If you could choose to invest your time, voice, money, interest – whatever -- into one of the following political options, which would you choose? Option 1 and 1a would be to support either the Democratic or Republican parties as they are today. That is: large, old, highly established organizations, with complicated hierarchical structures, increasingly dominated by the extreme end of one side of the political spectrum. Each is in the debt of numerous very large special interest groups, upon which they depends for billions of dollars in order to feed their machines. The two parties have alternated control of the country for 150 years.
They traded power 3-4 times just since WWII, a period of time in which the country peaked probably 35 years ago. In the subsequent years they have involved the country in 4-5 wars (depending on what you count), and the national debt has soared to alarming levels, all as they have changed the rules to make it easier for them to retain power. As the country’s problems multiplied, they have been frozen in inaction for 40 years arguing and fighting over largely tangential issues in an increasing partisan fashion. Meanwhile it’s been 37 years since the first oil boycott and there is still no national policy to decrease dependence on imported oil.
Option 2 is to throw your support to a new, third political party. Let’s call it the Independent party. (Roughly as many people in the U.S. today call themselves Independents as self-identify as either Republicans or Democrats.) The Indies would stand for moderate policies close to what used to be thought of as those of liberal Republicans or conservative Democrats, before those terms became oxymorons.
The leadership for the Indies would come from a loose association of very high profile, wealthy individuals, who, while they might also be politicians, are better known for their accomplishments in the private sector.
The Indies will show themselves to be pragmatic politically, and unafraid to bring difficult issues the country faces to the forefront of the debate, while offering realistic, achievable, measurable ideas for solving problems.
Some of these very public people might not be in your Top Ten, but even if you dislike them it is quite possible you dislike them for non-political reason. For example, you might not have a problem with his record as a mayor but dislike Michael Bloomberg for his billionaire’s aloofness.
So those are your choices. I’m sure everyone reading this can think of a couple of things that make this a Hobson’s Choice (Thomas Hobson, above), given the number of unknowns and the hypothetical nature of Option 2. But the big picture is correct, isn’t it?
It’s not really a very difficult choice once you see that Options 1 and 1a are not really two separate choices. They represent just one choice because the two parties have conspired to create a political monopoly, and they have absolutely no reason to change anything. There have no competition today.
You can have chocolate or vanilla, but if you want Chunky Money, or even good old-fashioned strawberry, you are shit-out-of-luck mates.
So which would you choose?
Posts
21 comments:
Well clearly the Indies. Assuming none of their high-profile wealthy backers are named The Koch Brothers. It sure could be exciting. I recall feeling really hopeful about (and voting for) John Anderson. I also recall feeling really hopeful about Bill Clinton in November 1994 (I clearly recall waking up in Manhattan Beach, where we then lived, post election day thinking everything will be ok now). Much as I supported Obama I knew, because "the others" would make his life and ours a misery nothing would change.
I really think Bloomberg could pull this off. The time seems right.
But it's going to get uglier first. Who's to say we're not going to have a witch from Delaware, a man who vows to take down unemployment insurance (until we learn his wife was on the dole) from Alaska and a woman from Nevada who will do away with Social Security in the Senate next year. The Senate. The upper house.
Surely, in an uncomplicated world, I'd support an independent party which would commit to cleaning the house (and senate).
Of course the real scenario would be a compromise. It might taste more like cod liver oil than Chunky Monkey.
Nate Silver, in his NY Times blog FiveThirtyEight, on the current horse race, has responded to TF's piece with, "Odds Against Third-Party Bid Not as Long as They Seem." This is a thoughtful analysis of a 3rd party: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/odds-against-third-party-bid-not-as-long-as-they-seem/#more-1761
I'm going to strand myself on a deserted island somewhere far away and all you assholes (in the collective sense, not directed as a personal attack towards anyone specific) can fight amongst yourselves.
In the words of Neil Peart, "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice".
Nik -- that is more or less the path my generation took once we grew up and got jobs, and we are paying the price for it now. You're going to have to fight, the only question is when.
Option 2 without question
Option 2
Option 2...we have gotten the government we deserve and not the government we need. Option 2 gives us a shot.
Option 2 is the best feel good choice but probably the least likely to happen.
The amount of money needed to change Congress is staggering.
WaPo reported today that for the week ending OCT 3rd, $23 million was spent on the GOP alone, with $7.5 million spent for Dems.
American Crossroads spent $3.5 mill on Rep, who knows what the group is.
Natl Association of Realtors $1.8 mil.
Chamber of Commerce $1.2 million.
And the parties themselves a combined $10.5 million.
All of this in one week and it will grow each week.
Bloomberg will have to dig mighty deep to match those numbers.
We primarily get the government that business pays for.
I agree with Option 2. However, seems like alot of backtracking will have to happen before the ideal of Op 2 goes into effect.
Dennis, you Menace -
I voted for the Indies - but with a caveat - I shudder at the Liberal Republicans - Conservative Democrats as the template for your Independent party since the CDs were mostly Dixiecrats who resisted integration, embraced the war in viet nam and went gaga over ronald reagan, who was himself a turn coat who worked tirelessly to undo the good FDR wrought. My idea of a true independent is Vermont's Bernie Sanders...
Option 3 Dennis. Establish a platform of ideas that represent core Indie values. People are sick of high profile politicians and they are also sick of high profile rich former business people. Build momentum around the ideas and principles that represent the Indies. Then find the most authentic representative of those ideas and values. Highly unlikely it will be a rich former business person. Heck, it might be you!
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
About the demorats, you said in the last post that you didn't want to "reform that party." You can trust me on one thing - I have zero use for the corrupt careerist statists that are the party now. Same for the rethuglicans. But politics is the art of the possible. If it doesn't get real world results when they can do some good, it's just onanism.
Third parties have never in american history done anything except spoil - often to the chagrin of their principal driven supporters (big shout out to Ralph Nader voters in 2000.)
The dem party has changed stripes and views many times in it's history. Once upon a time, when Kennedy was the democrat president, the nation cut taxes across the board, and federal revenues, and the fortunes of private enterprise soared, as a good example. In the democrat party, as in the US, the people must be the only sovereign. Now it is controlled by a pack of disgusting careerist kleptocrats.
Build the party. Throw the rats out on Nov 2.
So . . . if I could choose, I would be a benevolent king. Like your idle speculations, that's pure magical thinking. Stop worrying about the R's taking power. When the rat trash is kicked to the curb on Nov 2, let's look around with one word on our lips: "next?"
I've been a party democrat for 40 years. These pukes won't drive me out, because I was here first. Scores must be settled at the polls, as an object lesson to those who think the democrat party is their private piggy bank/limo to the stars. Otherwise the party will go the way of the whigs, which in that case will be a good thing. And maybe it will be that way, but I doubt it.
The dark wave that is about to overtake the half wit Britanny Spears in the WH and Nancy Botoxic has virtually nothing to do with popular approval for the republicans. Who would trust that pack of jerks? As Michael Barone has described it, this is a time of "open field politics." The republicans will perform this time as servants, rather than thieving masters, or they will be gone just like before.
And I said before, if it's a case of "their piece of shit or ours," theirs get's my vote this time.
AY has asked me to cast a vote for #2 on her behalf.
@Steven: I was thinking more like Scoop Jackson than Dixicrats, and if you're really going to make the middle dominant you have to embrace Reagan Democrats, otherwise, it's like opening a hot dog stand and refusing to sell to fat people.
@bob maund: since you've seen my political skills up close I want to assure other readers you are joking.
You want Mr. Smith (who went to Washington)? Maybe in 1939, but today it is a money and star driven culture. The only way to make a big enough impact quickly enough to build a following is with lots of both. I want Arnold in the Indie Party too.
I would vote for the second option but I would insist on term limits.
You have to wonder why the parties became so polarized in the last thirty years. There appears to be almost no common ground. After 9/11 the democrats backed almost all of what Bush did, but other than that it seems like for the last 30-40 years the two parties just refuse to compromise. DeMint said it best when he said the GOP should not go along with health care because it could bring Obama down.
Absolutely no intention of crafting some piece of legislation that might insure more people and lower health care costs. Just win the political battle and win at the polls.
Democracy cannot survive if the opposing sides cannot have a working relationship and compromise.
I'm reminded of the LBJ tapes when he'd say "find out what it will take for the Republicans to go along with the bill." Now it would be what can we add to the bill to make the Republicans look bad when they vote against it because we know they will.
As long as all the money involved can be traced back to its origins i'd go for #2
I am an Indy....love your vision for the 3rd party. Let's pray it's that and not Grizzly's Tea Party!
@KG: it's the gerrymandering, don't you think? 80% of the elections are really decided in the primary -- and that's usually a coronation. gerrymandering is the cornerstone of the Rep/Dem's campaign to freeze out all other parties and create a political monopoly for themselves.
Of course Indy. I walked the talk this same time last year and got very active supporting a true independent (not a tea party independent) for NJ Governor. Polling as high as 20% at one time, Chris Daggett scared the sh*T out of Christie for a while there. In the end, money, the $1.5 mill he raised to be in the debates, was not nearly enough to compete with the party machines and people were just afraid that a vote for Daggett was a vote for the candidate they hated. Star Ledger even broke ranks to endorse Daggett but in the end he was on the bleeding edge of a true independent movement. But what a difference a year has made and Bloomberg has the money (his own and his friends),the name and in my opinion the track record to do a decent job. Daggett is now president of the Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation and can still do public good. Christie is making hard and unpopular decisons but I can't help but think that in less than one year he has simply pissed off way too many politically entrenched groups (not a bad thing) but it may come back to hurt him. Hope I'm wrong...
None of the above. Having to choose is still playing into the game. Change big bisiness. Forget trying to change the country through politics. Dont buy a car,house,tv, or any other electronic device until they are made here. Trust me its possible to live w/o them. Outlaw the gas engine by 2020. And stop paying taxes.
If you must play the political game do what the earliest Americans did, eliminate the oppressors,"by any means necessary."
Post a Comment