By Brigitte L. Nacos
American politics and policy-making have always been more fascinating to me than to most Americans born and raised here—for good reasons: political parties and the political process in the United States are very different from what I grew up with in post-WW II Germany and got to know in neighboring countries. The differences explain why I chose American government/politics as my concentration once I continued my education in the U.S. Although very familiar with the nature of American government and the electoral process, I am shocked and alarmed by the horror show that right-extremists have staged in a bold attack on the country’s fundamental values and constitutional rights.
Politics in liberal democracies are not immune from occasional wackos who have outlandish agendas and appeal to fringe groups. But the take-over of the political realm by a line-up of intellectually challenged candidates and their sinister backers and handlers is a far more serious threat than the solo-flight of an occasional wacko. The so-called "tea party" movement has managed to frame the political issues and put its stamp not only on the far-right fringe of the Republican Party but, more shockingly, on mainstream Republicans and a chunk of Democrats who lost their backbones and run scared toward the right. The few Republicans who tried to counter or did not fully embrace the reactionary “tea party” agenda have been defeated in the primaries or fallen in line.
With the traditional news media—not merely FOX News-- and the growing field of ambitious bloggers vying for attention, the most outrageous of the most clueless “we the people” agitators (i.e., Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck) and candidates (i.e., Sharron Angle, Christine O’Donnell) dominate campaign coverage.
Never mind that contrary to what its public faces and the media tell us day-in and day-out, it is a myth that the "tea party" is the result of a genuine grass roots movement. On the contrary, the “we the people” narrative was concocted by a bunch of very same wealthy people of the reactionary John Birch Society variety who finance non-profit front organizations with misleading names to dupe the chronically alienated right-extremist strata and more recent victims of the economic downturn into a receptive crowd.
What the hidden financiers and persuaders have in common with most of the movement they created is this: Be destructive rather than constructive. Tear down rather than build and rebuild. Divide rather than unite. Roll back the achievements of the past.
If it were not so sad, it would be laughable: many of the very people who campaign in favor of “tea party” principles, among them the destruction of the social safety net that is less than meager in comparison to all comparable liberal democracies, these very people are beneficiaries of the system they claim to despise. Take Sharon Angle in Nevada who may well unseat Senate majority leader Harry Reid. She wants to do away or privatize those programs—although she is a beneficiary of her husband’s generous health insurance and the pension he earned as an employee of the federal government.
And then take a look at typical "tea party" rallies—many, even most of the protesters are seniors and we can assume social security and Medicare recipients; I bet many received unemployment, disability, or Medicaid benefits. But they echo the nonsense of the Angles and Bachmanns and Palins of their “movement” and call for government getting out of “we the people’s” lives. If that isn't a kind of brainwashing, what is?
Moreover, the same people who claim that government should not interfere with individuals’ lives want to roll back Roe vs. Wade via state laws that are in line with the so-called “Army of God” and similar groups that celebrate the murders of abortion providers. Thus, the referendum before Colorado voters would not only outlaw abortions for any reason but also birth control pills. The ad campaign in favor of the referendum is not only full of lies but the most vicious imaginable in that it depicts President Obama as “Angel of Death” thereby alluding to Josef Mengele, a German physician and SS officer who was a particularly brutal participant in the Nazi killing machine in the concentration camp Auschwitz-Birkenau (I can't bring myself to post the ad's image but you can see and hear the whole ugly ad here)
The idea of a “tea party” vanguard taking over the Republican Party and most immediately the congressional Republican Party as a result of the fall election is a nightmare.
But whether that take-over succeeds or fails, the suggestion that a new third party should emerge from the political middle in 2012 and cure the ills of the present two party system is nothing more than a pipe dream.
I often agree with Thomas Friedman, the New York Times columnist. But not with his column “Third Party Rising” earlier this month in which he stated,
“There is a revolution brewing in the country, and it is not just on the right wing but in the radical center. I know of at least two serious groups, one on the East Coast and one on the West Coast, developing “third parties” to challenge our stagnating two-party duopoly that has been presiding over our nation’s steady incremental decline.”
“We need a third party on the stage of the next presidential debate to look Americans in the eye and say: “These two parties are lying to you. They can’t tell you the truth because they are each trapped in decades of special interests. I am not going to tell you what you want to hear. I am going to tell you what you need to hear if we want to be the world’s leaders, not the new Romans.”
I certainly agree that the national interest should trump political and partisan consideration. But third party movements do not succeed in the United States although existing political parties can and do change from within—as the “tea party” activists’ efforts and successes within the Republican Party attest to.
A third party initiative could produce a credible presidential candidate and conceivably a victory—even though the chance is remote. Think of Ross Perot in 1992 who won a respectable 19% of the vote after pouring a chunk of his personal fortune into the race. But even if we assume that an ideal third party candidate a la Friedman would win the White House, he surely would have to share power with two congressional chambers in which Democrats and Republicans have all or the overwhelming number of seats. While it is unlikely that a new third party could run candidates in all districts and states, even if that could be accomplished, the winner-take-all characteristic of the American electoral system favors the established parties and works against newcomers. In other democracies that have proportional system, legislative seats are apportioned according to the percentage each party wins in national (or state or local) election. Thus, if a party receives a total of 19% of the legislative vote but does not have a single candidate winning in his jurisdiction, this party will end up with 19% of all seats in the legislative body. If a new third party would win overall 19% of all votes cast in congressional elections but not win in one congressional district, this party would not be represented in the House of Representatives.
In short, as attractive as the idea of a new third party of the kind Friedman describes may be, it is nothing but an impossible dream for the reasons above—not to mention the poisonous political climate that has America deeply divided.
Comments