Sunday, February 25, 2007
3rd Party?. . .An Uncomfortable Conclusion
We are all no doubt familiar with this often-used phrase:
Ever since the 1992 presidential campaign of Ross Perot, I have been infatuated with the idea of an independent-minded third party to take serious issuess above the traditional, two-dimensional political fray. Twelve years later (2004) I tentatively concluded that starting such a movement was institutionally impossible, and three years later (just moments ago) I have also concluded that sustainingg a movement in a way that is both genuine in intent and consistent with its founding is also not possible.
This post began with an observation about human nature, and it is indeed human nature which flattens the vision of a third party that I hold so dear. Because it is my belief, that once a third party finds power, its founders and its leaders and its participants will individually (and ultimately) succumb to placing self-preservation over policy. That will either lead to calls for a 'fourth' party, or reinvigorate one of the traditional parties.
Democracy 2 pOintzero is about solutions, not problems. If nothing else, the 'agitation' of a third party will compete for resources and mind-share thus forcing the traditional two parties to either posture or legitimately approach issues differently. This is a limited (albeit positive) effect.
Instead, I now believe that we look no further than history to understand that the way to address big issues in the most powerful of ways, is through the powerless. In other words, domestic politics have relied upon so-called 'Blue Ribbon' commissions when the traditional politic is either incapable or overwhelmed (or both) to take on an issue.
Some examples:
The National Commission on Social Security Reform
President's Commission on Strategic Forces
Commission on Federal Election Reform
And so I'd propose the establishment of a permanent body called "The Emerging Opportunity and Threat Commission". The panel would be staffed with representatives from think-tanks linked with universities (not industries) to total 75%, and private (non-executive) citizens who demonstrate 'extraordinary' interest or expertise. It would be tasked with tackling issues which have horizons of 10 or more years into the future and be prohibited from working on 'current' events or issues regardless of magnitude. Funding would come from the federal government, and issues to be studied would require a unanimous vote from the President and congressional majority and minority leaders.
The scope, composition and mandate of this commission would significantly insulate it from falling prey to politics-as-usual, and not detract from neitherr the resources or unflinching focus that large issues require.
Think about some of the potential issues:
Energy Independence
Medicare
US-China Relations
Campaign Finance Reform
Retooling of Domestic Education Curriculum
Sounds crazy? All feedback and thoughts are welcome!
Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutelyRarely however is the phrase's origin provided: (An observation that a person's sense of morality lessens as his or her power increases. The statement was made by Lord Acton, a British historian of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries).
Ever since the 1992 presidential campaign of Ross Perot, I have been infatuated with the idea of an independent-minded third party to take serious issuess above the traditional, two-dimensional political fray. Twelve years later (2004) I tentatively concluded that starting such a movement was institutionally impossible, and three years later (just moments ago) I have also concluded that sustainingg a movement in a way that is both genuine in intent and consistent with its founding is also not possible.
This post began with an observation about human nature, and it is indeed human nature which flattens the vision of a third party that I hold so dear. Because it is my belief, that once a third party finds power, its founders and its leaders and its participants will individually (and ultimately) succumb to placing self-preservation over policy. That will either lead to calls for a 'fourth' party, or reinvigorate one of the traditional parties.
Democracy 2 pOintzero is about solutions, not problems. If nothing else, the 'agitation' of a third party will compete for resources and mind-share thus forcing the traditional two parties to either posture or legitimately approach issues differently. This is a limited (albeit positive) effect.
Instead, I now believe that we look no further than history to understand that the way to address big issues in the most powerful of ways, is through the powerless. In other words, domestic politics have relied upon so-called 'Blue Ribbon' commissions when the traditional politic is either incapable or overwhelmed (or both) to take on an issue.
Some examples:
The National Commission on Social Security Reform
President's Commission on Strategic Forces
Commission on Federal Election Reform
And so I'd propose the establishment of a permanent body called "The Emerging Opportunity and Threat Commission". The panel would be staffed with representatives from think-tanks linked with universities (not industries) to total 75%, and private (non-executive) citizens who demonstrate 'extraordinary' interest or expertise. It would be tasked with tackling issues which have horizons of 10 or more years into the future and be prohibited from working on 'current' events or issues regardless of magnitude. Funding would come from the federal government, and issues to be studied would require a unanimous vote from the President and congressional majority and minority leaders.
The scope, composition and mandate of this commission would significantly insulate it from falling prey to politics-as-usual, and not detract from neitherr the resources or unflinching focus that large issues require.
Think about some of the potential issues:
Energy Independence
Medicare
US-China Relations
Campaign Finance Reform
Retooling of Domestic Education Curriculum
Sounds crazy? All feedback and thoughts are welcome!
