Tag: partisanship

No Labels

No Labels

Posted on by Jack

I have my opinions and I have been known to be wrong on occasion. I usually think I’m right but I’m willing to listen to other opinions and maybe reconsider my own opinion. Sometimes I’ll even change my opinion because of that listening.

Unfortunately, many of our so-called leaders don’t think they need to listen. Even worse they are willing to force everyone else to follow what they think is the right path.

You may have guessed by now that I am thinking about Congress. There is a partisan divide where Republicans don’t give Democratic ideas much serious consideration and Democrats don’t give Republican ideas much consideration and the 2 sides don’t compromise much. There are a few Independent and a few in the major parties willing to cross the aisle but not nearly enough of it.

So I have written about this failure of governing before. The political system is making our democracy dysfunctional.

A group called “no labels” is trying to help move us past this political gridlock. Check out the website of No Labels.

Bipartisan Cabinet

Bipartisan Cabinet

Posted on by Jack

It has been suggested that President Obama could have a bipartisan cabinet for his second term. Here is an example of 2 Republicans who could be great additions to the cabinet.

BUT there is a school of thought that IF President Obama wanted to show bipartisanship, he could do what Franklin D. Roosevelt did in World War II–pick Republicans who are intelligent, sane, responsible, and who are no longer serving in the Senate, to serve in his cabinet, and the State Department would offer a great location to put soon to be former Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, an acknowledged foreign policy expert, and a man who has worked well with Obama when they were both Senators, and went off to Russia to promote the safe collection of nuclear weapons stockpiles in 2005-2006. Lugar is a wonderful statesman, and would fill the job with excellence and professionalism. And he has been, like Kerry, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman in the past, and is still the ranking member of the committee until he leaves the Senate in January.

Additionally, as suggested earlier, former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a Vietnam War veteran and military expert, would be an excellent choice to serve in the Pentagon as Secretary of Defense. Always highly regarded and respected, Hagel would add stature to our Defense Department.

Such appointments would neutralize, to a great extent, Republican attacks on President Obama in the areas of foreign policy, national security, and defense policy.

See http://www.theprogressiveprofessor.com/?p=20041 for the full article.

I would like to add a suggestion, Jon Huntsman, former governor and ambassador, as Treasury Secretary.

President Obama and Governor Christie

President Obama and Governor Christie

Posted on by Jack

I see President Obama and Governor Christie working together for the good the people of New Jersey impacted by the storm. Wouldn’t it be nice if more of our politicians were able to put political differences aside long enough to work for the good of the people?

More RINOs and DINOs needed

More RINOs and DINOs needed

Posted on by Jack

One of my pet peeves is the excessive partisanship in our political life. It would be nice if our Congress was composed of men and women who could think and act independently and govern the country in what they believe is the best interest of the people they represent. Sadly, there is excessive loyalty to political parties and a lack of ability of compromise for the good of the country.

Political parties have become too powerful. I have previously written many times about this “cancer at the heart of our democracy” (follow my partisanship tag for more).

There is a type of politician called RINO for Republican In Name Only. I suppose there is another group called DINO for Democrat In Name Only. If so, I have certainly heard that term less often.

Usually such a term is used to indicate a lack of party loyalty. And party loyalists consider it a bad thing. But I think it is a good thing. It shows that the politician in question can think independently and is willing to stand-up to the party for the good of constituents or the good of the country.

Think of how good it would be to have a Congress full of people who are willing to act for the good of the country and govern. Support your local RINO, DINO, or independent.

Lesser of two evils and the evil of two parties

Lesser of two evils and the evil of two parties

Posted on by Jack

Quite often our choices in elections come down to picking the candidate we believe to be the lesser of two evils. We just don’t like our choices. Pick 1 of 2 but you dislike both.

So who do you dislike least ? Who do you vote against ?

The choices we make in each election seem fairly important. And this election could be very important.


But in the long-run a perhaps it is just as important or maybe even more important that we find a better election system. I have written in this blog about this. I cite one post here but click on the tag “partisanship” to see a long list.

Mickey Edwards has written a fine book about it, The Parties Versus the People: How to Turn Republicans and Democrats into Americans which I read and reviewed several months back. This book really started me thinking that we have given up too much control to the 2 major political parties.

You might be interested in Mickey Edwards’ Atlantic article which explored this before he had expanded the argument to book length.

I ran across this series of articles which also explored this problem. The link is to one article in the series but you can easy find the others on the website.

The first step is to think about it. And if you think it is a problem, lend your support to those who would like to do something about it.

Political parties and government dysfunction

Political parties and government dysfunction

Posted on by Jack

I have previously written much about the “cancer at the heart of our democracy”, often citing Mickey Edwards book The Parties Versus the People: How to Turn Republicans and Democrats into Americans.

Mr Edwards has another piece on The Unraveling of Government due to the excessive power of political parties. This appeared online last week on the New York Times website and a version appeared in the Sunday NY Times.

I have cited other examples of party ridiculousness and I’m sure almost any reader can think of others.

Ronald Reagan got it partly right, the problem is not government per se but how we run our government. The political system, and in particular the power we give to political parties, is making our democracy dysfunctional.

My party, right or wrong

My party, right or wrong

Posted on by Jack

I see that Todd Akin, the “legitimate rape” guy, now has the support of the Republican Party. The Senate is supposed to be a great deliberative body but, of course, it doesn’t always work out that way.

But this seems to be a new low. The Republican position seems to be: better an ignorant extremist in my party than a reasonable person in another party.

Where are the independents when you need them?

Podcast alert: cancer at the heart of our democracy

Podcast alert: cancer at the heart of our democracy

Posted on by Jack

Yesterday I heard a great radio interview. Terry Gross of Fresh Air  interviewed Mickey Edwards whose new book The Parties Versus the People: How to Turn Republicans and Democrats into Americans is about our hyper-partisan political system.

In the interview, he calls political parties “cancer at the heart of our democracy”. Strong words but well deserved.

I have previously written about this excessive power of party and am glad Mickey Edwards‘ views are getting wider coverage. I enjoy listening to podcasts when I go for a walk. If you enjoy podcasts, be sure to get this interview by Terry Gross.

Although the citizens (or we the people) are theoretically in charge, the people we elect to represent us and govern are too busy posturing and refuse to compromise and so are unable to govern and solve our country’s problems. We have given too much power to the 2 major political parties.

The parties control our elections and limit our choices, determine what laws are come up for a vote and how our representatives will vote. The votes will be in the interests of the party leaders, rather than the people.

The NPR website has highlights of the interviews as well as comments on the interview and the roles of parties in our dysfunctional system.

Is this anyway to run a democracy?

Parties or People

Parties or People

Posted on by Jack

We the people are theoretically in charge yet the people we elect are busy posturing and refuse to compromise and so are unable to govern and solve our country’s problems.  The obvious conclusion is that there is just too much partisanship.

Nearly everyone would agree with that but very few have any ideas about fixing the problem

Mickey Edwards expressed these ideas and suggested a few solutions in the  Atlantic .

Then he expanded these ideas into a book, The Parties Versus the People: How to Turn Republicans and Democrats into Americans.  Mickey Edwards had been a congressman and then a professor of government so he knows what he is talking about. 

The overriding theme is that we have given up too much of our control to the 2 major political parties.   This is done on several levels. 

Parties limit our choices to a few candidates.  This is particularly true in states where ballot access is limited and/or primaries are open only to members of a political party.

Once one of these candidates is “in”, he or she is then beholden to the party for both current power in office (example committee assignments in Congress) and the chance to be re-elected.

Pennsylvania parties and independents

Pennsylvania parties and independents

Posted on by Jack

Apparently the concept of the independent voters or candidates hasn’t quite made it to Pennsylvania. The parties do have lock on things political here and it is a bit difficult for those of us who choose not to be either Republican or Democrat.

A short article by Anthony R. Wood in the Philadelphia Inquirer of August 7 begins this way –

When Jim Foster showed up with his 125-page petition to run for Congress against Chaka Fattah (D., Pa.), state elections officials rejected his signatures on the ground that another member of his party already had a candidate.

Since Foster doesn’t belong to a party, he was flabbergasted. He was filing as an “independent.”

There was already an “Independent” who had qualified the day before and the state would not allow 2 people from the same or similarly named parties to run in the same race lest the voters be confused. Apparently the Department of State of Pennsylvania cannot fathom that “independent” and “Independent” are not 2 parties with similar names but rather individuals who are not part of a party.

There is more to the story than I will discuss here so if you have an interest in Pennsylvania politics you might find it worth reading.

But for this story, the main point is that it went to court. And a follow-up story, gave us a bit more on this.

Most people would think it fairly obvious that “independent” and “Independent” are not 2 parties with similar names but the law seems to lack a certain degree of common sense at times. Unfortunately, this is one of those times.

The court did find that Mr. Foster could run but could not be an independent. He would have to identify with a made up party such as the “Philadelphia Party”. But if the first filer for the “Independent” slot was disqualified, Mr. Foster could be the “Independent” candidate. A mixed and rather absurd result in my opinion but then I can think about it logically rather than in terms of Pennsylvania law.

Name that socialist, a taxing question about partisanship

Name that socialist, a taxing question about partisanship

Posted on by Jack

I want to begin with a quote.

We’re going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that have allowed some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. In theory, some of those loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying 10 percent of his salary, and that’s crazy. It’s time we stopped it.

And the way I see it, if our current tax structure were a TV show, it would either be “Foul-ups, Bleeps, and Blunders,” or “Gimme a Break.” If it were a record album, it would be “Gimme Shelter.” If it were a movie, it would be “Revenge of the Nerds” or maybe “Take the Money and Run.” And if the IRS, Internal Revenue Service, ever wants a theme song, maybe they’ll get Sting to do, “Every breath you take, every move you make, I’ll be watching you.”

What we’re trying to move against is institutionalized unfairness. We want to see that everyone pays their fair share, and no one gets a free ride. Our reasons? It’s good for society when we all know that no one is manipulating the system to their advantage because they’re rich and powerful. But it’s also good for society when everyone pays something, that everyone makes a contribution.

After all, we’re all citizens, equal in the eyes of the law, and equal in the eyes of God. You’re given a lot of benefits when you’re born in the U.S.A, but you’re given a responsibility, too, a responsibility to do your part and become a contributing member of the American family and an equal partner in America, Incorporated. When you pay your taxes, you buy your shares. And every year you get to vote on who should be on the board of directors.

Now, you’ll be hearing more about our tax proposals over the next few weeks. A great debate has begun, and there will be much talk, pro and con. And that’s good, that’s what America’s all about.

Who said that? If you are of a certain political persuasion, you might have guessed it was that socialist Barack Obama. Or maybe it was a quote from a socialist newspaper or some other left wing politician. But it was Ronald Reagan at Northside High School in Atlanta, Georgia on June 6, 1985. The entire speech is in the Reagan archives maintained by The University of Texas at Austin.

I have 2 points. The Republican view of taxation was very different in Ronald Reagan’s day. And because the Republican party has moved so far to the right, the 2 parties cannot even have a serious discussion of this or other issues .

The extreme partisanship in the electorate is bad. The extreme partisanship in Congress is damaging. Perhaps, one of the things we need to think about in the election this fall is reducing extreme partisanship. Think about which candidate for any office is willing to debate and compromise.