The headlines from the latest polls: Trump unqualified; Clinton untrustworthy. Translated: the major political Parties are broken. The Republican and Democrat parties are now so tightly controlled by their political bases that they have ceased to serve affiliated realists, much less independents, and the results are tearing at America’s social and political fabric.
Broke is broke. When a business no longer works, it either goes out of business or the model is significantly changed. In 1930 the corporate elite list, the Dow Industrials, added Eastman Kodak. It was dropped in 2004 and went into bankruptcy in 2011. Kodak is not alone; today’s Dow companies look nothing like those in its earlier days even though the companies, when added to the Dow, were wealthy and strong. The newest major political party is the Republican one and it was formed in 1856.
Political parties and their leaders are inventively self-protective. They have locked up national presidential debates. For a third party’s candidate to make the stage he/she must poll 15%. States are their co-conspirators. State election laws require huge volumes of signatures, for example, in order for a new Party to qualify for the ballot.
Almost the only time we hear of a new Party possibility is in the run-up to a Presidential election and then, because it would take an enormous amount of money to launch a new Party presidential bid, we only hear about potential candidates that are wealthy, a celebrity, or both. The name this cycle was Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire and former Mayor of New York City. He declined. He was elected Mayor as a Republican, even though they constitute just over ten percent of eligible voters in New York. Better the long odds of being elected Mayor as a Republican than trying to start a national third party as the campaign countdown begins.
If the political process is to be opened up it will require leadership, a clear and compelling message, and time. The time to start building a new Party is now, not in 2019.
In the Republican Party there are a lot of disaffected leaders; many are problem solving Governors. Interestingly, they are where poll after poll report the majority of voters stand. The question is whether there are any center-right entrepreneurs. Are there any Lincoln’s, whose election in 1860 catapulted the new Republican party over the Whig one? Lincoln had previously been a Whig.
I offer three areas of reform from which a clear and compelling message could be shaped. In each case, the incumbent parties are conflicted and cannot be expected to bring true reform.
The tax code is an embarrassment; but, those constituencies that enjoy its favor are strong. The tax advantaged line up with the established Parties and they make deals to service their interest groups.
Elementary and secondary education, where a child’s opportunity often begins, has become monopolized by bureaucrats and unions. Many public schools now teach children whose parents cannot afford to send them to a private school. In city after city the only path to schools that are competitively strong is private or choosing to home school. Choice in public education is a critical need.
Finally, our nation needs healing leaders, yet polarization is thick and the bases of the two dominant Parties demonize the other. The bases are the problem; their litmus tests have become absolute. When all compromise is fought, politics inevitably becomes divisive.
When the Whigs became hopelessly conflicted over the issue of slavery the abolitionists created the Republican Party and Lincoln took it to the White House. The conflict today is between the hard edged ideologues (on the left and right) and the realists. There is a constituency for a new Party and today’s social media tools would make its formation much less complex and costly than a generation ago.
I will now narrow my comments to the Republican Party, but much the same could be said of the Democrats. Today, right of center voters are alienated by the hard right. The hard right is where today’s political power is concentrated and it sees government as the enemy unless it can be used to block social change. The realists in the party, who want to reform government, are called moderates (not a term of endearment).
It is time for new leadership in public affairs. It is time for political entrepreneurship. It is time to break up the duopoly. One thing that can be guaranteed, the leader who repairs the nation’s political fabric will be a historic figure.
Al Sikes is the former Chair of the Federal Communications Commission under George H.W. Bush. Al recently published Culture Leads Leaders Follow published by Koehler Books.
Fletcher R. Hall says
There should be a conservative party and a liberal party . Then there is probably an independent population in the electorate.
Let’s get real.
This election will be a generational change election.
At the end of the day, it is really conservatives versus liberals.
Phil Ticknor says
Gary Johnson offers us a terrific alternative. Like Bloomberg, he was elected to office as a Republican in a Democratic place (governor of New Mexico). He has a libertarian approach, which generally makes him traditionally liberal on social issues and traditionally conservative on economic issues; I use the word “traditionally” because in today’s climate, that’s an oversimplification. Many of his leanings line up with a majority of Americans; in that respect he has more broad appeal than the platforms of either two major parties. The issue is that so many people have dug their heals in on every single issue of one party or the other, leaving no room for compromise. Gary Johnson offers independent voters a different mindset: while he has his own beliefs, he recognizes the limits of the presidency and acknowledges he would have to compromise. In other words, he’s not going to promise his supporters that everything on some mythical wishlist is going to be accomplished should he be elected. That’s called pragmatism and realism. Practicing fear-mongering and hope-trafficking simply leads to a disappointed populace. Johnson would also not be beholden to or propped up by either major party; nor would Congress be beholden to or propped up by him. Since some of his stances overlap with Democrats and others with Republicans and others with neither, that might help push real negotiation and compromise in government.
Whether you support Johnson or not, that’s what a responsible electorate should want from government. Sure, everyone might have one or two pet issues they really care about, but so many people are now engrained in the “us v them” mentality that EVERY issue is a pet issue and they want “their side” to control government and make sweeping changes across the board in line with their views despite the fact that in many cases one-third, one-half, or two-thirds of America may disagree with them. The RNC was largely a celebration of Trump, fear of the other, and safety at all costs (short of any real or perceived infringement of the second amendment – the only amendment that seems to matter to Trump supporters); the DNC has largely been a cartoonish stereotype of what right-wingers claim liberals to be headlined by an absolute hodgepodge of activist causes that frame you as a bigot if you so much as deign to critically examine them, much less reject them. This is NOT how effective organizations of different perspectives work. When you run a business or local government this way, it crumbles quickly. There is little to no reason or dialogue left in the mainstream political discourse – from the right or the left. It’s a shame.