Trump or Clinton? Neither!

Happens all the time these days. I post something on Facebook indicating I don’t support Hillary and immediately get this from Jane, a friend of a friend: “So your thought is to elect Trump? And that would be better?”

Instead of writing another editorial, I’ll just give you our ensuing dialogue.

Eric Mader: No. My thought is not "to elect Trump”. My thought is rather: A vote is a vote FOR someone, not merely a vote against someone else. Hillary does not deserve the votes of honest citizens, and I refuse to swell her numbers (and thus the illusion of her legitimacy) by giving her my vote. I will no longer join in the Democrat vs. Republican race to the bottom, but will vote third party. The mainstream Democrats deserve to lose, and I'm willing to take the risk of Trump in office if it will help delegitimize these utter fakes.

Jane Doe: Wow. If Trump wins, our world will be pretty scary, and if you supported the tenets of Bernie you will be in for a rude awakening. Unfortunately, at this time a vote for third party is a vote for Trump.

Eric Mader: You’re just being patronizing, Jane. I'm well aware of what rude awakenings there may be. And no: A vote for a third party is emphatically NOT a vote for Trump. A vote for a third party is a vote for a third party. That's why it's called "a vote for a third party".

Jane Doe: Call it what you will, but a Trump presidency certainly would not "delegitimize these utter fakes". He appears to be the biggest fake of them all. And because you are a US citizen you can express your opinions freely and vote for who you want. Good luck.

Eric Mader: Your response is characteristic. Realizing that I will not be voting Hillary, you immediately change the subject to Trump and how he's a bigger fake than Hillary--"the biggest fake of them all". I think which of these two is the bigger fake is arguable, because they are fakes in such different ways, but ultimately the argument is beside the point.

If a place offered you lunch with the choice of shit in a bowl or shit on a stick, your logic would have to be that the shit on the stick is the only wise choice because, look, the amount of shit in the bowl is larger. My choice is to not eat lunch. Who is wiser? Which is the course of action more likely to put that shit restaurant out of business, yours or mine?

I am not voting for Trump, so I'm not sure why you even mention him. The only way to delegitimize fakes in a democracy is not to vote for them. I'm not going to vote for them. You, however, are in the camp that keeps saying: "Mm, this shit on a stick, it really isn't that bad. Creamy actually. Mm, everyone should eat here."

I worked hard to elect Obama twice, the first time enthusiastically, the second time not so much. For me, this election is not between Trump and Hillary, it's between the possibility of democracy and the reality of corporate control over our whole political process. Whether you can see this or not, it is Hillary who is the consummate corporate candidate, which is why, surprise surprise, so many Republican establishment figures are now coming out in her favor. They're doing so because their Republican commitments, all along, have not been to maintaining a democratic republic but rather to furthering the smooth corporate takeover of our republic--ensuring, in short, that government continues to sell out the population to corporate interests. They know--which is bizarre, isn't it?--that the GOP candidate, this time, is actually a less reliable corporate rubber stamp than the Democratic candidate.

Anyhow, good luck to you. I'm fifty now, and I won't be supporting these people any more. I've spent thousands upon thousands of hours in politics, going back to my undergrad years, and am no longer giving the benefit of the doubt to anyone who's spent as much time sucking Wall Street and the corporate elites as Hillary has.


Check out my book Idiocy, Ltd. and begin the long, hard reckoning.

Third Party USA: A Radically Alternative Approach to our Fake Political Gridlock

About

Third Party USA seeks citizens eager to create a third political party capable of breaking the undemocratic alliance between the 1% and our government.

I. Preamble

Third Party USA is a principled attempt to return American government to the citizens. Third Party supporters believe strongly that American government has fallen into the hands of a wealthy superclass that is undermining the livelihoods of the great majority of Americans. The currently massive political power of this superclass threatens the American way of life.

Third Party will work to get corporate money out of politics. Its candidates will accept no corporate campaign contributions and will work to put average citizens back in the driver's seat. Accepting no money from corporations, Third Party will not be beholden to corporations.

Third Party does not subscribe to the debunked trickle-down economic theory that continues to make the super-wealthy wealthier while citizens fall further and further behind with each passing year. Third Party believes in strong public education and infrastructure all citizens benefit from.

Third Party neither supports nor rejects abortion rights, prayer in the classroom, same-sex marriage, concealed handgun permits. Most hot button issues now part of the "culture wars" will be left to individual candidates and their constituents to decide. Third Party will prescribe no position on such issues in its platform.

It is high time in our democracy to separate the "culture wars" from the more substantive systemic problems we face. Third Party's platform will focus on 1) wresting control of policy-making from the super-wealthy, and 2) resetting government priorities to put average citizens back in first place.

Working for middle-class Americans and those below them on the social ladder, Third Party will work unashamedly against the super-wealthy, corporations, and Wall Street, who have together made a shambles of our country.

Third Party does not work for 100% of Americans, but for 99% of Americans. The 1% already have their two parties. Third Party will fight them tooth and nail.

II. How we've been divided

I am not a political scientist, expert in American history, or former congressional aide. Even so, I have a very clear vision of what is wrong in my country. Many citizens with no more political expertise than myself can also see it.

Depressed to see America sinking ever further from what it should be, I am now convinced that the only force that might break this downward momentum is a third political party: a new party that would follow the ways of neither Democrats nor Republicans.

And no, I am not proposing a Libertarian Party here. Quite otherwise.

I am proposing a party that returns to fighting for the common citizen, the American citizen that is not on a corporate board and has concerns beyond merely maximizing corporate profits for shareholders.

Many of these common citizens are Evangelical Christians, many are atheist lesbians, some are white, others are black, Latino, Amerindian or Asian. Some of these citizens believe strongly that the right to life, others are pro-choice. Some want to fight for the right of two men to marry, others to protect the constitutional right to bear arms.

That is a very diverse group indeed, isn't it? Many citizens in this list strongly believe many others are morons or have a screw loose. Yet all these citizens have two things in common: they are Americans and they are quickly losing ground in a system geared to the super-wealthy.

So where are the real morons here? In my mind the answer to this is now unavoidable: To the extent these diverse average citizens continue to let their ideological differences over sex or family or firearms keep them divided--to that extent they are all morons.

I live and work in Asia and have for some time. The country I live in has its own problems to be sure. But in recent years nothing has been more depressing for me than to see my fellow Americans back home squabbling over second-tier issues while Wall Street and the 1% continue to turn their country into a banana republic.

So I am proposing a party that works hard for these people--one that, bridging their many differences, fights for their economic and social well-being in a nation run amok. I'm proposing a party that can harness what they have in common to create a new political force.

III. Sounds impossible, right?

It will likely be very difficult. Third parties face formidable barriers to success in America. Yet I think these barriers are not insurmountable in our current dismal state. Polls show Americans have never been more convinced for the need of third party than they are now.

I have another reason for hope. It is this: My basic strategy is simple as pie. It is based on simplicity and cutting right to the heart of the problem. It is a strategy that will allow Americans to fight for their differences while also fighting for their common good.

How can it work?

It can work because Third Party as an organization will take no sides in the culture wars now being used to divide us. This neutrality is key.

Political observers have for some time noted how the 1% and their corporate allies use differences among citizens over hot button issues related to sex, gender or ethnicity as a divide-and-conquer strategy. Given that Americans debate stridently over issues like abortion or same-sex marriage, and the two parties represent different sides on these issues, citizens are easily fed the illusion that Democrats and Republicans stand for significantly different things. But they do not--especially not during the past two decades. When it comes to voting on meat-and-potatoes issues (free trade, the minimum wage, how Wall Street is regulated, how much money will go to education vs. corporate bailouts, etc.) when it comes to these economic decisions, our two parties don't show any significant disagreement. Check the record. They nearly always side with the super-wealthy against the average citizen. And so our two-party scam continues--election cycle after election cycle. Our Democrats and Republicans actually make up just one party. One party with two flavors on offer: sexual/social liberal vs. sexual/social conservative.

This is not democratic politics. This is an afternoon talk show. The wonder in my mind is that Americans are still watching. And voting for these scammers.

IV. The monkey wrench we will throw

Third Party will focus on breaking the stranglehold the super-wealthy currently have on our legislature. Meanwhile, Third Party will encourage individual candidates to develop their own positions on second-tier hot button issues. Abortion, gay rights, gun legislation--on these candidates will be instructed to follow their own conscience and the wishes of their constituents rather than any party platform. Because Third Party will have nothing in its platform relevant to these issues.

Is the the idea clear now? Is it a foolish idea? Is it really impossible to unite "red state" Americans and "blue state" Americans in a common cause--resetting our government to working for the common good rather than always for the likes of Citicorp and Monsanto?

V. How would it look on the ground?

We might envision a Third Party candidate running in a conservative red state district who wants prayer in schools, wants Wall Street carefully regulated, and fights to force the wealthy to pay their fair share in taxes.

At the same time a Third Party candidate in a blue state race will be fighting to protect a woman's right to choose, fighting for green energy, and fighting to get Wall Street regulations that work while also fighting for bigger tax exemptions for the struggling middle class.

Third Party candidates will thus often vote on opposite sides of issues while also holding to core party goals: to put the citizens back in control of government; to ensure an even playing field for Americans in terms of public services, education and opportunities; to make America once again a nation centered on average working people.

VI. Of course Third Party is not for everyone

If you think the 1% should continue to run our country, then Third Party is not for you.

If you think Wall Street can manage banking laws on its own without government oversight, just keep voting Republican. Third Party is not for you.

If you really think the biggest problem in America right now is either immigrants, gays, rednecks with guns, Hollywood, or homophobia on campus--go ahead and keep voting for your party of choice, Republicrat or Demican. Third Party is not for you.

If, however, you are like me, and you see that gay marriage, gun rights or prayer in schools are all second-tier issues that have served the 1% by pitting average citizens against each other--then Third Party is for you.

If you are like me and think Wall Street executives, having gotten their massive bailouts at our expense, now mainly deserve to be jailed--then Third Party is for you.

If you understand that American democracy depends on a strong middle class and that countries completely ruled by a wealthy superclass are inherently undemocratic--then Third Party is for you.

On these various issues--gun rights, abortion, gay marriage, religious liberty in the public arena--do not misunderstand me. I am not suggesting they are unimportant. What I am suggesting is that we must decouple them from the more pressing battle we now face: the battle to save American representative democracy. Look closely at what has happened in our country. We are now approaching Game Over, and the citizens have lost. Call it oligarchy, call it the Deep State, call it corporatocracy--what you will. Washington's systemic problems are no longer just chronic; they are verging on fatal.

Where corporations are said to be people and money is said to be free speech, democracy will not long survive.

VII. But how can Third Party break into the halls of power?

Third Party will depend massively on social media and the efforts of community organizers and bloggers to turn out votes for candidates. Third Party will overrun the system with HOPE. And this time the hope will be justified. Third Party candidates will depend for their campaigns on individual citizens' contributions and the contributions of non-corporate entities (small businesses, etc.). No corporate money will be accepted. Because of this general party standard, citizens will be able to count on Third Party candidates to stay the course--to stick to implementing the policies they touted on the campaign trail.

Third Party candidates' TV ads will be few, but their presence in social media and elsewhere will give them a different kind of clout. It will be the clout of tens of millions of Americans fed up with the corporate-serving political theater that our government has become.

VII. Who am I to make it happen?

The answer is: Making it happen will require input from a huge variety of people. I myself am only offering this basic charter for a new party. It is time. Placing my charter here and elsewhere online, I hope it gathers talented people who might discuss possibilities, hash out ideas and slowly create an organization. Talented people are certainly out there, whether organizers or potential candidates. As for myself, I am only capable of seeding this idea. I certainly don't have the skills to organize a party, having only limited political experience as an activist. Besides which, my career is now overseas.

But I know there are tens of millions of Americans who see America's problems pretty much as I do. There are millions who hope someone will find a route to break this current phony deadlock between our two parties, both of which largely serve the same people: those people who have bought our democracy. And they really have. They have already bought American democracy.

Americans have been fighting over hot-button issues for too long. Distracted, we have let the wealthy superclass soak us for all we're worth. But we needn't give up any of our personal convictions in order to change course. We can continue to stand strong on "culture war" issues that matter to us even as we work to right the wildly careening ship of our state. We can do it by building a Third Party.

Fighting for Third Party principles is also patriotic. Around the globe people see that America is slipping. We will continue to slip if we do not break through the smoke-and-mirrors game corporate lobbyists and Washington continue to play against us.

And so: A Third Party already!

Our current two parties well deserve it!

VIII. How to proceed

Go to Facebook to "like" and join the Third Party USA page. Individually invite your friends to join. Start sending me items to provoke discussion, and I will post them. When a certain critical mass of supportive citizens is reached, we will begin the process of initial organization. We will take things step by step--but note: We'll only be able to take things step by step if we begin with the first step and keep moving through the second and third and so on.

So keep coming back and keep thinking on how to get this initial idea off the ground; how to give it traction and bite.

As I have said, I am not a political theorist. This rough charter is my idea, yes, but I myself do not know how to move it from idea to organization. I'd be very willing to give this over to a group of political theorists or organizers, people who understand electoral politics better than myself, who can formulate strategies for the first steps. I would only request that this opening charter remain as is.

As for the name I've given this project "Third Party USA", I recognize this may not be the best name for a party. It has advantages and disadvantages. Perhaps a better name would be "Citizens Party USA". Those who work to build the party will have to choose the most effective name.

Many essentials, then, are open for discussion. I am certainly not offering myself as the leader of this initiative and will not assume a dominant role. Only the very basics of strategy (no platform positions on culture war issues; no corporate support accepted) must remain the same for this project to be what it is.

I hope soon to be able to vote Third Party USA.

Eric Mader
Taipei
April 7, 2014

The Long Decline of the American Left: Thoughts on Daily Kos, American "Progressives" and the PCA

Founded in 2002, hosting an enormous amount of blogging and chatter since, the Daily Kos community has become symptomatic of the decline of the American left in general. Willfully blind to their favored team's continual shift rightward, the community maintains its dogmatic allegiance to the Democratic Party and the Obama Administration. Since the start of the president's second term, the site has in fact only grown more blindly pro-establishment, its regular contributors doing their best to pretend their political goals are being realized.

As a progressive community in constant discursive action, DailyKos can be especially depressing to watch. I've followed the site for years, and since I'm in solidarity with many of the community's goals, it's been frustrating to see how easily folks there let themselves get sidetracked. How? The pattern is cyclical: 1) Republican talking points are quoted in a rage and then disproved by facts. 2) The mere fact of this typing out of the truth on the Daily Kos blog is then presented as a victory for the bloggers and the left they represent.

As if facts were what is at issue. As if the main goal of a movement of the left is refuting the idiotic and misleading cant that comes out of the GOP and Fox News. Because, hey, within days there arrives a new spate of Republican talking points, and the DailyKos bloggers all set to work mocking and refuting those.

Meanwhile the corporate coup continues, whether it's Dubya or Obama abetting it. The facts be damned.

It seems clear enough to me that for two decades now America has had just one political party. There are the Republicans (called Republicans) who are anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage, and there are the other Republicans (called Democrats) who are pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage. As Americans we get to choose between these two corporate-controlled right-wing parties: parties that pursue virtually identical policy goals--except in relation to sex and gender.

Strange, isn't it? Why is it our two parties are only allowed to offer choices in the specific areas of sex and reproduction? Have you ever stopped to think about that?

The answer is obvious. Wall Street and the big corporations don't give a damn if you're straight or gay, a mother of five or a woman who's had three abortions. All Wall Street and the corporations care about is being able to own your ass. And what d'ya know? They already do.

And why is that? Why do they? Why has the 1% gained so much control during these past decades? Why is it that in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and 70s, why is it that America had strong protections for working people, truly effective public services, an actually sensible tax system? Why did our country have these things but does no longer?

In my own analysis much of the blame rests squarely with those people who now call themselves the "progressive" left. When fashionista leftists (media, Hollywood, gender studies academia) began stressing sex and gender issues, the Democratic Party proved more than willing to accommodate, because, simply put, it was no skin off their backs. It wasn't going to undermine their corporate support. After a couple decades of this, America's once left-wing party (the party of workers, farmers, teachers, civil servants; the party, in short, of the public good) had morphed into the party of abortion and gay marriage. The party of political correctness on all hot-button fashionista issues.

I refer to it in my title as the PCA, or "Progressive Corporate Agenda". The word progressive here carries a deceptive double meaning, one that, sadly, most American progressives refuse to recognize.

First meaning of progressive: American social liberals, tired of the bigotry of the Christian right, vote Democrat because they support the party's progressive social policies on abortion and sexual orientation. Holding progressive positions in these areas and actually voting for such policies, Democratic leaders then claim to be progressive as such. Which is an utter sham, isn't it? Because these particular sex and reproduction issues occupy only a small spectrum of any legitimate leftist agenda. Meanwhile, on most meat and potatoes issues, the Democrats vote with the corporate elite. And somehow they largely get away with it, election after election? Why?

In our current hyper-mediated culture, our society of the spectacle, where Lady Gaga carries more weight than any mere labor organizer or leftist scholar, Democratic candidates still get enough buzz to give them the progressive credentials they need. Offering pro-choice and pro-gay policies--namely, those things that so enrapture recent Hollywood and academic types--is enough to set them off as the "progressive party". They've won over those whose professions are in the "spectacular" industries (as Guy Debord would have it)--fashion, media, film, music. And who sets the pace in our society of the spectacle if not precisely these groups? And these groups, in their turn, continue the marketing of their "countercultural" gestures, (thus determining the progressive aura) as ever new commodities in a market which itself remains unchanged. All of which is fine for the Democratic party, who, it is painfully clear, fears any change that isn't linked to sex or reproduction.

Amazingly, the American "progressive left" pats itself on the back with each new turning of this cycle. And none of it has the least effect on the corporate coup which continues unabated.

Which brings us to the second meaning of progressive, to glimpse which we must look more closely at the actual accomplishments of this supposedly progressive party. What has been the result of these years of "change we can believe in"?

The policies pursued by the Obama Administration have only served to maintain the status quo. In terms of corporate hegemony, financial regulation, tax policy, foreign policy, the Obama Administration has been indistinguishable from any right-leaning Republican administration of past decades. It is here we can see the second, or what I would call true, meaning of "progressive" in my title. It's called the Progressive Corporate Agenda because it allows for the ongoing progress of the corporate takeover of our democracy. Shamefully, this progress of corporate power is being expedited by a party that itself holds onto power only by flattering the sex-and-gender thinking of liberal voters. On all other issues, in terms of the traditional goals of any truly left-wing platform--well, see for yourself. After six years of Obama in the White House, it's business as usual for Wall Street and the corporations and the 1%. And for the military and the NSA. In fact on some of these fronts it's business unusual--the drift is even further rightward than we've seen during any previous administration.

I too was largely taken in by Obama. I thought he would likely bring significant change--not a thorough remaking of society, but concrete change. I thought the idiocy and excesses of the Bush years, having triggered the 2008 meltdown, had shown Americans once and for all that trickle-down economics and deregulation don't work. But Obama has proven to be essentially a continuation of Bush. A few turns on health care, yes, a few turns in the culture wars, blah blah, but these things, really, do not a left party make.

If I could impose a twenty-year truce in the culture wars I'd do so immediately. Because it is the culture wars that have greased the wheels for the corporate coup that has ruined our democracy. And on the left, allowing these issues to occupy center stage with all the shit that's going down is dangerous, naive, ultimately self-destructive. That American liberals have chosen not simply to uphold LGBT rights (which was the right thing to do) but to push for same-sex marriage, a fundamental change to our culture's very definition of marriage--really, could one think of anything better for keeping the citizenry polarized? To me this move more than any other shows the subtle workings, the cunning, of the Progressive Corporate Agenda (PCA) in action. The American people are led to squabble about sex and marriage while the 1% continues to impoverish them, undermine their education, pass destructive new trade pacts, etc. When Obama came out for "marriage equality" I'm sure guys in board rooms across the country were slapping their knees in glee. And it wasn't because they'd soon be able to tie the knot with Steve or Abdul or Matt. Rather it was "Good job, Barry! That'll keep the rubes busy!" And by rubes here I don't just mean those red state rubes we all love and know--"Rube Classic"--but also the new and supremely rubish bunch that makes up most of our progressive so-called left.

In the past fifty years the American left has learned three or four neat new things. Good job. At the same time it has forgotten fifty essential old things.

This is part of the political impetus behind much of my recent writing and thinking on same-sex marriage. Though I've always been in solidarity with the struggle for LGBT rights, I'm disappointed no end to see the second-tier issue of "marriage equality" continuing to fire liberal passions. I'm despondent to see a youth culture that thinks this kind of thing is worthy of political center stage. Considering all that is going down! Gays and lesbians I can't blame for getting behind it (though some LGBT people have been against) but the heterosexual majority? Can't you people see how you're being systematically distracted and led by the nose here?

In short: The Progressive Corporate Agenda keeps you all so busy you don't notice it's really the Progressive Corporate Agenda.

The right has their Liberty, Patriotism, Christian Family Values. Which when their politicians take office simply means pushing the agenda of the 1%. And you on the left have your "progressive" issues. Which when your politicians take office simply means pushing the agenda of the 1%.

I began by writing here about one "progressive" online community, Daily Kos, but what I say obviously takes in a much wider slice of America than just that group of folks.

If they've nothing more to offer, Democratic candidates deserve to lose. Simple as that. Republican candidates don't deserve to win, but Democrats who continue to abet the corporate impoverishment of the American citizenry do not deserve our votes. If some third party or outside force is not mounted to shake up our current one-party circus, there is in effect no American left at all.

Eric Mader