Create a three-party political system in the United States by means of Democrats splitting into two parties – not republicans. This opens the doors for passing more policy and unlocking the current gridlock in Washington.
The two political parties in the United States are overwhelmed by some very fundamental questions. They don’t talk about them, but all of the rancor, attacking and finger pointing are symptom-issues of the basic concepts about what a government should be, and how it is able to operate with a massive and diverse population.
The Republican Party generally embraces purification while the Democratic Party wants to counter that political ideology by proving that it is the opposite: the party of inclusion. There is a fundamental problem with the Democrats’ long-view of this situation, however, in that the more inclusive it has become, the less agile it is, which has decreased its ability to efficiently govern. The strive for total inclusion on one side vs. purification on the other is the root cause why the minority party is ultimately able to control Washington.
In order to break the gridlock, political parties need to create independent allies, rather than continue and attempt at bringing everyone under one of only two options with sacrificial oaths to the gods of the Super PACs. Why now? Because moderate republicans need an escape route back into the center, and they cannot do it if the democrats remain a single political party weighted down with decades of stigma cast upon it by the right-wing messaging machines. A three-party system is required in order to bring back the center. Only democrats can make that happen smoothly by taking control over how the three-party system takes shape. Hey… it can’t be any worse than what we have now, right?
For a two-party political world in which the center no longer exists, there’s only one option for progress: re-create the center so that policies can move forward. Given the political DNA of the two dominant parties, only the Democratic Party has the ability create the center into which moderate republicans can escape. This decreases the influence of the extreme branch of the current republican wing, and mandates that alliances between parties be built, rather than blood oaths within parties like we have now. Is it perfect? No. But it’s a hell of a lot more promising than two extremes shouting at each other with nothing in the middle to act as a buffer between the two.
Be not afraid, democrats: just because the party splits doesn’t mean that they no longer work with one another. It offers an olive branch to non-extreme republicans, as well as puts the focus on reasonable policies (as viewed from both sides), rather than allowing extremes to dictate policy. A responsible government in a diverse country is one that has a strong center, not polarized only extremes.
Why does it have to be the Democratic Party that splits into two different parties?
The Republican Party likes to believe it has cornered the Freedom, Liberty, “Family Morals”, and Charity markets. As far as their base is concerned, they’re correct. The general preface of “what it means to be a republican citizen” is to fight for their version of Freedom, follow the Bible, and rely on the Charity of the wealthy to solve issues of inequity. They believe that there should be “so much” Freedom that if an individual cannot exist with dignity within the society (translation: economy)… well, then they’re free to realize it’s their own damn fault. The Republican Party has blurred Morality and religious practice to such an extent that hypocrisy is not only buried… it’s as though the concept doesn’t even exists anymore inside the Republicanland bubble. They believe that marketing can solve any policy problem. Put a Latino on TV telling America they want to deport all “illegals” and that will make everything OK. That’s basically the strategy. Marketing solves all. They are slowly learning that marketing works to win over the base, but it rarely gains converts.
The Democratic Party, on the other hand, believes it has cornered the political market on Compassion, Equality, Inclusion, and Social Justice. The problem on the Left side of the aisle, however, is that in the United States there are only two sides of the political aisle. Granted, we have other political parties, but if you’re not a Republican or Democrat, then 90% of the time you side with the Democrats, anyway (and the other 10% you side with neither). The result is that the democrats have, in fact, achieved their goal of inclusion – so much so that inaction tends to be the norm because there is too much diversity, and too great a motivation not to offend anyone in the caucus. As a result democrats often are labeled as weak by republicans, when the truth is it’s not a matter of weakness so much as another example of the difficulty of forming a real consensus in a giant country.
Republicans follow the leader. They march in-line. They have achieved looking “strong and decisive” because they’ve systematically spat out anyone who doesn’t agree with the hard party lines. That’s not strong, it’s homogeneous – which is exactly what they want – but it is most clearly not what the country actually is. The democrats, who want to embrace inclusion, find themselves struggling to manage diversity. It makes them look weak and indecisive, but it is a more accurate reflection of America, while the Republican Party is only a reflection of a small pocket of a very angry part of American culture.
If democrats were bold… if they really wanted to make progress, then THEY would be the group who would split into two different political parties. That act opens a huge window through which moderate republicans can climb out of their own, more extreme party – back into the center.
Many observers look to the Republican chaos and assume that the more moderate republicans should split with the extreme tea party, because “those” are the people not getting along with one another. The party that is fractured is the one that should fracture… but we forget: they need someplace to go. If moderate republicans break ranks, then they are left with very little power, which makes it a non-starter in the political world. They will only break ranks if they have another option that maintains at least what authority they already have. They cannot do it on their own.
Over the last decade or so, the Republican Party has been amazingly effective at defining (in entirely negative terms), “liberal”, “progressive”, etc. The result is that it is as difficult for a moderate republican to switch to the left side of the aisle as it would be to remove their own brain. Repbulicans cannot defect into what their voters think of the Democratic Party, whether what they think is true or not (they bought into the marketing, remember?). There are far too many biases embedded in the DNA of the republican brain language. Liberal, “the Left”, “Progressive” might as well mean the Soviet Union of the early 80’s (and to many of them that’s EXACTLY what it means in their heads). In their current state no one is willing to move, so something new must be created that is enticing enough to encourage the transfer.
The goal is not to continue to increase the diversity inside the Democratic Party… that just leads to continued inaction… the goal is to split the Democratic Party into its own factions: progressives and moderates, which gives an pathway for moderate republicans to leave the GOP and create a working Congress.
Splitting the Democratic Party into two new ones does not make either resulting party weaker. Both parties still will work together in the same manner the internal causes do now: arguing and disagreeing in their diversity of views. It doesn’t mean that the Progressive Party starts offering 100% socialist policies (acceding Rush’s labeling system, anyway), and it doesn’t mean that the moderate democrats all of the sudden start flapping their arms about bombing Iran. Operationally on the left, there’s very little impact to this sort of change… but on the right…. to moderates who are trapped in the right because of the rabid base who think all democrats are evil, Stalinist, lazy, twats…. it gives all those people suffocating under the republican label an escape route back into the land of compromise. With the Democratic Party split into two, then moderate republicans can work with, and even join “democrats” without having their brains explode. (… “political brain spontaneous combustion” (PBSC) is said to be possible when a well-trained republican meets a democrat they like… some sort of boil over reaction from the hatred of “The Democrats” that has been ingrained by the feedback loop of Republican Party talking points over the last 20 years… or so I’m told. Read it on a blog once. Could be hyperbole. Don’t quote me.)
We can never forget how stupid and easily influenced we humans are. Our opinions are fully managed by the blabber, jabber, and nonsense that goes on around us. In the 80’s being a Republican was a label of pride. It was a label of Reagan, of massive gains on Wall Street, of American success and exceptionalism. Moreover, being a republican has meant labeling the Democrats in very specific ways: weak, lazy, takers, tree huggers, whatever – point being ALL of the republican labels for democrats are very, very negative. It’s against republican law to say a nice thing about a democrat (Chris Christie, Charlie Crist, the examples go on and on). As a result, the very large percentage of moderate republicans who feel very much out of place in their own party are completely incapable of leaving their party. In Republicanland, a republican switching to being a democrat is a sin. It’s beyond sin, and as such they are trapped in their own party.
To progressives: keep on keeping on with your agenda. Fight the good fight. Some of your colleagues moving into a new, moderate party still means y’all will work together, but by “getting rid” of all the progressives and liberals (by means of the Democratic Party splitting), it’s no longer a perceved sin for moderate republicans to work with moderate democrats. This increases the overall number of politicians who are willing to compromise, who occupy the center, and breaks the roadblock that has become the extreme-right of the Republican Party.
The resulting moderate party is one that would work with the progressives much more willingly than the über-conservative republicans. That means more progress, more stability, and finally the recalcitrance of the minority would stop controlling Congress. All voices are still present, but the extremes no longer have total control. As an added bonus, people who have been life-long, citizen republicans will feel more comfortable divorcing themselves from the republican label – they might begin to realize that the world isn’t really as black and white as Fox News has been telling them it is. Fewer cases of PBSC.
It’s the antithesis of what the democrats are thinking, but in the long run it might very well be able to fix the gridlock.
(…of course…. In 50 years the three parties will likely be at each others throats once again… requiring yet another solution to being human… but it is what it is… we are stupid, greedy animals after all.)
Published: by | Updated: 06-30-2014 11:19:08
