A new take on party planning
November 15th 2006 01:11
I wish we could get rid of our two-party system here in the US. As a person who voted for Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996, I often feel that neither political party represents me and my views very well. Yes, I am conservative in most respects, but both the Republican and Democratic parties are woefully inadequate these days.
I'm not a political scientist, but it appears that folks are generally conservative or liberal along two primary dimensions: Fiscal matters (e.g., big government vs. small government) and social issues (i.e., abortion, church/state separation, gay marriage). National security is another possible political dimension, but for the sake of simplicity, I’m going to focus on the fiscal and social groupings.
The Republican party is often perceived or at least expected to be more conservative on both dimensions (smaller government, socially conservative), and the Democratic party is often perceived or expected to be more liberal on both dimensions (bigger government, socially liberal). However, the world is not nearly so black and white. There are some social conservatives in the Democratic party and some social liberals in the Republican party. And there are some fiscal conservatives in the Democratic party and some fiscal liberals in the Republican Party.
What I would like to see is a new four-party system that gives us cleaner, more specialized choices.
My recommendation is this: Break up each party into two new parties separated ideologically along the two dimensions. The resulting platforms would shake out as follows:
1. Fiscally conservative, socially conservative
2. Fiscally conservative, socially liberal
3. Fiscally liberal, socially conservative
4. Fiscally liberal, socially liberal
I know that each party is harshly protective of its territory. They make it nearly impossible for any 3rd (or 4th) party voices to be heard. The Republicans don’t want other conservative parties or candidates and the Democrats don’t want other liberal parties or candidates. Some Republicans argue that the presence of the somewhat conservative Perot in 1992 and 1996 siphoned enough votes away to give Clinton his back-to-back wins. Likewise, some Democrats argue that Ralph Nader pulled votes away from Al Gore in 2000 and sent Bush 43 to the presidency.
Well, that’s why my plan just might work. It’s presents two additional parties that would facilitate a natural sorting of political philosophies and it wouldn’t do it in a way that would give the Democrats or Republicans an unfair advantage.
A system like this would not solve all our country's problems. It would, however, increase the likelihood of voters feeling connected to and possibly represented by a particular party. And I think that would be a positive development and a step in the right direction
I'm not a political scientist, but it appears that folks are generally conservative or liberal along two primary dimensions: Fiscal matters (e.g., big government vs. small government) and social issues (i.e., abortion, church/state separation, gay marriage). National security is another possible political dimension, but for the sake of simplicity, I’m going to focus on the fiscal and social groupings.
The Republican party is often perceived or at least expected to be more conservative on both dimensions (smaller government, socially conservative), and the Democratic party is often perceived or expected to be more liberal on both dimensions (bigger government, socially liberal). However, the world is not nearly so black and white. There are some social conservatives in the Democratic party and some social liberals in the Republican party. And there are some fiscal conservatives in the Democratic party and some fiscal liberals in the Republican Party.
What I would like to see is a new four-party system that gives us cleaner, more specialized choices.
My recommendation is this: Break up each party into two new parties separated ideologically along the two dimensions. The resulting platforms would shake out as follows:
1. Fiscally conservative, socially conservative
2. Fiscally conservative, socially liberal
3. Fiscally liberal, socially conservative
4. Fiscally liberal, socially liberal
I know that each party is harshly protective of its territory. They make it nearly impossible for any 3rd (or 4th) party voices to be heard. The Republicans don’t want other conservative parties or candidates and the Democrats don’t want other liberal parties or candidates. Some Republicans argue that the presence of the somewhat conservative Perot in 1992 and 1996 siphoned enough votes away to give Clinton his back-to-back wins. Likewise, some Democrats argue that Ralph Nader pulled votes away from Al Gore in 2000 and sent Bush 43 to the presidency.
Well, that’s why my plan just might work. It’s presents two additional parties that would facilitate a natural sorting of political philosophies and it wouldn’t do it in a way that would give the Democrats or Republicans an unfair advantage.
A system like this would not solve all our country's problems. It would, however, increase the likelihood of voters feeling connected to and possibly represented by a particular party. And I think that would be a positive development and a step in the right direction
| 37 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
