A Third Party

So do we really need a third party? Yes.

The last time a new party arose in the United States was when the Republican party was formed in the 1850's. While we can point to a number to triggers, the one relevant point here is: there were people willing to turn their backs on their own party, to band with the ideas of the Republicans.

The plan was simple:

• Establish the party in areas that support the ideas of the party
• Gain enough electoral control to elect a president

So successful and powerful was that band, that they did just that in two (2) presidential electoral periods.

The new party seized on a pivotal issues of the time, slavery. Arguably, this is a gigantic issue and some would say there are no issues with the gravitas of slavery.

Well, for sure we don't have something so vile to unite on. But we have issues today that are just as threatening to the union.

What issues would you put in this category?

Welcome

It seems to me, everything in evidence points to the fact that the United States is in desperate need of a third party.

I am neither a supporter nor one who vilifies G.W. I did not support Bill or his attempted impeachment. And I am not middle of the road. I am opinionated on most subjects and my opinions cannot be comprehensively categorized as liberal or conservative.

My thought as we approach another painful election season is: What exactly is the difference between the candidates. Sure you can say “this woman is clueless”, “this guy's an idiot”, or “have you heard what he said today?”

I get that. Invariably though, the person making one of these comments has an ax to grind or a position to further, which ostensibly is illustrated using one of these comments. There certainly are philosophical differences between democrats, republicans, libertarians, neo-cons, and new democrats.

However, I think that voting loyal to a party's or candidate's philosophical belief does nothing constructive. It in fact has gotten us to the point we are today – polarized and paralyzed.

The two parties that exist today in Washington, and to a large degree every state house in the nation, are held to the bizarre set of rules we have set forth:

• Do not offend
• Tell them what they want to hear
• Do not reach too far to one side
• Always be politically correct
• Reduce to the least common denominator
• Support your party
• Defend the indefensible
• Attack the other side

and if you need to


• Take shots at your party

The net result from this, is providing cover to each party to continue to do nothing – hence both sides can argue, with some degree of credibility, that it's the other side's fault. We trumpet the party lines while turning a blind eye to the incredibly stupid things our side does.

Not only does this make no sense, but it has reshaped our precious two party system. Yup, we have two parties alright: the incumbents and the non-incumbents.

Candidates and parties carefully craft their message, using the above rules, so they can they tell us what we want to hear. We're narcissistic enough to believe they are saying it because they really believe it. In reality, they want (or do not want to relinquish) power.

Our narcissism, in turn, supports their narcissistic behavior. We give lots of money to people who have no genuine interest in us – beyond what size check we're addressing to their reelection.

Except (and this is an important exception), the larger the check, the more interesting we are to them. This self serving interestingness equates to access and influence.

That's how I see the current landscape. What do you think? Let me hear your thoughts.