Today, for about the 73rd consecutive day, I read another poll saying essentially the following: Americans are growing weary of Bush, of the GOP, of Congress, and of the direction the country is taking under their leadership. And yet Americans remain unconvinced that the Democratic party is a truly viable alternative.
If ever there was a big, fat opportunity for a centrist third party to rise up and demolish the existing ineffectual two-party structure, it is now. Who will lead the charge? Are there any courageous pols in this country? Or even (perhaps preferably) any non-pols?
I'd do it myself, but... well, the military isn't big on political activity. We need somebody we can push forward for this.
4 comments:
I don't suppose you're volunteering me for this, are you?
On another note...Dan's back *insert MAJOR rolling of eyes*...That man can be insufferable sometimes.
And on yet another note, I went out with a friend to talk to someone about getting a tattoo...A date has been set (Thursday), and now all I have to do is talk to my dad...ugh. You can be sure you'll get a picture. :-)
I'm sorry, but all I can think of is that tentacled alien from Simpsons (Krang?) saying, "It's a two party system! Don't throw your vote away!" or something along those lines.
I don't know how feasible it is for a third party to develop. Everyone seems happy having only two parties, as if that's the way it's always been. I think the American populace needs a very loud and annoying wake up call for them to serious consider voting anything aside from Democrat or Republican. I mean... all the other parties are Socialists, right? :)
Several months ago, New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote a column essentially asking the same question in a different context: When will the traditionalist, small-government, Constitution-abiding (and loving), fiscally conservative, nonradical religious tyrant segment of the Republican party re-emerge?
If this segment of the party rose, it would surely feel like an alternative to the religious radical segment that seems to have hijacked the party and feels matters of feeding tubes are more important than a balanced budget and operating in accordance with the duties as laid out in that pesky document that keeps getting in their way (i.e. the Constitution; you will find no mention of legislating on feeding tubes, censorship, steroids, or moralism listed on their job description).
If only the libertarians were not a bunch of Orwellian fear-mongering kooks and could put viable candidates up for office... I agree with Brooks, there is a large (and growing) segment even within the Republican party that feels people like Rush Limbaugh, Tom Delay, Charles Krauthammer (sp?), Cal Thomas (Tribune columnist), and like-minded people's views are not good for this country's general welfare. They do not speak for them nor represent the Republican party they desire.
Unfortunately, I think James right on the money. As radical as Americans like to think they are, and even as large as the "cultural divide" is becoming in the country, and even though most Americans feel national political elections no longer offer enough differentiation on the platforms that SHOULD MATTER for government officials (e.g. budget, international relations, trade and tariffs), I think most Americans are too nervous to get away from the two party system in place.
Unfortunately, most Americans wouldn't know how to use a guillotine if they had one in front of them, and if the procedural rules in the Senate are changed, effectively altering the very political-theoretical SYSTEM of this country since its founding (much more severe and radical to tamper with the system than to lose an ideological battle on the finer points of budgets or int'l trade), and should this fundamental change be brought about for the sake of short-term partisan gain, we will need some goddamn accountability -- i.e. heads rolling. If Americans do not respond to that in abhorence (sp?) then I'll know it's time to think about somewhere else (but where, dear friends, where?). Perhaps New Zealand or Cuba, after Castro dies (please hurry, Mr. Castro. You're holding up my plans by prolonging your useless life; you're a has-been...get out of the way of progress...).
All joking aside, if that happens, look for the aforementioned traditionalist segment of the Republican voting bloc to regain interest and (we could hope) momentum, and to be a more vocal player in the next election. A lot of traditionalist Repubs hate Dems, but when it comes down to a choice between Democrats offering a bloated budget and big government or Republicans offering a bloated budget, big government, and fundamental changes in the system of American democracy, look for Dems (for better or worse) to regain seats.
That's my amateur two-cents worth.
Ciao
Afterthought...
I should add that I understand the genius of the American Constitution is the ability for it to change, evolve, be a "living document," etc. I don't mind amendments that don't go my way, but could we: 1) have Congress start following it? 2) Not change Senatorial procedures?
I think many people's concerns are evident in that not-so-subtle distinction.
Post a Comment