Thread: America may be ready for a new political party.

PEGGY NOONAN

Third Time
America may be ready for a new political party.

Thursday, June 1, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

Something's happening. 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.

All my adult life, 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.

In 1992 Ross Perot looked like the breakthrough, the man who would make third parties a reality. He destabilized the Republicans and then destabilized himself. By the end of his campaign he seemed to be the crazy old aunt in the attic.

The Perot experience seemed to put an end to third-party fever. But I think it's coming back, I think it's going to grow, and I think the force behind it is unique in our history.

This week there was a small boomlet of talk about a new internet entity called Unity '08--a small collection of party veterans including moderate Democrats (former Carter aide Hamilton Jordan) and liberal-leaning Republicans (former Ford hand Doug Bailey) trying to join together with college students and broaden the options in the 2008 election. In terms of composition, Unity seems like the Concord Coalition, the bipartisan group (Warren Rudman, Bob Kerrey) that warns against high spending and deficits.

Unity seems to me to have America's growing desire for more political options right. But I think they've got the description of the problem wrong.

Their idea is that the two parties are too polarized to govern well. It is certainly true that the level of partisanship in Washington seems high. (Such things, admittedly, ebb, flow and are hard to judge. We look back at the post-World War II years and see a political climate of relative amity and moderation. But Alger Hiss and Dick Nixon didn't see it that way.) Nancy Pelosi seems to be pretty much in favor of anything that hurts Republicans, and Ken Mehlman is in favor of anything that works against Democrats. They both want their teams to win. Part of winning is making sure the other guy loses, and part of the fun of politics, of any contest, of life, can be the dance in the end zone.

But the dance has gotten dark.

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 partisanship has gotten deeper as less separates the governing parties in Washington. It is like what has been said of academic infighting: that it's so vicious because the stakes are so low.

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.

On the ground in America, people worry terribly--really, there are people who actually worry about it every day--about endless, weird, gushing government spending. But in Washington, those in power--Republicans and Democrats--stand arm in arm as they spend and spend. (Part of the reason is that they think they can buy off your unhappiness one way or another. After all, it's worked in the past. A hunch: It's not going to work forever or much longer. They've really run that trick into the ground.)

On the ground in America, regular people worry about the changes wrought by the biggest wave of immigration in our history, much of it illegal and therefore wholly connected to the needs of the immigrant and wholly unconnected to the agreed-upon needs of our nation. Americans worry about the myriad implications of the collapse of the American border. But Washington doesn't. Democrat Ted Kennedy and Republican George W. Bush see things pretty much eye to eye. They are going to educate the American people out of their low concerns.

There is a widespread sense in America--a conviction, actually--that we are not safe in the age of terror. That the port, the local power plant, even the local school, are not protected. Is Washington worried about this? Not so you'd notice. They're only worried about seeming unconcerned.

More to the point, people see the Republicans as incapable of managing the monster they've helped create--this big Homeland Security/Intelligence apparatus that is like some huge buffed guy at the gym who looks strong but can't even put on his T-shirt without help because he's so muscle-bound. As for the Democrats, who co-created Homeland Security, no one--no one--thinks they would be more managerially competent. Nor does anyone expect the Democrats to be more visionary as to what needs to be done. The best they can hope is the Democrats competently serve their interest groups and let the benefits trickle down.

Right now the Republicans and Democrats in Washington seem, from the outside, to be an elite colluding against the voter. They're in agreement: immigration should not be controlled but increased, spending will increase, etc.

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.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/

I believe the desire for a third party is strong and growing. Many of us here have discussed it before, and I think it's PAST TIME that we unite behind one.

We all want to cast our votes for the candidate that MOST CLOSELY RESEMBLES the 'perfect' one in our minds. The only 'perfect' candidate you'll find is staring back at you in the mirror. Unfortunately, we can not ALL be President.

If the idea of a third party interests you as much as it does me, I'd suggest a technique called, "The Independent Verification of the Truth." That's where you actually go LOOK THINGS UP to figure out what they mean. Alright, I'm sorry for the sarcasm, but I do get frustrated when the info is out there but NOT accessed.

Here's my point, forgive the rant. Our BIGGEST complaint with our current political crop is that the Constitution is being violated and our rights being abrogated. We all want to return to a TRUE Constitutional form of government. Wouldn't it make sense to endorse and support a party that holds that ideal as the very basis of their existence?

I've always considered myself a 'middle of the road' person, with an historical lean towards the Democrats. I was 5 when JFK was assassinated, and I got to watch it on TV. As the Democratic Party veered further and further into a socialist/communist philosophy, I began to be drawn to the Republicans. I believed in the 'Contract with America', which remains unfulfilled to this day. Needless to say, I feel 'seduced and abandoned'.

I now stand firmly behind the Constitution Party, and urge ALL of you to visit their site and read their platform. There will be a few things that you don't agree with, I'm sure, but I'd be willing to bet that on the majority of issues, the Constitution Party echoes your thoughts and concerns.

I don't advocate, as some here have, to vote against GOOD representatives, whether Republican OR Democrat. Byron Dorgan and Robert Byrd come to mind, as do Tancredo, Sessions, King, King, Sensenbrenner, etcetera. These men ARE Patriots, as has been proven by their record.

I DO advocate that in any other races, you make your displeasure known by voting for a CP candidate. If that's the kind of government we want, that's the kind of government we should vote for.

Someone once said that the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again, yet somehow expect a different result. Our clinging to the 'two-party system' would seem to meet that definition.

Visit www.constitutionparty.com and read their platform.

I'm tired of kissing PIGS, aren't you?

How do the main CP candidates feel about illegal immigration? If they have similar ideas to ours, I'd probably lean in their direction.

The Ostrich

I definately think we are but you need to convince candidates like Tancredo they could actually carry the vote if they were on a third party.

23 North Lime Street
Lancaster, PA 17602
contactus@constitutionparty.org



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


FROM THE DESK OF JAMES N. CLYMER
CHAIRMAN, CONSTITUTION PARTY NATIONAL COMMITTEE

According to a recent AP article, President Bush's approval ratings continue to swoon to all-time lows, prompting many Republicans to fear an "Election Day massacre" this fall that could end the GOP's control of both houses of Congress. That’s right; the scales are finally falling from the eyes of the Bush-can-do-no-wrong crowd. The folks for whom criticism of the Patriot Act, the Iraq War, or the President’s inability to pronounce the word "nuclear" bordered on sacrilege are, according to the pollsters, angry, confused, and may well sit out this fall's elections altogether. It's too bad it has taken a bloody quagmire in Iraq with a spiraling American body count, astronomical fuel prices, and catastrophic immigration policies that threaten to bury our country, but better late than never.

Among other things, the most recent polling data suggests that:

"Just 33 percent of the public approves of Bush's job performance, the lowest of his presidency. That compares with 36 percent approval in early April. Forty-five percent of self-described conservatives now disapprove of the president."
"Just one-fourth of the public approves of the job Congress is doing, a new low in AP-Ipsos polling and down 5 percentage points since last month. A whopping 65 percent of conservatives disapprove of Congress."
"A majority of Americans say they want Democrats rather than Republicans to control Congress (51 percent to 34 percent). That's the largest gap recorded by AP-Ipsos since Bush took office. Even 31 percent of conservatives want Republicans out of power."
"The souring of the nation's mood has accelerated the past three months, with the percentage of people describing the nation on the wrong track rising 12 points to a new high of 73 percent. Six of 10 conservatives say America is headed in the wrong direction."
These are absolutely stunning numbers. So bad has it become that GOP pollster Whit Ayres admitted that "It’s going to take some events of significance to turn this around. I don't think at this point you can talk your way back from these sorts of ratings." The article cited concerns about runaway government spending and homosexual marriage, in addition to gas prices, Iraq, and immigration, as reasons for conservative unrest.

Now for the downside: many of these former Bush partisans, who refused to heed the warnings years ago, are still in denial about one crucial point. Many of them believe that the only alternative to milquetoast neocon Republicans are liberal Democrats, who, they rightly perceive, are attacking Bush's policies for all of the wrong reasons.

These disgruntled conservatives need to know that there is an alternative to voting for a liberal or staying home in November. The Constitution Party has opposed all of the abovementioned misbegotten policies from their inception, and is unapologetic now for having done so. If elected to office, CP candidates will not stand by wringing their hands while illegal immigrants continue to pour across our southern border, American servicemen continue to die in Iraq, gas prices continue to spiral into the stratosphere, and moral decay continues apace with the help of laws that encourage abortion and sodomy.

As a party, we must focus in particular on the illegal immigration crisis (calling it an "issue" somehow falls short). Our elected elites believe, almost to a man, that America needs to somehow accommodate a problem for which no solution is deemed feasible. Fence the border? Can't be done. Go after employers who hire illegals. Nuh-uh, too intrusive. Impose sanctions on Mexico? Who’re you trying to kid, they’re our friends! Mass deportations? Are you some kinda nutcase? And so forth it goes, an endless string of lukewarm platitudes served up as excuses for refusing to defend our own borders against illegal workers, drug traffickers, and other undesirables, perhaps even terrorists.

As a party, we need to offer a solution to this problem, a program that will silence the critics of the "I-don’t-see-you-offering-any-better-idea" variety. Certainly enhanced border security, including properly constructed and controlled fences, is in order. So is diplomatic action against the Mexican government in the form of sanctions (of course, that would require defiance of the illicit NAFTA regime, a felicitous side effect!). Severe penalties on employers who hire illegals, banks that allow them to do business, and other institutions that facilitate the flow of illegal wages to illegal workers, would be no more difficult to implement than new rules, like "know your customer" requirements for banks, intended to discourage terrorist cells and other illicit activity. As for deportation, the alternative is another several decades of unimpeded illegal entry, which will nail shut the coffin lid on our once-proud, independent republic. Right now, aside from interdiction near the border, deportation is generally only carried out for high-profile cases with a political payoff, or in response to an extradition request. It is, however, a perfectly legal and very humane alternative to imprisoning illegal immigrants, who are, after all, breaking the law in a flagrant manner.

The bottom line, and one worth emphasizing, is that we are literally undergoing a hostile invasion, one whose ultimate agenda its perpetrators do not scruple to conceal, as the recent May 1 demonstrations, boycotts, and work stoppages demonstrated. But the nice thing about this invasion is that we need not resort to armed conflict to stop it. Instead, non-violent, legal measures like those outlines above will put a stop to it in short order, without a shot being fired.

Here's hoping that we will seize the fantastic opportunities of this electoral season and, by our successes this fall, send a loud and unmistakable message to the American body politic: the Constitution Party is here to stay!



Please support the work of the Constitution Party by clicking here
To unsubscribe from CPNC newsletters click here.
Please visit our website at www.constitutionparty.org.

BTTT!

I wouldn't cast my vote for a one of those people.
they're not moderate.......they're far left and UN huggers.

Bob Kerrey? give me a break. Carter's guy.......paleeeeeze

this is a group of libs dressed in sheeps clothing and would be worse than what we already have.

Look up their records! They stink

If it's a 3rd party it had better be better than that pondscum.

MORE CON JOBS RIGHT BEFORE OUR EYES.

ps: I watched those 2 over the weekend.....schmooz and double talk

?????

What are you talking about, Sis?

The UNITY party, PINE.......their pondscum
{f/Noonan's column}
I know I should be more delicate but these guys are wolves in sheeps clothing and conning America yet again. I dread another round going in the wrong direction just because they're master manipulators and know what to say to make people feel good.

am I making sense?

BTW, can you appreciate the word they chose? "Unity"

I agree, Sis. These people are not the people we're looking for in the third party. I believe they could and might be made up of some Democrats and a lot of Republicans, but these guys mentioned in this article don't sound like the people Americans really need.

I would just love for Byron Dorgan (Dem) North Dakota to join the third party. Many people were so impressed with him. He put himself on the map by standing up to his party and the president during the senate debate on immigration.

I hope we hear more from him.