A Two Party Political System and Extremism

There are a host of structural differences between the American and Canadian political systems due to the difference structures, America being republican with the direct election of the chief executive official and Canada being parliamentary with the indirect election of the chief executive.  Beyond the structural and resulting differences thereby created by the different structures, one of the differences, not created by the founding structure but which has evolved and become well settled is that in the United States there is two party system. In the United States, while a third party is theoretically possible both regionally and nationally, due to the entrenchment of the two party system with rules designed to hinder the formation of a statewide or regional third party, the rise of a third party is functionally impossible short of a split taking place in one of the two current parties.

 

By contrast, in Canada, and in Great Britain and Australia, multiple parties with regional and national appeal are not only possible but are common. Three or four options is such a common occurrence in Canada that having candidates on the ballet from three major parties is taken for granted by Canadians. While it is theoretically possible for Canada to have dozens of parties with wide national or provincial appeal, having more than three or four nation-wide or provincial-wide parties having broad appeal is rare for when a party becomes too small its effective voice for impacting change is so minimal that the party thereby ceases to be viewed as a viable option.  

 

A common argument for two having only to parties is that it ensures the winning candidate and party has the support of the majority of the citizenry. Such reasoning is based upon math, but we it does not mean the victorious candidate or party has a mandate. We should not fool ourselves into thinking this way for as evidenced in the current political environment few winning candidates truly has the support of the majority. The 2013 gubernatorial election in Virginia is an example of where many voters vote not for the candidate but against the other candidate and for lesser of two poor choices.

 

This dynamic of voting for the lesser of two evils or poor candidates is more than rarity in America politics due to the extremes having strong sway and/or those with deep money yielding a victor in the local primaries who the general public cannot support. Well motivated organized extremes can readily have significant impact in a primary given that only a limited number of centrist voters become engaged in the primary process. Hence, a small group, a hundred or so, which are well organized and solidly funded, can color the results far beyond what their numbers would at face value indicate.

 

While in any system a drive to an extreme can occur, a two party system is particularly prone so such a drift. The extremes on the both left and right push their parties to away from being more centrist, and thereby leaving voters voting against a candidate than for a candidate, the lesser of two evils rather than embracing a candidate who reflects for the most part the views of the major of their constituents.  I like other’s too often find myself voting for a candidate that is not close to where I stand. And there are times when I’ve voted against someone who is closer to my economic and social views but cannot support that candidate because the party at large has become too far removed from my position. Hence, in a two party system, the choice sometimes comes down to going o the devil you least dislike.  

 

Unfortunately, when elected the individual and party come into power they think they have a mandate to do some more extreme things when no such a mandate exists except within the fringe that gave them the primary victory.

 

An ongoing via third party tends be a brake against extremes heavily influencing the other two parties for if the left of one party takes their party too far to the left while the right of the second party takes the second in the opposite direction, it is highly likely they will discover that they have ceded power to the more centrist party. For a party to remain on the extreme too long invites ongoing marginalization or even extinction as the majority of the voters will look to the party or party that is towards the center. For a party’s survival, the pragmatic center will ultimately pull their party away from the extreme.  Voters will more frequently be voting for a candidate they can affirm rather than choosing between the lesser of three evils.   

And Congress Wonders Why They Are Not Trusted

For decades used car sales people were commonly viewed as the least trusted professions in the United States. Used car sales people have lost their position to members of Congress. Over the last decades trust of politicians has declined in direct portion to the rating of Congress.

 

Constantly the general public sees Congressmen saying one thing during an election but going a different direction during an election. People expect their politicians to take their opinions into account, and for the most part reflect the wishes of their constituents, but do they do so? Today a Senate bill that died illustrates that Congressmen will ignore their constituents and adhere to the wishes of those who threaten to heavily bankroll a primary challenge. Even when over 90% of the general public support a particular bill, Congressmen will vote against the bill and go with the well healed minority. No wonder trust and credibility continues to fall. Politicians may say, the general public are increasingly thinking that Congress is dancing to the tune that people with money and power-brokers are playing for them.  

 

As a further indication of the state of Congress is the story of a scandal ridden Congressmen being propped up by his insider friends, and are helping him to build a deep war chest to win his primary. This is they type of story which fuels the skeptical views of Congress. It seems as long as you vote correctly and issue the right statements that personal morality and upright conduct means little to one’s peers. Regardless what the Congressman may do, it matters little as long the Congressman claims the right thing and votes the right way.    

 

http://news.yahoo.com/why-republicans-raising-money-scandal-plagued-congressman-140343890.html

  

Is Democracy At Risk? Can We Learn From Rome?

Last year’s trip to Italy rekindled an interest in refreshing my knowledge of the Roman Empire, a glorious empire that dominated the Meditation and much of “civilized” Europe. All empires go through a life cycle of rise and decline. Though causes for both the rise and decline of any empire are numerous and can be debated, with Rome the decline highly involves three primary factors:

a.  Corrupt leaders who used their positions to advance their own wealth and power as well as those of their family and friends

                b. Centralization of power in the hands of Caesar and the leaving the Senate marginalized as a paper tiger

                c.  A military industrial complex that increasingly dominated the society and the budget of the empire to the point where the military, and a handful of public works which more often than not were either military driven or designed to placate the poor with entertainment.

Threats from outside were real, but Rome declined due to internal reasons and when it moved away from what had given rise to the empire.

News reporters and commentators, and political leaders at all levels and of all persuasions in modern democracies need to be heedful of what happened in Rome. The citizenry likewise needs to be heedful of the lessons.

To remain vibrant and strong, modern democracies ensure that all branches of government civil discourse, freedom of information and the exchange of the same, and each branch in the checks and balance process are vibrant and well. Consolidating power in the hands of one or two leaders is unhealthy and moves any country down the Roman pathway.

When Congressmen, Senators (or MPs in Canada, England) are expected/required to fall in line behind their leadership (President, PM, House or Senate Leadership) on all but minor matters a democracy is under threat. Thinking that what is good for the party is good for the country is dangerous thinking…it is dangerous is like a driver driving at a high rate of speed and thinking that they are too skilled to have an accident. Party winning at all costs stifles independent thinking, civil discourse and undermines a democracy.

When a party membership is reluctant to call out its leadership for potentially immoral or criminal conduct, or when it gives them passes for what they would consider most unacceptable if done by those of the other party, democracy is under attack. When leaders say that their number one priority is to defeat the opposition in the next election and to obstruct as much of their other party’s agenda as possible, democracy is eroded and slipping away. The good of the country should never come above the good of the country. When an is attack, even ones the attacker had proposed in the past, primarily because it is put forward by the opposition, democracy is starting to become a shell.

When people are appointed to the judiciary, particularly to the highest court in the land, mainly because of narrow political beliefs on a handful of issues ranging from the highly questionable unitary executive doctrine to abortion, the checks and balances within that democracy is being lost. The court system, including the highest court, should not be used as an extension of a political position for if it were, not only is democracy threatened but so is justice itself.

Any country which does not give attention to lessons from the past is at risk of repeating the same mistakes. Are our democracies vibrant and on a sound footing? While for the most part they are solid, I fear that they may not be on as firm as we believe.     

High Energy Costs and Politics

This weekend Republican Representative Martha Roby in the weekly Republican radio address, in speaking about energy production rightly stated, “The greatest threat to our economy, job creation, and the future of our children is to do nothing.” She went on to state, “We have to act. It is what we were sent to Washington to do.”

Amen, Ms Roby, amen. A good part of the problem is that too many of her peers spend more energy about posturing, pointing fingers, putting forward great sounding ideas but in the end are empty or unbalanced. Things need to get done.


No one or two magic bullets exist. Due to various logistics, nothing Congress or the White House does today to increase production or supply will make any significant difference for the consumer today or even the next year.

When only one out of four gallons that you and I pump into our cars is produced in the US or Canada, tells us that there is a supply problem. While we would like to blame the Obama administration for the problem, we cannot. The problem has existed for at least five presidential administrations but Congress and the White House year after year has not moved in any serious way.

We need more electricity from wind and solar. These are not primary solution but they do play a part just as more efficient vehicles are making a difference. We need more hybrid vehicles. One out of three cars powered by natural gas and propane, that calls a refueling infrastructure becomes much broader and spans the nation. Free enterprise market forces will eventually build out such refueling infrastructures but it will not take place rapidly enough without national and state short-term incentives.

Our public transportation system is poorly underdeveloped. Too much energy is wasted idling. In the majority of our major cities traffic lights are not computerized to adjust for efficient inflow of traffic during the morning commute and outflow in the evening.

We need to push for greater conservation and more efficient electronic devices. The citizenry as a whole needs to become more energy conscious as to how little things done each day, such as setting the AC two or three degrees higher, and the heat two or three degrees lower, and set-back thermostats can make a big difference.

Clearly oil production needs to be increased. Opening new areas for exploration needs to happen today whether the areas area in Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico, along the western or eastern coasts. Environmental issues should be duly noted and high care must be taken to manage risks. The assessments must be quicker and approval given even if the risks are not nearly negligible. That said, regardless of the simplistic pontificating and posturing of politicians and lobbyists, we must be realistic. For every well that comes into production there are twelve to fourteen dry wells.

It takes four to five years for new oil wells to come into production which means that lack of current activity rests solely upon the inactivity of the prior administration, not the current. Let’s hope the current administration and Congress will take bold actions rather than be more like the prior administrations in this area...much talk and posturing with no meaningful action. If there is action, it also means that a subsequent administration and Congress will reap the adulation.

Let’s hope that the current Congress and White House will work together to formulate a plan with a broad array of elements that in total will make a difference. A mark of national leadership is the ability to find common ground by setting aside political dogma, and finding a solid solution for the good of the whole regardless of who may claim or receive the credit. In the White House and Congress, do we have statesmen and outstanding national leaders or do we have a collection of bickering politicians who are playing games?

Congress Has Different Rules. A Threat To Federal Funding of Faith-based Organizations

The shutdown of the US federal government is just hours away. Posturing and finger pointing abound. What has come out is that while the government would shut down, and as essential workers and the military remain on duty without being paid, Congress will remain fully staffed and paid. What gives?


Not very congressional aid is an “essential worker” who is necessary to remain on the job. The congressional aids, the researchers, the secretaries and handlers are not essential to the protection of the public safety and national security as are the military, air traffic controllers, customs and border patrol, FBI agents, etc.

Why are congressional aids being furloughed without pay like the rest of the federal workforce? I believe that there is clue to the answer in what is happening with congressional payroll during a shutdown. While soldiers fight in battle without pay, while boarder guards and FBI will continue on duty buy not paid, Congress and their staff will continue to be paid. Congress likes to beat their chests that they are ordinary average Americans but how they rule tells a different story. Congress sees themselves as living by a different set of rules than average Americans. Their offices will remain fully staffed. Members of the Senate, the House and their staff will not have their paychecks interrupted.

I have also followed with interest the fight over the funding of Planned Parenthood. Republicans argue that taxpayers should not be funding abortions and therefore no federal funding of Planned Parenthood should occur. Democrats on the other hand that the Hyde Amendment prohibits taxpayer funding to fund abortions and requires that federal funds must be used for other services such as birth control and cancer screenings. Republicans counter that the funds get comingled, that by allocating funds to be used for those other services frees up general funds from other sources to be allocated abortion and thereby in a sense, regardless of the Hyde Amendment, taxpayers are paying for abortions. A large number of evangelical Christians and conservatives say amen to the Republican reasoning.

My purpose here is not to argue for or against federal funding of Planned Parenthood but rather to deal with the heart of the comingling argument. The old adage, be careful about what you wish for, is applicable here. Many of those who are using the above argument to not fund Planned Parenthood are supporters of taxpayer funds going to faith-based organizations to run feeding programs, shelters, after-school programs, at risk youth recreation programs, daycares, drug treatment programs, etc. Through various programs taxpayer funds flows to such faith-based programs. The organization is not allowed to use the funds to pay for religious activities, for furniture and utilities used in worship space. Accounting processes are well established to establish that taxpayer funds are not used for religious purposes. The Planned Parenthood comingling argument is equally applicable to taxpayer funding going to valued social programs run by faith-based organizations and churches.


Hence, those who are using the current rationale to argue against federal funding of Planned Parenthood by using the comingling and indestinguishing argument are using an argument for government funding in all forms, whether those funds be federal, state or local, going to social programs provided by faith-based organizations. The religious activity, space and salaries of religious officials are in the same budget, thereby comingled with taxpayer funds, and federal funds therefore only result in freeing up funds to be use for religious activities and salaries. The conservatives may win the Planned Parent battle but in the years to come government officials and courts will apply the same rationale to prohibit funding going to faith-based organizations.