The issue emerges though, that the political parties cover a broad, and often times vague expanse of political space. So that often times you end up with members of a "Party" who do not really fit the ideological mold. Bush hardly counts as a Conservative Republican in the traditional sense of the term as a major case in point.
In the constitution, you will note that their are three words missing, that are central to the Presidential elections. those words being..."Republican"..."Democrat"...and "Primary". The original intent of the Presidential election process was to DENY the massed populace the power to overtly influence a presidential election. In fact, reading the process for electing a president reveals the founding fathers were terrified of what would happen if the general public could choose directly who could be President. Bush himself some would argue, is the embodiment of this fear.
Instead, The people elected "Learned wise men" aka "The Electors" who, not influenced by the petty whims of the general electorate, chose the most qualified individual to be President. only later ammendments opened this up to the general population, but these changes were nothing more then a trojan horse. The power of the electors was simply seized by the National political parties.
Now, the Parties chose who COULD be elected. And then the people chose who they chose for them. Two neat choices, nice and simple. And pay lip service the potential "Possibility" that a non-party candidate could run. (Que laughter) Indeed, these changes to the constitution were the best, and most ignored power grab by a non-constitutional entity in our nations history.
Of course, listening to the whims, the parties opened up. Candidates are not chosen in "Smoke filled rooms" but instead by the party faithful. Who are often the most rabid, and outside the mainstream individuals. So that by the time the rest of the country gets to vote, they often say they get to choose the lesser of two evils. Is it any wonder why Mickey Mouse gets thousands of votes each year?
Enough of Soft & Fuzzy Bipartisanship: America Needs a Dissident Ticket
The other day, I mentioned Bloomberg's increasing fascination with running for President. According to an inside Bloomberg source, the "environment is not yet right" to commit to a run, but "he's working through the details of a possible strategy."
Now we have news that former Senators Sam Nunn and David Boren are convening a bipartisan group of 17 senior Republican and Democratic leaders at the University of Oklahoma on January 6th and 7th (list amended below).
The purpose, according to organizers, is to organize "truth-telling discussions" on issues of major national concern and to send a signal to both parties that this group wants to see real commitment to a bipartisan, unity government in the next presidential administration.
Nearly all commentators speculate that this effort could be used to punctuate the beginning of an independent party presidential bid.
But the organizers of this meeting are deluding themselves if they think that getting Republicans and Democrats behind a non-specific agenda is the real challenge for the nation -- or is even worth all of this effort. Unprincipled, unfocused bipartisanship is bland, stale politics. And as Matt Stoller notes, bipartisanship too frequently is called on to anoint bad decisions to give both sides freedom from accountability.
This kind of effort reminds me of former Council on Foreign Relations Vice President Nancy Roman's "Both Sides of the Aisle," a well-intended but policy-lite treatment on what it would take to rebuild common cause across party lines and foster more bipartisanship. One of her core recommendations was that Republican and Democratic Members of Congress travel together on Congressional Delegations (CODELs) more frequently.
Traveling together does not remedy the fact that Republicans and Democrats were complicit in the Iraq War. Both parties have been complicit in the appropriations corruption that came with obscene Homeland Security spending around the nation. Both parties have been complicit in refusing to solidly challenge the most aggressive expansion of Executive Branch authority in more than a century. Both parties have been complicit in failing to shore up investment in the American economy and its workforce. Both parties have been complicit in allowing Americans to be spied on. Both parties have been complicit in allowing low level soldiers to take the hit for Abu Ghraib and allowing the decision-makers in the White House and Pentagon to get a complete pass.
The situation we have today was produced by aggressive, high-fear tactics of minority political operations within both the Republican and Democratic parties -- that then cowed a party membership that passively followed.
But some dissidents have emerged -- and Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) is probably the most important of these.
From what I know of Hagel, he is not bemoaning the absence of soft and fuzzy bipartisanship. He wants a change in policy -- a change in the course of the nation.
What former Senator Sam Nunn seems to be saying in the commentary he has thus far provided on the upcoming meeting is that bipartisanship should be a goal unto itself. That's wrong.
What the Republican and Democratic party members need to realize is that both of their party apparatuses have been taken over by a combination of ideological and utopian zealots as well as a policy-blind secretariat that passively follows the ideologues. The pragmatists and realists in both parties -- particularly in foreign policy but also in other spheres as well -- have been in decline.
The bubble of America's greatness was punctured by Iraq. America's hegemonic pretensions ended when the world saw America -- which once seemed to have no bounds on what it could do -- show its limits in the Iraq War.
When superpowers show their limits, allies are the first to recalculate their behavior because they won't count on us as much as they did before. And enemies move their agendas.
America's global national security position is eroding. The global equilibrium is in serious flux -- and this is no time for ideological zealotry in either the Democratic or Republican parties.
But it's not a time for purposeless bipartisanship either. This is a time to get serious about challenges and for the dissidents that have been dissatisfied to rebel.
The next president of the United States is going to be tested. Every troublesome player in the international system is going to kick the tires of our new president -- much like Khrushchev did with Kennedy.
Ahmadinejad will spark something, testing us. Hu Jintao will throw some dust in the new president's face. Kim Jong Il will remind the president that good behavior comes at a very high price. Hugo Chavez will work hard to embarrass the new occupant of the White House. Al Qaeda will engineer another mass casualty incident not just for their cause but to test the resolve of the new establishment in Washington. The Taiwanese will flirt with independence. The Israelis will test how much room they are given to run beyond what the Bush administration has already given them. And then there is Russia, and frankly a long roster of other nations that want to consolidate the appearance of their rising international power in the midst of the perception of American decline.
I don't believe that bipartisanship solves the challenges ahead. New policies might help restore some balance and the beginnings of a positive direction. But what is needed now are rebels.
I think Hagel is that kind of rebel, though he is disgusted with Washington and both parties (perhaps a good thing) -- and I think Michael Bloomberg is a hard core pragmatist. Neither of them is perfect, but they are a possible alternative to the less than compelling choices currently on the table.
Some believe that Bloomberg's tough manhandling of protesters in New York disqualify him. Many progressives who like Hagel's leadership in trying to bring the Iraq War to an end fear his social conservatism.
My only fear is that Sam Nunn (who may be auditioning for the VP slot himself with Bloomberg), David Boren, former Defense Secretary William Cohen and others concocting this January fest next week are more about getting Dems and Republicans to pal around together -- not rebelling on the basis of policy that outrages them.
The sad but real truth today is that the Bush administration came in to office in 2001 under suspect circumstances but roared and behaved as if it had won an 80% mandate. The Democrats folded and gave Bush all the room to run he wanted. There is mutual responsibility and complicity in the results we have today.
I don't want more bipartisanship for its own sake. I want dissident Republicans and dissident Democrats to make this government work in the way it is supposed to work -- and to deliver on the policies that the public expects.
So a message to David Boren and Sam Nunn -- whose personal animosity towards gays and lesbians many of whom have done great service to this country is not forgotten here -- is make your meeting about an overhaul of American public policy both domestically and in the national security and foreign policy spheres.
If you have Dems and Republicans lining up behind those policies -- terrific.
If not, this meeting is a waste of time and a fuzzy distraction.
Steve Clemons publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note
Those attending University of Oklahoma Unity '08 Meeting:
Sam Nunn (Dem), David Boren (Dem), William Cohen (Rep), Christine Todd Whitman (Rep), Gary Hart (Dem), John C. "Jack" Danforth (Rep), Chuck Robb (Dem), Bill Brock (Rep), Michael Bloomberg (Ind), Chuck Hagel (Rep), Jim Leach (Rep), Alan Dixon (Dem), Susan Eisenhower (Rep/Ind), Bob Graham (Dem), David Abshire (Rep), Edward Perkins (Dem/Ind)
Comments for this post are now closed
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Instead of bitching and moaning about the two party system and threating to form a third party or start civil war, select the party that stands for those in your class and don't be fooled by voting for the person because you will be getting the party that person has sworn to support.
I graduated from high school and started out in the late 50's with the American dream of getting rich like Ross Perot, Bill Gates, and Michael Dell. I realized that because I was part of the working class and had not achieved my goal yet, I should vote for the Democratic Party.
I realized that the good pay, retirement benefits, and life and health insurance I received were in part because of contracts negeotiated by the union and because of laws enacted by the Government and not from the generosity of the company whose goal was to also become rich.
I also married, started a family, and set a little something back for the future in case I didn't realize my dream of becoming rich. About that time someone told me that I should vote for the Republican party even though I was not rich. I continued to vote for the Democratic party.
I am now 68 years old and I don't know if my big break did not come along because I was not smart enough or what but, I never did get rich so I continued to vote Democratic that whole time. I did raise two daughters and pay for their college and weddings and give them a start in life with some money left over.
Enough of my friends believed that the Republican party was right for them that they elected a man named George W, Bush who did all of the things the Republican party wanted and more and I was right to vote for the Democratic party when I was not rich. I no longer dream of becoming rich. I am retired now.
I sure wish my friends had not though they were rich enough to vote Republican!!!
Republican Bipartisanship has been, "My way or the Highway" when they had the majority. When the Democrats got the majority it was obstruction and veto by the minority,
They succeeded in destroying the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, National Guard, and every branch of Government. Why should the Democrats allow the Republicans to have any say in what we do to try to repair the damage done in the last 7 years.
They have had free reign for all this time and look what happened. The Democrats should have the same goal that Republicans had. We should strive for a supermajority in both the House and the Senate and the Presidency.
Anything less will leave us at the mercy of the same bunch that got the Country into this mess. They only believe in true bipartisanship when they get beat. Investigate what was really going on in Congress when Tom DeLay and Newt Gingrich were in charge. Democrats were completely shut out.
It's time for payback that includes impeachment of Bush/Cheney.
I think the dems have more or less folded up like a cheap kite when trying to live up to their necessary role as the 'loyal opposition', meaning they're not so much against the country(either you're with us, or you're against us) but rather it's their job to represent the People and not take any wooden nickels off this administration. 3.1 trillion or so worth of wooden nickels later, it's kind of apparent they whiffed the ball numerous times, there.
Paul's a reformer, Kucinich is a reformer, I like both of them so far...Queen Billary? Ummm...no thanks.
No hand holding until there's parity of viewpoints in mainstream media. As long as there is no "countervailing force" to Corporate Media's hegemony, progressives have to fight.
Another year of this b.s. is beyond imagining. Oh yeah, Speaker Reid must relieved.
Bipartisanship is an empty concept. Especially when neither party represents the will of the people. These fat cats and their employees represent a slight variation on the same old theme. Elections don't change the status quo in Washington.
Only a threat to their very way of life will get their attention, as in the Great Depression, or the burning of our cities in the summer of 1967.
Without coming to the obvious conclusion of a compelling argument, this is the closest I have heard for anybody to say it out loud.
Let's make the obvious conclusion.
We have a one party government.
Let's look at the easily identifiable, undeniable manifestations first.
From 2002-2006 we had a one party government. The Republicans controlled Congress and the entire Executive branch. Any arguments with that? Anybody want to research world history and find the incidences of one party governments and assess the probability that they do absolutely no good for/to the citizenry?
Let's flash forward to Christmas Future. The Democrats take the WH and Congress. Are they going to declare peace on Iraq? No. We "will at least have a presence until 2013." Plus 5 military bases and a large Middle East Military/Business Command Center, "The Embassy". Will "war" be declared on lobbyists and corporate interests? No. We're going to need to practice holding our breath. The fact is that such a election would garner another one party government in name, again.
Back into the time machine, and we're in the present.
Here's where the author made an eloquent thesis, except for perspective. The Democrats are not conceding to Republican initiatives, they are furthering them. The critical perspective being, these policies aren't Rep or Dem, they are Washington policies. Washington is the party.
As of our day, elections are only to see who will get the bigger share of the money and power, and who will be subordinated to junior partners.
If you're foolish enough to underestimate the existence and tenacity of the one party Washington, consider this. Over the past 15 years, Congress has had a smaller turnover than the Commissars of the Politburo in the ol' USSR.
Read your history. When a government is waging a war against the wishes of 2/3s of its population, when citizens are having their rights and power trampled upon, when economic life is getting harder for more people.....
You have a "one party" government running the show.
I don't give a damn what they call themselves.
It's this simple: If Bloomberg wants to run, I'm interested. If he runs with Hagel, I'm pretty much sold. If he runs with the odious has-been Sam Nunn, deal's off. Choose your VP wisely, Mikey!
>But it's not a time for purposeless bipartisanship either. This is a time to get serious about challenges and for the dissidents that have been dissatisfied to rebel.<
I'm thinking of having that tattooed on my forehead. I'm gonna need a bigger forehead.
The word "bipartisan" has become Democratic code for "let's do whatever the GOP wants". Too often the Dems especially cave immediately and then call their capitulation "bipartisanship" (the recent AG vote was a good example, and Schumer and HRC's initial support for Bernie Kerik as head of Homeland Security. Schumer came out the day Kerik was announced and said "he would have strong bipartisan support". Luckily for Schumer, Kerik pulled out after we found out about his history. Schumer would have rather been bipartisan than actually looking at a shady person's background).
Personally, I don't give a rat's ass about what the Republicans think or want. They essentially think they're right about everything, and their idea of "bipartisanship" is just doing what they want. When you have Grover Norquist equating bipartisanship with date rape, you know you're not going to have an easy time with him or his people.
One can just look at the Clintons, who have made effort after effort to "reach out" to the GOP, only to get the middle finger every time. True bipartisanship is when BOTH sides come to the center, not when the Dems start in the center, and the GOP starts on the far right.
"Bipartisan" = status quo (self-preservation).
When the system is putrid, it is exactly the WRONG answer.
In this, I like Edwards and Dennis. They are the only ones acknowledging what we all know.
The system is rotten to the core.
Couldn't agree more...well done Steve. We should all be partisan and fight vigorously for our beliefs. Cooperation does not readily translate into solutions, just look at Europe. And for all you corporate conspiracy nut-jobs out there, corporations should be partisans to their interests as well.
Before entertaining the idea or qualifications of third-party candidates wouldn't it be wise to know and/or understand how third parties and the electoral college function in tandem?
If as Bob Cesca suggests, that third party hopes cannot sustain the realities and rules of the electoral college then voting for a third party candidate is a practice that would hurt Democrats and help put a Republican in office.
If you want to put a Republican in the White House then by all means support Bloomberg or the Republican because not electing a Democrat will get us another Republican.
It is amusing to watch this political machine cautiously shifting its position -- or, I should say, presenting the illusion of doing so. But I do not believe any of it; not even this.
The one thing that is steadfastly being put "off the table" (so to speak) is the single most important thing: that what has been happening here, for well more than six years now, is a High Crime. And it is a High Crime that has been (and continues to be...) carefully worked by the coordinated efforts of all three Branches of this government; by all of the political parties.
It is precisely the thing that "Ike" Eisenhower foresaw, in January of 1961, when the esteemed General of the Army first coined the phrase, "military industrial complex."
Let no one continue with the happy illusion that any of the workings of this Congress have been "timid." They have been nothing of the sort; not now, not ever. The Congressional Record tells all, just as it was designed to do, and what you can easily find at http://thomas.loc.gov will chill your bones.
What's the very first thing this Congress did upon taking office? "Impeachment is off the table!" In other words, "okay, I got your back, you're home free... do as you like, but be sure to save me some!" The evidence of High Crime is all around, but Congress aids and abets those crimes by refusing to investigate, refusing to indict, refusing to impeach. Just as it is unlawful for a Grand Jury to do this, so it is unlawful for Congress.
These people will do anything to pacify you, and to in pacifying you also divide you; anything to keep you from becoming ...
... United.
You can't rebel from the "centre." That's because there's no centre, only centrists.
Loading comments…
Man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects...
Posted December 31, 2007 | 11:29 AM (EST)