Progressives? Not In America

Ben, that was an intriguing introduction to a subject that is of immense importance to all three of us. I will try and answer each of the questions, but the first is the most interesting to me, so I will spend the bulk of my time on that.

"Is it possible to conceive of an American liberal third-party that would make sense and could legitimately win elections?"

In a word: no. It very much pains me to say this. However, the ideological underpinnings of our current two-party system make it almost impossible for me to imagine a cohesive, functioning leftist third party that would be able to sustain itself, much less sustain itself long enough to win elections.

Why? The stranglehold is too strong. Democrats and Republicans, referred to collectively as "The Business Party" by me, have no interest in questioning the fundamental tenets of a system that has allowed them to remain in power, unchallenged by any major third party, for so long. Their ideological hegemony in our current system is thoroughly entrenched in the minds of most Americans, and the media does its best propaganda work every day to reinforce this. The notion that we are constantly fed is that we live in the freest, most democratically-principled society in the world. While our day to day experiences of living under and working within and being governed by much more authoritarian social structures ought to be enough empirical evidence for us to know the truth, propaganda works. People believe that we live in a free, enlightened, democratic society.

People, that is, with the possible exception of progressives. However, the rest of the country chooses to continue believing in and living with the status quo. Most people are, unfortunately, incapable of thinking for themselves, and rely on corporate owned media for their social and political analysis. They do not see the structures of power at work around them on a daily basis, and the media isn't going to reveal these forces in some sort of culture critique, because much as with the two major parties, there is no interest on the part of the media in exposing some of the structural flaws with our current political and social systems. It is simply not in the media's interest to challenge the orthodoxy of business and political power in this country (since the two are inextricably intertwined) which allows the media to wield the influence it does in reinforcing the current system. Plus, they make gobs of money doing it, so why change?

And isn't money really the problem? A leftist third party would never be able to come up with the kind of financial backing it would need to remain a viable political force in this country. Elections are for sale, and the kind of people who would participate in and be candidates for such a progressive party tend not to be the kind of people who have taken full advantage of capitalism and made a bunch of money by exploiting other people. Who would fund this party, buy their air time, pay for travel and campaign literature and rallies? Who would pay for the lobbying influence? I doubt if such a party would even make it through one election cycle.

I am not saying that individuals from more progressive parties can't get elected in their localities or even at a state level. Maine certainly seems to have some success with that, even beyond libertarians (not that I am suggesting that libertarians are leftist progressives or people I'd want in office). And I will even acknowledge that, while slim, there is just the slightest chance of a candidate from outside the two-party system winning the presidency--though there is NO chance that such a candidate would come from a progressive leftist party. Much more likely is that such a candidate would come from a thoroughly centrist party at best. Anyway, while acknowledging these possibilities, they are possibilities for individuals in very particular situations. It is very different, however, to suggest that an entire third party, much less a leftist one, could form and survive.

Another big reason, besides money, is that a sort of idealistic free-for-all would almost inevitably overshadow any attempts by organizers to form the groundwork for this new party. What would the platform of this supposed party be? Would it advocate a more genuinely grass-roots democratic society? Would it be about social justice, or ecological sustainability, or socialism? Would it be a dedicated pacifist party, a workers' party, a constitutional rights party? I've been to a number of "leftist" or "progressive" political events, like anti-war marches in Washington. While I hate to admit it, I have a hard time seeing that group of people getting its shit together in a way that would be politically unified, much less functional in terms of organizational structure. Even at a march about the Iraq war, everyone brings their other causes to the table. This isn't a bad thing--it's one of the few places progressives might find other people interested in their causes--but the various causes latching on to the anti-war efforts give the left a sense of disarray and discombobulation. (Yes, this is coming from the guy who called a very old woman stupid and engaged her in a fierce battle of words for poo-pooing my carrying a giant Palestinian flag at a march about Iraq).

Furthermore, even if we could overcome this ideological free-for-all, how could such a party ever reflect its own values in its structure? Even leftists have a difficult time with bottom-up decision making, because its something we're never asked to do: make actual political decisions, take real action, vote or make our voice heard in a way that has a tangible result. Because of our inexperience with making actual democratic decisions, and because of the ideological diversity described above, I think that, inevitably citing a need for "efficiency" and "unity," such a party would come to betray its own values in an attempt to become more politically viable, and inevitably revert to a top-down power structure in which the individuals at the top are more ideologically conservative and financially powerful than the majority at the bottom. Needless to say, these individuals, however pure their motives, would exert an undue amount of influence on the party's platform. Such a party, if it managed to last for even a short time, would almost certainly be subsumed--both politically and financially--eventually by the Democrats. (This possibility begs the question: Is this a desirable outcome for us as progressives? Would even a failed attempt at a leftist third party move the Democratic party to the left and reinvigorate the liberal base? Perhaps--though I would have my doubts about even this--and such an influence is perhaps the best-case-scenario I could realistically foresee for the formation of a progressive third party).

The final point I'd like to look at, in regards to this question, is history. I seem to remember something about the emergence and rise of a progressive third party in the first decades of the twentieth century. It was a rather popular party, I believe, with a lot of celebrities, artists, intellectuals and other important public figures among its members. Perhaps we could ask some of them how they were able to form and grow an alternative third party? Perhaps they could help us hammer out the details, and avoid the mistakes they made. Oh, wait, we can't ask them. They all disappeared, or else had their lives and livelihoods dangled in front of their eyes until they betrayed their real ideals and swore allegiance to a country that apparently didn't have room for subversive ideas, for critiques of our particular brand of democratic capitalism, or for anyone advocating any other form of political system. Do we really think that, just because Joseph McCarthy is dead, that McCarthyism is dead too? I don't doubt that history would repeat itself, because much as it was fifty years ago, the powers that be, the forces involved, are the same, but further entrenched and emboldened by their half-century of unchallenged ideological hegemony and power orthodoxy.

I hope the analysis I've laid out will prove to readers that I am a little bit more than just a cynic or a conspiracy theorist. But suffice it to say: a progressive third party will never emerge, because the political and social conditions of our country make it almost impossible, and because the current system is so adept at reinforcing these conditions that they will almost certainly never change in any kind of ideologically or politically substantial way. Those in power are thoroughly entrenched, and anyone with the kind of ideals necessary to form such a progressive party would never be privy to the kind of money and insider power necessary to give such a party a chance at success. You can't convince the people who continue to benefit from a broken system that the system is broken, and the ones who should be offering the public an honest and scathing critique of the way things are, a.k.a. the media, are in bed with power, rather than challenging it. And since schools aren't teaching people to see the "larger picture" and encouraging students to critique and analyze the fundamental forces of our system of government--much less the media's love-fest for it--it's effectively as though, consciously or subconsciously, for most people the inherent goodness of the current system is beyond reproach.

All in all, the current system of political socialization is self-reinforcing and nearly flawless, and I don't foresee it changing. The mere suggestion of a parliamentary system (and having lived in the Czech Republic for six months and being a student of politics and history, I am familiar with its various advantages) would have people crying out, as they already are, about European socialism, and gosh-darn-it-isn't-this-the-good-old-U-S-of-A? And we would all find ourselves quickly with our heads in the proverbial (or perhaps literal) guillotine for even appearing to threaten the American ideal of rugged and absolute individualism with what would invariably be marginalized as said European socialism. Forget that we've already taken steps to move in the direction of a more socialized, European style of economic governance, under a conservative president, no less. "European" and "Socialism" are still both dirty words in this country, and would immediately get pinned to a new progressive party by both Republicans and the media.

What I've outlined here, I think, also has its logical extensions in the answers to your fourth and fifth questions. "Is the Republican Party really as dead and pathetic as they look?" No, because as explained above, their power base is deeply rooted. The Republicans may be down, but they are not out, because Democrats and the media are both unwilling and unable to deliver the knockout punch. They both need Republicans to uphold the current system. Furthermore, Republicans still have tons of money, and the marketing strategists, psychologists, and spin masters on the payroll to re-brand themselves just slightly enough to be an appealing alternative again in two years, and perhaps in more than just the deep South--though I agree with you that their mainstream base appears to have waned at the moment. They will, however, inevitably be back.

And so, with those questions answered, this also becomes just a formality, but your last and perhaps most important question was "Should I just become a Canadian citizen and get it over with?" The answer here is yes. And so should I. (Funny that I actually started looking into the immigration process last week before this post even came up. Oh, wait, now I'm un-American. Oh well).