I disagree with Hightower.

What you will find here is: a centrist's view of current events;
a collection of thoughts, arguments, and observations
that I have found appealing and/or amusing over the years;
and, if you choose, your civil contributions which will make it into a conversation.

He not busy bein' born, is busy dyin'. - Bob Dylan

Please refer to participants only by their designated identities.

suggestion for US citizens: When a form asks for your race, write in: -- American

Monday, November 29, 2010

Is it time for a new party?

If the two parties do not show some ability to work together during the next year, then we might see some real movement in the direction of a serious new party.
Posted by Unknown at 1:13 PM
Labels:

2 comments:

  1. RobDecember 5, 2010 at 10:31 AM

    I'm with you there. If a Yellow Armadillo is the mascot, then what's the party name going to be?

    I just watched most of a panel discussion on C-Span about how the extremes of each party are driving gridlock that makes it feel like there is a real incapacity in Washington to deal with serious problems in a serious way. (For example: immigration reform, deficits.) The panelists were Doug Schoen (the panel's sort-of conservative); John Avlon (the panel's centrist, whom I really like); and Bill Press (the panel's liberal). Press and Schoen seemed to serve at times as examples of Avlon's charge that incivility is becoming a real problem in how left and right talk to one another.

    Avlon contends that there are two major structural remedies that could be game changers in terms of taking some of the power away from more minor fringe elements of each party: Open primaries and reform in districting practices. I think I like both these ideas, but I do wonder what the broad impact would be. (For example, it does seem that the Republicans could possibly have taken the Senate if open primaries had gotten them more centrist candidates like Mike Castle instead of Christine O'Donnell in Delaware, Tom Campbell instead of Carly Fiorina in California, and anyone other than Sharon Angle in Nevada.) Any unforeseen consequences?

    On the other hand, I suppose some could argue that the system as it is is working fine. Maybe it's better for government to be (mostly) inertial when it comes to major changes, as this might help guarantee that we'll fight long and hard over them before we do anything rash. And then the American people have to REALLY want something before it will happen. So, the health-care reform we've witnessed is a long-sought, hard-won, once-in-a-generation major change. Does anyone buy this viewpoint?

    ReplyDelete
  2. UnknownDecember 6, 2010 at 11:05 PM

    I remember some conservative (I think it was Reid's opponent.) talking about a "second amendment solution". Now today I heard Claire McCaskill say that if she didn't get something she wanted then it was time for the pitchforks and Reagan's youngest talking about bringing guns to the conflict.

    The wingnuts are becoming louder.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)