A response to Pete Abel
Pete Abel is a moderate. But earlier this week, he decided he was going to switch his registration from Independent to Democrat because he’s sick and tired of partisan politics. How does that make sense? Well, if everyone became a Democrat, then the party would be so broad that it would become incoherent (and there would be no Republicans).
Basically, Pete had a plan to rid American politics of those awful dinosaurs known as political parties. Yesterday, Pete stepped back from his plan, declaring it immoderate. But he will “still continue to advocate for the abolition of political parties.”
I myself am no great fan of political parties. But to paraphrase my comment about ideology from earlier this week, political parties are the worst way to organize democratic politics, except for all the others.
Inevitably, partisanship has a nasty side. As a result, well-intentioned moderates constantly fantasize about a world without parties and partisanship. On the one hand, this is good, because it serves as a counterweight to excessive partisanship. On the other hand, it is a fantasy that leads to bitterness and disengagement.
What would democracy be like without political parties? It’s hard to say. No developed nation has democracy without parties. Japan came close for quite a while, but that’s a great argument for partisanship. Without a real opposition, power migrated behind closed doors.
In the developing world, the absence of political parties is almost an unmitigated disaster. In general, it results in extreme patronage politics. Look at Afghanistan. Arguably, Venezuelan democracy has degenerated so tragically because its pre-Chavez parties were such a failure.
In the US, several states and major cities are close to being one-party democracies. I grew in New York City, so I’ve seen some of that first hand. The result is a city that periodically elects GOP mayors in order to correct the excesses of one-party rule — a very sub-optimal approach.
So, if you want, you can lament political parties as the reason we have Rush Limbaugh and the Daily Kos. Or you can come terms with the fact that parties ensure the intensity of competition that gives voters a real choice. Even better, parties often find themselves fighting for moderates and independents, who serve as the margin of victory.
Cross-posted at Conventional Folly
14 Responses to “A response to Pete Abel”
Sure, keep the parties then, but more importantly keep trying to raise the level of discourse, but that will require honesty and respect for historical accuracy. Rush Limbaugh (and later his clones) were doing damage to the process long before there was any Daily Kos or any other leftward equivalent – which were late-coming responses to years and years of Limbaugh hate-mongering. Competition can still be intense without resorting to division and demonization as the primary game plan.
New york state is an example of how in the absense of real political opposition, power migrates behind closed doors. We are the most dysfunctional state west of the Mississippi. Witness the 'coup' that took place in our Senate this summer. Woody Allen counldn't have parodied a Banana republic in a funnier fashion. Except that this is real and it is a problem. By the way, I am a centrist Democrat and would welcome a viable two party system in my state. We return incumbents like they were part of the old politburo.
imho, there's nothing wrong with partisanship, and on some level we are lacking it. There is some superficial level of difference that is constantly being exploited, but both parties respond primarily to corporate lobbyists. Oh, you can find the honorable one here and there, but for the most part the political process is spoiled by big money. The tragedy as I see it, (oh let me get my glasses), is that the entire political spectrum is so far right as to bring into question what exactly is a moderate? Today's centrist was yesterday's Neocon. Remove the money and let ideas prevail………..and let them have at it….the American people will choose the direction we need to go in. Oh, I forget the PRESS, the phony press………..maybe it really is a thing of the past………gone………..democracy, I mean.
Well said spirasol, I do believe you nailed it. Removing what is essentially the bribery component (no point in mincing words) would give power back to the citizens which is what the founders had in mind to begin with. They certainly weren't trying to set up a corporatocracy, a plutocracy, etc. Of course in order for the citizens to run a responsible and productive government they'll need to become a lot more savvy about the issues and realities, which will mean devoting more than 5% of their brainpower to the job.
Lately I have been visiting with the Ghost of Woodie Guthrie and we wrote a song and created a video to tell the story of everything we know about Rush Limbaugh. If you would like to see or hear this all original work, you can find the video on youtube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzcCMKZY2u8 Or my music site is at http://soundclick.com/333maxwell
Free downloads for all to anyone who wants a copy while I have them floating around.
Peace~!
I find it interesting that countries that have more than two parties, (indeed several parties), are able to agree and function far better than our two party system. IMO the reason is not, “parties in numbers”, but a fundamental difference in government philosophy and the worth of people held by the rest of the world.
If we were to do the same, we would have to completely eliminate the republican party and divide up the democrat party and it’s various agenda components into parties of various camps. The elimination of the republican party would finally loosen the conservative obstructionist butt-plug and allow a political enema to cleans out republican inhumane neo-conservative government philosophical crap. Progress would begin to flow smoothly into the waiting bowls of the sacrosanct capitalist pig and our people could begin to free themselves from corporate oppression. Liberty and Justice for all.
I agree with the breakup, minus the socialist rhetoric. Maybe we can make a Sherman Anti-trust law against non-competitive political parties?
I watched the video, 333maxwell. Some will call it vile, lies, partisan, etc. I found it “interesting.” Of course, I do not like what Limbaugh stands for.
Pete is a moderate liberal. Center-left. Definite non-radical. (Brookings-style, DLC)
Still trying to drag that centerline around eh? Well, if Pete chooses to define himself as such that will be cool, but you'll have to pardon me if (by now) I take your own analysis with many grains of salt. I don't say that with a complete lack of affection as I believe your intentions (however misguided they may be) do come down on the side of light rather than darkness.
you have got to be kidding adesnik, You must be out of ideas. The world tilts, you write about a guy no one ever heard of who writes for your blog??? and headline it??? as though every reader reads every single item every single writer at tmv writes???? Maybe you do. We dont.
Ah.. gee, d'ya think maybe it's possible that you weren't the target audience?
Bulletin: O proposes tax on party switching. Quoted as saying this isn't a tax, it's a readjustment fee.
Humor? Nonsequitur? Secret message? Only dd knows for sure…