The Candidates
Featured Archives
Yesterday, it was discovered that Barack Obama was indeed a member of the “New Party”, an explicitly leftist political party formed in the early 90’s. The New Party sought to advance “progressive” politics, by nominating their own candidates and endorsing “good” (i.e, very liberal) Democrats on fusion tickets. Obama was both endorsed by this group (which we knew) and a member who attended meetings (which we didn’t). What are we to make of this? Well, I’ve done a little bit of digging myself, and here’s what I’ve come up with. The New Party wasn’t, as best as I can tell, a communist organization, though it certainly flitted around the edges of socialism. Fervent socialist Noam Chomsky was among its members, but wasn’t entirely satisfied. In a 1996 letter to Dan Cantor of the New Party, Chomsky confesses to being a member, but laments that the party is merely a “reform movement within capitalism”. While this is not, for Chomsky, ideal, he goes on to draw a sharp distinction between “liberalism” and the philosophy the New Party espouses:
How is the New Party different from liberalism? Hard to answer without some clarification. If by “liberalism” is meant the Democratic Party, it is plainly different from liberalism. If what is meant is some kind of social democratic version of state capitalism, presumably not –at least now, though the project is one that has a possible evolution in
mind, and in prospect, I think.
According to the socialist Chomsky then, the New Party is “plainly” different from the Democratic party, though not yet socialistic as he understands the term. It awaits a “possible evolution”. But, others seemed to have less stringent standards. In 2001, the DC political report made a list of US socialist parties. The New Party made the cut. It stands beside such luminaries as Communist Party USA, Democratic Socialists of America, Freedom Socialist Party, and the Industrial Workers of the World Party, to name but a few. The New Party itself, listed groups such as “The Democratic Socialists of America” and “The Working Families Party” as “friends”. It’s website laid out a number of principles, some of them, on their face, relatively uncontroversial in the US liberal tradition. It called for:
A Bill of Rights for America’s Children, guaranteeing true equality of opportunity, providing equal education for all students, and achieving an adequate standard of health care, nutrition, housing, and safety.
And:
The creation of a sustainable economy based on the responsible and reverent use of our earth’s resources—taking no more than we need, replacing and reusing all that we can.
We can see echoes of these ideas in Barack Obama’s current agenda, and they seem broadly consistent with the policies of liberal Democrats. But, their are more worrying aspects of the platform. For instance:
Full employment, a shorter work week, and a guaranteed minimum income for all adults; a universal “social wage” to include such basic benefits as health care, child care, vacation time, and lifelong access to education and training; a systematic phase-in of comparable worth and like programs to ensure gender equity.
These principles would be cheerily embraced by the Socialist Party in France; indeed, they’re well-known for their “shorter work week”. In this same vein, their home-page has a broken link to “The Living Wage”. The Living Wage movement, which usually calls for a minimum wage at least twice as high as the minimum wage, has been a prominent fixture in leftist politics for more then a decade. Perhaps unsurprisingly, ACORN is one of it’s more prominent advocates. ACORN, which is in the news for voter fraud. ACORN, who Barack Obama represented as a young lawyer. ACORN, which had the most prominent role in pushing for low-income and minority housing loans. The ACORN ties don’t end. A 2000 Arkansas Times article on the Arkansas chapter of the New Party, tosses out a curious aside:
Others – even some sympathetizers- complain the party is merely a creature of ACORN. The two organizations share offices and have some overlap in membership.
There are other potentially worrying ideas, which touch upon the current crisis. For instance they embrace:
The democratization of our banking and financial system—including popular election of those charged with public stewardship of our banking system, worker-owner control over their pension assets, community-controlled alternative financial institutions.
What are we to make of this? Who is charged with “public stewardship” of our banking system? The Treasury Secretary seems the obvious candidate, but this doesn’t seem quite right. Without more context, it’s difficult to understand what they mean by this “principle”, but it seems to suggest a further nationalization of the banking industry. New Party national chairman, Joel Rogers, describes more about their goals in a 1996 Nation article:
Complete some semblance of a modern welfare state through single-payer health insurance. Simplify and integrate our tax system to tax both private and social income on a progressive basis. Declare the budgetary peace dividend we’ve already forfeited so many times to an enemy that no longer exists.
Blue Dogs these folks were not. Barack Obama was one of them and seems to have substantial ties to the ideas, institutions, and values they supported. I’ll leave you with a quote from Suzanne Wall, the party’s former national secretary:
We decided we were the leaders we were looking for.
Reminds me of a “One” we all know and love.
October 8th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Matthew,
I saw your response to my comment in the previous thread. I just don’t see a lot of additional people recoiling at Obama’s association with a party that advocates universal health care and higher wages, even if is to the left of the positions he now advocates. These are scary things for right wingers who are probably going to vote for McCain/Palin anyway, but don’t sound that bad to the non-ideological swing voters who will decide this election. You know how Obama’s going to spin this if it becomes a story? He’ll say that he accepted their support and nomination but did not believe he was joining their party when he did so (He attended their conventions but never joined the party, even though the party’s leaders had claimed he did! What a novel concept!). He’ll say something about how the New Party’s goal was to find ways for new candidates to break through the corrupt Chicago political power structure to allow for Real Change (TM). Then his surrogates will begin to talk about Sarah Palin’s associations with the Alaska Independence Party – with video. This is not going to be a productive angle of attack.
October 8th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
I’ve been saying that Obama was a Socialist for a year now. I’m glad to finally have some evidence to prove it. It scares me to death. I had no intention of voting for McCain (and I really am a lifelong Republican) until Obama won the Dem primary. I could not, in good conscience, cast a “protest vote” that would assist that man in any way. We all need to get this information out there. Hopefully, the official campaign will do so as well, but if not, we can still do a lot.
I’m relatively new here, is it ok to post things from here to our MySpace and Facebook pages? That would be a start.
October 8th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Obama is lying to voters.
At this point voters seem willing to give away their future by electing a socialist with a soothing voice.
If voters are ignorant enough to elect Senator Obama, they deserve the widespread poverty and crime Barack will bring.
Voters should be allowed to choose to destroy themselves. It’s just a shame that my family has to suffer along with the reckless immature people voting for Obama.
October 8th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Big S,
Beyond just trying to prove to people that the New Party is socialist (and that that is in fact a bad thing), the larger issue for undecideds is that Obama LIED about it. The fact that he lied about it has the double effect of making the New Party look worse. “Why would Obama try to HIDE his association with this party, if they are TRULY so mainstream?”
McCain needs to hit Obama as much for the lying as for the radical politics of the party. That WILL resonate with undecides and make Obama softer support question how much they truly know about him.
October 8th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
I’d probably have to agree with Big S on this one…to us, people who pay attention to the minutiae of politics and what it means, this is huge BUT, I don’t think it will be to undecided voters…in fact The New Party may get new members.
October 8th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
That’s the thing. First, you’re going to have to prove to people that the party was, in fact, really radical. The policy positions quoted in this post do not really meet that standard for a lot of people. Second, you’re going to have to prove that Obama was actively pushing these policies. He can show that he was elected as a Democrat at the time the New Party was claiming him as a member. His party ID upon entering the Illinois State Senate carries the most weight in that argument, I think.
October 8th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
This party was formed by socialists, was previously called the “Democratic Socialists of America”, and whose purpose was to but a prettier face on Socialism in America. Why are we sugar coating this?
October 8th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Hey Kavon, when obama brings in socialized medicine, how much of our military budget Will we have to cut? I guessing 50 percent, as that was what happened in Europe.
October 8th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Big S,
“First, you’re going to have to prove to people that the party was, in fact, really radical. The policy positions quoted in this post do not really meet that standard for a lot of people. Second, you’re going to have to prove that Obama was actively pushing these policies. ”
No, and no.
McCain only has to demonstrate that Obama lied about it. This makes Obama a liar, makes people wonder WHY he lied, and makes people wonder what ELSE he’s lied about.
October 8th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Unreal. The socialist has come out against the Republican on the outrageous homeowner bailout proposed last night. Now, Alanis, this is ironic…
October 8th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
This SHOULD be very big news, but will it be…are we smart enough as a party to get the word out to the public…..we haven’t been able to on all his other associations…or else no one cares.
October 8th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
This is all very disturbing. However, Aron is right. Our guys are the one’s acting like Socialists these days, alas, between Bush’s bailout and McCain’s mortgage buyout, we’re all socialists now. Sad.
October 8th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
But Sarah Palin was a member of the Alaskan Independence Party!
October 8th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
It is hard for me to vote for John McCain. It is easy, however, to vote AGAINST Barack Obama.
October 8th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Hunter, are you sure of that? I thought that had been debunked. No?
October 8th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Hunter,
“But Sarah Palin was a member of the Alaskan Independence Party!”
That’s not true. Even the MSM had to admit that. Get some news outside of Kos.
October 8th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Hey, dudes. Let’s try to digg this story to the top!
http://digg.com/politics/Archives_confirm_Barack_Obama_belonged_to_socialist_party
Up or down, win or lose, whether it helps us or it hurts us, we need to get this story out.
October 8th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Done and done. Other sites are posting huge excerpts from DSA literature, platforms, statements of principles etc.
October 8th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Yes. But this actually helps us. The fact that the media thought that non-story was news gives Obama’s REAL and VERIFIED membership in 2 socialist parties both relevance and merit as a story.
October 8th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
dotan,
What, you’re suggesting that the MSM is ABOVE double standards?
I always thought of you as one of the more intelligent and insightful posters here.
October 8th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
First you’re going have to tell the people what the party is, and hope the average person doesn’t agree with their basic mission statement…then you have to tell the people what Obama said about the party…then you have to show that he lied…it’s a very long narrative. A waste of time this late in the cycle. Stick with Ayers…it’s working.
October 8th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
The only way this could possibly work is in an ad where this is on a laundry list of other things Obama has lied about…then maybe the voter can do their own research.
October 8th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
dotan,
How strong is the link between the New Party and the DSA?
October 8th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
New Party platform item “A progressive tax system based on the ability to pay.” Easy to see where Obama get’s his “Department of Tax Fairness” ideas from now.
October 8th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
MWS,
Greetings my friend! I haven’t left a comment here since Huck bowed out, but visit the site often and always scan the comment section for remarks by you and Matthew Miller; and always enjoy Matthew’s frontpage work. After Kavon let you post on the frontpage I’d hoped you become a regular. Anyway, I learn a lot from you guys.
Matthew,
Earlier today you wrote that in 2012, and forever more, you will support the best politician as opposed to the most knowledgable/best qualified. Then wrote that you’ll be supporting Palin or Pawlenty next time around. Any chance whatsoever that you’d support the most gifted Republican politician of the last 20 years(maybe ever), Mike Huckabee?
Huckabee and Powell would’ve been a lock this year.
October 8th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
I’d love it if McCain could throw back some of Obama/Biden’s comments about Cheney by somehow weaving in the documented fact that Obama and Cheney are related…
I know, probably falls in the ‘I’m rubber and you’re glue’ category, but it would be entertaining to say the least.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/10/just-how-closel.html
October 8th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
26 – and further to this, here’s a “non-racial” statement:
October 8th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
I was being sarcastic with the Palin-AIP quip, sorry. As dotan pointed out, it’s just humorous that Sarah Palin was criticized for supposedly belonging to a fairly mainstream and moderate third-party (which turned out to be untrue, anyway), while we’re just now hearing about Barack’s ties to yet another left-wing organization. Then again, I guess “humorous” isn’t the right word…
October 8th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
mac,
It’s good to “hear” from you! Thanks for your kind words. I hope to “see” you around more regularly. I agree that Huck would be in a stronger position given the current tumult, but obviously that is neither here nor there. We have what we have, and I think McCain has the potential to be a pretty good President. I think Palin has the potential to be a great one. We’ll have to see what ‘12 or ‘16 brings.
October 8th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Hunter,
Sorry for missing the sarcasm. I guess I wasn’t familiar enough with where you are coming from to catch it. I hereby rescind the baseless accusation that you only receive your news from DailyKos.
October 8th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
mac,
Huck is a great politician and despite my problems with his record, I could possibly support him in a primary. But, I frankly think Palin and Pawlenty are his equals, politically, and have more acceptable records. If either one of them runs, Huck’s out. Huck would probably be somewhere around 5th on my list, behind Palin, Pawlenty, Pence and Jindal. Jindal isn’t a natural politician, but he seems to be pretty adept at learning. He ran as a health care wonk in 2003. It failed. He spent 4 years courting the “Bubba” white Republicans who’d suspiciously failed to turn out for him in 2003; he adjusted to a less wonky reform message that the voters were craving. He slowed his speaking a little bit. So I trust that he can easily compensate for some of the lack of charisma.
October 8th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
MWS,
You’re right, it is neither here nor there. I’m hoping McCain can still pull this out but it’s looking increasingly less likely.
Matthew,
I’m just happy to see that Huckabee moved up from ‘last man on earth’ to your number 5. I like Palin more for her story than for her abilty on the stump. Those other guys aren’t in the same league with Mike in terms of political skills, but I like Jindal as a VP possibility in 2012.
October 8th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
#30… Hah, no harm done.
October 8th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
October 8th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
This DSA newsletter indicates that there was a tie-in:
http://www.chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/ng47.html
… it reports positively on the New Party, and says that there was discussion of a formal affiliation: “The only controversial business at the meeting was a proposal that Chicago DSA affiliate with the New Party. Ultimately, the meeting voted to, in effect, explore affiliation with both the New Party and the Labor Party…”
October 9th, 2008 at 12:50 am
The New Party sounds pretty darn socialist to me. Here’s its list of “principles.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2100671/posts
October 9th, 2008 at 2:18 am
I have to say that I don’t think we are going to achieve a great deal by arguing that Obama was a member of the New Party, and the New Party is a socialist party, and therefore Obama is a socialist. Looking at the New Party’s web site, people won’t see the word “socialism” and so they won’t necessarily be convinced that the New Party is indeed socialist.
Similarly, the fact that the Chicago Democratic Socialists of America chapter had to vote on whether to consider affiliating with the New Party (which, at the time, already existed), pretty much proves that the DSA didn’t found the New Party as has been suggested elsewhere.
It is also known that Danny Davis, the congressman who represents part of Chicago, including some of the area formerly represented by Obama in the legislature, was a New Party member for years. But that has not created any real controversy in his career. The following USA Today article mentions it with no particular significance attached and no reference to socialism:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/2002-11-06-independent-usat_x.htm
Trying to excite people over the fact that the New Party listed the Working Families Party as a friend will make us look ridiculous. The Working Families Party endorsement is accepted by lots of Democratic candidates in New York state. Among the candidates who have appeared on the Working Families line are Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer when they ran for the U.S. Senate, Eliot Spitzer when he ran for governor, and John Kerry when he ran for president. Being associated with the Working Families Party would probably disqualify someone from being considered a conservative or a potential national Republican candidate, but it’s not going to do any damage to a liberal Democrat.
Finally, we might be able to convince the American people that Obama is unfit to be president because he is an associate of Bill Ayers, an unapologetic ex-terrorist who feels no remorse for setting bombs. But we’re not going to be able to convince the American people that Obama is unfit to be president because he once joined a political party which positioned itself basically on the left side of, but within, the Democratic Party.