Rethink: 4 Might Even Be Better Than 3.



Rethink: 4 Might Even Be Better Than 3.  Recently, I wrote about the possibility of a third national party.  I wandered into this area of thought because of the clusterf’s that are more generally known as the Republicans and the Democrats.  I suppose far greater thinkers than I have grappled with this question before and written intelligent arguments against it; if so, I have not read them.  In fact, the only argument I have ever heard is that it would make it much more difficult to achieve a majority opinion on an issue.  Now I really like a lot of what I read about the Libertarians; but the one thing that keeps me from embracing their philosophy in total is the fact that several of them are anarchists.  Me?  I happen to believe that there is a place in this nation for government involvement.  There are areas of our lives that are best governed by a federal entity, there are areas of our lives that are best governed by a lesser entity (state, county), and there are areas of our lives that need no governing presence from outside the individual.  Where these lines are drawn, how long and bright they are, and exactly who does the drawing…well, that is the question, is it not?

Now, I am thinking that the Republicans and the Democrats have clearly demonstrated over the last couple of decades that they tend to stake out extreme and polarizing positions on most every issue of import.  I floated the idea of a third option somewhere between the radical ends.  But why stop there?  Should we shy away from 4…or 5…national parties because it will make governing a messy affair?  My god, the government we have now has made our country a messy affair.  Is it inevitable that any national political party will evolve to the current state of corruption and dysfunction that we find in the Dems and Republicans?  Perhaps so…but…

When there are only two parties to divide the power, the wealth, the corruption, and the dysfunction…they seem to have more than an adequate supply of each to survive the periods of minority status without any compromise.   At least if we divide that power, wealth, corruption, and dysfunction into more and smaller parts, their respective overall imprint will less significant.  They will have to negotiate with others to become a part of a larger voice or face irrelevance.  Irrelevance; now that is something that all politicians of all stripes fear and loath.  I do believe I prefer to move the mess from our streets, our paychecks (for the lucky few who have a job and the noble few who want one), our tax system, our courts, our military (that’s right; no baseball/mom/apple pie exemption from this man.  Not the soldiers, the corporate cesspool that is military spending), and the universe of regulatory law and put it into the government.  Let them shout, flaunt their principles, bloviate in their self-righteous ways, and behave like total hypocrites; at the end of the day, a few of them will agree on something and it will become part of our lives.  I’m not sure, but I am thinking the compromise of many might be a better legislative product than the dictate of one ruling party.