More Fundamental Change

Even normally good pundits seem to be going bonkers while over-analyzing the New Hampshire primary results and trying to reconcile the different outcome in the Iowa caucuses. It should not be that difficult to discern the main messages from the composite American voter. Here is what they are saying. "We want a Democrat for President. Hillary and Barack seem the most viable choices. We like the fact that each would also be a first, either a woman or an African-American. It is a close call. She is experienced but calculating and a bit of a throw back. He is charismatic and fresh, but lacks much experience on the national stage. We're watching them closely and will make our decision shortly before we vote. We don't much care who the Republican candidate is, since we will be voting for the Democrat."

As pointed out many times here on Sense, there are significant differences between Democrats and Republicans, particularly on domestic issues. But those two parties have an unhealthy monopoly on our political process. Occasionally a third party emerges to play a disruptive role in our Presidential elections, usually for just one or two times in a row. The Republican party arose about 150 years ago as a third party alternative to the Democrats and Whigs. The 1860 three way split election put Republican Lincoln in the White House and buried the Whig party. Now would be a great time to replace the Republican party; but who should be the replacement?

The Republican Party traditionally was based on supporting business and ending racial oppression in the South. Business interests quickly prevailed and the party allowed Reconstruction in the South to fall by the wayside. Teddy Roosevelt fought within the party for progressive reforms to stop the corporate robber barons, but ultimately was forced out of the party. His attempt to form a viable third party was unsuccessful. The Depression relegated the Republicans to minority status until Nixon and Reagan were able to harness the white backlash against civil rights and turn it into Republican votes. As the backlash diminished, Republicans wooed voters with hypocritical talk of "tax reform" and "getting the government off our backs", then with Bush II, turned into a religious party, courting evangelical Christians. Republicans have solicited Libertarian voters with support for gun rights, and less successfully with appeals for limited government. Lately, the tactic of cultivating racial backlash has been resurrected in the form of an immigration policy targeting Hispanics.

The Libertarian Party has an attraction for a limited number of people, as Ron Paul's candidacy has shown. To most people it seems impractical, somewhat of a limited anarchy. Fiscal conservatism is not a wide enough philosophy on which to build a party. Fiscal soundness can and should be embraced by all parties, including somewhat progressives, as Bill Clinton demonstrated. In fact the Clintons, and the Democratic party in many ways, is not really very progressive. True progressives, like Kucinich, garner little party support. Obama may in fact be even less progressive than the Clintons.

The gap left by a demise or demotion of the Republican party would be best filled by a more progressive voice than that of the Democrats, at least if the long range good of the country is considered. That voice does exist in the Green party, but it is not being well heard in the country. Look at the Green party platform for 2004, and the vision it has for America will impress you. But the Greens have not done a good job of positioning themselves to take advantage of an opportunity like the current disabling of the Republicans. Their focus has been on getting Greens elected to local offices, and working from the grass roots up, but that takes too long. Their website is staid looking. Ralph Nader continues to be the only Green member widely known, and resented by many over the 2000 election. The party needs a make over and a new face. Young people should be drawn to it. It should be dynamic. But look at its web site, how staid and unattractive, with the lackluster logo. It should be popping with streaming video, flashes and shockwaves, photo shows, news scrolls and feedback intense forums. The Greens should target one state, say Vermont, with a well financed campaign for a Senate seat, with a charismatic Obama type candidate. Once gaining that office, the Green Senator will have a national stage and play an important Congressional role, and can then become a Presidential candidate to spread the party message.

But meanwhile, we are faced with the current campaign. The caucus in Nevada, to be a rubber match between Hillary and Barack, will be attended by my sister-in-law,who has not told me who she leans toward [if you read this before January 19th Shirley, maybe you will post some thoughts here]. These two candidates are close enough where the Democratic race will be continuing for a while, maybe still being alive by the time we vote in our February 19th primary here in Washington. I will post my vote here and encourage any other readers who are Washington State voters to do the same. As for the Republicans, Michigan is next and if Romney does not win there, his goose is probably cooked. So far, the Republican race is just Huckabee and McCain, with the preacher expected to win in South Carolina. Giuilani is hoping to get into the voting action on the big Tuesday in February. Let's hope whoever the Republicans nominate ends up a footnote in history as the last time a Republican candidate for the Presidency ever made a viable showing, with 2008 having been a Democratic landslide.