon vs. Ford. You're right, of course, the final blow came during the Ford administration when Congress stopped funding the war. But even so, Nixon had to run on a promise to end the war because of the pressure built up by anti-war advocates and the failures of the war. He had begun troop withdrawals and engaged in peace talks that led to a cease fire. Watergate intervened but the path to exit was being walked down by Nixon before his exit.
As to third parties, I see things differently than "standard", in most cases third parties have changed the system because they built up enough electoral support so that one of the two parties adopted key parts of their agenda. They did not sign the law, but they created a situation where the president signed it because he had to. They "won" the issue, even though they "lost" the election.
Yes, by the time Lincoln ran the Whigs were on the downward slope. Both parties were losing elected officials and voters to the abolition movement and then to the Republicans. Lincoln's election was the final blow to the Whigs. But the third party efforts that came before the Republicans weakened the duopoly of the era, and weakened the Whigs fatally. While Lincoln ran on very soft opposition to slavery his election was interpreted by the south as a vote against slavery.
You make a good point about complexity. You're right, we have to think, debate, analyze, etc., etc., etc. But at some point you have to take action.
We need a new political party---one that represents working people instead of giant corporations. A new party can run candidates who will challenge the candidates of the two major parties---and eventually sweep 'em out.
The R's and D's just got handed over the healthcare industry to a few big insurance companies. Now they've even got the taxpayers subsidizing them! Here's a case of the vast majority of people getting screwed by both major parties---as Kevin Zeese eloquently points out in his article.
When Ralph Nader ran for President in 2000, he said that the big problem with the United States was that it was dominated by big corporations. And he was right.
And he took action. He asked the voters for their support, and almost 3 million people voted for him.
In your comment, you wrote we have to recognize "complexity" first.... and then... second? Well, you didn't say. What are you prepared to **do**? That's the question. For my part, I don't want to just analyze and rationalize about what's wrong with our country. I want to take action to change it.
I agree with your statement about taking action. Kevin wrote a wonderful article giving us detail and background, and he has loads of experience, and now it's up to all of us to do something together.
I believe Nader and others who have written books and articles, have given us many suggestions on how to go about bringing change, and with the new party, we can bring all this together into one cohesive organization to build a movement and party who will at last accomplish this.
Perhaps we can even solicit those who have been talking about the problems for so many years to work with us to fix the problems. Turn talking into doing.
We need people to join who have skills, experience, resources and are committed to taking on the behemoth's. Arundati Roy once said, "We be many, they be few". We are the 99% who will take on the 1%. And our own Patti Smith with "People have the power", if they would only work together instead of in splintered groups dialing for dollars with their own little fiefdoms.
We need to mobilize and organize under one umbrella to make this happen, and I hope the new party will be the catalyst for this. I believe Nader is the glue that binds us all together and no one can deny he has done more than anyone in his lifetime for each one of us no matter what our race, color or creed.