Of Parties and Politics
I’ve written what I believed were thoughtful, extended posts on what I believed were material, important subjects — only to watch those posts generate a virtually weightless smattering of comments.
And then, on Friday, in 39 words here and 137 at Central Sanity, I announced my decision to devote some near-term energy to helping those who want to moderate today’s GOP — a personal matter that I thought should be disclosed and explained, but hardly a topic that’s material or all-that-important in the scheme of things.
I was wrong.
Those simple 176 combined words sparked more than 5,700 additional words from co-bloggers and visitors, both here and at Michael vdG’s space. A variety of voices debated if any energy should be devoted to either major political party or if, instead, moderates should rise up in rebellion and focus every waking moment on the creation of a third, fourth, or more major parties.
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.
If I’ve learned anything in the last five months of participating in the moderate/centrist/independent corner of the online world, it’s this: The universe of disillusioned voters is growing. Americans are increasingly fed up with both major parties; they don’t feel either speaks for them, and thus, they want alternatives to rise up and represent them.
Great idea, though I’m starting to wonder if it’s mis-directed and ultimately doomed to fail. Go ahead, throw some sticks and stones my way. Declare me blasphemous. Label me a heretic. Light the torches and burn me at the stake.
But before you do, please, allow me a moment to explain.
23 Responses to “Of Parties and Politics”
In my opinion, you’re better off working within the system.
Which is a two-party system, like it or not.
Trying to save the Republican party is a waste of time. Why would anyone want to try to save a party that will quickly become non-competative.
I think that the best thing that will happen in politics is if the Republican party collapses, then more moderates and conservatives will start voting in the Democratic Party and will act as a moderating influence on the extreme leftist on the Democratic Party.
Maybe the model will be want indepdents and conservatives in Georgia had to do to vote out Cynthia McKinney. Since the former Congresswoman represented a majority black district, all she needed to do was win the Democratic Primary. However, enough whites crossed into over to vote in the Democratic Primary to vote her out of office (twice). What happened in Conn. in 2006 could be seen the same where Republicans and independents cooperated enough to keep a netroot from winning.
Maybe there should also be more inititative and referendum to moderate the extremes. At least conservatives in states like Michigan and California have managed to overcome the Democratic machines to make some policy changes.
Pete, I hope you read Nicrivera’s post: http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/11687/decision-time/#comment-66758
It’s rare that I say someone said it as well as I cd, but Nic zeroed in w a direct hit.
SD: Again, you assume that the Democrats will ever cohere long enough for a couple of election cycles. Stop looking to future trends, and look the other direction.
cosmoetica,
Past trends are harder to interpret because there percentage of the voters that are not white has never been higher and is growing.
Comparison to anything more than a decade or two ago is, in my opinion, a waste of time. Arguing that a previous presidential election or change in political direction ina time when more than 95% of the voters were white can be used today is foolish.
For all groups other than Christian whites, one’s ethnic/racial group indicates their political leanings more than any other piece of demographic data. And all of the data indicates that the Republicans are basically doomed to becoming irrelevent (See California).
The real question should be is how will the U.S. function when the political system cannot be used to make changes. That is the question everyone should be asking. I have looked at several models at the state level and all of them seem to be failures.
Yeah, George. If you’re a Democrat or a Republican, “working within the sytem” is a pretty good deal. It’s us non-Democrats and non-Republicans who are being shafted.
This sounds like fatalism to me–i.e. we’re powerless to stop it, so why try?
The thing is, we do have the power to challenge the two-party system, you just have to try. Voting for the “lesser of two evils” year after year only reinforces the two party system and the manichean black-white, left-right thinking it creates.
You know, just yesterday I was talking to a bunch of Libertarians for a reception being held for George Phillies (one of the three Libertarians who are officially in the race for president in 2008) and we were discussing why voters continue to vote for Democrats and Republicans–thereby reinforcing our two-party system. And at one point, I eventually made the comment, “Let’s face it. The Democrats and Republicans were made for each another. Even when one party is attacking the other, it’s talking ports are simultaneously energizing its own party and also confirming what the other party already thinks of it.”
Every time a Democrat like Chuck Schumer accuses Republicans of “hating government”, that just reinforces in Republican’s minds that Republicans truly are the party of small government and Democrats the party of big government.
And every time a conservative Republican accuses Democrats of “atheists” or “secular-progressives” or of “hating Christians”, that just reinforces in Democrats’ mind that Democrats are the party of tolerance and Republicans are the party of intolerance.
It’s not true, of course, but the duality of the system combined with party politics reinforces one side’s perception of the other (and of themselves).
If you’re a Democrat or a Republican, you couldn’t ask for a better system. Each side’s lunacy and hypocrisy only makes the other side stronger. And since our Ballot Access laws are written exclusively by Democrats and Republicans, and because the Commission on Presidential “Debates” is made up exclusively of Democrats and Republicans…
Gee…it’s no wonder third party and independent candidates never (or almost never) get elected.
It’s a ridiculously flawed system. But I guess we have no choice but to support it, right George?
If the libertarians become the third party, I will have to shop for the lesser of three evils. Everything they say sounds good, but it’s suited for a utopia, not the nitty gritty of our vast and complex society.
Looking at Europe, especially Italy, a multi party system has more problems than ours. And if we have three parties, then why not four or five or six?
It’s the system, I think, not the parties. Redristicting, campaign money from interrest groups and big money lobbyists, the dirty tricks campaign style, the personal attack style. A lot could be done to improve what we have.
George,
I hope my last post didn’t come off as overly angry or critical. I guess I was going more for snarky, but that doesn’t always come through in text.
My response was less in reply to your comment about “working within the system” and more in reply to your comment that we have a two party system “like or not.” Many of us do NOT like that fact that we have a two party system, and we don’t like the fact that the Democrats and Republicans have rigged the system in their favor.
It’s not such a bad thing to try to reform the parties from the inside, but we should realize that when we choose to support a Democrat or a Republican as the “lesser of two evils”, he/she has no way of knowing that you’re merely supporting him/her because he/she’s somewhat better than the other guy, and it surely doesn’t register with them any discontent regarding their efforts to make it much more difficult for third party and independent candidates to be elected (i.e. through ballot access laws, stacking the Commission on Presidential Debates solely with Democrats and Republicans).
Why have political parties at all? What’s wrong with people running on their own political platforms and pledging to form coalitions based upon ideas, not parties?
George Washington, in his farewell address, specifically warned against the formation of political parties because he foresaw the divisiveness that they would cause.
There shouldn’t be any laws preventing the formation of political parties. But by the same token, those political parties that are already in power shouldn’t be able to use Ballot Access laws to make it more difficult for third party and independent candidates to get on the ballot, nor should the taxpayer have to fork over a single dime to pay for the Democrats’ and Republicans’ lavish conventions–whether it’s paying for the convention itself or paying the extra security needed or paying for the detention centers they set up to detain political activists.
Nic-
I never thought of that, but it sounds interesting. I need to mull it over re how it would actually work.
Whether it’s reforming the Republican or the Democratic party, I have to say that would be a damn sight more doable than forming a third “moderate/independent party”, especially under the current electoral system which indeeds favors whichever two parties are in power.
IIRC 3rd parties can become 2nd parties, if they have some unifying grassroots level rallying point, I’m thinking of the abolitionist origins of the Republican in particular.
Can any of you articulate the Moderate/Independent party’s unifying theme?
That seems to me to be your real challenge.
And as a progressive (currently) Democrat, who’d declare himself a Green in a second if I thought they ever had a chance of influencing policy (aside from handing elections to Republicans), I’d really like to hear your ideas.
nicrivera,
How do you think that the Libertarians can ever be relevent to American politics when they only appeal to (with exceptions) white males above a certain education level and in a band of incomes.
The problem is all attempts to establish a third party is that they are basically a fight over middle class whites. As long as the Democrats have a lock on virtually all minority groups, all third parties do is split up the white votes. Do you really think many blacks or Hispanics voted for Nader in 2000 or Perot in 1992?
Nic Rivera–
I’m not saying there is no value to third parties. I’m just saying they’re not going to win.
On the old, old site I used to leave a fairly standard comment whenever this topic came up. I had it bookmarked so I could copy and paste it where I thought it applicable. I put a lot of thought into it and took a lot of time writing it. Sadly, for the time-being at least, those bookmarks are gone.
I have to say I’m completely unmoved by your complaint that our only choice is between the lesser of two evils. How easily that complaint could become one about the lesser of three evils, or four. A successful political party has to appeal to tens of millions of voters. Do you really think you can make up a new party that will completely satisfy 50 or 60 million people, including yourself? Especially in these days of highly sophiticated negative advertising? I think you’re better off playing the lottery–or wishing for a pony.
Also, we’re a closely divided country, politically. But whoever wins (at least usually) at least wins with a majority of the vote. We’ve had pretty extreme governance–endless spending increases, endless deficits, pretty complete dissatisfaction (putting it mildly here) with our foreign policy–from a guy who slipped in with 51% of the vote. Imagine the extremism we might be subject to from someone who only needed 34%–or 26%–of the vote.
Third parties have functioned at incubators of ideas, some good (like social security) some bad (like prohibition). If you’re dissatisfied on the basis of ideas, join a third party and work for it. But if you’re dissatisfied because you haven’t won lately or think you won’t win soon, work–like Pete is doing–on making your party more responsive to the popular will.
George,
Working within a party these days is a waste of time. Suppose someone is a Democrats because of support for increased social spending or support for unions. However, if that purpose oppose affirmative action and believe it racist and a violation of civil rights, there is nothing that they can do to change the Democratic Party. They have to decide whether to remain a Democrat and put up with some positions that they detest or they have to move to the Republicans who also have positions that they detect.
The demographic based bloc voting patterns of the United States make the Democartic party a collection of special interest groups who all want something for their own group. Thus you have a party that recieves the majority of both the jewish vote and the muslim vote. You have a party that is supported by 90% of blacks while supporting unlimited immigration that has a huge adverse impact on blacks.
Telling people to work with in the parties is basically telling people to shut up, bend over, and take it.
superdestroyer,
With you, everything seems to be about race. I just happen to be Hispanic, and I have no problem voting for third party candidates.
George,
You seem to missing (or are simply not acknowledging) my point. You write:
You’re right, George. At the current time, third parties don’t have virtually any chance of winning. And one of the major reasons for that is that the two major parties have written the Ballot Access laws and created the Commission on Presidential Debates to ensure two-party dominance.
You know, when a Democrat or a Republican or someone who rgularly votes Democrat or Republican asks me, “Why vote for third party candidates. You know they’re not going to win” I just shake my head in frustration. It’s as if you’re gloating that your party shares the monopoly of power with the other party.
Superdestroyer–
First, I don’t feel sorry for college-educated white people.
Second, people vote in what they believe to be their own self-interest.
Third, political parties change over time. For example, I believe there was a time when most black people voted for the party of Abraham Lincoln. That is, they voted for the Republicans–and in large numbers. Generally, political parties change because the voting public changes.
If you want to vote for a third party, please do. No one is stopping you. It might even be helpful. Ross Perot ran for President because he was unhappy with the deficit. A fair number of his 19% of the voting public agreed with him. Perot lost. Instead, Clinton won–and he paid down the deficit.
Elections have consquences. Somebody wins. And then they govern. If enough people are unhappy with the consequences of that governance, they look for a practical alternative because they believe that would be in their own best interest.
Nobody has to love this. I don’t love it myself. Voting based on character or who you’d like to drink a beer with or who made the scariest televison commercial haven’t led us to a very good place. But I don’t see a practical alternative. Indeed, the alternatives that I see are even less worthy of my love, for the reasons I’ve laid out in my comments here.
Thanks for your feedback.
Nic Rivera–
I do feel frustrated with the way things are. In fact, I see a time-horizon full of potential catastrophies, based on current events.
But I don’t see any advantage in a system where someone can win–and govern–with 34% of the vote.
We already have enough extremism in our system.
What we need–in my opinion–are more people like Pete who will do the hard work of pulling the extremes of their own side back to the center.
And someone is going to actually win the next election. I believe that’s a legimate factor for me to consider in choosing my candidates.
SD: I agree w much of yr views, but you buy nto the fallacy of uninterrupted trends. People vote for people not parties. I loathed Reagan, but for some damned reason peopel were in the mood for a hollow phony and about a third of Democrats shifted support to him- even unionized Democrats.
A Colin Powell type (pre-shilling for the Iraq War) could also galvanize many blacks to switch allegiance. So cd a Republican Hispanic.
The point? People are dumb and have short memories. Period. Demographics cannot measure that truism of human nature, and people will always tell pollseters what they think they want to hear.
Kang: There need be no single defining principle, but many, for may parties. Three parties are better than two, but four is better, and five even better.
Comparisons to Italy or other smaller, more uniform nations is not cogent because many of them do not have 230 years of history with electoral freedom.
George: ‘I have to say I’m completely unmoved by your complaint that our only choice is between the lesser of two evils. How easily that complaint could become one about the lesser of three evils, or four. A successful political party has to appeal to tens of millions of voters. Do you really think you can make up a new party that will completely satisfy 50 or 60 million people, including yourself? Especially in these days of highly sophiticated negative advertising? I think you’re better off playing the lottery–or wishing for a pony.’
The more parties, the less chance of there not being a good solution, and it forces compromise and coalition building. You are more likely to find a sane middle when four of ten parties, say, agree on principles, and can form a majority to govern. George, you seem to advocate a self-fulfilling prophecy. Don’t try because it’s useless. See? Nothing’s changed.
‘But I don’t see any advantage in a system where someone can win–and govern–with 34% of the vote.’
This is why we need run off elections, and then a coalition candidate can get a majority.
There are no insuperable problems, only limited will.
But George, if we’re talking about legitimacy as being a problem with regards to a third party system, let’s consider the current two party system.
In 2004, 60.7% of eligible voters voted for president. This number, while low by world standards, was actually the higest turnout since 1968.
Of those votes, George W. Bush, received 50.7%.
In other words, George W. Bush managed to win the election with only 30.8% of eligible voters supporting him.
In 2000, it was even worse. That year, only 54.3% of eligible voters voted for president, and of those votes, George W. Bush received 47.9%.
In other words, in 2000, George W. Bush managed to win the election with only 26.0% of eligible voters supporting him.
So it’s not as if the current two-party system is exactly giving the winner of the Presidential Election a mandate.
A large number of Americans don’t register to vote. And even of those who do register to vote, a significant number of them don’t go to the polls on election day.
I predict that if Americans had candadates that they believed in rather than having to settle for the “lesser of two evils”, then voter turnout would go up. The winner of a three-way race would rarely (if ever) attain more than 50%, unless one of the three parties is seriously on the decline.
Under our current system, the threat of extinction isn’t even a possibility for the two major parties, no matter how horribly they govern. Because the fact of the matter is that the Democrats and the Republicans have written the Ballot Access laws in such a way that third party candidates have an extremely difficult time getting on the ballot.
It is blatantly undemocratic for the Democratic and Republican parties to have one set of standards for themselves to get on state ballots and a different set of standard for third parties to get on state ballots.
It’s one thing to make the personal choice not to support third party or independent candidates. But it’s another to support a system that is rigged favor of the political parties already in power. If people are going to continue to vote for Democrats and Republicans, they ought to do so with the knowledge that they are supporting a party that has written the ballot access laws in a manner to stifle competition.
Fascinating remarks, selected at random:
> For all groups other than Christian
> whites, one’s ethnic/racial group
> indicates their political leanings
> more than any other piece of
> demographic data. And all of the
> data indicates that the Republicans
> are basically doomed to becoming
> irrelevent (See California).
OK — it’s not the entitlements, it’s the demographics that will crown the Democrats eventually. (Multiculturalism and “diversity” do not extend to choice of either major political party, as we know.)
> Looking at Europe, especially Italy,
> a multi party system has more
> problems than ours. And if we have
> three parties, then why not four or
> five or six?
In fact, 4-6 would be preferable. The GOP, for example, doesn’t simply have left and right wings, authoritarian-traditionalist vs. libertarian “Tories and Whigs” in it, but is more complex than that. The Democrats’ numerous special interest groups are well known.
If you worry about stability or other such problems, be aware that advocates of proportional representation will remind you that small “splinter” parties can be eliminated by a reasonable minimum vote fraction, or threshold, needed to win at least one seat in a representative body.
> But I don’t see any advantage in a
> system where someone can win–and
> govern–with 34% of the vote.
With proportional representation 34% of the vote would get about 34% of the seats in a multi-seat body.
> Why have political parties at all?
People have common interests, and there is strength in numbers, particularly when numbers (votes) are counted in order to make decisions.
> What’s wrong with people running
> on their own political platforms and
> pledging to form coalitions based
> upon ideas, not parties?
Nothing. In particular, for single-person offices, this should always be allowed. (The ideal method to select someone in such a case is approval voting. Yes, that would include direct election of the President, who should be able to appoint the Vice President.)
There is no need for a vote, in fact. To make the House of Representatives and any other “popular” body better reflective of the nature and character of the society being represented, there’s nothing with jury-style random selection, with people chosen from small places like ZIP code groups or Census districts to ensure all kinds of people, in all neighborhoods, so to speak, get their representation. Ask yourself how that might actually be better than the current system we have now.
> How do you think that the Libertarians
> can ever be relevent to American politics
> when they only appeal to (with exceptions)
> white males above a certain education
> level and in a band of incomes.
The Libertarian Party does not define libertarianism in the USA, and its reputation is in large responsible for its poor showing in elections. The broader voter base of people who are libertarian in their basic sense (it is the basic American character, which was inherited from England, despite decades of the welfare state and post-1960s radical leftism), who ordinarily vote GOP as the lesser of two evils and who want smaller government and less intervention and public spending, is the real base to use to form a new political party centered around libertarianism. (They are Amitai Etzioni’s GOP “Whigs” as opposed to “social conservative” “Tories.” I’d say the GOP actually has at least three elements, with the Religious Right as a separate part.)
nic brings up the issue of voter turnout. I have never researched voter turn-out, but that won’t stop me from tossing out an opinion. nic mentioned the possibility that people don’t show up for elections because they don’t have someone they truly believe in. I think a lot of the lack of turnout is also because a lot of Americans don’t view the federal government as all that important. To the extent that they are wrong on this, this is a bad point of view. But there’s a good side as well, namely that in the U.S., there are a lot of other institutions which can seem just as important as the federal or state governments. We care about our jobs as much or more than elections, for instance.
What I’m really thinking of is some reading I did once on West African politics. One thing that came through again and again is that there was no powerful private sector to participate in. If you wanted a well-paying job, there was only one source – the government. If you wanted power, government. In many places, if you want to have any healthcare at all, or even to feed your family, the only secure place was government. Many other nations have very different societies, but government can play a very large role as well. In Western Europe, the government might set wage limits for your job classification, the exact classes taught to your children year by year, or the doctors that you can see. In such environments, there should be no surprise that the interest in elections is higher. In the U.S., government plays a large role, but it is not yet to this extent, and so people forget about it.
On the 3rd party thing, one key seems to be that it’s OK to start slow, or more accurately start local. Nader seems to want to be President or nothing. Why can’t the Green party, or any 3rd party, start out with being mayors and on city councils, and in state legislatures, and on governmental appointed panels, and running the Interior Department? One of the strengths of the current two parties is that they have national access and millions of dollars, but they also have local institutions all over the the U.S., so that they can set hundreds of people to run around Ohio in 2004. Third parties need these local roots as well. I would love to see a Green mayor of San Francisco and a Libertarian governor of Wyoming (or whatever). Then as people see these parties are for real and can really govern, which also gives the 3rd party candidates great experience to go with their great ideas, they will grow beyond their local roots.
Nic R–
I suppose it’s a question of which you think is more likely:
a) Third party candidates will be able to add significantly to the pool of people who care to vote.
b) The guy to wins will be able to get by with 34% of the 53.4% of those who care to vote.
I imagine it’s obvious I think the second option is likely over the long run. Enthusiams fade, institutions have staying power.
I also found Pacatrue’s comment interesting, especially this:
Democrats and Republicans have structural advantages because they run candidates at all levels, not just for President–Governor, State Senator, City Councillor, Dogcatcher.They win a lot of races. They get to run lots of stuff. A party that was willing to build some infrastructure at the local and state levels would seem like a more serious alternative to me. That’s hard work. (I believe that’s what Pete is going to be doing.) What’s the alternative? Some billioniare who can afford to put his picture on the airwave for 18 months–and then after he loses will take his money and go home?
You don’t have to love my arguments. You can say I’m preaching despair. But I think I’m suggesting the opposite of despair. Whatever you want to achieve will take hard work. It seems to me that if you go outside the existing structure, you’ll have to reinvent the wheel. But if you work within the system, there will already be certain amount of built-in support. If your case is good enough to have some popular support.
By the way–and because this comment isn’t long enough already–here’s my idea for a simpler reform that will push our politics to the middle: the end of gerrymandering. We currently let victorious politicians pick the shape of our electoral districts. Naturally, they make choices that make it easier for them to stay in power. I favor the Iowa model for redistricting.
I hope all that HTML works!
Oops! I left out a tag. Try again:
Iowa model of redistricting.
Gerrymandering
Wish me luck!