| Although I am not a political scientist, I have developed a theory as to why the current two party system has continued to be stable for over 150 years and why this stability is going to disappear in the near future. It seems to me that the creation of a viable second party to replace one member of a currently existing pair requires one of two elements. The most obvious of these is the existence of an irresistible outer force so powerful that it must be faced and confronted, thus resulting in the creation of a party more powerful than one of the currently existing two parties. Slavery, secession, and the creation of the Republican Party is a ready example of this. Without the explosion of the slavery issue into animosity and eventual civil war, it is possible that the United States may have continued on with the Whigs and the Democrats on into perpetuity.
The second option is that through slow, almost immeasurable movement and pressure, the political system may change in such a way that smaller regional parties or factions may morph into a national party of considerable strength. Indeed, the Whigs were initially a force mainly in New England until an inexorable march toward national prominence as the country moved away from the first parties of the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists in the early 1800s.
Although the stability of our power structure continues to be relatively certain, recent changes and circumstances lead me to believe that a new opportunity for a clean political break with the past to a new progressive future is on the horizon. However, at present it is unclear to me whether the change will be sudden or gradual. Yet, with proper planning and foresight, the Republican Party could be consigned to the dustbin of history through whichever means of change is necessary and apparent.
Through a series of miscalculations and missteps, the Republican Party has ceased to be the party that it once was. Rather, it has become a collection of disparate factions marred by internecine warfare and power struggles with each faction struggling for power to meet its own unique goals. Like a house without a foundation on shifting sands, such a structure cannot long stand on its own. The question is not whether the GOP will implode, but how. Essentially, will it slowly collapse under its own weight through corruption and scandal, or will the ineptly named Global War on Terror and its attendant attacks and destruction of civil liberties serve as a modern catalyst showing itself to be an attack on human dignity and civil rights in much the same way slavery served as the catalyst to catapult the Republican Party onto the national stage in the party's infancy? This is a question I cannot answer, nor is it a question that truly needs answering because with preparation for these inexorable changes, the proper platform and foundation will exist to serve either as the beginning of a slowly building movement to national prominence or as a springboard to catapult a new National Progressive Party to occupy the space left by a swiftly collapsing Republican Party.
The question that must be answered is where on the political spectrum a new party will eventually take root. To do this, a series of simple diagrams is necessary. At present, the main political power structure appears as such:
?------D-------------------------R----------?
The spectrum continues off into infinity essentially, with various minor, third, and radical parties appearing on the spectrum at various points. However, with the coming Republican implosion, the power balance could very well shift to a one party system as there are currently no widely viable third parties with a strong enough base to become a true second party, thus leading to this diagram:
?-----------------D----------------------?
Such a situation is not unheard of in our nation's history. Indeed, during the Era of Good Feelings, centered on the presidency of James Monroe, represented a similar period of one party rule. However, failure to plan could lead to a repeat of history and the creation of a new conservative party that may lead to this crossroads again. Instead, following the implosion, a situation must be created whereby the Democratic Party no longer occupies the left side of the spectrum. In addition, the spectrum cannot merely be moved to place the Democratic Party in the center because there will be no guarantees that the spectrum will not gradually drift to allow the rise of a new conservative party. Instead, a foundation must be laid that will shift the political spectrum enough that the center of the political spectrum lies to the left of the Democratic Party and a new National Progressive Party may grow on the left, shown thusly:
?--------NPP-----------------------D------------?
In so doing, the excesses of the radical right can be avoided while permitting a new progressive movement to grow by empowering those currently on the fringe of the Democratic Party. Such a foundation may be laid beginning today, mainly by avoiding the excesses and mistakes of the current failed third parties that litter the political landscape today.
Third parties have generally followed one of two paths, although there are some who have managed to follow both at the same time: co-opting of their message and general irrelevance. For example, the Reform Party had both happen to it in a very short period of time. At its inception, the Reform Party had a narrow but popular focus on deficit reduction and trade protectionism. Over time, both of these issues were co-opted by the Democrats to varying degrees, thus eliminating the need for this party to exist. Yet, the party limps on to this day, rarely fielding a major candidate and never securing a significant percentage of the vote since Ross Perot. The rest of the third party detritus can be examined in a similar manner. None of these parties, without considerable time, energy, money, and luck can ever be salvaged in America to become a viable second party. Another option must be built from scratch on a solid foundation. That foundation can only be built by providing an option that effectively answers the question of every potential voter, "Won't I be throwing my vote away?"
Perhaps not as important historically, today with the advent of directly elected U.S. Senators and bound delegates and electors for Presidential nominations and elections, voters today have a greater belief in the power of their individual vote. That power was on display most recently in 2000, and if more people had answered yes to the question of throwing their vote away instead of voting for the Green Party ticket, today's historical moment may not have come to pass. And so, in today's climate, the threshold question for a new party is whether the party can be taken seriously, or at the very least, in a non-threatening manner. For longevity, this party must also establish a platform that is too broad to be easily co-opted or absorbed. Although a broad platform is no guarantee of long-term success, it will help to prevent a quick demise. And so, what shape should such a party take?
Because seriousness cannot be bestowed instantaneously, a party is better off appearing as a benign, non-threatening force for change in the beginning. If the voting public can be convinced that your goals are those of a sober minded political operative and public servant, not those of a crank or spoiler, voters will hopefully be more receptive to the message. To accomplish this, a new party must have at its heart in the beginning two things: a long view and attainable goals.
Most third parties, in an attempt to garner as much free press as possible for their agenda, immediately run for the highest they can find as quickly as they can. Once their presidential, gubernatorial, etc. candidate runs and loses after garnering one or two percent of the vote, the third party loses what little credibility they may have gained and get written off by the majority of voters as a spoiler with no real chance at being elected. Although this strategy may be viable in proportional representation systems, it is doomed to failure under the winner-takes-all American federal system. A new party cannot win a high office in its early days without considerable resources of time, energy, manpower, and money, a number of outside influences, and every single break falling their way. To build for the long term, it is best to eschew plans for high office in the beginning and instead adopt a longer view where the party begins with smaller offices where voters may be convinced personally on a retail basis and each vote is more valuable in determining the winner of a particular election.
Therefore, in the beginning, this new party should focus on local offices such as city offices, town boards, county offices, but under no circumstances should candidates be fielded for any office higher than the state legislature and any considerations of federal or statewide office should be pushed aside. The party's platform should be focused on general issues and principles to maintain basic cohesion while local issues will necessarily dominate each campaign. By working to draft candidates who are in agreement with these national principles, local candidates will be able to access advice and campaign assistance on a national level while retaining the ability to win on a local level with the limited financial resources of a nascent political party. This will allow the party to gain respect as a serious political force by holding political office and showing the leadership this new party can bring to the issues and problems of the day.
Second, to avoid appearing as a party of spoilers and cranks who will merely toss an election to a party that is the first choice of a minority of voters, the location of candidates is of paramount importance. The new party cannot run candidates anywhere it wishes in the beginning. Rather, the cities, counties, and districts must be carefully selected so as to avoid throwing races to conservative candidates and prolonging the demise of the current two party system while simultaneously creating the image of a spoiler party. Therefore, any contested offices will necessarily be in those areas where Democrats are strongest. For optimal effectiveness in avoiding the spoiler label, the district must be one where if the vote of a winning Democratic candidate were split in half it would still be higher than that of the Republican candidate. To be assured of this, the first targeted districts should be those where the Democrats regularly win with 75% of the vote. This will ensure a sound Republican defeat regardless of the result between the Democrat and the National Progressive.
To further demonstrate the serious and non-threatening nature of this new party to the Democrats in the beginning, the overall long view of the party's plan should be discussed with the Democratic Party; perhaps even rolled out in a joint press conference and debate. This is not to say that campaign strategies and materials should be turned over, but rather the Democrats should be told that the goals of the National Progressive Party are twofold: to move the nation in a more permanently progressive direction while avoiding the accidental election of Republicans and conservatives. Although some will be more receptive than others, by being honest with local Democratic politicians and candidates without regular serious competition, it is to be hoped that they will relish the opportunity for an open, honest, full-throated debate on true liberal progressive themes, rather than being forced to pay lip service to the discredited conservative ideas of the past.
By focusing on these districts, two goals are accomplished if the Democrats are willing to engage in an open debate from the beginning. First, by providing a real opportunity to relegate the GOP to third place, it will hasten the Republican Party's departure as a major party in America. Second, it will grant greater credibility to the National Progressive Party's candidates, thus making it easier for the party to be taken seriously.
It should be noted that although electoral victories are the ultimate goal, the immediate goals are viability and respectability. This will be accomplished by consistently outpolling Republicans where National Progressive candidates are run. This will help cement the party's position as the second in a two party system and not a third party. This goal is the one that will be most fought by the GOP. Great efforts will be made by them to keep this sort of party off the ballot in those districts where they will be relegated to third place and these must be protected against. By following this cautious measured strategy, limited resources may be more effectively marshaled against these efforts.
The problem of the party platform being co-opted is more likely to be pursued by the Democratic Party. Although this party will initially be far friendlier to them than the Republicans, their long-term interests will still be best served by laying the foundation for one party rule where possible. To avoid this, a broad party platform and set of principles must be established. In addition, the party cannot be rigidly pure ideologically. The party must have a big tent and cannot shun candidates for minor disagreements on one or two portions of the party's platform. Failure to do this will drive potential voters to remain with the traditional Democratic Party rather than considering a new more progressive and liberal direction. Constant expansion of the new party's voting base is the best defense against being co-opted. Growth of the party and long term success are more important than rigid ideological purity; another mistake of past failed parties is to forget this.
The establishment of a new platform is possibly the most difficult part of establishing a new party, and also not the purpose of these thoughts. Rather, a series of broad principles should be established in the beginning. These principles may then be applied to local races as appropriate and specific policy positions and papers on national issues may be prepared as the party grows in size and notoriety. Grand designs and national issues cannot and must not get in the way of the near term attainable local goals. However, a set of broad principles can be more easily turned into a full fledged national platform than can be created out of whole cloth. Therefore, I see these principles, in no particular order, as being of importance for this new party.
1. The safety of the American people will never be secure when based solely on military strength. It must also be based on diplomatic efforts as a first choice and economic/industrial self-sufficiency.
2. A progressive nation must be one where healthcare is provided on a regular and equal basis to all its citizens.
3. The protection of civil liberties from encroachment by the state is of paramount importance. The degradation of individual liberty without just cause is synonymous with the degradation of the state.
4. Under no circumstances shall a progressive vision permit the Constitution to be amended in such a way that rights are abridged or denied, but only expanded.
5. As economic/industrial self-sufficiency is crucial to national security, the right of assembly of all workers in all trades and professions cannot be abridged.
6. The environmental health and beauty of the state is as vital a natural resource to the progressive vision as any more readily exploitable industrial resource. As such, economic activity must be balanced and regulated in accordance with this principle.
7. Although not all work is of the same economic value, it is all worthy of respect. As such, a living wage is vital to the success of a progressive society.
8. True economic self-sufficiency cannot exist without energy self-sufficiency. Steps must be taken by a true progressive society to ensure self-sufficiency through a variety of methods.
9. Robust diplomacy is vital to national security. When possible, steps will be taken to work in concert with other nations and peoples toward common goals. Unilateral action must only occur when absolutely necessary. The progressive state does not stand as an all powerful hegemonic power, but rather as a first among equals.
10. When making a determination as to progressive principles, the needs of the individual and society must be considered in tandem as neither can exist without the other. In all the things the needs of the state must be subservient to the individual and society. The state exists to serve society and the governed. |
STATE BLOGS
