Forum Post: OWS as New Political Party vs Democrats and GOP
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 18, 2011, 9:07 p.m. EST by OWSHoustonDad
(4)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
The general consensus is that both the Democrats and Republicans are the opposite sides of the same corrupt coin. Through the two major parties, the 1% and their lapdogs in government control our nation's governments and agendas. Both parties virtually make electing an independent candidate virtually impossible. So what is to be done?
I am for pro-OWS individuals, through #OWS supports, to run candidates within both parties' primaries and caucuses to challenge corporatists and take control of one or both parties. Only by taking control of one or both parties will we ever have a chance to reverse the damage and reign in the excesses of the 1%. I for one am eager to see #OWS enter the political arena.
Of course, not stop the occupations, but expand into a new front: electoral politics. NO Democrat or Replublican should assume they will have the support of #OWS. Alot of the problems we are in are caused by both parties because they are both corrupted by corporate money. So what shall we do?
I believe the 99% are better positioned to know what everyday life is like everyday for most of us. People that can relate to OWS would naturally pursue a pro-OWS agenda. But this can only happen with enough votes. This is the nature of the system we have.
When talking about reform, you have two varieties open to you: electoral/political and judicial; that is, through politics or the courts. In the political realm, you have federal, state, and local, but it all comes down to a numbers game. We do not have proportinal representation. We therefore need majorities to truly effect change on the scale we want to see. We could expedite the process by endorsing rehabilitated politicians that embrace the OWS agenda and or challenge and replace them with OWS people.
I can not stress enough how much this is a bad idea. Please, please study the October Revolution and how the Bolshevik party stole power from the Soviet movement in Russia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanguardism
Read that, it will give you the general idea.
I favor the movement, but that Vanguardism is pure crap. It's when average people say enough is enough. I imagine that it was the same in Lenin's time. The current government had gotten bad enough, that almost everyone thought that anything else would be better. A group of opportunists then took advantage. Didn't end too well in the end, did it? Replaced one authoritative government with another.
No I think we have a better starting point. We have the means to change this government without violence. We just need to exercise the power. You want revolution? I'll miss your vote next election, because you'll be in jail or martyred. Either way, I'd rather have your vote.
It wasn't until the vanguard Bolshevik party seized control of the movement during the October Revolution that things became bloody. That was the revolution that stripped away the power of the Soviet councils and consolidated the power with the Bolshevik politburo.
The February Revolution, which deposed the Tzar and established the Provisional Government, that really gave power to the democratically run Soviet councils. Outside of some dead rioters the February Revolution was completely peaceful. Just a general strike and a mutiny.
Armed conflict is what happens when one power structure fights another. Anarchist movements are, by their very nature, incapable of military action. We are, after all, incapable of organizing an army.
The political game is rigged. Two parties control the entire political system, but besides rhetoric, are they really all that different? Impossibly high barriers prevent third parties from every gaining ground in the election process. Namely, the fact that we have what is called a WINNER-TAKES-ALL SYSTEM. It basically means that whichever party/candidate gets a majority of the electoral votes in a state gets all of those votes. For example, California gets 55 electoral votes. If one party gets just 28 votes (which is barely a majority), all 55 votes count to that party/candidate in the general election. This effectively means that ANY VOTE FOR A THIRD PARTY IS ALWAYS A WASTED VOTE. What we need is proportional representation (used in Europe). This would allow for a multitude of parties to flourish, effectively breaking the status quo of our stagnant political system and allowing for real, significant change. Additionally, a dynamic political system such as this would by its very nature SEVERELY LIMIT THE POWER CORPORATIONS HAVE OVER OUR POLITICAL PARTIES. As more factors define our election process, it gets exponentially more difficult for corporations to influence our government. Now naturally, nothing has ever been done by Congress to really institute this kind of reform, as it is obviously against the interests of the two parties to have their positions of power so radically altered. But I ask you this: How many times during an election do you vote for the LESSER OF TWO EVILS? How many times have you wanted to vote for an independent candidate, only to recoil at the prospect of a WASTED VOTE? The only way to win the game, is to change the rules! Bring about change by DEMANDING that congress institute political party reform... They say we don't have a defined goal. We do... To break the STATUS QUO. This single demand, by itself, could change everything.
This provides some good information on the third party and the barriers it faces: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_party_(United_States)
For Many years I have felt this way. I consider this to be an unfair political system. It doesnt work. It should be a vote by the people and each individual vote should count. There should be No Electoral Votes, where each state gets a different amount.
It should be Who the People Voted For!!!
Why take their parties? Why not make our own. We are the people, for the people, by the people.
New parties spring up all the time. Most are "strange" and destined to fail (Tea Party), with the exception of the Independent Party. There are obstacles in running anything along side Rep/Dem-dominated campaigns, as seen predominately over the years in the struggles of the Independent Party:
Mainstream Media is either extreme left-wing liberal or extreme right-wing conservative and they are heavily biased toward their respective leanings. Journalism today is absolutely not unbiased. The Mainstream Media and politics are heavily intertwined in a labyrinth of corporatist agendas that are, in turn, supported by whichever party they serve to promote. Mainstream Media, to put it simply, is bought and paid for... campaign air-time doesn't come cheap and candidates are exceedingly funded.
Therefore, the only time a 3rd party candidate will gain real air-time in Mainstream Media is when that candidate can serve to upset either one or the others' campaign. Ralph Nader is a prime example of a 3rd party candidate that is either outright shunned or used to decrease the vote of either a liberal or a conservative candidate. In the election of 2000, many liberals believe that the conservatives used Nader to gain votes away from their party, a solid strategy that they feel cost Gore the election by dividing the liberal vote. In this case, Nader was allowed air-time but only just enough to attract a certain percentage of the vote. Too much exposure and he might have actually won.
Campaign funding: Nader, as a great example, was not able to campaign under the lucrative donations of either party due to his independent status. Not only did this affect his campaigning on the road, under funded campaigning lead to issues with getting on the ballot in the first place.
Finally, it's too late for 2012. Even if OWS were to jump on the Independent band wagon and start to aggressively promote a candidate from within, there's hardly enough money to fund a presidential campaign, no way to get Mainstream Media air-time and even less of a chance that the gesture wouldn't simply translate to a win for either Cain or Romney, neither of which this country needs right now (or ever, for that matter).
Let's say OWS did overcome all the political hurtles and get a candidate on the ballet in each state: chances are that a lot of the liberal vote would sway to such a candidate. The conservative vote won't switch from predominately Herman Cain (as having served for the Federal Reserve, Cain is their man of the hour). What we'd end up with, in a best case scenario, is an upset for the Democrats that puts Cain ahead of both other parties. Too risky at this point.
Independent parties, pardon the pun, have a 1% chance of winning. Unfortunately, people will more likely cast a ballot for candidates with a D or an R by their name. Just a thought. :)
Maybe we're just radical enough to create a precedent.
I mean with proper reform as well. Be logical about it.