Tag(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) , Add Tags  (less...)
Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 1   Well Said 1   View Ratings | Rate It

Promoted to Headline (H3) on 3/16/10:     Permalink
View Article Stats      (18 comments)

ARRIVAL TIME, 2010; A VIABLE THIRD-PARTY OPTION

Add this Page to Facebook!
Submit to Twitter
Submit to Reddit
Submit to Stumble Upon

Tell A Friend

Become a Fan
Get Embed HTML Code
By (about the author)

Become a Fan Become a Fan   -- Page 1 of 2 page(s)

opednews.com


No matter how you break it down, or whose numbers you care to adhere to, a growing number of Americans are leaving their Republican or Democrat tags to declare themselves independent. Most figures hover at approximately 40%.

Two-party dominance isn't working anymore, if it ever really did. The swing from Republican to Democratic control in Washington merely serves to further polarize hard-line subservience to one "base' or another, leaving the un-served 40% adrift and frustrated.

If ever there was a time for a serious third-party organization, it is now.

Logjam confrontations between the radical right and liberal left isolates conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans, leaving no room under the closed umbrella for authentic bipartisanism. Majority and minority leaders in both parties demand a more and more isolationist party-line rationale, firing up their respective bases and hoping for, depending upon electoral majority the next time around, while the nation suffers the consequences. Bipartisan government is, increasingly, a sham and a fraud. You are not well represented by it, nor am I. Our two-party system is a staggering, tired horse.

The answer, I suggest, is a move toward coalition politics rather than bipartisan confrontation. Coalition is, by definition, "an organization of people involved in a pact or treaty' and neither liberal Republicans nor conservative Democrats are able to serve in this capacity, due to fear of retaliation from their majority-minority whips or ideological base.

Only a viable third party will suffice, one that truly represents the 40% of Americans who have become, essentially, a "swing constituency.'


But how to do it?

The list of failed attempts is long; the Constitution Party of 1992, the Green Party of 1996 and the Libertarian Party of 1971. Ross Perot ran as an independent and fired up some interest in the 1992 presidential election, the self-destructed. Ralph Nader is a perennial candidate, but these candidacies are more spoiler than useful and the problem, I would argue, is the very polarization and frustration of candidates with no chance to win, but who may draw enough votes to prevent one of the leading candidates from winning.

We don't need a third presidential candidate.

The problem lies not with presidents. The problem is (and remains) endemic within the Congress. The unrepresented 40% do not need--and likely would not rally behind--a third-party presidential candidate. They want representation.

A viable third-party must not be anchored by a presidential candidate. The time may come, some decades down the road, when that possibility may arise, but that time is not (nor should it be) now.

Yet the disenfranchised 40% is no wild-eyed sliver group. Attribute the remaining 60% however you like, they cannot govern without listening to (and satisfying) the third party, essentially extending representation to the unrepresented. I accede that 40% unrepresented does not guarantee 40% elected. Pick your own figure between twenty and fifty percent, it's still a force to be reckoned with.

So, let's suppose. Let's go through a scenario that might actually have a positive effect on national politics and, perhaps, eventually bleed into state and local governance as well. Here are some "what ifs' to start the ball rolling:

What if this supposed party held a National Platform Convention, outlining specific party positions on the hot-button issues 40% of Americans feel most deeply about? Perhaps those might include, but not be limited to;

Putting aside the rhetoric of feel-good (hope, change) for determining the possible (specific, targeted, identifiable)
Disconnecting linkage between lobbyists and legislation
Eschewing all campaign contribution from lobbyists, PACs and special interest groups
Junking the current tax code in favor of a simplified system that removes all exemptions, creating a single-page and equitable substitute
Including unrestricted Medicare as a viable public option to healthcare legislation
Calling for a return to constitutional democracy, including privacy issues and regard for America as a nation under law
Creatively addressing immigration issues
Taking a stand on Dwight Eisenhower's warning over an uncontrolled military-industrial complex
Proposing guidelines for economic oversight and recovery
Prioritizing the State Department as a more independent and professional arm of foreign affairs
Attending to the long-ignored subject of neglected nationwide infrastructure
Addressing energy independence as a capital and labor-intensive asset
Policies centered around the recovery of American business and industry at home, where jobs are needed

Those are some starters. You will have more and so must they.

What if 435 candidates for the House of Representatives and 100 Senatorial candidates were financed by the third-party in national elections, essentially running on that Party Platform?

Next Page  1  |  2

 

www.opinion-columns.com, http://politicalcrank.blogspot.com/

Jim Freeman's op-ed pieces and commentaries have appeared in The New York Times, Chicago Tribune, International Herald-Tribune, CNN, The New York Review, The Jon Stewart Daily Show and a number of magazines.

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

 

Share this page: (what's this?)                   Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend

Add this Page to Facebook!      Submit to Stumble Upon      Submit to Reddit      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Blink List     (More...)

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
18 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

I would submit by B. Ross Ashley on Tuesday, Mar 16, 2010 at 2:04:50 PM
I would submit by Jim Freeman on Tuesday, Mar 16, 2010 at 5:48:15 PM
Independents Do Not Need a "Third Party," but a Better Way by Arthur Avalon on Tuesday, Mar 16, 2010 at 2:11:25 PM
Independents Do Not Need a "Third Party," but a Better Way by Jim Freeman on Tuesday, Mar 16, 2010 at 5:59:01 PM
3rd party way to go by Sheila Dean on Tuesday, Mar 16, 2010 at 5:00:55 PM
3rd party way to go by Jim Freeman on Tuesday, Mar 16, 2010 at 6:03:36 PM
consider the history of the Populist movement by Jim Eldon on Tuesday, Mar 16, 2010 at 6:32:16 PM
consider the history of the Populist movement by Jim Freeman on Tuesday, Mar 16, 2010 at 7:19:58 PM
Obama elected by populists? by Jim Eldon on Tuesday, Mar 16, 2010 at 8:06:58 PM
Agreed, Jim Eldon by Ross Levin on Tuesday, Mar 16, 2010 at 8:18:14 PM
Jim Eldon by Jim Freeman on Wednesday, Mar 17, 2010 at 6:31:45 AM
There is a viable option in Philadelphia right now by Ross Levin on Tuesday, Mar 16, 2010 at 7:11:02 PM
There is a viable option in Philadelphia right now by Jim Freeman on Tuesday, Mar 16, 2010 at 7:27:28 PM
There is a viable option in Philadelphia right now by B. Ross Ashley on Tuesday, Mar 16, 2010 at 7:35:08 PM
That's not exactly true by Ross Levin on Tuesday, Mar 16, 2010 at 7:42:38 PM
So what are you doing to change the system? by Ross Levin on Tuesday, Mar 16, 2010 at 7:41:13 PM
Corporate Radar by wagelaborer on Wednesday, Mar 17, 2010 at 1:27:51 AM
Corporate radar by Jim Freeman on Wednesday, Mar 17, 2010 at 6:46:40 AM