Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

my 2 cents: i want to vote for the Democrats. i really do.

if only they could pretend, like the Repubs, that they wanted my vote. like TM said a couple of days ago: put away their scary people until after the election (not even including Kerry's foot-in-mouth).

partisan balance would be a major improvement. if only the Dems could improve their connection with Middle America (Midwestern and Southern, middle income, some traditional values).

a stronger Democratic party would improve current politics for all of us immediately.

but i hate to vote for them just because the Repubs stink so bad, just because balance would be better.

i wish i kinda wanted to vote for them. voting Dem is in my background. i usually do. but they're struggling to connect with me, not to mention those Middle Americans...

Dr Barnett, the only part of your strategic vision that the a Democratic Congress would implement would be to starve the Leviathan. But look at who would be in charge: Conyers, Rangle and Dingle who cannot discern a difference between Isreal and the Hezbos. In the Senate we would get Leahy and Kennedy. Oh boy! We would also get higher taxes, a stagnant economy, and judges who want to expand local governments' power of eminent domain. I left the Democratic Party 10 years ago when I realized they were basically anti-capitalist. Now I believe they are simply anti-American. I mean, Tom, the Democrats want America to be more like Europe. A European America is a pretty high price to pay for the luxury of a divided government. I too desire a divided government, but the two parties that divide the political spectrum have to be grown up. The Democrats have regressed to adolescence and I see no sign (think Kerry) of them achieving adulthood any time soon.

Too bad there's no effective third party. I'd say Americans have long tired (this one certainly has) of the partisan ideology that has effectively frozen our legislative branch. A powerful third party would force the creaky old machines collecting dust on either side of the aisle to act beyond their ideology. In the meantime, Mr. Barnets "divided we stand" conclusion is as good as any. Though I suspect that when the Presidential race of 2008 concludes we'll be back in the same one party majority boat.

Orson Scott Card is a Democrat who disagrees.

Here's the money quote.

I say this as a Democrat, for whom the Republican domination of government threatens many values that I hold to be important to America's role as a light among nations.

But there are no values that matter to me that will not be gravely endangered if we lose this war. And since the Democratic Party seems hellbent on losing it -- and in the most damaging possible way -- I have no choice but to advocate that my party be kept from getting its hands on the reins of national power, until it proves itself once again to be capable of recognizing our core national interests instead of its own temporary partisan advantages.

To all intents and purposes, when the Democratic Party jettisoned Joseph Lieberman over the issue of his support of this war, they kicked me out as well. The party of Harry Truman and Daniel Patrick Moynihan -- the party I joined back in the 1970s -- is dead. Of suicide.

There is a lot in the article that Dr.Barnett will agree with, although he tends to be more optimistic than this quote from Card:

What really scares me is the 2008 election. The Democratic Party is hopeless -- only clowns seem to be able to rise to prominence there these days, while they boot out the only Democrats serious about keeping America's future safe. But the Republicans are almost equally foolish, trying to find somebody who is farther right than Bush -- somebody who will follow the conservative line far better than the moderate Bush has ever attempted -- and somebody who will "kick butt" in foreign policy.

The irony is, basing voting decisions on political parties instead of individual merit is what got us this president in the first place; now people want to fix it with more of the same.

Of course, I'm lucky; in my district, one candidate is party politics as usual and one seems to recognize that there are limits to what his party's ways can accomplish. Someone stuck with two candidates from the Hack factory may have a harder decision.

In the end will anything really change either way? Are not both parties really the same at this point with all the "moderate policy" strategy on both sides?

Personally, we should throw them all out and then pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting lawyers from holding office. The people who should hold office and pass this amendment are teachers, bankers, doctors, trades people, etc. Everyday people with influence in their communities, not professional politicians/lawyers who are schooled in argument logic and will never answer a direct question or give two bits about anything but towing the party line and how to stay in office.

My $.02

The cure for both parties is to unbundle the services that lock in candidates to the current party structures. Once there's effective competition in voter lists, petitioning, fundraising, and all the rest both parties are going to implode and quickly.