The Platform: Exploring Independent Politics Posted by Nathan S. on 11/02/12 | Filed under Opinion, Politics, The Platform

Over the next few weeks, Refined Hype and political-economic analysis blog Nitro Citizen will host The Platform, a series in which contributors from RH, Nitro, and the music industry comment on the structure of politics and how we are affected by what's on the ballot.

Starting with the president, and moving into how we might take the conditions created by federal policy to act at the local level, we have looked at all levels of government and social activism from the ground-up. So if you feel nauseous about voting, you might be looking too high up on the ballot or you might find other avenues to help create progress through The Platform.

This week, Dharmic X for RefinedHype, BroadNMarket for Nitro Citizen, and Chicago's own Mikkey Halsted discuss independent politics, third parties, and structural reform in our political system.

------------------------------------

BroadNMarket (Nitro Citizen):

The enduring Tea Party began as much with statements like "keep your government hands off my Medicare" as it did in opposition to President Obama's policies right out of the gate in 2009. To supporters, the #tcot is a thriving movement that is facing an interesting conundrum. After having strung together a wide spectrum of candidates, including Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), Rep. Allen West (R-FL), Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN), and - Mr. "Legitimate Rape" himself - Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) into the framework of the Tea Party Caucus in both houses of Congress, the Party championed Vice Presidential nominee Paul Ryan's aggressive so-called "Path to Prosperity" budget.



But to many in the party, even the divisive Mr. Ryan's goal of balancing our national budget by 2040 is asking for too much patience from a group that categorizes downsizing government, ending all deficit spending, and reducing taxes on corporations and individuals as non-negotiable core beliefs. Last summer, the Tea Party was nearly able to get the federal government to renege on debts owed to creditors and foreign governments in part by withholding the votes that House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) would need to accept the despised President Obama's Grand Bargain.

Then came 2012. Gov. Romney pulled Ryan onto his ticket but distanced himself from the Congressman's budget as it had already faced a barrage of liberal attacks on the national level. Now, as Romney has moved even closer to the center for debate season, the question appears to be about the extent of the Tea Party's power on the conservative side - and whether the party is now just along for the ride. Before, and often throughout the Republican primaries, they had spoken of essentially overthrowing establishment figures like Romney and Boehner. The talk was of building the framework for a political movement over time, and while they are likely the most successful and recognizable movement that we have seen since Ross Perot's impressive third-party run in 1992, they now face the identity concerns that any young coalition must address in order to convert enthusiasm to power.

While many of us actually share the Tea Party's primary concern about the debt and would like to see sensible cuts to the federal government, its unbending commitment to severe fiscal conservatism, when paired with rights-restricting social conservatism and a commitment to "foundational Judeo-Christian values," seems like a logical stretch, if not completely irreconcilable. This is where Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) and former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, today's libertarian torch-bearers, enter the picture. They question our foreign military engagements, champion ending the drug war, champion individual liberties such as marriage equality, and look to limit corporate monopolies. They also talk about returning to the gold standard, repealing safety and environmental regulations, and defunding the safety net, but they bring a perspective more consistently focused on freedom to the political discourse.

Rep. Paul's son, Rep. Rand Paul (R-KY), has already affiliated with the Tea Party. He had the guts to disagree with former Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney (remember him?), who claimed that the US needs to maintain military spending in case of future emergencies. The younger Paul's objection resolves one of the Tea Party's other contradictory convictions, simultaneously holding that spending must decrease while attempting to spare the military. A slightly more centrist merger of these ideas, emphasizing individual liberties, fiscal responsibility, and adjusting for social inclusion - offset by an actual willingness to compromise with liberals to ensure a workable safety net and address the rising cost of health care - could play to the productive elements of conservative thought, and tap into our country's potential in a new way.

Many of us sense that a revolution is coming one way or another. The conservative side can't just be ignored.

---------------------------------------------

Mikkey Halsted:

If you copped my "CASTRO" project a couple of months ago, then you probably noticed one of the standout tracks, “Occupy”. I was playing off of the political movement that many of my peers such as Lupe Fiasco have championed. Now I was speaking in terms of the “Occupying” Hip-Hop and not Wall Street, but my use of that title spoke to the profound impact that the REAL “Occupy” Movement had on me, and the Hip-Hop culture in general. Third Party Movements have always intrigued me, and as the election rapidly approaches and the battle between the Donkey and the Elephant reaches a fever pitch, I decided to take a few moments out of my studio time to talk about Third Party Movements here in the U.S. and their place and role in our political landscape.

Initially, when I think of Third Parties I think of fringe candidates like Ross Perot, Ralph Nader and Ron Paul. All of these at one time another, if I was being completely honest, have won major debates in my eyes and have laid out some of the most coherent well-thought plans for our country. However, the problem has always been that no one, including the candidates themselves, have ever thought that had a chance to actually win. Their roles have always been to cause enough stir so that their agendas would be put on the table and taken seriously by the two major parties. The threat has always been that they would take votes away from one party or the other if they stayed in the race to the end, giving them an extremely valuable bargaining chip to use for the benefit of their issues.

There was a time in this country that we had a Third Party that was more than just a pawn on the chessboard. I know, many of us were catching up on sleep or trying to get the attention of the opposite sex (ME) during US History 101, but if you search the file cabinets of your brain hard enough you’d remotely remember the teacher rambling about the WHIG party. They actually “Occupied” the White House for 2 terms in the 1840’s and 50’s. Nowadays, with Super PACs and uber rich Lobbies and Special Interest groups who have been allowed to put a choke hold on our political process, actually “Occupying” the White House seems totally implausible.

Still, it’s hard to deny their influence. I hear both Obama and Romney trying to sound like Nadar and play to the Green Party supporters. That means that Nadar has won, to some extent. I also see Romney playing to the emotional Tea Party crowd with certain speeches that he is still trying to erase and get a “do over” on. The Tea Party bashes Obama with unprecedented veracity which helps Romney’s cause in certain parts of the country. Heck, John McCain was so desperate he even chose a Tea Party leader as his Vice-Presidential pick. If McCain had somehow pulled that off I would have been literally praying for his health and safety 5 times a day until his term was over. Also, you see Obama speaking to many of the issues of the Occupy Movement and has had a few “stick it to the man” anti-big business/Wall Street rants in the last couple debates.

All in all, the Third Party Movements in the US play an integral role in the our political landscape; although, I wish it was less about the 2 Parties and more about the specific issues of 1 candidate. I think it’s wrong to confine any candidate to the so-called Party Agenda. What if a candidate was against tax breaks for the rich and Corporate Welfare but was Pro Life? That can’t exist in a 2 Party system. What if a candidate was in favor of small government but believed that gay marriage should be legal? That couldn’t exist in the 2 Party system. What I’m saying is that the more we grow and evolve as country the more the country will politically move towards the middle. However, in a two party system the masses are manipulated to stay apart and what you end up getting is an America that is split in half. Those that see that manipulation are forced to choose between the lesser of two evils or become totally disenfranchised with politics altogether because they don’t perfectly fit into either box. Call me idealistic, but I think America is too great for that.

---------------------------------

Dharmic X (RefinedHype):

As alluded to above, candidates such as Ross Perot and Ralph Nader have held a decent amount of leverage as third-party candidates, although failing to really make a dent in the two-party status quo that this nation has relied upon since its inception (starting with the split between Jeffersonians and Hamiltonians). However, it was obvious that both men were more acceptable than current Green Party candidate, Jill Stein. Perot was simply a wealthy Texan (his current net worth is over $3 billion. The entire Star Wars franchise was sold for $4 billion this week. Think about that.) who ran for office because he could, while Ralph Nader was known more for his advocacy over environmental issues, which while important, have never been hot-button topics in any of the recent election cycles.

Stein, much like the other two third-party candidates who are on the ballot in enough states to potentially secure 270 electoral votes (Gary Johnson for the Libertarian Party and Virgil Goode of the Constitution Party), redefines what it means to be from a third-party in Presidential elections. Her platform is broader than Nader’s, with an emphasis on military reduction to propel a “Green New Deal.” What’s more remarkable about Stein is her background: she is a Harvard Medical School-trained doctor, specializing in Internal Medicine.

With unconventional backgrounds and a broader platform, however, comes backlash and obstacles that others have not had to face, and the biggest obstacle has been the limited amount of exposure Stein has had. She has certainly galvanized a base of people who were looking for somewhere to turn to as part of the Occupy Movement (she has been supported by Cornel West and Noam Chomsky, amongst others), but at the same time, she was detained while trying to enter the second national debate in Hofstra and hasn’t even been a part of the polling done by the media.

While this country is in sore need of leaders such as Jill Stein to break a dual-party system that force feeds us gridlock and an inability to compromise to move the nation forward, the sad reality is that the path forward for such third-party movements are stagnated by insurmountable difficulties.

See Also: The Platform, Week 4: From Marijuana to Marriage Equality, Social Issues