---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Delivered-To: •••@••.••• From: "Rex Barger" <•••@••.•••> To: "Richard K. Moore" <•••@••.•••> Subject: Recent, cogent article: "Those who make the rules, rule." Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 18:17:09 -0400 http://www.cuip.org/commentary/ali/ali20020904.htm ------------------- Those Who Make the Rules, Rule by Omar H. Ali September 4, 2002 Political parties are corrupt, and Americans know it. Over 40% of us do not identify with any party, increasing numbers of us distrust parties, and 71% of college-age students want more political options and choices. Political parties are anti-democratic. Throughout American history, independents - those of us not affiliated with the major parties - have been the driving force behind the expansion of democracy. It's the independents that have changed the rules of American politics, taking them in a more democratic and inclusive direction. Today, independents are the fastest growing group of voters in the country. The demographic trends and statistics pointing towards independence are staggering, yet we exert little political leverage in proportion to our numbers. Our democracy has become dull and lifeless with record numbers of Americans not participating. How did this come to be? Political parties have taken over our government. Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is there even mention of political parties. And yet, the major parties make the rules through which all levels of policy are decided - from who gets on the ballot in elections, to who is included in candidate debates, to what issues are addressed, how they get discussed, to what laws are enacted, and therefore what policy Americans are ultimately left with. The Democratic and Republican parties make those rules to suit their - not the American people's - interests. Corporate special interests? They don't compare to the power of the parties. The two major parties are by far the most powerful of all special interests and therefore the most corrosive element of our democracy. By creating explicitly bipartisan laws and regulatory bodies, i.e. rules geared to a bipartisan system, the major parties artificially keep themselves in power. We are given no choice but to sustain the two parties. There are virtually no other options, except to "opt out" - which half the country has done by not voting. The parties have done far more than exert their control over legislatures to enact laws that protect their interests in the election process. In many ways, the Democratic and Republican parties have become virtually synonymous with government. They should not be. Political parties and government, like Church and State, should be separate. But they've been institutionally conflated. It's important to understand that the conflation of the major parties and government, so deeply entrenched in our culture and in our political institutions, was systematically crafted. It didn't just happen overnight and it certainly wasn't inevitable. It's up to us, particularly the younger generation of Americans, to help redirect the country towards a participatory, citizen-driven, populist democracy which includes and activates all Americans. That means we have to change the rules. Self-declared independents, along with the millions of others around the country who support having more choices in the political arena, must work to dismantle the ironclad control political parties have as we build the independent political movement. How political parties have taken over our government, how they stifle the flow of democracy, and what is being done to change this, is what every independent needs to know. Bipartisan Structural Control Bipartisan control of our government has become so embedded in the structure of government, so engrained in our political culture, that it's difficult for us to even see. Let's begin by asking some questions. * Why is it that the Federal Election Commission, created by Congress to oversee elections, is itself structured to be overseen by three Democrats and three Republicans? Shouldn't a body that regulates elections be nonpartisan, rather than bipartisan? * Why is it that independent candidates running for office are often legally required to gather at least tenfold the number of signatures as Democrats or Republicans simply to have their name appear on the ballot? Shouldn't all candidates, regardless of party affiliation, be required to meet the same obligations? * Why is it that the presidential debates - the single-most important venue for the American people to assess who they will choose as their chief executive - are organized through a bipartisan group called the Commission on Presidential Debates headed up by none other than the former chairmen of the Democratic and Republican parties? Shouldn't debates be a civic rather than a partisan activity? * Why should Congress be structurally organized along partisan lines, and why should the Democratic and Republican Congressional caucuses, along with the majority and minority members of committees, have partisan staff funded by the taxpayers? Aren't political parties supposed to be non-governmental bodies? * Why should state election boards and commissions around the country be comprised of appointees of the Democratic and Republican parties? Remember Florida 2000? Election boards and commissions should be neutral, nonpartisan bodies to facilitate elections for all Americans. * How such distortions of democracy are permitted and how the electoral playing field has become tilted such that the major parties insidiously dominate the political arena is a history of great importance for all Americans. Substantial gains have been made by independent movements to expand democracy - first, with the enfranchisement of poor white men, followed by black men, then women, and then the lowering of the voting age from 21 to 18. But despite the expansion of who can vote in our country, political parties have rigged the game so that no matter the outcome of a particular election, they remain in control. They make the rules. And as Douglas Muzzio, a professor at the School of Public Affairs at Baruch College in New York recently observed, "He who determines the rules, rules." That's why the independents must be rule breakers! We have to break the rules of traditional politics and bring the American people into the process of creating new ones. When the people become the rule makers, the people - not the parties, not the special interests - will rule. That's what independent politics, or populism, is all about. Special Interests There's been a lot of talk these days about corporations and their power in shaping government policy. We've all heard how Enron has deep ties to the Bush Administration, how under the Clinton Administration corporations were given unprecedented liberties - and how millions of Americans have had their pensions wiped out and their livelihoods taken away. Everyone's been affected by these abuses on some level. But for all the power individual corporations wield - be they the oil, energy, telecommunications, tobacco, insurance, or pharmaceutical companies or industries - no matter how wealthy these corporate entities are, their control over public policy relies on the pervasive power of the political parties. The Washington, DC-based Center for Responsive Politics recently concluded that while the one and a half billion dollars spent every year in corporate lobbying may seem high, these are "paltry sums compared to the amount of money that hinges on congressional decisions." The Telecommunications Act passed by Congress, for instance, alone gave existing broadcasters some $70 billion in rights for digital television on public airwaves. Exorbitant subsidies continue to be given to corporations, such as when defense contractors Lockheed merged with Martin Marietta and taxpayers ended up paying $30 million in bonuses to company executives. But perhaps more insidious than the subsidies is the distortion of public policy to suit the needs of the corporate sector. Giving the President "fast track" authority to negotiate trade deals and having Congress vote those agreements up or down, without amendment, was an antidemocratic restructuring of the highest order. Incredibly, Congress voted to reduce its own power - to deny itself the right to intervene on the most significant unleashing of global corporate power - which they did at the behest of the political parties. So let's not be fooled. The parties, not the corporations are the ones in control of government. Ask yourself: Who is more powerful - the lobbyists or the lobbied? If the American people want to bring the corporations to heel - and they do - we're going to have to first bring the party system to heel. Expanding Democracy Historically, it's taken social and political movements independent of the major parties to expand democracy in the United States. These independent movements include the Abolitionists beginning in the 1830s, culminating in Reconstruction with the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments (abolishing slavery, providing citizenship for all African-Americans, and the right to vote for black men). There were the women's rights advocates of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, whose work collectively culminated in the 19th Amendment - bringing women into the franchise. And then there were the many young and courageous independents of the Civil Rights and Antiwar movements, whose work led to the passage of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965 and the eventual pressures to end the Vietnam War (or, as the Vietnamese called it, the "American War"). However, even as the franchise was being expanded by these independent movements, the two party system was evolving to constrain and limit democratic participation. The History of Party Takeover Our nation, which gained its independence from a constitutional monarchy, was founded upon the basic tenets of republicanism and a relatively new form of representative, or popular government. In the midst of the Revolutionary War, Americans adopted the Articles of Confederation. The Articles assembled a loose confederacy of the former colonies into state governments where power resided firmly in elected state legislatures. These legislatures reformed property and voting laws, bringing a broader cross-section of the population into electoral participation and governance. It installed a form of terms limits, known then as "rotation of service," to guard against legislative incumbency and the despotism they feared would follow. These legislatures also began to take action to relieve farmers, small merchants, and others less propertied of the massive amounts of debt accumulated during and following the war. A number of state legislatures stripped their governors of many powers and gave themselves the right to suspend or even override the court systems when necessary. Local power by local people was paramount in governing. The efforts by some state legislatures to expand citizen participation and cancel debts to create a stable economic footing for small businesses and farmers - in opposition to bankers, large merchants, and the landed gentry who held the debt - provoked the campaign for the US Constitution. The Constitution's principal advocates were "Federalists," such as James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, who argued that a strong constitution would keep the new nation from descending into the chaos and anarchy that, as they believed, came with the expansion of democracy. A powerful centralized authority that could tax, regulate trade, form a national army, and govern powerfully from atop was what the Federalists called for in the implementation of a constitution. "Anti-Federalists," such as Thomas Jefferson or Tom Paine, were wary of such centralized power, and fought against such a formation, which they saw as a violation of republican government, with power residing principally at the local level, with local legislative bodies. In 1787 a constitutional convention was held in Philadelphia, which led to the drafting of the US Constitution. Ratification of the Constitution would take two years, and often only by narrow margins in many states where conventions had been created to bypass state legislatures which, Federalists feared, would most likely vote to reject it. Despite the number of compromises that were reached, namely over core issues of freedom, such as slavery, a Bill of Rights (the first ten Amendments to the US Constitution) was also ratified. Since 1791, the Bill of Rights has served as a protection of citizens from our own government with regard to free speech, free assembly, and all the basic freedoms of critical importance that have helped independents advance democracy over time. It was in this period of our nation that two major political factions emerged: The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists (or Democratic-Republicans). George Washington in his Farewell Address warned against such factions or the "spirit of the parties," because of their potential divisiveness to the Republic. Americans weren't alone in their caution against parties. Half a century earlier, Robert Walpole, the British Prime Minister, argued that parties were the malign result of "gratifying Š private passion by public means." Scholars, by and large, agree on this point. Robert Dahl, Yale Professor Emeritus, wrote in his latest book On Democracy that "Political 'factions' and partisan organizations were generally viewed [in the 18th century] as dangerous, divisive, Š and injurious to the public good." The function of political parties was not merely to express and advocate support on any particular issue or position of the day. Their primary function almost immediately became to mediate between the people and government, and in so doing to limit direct participation by the American people in the political process. Politics became less and less the active and direct participation of the citizenry in making the decisions which impacted their lives, as had been the case in the decisions to break away from England, to carry out the War for Independence, and to establish the nation's earliest institutions of governance. Instead, politics came more and more to mean wheeling and dealing between and within the parties, which set themselves up as vehicles to government, jobs, influence, and as the mediators of government policy. Slowly the parties were taking over, though the process would take some time to complete. But by the end of Washington's term as President, the Federalists and Anti-Federalists had formed into powerful and discernible factions. The revolutionary character of our government in its early years had experienced a virtual coup d'etat by the political parties. The popular revolution of 1776, with mass participation of colonists, was compromised in what was a second, more conservative revolution of 1789. What to some, as Tom Paine believed, was the most important feature of the American Revolution - that it be an ongoing revolution towards democracy - was shut down. The political parties further compounded the problem by distancing the American people from the government they had themselves just created. Within a generation these proto-parties would be supplanted by the Democrats and the Whigs, and since the Civil War, we've been under the rule of the Democrats and the Republicans. That's 150 years of bipartisan rule! More than the life span of many dynasties in world history. The system of political parties, which inserted itself into our government so early in our nation's existence, would create the basis for the corruption of our political process that is at the heart of America's crisis today. During the late 19th century and early 20th century, independents in the Populist and Progressive movements attempted to wrest control over the economy and reform politics through the formation of independent parties. The 1890s had, for instance, witnessed the coming together of black and white farmers and laborers in the formation of the People's Party. The party posed a considerable threat to the Democratic Party in the South until it was co-opted by the Democrats, using the issue of silver coinage to blunt the edge of its independent sword. The co-optation of independent movements by the Democrats would continue into and throughout the 20th century - most notably in the 1930s, with the rise of the labor movement, and then in the 1960s, with the rise of the Civil Rights movement. The Emergence of the Beltway A fundamental restructuring was affected in the early 20th century, which further entrenched the power of the major parties as they became increasingly corporate and centralized in both their structure and character. In the 1930s, faced with massive economic collapse following the stock market crash and the ensuing Depression, the government intervened to create a safety net - not just for the poor, but for the free enterprise system itself. The Democrats and Republicans transformed the federal government from a kind of coordinating body to an extremely centralized regulatory body that provided welfare for impoverished Americans and for corporate America. During this time the federal government became far more extensive, invasive and powerful than even the staunchest Federalists could have imagined. This change to a highly regulated system of government also created significant changes in the political economy of the country. With regulation becoming a key avenue for businesses to improve their competitive edge, corporate boards began to transform from groups of manufacturing and industrial magnates to pools of lawyers expert in navigating government regulations for the maximum profitability of their companies. Political influence over the two major parties became more important than ever, since elected officials (invariably from the two major parties) were the ones who enforced the regulations. Tragically, the legislature, which had in the earliest stages of American history been the most populist, democratic and responsive to the people, was becoming one of the most partisan, most corrupt and top-down controlled institutions of American government. Throughout the rise of these regulatory trends, and in the throes of the Great Depression, independent mass movements were organized - which took the organizational form of unemployed councils, the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO), and the black Sharecroppers Union, all of which fueled support for a flurry of independent parties. The Democratic Party and President Franklin Roosevelt moved effectively to capture that political ferment and convert it into an electoral base which allowed them to dominate the Republicans at the national level for some time and gave them the imprimatur of being the "party of the people." Still, both the Democrats and the Republicans kept close guard on protecting their two party system. They took serious measures to ensure its stability and their shared control of the governmental process. Ballot access regulations, designed to protect incumbency and favor the two parties, restricting and discouraging independents, were quickly enacted in state legislatures across the country. (Where once voters simply wrote the names of candidates or brought their own ballots on the day of the election, a highly discriminatory set of ballot access regulations - documented by Ballot Access News editor Richard Winger - were written by major party legislators to remove any independent threat to their bipartisan monopoly). Over the course of the century, campaign finance laws were written and rewritten, largely as a function of two party rivalry, but always with an eye toward repressing the rise of independents. Reapportionment and redistricting were implemented by bipartisan legislatures. Bipartisanism, as opposed to nonpartisanism - in the conduct of elections was institutionalized, for example with the Federal Election Commission in 1975, and then with the pseudo-governmental Commission on Presidential Debates in 1987. Thus, the two parties took more direct control of the election process, the legislative process, and thereby the policy-making process, all of which have been customized by the two parties over the last seventy years to suit their interests. As independents were being systematically rooted out of the electoral sphere, along with the advent of television in politics (which, in part, necessitated the centralization of parties since the cost and access to such technology requires a strong national party fundraising effort in order to be competitive) a distance grew between the major parties and their rank and file supporters. Costly television-based media campaigns became increasingly important in deciding election outcomes. As a consequence, the grassroots organization that was once the foundation of, for instance, the Democratic Party structure, disintegrated, leaving those who constituted its political base with less and less of a direct connection to their own party. The union movement - or more accurately the union bureaucrats - played their mediating role between the party and their members, rallying them as troops and voters on Election Day (although unionized workers comprise only 13% of the workforce today). Black elected officials, primarily of the Democratic Party, came to play that role within African-American communities. Layers of bureaucrats mediate the Democrats' relationship to their base, while the so-called "party of the people" enhances its own political power largely at the expense of the people. Is it any wonder then, that when Ross Perot announced his independent run for the presidency, and tens of millions of Americans answered his call to take back our government, that the two party establishment panicked? The independent movement exploded onto the national political scene in 1992, unearthing a sleeping giant of popular discontent with the political status quo. By the spring of 1992, Perot was at 40% in the presidential polls. The 'American independent' was the country's most coveted and enigmatic voter. Where that movement would go was anybody's guess. The Democrats and Republicans began immediately to work to stifle and co-opt it, absorbing significant aspects of its agenda into their own political matrix. Newly elected President Bill Clinton, together with a chastened Congress, balanced the federal budget - the clarion call of the Perot movement's demand for fiscal responsibility. And the Republicans captured control of Congress in 1994, skillfully - if disingenuously - embroidering the Perot movement's demand for massive anti-incumbent, pro-democracy political reforms into its "Contract with America." Meanwhile the independents - including the progressive African-American Dr. Lenora Fulani who had herself run for the presidency, twice as a New Alliance independent, and Jim Mangia, a California independent active in gay and community causes - both of whom were pioneering the building of left/center/right populist coalitions - joined with leaders of the Perot movement to lobby Perot to run again and build a new national party in the process. That party became the Reform Party, which briefly entered the national political stage offering an extraordinary opportunity to affix onto the political scene a populist independent party oriented to "changing the rules" of American elections and governance. Unfortunately, however, the Reform Party began to lose its populist moorings - its connection to the base of Americans from which it came - and became vulnerable to co-optation and manipulation. Shortly, it - and the opportunity it presented for America - died down. But there were important lessons learned and new models created off of and during that experience, models for movement and party-building where the organizing is bottom-up, the politic is based on creating left/center/right coalitions and the focal point is on political reform, i.e. changing the rules through which the two parties cling to their massive power. Built along these lines, the independents cannot be co-opted by the Democratic and Republican parties because changing the rules involves undercutting their power. When Professor Muzzio observed, "He who determines the rules, rules," he was commenting on the activities and influence of the Independence Party of New York, which has been effectively challenging the rules that govern traditional partisan politics. The New York Times piece on the Independence Party, in which Muzzio was quoted, captures some of the party's populist and unique character: Despite its associations with eccentric, controversial and wildly divergent public figures, the party has maneuvered itself into positions of influence in both the governor's race and on the city's Charter Revision Commission. And that, political analysts say, is something of a trick, given that the party, an amalgam of Reform refugees, New Alliance converts and a host of others frustrated with conventional politics, is not really a party in the traditional sense. It does not exactly lean to the right or left. It does not take positions on issues like education, housing, crime or taxes. Indeed, its own literature acknowledges that many of its members sign up believing they are registering as unaffiliated with any party. Even that phenomenon sits just fine with Independence leaders, who have worked to create a tent so big, in their description, that it verges on the metaphysical. "The people who wanted to be independent are as much our constituency as the people who wanted to be in the Independence Party, because we're kind of an anti-party party," said Jacqueline Salit, a city party spokeswoman. Nevertheless, of late it has been acting every inch the political player. A longtime supporter of nonpartisan elections, the party endorsed the candidacy of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, after he committed himself to their position, and brought him more than 50,000 votes in last November's election - well over his margin of victory. The process of building a populist independent movement is well underway. The fact is, in New York we ran people for office for years, where we got ten votes; for years we lobbied, with little success. But our years of work of immersing ourselves in politics as independents, reaching out to other independents, and learning the rules that keep us out by challenging them on the ground, has created new coalitions and has uniquely and potently positioned independents, and specifically the Independence Party, in the state of New York. We do have "fusion" in New York - which permits cross-endorsement allowing independent parties to endorse candidates running in other, including major party-lines, which the Independence Party has used effectively to bolster the power of independents. But in any state - indeed, in every state - we can organize and build and participate as independents. We can all build local clubs and immerse ourselves in local elections as independents. That process of building locally, which is hard work, but important work, is exactly what we need to be doing all over the country to grow our movement. Independents must become activists across the country - forming independent clubs, getting involved in local elections as independents; running in campaigns as independents, or supporting candidates in other parties, including major parties - depending on what the conditions are; participating in government in various ways, including in public hearings and testifying at local events; meeting other independents and meeting elected officials. We can make independents a part of the process with a strong and distinct voice; we can champion the cause of reform by challenging the existing rules of the political game to make it fair and democratic. What do we want? We want a substantial increase in democracy. The major parties have clearly written the rules to keep most of us out. That's their edge. Just imagine a situation where 90% of Americans participated in elections. It's hard to do so, since the change would be so radical, so dramatic, that the political landscape would be virtually unrecognizable. Our political culture, our economic culture, our international culture, and all the policies that are created within these spheres, are simply determined by who participates. That's why the major parties work so hard to keep us "outsiders" to the best extent that they can. At this point in our movement's development it's not enough to simply talk about taking on the special interests, to talk in populist language, as Ralph Nader has been doing. On the one hand, I agree with what Nader and the Green Party have been saying about corporate special interests. But while their rhetoric is populist, their organizing has been exclusive and ideologically driven. In doing so they've effectively abandoned the tens of millions of Americans who are not leftist in their political orientation, but are independents nonetheless. Such populist rhetoric renders itself politically irrelevant, whether from Nader or from Al Gore, if it's not connected to broadly organizing Americans, free from ideological categorization. That's populism in practice! Most people aren't interested in just switching parties, as the Perot phenomena should have taught us, they're rejecting "partyism" and all the constraints that come with it. At the end of the day, any political direction that narrows the organizing of independents to party-building as an end in itself misses what Americans are looking for. As independents, what we must be concerned with is the overall movement, not any single party, or any single issue as such. Democracy, the participation of ordinary people in the decisions that shape their lives, underlies all issues. It's the issue of issues! Without meaningful participation in our political system by Americans, America will not be for its citizens but for the special interests that govern it - the most powerful of all special interests being the major parties. Towards growing the independent movement as a whole, the Committee for a Unified Independent Party is holding a national conference for all independents on January 19th where delegates of organized local groups will come together to dialogue and discuss what is in the best interest of our total movement. We're looking to bring together a body of people who report on what they're doing locally. We don't just want people with ideas, but people who are working and building their presence as independents locally, which undoubtedly looks different from place to place and from person to person. The context for independent politics has never been so ripe. The responses thus far to my national lecture tour have been but one small indication of the potential for the growth of our movement around the country. The desire for new options, new choices, new ways of doing politics, has only grown over the last decade, not diminished. A decade ago independent politics was hardly known, but now it's in the air. We've been through a process, a history - rough at times as it has been. We're better known as independents now than ever before. But we can't bypass the critical step of building locally and participating in local politics as independents to further our growth. So come join me, and the millions of independents in America ready, willing, and able to organize our movement. BIBLIOGRAPHY Generation Independent Read CUIP Notes, CUIP's Newsletter Copyright © The Committee for a Unified Independent Party 225 Broadway Suite 2010 New York, NY 10007 Tel: 212-962-1811 Fax: 212-803-1899 -- ============================================================================ cyberjournal home page: http://cyberjournal.org "Zen of Global Transformation" home page: http://www.QuayLargo.com/Transformation/ QuayLargo discussion forum: http://cyberjournal.org/Productions/ShowChat/?ScreenName=ShowThreads cj list archives: http://cyberjournal.org/cj/show_archives/?lists='cj' newslog list archives: http://cyberjournal.org/cj/show_archives/?lists='newslog' cj_open list archives: http://cyberjournal.org/cj/show_archives/?lists='cj_open' subscribe addresses for cj list: •••@••.••• •••@••.••• subscribe addresses for cj_open list: •••@••.••• •••@••.••• ============================================================================
