Distrust Busting: How to Break the Ruling Democratic-Republican Congressional Duopoly

In a lengthy post at Political Crank, Jim Freeman argues that a "viable third party option" is long overdue in American politics, but that third party and independent activists should focus on the Congress rather than the presidency. The piece even speculates on a possible platform and budget. Some excerpts:
No matter how you break it down, or whose numbers you care to adhere to, a growing number of Americans are leaving their Republican or Democrat tags to declare themselves independent. Most figures hover at approximately 40%.

Two-party dominance isn’t working anymore, if it ever really did. The swing from Republican to Democratic control in Washington merely serves to further polarize hard-line subservience to one ‘base’ or another, leaving the un-served 40% adrift and frustrated . . .

The problem lies not with presidents. The problem is (and remains) endemic within the Congress. The unrepresented 40% do not need—and likely would not rally behind—a third-party presidential candidate. They want representation . . .

A viable third-party must not be anchored by a presidential candidate. The time may come, some decades down the road, when that possibility may arise, but that time is not (nor should it be) now. Yet the disenfranchised 40% is no wild-eyed sliver group. Attribute the remaining 60% however you like, they cannot govern without listening to (and satisfying) the third party, essentially extending representation to the unrepresented . . .

The political scene in Washington would be dramatically changed for the better. No longer would 60 (either Democrat or Republican) Senators be required to keep the wheels of governance rolling. The iron grip of majority and minority whips in congress would be loosened, if not entirely broken. Hard-core bases on either side of the aisle would be equally diminished, as the dominance and purpose of ‘all or nothing’ political stalemate became untenable.

3 comments:

BuelahMan said...

With Dennis Kucinich's capitulation and Obama whoring today, this point is the most valid of all time.

Ross Levin said...

It's nice to see this kind of piece, but I found this particular one very frusturating. Jim was calling for a new, viable, almost major third party to rise out of nowhere, without any realistic expectations about it. When I told him about a real and viable candidate for state legislature here in PA he basically rolled his eyes, saying that one candidate for state legislature won't do anything. But all he's doing is complaining and saying that there SHOULD be 435 third party candidates. Plus, one third party member of a legislature actually can do something good - when a Green got into the Arkansas state house, he introduced a ballot access improvement bill that got passed within the first few months of his being there.

d.eris said...

I suppose that may be expected from a self-described "crank" ;-)

And there are indeed already hundreds of third party and independent candidates for congress and state legislatures etc. So no need to reinvent the wheel, barring the sudden appearance of a multi-billionaire who makes it his life's work to fund "America's Next Third Party," that is.

 
http://www.wikio.com