Thread: Let's Talk 3rd Party

Even if an independent or third party President were to be elected, he would be in an instant quagmire with the Houses of Congress and the vested interests Congressmen and Senators actually represent (which, unfortunately, is not the people of the State that elected them). His or her agenda would be tied up in procedural nonsense and partisan bickering, much in the same way that Obama's has been. In several ways a Democrat Presidency resembles an Independent anyway, because I have yet to see Democrats truly united as a party behind a particular agenda- an obvious example being the 'Blue Dogs'. So the Potus is engaged in not just dealing with the opposition, but tied up with factional bickering within his own party too.

The problem really lies within the Houses of Congress rather than the Presidential office- but then again, if you have a Potus that routinely overrules or circumvents Congress, this is a potential threat to democracy and proportional representation. Basically, the whole system seems designed to support a 'status quo' rather than allow for much in the way of change, and to in the main cater for existing and entrenched vested interests rather than 'popular' representation. This is most starkly exposed when the system itself comes under question, such as with the financial crisis of 2008 and it's aftermath, and attempts to introduce Health Care reform in the US. The response to both has been watered down to please existing interests as a first priority, rather than the voting population and it's needs and priorities.

I suppose the example of Israel is salient too, where you have so many small 'special interest' parties that any government able to be formed is a coalition, hostage to them and their demands. Given that these smaller parties are typically quite radical and will bring down a governing coalition at the drop of a hat if their demands are not acceded to, this is hardly an optimal democratic outcome.

If the US citizenry wants to incrementally take it's democracy back, the first thing they need to do is overturn that abysmal 'Citizens United' decision, probably via Constitutional amendment. The second thing they need to do is be a lot more activist and specific about their choice of individual Congressmen- just voting along party lines really achieves nothing except a continuation of the same old nonsense. The Tea Party, whilst I disagree with much of their agenda (but not their disgruntlement), has at least got this right. OWS in contrast is still involved in drum circles. A third party, well lets see- if the Teabaggers and Progressives were to split from their respective parties, when push came to shove they would still side with their 'mother party'. I doubt it would change much actually. I see a distinct lack of citizens referendum's in the US compared to the European democracies- and I think it would be a good idea to have more of these, so the actual people can have their collective voice heard within a system designed to suppress it. I think that would be more effective than another party which would be soon enough hijacked by special interests ('business as usual'), or a de facto proxy for another, larger party.