Hillarysworld

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info
TOPIC: "Third Party Rising" (Thomas Friedman, Op-Ed, NYTimes.com 10/3/10)


Diamond

Status: Offline
Posts: 4567
Date:
"Third Party Rising" (Thomas Friedman, Op-Ed, NYTimes.com 10/3/10)
Permalink  
 


Read @ NYTimes.com

Third Party Rising

[snip]

I’ve just spent a week in Silicon Valley, talking with technologists from Apple, Twitter, LinkedIn, Intel, Cisco and SRI and can definitively report that this region has not lost its “inner go.” But in talks here and elsewhere I continue to be astounded by the level of disgust with Washington, D.C., and our two-party system — so much so that I am ready to hazard a prediction: Barring a transformation of the Democratic and Republican Parties, there is going to be a serious third party candidate in 2012, with a serious political movement behind him or her — one definitely big enough to impact the election’s outcome.

There is a revolution brewing in the country, and it is not just on the right wing but in the radical center. I know of at least two serious groups, one on the East Coast and one on the West Coast, developing “third parties” to challenge our stagnating two-party duopoly that has been presiding over our nation’s steady incremental decline.

President Obama has not been a do-nothing failure. He has some real accomplishments. He passed a health care expansion, a financial regulation expansion, stabilized the economy, started a national education reform initiative and has conducted a smart and tough war on Al Qaeda.

But there is another angle on the last two years: a president who won a sweeping political mandate, propelled by an energized youth movement and with control of both the House and the Senate — about as much power as any president could ever hope to muster in peacetime — was only able to pass an expansion of health care that is a suboptimal amalgam of tortured compromises that no one is certain will work or that we can afford (and doesn’t deal with the cost or quality problems), a limited stimulus that has not relieved unemployment or fixed our infrastructure, and a financial regulation bill that still needs to be interpreted by regulators because no one could agree on crucial provisions. Plus, Obama had to abandon an energy-climate bill altogether, and if the G.O.P. takes back the House, we may not have an energy bill until 2013.

Obama probably did the best he could do, and that’s the point. The best our current two parties can produce today — in the wake of the worst existential crisis in our economy and environment in a century — is suboptimal, even when one party had a huge majority. Suboptimal is O.K. for ordinary times, but these are not ordinary times. We need to stop waiting for Superman and start building a superconsensus to do the superhard stuff we must do now. Pretty good is not even close to good enough today.

“We basically have two bankrupt parties bankrupting the country,” said the Stanford University political scientist Larry Diamond. Indeed, our two-party system is ossified; it lacks integrity and creativity and any sense of courage or high-aspiration in confronting our problems. We simply will not be able to do the things we need to do as a country to move forward “with all the vested interests that have accrued around these two parties,” added Diamond. “They cannot think about the overall public good and the longer term anymore because both parties are trapped in short-term, zero-sum calculations,” where each one’s gains are seen as the other’s losses.

We have to rip open this two-party duopoly and have it challenged by a serious third party that will talk about education reform, without worrying about offending unions; financial reform, without worrying about losing donations from Wall Street; corporate tax reductions to stimulate jobs, without worrying about offending the far left; energy and climate reform, without worrying about offending the far right and coal-state Democrats; and proper health care reform, without worrying about offending insurers and drug companies.

“If competition is good for our economy,” asks Diamond, “why isn’t it good for our politics?”

Full article @ NYTimes.com

==========

Indeed!

That article bats it right out of the park to a sixer! LOL. Excellent analysis Friedman and I agree with your prediction on the third party!  And a serious third party candidate.  Got a name too! biggrinbiggrinbiggrinbiggrinbiggrinbiggrinbiggrin


-- Edited by Sanders on Sunday 3rd of October 2010 05:25:21 PM

__________________
Democracy needs defending - SOS Hillary Clinton, Sept 8, 2010
Democracy is more than just elections - SOS Hillary Clinton, Oct 28, 2010

Madam Secretary Blog at ForeignPolicy.com
Project Vote Smart - Stay informed and engaged!


SuperModerator

Status: Offline
Posts: 1788
Date:
Permalink  
 

I agree that we need a third party, or maybe more than three parties. But I just don't see Hillary going that route.

__________________

4145952823_2e0edce16f.jpg

Nobody puts THIS baby in the corner!


Moderator

Status: Offline
Posts: 1695
Date:
Permalink  
 

Very interesting and encouraging in terms of momentum building for "radical center" third party. I think, however, that as many liberal writers do, this one gave Obama too much credit for his "accomplishments", and too little blame for the harm done to specific groups by HCR, particularly, women and Medicare recipients. Plus, the manner in which HCR was thrust upon the people of this country, and the lack of initial transparency with regard to this legislation have resulted much opposition to HCR, and calls for its repeal.

The stimulus has supported only a "jobless recovery", which as most people recognize, is an oxymoron. The actual result of Obama's education reform initiative remains to be seen. I think he should start this effort by calling for an immediate halt to the wasteful use of valuable classroom time and resources by those teachers who had their students sing praise songs to Obama (remember those videos).

At the core of failed government and a broken political system is the fact that our representatives in government apparently find it necessary to compromise away their ethics, values, and political beliefs in order to keep their jobs. As the author states, pols of both parties are basically pimping themselves and their power out to whomever is called for in order to remain in power and to acquire more power, money, and clout. It's a set-up designed for failure, if the standard for success is serving the best interest of the country - not helping a few wealthy and powerful groups.

Even though there seems to be a rising tide of support for a centrist third party, I fear that the window of opportunity for such a movement will be brief. It only takes a little effort and research to determine that the schools in this country, particularly, the colleges and universities, incorporate the issue of "social justice" in almost every major course of study, as is being increasingly required, I believe, by accreditation bodies. Obviously, social justice is a good thing, and something that most people support. The problem is that the ultra-liberal definition of social justice seems to be the one being pushed on students throughout this country. The Ultra-lib form of SJ goes beyond equal employment opportunities; beyond affirmative action, and beyond government supported financial assistance for those whose health and/or circumstances obstruct their ability to provide for themselves and their families. The ultra-lib form of SJ, seeks to accomplish a more thorough redistribution of wealth through which the requirement to earn in order to support self and family is optional.

I wonder if the progs didn't think their time had come in 2008 - that their indoctrination effort had been successfully completed, especially when the army of Obamakids showed up to chant, sing, and faint at the feet of The Great O. Not to sound like a total conspiracy theorist - because I honestly find it hard to focus long enough and with the concentrated effort required to develop a good conspiracy theory, lol - but, I do think the Obamacrats thought Americans would tolerate their efforts to push the country to the extreme left. Obviously, given time, they will be able to impress their ultra-lib message into the minds of the young in increasing numbers, arguably molding the political views of enough Americans to accomplish their purpose.

Obviously, the ultra-right seeks to indoctrinate, as well. But, they must spread their conservative values in religious and private colleges and universities.

Anyway - I know that went a little OT, but I do think there are and have been much more organized and far-reaching efforts to impact the minds of young Americans by the ultra-left than many of us realized.

I hope a centrist party emerges with the strength to make some needed change in this country's governmental and political processes. Hopefully, when and if that happens, we will all be so sick of the lying, duplicity, and back-room dealing we've experienced in the past - particularly with the Obama Administration, that we will demand honesty, integrity, and true public service from the new party. How unique would that be?!




__________________
It was we, the people; not we, the white male citizens; nor yet we, the male citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed the Union.... Men, their rights and nothing more; women, their rights and nothing less.  ~Susan B. Anthony

Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard