Last Sunday, the NY Giants and Miami Dolphins played a playoff game at London’s Wembley stadium. I know it seems that has nothing to do with politics, but stay with me. As the game came down to its final two minutes, the Giants had the ball, they were ahead, and they utilized the common NFL strategy of hiking the ball to the quarterback and having the quarterback go down to one knee, ending the play without any attempt to advance the ball. This is a risk free way to run out the clock and end the game favorably for the team in the lead. Londoners booed loudly to show their displeasure at the tactic. To anyone new to the game of football, it must seem a boring, timid and somewhat unfair and cynical tactic. Underlying this tactic is the fear that if you try to run a play, the risk is too high that your players may fumble the ball or throw an interception.
Democrats have the same fear of running a real play since taking back the congress. They know that anti-Republican sentiment is so high that the only real chance the Democrats have of losing the congress and not capturing the Presidency in 2008 is if they try to do something significant and it ends up a monumental failure. It is thus clear that the the back room developed and agreed upon party strategy is one where Democrats are biding their time and attempting to run out the clock and are betting on the election of a Democratic President in 2008 after which, bully pulpit in hand, they will begin their attempts to govern in earnest. The problem is, we need leadership now and this strategy may turn people off to the party for the foreseeable future. It is a cynical strategy and it disrespects the people who worked and voted to put them into their offices.
People expect leadership from their elected officials. When I say people, I mean all people in all countries since the beginning of time. In the absence of good leadership from good people, people will listen to the first voice that acts like it is providing leadership, or as a character from American President said, “They will listen to the anyone that walks up to the microphone”. The ancient Greeks had a saying, “Nature abhors a vacuum”. What else do we have in American politics today than a leadership vacuum? We have a Republican President to whom no one wants to listen, and a Democratic leadership that isn’t saying anything. The Democratic Party mistake is that they have an opportunity to step up and be the leaders and they aren’t taking it. If someone else steps up to the microphone who knows how to use it, Democrats could easily again find themselves on the outside looking in for the next several years.
Democrats in congress and at the DNC should take a page from the British Labor party and how they acted when running their successful bid to take power from the conservatives after 18 years of consecutive conservative rule. The UK conservative party was similarly poorly thought of and Labor’s strategy could have been one of running out the clock, but they instead chose to put forth a bold set of policies and said “This is how we are going to run things if elected”. Sure, putting those policies forth invites attack, but if your competition that has been in power has failed so miserably, if they attack you, it invites the perfect counter-attack. “I don’t understand how the party opposite can attack our proposals when they have been in power, they have tried their own policies and they have failed miserably. The people want a change”.
The only correct way forward is for Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Howard Dean and their assistants to get together, hammer out a list of 3-5 major priorities for the next 12 months, and go out and try to get them done. One of those priorities has to be bringing an end to the Iraq war (more on one way to do that later). Then they have to go out and sell the people on those priorities and get them done. These three people in particular have to be out there in agreement and on message explaining why the Democratic Party way is the right way. As Martin Luther King said, "A genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus."
The power of the purse is the best way to get Democratic Party priorities accomplished if there is the will to do it. There is no way Bush can stand up to this simple strategy. Write a package of bills that includes funding for the budget and healthcare for children and bringing home the troops (& the other major priorities from the 3-5 list above), pass them and send them to the President. If he vetoes any of it, pass no funding bills on anything for 45 days, and then submit the same bill(s) again. If he vetoes it, again, pass no funding bills on anything for 60 days and submit the same bill(s) again. Repeat this, increasing the interval by 15 days each time until the President passes it/them or until he is out of power. By my calculations, there would be a maximum of four iterations of submitting the bill(s) that would be possible between now and election 2008 and it would stop Bush from doing anything else in that time if he refuses to sign.
Is there risk in the above strategy? Sure, but if Dean, Pelosi and Reid agree that the 3-5 priorities that they come up with are the right ones and reflect good Democratic Party principles, then the fight and risk are worth it. This cynical, fear-based, run-out-the-clock strategy has to be stopped right away.
Steven Leser specializes in Politics, Science & Health, and Entertainment topics. He has held positions within the Democratic Party including District Chair and Public Relations Chair within county organizations.
Steven Leser writes for www.opednews.com, an internet only media site that has grown to become one of the highest traffic news sites in America, reaching more traffic, according to alexa.com, than all but the thirty largest daily newspapers in the US. Mr. Leser is one of the 500+ liberal pundits who, each month, are published in what has become one of the top five Liberal/progressive media sites in the US.
"The power of the purse is the best way to get Democratic Party priorities accomplished if there is the will to do it. There is no way Bush can stand up to this simple strategy."
This was tried once before by the then Republican-controlled Congress and the Democratic-controlled Executive. And the results at that time backfired on Congress not the President.
In the fall of 1995 and spring of 1996, Congress, under the leadership of House Speaker Gingrich and Senate Majority Leader Dole, was working on several of 13 spending bills that President Clinton promised he would veto because of their associated spending cuts. In summary, Congress passed the bills anyway and President Clinton promptly vetoed them, resulting in the shutdown of the Federal government on two occasions - http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=980DE6D81539F937A25752C1A963958260 .
Afterwards, President Clinton emerged victorious even though his actions resulted in the furloughing of hundreds of thousands of Federal workers – all potential votes. Why was someone who forced the layoffs of so many, so popular that he was re-elected later in 1996? Timing and American's lack of patience helped Clinton.
"But Christmas was approaching, and instead of a titanic struggle over the future of the nation, many voters saw a petty squabble over political advantage. News stories focused on federal workers without paychecks and the disruption caused by closed federal agencies. Though House GOP leaders insisted they would continue to play hardball, they were quickly losing support," - http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/9612/19/1keyvotes/house.desc.html .
The Left has created the fickle "Beast of the Masses" by asserting itself as THE party that cares about Americans. However, if that beast is not cared for and fed a regular diet of entitlements, grants, and subsidies, it fast becomes disgruntled, angry, and then rabid.
Recommending that the current Democratic-controlled Congress tickle the tail of the Beast is, no doubt, risky. The question to ask is whether or not it's worth the possible loss of much political capital to prove a point or series of points to a Presidency that at day's end (1) still holds the power of veto and (2) isn't looking to get re-elected? The backlash from Americans, I think, will rival any points asserted by such Congressional action.
To the extent that you think the Democrats are no different than the Republicans, this backlash is immaterial and perhaps even desired. But to the majority of Americans that believe in the two-party system (regardless of whether they are Democrat, Independent, or Republican), the backlash IS material and reflects the power that "We the People" wield. This is not to say that a Republican will sit in the White House in 2009, but it will only increase the divisions within the parties already observed by Joe Six-pack. And these observations have already resulted in abysmal Congressional ratings.
Personally, the power of the mob via the Beast is a variable that needs to be addressed before trying to implement a purely political and partisan game.
by
Tom Murphy (3 articles, 4 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 1808 comments)
on Tuesday, October 30, 2007 at 12:56:23 PM
I disagree, Newt era shutdown was not supported by thepublic
the efforts to stop the war are absolutely supported by the public. Not only that, it is the main reason why this congress was voted into office. People are dying to get behind something like this.
The Newt era shutdown was because the GOP members of congress simply didnt like Clinton's spending priorities. That is hardly in the same universe in terms of passion and public interest behind the effort.
by
Steven Leser (228 articles, 49 quicklinks, 34 diaries, 1647 comments)
on Tuesday, October 30, 2007 at 2:42:27 PM
the comment displays not only a cynics view of progressive politics but this tidbit:
"The Left has created the fickle "Beast of the Masses" by asserting itself as THE party that cares about Americans. However, if that beast is not cared for and fed a regular diet of entitlements, grants, and subsidies, it fast becomes disgruntled, angry, and then rabid."
seems rather poorly thought out and gives the so-called "left" a political party of its own. Not only that but a party of beasts existing solely to ravage our tax dollars. Too much fantasy and science fiction in that mans diet I fear.
If one wishes to look for an overwhelming greed that actually is devouring our treasury one needs look no further than Halliburton et al under the aegis of the scheming and amoral Richard Cheney.
As one who has been active in leftist politics for more years than this manchild has lived ( I suspect) I emphatically note that the entitlements, grants and subsidies desired by the left go to benefit the poor and the weak, and not themselves (ourselves), again unlike any of the principle administration figures.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Tuesday, October 30, 2007 at 4:09:03 PM
Of the many objectionable points here, let's focus on two.
First, you write, "The Left has created the fickle "Beast of the Masses" by asserting itself as THE party that cares about Americans. However, if that beast is not cared for and fed a regular diet of entitlements, grants, and subsidies, it fast becomes disgruntled, angry, and then rabid."
As Ardee has pointed out, you neglect to mention the subsidies, tax breaks, grants, & various forms of corporate welfare doled out by Republicans to all their big donors. The rightwing happily appoints, say, mining industry executives to sit on boards of govt agencies charged with "regulating" the mining industry. We had Enron officials & oil company execs helping to write energy policy (not to mention their helpful input in planning the invasion of Iraq).
If that "beast" is not cared for and fed its demanded perks and privileges, does it too become "disgruntled, angry, and rabid"?
Your verbal formulation suggests that "the Left" is the Democrats. The D's are not really "the Left" -- that's a popular media-promoted fiction. The D's and R's agree on 98% of everything. Both are corporatist, nationalist, imperialist, & militarist. Both are appendages of the military-industrial complex. They are full partners in almost everything that matters. If we use the phrase "the Left" to designate people who are not nationalist-corporatist-militarist, we can't use the same phrase to talk about Democrats.
The other point is your assertion in this clause: "But to the majority of Americans that believe in the two-party system..."
It's very debatable whether that assertion is either true or meaningful. Most Americans are just resigned to the 2-party system because they are indoctrinated to believe that they have no choice. Probably many are aware that the system is no good; and many might well agree that a real democracy should offer more than 2 parties as options -- particularly two with so little to fundamentally distinguish them.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1232 comments)
on Tuesday, October 30, 2007 at 5:38:53 PM
You write "The only correct way forward is for Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Howard Dean and their assistants to get together, (and) hammer out a list of 3-5 major priorities for the next 12 months...One of those priorities has to be bringing an end to the Iraq war....The power of the purse is the best way to get Democratic Party priorities accomplished if there is the will to do it."
Does the party -- ie, the congressional Democrats -- have the will to stop the war? No, not really. At least since WWII, the US govt has overseen a very consistent bipartisan program of empire-building. Despite plenty of posturing, neither party has ever seriously opposed initiatives of the other to overthrow foreign governments, install US-friendly puppets, use proxy armies for destabilization, etc. The "arguments" between the parties are at the level of "How do we most expeditiously extend our control" into a given region -- not over whether the attempt should be made.
Certainly the Dems could quickly stop the war via power of the purse -- if they wanted to. The problem is that they don't really want to. A few of them might. And more than a few might simply want to posture as "critics" or "opponents" of the Bush admin. But the same general forces that made Democrats largely go along with Reagan's crimes in Central America, & Nixon's in Chile; and the same forces which made Republicans go along with LBJ's crimes in Vietnam -- these forces are still very much alive, & controlling the action. Both parties, ultimately, can be relied on to pursue policies of empire. The party out of power "criticizes" a given administration only at a tactical level, but never opposes the goal of enhanced US control. It never seriously tries to block an administration from aggressive pursuit of imperialist goals, & never seriously exposes or investigates the crimes all such missions involve.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1232 comments)
on Tuesday, October 30, 2007 at 2:13:56 PM
in light of the comment of Rhamm Emanuel that this war is too good a campaign issue to end prior to the election one sees that party in a very poor light indeed.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Tuesday, October 30, 2007 at 4:10:26 PM
- Firstly the Brits have a different system one that makes it easier to put a united party face.
- Secondly The Labour Party simply captured the middle ground ie moved to the right. They out righted the Conservative party. In both Britain and Aust the voting populations are far less Polarised along political/religious grounds. Differences tend to be more subtle and pragmatically selfish
- Thirdly in the US the margins and other factors in the Congress makes nil funding a very dangerous strategy.
They are smart people they would have done a risk V gain assessment and decided on current strategy.
I would ask all those who are impatient with this strategy have you considered what the political land scape would look like if the all or nothing opion turned up nothing, a massive back lash against the Dems for "deserting the troops"?. In any good management high risk strategies are avoided unless there is a viable plan "B" . Unless of course the management is dodgey. What is your pla n "B"? How would you minimumize the obvious risk associated with the Nil finance option? So far many authors on this site have advocated this option but none I've seen have answered the above questions
I wonder if the 'general' public other than those committed 'borderline' extreme lefties on this site would really support a nil finance option? If so why did the electorate only give such a narrow margin that wouldn't give Congress a veto busting margin? I suspect Pellosi and group wondered on this and read it as a control order only.
Terms like "smacks of Fear and cynicism" should be abandoned in favour of terms like "Caution and Pragmatism"
Polls are notoriously subject to the bias of the initiator . The only poll that counts is the election when the oppinion counts.
Tell me where I err.
by
Andris (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 531 comments)
on Tuesday, October 30, 2007 at 4:36:18 PM
... they had the political capital to do this after the WON THE LAST ELECTION!!!! I was patient for a good long while afterwards but this is not OK anymore. You cannot say you are going to do something once you win X election, and then when elected, then say you cant actualy perform until you win the next election after that. It doesnt work.
I would love to give the party a pass on this, but I cant. Not anymore.
by
Steven Leser (228 articles, 49 quicklinks, 34 diaries, 1647 comments)
on Tuesday, October 30, 2007 at 5:14:19 PM
While I am more radical than you and believe that there is little that will now be done by any establishment representative (for the obvious reasons) to save the Union, I did enjoy reading your article. But neolibs such as Pelosi et. al., are, I anguish to believe, fully in line with some variant of what has been labeled the 'new world order'. They ain't gonna rock no boat.... The oligarchs have always attempted to, or actually ruled. We are 'ruled' by them now. The naive view is that we still have some sort of constitutional republic.... used to be we did in form but not in substance. Now we have neither.
by
richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 905 comments)
on Tuesday, October 30, 2007 at 7:53:47 PM
One or two seat majority in one house under your system is hardly a "win" it's a bit like going into the coliseum to fight a pride of hungry lions with a single pitch fork with the whole American Animal Rights Fraternity watching from the bleachers. Not my idea of good odds.
Also the other points I raised tend to weaken your argument.
NB I don't support ANY RIGHT WING party. To me right mean retrogression and by definition probably wrong in the case of this administration definitely wrong. I am a how do we do it kinda guy Practical. I don't accept validity for any war. If war is the answer it must have been an obscene, idiotic or both question!
Neither am I suggesting a pass only how do the Dems do it without committing political hari Kari on a high risk solution without a plan "B" safety net. The result at best could be another squillion years under Republican Hawks.
It would be cheaper to execute 1 in 20 of The entire conscriptable generation in the US (because that’s what happen if he starts another war. Fine if your children aren’t that 20th I'm prepared to bet that if another war is caused conscription will become an issue. It must the US hasn't enough soldiers as it is, Iraq proves that.
What makes you think that Bush wouldn't consider a first strike on Iran to force the Dems hand? These are some of the strategies this (mal)administration might use. It's not that I'm an "Invader Zim" with his doom song but the psychology of the current White house is that they're clearly out of touch and dare I say ideologically narcacistic.
I don't usually go in for extreme language or rehtoric but someone needs to add some realiy to the debate by pointing out what Bush's cabal might be capable of and how dangerous nil funding might be.
by
Andris (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 531 comments)
on Tuesday, October 30, 2007 at 10:21:00 PM
Well, you can make excuses why or excuses why not...
the essence of the arguments that you say "weaken MY arguments" are those that make excuses for an entity put in charge of something for not executing. I rarely find such things compelling, so I would say they don't touch my arguments at all.
Whether on the micro or macro level, my philosophy is, if you are put in charge of something, form a plan that describes your principled priorities and the best way to execute them, execute your plan and let the chips fall where they may. When I have been put in charge of something, that is the way I have behaved. Assume for a minute that something earthshattering happens tomorrow in the political world that sends the momentum toward the Republican side, the missed opportunity of the last 10 months or so becomes obvious and horrific. When you have the opportunity to lead, you have to take it.
Imagine after assessing the situation for a few weeks, the Democrats in congress had used the power of the purse and forced Bush to bring the troops home. There are two main possibilities. Either #1 - The majority of people in this country would love them for it, or, worst case #2 - The majority people of this country would be very angry for them doing it and send them to losses in 2008. So what? The troops would now be home, no more would be dying, and we would no longer be at war. I'd take a loss for that any day of the week. While we are thinking on those terms, its hard to imagine the people of this country having less approval of congress after my above hypothetical than they do now.
THAT is reality for you. If you have a different leadership and management philosophy, please outline it for me.
by
Steven Leser (228 articles, 49 quicklinks, 34 diaries, 1647 comments)
on Wednesday, October 31, 2007 at 1:11:39 PM
Excuses be damned - reality the way things really work
Steven
Thank you for your thoughts I very much appreciate a more in depth view of the situation than the usual hysterical name calling that the Dems leaders are getting on this web site.
I would firstly take issue with the word ‘excuses’ I thought I made it clear that I’m not giving then a ‘pass’ your term. Rather I suggested that I’m searching for a Viable solution. If you want a wining strategy then first understand the the reality of what you're dealing with.
Next you appear to be confusing two different philosophies of government the Parliamentary Representative Democracy of Britain and your government system with is a Republic. There are many differences but essentially the ones that are pertinent here is that your congress members are elected to act on behalf of not necessarily represent.
Secondly I am doubtful that optional voting with 50 something is an accurate reflection of the public as a whole. I won’t go into the complexities of why it would go into reams. Remember GWB got into power on the back of 2000 highly contestable votes under highly contestable circumstances. All systems conform to the GIGO principal (Garbage In, Garbage Out).
If you claim and with some justification that Bush stole the election ie it was not representative of the true public opinion. Then it must follow to be logically consistent that subsequent election under the same corrupted system must also be unrepresentative of Public opinion. Perhaps if you could get the raw numbers of all the ballots in the last election and if they represent say 80% of all eligable voters then you have the basis for meaningful analysis.
Likewise I would dispute the accuracy of polls on a number of grounds. Sample size, question bias, area bias, cultural bias, wealth variational bias, what is called non committal bias (some one who is about to have dinner, the phone rings object answer question based on last input), then there are those who answer to ‘please’ the interviewer and finally the need to conform…last night survey on the news says the respondent’s demographic voted this or that way.In short surveys are statistical creations and are never accurate they are at best indications (maybe).
Again I do not support morally or logically Right wing governments as they are always, in the final analysis oppressive and retrogressive. Neither do I support any war.
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs meaningfully outlines the order of people’s motivations politicians (politicians are sometimes close to human status or so I’m told) are therefore bound by the same motivations.The first thing they taught in industrial relations in University was that the first objective of unions and political parties was their own longevity all the other motives were subsequent. Therefore the Dems, GOP, Greens, Happy Birthday Party all take the same over view. ‘We can’t achieve our party goals if we don’t exist or don’t get into power. Logical deduction therefore behoves Pelosi et al to use low(er) risk strategies.
The Nil Financing option would be seen at the same level of iladvisableness as tap dancing in a mine field it may work but…. At the very least they need a plan “B”.
it would be safer to obstruct and wait GWB out.
Given my criticism of the unworkable narrowness of the margin and I am sure internal (Dem) poling that would show that public support for the possible political consequences “Nil Funding” as a Very High risk Strategy.
The White house wouldn’t simply roll over to have their collective tummies rubbed like a cute puppy. They would fight back they have shown that to them the end justifies the means. I could see Bush starting another war (Iran) in order to sideline Congress' "nil funding" see other comments I’ve spelled out elsewhere.
Pelosi and Reid have rightly shunned actions that might explode in their faces.To me these and the other explanations offered else where on this topic are simply the pragmatism (REALITY) of Politics and are a given. I therefore see no value in unrealistic hyperbole and name calling. Ideals are mandatory as an objective not a means to an end.
I am not critical or a gooseberry (a bad mouthing interloper as I‘ve been called) in fact I am trying to move the debate to productive ground….What can be done.
I have suggested perhaps passing bills on allowing prosecution of the Bush Cabal after they leave office. And one’s than authorize punitive action against those Companies and their directors who were guilty of practices like profiteering et al. My strategy would be to pass them but not present them to Bush so he can veto rather leave them available to be signed by the new, presumably Democrat President. The threat of these bills on Bush’s backers would be profound. The consequential pressure that would be put his Cabal under would be immense.
I can’t resist not saying something about the US and their coalition moral responsibility to The Iraqi people. We broke it regardless of internal US politics it was done in the name of America and therefore it is our responsibility to fix it. Especially if we are ever to claim moral integrity ever again. Remember the country has been trashed and 650000 of citizens have died as a consequence. The war should end forthwith but Coalition involvement should continue. It is to the latter I think that some candidate reticence to commit to a quick exit.Finally continuing the war is an obscenity what is need is a different strategy one that doesn’t involve BFI.
by
Andris (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 531 comments)
on Wednesday, October 31, 2007 at 9:16:03 PM
Is a "manchild" a non-thinker, right wing nitwit, or both?
"Manchild" – that's a new one for me, but the list grows by one more. As long as there's continuous improvement in the name labeling, I'm content.
"The Newt era shutdown was because the GOP members of congress simply didnt [sic] like Clinton's spending priorities That is hardly in the same universe in terms of passion and public interest behind the effort.."
You can mess around with many of a person's things before they pop. But screw with their salary and you're screwed. I'm very confident that the Iraq War (as much as you claim there is passion and public interest) will be largely put on the back burner if hundreds of thousands – if not millions – of government workers are furloughed because Congress via the purse is trying to "end" the war.
While the war is unfavorable, it's distant to the majority of Americans (of course, though, not to readers of this site). The loss of income because of vetoed funding bills with unrelated amendments hits much closer to home and will have a more immediate impact – period. To think otherwise is silly and worse – costly – if you're in control of Congress when it happens.
"[The Beast quote] seems rather poorly thought out and gives the so-called "left" a political party of its own."
Not a party but a political philosophy. Granted there is a generalization here, given that there are many flavors to the Left, but the aim is generally that the "poor and weak" – in which almost everyone is lumped – need "government" to redistribute the collective wealth more equitably so that none suffer unequally or all are given a fair shake.
"[I] emphatically note that the entitlements, grants and subsidies desired by the left go to benefit the poor and the weak, and not themselves (ourselves)..."
I've no doubt that you believe that. However, by subsidizing (significantly) a class of people within society (e.g., the poor and weak), you're consolidating your powerbase. The Roman leaders called it "bread and circuses"; we call it the "welfare state". The subtle intent behind continued and expanding subsidies is to consolidate further the "Left's" powerbase within that society. For all the rhetoric about the majority of Americans being "sheeple", the Left secretly likes them that way – provided they support their goals come election, impeachment, or poll time.
You can talk all you want about being active in leftist politics longer than someone has lived, but if you're a fringe element, you're marginal by default. Marginal doesn't grant or consolidate any political power to your "movement", allowing you to accomplish whatever goals you espouse or believe. If you have no goals, you have no movement.
"If that [corporate] "beast" is not cared for and fed its demanded perks and privileges, does it too become 'disgruntled, angry, and rabid'?"
The corporate beast rarely gets angry but can and has gotten even. The difference between the corporate and citizenry beast is that the level of tolerance for governmental demands tends (note "tends) to be higher than the citizen. Why does this matter? Society depends upon the corporation as much as it depends upon the government. To this end, the corporation will tolerate a separate tax structure, matching contributions to welfare programs, and a generous amount of regulation for some industries.
"Your verbal formulation suggests that "the Left" is the Democrats. The D's are not really "the Left" -- that's a popular media-promoted fiction."
Anticipating that this would be raised by some here, I thought I had addressed this concern by stating, "To the extent that you think the Democrats are no different than the Republicans, this backlash is immaterial and perhaps even desired."
"It's very debatable whether that assertion is either true or meaningful."
In a June 2007 poll conducted by Fox News (c'mon, stay with me and stop the eye roll), 79% of 900 respondents identified themselves as either Democrats or Republicans - http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/062807_release_web.pdf . Other polls by CBS News, CNN, and Harris confirm similar majority identifications. Independents (the de facto third-party today) continue to rank low in the percentages. I believe the statement of "the majority of Americans... believe in the two-party system" holds true.
Interestingly and in the same Fox News poll are the results of those surveyed who would consider voting for a third-party candidate (67%) vs. those who think a third-party candidate would have a reasonable chance at being elected (31%). Put simply, Americans seems to talk the talk about wanting more diversity in the political party landscape, but when it comes time for action (i.e., voting), the majority continue to not walk the walk. And thus, there's an implied (though apparently frustrated) continued belief in the two-party system.
by
Tom Murphy (3 articles, 4 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 1808 comments)
on Tuesday, October 30, 2007 at 10:20:25 PM
The reason the corporate beast "rarely gets angry" is that
it dominates the entire political process, and thus always gets its way. It has nothing to get angry about. It already has 100% of political power; it would be an exercise in futility to demand more.
About your Fox News Poll (my eyes are rolling -- they won't stop even when I tell them to) -- You write that "79% of 900 respondents identified themselves as either Democrats or Republicans." This however does not speak to the issue I raised.
I said that "Most Americans are just resigned to the 2-party system because they are indoctrinated to believe that they have no choice." Identifying with a party is not the same as "believing in it." Someone might "identify with" the Democrats because (for example) his family were all Democrats, or he'd been registered as a Democrat, or because he believed they were the "lesser evil" & didn't want to "throw his vote away," or because he wanted to be able to vote in primaries. Or maybe he felt sentimental about FDR or JFK. // The point is, NONE of those things is the same as "believing in" the Democrats, or believing in the 2-party system. Most just accept the system because they think that's they way things are; that it's unchangeable -- just as the sun rises in the East.
It would be interesting to do a study where one focuses on whether voters agree that a system allowing numerous (ie, lots more than 2) parties to participate -- all of them representing very diverse views & ideologies -- would enha
