Anti-Corporatist Party?

[dblack]

I'd like to discuss the possibility of some kind of coalition party focusing on the common interests of groups currently ignored by the major parties. I'm specifically interested in the overlapping concerns of libertarians (and libertarian leaning conservatives) and OWS progressives. Is there enough common cause between the two groups? Would such a group offer a viable alternatives the status quo parties?

Here's a list of what I see as areas of common interest, and areas of disagreement. What do you all think? Please add to the list if you see anything else.

Agreement:

1. Opposition to corporate/government collusion. (corpoare welfare etc...)
2. Opposition to the warfare state
3. Support for individual rights

Possible points of contention:

1. Welfare state
2. Economic freedom

Obviously, there are more. Any thoughts?

 

[Truthmatters]

not enough in common.

libertarians solution to too much money in politics is to end all regulations making it so there is no way to end or curtail the money controling our government and everything else.

 

[Dragon]

The idea is good, representing a realignment of interests, getting away from the culture war stuff and focusing more on economic and foreign policy issues -- predictable in a Crisis era. And freeing our democracy from corporate dominance is THE defining issue of these times.

The only problem I have here is with the third party idea. We just don't have a government system that's amenable to that. The new party would have to replace one of the existing ones, and the only way that can happen is for one of the two big ones to collapse. In our past, the Federalists collapsed leaving the Democrats dominant, and the Whigs rose into the vacuum. Then the same thing happened to the Whigs, leaving a vacuum that was filled by the Republicans. Both parties seem to have too much support for that to occur now.

So the coalition would more likely manifest as a successful insurgency within one of the parties. The question is, which one?

 

[dblack]

not enough in common.

libertarians solution to too much money in politics is to end all regulations making it so there is no way to end or curtail the money controling our government and everything else.

What??

 

[Dragon]

not enough in common.

libertarians solution to too much money in politics is to end all regulations making it so there is no way to end or curtail the money controling our government and everything else.

What??

LOL yeah, that was kind of incoherent. I think what she meant to say was that the libertarian approach is to try to end government involvement in the economy, so that there's no incentive for corporate interests to try to corrupt it. That wouldn't be acceptable to progressives.

 

[eflatminor]

I'd like to discuss the possibility of some kind of coalition party focusing on the common interests of groups currently ignored by the major parties. I'm specifically interested in the overlapping concerns of libertarians (and libertarian leaning conservatives) and OWS progressives. Is there enough common cause between the two groups? Would such a group offer a viable alternatives the status quo parties?

Here's a list of what I see as areas of common interest, and areas of disagreement. What do you all think? Please add to the list if you see anything else.

Agreement:

1. Opposition to corporate/government collusion. (corpoare welfare etc...)
2. Opposition to the warfare state
3. Support for individual rights

Possible points of contention:

1. Welfare state
2. Economic freedom

Obviously, there are more. Any thoughts?

Entitlements (what you call 'welfare state') are more than just a possible point of contention. They run against the very core of Libertarianism. I can't tell you how many signs I saw at OWS calling for forgiveness of student loans and "International Socialism", whatever the hell that is. The only "individual rights" the OWS crowd seem to want to champion was the right to smoke pot. Two words that describe the my experience with OWS: collectivists and confused. No, OWS and Libertarians are highly incompatible groups I'd say.

 

[Paulie]

not enough in common.

libertarians solution to too much money in politics is to end all regulations making it so there is no way to end or curtail the money controling our government and everything else.

What??

LOL yeah, that was kind of incoherent. I think what she meant to say was that the libertarian approach is to try to end government involvement in the economy, so that there's no incentive for corporate interests to try to corrupt it. That wouldn't be acceptable to progressives.

I don't think that's what she said at all. I think she was just trying to come up with some particular reason why libertarians are evil people, like usual.

Libertarians with a small l, at least, the ones who put the constitution first over any other anti-government opinion, understand that regulations are necessary in some capacity. The constitution clearly authorizes regulation of interstate commerce.

The libertarian movement, as far as the Paul movement is concerned, is a constitutional movement. No one is saying "end all regulations completely".

The misrepresentation of libertarianism is a shame, because it's not that difficult to understand.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The idea is good, representing a realignment of interests, getting away from the culture war stuff and focusing more on economic and foreign policy issues -- predictable in a Crisis era. And freeing our democracy from corporate dominance is THE defining issue of these times.

The only problem I have here is with the third party idea. We just don't have a government system that's amenable to that. The new party would have to replace one of the existing ones, and the only way that can happen is for one of the two big ones to collapse. In our past, the Federalists collapsed leaving the Democrats dominant, and the Whigs rose into the vacuum. Then the same thing happened to the Whigs, leaving a vacuum that was filled by the Republicans. Both parties seem to have too much support for that to occur now.

So the coalition would more likely manifest as a successful insurgency within one of the parties. The question is, which one?

Which one? At the moment the Republican Party is (at best) confused. Social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, Tea Party radicals and neo conservatives, log cabin members and RINO's don't usually play well together.

For years the Democrats were known as the party which defied unification, for every member seemed to have a fully developed idea of the best way to govern (the herding cats theory). Today the Democrats are more closely united thanks to the movement of the entire coalition of Republicans to the far far right.

At the moment it appears that Boehner has lost control of the House of Representatives. At best he is the most ineffective Speaker in history and if Boehner cannot fix what he has in effect broke, I imagine Nancy Pelosi will get the gavel in January 2013. If that occurs expect a third party movement to gain traction and the possibility of the R's being the minority party by 2016 is not beyond the possible.

 

[Mr.Nick]

I'd like to discuss the possibility of some kind of coalition party focusing on the common interests of groups currently ignored by the major parties. I'm specifically interested in the overlapping concerns of libertarians (and libertarian leaning conservatives) and OWS progressives. Is there enough common cause between the two groups? Would such a group offer a viable alternatives the status quo parties?

Here's a list of what I see as areas of common interest, and areas of disagreement. What do you all think? Please add to the list if you see anything else.

Agreement:

1. Opposition to corporate/government collusion. (corpoare welfare etc...)
2. Opposition to the warfare state
3. Support for individual rights

Possible points of contention:

1. Welfare state
2. Economic freedom

Obviously, there are more. Any thoughts?

Well, great question..

Every libertarian would be against corporatism, however in a free market I know that could and never would happen..

I know its happened in the past but with todays technology its highly unlikely to ever occur again.......

I mean I know of mine owners who set up their own "Sims" town (for lack of a better word) however no one could get away with that nonsense today..

I believe his name was Frick btw...

 

[dblack]

The idea is good, representing a realignment of interests, getting away from the culture war stuff and focusing more on economic and foreign policy issues -- predictable in a Crisis era. And freeing our democracy from corporate dominance is THE defining issue of these times.

The only problem I have here is with the third party idea. We just don't have a government system that's amenable to that. The new party would have to replace one of the existing ones, and the only way that can happen is for one of the two big ones to collapse. In our past, the Federalists collapsed leaving the Democrats dominant, and the Whigs rose into the vacuum. Then the same thing happened to the Whigs, leaving a vacuum that was filled by the Republicans. Both parties seem to have too much support for that to occur now.

So the coalition would more likely manifest as a successful insurgency within one of the parties. The question is, which one?

Makes sense. Even if we could remove the many structural barriers to third parties, plurality, winner-take-all elections will always favor two strong parties. A campaign to change the voting system would be perhaps the best thing we could do for real democracy, but that seems even more unlikely than a strong third party.

So taking over one of the existing parties seems to be the answer. I think this has been Ron Paul's intent since he became a Republican. Some Democrats seemed to be pushing in that direction, with less success (I still want to know what Obama said to Kucinich during that plane ride). But that approach seems to preclude the kind of coalition I'm talking about. Democrats are usually able to scare progressives away from voting for libertarians (by conflating them with old-school Republicans), and Republicans keep libertarian leaning conservatives on the line with the 'librul' boogey-man.

I do think there could be a role for such a coalition third-party in finishing off one of the main players. I don't think Ron Paul is the guy to do it, but a libertarian (Gary Johnson, perhaps) who could more effectively reach out to progressives might be able to pull it off. Even more exciting (certainly more novel), would be a progressive who takes up individual liberties and small government (or at least de-centralized government) from a liberal perspective. Haven't heard of anyone like that recently.

Ultimately, such a coalition will require some careful compromise on the areas of disagreement. Libertarians will need to concede some welfare state concerns and admit that government safety-nets are far less of a threat to freedom than the military industrial complex. Progressives will have to rework their agenda to respect the fact that many people don't want government micro-managing their lives. But I think these adjustments are doable. Ron Paul, for example, has been making the point for years that we could fully fund our safety-nets AND radically cut taxes if we simply give up our lust for worldwide empire.

 

[occupied]

Never happen as long as anti-corporatism can be labeled Communism and dumbasses who only think they are libertarians believe it.

 

[hortysir]

The problem I see is that once said Party gets large enough it won't be able to resist becoming corporatist itself.

Money will feed the beast and greed will be it's lover.

 

[Paulie]

Ron Paul, for example, has been making the point for years that we could fully fund our safety-nets AND radically cut taxes if we simply give up our lust for worldwide empire.

Safety nets could be funded rather well if we would at the very least allow for opting out.

 

[Paulie]

The problem I see is that once said Party gets large enough it won't be able to resist becoming corporatist itself.

Money will feed the beast and greed will be it's lover.

I agree. You need to look no further than the tea party movement to see this. It started out grassroots with the best of intentions, and then corporate America got its greedy hands all in it, gave it a mouthpiece in the corporate media, and now it's just a shell of its former self as merely a manipulation of government corporatism.

 

[LibertyForAll]

I think the two controlling parties are losing support as their support base ages. This next generation is the first generation that has been raised in the internet culture and we are just now seeing the effects of that on political ideologies. Look at the effects of Anonymous. Anonymous is not Republican or Democratic or Libertarian. It is anti-establishment. It is more of an anarchist movement than anything. They follow ideas that fit their personal view and reject the ideas that don't. If an idea is a good one then it rises in popularity and they pursue it or at least elements of them do.

The protests, by anonymous, against the abuses of scientology are a good example. When Tom Cruise's video was released on youtube there were a lot of people that thought it was funny. Then they started digging into what scientology was all about and some were outraged. So a movement was started to combat scientology and protests started popping up everywhere in the country. Some people did it for the fun of upsetting the scientologists and some did it becuase they believed in it. I think they are still doing it too. They have also been involved with the wikileaks scandal and threats against the Iowa caucus. This is in some cases and extreme movement but it illustrates the disenchantment of the youth with the establishment and I think it is a precursor to a significant change.

I am not a fan of the anarchy within anonymous but I think once it is tempered by age it will become more libertarian in nature.

 

[manifold]

I like the idea, but you need to work on the name. The Anti-Corporatist Party isn't going to get it done.

 

[dblack]

I like the idea, but you need to work on the name. The Anti-Corporatist Party isn't going to get it done.

Agreed. Any suggestions?

 

[Dragon]

Which one? At the moment the Republican Party is (at best) confused. Social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, Tea Party radicals and neo conservatives, log cabin members and RINO's don't usually play well together.

For years the Democrats were known as the party which defied unification, for every member seemed to have a fully developed idea of the best way to govern (the herding cats theory). Today the Democrats are more closely united thanks to the movement of the entire coalition of Republicans to the far far right.

At the moment it appears that Boehner has lost control of the House of Representatives. At best he is the most ineffective Speaker in history and if Boehner cannot fix what he has in effect broke, I imagine Nancy Pelosi will get the gavel in January 2013. If that occurs expect a third party movement to gain traction and the possibility of the R's being the minority party by 2016 is not beyond the possible.

Interesting. I'm not ready to write the Republican obituary at this point; the party has been through this kind of crisis before (e.g. in the 1930s) and come back strong. But let's say it does happen. Here's how I think that might play out.

If the GOP were to go down the drain as the Whigs did long ago, that would leave the Democrats in control of everything for a brief time. But the Dems aren't a unified party either, and anyway one-party dominance in the U.S. never lasts. But what would the new party arising to replace the Republicans be like?

If the GOP goes belly-up, can a new party articulate a progressive vision for this Crisis era the way the Republicans did for the Civil War and the Democrats did for the Great Depression? It kind of depends on what the people expect and how the pieces fall. (I should explain here that by "progressive vision" I don't necessarily mean "progressive" as that term is used in current American politics; I just mean a call for the kind of change we need to solve our problems and a clear vision of what those problems are -- 'cause it's for damned sure we can't go on as we've been doing.)

As I see it, there are several possibilities for what would happen if the GOP were to bite the big one.

First, we could get an establishment/conservative party. That would happen if the establishment Republicans were to be joined by conservatives hiving off the Democrats to form the new party. This would leave the Democrats more progressive, and strongly influenced by Occupy, with the Tea Party sort of out in the cold. It would result in the Democrats being the dominant party in this Crisis as in the last one.

Second, we could get a new party dominated by a Tea Party/Occupy alliance, based no issues in common. If that happened, then it might be the progressive Democrats who hive rather than the conservatives. That would leave the Democrats as the conservative, establishment party, and the new party might bury its differences enough to achieve success.

Third, BOTH of those things could happen at once, and we might end up very briefly with three parties -- an establishment, progressive/Occupy, and libertarian/Tea Party triad. But that's an unstable arrangement given the constitutional reality of American politics. It's hard to predict what would result from that mess.

It's interesting to speculate about this, but as I said I doubt the Republicans are really circling the drain. I think the party will go through changes but will remain viable.

 

[Mr.Nick]

"safety nets" would be illogical considering a) this is still an allegedly a capitalist nation and b) the dollar is allegedly based on production er supply and demand..

You need money to spend to make rich people rich - thats what makes their money valuable...

In theory our currency isn't worth what its printed on....

 

[occupied]

I like the idea, but you need to work on the name. The Anti-Corporatist Party isn't going to get it done.

Agreed. Any suggestions?

Mom and Pop party.