Political advocacy means flawed political thinking

Garbage in, garbage out

Politics consists of a lot of garbage in. Its not surprising that most of what comes out is the same. We get garbage from pundits, politicians, ideologues and special interests. For them, politics isn't about informing the public. It is about winning arguments and influencing opinion. Standard tactics include deceiving the public with irrational arguments, false conclusions and bad facts, i.e., it's much easier to cheat than win on the merits. For the most part, partisan politics is pure, raw advocacy. In the context of lawyers fighting in court, pure advocacy may be OK or even necessary. But, in the context of politics it usually leads to waste and failure. Failure is what we have today - in abundance.

What are garbage and bad facts?: Those are fair questions. From the point of view of service to the public interest over special interests, garbage is reasonably defined like this: Garbage is political arguments based on bad facts and flawed reasoning. When a partisan ignores, denies or distorts information and rationales that undermines the partisans' desired point or logic, you have bad facts.

That is standard politics. Of course, partisans/special interests would dispute that characterization of reality. For them, bad facts are good facts because winning the argument and votes in congress (or elsewhere in government) is the point, not informing the public or serving the public interest. It all depends on your point of view.

An example

Now that don't ask, don't tell is no longer an issue, the next gay rights battle is probably going to be over gay marriage. Some religious social conservatives are arguing that allowing gay marriages will infringe on their free speech and/or religion rights. The rationale is that if gay marriage is allowed or legalized, clerics will be subject to hate speech lawsuits for preaching that gay sex and gay marriage are evil, sins, abominations and so on. If clerics are subject to such legal threats, they will no longer be able to freely exercise their speech and religious rights.

On its face, that sounds like a legitimate argument. But is it the whole story? Is anything missing?

Of course, something is missing. That argument, like most in politics, is pure advocacy. What is missing are facts and context that undermine religious attacks on gay marriage and gay sex. Here is some context, a couple of facts (not opinions) and an opinion that put this "logic" in a different light.

Context: Many churches condemn all sorts of activities that are common and legal in our secular society, e.g., birth control, abortion, fornication, gambling, pornography, belief in false Gods or prophets (Jesus, Allah, Vishnu) and so on. 

Fact: Churches have been preaching, sometimes vehemently, for decades (centuries, actually) that gay sex is a mortal sin and a horrible, evil abomination. 

Fact: With very few exceptions* no U.S. church has ever been sued for (1) hate speech or anything else like that because of preaching or belief that gay sex/marriage is a mortal sin or (2) the other legal things that U.S. churches like to condemn.

Opinion: If a church were to be sued for hate speech, the church would win in court and once that was finally decided, the issue would be completely dead. No court, not even a "liberal" court, is going to touch any church's capacity to hold or advocate almost any religious belief. This stuff is outside the court's jurisdiction for the most part.

Assuming you agree that my context, facts and opinion are relevant, how persuasive is the church's argument that if same sex marriage is legalized they will be prevented from doing what they already routinely do? Less persuasive, isn't it? That's why you will almost never hear the contrary context or facts from advocates against gay marriage.

Context and facts weakens or completely kills their "rationale", which is based on religious faith for the gay marriage issue. That might carry weight in a theocratic dictatorship like Iran or Saudi Arabia. However, America is a secular democracy. In that context, religious faith alone usually just doesn't cut it.

That is why churches and anti-gay rights advocates ignore, deny or distort valid context and facts. Their arguments can't win on the merits alone. To win public opinion, they have to cheat. Partisan advocates give essentially no weight or credibility to opposing opinion, regardless of how much weight or credibility it may have from a fair and neutral point of view. They argue for their special interest, not the public interest.

Uninformed and deceived

The gay marriage issue is just one example of pure partisan political advocacy. It leaves the public uninformed and misled, which is exactly what it is intended to do. Unfortunately, partisan advocacy happens all the time. It is routine. The advocacy tactic applies to almost all other political arguments you hear from almost all partisans nearly all of the time for all contested issues. Partisans are rarely or never honest about context or facts that undermine their political positions or agenda. 

The dominance of that kind of partisan advocacy is a big part of why our political institutions and policies have failed so badly. That is why we are up to our eyeballs in nasty alligators.

---------------------------------------

* The exception is the bizarre case of the Westboro Baptist Church. It is being sued for celebrating the death of a U.S. marine at the marine's funeral. The Westboro Baptists believe that when our soldiers die in combat, that is God's punishment of America for tolerating homosexuality. The marine's family sued the church for invasion of privacy and a few other things. That behavior isn't just preaching from the pulpit - it is an in your face celebration of death at your son's funeral. That arguably is hate speech depending on the facts of the case, e.g., how far from the funeral were church members picketing and what exactly were they saying. Let the courts decide.

Afghanistan - If we don't know it, can we succeed?

This story comes from an acquaintance whose offspring is a U.S. military officer at Baghram airbase in Afghanistan. This officer was recently deployed to Afghanistan. It raises some questions. One is why our government wants to keep the American public in the dark about the reality of Afghanistan. Another is how we can expect to "succeed" in view of the tenacious culture of that country. Although America has been at war since October of 2001 the press is just now getting around to reporting this, or some aspects of it. 




The sad story: There is a weekly get together or party that goes on among some Afghani troops and/or police on the airbase itself and maybe elsewhere in Afghanistan. Our troops call it Thursday man-love night or something close to that. At Baghram, the weekly Thursday night party starts with Afghani men listening to music and chatting. At some point, young Afghani boys are brought to the party room. Over time, the men and boys pair off and leave the party. They go someplace semi-private on the airbase and the men have sex with the boys. Our troops know about the sex because of the sounds of the man love. According to CNN, there are variations of this theme.

The Afghani cultural context: Why does this happen? Apparently, this happens on Thursdays because Friday is prayer day for Muslims and the men have to behave, more or less. So, they party on Thursday, maybe as a way to prepare for the following day of prayer and good behavior. It is OK for the Afghani men to do this because they are not having sex with Muslim women, something apparently forbidden. And, it is OK for them to have sex with the boys because they do not love the boys. If they loved the boys they had sex with, that too apparently would be forbidden under Islamic religious law.

The American troop context: American troops are under orders to not interfere with the local culture, including the Thursday man-love night parties. For many of our troops, this is demoralizing. They just want to beat the Afghani men senseless. Reactions from our troops range from outrage to dejection.
 
One can argue that we know little or nothing about Afghanistan, its culture or its people. It is reasonable to expect "success"? What is success? During his time in office, President Bush did nothing about Afghanistan after we were told that we "won" the war. That was the Bush administration strategy and most of congress endorsed it. It took President Obama about a year to decide on a new strategy, i.e., a troop surge. Nobody much in politics opposed the new strategy, implying that the old Bush strategy of doing nothing failed.

Success or a fireball?: How will it end, if it ever does. What should we expect after years of war and U.S. government sanctioned public ignorance? The surge is now officially  deemed to be some feeble sort of "success", as narrowly defined by the U.S. military. It definitely does not mean establishing some sort of modern culture. Nor does it mean getting a functioning government in the sense that Americans understand it. We will never change the Afghan government from anything other than a hopelessly weak and corrupt failure. After all this time and money (about $370 billion so far), why do we still know essentially nothing about Afghanistan? Maybe our government wants to keep the public in the dark so that resistance remains politically tolerable. What that will accomplish in the long run is anyone's guess.

Post #4 - The ideal political party

To a non-ideologue, none of the established political parties out there are appealing. They have their ideology, entrenched interests and a few other flaws, e.g. political donors asking for what they want. For a pragmatic realist, the ideal political party might look something like this.

• Pragmatic and grounded in reality because ideology distorts reality, limits creative thinking and usually delivers failure, which is what we have lots of at the moment
  
• Strong enough to reject special interest money and "campaign contributions".
• Committed to find and implement policies, when it can be done, based on honest cost-benefit analysis using unspun data (not using the vacuous smoke and mirrors normally used by special interests, including the Democratic and Republican parties, labor unions, business interests and all the rest)
• Committed to shrewd and intelligent use of government to foster America's economic global competitiveness as opposed to the usual blind and inefficient reliance on government by many Democrats or the blind and inefficient hate of government by many Republicans; if this means more government or regulation, then fine and if it means less, that's fine too
  
• Committed to maximizing transparency of government operations, particularly interactions between public and private sector special interests (for example, by requiring all contacts between lobbyists and government officials to be made public to the extent it is reasonable)
• Committed to reestablishing the draft (or a draft/public service peacetime option), with no exemptions for anyone (particularly children of wealthy people and politicians), to limit the hideous penchant of our politicians, especially Republicans, to send our troops into unnecessary (Iraq) and incompetently conducted (Iraq and Afghanistan) but unfunded wars (if it is your kids going to war, then maybe you will be (i) just a bit less supportive of getting into a war unless it is really, really necessary and (ii) just a bit less tolerant of incompetent civilian leadership)
• Committed to requiring, except in the case of a true emergency (not a smoke and mirrors emergency that politicians always conjure out of nothing), that major spending programs, e.g., wars and health care programs, are at least 70-80% paid for by tax increases and/or spending cuts before one penny is spent
• Committed to a brutally honest but fair assessment of our public education system and if the best option appears to be privatizing it, then working to implement privatization or at least creating competition between privatized and public schools (because our public education system is in failure mode)
• Committed to allowing as much personal freedom as society can reasonably accommodate, e.g., legalized abortion, legalized same sex marriage and legalized marijuana (maybe other drugs, depending on a careful but fair cost-benefit public health and economic analysis)
• Committed to reducing the influence of religion in government including the military, e.g., by vigorously fighting to maintain as much separation between church and state as possible; religion should not have much of a role in a secular democracy; if people want more religion in government, they should first carefully and honestly consider interesting places like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Ecuador or the Vatican City - be careful about what you wish for because you just might get it and find that you don't like it
• Committed to showing the American public the awful scope and depth of the failures of our political institutions, especially the Democratic and Republican parties, and most of our political policies since the end of World War II (nobody can blame our messes on the Libertarians, Greens, Nazis or Communists)
• Committed to reworking our tax code to make it simple and transparent, while phasing out tax loopholes and breaks immediately or over a few years if a cost-benefit analysis shows they are economically not beneficial (the cost to the US economy for mere tax compliance is in the neighborhood of $200 billion per year; needless loopholes cost at least another $100 billion per year (probably about $200 billion) - all of that is wasted effort and weakens our economic competitiveness)
• Committed to implementing public financing of elections to the maximum extent allowed by law - this is the only politically possible counterweight to at least partly offset the corruption of politics by special interest money
• Committed to ending (or vastly reducing) America's dependence on foreign energy, which is a true and urgent national security crisis, by the the most efficient and reliable means now available based on a transparent and brutally honest cost-benefit analysis (meaning it probably isn't going to be building wind farms or solar panel factories, it probably is going to be nuclear power) (for every $10 increase in the cost of a barrel of oil, our economy has to pay about an additional $200 billion per year, mostly to our enemies - that is another unsustainable and stupid burden on our competitiveness)
• Committed to use public funds to implement a national energy independence strategy, e.g., by building nuclear power plants if that is what makes sense, even if it means using eminent domain to sweep aside the screaming NIMBY folks (and private property rights freaks) and waiving every environmental regulation there ever was (like President W. did when he was building the US-Mexico border fence); then provide that energy to our economy at cost and in direct competition with private sector energy providers none of whom care much about the American economy or people (there is nothing like a little competition to focus business interests and reduce costs, at least that is what Adam Smith thought)
• Committed to immediate conversion, for new employees at least, of public sector employee retirement fixed benefit pensions to the wonderful but often useless 401K type plans the rest of us private sector folks enjoy; don't you just love those "flash crashes" that blow out a chunk of your 401K in about 35 minutes - you can safely bet that most public sector employees don't ever face that kind of real world risk; it time to have them face the same reality we face
  
• Committed to fostering conversion of public sector employees from unionized to not unionized
• Committed to returning essentially all American troops from Japan, Europe, South Korea, and all of the Middle East as soon as reasonably practical, i.e., within about 2 years (the second world war is over and our allies have recovered and can take care of themselves; the Middle East can and will do what it wants because our troops can't stop them; you can see the civil war coming to poor forlorn Iraq - it is only a matter of time before the blood starts flowing again)
  

The list could go on for a while, e.g., fixing bad infrastructure, etc. The point is that what we have now is a lot of failure. Some of the things on the list have more than a little to do with that failure, e.g., corruption of politics and politicians by special interest money. Despite the fury of the November elections, it is now apparent that nothing much new is on the political horizon.

However, one must wait to see what the Tea Party folks might do differently once they get settled into power in January. If they can get past their blinding political and religious ideology and act like pragmatic realists, then maybe they will be helpful. If not, then probably not.

Post #3 - Money, lobbyists & politics, part 2

Post #2 considered a defense of lobbyists based on a free speech argument and found it unable to justify or explain away the allegedly corrupting influence of special interest money on politics. This post will consider other defenses. It may be the case that two or more defenses together make a convincing case that the influence of special interest money on politics is more good than bad.

The premise is that the influence of lobbyists backed by special interest money on politics is generally detrimental to the public interest. The argument is that special interest money is a major reason for the failure of our political institutions. Obviously, if you do not believe that our institutions including, the Democratic and Republican parties, have failed then the arguments presented here will probably be unpersuasive or irrelevant. Like most contested issues in politics, people will disagree.

Defense 2 - Lobbyists are just exercising their
right to petition the government

This argument has been articulated several times. The bill of rights of the constitution provides a right for people to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Like the free speech argument discussed in post #2, this argument is true. However, like the free speech argument, it is beside the point of what the role of special interest money might be. Petitioning the government can be good, bad or indifferent for the public interest.

Like the free speech argument, this argument can be accompanied by the argument that lobbyists "toil in the public interest". As discussed in post #2, the persuasive power of that depends on your definition of the public interest. Special interests always argue that what they want for their special interest is in the public's interest.

That routinely happens, including in cases where lobbyists on opposite sides of an issue both argue they are on the public's side. Those arguments are invariably accompanied by assertions that the opposition is working for the special interest to the detriment of the public interest.

Defense #3 - Lobbyists represent many people

This defense has been raised by a number of people, e.g. Hillary Clinton. In her lobbyist defense, Clinton said that "a lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans. They actually do. They represent nurses. They represent, you know, social workers. Yes, they represent corporations that employ a lot of people."

Once again, this is a defense that is is literally true but it ignores the role of special interest money in representing all those people. It also assumes that what special interests want is in the public interest. It is fair to ask, is what the nurses or corporations want necessarily in the public's interest? What they want will be at least party in their own interest, but that says nothing about any effect on the public interest. If there is benefit to the public, then why is so much money needed? Why can't the lobbyist argument win without a pile of cash?

Defense #4 - Lobbyists balance

competing interests

Another lobbyist defense argues that our political system is "specifically designed to balance to competing interests of many rival corporations, lobbyists and PACS." The question for this defense is whether you believe it or not. Is our political system really designed to balance competing interests? Assuming it is, then why is so much special interest money needed to do the balancing? Why don't special interest arguments win or lose on the merits with no campaign contributions required?

As I understand politics, our system at the national level and the local level is a pay to play system. The more a special interest pays, the more it plays. The term "play" arguably is a euphemism for access to power and "pay" is a euphemism for buying votes or favors. Of course, special interests, lobbyists and politicians all deny that characterization.

So, does that system balance competing interests? Does a lobbyist working for a cash strapped non-profit fighting against an oil company lobbyist armed with millions of dollars in cash feel the balance? A reasonable guess is that the cash-poor lobbyist gets little access and influence compared to the rich lobbyist.

Does that look like a political system "specifically designed to balance to competing interests"? The fact that competing interests may fight over an issue does not explain the role of money or why it needs to be involved. If anything, it looks like our political system is favors wealthy interests at the expense of poor ones.

Defense #5 - If you don't like lobbyists,
you don't like yourself

This argument goes like this: Lobbies mirror our own interests and when Americans say "they hate lobbyists, what they are really saying is that they hate themselves." That is an interesting argument. It seems to imply that anything your personal lobbyist wants must be in the public interest because otherwise you would hate yourself. Strange logic. Flawed logic.

What if my lobbyist argues for something I oppose because I am in the numerical or monetary minority in my special interest group? And if my lobbyist argues for something I want, does that necessarily make it in the public interest? Special interests may not necessarily coincide with the public's interests.

For example, rich individuals and corporations do not want to pay taxes and they contribute money so that their lobbyists can get congress to exempt them from paying a lot of taxes. That has created tax loopholes to the tune of at least $100 billion annually for corporations alone. Our tax system "is hemorrhaging with offshore tax havens costing us, according to the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, over $100 billion a year in lost revenue." That certainly is in the interest of the beneficiaries. But, is it in the public interest?

Anyway, this lobbyist defense is silent on why special interest money needs to be involved or whether it is good or bad.

Conclusion for part 2

Lobbyist defenses #2-5 discussed in this post just do not address the role of special interest money in the whole process. Given that, lobbyist defenses 1-5 alone or together do not convincingly show that special interest money is more good than bad. If all that special interest money was so good for us all, then why is America up to its eyeballs in irate alligators? Why has our system failed? Defenders of the status quo have had things their way for decades. Where are the public benefits of all that special interest spending on our political institutions? Where's the beef?

Post #2 - Money, lobbyists & politics

Some people are concerned about the role of special interest money and lobbyists in politics. Some aren't. Special interests and lobbyists certainly are not concerned. However, the issue keeps coming up. People like Solomon Kleinsmith at Rise of the Center (a moderate blog) cite concerns that non-partisan groups like Common Cause and Public Citizen continue to raise. This issue was mentioned here in an earlier post. This issue just isn't going away, and it shouldn't.

Money and lobbyist defenses

The issue raises the question of what is the role of special interest money and lobbyists in politics. Are they more good than bad? What are the arguments that say they are good? Are the arguments convincing? A Google search of the phrase "in defense of lobbyists" gives thousands of hits and among them are several arguments that what special interest money and lobbyists do is defensible.

It makes sense to start with the best defense first. If it is convincing, which should include supporting data, then one can reasonably conclude that lobbyists and special interest, money in politics is a generally good thing. If not, one is left to speculate why the argument fails.

This post discusses the most convincing of the arguments I could find. Alone, it failed to convince me that what lobbyists and special interest money does to politics is more good than bad. My next post will discuss more defenses. Maybe two or more defenses will be sufficient to change the political argument that when armed with special interest money, lobbyists and their money corrupt American politics and hurts the public interest.

Defense 1 - The constitution protects special
interest money and lobbyists

This defense is simple. The U.S. constitution protects political speech and in essence it cannot be limited or controlled. In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court in January 2010 made it clear that they consider spending special interest money in politics to be free speech. This argument says that what lobbyists and special interests do with their money is legal and cannot be easily restrained or limited. Given that, contacts between lobbyists and people in government cannot be restrained and special interests can do just about whatever they want in terms of spending money to influence politics.

This defense has been repeatedly raised by experienced, mainstream commentators in respected media outlets, e.g., the U.S. News and World Report and the Wall Street Journal. Under the circumstances, it is the case that lobbyist contacts and the spending of special interest money are both protected free speech. Although I disagree with the argument that a special interest legal entity such as a corporation has such free speech rights, that opinion is not the law. So, it will be ignored.

Assuming that there is no dispute that all "normal" lobbyist activities and special interest spending really is legal, how convincing is the conclusion that lobbyist activities and special interest spending is therefore more good than bad? The implied argument is this: If it is legal, it must be good and therefore it is good. That is the heart and soul of this defense. So, is it convincing? To me it isn't.

This defense isn't convincing for the simple reason that it is beside the point. Bare assertions that lobbyist activity and special interest money is legal ignores the question of whether they are good, bad or indifferent. Unbiased data and proof of benefit to society is what would be convincing. None of the people who raised this defense accompanied their arguments with unspun, hard data showing any benefit to anyone other than the special interest. There are two simple arguments that further undermine this defense.

Legal things and illegal things: Things like smoking cigarettes, banning gays from open military service, abortion and drafting massive tax loopholes for corporations that move operations offshore are all legal for the most part. Things like smoking marijuana, same sex marriage, first degree murder and prostitution are all illegal. Are all the legal things actually good for society? Are all the illegal things really bad? Obviously, that will depend on who you ask. An answer based at least partly on a cost-benefit analysis instead of a pure personal opinion will usually be more accurate.

In cases like first degree murder, it doesn't take much analysis to conclude that society is better off making it illegal. But what about cigarettes and marijuana? There are good arguments on both sides for those issues. The same logic applies to lobbyists armed with special interest money trying to influence government. In short, just because something is legal doesn't mean it must be a good thing for society. Sometimes that is true but sometimes it isn't.

We are on the public's side: The second argument against the free speech defense comes directly from the partisan players themselves. Lobbyists and special interests with money usually argue that they are humbly begging to act solely for the public benefit without any regard whatever to their own petty interests. That includes lobbyists and money on opposite sides of contested issues.

Remember the November 2010 elections? It wasn't that long ago. Here in California, there were ballot measures that were hotly contested. Some of those ballot measures pitted labor unions against business interests.

Can you guess what both sides argued? Both sides vigorously argued that they were acting in the public interest. And both sides vehemently argued their evil opponent was acting to benefit their opponent's special interest at the expense of the poor, undefended and beleaguered public interest. That was sweet of both sides to think about us fool taxpayers, wasn't it?

Anyway, set emotion aside and think calmly about that scenario. You had hard core partisan special interests with money and their lobbyists in the middle of political discourse, if that is what you could call it. They were both accusing the other side of acting for the benefit of the special interest at the expense of the public interest. Who should you believe was on the public's side - special interest #1 or special interest #2?

From where I sat as a neutral observer, it looked like each side argued for their own interest to the detriment of the public interest. Neither side was very convincing. Both argued their own special interest with little or no regard to the public interest.

Truth and reconciliation: How do the opposing sides reconcile the apparent paradox? Easy, they both defined the public interest as coinciding with their own. Neither side would ever entertain the thought that maybe both were more wrong than right. An outside observer honestly looking for object truth and common sense logic could easily see it a third way. The partisans slugging it in campaign or advocacy ads out were not a reasonable source for unbiased opinion or fact.

Conclusion

Although the free speech defense of lobbyist and special interest money as being legal is correct, it is essentially irrelevant. Alone, that defense is unpersuasive if you can be neutral and objective. I need to look at more defenses. Maybe two or more defenses of what I see as indefensible are needed to be convincing to someone like me who is objective and neutral when it comes to the facts. Maybe there is something out there that I am missing.

----------------------------

This post tried to present another way of looking at politics. It tries to step back and apply common sense and logic to politics. Ideology is ignored as much as possible so that facts and reality can be seen more easily and clearly. That is a third way of doing politics.

Post #1 - Reincarnation

The California Moderates blog is back, but as a different beast. The original was dedicated to starting a new moderate / pragmatic political party in California. That effort failed. The premise was, and still is, that meaningful reform and more intelligent politics cannot come from the two established parties. They are captive to powerful special interests with money and their own entrenched activists. Neither will tolerate reform. That would threaten their power and challenge their political and religious ideology.

Moderates are beginning to organize on a national level. To date, most of the discussion has focused on political news, criticism and commentary, which is fine. However, if moderates are going to really challenge the status quo, it will require a new political party in each state. That requires organization at the state level. It also requires a clear explanation of what moderates stand for, what they would do and how they differ from the right and the left.

This blog is here to suggest political changes and how to implement new ways of thinking about solving political problems. Some of the content will be California-centric, but that is just because that is where I live. Maybe some of this content will be useful to groups in other states. If so, use it as you wish. There are no strings attached.

Political parties: Sacred or profane?

How do people view political parties? As a neutral observer of the Democratic and Republican parties and their tactics, it seems to be the case that many (most?) activists treat their political beliefs about like many people treat their personal religious beliefs. That seems to be the case particularly for hard core Republicans. For true believer activists, their own political beliefs and policy choices are obviously correct and proper, while opposing policy choices are obviously wrong, bad and/or something worse.

From the viewpoint of someone trying to start a new political party and distinguish it from what we have now, it is useful to consider other opinions and viewpoints. It goes without saying, but I will say it anyway, that both the Democratic and Republican parties fervently believe that they are selflessly fighting for the public interest and our general welfare. However, those viewpoints suffer from the myopia that usually accompanies strong and rigid belief in most any political or religious ideology. Partisans often just can’t see very far. How about other opinion sources?

George Washington

One good source for opinions is the Founding Fathers. They had opinions about lots of things and at least some of them really, really disliked political parties. At the end of his presidency, George Washington said this about political parties:

“I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to founding them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you, in the most solemn manner, against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally. This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes, in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled or repressed; but in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate dominion of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which, in different ages and countries, has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism; but this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an Individual.” -- George Washington, Farewell Address 1796

Hm. That’s pretty strong stuff, with those comments about “baneful effects”, “horrid enormities” and whatnot. And, Washington ought to have some credibility on the topic. At the least, he thought about it and warned us.

Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson warned us too. He said this about political parties:

“You say that I have been dished up to you as an antifederalist, and ask me if it be just. My opinion was never worthy enough of notice to merit citing; but since you ask it I will tell it you. I am not a Federalist, because I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all. Therefore I protest to you I am not of the party of federalists. But I am much farther from that than of the Antifederalists.” Letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 1789

Hm. That’s pretty strong stuff, with those comments about not going to heaven, “the last degradation” and whatnot. But, to be fair and balanced, it must be noted that Jefferson changed his opinion, sort of, and said this in 1822: “I believe their {political parties} existence to be salutary inasmuch as they act as Censors on each other, and keep the principles & practices of each constantly at the bar of public opinion. It is only when they give to party principles a predominance over the love of country, when they degenerate into personal antipathies, and affect the intercourse of society and friendship, or the justice due to honest opinion, that they become vicious and baneful to the general happiness and good. We have seen such days. May we hope never to see such again!”

I would guess that if Jefferson today looked at modern Democratic party and Republican party tactics, he would say we are seeing such days again. That would be because the two main political parties have become vicious and baneful to the general happiness and good. Why would he feel that way? Because the parties have elevated their party principles over the love of country, degenerated into personal antipathies and do injustice to honest opinion.

See, Jefferson really didn’t change his opinion. He just qualified it. It is the case that, in Jefferson's opinion, things were going better in 1822 than they were in 1789 political party-wise.

We are not them

To be clear, I distinguish party activists and extremists from average ("normal") Democrats and Republicans. In my opinion, the activists and extremists are the main drivers of the failure, corruption, polarization and gross misinformation we face every day. Without them, most average people would see that they are much more alike than what the extremists would have us believe. Compromise would be much easier, as would getting people behind policies where no compromise with either side makes sense.

What’s the point?

This is the point. Political parties are not sacred. That is particularly true when they have failed, become corrupt and elevate partisan ideology above service to the public. The Democratic and Republican parties routinely put their self-interest and their ideology about transparency and service to the public.

I see the Republican party as currently being significantly worse on all counts (failure, corruption, incompetence and inspiring partisan hate and disgraceful misinformation). Nonetheless, despite what I see as an imbalance, the Democratic party has nothing to be proud of either. It failed too and suffers from the same weaknesses.

Recent history

In the first post here, I indicated that the main goal isn't endlessly complaining about what Democrats or Republicans did badly or failed to do. The goal is to test California voter's interest in forming a new party that is marked by a few core concepts. Those concepts include better service to the public interest, intelligent pragmatism over political or religious ideology, competence and transparency. This blog is here to articulate reasons why a new political party makes sense. This post gives a historical perspective on why a new party is both justified and needed in California.

The end of World War II

Can you recall from your life, what you learned in school or later in your life about the end of WWII through today? What was the state of the world in 1945 compared to 2010? A reasonable summary in the context of politics might see recent history this way.

• America was the only major power that was not bombed into the dark ages (Japan, Germany) and/or bankrupt (Italy, Germany, Japan, England, Russia, Eastern Europe).
• America had abundant natural resources, unlike Japan, Germany and England.
• America had the largest industrial infrastructure on the planet and built it up further, e.g., the interstate highways starting in 1956.
• American innovation was unmatched, e.g., the internet started in the late 1970s based mainly on American technology. There were dozens of other areas where American technology dominated.
  
• America had some of the best, if not the best institutions of higher education in the world.
• America had a relatively manageable level of debt at the end of WWII, compared to the snarling beast we face now.
• America and Americans were generally reasonably well-liked around the world compared to the situation today.
  
• America had the best form of government of any nation on Earth. Consider Chairman Mao in China. He set China's economy back by decades in pursuit of his lunatic political ideology like making educated people work on farms shoveling manure in his nutty "Cultural Revolution", his failed "great leap forward" and other silly nonsense. The Russians were no more intelligent. Unfortunately for us, the Chinese have woken up and become pragmatic - now they are a real threat.
  

We owe them

Why are we dependent on foreign oil and bleeding trillions of precious dollars in American wealth to countries who pretty much hate our guts. It was the case that at least some people in politics could see impending problems, but nothing came of it. Do you wonder why? I can think of some reasons, most of which have to do with political self-interest, incompetence and corruption.

Here we sit

So, here we sit today. Deep in debt to our enemies. Highly politically polarized into one of two ideologies, both of which have failed and both of which blind most people to reality. America is stuck in two endless wars, one of which was completely unjustified. Both were botched in their execution. Those wars are marked by huge human and economic costs, both here and in the unfortunate countries where we fight. We are in the neighborhood of $1 trillion spent to date. Iraq alone will cost $2-3 trillion by the time all of the bills over the next couple of decades are paid.

Either you like the Democratic or Republican parties and their "leadership" or you don't. As I see it, there are compelling reasons to not like or trust either of them. They have had all political power from the end of WWII until today. Therefore, they get 100% of the credit, if you like today's situation, or blame if you don't.

We could have and should have done better. Much better. The options are pretty simple: Try to fix what is broken, try something different or do nothing. You decide. My decision should be clear.

The best government

A prior post on the public interest mentioned the role of government in the context of serving the public interest. One way to look at government is to see it as the means to balance public and private interests. The goal would be to find win-win scenarios or policies for both public and private interests, whenever possible. But, if a win-win cannot be found, government should be there to reasonably defend the public interest and strike a better balance than what we usually get now.

How big?

How big does government need to be to do that? A defensible, but unsatisfying, answer is that it needs to be just big enough to do its job and still be reasonably manageable and efficient. One could argue that California state government is too big to reasonably manage, just like the federal government. Arguably, state legislators and the governor cannot manage it very well, partly because of its size and complexity, partly because of chronic partisan fighting and partly because of corruption by special interest money.

Too big, too small or just right

There are dozens of California state agencies. It may be the case that some of them may not need to exist, while others might need to be expanded. For example, California state bank regulators mostly rubber stamp what federal regulators do. Given that, why maintain a shadow state agency when the public interest is defended by the federal function?

People may disagree about whether federal regulators did a good, bad or indifferent job in dealing with the economic 2008-2009 meltdown, but that is a different issue. Regardless, we pay one way or another for the federal service. If one considers the recent financial sector meltdown, nothing that state regulators did was of any more use than what federal agencies did. California state bank regulators would obviously beg to differ, to say the least.

Getting it right

From a pragmatic point of view, the best government would be one that is no bigger or smaller than what is needed to effectively do what the majority of people usually want. Of course, what people want is where the big disagreements are. Hard core conservatives generally want as little government as possible, but it isn't clear if their view of government would be sufficient to reasonably defend the public interest most of the time. The same appears to be true for hard core liberals, i.e., lots of government, but that doesn't translate into better service to the public interest.

When it comes to various California government functions, it is likely the case that a careful and even-handed review of state agencies and programs will show that sometimes the conservatives have it about right and sometimes the liberals have it about right. However, given the dismal state of affairs in California, it is easy to envision that they typically both have it more wrong than right.

If that weren't the case, then why are we in hot water? If Democrats and Republicans had done a good job, what went wrong? How did we get here? If you believe in American exceptionalism, then it is the case that America and California must have failed in their conduct of something. What might that something be? Failure in governance comes to mind. Who was responsible for that?

Fear of the unknown?

The previous post and an earlier post on this happy blog observed that despite public discontent with the Democratic and Republican parties, the third parties out there don't seem to be getting much traction. That is likely due to several things. Resistance by the two big parties and some public and private organizations probably is a factor. However, maybe a bigger factor is fear of the unknown.

Being all for transparency and arguing for the formation of a new political party, addressing the fear factor makes sense.

Would a new moderate or pragmatic political
party be evil or cause bad things to happen?

That is the question. In favor of a new party is the current political context. What context is that? The evil or bad things that the two parties have inflicted on us to date. Something has to be wrong with them, otherwise people would be happy and content. California is a mess in terms of its infrastructure, government and near-term and maybe longer term economic prospects. Moderates or pragmatists didn't cause that. Hard core, i.e., liberal and conservative, Democrats and Republicans are the ones who wielded most of the power over the last few decades. They must be the ones that deserve most of the blame, or credit if you like California's situation, which some people do. The situation at the national level is about the same. Is the situation they created evil or bad? You decide. Why would a moderate or pragmatic party be any worse than what we have now?

The dark side of moderation and pragmatism

Despite California's sorry situation, one can always cheerfully spin scenarios about how much worse it would be if a third party rose to be in a kingmaker position. Let's assume that has happened. What kind of people would even be attracted to a new political party that is grounded in reality and dedicated to the public interest and transparency? Anarchists? Nazis? Godless Commies? Probably not. Folks like that have and need their sacred ideologies. It is their source of comfort. There isn't much comfort in facing reality openly and honestly. There just isn't. Solutions to problems are hard enough to figure out, but on top of that you still have the Democrats and Republicans to deal (compromise) with, assuming they are willing to even talk. They aren't going away any time soon.

So who might consider joining a new party? Probably malcontents, like me, who mean well but have lost faith in the two parties and/or our political and government institutions. Are those people, including me, going to stay with a new party if it turns out to have suckered them in or morphs into supporting an evil agenda of some sort or another? Look at what happened to Ross Perot in 1992. Once it became clear that he was a flake, people (like me) turned away from him and the reform movement collapsed. Why wouldn't that happen again today under similar circumstances? Of course it would.

Either you have faith or you don't

Maybe this comes down to how you view human nature. Sure there always bad events and bad people. Good people can be subverted or wrong. If one dwells on the dark side and believes it always has the upper hand, then why would there be any reason to expect meaningful reform from the Democratic or Republican parties? My opinion is that many people do want intelligent reform and a better defense of the public interest. It is also my opinion that meaningful reform of the Democratic or Republican parties is not possible without an external force like a real third party challenge.

Failure is success: That third party might ultimately fail as a party if the Democrats or Republicans were forced to wake up and really change or go extinct. Their continued existence might be bought by co-opting the new opposition. Failure under those circumstance would be a smashing success and well worth the effort. To me it does not matter what party has power. What does matter is how power is exercised, who wins and who loses.

At the moment, trying to build a new party arguably has the best chance of forcing real change into California politics. There is no point is worrying about later success or failure if the moderate party idea never gets off the ground. That pig would need to fly before it could be shot down.

So, what is scarier, the known Democratic and Republican Parties or the unknown (a new party based on public service, competence and transparency)? You choose.

A new party vs. reforming the status quo

A fair question is to ask if it is worth the bother of trying to form a new political party. After all, we have the Democrats, Republicans, Greens, Libertarians and a few others as registered parties in California. As argued in the first post on this blog, the third parties so far have not gained much traction. Given the rather awful state of political affairs in California and widespread public discontent, one would expect one that more of those third parties would really be taking off at the moment. So far, that isn't happening.

Reform from within?

How about reforming Democrats and Republicans from within their own parties? After considering that option long and hard, it is easier to see how and why they would not make fundamental reforms than it is to see how or why they would make changes. There is just too much money and power fighting to maintain the status quo for meaningful reform to be possible.

On top of that, there is the human factor. Both the Democratic and Republican parties are dominated by hard core partisans. Those people are well-meaning and have worked long and hard in the public interest as they see it. They have devoted much of their time to their cause and they do not consider that their cause has failed or been corrupted. However, most of these folks are rigid ideologues, i.e., hard core liberals or conservatives. That makes them naturally resistant to policy changes that goes against the grain of their beliefs. This human factor is an anchor that fights to keep the status quo pretty much where it is.

What is left?

What is left to do? One thing is to do nothing new and just wait for events to play out. That is easiest for most people. Admittedly, most Californians are busy and not very engaged or interested in politics. Many Californians are struggling and have little time for it. Another possibility is to work with reform groups such as California Forward or California Choices. That is a reasonable thing to do, although reform efforts will be opposed by the usual cast of characters. Also, there is the option of starting a new political party. 

Why a new party?

A new party could provide some unique aspects. One, it would not be dominated by entrenched activists because nothing would be entrenched, at least in the first few years. It could also incorporate into its policies, the reform efforts of groups like California Forward or California Choices. A proclivity toward reform could be built into the essence of the party, which might not be a bad thing given the fluid and dynamic nature of the world and our economy. Rigidity seems to be a big enemy these days. Third, a new party could provide a central organization from which people interested in political change could coordinate and operate.

At present, political discontent with the existing parties, e.g., registered independents, does not have an obvious home base and it appears to be mostly unfocused. Providing a focus point or organization, like a new political party, should enhance the capacity of discontent to inflict change on a system that will resist.

What is the public interest?

A usual, the devil is in the details. Not surprisingly, there is no consensus about what the public interest is. The public interest to one person might mean taxing and regulating the daylights out of businesses. To others, it might mean increasing public employee pensions. From the typical politician's point of view, serving the public interest means getting reelected because they know that they are the best for the public, even when they actually might be the worst. Politicians can be delusional.

Corporate interests

From a corporation's point of view as a legal entity, the public interest is usually, but not always, mostly irrelevant. For corporations, the whole point is maximizing shareholder value, not service to the public. To emphasize that point, it is the case that if a corporation does not act in the best interests of the shareholders, it can be sued by shareholders. Although there usually is some degree of overlap, e.g., many shareholders are members of the public, corporate and public interests do not have to overlap much or at all, except for shareholder benefits. For some for-profit businesses, e.g., many small businesses, there tends to be a lot of public benefit in their activities, including jobs and other economic activity. As with most things political, one needs to be careful about generalizing. There is more much more gray than black and white out there.

From a pragmatic, realistic, non-partisan point of view (my point of view), the public interest is pretty much what it sounds like. It relates to the general well-being of as much of the population, including special interests, as possible. Serving the public interest is a matter of balance between the public and special interests. Helping special interests, particularly for-profit businesses, helps create wealth. Wealth is necessary to support our standard of living. As far as I know, capitalism is the best means for efficiently creating wealth. It isn't perfect, but it does seem to harness the creative side of human nature more effectively than other economic systems.

What is government's role?

Considering the public interest raises the question of what the role of government should be. The proper role of government should be to try to strike the "best" balance between the public and special interests. What we have now is government that is distorted in favor of special interests at the expense of the public. If you disagree, consider California's present dire straits - the messes are obvious. How did we get here? By service to the public interest? Hardly. We got here by political business as usual. That means politicians chasing after "campaign contributions" and serving their own interests first. It also means special interests like businesses and labor unions doing exactly what they are supposed to do, i.e., make or accumulate as much money as possible as fast as possible.

The public interest took it in the shorts and now the chickens have come home to roost. Unfortunately for us, they are very big and nasty chickens.

Want change or not?

A new political party with no particular axe to grind other than to try to find and serve a better balance of interests would constitute something different in politics. If you disagree, you can always stay with the Democrats or Republicans to get more of the same fine quality service that they delivered to get us to where we are today. Their track record is crystal clear and it speaks for itself.

Going online

The previous post summarized one way to qualify a new political party in California. Before a new party qualifies as a registered California political party, nothing prevents it from deciding its own policies, voicing opinions about California or national politics and doing anything else political. That can be done while the party is forming or going online, so to speak.

Other than not advocating for violence or overthrow of the state or federal government, there are essentially no constraints on political speech. That is true regardless of whether a party is officially registered or not. Citizens do not need to belong to any political party or be registered to vote to express political opinions. 

The new party could hold its own votes, e.g., by internet, for or against any state or national politician or law at any time it wanted. Of course, such votes would not be binding, but if enough people supported those votes, the political establishment would take notice. Doing that would be more than just expressing discontent in an opinion poll. 

The Democratic and Republican parties understand that many voters are unhappy with both of them. Reasons for discontent are obvious. However, unless discontented voters generate some real opposition, significant reform or change will not occur. In politics, as with most other things, the system is the way it is for darn good reasons. In the case of politics, special interests and money dominate the public interest because that is what the incentives reward. The status quo simply isn't going to change without a fight. It serves wealth and power at the expense of the public interest.

Registering a new political party is one way to force something different into politics as usual. Different politics include advocating for the public interest against special interests and forcing more transparency into politics. Getting there will take a fight, which isn't all bad. Unhappy voters can at least try to force change into politics without getting tossed into jail or disappear.

Forming a new political party

The California elections code governs political parties. Sections 5000-5006 and 5100-5102 specify how a new party can be formed and allowed to participate in primaries. Some requirements are:

• Submit voter statements from at least 1 percent of the total state vote in the last gubernatorial election saying they intend to affiliate with a new party. 

• Submit voter statements on or before the 135th day before the next primary election, which will be in June of 2012 (making the deadline in February 2012).

• Conduct a caucus or convention at which temporary officers are elected and a party name designated.

• File a formal notice with the California Secretary of State that the political body has organized, elected temporary officers, and declared an intent to qualify a political party.

• The notice has to include the names and addresses of the temporary officers of the political party.

You don't need to switch parties 
if you change your mind

It is worth noting that although someone signs a statement saying they intend to affiliate with a new party, they do not need to actually change their party registration once the new party qualifies. The specified number of voter statements are needed to qualify a new party. However, once a new party qualifies, it needs to maintain a lower number of registered voters in the new party to stay qualified. 

Help wanted

What needs to be done is clear. People who want to participate are invited to respond to calmoderate@gmail.com. It would be helpful to include a brief description of what you are willing to do, e.g., sign a statement of intent to affiliate with a new party, be a temporary officer or help to recruit more voters.

Transparency versus money

The previous post argued that special interest money in politics works for the special interest. That can hurt the public interest. Those opinions are based on common sense. When a for-profit corporation acts, it is supposed to act in shareholder's best interests. Maximizing shareholder profit is the point of being a for-profit entity, regardless of what the public relations department might tell you.

Money - good, bad or neutral?

Given California's difficult situation and Californian's professed unhappiness with politics as usual, a reasonable question is whether the bad effects of money politics can be reduced. However, if you believe that the effect of money on politics is good or irrelevant, then the suggestions made here will not make sense. It all depends on your point of view. The view from the a new party perspective could be that money in politics is significantly more bad than good for the public interest and more good than bad for the special interest.

There is at least one low cost approach to reduce the power of special interest money in politics - more transparency. Obviously, that would face special interest opposition. Most state politicians, state bureaucrats, California political parties and at least some of the public would oppose it. Nonetheless, it is an option the courts probably would not overturn.

More transparency - sunlight disinfects

Increased transparency of how money and its lobbyists actually work would probably favor the public interest more than the special interest on most issues. Current law requires disclosure of donors, which is only some transparency that could be forced into politics. Doing more is possible. Lobbyists work with politicians in private and there is a good reason for that. Specifically, they do not want the public to know what they are saying, asking for or paying. That opinion is based on common sense. How many political outsiders have ever heard what went on in a meeting between a lobbyist asking for favors and a California politician? Probably very few.

Whose business is it - theirs or ours?

So, are special interest-politician meetings public or private business? When a lobbyist talks to a politician or government bureaucrat, it is mostly or exclusively public business. The typical lobbyist backed by for-profit special interest money wants something from the government or taxpayers, usually lower taxes, less regulation and/or less competition. Since taxpayers elect politicians to represent them, their business is public business, not private business with special interests or their lobbyists.

A nasty light, from their point of view: California politician or bureaucrat meetings and other communications with special interests or their lobbyists should be required to be made public. All meetings should be recorded and available to the public and the press. Once the public gets to see what really goes on, it is highly likely that what politicians or bureaucrats deliver will be much less biased in favor of the special interest. Sunlight disinfects rot.

Publicizing the business between politicians or bureaucrats and the envoys of special interest money isn't the only form of enhanced transparency that could be applied. Naming the entities and the dollar amounts attached to key pieces of legislation would further clarify the connection between politicians and money. A lot of things could be done.

Chasing special interest business out of the dark and into the light goes straight to the heart of politics as usual. Complaints from status quo defenders, e.g., secrecy is needed to protect sensitive information, could be reasonably dealt with. Not all information a lobbyist conveys is confidential or trade secret. The bulk of those communications are marketing or "rationale" as to why the special interest should be allowed to feed more voraciously from the public trough or get some other benefit. Those arguments are what the public needs to see and hear.

A soft, deadly threat

Special interest marketing pleas are no doubt sometimes, maybe usually, accompanied by very subtle promises/threats of "campaign contributions" to the incumbent or the challenger in the next election cycle depending on what the politician will or will not do. That is how money exerts its pressure, i.e., it is the politician's main incentive to act or fail to act. Forcing more transparency into politics would be an effective public interest counter threat.

Money in politics

In California, like most everywhere else, a candidate usually can't get elected without money. Organizations like Follow the Money estimate that over $204 million has been contributed in the current election cycle, but that is based on incomplete information from candidates who ran in the June primary. By the time the elections in November 2010 are over, total contributions in California could be $450 million or more.

What does all that money buy? According to lobbyists, politicians, and the Democratic and Republican political parties, it buys either nothing or, at most, access to politicians so that special interests and their lobbyists can explain what it is they want. Everyone involved argues that campaign contributions do not buy votes. So, is that believable or not?

Is the money really just an innocent thing with no influence on policy, law or the public interest? Is that argument credible or not? Lobbyists and special interests can always talk to a politician without making a campaign contribution, assuming there is something important to talk about. Do special interests really pay hundreds of millions of dollars to get nothing more than a simple innocent meeting with a politician?

Pick up the phone and make 

an appointment, not a contribution

If nothing else, common sense says that campaign contributions buy votes and influence, regardless of how strenuously the involved parties deny it. If the money didn't work, it wouldn't be contributed. That is not rocket science. It is reality. However, according to the U.S. Supreme court, spending money on campaigns is protected free speech. With business as usual, nothing will change and money will continue to corrupt politics. That is another reality.

Believe it or not: Either you believe that scenario is mostly true or you don't. From the perspective of a political moderate grounded in reality, corruption of politics by special interest money is the reality. Who benefits more than needed? The special interest* paying the bills, of course. Who loses more than needed? Usually the public interest as argued in another post.

* Not all lobbyists and special interests are loaded with money and they cannot corrupt politics with cash. Many charities and social organizations have little or no money for politicians. They have to win their arguments mostly on the merits, which is fine. Unfortunately, that isn't the case for special interests with money - they influence their arguments with cash.

Why does it work out that way? Because that is how incentives align in politics. Special interests contribute money with few downsides and a lot of political or economic upside. Politicians need money for election and reelection, which is usually their top priority. That makes harvesting campaign contributions a higher priority than service to the public. In a fight between a moneyed special interest and the public interest, the public interest tends to get short changed.

Can it be fixed?

Probably not completely. Spending money is constitutionally protected political speech. A subsequent post will discuss one option, more transparency, that may blunt some of the raw power that special interest money has on California politics.

Public interest vs. special interest

There is a difference between the public interest and a special interest. For economic issues, the difference usually amounts to which interest gets most of the benefits or advantages of policy or law. That may favor the public or special interest. For most social or religious issues, e.g., abortion, the difference generally amounts to which personal or religious belief interest 'wins'. Supporters argue their view helps the public. The opposition argues the opposite. Regardless, the outcome may help, hurt or do nothing to the public interest.

Where does the balance lie?

The interesting question is one of balance. How much net benefit or harm there is to the public interest compared to the special interest. It isn't always a matter of one side wins and the other loses. For some political policies, there is more benefit than hurt. Sometimes all sides are hurt more than helped. Sometimes its a wash.

Spinners step in: Unfortunately the balance is usually hard for the public to see. Political issues are usually complicated. A law affecting one area of the economy can affect things in related or unrelated areas. For contested policies, both sides generally spin as hard as they can to win their argument or benefit. Facts and truth are hard or impossible to get at. In political debates, truth is the usual first casualty. Despite the smoke and mirrors, when a special interest has money and lobbyists, the special interest tends to benefit at the expense of the public interest.

It is just entrepreneurial: Ignoring or downplaying the public interest is mostly capitalist. Politicians follow their political incentives, e.g., reelection, just like capitalists follow theirs in the economic arena. Unfortunately that is a big problem. If political incentives favor the special interest, that is what most politicians will favor most of the time, if not always.

Trying to get a win-win or equal balance would be an improvement when it could be done. Favoring the public interest over the special interest would be fine if a win-win or reasonable balance could not be found. At the least, approaching California's political problems and issues from that viewpoint would be different.

What kind of party?

What could a new or moderate California political party be like? It could, like other political parties, be built around political or economic ideology like fiscal conservatism or Keynesian economic theory. It could be based on usually trying to find compromises between what Republicans and Democrats want. It could be corrupted by special interest money or it could be relatively free from corruption. A political party could be a lot of things.

California Moderates

Existing political parties offer a vast range of political and economic ideology. Given that, why try to make up some more? The track record of hard core political ideology over pragmatism does not look so good at the moment. It makes sense to start from a relatively non-ideological but pragmatic point of view. A new party could look realistically at political problems and issues with as little distortion by ideology or special interest spin as possible.

From that vantage point, the a new party could find and advocate for the most cost-effective and efficient policy that has a chance of political success. In some cases a good solution to a social problem or issue might be considered conservative, liberal or a compromise between those two. Sometimes it might be none of those. That is one aspect of not being trapped by political ideology - it frees you to fairly consider actions that ideologues cannot conceive or accept, even if their point of view is 'wrong' or second best.

Nuts and bolts

Setting policy: One way for a new party to differ from Democrats and Republicans would be to allow its members or groups of members who want to formulate policies. For Democrats and Republicans, influencing policy is largely open only to life-long activists and major money donors. For a new open party, policies would be voted on by all members before it becomes official party policy. Opposing or differing policy proposals by members would be available online so that people would have a chance to consider the various policy arguments, including a chance to comment on proposals.

Party policies could be voted on under a schedule that members want, e.g., once a year, every two years, every four years or whenever made sense. Members could vote on all, some or no party policies as they wish.

Vote by internet: The Independent Party of Oregon has just finished a primary vote by internet. A new California party could do the same thing for internal policy votes and for primaries and general elections. That would free the party to hold primary elections at any time that its members want, like a day or two before primaries or caucuses in New Hampshire or Iowa. That might even dilute the undue political influence that those states have on national politics.

Membership: People would need to sign up and when asked, sign an affidavit of registration. Registering a new party in California requires affidavits from a number of people equal to or greater than 1% of  the people who voted in the last general election (about 90,000). A new party can register by petition, but that requires ten times the number of signatures (about 900,000). The needed number of signatures make the affidavit process difficult but possible. The petition route is probably impossible without several million dollars, which is not available. Given the needed numbers, it probably take at least a year or two, to get the needed number of people willing to qualify a new party.

A different kind of politics

Feeling queasy about the California ship of state? Lost some faith in the Democratic and Republican parties? Maybe there is a reason. Arguably, the boat is on the rocks. The parties certainly seem to be distracted by endless mortal combat. And, they are controlled by their own political interests and special interests with their money.

The question is whether or not there is enough discontent among California voters to want to do something about politics as usual. But, do what? Something that comes to mind is forming a moderate political party. That party could differ from politics as usual by serving the public interest first and special interests, which include party interests, second. That would be different. It could be more transparent and more open to political participation by its members. It could differ by focusing more on facts, reality and common sense than a focus on political ideology, polarization and spin.

A reasonable guess is that a lot of people are not happy with politics. That opinion is based on the fact that the number of people registered as independent voters has been increasing for over 20 years (17.7% in 2004 for California; 40% nationwide in 2010). Many Californians that care about politics, maybe most, are unhappy with the political status quo. Despite that, not much seems to be in the works to fix it. 

Whining doesn't work

This blog isn't here to voice complaints about what Democrats or Republicans have done badly or failed to do. It is here to foster change and political competition. At this point, either people are happy with the existing political parties and business as usual in California or they are not. Others can voice the complaints. I want to test the temperature of the discontent by seeing if there is a real chance to build a new party. If it is hot enough, then maybe a viable challenge is possible.

Low traction parties and platforms

It is fair to say that, despite the discontent, third parties and groups like the Libertarians, Greens, Nazis, Communists, Socialists, Christian Zionists and all the rest, do not have much popular appeal. So what is left to try? What is left is this. A party that is focused on finding 'unspun truth' (which will be clearly and simply defined a later post), intelligent, common sense problem solving and true dedication to public service. That is in comparison to the present major and minor political parties, which build complex temples of political ideology to worship and defend in the name of public service.

The question is whether forming a new California moderate party under current circumstances has a chance to succeed. Given the discontent, maybe it does. Subsequent posts will be directed to facilitating the formation of a new political party or describing ways in which a new party could be different from what we have now. Anyone interested can contact me by leaving a comment with contact information.