The biggest news coming out of the 2006 elections will not be a few House and/or Senate seats changing hands, but rather a voter mandate call to action for something radically different. It will be the largest silent scream in history.
It's time has come and will be secured upon the conclusion of the Nov, 2006 elections, when rampant voter disgust and dissatisfaction with the choices available to both mainstream Republicans and Democrats will galvanize the need and demand for an alternative choice, a third party.
Interestingly, at a time when the Republicans should be easily voted out en masse, there is still quite amazingly in some circles, expectation they will retain if not possibly even gain in these coming elections. What does that then say about the Democratic Party? Answer – If it can't win now (against a broken Republican Party), it never will, unless it changes direction in a very big way.
If one were to look at a bell curve overlay of the aggregate voting public, it's fair to say it would taper off at the extremes, with the usual 70% or so bulge in the middle. Does that then make sense that the two major party platforms emphasize their respective extremes while excluding 70% of the voting public? I don't think so. A disenchanted moderate Republican, I currently consider myself neither Republican nor Democrat. Rather, I'm in the 70% category, seemingly abandoned by their party and looking for new representation, where we have none now.
The fundamental reason for this dysfunction, is there exists neither check nor balance nor real choice across the voting bell curve. In fact there exists no middle party platform available to satisfy the rapidly emerging demand of that dominating (in numbers only) middle segment.
The Republicans clearly are going to continue hard right. The Democrats talk about substantively moving center but demonstrating little intestinal fortitude so far to do so, seemingly content (afraid) to not rock the far left boat. In fact, that perception will never change so long as the DNC chairman position is held by the leader of the extreme left wing of the party. That position is a signal proxy to the voters about the Party's true direction. The Republicans I'll add have the same problem.
Bottom line, the middle or bell curve "voter bulge", comprising Disenchanted Moderate Republicans ("DMR's") and Disenchanted Moderate Democrats ("DMD'S"), effectively has no representation. We want some – substantively and now. And we're willing to cast historical labels aside to ally, unite, adopt and embrace a new party – together. Call it either the "Progressive Moderate Party (PMP)" or "United Moderate Party (UMP)". As counter-intuitive as historically may have sounded, putting "progressive" and "moderate" together makes perfect sense now. Who would have thought that a new party would embrace both middle Democrat and Republican principles in a unified way. Indeed that's progress(ive).
Unlike an Independent who can be all over the map, mix and matching pet peeve extreme and moderate positions with no real common consistent defined voter support base, the "Progressive Moderate Party" in fact has that. As have the Republican and Democratic parties their respective far right and far left platforms, the new PMP offers a sensible, moderate, forward looking platform embracing the best of the abandoned moderate positions and principles of both the Democratic and Republican parties to form a powerful new synergistic mix that now represents our silent majority.
So what represents the founding Progressive Moderate Party platform:
It's effectively what DMD's and DMR's want?
We want neither left nor right, but rather a "balanced middle", and a stop to the perpetual left-right pendulum swing.
In that context, let me focus on the four major DMD/DMR deciding impact themes/issues of the 2008 Presidential election in no particular order except starting with a for sure number 1: Iraq, and probably number 2: foreign policy:
1. Iraq: This will be the central driving issue of the 2008 campaign. An immediate, sensible "3 for 1 and Done" controlled withdrawal (plan), sympathetic with the liberation based theme we approved the initial invasion upon.
2. Foreign Policy: One that promotes and leverages good relations with our allies, for the benefit of our strategic and economic interests both short and long term. One that too constructively collaborates with our allies to unite and stand together to collectively address threats to global peace, whether vis a vis preferred diplomacy or last resort military action. We want America seen as a constructive world leader, one who listens and acts responsibly for not only our own, but for the good and betterment of the global community. The message "we stand alone and/or go it alone" must end. We want our country to be viewed by the world as a partner, not independent agent.
3. Domestic Policy: Responsible Citizen Concern and Incentive. Continue the direction initiated by the Clinton Administration as evident for example the case of welfare reform. There should be concern for all citizens, yet also the tools and incentives for not only government but most importantly for the people to help themselves. Also, some recognition that as the world economy and security become more globally integrated, domestic policy will be increasingly driven by foreign policy, and how can we best leverage that to maximize benefits for our citizens.
4. Taxes: In what I'll coin the "income clock" factor, we want the clock turned back, or at worst, held steady at 1PM. If you look at a typical 9-5 work day, from approx. 9AM-1PM we work for the government (taxes). The remainder of the day's rewards goes in our pockets. We want to spend more of the day working for our families, not Uncle Sam.
I tried to do just what you are proposing...it went nowhere. As long as the Democrats and Republicans accept campaign funding from corporate interests and PAC's, they will never stop doing their corporate master's bidding. The only way to start a new political party and I've given this a lot of thought, is to refuse corporate donations, accept union donations, work for the middle class, and push campaign reform. Unless we have "true" campaign reform in regards to campaign funding, we will see no discernable difference between the two parties. To write off the "left" would be a giant mistake, the left is the only viable opposition to the far right. These so-called "moderates" you champion are not interested in politics. When the government did away with Habeus Corpus yesterday, 90% of the people I spoke to, and I work in a college mind you, didn't even know what I was talking about when I mentioned it. They knew who Jen was dating, but didn't know what Habeus Corpus was. If you have any hopes of starting a third party, the people I would put my money on would be the "Progressive Democrats". The same people you seem to dislike. I am one. There are others like me that want our representative democracy back, and the only way we can do that is to stop the politicians that accept legalized bribery, and know who their real masters are before they ever take their seat in Congress or the Senate. That is the reality. If the Democrats take control of both houses, or even just the house, we must hold them to supporting campaign reform, or threaten to splinter the party and take the unions with us. The unions will not support the corporate politicuans for too much longer. Like I said, I've been think about this for a long time. The Liberal Party of America was a moderate entity, and we had a middle of the road mission statement and a very moderate agenda. You can still see it at Liberalpa.blogspot.com. I support a third party if for no other reason than to get these corporate people out of government and stop this corporacracy we find ourselves with.
by
Timothy V. Gatto (348 articles, 177 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 574 comments)
on Thursday, October 19, 2006 at 7:16:29 AM
1 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
