...and so it begins. Preach it, Peggy!

Zaphod · June 1, 2006, 11:05am

From today’s WSJ:

PEGGY NOONAN

Third Time
America may be ready for a new political party.

Thursday, June 1, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

Something’s happening. I have a feeling we’re at some new beginning, that a big breakup’s coming, and that though it isn’t and will not be immediately apparent, we’ll someday look back on this era as the time when a shift began.

All my adult life, people have been saying that the two-party system is ending, that the Democrats’ and Republicans’ control of political power in America is winding down. According to the traditional critique, the two parties no longer offer the people the choice they want and deserve. Sometimes it’s said they are too much alike–Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Sometimes it’s said they’re too polarizing–too red and too blue for a nation in which many see things through purple glasses.

In 1992 Ross Perot looked like the breakthrough, the man who would make third parties a reality. He destabilized the Republicans and then destabilized himself. By the end of his campaign he seemed to be the crazy old aunt in the attic.

The Perot experience seemed to put an end to third-party fever. But I think it’s coming back, I think it’s going to grow, and I think the force behind it is unique in our history.

This week there was a small boomlet of talk about a new internet entity called Unity '08–a small collection of party veterans including moderate Democrats (former Carter aide Hamilton Jordan) and liberal-leaning Republicans (former Ford hand Doug Bailey) trying to join together with college students and broaden the options in the 2008 election. In terms of composition, Unity seems like the Concord Coalition, the bipartisan group (Warren Rudman, Bob Kerrey) that warns against high spending and deficits.

Unity seems to me to have America’s growing desire for more political options right. But I think they’ve got the description of the problem wrong.

Their idea is that the two parties are too polarized to govern well. It is certainly true that the level of partisanship in Washington seems high. (Such things, admittedly, ebb, flow and are hard to judge. We look back at the post-World War II years and see a political climate of relative amity and moderation. But Alger Hiss and Dick Nixon didn’t see it that way.) Nancy Pelosi seems to be pretty much in favor of anything that hurts Republicans, and Ken Mehlman is in favor of anything that works against Democrats. They both want their teams to win. Part of winning is making sure the other guy loses, and part of the fun of politics, of any contest, of life, can be the dance in the end zone.

But the dance has gotten dark.

Partisanship is fine when it’s an expression of the high animal spirits produced by real political contention based on true political belief. But the current partisanship seems sour, not joyous. The partisanship has gotten deeper as less separates the governing parties in Washington. It is like what has been said of academic infighting: that it’s so vicious because the stakes are so low.

The problem is not that the two parties are polarized. In many ways they’re closer than ever. The problem is that the parties in Washington, and the people on the ground in America, are polarized. There is an increasing and profound distance between the rulers of both parties and the people–between the elites and the grunts, between those in power and those who put them there.

On the ground in America, people worry terribly–really, there are people who actually worry about it every day–about endless, weird, gushing government spending. But in Washington, those in power–Republicans and Democrats–stand arm in arm as they spend and spend. (Part of the reason is that they think they can buy off your unhappiness one way or another. After all, it’s worked in the past. A hunch: It’s not going to work forever or much longer. They’ve really run that trick into the ground.)

On the ground in America, regular people worry about the changes wrought by the biggest wave of immigration in our history, much of it illegal and therefore wholly connected to the needs of the immigrant and wholly unconnected to the agreed-upon needs of our nation. Americans worry about the myriad implications of the collapse of the American border. But Washington doesn’t. Democrat Ted Kennedy and Republican George W. Bush see things pretty much eye to eye. They are going to educate the American people out of their low concerns.

There is a widespread sense in America–a conviction, actually–that we are not safe in the age of terror. That the port, the local power plant, even the local school, are not protected. Is Washington worried about this? Not so you’d notice. They’re only worried about seeming unconcerned.

More to the point, people see the Republicans as incapable of managing the monster they’ve helped create–this big Homeland Security/Intelligence apparatus that is like some huge buffed guy at the gym who looks strong but can’t even put on his T-shirt without help because he’s so muscle-bound. As for the Democrats, who co-created Homeland Security, no one–no one–thinks they would be more managerially competent. Nor does anyone expect the Democrats to be more visionary as to what needs to be done. The best they can hope is the Democrats competently serve their interest groups and let the benefits trickle down.

Right now the Republicans and Democrats in Washington seem, from the outside, to be an elite colluding against the voter. They’re in agreement: immigration should not be controlled but increased, spending will increase, etc.

Are there some dramatic differences? Yes. But both parties act as if they see them not as important questions (gay marriage, for instance) but as wedge issues. Which is, actually, abusive of people on both sides of the question. If it’s a serious issue, face it. Don’t play with it.

I don’t see any potential party, or potential candidate, on the scene right now who can harness the disaffection of growing portions of the electorate. But a new group or entity that could define the problem correctly–that sees the big divide not as something between the parties but between America’s ruling elite and its people–would be making long strides in putting third party ideas in play in America again.

Posted for REASONED, MATURE, ADULT discussion. I will ignore anything from the Berzerkley Bunch, as they have shown themselves to be none of the above.

Also posted because whether we like it or not, the clowns in power (either party) are the ones who send us to war. We actually CARE about that sort of thing here.

All I have to say about the article above is, “Preach it, sister!”

Enjoy.

shogun · June 2, 2006, 12:32am

Actually I agree with most of whats in the article, Z. I think we need to start selecting and voting for great candidates, not just some member of a political party. The choices have been lame for decades.
Thanks for posting it.

Zaphod · June 2, 2006, 12:54am

My pleasure.

You have to admit it’s going to be interesting, because neither of the two parties is going to let this happen without a fight.

Interesting? More like UGLY.

But hey, if they both choose to IGNORE the people, it HAS to happen because the only other alternative is VIOLENCE.

Time to start loading magazines…

momoftwins · June 2, 2006, 10:50am

Z,

Are those soft-core magazines you’re talking about? :D

Oh Oh! Wrong thread and wrong magazines! (I needed to amuse myself after yesterday’s nonsense.)

Loved Peggy’s editorial!

Zaphod · June 2, 2006, 11:11am

No, ma’am!

The magazines I’m talking about are loaded with stuff a LOT faster, hotter, and harder-hitting than ANYTHING you’ll find in ANY of those OTHER magazines! :D

aspen · June 2, 2006, 12:00pm

Will a New Political Party Emerge?

It will be interesting to see if a new group of leaders either emerge within the existing parties or form a new party. I doubt it will happen.

The formation of a new leadership group will require a monumental change in the personality and behavior of our governing representatives/leaders at both the local and national level. The prevailing template for political leadership today seems to focus on two major goals. First, garner sufficient votes to get elected and remain elected; and second, maximize ones power within the governmental system. Issues selected and actions taken are based on their impact on these two goals. Representatives that either ignore or subordinate these goals and, instead, strive to thoughtfully determine the best interests of our country and then convince people to support efforts to realize those interests are a disappearing breed.

I question whether sufficient voters will support a new leadership that promotes less government and more individual responsibility and accountability. Sure, people will support lower taxes and the elimination of social programs they deemed unnecessary. But when those discontinued or reduced social programs are identified, the screaming begins. In no time there is a candidate promising the best of both worlds. Lower taxes and continued social programs. How does the honest candidate compete? Voters have historically sided with the you can have your cake and eat it too candidate.

And why not? Pragmatically, most Americans are getting something for nothing under the present tax system. About 40% of the filed income tax returns in 2003 (people with adjusted incomes under $20,000) paid no taxes. Taxpayers with AGIs over $50,000 (about 30% of returns) paid 93% of the total income tax. If I am in the majority of taxpayers, why would I want to discontinue a program that costs me little or nothing? Especially if I currently derive some benefit from the program. I believe an analogy can be found close to home. Look at how your child spends his money compared with how he spends your money. Suggest that you are going to discontinue cable TV or their cell phone service and see their reaction.

Unfortunately, most people are still looking for ways for our government to fix our domestic problems rather than to turn inward and put the responsibility back on individuals or local communities. It is ironic that this demand increases despite the general consensus that our government has a terrible track record for managing things.

I hope that my analysis is faulty and that we have a dramatic change in the focus and behavior of our countrys governing leadership. And, for everyones sake, I hope it happens soon.

Oregon_Mom · June 2, 2006, 12:33pm

Great article! My husband and I are frustrated everyday and feel like we, the american people have been sold out. I hear the unity party people talk on McNeil a few nights ago. They still didn’t get it. I also hate the way the media manipulates us to change our focus on whatever the powerful want brought up as the issue. All of a sudden, its painfully quite about immigration…Why?

Zaphod · June 2, 2006, 12:52pm

Pathetic, isn’t it?

Sad. Truly sad. This could all be resolved if a true LEADER stood up and led AMERICA first.

So, that throws the Dems out (they couldn’t care less about America, just their own power), and it tosses the current crop of GOP dunderheads we have (who seem to think they’re above the law just because they’re congresscritters).

So we end up with a media (if it bleeds or makes America look bad, WE’RE ALL OVER IT) that can’t do it’s job and just tell what happened someplace where we weren’t able to be to see it ourselves. It’s become a product, like a car or a jacket or a soft drink.

I’m sure that much of this is nothing new looking across history, but I’ve never seen it as bad as now.

Good grief! Rush Limbaugh and Barney Frank are on the SAME SIDE of this congressional investigation issue!

Did someone hear a trumpet?

Oregon_Mom · June 2, 2006, 1:13pm

Are there any real patriots out there to lead? I’m looking and and its really sad.

Also, did you all notice how the morning news like GMA is now only 1 second of news and then the rest of the time Americal Idols etc…Since we don’t have cable, WE have resorted to recording “Frazier” from the night before because nothing is on.

Zaphod · June 2, 2006, 1:23pm

Not that I can see, or better said, not that is electable. :(

Sad, isn’t it?

...and so it begins. Preach it, Peggy!

CONNECT WITH US