Restructure?

"Standing in the middle of the road is very dangerous; you get knocked down by the traffic from both sides." -- Margaret Thatcher

I spend far to much of my time grumbling and growling about the failings of our government and the loss of our freedoms, without making very many constructive suggestions. We all, at one time or another, get upset about some specific situation, and mumble something along the line of “there outta be a law”, or perhaps just “throw the bums out”, without really considering what the consequences of such action might be. After all, not considering all the results of their actions appears to be the preferred style of the Democratic Party, and I’m not the least bit impressed with that! Nor can I say that the republicans are doing much better. Then to, it seems that every time somebody gets a bright idea, congress passes another new law, and look at where that’s gotten us. As for throwing people out of office and starting fresh, just what are we going to do with a vast influx of ex-government employees suddenly on the dole? Besides, I’d like to retain some of those folks, as a few of them do, or at least try to do, a good job.

We know that our country faces a wide range of problems today, ranging from the economy to national defense, from crime to the environment, from immigration to an ageing infrastructure. And no one is going to wave a magic wand and solve those problems overnight, despite Mr. Obama’s promise of “change”. (Don’t ‘ya just love his comment about the United States being the greatest country in the world, and that he intends to change all that?) We certainly do need to make some changes, but… just what, specifically, do we want to change, how do we propose it be done, and in particular who is going to do it? Personally, I don’t think I’d trust either the Republicans or the Democrats of today with such an important and far reaching undertaking. Bi-partisanship will wreck anything that mainstream politics tries to accomplish. And any major change proposed by radicals of the left or right is going to be met with a lot of suspicion and even more resistance from most of the public. That does leave one group that the mainstream politicians are trying very hard to ignore, and that none of the radicals will ever trust. But the political moderates day may well have come, and they might well be the one group that gets things done.

Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Group stated that "Centrism has emerged as a dominant factor in public opinion as the Obama era begins. ... Republicans and Democrats are even more divided than in the past, while the growing political middle is steadfastly mixed in its beliefs about government, the free market and other values that underlie views on contemporary issues and policies." Accordingly, 39 percent of the American people identify themselves as political independents, the highest percentage in 70 years. OK, so who represents the rapidly increasing middle of the road moderates? Perhaps it’s Nancy Pelosi, the radical speaker of the House, who accuses the CIA of lying, who advocates for abortion on demand and who pushes a radical environmental agenda? How about Rush Limbaugh, who insists that the Republicans lost the election because they weren't conservative enough? Is it to be Mr. Obama, who sprinkles his speech with centrist language, but who governs from the far left? Keep in mind that even proven moderate politicians will have problems gaining support, because they so often play to the radicals in an effort to gain a few more votes.

It’s far more likely the Mariners will win the World Series than a political moderate of either party will rise to the top leadership. The most important part of being a congressional leader today is the ability to raise money, and it’s rather difficult for a moderate to convince donors that they will become leaders in the party and are thus worthy of financial support. Special interest groups prefer people who support them all the time, and mistrust people who support them only three quarters of the time. Whether it is George Soros on the left or Richard Mellon Scaife on the right, donors give their money to fellow travelers and not to deal-makers. Centrists also make for bad television ratings and even worse talk radio. The absolutists on either side make nice headlines. With the rise of Fox on the right and MSNBC on the left, moderates are either attacked as being sell-outs or ignored by both sides, making it hard to become a respected national figure in today's media culture. Yet despite these warnings from the left and the right, the American people are increasingly seeing themselves as centralist moderates.

So the question is, if moderates can't get any attention from either party, why don't they form their own? It's a good question, and not difficult to answer. History has not been kind to third parties in America. The Know-Nothings collapsed into nothingness. The Bull-Moosers died when Roosevelt lost. The Dixiecrats eventually became Republicans. And Perot’s Reform Party ran out of Perot's money. But it might well be time for our political system to evolve into a three party system. Can you imagine what a world would look like if we were to reach a legislative consensus on almost any subject that was satisfactory to most of the country?

For either party to prosper they must appeal to the nearly 40 percent of the voters who think of themselves as independents and who are personally centrist in their politics. The next election, like the last one, won't be decided by raging liberals or pious conservatives. It will be decided by the vast middle, those centrist voters who see the real world problems, and are completely unimpressed by ideological absolutes. In the meantime, about the only thing currently in the middle of the road are yellow stripes and dead armadillo’s.