"The
True Role Of The Third Party In The
U.S. In The Current Political Environment",
or
"What Do We Really Need From The First Truly Third Political Party?"
This is a re-post from my old
political blog (Saturday, April 8, 2017)
Other (shorter) posts on the matter:
A case for 3-D Force: call for an action
Why Do I Want To Vote For Trump?
To get the full picture, please, read:
"A Spectre Is Haunting America - The Spectre of ..." (Saturday, October 21, 2017)
"How The media Killed The Most Important Political Event Of This election Cycle" (the latest piece on the role of the 3d-Party)
A case for 3-D Force: call for an action
Why Do I Want To Vote For Trump?
To get the full picture, please, read:
"A Spectre Is Haunting America - The Spectre of ..." (Saturday, October 21, 2017)
"How The media Killed The Most Important Political Event Of This election Cycle" (the latest piece on the role of the 3d-Party)
Today, 10/14/2018 I have learned that there is an organization Unite America, which offers a view
similar to mine expressed in this post, which was written on 4/8/2017. I don't
know yet anything about this group, except what the wiki say.
_____
Sorry, it is a long post, but nothing related to beating
Trump is trivial, hence not easy or short.
The central point of the post is simple: every politically
active progressive person needs to make a choice; in 2018 and later, what
is more important, "Bringing Democrats in Congress to the
majority" or "Bringing Republicans in Congress to the minority"?
Because "Bringing Republicans in Congress to the
minority" is NOT the same as "Bringing Democrats in
Congress to the majority". Hence, these two different goals will require
two different political strategies.
In particular, for "Bringing Republicans
in Congress to the minority" the creation of the third political party may
play a crucial role.
*****
There is almost nothing in the world that is absolutely
good, or absolutely bad. Even poison can heal when used in small doses.
I see at least one positive outcome from the Clinton's loss.
Imagine that for a long period of time your stomach was
giving you some issues: dull pain, gases, and eventually your doctor sent
you to do CT scan. Turned out, you have a gastritis. However, the scan
also captured some parts of your lungs. Turned out you also have an yearly
stage of a lung cancer. Who knows how late could it be to catch the cancer if
your stomach would not force you to get to the scanner. Now, at least, you
have a good chance to treat it. A year or two without catching it up, and it
could have been too late.
During his election campaign Donald Trump was like
that gastritis; worrisome, aching, but not deadly dangerous. The Election
Day was like a CT scan, which showed that the problems were - and are -
actually much more serious than almost everybody thought.
This knowledge IS the positive outcome from the Clinton's
loss.
Hopefully, "the cancer" has not yet
metastasized all over the "body". But it is clear that (a) we
need a deep and serious analysis of all the reasons for the Trump's
victory; and (b) the strategy to beat Trump's troops in 2018 and 2020 cannot be
based just on the hope that people would eventually see how bad Trump is
("Trump is BAD" strategy did not lead Hilary Clinton to the victory; http://the3dforce.blogspot.com/2017/04/why.html);
that strategy needs to be based on a drastic revision of all
previously "obvious" knowledge about politics and
approaches to do the politics.
I want to start from this question:
what do all these people: Deborah Wasserman-Schultz, Donna
Brazile, Barack Obama, Vladimir Putin, Steve Bannon, Gary Johnson, Jill Stein –
have in common?
They all helped (differently, of course!) Donald Trump to
become the President.
I can feel the wave of resentment! How could I say that
Obama helped Trump?!
Please, calm down. I have my reasons to say what I just
said. You do not have to agree with my reasons, but it could be useful to see
the logic my reasons are based on.
Deborah Wasserman-Schultz and Donna Brazile pushed for the
wrong candidate, even when they needed to remain neutral.
Barack Obama has disengaged from the internal party politics
he was too neutral (even when Clintons pushed Biden out).
Vladimir Putin created a massive cyber force specifically
designed to help Trump to win.
Steve Bannon designed the strategy for mass brainwashing and
mind manipulation (which was and still is literally a copy of a KGB/FSB/GRU
playbook on disinformation; just Google “disinformation”, or read memoirs of
Ion Mihai Pacepa).
Gary Johnson and Jill Stein took votes away from Hillary
Clinton (for example, read http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/third-party-voters-played-key-role-election-results).
If those Americans who voted for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein
would be voting Democratic, Hillary Clinton would win (for better or worse – that is a different
discussion).
The last fact should present a pivotal point for all
contemporary political strategists.
Imagine, that two or three weeks before the election day,
both, Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, would went on TV and said to their
followers: “People, we understand your frustration with both major parties and
both major candidates. We are grateful to you for your support. This election
comes at the critical moment in the history of our Country. The result of this
election will shape the Country for decades to come. We are realists, and we
see that we have no chance to win. And the polls show that the election will be
very close, practically unpredictable. That is why we decided to step
down, to withdraw our candidacy, and we urge everyone of you to vote for
Hillary Clinton”.
There are no “backsies” in history, but I am absolutely
positive that if Gary Johnson and Jill Stein would do that, they would swing
the victory to Hillary Clinton. Unfortunately (from my point of view) both,
Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, were too egoistic to withdraw from the race and
held their own ego above the needs of the Country (exactly like Hillary
Clinton).
Or, maybe, they both were just politically ignorant to
understand the true role a third party should play in a complicated political
system.
A case of a third party is a classic case
of a coexistence of two large and one small political systems.
For example, when a small country fears that a large
neighboring country could invade it, it seeks a coalition with another large
country, which has interests opposite to the first one. History has numerous
examples of such coalitions; the latest one is the NATO (“small Europe” has a
coalition with “big America” to be guarded from “big Russia”).
In politics, however, small parties may play a crucial role
and be a decisive political force. It is just a matter of (a) having a
democracy, (b) math, and (c) willingness to suppress the own ego and provide a
political support to a competitor (if it comes to that).
Imagine, that some fictional country has a parliament with
one hundred seats in it. After a general election two large parties have 44
seats and 41 seats (so, 85 together), and a third party has the rest. For a
third party to have only 15 seats seems dismal. But without those votes (at
least 7, or 10 to bring the total to 51) no bill can be approved, no law can
pass, because neither of the large parties has a majority. That situation will
force the other two parties to seek a coalition or at least a temporary
agreement with the third one, even if the third party is very small. This
situation will make the third party a decision maker, or at least a decision
broker. For the large parties the existence of a third party gives them an
opportunity to save their faces in front of their constituencies: “We did not
give in to the adversaries, to get things done we forged a compromise
using our friends from “the party #3”.
According to a short article from 2011 https://www.good.is/infographics/infographic-what-congress-would-look-like-if-it-really-represented-america 46
% of the U.S. voters regularly vote mostly democratic, 41 % always vote for
republicans, it leaves 15 % of voters who basically make their mind on the
election day (see the introductory picture). Time goes, but this divide only
sharpens and is expected to last for a decade or more.
Clearly, the elections are won by those 10 -15 % of voters
who do not see themselves neither as democrats nor as republicans, but swing
the power toward one or another depending
on (… long talk - but those people seek change, that is why they voted for
Obama, and they are also anti-establishment, that is why they voted for Trump).
Both major parties seem understand this new development. Both major parties now
are regrouping the forces hoping to attract in 2018, and 2020 the
votes of those un-enrolled voters. However, the Democratic Party has
a serious image problem, and
a difficult internal struggle. There is a high probability
that the Democratic Party will not be able to solve both those
problems in time for the next elections.
The "three party situation" is very well known in
the history of the European politics. You can Google “the politics of
coalition” and see how many books and papers have been written on this topic.
However, the first thing you would notice is that all the top books are written
about England, Germany, Europe in general, Brazil, India, and almost none about
the American politics (for example, look up books by Michael Laver, Norman
Schofield). The first listed paper related to the American politics addresses
the issue of coalitions between African-American and liberal political
movements; but there is nothing on the Congressional or Presidential elections.
If you Google “what is the role of a third party?”, you find
that third parties are “forcing major political parties to address new issues
they might not have previously addressed very much”, and “third party
candidates can also greatly impact an election by taking away votes from one of
the major political party candidates” (that we already know!). And every source
also tells us that in the foreseeable future it is very unlikely that
in America a third-party candidate would win the Presidential elections.
But that is exactly what a small third party does NOT even
need to fight for!
Everyone who thinks that a third-party candidate will become
the President is an idiot.
But everyone who thinks that a third party is politically
irrelevant is even bigger idiot.
The main goal of a small third party should NEVER be winning
the Presidential elections (people need to be realistic). If the party IS
small, trying to win the Presidential elections only demonstrates that party
members and leaders are delusional (or ignorant, or arrogant, or egoistic).
The number one goal of a small third party should be preventing
opposition from gaining seats.
Where?
Anywhere!
Everywhere!
And, if possible, if it is realistic, to promote its own
candidates into political power.
The most important goal for an American small party (especially
in 2018) should be taking in the Congress seats from Republicans;
making Republican party to be the Congress minority.
Ideally, the seats lost by Republicans would be taken by the
third-party candidates, but this goal is secondary (more on
that in a couple of paragraphs).
There is no doubt in my mind, that the current party line
division will be a long-lasting fact of our political reality (at least one or
two decades). That is exactly why a small political party has a very
good opportunity to make a very big difference. When the two major
parties will not have the majority in the Congress, and will not be able to
find a compromise, the third-party caucus will become a mediator, a bridge
builder, a deal maker.
In my eyes, Libertarians and “Greens” had compromised
themselves by not helping Clinton to win. Other existing parties have no
influence on politics.
That means, that a third party, which will play the
role a third party needs to play in politics, has to be developed from a
scratch.
What do we need from the upcoming first truly
third political party?
I can answer this question only from my personal point of
view.
I am a pragmatic and a liberal, hence I am a pragmatic
liberal. My philosophy is “pragmatic liberalism” (which means, I just use the
best parts from all major philosophies). I believe in individual freedoms. But
I also value the role of the Government. I consider myself smart, educated,
honest, and active man, and among thousands of my former and current students
and colleagues there is none who would call me a stupid, ignorant, lying, or
passive person (http://the3dforce.blogspot.com/2017/03/dusk.html).
That is exactly what I also want to see in the members of the first truly third
party.
The party needs to value openness and honesty. That includes
(a) having disclosed all the sources of the financial support;
and (b) having rejected any private influence from any large donor.
The party has to refuse the use of any brainwashing and mind
manipulating techniques. So, when I would be listening to any party member, I
would know that I could trust him or her.
The political goals of the party have to be:
(a) fighting for the fairness for all.
(b) no person can build his or her prosperity by exploiting
other people.
(c) establishing social and political mechanisms which will
allow every American to succeed in his or her
pursuit of happiness.
(d) the continues improvement of work and living conditions
for all American.
Here comes the pragmatic part.
Every politician will quickly submit his or her name to
these goals.
But pragmatic liberals should establish clear and measurable criteria
for every important aspect of those work and living conditions the party
pledges to continually improve; the fairness for all has to be measurable – and
measurable using the same standards for all!
I have more input in the matter presented in many other post
on both my blogs.
Due to the limitation on the size of this paper, I will give
here only one example of a pragmatic approach to the politics.
Democrats are very proud of the various regulations they had
put in place to make the environment clearer. Republicans claim that those
regulations “kill American jobs”.
Do we need clean air and water to live a happy healthy life?
Of course! Hence, the logic tells us, we need to regulate pollution and other
aspects of human effects on the environment. Do regulations affect macro and
micro economics? Of course! However, do we know the exact cost of that effect?
No. But more importantly, we don’t even know what do small business owners hate
the most about regulations?
Based on listening to various conversations of “experts” and
“pundits”, my impression is that the majority of small business owners do not
see regulations as a big financial drag. So, why do the hate
them? Many small business owners hate regulations because they have to spend a
lot of time to fill up various paperwork to prove that they do not do anything
bad; and that paperwork has to be approved in many places, and it all takes a
lot of time.
I have no specific data on this matter, because there are NO
data! No one has researched the actual relationship between small business
owners and federal regulations (which means that all the stamens on the issue
have no logical foundation and based solely on ideological dogmas).
Everything I said about regulations is purely my personal
assessment. But based on this assessment, a smart pragmatic politician should
say: “Ok, there are two most important variables in this case – money, and
time. Let’s design – together with businesses – and conduct a research on how
much time and money do our regulations cost to businesses.” And I am pretty
sure that if the government would ask businesses to help them to design a
simple and efficient technology which would allow small business owners to be
in compliance with existing regulations without spending huge amount of time,
many of them would be much less inclined against regulations per se.
When I look at the current political landscape, I see that
the Country is finally ready to accept the first truly third political
party.
This year (2017) should be the year when potential members
would begin forming a movement. The movement should have a simple but memorable
name – I personally love names like “The First Third American Party”, or
“Pragmatic Liberals”. During this period members of the movement can keep all
their current party affiliations. The next year should become the critical for
the movement/party. The first decision to make will be to still remain being a
movement, or to register an actual political party. No matter what decision
will be made in 2018, movement or party members will need to participate in all
available races.
However, the quality of the members will have much more
importance on the results of those races than the quantity.
When a pragmatic liberal candidate will be in clear lead in
a race, he or she becomes an active governing figure. However, in cases when a
pragmatic liberal candidate has no chance of winning, two or three weeks before
the Election Day he or she should call on the supporters to give their votes to
… – well, this choice will require a judgment call. In this case, members of
the party will have to calmly and logically analyze pros and cons of each
remaining candidates and make the decision solely from the point of view of who
will serve the Country better (I would expect that 99 % the third party would
support the Democrat, or the Democrats would support the third-party
candidate). Building up political coalition should become one of the tools in
the toolbox of the first truly third political party.
American people are smart, and given the right choice they
will support the party built on honesty and openness, and managed by the people
and for the people. Statistics also shows that the Congress does not reflect
the current demographic, economic, and ethnic distribution of Americans, and
the political room for an active third party does exist (http://visual.ly/not-my-beautiful-house).
The future of the Country needs to be in the hands of smart,
educated, honest, and active pragmatic liberals.
Becoming the decision brokers will be only the first stage
of the party development. With the growth of the party the time will come when
the third-party candidate will finally have a real shot for becoming the
President of the United States of America.
How should this type of party be created?
I think, it should start from small local formations,
"clubs", united by (a) the goal of bringing Congress Republicans to
the minority; and (b) believing in the role the third political part has to
play in politics (decision brokering).
It would help to have a charismatic leader (Bernie
Sanders?!).
When he or she will get traction in the media, people will
direct more and more of their attention to the party.
Today Bernie Sanders' political group "Our
Revolution" (https://ourrevolution.com/)
presents the closest approximation to the first truly third political party.
However until this movement remains inside the Democratic Party, it will not be
able to attract moderate Republicans and "radical" independent (who
would never vote for Democrats).
The “Our Revolution” movement offers a very inspirational
platform, no doubts about that. But if 2016 taught us anything, it is that
there is a big difference between saying all the right words, and being able to
deliver, being able to win. In order to win, a social group needs to use a
right political mechanism.
The Democratic Party is at the edge of making
serious changes in the way it functions.
In 2016 Clinton's "clique" forced all
prospective presidential candidates to step away (even Biden!). If it
wasn't for independent Bernie Sanders, Democrats would not even had a
contest. Then, the same "clique" stacked the deck
against Sanders. And now they want to "unite" the party,
meaning, making Sanders' supporters to agree with the views imposed by rich
donors. Clearly, the Democratic Party has two very different factions. One faction
represents people who believe that if it was not for KGB/FCB/GRU and FBI
Hillary Clinton would win. This faction has no nationally
recognized democrats who would be brave enough to stand up against
Clintons. Sanders' supporters will never agree with Clintons' views, but many of
them are afraid of leaving the party. As the result, we will be seeing long
internal arguing, which will keep the party week. Democrats want to hit
Republicans with a fist, but due to internal squabbling all they will be able
to produce is a slap (at the best).
If "progressive" Democrats would leave
"regular" Democrats", each of the two new parties would be able
to make a fist to hit Republicans. The new small party would be able to attract
people who did not vote and will not for Clinton or Clinton-alike
"establishment" candidates (because they know that her ego goes
ahead of everything else; and because they do not want to vote for people
backed by reached donors). The remaining Democratic Party will be
able to concentrate on fighting Republicans using means which would
not repulse large donors.
But - and this is very important - these two parties
will NOT be enemies (like "Draft Bernie" people v. Democrats; http://the3dforce.blogspot.com/2017/04/draftbernie.html). These
two parties are allies! (at least for
a foreseeable future) They have a mutual enemy -
Republicans!
When elections happen, they will present their own
candidates. But they will need to make a pact; three weeks before the
voting day, whichever candidate gets more traction, that candidate will get the
full support of the both parties.
This is the best strategy to beat Republicans in 2018 and
2020.
Maybe in the distant future when the third party will gain
recognition and respect it will be able to install its candidates to various
levels of government, maybe even the President.
But until then the third-party candidates have to
participate in all possible elections. But in every election two week before
the election day the third-party candidates have to quit the races in the favor
of the candidate of their choice (with whom some political deal will be
forged).
And again:
Everyone who thinks that a
third-party candidate will become the President is an idiot.
But everyone who thinks that a third
party is politically irrelevant is an even bigger idiot.
Some old post on the matter:
No comments:
Post a Comment