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.