After listening to two friends here on Gather argue about the current mess our country is in, it hit me that as long as these arguments continue, nothing will change.
I would categorize their positions as "pragmatist" and "idealist" although that is a bit of an oversimplification. They both want change. They both deplore the current course of our nation. But they disagree on the required actions to fix the problem.
So let me propose a solution…naïve as it may be…and an appeal for help…but you have to read to the end to find that.
First, let me say that my friends' positions are typical of most of the "loyal opposition"…people who feel that our country is headed in the wrong direction. The fact that they disagree so violently on what should be done gives great satisfaction to Republicans. If these two groups ever unite, the Republicans are in trouble. In fact, the Republicans introduce "wedge" issues as often as possible to widen the gaps between the groups. But much of the divide is internally generated anyway.
Basically, the opposing positions boil down to this:
- Pragmatists say, "We have to get rid of these idiots running the country. Anything is better than what we have, so let's support the Democrats."
- Idealists say, "The system is broken and horribly corrupt. We need to throw them ALL out and start over. If we support the Democrats, the improvement will be insignificant."
I am afraid that the two positions are so incompatible that unless some profound change in the political climate occurs, we are stuck with the current situation…i.e., government run by Big Money, increasing control of the media by government, and a disgusted and apathetic electorate that will remain uninvolved in the political process. I believe that is a recipe for the decline and fall of the United States. We need to do something completely different if we are to save our nation for our children and theirs.
Now, here is the problem I see that the idealists have: Starting a third party from the ground up is very unlikely to be successful. It's just too much of a chicken-and-egg problem, and most voters will prefer the devil they know to the one they don't.
On the other hand. The pragmatists have to convince the nation that the Democrats are significantly better…more honest, more mature in defining foreign policy, fairer in their economic decisions re taxation and social services, etc. The evidence for that is hardly convincing..
So, what should we do?
I think that the current ethics mess in Washington presents a unique opportunity to actually implement some meaningful reforms. A lot of people are really sick of the "best government money can buy." A real honest-to-god (if you'll pardon the expression) reform platform could energize a lot of voters. Well, maybe it wouldn't get them up from in front of their TV's…but I'm getting ahead of myself.
Let me give you a pipedream.
Suppose the Democratic Party suddenly "got religion." No…not that kind. Suppose they said, "We're not gonna do the big money thing any more." Let's even change the name to "The New Democratic Party" or maybe even get rid of that nasty old D word and call it just "The New Party."
Now, as I said earlier, you can't just start a new party. The Democratic Party has to reinvent itself. But all the existing infrastructure…precinct headquarters, support groups, etc. are still in place. That is essential. It won't work unless they sign on.
So, what is this New Party? Here are some of the main platform planks:
- No big donations will be accepted. Nothing larger than $100. Not from an individual, not from a corporation, not from a PAC. This won't work without a nationwide campaign telling the public that for this to work, a LOT of people have to give a little money. Like 50 million people times 20 bucks. That's a billion, and that's enough to get started. The public has to believe that this new party will take NOTHING from Big Money!
- Current politicians will be welcomed into the New Party from both R's and D's. But to get the endorsement and support of the party, they have to agree that they will not accept any campaign contributions greater than $100. They will get some campaign money from party funds, and the party will run nationwide TV spots to inform the voters of the basic principles outlined here. If they want to raise additional money from individual donors, they can do that, but only according to party guidelines…e.g., $100 max per donor.
- Lobbyists will be told that they are welcome in the offices of New Party candidates, but that when they come, leave their money at home, leave their gifts at home, and don't even expect to pay for lunch!
- New Party candidates will pledge that, when elected, they will hold no closed meetings on official government business with the exception of those dealing with classified national security issues.
- Violations of any of the above will result in public censure by the party and withdrawal of support and endorsement in the next election.
There are a lot more planks to be added to this platform on issues such as responsible foreign policy, responsible management of the environment, responsible energy policy and…notice I am using the word "responsible" a lot. I think the current government is egregiously irresponsible in all of these areas and more.
So, there is the start of a platform. This New Party could include people of quite different political orientations. The main thing that they will share is a desire for clean, honest, government, uncorrupted by the stench of Big Money.
If you have read this far without falling asleep, I will assume you are interested in my ideas, naïve as they are. I know that there are many political heavyweights contributing to Gather. I invite you all to add your comments, corrections and suggestions for additional planks. If I agree with them, I will not only incorporate them in the above, I will give you credit for your contribution! Such a deal!
Note that I said IF I agree. Hey, this is my article…I didn't guarantee that this would be a democratic process. <grin>


Comments: 48
and we're back at the beginning again - a dictatorship.
(insert monty python sketch here)
nice, bert. i was right along with you until you got to "The pragmatists have to convince the nation that the Democrats are significantly better" - and i said to myself, no, the democrats have to do that, not the pragmatists. the cart doesn't lead the donkey, so to speak.
well, of course you got to that - i while i think your platform is commendable - hmm. i don't know if it's realistic.
now you've succeeded in tilting me more towards your idealist's argument - we have to restructure the entire situation.
career politicianing is out. electioneering is bad. big money, you correctly surmise, is the problem. well, here in san francisco, there is a proposal afoot to publically finance mayoral campaigns, at around $1.something million per candidate.
so, let's take advertising firms and million-dollar ad campaigns out of politics. can the democrats, would any career politician be willing to do that?
not so far.
great interview with mayor jerry brown on kgo radio in san francisco this morning - smart guy. says the democrats are egos, factions, no real leader. would take a person of great stature to unite them all without having to hustle money, talk in sound bytes, and avoid alienating the different subgroups within the party.
so, no - i just don't see many republicans/democrats that would qualify for a New Party. oh, there'd be plenty wanting to hop on board, wishing for a fresh start, i'm sure.
tough issue, bert. i don't know how to solve it. i've been thinking about it for nearly six years now. the politicians are never going to change the game themselves, but unless things get so bad that we're all demonstrating in the streets - what's going to alter the course?
i still say that it's impossible to prove that the democrats actually lost either of the last two elections, so add that log to the fire....
argh!!
So what do your guys think? Can we discuss the value of a short term/long term strategy that may put the idealists and pragmatists under one tent, and drive out the retrograde GOP types for once and for all?
"Well I think the real issue here is one of belief in the importance of real, dramatic short term change, versus a long term dream. I believe strongly that we need to face the fact that since 2001, we have lived under a repressive government that is a daily threat to our quality of life as Americas. I insist on short term change - I believe that a Democratic Congress must be elected in order to balance the outrageous excesses of the Republican right wing theocrats. If you seek a longer term (utopian?) vision for America, then I won't stand in your way - but I believe that some of your energy must be placed in the short term effort to kick out the incumbent party in order to set us on a course where real, sustainable long term change is achievable. "
A shift of 15 - 20 seats, enough to shift the majority would send a convincing message. It would probably take 3 election cycles for the mesage to take hold.
Most seats are decided by less than 10 percentage points so it wouldn't take a huge number of voters to get the ball rolling.
that would be a very tough wall to topple.
elections are suspect these days, i feel.
i've asked several times what's wrong with counting paper ballots one-by-one on television, in a reality show - good drama, good democracy.
~~
gas pants - "Hard as hell. Simple as that."
indeed - good comments; see mine on 'why we fight'.
~~
james - they've been doing this a loooong time. bush's dad - cia in the 60s, military; cheney/rumsfeld - also nixon's cabinet.
bad people. powerful people. they won't just go away because we ask them to.
note the date of his term at the bottom...
First, I need to answer Martin's question. The fire is/was about five miles east of us. We got a lot of smoke and ash the first day or two, and then it moved further south and the wind changed. The main effect on me was that my normal running route goes right by the fire area, so I had to change my route. Did you read that the US Forest Service admits that it was started by a controlled burn that got away? At least, they have agreed to pay the firefighting costs, and fortuonately nobody was injured and no structures were lost. With lastl year's heavy rainfall here, the hillsides were really overgrown, and then on top of that we have had almost no rain this winter. Sorry to be so OT on my own thread...
Any idea who the two "friends" are that I mention in the article? Well, I won't mention any names, but their initials are Joseph and Martin. I'm sure they knew that.
I don't see any reason why your #'s 1-3 can't be accomplished. Not having seen the proposed reform legislation currently being contemplated in the house I can't say if these changes have been recognized yet. Got to go look at the bill. Most are available on the web & I'll try to find it for you, Bert. On #4 on closed meetings though, this isn't how government has worked since the Continental Congress. Everything the House does is by trade-offs because you can't please everyone. It is potentially bad for us when they try to please themselves (a garden party analogy is about right). The Republican party seems to have evolved to live by the American market economy ideal that opportunity at the bottom is created by wealth at the top that trickles down. The Democrats have evolved to live by the American market economy ideal that wealth created at the bottom is a function of opportunity trickling down from the top which in turn creates wealth all the way up the chain. The dead spot in the center is always greed. Either from the top, or from the bottom. But, before vilifying people based on party, (always) consider history:
http://www.gop.com/About/AboutRead.aspx?AboutType=3
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/zt12.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/jt10.html
It's not that precedents are not in place for consideration. I feel you are so very right about different views coming together. I've said here many times that many individuals have one or more pieces of the puzzle's framing & solution. Pragmatists & Idealists, we all seem to frame the problem in the past tense and usually in terms of our own bank accounts and personal situations. We are skeptical about the changes we do see which makes everyone assume change is not possible. Defeatism is dangerous and a card often played by Republicans who announce victory first and then seek confirmation. There is a lot we can do and have been doing.
People are going back to the American basics. Getting different perspectives out in the open is an important part of the process. Early on it was Pamphleteers and writers like Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin that inspired The Sons of Liberty, the American upper class and financiers, and The Mechanics, the laymen and blue collar workers of the time. From the documents they left us we know they fought the american crisis with common sense, intellectually and literally.
Democrats are the minority in the House and on Capitol Hill right now but the Alito affair brought all but 3 or 4 Deocratic states together in agreement on constitutional issues. More threats to the foundations of our government have moved ordinary people which in turn have moved a few Republican representatives to reconsider some of their trade-offs.
We CAN make a difference. Martin revealed a puzzle piece. There is no reason in the age of computers, to continue the electoral college. Download this .pdf to learn why I think it is an inappropriate institution today:
http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecmenu2.htm
A nationwide petition and inspiring our house representative's support, in the Very Near Future, might take remedy the problem of the Executive Branch not representing the interests of the majority. Got your type drawers out and printing presses warmed up?
great comment, victoria. onward!
What did I say about defeatism, guys.
I see Congress more than a little worried about the power G.W. & the goons are trying to wrestle from them. The Pres. shouldn't be tied to the House by their approval and neither they by him & his veto power. They after all are directly elected. And Veto power should be the domain of the people and not of a select few. It sets up a better checks & balance and then keeping the Supreme Court in the domain of legal scrutiny of EACH branch we are a little more secure. We have the technology now for broad sweeping surveys of American interests majority & minority to get to the Executive Branch in minutes, Computer programs like Excel disseminate, chart & provide analysis for data efficiently & inexpensively. No American need be disenfranchised with computers in public libraries and houses of learning all over the country. Make it a civic duty for goodnes sakes. How many people out there would LOVE to fill out a survey on the particular problems in their situations and more than once every ten years. We need to find and present as many right points in the argument as we can that will inspire a better approach. That's all. Hot dogs & apple pie for thought. Throw in a few teams of influential intellectuals ready to go to the plate and we can play ball!
Man, I like you guys.
The One Big Thing that we all have that the powers-that-be cannot take away from us is our vote. If enough people in the country would get interested enough to chip in twenty bucks to this idea, we can disenfranchise them...take the power right out of their hands. It can be done! But Joe SIxpack has to get up off his butt long enough to write a check. Of course, more important, as Martin says, is to get the entrenched politicians who have a cushy setup to do something to orgainze this thing. Or some arresting personality...a "good demagogue" who can energize people...get them interested at least long enough to get it off the ground. Then, of course, the problem is to keep "The New Party" from catching the same old disease. Keeping corruption out of politics is like defying gravity.
Re short-term vs. long-term. This has to be the basis for the remainder of the platform. What I did was just the beginning of the process of the two groups thrashing out the necessary compromises that allow everybody to march to the same drummer. You are right on. Good post.
WM H,
I don't disagree that we need to oust some of the most corrupt people. Unfortunately, they are the most entrenched, with the biggest campaign war chests. Taking them on one-by-one is a long, hard slog. What I am proposing...or dreaming...is to take a much broader approach, and tell them, "Clean up your act or you're all outta here." Yeah, I know, and if pigs had wings...
You may be right that we have to do it this way in the short term. Thanks for the post.
Sure they can take it away from us, Bert. They can draw up inaccurate felon lists, they can lose voter records, they can intimidate, they can stop vote counts, they can put too few voting machines in minority districts, they can use easily hacked paperless voting machines.
i would think that there's enough evidence right there in the headlines to start criminal proceedings, or at least an impeachment session - but so far, zilch from the status quo.
they're waiting on us to signal that we've had enough. i just wish i knew what the signal was.
pound the mat three times?
-: Exiting the fiasco in Iraq,
- Building a sustainable rather than growth economy,
- Improving public education,
- Securing the viability of Social Security and Medicare,
- Providing health care for low-income working American
citizens and their dependents,
- Effective dealing with illegal aliens,
- Instituting genuine border security,
- Enforcement of energy conservation regulations,
- Joining the Kyoto Treaty,
- Managing natural disaster emergencies,
- Renewal of cordial foreign relations with allies,
- Resolution of conflicts via diplomacy vs bullying,
- Constructive reform of the United Nations,
- Strengthening enforcement of civil rights,
Republicans seem to dominate:
- Homeland security against terrorism,
- High family and personal moral standards,
- Currency monetarization favoring US dollar,
- Projection of US military power around the world,
- Projection of economic hegemony,
- Promotion of "democracy" around the world,
- "Nation building also known as Nation busting",
- Tax-subsidies for businesses,
- Tax-preferences for the rich.
Newt Gingrich brought the conservative Republicans to power using a "Contract with America" as a vehicle to project a VISION. Why can't Democrats project a progressive VISION the same way?
Can it be that the Democratic Party is deliberately holding its VISION close to the chest to give Republicans the least amount of time to demolish it? Or are they now so inept and/or "beaten down" that they don't have anyone who can formulate and articulate their VISION?
And one other thing. With congressional districts gerry-mandered to favor Republicans, does it really make any difference? Or has the die been cast?
Maylbe they will get the signal this fall. I hope so.
I became aware of the campaign-economy issue during the November 2004 election. Illinois was not considered a swing state. Campaigns didn't put their money where it wasn't needed, so we didn't get to see or read all those controversial campaign ads--only got to read the reporting on them. An article in the paper at the time noted this lack of advertising in Illinois adversely affected local marketing and advertising revenue.
Dan's 2/10 post echoes similar thoughts I've had. If the Democrats on their own don't have the ability to come up with an inspiring Vision or Agenda for Americans, why don't they hire a facilitator to help them draft one? I've sat through a lot of business meetings with a facilitator who helped us write a policy, goals, or mission statement. Maybe the facilitator could be Bert Bigelow!
I would hate to think that local economies depend on political campaigns for their income. Seems like they should look for more productive endeavors. But I am naive about this stuff, I admit. I see the major media spending done by the party explaining the overall goals, and the need for individual candidates spending decreased substantially. I am sure that Big Money won't go down without a fight, and will spend tons of money to discredit this new party.
The key to the whole thing is that a LOT of people give a little money, and the result is a pretty good campaign war chest to fight those bastards.
As I said, it's just a pipedream. How do you get 50 million...or hopefully more...to say, "Yeah, let's give a little money and see if it changes things."
We need a few really articulate leaders to "sell" the idea.
Right now, I don't see any.
With more and more people getting their news via the internet rather than from the print and TV/radio media, I think there is a very good chance that effective use of the internet by an "independent" ticket could offset alot, if not most, of the publicity that money can buy.
The question, in my mind, is whether potential candidates would "jump ship" to run independently. Some well-known names should be able to get re-elected to their present seats as independents, even if they jumped party affiliation to run nationally as independents, and failed.
Indeed, some may be so fed up with the polarized, uncivil, partisan rhetoric that passes for politics that they don't even care anymore about continuing in their present political office, unless it is as an independent. National exposure should enhance the prospect of their regaining their seat as an "independent"; i.e. if they would fail in pursuit of the presidency/vice-presidency.
Informal Internet "primaries" can be held at any time! There really is no reason for party stalwarts to go out in freezing inclement weather to caucus and demonstrate their sentiment. Because, it is the "likely voter" sentiment that really counts.
Good thoughts. My idea was not so much that most incumbent Democrats would be "jumping ship" if the party "reinvented" itself. They would just be reinventing themselves along with the party. Of course, I would hope that Independents, and even some Moderate Republicans would join up.
Dream on, Bert....
I like the way you think. You're an articulate, good writer. However, I'm afraid the idea might be a bit "pie in the sky". The idea of a non-corrupt political system by it's very nature is just impossible.
Since the beginning of history we have had corruption in power. If we get rid of Big Money we'll have big pay offs in non-monetary means, underhanded things like advertising agencies running "free" ads for their candidates of choice.
I don't know Bert. Good idea but maybe I'm just too pessimistic.
Bandit Talks
Yeah, as I said, it's just a pipedream. I think honest government is like defying gravity. You can do it for awhile, but it takes a tremendous effort, and as soon as you relax, even a little...
I wrote this piece just to try to show what could be done if we made the effort. I don't expect it to happen any time soon.
But a large part of the electorate...and a larger part of the population that doesn't vote at all...are supremely ignorant of basic facts about the state of the nation and the world. Democracies require an informed electorate to function effectively. That may be our biggest problem as a nation. If we don't pay attention, we will lose our freedoms...and maybe we deserve to.
lol -
"gilligan! you can't float in mid-air!!"
"i can't? SKIPP-ERRRRRRRR!!"
WHHHHUMP.
someone's post this week with dr strangelove in the title has me wanting to see that one again.
general buck turgidson, smacking that gum and smiling that plastic smile. slim pickens going toe-to-toe with the rooskies. peter sellers as the haplessly innocent but well-meaning president.
The Big Board!
lol - anyway, honest government is simple. everyone in it has to be honest.
easy enough, right?
Oughta be. But given human nature, or at least the nature of those who seek political power...it is, as you say, an oxymoron.
I thought the media had stopped announcing results until west coast polls closed.
But I agree with you that our government, whether headed by R's or D's, doesn't care much about the average voter's interests. They rely on the media to manipulate us to get our vote, and then when they are elected, it's the rich and powerful who pay for the lobbyists whose interests are served.
I think most people feel disenfranchised by our system, particularly younger people. That's why Obama has stirred up so much interest. His vague "change" message has resonated with a lot of people who are tired of the status quo.
If he is elected, can he really change things? I dunno, but I am not very hopeful.
coming in suggest you are on the right track with respect to
framing the debate.
You know I am a moderate-turned-undeclared. I am not
sure the public will develop "2000-2008 Amnesia," in
spite of what will most certainly become Fox's best
efforts. Optimistic? We shall see.
It is important to discuss issues with those who are
not of a like mind or like political affiliation. Right now,
not too many are interested in the Republican view.
Maybe this is a gap independents can help fill; that
is, the need for contrary opinions for both the party
in power and the independents.
(That's one of the reasons I formed the independent
voter group on Gather.)
The last post before you was almost a year ago.
Much has changed since then, but it is instructive to see how much has NOT changed.