Kiss My Angry Middle Class / 8-8-11

For a long time now, I've pined for a third party to gain viability in American politics. I momentarily shut off the urge three years ago to enthusiastically support then-candidate Obama's White House run.

I'm feeling the urge again.

President B. Hussein Obama, it appears, has governed like a centrist on a mission. On a mission to find the position squarely between the R's and the D's on, oh, pretty much everything except health care. And even then, the centerpiece of the recently passed health care legislation, the individual mandate, is torn straight from the playbook of the conservative Heritage Foundation. Republicans championed it in 1994 as an alternative to health care reforms proposed by the much-beloved Hillary Clinton.

Well, maybe the President has been sprinting on purpose toward the center since his inauguration. If you're a pathetic swing voter (ed. note: apologies to actual swing voters), it makes for a pretty compelling reason to re-elect him, and he does appear to love building consensus. Allow me to expand on this briefly before we get to my hot sexy political fantasy.

On matters of taxes, the White House has capitulated to not just the Republicans, but the fringiest of right-wingers, the millimeters-from-fascist Tea Party wing, on two very visible occasions (extending the Reckless Bush Tax Cuts and during the recent debt-ceiling negotiations). Tax-policy wise, Obama might as well be a mainstream Republican. Oh yes, he's the last one left, by the looks of it. Someone update the Endangered Species list, stat.

Meanwhile, on social issues, Obama's Supreme Court appointments look solidly liberal. And DADT is mercifully gone, as per his instructions. (This paragraph virtually ensures my vote for him again next fall. I can scarcely imagine the alternative.)

Guantanamo? Still open for business. Warrantless eavesdropping? Continues. Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Pullouts are happening. Aiming for the center again? Bulls-eye, Mr. President.

When it comes to treatment of the middle class, however, the current set-up is discouraging. On one "side": pro-obscenely-wealthy Republicans. On the other, but same, side: pro-regular-wealthy Democrats. Bisecting those two forces: a pro-kinda-wealthy President... ugh. The system needs someone fighting for us, if the three major players on the scene continue to show disinterest.

And by "fighting for us," I mean, to be perfectly clear, making economic policy that benefits the middle class. You know, the 80 percent of the country that keeps America running.

The thing is, people have been trying to launch third parties for quite a while. Ross Perot, in '92, tapped into a similar vein of dissatisfaction with the status quo; he scored 19 percent of the vote even after sabotaging his own campaign. The Green Party's been around long enough to swing some elections the wrong way and to elect local officials here and there. And it's plain to see we're only a couple twists of fate away from the Tea Party throwing a massive hissy fit, packing its bags and slamming the door in the Republicans' stunned faces. Recently, you might have noticed the Coffee Party on facebook. These guys get around, and maybe they're on to something.

Maybe. The Coffee Party is a good start, for sure. But its very name is borrowed from the Tea Loonies. And the Coffee Party's official motto -- "the middle class is too big to fail" -- comes off like a bunch of bitter welfare junkies got jealous one day that certain corporations got bailed out, and now they're wondering where to apply for their own government handout.

What we need in present-day America is a viable political force, a hefty, organized organization dedicated to preserving the economic conditions that led to creating the wealthiest, most powerful nation on earth. We need a good platform, full of nuance and simplicity, that emphasizes cooperation rather than bickering, solutions rather than empty political "victories," and the interest of the many rather than of the very few. Politics should be about preserving liberty, finding answers, and enabling prosperity. (You know, the easy stuff.)

What we also need is a good name for this movement.

The People's Party is dead on arrival. So's the National Party. As is the Social Justice Party. the Constitution Party? Already taken by some delusional crazyheads.

The Liberty Party's a good name. I've used it before, most recently in this post from last September. The name sounds like the Libertarians, but it's different enough to sidestep confusion.

The Solutions Party -- this is easily my new favorite. It's a little intellectual-sounding, sure, and I admit it doesn't immediately evoke grand ideals, but it does evoke the actual fixing of problems. Let's run with this for a while. Freedom-loving intellectuals that we are.

Here's its platform.

1. Problem: Social issues are touchy. Solution: States decide social issues, like pot legalization, abortion, gay marriage, and other less fiery topics, like gun regulation.

Of course, the Supreme Court can strike down unconstitutional or discriminatory laws. But the SP politicians will fight for states' rights. Because social issues are complicated matters on which reasonable people can present conflicting arguments, the way forward is not to scream at or past each other. The answer is to present laws to the people, see what they think of it, pass something appealing, and see what the judges, whose job it is to interpret the Constitution, think of it. And then try again, if need be.

2. Problem: Government programs cost money, and nobody wants to pay. Solution: We must implement a tax code that ensures the poor pay some, the middle class pay more, the rich pay even more, and the richest pay the most.

It's the only way to pay for social programs, which are necessary. Imagine no welfare, no Social Security. That's cruel. The solution to cruelty (which is just another form of uncivilization): Establishing and maintaining a safety net, because real people experience real hardship.

The only way to have a lasting safety net is to pay for it. Taxes are a force for compassion when they are used in this way.

3. Problem: Deficits threaten our long-term economic health. Solution: Pick your moments to open the federal purse strings.

Deficits are to be avoided, but there's a time and a place for large-scale stimulus of the economy, fueled by reasonable amounts of borrowing at reasonable rates. There's also a time to run a surplus. The economy will often dictate when these times are. Severe recessions or depressions call for the government to step in and fill the void. Times of robust growth are a great time to keep the deficit in check, and if not to actually decrease it, to prevent it from growing. Holding the national debt steady is the same as shrinking it, if the country's economy grows as a whole.

Times of pleasant economic expansion are not to be treated as blank checks to create new programs. We have enough entitlements already. If we'll only pay for them.

4. Problem: War sucks. Solution: Be certain of a mission and rectitude before embarking on military action.

War is terribly expensive in lives and in cash better spent at home. Military action should always remain on the table, but should not permanently live at the top of the list of options. Pacifism is out of the question for a country; it's fine for individuals and their consciences, great, but not at all OK as a means of defending the richest and most influential nation on the planet.

Presidents who start unnecessary or unjustified wars should be prosecuted. It's too large of a crime to let go unpunished.

5. Problem: We're not anywhere near energy independent. Solution: Go green now. With a vengeance.

Energy must come from as many green sources as possible, be as homegrown as possible, and all avenues of producing energy must be investigated and researched to their fullest, funded by public and private partnerships. In the meantime, we should drill for oil where we can and farm wind where we can. Pour billions into solar energy research. Ingenuity will find a way, but not without some serious cash behind it.

6. Problem: Unemployment. Solution: Balance in how the government treats businesses.

Corporations are not people. Their rights are not the same as those of citizens, their responsibilities are not the same, and their tax burden is not the same. Taxes on businesses must be kept as low as possible to encourage job creation, while not allowing any industry to collect enough subsidies to eliminate its tax burden entirely.

7. Problem: Middle-class wages are stagnant. Solution: CEO pay must be capped.

The free market exists to enrich the country, not the fortunate few ladies and gentlemen who head Fortune 500 companies. Cap CEO pay at x times the average worker of said company, and more employees will make more money.

This is highly interventionistic. It also makes so very much sense. If you can get past the idea of "It's my business, I can run it any old way I want" mindset FOR THIS NARROW BRANCH OF CAPITALISM ONLY, then checks on extreme wealth make sense. Should this type of regulation seep, little by little, into the marketplace, to pave the way for communism? Yeah no.

8. Problem: Elected officials spend more time fund-raising than legislating. Solution: National campaigns become publicly financed.

This is a pretty straightforward fix. Moving along.

9. Problem: Lack of access to higher education perpetuates a cycle of poverty and ignorance. Solution: Free higher education for everyone.

College should be free, including tuition, room and board, at state-run universities, for all comers. Period. Do what you want if you're Harvard or Central Connecticut College of the Coming Biblically Based Apocalypse (Go Horsemen!), but let's get working on breaking the cycle of poverty that stems from unequal access to higher education. More education = larger, smarter middle class = brighter future for the country.

There could be more planks to the platform. I just cobbled this together in a quarter-assed sort of way, as a harmless hobby, really. But then again, 1. covers a lot of legislative and ideological ground.

My hope is that the Solutions Party, as presented, is not placeable upon the left-right continuum. That's good, I believe. One wing of the political spectrum does not have a monopoly on sensible solutions. Otherwise, why would there even be more than one wing?

Now if only the SP could avoid the fate of all its predecessors so far -- that is, becoming the outhouse of American politics...

Revolution or Insurrection? / 9-15-10

Electoral Threat flags. I'm passing them out. Get yours now!

1. A yellow one to fellow Democrats everywhere rejoicing that extremists (it's unfair to call them Republicans - these Tea Partiers are something else altogether) are on the ballot anywhere. You/We aren't very popular at this time, so there's no telling who can and can't beat you/us. Just because it looks like the wild-eyed revolutionary on the other side will lose doesn't mean he or she will, in fact, lose. American political history is (WARNING: please select your own cliche) sprinkled/littered/dotted/peppered with events that once seemed improbable.

2. A red one to Republicans everywhere. Your party is in grave danger of being overrun by people who have no business holding office on the local urban planning committee, much less in the United States Senate or the House Judiciary Committee or Appropriations Committee or Armed Forced Committee or anything rhyming with Blummittee.

There are three types of R's these days. Segment One: Those folks who have left the GOP and now call themselves independents, though they'll vote for an R 98 percent of the time. Segment Two: Social Conservatives, i.e. Christian fundamentalists. Segment Three: Tea Partiers and Libertarians, with views that don't fit into the mainstream and cannot win electorally absent a miracle.

This is a losing coalition, if you can call it that. It is fated for doom. Maybe not right away, but it cannot last. It's like a meal of potato chips, french fries and mashed potatoes. They all make really good sides, but where's the beef?

3. A green one to folks who would seize this moment to launch a new populist party. Voter anger is at an all-time high. Few non-Republicans want the GOP back in power after Bush/Cheney/Rove ransacked the nation for eight years. Few non-Democrats want the current crop of liberals to remain in power. Usually, swing voters swing in a swinging way from one side of the political spectrum to the other, helping to keep the parties honest and the blood relatively fresh in D.C.

This time, the swingers are looking for another target of their affection. I'd just as soon have it be a real party with real ideas, as opposed to the TP's fantasy world in which we can eliminate Social Security and balance the budget by cutting off aid to Israel and letting the Middle East blow itself up.

A as-of-now fictitious Liberty Party, built on responsible levels of taxation, spending and involvement overseas while maintaining budgetary prudence and respecting civil liberties... that party would clean house this cycle. If only it existed. Right now. Yesterday now. (We Democrats are supposed to be that party, by the way. We really should let more people know.)

Anyway. The flags mean whatever I want them to mean. Like the terror threat levels, I use them at my convenience to accomplish my own ends.

Oh yeah, and 4. A rastafarian-looking one to me. Equal amounts of red, yellow and green. I am tempted to interpret the Tea Party's ascendancy as bad for the GOP, therefore as good for the country, but if these people get in office, God help us all. Also, I would be one of the folks easily wooed by a new party that promises new solutions to our looming budgetary problems, when in actuality, I just need to continue to support the D's, who are the party which seeks to champion the middle class, after all. Get a grip, John!

Almost random politics potpourri / 5-12-09

I still spend plenty of time on fivethirtyeight.com, even though polling is at a virtual standstill since THE election.

So when I found this nugget there, I had to spout off.

As you can see, whites were somewhat of a drag on the Obama ticket.

That's not trenchant analysis from yours truly, to say the least. You have eyes too. But what's telling is that once you remove the 2008 variables from the picture, the near future starts to look quite bleak for the Republicans. Between 2016 and 2024, the Democrats are likely to nominate a white candidate; after all, they tend to do so most years. A white candidate, presumably, might not suffer from the exact same sort of prejudice BHO faced last year. And let's say Obama doesn't self-destruct and historians continue to condemn Bush for the abominable job he did in the Oval Office. And if the candidate's Hillary, think "historic election" all over again. So to recap: Less racism + Obama coattails = Democrat coasting to victory.

(Oh wow! Look at all my unhatched chickens!! One, two, three...)

And then, in a not-too-distant election year, nonwhite voters will begin to outnumber white voters. 2040, 2042 and 2044 are good candidates.

So in my fantasy world, the GOP has a mini-window of 2024-2040 to regain the White House. Yes, I understand that the presidency is not the end-all of American politics. But not having it for, oh, decades -- that might reduce a party to a great deal less relevance than it currently enjoys. (I use the term "enjoy" loosely. Liberally, if you will.)

It's entirely possible, then, that come 2024, every voter under age 50 will only have W. as a frame of reference for Republican presidents. Ouch. If you thought 23 percent of the population self-identifying as Republicans was bad...

So I happen to think that a marginalization of the GOP is a good thing for the future of politics in America. That's because I'd really like to see the Democrats break up... whaaa?

"John, that's not really what you mean. You call yourself a Democrat. Your beliefs line up pretty well with those leftist SOB's. You're just saying that for effect."

Ah, but I DO mean it. We are a centrist country. We don't need the balance of power to swing from guys like Dick Cheney to Nancy Pelosi. I just don't believe that's healthy. What we need is a centrist party.

My evil dream scenario goes like this: R's become the party of the white angry male evangelical and assorted random humans. R's stop winning elections. D's consolidate power in all three branches. D's infight until the party splits. New party in the center, the Liberty Party, is king of a three-party system and builds coalitions with reasonable members of the two leftover radical parties. When health care needs reform, Liberty Party members can negotiate with the left and push something through Congress... when states' rights or gun ownership rights are threatened, they can work with the right.

Oh yeah, this Liberty Party is an amalgam of the dozen or so good facets of the current Democratic Party and the three or so good qualities of the GOP. More on it later. When I'm not suffering from the blogarrhea you just crawled through to get here, I'm working on an America 2050 post. I need to write it before I'm a 75-year-old cranky old fart living in 2050.