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?party be evil or cause bad things to happen?
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment