Important Note:

Opinions are fun. My friends tell me I am someone with lots of opinions and that's fine since I don't get mad at others when they disagree with me. In this same spirit I am interested in hearing yours views as long as you are able to share your views without boiling over. I look forward to hearing from you. I tend to write in the form of short essays most of the time, but contributions do not need to be in this same format or size. Some of the content here will date itself pretty quickly, other content may be virtually timeless, this is for the reader to judge.

Displaying 1 - 1 of 1

Searching for the radical middle!                                                                                    

Posted at: Oct/21/2010 : Posted by: mel

Related Category: Politics & Gov,

A divisive election season with lots of extreme rhetoric and mudslinging politics always seems to stir of fantasies of a new, moderate, centrist and sensible political party, but third parties just don’t do well at catching on in the U.S.

I guess it was inevitable. This 2010 mid-term election season has been one of the worst I can recall in my many decades as an avid voting participant in the system. With unemployment over 10% and the economy stymied we are being barraged by wild characters with radical rhetoric, extreme idea and gross levels of spending. Yet, for most of us who vote there is a frustration with these extreme manifestations. From all this mess grows the dream of a Terribly Sensible Party for the rest of us to find comfort with.

I know, it’s what the citizenry of this country say they want, especially when they’ve been beaten down by enough robo calls, TV attack ads, and enough third-class political “junk mailings” to presumably solve the budget shortfall the postal service claims they are facing. As the money funding Democrats and Republicans pushes them more to the extreme left and right, the moderate center is becoming a vacuum. Normally nature abhors a vacuum, but the laws of physics have nothing to do with politics. There is also of course the Libertarians’, the Green Party, the American Independent Party, but all of these seem to seek the fringes of mainstream thought as opposed to the center. In response to Democratic takeover of Washington in 2008 a new political group has recently appeared on the political landscape calling themselves the “Tea Party”. Rather than seeking the juicy center, the “Tea Partier’s” have presented themselves more as an extremist manifestation of the Republicans they appear to be so far to the right there is no clear way to define their location on the political map.

If I were to dream about politics, and I don’t, it would be wonderful to see a centrist party emerge in the middle promoting good will and reasonable budgets for all. It would be interesting to speculate what this new party would look like. Thomas Friedman, the moderate-liberal columnist for The New Your Times wrote earlier that “the level of disgust with Washington, D.C., and our two-party system” is so great that it may well produce a serious third party by 2012. “There is a revolution brewing in this country,” he said “one taking place in the radical center.” When did the center become radical? Interestingly, a moderately-conservative columnist at the same paper, David Brooks recently touched on the same subject. Mr. Brooks envisioned a sensible party that would reduce wages and pension benefits for public workers, and then use the money to make wise investments in the infrastructure of the future.

I am still confused. The most conservative groups loudly yell “less, less”. The loudest liberals in turn call for “more, more, and more”. Unfortunately, the American political landscape is controlled by those who can yell the loudest and not by those representing the largest base. This must be why all this is only a dream. I am old enough that I have learned not to hold my breath in an effort to force change. Change like this is really not likely to happen because our political system just doesn’t work that way. It is not about reasonable people who think pretty much alike sitting around in a room and trying to solve their mutual problems. There is no meeting where people of good faith and reason meet and say, “Well, why don’t we do this and not that, and split the difference? By the way, would anyone like a blueberry muffin?” It has been years since politics was about reasonable people who think pretty much alike meeting to find a solution in the middle that works reasonably well for all their constituents. Now the decisions are made with a winner take all approach marginalizing the mainstream center in favor the radical fringes.

Let’s look for a moment at where successful third parties have come from throughout American history. Almost without exception they emerged not from the middle but from marginalized peoples, on what were considered the radical fringes, motivated by a deep sense of frustration, and even betrayal.

Two hundred years ago, the Westerners of their day felt themselves overtaxed and underserved by the federal government (an interesting recurring theme). In this climate Andrew Jackson and his Democratic populists arose to break up what had become a virtual one-party system in the 1820s. Neither major party was willing or able to address Northerners’ moral abhorrence of slavery. More important still, these Northern farmers and their small farms feared they would be unable to compete with the large plantations of the south and their slaves making labor very inexpensive. In this hostile situation we saw the birth of Abraham Lincoln’s Republican Party. As urban centers grew, so did their political machines. Concurrently, rural centers became more impoverished and separated from the cities leading to the populist movement after the Civil War. Middle-class concerns about monopoly power and unhealthy industrial practices by the industrialist led to progressivism whose planks were incorporated into the Democratic parties’ platform. Socialist parties advocated ideas during the depression of the 1930’s such as Social Security that would become an integral component of Roosevelt’s New Deal. Nearly all of these political movements failed to create permanent new parties. But, at the same time, nearly all of them succeeded in introducing dynamic new leaders and forcing the established parties to accept many of their ideas, successfully redirecting the national agenda. There is an important notion of numbers to mention here. When there has been only one strong political party, such as during the 1840-1850’s when the Federalist Party was fading, the new Republican Party found opportunity to offer an alternative. Anytime there has been two strong parties in place, the introduction of a third party has really only been a short term manifestation. During this brief period one or the other of the dominate parties would adopt the ideals, agenda, and leadership of the emerging third party leaving it without energy. Over and over again, the established elites of existing political parties were forced to acknowledge the existence of others and their struggles. Whether immigrants, farmers, working women, African-American, or a host of others…they were considered the radicals of their day, but have been able to influence main stream political agenda. Even Ross Perot’s third party efforts gave voice to concerns over federal spending and free trade.

Even if it would not survive as a sustaining political party, third party movements are obvious forces for political change. There seems no doubt that there is void in the middle that needs to be filled. Liberals think we can have big public projects and pay generous wages and benefits to public employees, too. Conservatives aren’t clamoring to slash these same wages and benefits so they can make judicious new public investments. Instead, they want to shrink government, privatize it as much as possible, and in turn present this as a savings in the form of tax cuts. Some folks tell me this is the beauty of our democratic process, but I am reminded that one person’s art is another person’s trash.

I know, I’ve talked myself out of a third party, but the differences on any number of issues are just as deep and wide. I don’t really see how a bridge can be built and this is why I still have my dream of a viable, moderate, reasonable, socially sensitive, fiscally conservative third party. In my dream it would arise like the phoenix from the middle of the political spectrum bringing, calm, clarity, and a centrist voice to that majority of Americans whose voice cannot be heard over the din and force of energy provided by the large amount of money funding and changing hands at the extremist fringes.

But when I wake from this dream I wonder where the voters for this would-be and sensible third party are? I was just reminded by a friend that they are all at work right now so that we can pay for the extra holidays and pension for Federal employees that none of the rest of us gets to enjoy.

I guess sensible is not in vogue.

Comments (2)                                                                                                                                                    [Add Comment]