Is a pragmatic third party even possible?

The intent of this blog is simple. It is to (i) honestly articulate failings of the two-party system, (ii) honestly describe how and why those failures appear to have come about and (iii) argue that the only real option for better outcomes is to form a pragmatic (non-ideological) third party. As envisioned here, the goal of a pragmatic third party would be to dislodge Democrats and/or Republicans from power here in California and ultimately elsewhere.

Base assumptions include belief that (i) neither party wants to change their ways of doing business as usual and (ii) business as usual failed in American politics at the state and national levels.

It boils down to how one sees politics. Some people reject the idea that forming a viable third party is possible. There is solid logic and reality behind that belief - it is hard, maybe impossible under current circumstances. On top of that, my limited forays into the realm of trying to persuade people to see things differently than what they already see, tells me that is will be hard (essentially impossible) to convince most people (maybe about 95-98%) that they are arguably wrong about much of anything, regardless of what unbiased facts or logic has to say. Most people firmly hold onto their ideas and opinions.

The whole concept of allowing facts and cold logic to dictate politics and views of reality may not be realistic. Humans are arguably much more emotional (irrational) beings than logical. Ideology (political and religious) and emotion has a powerful, maybe unshakable, grip on how most people see things in politics and most other areas of life as well.

If that view of reality is essentially correct, trying to form a political party focused on pragmatic problem solving while trying to downplay ideology and emotion may be a doomed proposition from the get go. What seems to be left is to acknowledge ideology and emotion, accept it and work with it as best as possible. For the Democratic and Republican parties, resistance to change is ferocious in view of political self-interest, special interests, their money and party ideology. The two parties themselves are powerful special interests with much at stake in maintaining the status quo. Why would they want to change anything? It goes without saying: Those elements, including the two parties, will fight against meaningful change.

We all know Democratic and Republican ideology. The other third parties out there now are all loaded with their own political and/or religious ideologies. A key aspect of Libertarian ideology hates big government and wants to go back to 1776 and maybe the blunderbuss as well. Socialist party ideology wants Socialism. Green party ideology wants whatever it is that Greens want. Nazi ideology is racist and nasty. And so on. All that, except the hate groups, seems about equally irrational and unpromising.

Given the boat loads of ideology and emotional fervor in existing third parties and the big two, the idea of a rational, non-ideological party seemed to make sense. At least, it would be a different approach to politics. Well, maybe in the abstract it makes sense.

But in the real world, a party grounded in unspun fact, logic and pragmatism may be just a pipe dream. Emotion and raw faith in ideology dominates regardless of whether the ideology is right or wrong. Where's the place for cold logic and unemotional reason in that world? Arguably, there is no major place for it. Presumably, that's why its so feeble now.

For much of the public, politics is more a source of entertainment than enlightenment. The two sides blow their ideological talking points at each other and then the endless bickering begins. Opposing ideologues talk right past each other and neither usually really understands what the other is saying. Ideas and solutions that do not fit the ideology of the two sides don't usually get serious consideration or even a passing mention. For the most part, political infotainment brings no new insights to the table. It also fails to bring clarity or needed context to the issues, most of which are complex and nuanced. Political infotainment is mostly polarizing, uncompromising spin and propaganda. The public remains ill-informed. And our politics continues to fail while our standard of living continues to slide.

They respectfully disagree

That's just political business as usual as I see it. Obviously, existing parties will vehemently disagree. Well, if my view is so wrong, then why did business as usual fail so badly? Too much reliance on cold logic and unspun facts? Yeah, right. And pigs fly too. Recently, we had everything needed to stay out of trouble, while everyone else had little or nothing. Despite that, here we are 65 years later - up to our eyeballs in alligators and discontent with politics as usual.

How does one explain the situation other than to conclude that some things about the ways we do things are flawed and failing? If that's true, then what do we do about it? More of the same or try something different? Human nature being what it is, we just might be doomed to more of the same. That would be a shame. I think more of the same would be far less than optimal. Unfortunately, it looks like we are going to find out, like it or not.