"Time for a Third Party?"

Sydney M. Williams

Thought of the Day

“Time for a Third Party?”

November 8, 2010

The midterm elections have been scrutinized, parsed and debated ad nauseum. With the exception of Republican House leaders, no one seems truly satisfied. Independents, who swung the election in favor of Democrats in 2008, supported Republicans in 2010, not because they seemed to believe in their policies, but because they voted against Mr. Obama’s overreach and his failure to make headway against unemployment.

Despite his massive social engineering in proposing generational changes in healthcare and consumer protection against malpractices of lenders, the President claims he is not interested in an increasing role for government; he was simply responding to an economic emergency. Nancy Pelosi, despite engineering the loss of more seats for Democrats in the House since 1938, claims she has been asked to stay on as House minority leader, allegedly to ensure that healthcare and financial reform do not get neutered. “The bell that just rang isn’t the end of the fight; it’s the start of the next round.” So spoke Harry Reid, in a tone that suggests combat, not reconciliation.

Republicans seem equally uncertain as to whether it is Rand Paul (R-KY) or Roy Blunt (R-MO) that present the faces of today’s and tomorrow’s leaders in the Senate. (Read the piece in the weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal by Matthew Kaminski.) Mr. Kaminski writes of Mr. Paul who won by 12 points: “…he represents the new zeitgeist of the American right. Don’t count on him to sit quietly in the back benches.” Mr. Blunt, a former Congressman and Whip under Majority leader Tom Delay and who won his Senate seat by 14 points, was described: “…he epitomizes the transactional K Street politician who uses the prerogatives of office to protect incumbents – hence the nickname Mr. Earmark.”

From my perspective, the most important thing to get right in politics is economic policy. While there are times when it is imperative for government to interfere as they had to in the fall of 2008, in general the private sector is far better than the public sector in allocating capital. It is this belief that keeps me, and I suspect others, in the Republican Party. I also believe in a strong currency and free trade – tenants that are usually, though not always, associated with the Republican Party. In addition, Paul Ryan (R-WI) who will become House Budget chairman on January 1st has promised to tackle entitlement programs, where reform is necessary if the deficit is to be tackled. We will see if the boldness of his ‘Roadmap for America’s Future’ gets reflected in his proposed legislation.

On the other hand, Republican’s policies toward immigration, abortion, gay marriage etc. make me uncomfortable. I prefer a policy that welcomes immigrants, offers citizenship to those who have graduated from our colleges and universities and recognizes the value that immigrants of all nationalities and backgrounds have contributed to our nation. Obviously, we need to weed out criminals and those who are here solely for welfare benefits, but in general a policy of openness is better than one that is closed. Building a wall sends the wrong message. Sending home 15 million illegal immigrants is impossible, so some accommodation must be found. Also, as “legals” those immigrants would begin paying taxes, including putting badly needed money into cash-constrained Social Security and Medicare. In terms of issues like gay marriage, religion, guns and abortion, I simply don’t understand why they should be political issues at all.

While I find myself often more in sympathy toward Democrat’s policies on social issues, they are off-putting in their arrogantly dismissive manner toward those with whom they disagree. In universities, especially, they give lip service to the concept that all voices should be heard, but then blackball or rudely disrupt those whose views do not conform to their own.

On economic matters, Democrats generally share a belief in the “wisdom” of the state and a belief in equality that stresses outcomes as opposed to opportunity. In their paternalistic desire to provide entitlements, they emphasize compassion at the expense of aspiration. In their manner and demeanor, they have become increasingly elitist.

Both Parties have supported policies that have widened income gaps between rich and poor, between CEOs and the average worker. A consequence of President Clinton’s adoption in 1993 of Section 163(m) of the Internal Revenue Code limiting the deductibility of corporate compensation to $1,000,000 led to the proliferation of option grants, products which greatly magnified returns to senior corporate officers. Banks that are “too big to fail” have been supported by Democrats as much as Republicans. Financial reform legislation looks to allow big banks to become even bigger. The “Volker Rule” appears to being watered down.

In their campaigns, both parties spend too much time on social issues, and not enough on the more substantive and critical fiscal and monetary differences.

Over the past twenty years leadership in Congress has switched between Democrats and Republicans. They are reminiscent of a flock of sheep directed by sheepdogs, the electorate. They get chased to the left and then to the right, going in circles rather than making progress. Even so, the two main Parties have redefined themselves over the years and will surely continue to morph. White Southern Democrats of fifty years ago have become Republicans, while wealthy Northeast Republicans have become Democrats.

Nevertheless, my growing sense is of alienation of the many toward the few in Washington, made worse through an absence of term limits. Who in Congress really reflects our beliefs? Do they really care? Has the country become too big, too diverse for only two parties? Are two parties optimum? Is there any such thing as “mainstream” thinking”? Cooperation and conciliation have always been part of the political process, yet partisanship and anger are on the rise. The Tea Party is one consequence; there will be others.