Good morning, Paul. Thank you for the interesting essay. Today's question:
You have stated a number of times your opposition to our current construction of US political parties. I agree with you that our current two-party system is severely stressed and broken.
I'm guessing you would not argue for a single-party state (we've all seen that movie, with its consistently totalitarian/authoritarian plot line).
States with multiple weak parties usually end up either ungoverned/ungovernable or ooze towards authoritarianism (many countries in Africa struggle with this dialectic of anarchy/authoritarianism).
What would you propose as an alternative or way forward to our current bipolar US political party dynamic?
Thanks for the thoughtful question and comments. Apologies for the tardy response. Things have been crazy busy here.
Yes, like G. Washington, I despise "factions." That neither Congress or SCOTUS, can see fit to give us absolute transparency on campaign finance only serves to entrench me further in opposition to them.
I am pragmatic though and realize that humans, tribalize for a reason. It's literally part of our DNA. Since we cannot go back, we must go forward with all of the curtains pulled back on who is paying for what and limit this. SCOTUS's "Citizens United" ruling was a stab in the back to our founders. Corporations have been around since the 1300s by some accounts and not later than the 1600s. Our founders did not provide a constitutional right to them. Congress and SCOTUS did. More $$$$ = more corruption.
We're not electing politicians anymore; we're electing paid lobbyists. Add to this that by most data, over half of American voters can't even name the three branches of government, are corrupted by profession and dishonest influencers/ marketers, and we no longer have a real republic. The "father of our Constitution," James Madison is rolling in his grave, right along with all of the other well-informed founders of integrity.
If we are going to have parties, we need the clearest, most common-sense regulations about how they operate, with regular reporting from national security professionals on whether or not they comply with regulations. Without enforcement, regulations are meaningless. I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer and certainly not an attorney but I have no doubt, we're capable of drafting and enforcing such laws, if Congress would ever do their job and pass such regulations.
In my personal opinion, which applies to me only, the Constitution is my party, and it serves but one constituency, the United States of America. The only way to build resiliency into a nation or people is to unify over common national values. What we have now are opposing parties creating their own definitions for those values. Those of the current GOP don't even fit as an interpretation of our true values and the other side of the aisle is as I always say, "like herding cats." Those cats keep their defining values between our constitutional guardrails but still, can't build a narrative that doesn't seem combative with the opposition, nor others within their party.
I wish that I had a better answer for you Maggie but personally, this is a touchy subject for me and building bureaucracy is the opposite of my nature.
Thanks kindly for asking your typically excellent questions. I'm just no help on this one ;)
Thank you for your thoughtful response, Paul. My takeaway is that we both loathe corruption, value ethics, and want our politics to match our ethical values. Focusing on those strategic foundations, the rest becomes the pragmatics of how to get that, but we agree on the destination. I tend to be less critical in general terms of 'professional' politicians, but just as critical of corrupt politicians. I personally would prefer a lot more expertise and a lot less corruption. You mention regular reporting from national security professionals as a disciplining tool - I would agree, and extend that review/advise/consult/restrain function to the fourth estate, its traditional mission. I never underestimate the power of witness to change the world. I I don't necessarily want a different system of government - but a much less corrupt version of the system we have. I place my trust in the power of witness and the collective wisdom of the American people to right the boat of state yet again, even if we do it by rushing from side to side and almost capsizing.
This is indeed, a valuable discussion, thank you. I suspect that we are both a lot closer on professional politicians than my normal comments convey. I have no issue with sustaining professional politicians if... they can avoid the overwhelming influence of corporate lobbying for unfair practices that continue to disadvantage working Americans, our national security etc. I actually don't even like having my first amendment rights compromised by not being able to vote for successful and ethical leadership, repeatedly. Term limits will do nothing to stop corruption. All it will do is modify its form somewhat. What's missing is integrity and this must be rebuilt, not reinforced with more of the same.
You're correct regarding the "fourth estate" as value added. This is only value so long as conspiracy theories are not part of the "estates." As a fan of Brandies, I have long believed in the concept of his quote, "sunlight is the best disinfectant."
Every voter must see in regular news reporting, who contributed to every campaign, down to the penny.
We are in absolute agreement about retaining our system of government but risk mortal injury to our founders principled construct of US governance, should we not add effective guard rails. Tragically, enormous campaign donations from super-PACs and which is largely dark money, violates every principle of a democracy, especially as the father of our constitution designed it. Madison was brilliant on government construct was built on his extraordinary research into ancient republics, a must read. This is how he prepared for Philadelphia and our Constitutional Convention. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-09-02-0001
Maggie, once again I thank you for this ongoing discussion. I truly believe that those who actually under our government and especially those who are elected but don't understand our founder's actual intent, must be taught before they begin exercising power. There is no place for ignorance, willful or otherwise in the halls of Congress. Today, we see the exercise of power far more often than the exercise of US values based legislative agendas. Sadly, the concept of political ethics has fallen further than in many cases, business ethics. America cannot survive as intended until we inoculate our voters with knowledge, our actual values and the braided steel resilience of integrity.
Good morning, Paul. Thank you for the interesting essay. Today's question:
You have stated a number of times your opposition to our current construction of US political parties. I agree with you that our current two-party system is severely stressed and broken.
I'm guessing you would not argue for a single-party state (we've all seen that movie, with its consistently totalitarian/authoritarian plot line).
States with multiple weak parties usually end up either ungoverned/ungovernable or ooze towards authoritarianism (many countries in Africa struggle with this dialectic of anarchy/authoritarianism).
What would you propose as an alternative or way forward to our current bipolar US political party dynamic?
Maggie,
Thanks for the thoughtful question and comments. Apologies for the tardy response. Things have been crazy busy here.
Yes, like G. Washington, I despise "factions." That neither Congress or SCOTUS, can see fit to give us absolute transparency on campaign finance only serves to entrench me further in opposition to them.
I am pragmatic though and realize that humans, tribalize for a reason. It's literally part of our DNA. Since we cannot go back, we must go forward with all of the curtains pulled back on who is paying for what and limit this. SCOTUS's "Citizens United" ruling was a stab in the back to our founders. Corporations have been around since the 1300s by some accounts and not later than the 1600s. Our founders did not provide a constitutional right to them. Congress and SCOTUS did. More $$$$ = more corruption.
We're not electing politicians anymore; we're electing paid lobbyists. Add to this that by most data, over half of American voters can't even name the three branches of government, are corrupted by profession and dishonest influencers/ marketers, and we no longer have a real republic. The "father of our Constitution," James Madison is rolling in his grave, right along with all of the other well-informed founders of integrity.
If we are going to have parties, we need the clearest, most common-sense regulations about how they operate, with regular reporting from national security professionals on whether or not they comply with regulations. Without enforcement, regulations are meaningless. I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer and certainly not an attorney but I have no doubt, we're capable of drafting and enforcing such laws, if Congress would ever do their job and pass such regulations.
In my personal opinion, which applies to me only, the Constitution is my party, and it serves but one constituency, the United States of America. The only way to build resiliency into a nation or people is to unify over common national values. What we have now are opposing parties creating their own definitions for those values. Those of the current GOP don't even fit as an interpretation of our true values and the other side of the aisle is as I always say, "like herding cats." Those cats keep their defining values between our constitutional guardrails but still, can't build a narrative that doesn't seem combative with the opposition, nor others within their party.
I wish that I had a better answer for you Maggie but personally, this is a touchy subject for me and building bureaucracy is the opposite of my nature.
Thanks kindly for asking your typically excellent questions. I'm just no help on this one ;)
Thank you for your thoughtful response, Paul. My takeaway is that we both loathe corruption, value ethics, and want our politics to match our ethical values. Focusing on those strategic foundations, the rest becomes the pragmatics of how to get that, but we agree on the destination. I tend to be less critical in general terms of 'professional' politicians, but just as critical of corrupt politicians. I personally would prefer a lot more expertise and a lot less corruption. You mention regular reporting from national security professionals as a disciplining tool - I would agree, and extend that review/advise/consult/restrain function to the fourth estate, its traditional mission. I never underestimate the power of witness to change the world. I I don't necessarily want a different system of government - but a much less corrupt version of the system we have. I place my trust in the power of witness and the collective wisdom of the American people to right the boat of state yet again, even if we do it by rushing from side to side and almost capsizing.
Cheers, m
M,
This is indeed, a valuable discussion, thank you. I suspect that we are both a lot closer on professional politicians than my normal comments convey. I have no issue with sustaining professional politicians if... they can avoid the overwhelming influence of corporate lobbying for unfair practices that continue to disadvantage working Americans, our national security etc. I actually don't even like having my first amendment rights compromised by not being able to vote for successful and ethical leadership, repeatedly. Term limits will do nothing to stop corruption. All it will do is modify its form somewhat. What's missing is integrity and this must be rebuilt, not reinforced with more of the same.
You're correct regarding the "fourth estate" as value added. This is only value so long as conspiracy theories are not part of the "estates." As a fan of Brandies, I have long believed in the concept of his quote, "sunlight is the best disinfectant."
Every voter must see in regular news reporting, who contributed to every campaign, down to the penny.
We are in absolute agreement about retaining our system of government but risk mortal injury to our founders principled construct of US governance, should we not add effective guard rails. Tragically, enormous campaign donations from super-PACs and which is largely dark money, violates every principle of a democracy, especially as the father of our constitution designed it. Madison was brilliant on government construct was built on his extraordinary research into ancient republics, a must read. This is how he prepared for Philadelphia and our Constitutional Convention. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-09-02-0001
Maggie, once again I thank you for this ongoing discussion. I truly believe that those who actually under our government and especially those who are elected but don't understand our founder's actual intent, must be taught before they begin exercising power. There is no place for ignorance, willful or otherwise in the halls of Congress. Today, we see the exercise of power far more often than the exercise of US values based legislative agendas. Sadly, the concept of political ethics has fallen further than in many cases, business ethics. America cannot survive as intended until we inoculate our voters with knowledge, our actual values and the braided steel resilience of integrity.
Cheers,
P
Thank you for the link to the Madison papers - haven't seen that site before, a treasure trove! m
My pleasure M.
The site has been an occasional refuge these past few years during the Trumpist/ MAGA assault on our true national values.
I have always appreciated the old saying,” you can’t know where you are going if you don’t know where you came from.”
P