Monday, March 1, 2010 - 9:51 PM

When I started this blog, I wrote that I was a Democrat. That's because I had been one all my life, having both served in a Democratic administration, worked for a Democratic member of Congress and identified more closely with Democrats on the vast majority of issues over the years. But in doing this blog now for over a year, it has caused me to scrutinize the political process in Washington in a way that I have not before even though I have lived and worked here for almost two decades. The result is that I no longer feel comfortable identifying myself with a political party.
That's not to say I suddenly feel greater sympathy for the Republican Party. Quite the contrary. They have never been more out-of-touch, insensitive, or odious to me... and that's saying something given that I have lived through the incompetence of the George W. Bush years, the vapidity and excess of the Reagan years and the corruption of the Nixon Administration.
I just feel that both political parties in this country are intellectually bankrupt and, fortunately, increasingly irrelevant to the politics of the Internet era. Old styles of organization and management of interest groups -- of which political parties are a vestigial artifact -- will, I believe and hope, be gradually superceded by new mechanisms to identify affinities, promote dialogue and mobilize action that are less rigid and adapt more rapidly to circumstances.
Some pundits, citing the record levels of disgust and distrust that dominate the views of the American people toward their political system, have started to write that now is the time for a third party. While I would welcome such a development, my sense is that given the way federal and local election laws are currently written and election commissioners typically rule, the deck is stacked against such possibilities. This is something that urgently needs to be fixed. That said, I wouldn't rule out a new against-the-odds push in this direction even before needed changes are made given the justifiable levels of contempt for the masters and misdeeds of the current American political duopoly.
How much better off would the country be with a three-way Obama/Biden vs. Romney/Pawlenty vs. Petraeus/Bloomberg election than we might be with just painfully predictable two way race the political parties are counting on? (You can insert your own third party candidates in there. I'm not sure Petraeus or Bloomberg would be ideal or even willing to do it... but I raise them as the type of candidates who could develop a national constituency and even have a shot at being a factor in the election.)
But frankly, before we get to reform of the political system from within Washington (hugely unlikely) or among the political elites that make campaigns happen (more likely but still not a good bet for producing an electoral win), how about the kind of reform that can happen instantaneously? What if disaffected Americans said, "Wait a minute, this system is broken, you guys broke it, I don't owe you an ounce of loyalty. Quite the contrary. You lost my loyalty when you sold out to special interests or when you placed a premium on your own reelection rather than serving the electorate. Now you have to win it back. Until then, I'm an Independent. I'm going to remake the system from the grassroots up."
Don't vote the party line. Don't buy the party line. Demand new ideas and vote for results not slogans.
I'll admit, it sounds too logical to ever happen. But we've reached such a crescendo of dysfunctionality abetted by each and every leader of both parties, that something's got to give and this is a place each of us could start right now.(And honestly, if you hate the way the system is currently running, doesn't that obligate you to try to change at least your little corner of it?)
This approach doesn't require a move by anyone in a Washington. And it might remind them that the real position of power in the American system lies not with politicians but with their bosses, us. (You might want to note that point, Mr. President. Your frequent references in public fora and private meetings to your status as president and the prerogatives to which it entitles you don't do you a bit of good. It might be better to remember that in our system, the president is not above the people but rather works for them.)
Further, I am under no illusion that simply having Americans take a step back from the broken political system will produce instant results in Washington. Not only is the system too carefully designed to protect the interests of insiders (political parties, big donors, congresspeople who neglect to pay their taxes or follow election laws), but the system is presented through an extraordinarily distorted lens.
By that of course, I refer to the media. Now, I know it is all too cheap and easy to blame the media and much of the opprobrium that politicians heap on them is nothing more than desperate deflection. But there are real problems in the way the media covers American politics that are exacerbating our systemic defects.
For example, there is an advertisement for the new MSNBC show starring the really first-rate team of Chuck Todd and Savannah Guthrie in which Todd says that he loves political campaigns and wishes that every day he were covering one. Whoever made the advertisement -- and I don't blame Todd -- clearly doesn't recognize that as much as his enthusiasm for the beat is a plus, the reality is that the commercial demonstrates in a nutshell precisely what is most wrong with American political coverage. It's all about the game of politics and not at all about the business of governing.
In fact, over the years, political coverage has moved down the spectrum away from the admittedly idealized yet nonetheless objective, thoughtful analysis of say, The CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite and headed rapidly and dramatically in the direction of say, ESPN's Sports Center. (And you'd be forgiven for thinking that's doing a disservice to Sports Center and that the real direction they are headed is much more like, say, the constant fighting, cheap histrionics and intellectual bottom-feeding of say, Fox's "Temptation Island" or "The Jerry Springer Show.") It's all about the score, all about winners and losers, all about the contest...and not at all about the reason we're supposedly playing the "game" in the first place.
Just as over-focusing on having elections has distorted our democracy promotion efforts around the world, so too has an over-focus on elections diverted our attention from the issues of the culture of democracy and the objectives of governance here at home. Evan Bayh hit the nail on the head when, in announcing he would not seek another term in the Senate, he wrote that the system had been debased since his father's day when a Senator might spend two-thirds or more of his term able to focus on the business the people sent him to Washington for and only a year or two a term dealing with the distraction of campaigning.
The media's obsession with daily polls and who's in and who's out and the cage match aspects of politics, has also unsurprisingly made it impossible (in a time of shrinking news department resources) to cover what should be covered. When was the last time you saw an in-depth thoughtful analysis of what's going on in the Office of Management and Budget or how funds were actually being spent or where the waste is in defense appropriations or what was actually working for students in schools? How about, say, a follow-up on how U.S. aid efforts were working in Haiti or the Middle East? Want a good example of the importance of the mundane stories? Chile just suffered an earthquake 500 times more fierce than that felt in Haiti. But the devastation in Chile, however epic in scale, has cost a fraction of a fraction as many lives because Chile put into place some fairly basic building codes. Who talks about building codes on the nightly news? No one. How could they possibly hold up in comparison to the political dogfighting that makes it look like Michael Vick is the Commissioner of American Politics?
The system is broken. And since I can't rely on the people in power to fix it, all I can do individually is to try to reclaim my little piece of that power structure. I can say: "I won't be defined by old labels. You don't have a call on my vote. Come and get it. Come and win it. And while you're at it, please note that real alternatives will be welcomed sooner rather than later."
There are in increasing number of American that would agree with you. Some of us are doing something about it. Check out http://modernwhig.org or Google the term Modern Whig.
Yes, change will be difficult and frustration, but it is better than doing nothing. Come check us out.
I'm a moderate progressive. By European or Canadian standards, I'm right-wing. But the Democrats are to the right of me ("single payer is off the table"), and Republicans are from another planet.
Your Petraeus/Bloomberg third party would be "centrist," which means it would be no use to me; I would still have to hold my nose and vote Democrat, even though they still wouldn't represent my interests. Unless you think the Petraeus/Bloomberg party would peel off the Blue Dogs, and I'd be voting for a different kind of Democrat. But that's what I thought I was doing in 2008, and look where it got me.
Or to put it another way, we don't need a third party, we need a fourth, fifth and sixth party. We need Kucinich/Greenwald keeping single payer on the table, and we need Beck/Limbaugh to peel off the crazy so the Republicans can have their brains back. And we need a true pabor party - something like Trumka/Burger - so that being an environmental liberal doesn't mean supporting unionization of factories, and vice versa.
Bottom line: We need to upgrade from our two-party, unrepresentative Democracy 1.0 system to a world-class Democracy 2.0 system like Australia's. But of course such a thing could not ever conceivably happen.
Which is why we're doomed: *All* major systemic change is "off the table."
pabor=labor. sorry.
Is that Americans are ideologically wedded to their system. We can't even manage to get rid of the electoral college system, for gosh sakes.
I won't gloat, but I predicted this moment in one of your posts here a year or so back.
Welcome to independence. It's not so bad here. The only problem is that it really makes it hard to hold your nose and vote for any of these goons.
JUST ABOUT TIME SOMONE WOULD COME FORTH.
I was wondering when will someone like David who has the balls to challenge America's malign and bankrupt 2-party system.
David confines his remarks only on political parties. That mantra extends to other facets of life in this great country.
Black vs. white. Right vs. left. Win vs. Lose. Liberal (Now Progressive) vs. Conservative, on and on and one. If you are not a Republican, then you must be Democrat. I don't even mention all these ugly mindless and meaningless labels "tax & Spend". "Neocon", "Borrow and spend", "ObamaCare", etc.
Yes, we do need a centrist party, with leaders who are willing to role up their sleeves and lead this great nation. Leaders who recognize the need for strong business environment, coupled with equally social one, where people are treated with dignity and basic respect to their lives and dreams - not as "durable goods", who's health and quality of life are subject to corporate profits.
There is nothing wrong with a capitalistic system, guided by corporate profits, as long as chack and balances are in place, where pain and suffering are not subject to someone eleses P& L.
When it comes to 3rd party. I would not repeat the same mistake Ross Perot in 1992 did, nor Ralph Nader in later years, and go right to the top (Office of presidency). Rather, set strong foundation for the new party through congress itself,:
1. Have a (Centrist) party platform ready for the public to read and examine.
2. Have representatives for the Senate and House run in each state and each district throughout the nation.
3. Capture 30 - 40% of the seats in both houses in Congress. (With current political climate, this is no brainier)
4. NOW you are cooking. None of the other parties will have free rain to pass laws to suit its respective constituencies. "you both parties go nowhere w/o me".
5. First rule. No Petulance (Filibustered) in the Senate. No more majority party with only 32% of the voting public.
6. Have a candidate for president. Actors, "deciders", and bimbos need not apply..
Representative Democracy Doesn't Work
FREE AMERICA
REVOLUTIONARY (DIRECT) DEMOCRACY
Amazing-- a crank rant about parties and the media
Uggghhh….
In my opinion, this type of self-indulgent “I’m too good for a party” typifies Democrats in this election climate. My question for former identifiers is: why do you lament the state of the system, rather than affect change within the system?
As a public intellectual, you are in a unique position to generate new ideas, not just “demand new ideas.” This is passive position that is a bit difficult to justify given your status as a bonified political insider.
Skewering these institutions—be they the parties or the media—is a well-worn part of the narrative that you decry as so tired. Rather than a woe some rant about the state of the political system, I would encourage you to become more engaged in the process that you recognize as so broken.
Frankly, I find this type of crank rant just as toxic to the political process as the parties and media that you complain about.
in 2-party system, with its maligned winner-takes-all mantra, one party can (and often) becomes the dictator.
When you have a system of governance, where the same party has majority in the legislative body, holds the executive office, and has majority in the Supreme court - you end up with virtual dictatorship as it played out right in front of our eyes. What happened to all that bellicose assertion of "choice", and "freedom of expression".
Much like Henry Ford had coined it about car's paint , "you can choose any political party you wish, as long as it is the Donkey (Dem) OR the Elephant (GOP).
With such a narrow base of governance, no wonder we end up with gridlocks, polarized and really a divided country.
WE NEED ADDITIONAL CENTRIST PARTY - PERIOD.
This party would put an end to childish petulance (euphemistically called "fillabasterd"), and wild swing from one side to another. An end with narrow minded and empty rhetoric, where complex issues concerning this vast country, are distilled into intellectually bankrupt and meaningless code words and labels, "tax & Spend", "socialist", "borrow and spend", "individual responsibilities". "Tea party". ", (I am still waiting for the emergence of "coffee party" and "ObamaCare
"El Pueblo merece su Gobierno." - - And this is 100% true for the US of A.
Vietnam and Iraq...lies and more lies...good cop and bad cop and nationalism pretending to be something other than a Imperial Presidency where they walk away and the country get the buck as well as all the bills...
David Rothkopf is the CEO and Editor-at-Large of Foreign Policy. His new book, "Power, Inc.: The Epic Rivalry Between Big Business and Government and the Reckoning that Lies Ahead" is due out from Farrar, Straus & Giroux on March 1.
Read More
(11)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE