|
Cracker Commentary
Not to know what has transacted in former times is to continue always a child.
-- Marcus Tullius Cicero
 Sunday, December 15, 2002Party, party, party
Rachel Lucas and Arthur Silber think it might be time for a new political party, and I don't think it's a bad idea, either. Despite what they taught us in elementary school, there is no "two party system" in America, only a system dominated by two parties. Of course, other parties do pop in and out of existence, usually around a particular candidate (the Bull Moose Party) or issue (the once-again-notorious Dixiecrats). Some, like Socialists and Libertarians, even have a philosophy or agenda that gives them staying power. The two major parties stand for exactly the same thing. They stand for election. Minor parties seek office to implement their platforms while Democrats and Republicans devise platforms to win office. Usually, more principled candidates will be found in the smaller parties and demagogues will gravitate to the two majors, especially the one in control, where they actually have a chance at power. (Yes, I know there are some demagogues in small parties and there are both Democrats and Republicans who have scruples.) With a significant third party, it's less likely that any one party would rule and principles might have a better chance of swaying the vote on specific issues. Right now could be a good time to enter the fray, since neither major party dominates Congress and a small block of representatives not tied to either of them could wield some real power. The Republican Liberty Caucus that Hank writes about in a comment to Rachel is a good step, and I have thought at times that libertarians might have a better chance of making a difference if they work within existing parties rather than competing with them. But the risk is that Democrats and others will see it as nothing more than a faction within the party and oppose its ideas along with all things Republican. As a separate party, libertarians could offer those ideas as an alternative. What I would really like to see, though, is to drop the Republican tag and have a Liberty Caucus, whose main task is not to elect candidates but educate voters, supporting liberty friendly views and candidates in any party. As much as we would like to blame them, the politicians are not the problem. They just do what will get them elected and as long as voters expect them to solve every little problem, they will be glad to accept the responsibility and the power that goes with it. Only when voters occasionally say, "We don't want you to do this for us," will they even consider relinquishing any control. To paraphrase a well known saying, if you have politician by the constituents, his heart and mind will follow. In recent years there have been some encouraging signs that voters may be better informed. For most of my life, the media have covered politics much like sports, primaries treated as playoffs leading up to the championship in November. We had in depth reporting on campaign strategies, polls and whether a candidate can spell potato, but, except for an endorsement editorial shortly before the election, there was little to help anyone decide whom to vote for. In 2000, and even more so in 2002, the media seemed to provide more useful information about issues and candidates and more fact checking of claims in ads and speeches. Add to that the unimpeded coverage and commentary of bloggers, which did have an effect, and real information was available. Rachel, Arthur, and the rest of us need to keep blogging, reading, talking, whatever it takes to spread ideas. Then, if we can't make a difference within the existing system, maybe start an Anti-Idiotarian Party and see how donkeys and elephants do against rottweilers.
|
