Thom Friedman introduces AmericansElect in today’s New York Times.
I have no idea whether this “national referendum” kind of thing has or could have any legs whatsoever–if nothing else, it’s an extremely unwieldy way of identifying a “candidate,” much less getting into campaign mode, and probably just reflects dismay with all the parties currently in existence. The two major parties are clearly not delivering–leastways not to their consitutents, and not in the way voters would like; and existing alterna-parties are far too radical in their own right to ever attract the kind of plurality needed to have any real influence on their own (otherwise, by now, they would have; but they shed at the same rate they attact. Or in the case of of some state organizations, at far higher clip.)
But as I’ve suggested before, the age of traditional parties in the US (which would include Green, Libertarian, Reform, etc) may be drawing to a close. Sloowly, to be sure, but my guess is that defections from the two mainstream Parties are likely to land most exiles in the ranks of Independents, not simply different ideologically-driven organizations. And up-and-coming generations are bored with the endless parade of white-guys-in-suits (struck again looking at the team assembled behind John Boehner when he gave his latest statement; it might as well have been 1950) spewing canned rhetoric, and turned off by the equally dated sixties-style rhetoric and identity politics blame-casting emanating from the further reaches of the left.
As the curtain comes down on “The American Century” and the electorate is forced to change not their simply their lifestyles but their aspirations and consciousness of what it means to be an “American,” politics is likely to be more volatile than ever. The alternative proferred by Friedman in this peace sounds attracive at first glance, but also seems to open a very wide door to populist demagogues of the scary variety.
#
The two major parties are not ideological, they’re amalgamations of interest groups. Our candidate centric, interest group guided two party system was cemented after the Second World War and does not resemble what one would actually call “traditional” parties. These still non-ideoglogical parties were strong organizations with a presence in communities that got a lot of very tangible and practical things done (think ward bosses). And those died between the two World Wars.
A major change in our party system over the last 40 years has been the effect of growing corporate power and concentration of wealth, to the point that this one interest group now has a predominate position within both parties. Its not that no other groups or forces exist, but one category more or less frames and leads the policy discussion.
Broad interest groups have also lost their palpability with societal changes. Most have professionalized, lack a grassroots organization and community presence, and rely heavily on foundations, government, and both institutional and large donors to operate. Few people strongly identify with these organizations, much less so than when one could say “I’m a farmer” or “I’m a factory worker”.
Ideology has never been a real part of this story, its a matter of the marketing and branding of our two political parties that you can even speak of principles or different philosophies, its something after the fact. Its an easier story to talk about and understand, that each party has a real ideology or distinct views, even though its the interest groups and their particular influence on a given candidate or group of voters that is the deciding factor.
Naturally people are fed up with our political system, the past 40 years have also brought stagnant living standards and economic insecurity, but most people don’t identify with any particular interest group or collectivity. So we get the phenomenon of more independents, few of which are true moderates or centrists, but more than likely unsure, apathetic, cynical, or idiosyncratic in their views (or they’re just disaffected liberals and conservatives).
Third parties have only had success when neither major party or the political class properly represented a set of interests, classes, or groups. Rapid changes in American society enabled the Republicans, and then the Populists and Socialists to have a presence in the political system for a period of time.
What’s interesting at this moment in time is that we have a clear and organized attempt to eliminate or jettison the power of a number of interests or forces usually counterposed to corporate power, from organized labor, to grassroots community groups, to the champions of the public sector, to non-profit media, to environmental regulations and organizations, to the openness of internet, et cetera.
I don’t contest the fact that most people have a preference for “independence” over collective power or intentional organization. But social change doesn’t come from passivity, it comes from contesting for power. Its a fact, not an opinion, that you need organization and institutions to express people power or at least to solidify a victory. Ideology is again after the fact, whatever practical narratives or stories enable people to grasp collective power is the key.
Third parties are one possible route to express collective power, they have been in the past, and in fact still are (take a quick glance at the UK, Australia and Canada to see new political formations beginning to push out the traditional parties of power).
If one was trying to form a non-corporate party from scratch in the United States, it probably wouldn’t be Green, because Green politics is a very specific response to what ails society and not the most general and all-encompassing one. If there are not substantial interests and groups alienated from the major parties willing to invest in a third party and see to its winning elections and impacting policy, well no you won’t get a strong third party. Interest group politics and reliance on the Democratic Party are strong indeed, and its going to take continued shit hitting the fan for a mass of people and organizations to get on board (or at least somehow figure out how to perform a liberal coup in the Democratic Party, which has eluded liberals for about 40 years while their own organizations have weakened compared to the right in the party).
My logic is very down to earth in the meantime, actually adopt and implement the strategy third parties have used to win elections, build a base and some power, draw more allies and supporters to your camp. Its almost a matter of taste rather than whether this tactic is authentically better, but I think my main difference with you is holding institutions and organization as being extremely important to politics regardless of the strategy or tactics you adopt.