The Follies of Thomas Friedman’s Third Party
Writing in the current issue of The Weekly Standard, which was published on Saturday, Michael Warren predicted what Thomas Friedman would say about the prospect of a third-party candidacy in 2012. Wrote Warren, imagining a debate between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama:
Now imagine moderator Jim Lehrer asking each of the three how he plans to rein in the massive federal budget deficit. Obama argues that the rich need to pay their fair share and defense spending must shrink. Romney responds that it’s domestic spending that needs cutting, and taxes should stay low to spur the sluggish economy. Then, Lehrer turns to the man in the middle.
“There they go again,” our mystery candidate quips. “The same politics as usual. Is it any wonder Washington can’t get things done?” Thomas Friedman … revel(s) in the moment.
And so, as Warren continues, we have the phenomenon of the well-funded but not so well-known group Americans Elect, which is beating the drums for a third-party campaign by as yet an unknown candidate: a moderate the likes of Jon Huntsman from the Republican Party or Evan Bayh from the Democratic Party. Elliot Ackerman, the son of wealthy investor Peter Ackerman who started the group, told Warren: “They have no ‘ideal’ person in mind but hope to see a candidate who can resist being forced ‘into the two narrow boxes that the two major parties have regarding policy positions.’”
No sooner than I read this, I turned on Sunday to the editorial page of the New York Times, and true to Warren’s prediction, Thomas Friedman was on the warpath again, truly reveling in the moment that he and both elder and younger Ackerman see as America’s moment for a new party. If Rick Santorum gets the nomination, Friedman argues, “there is a good chance a Third Party will try to fill the space between the really ‘severely conservative Santorum (or even Mitt Romney) and the left-of-center Barack Obama.” What Friedman wants is “an intelligent independent candidate just taking part in the presidential debates,” which would make Obama and his Republican opponent “better.”
His choice would be the founder of Americans Elect, David Walker, a man committed to fiscal sanity for the United States. Like conservatives, Walker worries that if we do not tend to our fiscal house, the U.S. too could well go the way of Greece. So Walker agrees with conservatives that Democrats are in denial about renegotiating the terms of the social contract. But he also argues that Obama falls short on addressing the structural deficits at home as well, and in particular, the necessary reforms we need to make on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
So far so good. One might ask at this point why not just support a Republican, or a conservative that has made just these points over and over?
These points have, however, met only with the response from the Democratic side and from liberals of a firm no, or simply name-calling, or nonsense that Republicans want to throw grandma off a cliff. But Walker argues that the Republicans are not willing to support higher taxes, which we need as well to attain fiscal sanity.
Get it now? We need a candidate who stands with the Republicans for budget cuts, and with Democrats for higher taxes!
Take one solution from Column A and another from Column B, as in the Chinese restaurants of yesteryear. In Walker’s eyes, we need $1 in new revenue for each $3 made in spending cuts, and that means tax reform. “The Republicans,” he claims, are “simply in denial about this.” Actually, as I’m certain most conservatives know, there are many conservatives who indeed have called many times for major tax reform as necessary for fiscal prudence. Such a program, of course, is something quite different than calling for tax increases, which is the generally preferred left/liberal solution, advanced by calls for “taxing the rich.”
So what, if anything, is wrong with the Walker-Friedman scenario? What is right with it, if anything?
In the 2010 Republican Senate primary in Delaware, we saw that Christine O’Donnell got the Republican slot instead of the more moderate congressman, Mike Castle. She then lost by a large percentage to the Democrat Chris Coons. Clearly, had Castle been nominated, he would have easily won. Had Americans Elect been on the ballot at the state level, as Warren writes, “Castle might have run and won as an independent.” There are many more similar examples one can come up with.
But on a national level, a third party would have quite a different result. And here, we have our own political history as an example. In 1912, Theodore Roosevelt announced he would run again for the seat on a new “Bull Moose” or Progressive Party, challenging William Howard Taft on the Republican ticket, Woodrow Wilson on the Democratic ticket, and Socialist Party leader Eugene V. Debs.
The result, as Wikipedia reports, was the weakest Republican ticket in history:
The split in the Republican vote resulted in the weakest Republican effort in history. Roosevelt’s strong third-party candidacy created the only instance in the twentieth century of a third-party candidate receiving more electoral votes than one of the major-party candidates: although he failed to become chief executive again, Roosevelt succeeded in his vendetta against Taft, who received just 23% of the popular vote compared to Roosevelt’s 27%. The election of 1912 was also the only election in which a third-party candidate received more popular votes than one of the major-party candidates. Winning only eight electoral votes, Taft suffered a worse defeat than any other president defeated for re-election.
Wilson easily won election despite getting fewer votes and a lower percentage than William Jennings Bryan had for the Democrats four years previously: 6.3 million votes and 42% to 6.4 million and 43% for Bryan, who lost badly to Taft in 1908. The split in the Republican vote made it possible for Wilson to carry a number of states that had been reliably Republican for decades. For the first time since 1852, a majority of the New England states were carried by a Democrat. In fact, Wilson was the first Democratic presidential candidate ever to carry the state of Massachusetts (whereas Rhode Island and Maine had not been carried by a Democrat since 1852). On the West coast, Oregon had not been carried by a Democrat since 1868.
The 1912 race showed that what a third party achieved was to defeat the conservative Republican, and it led to the election of the Democrat Wilson, who began the massive statist rewriting of the Constitution that moved the nation away from its Constitutional foundations. It did little, indeed, to produce any victories for TR’s more moderate progressivism.
We also can look at the 1948 election, in which Harry S. Truman faced not only a Republican, but a third-party white Southern revolt led by the “states’ rights” candidate Strom Thurmond, as well as a left-wing national candidate, former Commerce Secretary Henry A. Wallace, who many thought would triumph or at least lead to Truman’s defeat because of would-be support from the left-wing of organized labor and the support of African-Americans in the North. Wallace got on the ballot with his “Progressive Party,” as the Communists who ran and created the movement called their new party.
The result, as Wikipedia concludes, is as follows:
The key states in the 1948 election were Ohio, California, and Illinois. Truman narrowly won all three states by a margin of less than 1%. These three states had a combined total of 78 electoral votes. Had Dewey carried all three states by the same narrow margins, he would have won the election in the electoral college while still losing the popular vote. Had Dewey won any two of the three states the Dixiecrats would have succeeded in their goal of forcing the election into the House. The extreme closeness of the vote in these three states was the major reason why Dewey waited until late on the morning of November 3 to concede. A similarly narrow margin garnered Idaho and Nevada‘s electoral votes for Truman. Dewey countered by narrowly carrying New York and Pennsylvania, the states with the most electoral votes at the time, as well as Michigan, but it wasn’t enough to give him the election. Dewey would always believe that he lost the election because he lost the rural vote in the Midwest, which he had won in the 1944 presidential election; given the effect the dramatic drop in farm commodity prices in the fall of 1948, a year of record farm harvests, may have had on the political mindset of the rural vote that November, Dewey may well have been right.[10]
Truman’s victory can be attributed to many factors: his aggressive, populist campaign style; Dewey’s complacent, distant approach to the campaign, and his failure to respond to Truman’s attacks; the major shift in public opinion from Dewey to Truman during the late stages of the campaign; broad public approval of Truman’s foreign policy, notably the Berlin Airlift of that year; and widespread dissatisfaction with the institution Truman labeled as the “do-nothing, good-for-nothing 80th Republican Congress.” In addition, after suffering a relatively severe recession in 1946 and 1947 (in which real GDP dropped by 12% and inflation went over 15%), the economy began recovering throughout 1948, thus possibly motivating many voters to give Truman credit for the economic recovery. 1948 was essentially a Democratic year, as the Democrats not only retained the presidency but recaptured both houses of Congress as well. Furthermore, the two third parties did not hurt Truman nearly as much as expected. Thurmond’s Dixiecrats carried only four Southern states, a lower total than predicted. The civil rights platform helped Truman win large majorities among black voters in the populous Northern and Midwestern states, and may well have made the difference for Truman in states such as Illinois and Ohio. Wallace’s Progressives received only 2.4% of the national popular vote — well below their expected vote total — and Wallace did not take as many liberal votes from Truman as many political pundits had predicted.
Truman won despite losing Pennsylvania and New York. Truman’s loss of New York, a traditionally Democratic stronghold, can be attributed to Wallace’s strong vote in the union stronghold of New York City. Wallace’s vote in New York state was close to 510,000. If Wallace had not been on the ballot, Truman would have won that state as well. Had other states shown an equally significant vote for the leftist candidate, the left and liberals who wanted Truman to win would have found that their own third-party effort could have led to his defeat.
There is also the argument that even if the third-party candidate fails to win, his different positions eventually influence the major party candidates, who adopt the third-party candidate’s ideas even during the campaign, thus getting the votes of those who otherwise might not have voted for the major party candidate. I do not find that argument convincing. Truman did succeed in diminishing Wallace’s appeals to African-Americans by taking a strong stance on civil rights. But he had done this on his own, and welcomed the departure from the Democratic ranks of the Southern white segregationists. He did not need Wallace calling for civil rights to influence him.
Push comes to shove, a third-party candidate usually leads to victory for one or the other major party candidates — and those citizens who actually vote for the third-party candidate find that they see in office the major party candidate they least like. Even Friedman acknowledges that even he does not know if he would vote for an independent, out of fear that voting for him might lead to a defeat for Barack Obama, whom he prefers to any of the Republican contenders. (Surprise, surprise.) As he says, Ralph Nader’s race in 2000 led to victory for George W. Bush, whom many argue would have lost to Al Gore had the leftist Nader not made a run.
Finally, there is the Ron Paul factor, which Michael Warren raises. Could not the Americans Elect party be hijacked by Paul’s supporters? Walker discounts this, but as Warren writes, the candidate is supposed to be picked by an online nominating process, in which one can vote by signing up on their website. (He fails to mention that the party reserves the right to reject the candidate chosen by those who vote, and to put in their own.) But so far Ron Paul has the most online support. When June comes, delegates are supposed to vote in an online convention to choose from a field of six. The winner is then supposed to select a running mate from the political party he or she does not belong to.
Paul has said he will not run on a third-party ticket. But in politics, anything can change. And his supporters, as Scott McConnell argues in the cover story in the new American Conservative, think this is the year his isolationist views can gain real traction, as the public is fed up with an assertive hawkish foreign policy and wants to defeat what he thinks are the warlike views of the neocon cabal that have so far dominated the Republican ranks. As McConnell writes:
Paul has denied any interest in a third-party bid. But while the Republican Party could easily find a way to make rhetorical and platform concessions to the economic parts of Paul’s agenda, a potent “bring them home” foreign-policy movement cannot long coexist alongside the GOP’s regnant neoconservatism.
So McConnell wants the GOP to resurrect George McGovern’s disastrous strategy and program of 1972, uniting perhaps with the likes of Dennis Kucinich to gather backing for Paul, who would lead an America in which the candidate thinks our country really faces no serious threats. Were the Republicans to listen to McConnell’s advice and to do as he suggests, in that case, there is no doubt that any Democrat would win.
So finally, here is my conclusion: a third party, if its candidate is to the right of Barack Obama, will produce a victory for Obama. That candidate would siphon off votes from those who otherwise would vote Republican, but are not enthusiastic about any of the current crop of Republican candidates.
If the third-party candidate is to the left of Barack Obama, he might take away votes from those who think Obama has sold his soul to corporate America, like the OWS movement and African-Americans who listen to Cornel West and Tavis Smiley. But these two elements are not that strong or dominant, and the chances are his candidacy would play no role at all, except if in a close state like Florida the Nader effect again came into play.
In either case, what that third-party would do is act as a spoiler for either the Democrat or Republican. And those who voted for it will end up angry and frustrated.
But of course, that’s why Friedman salivates at the thought of a third party– it would re-elect Obama this cycle. Imagine if the strong third party candidate was, say, Ralph Nader? Do you think Friedman would be pushing for a third party then?
If you do, I’m got some ocean front property in Arizona.
My theory is the Americans Elect Party was set up to help Barack get relected. So expect some “moderate” candidate to appear on the ballot. Remember, it was Ralph Nader who syphoned off enough votes in Florida to elect GWB. And it was Ross Perot who ensured that Bill Clinton got elected twice. Without Ross Perot, Bill would have lost twice.
A proposal like Friedman’s comes up every time we have strongly ideological candidates for President. (And he’s right about Obama and Santorum, they both have hard-line ideological stands, neither of which appeals to me either.)
But at the national level, the Electoral College acts as a strong barrier to third-party or Independent candidacies.
Because many states have a winner-take-all rule: The candidate who wins just a plurality (not a majority) of that state’s popular vote wins ALL of its electoral votes.
Thus a fledgling political party would have to win pluralities in many states the first time it campaigns, a herculean task. In 1992, the Reform Party candidate Ross Perot got 19% of the popular vote–not bad for a flaky candidate and a brand-new political party–but he got ZERO electoral votes. And that was pretty much the end of the Reform Party.
The best way to build a new political party is bottom-up. You have a much better chance of getting third-party candidates elected as city councilmen, mayors, representatives, even senators. Bernie Sanders for example. There are Green Party officeholders in a number of cities too.
But guys like Friedman never try to push for a third party in off-year elections when they could score in local and state races. It’s only this perennial snort of disgust during an election year when they don’t like the Presidential candidates.
When young people ask why we only have 2 parties and why there aren’t more parties, I always tell them that they have to do the hard work to build a party bottom-up and start winning local races in off-year elections. Since that’s not as much fun as working for a cool Presidential candidate like Adlai Stevenson or Obama to Change The World(tm), they hear that and flee.
You bring up the case of Mike Castle being defeated in his primary run by the more conservative candidate. You point out that O’Donnell lost by a significant percentage. You claim that Castle would have won handily.
Maybe. Maybe not.
O’donnell lost after an unrelenting nation-wide scare campaign waged on behalf of the Communist Coons by every TV network except Fox.
How well would Castle have done with the same pressure, but MINUS the support of conservatives. Castle was Delaware’s Mitt Romney. How many people who voted for O’Donnell would have stayed home?
The truth is that when voters are offered Communist vs. Commie-Lite they choose the Communist. Coons for the win vs. Castle.
It matters little how “moderate” Castle was in fact. The scare factor of his “radical agenda” would have been thundered on all fronts. Never mind the fact that he would be another Scott Brown. In other words he’s Arlen Specter.
Not to mention that the GOP good ol’ boy network came out of the woodwork to destroy her.
Exactly. It was a dog pile where the GOP didn’t want to “win” if their hand-picked man didn’t get the seat.
I want to remind the GOP and the DNC of one thing. *I* am the citizen. You are a political party. I have rights. You can go to hell.
The Tea Parties are about restoring the rights of CITIZENS at the cost of power to BOTH political parties.
Big government grants great power to political power by stealing power from citizens.
You are both on notice. We are awake and you are finished.
Americans Elect is like a political party designed by a committee. Perhaps it was the same committee that designed The Coffee Party and the No Labels Party. The existence of these three is a good sign that the Democrat wing of the Progressive movement is flailing. Now if only we could shut down the Republican candidate of the Progressive movement: Flip Romney.
Imagine the poor voters of 1912…faced with a choice between Roosevelt, Taft, Wilson, and Debs…four Progressives/Communists. America did get the worst possible candidate (Wilson) that time. Let us get it right this time and consign the Progressive movement to the ash heap of history.
One does have to admit to grudging admiration at the resourcefulness of the Democrats and their hangers-on in this election cycle. Since they can’t run on their success in office or the popularity of their legislation, they must distract the electorate and try to make the election about something else -anything else.
First they came up with the OWS gig, a move designed to target Romney who looked like the certain Republican nominee last fall. The MSM duly fell in line and began to demand tax returns, financial disclosures, all kinds of stuff which served to isolate Romney from the average voter. Touche’.
Then they injected social issues into the contest when Rick Santorum began to get some traction, and not just abortion, which remains a contentious issue, but basic contraception, which does not. Almost no one believes that basic contraception should be outlawed (perhaps with the exception of the abortifacients), and that includes Rick Santorum, but you’d never know that from all the fuss.
And now, just to be sure Obama has every conceivable advantage, they start a third party to siphon off the protest vote.
They may not have a clue how to govern, let alone how to unite the country behind real solutions to real problems, but they can sure campaign.
Unfortunately for us, the passengers on this train, winning the political argument, even winning an election, doesn’t mean your ideas are the best for the country.
Theree does exist a viable third party, The Constitution Party but the American people only pay lip service to our Constitution. 80% of what our Federal government does violates the principles of the Constitution. Our founding fathers would be leading another revolution if they were alive today.
No, the Constitution party is NOT a viable party. It may be very right (and I think it is), but it’s not viable any more than the Libertarian Party or the Green Party or the Reform Party or the Fill-In-The-Blank Party.
sinz54 has explained why, above.
When the Constitution Party decides to forget about the Presidency and starts concentrating its efforts on winning local races, it has begun to get ready to someday be a viable alternative.
In other words, they will have to gain viability the old-fashioned way: They’ll have to EARN it.
#6 “they injected social issues into the contest when Rick Santorum began to get some traction……..” C’mon. Give us a break. Santorum himself has injected all the social stuff into the discussion. As for banning any contraceptives, are you sure he & a Republican Congress would not try to overrule Griswold v. Connecticut on the issue of contraceptives? After all, when people voted Republican in the 2010 elections for jobs, what people got from the Republican House was HR 3.
Santorum did say on January 12 that the 4th Amendment conveys a level of privacy. If he’s trying to interfere with citizens’ personal family decisions, then he’s a hypocrite.
The question that no one has asked Santorum; and it needs to be asked; is real simple: do you support the right of citizens to make their own family planning and reproductive decisions? Or should those decisions be dictated to families by big government and/or big religion?
Bottom line: if we Republicans want the White House back and Obama out, Romney has the best chance of doing that.
I don’t recall hearing or reading about contraceptives in this election cycle until George Stephanopolous ask his off-the-wall question in one of the debates a few weeks before the Obama Administration unveiled its rules for insurance plans with no exemption from the contraception requirements for religiously affiliated employers. Perhaps social issues would have become involved in the campaign somewhere along the way if Santorum stayed in, but I think we have George and the Obama Administration to credit for the timing.
As for Griswold V. Connecticut, that case was decided on constitutional grounds, based on a “right of privacy” disclosed to us for the first time in almost 200 years of constitutional jurisprudence, but since reaffirmed many times. Don’t lose any sleep worrying that Congress will overturn it.
What should matter as far as Santorum’s own belief system is concerned is not whether he “supports” family planning, but whether he will respect the law of the land and not try to impose his contrary religious beliefs on the rest of us. Nothing I’ve seen or heard to date suggests otherwise.
Now it happens that I would choose Romney as the Republican nominee if I had to make the choice today, but not because I fear Santorum’s religious beliefs would be imposed on the country. I do believe that he would be hounded by the press and the Democrats about it if he were to be nominated, and the effect would be to distract the electorate from the real issues we face.
But it’s a sad day when ones mainstream religious convictions – and it seems almost any religious conviction which is deeply held and evident in the demeanor and the life history of the candidate – will disqualify him from seeking public office.
Having watched Michael Barone via C-Span @ the AEI duke it out with Norm Ornstein & Henry Olsen w/Karlyn Bowman moderating over similar territory just yesterday, I am reminded that since my first election (Reagan/Carter ’80 – in which I voted Anderson!) – Ron Radosh’s timely subject HAS BEEN A MAINSTAY.
What the Barone & Crew discussion shed light on regarding Radosh’s observations is just what a bunch of delusional idiots otherwise well educated and successful folks like Friendman can be – having viewed the country from the pinnacle of the rarified air of the upper floors of the Grey ladies room in NYC.
I was once such a delusional voter as mentioned in 1980. It had more to do with the sexual revolution and college at the time since I was a freshman dating way out of my midwestern depth, namely a rich jewish princess from Long Island. Voting any other way than Anderson meant end of nookie should the info get leaked. (One must keep ones priorities at 20)
But enough nostalgia. Besides this movement there have always been rich disaffected voters as Radosh chronicles. Not too long before this Warren guy showed up with box cars of money there was the NO LABLES crowd. The fact is that it’s a part of our political DNA – part of the eco-system. And while it can be particularly annoying – like when Clinton took advantage and won thanks to Perot – it always seems to sort its way out even though like teenage acne – it’s the end of the world as we know it when its rubbing up against us at the moment.
That said. This cycles instance by Friedmans crew that ‘this time its different…stop laughing… I’m not joking…this time IT REALLY IS DIFFERENT!’ is particularly amusing.
How come?
Because no matter which liberal twat is gushing about this stuff, no matter if it’s going to be Friedman or Warren or Mayor Bloomberg (the no parade for Iraq Vets ‘american’s mayor’ but Mosques at Ground Zero…yes that rich turd!)…of course… laugh out loud …this time IT WILL HELP THE PRESIDENT GET RE-ELECTED!
That is what is being either overtly shilled or quietly insinuated. That every other instance since the Whiskey Rebellion this time IS WRONG….this time…and past is not prologue nor remotely instructive.
Any kind of run outside – either left or right – will aid Obama getting re-elected…THIS TIME.
Even Henry Olsen at AEI yesterday was suggesting as much – as well as the second favorite pet theory in 2012 punditry (which Barone shot down with his typical devastingly lucid and efficient logic in such matters)…the ‘brokered convention.’
The truth is much simpler – and has little to do with THE ONE; these kinds of ‘movements’ are the equivalent of riots. Once they get started they gather a life of their own if breathing life at all. It never matters that the intentions were ‘peaceful’- or as is most often – openly malevalent.
Look, a lot of people are nervous over the lack of a credible candidate via what we are witnessing via the primary – a pretty vicious well-funded food fight. So What? What we regular folks hear over and over is that Obama is going to win -most likely like Bush in ’04- because the Republicans can’t get it together.
The fact is what we hear is the white noise of a bunch of prattling talking heads WHO ARE WAY OVER PAID TO TALK ABOUT SOMETHING. The rest of America is doing what Americans have always done – striving to life a life well lived – instead of doting minuite my minute on the prospects of 11/12.
One reason among so many that Obama wins (so we are endlessly told) will be because he made the election about a choice – a choice between him (devil we know) and the sweater-vest religious dope or the slick rich guy investment banker who just happens to be a religious kook or the cranky former Speaker who wants to play with his barbies on a Mars colony.
You get it – the MSM is ‘real subtle’ about tanking for their hommie- even on CNN.
What you never here is that a third party run of any sorts is a huge problem given the Obama WH strategy for relection. Which explains why they continue to ‘run’ against Romney no matter what. It’s not because they have Pluffy and Frank Nitty as genius strategists.
ITS BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE!
The Prez they love and serve is the suck-(*&^%$# since Carter! He can’t run on his record – doing so means doing what LBJ did – pulling out and letting someone else run. His leadership from behind on his bee-hind makes them all one-trick monkees at the zoo.
EVERY THIRD PARTY RUN IS A REFERENDUM ON WHO IS IN OFFICE – period.
That is the ONLY CONSTANT – the only thing we know for sure. While each cycle with such candidacies has it’s own unique facts figures and quirks particular to that period – utimately – said run erodes the advantages of incumbancy. The better funded the deeper the damage. But given that these runs almost always are designed to wound if not kill – as with Roosevelt and Taft – it partly explains why the rich so enjoy throwing around their weight and cash thus.
So how do I feel about Bloomberg or some other NY rich a-hole tossing 500 million down a rat hole to vainly try and prove ‘this time is different?’
It worked for Huntsman and his dad. A one family stimulus for media types. So why not, its a free country. Just one more tent at the freak parade this time the carnivals come to town.
Just don’t try and sell this reformed long since mugged by reality conservative that it’s gonna buck historic trends and help Obama. I’ll only reply that I will live to see Newt in a space suit….before….
Tom Friedman’s last ditch effort to re-elect Obama.
We conservatives should do all we can to get that egomaniac “no label”/super-lib Michael Bloomberg to run as an “independent”.
Our efforts would almost certainly have to be covert and “false’flag”, but if we were successful we’d absolutely guarantee the ouster of the Obamination.
“Get it now? We need a candidate who stands with the Republicans for budget cuts, and with Democrats for higher taxes!”
Hmmm, isn’t that what the Europeans are doing right now in Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Ireland? They are DEMANDING tough austerity measures of budget cutting coupled with very high taxes. Yes, and how’s that working out for them? Massive unemployment, recession, economic stagnation, riots in the streets, and no growth in either wages or spending. Sure sounds like a recipe for “success” to me. Is that what Americans want to elect? I would like to see that person run. What’s his or her campaign slogan be? “We MUST Follow Europe off the cliff and see who gets to the bottom first?” Sounds like a “winner” to me.
The point of going third party is to bring one party down so that the third party can replace the secondary party. Yeah, it will lose most elections at first, but the point is to destroy the party that no longer functions, but will not just go away or reform.
Libertyship: the ’90s were a time of prosperity, and also higher taxes. Bush got us into two wars; not saying here that entry into them was good or bad; entry simply happened. Instead of raising taxes to pay for the wars, Bush cut taxes and thus doubled the national debt during his terms. As an aside, Reagan didn’t hesitate to raise taxes when necessary.
The problem during the Bush terms, and now, is that nobody really wants to cut spending. The Pentagon could take a big slice; and will if Obama gets re-elected. But neither Romney nor Santorum want to cut defense spending. Romney in fact advocates increasing defense spending; when he should be listening some to Ron Paul.
The Dems don’t want to cut entitlements even though I think Medicaid alone could be cut by about a quarter with some restructuring (disclosure: I worked a lot of years in social services).
Bottom line for me is that we aren’t going to solve our annual trillion dollar budget deficit and a $15 trillion national debt without an across-the-board cut in spending as well as some tax increases. We can’t solve the problem alone by just cutting entitlements, as advocated by some Republicans; or by just cutting defense, as advocated by some Dems.
The solution is simple – adopt a different voting system. I’ve been talking about this since the mid-90′s…to no avail. I left the Libertarian Party because members were unable to understand how important this issue is.
There is a 2006 discussion about voting systems on my blog titled A Problem with Democracy? that covers of the issues – it also has a link to my piece explaining why I left the Libertarian party and joined the GOP.
It seems that almost no one has heard of voting science, aka “social choice theory”. What is most frustrating is that it doesn’t seem to be a part of college level Political Science courses. I’ve made a game of asking young people majoring or with degrees in PoliSci who the Marquis de Condorcet is. So far, no one I’ve talked to has a clue. Admittedly, the majority of my sample is from Indiana University. But there are enough from other schools that this seems to be a general problem.
I’d recommend that people read about the Marquis de Condorcet – the greatest, unknown intellect to come out of the Enlightenment.
Here’s a final link to my old Secretary of State website, which has more information.