Well, I'm back after an extended absence. I went to DC last weekend to visit my brother and sister-in-law. It was great to see them again. DC is much more spread out than all the other Eastern cities I've been to. I still have yet to see many of the free museums there, though I've been twice. We saw the American Indian Museum while we were there. It was a bit disorganized, and empty, but the organization was apparently purposeful... the purpose still somewhat eludes me though they tried to explain it. It has something to do with the fact that they didn't want to look at Native Americans from a typical European anthropological perspective. It's getting chilly in the mornings here, which is better than the hot and sticky humidity. It hasn't rained all September which is also nice. Things got a lot busier at work. It seems that things always get busier in September. I wonder if it's because all the parents in the workforce feel like they have to set a good workaholic example for their kids that are going back to school. Well, it's the anniversary of September 11. If there's anything good to come from Katrina, it's to give that event some perspective, and make the terrorists still seem somewhat irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Katrina really needs to be a wake up call...our government failed us. If this is still a democracy our "leaders" in government need to be held accountable for absolutely failing the people. I think most Americans don't actually admire many, if any politicians. The two-party system has been long touted by many as the key to successful American democracy. But let's face it, it just creates stagnation, apathy, and corruption. Whatever happened to the old, "vote the bums out!" mentality?
Here's an idea, why don't all the third parties, from the extreme right wing parties to the extreme left wing parties, and all in-between (i.e. from the America First Party, to the Green Party, to the Libertarian Party, to the Reform Party) form a united campaign in 06 and 08 to simply not vote for either of the two major parties? They can combine all their dollars to launch a massive 'don't vote for the big two campaign'. You can vote for any party you want (and chances are there's one out there that more closely matches your views than either the Republicans or Democrats... what are their "views" anyway?), just don't vote for the R's or D's. Of course I know that about 30% of the country are die-hard Dems and Reps and actually like what their respective parties are doing, but it would be awesome to chisel the Dems and Reps down to the 15% respective shares of Congress they actually deserve. Imagine a Congress with such pluralism. Perhaps they wouldn't be so willing to simply fall in line when it comes to issues like invading other countries. I know what the critics will say...won't this cause more stagnation and gridlock? Wouldn't the Katrina response have been even slower? Well, I don't think so, especially if you abide by the philosophy that our entire economy is supposedly based on...that competition breeds efficiency. A government content and secure in its power is not one that will race to ensure the needs of its constituents are met. Parties of course, will be forced to build coalitions on certain issues, as happens all the time in European politics. But they won't have to completely abandon central ideological priniciples for survival's sake. Also, and perhaps most importantly, the only thing we as a voter can do to voice our satisfaction or dissatisfaction is vote someone in or out. Once we believe that we have no choice but to vote for one of two particular individuals, both of whom we disagree with, our only power has nearly been completely stripped.
I know that the pundits will try to analyze merely whether this will affect the Republicans or Democrats more negatively, but I think it will affect both about equally, especially considering the uncertainty of who the Republicans will nominate in 08. Such a "Clean Sweep" campaign would be based on the following premises:
1) Most Americans (left and right) feel like the elections are choices between two evils.
2) Most Americans are generally dissatisfied with their political leadership, if not outraged, in the aftermath of Katrina, the government's most recent failure.
3) Most Americans feel like their political leadership does not represent their interests.
The Clean Sweep campaign would avoid many of the pitfalls of a single third-party candidacy, and the "he'll never win; don't waste your vote" mentality. This is because it is not based on the idea of electing a particular individual. Rather, it is simply based on the idea of reducing the number of people voting for two parties... it is a larger campaign than a particular candidate... and it is a campaign addressing a single idea (the lack of pluralism in American democracy). It is negative campaigning at its best, and it will have no single individual to become the target of a media attack (see Howard Dean campaign of 2004) or negative campaign ads. Sure the two parties will say, "you shouldn't vote for a campaign based on negativism and anger and all that bs, but this isn't the anger of a particular politician, it's the pent up frustration of the American public. The simple fact is that there are virtually no elected representative (especially at the federal level) who truly deserves their post. Nearly all of them would willingly sacrifice the principles of their constituents or those that they represented while campaigning for personal political gain. And those Republicans and Democrats that do deserve their offices...well, we'll call them "acceptable losses" in the name of reclaiming (or claiming for the first time) true representative democracy. The vast majority of American politicians have earned their posts through cronyism more than ideas or actions. The fact that the United States, a nation of about 300 million, happened to have have two presidents that were father and son...and that the primary Democratic candidate for President in 2008 is the wife of a former President, is prima facie evidence that democracy has seriously gone wrong somewhere along the line. The strength of a vibrant democracy is that the best ideas will win out. It is a shame that the untapped political leadership and ideas in this nation of 300 million, is going to waste in the name of a spoils system that has grown out of control, like a cancer which has overrun our political landscape.
The "Powers that Be" will of course abhor this "Clean Sweep" idea and I can already anticipate what they will say to try and dissuade people from voting for the candidiate of their choice, and to save their own asses from the political whipping they deserve. They would say that introducing such uncertainty into our political system would result in a collapse in the stock market and would stop investment in U.S. markets. The first response should be, "so what?" They might be right in the short term... but I don't buy the idea that democracy has simply become too "expensive". In all likelihood there may be a short term bump in the road before the election when it is unclear what sort of policies the government will abide by. We have to object to this argument not on economic grounds but on principle. It is a sad day for democracy when we are willing to sacrifice choice of our leadership for the sake of predictability of government. The fact that government is so predictable alone is a sign that democracy is not really at work in our nation. A "one-party" system would be even more predictable, but that doesn't make it right, or even economically viable in the long term. In fact, I think from Sept. 11, 2001 until Hurricane Katrina created a political opportunity for Democrats, we pretty much had a one-party system here. My belief is the old-fashioned one that democratic pluralism is actually good for the economy in the long run, both to keep the arms of government in check and introduce new and innovative ideas to the body politic. Just as diversity within a species helps it survive otherwise cataclismic changes, pluralism may be the Godsend for an America that is otherwise in a slow decline.
A "Clean Sweep" would invogorate an American democracy that currently has a terminal two-party-created illness. Even if it was only moderately successful (say, a bit more than Ross Perot's 1992 campaign), it at least has the potential to reduce the stronghold of the major parties by at least 20% around the country, which, if nothing else would send a strong signal that polticians will be held accountable and democracy has not breathed its last breath. So maybe this blog should be devoted to this idea until November 2008, or maybe I should start a new one. I don't know what good it will do, except that maybe some of you have ideas on the subject, or on how we could do something about this.
