There will be four choices for President in most States–the two principal parties along with nominees of the Libertarian and Green parties. While it is highly probable that either the Democrat or Republican nominee will be the ultimate winner if you, like me, are fed up with the major parties, 2016 is the year to send that message.
I have been an active Republican during most of my life. I served as a Presidential appointee in both President Ronald Reagan’s and George H.W. Bush’s administrations.
While I am pleased to have served both presidents, neither succeeded in reducing the growth of centralized government. They were overwhelmed, at least in part, by Washington-based incentives. They were victimized by interlocking interests that act to enlarge not shrink the central government.
This year the third and fourth Parties on the ballot appear more intentional and less compromised. The Libertarian Party, which favors less centralized government is perhaps on the verge of entering the national conversation. Its nominee is favored currently by about 10% and needs 15% to be included in the televised debates.
As well the Green Party includes in its statement of principles: “Decision-making should, as much as possible, remain at the individual and local level, while assuring that civil rights are protected for all citizens.” The Green Party will be on the ballot in a large number of states.
At the very least our national debate should be more inclusive. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump should have to hit curve balls, not just the expected fast ones. It is relatively easy to script a debate between two people who have been debating at long distance for months.
Politically we have evolved into an emotionally fraught binary society manipulated by wordsmiths who labor for one or more deeply entrenched interests. These wordsmiths, over the next four months will insist that a vote for a third or fourth party is wasted. What is wasted are the enormous numbers of dollars and accompanying faith given to the organized interests of Washington—the government and its satellite industries.
Certainly centralized government is needed in foreign affairs. Air and water pollution across state lines and, as the Green Party notes, civil rights must be accorded all Americans.
When my wife and I moved our family to Washington from Springfield Missouri in 1986 so that I could start working in the Reagan administration, our home-secured debt increased several times. We got a quick and indelible education in Washington economics. It is no accident that Washington does not experience recessions.
We all live on some sort of economic ladder. In Washington moving up the ladder often requires a job that depends on a more expansive government. If you work in the government, the economic fruits of more power are self-evident. If you work outside the government, but rely on it for your economic ascent, you are most likely to favor more spending or tax breaks or regulatory protection.
If large, centralized government worked to our benefit, we would call this interconnected activity a “virtuous circle.” Unfortunately, this is often a destructive circle.
My words, of course, suggest that sometimes big is good. Size enhances our defense posture and our central bank is the world’s largest and most influential. And, as we blend diverse sensibilities, our constitution and laws protect diversity while encouraging unity. Yet an unbiased measurement across most public and private enterprise shows large bureaucracies are most often rigid, self-serving and ultimately self-defeating.
Self-government that unifies and measures up is not easy. It requires insightful and public-spirited leadership. It is increasingly unlikely that a leader of this caliber can make it through the Washington based filter. Today’s two party lineup, offers a thoroughly establishment nominee in an anti-establishment moment, and one who specializes in division. Revealingly, many are so disenchanted that Donald Trump looks good.
The lineup also points to structural weaknesses. We are increasingly subjected to an exaggerated political process forced on us by hard-edged advocacy organizations that push the candidates left or right–well beyond the electorate’s comfort zone. It was once said with some pride that the two Parties represented big tents—no more.
Relatedly the costs of a campaign and the resulting draw of big money undermine democracy. The constitution’s guarantee of free speech makes it maddeningly difficult to legislate limits so we are left with a duopoly that ill-serve our nation’s long term health.
So I am now looking for opportunities to express support for the Libertarians and Greens to be included in the televised debates. We need a real debate not just scripted talking points.
Al Sikes is the former Chair of the Federal Communications Commission under George H.W. Bush. Al recently published of Culture Leads, Leaders Follow published by Koehler Books. He and his wife, Marty, now live full time on the Eastern Shore of Maryland.
Fletcher R. Hall says
A great, well presented debate would definitely help in this election. However, the cost of political ads and other media costs are
atrocious. The FCC should require media outlets to provide free debate time, and set a limit on the costs of
political ads. Their ad costs are horrific.
Keith Thompson says
Not sure about the TV networks (because, except for the broadcast outlets they actually own) networks are more program providers than they are media outlets, but as for commercial radio…at WCTR if we choose to accept political advertising, we must accept advertising from all candidates or political outlets and at our cheapest advertised rate. Also during election periods, if we have a candidate on the air (something we encourage), we’re required to give equal time to all candidates for that office.
Stephan Sonn says
For those who had no preference for the Iraq war, thank Ralph Nader.
Michael Brunner says
What a pitifully poor excuse for Al Gore losing the election. You should only blame the Nader voters in Florida if you think that is the reason the dull boy lost. Don’t forget Hillary voted for the war. Both parties are at fault for the Iraq war, but the two ” other parties ” were against it. That’s why I vote third party and if you are really anti- war, you would too.