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.