In case you missed it, the centrist, web-based third party Americans Elect fizzled out in unspectacular fashion last week when it couldn’t garner the 10,000 online votes necessary under its own rules to nominate a single candidate.
AE, proudly devoid of political principle and committed only to process, was the victim of reality. As much as the group would like to have it otherwise, the country’s political system is currently confronted with a series of very simple, though profound, choices. The duality of American politics to which AE objects did not come about coincidentally or by accident. It is very much the product of the proverbial political crossroads at which the country sits.
There is no “third way” when the options are simple yes-or-no questions, or when policies boil down to a simple either-or.
Should Congress reform entitlement programs? Or, put differently, should “Medicare as we know it,” a common political foil, continue to exist?
All serious observers agree that the health care safety net program will go bankrupt in the next decade if left unchanged. So on that issue, the country is faced with a very simply choice: reform Medicare, or don’t reform Medicare. Make it solvent, or don’t. There is no “middle ground” on the issue.
Should Congress hike income taxes, or should current rates be preserved? With a fight over the Bush-Obama tax cuts on the horizon, that is a simple yes-or-no question. Either tax rates increase or they don’t.
Should Americans be required, by virtue of their existence, to purchase comprehensive health insurance? Again, this is a straightforward question with only two possible answers.
In his new book, “The Tyranny of Clichés,” Jonah Goldberg weighs in on the supposedly self-evident virtue of political centrism:
If I say we need one hundred feet of bridge to cross a one hundred-foot chasm that makes me an extremist. Someone else says we don’t need to build the bridge at all because we don’t need to cross the chasm in the first place. That makes him an extremist. The third guy is the centrist because he insists that we compromise by building a fifty-foot bridge that ends in the middle of thin air? As an extremist I’ll tell you that the other extremist has a much better grasp on reality than the centrist does. The extremists have serious disagreements about what to do. The independent who splits the difference has no idea what to do and doesn’t want to bother with figuring it out.
Therein lies the inherent defect of Americans Elect and similar groups. American politics is dominated by questions on which there is no middle ground – either we move in one direction, or we move in the other direction. Political bifurcation in such an environment is completely natural.
Indeed, dodging those questions or insisting that there is a “third way” on any of them is completely nonsensical. Compromise is laudable, but one can only compromise when there is some middle ground. When the choice is the Goldbergian “build the bridge, or don’t build it,” centrism is a worthless political attribute.
Americans should be glad that politicians are crystallizing the present political dilemma, and offering platforms that present meaningful and observable differences on the direction of the country. We are truly at a crossroads, and going in both directions or in none at all is simply not an option.
About Lachlan Markay
The problem isn’t that we have “either-or” political debates, the problem is that our political system is designed to pit two candidates in large agreement with each other, against each other.
Also on the ballot this November:
Should we continue the War on Drugs, or should we escalate the War on Drugs?
Should we continue our drone bombing campaigns, or should we expand them even further?
Should we continue Wall Street bailouts, or should we enact QE3 (and beyond)?
Indeed, “American politics is dominated by questions on which there is no middle ground.” Unfortunately, at the top of the ticket, it’s also dominated by candidates taking the same side of those questions.
As a person who actually involves themself and is not just an observer of the current and recently past political climate I would have to say that the problem lies in the fact that there are very few who seem to want to take that one more step and question the source of their information, either right or left, and find out if it is factual and not just spun by whichever media outlet has it in that cycle for that 24-48 period. One should learn to speak to power from fact based analysis and be willing to take the fight to them. Real reform needs to start with the power of the filibuster being removed from the Senate. All members of either house must be present to vote or be noted as not present. No other member should be allowed to press their vote for them (this by the way, although illegal, has been filmed and is a good ‘ol boy way of doing OUR business in D.C.).
The next step should be to reform the electorate. Most of the folks in the US have more than a 3rd grade education and are able to communicate in a timely manner which were the reasons put forth for the need of and Electorial College so at this point it has far outlived its need or usefulness and is causing much more harm than good. There should be no delegates to a convention, you get a state by popular vote, period. Until such time no delegate should be allowed to vote against the popular vote of their constituency.
As to politics as usual we should start writing our own legislation and submitting it to the floor for consideration. You are aware that this method is legal with the correct amount of confirmed signatures, right? Make them take and up or down vote and dare them to go on record that they went against the wishes of the majority of their constituency. All pay raises for any federal elected official must be voted on by their constituency, they do not get the right to vote for their own pay raise and benefit package. They don’t let us do that, right now they are getting paid by big money lobbyists to do away with any benefits that the middle class or poor may receive even if they have paid taxes for many years. Many of those lobbys have blocked patents for technology that would have long ago relieved us of the need of fossil fuel, have made sure that big pharma have been able to use the free/cheap clinics nationwide as laboratories for the long term effects of medications that they already had the test results on in Europe (and it had been published and was available because the companies are based in Europe) all just so that they are able to continue to make money at the expense of the health and wealth of those they consider lesser than themselves.
Consider these items above and look into the details for yourself. I know of what I write as I did handle intellectual properties and have been fighting the pharma thing for years now since they nearly killed my husband with a rare disorder that they were fully aware of but no “black box” warning. The FDA (you know, those folks that are suppose to test and protect you and I from those things happening) just kind of shrugged it off by taking my complaint. I have not heard back from the FDA or from the congressmen or senators that were put on notice. You can believe I am not finished. I am praying that no one else is hurt or dies although they are still prescribing these meds and even tried to prescribe one of them to me!!!! for pain management.
Prescription medication should not be allowed to be advertised. That just makes the drug companies and their middlemen becoming drug dealers by legal means. Why don’t we start our war on drugs where we can actually control it, by not letting them be advertised as fixing everything that is probably not wrong with you but you might like to try just in case…… And if the doctor and pharmacist that have been in school for 8 years and in training after that are not smart enough to know what you might need then you probably don’t need something you saw on TV or in a magazine or online.