po

A National Nonpartisan Trend? Unity 08

A new coalition made up of individuals from the beltway and beyond, including Angus King, former Indy gov of Maine, have come together to start a movement for a new slate for presidential o8 race. They are calling themselves Unity 08 and they say:

Unity08 believes that neither of today’s major parties reflects the aspirations, fears or will of the majority of Americans. Both have polarized and alienated the people. Both are unduly influenced by single-issue groups. Both are excessively dominated by money.

For most of the 20th Century, the contest for the U.S. presidency was waged over those “in the middle.” Recent Presidential elections, however, have not been focused on the middle but on the turnout of each party’s special interest groups – with each party’s “base” representing barely ten percent of the American people.

We believe that, while the leaders of both major parties are well intentioned people, they are trapped in a flawed system – and that the two major parties are today simply neither relevant to the issues and challenges of the 21st Century nor effective in addressing them.

They are calling on people who have put parties behind them to step forward, join and become a delegate for the Unity 08 platform convention.  They cite a poll that demonstrates that 82% of Americans agree that “America has become so polarized between Democrats and Republicans that Washington can’t seem to make progress solving the nation’s problems.”

They are utilizing the internet and I noticed the Dean internet guru on their founder's list.  They plan "to build an online community of millions of registered voters who will participate in an online convention in the first half of 2008 to nominate a Unity Ticket among any two candidates constitutionally qualified to serve – as long as they represent more than one party."

Are we closer to the breakdown of traditional parties than we think?  Will it come from those in the middle who have been left behind by the extreme partisan agendas of left and right?  Or are moderates just too damn busy living their lives to participate in political action at all?

AFSCME to Members: Will Lie for Money

Anyone who doesn't see a recently-emerging disconnect between the general membership of Oregon's PACs and their boards should pay close attention to the recent AFSCME endorsement of Governor Kulongoski.  It's no secret that a good portion of union members are generally conservative folk on some issues.  It's no secret that an endorsement by AFSCME is not tantamount to an endorsement by each and every one of its members.  But what should really cause union members some pause is the conflict between what is communicated to them and what the union ends up doing with their dues.

In a recent (7/19) story in the Statesman Journal, AFSCME's Exec Director Ken Allen painted a very pleasant picture of a Kulo endorsement absent of any strife:

AFSCME's decision was a "no-brainer," Allen said. Only one member of the executive board, out of about 60 people present, voted against a motion to endorse Kulongoski, he said.

Sounds fair at first glance.  After all, Kulo is a Democrat and the membership knows that's just simply the way things work when you play for Gubernatorial stakes.  However, PurpleOregon recently snagged a copy of the minutes of a local AFSCME meeting on June 9:

The most recent use [of dues] will probably be to endorse the incumbent Oregon Governor, whose soul (sic) contribution was to annihilate the public employee's retirement system.  During a past visit to the local union hall meeting, Ken Allen stated that the Governor had betrayed us and AFSCME will not endorse him again.

Link to a PDF of the document

So the no-brainer suddenly becomes very much a puzzler for a large portion of AFSCME's general membership.  Why, then, would Mr. Allen say such a thing?  It seems to indicate that the "no-brainer" status of the decisionmaking process was localized only to the upper-echelon leadership... and discounted the wishes of the general membership.

Recently on a BlueOregon post, Joe Baessler (AFSCME's Political Coordinator) stated that "I don't have to worry about our reputation. We do what we say."  But there are apparently at least some members in Local 3940 who feel differently.

What will the effect be in the general election?  Certainly, AFSCME has the cash to hand around... but will they have the same dedicated field crews that we saw in 2002 - the phone bankers and canvassers that sent so many progressives to Salem?  Time will tell.

Are Traditional Parties in Decline?

Peggy Noonan had an interesting column a few weeks back in the Wall Street Journal entitled, Third time: America may be ready for a new political party. She wrote:

I have a feeling we’re at some new beginning, that a big breakup’s coming, and that though it isn’t and will not be immediately apparent, we’ll someday look back on this era as the time when a shift began... people have been saying that the two-party system is ending, that the Democrats’ and Republicans’ control of political power in America is winding down. According to the traditional critique, the two parties no longer offer the people the choice they want and deserve. Sometimes it’s said they are too much alike—Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Sometimes it’s said they’re too polarizing—too red and too blue for a nation in which many see things through purple glasses."

She goes on to say that we are on the verge of a new politics where the two parties are put aside and extreme partisanship is affecting America because the major parties use wedge issues to push those of us in the center back and forth across an imaginary line for political gain. 

Partisanship is fine when it's an expression of the high animal spirits produced by real political contention based on true political belief. But the current partisanship seems sour, not joyous....The problem is not that the two parties are polarized. In many ways they're closer than ever. The problem is that the parties in Washington, and the people on the ground in America, are polarized. There is an increasing and profound distance between the rulers of both parties and the people--between the elites and the grunts, between those in power and those who put them there.

Are there some dramatic differences? Yes. But both parties act as if they see them not as important questions (gay marriage, for instance) but as wedge issues. Which is, actually, abusive of people on both sides of the question. If it's a serious issue, face it. Don't play with it.

I don't see any potential party, or potential candidate, on the scene right now who can harness the disaffection of growing portions of the electorate. But a new group or entity that could define the problem correctly--that sees the big divide not as something between the parties but between America's ruling elite and its people--would be making long strides in putting third party ideas in play in America again.

Here in Oregon, we have the candidacy of Ben Westlund who left the Republican party to run as an independent becuase, as he says, "extreme partisan politics is keeping us from solving Oregon's problems."

Are "real problems for real Oregonians" going unaddressed as the parties play their games for control of the chambers?  If what Noonan asserts is true, that we are on the edge of a new era in politics, is Westlund a political entreprenuer and is Oregon once again on the forefront of national politics.

Are the parties too alike to get along?  Or too different? Does it even really matter which of the monopoly parties are in control if they are so paralyzed anyway? 

Last session, the democrats, supposedly the progressive party, controlled the Senate and the Governor's mansion and yet didn't have the power or political will to address tax reform, to pass prescription pooling, to get a biofuels package, to get even a smidgen of of equality for gays and lesbians.  They are the perfect examples of how having power is not equivalent to knowing how to use it. 

The House Republicans, more efficient at controlling their majority, didn't know how to lead them towards anything and they spent most of their time keeping any political gains away from the D's.

Yes Oregon, our two party system is working real well... for the extreme partisans.