Here are some quotes from "The PARTY Is OVER: How the Republicans Went CRAZY, Democrats Became USELESS, and the Middle Class Got SHAFTED", Mike Lofgren, a former Republican Congressional staffer.
"Twenty to 25 percent is not a majority [right-wing authoritarian..will not change minds], but it is enough to swing an election, especially when you consider that the authoritarian follower is more easily organized and mobilized than the rest of the population." p. 185
If this doesn't scare the more pragmatic and flexible to vote, then nothing will.
Is there really a difference in the parties?
"In a deep and intractable recession one can never discount the possibility that a Republican could win the presidency against an incumbent Democrat. But if the GOP nominates a candidate too deeply flawed or too right wing to be plausible, it won't really matter. The main thrust of the establishment's policies will be implemented regardless of who wins. That is the genius of our two-party system." p 199
How much pressure do each of us put on Democrat office-holders to put people before corporations?
"And charitable or otherwise nonprofit organizations should no longer be allowed to compensate their executives at almost Wall Street level. Does it make sense that an organization should not pay taxes if it can funnel $5.1 million a year into the pocket of its CEO?" p 208
His footnote is:
"Slideshow: Who Are the Highest-Paid Nonprofit Executives?" Dallas Business Journal, September 16, 2011
Many nonprofits are scientific, charitable, or educational. Some claim to be educational but they are political trying to educate others on their politics. The IRS was right to double check on the non-taxable status of Tea Party organizations. It was not that the Tea Party was singled out per se, but they were the worst offender of all the political abusers. Let's say that drivers for Mucking Trucking were more likely to speed than any other drivers. Shouldn't the State Highway Patrol check on Mucking Trucking drivers more often than other drivers?
"The people of this country must make an effort to clean out their cultural baggage of … fondly-held illusions: illusions that make it easier for ambitious and manipulative politicians to bamboozle them and build bureaucratic empires that only sap the country's true potential." p. 209
He cites the foremost illusion as the myth of American Exceptionalism. It is a disease that has infected all previous great powers or empires. He quotes J. William Fulbright's "The Arrogance of Power":
"The causes of the malady are not entirely clear but its recurrence is one of the uniformities of history: power tends to confuse itself with virtue and a great nation is peculiarly susceptible to the idea that its power is a sign of God's favor, conferring upon it a special responsibility for other nations––to make them richer and happier and wiser, to remake them, that is, in its own shining image."
Or as I've said, who elected the President of the United States as "leader of the free world"?
Showing posts with label third parties. Show all posts
Showing posts with label third parties. Show all posts
Thursday, January 09, 2014
Monday, October 17, 2011
Quote of the day – money and Congress
"Money is not evil. Buying and selling Congress to protect Wall Street, is."
Sign carried by Sally Paulsen, Treasurer, Independence Party of Minnesota, at OccupyMN on 2011-10-07. See "IP impressions of OccupyMN".
Her colleague Ted C. Williams gave a more jaundiced view. He thought many of the demonstrators wanted to show they were mad but that they didn't have any answers. How many problems throughout our history have been pointed out by those who were mad before anything concrete was done? Taxation without representation, slavery, women's suffrage, alcohol abuse, labor laws, civil rights, wars…
Sign carried by Sally Paulsen, Treasurer, Independence Party of Minnesota, at OccupyMN on 2011-10-07. See "IP impressions of OccupyMN".
Her colleague Ted C. Williams gave a more jaundiced view. He thought many of the demonstrators wanted to show they were mad but that they didn't have any answers. How many problems throughout our history have been pointed out by those who were mad before anything concrete was done? Taxation without representation, slavery, women's suffrage, alcohol abuse, labor laws, civil rights, wars…
Monday, January 17, 2011
A possible name and basis for a new party?
There is no real middle between today's so-called conservatives and so-called liberals, other than those who feel caught between two extremes.
What we need is a party that determines what the real problems are and what real, possible solutions to those problems may be. Maybe this party should be called the Realistic Party, not to be confused with reality shows.
Of course, once a group has a name and real people start joining it, then the group starts moving from its original goals. Oh, well! I tried.
This entry was partially inspired by Ross Douthat's latest column, "Scenes from a Marriage", New York Times, 2011-01-16.
He writes about the mutual antipathy between "the media" and Sarah Palin, which Douthat writes is more co-dependence.
Based on his realistic look at the issue, I would say he might be an ideal spokesperson for the Realistic Party. On the other hand, does his over-generalization that some journalists are "the media" disqualify him from this role?
What we need is a party that determines what the real problems are and what real, possible solutions to those problems may be. Maybe this party should be called the Realistic Party, not to be confused with reality shows.
Of course, once a group has a name and real people start joining it, then the group starts moving from its original goals. Oh, well! I tried.
This entry was partially inspired by Ross Douthat's latest column, "Scenes from a Marriage", New York Times, 2011-01-16.
He writes about the mutual antipathy between "the media" and Sarah Palin, which Douthat writes is more co-dependence.
Based on his realistic look at the issue, I would say he might be an ideal spokesperson for the Realistic Party. On the other hand, does his over-generalization that some journalists are "the media" disqualify him from this role?
Friday, December 10, 2010
Who took votes from whom?
In 2000, many Democrats said that Ralph Nader took votes from Al Gore in Florida making it easier for George W. Bush to become president.
In 2010, Tony Sutton, chair of the Republican Party in Minnesota, said that Tom Horner, Independence Party candidate took votes from Tom Emmer, allowing Mark Dayton to become governor of Minnesota.
Maybe both complaints are misdirected.
In either case, have they considered that many of the people who voted for the "minor" candidate might not have even voted if they hadn't had a third choice?
In the 2010 Minnesota governor case, has anyone considered that Mark Dayton might have "taken votes" from Tom Horner? Maybe many voters would have voted for Tom Horner, but they didn't want to "throw their votes away" and allow Tom Emmer to become governor. So, maybe they voted for Mark Dayton because they thought he was a better choice than Tom Emmer.
Unless we interview in depth every single voter, we'll never really know their motivations. It really is presumptuous to assume to know the intent of unknown voters.
In 2010, Tony Sutton, chair of the Republican Party in Minnesota, said that Tom Horner, Independence Party candidate took votes from Tom Emmer, allowing Mark Dayton to become governor of Minnesota.
Maybe both complaints are misdirected.
In either case, have they considered that many of the people who voted for the "minor" candidate might not have even voted if they hadn't had a third choice?
In the 2010 Minnesota governor case, has anyone considered that Mark Dayton might have "taken votes" from Tom Horner? Maybe many voters would have voted for Tom Horner, but they didn't want to "throw their votes away" and allow Tom Emmer to become governor. So, maybe they voted for Mark Dayton because they thought he was a better choice than Tom Emmer.
Unless we interview in depth every single voter, we'll never really know their motivations. It really is presumptuous to assume to know the intent of unknown voters.
Thursday, October 07, 2010
Ads for a moderate party
A coin is flipped and lands on the left side of a line. "Heads - nobody wins." A coin is flipped and lands on the right side of the line. "Tails - everybody loses." A coin is flipped, lands on edge on the line, and rolls off into the future. "You can make the 'improbable' happen."
A person tries to budge an elephant. The person tries to budge a donkey. The person jumps on a horse, into a car, whatever, and goes off to the future.
Abraham Lincoln said, "As our case is new, so must we think anew." Third party candidates have become president.
A person tries to budge an elephant. The person tries to budge a donkey. The person jumps on a horse, into a car, whatever, and goes off to the future.
Abraham Lincoln said, "As our case is new, so must we think anew." Third party candidates have become president.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
A putdown of an unsolicited political phone call
A few minutes ago I received a phone call in which there was a pause after I said, "Hello." I wasn't fast enough to hang up before somebody said, "Is this Melvyn?" I answered, "yes". The person proceeded with something like, "This is so and so, and I'm calling for the Matt Entenza campaign." I replied, "We are not interested in someone who spends so much money." Then I hung up.
For readers not familiar with Minnesota politics, the Democratic-Farmer-Labor (DFL) race for governor has two non-endorsed candidates, Matt Entenza and Mark Dayton, who are spending a spouse's or their own fortunes on the primary campaign. The endorsed candidate, Margaret Anderson Kelliher, has spent far less, but still over a million dollars. I was disappointed that one-fifth of her contributions come from lobbyists and PACs (Star Tribune, 2010-07-26).
I think about leaving the governor race blank on the ballot. The Republican candidate, Tom Emmer, has serious foot-in-mouth disease. I like the idea of the Independence Party attempting to be a viable party, but its website's message doesn't resonate with me.
The only candidate that I have any enthusiasm for is Kelliher's running mate, John Gunyou. He was the Finance Commissioner for the last good Republican governor of Minnesota, Arne Carlson, and he is the city manager of Minnetonka. Every few months he has submitted an op-ed article on good governance. I have emailed him from time to time and he has responded graciously. I once wrote him that I was looking for the Governance Party instead of the Groveling Party and the Grumbling Party.
For readers not familiar with Minnesota politics, the Democratic-Farmer-Labor (DFL) race for governor has two non-endorsed candidates, Matt Entenza and Mark Dayton, who are spending a spouse's or their own fortunes on the primary campaign. The endorsed candidate, Margaret Anderson Kelliher, has spent far less, but still over a million dollars. I was disappointed that one-fifth of her contributions come from lobbyists and PACs (Star Tribune, 2010-07-26).
I think about leaving the governor race blank on the ballot. The Republican candidate, Tom Emmer, has serious foot-in-mouth disease. I like the idea of the Independence Party attempting to be a viable party, but its website's message doesn't resonate with me.
The only candidate that I have any enthusiasm for is Kelliher's running mate, John Gunyou. He was the Finance Commissioner for the last good Republican governor of Minnesota, Arne Carlson, and he is the city manager of Minnetonka. Every few months he has submitted an op-ed article on good governance. I have emailed him from time to time and he has responded graciously. I once wrote him that I was looking for the Governance Party instead of the Groveling Party and the Grumbling Party.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Has a new, moderate party gotten closer?
David Brooks speculates in "The Story of an Angry Voter", New York Times, 2010-05-21, that given the extremes that both parties seem to be moving to, the pragmatists in government will have no choice but to start a new party. Although he doesn't see it happening in the near future, I hope that he keeps writing about the possibility.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Fighting back on the overturning of corporate campaign spending
The Supreme Court overturned precedent about granting "political speech" to corporations, unions, and other organizations, "Justices Overturn Key Campaign Limits", New York Times, 2010-01-21.
I find it very interesting that the "conservatives" who were appointed by presidents from a party that proclaims it is for individual liberty gives greater liberty to corporate interests.
We can't do much about various groups promoting or panning candidates, especially candidates for whom few of the members of the group can vote. But we can refuse to vote for candidates who accept contributions from groups or from people who have no right to vote for that candidate. And we can let them know why we won't vote for them.
Too often we as a people make voting an either/or proposition; we must vote for one of the major party candidates or we will be "throwing our vote away". It is way past time to stand up and be counted in a different way.
If any candidate for whom you might vote accepts contributions from those who can't vote for him or her, write and tell that candidate that you will vote for somebody else or leave that spot on the ballot blank. Maybe you will make no difference for an election cycle or two, but we have to start someplace. If you tell your friends and relatives what you did, if you write letters to the editor about what you did, maybe, just maybe the idea will catch on.
If you vote for the same old, same old, is it really democracy? Real democracy starts with individuals making their voices heard, not with sheep following the herd.
I find it very interesting that the "conservatives" who were appointed by presidents from a party that proclaims it is for individual liberty gives greater liberty to corporate interests.
We can't do much about various groups promoting or panning candidates, especially candidates for whom few of the members of the group can vote. But we can refuse to vote for candidates who accept contributions from groups or from people who have no right to vote for that candidate. And we can let them know why we won't vote for them.
Too often we as a people make voting an either/or proposition; we must vote for one of the major party candidates or we will be "throwing our vote away". It is way past time to stand up and be counted in a different way.
If any candidate for whom you might vote accepts contributions from those who can't vote for him or her, write and tell that candidate that you will vote for somebody else or leave that spot on the ballot blank. Maybe you will make no difference for an election cycle or two, but we have to start someplace. If you tell your friends and relatives what you did, if you write letters to the editor about what you did, maybe, just maybe the idea will catch on.
If you vote for the same old, same old, is it really democracy? Real democracy starts with individuals making their voices heard, not with sheep following the herd.
Monday, November 09, 2009
Arguments for new political parties
I've had in my notes for a week a couple of articles about this year's elections, but haven't taken the time to comment on them. This morning a change of plans had me staying at home, and I took the time to catch up. Catching up included scanning the New York Times web site for articles of interest. The first I chose was "Paranoia Strikes Deep", by Paul Krugman, New York Times, 2009-11-09. When I started to write a note about it, I rediscovered the two older opinion articles and the three seemed to tie together.
Ross Douthat is now the resident "conservative" at the New York Times, David Brooks apparently not being conservative enough. However, Douthat is not a conservative in the current sense, but an older, more respectable sense. Instead of saying no to anything "liberals" propose and adhering strictly to a set of conservative "principles", he says, "Wait a minute, let's think about this" and looks at issues from many perspectives.
Last week Douthat wrote "Three's Company", about the governor's race in New Jersey and the Congressional race in New York. He praised the "spoilers" for shaking things up. He wrote that we need more third parties to break up the corruption of one-party states (both red and blue) and the inertia caused by an intransigent minority. He hoped that new local parties would emerge that would address local issues locally rather than along national fault lines.
David Brooks, "What independents want", New York Times, 2009-11-06, wrote that independents want stability. Independents are moving to the right because they don't see government solving the problems that affect their lives. This should not be seen as a ray of hope for Republicans except in that independents will most likely give less support to Democrats. Brooks didn't write it, but I wonder if too many independents stay home when they are unhappy rather than vote against the party in power. I wonder what would happen if these unhappy independents voted with blank ballots instead of staying home. Or better yet, if a new moderate party arose that promised more stability.
Paul Krugman wrote that the paranoiacs have essentially taken over the Republican Party. Newt Gingrich is now a voice of moderation but he has no power. The power resides in, surprise, the media - Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Sarah Palin. The result will be that we have "a rump party with no interest in actually governing" but enough power to prevent anybody else from governing.
I think Douthat is on to something. Instead of looking for new parties to start at the top around some popular figure like Colin Powell, we need to have parties start around local and state issues. Jesse Ventura did it once; can someone else do it with more pragmatic issues. "Rest assured", we really do need more choice in politics.
Ross Douthat is now the resident "conservative" at the New York Times, David Brooks apparently not being conservative enough. However, Douthat is not a conservative in the current sense, but an older, more respectable sense. Instead of saying no to anything "liberals" propose and adhering strictly to a set of conservative "principles", he says, "Wait a minute, let's think about this" and looks at issues from many perspectives.
Last week Douthat wrote "Three's Company", about the governor's race in New Jersey and the Congressional race in New York. He praised the "spoilers" for shaking things up. He wrote that we need more third parties to break up the corruption of one-party states (both red and blue) and the inertia caused by an intransigent minority. He hoped that new local parties would emerge that would address local issues locally rather than along national fault lines.
David Brooks, "What independents want", New York Times, 2009-11-06, wrote that independents want stability. Independents are moving to the right because they don't see government solving the problems that affect their lives. This should not be seen as a ray of hope for Republicans except in that independents will most likely give less support to Democrats. Brooks didn't write it, but I wonder if too many independents stay home when they are unhappy rather than vote against the party in power. I wonder what would happen if these unhappy independents voted with blank ballots instead of staying home. Or better yet, if a new moderate party arose that promised more stability.
Paul Krugman wrote that the paranoiacs have essentially taken over the Republican Party. Newt Gingrich is now a voice of moderation but he has no power. The power resides in, surprise, the media - Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Sarah Palin. The result will be that we have "a rump party with no interest in actually governing" but enough power to prevent anybody else from governing.
I think Douthat is on to something. Instead of looking for new parties to start at the top around some popular figure like Colin Powell, we need to have parties start around local and state issues. Jesse Ventura did it once; can someone else do it with more pragmatic issues. "Rest assured", we really do need more choice in politics.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
A reasonable conservative speaks out
Today's Star Tribune had an op-ed piece titled "My fellow conservatives: Can we think?" written by Rod Dreher of the Dallas Morning News. It was originally published 2009-09-11 as "Zombie conservatives at the schoolhouse door". If you read the original, be sure to read some of the thoughtful comments that follow.
Dreher is really not happy about the words and actions of many who claim to be conservatives. He laments that thoughtful conservatives have no place to go. I suggest that people who think as he does should start shopping the various moderate parties. As one said who was in on the ground floor of a new party said, "As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew."
Dreher is really not happy about the words and actions of many who claim to be conservatives. He laments that thoughtful conservatives have no place to go. I suggest that people who think as he does should start shopping the various moderate parties. As one said who was in on the ground floor of a new party said, "As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew."
Sunday, August 09, 2009
The U.S. needs its own velvet revolution
According to Frank Rich, the "conservative" charge that Obama is a "socialist" is wrong, he is just as much a "corporatist" as the Republicans before him ("Is Obama Punking Us?", New York Times, 2009-08-08).
Obama has relented on the holding in drug prices and has not kept negotiations with lobbyists public as he promised.
Corporate money is pouring into the coffers of members of Congress of all persuasions.
If in the next elections we don't get candidates who depend only on individual donations, we have to foment our own velvet revolution. It will be hard because of our culture of "throwing our votes away", but we are doing it every time we vote for the same old, same old.
The only way I can think of for individuals to bring about change is to vote NO. The way not to do this is to stay home; your stay-at-home vote is not counted. You have to get out and vote, but you don't have to vote for Tweedledee or Tweedledum. You may have third party candidates who meet your criterion. You can always leave a particular office blank. Or you can write someone in, even if it is "None of the above".
It's up to you to bring about "Change you can believe in."
See also "If you don't vote, you have only yourself to blame", "Voting is not a horse race", and "Will a third party succeed?"
Obama has relented on the holding in drug prices and has not kept negotiations with lobbyists public as he promised.
Corporate money is pouring into the coffers of members of Congress of all persuasions.
If in the next elections we don't get candidates who depend only on individual donations, we have to foment our own velvet revolution. It will be hard because of our culture of "throwing our votes away", but we are doing it every time we vote for the same old, same old.
The only way I can think of for individuals to bring about change is to vote NO. The way not to do this is to stay home; your stay-at-home vote is not counted. You have to get out and vote, but you don't have to vote for Tweedledee or Tweedledum. You may have third party candidates who meet your criterion. You can always leave a particular office blank. Or you can write someone in, even if it is "None of the above".
It's up to you to bring about "Change you can believe in."
See also "If you don't vote, you have only yourself to blame", "Voting is not a horse race", and "Will a third party succeed?"
Monday, July 27, 2009
Pragmatic Republicans, It's time to abandon ship
With some Republican office holders supporting the "birther" movement, and with many Republican office holders indulging in "Just say no!", it's time for office holders who want to address the real problems of this country to abandon ship and form a new party.
It has been done successfully at least twice in the U.S. The Whig Party was formed to address the overreach of President Andrew Jackson. It had two candidates win the Presidency. The Republican Party was formed because many thought the Whigs were not adequately fighting the extension of slavery. The Republican Party has had some successful candidates who addressed the problems of their times.
But now the party has become home to many people who have many contradictory ideas and would rather blame Democrats for any and all ills than offer any real solutions.
Like Abraham Lincoln who withdrew from politics rather than be a Whig, many moderate Republicans have withdrawn to the sidelines rather than be active in the current Republican Party.
Lincoln re-entered politics as a Republican and went on to be a very successful President. Maybe one of the current sideliners might join a new pragmatic party and go on to be a very successful President.
It has been done successfully at least twice in the U.S. The Whig Party was formed to address the overreach of President Andrew Jackson. It had two candidates win the Presidency. The Republican Party was formed because many thought the Whigs were not adequately fighting the extension of slavery. The Republican Party has had some successful candidates who addressed the problems of their times.
But now the party has become home to many people who have many contradictory ideas and would rather blame Democrats for any and all ills than offer any real solutions.
Like Abraham Lincoln who withdrew from politics rather than be a Whig, many moderate Republicans have withdrawn to the sidelines rather than be active in the current Republican Party.
Lincoln re-entered politics as a Republican and went on to be a very successful President. Maybe one of the current sideliners might join a new pragmatic party and go on to be a very successful President.
Monday, June 08, 2009
Quote of the day: the fallacy of the two-party system
party [U.K.] may deserve to be punished, their political opponents don’t deserve to be rewarded.Well, Paul Krugman didn't actually call it a fallacy, but he did write that either-or is not always a good solution. He wrote about the financial crises:
But here’s the thing. While Mr. Brown and his party [U.K.] may deserve to be punished, their political opponents don’t deserve to be rewarded.Next time you vote, remember that there could be a third, or fourth, or ... way.
- "Gordon the unlucky", New York Times, 2009-06-07
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Not always two sides to every issue
One of the fallacies of discourse is that there are two sides to every issue. For example, one of Carinda Horton's fans said that "Horton's show respectively portrayed both sides of an issue." This is an indirect quote by the Duluth News Tribune, "Talk show host Horton let go by Duluth station", 2009-05-28. Carinda Horton was a talk show host on KDAL-AM in the Duluth-Superior area.
There are often one side, two sides, three sides, or any number of sides.
There is really only one side to the issue of the earth being round. There may be some that believe the earth is flat, but all the evidence shows that earth is round. Not exactly perfectly round, but sufficiently round to not be flat, square, or egg-shaped.
The two-side fallacy comes from so many people believing in "two-party system". You're either Republican or Democrat. But even that was not always true. In the days when the parties were less rigid than now, many Democrats would agree on a particular issue with the majority of Republicans, and many Republicans would agree with the majority of Democrats on the same issue.
Even when there seem to be two sides to an issue, there are quite frequently really three: for, against, and don't give a damn. How many people in Duluth wish the school board and "Let Duluth Vote" would just shut up about the Duluth School District's Red Plan?
If we had a true democracy, we would have only independent candidates, each being relative unique in their positions and not beholden to any larger group. That probably will never happen, because people with similar views will work together more often than not. Our best arrangement is to have multiple parties with overlapping views. Unfortunately, we won't get this as long as people are concerned about "throwing their vote away" by voting for other than a Democrat or Republican.
The best thing about having more than two views is that we are more open to new ideas. Suppose there had been only two sides to the slavery question: keep all people with any African ancestry as slaves or send all of them back to Africa. The third side is to treat all people with any African ancestry as full citizens. Stay tuned: we're still working on that.
There are often one side, two sides, three sides, or any number of sides.
There is really only one side to the issue of the earth being round. There may be some that believe the earth is flat, but all the evidence shows that earth is round. Not exactly perfectly round, but sufficiently round to not be flat, square, or egg-shaped.
The two-side fallacy comes from so many people believing in "two-party system". You're either Republican or Democrat. But even that was not always true. In the days when the parties were less rigid than now, many Democrats would agree on a particular issue with the majority of Republicans, and many Republicans would agree with the majority of Democrats on the same issue.
Even when there seem to be two sides to an issue, there are quite frequently really three: for, against, and don't give a damn. How many people in Duluth wish the school board and "Let Duluth Vote" would just shut up about the Duluth School District's Red Plan?
If we had a true democracy, we would have only independent candidates, each being relative unique in their positions and not beholden to any larger group. That probably will never happen, because people with similar views will work together more often than not. Our best arrangement is to have multiple parties with overlapping views. Unfortunately, we won't get this as long as people are concerned about "throwing their vote away" by voting for other than a Democrat or Republican.
The best thing about having more than two views is that we are more open to new ideas. Suppose there had been only two sides to the slavery question: keep all people with any African ancestry as slaves or send all of them back to Africa. The third side is to treat all people with any African ancestry as full citizens. Stay tuned: we're still working on that.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
A Specter is haunting "the two-party system"
Arlen Specter's move from the Republican Party is welcome in many quarters. It is welcomed by many in the Republican Party who think he is not "ideologically pure". It is welcome by many in the Democratic Party who think it will help them push their agenda more easily. It is welcome by many who think "moderates" should assert themselves more. It was not welcome by at least one remaining moderate Republican. Sen. Olympia Snowe wrote an eloquent essay for the New York Times: "We Didn't Have to Lose Arlen Specter".
However, his move to the Democratic Party should sadden those who don't want to see a "one-party" state. As long as the Republican Party marginalizes itself with an agenda that appeals to a dwindling portion of the voters and with an attitude that opposes anything the Democratic Party or "liberals" propose, it will have a dwindling number of government positions. It could dwindle to the point where it gets less votes than so-called "third parties", parties which too many voters think are "spoilers". Maybe we should start considering the Republican Party as the spoiler, like Dean Barkley didn't "take" votes from Coleman and Franken, but Coleman took votes from Barkley and Franken.
I would have hoped that Sen. Specter had become an "independent", but this would reduce his chance of reelection. Reelection is also probably why he didn't join one of the existing moderate parties. Too few people are not ready to vote for "third party" candidates.
This is too bad because we are long overdue for a new major party. The Republican Party was started in 1854 by disenchanted Whigs. Now if enough disenchanted moderate Republicans would start or join a "third party" they might pull in some moderate Democrats.
For a list of parties, see Minor Party Links. Interestingly, this list includes both the Democratic and Republican Parties.
Two interesting possibilities are The Reform Party of the United States of America and The Independence Party of America. Be sure to look at the simple platform of The Independence Party of America.
See also my blog entry “The time for a moderate party is now” and my Reader Weekly article “The Moderate Manifesto”.
However, his move to the Democratic Party should sadden those who don't want to see a "one-party" state. As long as the Republican Party marginalizes itself with an agenda that appeals to a dwindling portion of the voters and with an attitude that opposes anything the Democratic Party or "liberals" propose, it will have a dwindling number of government positions. It could dwindle to the point where it gets less votes than so-called "third parties", parties which too many voters think are "spoilers". Maybe we should start considering the Republican Party as the spoiler, like Dean Barkley didn't "take" votes from Coleman and Franken, but Coleman took votes from Barkley and Franken.
I would have hoped that Sen. Specter had become an "independent", but this would reduce his chance of reelection. Reelection is also probably why he didn't join one of the existing moderate parties. Too few people are not ready to vote for "third party" candidates.
This is too bad because we are long overdue for a new major party. The Republican Party was started in 1854 by disenchanted Whigs. Now if enough disenchanted moderate Republicans would start or join a "third party" they might pull in some moderate Democrats.
For a list of parties, see Minor Party Links. Interestingly, this list includes both the Democratic and Republican Parties.
Two interesting possibilities are The Reform Party of the United States of America and The Independence Party of America. Be sure to look at the simple platform of The Independence Party of America.
See also my blog entry “The time for a moderate party is now” and my Reader Weekly article “The Moderate Manifesto”.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Which is most important? Individual, community, or capital?
The answer is none of the above. Without individuals there are no communities. Without communities, individuals cannot thrive. Without individuals and communities, there is no capital. Without capital, individuals and communities cannot increase their material and social wealth.
I was inspired to write this blog after listening to Catherine Austin Fitts on "The Dismal Science" January 30, 2009 podcast of "To the Best of Our Knowledge" from Wisconsin Public Radio.
She spoke about the "Popsicle Index" as a better measure of the financial health of a community than any other measure. That is, how willing are parents in a community to let children go off by themselves to get a Popsicle or other treat?
She also spoke about capitalism versus communities. Think about BigBox coming into a community. BigBox promises jobs to induce the community to allow BigBox to have its way. But BigBox builds out in the middle of nowhere so that people must drive to shop rather than walk. The community is also required to build new water mains, sewer lines, roads, and other amenities. Then BigBox decides that it didn't make enough profit from the store and leaves town.
But capitalism is also members of the community pooling their resources to build a business, say a tomato canning plant. Maybe the local plant doesn't have all the whizbang efficiencies that a BigFoods plant has, but the plant will be controlled by members of the community, not by some overpaid executive forty floors above the streets of a city a thousand miles away.
Communities can be overbearing, enforcing codes of conduct that have no relation to the welfare of the community. An overbearing community can stifle innovation and creativity. Think of all the people who went to the "big city" to get away from a real or imagined controlling environment.
Individuals can be cantankerous and dangerous. Some take individual freedom to ridiculous lengths, taking freedom from others. Think of speeders. They rush down the highway, damning anyone who dares to go the speed limit. In fact, our culture tends to reward the speeders by claiming those who obey the law are holding up traffic. Aren't the speeders pushing traffic?
Unfortunately, neither "major" party seems to understand the need for balance among these three "interests". Both favor certain categories of individuals to the detriment of other categories of individuals; both favor certain corporations over others; and both favor communities only when it serves their parties' agenda.
When, oh when, will those who understand the need for this balance bolt the "major' parties and form a long overdue "third" party with wide support?
I was inspired to write this blog after listening to Catherine Austin Fitts on "The Dismal Science" January 30, 2009 podcast of "To the Best of Our Knowledge" from Wisconsin Public Radio.
She spoke about the "Popsicle Index" as a better measure of the financial health of a community than any other measure. That is, how willing are parents in a community to let children go off by themselves to get a Popsicle or other treat?
She also spoke about capitalism versus communities. Think about BigBox coming into a community. BigBox promises jobs to induce the community to allow BigBox to have its way. But BigBox builds out in the middle of nowhere so that people must drive to shop rather than walk. The community is also required to build new water mains, sewer lines, roads, and other amenities. Then BigBox decides that it didn't make enough profit from the store and leaves town.
But capitalism is also members of the community pooling their resources to build a business, say a tomato canning plant. Maybe the local plant doesn't have all the whizbang efficiencies that a BigFoods plant has, but the plant will be controlled by members of the community, not by some overpaid executive forty floors above the streets of a city a thousand miles away.
Communities can be overbearing, enforcing codes of conduct that have no relation to the welfare of the community. An overbearing community can stifle innovation and creativity. Think of all the people who went to the "big city" to get away from a real or imagined controlling environment.
Individuals can be cantankerous and dangerous. Some take individual freedom to ridiculous lengths, taking freedom from others. Think of speeders. They rush down the highway, damning anyone who dares to go the speed limit. In fact, our culture tends to reward the speeders by claiming those who obey the law are holding up traffic. Aren't the speeders pushing traffic?
Unfortunately, neither "major" party seems to understand the need for balance among these three "interests". Both favor certain categories of individuals to the detriment of other categories of individuals; both favor certain corporations over others; and both favor communities only when it serves their parties' agenda.
When, oh when, will those who understand the need for this balance bolt the "major' parties and form a long overdue "third" party with wide support?
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Yes or No! No Ifs, Ands, or Buts!
Creationism vs. evolution, anti-abortion vs. pro-abortion, pro-Americanism vs. anti-Americanism, “you’re for us or against us”, “my way or the highway”, Democrat or Republican! On and on it goes for issue after issue – taxes, gun control, and war. Loud voices drown out reasoned voices. Slogans overwhelm discussion.
Now the election is over and we shall see if we get more partisanship or more governance. If McCain has won, we’ll definitely see more partisanship and less governance; each side working to show how they “know best”. If Obama has won, we may see less partisanship and a bit more governance. Even then, with our “imperial presidency”, there will be grandstanding both in Congress and in the Executive Office to show how “hard everyone is working for the people.”
Whoever has won, we will see many shortsighted solutions. On one hand, we’ll see “free market knows best” solutions with a lot of government breaks for favored industries. On the other hand, we’ll see “the people know best” solutions with a lot of government breaks for favored industries.
Charles Wheelan, author of “The Naked Economist”, recently wrote “The Twilight of Free-Market Ideology”. He faulted those who promoted lessening regulations to let business thrive, especially those who say government should get out of businesses’ way. He wrote that, at a minimum, we need government for when we want to sue somebody.
Many of the comments that followed on finance.yahoo.com were extremely vituperative. Almost any hint of government involvement is seen as socialism or communism. Fortunately, we have few public voices that are espousing either of these extreme ideas of government involvement in the economy.
In health insurance, McCain has been promoting individual choice and wants to tax employee-provided insurance. He seems to forget all the fraternal societies founded in the 1800s to provide various forms of assistance to members as well as help to others. At one time insurance companies were owned by policyholders; that’s why they included the name “Mutual”.
Obama has a several-point plan on reducing costs and providing insurance for more people. However, it will take a lot of jawboning on the part of the Federal government to implement many of these ideas.
Wouldn’t a better way be to encourage states to improve health care and insurance costs? This way a lot more ideas can be tried sooner with a lot less hassle than a national plan.
“Obama will take our guns away.” Other than an ill-advised, off-the-cuff remark about some people finding solace in having guns, I don’t think Obama has said much about gun control. Even if some future president and Congress wanted to take guns away, does anyone think they will succeed? President Bush hasn’t been able to take guns away from people in Iraq and Afghanistan in over five years. And there are enough Democratic hunters in Congress to block any extreme action in the U.S.
“Gay marriage will destroy marriage!” “All couples should be treated equally!” Hm! I find both positions tiresome. Gay marriage surely will not destroy my marriage of 48 years. And everybody has the right to marry a person of their choice of the opposite sex. However, there are many living arrangements that require more legal support than is currently available. How about two widows living together to save costs?
As for the Biblical basis of marriage being one man and one woman, what about Solomon and his 700 wives and 300 concubines?
Every abortion is a difficult choice. To criminalize abortion is to assume that the federal government knows best; strange coming from the party that wants “to get government off our backs.” Criminalizing abortion will work no better than prohibition of alcohol or drugs. We would be much better off working to reduce abortions by providing more non-governmental counseling, just like is done with substance abuse.
“The two-party system” is the king of “yes or no, no ifs, ands, or buts”. We are bamboozled into making a choice between two candidates, both of whom may cause more problems than they will solve. “Don’t throw your vote away!” “A vote for Nader was a vote for Bush!” It was? More Democrats stayed home than voted for Nader in 2000 in Florida. Nader got 9,000 votes and over 100,000 Democrats stayed home.
I hope you didn’t stay home on Nov. 4 but cast your vote as you saw fit, whether it was for McCain or Obama, Barr or Nader, or whoever else was on the ballot. If you didn’t like any of them, I hope you voted for “None of the above”. You didn’t see it on the ballot? It’s there in two ways. In Minnesota, you can write someone in (remember to give two names when voting for President) or you can leave the boxes blank for any given office.
This election may see the rise of a viable national third party. There may have been enough Republicans, dissatisfied with the McCain-Palin candidacy or with the ideological hardening of the Republican Party, who will split off into a new party. Don’t forget that the Republican Party was started by dissatisfied Whigs.
As the first and last real Republican said, “As our case is new, so must we think anew, and act anew.”
Now the election is over and we shall see if we get more partisanship or more governance. If McCain has won, we’ll definitely see more partisanship and less governance; each side working to show how they “know best”. If Obama has won, we may see less partisanship and a bit more governance. Even then, with our “imperial presidency”, there will be grandstanding both in Congress and in the Executive Office to show how “hard everyone is working for the people.”
Whoever has won, we will see many shortsighted solutions. On one hand, we’ll see “free market knows best” solutions with a lot of government breaks for favored industries. On the other hand, we’ll see “the people know best” solutions with a lot of government breaks for favored industries.
Charles Wheelan, author of “The Naked Economist”, recently wrote “The Twilight of Free-Market Ideology”. He faulted those who promoted lessening regulations to let business thrive, especially those who say government should get out of businesses’ way. He wrote that, at a minimum, we need government for when we want to sue somebody.
Many of the comments that followed on finance.yahoo.com were extremely vituperative. Almost any hint of government involvement is seen as socialism or communism. Fortunately, we have few public voices that are espousing either of these extreme ideas of government involvement in the economy.
In health insurance, McCain has been promoting individual choice and wants to tax employee-provided insurance. He seems to forget all the fraternal societies founded in the 1800s to provide various forms of assistance to members as well as help to others. At one time insurance companies were owned by policyholders; that’s why they included the name “Mutual”.
Obama has a several-point plan on reducing costs and providing insurance for more people. However, it will take a lot of jawboning on the part of the Federal government to implement many of these ideas.
Wouldn’t a better way be to encourage states to improve health care and insurance costs? This way a lot more ideas can be tried sooner with a lot less hassle than a national plan.
“Obama will take our guns away.” Other than an ill-advised, off-the-cuff remark about some people finding solace in having guns, I don’t think Obama has said much about gun control. Even if some future president and Congress wanted to take guns away, does anyone think they will succeed? President Bush hasn’t been able to take guns away from people in Iraq and Afghanistan in over five years. And there are enough Democratic hunters in Congress to block any extreme action in the U.S.
“Gay marriage will destroy marriage!” “All couples should be treated equally!” Hm! I find both positions tiresome. Gay marriage surely will not destroy my marriage of 48 years. And everybody has the right to marry a person of their choice of the opposite sex. However, there are many living arrangements that require more legal support than is currently available. How about two widows living together to save costs?
As for the Biblical basis of marriage being one man and one woman, what about Solomon and his 700 wives and 300 concubines?
Every abortion is a difficult choice. To criminalize abortion is to assume that the federal government knows best; strange coming from the party that wants “to get government off our backs.” Criminalizing abortion will work no better than prohibition of alcohol or drugs. We would be much better off working to reduce abortions by providing more non-governmental counseling, just like is done with substance abuse.
“The two-party system” is the king of “yes or no, no ifs, ands, or buts”. We are bamboozled into making a choice between two candidates, both of whom may cause more problems than they will solve. “Don’t throw your vote away!” “A vote for Nader was a vote for Bush!” It was? More Democrats stayed home than voted for Nader in 2000 in Florida. Nader got 9,000 votes and over 100,000 Democrats stayed home.
I hope you didn’t stay home on Nov. 4 but cast your vote as you saw fit, whether it was for McCain or Obama, Barr or Nader, or whoever else was on the ballot. If you didn’t like any of them, I hope you voted for “None of the above”. You didn’t see it on the ballot? It’s there in two ways. In Minnesota, you can write someone in (remember to give two names when voting for President) or you can leave the boxes blank for any given office.
This election may see the rise of a viable national third party. There may have been enough Republicans, dissatisfied with the McCain-Palin candidacy or with the ideological hardening of the Republican Party, who will split off into a new party. Don’t forget that the Republican Party was started by dissatisfied Whigs.
As the first and last real Republican said, “As our case is new, so must we think anew, and act anew.”
Monday, November 03, 2008
Will the Republican party become marginal?
"But the G.O.P.’s long transformation into the party of the unreasonable right, a haven for racists and reactionaries, seems likely to accelerate as a result of the impending defeat."
"The Republican Rump", Paul Krugman, New York Times, 2008-11-03
Krugman doesn't predict the demise of the Republican Party, but he thinks moderate Republicans will have to confront that their party has become the party of intolerance.
See also "Are we getting closer to a viable third party?"
"The Republican Rump", Paul Krugman, New York Times, 2008-11-03
Krugman doesn't predict the demise of the Republican Party, but he thinks moderate Republicans will have to confront that their party has become the party of intolerance.
See also "Are we getting closer to a viable third party?"
Sunday, October 05, 2008
Are we getting closer to a viable third party?
In the mid nineteenth century, one of the two major parties became more irrelevant to the real problems of the era, namely the question of slavery. They, the Whigs, were tepid on abolition, and were replaced by a new, vigorous party, the Republicans. In the 1856 presidential election, the Republican candidate, John C. Fremont came in second in a three-way race. Former President Millard Fillmore, now in another "third party", the American Party or Know Nothing's, came in a respectable third. Four years later the Republican candidate won and the rest is history.
In the late twentieth century and early twenty-first century, the Republicans became more and more ideological. Rather than work with some general principles to work out compromises to govern, many Republicans became naysayers. See "The Audacity of Nope", Eva Fairbanks, Washington Post, 2008-10-05.
Ms. Fairbanks, a congressional correspondent, describes herself as a "card-carrying moderate 'weenie'" and is not happy about the shift to ideology.
As the Republican Party sidelines more and more moderates in favor of die-hard ideologues, will it become less relevant and only be an irritant to the Democrats. What will happen with the sidelined moderates? Will enough of them get together to form a viable third party?
We have some inkling in Minnesota that this is possible. Dean Barkley, the Independence Party candidate for the Senate, is closing in on 20% according to some polls. I don't know how many former Republicans are migrating to the IP, but if any momentum gathers, a third party could be an active participant in the 2012 elections, and by 2020, the current Republican Party may be a minor party.
In the late twentieth century and early twenty-first century, the Republicans became more and more ideological. Rather than work with some general principles to work out compromises to govern, many Republicans became naysayers. See "The Audacity of Nope", Eva Fairbanks, Washington Post, 2008-10-05.
Ms. Fairbanks, a congressional correspondent, describes herself as a "card-carrying moderate 'weenie'" and is not happy about the shift to ideology.
As the Republican Party sidelines more and more moderates in favor of die-hard ideologues, will it become less relevant and only be an irritant to the Democrats. What will happen with the sidelined moderates? Will enough of them get together to form a viable third party?
We have some inkling in Minnesota that this is possible. Dean Barkley, the Independence Party candidate for the Senate, is closing in on 20% according to some polls. I don't know how many former Republicans are migrating to the IP, but if any momentum gathers, a third party could be an active participant in the 2012 elections, and by 2020, the current Republican Party may be a minor party.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Will we ever have representative government?
I was updating my The Moderate Manifesto I checked the links. When I looked at Unity08 I read a few of its pages.
In short, Unity08 thinks that the nominating process is not serving the country. As another choice "we will prepare to hold, in June 2008, the first-ever online convention where millions of Americans will nominate a Unity ticket for President and Vice President of the United States. We will work to achieve ballot access for that ticket in all 50 states. We will elect them to the White House in November 2008." - About Unity08
This sounds great, but I don't think those participating will be representative of the electorate.
According to the survey Unity08 took of its membership, it is 90% with some college or more, 50% over 50, 73% male, 53% business or professional class (slide 26), 90% have high-speed internet access (slide 27), and generally half don't watch politic pundits on TV (slide 28).
Well, I guess that's not so bad. Except for the TV viewing, it looks much like the demographics of the current major parties.
The upside is that people will be participating in the selection in a small time frame, and that the selection of candidates will be as large as the participants wish. The winnowing will not be determined by a small number of people in a few parts of the country.
It will be interesting to see how big a role money will play in this campaign. It might be more a matter of time to post sufficient comments. And there may be ways to game the system, like recruit people by whatever means to vote for a given candidate.
Do decide for yourself if this is a reasonable alternative to the system few really like.
In short, Unity08 thinks that the nominating process is not serving the country. As another choice "we will prepare to hold, in June 2008, the first-ever online convention where millions of Americans will nominate a Unity ticket for President and Vice President of the United States. We will work to achieve ballot access for that ticket in all 50 states. We will elect them to the White House in November 2008." - About Unity08
This sounds great, but I don't think those participating will be representative of the electorate.
According to the survey Unity08 took of its membership, it is 90% with some college or more, 50% over 50, 73% male, 53% business or professional class (slide 26), 90% have high-speed internet access (slide 27), and generally half don't watch politic pundits on TV (slide 28).
Well, I guess that's not so bad. Except for the TV viewing, it looks much like the demographics of the current major parties.
The upside is that people will be participating in the selection in a small time frame, and that the selection of candidates will be as large as the participants wish. The winnowing will not be determined by a small number of people in a few parts of the country.
It will be interesting to see how big a role money will play in this campaign. It might be more a matter of time to post sufficient comments. And there may be ways to game the system, like recruit people by whatever means to vote for a given candidate.
Do decide for yourself if this is a reasonable alternative to the system few really like.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)