Where do pragmatists and moderates get a fair hearing? Nowhere?

The California Moderates blog is devoted to the proposition that removing the Democratic and Republican parties from power is "fair payment for their corruption and failures."  In a post on "why political parties can't change," Calmod argues that moderates and pragmatists need to form their own party if they desire reasonable and responsible political representation.  Excerpt:
Consider the Democratic and Republican parties. Who has real power and influence? Outsiders and newcomers? Life-long insiders, hard core partisans and major campaign contributors like MoveOn.org, American CrossRoads, Crossroads GPS, the American Enterprise Institute or Emily's list? Neutral and objective analysts? People like you? People like me? Common sense argues the real influence is with the money and life-long or partisan insiders. The money probably carries the most weight. . . .

How can anyone reasonably expect that to change? Why should it change? Money is a major pillar of the two parties. Without it, they would have to survive more on the merits and less on the publicity spin that hundreds of million of dollars buys. If the two parties had to survive on the merits, they would die. The money is critical life-support. . . . 
The post concludes with a call to third party action:
So, where do pragmatists and moderates go to get a fair hearing? Nowhere. No major third party is free of ideology. That seems to be why pragmatists and moderates slosh back and forth between the Republican and Democratic parties. Neither party represents their views, but there is no other place to go for political power. Nationally, people registered as independents are on a par with Democrats and Republicans. Despite the parity, pragmatists and moderates get no fair hearing for the most part.

Until pragmatists and moderates understand that the two big parties and the third parties do not share their views, those viewpoints will be largely ignored. The only way to change that is to form a third party based on (1) pragmatic thinking and politics and (2) rejection of special interest "access" bought by special interest money.
Fortunately, it is not necessary for moderates and pragmatists to form a new party.  An alternative already exists!  Reading Calmod's post, I couldn't help but be reminded of the platform for the Modern Whigs.  They already have a California affiliate.  Calmoderate should check out the California Modern Whig Party:
California Modern Whig members are independent-minded voters who want to be affiliated with a moderate common-sense party. We believe that independent voters are the silent moderate majority and all-to-often have to settle for the “lesser of two evils.” We also realize that establishing a new party is an uphill climb under the current system. This is why our growing membership is key.

The California Modern Whig Party is geared toward those independent voters who want to be affiliated with moderate state party.Our goal is to obtain ballot access for the Modern Whigs in California; we hope to obtain that status by 2012. We know how hard it is to establish a viable alternative to the major parties. But strength comes in numbers. We are also not delusional in believing that people will flock to our party, we know that we have to earn you support and your trust. Our goal is to express our common-sense ideals and slowly gain ground into the mainstream consciousness. In short, the California Modern Whig Party is the party for everyday Californians.

1 comment:

David Weller, OSL said...

Well, it sounds like a good alternative to the major parties, and I agree that it is critical to attract *and maintain* large membership numbers.
I saw a tweet today on the forming of the Labor Party USA among activists in Wisconsin and possibly elsewhere. Competition is good!

 
http://www.wikio.com