Political Parties
(The Folly of a Two-Party System Exposed)
In the 2008 national elections, the Democrats were the
unquestioned winners. Gaining a seemingly overwhelming
majority in Congress along with the presidency, they are now
in a position to institute major changes to this nation with
little to no opposition. They got this power because
throughout the Bush years, the Republican leadership drifted
farther and farther to the extreme right (or was it the left?
It was very hard to tell from day to day) and Congress became
less and less effective. After 2001, President Bush instituted
far reaching policies purportedly to keep America secure but
which many took serious objection to. Add to this that some of
the policies of Bush were as far to the right as the
Republican leadership, deteriorating international relations
from Bush trying to dictate to the international community
rather than exist as equals, tensions from Iraq and
Afghanistan, and politics in Washington became exceedingly
devisive.
But it didn't start there. For years prior to Bush or even
Clinton, Americans had been suffering from perpetual
campaigning. New members of Congress are told during
orientation that if they have not already lauched their
re-election bids, they are behind. This last Presidential
election began literally the day after the 2006
elections. Primaries are being held earlier and earlier as a
result of a broken primary process and are claiming many voter
casualties as people get sick and tired of being continually
harrassed by political adds, mail, and phone calls and simply
refuse to vote at all, wanting nothing more to do with it.
A Nation of Extremes
During the years of the George W. Bush Presidency, Congress
had taken a surplus handed to them by Bill Clinton and turned
it into one of the largest deficits we have ever
seen, this after Bush campaigned as a fiscal
conservative. Towards the end of his term, we were left with a
"do nothing" Congress and the American people fed
up. They responded to this by putting Democrats in control of
Congress in 2006 who then selected Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid as
their dubious leadership. Well, Pelosi immediately (and I mean
immediately; within mere days after being elected Speaker of
the House) put her foot in her mouth–where it has
remained ever since–and Reid didn't do much better. In
March of this year, Pelosi had a disapproval rating of 60%
with 42% strongly disapproving of her performance. Harry Reid,
last month, was said to have approval ratings of just
34%. Under their leadership, Congress proceeded to
do... virtually nothing, despite the President rarely vetoing
any bill that came to his desk.
After hitting a high in October of 77% and dropping to a low
of 54% in March, the disapproval rating of Congress as
polled by Gallup continues to march back up. Last month, it
was at 61% and climbing. But this is not a new thing. In fact,
Gallup shows that the last time (prior to 2001) that Congress
had an approval rating higher than 50% was twice in 2000, once
in 1999, and three times in 1998. Gallups's numbers go all the
way back to 1974. Prior to 1998, there was not one period
where it showed an approval raiting above 50% and disapproval
ratings were rarely below 50%. It is possible that only
the Republican party as a whole has lower approval numbers.
But I digress. After the crash in October, the government
approved huge spending packages designed to stabilize the
banking system after the Federal Reserve's efforts which
included working with companies to allow several massive
purchases at fire-sale prices as investment bank after investment
bank went bankrupt, proved to be ineffective. AIG, Freddy-Mac,
Fannie-Mae, GM, and Chrysler were soon taken over by the
federal government under the auspices that they were too big
to be allowed to fail.
This spending began under the previous Congress but when they
returned to session in 2009 and President Obama was sworn into
office, it continued, even accelerated. Massive spending bills
were approved, an incomprehensible amount of money was spent
for "fiscal stimulus", there is a ludicrously
expensive and poorly structured climate change bill in the
Senate right now, and talk about a trillion dollar health care
bill along with rumors of a second stimulus bill. No one had
fully read any of these earlier bills, each of which is
hundreds of pages long, and at the last minute, hundreds more
pages of ammendments are being tacked on. Litterally, this is
being done at 3am or 4am in a closed door committee session
with a 10am vote scheduled for the full House or Senate. No
one knows what is in these bills and yet they are being
written into law, law that you and I must obey and, frankly,
pay for. The climate change bill is a good example. There are
provisions in there that should scare the heck out of most
Americans and yet when it was proposed that one of these bills
be read out on the Senate floor, none other than Barney Franks
took the podium and ridiculed this request.
Similarly,
when the President doesn't get his way, rather than saying
that he was willing to negotiate to try to get the best bill
on the table, he simply resorts to trying to shame all of
America into feeling sorry for him for being picked on by the
mean old kids in Congress. Not too long after that, the
chairman of the house Judiciary Committee, Rep. John Conyers (D,
Michigan 14th) stood up and said, "I love these members
that get up and say, 'read the bill!' What good is reading the
bill if it's 1,000 pages and you don't have two days and two
lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?"
What's the point of reading it?? How can you write a
bill you can't understand? How can you vote on a
bill you don't understand? If you can't understand it, what
chance does the public have? What about the folks who have to
follow those laws? What about the courts who have to enforce
it? If it cannot be understood, how can it be good law? This
man does not deserve to be in office and I hope the good people
of Michigan throw Mr. Conyers out on his ear for having such
disregard for the responsibilities as a member of the
U.S. House of Representatives and treating the high office he
occupies so lightly. The problem is that these attidudes are
just a hint of the larger problem of corruption in Washington
at every level.
So both parties are universally hated. The spending that has
been done since January which can only be described as a concerted
attempt to bankrupt this country is continuing unchecked. (It
can also be fairly said that the only possible objective of
such a deliberate initiave is anarchy.) Add
to that the rapid push to get bulky, complicated, very
far reaching legislation pushed through with little to no
debate, and this nation is in serious jeapordy. With
Al Franken finaly being allowed to declare victory in his race
for the Senate seat in michigan (yes, many months after the
election, they were still arguing the results, giving Florida
a run for the title of "best able to screw up an
election") the Democrats now have 60 seats. Why is that
important? Because one of the most powerful tools of the
minority to kill a bad bill is the filibuster. It can only be
forcably stopped by a vote of 60 members. If the Democrats can
now all get on the same bandwagon, there is pretty well no way
that the minority voice can be heard. Heaven help us if that
happens. Continued infighting among Democrats is the only
salvation this nation can hope for right now.
Let's face it folks, does anyone think we'd be better off if
it were Republicans in control instead of Democrats? I sure
don't. There is one thing we do know for sure: the President's
party should never be in control of both houses of
Congress. I'm a registered Republican but fall pretty well
dead center on the political spectrum. Over the past six
years, I began to feel strongly that neither party represented
my views but that they were both drifting further from center.
In fact, in the 2004 election, I voted for President
Bush for the single reason that I was quite seriously afraid
of the direction that Kerry would have taken this country. I
despised both these men. My vote was not in support of one
candidate, it was in opposition to the other. Many others felt
similarly. In point of fact, in most elections, that is
exactly how many vote: to oppose the worst of the two
choices. For this among other reaons, the 2004 election was
perhaps the most divisive election in U.S. history. Since
then, these divisions have only deepend.
Take the gun debate. Although it was not a focus of the
candidates themselves in 2008, there were major efforts made
on both sides to scare the heck out of their supporters so
they would vote for their group's chosen icon. The day after the
election, with Obama claiming the prize, and who after being
in office for six months is turning out to be perhaps the most
liberal President we have ever had, there was a run on the gun
stores. Sales increased 300% over normal. Guns and ammunition
of any sort that the federal government might take an interest
in disappeared almost overnight. Even now, while the guns are
largely back, the bullets still cannot be found. Predictions
are that it will be as long as two more years before the
ammunition makers can catch up.
Congress, including several
prominent Democrats, is not willing to institute the controls
that Democratic leaders and the White House wants, believing
that these aims are misguided and would not represent any
benefit to public safety and quite possibly accomplish just
the opposite. But as long
as Democrats control all three groups, the buying continues
because conditions can change overnight. The
rift that exists between gun control and gun rights advocates
is no longer a rift, it is now akin to the Marianas Trench. So
strong are the divisions that both groups sit in fear of any
major power shift in this nation, even at the local
levels. This mirrors the division between Democrat and
Republican leaders.
Fixing the Problem
Well then, what is to be done? If neither party is the right
party then what do we do? First order of business is to throw
them all out, every last one of them and keep doing this until
the current attitudes and current leadership is gone. But this
is not good enough. Second, we need to establish Congressional
term limits. I propose 8 years for the House and 12 years for
the Senate. As it stands now, an entrenched Congressional
leader can absolutely crush any member who does not toe the
party line. They can demand and dictate terms in any
legislation and get their way. These members are not beholden
to their electorate, they are subservient only to the party
leadership which themselves are getting money dumped on them
by lobbyists. With term limits in place, if the leadership,
who presumably had to spend at least
half their allowed time working their way into that position,
gets a bug up their shorts about some junior member trying to
do the right thing, all that junior member has to do is wait
until the next term for that leader to go away but they do not
have to be quiet and they do not have to be alone. They will owe
them nothing and can freely speak their mind.
Further, I have advocated for some time the benefits of a
strong third party and I think its time that it happened. To
pass a bill in either
house requires a better than 50% majority. If a third party
had twenty seats in the Senate, taking ten from each party,
the Democrats would have to have at least one member of the
other party vote with them to pass any bill.
Considering that there would be a number of Democrats who
would dissent in almost any vote anyway, it would be very hard
to get any legislation passed without negotiating with other
members. In these negotiations, the more radical provisions of
the bill would normally have to be dropped. This would cause
the loss of extremist votes and would mean yet more
negotiation would be required to gain more votes from the
other two parties. The end
result of this would be legislation that was more appealing to
a greater percentage of Americans. Such legislation would be
better overall and there would be far less chance of what has
occured over the past 6 months and the past 8 years. Heck,
after a while, people might actually have faith in government
again. (I know, thats a long shot, but one can hope.)
But as it stands now, neither party represents the views of what
seems to be the bulk of Americans. Therefore a new party is
needed. I truely think that this is the only way to end the
see-saw of idealogical extremisim in our several
legislatures. This has been attempted before (most notably,
perhaps, with Ross Perot) but the groups that formed were
either fringe groups themselves or could not speak with a
unified voice, they failed to create a real identity for
themselves and thus
failed to garner wide spread appeal. Part of this is because
of the divisiveness of other topics such as homosexuality,
religion as a fundamental structure of American society,
illegal immigration, and abortion.
All of these are very polar issues. Given that, how do you
find a middle ground? Well, so far, the answer for Republicans
and Democrats seems to be a unanimous, "we'll get back to
you on that." Any third party would have to take firm
positions on these issues but that doesn't say it has to be
all the way to one extreme or the other. It is not an
indiciation of serious character flaws or deep seated
psychological problems if one chooses to take a
position in the middle on these issues.
Alright then, what sort of positions might be considered
moderate on these issues? Let me lay out a few of my views and
see if you agree with these as an example. Remember, these are
mine, not what I think someone else should necessarily
adopt. They're just food for thought.
I do not like the tide of illegal immigration but at the same
time, I feel that the legal path is too hard. Immigration
reform is absolutely necessary but cannot be simple
amnesty. Those that have entered this country illegally have
broken the law and a penalty must be exacted. If they have
committed no other crime and have been in this country, say,
in excess of ten years, a way should be made for them to be
citizens but only after strict border enforcement is enacted
so that this does not become a free pass. Immigration
reform must start with securing the border and
enfocring immigration laws. (I do not support guest worker
programs either.) It is greatly lamentable to me to
see my native language, my own heritage, and the culture I
grew up in all being destroyed because of illegal
immigration. It is a major problem and must be stopped.
On abortion, I do not
feel that it should be used as a method of birth control,
there are other items that can be used for that and should be.
Abstinence is the surest method of avoiding unwanted
pregnancies but if you are not willing to abstain, then if you
don't want to have a child, use birth control.
Abortion is a medical procedure akin to amputation. There are times
when it is medically necessary and appropriate to apply in
those instances. There are other cases in which I would agree
with its use but these are not many.
We cannot keep official government records in multiple
languages. The traditional language of this nation has been
English. All the records of this country's current government
have been in English. Yet we do not have an official
language. Americans speak all languages and this is a good
thing but for the sake of sanity, I strongly support requiring
all government documents to be kept in English. Let me be
clear on this, I speak English. If I try to go get something
from the public record relavant to me, say a court document
or a property deed, and its in Spanish or Korean or some such,
I'm not going to be able to read it and will not be able to
claim my rights with respect to that issue. The same situation
applies for non-english speakers. The courts rule on specific
language contained in such documents. The specific terms in
these documents cannot carry accurately into another
language. Ideas are lost, specific phrasing altered, and
meaning obscured when any document is translated. To allow these
critical documents to have to go through translation will only
serve to deprive American citizens of their individual rights,
regardless of ethnic background.
So it makes sense to have
everything in a single language and it makes sense that this
language should be that which has been used to date. This is
not a racist statement, it is a statement founded in simple
logic. If you are a shop owner and the majority of your
customers are native spanish speakers, by all means,
accomodate your customers and make sure your business
succeeds, but when it comes to filing your documents with the
city, state, or federal offices they should be in English.
On gay rights, I cannot support
the concept of gay marriage—I'm sorry, but regardless of
what is said, these groups are trying to change the deffnition
that I, a moderately religeous person, must teach my children
and that is something I cannot do—but recognize that
there is an intertwining of dependance so support civil
unions. Just because I don't agree with the lifestyle
choice—and it is a choice—does not say I don't feel
that some support is not deserved.
I agree that a certain amount of taxes are necessary and that
the government has certain obligations to provide for the
people but taxes are too high and the bulk of the money is
being wasted because most congressional members don't have a
spine and seek only to get as much money for themselves as they
can.
I'm not a union man and since I live in a right-to-work state
(thank heaven's for that) will likely never join one by choice. If you
want to join one, fine, good for you, but don't ever try to
convince me to do likewise. While I
feel that unions have their place in our society and should
not go away, I also feel that without exception they have all
abused their position. They are responsible for as much of the
current crisis with regards to the auto industry and parts
makers as management is. I sometimes wonder what portion of
inflation over past years has been because of greedy labor
contracts. Many of the labor disputes I hear of are not,
"I want to be treated fairly," but are much more along
the lines of, "I want a free ride." Unions have destroyed
more than one company with unreasonable demands and are a
significant factor responsible for making it too expensive to
do business in America with the result that many companies have
taken their operations elsewhere.
In addition to these views, I support the military and have no
problems with anyone who chooses to join. I support the first
ammendment but don't feel that this gives you a right to be
deliberately deceptive or incite people to violence. If you make
a statement you portray as fact, you damned sure better back it up.
My support for the second ammendment has been well documented but
I also do not object to certain controls, as stated elsewhere
on this site. Like many others, I feel that the environment
must be protected but it requires others in the world (China
and India) to also act, lest we simply regulate ourselves into
oblivion. (Making it even more expensive to do business here
will not help encourage people to do business here. Changes
must be an international concensus across many, many nations.)
The current climate change bill is a total crock and
will only serve to destroy what domestic industry we have
left.
Lastly, in my oppinion, Congress needs to pass not merely a balanced
budget, but net positive budgets, with the objective of paying
down the federal debt, every year except in times in
which Congress (not the President) declares war or in times of
extreme economic crisis such as existed between October and
February and at that, Congress must not respond to the stock
market but to the hard economic data. Action cannot be the
free-for-all that we are now seeing. (I argue that we are
already at or very near bottom and any further action will
only deepen the recession, not counter it.) The national debt
is not a good thing when it goes beyond 20% of GDP.
None of the views I outline above are extremist positions.
My viewpoints are generally close enough to center that I'm
disliked and often belittled by those on both sides of many of
these debates. The views I hold mean I could never have a home
in the Democratic party. They also are not extreme enough for the
conservative right of the Republican party who have held the
party hostage for the past 12 years at least, which means that
candidates chosen for high office will have no chance of
sharing my views. Do I register as a Libertarian? (Padron me,
got something in my throat.) That party is as far from
me as either of the others and never makes a significant
showing in any election. While not exactly a fringe
party–here today, gone tommorrow–they're not
representative of a large enough portion of Americans to count
on the national scene and I'm not convinced they ever will
be. (A seat here or there, no more.) Even if they were, my
point of view would still be unheard. They merely represent
another extreme.
Does a member of a party have to agree with all the positions
of that pary? Heck, no! What fun would that be? The party
represents a set of ideas. If your views fall mainly in line
with that party, maybe thats the party for you but you should
not be made to feel that your voice doesn't matter just
because you disagree with the position they take on, say, abortion.
Unfortunately, if you're a candidate of either the Republican
or Democratic party and you have any hope to gain any
meaningful position in the legislature (whether national or
local), it seems that you must follow the party line to the
letter. Under the current culture, if you disagree with your party
leadership, woe unto you. No single element within a party can
be allowed to define it as has happened so notably
within the Republican party. So I say its time for a new player
to come to the forefront.
Final Thoughts
The oppinion of many, myself included, is that government no
longer represents the people. If you are not speaking on
behalf of a special interest group or have a bulging pocket
book, you cannot get your congress critter's
attention. Perhaps they have forgotten the central point of
The Decleration of Independence, that all men are created
equal and that governments derrive their just powers from the
consent of the governed. They forget that We, The
People matter.
Well, there's another point in that same paragraph, that when
a government becomes destructive to these ends, that it is the
right of the people to throw off that government. I say that
the Democrats and Republicans both, the culture that has set
in inside Washington, the special interest groups, the quid pro
quo life style, that these are destructive to the people and
need to be set right. It is up to us, The People, to throw
off that culture and restore balance.
Neither party is
popular right now. Do you think they would sit up and take
notice if the numbers of Americans who were affiliated with
those two parties took a sharp drop? You bet they would.
Right now, the largest segment of Americans consider
themselves to be independent. But neither of the two principle
parties will stand up and take notice of this. The problem
is that independent also means individual and uncommitted.
Because of this, the principle parties don't care that they
only represent a minority of Americans since that has no impact on
their positions in Congress. They know that those independents
ultimately really have no choice but to vote for a Republican
or a Democrat so they couldn't care less about them once the
election is over. What we need is a central organization to
rally around. We need another option at the ballot
box. Without this, no one in Washington will ever sit up and
take notice. Unfortunately, I have not yet found a
satisfactory organization to be extant. (And please don't
suggest the Constitution Party. Half their platform just makes
me cringe.)
So this is my call, first,
I don't care who you vote for or what your position on a given
issue is, but I do care that you vote. Vote moderates into
office and toss out the current party leadership at all levels
of government. It matters that your
voice is heard at the ballot box if nowhere else. Second, I
call for someone who has sufficient time and political
interest to take up the cause of forming a party to represent
the rest of us. Such a task is not easy, nor is it fast. That
task, though, is most deffinitely necessary. Unfortunately,
that is not a task I am capable of executing on my own. I am
happy to be an active participant in a group that I feel would
actually speak for me but also recognize that I do not have
the skills or the time necessary to lead it. If a large enough
group can form, those in Washington will have to stand up and
take notice. When they start to lose seats in Congress, not
one or two, but when it begins to become many, and when those
members begin speaking with a unified voice, not siding with
either Republicans or democrats, but standing on separate
ground of their own choosing, they'll start running scared and we,
The People, will finally have a chance to take back our country.
|