The Scream

Posted by: Peter Jackson on June 03, 2006 11:12:54 PM

It seems like the closer we get to November (and 2008), the more folks are realizing that we're going to get the same crummy choices that we've been getting from the two major parties. The consensus for the Democrats and Republicans isn't positive.

There is, however, a bright spot: Unity08.com, an interesting political experiment whose goal is to force a bipartisan or partially independent ticket in the 2008 Presidential elections. Although I'm not sure how much the nation stands to benefit from getting one loser from each party instead of the standard two losers from the same party, what the founders of Unity08 definitely have succeed in doing is identifying the weaknesses of the two majors and further identifying just how large the political middle is electorally. Egging them on is Joe Trippi (h/t: Instapundit).

Next we have none other than Peggy Noonan writing in Opinion Journal:

Something's happening. I have a feeling we're at some new beginning, that a big breakup's coming, and that though it isn't and will not be immediately apparent, we'll someday look back on this era as the time when a shift began.

She then goes on to mention Unity08 and list the major issues where the two parties are experiencing disconnects with their constituents. Her list is pretty good, although she does include in it the recent zeitgeist on illegal Mexican immigration. Apparently Ms. Noonan didn't notice Unity08's poll linked above, where respondents put immigration issues at number eight (50%) on their list of concerns, behind the national debt (62%) and energy (67%), but ahead of global warming (44%) and gay marriage (last on the list with 22%).

And just in case you missed it, here's Dick Meyers of CBS News with an argument against the current duopoly:

It's like a world where there are two baseball teams, the Yankees and the Dodgers. Every year since the 1800s they have played 162 games against each other, and then played each other in the playoffs, and then the World Series. The players change, but never the teams.

It's "Groundhog Day" meets Sartre. No wonder people tune out.

I want a third party right now. I can't take the Yankees and the Dodgers anymore.

We're tired of it too, Dick.

And finally, here's the good folks at Angus Reid Consulting reporting an April poll from Pew showing 53% of Americans want a third major political party in the US.

Do you know what 53% is called in American politics? A landslide. Do you know what you call a political party representing 53% of Americans? The future.

< prev next >

Posts are moderated. Posts may be held for approval before publishing.

Note: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.

ThePoetOmar says:
The Scream

on July 01, 2006 10:14 PM

Ah but then that's the trick isn't it? Which major new party do Americans want? Libertarians? Greens? Socialists? Constitutionists? Americans love change. We are an inherently ADD society. The problem is when you ask exactly what people want in terms of change, they become the proverbial deer in the headlights. Yes, most people want cheaper energy, yes they want national debt reduced, illegal immigration curbed, and hey, while you're at it, get the weeds out of the garden, too will ya. I just don't see a specific rallying point around which a new party will form. In today's 24/7 media world, both existing parties are quick to claim any new initiative as their own. How can we move forward, when we are constantly pre-empted?

Peter Jackson says:
The Scream

on July 02, 2006 11:52 PM

I want to rally around a fresh, coherent narative woven around the core concepts of liberty, prosperity and confidence: freedom, the best for the most, and internationally talking quietly while carrying a big stick.

And that's what LiberalCapitalist.com is for, to start building this narrative.

The plan? Well, so far I would like to see an organization that proves capable of performing an end-run around the legal barriers to up and coming parties by forming an internet-based, open source "party" by not taking money from contributors until organizations in a relatively large number of states are large enough to deal with the rigors of registering as a legal political party capable of running quality candidates.

At that point, if Kadima is an example, we would then do well by getting a serious, big-time political "star" to lead the party. Then the task of recruiting other big defectors from the two major parties, as many and as fast as we can, would begin. I believe we could then draw in up to 50% of Republicans, 40% of Democrats, most Libertarians and more than half of independents. And yes, these are gut numbers, but they're good gut numbers. :)

And ba-da-bing. Kadima went from conception to power in five months. And I have nothing better to do for the next twenty years, so hey.

yours/ peter.

[Modified by: #(1) (#(2)) on #(3)]Peter JacksonpeterJuly 03, 2006 04:59 AM

ThePoetOmar says:
The Scream

on July 03, 2006 06:30 PM

Lol. Me either Peter. My social schedule is pretty clear for the next twenty or so. Although I have been involved with something similar to what you are suggesting or a very small scale. I was a member of the campaign staff for a mayoral race about a dozen years ago. The guy we were backing was a self-made millionaire business type who wanted to run as an independent and not accept any outside money. He was very libertarian minded with a bit of social conservatism thrown in. The campaign was very much a door to door, neighborhood to neighborhood effort where the candidate really did want to meet everybody in the city. We got a great reception from the electorate, schools wanted us to speak to their students, and the local media wanted interviews at least twice a week. Of course, we wound up with less than 5% of the actual vote, but hey at least people liked us! This isn't at all meant to down the ideas that you have, which I support, but just saying that my experience makes me believe that you have to work the system, not try to work around it.