Tweet
Rocky Anderson
418 Douglas Street
Salt Lake City, UTAH 84102
E-mail: rockyandersonrocky@yahoo.com
Press Release - October 21, 2011
Have you had enough?
New Party on the horizon
The former Mayor of Salt Lake City and Executive Director of High Road for Human Rights, Rocky Anderson, calls for the formation of a new political party and a sustained movement committed to the public interest.
Two months ago, Anderson “divorced himself” from what he referred to as “the spineless, gutless Democratic Party.” Responding to an email from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which showed as the subject, “Standing strong,” Anderson wrote: “How dare you send an email with the subject line ‘Standing strong.’ You didn’t do it on Iraq, you didn’t do it on torture, you didn’t do it on signing statements, you haven’t done it onAfghanistan, you haven’t done it on defense spending, you haven’t done it on real health care reform, you haven’t done it on the debt ceiling fiasco.”
(Rolly: Rocky Anderson says adieu to the Democratic Party,” The Salt Lake Tribune, August 12, 2011.)
Anderson continued: “I’m done with the Democratic Party… I think the answer is a new political party that actually will advocate for and promote the interests of the public rather than the narrow interests of the wealthy who bought and paid for not only Congress but the White House… The Constitution has been eviscerated while Democrats have stood by with nary a whimper. It is a gutless, unprincipled party, bought and paid for by the same interests that buy and pay for the Republican Party.”
(Romboy, “Former S.L. mayor Rocky Anderson divorces himself from ‘gutless’ Democratic Party,” Deseret News, August 13, 2011.)
This country needs a new, powerful party that can win elections, according to Anderson. “The pensions and other savings accounts of the middle class in this country have been decimated. The only way out is another party. I would call it, frankly, a second party that actually represents the interests of the American people. There isn’t a real opposition force in Washington, D.C., any more, and we the people have the capacity to change that — and we must if our republic is going to survive. I consider myself an Independent, but I would be very pleased to work with others to form not just a political party to run another campaign, but to launch a sustained movement for major change in this country.”
(“Rocky: Not a Democrat,” (Interview with Rocky Anderson by Lexie Levitt), City Weekly,September 26, 2011.)
Anderson said that people are fed up with the Democratic and Republican parties, Congress, and the Obama administration to the point of being ready to support a new party that rejects the corporatism and militarism of the two “Wall Street lap-dog” major parties.
The polls support Anderson’s view that the people of the United States are desirous of a new party, and bold, new leadership, like never before. Patrick Caddell and Douglas Shoen have written:
“The United States is in the midst of what we would both call a pre-Revolutionary moment, and there is widespread support for fundamental change in the system. An increasing number of Americans are now searching beyond the two parties for bold and effective leadership.”
(Caddell and Schoen, “Expect a Third-Party Candidate in 2012,” The Wall Street Journal, August 25, 2011.)
“Have you had enough?” asks Anderson. “Would you support the formation of a new party that will commit to:
- affordable universal health care;
- an end to the wars;
- a significant reduction in the military budget and an end to the military-industrial-congressional complex;
- investigation of illegal conduct, including war crimes, by executive officials during the current and prior administrations;
- investigation of the events on 9/11 to answer significant questions that have been raised;
- prosecution for illegal conduct leading to the economic melt-down;
- disincentives for U.S. companies to send jobs overseas;
- employee and environmental safeguards in trade agreements;
- implementation of major domestic jobs and infrastructure programs;
- an end to the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy;
- campaign finance reform to end the corrupting influence of money in politics;
- treat substance abuse within a public health framework rather than as a criminal matter;
- repeal the PATRIOT Act;
- compassionate and rational immigration reform;
- marriage equality;
- an end to subsidies for oil and gas companies;
- a ban on a Canada-to-Mexico tar sands pipeline;
- air quality protection, including stricter ozone limits; and
- aggressive action and leadership on the climate crisis and the environment?”
Rocky Anderson has been in the process of contacting some of America’s leading social, environmental and political activists with the goal of creating a powerful, broad-based political alternative to the increasingly unpopular Republican and Democratic Parties. He intends that the new party will have candidates in local, state, and federal races throughout the nation.
Anderson plans on hosting a meeting soon between leaders in various sectors of the country in order to draft a new platform and a long-term strategy capable of attracting a majority of voters, including millions of dissatisfied Democrats and Republicans who, until now, had nowhere else to go.
Anderson has stated his intention to do what is possible to get on the ballots in all 50 states and to campaign for candidates aggressively in all states. “The Democratic and Republican Parties have acted as if voters have no other real options. The people of this country will demonstrate that we, indeed, have another option – a party that will work in the public interest, rather than for the defense contractors, the health insurance companies, and the rapacious financial institutions that have caused such economic havoc in our nation and the world.”
Anderson anticipates a broad-based coalition, similar to the one built by the New Democratic Party of Canada (NDP), which won impressive political gains in the Canadian federal elections last May. The NDP is the political party that brought universal health care to the Canadian people.
Press info: Mackenzie Scott - Tel. 801-520-0491
Rocky Anderson – Tel. 801-557-9007
E-mail: rockyandersonrocky@yahoo.com
32 Comments
I’ve been very carefully watching two progressive Democrats recently.
One of them is Richard Trumka, President of the AFL-CIO. The other is Howard Dean, former Chair of the DNC.
Trumka did an amazing job at the Brookings Institute (September 30, 2011). You can watch the master at work by clicking the video link on the right side of this page. The speech was very good; the Q and A was remarkable.
Trumka was asked why his tone changed about supporting Obama. He went from something close to “probably not” to “probably”. What happened in the interim? Obama issued his jobs bill. Trumka said the bill had all kinds of problems and needed to be changed but that “it’s a start”. While I don’t agree, the take-away is that labor flexed its huge muscles against the Democrats and the Democrats blinked. Labor does not intend to be an automatic lever-pull in the “D” column anymore.
And Howard Dean has stated that if the Special Debt Commission, or whatever the hell it’s called, proposes changing the Medicare qualifying age from 65 to 67, he will not support any Democrats who vote for the debt package. Dean carries a whole lot of sway with many progressive Democrats from the “democratic wing of the Democratic Party”.
What’s all this have to do with third parties? No third party on the left, certainly not at the national level, can succeed without a huge migration of progressive Democrats. There’s gold in them thar hills and that is who any new third party has to learn how to mine. Having said that, progressive Democrats need to understand that they are and always will be an afterthought, at best, to the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party, rightly or wrongly, believes it wins in the center and loses on the left. We’ve had 50 to 100 years of Democrat centrism and Democrat versus Republican ping-pong. How’s that been working out for you?
It’s a dysfunctional political system that has been working just as well as Barack Obama’s Wall Street war economy.
It don’t belong to Obama, it belongs to the corporate fascists who OWN Obama, the Judiciary/Supremes, Congress n The
Executive. That’s the focus, not Obama . . . the corporate fascists who own every facet of our lives.
The Presidency is but a puppet of their bidding, as is our political system and so called domocracy . . . do not distract from the big truth . . . harumph.
WelshT, I agree completely, for any third party to gain traction it will need to pull proggy’s (faux libs/proggy’s) from the grasp of the DIMS . . . at this point, Occupy is THE most exciting and effective means of bringing the masses to the table of activism and equality.
Right on and Great Comment IMHO.
There is not enough space here to tell why starting a third party, at least for 2012 is futile. Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot_access and look at all the rules for each of the states and you will see what I mean. In fact, the police state of the USA has been criticized by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) for its harsh ballot access laws. [I find it more than ironic that the USA monitors the elections of other countries like the recent election in Tunisia where we has 120 monitors--like we have anything to teach anyone about fair elections.]
A bill has been repeatedly introduced in the US House of Representatives a bill that would set maximum ballot access requirements for House elections. The bill has only made it to the House floor once, in 1998, when it was defeated 62-363. Believe me the one party Republican a.k.a. Democrat does not want competition.
The best way around the third party is to run as an Independent. Yes, even at that there are hoops to jump through, but they are more manageable than getting a third party established in all 50 states by the 2012 election.
Not that we shouldn’t work toward the goal of a third party but look how long the green party has been around and last I read it is only on the ballot in 40 of the 50 states.
Spot on -
but – - –
3rd parties normally do little beyond electing the far right into every office in a system set up for 2 parties and winner take all – this is not Parliamentary politics.
better to punish a high profile Dem – Obama – to make the point and thus have influence again in a winning coalition.
I think Howard Dean has been part of the problem, ever since he endorsed the “health care law”.
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/73485–howard-dean-cites-gop-opposition-as-reason-to-pass-senate-bill
“During a Tuesday interview on MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show,” Dean said, “Honestly, to see the Republicans up there carrying on the way they are, I basically concluded that maybe we should pass this thing … If the Republicans hate it, there must be some good to it.””
I think he’s contributing to the Democrat v. Republican dog and pony show.
Just to be clear, I was not suggesting that forming a third party was the best strategy. I fully support the OWS style of movement politics. In fact, I think electoral politics is a dead-end… at least in the near-term. Centrist political parties, which is all a two-party system can ever produce, will never aspire to the kinds of revolutionary changes we desperately need.
As for building a winning coalition within the Democratic Party, I don’t think that’s possible. I used to belong to PDA; I think that’s a dead-end too. Progressives have almost no voice at all inside the party. The “we can only win in the center” mantra will always dominate what the party does.
The coalition we need to build is a coalition of the disenfranchised combined with Democratic Party progressives who are willing to put issues ahead of politics. When our numbers grow large enough and our message can no longer be ignored, perhaps then we can look at the ballot box as an avenue for change. In the near-term, third parties are little more than a very small opportunity to publicize a message.
I completely agree. That’s why I found his Medicare comment so noteworthy.
There is an organization in the UK that supports and serves as a resource center for independent political candidates. It is called the Independent Network: http://www.independentnetwork.org.uk/about-us. They have had a certain amount of success in their efforts primarily on the local level. As far as I know there is no organization in North America that exists and serves the same function.
One thing I noticed is their Twitter feed has been inactive since May. I wonder if that means anything.
I’ll email them and see if I get a response. I’ve been meaning to contact them and write an article about their efforts. I’ll share here what I find out.
“…only on the ballot in 40 of the 50 states.” I would say that is pretty good given the very repressive ballot access laws.
I think it is unfortunate so many liberals, progressives and those on the left are unwilling to study the history of third party movements which have been very successful in this country and all over the world including in countries where people have to contend with even more repressive and anti-democratic governments (usually these two-bit fascist dictatorships are courtesy of Wall Street imperialism) than what we have here at present.
I do not argue against anyone running as “independent;” this has proven successful all over the country on a very limited basis where there is good organization. I would never suggest independent campaigns, especially those based around important issues, should cease.
However, we desperately need a working-class based people’s party in this country in order to free ourselves from Wall Street’s “two-party trap.”
There is no reason why the Occupy Wall Street Movement should be seen in competition to a third party development; in fact, the two should complement one another in order to get the maximum out of both. It is very short-sighted to see the two in competition or posing one against the other.
I don’t understand why anyone would even try to pit one movement against the other when both movements should be merging in developing an alternative to Wall Street’s imperialist agenda of wars abroad paid for with austerity measures here at home.
I don’t see or hear anyone supporting a third party movement at odds with OWS— does anyone? If so, please cite where this has been done.
In fact, it is my understanding that Rocky Anderson participates in the OWS movement and the October 6 movement.
Like I stated; contrary to outlandish claims being made here, third party movements in this country have been very successful in the 20th century— Gene Debbs and the Socialist Party had thousands of electoral victories at the township, city, county and state levels all over this country; there was the Progressive Party in Wisconsin and the national Progressive Party headed up by Henry Wallace where George McGovern and many other politicians got their start in politics; North Dakota had a very successful third party movement; and most successful of all the third party movements was the Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party which elected two socialist governors, a majority in the Minnesota House and came close to capturing the Minnesota State Senate not to mention sending members like John Bernard to the United States Congress and Elmer Benson to the U.S. Senate (Benson then became our second socialist governor after Floyd Olson died)— the Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party elected hundreds of workers and farmers to public bodies, including township and county boards and city councils.
Plans were being laid to take the Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party national with socialist Minnesota Governor Floyd Olson determined to challenge Franklin Roosevelt for the presidency— unfortunately Olson’s untimely, sudden death to cancer plus a very repressive anti-communist campaign launched by the Dies Committee and a most vicious anti-Native American, anti-black and anti-Semitic campaign launched by the mining companies, the forestry industry, the bankers and the power generating industries pushing forward Harold Stassen led to a massive defeat for the Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party; and this repression, combined with bad judgement eventually led many people to believe the Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party was kaput so they made what was, arguably, the worst political blunder in U.S. history— they merged with the Democratic Party.
But people like Henry Wallace, Paul Robeson, Vincent Hallinan tried to recover the progressive third party movement with the Progressive Party. We can probably thank their heroic efforts in keeping Joe McCarthy and Hubert Humphrey (Humphrey was the author of the Communist Control Act the most anti-democratic and Draconian piece of legislation in the 20th century) from taking this country even further to the right than it went.
Those of you making these outrageous and false claims that third parties in this country should do a little research before making these claims because you simply do not know what you are talking about and you are doing the movements for real change a great disservice in so perverting history.
In the struggles for social and economic justice we can’t afford to write-off any “tools.”
The struggle at the ballot box is one of the most important ways to defend and advance the democratic rights of the American people while placing a people’s progressive agenda on the table for consideration.
Personally, I would like to see a third party ticket of Cindy Sheehan and Cynthia McKinney; apparently neither are interested in running. I decided to support Jill Stein who advances a very realistic progressive agenda but I hope people like Jill Stein, Rocky Anderson and Stewart Alexander of the Socialist Party can find a meeting of the minds to come together with a common platform and agenda— and a united ticket. Through local state and other federal offices together with cabinet positions there should be a seat at the table for everyone in this emerging third party’s movement,
Really?
You’ve got to be kidding. I don’t think you have been paying attention to what is happening, especially on FDL.
Also, how better to punish a “high profile Dem – Obama” then to have a third party.
Agreed, but I don’t know any alternative to a new party that is still working within the system. It would take a lot of work, but what is the alternative.
We could all join the Greens. Or we could all join the Democratic Socialists. From the example of the Greens we know it can be done.
…and the timing is right.
Thank you.
Agreed.
Talk about Hope and Change!
Concur with papau — spot on — well outlined and detailed diary AM — recc’d
Taking away the WH from Barack Obama in November 2012 WH election is a solid and valid electoral action.
What is going to move American national politics ball downfield is to concentrate on deep reform of D Party with all the DLC/3RD Way/Obama/Clinton/Schumer/Feinstein/Pelosi/Blue Dog/Dogs That Don’t Hunt factors,factions and frauds greatly thinned out and those who are allowed to remain fully reset as to how New FDR Party Of Democrats is going to do the hard politics,who for and how the stand up and sit down politics/policies get conducted.
Third party creation in current American national politics is a steep climb. Easier to take back the current broken and rudderless D Party,clean it out and up,polish it and mount a full attack on the Gone Crazy Or Worse Rs.
That attack will be what brings the Rs to terminal rehab then as well — not the current worn,tired,stale useless D vs R kabuki plays.
Vote Barack Obama out of the WH in November 2012 which leads to discharging the Wrong Way DLCers from WH as well.
What follows worry about after November 2012.
For now focus on voting Barack Obama out of the WH in 2012.
Heck — get Howard Dean to run against Obama in the D Party primary races if he will/would.
Howard Dean deserves a second chance at being POTUS — if he wins the D Party nomination he knows who to thank and we who want to take back the D Party after Obama and the Clintons get voted out of it would have a solid friend in Howard Dean.
Third party creation is the long slog to be sure in national American politics. Taking back the D Party is a closer,more doable target for organizing around and bringing about.
Hopefully The Occupy will not be usurped by Obama and the corrupted DLC/Corporatist Dems Obama fronts for between here and November 2012. This would be a setback equal to one that took place during 2008 when Barack Obama hijacked anti-Bush/Cheney political energy and then betrayed us after Jan.20,2009.
Vote Barack Obama out of the WH in November 2012. Obama betrayed too many of us and should suffer a steep WH electoral defeat.
Barack Obama(DINO) has fully earned a steep WH electoral defeat.
We to the Left of Bush-Obama do need a place in the political nosecounting machine to have our displeasure quantified, if only to make clear that we are not the marginal demographic we are represented as. Winning would be nice of course but even a show of a significant minority would change the political dynamic. Part of what has made the Left so irrelevant and disempowered is our inability to make our voice heard electorally. Polling clearly shows that on some issues we are an absolute majority and on most others hardly the marginal minority we are treated as. We have been gerrymandered out of the political process by design. I see a third party as one avenue to reassert our place in the process. There is a broad consensus on the slate of issues we want advocated for and the list in the OP is a workable enunciation of that consensus.
Most Americans already hate both legacy parties. Approval of D&R congress is at what – 7%? The legacy parties have not finished destroying the country. By the time they are done they will not dare show their face in public. Only life long partisans and activists are still clinging to the stinking cadavers of the Democrat and Republican Parties. Party leaders Bush and Obama are mass murderers and traitors. Both are serial liars and whores for the Oligarchy. The mass of American people are not merely unrepresented in Washington but are it’s victims. The legacy parties must and will be destroyed. All we have to do is ignore them. OWS is showing the way.
Been there, done that.
When Dean supported the illegal U.S. military invasion of Iraq, I think it was, I mailed him my neon-orange knit Dean hat from campaigning for him in Iowa, and my navy fleece Dean neck scarf from doing a lot of phoning for him in New Hampshire.
Dean never, for some reason, sent me a thank-you note.
I watched Ron Suskind at the Harvard Book Store on C-Span the other night (a replay of Oct 18, apparently). If you want to find out what went wrong, you have to see this one. Apparently, Obama knew what to do, and even wanted to do it, but didn’t know how. He knew how to articulate the right thing to do in a speech, had a little less ability but still some, at translating the speech into what to do to accomplish it, but when it came to wielding power, just couldn’t do it at all.
And because he allowed people to convince him to take a ‘safe’ team instead of the ‘right’ team, he brought Emmanuel, Sommers, and Geithner on board instead of Volcker and Reich. And Emmanuel and Geithner just did what they wanted regardless of what Obama asked or even told them to do. When Romer complained and pointed it out, and Emmanuel browbeat her. Eventually, Obama didn’t have a say anymore, and policy became what Geithner had been put there to make it become.
So it isn’t who you pick for the office, but who surrounds them and whether they can control the underlings, apparently. Here’s the link. It’s about an hour long.
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/ConfidenceM
OccupyX is amorphous, and horizontally democratic. One manifestation of this is that Occupy Wall Street is not pushing the envelope, in all areas. From statistical considerations, there’s no particularly good reason to expect OWS to always be leading all charges, even if they were the first ones to occupy. Insofar as anybody would like to see the envelope pushed, and realizing that OWS is not likely to fill the bill, this is a good thing.
E.g., Occupy Oakland called for a general strike. And Occupy Iowa marched on Obama’s campaign HQ, and denounced him, “one by one”.
Another positive aspect the amorphous, horizontally democratic ‘structure’ of OccupyX is that OWS, itself, cannot suppress the more aggressive actions of other OccupyX groups. Compare that to the Democratic Party, which has so far failed to re-certify it’s largest caucus in California – it’s progressive Caucus – because it dared contemplate a primary challenge to Obama. (See PDA and PCCC are Silent on CA Dem Failure to Re-certify the Progressive Caucus)
The net/net is that OccupyX is probably the best shot that a third party has in getting a shot in the arm. If OccupyA isn’t interested, there is OccupyB, OccupyC, OccupyD…. to pitch to.
Well said, Welsh.
Hmmm. I guess I should have written more. If a given OccupyX undertakes a pushing the envelope action or strategy that appears to work, then I will guess that it is likely to be imitated by other OccupyX’s.
Thus, a third party may have to pitch to OccupyA, but if OccupyA makes a difference by adopting support for a third party, OccupyB, C, D, etc. may then proactively mimic such support.
We’re talking a virtually pitchlessly recruited 3rd Party shot in the arm!
Good post as always Alan!
I think more than anything I want to see Obama in a debate with someone on the Left of him. This president rarely has to answer for so many of the awful things he’s responsible for. I would like for this debate to be as public as possible so as many Americans could see for themselves that this guy really doesn’t care about any of them unless they own large companies. Maybe a campaign to force a debate would be a good idea?
The “alternative to a new party that is still working within the system” is a socialist revolution to bring down the system. Now you know.
Anderson’s manifesto is a very nice outline of what a Democratic administration (or any liberal party) should pursue as policy, in the current capitalist system. It remains to be seen if his new party could gain strength in the system without being subjected to the corrupting influences of the corporatists, which have killed off the existing Dem. Party.
It also remains to be seen that, even if a liberal party were to gain power and return us to liberal governance as in the 1932-1968 epoch, whether that would not simply prove to be another Band-Aid on the bleeding sore of capitalism, and would not, inevitably, be ripped away as violently as the works of the previous liberal era have been since 1980. Perhaps liberalism is just a temporary half-measure and we are better put to use the current crisis and drive for true equality and real change, i.e., socialism.
But, on a personal note, anything that’s likely to send Barack Obama to the ash-heap of history sooner rather than later has my emotional support, at least.
My favorite phrase of the day. Look for me to steal it. Thank you.
That’s the party line of the Opologists: “He’s hopelessly inept, but he has a good heart!” IMO it’s as much bullshit as every word out of Obama’s lying mouth.
He wasn’t “unable to wield power” when it came to getting Dorgan’s drug reimportation amendment out of the Insurance Compay Welfare bill. Or when it came to murdering the al-Awlakis, or bombing Libya back to the Stone Age, or a zillion other things. It’s only when he’s “trying” to do the things that he was elected to do that he’s just so gosh-darn ineffective.
And if he was confused about which policy team to take, then he would have had a mix, rather than the wall-to-wall Rubinbots that Karl Rove masturbated over in the Wall Street Journal when the team was announced. And he wouldn’t have let people like Greg Craig get forced out. No, he licked Rahm’s ass and gave Traitor Joe Lieberman a free pass in his first two actions after being elected not out of confusion, but because this is who he is. (Funny how his “Team of Rivals” ended up with no one who was to the left of Timmeh, huh?)
Suskind can try and spin Obama as kindly-but-inept, but that just makes Suskind either liar or a fool, IMO.
This is a good discussion with lots of interesting views.
I doubt Obama would debate a real leftist.
What could be done is have a traveling two-person show; one person opposing Obama’s actual record and one person defending what Obama has, or has not, done.
That’s pretty good, I think that would make an impression on people and get the point across.
Wow, I missed that. I thought he at least gave 100% of his lip service against the Iraq war. I learn something new every day.