Its not what they say, its what they do

The central focus of California Moderates (CM) is a nearly constant criticism of two-party politics and the Democratic and Republican parties at the California state level and the national level. The reasons for the criticism are simple; they both failed, they both serve special interests (especially themselves) before serving the public, they are about equally corrupt and their ideology mostly blinds them to contemplating or accepting more possibilities than what their narrow and usually inane ideologies can readily accept. That's just the facts. Of course, true believers in either party would vehemently disagree with that description of reality. Opinions can and do differ. That's the fascinating chaos of American democracy and politics.

Given the great certainty of the status quo in their rectitude, it helps to point to specific examples of one of the criticisms when a really good one bubbles up. This one is pretty good. And, its local - CM actually gets to vote on it.

Shoot the RINO

In San Diego, several people are running for mayor of what is no longer Enron by the sea (according to at least one credit ratings agency). One of those folks, Nathan Fletcher, was a republican who tried to get the endorsement of the local San Diego republican party for his mayoral bid. In their wisdom, the San Diego republican party rejected Fletcher and endorsed another, presumably better republican. Fletcher was only sort of conservative, being flawed by some deeply troubling concerns about the environment, open spaces in urban areas and maybe one or two other things that the California and San Diego republican party feels is sheer blithering nonsense. They thought Fletcher was a RINO, so they shot him dead. That's how it appears at least. One can rest assured that the San Diego republican party would dispute that version of reality.

A Georgia O'Keefe motif, sort of

Oh, wait! A wounded RINO can be dangerous - shoot it again

What happened next was really interesting. First, Fletcher switched from republican to an "independent". Second, and even more interesting, is that a group of about 40 San Diego(?) business executives formed a group called Movement to the Middle (MttM), apparently inspired at least in part by Fletcher's political affiliation switch. Along with all that fuss, the (far right) California republican party decided to raise money to oppose Fletcher. Why would they do that? The democrat mayoral candidate (a liberal) should be the focus of their poisonous bile, not someone who is mostly like them. Right? Wrong. According to one of the founders of MttM (Keith Jones on audio beginning at 10:20 of the 48 minute broadcast) the republican party did that to punish anyone who wanted to challenge the dominance of republicans in a two party system. The California republican party, just like the California democratic party, wants no third party competition. To the California republican party, it is just as or more important to kill off traitors to the two-party system than it is to kill off opposite party opponents within the system.

Who to attack: A reasonable question is why would republicans care? Apparently the answer is that after Fletcher switched to independent his poll numbers surged. What is more dangerous to an ossified status quo, seeing an opposing democrat or republican elected to office or seeing a true threat independent elected to office? Independents are dangerous, especially these days when many (most?) voters reject both parties and their incompetence/ failures, rigid ideology, service to special interests before service to the public interest and/or their corruption.

This is just another garden-variety example of why CM has lost faith in the two-party system. Maybe some others might feel the same way, maybe they don't. As argued here before (and now again), when too many people lose faith in their government, bad things can happen. Arguably, this is evidence of the two parties being willing to put service to their own interests, i.e., fighting to maintain the status quo and their lock on power and special interest money, before service to the public interest. 

Obviously, both would dispute that to their last breath. Good for them, but its not what they say, its what they do that matters. The really interesting question is when, if ever, the last breath of one or both will be expelled and one or both of those obsolete relics replaced with something pragmatic and intelligent. That day is long overdue.