If you thought the previous round-ups were were made up of unelectable weirdos, just take a look at this week's gang!
Frank Moore
Ahh, Frank Moore. What can you say about this guy? Quite a lot actually: Frank is a Bay Area mainstay who is a performance artist, poet, essayist, painter, musician and television personality, and all around weird guy.
What’s even more astounding is the fact that he was born with cerebral palsy, can not walk or talk, but has "written books, directed plays, directed, acted in and edited films, regularly gives poetry readings, plays piano, sings in ensemble music jams, and continues to lead bands in hard core punk clubs up and down the west coast" (or so says his resume and Wikipedia).
When I input “performance artists” and “Berkeley” and add them with “presidential candidate” into my handy dandy political calculator, I end up with “insane uber-Moonbat Candidate – approach only when high.”
But some of Frank’s platform isn’t as off the wall as one would expect after glancing at his resume. Not that most of it is plausible, but some of his positions are at least interesting. Here are a few:
1. "I'll do away with welfare and social security. Instead, every American will receive a minimum income of $1,000 a month."
Hmmm, sounds like welfare Frank, even when you say it isn’t. If you don’t earn the money yourself, and the government gives it to you, it’s called welfare.
2. "Government should leave marriage to churches. Instead, any two or more adults who have been living together for at least 2 years should be able to register as a 'family.'"
Sounds fair to me. I have no problem with different family set-ups registering to receive similar tax benefits that married folks get.
3. "An individual taxpayer will be able to direct her taxes to what functions she wants to support. But corporate taxpayers should not have this option."
Sure to make conservatives and libertarians happy. It should make left leaning folks happy as well, but something tells me those social programs the socialists love so much would not have a lot of support if people actually had the ability to direct their tax dollars.
4. "All businesses selling their products in the U.S. will have to certify that their products were manufactured in accordance with this country's labor, wage, environmental, and safety laws."
Sounds great, and won’t ever happen.
5. "The use of drugs should be legalized and taxed. Pot and spirits should be sold over the counter to adults only. Tobacco and other addictive drugs should be sold by prescription only."
Also sounds great, but likely won’t ever come to be.
Frank also wants to cut military spending, destroy our stockpile of nuclear weapons, and ban the sale of arms to any country. That page of his platform could fit nicely in the Kucinich’s playbook.
To show that she’s committed to the Berkley type leftist in the coming election, perhaps Hilary should pick this guy to be her running mate. How could the hard left turn on her when you’ve got Frank Moore on the ticket? And since he can’t talk, he won’t be able to mess up like their candidate did 4 years back!
Socialist Workers Party
Much like the SWP in Britain, the SWP-USA has been one of the biggest proponents of Trotskyism in America during the last 50 years, and is one of those marginal communist parties that just won’t die. In 1986, the party won a lawsuit against the FBI when they were able to prove that the agency had been spying on them for some years. You can still find active members within colleges and places like New York.
I attended a few of their meetings in my early college days. Nothing about them seemed noteworthy, other than they have been going on about that whole communism thing for a long time now. I am sure there are over a dozen splinter groups that were spawned from their ranks.
Interestingly enough, some pretty “big” political players were once part of this group. Peter Camejo (Green Party Heavyweight and Ralph Nader running mate), Lyndon LaRouche (political cult leader, perennial third party candidate, and anti-Semite), and Max Shachtman (proto-Neoconservative) were all once part of this organization.
Roger Calero

As far as I can tell, the party has not endorsed anyone to be their candidate for the 2008 election, but their 2004 candidates were simply too good not to mention. Their presidential hopeful was Roger Calero, who was born in Nicaragua and currently resides in Newark, New Jersey. He is a writer for the SWP’s newspaper.
Calero’s main problem in the 2004 election was not the fact that his party, platform, and ideology were completely unelectable, but that he was not a citizen of the United States and could not technically run for the office! And get this; his running mate (Arrin Hawkins) wasn’t old enough to run for the office (she was only 28 at the time)! Let’s forget for a second how out of the mainstream the SWP is; sure, they won’t be elected even if their candidates meet election guidelines. But wouldn’t you at least try to make it appear as if you could take the office? Nothing says “we are irrelevant!” quite like running candidates for an office they can’t hold.
Or maybe their whole campaign was just a stunt to sell more of their group’s newspapers (and a paper both candidates work for). If you can’t win the White House, at least you can litter college campuses with your drivel!



11 comments:
For a long time the British SWP (which as every one knows stands for Student W*nkers Party!) believed that there was no parliamentary road to socialism but they have been heavily involved in RESPECT which gave that worm Galloway a new home and seat after he was thrown out of the Labour Party. If the US version are much the same you'd be far better voting for a Monster Raving Loony candidate!
Jams: the only difference between the American SWP and the UK is that the American version has absolutely no electoral power and support.
But based on the developments at Harry’s Place concerning RESPECT, it doesn’t seem like the British SWP has that either!
My favorite Presidential candidate is Michael the Archangel. You can find his profile at politics1.com on their GOP section. He claims to be the brother of Jesus and is running to promote his book or something. Quite amusing.
The GOP is basically running their 1998 playbook on Clinton. People didn't care then, and they don't care now. Unless she has a Dean moment, they might as well give her the tiara now.
Fine. There are some weird third party candidates, but what other choices are there. Doesn't it bother you that America is a two-party dicatorship and that people outside of these parties rarely are given proper platform to voice their ideas and opinions? Ralph Nader would make a great President: Green Party member with socialist ideals and concerned with consumer advocacy. Sounds good to me.
I agree with your criticism of the SWP, in any country; they are highly unorganized and unfocused. But what's wrong with socialist ideals penetrating American public policy? You don't agree with universal healthcare, better schools with less disparity between poorer and richer neighborhoods, social security, welfare programs, unemployment programs, workers' compensation, financial aid for college students, and employee empowerment movements?
Socialism (not communism) promotes democracy by allowing people to reside on similiar playing fields. I don't think everybody should make the same money, and I don't think governments should interfere with big business, so long as business doesn't hurt the general welfare. (If I had to label myself, I would say I'm a social capitalist.) But I do think people shouldn' be so materialistic and should be more charitable; whether governments should force societies to adopt these ideals is another story, however I don't agree with that either.
I’d rather have income obtained from green taxes to be channeled towards green projects, and say income obtained from cigarette duties to be channeled towards health projects – but it's very complicated to let every person have a say on where there tax goes. And I agree with points four and five – except maybe that tobacco should be sold by prescription!
Is it just me or has the word "socialism" become a euphemism for the word "communism"
Personally speaking, I use the term socialism as an umbrella term to group together groups such as communist, social democrat, communitarian anarchist…if I need to get more specific in a certain situation, then I do.
I know they run mayoral candidates in SF. I met one in Cuba back in the day.
Do you know anything about the relationship between Malcolm X and the SWP? The publishing arm of the SWP (Pathfinder Press) has the rights to all of that old Malcolm X material like “By Any Means Necessary,” “Malcolm X Speaks” and “Malcolm X: The Last Speeches”? They are still making decent money from those titles in addition to the Che Guevara books.
I think the SWP in the UK is affiliated with the International Socialist Organization or ISO. That’s the loons behind ANSWER.
The SWP in the U.S. is not affiliated with the ISO. They are actually rival loony left sects.
Hector writes:
“Doesn't it bother you that America is a two-party dictatorship”
You clearly have not spent much (if any) time in a dictatorship.
Andre asks:
“Is it just me or has the word "socialism" become a euphemism for the word "communism"”
Generally speaking in the US, yes. We lack the social democratic parties of Europe and most people use the two words interchangeably. When you discuss these matters with people who are more concerned/educated about politics and political systems in other countries, they understand the difference. But for most of the U.S. socialism = communism.
I also use the term “socialism” when refereeing to communist groups simply because they also use the term socialism to designate their position. The “Socialist Workers Party” does not have a great deal in common with left democrats, but since they advocate a socialist policy, they get to also use the term in my opinion.
Clearly, there are varying degrees of socialists, just as there are varying degrees of liberal.
New Centrist: I actually don’t know much about the intellectual property the SWP has control of. That is definitely something I will look into. I assumed that they had the rights to publish something lucrative or had a wealthy donor to keep them afloat.
And you are right, the British SWP and American SWP are not affiliated, and actually belong to separate international ideological foundations. I put them together in this piece to designate that they both have been major advocates for Trotskyism in their respected counties.
Hector, thanks for posting. I personally lost interest in any type of socialism a long time ago. I personally think that even in a nation where the policies are popular, the system is inherently anti-liberal, and is inherently un democratic because it forces its citizens to work for the state in essence. It does not advocate for the right of the individual, and it was for this very reason that I have a hard time supporting groups that are socialistic in their nature.
I look at it like this: taxes are funds we provide by basically “working” for the state or government. If you must pay 30% of your earnings to the government that means 30% of your time is spent working for someone else. Many of us would not put it this way, but it is forced labor pressed upon every individual regardless if they agree with its ends or not. It is that very reason that I personally don’t feel socialism in any form is democratic.
my response:
ah, i do love liberals! i get, when i look under your veneer of cynicism, that you basically like my platform. yep, my resume, while all true, is embarrassing in its bulk. it just tells you i'm a do-er, that i know how to get things done. i agree that most of my platform is now politically impossible, although relatively simple to do. it is important to ask why this is so. the first step to make what we want possible is to remove deadening cynicism. that is what my campaign is all about. cynicism isn't really skeptism, critical, or realistic. it just sucks hope and possibilties out of any situation.
define "welfare," please.
In Freedom,
Frank Moore
Post a Comment