Thursday, September 18, 2008
Reposting Recognized Parties in NM y mas
The Secretary of State in NM Recognizes the following parties:
American Independent Party (AIP)
Citizen's Party of New Mexico (CNM)
Constitutional Party (CON)
Democratic Party (DEM)
First New Mexican Party (FNM)
Independent New Mexican Party (NMI)
La Raza Unida de Nuevo Mejico (LRU)
Libertarian Party (LIB)
Natural Law Party of New Mexico (NLP)
New Mexico Alliance Party (NAP)
New Mexico Green Party (GRN)
New Mexico Socialist Party (SNM)
New Mexico Taxpayers Party (NMT)
New Party of New Mexico (PNM)
Peace and Freedom Party (PAF)
People's Constitutional Party (PCP)
Prohibitionist Party (PRO)
Reform Party of New Mexico (REF)
Republican Party (REP)
Socialist Labor Party (SLP)
Socialist Workers Party (SWP)
Worker's World Party (WWP)
If you put none, leave blank, or a line through theparty box you are registered as "Decline to State"(DTS)
You can see who is running for President here. Now in this election, unless there is a third party on the ballot I'll vote for Obama over McSame any day. But I don't buy that Obama, or the Dems in general are "progressive". I think in my years as a public health worker I was influenced a great deal by Vicente Navarro.
The way I see it countries that have good policies like Universal Health Care, Universal Higher Education, Paid Vacations for ALL workers, etc. are countries with strong Socialist and Labor Parties. People study Kerala India and northern Italy for their excellent public health without dealing with the fact that they have been governed by left parties - primarily communist - for the majority of the time since WWII.
Once I realized that 17,000 people die every year because they don't have health insurance - and realizing that my parents fit into that category through their passing - I began to look at different reasons why we don't have Universal Health Insurance, part but not all of it is a lack of a strong "left" force in US society. Strong unions and strong left parties are part of that.
I think there are some really good sections in Navarro's article, now that I am re-browsing it... I'll add it hear just because I'm trying to finish up a couple of work things instead of trying to write it in my own words. Maybe tomorrow will be slower. Emphasis is mine...
The leadership of the Democratic Party, since President Carter, has been distancing itself from American liberalism. Actually, most of the Democratic Party candidates in the presidential primaries of 2008 avoid calling themselves "liberals" (Kucinich and Edwards were the exceptions). Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have called for transcending these labels, which is a way of distancing themselves from the (U.S.) liberal tradition. The Democrat who most notably distanced himself from the term and concept of liberal was President Bill Clinton, even though he ran with a clear social democratic platform in 1992--referring to Sweden as an inspiration for his public policies (as noted at the time by the Financial Times) and calling for, among other things, a universal health care program. But, once in power, Clinton followed policies--such as elimination of the federal deficit (reducing federal social expenditures) and approval of George H. W. Bush's NAFTA proposal--that antagonized the grassroots of the Democratic Party. These policies were responsible for the high Democratic voter absenteeism in the 1994 Congressional elections and the victory of the Republican Party (the Gingrich Revolution), even though Republicans received almost the same number of votes in 1994 as in 1990, the previous non-presidential Congressional election.
It was President Clinton (not Prime Minister Blair) who, in 1994, instituted the Third Way--a "middle" way between the New Deal and the Gingrich conservatism that had gained control of Congress. Since then, the leaders of the Democratic Party have been on the center-right on domestic policies, and clearly on the right on foreign policies--sensitive to the economic and financial interests that supported and financed their campaigns for office. The foreign policy of recent Democratic administrations has been more interventionist than that of Republican administrations. And on domestic policies, Europeans are not fully aware of how far to the right the entire political spectrum is in the U.S.A compared with Europe. For example, not one of the 2008 Democratic presidential candidates (except Kucinich, who has left the primary race) has called for a publicly funded national health program (such as exists in all E.U. countries). The proposals for "universal" heath care programs, espoused by most Democratic candidates (except Obama) and some Republicans, are basically a call to make health insurance compulsory for everyone. Just as everyone who drives a car must have car insurance, so everyone would have to buy health insurance. These programs would rely on giving people tax incentives and subsidies (that will primarily benefit the insurance companies), without resolving the major problem of health coverage: the high costs and limited benefits of available health insurance coverage. Health benefits undercoverage is the largest problem in U.S. medical care; not until they actually need it do most people realize that their insurance does not cover the costs of their medical care. In the E.U., no party would dare challenge public funding as the major source of health care funding--not even the liberal parties. This should give an idea of how far to the right the entire U.S. political system has moved.
A primary reason for this state of affairs is the privatization of the electoral process, a characteristic unique to the U.S. electoral system. Candidates must raise a lot of money to buy access to the media, especially television. The TV industry sells time (completely unregulated) to the highest bidders. Most of the money that finances the campaigns comes from corporate America and the top one-third (by income) of the U.S. population. This would be illegal in all E.U. countries. As a matter of fact, many ministers in European governments have had to resign when it became apparent that they received private funds for electoral purposes. Not so in the U.S.A. A major reason why not a single viable presidential candidate is calling for publicly funded, universal health care (which is favored by most Americans) is the enormous power and influence of health insurance companies in the electoral process. Both Clinton and Obama have received considerable funds from these financial interests. Again, in the E.U., such open financial support of candidates would be illegal and considered corrupt. In the U.S.A., it is both legal and untainted by hints of corruption. According to Common Cause, 94% of candidates who won reelection in the Congressional elections of 2006 were the best-funded candidates. Money is the milk of politics in the U.S.A. And people know it: in polls, 68 per cent of respondents do not consider themselves well-represented in Congress. In no country of the E.U. does the population feel such a high degree of alienation from its government. This explains the high voter absenteeism in the U.S. electoral process.
Thus why I'm not a Democrat, not scared to criticize them, and willing to vote Third party as much as possible.
Labels: Real Democracy
The problem is - two months shy of an at least symbolically historic election, when the whole community we're trying to move (while they don't identify with any major party or ideology) is caught up in a wave of excitement - we end up on the wrong side of our communities who are inspired by our co-opted messages.
Obama, while admittedly a neo-liberal thinker in many ways, took on the Clinton triangulation by figuring out that the country is leaning left for many of the reasons you've and others have mentioned. And he did it outside of the normal party machine and took it over. Is it the same old game? I dunno yet. But his voting record (save for a few i think politically motivated recent nuanced positions that I think are crap) is the best out there - to the left of Bernie Sanders even by some metrics. I mean, the heritage foundation said it before he really started running following the 2004 speech at the DNC.
I really feel you on the health care. And I feel the analysis from navarro here. It's a good start. Yet that's not what was on the original posts, here or on swopblogger. But I understand your post more now, and agree with it more too. And that's the point. Without the context, it read differently.
But I do wanna' shake things up. Hope that people prove me wrong. I fucking love to learn. I eat up analysis. And I wouldn't engage unless I respected the people I'm engaging. I think we're afraid to hash things out, partly because we all care so much and take things so deeply. But I'm just trying to talk shit, be out there and think. My friends make me think. I don't hold grudges. And I don't think it's divisive to challenge one another - unless you do it by putting your foot in your mouth like it looks like I did.
But I didn't start the conversation with a taunt, that was in the middle - just for clarity's sake. The point of which, of course by saying you don't want to debate me, is to get you to debate :)
You see, the more people that comment, the more people that read the more people that come on the blog the better and it's a cycle. I pick blogs I like, rustle up some controversy and get readers. It's a hobby.
I don't want to drain your energy. I read your blog all the time. I want more people to read it, say I'm full of shit or whatever. But get more and more perspectives out there.
That said, I can do some vote trading for folks in swing states like NM. I can get people to vote for Cynthia McKinney and Rosa or whoever in California if folks in battle states vote strategically ;)
"You all really don't want to have this discussion with me do you?"
Ok. It was bad. I'm an asshole. Arrogant. But it's not that bad. Is it? I'm from Duranes, bro. What can I say?