Centerfield

Disagree and would take some time over time to make all the points. Although at this time, am not interested in taking the time or using energies that it takes to form a third party.

I am for one am definitely interested in a Third Non-Partisan Centrist Group/Sphere of Influence. Centrists would not be opposed to making compromises. Several million wanting Use of reason vs. vested interests and give-mes ( Aye, there is the rub) could contribute some dollars and participate in a blog (with regular polls, etc.).

Am an advocate of excising the extremes for influence. The modern version of a two party system in U.S. is primarily about money ( too much to get there and too long an eleciton cycle), wielding power, and giving away the public treasury to which interests ( for even more votes the next round. Moderates have been gerrymandered out from most districts across the country. Also, if there were not so many overpaid and overbenfited govt. employees, I might tend to agree more. Too many consider themselves moderates, but they're living off taxpayer their govt. assoc./unions garnered for them.

I do not respect Jefferson as much as Adams and Franklin or his more princely style of living. Also, was he not a slave owner? Did not Washington warned of dangers of political parties and foreign entanglements in his Farewell Address?

Did not Pericles go too far in advancing his egomaniacal misadventures? For me, Aristotle only waxes philosophical.

Part of the problem lies in a segmented subject form of Education that most have received in last thirty years.

Further, the tax structure and such manipulation of has enabled special interests muchmore so than would under what structure I would have wanted in place by now.

I know people don't like to hear it, but national service for all for privilege of being a citizen would make for more participatory government and few boondoggle decisions.

Enough for now.

Janus

I'm not sure a moderate party is the solution to the problem, but there is definitely a problem somewhere. I'll try and read up on that attempted Athenian moderate party and see if they were dealing with the same partisanship problems we are.

Although grouping all sorts of different opinions into two groups is to some extent an alliance of convenience, it does seem that the same dynamics which make those alliances convenient also move us towards two groups of people with widely divergent ways of viewing things, liberal and conservative. I don't think this is bad in principle - some would say our brains work the same way, with left and right hemispheres having certain general differences, and whichever one is better suited to a particular class of problem tending to take responsibility for it as success proves it effective. But if the two halves of the brain did not share the same goals and actively fought each other, the system would break down.

I think that has happened politically. Jon Kay, do you disagree, or do you just think the solution proposed is wrong?

Mr. Kay-- did you state previously that your wife was in dem politics in Texas? Also, you over the years? Any way you people were fans of LBJ? Who was awful in my thinking. A fan of that Ann Richards?

David W. ---

The two party system is not working. That seems obvious.

Besides, being a total dichotomy and trying to buy off the edges to include. for extra votes. If you can't see that, then be a continued follower of. By the way, using your own ex. with that the type of thinking your brain would be in constant conflict and cognitive dissonance.

The Center is the best option for people for not only thinking people, but people who see the need to effect some changes. Previously, third parties have been more kooky or egomaniac leaders.

These political parties have way too much money to dominate and crush, as well as to blow on their parties of conventions, media, consultants.
Some of you even know that the parties are in charge of Federal Election Commission?

When you check into voting in previous historical periods, check to see also who did not get to vote due to being not of certain types or landowning.
That is a huge factor. We have too many morons allowed to vote. Too many too non-taxpayers allowed to vote. We have too many who want goodies. If you need examples and effects, there are plenty.

Alex

I would rather like to see a discussion on Janus' final point about "national service." I often think that a great part of the problem is that we have too many professional politicians running things instead of true representatives of the people. Professional politicians too often have private agendas that are in direct conflict with the needs of the country.

Besides, if we had some kind of "national service" setup, political parties wouldn't have nearly as much control.

Thoughts?

I'm afraid the only connection my wife (the Profesora, as I like to call her in espace) and I have to LBJ is that she teaches at the institution where LBJ went. She also voted in LBJ's old Texas legislative district until about a year ago, just before marrying me (yay!!!) and moving to Austin.

Neither of us is a politician. I've simply read a few too many political biographies over the years - I'm an Internet entrepreneur.

So far, I've been too chicken to crack Caro's LBJ books. Right now I'm obsessing about the 16th and 17th centuries and reading a contemporary treatment of Pizarro's conquest of Peru (from the Profesora's collection) and Shogun; the Profesora is working on Stephenson's Quicksilver, also set in that era, in preparation for his next book. Hopefully I'll get around to Caro in the next few years....

We're both too recent to remember Richards, much less LBJ. I got here two years into Bush' 1st term as Governor.

Still trying to figure out what to say about the less personal points...

I don't agree that a "Starship-Troopers"-like service requirement would improve politics or reduce the control of political parties; we'd simply see the same dynamics amongst the reduced electorate (political dynamics were pretty similar before the extension of the vote to non-property-owners, for example). I do, however, think that we'd see many non-citizen problems go unsolved - notice that the only live bombing range left just happens be located amongst Americans without representation (Vieques). Similarly, notice how much progress was made on Jim Crow while blacks had no vote.

I do like David's comparison of political parties with brain halves. If you want a balanced budget or a new benefit, vote Democrat. If you want to fight a war well or have good foreign policy, vote Republican. At least, there is that inclination; it's obviously a generalization. Of course, there's also a competitive bit, which may or may not play into the relationship between hemispheres.

Hmmm. A lot to think about here.

I've always been an advocate for a "big tent" approach to centrist politics. Our movement has extraordinary diversity -- with large, active moderate groups in both major parties, lots of independent moderates, folks in third parties etc.

I think it's attractive to essentially boost all elements of this mosaic. Sometimes one piece of it will succeed, as when we get a good centrist candidate from one of the parties ... sometimes a different piece of it will succeed. And sometimes nothing quite works. You never know which part will offer us the best opportunity, or from which quarter the best person will emerge.

I suppose that puts me in the category of supporting third parties or independent candidacies, when a centrist goes that route. For example, I think it's great that the folks in Maine elected Angus King governor, and that he did such a good job for them.

You point out, of course, that independent or third party presidential runs have consistently involved folks who were a little bit quirky. I suspect the fact that our system is not conducive to a third party is partly responsible for that -- only quirky people run, because there aren't that many prospects for success and you have to be a bit of a gambler to give it a try.

The experienced, balanced, capable leaders tend to stay away, except when they can get the nod from one of the major parties.