Recently, a friend of mine used a cute jungle-themed video to explain why third-party candidates are doomed to fail. It relies on logic and a sound understanding of human nature, but it misses a key ingredient to the process. A personal story from a few years back will help illustatre my point.
In 2008, I was invited to write for a relatively unknown progressive blog called The Seminal. Eventually, that blog was absorbed into the prominent political site FDL, where I remained in an editorial position (albeit as a volunteer).
I helped edit the backpage that featured submitted posts, managed a regular nightly segment called "The Watercooler," and had my writing feaured on the FDL mainpage about a dozen times.
FDL is a progressive site that is mostly supportive of Obama and the Democrats. But as his first term progressed, I grew disenchanted both with his performance and the ongoing support he has received from many prominent progressives.
As a result, my writing topics gradually shifted away from issues like poverty and the environment and toward the need to shake up the two-party system. Eventually, I launched a series called "Uncommon Ground," which called on people from all sides of the political spectrum to remove themselves from the partisan bickering and start working to change the false paradigm of left vs. right.
Whether by direct intention or not, I stopped being promoted to the frontpage of FDL, even though my writings received a good deal of support and praise on the backpages of the site. It didn't take me long to realize that my ideas on reforming the two-party paradigm were being quarantined. Tired of pouring my heart into blogposts that would never reach the daylight of the frontpage, I left FDL in frustration.
Six months later, however, I decided to start writing again - and this time I didn't mince words. In a searing post, I laid out my theory that the two-party system needed to change before any issues important to progressives could be addressed. Then, I argued that people who had achieved influential positions in politics were too enmeshed in the system to work to change it. They either have a salary, a reputation, or a place of power that depends on keeping the status quo. That is why writing like mine - no matter how many upvotes it might get - will forever be buried in the backpages of progressive media outlets.
My article rocketed to the top of the submitted posts lists, and a flurry of comments broke out for and against my assertions. Somewhere in the middle of the flurry came a rather uncharacteristic threat from site owner Jane Hamsher. It was presumably because I had implied that I was on staff at FDL (which I honestly believed myself to be), and when I responded with another searing post the next day, my account was erased.
On a site where open-mindedness and honest discussion from all viewpoints were the rule of the day, it seems I had finally found the taboo topic. Or at least I had taken an unwanted topic, and was generating too much energy and support for it. FDL leadership had been challenged before, someitmes viciously attacked, and had not responded in this way.
To this day, I wonder if the order to terminate my account came from higher up than the site owner. There is no way I'll ever know, but it is clear that FDL had no intention of letting a two-party critique become a theme on their front page. I was stunned at how abruptly the door was slammed - and honestly, I don't blame anyone at FDL. What happened to me was a function of the two-party system as a whole working to preserve its power and hegemony.
In the next post, I'll further discuss my story and the stories of others who have challened the two-party system. Then, I'll move to some strategies for breaking down what seems to be an unshakable two-party fortress.