An earlier post listed policies for a smart political party. That list wasn't there to convince people to agree with all of those opinions. That won't happen and wasn't expected. The point was to show that a non-ideological, reality-based, pragmatic point of view could lead to liberal, conservative or other policies.
The range of reasonable possibilities is something the Democratic and Republican parties cannot or will not give you. Mostly, they are: (1) intellectually retarded by their blinding political and religious ideologies, (2) bought by special interest money and (3) focused on self-service before public service. My definition of self-service means doing whatever needed to get elected or reelected. Of course, yours may not be the same.
The credibility factor
Since I am an unknown, credibility is a big issue. I have little or none. If no one accepts that things I see as important social or political problems are important, then my try to argue for a new way of looking at politics will fail. Under the circumstances, it would help to cite other credible independent third parties, when they come up. 
Acute in California
My list of issues included public sector labor unions as a problem, at least for states like California where they are powerful. The January 8-14 issue of The Economist at pages 9 (lead editorial), 21-23, 26 and 68 highlighted public sector labor unions in the U.S. and Europe. The Economist noted (i) an unfunded $5 trillion debt that U.S. states face for labor union pensions and (ii) resistance to real reform by labor unions, e.g., U.S. teacher unions have fought reforms to increase productivity "most cruelly in education." Ouch.What does that have to do with politics and
a non-ideological party?
A fair question. This what it has to do with it. Democrats easily cannot see labor unions as a corrupting special interest problem. That contradicts their political ideology and contravines what labor union money and interests want. Democrats usually see public sector labor unions serving the public interest, not any special interest. Huge amounts of labor union campaign contribution money to the Democratic party and Democratic candidates powerfully reinforces that "reality". Money talks, and other stuff walks.By contrast, if you can see from a viewpoint grounded in reality, it is pretty easy to see that public sector labor unions are a special interest. That's especially true in our current economic and political situation. If you accept that, then it is easier to see that public sector labor unions usually serve their own interest before the public interest. Special interests look out for themselves - that's the definition of a special interest. The labor unions will, of course, deny that they are a special interest. From their point of view, everything they do is altruistic and mostly or purely in the public interest, even if it is nonsense.
What about the Republicans?
How do you think the average Republican would see this? I imagine that most of them conclude that public sector labor unions are a special interest out to serve themselves before the public. Why? Because it fits Republican anti-labor union anti-government ideology.How pragmatic politics works
By contrast, I bet most Republicans see government regulations of some business activity, e.g., offshore oil drilling or consumer financial services, as bad and against the public interest. Why? Because that fits their political or religious ideology. On the other hand Democrats generally see the opposite because of their ideology.Being a pragmatic realist, I see an opinion about public sector labor unions that looks and feels "Republican". However, getting there had nothing to do with any Republican ideology. It was based on a cold, hard look at reality and seeing a big problem.
I am not alone
I am not alone in seeing public sector labor unions as an issue. The Economist sees addressing this as a "huge opportunity to redesign government" (page 11). I agree. I just do not trust ideologues of any political persuasion to find the best solutions. The best solutions are ones that maximizes efficiency and public benefit while minimizing costs and pain to everyone involved, including the labor unions. Solutions to problems should balance interests to find win-win scenarios when it is feasible to do so. That takes finesse.Partisans and ideologues generally retreat into their ideology. Or, they give in to the money and/or work for reelection instead of working for the public interest. They can't see solutions that don't fit their world view. None of that takes finesse.
Conclusion
That's how non-ideological, common sense politics works. Given the situation, the Democratic or Republican parties can't make the ideologically, personally and financially painful changes needed to be effective. They just can't do it. That is why I argue to start a new political party, not to reform the Democratic or Republican parties. If I thought that reform had a better chance of success, that's what I would try for.--------------------------------------
Jeff Vanke posting at Rise of the Center cited this story, which has the following quotes: “Over the years, however, the civil service system has changed from one that protects jobs to one that runs the show. . . . Talking about this is politically unpopular and potentially even career suicide for most officeholders. But at some point, someone is going to have to get honest about the fact that 80 percent of the state, county and city budget deficits are due to employee costs.” Those quotes are from former California legislator Willie Brown. He ought to know what he is talking about because he was part of how the public sector labor unions became too powerful for our own good.
No comments:
Post a Comment