Front Page Magazine Alan Nathan December 26, 2006
The vile and disgusting truth about both political parties is that they marginalize all of us by empowering the government to bully individuals with intrusive legislation. If their druthers were any more unchecked, Republicans would harm the collective good in the name of individual freedom while Democrats would assault individual freedom in the name of the collective good. Consequently, the only existing check against each is their perpetual tug of war with one another, and that leaves us with nothing but the pathetic lesser of two evils.
Why can’t we grant ourselves the least of three evils? Why not compel all players to veer away from the two dimensional, left-right view of the world by forcing upon them a new requisite for their continued relevance – putting the home team before their political team. More candidly, isn’t it time for an aggressive, centrist-minded third party to slap around the extremists and challenge both parties to be more than they’ve been to date?
In the November 18th edition of the Washington Post, it was reported that:
Veteran lawmakers say an effective majority conceives and executes a legislative agenda, while an effective minority exploits the majority’s weaknesses, derails its efforts and lays blame at its feet, all while building a case for taking back control in the next election.
What this means is that despite each side crying about the high-handedness of the other in power, they both intellectually accept that the majority has good reason to isolate the minority. This is one of the most academically impoverished dynamics to be strangling the greatest representative government on earth and it should be stopped.
. . . more
One of the best ways to encourage 3rd parties would be to do away with the “winner take all” system in Presidential contests and award a states electoral votes proportionately.
Another would be to increase the number of Congressmen thus making smaller districts and do something about gerrymandering.
Mr. Bauman,
i.e. third parties: True there is a need for an alternative view points. Since we took our legislative pattern from the bicameral House of Commons third parties have had very short lives. If you have three parties why not four or five contesting viewpoints.
European governments abound with multiple parties. You only need 5% of the vote to get a seat in the lower house of many goverments. The 5%ers become spoilers; if they can take 15% they can become ‘king makers’. The infighting can bring the legislative process to a stand-still.
The House of Commons is constructed with two opposing lines facing each other. Churchill believed in two contesting sides not in triangles or boxes or pentagon constructions. The House in the US is in a semicircule with allows for a more occlusiveness format.
We started with Whigs and Federalist but then we had only Englishmen; now we have a multiplicity of ethnicity and many view points that must be reconciled into just two parties. How we handel this phenomenon will depend upon how occlusive and occommodating we will become. We all ready have a tennis position set up with just one Muslim in congress; now, howabout a Mormon wanting to take the oath on ‘The Pearl of Great Price’?
Gerrymandering of course is nondemocratic but smaller districts may be necessary as you say. ‘Tis a problem wrapped in a confusion of interest.
Sincerely, J R Dittbrenner
A review of the relevant historical facts leads to a rejection the basic premise of this article – that one party is as bad as the other.
It was a Republican majority that massively increased the amount of special earmarks allowed in legislation, and started the K-Street Project to align legislation priorities with those of corporate lobbyists donating most heavily to the Republican party.
It was the Republican party that emasculated the House Ethics committee so that it largely ignored the scandals surrounding Jack Abramoff’s influence pedaling operation.
It was the Republican party that rammed through legislation written by lobbyists with votes scheduled in the dead of the night, before representatives even had time to read the bills they were voting on.
It was a Republican administration that threatened to fire the chief actuary of the Medicare program that he would be fired if he revealed the true cost of the Medicare Part D drug benefit to Congress.
It was a Republican majority Congress that has failed to provide the oversight over politically contractors in Iraq and Louisiana allowing between $3-4 billion dollars of the taxpayers money to be lost to feraud and abuse. It was a Republican, Duncan Hunter of California, who attempted to eliminate the position of the government’s chief auditor in charge of monitoring contractors in Iraq.
It was a Republican party that dispensed with the Pay-As-You-Go” rule, causing the federal budget to fall from suplus to deep deficit.
The incoming Democratic majority has promised to reverse and correct each of these unprecedented abuses of power. They are at least entitled to a few months in power so we can see if they are true to their word before we issue sweeping judgements.
Dean, as I’m sure you know your statement is virtually meaningless because it begins with the assertion that you have reviewed the “relevant” historical facts. That means you have consciously left out all facts which you consider to “irrelevant”, i.e., do not support you point of view. Since in and of themselves “historical facts” prove nothing and even in appropriate context are are always subject to subjective interpretation, we are left with a mere assertion of your opinion. As I am sure you also realize there are many who do not share your opinion and will develop their equally meaningless statement based upon “historical facts” which they consider to be relevant and interpret them in the opposite fashion as you. At that point you will opt out of the discussion with some sort of emotional tirade and change the subject, that is if the historical pattern of your posts on this site follows form. Even if you are asked direct specific questions or asked to respond to “historical facts” you have not included it is unlikely that you will reply. So what’s the point. We know all to well that you consider all Republicans to be evil destroyers of the noble poor who twist governemt solely to their own purposes instead of yours.
That is the whole content of what passes for political debate in this country. It is exactly why I have pretty much stopped listening and opted out of voting for any national office. Here in Kansas I don’t really have a choice anyway. Whoever the Republican candidate for President is, that is who will get the electroral votes of Kansas so no Presidential candidate will even bother to visit or care about the people in this state. 90% of the Representatives in the state come from safe seats and most are never even seriously contested. Same with the Senate seats. There is almost never a legitimate race for any of the political offices in the state.
There is no real concern for people at all by and large, it is either BIG business, BIG labor, or the BIG poor all with their noses in the public trough, pigging our to their best of their ability while the country slides into oblivion.
Michael – If you think I have left out relevant facts, please tell us what they are, by all means.
You acuse me of editorializing, but all the items I listed are well-documented events that are a matter of record. It is a record that speaks for itself, without any editorializing from me. My only comment was that the Democrats should be allowed at one day as the majority before we judge their performance.
Dean, your relevant facts can and will be countered by equally relevant facts that indicate that the Democrats are just as obsence, licentious, and greedy in their pursuit of power as are the Republicans. The Washington polictical circus should be taken off C-SPAN and put on the WB as a seedy, pointless reality show called “Politcians Behaving Badly” It matters not which party is in power as any semblence of reasonable public policy is impossible because it will be instantly swallowed up in the ravenous maw of those seeking to stuff their pockets, feed their ego and indulge their libido. If any of them had an ounce of decency, they’d resign and donate the contents of their campaign funds to the poor in their district. Then walk down the street of any town in their district, pick out the first person they met with some intelligence and have the govenor of the state appoint that person to the office.
I cannot nor will I any longer take it seriously.