Why 3 Might Be Better Than 2.



Why 3 Might Be Better Than 2.  Anyone who has been paying attention to the political evolution of this nation’s two major parties must admit that they have migrated more to their extremes than to their moderates.  If, in fact, there is a silent majority in either the Republican or Democratic parties, they have been silent for a sufficient time to lose their ability to be heard and wield any claim to relevance.  The neo-con right and the uber-liberal left have managed to highjack their respective parties, dominate their policy positions, and suck all the air out of the room when reasonable negotiations attempt to transpire.

Why are we seeing so many U.S. Representatives retire; is it due to a resurgence of the “Everyman Congressman” premise that our nation was initially based upon?  Hardly.  Is it because the status of a minority party in the House is below that of a night crawler under a big, flat rock?  Hardly.  Is it because of the constant, ever-present demand of campaign fundraising?  Hardly; these folks thrive on the ego buzz that goes along with that type of activity.  The ones who are leaving, by and large, are leaving because they realize how futile it is to try to work in these conditions.  They have grown weary of pulling against the wind, swimming against the tide, and trying to reach common ground with an ever-more-elusive opponent.  They are sick to death of gridlock, of the overt influence of radicals in how business is conducted, and the inane arbitrariness of the U.S. government in 2014.  I would talk about Senators leaving WDC, but that simply is not happening in the same way.  They only seem to leave because they are convicted of a felony, caught with a minor child in a compromising situation, or are overtaken with higher ambitions to what is perceived to be a more prestigious  government post.  Even serving as a minority member of the U.S. Senate is no great ordeal for these folks.  Anyone who has ever been to WDC and walked through the halls and offices of the Senate buildings realize that this exclusive club of 100 is the closest thing this nation has to royalty.

So, if we the people are to be represented by two parties, who have taken up permanent residence at opposite ends of a spectrum, how can we expect any type of compromise or accomplishment?  We can’t.  The moderates in the middle are too few, too timid, or too inconsequential to effect the equation.  The far Left shouts to drown out the far Right, who screams back at the far Left in righteous indignation.  And the band plays on.

Pure and simple logic tells us that the only moderation between two extremes is some point in the middle.  It is time for a third party in this government.  Yes, this would have far-reaching implications for our process and system of government.  Yes, it is a valid thought to wonder how 3 might agree when 2 cannot.  Will it not simply mix the pot up more?  I submit that we now have a tie.  When the Republicans are out, they wait patiently (obstruct, delay, obfuscate) for that time when they will re-assume the position of dominance.  When the Democrats have the whip hand, they know their pre-eminence is ephemeral and feel obsessed with pushing through their agenda in the greatest volume possible by any means necessary (i.e. Obamacare).  When inevitably the roles are reversed, does anyone really think that one or the other will experience an epiphany of statesmanship and government will assume some level of efficiency, effectiveness, and respectability?  Hardly.

Right now we have two points on either end of the continuum.  It not unreasonable to expect that a point will not spontaneously arise somewhere in the middle; the thirst for revenge is too powerful for the outs to ignore once they get in.   We need a third voice in the conversation.   We need a tie-breaking vote.  We need a position in the middle between the radical right and the liberal left. 

We…need…a…third…national…party.  Let’s call it the Independent party.