Centerfield

My greatest skepticism about the Unity08 plan is that almost all effective "third party" or populist movements have been focused on one major issue, and Unity08 doesn't seem to have one. At least, not one that can be clearly articulated in small words and one snetence.

Posted by: Tully at June 1, 2006 12:21 PM

Oh, I think the problem is broader than that - it isn't that it isn't focussed on one major issue, it is that it doesn't seem to have any issue other than being a rallying point against the status quo. As I previously explained, that is a poor foundation for a political movement; they are trying to build a movement predicated on disagreement rather than agreement. It is incredibly easy to gather together a number of people who are dissatisfied with the two existing parties, but as soon as you start to explore their dissatisfaction in greater depth, it becomes readily apparent that there is no room for compromise. I'd go so far as to say that a majority of the country right now disagrees with both major parties on abortion - but that majority is comprised of 20% of democrats who disagree with their party because they think the party is too lax and another 20% who think the party is too strict, and 20% of Republicans who are pro choice and 20% of Republians who think the party isn't doing enough to be sufficiently pro-life. Try and find compromise on THAT one!

To succeed, political parties must be founded on a shared worldview by various factions which share either compatible ends or at least compatible means. Unity '08 fails that most basic test, because it does not have a worldview, and it presently seeks only people who are dissatisfied with the existing process without any reference to the compatability of means, let alone ends. For that reason, I think it will fail the moment that it begins to define where it stands on any particular issue.

Bluntly, the reason that politics is polarized is because the country is more polarized. You can have a moderate view of tax policy, but when it comes right down to it, the difference between Olympia Snowe and Joe Liebermann on tax is that Republicans operate from a Smith-Friemann paradigm that taxes primarily hurt the country and Democrats operate from a Keynes-Galbraith paradigm that taxes primarily help the country. Thus, a moderate Democratic tax proposal might make concessions to keeping taxes lower than they'd prefer, to help stimulate the economy, while a moderate Republican tax proposal might make concessions to not cutting taxes quite as much as they would prefer, to help increasing government revenues. Thus, both sides are compromising, finding a compatability of means, despite divergent worldviews and divergent ends. Politics is about brokering compromises between these different worldviews, and moderates in both parties can find compromise, but one party cannot straddle that gap in basic, underlying worldview. Americans want their politicians to compromise, but they do not want their politicians to have nothing to compromise.

(They also, apparently, want to have it all, and to never have to compromise; I expect to have to lecture my children on something so basic - I am shocked and disappointed to see so many people signing on to this Unity program who never seem to have accepted the necessity of making hard choices; "Why can't we have caramel and peanut in Reese's Pieces" may be a winning whine for the confectionary industry, but "why can't we have BOTH low taxes and extensive govt. services" is a loser in politics).

I think the big underlying cause of the recent breakdown of compromise is that the country is so closely divided that both parties believe that they are in the ascendancy. The Democrats have never accepted the loss of the House in '94, and constantly believe that they are one election away from dispensing with these trogladyte Republicans, while us trogladyte Republicans obstinately believe that we are one election away from finally unencumbering ourselves of a Democratic party that we think is totally disconnected from American values. Both are wrong, but because they believe in the imminency of their victory - after which they will not need to compromise - they are in no mood to compromise now.

Posted by: Simon at June 1, 2006 01:05 PM

Simon,

That's an excellent analysis. I think the problem is that the political system has become so permeable to various interests that it is impossible for it to work as a system to find common ground. Both parties are driven, not so much by public opinion as by the opinion of specific interest groups with intense feelings. So, that regardless of overall public opinion on abortion, for example, the more extreme pro-choice segment will have more influence on the Democratic Party and extreme pro-life will have the same on the Republican side. It's become increasingly difficult for the parties INTERNALLY to develop a consensus position because the various interest groups (be they the religious right or the Kossacks) can turn up the pressure because their followers have intense feelings, while the general public likely doesn't feel as strongly about any one issue. In effect, I think the parties have been coopted by interest groups. It used to be that parties helped to broker settlements by channeling public opinion toward compromise positions. Now, all they do is channel the views of specific groups.

Would a third party change that? I don't know, but I agree with Simon that a third party is meaningless unless it is built around some organizing principle other than being against the other parties.

I also respectfully disagree with Simon's idea that the solution is term limits. I don't think that would make much difference; in fact, it might exacerbate the problem of interest group influence--they know they will be there when the politicians are gone. Lieberman, for example, is in a much stronger position to withstand the attacks from the Kossacks than someone that had not been around so long.

Posted by: Marc at June 1, 2006 01:25 PM

The conventional wisdom is that the middle of the country are so-libs and fis-cons. So for goodness sake, somebody go ahead and start that party. Don't call it "centrist", just admit that those are the policies you think are best for the country, and fight for them.

I disagree to some extent on the causes of the division. The current "crisis" came about not simply because each side is misestimating its electoral strength ("just one election away..."), but because of several social and policy shifts which have occured over the past 30 years.

Foreign policy issues have been very divisive ever since the Vietnam War. We still haven't overcome that completely in our politics and our approach to foreign policy.

On the social policy front, the Supreme Court has seized for itself control over some fundamental social policy issues, leaving the legislatures to squabble over much less weighty matters. As anybody who's ever observed a faculty meeting (or any other political body meeting), the less at stake, the nastier the fight.

And shaping political action in general has been the disastrous effects of campaign finance reform. We started serious CFR in the 1970s, and the amount of money in politics has grown immensely since then. Much worse is that the money no longer flows to the political parties (which historically have been a moderating force able to look at a longer-term picture and with incentives to compromise with the other side) but rather to small, strongly ideological groups (MoveOn, Swift Boats) who have no incentive to compromise or play nice at all.

But all that's a post for another day.

Posted by: PatHMV at June 1, 2006 01:32 PM

Simon,

Do you think offering low taxes AND extensive government is really a political LOSER??? Or is it actually too much of a, "WINNER," for comfort? I think it's just a REALLY bad idea and a powerful way to end up destroying this country.

I don't think '08 NOT bringing a pre-existing platform is wrong. You have to know, that Centrists, moderates, and all independents are, in fact, all over the map.

What this excercise in popular democracy through the internet could do is show where the cleavages lie among American voters and what kinds of candidates and ideas they'd be eager to vote for that they're not getting.

I think '08's predisposition not to impose pre-conceived notions on voters is the right way to go.

If you end up not liking the program that '08 internet voters come up with, you will at least know what kind of support people who think alike have on the issues.

I do think, however, that Simon's concerns about middle voters being unwilling to compromise are well founded. Sometimes it does seems that the only people some independents hate more than the incumbents who are ignoring their concerns are other independents who've, "got it wrong."

Perhaps even I have come off in this manner, which was not my intention.

Don't get me wrong, I DO want a party that, "get's it right," on the issues but I think an experiment like Unity '08 is a good idea, especially if it doesn't Pre-Judge who, "should," be polled regarding the views they think a 3rd party should represent.

I think that we have become so stifled by the 2 party system that we worry that a 3rd party is too valuable to be left to our fellow politicos to, "get it wrong."

Who says there can be only one 3rd party?

Posted by: Cavalier829 at June 1, 2006 02:14 PM

Marc:

I also respectfully disagree with Simon's idea that the solution is term limits. I don't think that would make much difference; in fact, it might exacerbate the problem of interest group influence--they know they will be there when the politicians are gone.

I'd perhaps offer two comments in support; first, if Noonan is right that the real problem is not a disconnect between the people and the parties, but rather, a disconnect between the people and the governing elite (being comprised of both parties), term limits will necessarily solve that problem by pushing Congress back towards a greater number of civilian legislators. In some ways, my solution is not radical enough, if Noonan is right: I support consecutive term limits, while if Noonan is right, the remedy is absolute term limits. In terms of the effect for campaign finance and corruption, I think there are pretty good arguments that it could go either way.

Pat:

On the social policy front, the Supreme Court has seized for itself control over some fundamental social policy issues, leaving the legislatures to squabble over much less weighty matters. As anybody who's ever observed a faculty meeting (or any other political body meeting), the less at stake, the nastier the fight.

This is actually sort of anticipating one of the themes I hope to tackle in a post I'm working on, relating to federalism and the effect on state legislatures of the draining of authority away from them. So I'll ask for a rain cheque on that debate.

Cavalier829:

Do you think offering low taxes AND extensive government is really a political LOSER??? Or is it actually too much of a, "WINNER," for comfort? I think it's just a REALLY bad idea and a powerful way to end up destroying this country.

Oh, I agree with that. My point is that there seems to be a powerfull "have my cake and eat it" sentiment in the country, and Unity '08 seems to be pandering to it: the desire to not have to make hard choices. Thus, in unity's own poll, 62% see the national debt as crucial - what percentage of that 62% are willing to abolish entitlement spending, period? And of those who aren't, what percentage won't because they are afraid of the consequences, and what percentage won't because they don't think that's a necessary or proper solution to our budget crisis?

I don't think '08 NOT bringing a pre-existing platform is wrong. You have to know, that Centrists, moderates, and all independents are, in fact, all over the map. What this excercise in popular democracy through the internet could do is show where the cleavages lie among American voters and what kinds of candidates and ideas they'd be eager to vote for that they're not getting.

If it is true that Centrists, moderates, and all independents are, in fact, all over the map (and as I have said above, I think they are) then it is certainly true that you cannot gather together one party which contains them all without forming that party in very, very broad terms. But then, if it is true that Centrists, moderates, and all independents are, in fact, all over the map, then it is also true that the moment you cannot keep together one party which contains them all the moment you start to take concrete positions on issues. But at the same time, Centrists, moderates and independents - by definition! - tend to be people who don't like to vote for a party qua a party, and so a party that fails to have concrete positions on concrete issues cannot get any Centrist, moderate or independent votes. This sets up an unbearable tension at the heart of unity '08: they must have positions to win votes, they cannot be a serious force without retaining the bulk of their coalition, but they will fracture at the seams if they take positions, because any position they take will alienate significant parts of their coalition.

I think '08's predisposition not to impose pre-conceived notions on voters is the right way to go.

Whatever its actual motivation, it comes across as an unprincipled attempt to get as many people on board as possible by starting out as bland and generic as possible, and then craft a message that will offend (and thus lose) as few as possible of that starting group. I thought that we had all agreed that government by focus group was a really, really bad idea?

When I was in student politics, the most self-evidently venal, incompetant and unfit candidates always annouced themselves, after a fashion. They were the ones who refused to participate in what always seemed to me to be the normal operation of an election, where candidates say what they stand for and voters tick the box next to the candidate they agree with most (or distrust least); they were the ones who would instead say that all they really wanted to do was to represent us, the student corpus; that they would listen to our opinions and do what we wanted. You know the type. Populists. (I never actually worked out which was worse: the ones who said that to get you to vote for them, or the ones who said it and really believed that they meant it. I suspect unity falls into the latter category). As Burke said, "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion."

Posted by: Simon at June 1, 2006 04:38 PM

Simon:

I can definately see, given the VERY vague and generalized polling they site regarding the demand for an independent ticket, how you could be skeptical about the outcome.

I can see where, in the name of something new, they might eschew ideology for a kind of, "build-a-party". If the project failed to develop cohesion they might run as, "None of the above," dissilutioning future voters from supporting 3rd parties.

By the way, I dig on your Constitutional Amendment, though I think in order to get it past the Senate you'd have to have a Constitutional Convention.

Though I think it might be a bit radical, I'd like to see a movement which amended the Convention amending process to provide for a Semi-National Referendum, whereby the voters in the 38 approving states vote to ratify or reject future amendments. Additionally, a popular 2/3s majority would be required nationally for the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the additional 13th,15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Rights amendments. This would allow a Convention to amend some of the procedures that have been added to the Constitution since it's inception without threat to the inherent rights and structure of the Constitution.

I might also waive the popular supermajority for Articles I, Section 8, II, section 2, and III section 2, in order that a Convention could, not add to the powers of the Federal Government, but define, circumscribe, and even repeal certain interpretations of Federal Powers by the Courts, or the President.

All new subject additions however, would require a 2/3 popular Supermajority.

Amendments passed by voters in 3/4 of the states (38 of them) would additionally be protected by the popular majority that ratified it, so that, for instance, proposals that received 62% of the national vote would become more entrenched in the Constition, while amendments with a narrower popular endorsement would be more easily subject to amendment by future Constitutional Conventions.

In no case would an amendment rejected by the voters in 13 or more states or which failed to obtain the necessary ratification in 38 before a time-limit of 7 years, be amended to the Constitution.

The idea being to have a Convention process that every 20 to 30 years or so shot maybe half-a-dozen amendments at the voters with 1 or 2 actually passing.

Not something for unity '08.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at June 1, 2006 06:00 PM

Oh yeah, and I would extend the 2/3 requirement to the 18th and 21st amendments as well because we don't really want to go through all that again.

Got to protect our right to get **itfaced.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at June 1, 2006 07:11 PM

By the way, I dig on your Constitutional Amendment, though I think in order to get it past the Senate you'd have to have a Constitutional Convention.

The same was said about the Seventeenth Amendment, but in the event, the mere threat of a constitutional convention being called did the job: enough states grew impatient waiting for the Senate to act that they passed calls for a convention, and the Senate, fearful of what would happen at such a convention, kowtowed. It's a funny thing to argue in America that "more democracy" is a bad thing, but in the cases of Judges and the United States Senate I think it's right. The Seventeenth Amendment - well-intentioned, to be sure - fundamentally damaged the Federal structure envisioned by the Framers, and removed the primary bullwark of the states against Federal incursion.

Posted by: Simon at June 2, 2006 09:19 AM

I completely agree Simon.

It seems that in America it's always been greater direct democracy that's been answer.

But if we accept the Ancient Greeks assessment of Democracy rather than the modern concept of man's perfectibility we find that the most popular democratic sentiment is for the surrender of soveriegn powers, even their rights, to a dictator.

Forget ballot initiatives and directly elected judges. These are nuanced events. But give the people a vote for a political savior (Napoleon, Sadaam Hussein, or Arnold Schwartzenneger) and they are at their happiest.

Which explains how, "People's Republics," thrive so readily. It seems that the ease with which citizens can be confused by politicians makes them yearn to have it all taken away from them by someone they can "trust."

It seems that those of us who are inherently suspicious of authority and therefore big fans of checks and balances are fewer in number. I mean, "what kind of life is it to be THAT distrusting?"

I'm not a big supporter of Proportional Representation for America, because it makes a religion out of disagreement. But a double ballot system I do favor. If people are addicted to direct democracy then it seems to me any reform which can return a minority result when the people are divided is the salutary check we need. It's the yes/no, for/against votes we have to be worried about.

Of course, we don't need a Constitutional Convention for that, but I wonder if we haven't come to that point. The difference between 100 years ago and today (or the balanced budget amendment fever which almost led to one in the early 90's) is that demand for direct democracy was widespread, enveloping BOTH political parties. I could see a new party alignment whereby a new party embraced the Founder's suspicion of the people voting themselves whatever they wanted, but at least 40% of this country has gone completely over to it. Which, I think, means a more narrow reform of the Constitution would be necessary to affect the kind of change you propose.

There has always been this hesitance to mess with perfection, I know, but aren't we getting to a point where the Constitution and specifically Judicial Review is being used as a blunt instrument by both the left and the right to undermine the will of the popular branches even as they check each other?

Did you catch the Court's Whistleblower decision? Before Bush leaves office I think this Court is going become a central issue of our time.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at June 2, 2006 12:02 PM

I think that the majority of people do not have any coherent political principles or ideology; they simply want things to work better. So, they don't support or not support the war in Iraq--if it goes well, they are for and, if not, they are against. Same for every other issue. I guess, in theory, I agree with the idea that there can be too much democracy; but in practice, before direct election of Senators, for example, elites simply used that to further their own agendas and keep out people they didn't like. I don't see how beneficial that is. I agree with Burke's aphorism about representatives exercising their judgment, but I don't necessarily agree that reducing direct democracy is going to encourage that or make representatives more disinterested. I think you have to live with the fact that democracy does not necessarily lead to better decisions--the alternative is likely to be worse. There was a reason for the movement toward direct elections of Senators.

Posted by: Marc at June 2, 2006 02:30 PM

Yes there was, Marc, however, it isn't the reason you posted.

One reason for changing the system WAS that the Senate was full of millionaires (an obscene amount of money at the time), but it's STILL filled with millionaires and that's not the reason that made it happen.

They changed the process because state legislatures would end up divided between a Senate controlled by one party and a lower House controlled by the other. Under the previous rules both had to be in agreement to elect a Senator.

Consequently more than a few Senate seats went entirely unfilled for years when legislative elections returned divided legislatures.

Returning the election of Senators to a joint ballot of the legislature (for fairness, I'd weight the vote of the less numerous State Senators) instead of requiring agreement by the two chambers would solve that problem.

As an aside, however, if I wrote the amendment I'd have the Senators nominated by the legislature, not elected. That is, 1/3 of the legislature (votes weighted) could nominate a candidate for the Senate general election in November. That provides for 2 candidates.

If one of the parties didn't have 1/3 of the legislature like the Republicans in Massachusetts or Maryland, they'd would need to nominate an independent member of the opposition party or anyone else that dissenting majority members might support.

If not, the new legislature would have the chance to nominate two candidates in January of the following year for a Special election.

If still only one candidate was nominated, that candidate would serve two or three years of the Senate term until another legislature was elected.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at June 2, 2006 10:03 PM

The toughest question for any party - Republican, Democrat or third party - is Iraq. The war is a huge drain on our treasury and has seriously eroded our military's ability to handle other threats to our national security. Yet it is also critical that we not lose, and split Iraq into Al Qaeda and Iranian-backed mini-states. Beyond sloganeering (Stay the Course or Bring them Home), where is a realistic policy for success in Iraq? I've seen none. There are pipe dreams based on a military twice the size of the current one. And there are simplistic ideas that only focus on one part of the conflict at the expense of the others. Iraq will dominate American politics for the near future.

On domestic policy, I've always comforted myself by thinking that most Americans are actually social liberals and fiscal conservatives. I now think the opposite is true. The undoing of Clinton and Bush has been the religious right (to Clinton) and Social Security and Katrina (to Bush). In both cases, statist minded Americans concluded that the political leadership class wasn't getting the government involved enough. We are more likely to see a third party candidate succeed who runs on a platform of populism - social conservatism and economic liberalism - than we are a third party win on social liberalism and economic conservatism.

Posted by: Elrod at June 2, 2006 11:26 PM

Two, three, eight, a hundred political parties to choose from makes no never mind. The two party system is broken (and any number of party system would be equally as broken) because people who esteem to elected office are power hungry egomaniacs to begin with and once the taste of "power" is felt by them, they will sell their mothers to retain that "power".

The party system is corrupt with people who trample over each other to gain more and more power. Today's great divide and discourse between the GOP and the Dem's stems from, not ideology, but rather who has the biggest hard-on to be in charge for the sake of being in charge. It's all one-up-manship. It's all ego. It's like the short kid in high school we all knew who ended up becoming a cop. The old "I'll show you". This is why the party system sucks, and it doesn't matter how many political parties are around, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Posted by: RealRepublican1854 at June 3, 2006 01:51 PM

Elrod, I respectfully disagree with you relative to your statement..."The undoing of Clinton and Bush has been the religious right (to Clinton) and Social Security and Katrina (to Bush)."

Clinton's undoing was his undoing his zipper.

Bush's undoing was trying to be all things to all people and not following his conservative principles which was why he was elected to begin with and that started with his early romance on education with Teddy "hiccup" Kennedy.

As for your theory that the masses are actually more socially conservative and fiscally liberal, I disagree with that, too.

I think that the general public has had a belly full of abortion, gay marriage, the 10 Commandments in courthouses and school dress codes. I believe that we just don't care anymore.

An insurance salesman and his nurse wife in St. Louis don't care anymore if two guys in New Hampshire want to shack up. They care about putting food on their table, paying their mortgage, getting the kids to baseball practice, affording college tuition. I believe we have finally reached the pinnacle of "to each his own, just don't tread on me".

It's about time, too!

Posted by: RealRepublican1854 at June 3, 2006 02:05 PM

RealRepublican,
I wish that were true. (And I love the tag too: I often call myself a Thaddeus Stevens Republican). Social conservatism is still a big vote getter. In fact, it works politically precisely because social conservatives are losing the overall "culture war." We will have gay marriage in most states within ten years. Why? Because society is more accepting of gay people than before, and that trend will continue. But you can bet that social conservatives within the GOP will continue to use opposition to gay marriage for electoral gain.

You reference his "hiccup" with Ted Kennedy, presumably in relation to NCLB. I detest NCLB, as does my wife who is a teacher. But NCLB was a very popular piece of legislation. It's only become less popular because it's become an unfunded mandate. Not because it was an expansion of the Federal government. Same goes for Medicare Plan D. It's unpopular because it's horribly confusing - not because it's an expansion in government (as conservatives say), or because it's a giveaway to the HMOs (as liberals say).

Americans say they like small government, but they really don't. They want low taxes, sure, but they want government to do many things that libertarians loathe. Americans generally like big government, as long as it works. That's why we love Social Security but hate the DMV. The only time that the ideology of small government conservatism gains widespread popular appeal is when it gels with social conservatism. For example, welfare reform was popular because social conservatives convinced much of the public that black crime was a direct result of welfare dependancy. But since 1996, and the removal of AFDC as a lightning rod issue for the Republican Party, the GOP has figured out that the general public doesn't really want to decrease the size of government. And beginning in 2000, they were proven correct. Bush campaigned on "compassionate conservatism," which nobody really knew what it meant. As you say, NCLB was one of his first pieces of domestic legislation. Government expansion was a central part of the Bush Presidency from the getgo. Did Republicans and conservatives revolt? Nope. Bush then expanded the government tremendously after 9/11 with the Patriot Act and all sorts of other violations of civil liberties. Libertarians revolted, but most Republicans and conservatives agreed with Trent Lott who said, "You can't have liberty if you're dead." What would Patrick Henry say!?!?!?

What's angered the American people about Bush is two things: he is incompetent to deal with major problems; and he is losing a major war, largely through his own incompetence. Small-government conservatives might be ready to jump on the bandwagon and claim that the GOP will lose big-time in 2006 because the party betrayed its Reaganite ideals. Social conservatives might do the same jujitsu. But it's been the complete collapse in support among the moderate, pragmatic, government-loving middle that has destroyed the Bush Presidency and the current GOP.

Posted by: Elrod at June 3, 2006 10:57 PM

Elrod,

Great post, I agree with almost all of what you write.

Allow me to add this...

The Republican Party, in its original form, was created by people who believed in the freedom of the individual to set his or her own path. The Republican Party, in its original form, grew rather quickly upon its inception into the most successful political party in America's history relative to elected officials across the board. Regardless of the Dan Rather’s, Larry King’s, Walter Cronkite’s and Barbra Streistand’s...this rapid growth the Republican Party took and the successes it has achieved was not by mistake.

The Republican Party, in its original form, dictates that the individual is responsible for him or herself. It stands for self-reliance, freedom, doing what one deems is right for them personally within the boundaries of sensible, logical laws for the masses. Senator Barry Goldwater put it best when he said..."keep the government out of your pocketbook, out of your bedroom and off your back".

The Republican Party, in its original form, doesn't want the government to support through American citizen's tax dollars a person who'd rather belly up to the bar than work. The Republican Party, in its original form, doesn't believe the United States should be the planets police chief. For some reason, however, the Republican Party was hijacked in the 1980's by deep pocket “moralists” (who ended up being more morally corrupt than any of us); i.e., the Religious Right, (see Falwell, Robertson, Dobson).

The Republican Party better get it's head out of the sand and get back to its roots… Lincoln, TR, Robert Taft, Ike, Bob Michels, Jerry Ford, Goldwater, Howard Baker, Bob Dole, et al. These are former leaders of the GOP who understood the true foundations of the origin, history, principles of the Republican Party.

Those people who profess to be Republicans by way of cow-towing to Dobson, Santorum and McConnell are the “RINO’s” (as the right wing likes to refer to the “moderate” wing) and should study the history of the Republican Party and what it stood for before Falwell got a hold of it.

Posted by: RealRepublican1854 at June 4, 2006 04:48 AM