We now have a three-party system

I read Frank Rich's "One night, two Americas" in today's New York Times.

He essentially writes that Clinton and McCain are of the past and Obama is of the future. From this I thought of how both the left and the right are stuck in battles and world views of the past; Obama has captured the hopes of those who look to the future. My quick diagram of this is

|| –

The vertical lines are the parties of the past, stuck in the past; the horizontal line is the party of the future moving forward. Another way to look at it is the right is the party of globalization of business but of anti-globalization of politics (we know best) and the left is the party of anti-globalization of business but of globalization of politics. They are also stuck in the polarization of ideas many Americans would rather not take a firm stand on: gun control, abortion, immigration, and so on.

I think that Obama will win in a landslide because he represents the future. He will win because he will get more people voting than ever. He will win because he has built a strong organization of average people rather than of Washington insiders. He will win because he is a better speaker and thinker. Finally, he will win because people do want change.

Simple platform for a moderate party

Many party platforms are laundry lists of ideas and proposed legislation that members want or oppose. It is impossible for candidates to act on so many ideas or even present coherent views on all of them. The 2004 platforms were 43 pages(Democrats) and 92 pages (Republicans). In 2008 The Independence Party of Minnesota has a reasonably simple platform, but its seven-page platform contains too many gimmicks as solutions to certain problems.

I would feel more comfortable supporting a party that had a simple platform like the following:

1. A civil society needs to strive for a balance between individual freedom and the common good.
2. The U.S. Constitution should be a starting point for determining this balance.
3. A civil society will never have complete agreement as to where the balance is.
4. Today's solutions may become tomorrow's problems.
5. All else is commentary.

Time for Republicans of integrity to bolt the party

I've long been disenchanted with both "major parties" and been unhappy that the election process locks in the choice between "excessive government" and "excessive individualism (except for what they don't like)".

Six Republican Minnesota legislatures supported an override of Gov. Tim Pawlenty's veto of a transportation bill. For this "breaking of party discipline" the minority leader has stripped them of their committee positions. Very strange considering that Republicans pride themselves on being for individual choice and responsibility.

I think this may be an excellent opportunity for these legislatures to bolt their party, especially considering that they represent districts that are voting more Democratic. However, the Democrats are not really the answer for these legislatures. Rather, I think they should either start a new moderate party or join an existing moderate party.

A new moderate party would have a relatively simple principle: the need for a balance between individual choice and the common good. Anything more could lock the party into positions that would be irrelevant or counterproductive in the future.

An existing moderate party is the Independence Party of Minnesota. You can find its principles at http://www.mnip.org/principles.shtml. This page has links to the party's platform and other information. Personally, I find the platform has too many details.

If you think that a vote for the Independence Party will be a "wasted vote", remember that third-party gubernatorial candidate Jesse Ventura, last in the polls, was elected governor in 1998. And if you keep voting for either the left or the right, you might be left right out of a bright future.

See also "Voting is not a horse race".

Are demonstrations effective?

The beauty of demonstrating is that you do not have to compromise.

You gather the like-minded, stand around or march with signs, and some people agree with you, most ignore you, and a few attack you, verbally or physically. You feel good about making a statement and go home. But have you really changed anything?

The real way to get change is to get involved politically. To be effective politically you have to appeal to a wide range of people and interests. To appeal to a wide range of people, you have to compromise.

You can get political change by running for office, by supporting those who share many of your views, or by writing reasoned letters to the editor or to office-holders. Or you could start a new political party that addresses issues you think are not being addressed. But to be successful in getting your party's candidates elected, it has to appeal to a wide range of people and interests. See above about compromise.

So it is much easier to demonstrate and feel good.