The Idea of the Third Way (Part 1)
I am generally a very pragmatic person, and while I am prone to idealistic fantasizing, I would be the first one to say that trying to build up a strong party is a waste of time, and protest votes outside the two main parties are throwaway. Well now I am not so sure so here is how I see it.
Read on...
Problems with the Republican Party:
The base of the Republican Party is split between mostly rational economic conservatives, and the somewhat more irrational social conservatives. Social Conservative leaning republicans dominate the process and are much more invested in the movement. Breaking that alliance would not be simple and would probable destroy the Party. At the same time both parts of the base are willing to tolerate incredibly corrupt and anti-Conservative behavior from their representatives in Congress. The base itself is the problem but the base attracts plenty of fellow travellers from the more middle Economic Conservative / Socially Moderate middle class who love strong America, don't mind business, and have decent jobs. They ignore the dynamics of the intra-party struggle and vote Republican for a variety of reasons including a strong distaste for the Democrats. The distaste includes intense dislike of the Liberal Dem base, emphasis on class warfare, and the various Dem constituencies.
- Social/Religious Conservatives - 20% US Population
- Economic/Small Govt Conservatives - 10% US Population
- GOP Fellow Travellers / Moderates / Centrists / Anti-Democrats - 20% US Population
Problems with the Democratic Party:
The base of the Democratic Party is split between the anti-business populist lower-to-middle class, and anti-business (but tolerating) highly educated middle-to-upper class liberals. The liberals seem to be herding the other half, while at the same time paying them lip service. There are also smaller constituencies sprinkled through the base who vote Democrat for a variety of reasons: enviros, animal rights, labor unions, pacifists, pro-choice activists, etc. The Party however, like the GOP, attracts plenty of fellow travellers from the more middle Economic Moderate / Socially Liberal middle class who love strong America, don't mind business and have decent jobs. They ignore the more left wing base and vote Democratic for a variety of reasons including a strong distaste for the Republicans. The distaste includes intense dislike of the Socially Conservative and Religious GOP base, and GOP base's tolerance for corruption.
- Lower/Middle Class disaffected Left / Economic Liberals - 10% US population
- Middle/Upper Class Liberals - 15% US Population
- Strange Left Wing One-Issue Constituencies - 5% US Population
- Dem Fellow Travellers / Moderates / Centrists / Anti-GOP - 20% US Population
This is a very superficial and limited analysis of the two sides, but what I believe is true is that a vast majority of people on both sides do not know and do not care about the issues in-depth and vote based on their perceptions of the other side's positions as well as the current situation in America. In other words the majority does not have a well articulated and understood ideology but instead a very strong stereotype of the two main parties and what they represent. Republicans are for Big Business and Christian Right. Democrats are for the poor and against the rich, and also for abortion and lenient on Criminals and Enemies of US. Try probing deeper and the reality is that there is not that much outside of rehashed talking points heard through TV or friends that stuck with them for good. Most Americans do not try to rationalize or justify their political views - they simply pick what sounds closest to their state of mind based on superficial observations and passive data collection. That means there really is just one game in town with two teams playing and the only current way to break in on that monopoly is through a Lot of Money that goes towards marketing.
Or maybe not. There is something to be said for appealing to people through the internet and building a following. Look at DailyKos for example. It has a very large readership and could potentially attract millions given time and proper marketing. Unfortunately it is very limited by its connection to the Democratic Party and its prevailing ideology. Yes, it has the potential to attract those I labeled Dem Fellow Travellers who despise the current administration but they are not a sustainable resource. Plus very few of them are really deeply interested in ideological politics - they are more interested in results. They have a short attention span. After Bush is out of Office and US is out of Iraq their interest in Democratic politics will fade and they will happily move on to the more mundane and close-to-home issues.
The question for me becomes: is there a way to usurp the large number of people who are currently fellow travellers for the two main parties? There are plenty of people out there who are not heavily invested in the "red-meat" issues that stoke the fires of the Party bases. Firing up those people to strike it apart from the two-party juggernaut would make a very noticeable difference in future elections and have a serious impact on the political landscape. Is it possible and how would you do it?
I want to avoid falling into the stereotypes of all the previous third party movements as that is the automatic killer of the effort. It seems to me that all the other previous serious third party movements can be separated into two categories:
1. A wealthy self-interested leader creates his own campaign and the movement forms around it. It is very temporary yet has a chance of temporary success due to the money available for marketing, or the leader's reputation as a competent person. There is no mechanism to perpetuate the movement after the leader fails (or succeeds).
2. A very ideological group creates a party and slowly attracts like-minded people. Grass-roots in nature but limited in terms of appeal along with the usual stereotypes of either being outside the mainstream (Libertarians, Constitution Party, Greens, etc) or a waste of time throw-away vote (other Independent parties).
What about creating a grassroots Internet-based non-traditional Right or Left, results-oriented organization specifically designed with the goal of avoiding previous pitfalls and accumulating people dissatisfied with their current options but not yet interested in dumping the main parties. Accumulation of interested people has to happen first, and the only way they would join up is if there are incentives to organizing, no particular need to abandon their preconceptions, and a feeling of accomplishment and individual involvement. That means it cannot be a revolutionary mob-oriented movement.
The next installment in the series will focus on the kind of issues this movement could focus on, ways of attracting and interesting people, and avoiding the stereotypes of the previous third-party movements.
- Ender's diary
- Login or register to post comments
Comments :
let's lower our expectations
and go for the middle! :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Front page it...
Sort of ties in with John's previous post about different types of independent voters.
I think the idea of endorsing particular candidates from either party as a precursor to running your own candidate could make a third party grow in a sustainable fashion. Agree that the charismatic leader third parties can't last, and that overly ideological third parties can't win support.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I didn't want to FP it
because it's just some disjointed musings which I am not sure make too much real sense.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
It makes perfect sense
and is actually quite basic...but for all it's "well duh...of course" aspects, it's horribly underdiscussed and overlooked.
The simple reality of your diary is always worth a moment of pause. We all forget how obvious this is and it's good to throw it out there.
I believe most people really want enough of the same things to warrant a majority of NON-Pure-D/R ideas.
The devil of course is in the details....always.
it's underdiscussed and overlooked
for the simple reason that most of the people involved in politics have chosen a side and are in the non-stop us-vs-them mode.
Most everyone else thinks that in order to get involved you have to pick a side or else it's a waste of time.
Picking sides is all fine and good when there are no alternatives but if perpetuated there will never be any alternatives all the while the party extremes are becoming worse and worse.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Oddly enough
this same mentality is behind pushes to greater extremes -- dissatisfied conservatives (or liberals) who feel like the Republicans (or Democrats) aren't "pure" enough would also say that "Picking sides is all fine and good when there are no alternatives but if perpetuated there will never be any alternatives." Which leaves the GOP and Dems stuck between moderates trying to pull them towards the center and idealists trying to pull them towards the extremes.
If we weren't so stuck in the two party mindset (and framework) we'd have a bunch of different competitive parties now. Neither traditional party does a good job accommodating the wide range of beliefs held by its voters. There's room for new parties in the center and at the wings, although clearly your idea of meeting in the middle would be the strongest coalition.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
if we were going for
one grand party to upset the current duopoly, going for the disaffected middle or disinterested middle is the way to do it.
I like the idea of government not doing much - which is what split govt gridlock is all about, but at the same time I kinda also like the government moving forward in a smart direction and addressing issues currently being pushed into the future - like the entitlements, immigration, tax reform, etc.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
The "one grand party" thing was tried before...
...from 1917 to 1991.
Didn't work out too well, comrades. ;-)
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” --- Albert Einstein
hey :)
no one is talking about destroying the GOP and the Dems. It's all about providing an alternative.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
warning: people dissatisfied
with the two parties may be dissatisfied with the same policies and for different reasons.
I don't mean to contradict what I said earlier but what I described as the "the third way" is my view because it reflects my dissatisfaction with the two parties.
Another person may dissatisfied for other reasons and reject the two parties.
They may feel that the two parties aren't concerned enough with the opposite of what I want. Frightening thought but it's out there....I just hope there aren't a lot of them.
of course
so yes, you would need to appeal to something concrete and not just to some general dissatisfaction. It would have to be the more middle of the road policies.
The policies of the new movement would have to formally exclude fringe thought and ideology.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
First step
To begin with the "how" aspect, I think you hit it -- it's the internet. dKos exists because there is an unfulfilled need for it; people need a place to vent, to plan, and to feel that they are not alone in their thoughts and concerns.
The ardor at dKos may cool as time goes on, but that simply means that the time is right now to leverage the use of the web for this third way. Look how many folks have slid here from dKos, seeking something more substantive. (There may be other sites as well, but for now, dKos is the big dog in terms of hits and use.) Ultimately, a charismatic leader is a good thing to find, but a viable third party would need a solid, practical, and easily explainable platform, which can be hammered out through online communications.
I have more to say, but I'll save it, because it seems you want to start with the hows.
This diary is music to my ears, you know. I think one of the first comments you sent my way was "pick a side, any side" or something to that affect ;} And I took a lot of heat here initially for not picking a side.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
heh
Feel free to say more in this diary. We can focus on the hows again later. Incidentally I've thought about the hows in depth quite some time before writing this diary.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Good analysis
Sounds like your suggesting my most practical and pragmatic wish:
A mildly libertarian middle where the distasteful extremes that repulse moderates are weeded out.
This will provide a haven for those averse to dogma and relgious-based politics and morality police as well as those who want fiscal discipline, lower taxes and less class warfare.
The Iraq war may be a snag there.
Take you and me for instance. Outside, the war probably agree enough to support a similar "third way" agenda...at least similar enough in today's context.
But an "ala Rudy" foreign policy outlook is simply unacceptable to me simply because we perceive the terrorist problem differently...which suggests other differences on other foreign policy issues.
In the current field, Ron Paul, is, by far, the most acceptable candidate to me. Beyond him, the GOP choices are simply bad in my view. Same on the Dem side, outside Gravel though I have a mild tolerance towards Gore Richardson, and Obama in that order.
The third way you speak of would have to join the likes of Hagel or Paul or Senator Sununu with someone like Gravel, Gore or Richardson.
true
And I would like to focus more on how that could be accomplished, and less on the ideological substance. The mechanics of how is what is interesting to me.
I take it for granted that the middle would agree on quite a lot if moved beyond the current poisonous atmosphere of partisanship.
Providing the haven is the problem :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Re: mildly libertarian middle
Out of curiosity, would Ahnold and Bloomberg fit into this new party? They're basically liberal Republicans without the social conservative stuff, but I don't know that I'd describe either as libertarian except in contrast to the mainstream left.
Seems to me that the natural compromise is between "compassionate conservatives" and business-friendly liberals, neither of whom really embrace limited government. But maybe it's good enough to draw support (at least in a relative sense) from the libertarian crowd?
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
well, I'm being very vague there...
I personally don't care too much for either of those....especially Bloomberg simply because of the nannyism he's displayed a penchant for.
But yes, you point out something I just eluded to in a comment above to Ender that said that "the middle" can mean lots of different things.
I could mean what I like or it could end being what I don't like...fiscally moderate to conservative and socially moderate to liberal but in a "Big government" quasi-authoritarian kinda way.
So yes, that "middle" can mean different things.
Do you like Bloomberg?
you should read other responses first
Kucinich. The other libertarian cognitive scientist.
I think he has the best approaches to realistic world policies.
Therefore, he doesn't appeal to the greedy, jingoistic, and simplistic.
Let's assume this happens
That a third party swoops in and grabs the middle from each party. It would become the dominant force in politics. The Democratic and Republican parties would be left with fringe elements. The third party would need an opposing force to keep it in check.
It would probably be better to spin off the fringe elements from each party, or at least marginalize them, leaving the two parties intact, if somewhat smaller. The hard-core lefties could congregate in the Green Party and the social conservatives in the Constitution Party.
Another, more likely, way for what you suggest to come about is for one party to fracture and collapse, driving the middle to the other party.
qui tacet consentire
unfortunately
the likelihood of all your possibilities is pretty small. Even with the sorry state of the current GOP, the two parties are so ingrained and such powerhouses that they will chameleon into the next winning configuration of presenting unifying ideology long before they will break up or lose large portions to new extreme parties.
It's entirely possible to have 33-33-33 3-party solution that would keep itself in check and govern by shifting coaltions. I think that is likelier than parties just falling apart.
To address becoming the dominant force in politics - that is yet another issue to be solved in the process of figuring out of how to structure the new force. The new "party" or organization would have to have internal checks and balances to prevent the kinds of abuses and corruption we see in todays politics.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
This almost already exists..
...as you'll often see moderate Democrats voting with the Republicans on issues and moderate Republicans voting with the Democrats.
Perfect examples of this are the Welfare Reform bills of the late 90s, where moderate Democrats voted with Republicans... and the the Family and Medical Leave Act in which moderate Republicans joined Democrats.
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” --- Albert Einstein
Party collapse is certainly possible
It last happened with the Whigs over slavery.
Since then the two parties have successfully killed off third-party movements by co-opting their issues. This happened to the Populist Party.
qui tacet consentire
yeah exactly
It's possible but was a lot more likely when our Republic was in its infancy. Since then both parties have focused on perpetuating their power by killing off third-party movements.
Which is also why I want to focus more on how a movement can be developed that would not initially be a threat to either party.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Single-issue
The only way to break through the 2-party mindset without injuring either party is to run a single issue campaign on ballot access and reform.
Until alternative voting methods are made law, we'll continue to elect and re-elect governments that don't represent us. Due to the widely held belief that votes for minor parties are votes for the other side, we'll never get any traction until the system is changed.
I have many ideas which I'll cover in a diary.
I never broke the law; I am the law! -- George W. Bush Judge Dredd I'm listening to...
You left out an important element -- race
Especially in the South.
Down here whites abandoned the Democratic Party in droves because of race. The Democratic base in the South is made up of black voters to a much larger extent than the rest of the country.
If you think a third party is going to heal that divide you are mistaken. A third party might well attract white Southern Democrats and a handful of Republicans, leaving the GOP solidly in charge and the Democratic Party as a black party.
qui tacet consentire
I think
any new configuration is healthy for our Republic as it would force parties to adjust.
I don't understand why a new Center party would necessarily draw what you claim. Here is a possibility:
GOP: Social Conservatives | all classes
Dem: Liberals/One Issue Constituencies | Lower class and some Upper class
New Party: Center-Left, Center, Center-Right Socially moderate, Economic moderate-conservative | all classes, predominately Middle class
I think Dems would bleed minorities who do not trust GOP to the new party, if done right.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Any such arrangement...
...would be very temporary.
The nature of politics is that even if a viable third party rises up, eventually - and in relatively short order - things will coalesce around two parties again.
In order to achieve a working majority, one of the three parties will begin to co-opt the ideas and stances of one of the other two parties. Which will lead to a two-party system again.
Just as water always seeks its own level, our system of government will always lead to an equilibrium between two major parties. When one of the two gets too strong, the weaker party changes its stances to peel off some of the stronger party's support and equilibrium is reached again. If both parties get weak, a third party forms in the vacuum temporarily until shifting positions force one of the three parties out to the fringe again.
When Perot got popular, what happened? Both the Dems and GOP co-opted a lot of his platform (especially concerning the deficit) and his movement dissipated away. Once Clinton and the GOP congress achieved budget surpluses for four straight years, the Reform party was dead.
We might see another third party rise up out of the ashes of this war.... but I doubt it. And even if it did, it would be absorbed (or it would absorb) and we'd be back to two dominate parties again.
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” --- Albert Einstein
On an aside, Prime mover
The Ross Perot effect is kinda what we Paul supporters are hoping for.
Logically, the chances of him winning the nomination with the hawkish GOP base are slim.
BUT, if he can perform above expectations and show that there are a lot of people looking for less spending, lower taxes, less central executive power and a humbler foreign policy that is more prudent and less adventuresome, it may affect the platforms of the parties to opt for a "less is more" agenda.
I don't disagree...
...but any such "effect" would be temporary. That's all I'm saying.
We won't ever have three strong parties at the same time for more than one or two election cycles.
It's the "physics" of the situation. Equilibrium will be attained.... just like water displaced... it will quickly move back to level.
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” --- Albert Einstein
You don't get it
Probably because you don't live here.
Race trumps in the South. Whites fled to the GOP to get away from blacks. They aren't about to join forces with blacks in a third party.
The Southerners most inclined to join your third movement would be white Democrats -- because they are tired of being in the minority. The business community is unlikely to leave the GOP because the GOP runs things. The group most likely to leave the GOP are social conservatives pissed off at being marginalized. They might join with Southern Democrats if this new third party was a populist party because populism has a strong appeal in the South, but it would be a tenuous marriage.
qui tacet consentire
oh I get it
but a particular party is not a house or a country that fleeing to would mean being cut off from those they want to get away from.
While I somewhat agree with your characterization of what happened in the South, I do not think it is a perpetual status quo if other options are available.
Dems are currently too focused on racial preferences and appealing to all the minorities. GOP is currently not focused on any racial issues at all. A new way could be breaking the Dem hold on appealing to minorities while at the same time discarding old liberal & conservative race-baiting and other focus on race.
The situation as you describe it too black and white, pun intended, and is only that way due to the Dem race demagoguery (which admittedly started happening at a faster pace after they lost the Southern Whites, to compensate).
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
A third party in the South
would have to find an issue that binds blacks and whites. The only thing that does that is populism.
A third party that attacked corporate domination and free trade giveaways would be a potent force in the South.
Jim Folsom Jr. was elected lieutenant governor in Alabama last year by putting together such a coalition. He did it by attacking his GOP opponent as an elitist country club snob who plays tennis and golf while he (Folsom) hunts and fishes.
qui tacet consentire
you are focusing too much
on the Southern dynamics. And on a particular ideological underpinnings necessary for success. Good, but not as important as looking at the entire country and focusing on the non-ideological organizational hurdles.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Globalization
helps enable terrorism. That is what the Director of National INtelligence says.
Free trade enables transfer of technology and means that the US has lost control over.
Listening, briefly to the Global Security Assesment team speak to the Armed Services Committee. They are being bluntly with their assesments finally! Everyone in the hearing looks unhappy.
Free trade helps enable terrorism.
Globalism helps enable terrorism.
It is the economy, stupid.
A little over the top, perhaps, MissL??
By that overbearing logic:
We should outlaw swimming pools so nobody drowns in pools since children are more likely to drown in a pool at home than thru accidental gun fire.
Better yet, if people had no hands or GUNS, crime would drop over night!
Better yet, If we just locked people in their houses and allowed them out by escort to buy food and then return home IMMEDIATELY, crime would almost vanish!!
All the negative side effects will just have to be dealt with I suppose....
Can I say "SNARK".....
Swimming pools do enable drowning
I didn't see MissL take the logical leap that you just did. Did she suggest we outlaw all global trade in another comment? I don't think it is unreasonable to recognize one of the costs of globalization.
We do have certain export laws on technology just as we do have laws on unenclosed swimming pools
OK, so what's her agenda then?
When someone looks to lay a sweeping blame at the feet of globalization, what other motive is there other than to decry the process in favor of other policies that hamper it?
Let's not pretend that we don't see what's really at work here.
You'd have to ask her
I'd read it as pointing out that globalization actually does have a potential for causing physical harm to people and therefore falls under the libertarian 'laws are OK to keep people from harming others'.
The government has a legitimate reason for regulating the level of globalization. That doesn't mean that the right amount of regulation is all encompasing, but it a) makes it a question of policy rather than principle and
b) I've seen plenty of Globalization helps more than it hurts comments. This is a legitimate 'other ways that it hurts' point.
Does MissL want to limit globalization primarily for populist reasons rather than national defense related reasons? I'd guess probably so. But that doesn't invalidate her point and I've never seen her suggest completely eliminating it; which is what your analogy was about: Globalization can increase deaths? Well should we ban all pools next?!? absent any push to ban globalization to that level.
thanks,
And besides, it's not the act of globalization that is that is hurting anyone. You're misreading the intent of the libertarian idea here.
Besides, the technology involved here, I'd assume, in weaponry and involves governments buying and selling them. This is a little different from the globalization in consumer goods which is what globalization really refers to for in most conversation.
Not necessarily weapons
In fact, I expect weapons are very much the minorityh.
It can include encryption and other algorithms. Computer and communication technology. Satellite and other space based technologies are both govnermental and corporate.
etc. etc.
I wouldn't call 'globalization' an act. It is a trend that has side effects. Trying to slow it has side effects as well, but it isn't unreasonable to give weight to all of them. I'd be frustrated with anyone who was suggesting that all globalization should stop, just as I'd raise an eyebrow at someone who suggested all export laws should be lifted.
My agenda....
My agenda is fairness, something that is impossible to achieve, but should be strived for. Without fairness as a goal the forces of greed and corruption always win out.
I am not laying sweeping blame, sir. I merely repeating what was said at a hearing in Congress before the armed services committe on the topic of Global Security Assessment.
Frankly I was quite surprised to hear those words. Globalization is one of the prime enablers of terrorism, by someone from government at a committe hearing, on the record in Congress.
You keep beating the drum for smaller govt and free trade. Well free trade is part of globalization, and there are CONSEQUENCES, that should be taken into consideration.
I believe in trade, equitable trade, not insanely unbalanced trade that enables shady deals that skirt laws, and do not provide stability or security for either side.
LIke you have mentioned previously this whole issue is a bit complex. I am just trying to get you to think twice about your agenda...... and realize that you have to be realistic about the assessment of consequences to jobs lost in the US, and the impact on rural life in third world countries.
Free trade is not magic pixie dust.
When you destroy the rural farming community of India, with the promise of free trade and a 'western' lifestyle, the people who can't make a living anymore night not agree with your libertarian agenda and might even resent it, and this could cause a backlash or what is famously known as blowback.
When you outsource the manufacture of your weapons, and your warfare technology to countries outside the US, that has consequences. You have to ask how in the world is it in our best national security interests to have scientists in Asia gain access to our defense technology.
When you allow foreign countries to own roads, and security industries in the
US, like guarding our ports that has security consequences.
So let's not pretend that free trade doesn't have consequences both good and bad.
I remind you that if you READ my comment, I was quoting from the Director of National Intelligence....... hardly a liberal 'leftist' when it comes to ideology.
It is the economy, stupid.
How about this?
Republicans : Right wingers, corporatists
Democrats: moderates
Green Party: Left wingers
Heh. I'm good with that... n/t
You can't write this platform. It's a word game, an abstraction:
People like this are apathetic non-voters. The mushy middle.
You can't inspire them.
From what I understand,
prior to the McCarthy period, back in the early to mid 1950's, there was much more of a center to politics-the center really did hold. Unfortunately, the McCarthy period resulted in extreme polarization of the two Parties, and there's been no unity since.
unfortunately
I will probably not be able to continue this until Sunday, as I am leaving for the weekend in about 20 minutes.
Hopefully next week I'll write up the more detailed material for the 2nd installment :) Though I am not sure if it belongs on SC!
I just wanted to throw this out for some general discussion. Sorry that I have to run now! I am taking my computer with me but not sure if I will have internet access - if I do then I will log on tomorrow.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Ideally there would be multiple parties,
more like European countries.
The difficulty is that starting a new party (here in the US) almost guarantees you no results for a few election cycles. Americans are notoriously fickle and impatient. Most aren't willing to advance money or time into something that won't come to fruition for 6 to 10 years.
I agree that the two party system hamstrings us. There are things that we agree on that our representative parties couldn't agree on because they need to be seen as different from the "other" guy to maintain their base.
Yes but...
The nature of our federal and state consitutions is that almost EVERY decision requires a 50%-plus-one majority to pass anything.
With more than two viable parties, that threshold is nearly impossible to attain.
Our constitution is set up in such a way as to almost require only two viable parties.
Otherwise nothing would ever get done...
...oh wait. That would be a good thing. ;-)
Nevermind.
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” --- Albert Einstein
Strawman: Democrats are anti-business
Where do you get that? Democrats are against business.
Remember, Democrats are capitalists too not communists. The difference is Democrats believe in the common good. They believe, consumers shd be protected, too, environment shd be protected too, people shd have health care. people shd have free education at least up to high school.
Democrats just dont like policy base on corporation's interest to the detriment of US --meaning crony/corruption.
For example --invading Iraq and not leaving Iraq because -- face it these corporations are profitting big time--hundreds of billions of dollars flowing from our taxpayers money to money borrowed from China. (How much have their stock prices increase since IRaq invasion).
Energy policy--not investing enough on renewable energy --because the one making the policy is govt made up of former oil executives or who will work on one after they leave.
Medicare D even if there is no money to pay for it --- Why --so US taxpayers money are transferred to pharma and HMO.
How about CIA--do you know they are outsourcing intellingence to private companies? Isnt that a dangerous thing?
Democrats are not against big business--we are against corruption -- meaning making policies against the interest of american people for the benefit of crony corporations.
You may say all that
and it may make you feel good but, by and large, most businesses large and small, generally prefer Republican policies that affect them over the Democratic alternatives.
Of course, it's not that cut and dry and there are exceptions but, for example, the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), which lobbies for the interest of small businesses like independent stores, boutiques, restaurants, bars, private contractors, small firms, small to large shop owners and service providers and such, generally has far more luck with Republican legislators and by and large endorses Republican candidates.
They grade politicians by their own score card and Republicans generally rate higher.
I've always tried to promote these concerns when talking about issues with Dems on Dailykos for example and generally they are hostile about it and fail to see the disconnect between their nice sounding rhetoric...like your post...and the realities of what their preferred policies cause with small businesses....which are generally harsher those for very large ones since these larger companies are less affected by these policies than smaller ones and start ups who have less strength and capital to overcome the obstacles.
Because businesses dont want to deal w/ unions, regulations
But consumers, people, need protection too from abuses and shd have a way to be able to balance the power of big corporations vs people's rights.
Imagine if there was no regulation --then we wont have safe toys, safe food, no 8 hour work day, no benefits, etc.
That is govt's role to be the balancer.
Govt should be able to balance the needs of the people and the businesses for the common good.
So it is understandable businesses would side with Republicans. Because the govt is imposing checks to make sure their rights dont impinge on the rights of people.
I immigrated from a third world country where there is only a 2% wealth class and poor exploited laborers. Teachers and soldiers and police live in squatter areas --are also poor. It is like Mexico too where there are billionaires and cheap laborers.
Govt failed to do its balancing. Govt is weak and easily corrupted .
America has a large middle class -- because of Democrats who insisted on Medicare, Social Security, unions, minimum wage, consumer protection, Fannie Mae, etc.
OK Then
So don't be defensive when someone calls Dems anti-business. I never said it was 100% true but it more true than the opposite. Just by what you said, you imply a strong favoratism to the concerns of people and none to the concerns of business and ignored (or at least seem uncurious about) the many practical concerns of businesses that have nothing to do with and go waaaay beyond the low hanging fruit issues you point out.
You say balance. I don't see any.
Third world countries are the way the are because of corruption, exploitation and failed policies. It's much more than a matter of left and right.
No, America has a large middle class because we produce more because we have better policies toward business and less corruption, which over time, create enough wealth to sustain a middle class.
The huge misconception you have about this cannot be overstated.
We are wealthier now than 100 years ago because we produce more...plain and simple. This is because we allocate our resources better and with less corruption than poorer countries. No other factor has as much to do with our condition.
Not anti-business, call it anti-owner if you like
The owners and executives may tend to be more anti-Democratic, but is it fair to remove the employees (including all those union members) from the umbrella of "business"?
don't you find that to be a bit
of a belabored twist on meaning here?
I'm speaking about business people, people who start businesses large and small and take risks with their money and employ people.
I'm all for good discussion but this is about jasmine contesting the perception that Dems are anti-business and you and she are simply showing why it's true.
Why would you want to be anti-owner? Why the hostility?
Why are you all making it so clear that the concerns of people who own businesses...be it a small cafe, a clothing store or huge factory or whoever...should be treated as secondary and any less important?
How does disregard and almost veiled contempt for these people help business even by your broader definition of the word? Seriously.
I'm genuinely taken aback by such comments.
That's because you are misreading it
I was arguing about the terms you chose and not saying being actually "anti-owner" is a good thing. Just that if one is "pro-employee" you aren't necessarily being anti-business even if you did want to take that as "anti-owner"
I'm actually a bit taken aback that you would choose to take my comment that way. And it does seem to be a choice on your part (having not taken the time to see if I've ever owned my own business (I have)).
I'm going to assume (and you can tell me I'm wrong) that you wouldn't support the era of the robber barons, when working conditions were horrible and included child labor etc. One could argue that those regulations enacted were "anti-owner" in that they diminished the rights of the owner to contract however they wanted, but I don't think it was treating them as somehow secondary or of less importance.
Where to draw the line (or floor) on owner's responsibilities to employees is a legitimate discussion point and those that believe that floor is too low is no more anti-business than those who think it is too high.
No need to be taken aback
Sorry if I misread the comments though I didn't think I did.
I have a few problems with this all too common line of reasoning. First of all, comparing our current economy to that of over a hundred years ago is pointless. We were a poorer country then and poorer countries tend to have those kinds of problems more than developed ones do.
The least among us live (and work) infinitely better and in better conditions that their counterparts of that era and better than most of the country of that era for that matter.
Our standard of living has improved dramatically and, with that, comes an end to much of liberals like to point to in that era as problems that some law supposedly eradicated by merely being passed.
The Robber Barons are a doubled edged sword. They colluded with government a great deal to get access to railroad grants and other key privileges that made a lot of their wealth easier to attain. By that same token, many treated their workers terribly by today's standards but not by the standards of the day. People toiled long hours to make a living as was the norm in those days. Workers fought back for better treatment.
A strange thing happened along the way: as greater productivity and new technology allowed for more leisure time, better pay and better quality of life, working conditions began to improve as laws began to mandate what was already starting to happen. The benefits from all this are a little fuzzy and some are too quick to lay all the accolades on the laws and little on the wealth creation that was improving life and creating demands from workers who saw better conditions becoming feasible and a reality they could have.
Our economy, thanks in part to the wealth these same entrepreneurs generated, expanded and evolved. Innovation by these same people led to technological leaps that greatly improved our quality of life and made us more and more productive. This technology led to the loss of some jobs (with great protest akin to today's outsourcing) and the creation of others and more and more wealth to spread around. We were becoming more productive and that led to more income and discriminating demands from labor who were changing from looking for sustenance to wanting more from life.
I'd be willing to say that most of the better life we enjoy and the better working conditions and hours we have is result of greater wealth and the higher standards that wealth makes possible to demand. People get perks that were unheard of 120 years ago or even 50 years ago! These perks like vacation time, stock options, retirement contributions and health insurance are far more the result gretaer wealth allowing bosses to compete for labor with greater rewards. Laws had little to nothing to do with this.
Please appreciate this angle that far too many on the Left like to ignore. What got us here from where we were in the age of the robber barons is far more attributable to greater productivity and the ensuing technology and greater wealth generated therefrom than from laws.
A greater standard of living we have was created not legislated. And no, I'm not downplaying the benefits of laws along the way but let's remember where most of what we have comes from.
Benefits of the laws
Really? You don't think that unionization laws, which actually allowed workers to have some influence over their benefits, may have had some effect on the improvement of those benefits? The owners that give these rewards today have greater wealth than the robber barons that didn't?
It kinda sounded like you just did.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
I was never part of a union
and I had those benefits. I'm not saying that unions haven't succeeded in getting these benefits for their members, what I'm saying is that it would be wrong to think that many (most even) employees don't enjoy such benefits as a result of employers competing for better help and retaining employment.
Also, none of this would be possible without the material ability to offer them. That takes productivity and wealth creation.
Do you consider
unions anti-business?
no.
Unions are not anti-business in their essence. I think unions serve a noble purpose in representing the needs and concerns of labor.
What I don't like is when the state gets involved and gives unions unfair coercive power.
Fair answer n/t
Principle vs policy vs spin
O...K... What does that mean precisely? Since I can't offer you a mental print, you can either accept the clarification or not.
I never suggested that the various entrepenreurial activities of the past century didn't have their large impact. The only thing I was contesting was that one isn't necessarily being 'anti-business' when one takes the side of the employee over the owner in a dispute and was using the robber barons as an example of where that would be appropriate. The "anti-business" meme is an inappropriate simplification in my mind. It would be more honest to say that Democrats tend to err on the side of the worker and Republicans tend to err on the side of the owner.
I think you may be underestimating the impact of WWII on those technological improvements. The GI Bill creating a lot more college graduates, the massive investment in technology that led to computers and impoved means of production, the two people working out of the home etc. (And no, I'm not diminishing that those new college graduates went on to found businesses that took those ideas forward, just pointing out that it is a complicated series of events)
The general regulatory impetus that I have seen is the Enron example. Without regulation and oversite, the big boys game the system for short term pillaging goals. The rest of the businesses either chase them down, or get bought up. This doesn't always happen, but it does periodically and I think it is reasonable to be concerned that deregulation can lead to increases.
That said, there are certainly cases where regulation has gotten so convoluted that it is no longer navigable or where the original purpose (even if originally necessary) has expired.
Honestly, I don't think there is a lot of space in our overall view of things. We may err on opposite sides periodically but that isn't the same as being anti-x vs pro-x.
Here's a question for you, (not a test or anything, I'm just curious). What is your, and the libertarian perspective (as you see it) on Small Business set-asides in government contracting?
I don't get the question in the last paragraph
please rephrase.
As for the technological improvements, just to clarify, my mind was more in the industrial revolution to pre-20's era even though I didn't specify.
Another point on the increasing wealth of the nation from that era and forward to today:
One must not forget, and history is a perfect example, that the economics of market functions is not a zero sum game.
That means that we are not working from a fixed pool of wealth. Increased productivity generates more wealth to be had.
If this was a zero sum game, the total value in constant dollars of our economy would be the same now as back then and this is very very untrue. We have a lot more, not in inflation adjusted dollars but constant dollars.
What a family had back then and could afford in terms of quantity and quality is a tiny fraction of what a family of what a family of similar stature could afford today. This shows that there is more wealth to be had.
Just an extra point, let's not make too much out of Enron. Even if Enron is "the one that got caught" among others, they are still a tiny fraction among most businesses, small and large that are honest and serve customers well.
I'm aware it isn't a zero-sum game
I'm not making too much out of Enron. But it is worth making something out of. It devestated the energy market in California, particularly the smaller, green providers.
Small Business set-asides: Most government agency procuremnts have a required set aside for small businesses. For example, 10% or maybe 50% of the orders (by number if not by monetary amount)
So, is it a good thing that the government makes sure that the large companies can't gobble up all the contracts, helping build up small companies or is it wasteful for the government to not give all the contracts to the least expensive bidder? There is a certain 'let the free market take care of it' to the latter, but I support the former for keeping a less brittle market.