In today's New York Times ($), the Mustache of Understanding sounds the plaintive lament of the pundit class: the need for a third party.
I'm hoping for a third party. The situation is ripe for one: America is facing a challenge as big as the cold war -- how we satisfy our long-term energy needs, at reasonable prices, while decreasing our dependence on oil and the bad governments that export it -- and neither major party will offer a solution, because it requires sacrifice today for gain tomorrow.
Now, practically speaking, the institutional barriers to a third party in today's political milieu are insuperable. But as always, the Mustache trusts his "gut" on this issue. And as always, his gut tells him that the American public is right on the verge of lining up behind the Mustache Plan.
Insuperable obstacles aside, does Friedman have a point? Is it true that "neither major party will offer a solution"?
Well, no.
Democrats recently offered a solution: the Energy 2020 plan. It doesn't have the gas tax Friedman wants, but it's got some of the other stuff he mentions. It's insufficient overall and deeply misguided in some particulars, but if implemented it would certainly be a vast improvement over our current policy situation, a grossly incoherent hodgepodge mainly united by one thread: the giveaway of public money to big corporate contributors.
We know what Republicans would do on energy if they had power. They have it; they're doing it.
The Democrats have no power to implement policy, and when a party with no power to implement policy announces a set of policy proposals, no one listens -- not the press, not Friedman. But that doesn't mean they don't have policy proposals.
Beltway pundits strive above all else to be unpredictable, unorthodox, "outside the box." Pointing out that the current batch of Republicans running Washington is corrupt and destructive, and that the Democrats are advancing better ideas, is "partisan." It's "shrill." Worst of all, it's inside the box. Boooring.
Nonetheless, almost all these "pox on both their houses" stories are vapid. If one party proposes to do what you want, and the other party stands in the way, the solution is not a third party. The solution is for the second party to stop standing in the way.
(I should say: I have no particular love for the Democratic Party. I would much prefer a Party of David, which implements all the policies I favor, some of which would be classified under the current taxonomy as "liberal" and others "conservative" or "libertarian." But the current crowd of national Republicans are none of those things. It isn't a party with an ideology or a coherent philosophy of governing. It's a machine designed to systematically enrich the corporate class. It's not exaggerating to say that anything would be preferable to that, including Friedman's imaginary third party.)
Comments
View as Flat
bookerly Posted 8:56 pm
03 May 2006
In 1992, Bill Clinton took office, the Democrats had control of both houses of the legislature for two years and did what for the environment??
Ummm, nothing.
I can't read the NY Times select (they also don't like my browser???). So, won't criticize the main idea.
But, one reason the right is successful is that they pressure the middle. They won't go along for nothing. Environmentalists accept whatever crumbs we get, then wonder why we get crumbs.
In January of 1999, the US Senate voted to fund Star Wars research 99 to 0. Damn, no one voted against it. No one. That's when I became a green. (with occassional lapses). A lot of my former Democratic friends got angry, but so be it.
Just being less bad isn't enough for me anymore. (Not that the Greens are always so great, I mean Ralph Nader??).
Anyway, the reason that many of us advocate a third party is that both of the existing two are Right and Center-Right, beholden to large corporations and terrible on the environment. They really are.
And many of us believe that unless we tell them they can't have our votes for free (or cheap), they won't listen. (I mean the Democrats, no offense to the almost extinct Green GOP'ers, but they are almost extinct.)
Imagine a third party that ran candidates and brought up issues in all the one-party districts!!
At least we could have a chance to frame the issues. Or try.
Patrick
Permalink
kmp Posted 1:18 am
04 May 2006
Republican/Democrat, Red/Blue, White/Black, Male/Female, Gay/Straight, Bible Thumper/Baby Killer... whatever the issue we seem to love to polarize around it. Enlarge and simplify the issue until it becomes diminished into a simple game of schoolyard Dodgeball - Us vs Them.
Perhaps this is part of the vision problem with the environmental movement; what is the opposite of Green? Oil-hugger? Status-seeker? BIGhousecarowner? Red is opposite on the color wheel, but (see above) that's already taken, and of course has it's Commiepinko associations as well. Can't think of a good, single-word descriptor for a person who does not care about the environment. The strongest thing we have managed to come up with is "skeptic." Now there's a weak cup of tea.
But I digress; to get back to the main point, I believe that only when we have true choice in politicians (not the lesser of two evils, not I-vote-Democrat-because-I'm-a-Democrat) will we pay attention to who the candidate is (instead of which party they represent), what his or her voting record is on the issues that matter to us, whether or not we believe that this person will truly be a voice and an advocate for our neighborhood/city/state/country, and vote for a person, not an ideology. Because the bottom line is that people make up society and make changes to society; ideologies are mostly good at feeding blog discussions.
Permalink
Icelander Posted 6:49 am
04 May 2006
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 9:51 am
04 May 2006
To return to a favorite theme of mine, though, nobody is perfect. Maybe not even David, hard as that is to believe. By coincidence, I was just reading with a student a (not especially inspiring) sentence in Greek that means, "He said that the king thinks that the woman is beautiful." And so of course, me being me, I launched into a mini-lecture on David and Bathsheba. (Vide sis 2 Samuel 11.)
The story of David and Goliath (1 Samuel 17) is rather cheerier, and much closer to what I associate with our own David. "Am I a dog, that thou comest to me with staves?," growls the giant, obviously a dog-abuser.
That said, and as willing as I am to lead the cheers for our David, I am not quite ready to give up on the Democrats. True, the center-right re-positioning of so many of the "leaders" is indeed disconcerting. Gay rights have been long abandoned; women's reproductive rights are being increasingly questioned (though I think the party should support Santorum's anti-abortion challenger, Casey, in PA; Santorum is the greatest disgrace that my home state ever sent to DC); First-Amendment rights are apparently negotiable, what with Hillary's interest in a no-desecration-of-a-piece-of-cloth amendment.
Nevertheless, it seems there is still a fair amount of liveliness in those of us who appreciate the activities of the late Paul Wellstone, who like what we hear from Russ Feingold, and who remember pleasantly the brief fireworks show of the Howard Dean campaign. If this bunch should ever make it clear they are disavowing any former commitment to environmentalist values, then of course the party deserves to be shunned. But I think that is not likely soon. And the current looming into the picture of Al Gore and his movie should encourage environmentalists who still place their hopes in the Democrats.
I love Patrick's complaint, "Environmentalists accept whatever crumbs we get, then wonder why we get crumbs." (Though he is perhaps unfair to Bill Clinton between taking office in 1993, and the GOP overthrow in 1994. I would be happy to hear more on his misgivings concerning Ralph Nader.) I shall send that sentence to my Representative, Charley Rangel; to my neighbors' Representative, Jerry Nadler; to my senior Senator, Chuck Schumer; and even to my junior Senator, whose name I cannot remember at the moment.
I would so love to be able to vote for Teresa Heinz Kerry. Much preferable to, say, her husband, and Hillary. I doubt she has said much on the record on environmental issues; but I cannot help feeling she has an open mind, and a good heart, and wants to learn. If ever the Schwarzenegger Exception goes through, I am on Teresa's side.
Permalink
birdboy Posted 11:11 am
04 May 2006
I've been waiting for Dems to show a spine- haven't seen it yet, and they're running out of time, if they want to keep this green.
a liberal in redsville
Permalink
bookerly Posted 11:42 am
04 May 2006
About the Democrats energy proposal. Even though it is "insufficient overall and deeply misguided in some particulars", as bad as it is, it is also meaningless.
One of the weaknesses (though some would regard it as a strength) of the American party system, is that candidates run with a party label, but are elected as individuals. This means that there is no requirement that they support their own party's platform or ideas. Which means that party platforms (such as Energy 2020) are meaningless. They are froth designed to sucker the membership into believing that their party stands for something.
(This is also true in the Republican party where the membership actually seems to believe that some of the weirder bits of theocracy they put in the platform will actually get implemented. Then when they are betrayed again and again by their OWN leadership, they can only howl "we won't get fooled again" until the next time. When they do get fooled again.)
Once a candidate is elected (and remember, except for extremely unusual circumstances, election once is election for life (or as long as you want)), they can throw the platform away between campaigns and do as they want. The real issues, after all, are constituent services and pork. If they keep these in mind, they are in for life (pretty much).
Look at how many "safe" districts there are. What is a deomcracy doing with safe (uncontested) districts? These are places where there is never even any pretense of real elections or real voter education or discussion of issues. But both wings of our super-party love to create these.
One of the clearest reasons for a third party is to begin to end this practise. The idea of elections without campaigns is the antithesis of democracy. Every one of those districts is lost to democracy.
On Ralph Nader. He is a nice man, he is the ultimate technocrat. Make him budget director. But he is not an environmentalist. He is terrible on civil rights and questions of economic justice (he thinks it just happens if you tweak the system a little). I saw him debate Pat Buchanan once, and he got his clock cleaned. He should never have been the Green candidate (and yes, i voted for him once, but really, i didn't become a Green to vote for more lousy candidates!).
The major parties only respect money and power. We don't have the former, nor are we likely to ever have more than Exxon and its allies.
Birdboy is correct. A ten percent showing by the Greens changes the issues.
A third party allows us a place to put issues on the table, forces us to go out and discuss and campaign. Out of that will come increasing strength (or we are in big trouble).
It can't be done? Bah, who cares. If you had said in 1964 that Barry Goldwater would someday be viewed as almost a moderate, you would have been laughed out of the room. His supporters rolled up their sleeves and changed history (for the worse).
Caniscandida, only four Democrats you like and one dead? Wake up my friend.
The current Green Party is too white by far, but there are folks in other communities who are looking at the idea of a new party as well. (The only thing the Democrats are united on is ignoring the people who put them in power.)
Read the polls. People hate the Republicans, but don't see the Democrats as offering a clear alternative (ie, they stand for nothing). This is the time for a third party to rise.
Global warming will demand real leadership, and right now, we have none. That is almost as scary as global warming itself.
patrick
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 5:02 pm
04 May 2006
http://www.greens.org/
http://todd4senate.org/
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 5:05 pm
04 May 2006
http://todd4senate.org/
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:54 pm
04 May 2006
I think I made it clear, I am not by any means in love with the current crop of Democrats.
But it is unfair to suggest they are useless. I thought it was a major interest of yours, to assemble all sorts of moral causes into one single collection. That is a terrificly good enterprise. So what in the world are you up to, trying to shut out Congressfolk, who have been good, e.g., in trying to clean up the post-Katrina mess, from further developments?
Puer Avialis, aka Birdboy, is in fact a hero of mine. There is a red-winged blackbird picture, stuck to our refrigerator, in his honor. (And for all I know, the internet being what it is, he may be she, and boy may be girl.) I do indeed intend to vote Green Party in local and state elections.
Eliot Spitzer is an up-and-coming NY Democrat, apparently; he has done a number of praise-worthy things already, and is on course to do a few more praise-worthy things. Lovely. Unfortunately, he has not yet rejected capital punishment. For me, look, this is a really big thing. This is not explicitly environmental, not explicitly green, but I cannot vote for someone who thinks that the taking of life is ever justified. So so long Mr. Spitzer.
I like Ralph Nader, but I think he is wrong for the Green Party. Somebody like you, Patrick, or David, or even Birdboy, if he/she has enough gravitas, enough cojones, and looks good in front of a camera, that would tell us something different: Hello America! Welcome, the roosters are singing a whole new song!
Patrick, wake me up whenever you like. But let us both be awake to everything good and beautiful that is out there.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 9:21 pm
04 May 2006
Dear Caniscandida,
You are perhaps, too kind to me (and probably to all those around you!). I suspect you are well and truly loved, and I am happy.
My rose colored glasses are, alas, shattered. I wish I shared your optimistic view of the Democratic Party. But as you read, I am not that optimistic.
I would be the last person to run for office!!! Maybe you should give it a try!
Are there really Congressfolk trying to do better post Katrina? Maybe I can't see them from here. I read Yahoo, Grist, the NYTimes, Washington Post, SF Bay Guardian and Sf Chronicle, Richmond Times-Dispatch (don't ask) and Buzzflash regularly. And a bunch of Chinese sites.
I don't see the good Democrats. Your comment makes me stop and realize that maybe a few exist, just because I don't see them doesn't mean they aren't there.
But I don't see them. Maybe I am the one who is sleeping, or wearing blinders.
In truth I am seriously worried about Global warming and the extra 3 billion mouths that are coming. Sigh.
In truth I am not sure what to do.
I certainly did not mean to be insulting (if that is how I appeared, then I apologize). But I really don't "get it". I don't understand why you and David (and others) still stick to a party in which I don't see the good.
The sand in my eyes maybe.
pace, patrick
Permalink
kmp Posted 11:18 pm
04 May 2006
I don't think the Democrats are all lost - there are some good ones out there. I'm sure there are some good Republicans out there (not that I can think of any at the moment). And of course, there is good old Ralph, although I could have killed him for the 2nd run; but hey, is it his fault the Dems couldn't muster up enough excitement to beat the blathering baboon we have in office? Sigh.
I want Atticus Finch (as played by Gregory Peck, of course). I want Jimmy Stewart (really, almost any of his roles will do). I want Spencer & Hepburn from the Adam's Rib days. But more than fictional characters and movie screen heros, I want real people, with all their foibles, their inherent predjudices, their mistakes and their triumphs. Is it so much to ask for someone who will tell the truth, listen sincerely, and fight against what they believe to be wrong?
I don't suppose there is any chance that Dave looks (and sounds) like Gregory Peck? We could really have something there.
Kaela
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 1:43 am
05 May 2006
Yes, but unfortunately they seem to be in an endless loop of supporting the bad ones. Quitting the Democratic Party would be good for them. See Cockburn's analysis of Kerry's profile, and then think about what force of political conformism corraled the public into supporting this guy. I agree with Gabriel Kolko: Bush was the lesser of two evils.
http://ecosocialism.blogspot.com/
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 3:36 am
05 May 2006
And you are right, too, about Jimmy Stewart. There is a hard-to-track-down anecdote about a big Hollywood producer, back in the mid-1970s, who noticed a sign saying, "Ronald Reagan for President." He said, "No, no, that will never work. It should be: Jimmy Stewart for President, Ronald Reagan for Best Friend."
To LegumeSam, on good Democrats supporting bad ones: Oh, only right now. They are being ruthlessly united, after their fashion, because of the urgency of overthrowing a GOP majority. Ordinarily, Democrats are notorious for forming inward-aiming circular firing squads.
And while it would not make sense actually to revel in the foibles of our elected representatives, Kaela is right to say that the foibles are there, and that is OK. I am not happy with Edward Kennedy's position on the Cape Wind project; I am embarrassed for Joseph Biden, whom I greatly admire, about the poor reception his ideas on how the government of Iraq should evolve has got; but these are people thinking things through, and we can live with that. Thank God what they say is not at once inscribed in granite.
To see that Democrats are hardly each other's best friends, consider that the hugest figure of the past eight years, looming like a colossus over the current plight of the Democratic party, is arguably Monica Lewinsky. Bill Clinton should have known he was doing his party no favors by getting involved with her in the first place (aside from any other moral difficulties we may have for that curious relationship). And then, once she started talking to Linda Tripp (truly one of the great women of American history; I cannot express the ecstatic joy I felt yesterday when I read that name on another thread), and the story came out, Clinton handled it with uncharacteristic klutziness. Al Gore at first supported him most generously; but then in 2000 he ran an awkward campaign in which he made the serious mistake, IMHO, of distancing himself from Clinton. And subsequent to 2000, the rest of the party, pretty much, unable to live either with Clinton or without him, has sunk into haplessness.
And now, I fear, they are thinking that the only way to exorcize the haunting specter of Monica is to nominate Hillary.
(Some time ago I met someone who claimed he lived in the same building, here in NYC, with Monica Lewinsky. He happened to meet her while waiting for the elevator; he said he asked her, "Going down?," and she gave him a nasty look.)
In last Sunday's NY Times there was an entertaining article on Rahm Emanuel and Chuck Schumer, the supreme Democratic campaign supervisors in the House and the Senate respectively. These are definitely not men I would like to have over for dinner, but I am glad they are doing what they are doing.
To Patrick: Good heavens, no, dear, you said nothing that offended me. I was amused, not aggrieved. Mind you, though, you have not quite clinched getting a job as my alarm clock.
Forget please the reference to post-Katrina. That was, as it were, a momentary intrusive reception of another radio station.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 5:14 am
05 May 2006
What Democrat in Congress is working seriously towards doing something about global warming? Are there more than a mere handful? If there are not, they deserve to be thrown out of office (along with all the Republicans).
Or maybe global warming is just a minor inconvenience?
There is a difference between saying there are Democrats and Republicans who are decent human beings, and saying there are Democrats and Republicans who doing something to address our environmental issues.
Neither party is serious about global warming (come to think of it, most Americans are not serious about global warming!).
Kaela, the danger of having candidates who are all individuals rather than having to face the discipline of a party is just as you suggested, we are dependent on "better infdividuals".
The whole point of even having political parties is to allow voters to determine a general (at least) ideological direction for the term of the politicians. If we are left with the "better individual", then we have the current system where we never know quite who we're really voting for.
The current system (beyond the corruption, which is pervasive) reminds me of high school elections. The level of discourse is certainly no higher.
Gore talks pretty now that he's out of power. But when he had power, he was silent.
BTW, Gore won in 2000, he let lawyers talk him out of fighting for his victory.
LegumeSam, Bush the lesser of two evils? I understand the argument, but you need to consider all of the really dangerous things he might still do. Imagine a war with Iran. Bush is stupid, and that makes him dangerous for the world.
The Democratic Party of today is much like the Whigs of yore. It is tired and moribund, stands for nothing other than the institutional exercise of power. We need to replace it with a party that is committed to solving the serious problems we will face in the next twenty to fifty years.
patrick
Permalink