[POLITICS] Third Parties
Feb. 23rd, 2004 05:05 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jducoeurAround this time in every Presidential cycle, the recurring longing for a Good Third Party seems to arise. It's actually weaker now than it has been in decades, since the opposition (the Democrats this time) are more united by their loathing of Dubya than I've ever seen before. But the meme seems to have sputtered back to life a little bit, in this silly Presidential bid by Ralph Nader. (Yes, I think it's silly, not to mention tunnel-visioned and egotistical.)
But here's the rub: Presidential elections are exactly the wrong place for a third party. I mean, what the heck would an independent or third-party President really be able to accomplish? Without any built-in influence in Congress, it would be completely impossible for him to do anything bold. Oh, he could talk a good line, but the reality is that he'd spend four years as a completely ineffectual placeholder, gradually getting more and more frustrated.
Truth to tell, there's a specific party that I'd love to see exist. I think of it as "rational libertarian": fiscally conservative without being completely anti-tax loony; socially liberal but hard-eyed about what actually works. Explicitly a middle-ground party that exists for those of us who straddle the line between William Weld and Bill Clinton. (Yes, the Democrats are currently more or less filling that void, but they find themselves with a perpetual tension between the centrist and left wings of the party. A genuinely centrist party would, IMO, clarify modern politics a lot.)
But most importantly, if this party did exist, I wouldn't want it to run someone for President for at least the first 10 years. It's a waste of resources: Presidential elections are expensive distractions for a small party. Instead, I'd like to see a party that was smart, and focused all of its resources on winning just a few Congressional seats at first. Raising money nationally, but choosing a few specific seats where the voters are clearly looking for a good alternative, and where an appropriate candidate exists. Making a truly serious, concerted attempt to win, say, ten seats.
Because y'know, ten seats is a lot in Congress these days. The Presidency is all-or-nothing: one side wins, the other loses. But ten seats in a closely-divided Congress could be enough to sway a lot of issues. A party that held those seats, supporting either the Republicans or the Democrats depending on which one was appropriate on a given issue, could come out looking pretty serious and respectable. And a party that looked respectable and useful would stand a much better chance in the next election.
I'm not going to pretend that I have the slightest notion of how to really get such a thing started -- if nothing else, it would take a degree of passion, commitment and patience that I know I don't have for politics. But it's pretty clear to me that it's the right strategy to get a sincere third party established for the long term. In this increasingly small country, where people really do care about who gets elected to seats halfway across the country, I think it would work well...
But here's the rub: Presidential elections are exactly the wrong place for a third party. I mean, what the heck would an independent or third-party President really be able to accomplish? Without any built-in influence in Congress, it would be completely impossible for him to do anything bold. Oh, he could talk a good line, but the reality is that he'd spend four years as a completely ineffectual placeholder, gradually getting more and more frustrated.
Truth to tell, there's a specific party that I'd love to see exist. I think of it as "rational libertarian": fiscally conservative without being completely anti-tax loony; socially liberal but hard-eyed about what actually works. Explicitly a middle-ground party that exists for those of us who straddle the line between William Weld and Bill Clinton. (Yes, the Democrats are currently more or less filling that void, but they find themselves with a perpetual tension between the centrist and left wings of the party. A genuinely centrist party would, IMO, clarify modern politics a lot.)
But most importantly, if this party did exist, I wouldn't want it to run someone for President for at least the first 10 years. It's a waste of resources: Presidential elections are expensive distractions for a small party. Instead, I'd like to see a party that was smart, and focused all of its resources on winning just a few Congressional seats at first. Raising money nationally, but choosing a few specific seats where the voters are clearly looking for a good alternative, and where an appropriate candidate exists. Making a truly serious, concerted attempt to win, say, ten seats.
Because y'know, ten seats is a lot in Congress these days. The Presidency is all-or-nothing: one side wins, the other loses. But ten seats in a closely-divided Congress could be enough to sway a lot of issues. A party that held those seats, supporting either the Republicans or the Democrats depending on which one was appropriate on a given issue, could come out looking pretty serious and respectable. And a party that looked respectable and useful would stand a much better chance in the next election.
I'm not going to pretend that I have the slightest notion of how to really get such a thing started -- if nothing else, it would take a degree of passion, commitment and patience that I know I don't have for politics. But it's pretty clear to me that it's the right strategy to get a sincere third party established for the long term. In this increasingly small country, where people really do care about who gets elected to seats halfway across the country, I think it would work well...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-23 03:35 pm (UTC)What you propose is a good practical way to get a third party into the mix, much easier than winning a presidential election. However, the minority swing vote third party model can be examined in Britain, with only slightly different effects. The real problem is that the party system as a whole is much stronger than it was when checks and balances were devised, and the current situation opens itself to gross abuse from anyone who can decisively lead a large party. You suggest that a president who doesn't have any "built-in" influence would be a bad thing, whereas I would argue that having officials vote on the merit of the proposal rather than their allegiance to the president is exactly what we want.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-23 04:24 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-23 04:50 pm (UTC)That's not the way the US has worked in recent years, though. The Democrat/Republican split has tended to be pretty even, and has only gotten more even over the past ten years. In that sort of circumstance, a genuine third party -- one that draws from both sides rather than just one -- could become a pretty significant force.
I would argue that having officials vote on the merit of the proposal rather than their allegiance to the president is exactly what we want.
Which is fine if you're looking for bland government. (Which, I will grant, would be a heck of a lot better than what we have now.) But it means that the President is essentially unable to truly *lead*, because he just plain doesn't have enough power.
I mean, consider the issues where leadership is really needed right now. Social Security is a great example: if something isn't done fairly soon, the system is going to collapse under its own weight before terribly long, hurting a large number of people in the process. But Congress is desperately afraid to rock the boat, so they just keep letting things decay. What's needed is someone who has enough leverage to drag most of his own party into doing the right thing, *and* enough genuine leadership to shame enough of the rest into it.
Party really doesn't matter much when the issues are ones where you can get enough consensus to get action on them. But when it comes to confronting hard issues, raw power is essential, and party allegiance is one of the most important forms of power in the US Government. A good President is one who knows to use this power sparingly, so as to reach across the bipartisan divide. A bad President is one who doesn't. (As we are now witnessing.)
One of the more important jobs of the President is to lead when it matters. A President without a party behind him isn't likely to have enough people following, though...
Re:
Date: 2004-02-23 09:19 pm (UTC)You are correct that more conservative governments are less likely to enact sweeping changes. But they are also less likely to get into such difficulties in the first place, and if a strong majority agree that it's a real problem, they will get it solved properly and permanently. By contrast, our Social Security Administration took two months for FDR to get set up, and we've been piling amendments on it for 50 years as each new batch of legislators attempts radical but shortsighted reforms.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-23 04:33 pm (UTC)Personally I'd favor something that is libertarian for people but nasty-intrusive to corporations and government organizations. It's one thing to minimize the control over [and support for] people, and another thing altogether to use it as an excuse to look the other way when businesses pollute the environment or otherwise corrupt the world.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-23 05:44 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-23 07:18 pm (UTC)IMO, the issue is basically, "what is best for society as a whole?". Both extremes fail this test rather badly. Excessively intrusive regulation stifles commerce, and imposes a huge overhead cost on business, which filters down as high prices (and, usually high inflation) for ordinary folks. Excessively light regulation allows business to run roughshod over other societal concerns.
Things tend to swing back and forth on this issue. At the moment, it's pretty clear to me that we've swung too far in the deregulatory direction. Some well-targeted measures are undoubtedly appropriate, to counter the abuses that have worsened in the past decade or so. But each really needs to be accompanied by a fairly hard-eyed query of what the consequences will be. Folks are often hot to punish Corporate America in the name of fairness or suchlike, which I think is entirely inappropriate. The issue isn't what's fair -- it's what measures are most likely to benefit society.
(And yes -- this begs the question of how you define "society". Again, plenty of people tend to define this in extreme ways, between which you have to steer a middle course.)
None of this is easy stuff. People (and politicians) seeking easy solutions are the cause of most major problems, it seems. Most good solutions are likely to be a bit more nuanced.
As for government -- well, there I'm all in favor of nasty-intrusive. Things have swung *way* too far in the direction of untrammelled government power under the current administration...
Re: Corporations
Date: 2004-02-24 09:03 am (UTC)On the other hand, some overhead cost is entirely reasonable. Corporations don't exist of themselves; they exist because society agrees to pretend they exist. We do this to get some economic benefits; but the truth is that the individuals who form the corporation usually get the most benefits. It's reasonable for them to pay for the privilege.
Hear, hear.
Note that a shorter synonym for "untrammelled government power" is "tyranny".
Re:
Date: 2004-02-23 08:13 pm (UTC)-- Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_
Personally, I think that defining corporations as "legal persons" was a dreadfully mistaken idea.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-23 09:23 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-23 08:09 pm (UTC)Not really. Nader is currently unaffiliated with *any* party. Which makes his bid a lot less impressive looking than last time.
You Make a Good Point...
Date: 2004-02-24 11:21 am (UTC)And I agree with you that Nader's run is an egotistical move, or a ploy to pump up his speaking fees, and certainly not worth the current handwringing and agonizing going on in the press.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-24 04:57 pm (UTC)I thank you for giving a *rational* explanation for such a viewpoint. It makes a lot of sense, and if such a thing occured I'd definitely go about supporting it. However, I lack a head for politics and thus don't know how to go about creating such a thing either. . .
(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-24 08:15 pm (UTC)Part of the problem here is that legal monetary awards serve two functions: to reward the winner, and to punish the loser. If one of those parties is a human being (of reasonably normal means), millions of dollars certainly seems excessive, as either reward or punishment. If one of the parties is a giant corporation, then millions of dollars is a slap on the wrist that they barely notice. If the suit involves an ordinary citizen suing a megacorp, what constitutes a reasonable amount?
(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-26 11:44 am (UTC)