« The State of Londonistan | Home | Hold Her Responsible? But...She Identifies With Palestinians »
July 09, 2006
Unity: It's Time to Third-Party Like It's 2008
I've always had a fondness for third-party candidates. In 1980 I proudly voted for John Anderson, and in local races I've voted whimsically, at times for the Natural Law (transcendental meditation) folks. In such way I support the off-brand candidates and stick it to the big-party man, in whatever small way I can.
My third-party antennae are starting to quiver with the debut of Unity08, a group that wants to run its own candidates two years hence with a focus on getting away from the pressures of big money and single-issue influence. Unity's thinking:
We are not looking to build a new and permanent party. That might happen, but our objective is to fix the old parties. A Unity Ticket in office for one term or even taking part in just one election can bring new ideas, new integrity and new leaders to the fore.
The big question is, where does Unity08 stand on issues, since a party without a platform of some kind stands little chance of attracting anybody. The group has thought about those issues -- and it's platform so far is agreeing to think about some issues, not others:
Unity08 divides issues facing the country into two categories: Crucial Issues – on which America’s future safety and welfare depend; and Important Issues – which, while vital to some, will not, in our judgment, determine the fate or future of the United States.In our opinion, Crucial Issues include: Global terrorism, our national debt, our dependence on foreign oil, the emergence of India and China as strategic competitors and/or allies, nuclear proliferation, global climate change, the corruption of Washington’s lobbying system, the education of our young, the health care of all, and the disappearance of the American Dream for so many of our people.
By contrast, we consider gun control, abortion and gay marriage important issues, worthy of debate and discussion in a free society, but not issues that should dominate or even crowd our national agenda.
Good luck to Unity08. I'd like to see it shake up the system and establish a more lasting impact than, say, Ross Perot did. Its July "Declaration of Independence from Politics Without Purpose" sent a shiver down my back, with its unintentional echo of "The Politics of Meaning" by Michael Lerner.
The problem is that identifying crucial issues at some point must lead to actual positions on them, and those positions have to be specific to a level more controversial than "We are concerned about energy." Once the details become more concrete, Unity08 followers as incompatibles who can't actually collaborate. I'll hope for the best, however, because I'm always in favor of political experimentation.
Van | 07/09/06 at 08:40 AM | Categories: - GOTV '06 to '08
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.keshertalk.com/cgi-bin/mtb.cgi/5174
Comments
Global climate change, as opposed to global warming, certainly suggests a heterodox position. Which might be interesting.
Though if it actually is climate change, through sun spikes and undersea volcanic activity heating ocean levels in the East, etc., it's hard to see what human beings can do about it.
Weren't they reporting "global warming" from said sun spikes on Jupiter a while back?
Alcibiades | July 9, 2006 09:57 AM
"Political experimentation" can go the way of drug experimentation: one thing leads to another and then.... the addict you're left with is unrecognizable from the innocent you once knew.
"The education of our young, the health care of all" are dreamy, redundant buzzwords for guaranteeing entitlement or (even dreamier) socialistic programs. Is there a middle ground between the free market and the New Deal? That's an important question, but the Unity08 phrasing betrays that it's of the socialistic/academic variety as opposed to the prarie-fire populist kind.
Unity08's list of "crucial" issues is so long it just seems a way to purge serious discussion of the remaining 3 - which are so phrased as to betray Unity's manifest bias. If these 3 were phrased, "gun rights, the rights of the unborn, and the defense of marriage" you would know clearly where the stress fell. And you would also know that people who frame these issues that way in no way consider them less important.
For several years I was naively devoted to making a left-of-center 3rd party a reality, so I'm not speaking from the sidelines. I voted Perot once. But what kind of credibility do you expect to earn by bragging about going gaga for giggling John Hagelin?
Another factor to consider is that in the realpolitik of American elections (I don't mean that cynically, btw), a 3rd party presidential candidcacy that threatens only one major party will receive the tacit support of the other. Nader? Ok w/ the GOP. Perot? Ok w/ the Dems. And on and on.
Personally, I want to see each major party strengthened through intense, spirited debate, within the parties and between them - preferably without a 3rd party, but with (against) one of those, should it become unavoidable.
But my gut reaction is to say: "Grow up!"
Jeremayakovka | July 10, 2006 10:38 AM
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.keshertalk.com/nav-commenters.gif)
