I'd like to see Ron Paul lead a third party.

Or maybe a God party.

Bachman/Palin.

Great 3rd party ticket.

So how do you advocate we move the current parties in a more progressive direction? If a third party is off the table, is there some sort of accountability mechanism you'd prefer? Or do we just let our leaders do what they will and hope for the lesser evil to be elected? Is there a reason that the past has to look like the future, or is that more of your imagination failure we're seeing?

everytime I hear about a new candidate or party I think: they're going to just make a shitload of money...that's all

everytime I hear about a new candidate or party I think: they're going to just make a shitload of money...that's all

everytime I hear about a new candidate or party I think: they're going to just make a shitload of money...that's all

everytime I hear about a new candidate or party I think: they're going to just make a shitload of money...that's all

Nick…I’d like to see Ron Paul lead the Republican ticket. He seems like the easiest man in the group to beat…and obviously, I would like to see the Republican candidate lose. Palin/Bachmann or Bachmann/Palin would also sit nicely with me for the Republicans. Thanks for contributing.

Lance… I do not see the current parties moving in a more progressive direction so I cannot answer that question. I suspect no movement by any party in a progressive direction can work right now, because our country has moved to the Right.

I never suggested moving third parties off the table. I do think they are dead on arrival, however. That simply is the political landscape as I see it right now.

The comment about “imagination failure” is gratuitous…and you really ought to get off that kind of stuff.

Thanks for contributing...and any chance you have an answer for the question I posed?

Elijah…thanks, thanks, thanks, thanks. That does seem to be the case—which was the point of my question. Thanks for commenting.

How about advocating for converting to a "parlimentary system"? Multi-party. And the president as the titular head of the "ruling party". Coalition-making to form a government.
Only problem with that is ours would probably resemble Italy's Parliment more than the Great Britain's.

Political parties immune to corruption? I thought that was a rhetorical question. We've got to overhaul the way we elect our leaders.

Walter…as you know, I’ve talked about at least considering a parliamentary system. But as Lance points out, some problems will not be eliminated if we do. Thanks for stopping in.

Lance, you wrote: Political parties immune to corruption? I thought that was a rhetorical question. We've got to overhaul the way we elect our leaders.

Not rhetorical. I was asking if some of the Green advocates think their politicians will be immune to the kinds of vices to which major party politicians succumb—and perhaps suggesting that most likely will not be the case.

How do you suggest we “overhaul the way we elect our leaders, Lance?”

On 9/16, Jeffrey Sachs wrote an article for the Huffington Post that answers your question for me titled "Two Parties, No Solutions to Jobs". The last paragraph...

"America's revival will come through a new political movement, one that isn't on the political take, one in which the incumbent President doesn't feel the compulsion to raise $1 billion in campaign contributions while the leading opposition candidate isn't yet another corrupt Texas crony of the oil industry. The new third party will thrive on free social media, will wade boldly into minority communities and into run-down neighborhoods of the white working class, and will wage a campaign to tax the rich and the corporations to rebuild America at home, not to build the bank accounts of the super-rich in the Cayman Islands and other favorite tax hideaways."

Me again- It doesn't mean that the money won't try to corrupt them, but it would show the world that money isn't needed to win an election. And using the free social media would bring interaction with the candidate and the public to a personal level, hopefully helping the candidate to feel more of a connection with the people. It could be used for all levels of public office to a greater extent than BO has used it.

A lot of hope there. And hope it was okay to quote the HuffPost. He said it better than I could.

It isn't about the Parties, it's about the corruption that happens for whatever reason(I believe it's something in the water!!!) so if you vote all the bums out and vote in a new group(no matter the Parties), sooner, rather than later, something happens and we're back where we are right now, so we'd have to vote those bums out and repeat the process.

~shaking head, wanders off into the thorn bushes, rating with his tail~

You make a very important point.

Phyllis…

…first of all, thank you for contributing. You quoted Jeffrey Sachs saying, "America's revival will come through a new political movement, one that isn't on the political take, one in which the incumbent President doesn't feel the compulsion to raise $1 billion in campaign contributions…”

I would be willing to bet Sachs a huge amount of money that any political movement that could field a viable candidate for national office…WILL BE ON THE TAKE.

Said another way: If America’s “revival” depends on a new political movement with candidates who are above corruption and being on the take…

…we are doomed.

Sorry, but Sachs’ comments go beyond dreaming. The money will not only “try to corrupt them”…IT MOST DEFINITELY WILL CORRUPT THEM. There probably is not a moment in human history where this has not been the case…and to suppose the first time it will happen would be here in this country…is ludicrous.

Tink…you are right on the money…unfortunately. Thanks for stopping by.

E Magill…thanks for the comment. It is a shame…but that is the way things are.

You make a good point, Frank, but we can't assume that a third party *will* become "repugnant." If a third party candidate were elected, they wouldn't stay in office forever. They would have to be reelected again. When/if they become repugnant, you simply don't give them your vote. That's how democracy is supposed to work. We the people are given the important responsbility of holding our leaders accountable. If they don't do what is in the best interest of the majority, then we use our voting power.

I agree with many who have pointed out that the election process and the ridiculous campaigning process are evils that are causing us to have so many repugnant candidates.

If money was taken out of campaigns (perhaps by capping the amount of money that could be raised or ending the idea that corporations are people and can then donate as much as they want) we might find that our politicians would be less likely to support the entities that give them so much money. Instead, they might support the citizens. There's also quite a bit of fraud in the election process, so we really can't trust that our vote is recognized.

Many reforms are needed, but I don't think the answer to repugnant politicians is supporting the two party system.

I'm with you, phyllis. The key is to get money out of the process. It is an interesting notion that the candidate we need is one who will not use money, but technology to get elected. I hope Sachs is right, and I hope it happens soon because we desperately need stronger candidates who aren't funded by the wealthy.

Frank, no politician is going to be perfect and never make a mistake while in office. However, don't you think that if money were taken out of the process there would be less liklihood of corruption?

http://newprogs.org/

How about someone from this party?

I wonder why you asked your question- why would our third party be immune. The members of the party would have to choose to be unswayed. Yes, it would be a great act of will, but we make those choices every day. Our current system rewards the corrupt. We have actually come to believe that s/he who raises the most money is who we should vote for. So we need to change that mindset and we need some nice, moderate to run a campaign that doesn't need oodles of cash to be successful. We need to change if we want our political system to change.

And my dad is a 75 year old conservative white male, so I know that the change won't be easy.

Prof…thanks for commenting. I have enjoyed your blog essays and comments a lot, even though I disagree with some of what you say. A few responses to your comments here, if I may:

You make a good point, Frank, but we can't assume that a third party *will* become "repugnant."

We disagree on that. Just about every power structure on planet Earth has tended to become corrupt—something recognized famously by Lord Acton. To suppose one particular group would not—especially here in the land of the free, brave, and dedicated to what’s-in-it-for-me is naïve. (In a nice way!)

If a third party candidate were elected, they wouldn't stay in office forever. They would have to be reelected again. When/if they become repugnant, you simply don't give them your vote.

The mechanics of creating a third party and making it powerful enough to be a player really make this kind of thing as near to impossible as possible. Right now, the best operating guesses have to be: No third party is going to matter in the next several elections, and any third party that eventually becomes viable will more than likely succumb to the kind of corruption to which every political party eventually succumbs.

Many reforms are needed, but I don't think the answer to repugnant politicians is supporting the two party system.

Neither do I. But dealing with the “two party system” is the only reasonable alternative open to us right now. It is like dealing with gravity. Other than outright bloody revolution (which, in my opinion, will come before a third party ascendency) all we’ve got is the two party system. And even if a new party comes along (lots of work and time needed for that)…any reasonable guess is that it will soon assume the same tendencies the other party exhibit.

I'm with you, phyllis. The key is to get money out of the process.

Okay, let’s say that is true. Ask yourself this: Will continuing to savage Obama help in that direction? Won’t it result in a tea party vetted and approved Republican getting into the Oval Office and making the next several appointments to SCOTUS? Do you honestly think that happening is the key to getting money and corporations out of the process????

Frank, no politician is going to be perfect and never make a mistake while in office. However, don't you think that if money were taken out of the process there would be less liklihood of corruption?

I do…I honestly do. But is that a realistic expectation? (I am reminded of belling the cat at this point in the discussion!) Prof, I am constantly arguing against unrealistic expectations. “Getting money out of the process” is about as unrealistic as obtaining our politicians from a planet circling another star who cannot, by biological makeup, possibly be corrupted. It would help tremendously if we could get money out of the process…just as it would help tremendously if we could only elect people who will never succumb to corruption. But respectfully as possible, that is not a solution—it is fanciful, wishful dreaming.

http://newprogs.org/ How about someone from this party?

I think they are people making noise…and people with unrealistic dreams. But if you think they can make an impact, by all means back them. MY GUESS: They will not impact significantly on American politics ever…and certainly not during our lifetimes.

In conclusion: “The politicians”, Prof, ARE US…we are the politicians. Our politicians are humans drawn from the masses—from the human pool available here in America. We humans are subject to temptation and corruption—American humans particularly. To suppose that because we gain significant power by being elected to public office we will somehow become less subject to those things is unrealistic.

In any case, those of you efforting for significant changes that bring our country more into balance…that could help make us a fairer, more decent country…my thanks. You are fighting the good fight and I wish you the very best. My comments here are not meant to deter you or discourage you…just to keep you aware that reality always has to be considered. Being unrealistic often is just as much an impediment to change as not doing anything.

A couple of things, Frank.

How do you plan to hold a party accountable if you continually vote for them in fear of the other?

Wasn't idealism what caused our "founding fathers" to fight for and create this country of ours?

Prof

How do you plan to hold a party accountable if you continually vote for them in fear of the other?

Well, one way is to simply not vote for them…and do your best to get other people to desert them also. The downside would be that “the other side” would get in and do even more of the stuff that made you desert your original party.

That, in my opinion, is for losers.

I’d hold my nose if I had to…and back the party I “want to hold accountable.”

But really, Prof, perhaps I have a different view of the large picture. I certainly am not anxious to “hold Obama and the Democrats” “accountable” in the sense you are arguing.

As far as I am concerned, Obama and the Democrats in congress ARE GETTING THE VERY BEST they can in this toxic political climate in which they are working.

I understand that you dismiss that possibility out of hand, but I think you are wrong. I think you, and the others thinking as you are, have got UNREASONABLE EXPECTATIONS of what can and cannot be done right now.

I may be wrong…but that is my opinion.

Take into account the realities…adjust your expectations accordingly…and you will not have to “hold them accountable” as you are using that expression.

Wasn't idealism what caused our "founding fathers" to fight for and create this country of ours?

I have no problem with idealism. I have lots of problems with unreasonable expectations. The thrust of my arguments here deal with the latter—not the former.

Don’t let this drop, Prof. Please continue to discuss it and hammer me about it. We may come to an accord that might surprise both of us.

2 party system=myth
American politics=corporatocracy
Accountability≠vengeance.
Accountability=responsiveness to voters.
Political Pragmatism=cowardice, endorsement of the status quo

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. ~Albert Einstein