- INSIDE THE JOURNAL
-
-
Browse posts by day:
Browse posts by week:
- FLINT-AREA OPINION
- Letters to the Editor
- Editorials
- Talk Back
- If You Ask Me
- Wide Awake Club
- Words from the Web
- COMMUNITY PAPERS
-
- MLIVE COMMUNITY
- EMAIL NEWSLETTER
Dissatisfaction with Democrats and Republicans shows America is ripe for legitimate third party
by Tony Dearing | The Flint Journal
Sunday July 13, 2008, 1:16 PM
Flint Journal Editor
Tony Dearing
• Read more by him
But they do give you a feel for what people have on their minds, and based on the letters we're getting this election season, I'd summarize the public sentiment like this.
Vote 'em out. Vote 'em all out.
When it comes to public approval ratings, politicians are always near the bottom, right down there with journalists.
But the level of dissatisfaction seems unusually high this election year.
In fact, the Gallup organization reported in May that public approval of Congress is at the lowest level since it began asking that question in 1974.
Only 18 percent of people approve of the job that Congress is doing. That's well below the approval rating of President Bush's, which was at 30 percent in the most recent Gallup poll.
This deep disapproval of Congress doesn't vary much across party lines. Although the Democrats took control of the House in the 2006 election, people who describe themselves as Democrats express virtually the same unhappiness with Congress as people who say they are Republicans.
Also by Tony Dearing:
• Reader representative, Kristen Skivington, at Flint Journal helps shape our editorial positions
bbu Wide Awake Club a 70-year tradition with Flint Journal readers
• Flint Journal readers say Barack Obama clinching presidential nomination was historic event
My own sense is that many Americans do not identify themselves strongly with either party, and are increasingly fed up with what they're getting -- or not getting -- from both.
There is probably not a time in my life when the American public has seemed more ready for a legitimate third party.
I happened to visit the town of Jackson last week, and had forgotten, until I read it on a sign, that Jackson proudly promotes itself as the birthplace of the Republican Party.
That traces back to 1854, when a state convention of anti-slavery activists met in an oak grove on the outskirts of Jackson for the purpose of founding a new political party. Thus, the Republican Party was born.
It began as a third party, but grew in prominence so quickly that it managed to have a candidate -- Abraham Lincoln -- elected president just six years later.
There have been plenty of third parties in recent years, but none that could challenge the political supremacy of Republicans and Democrats.
But clearly, the public is hungering for something different. You can see it even in the men who have been nominated by the traditional two-party system.
John McCain is a political maverick, and Barack Obama is a history-maker as the first black man to be nominated by a major political party.
There are clear differences between the two, and so the public is presented with a true choice.
But how many people would chose something very different if it were presented to them? The high level of dissatisfaction with politics and politicians suggests that a lot of people would, if given a real alternative.
They don't have it in this election cycle. But who is to say that somewhere out there, a group of people meeting under an oak tree couldn't form something that America seems ripe for -- a legitimate third party to seriously challenge Democrats and Republicans.
The climate sure feels right for it, just as it did in 1854.
Tony Dearing is editor of The Flint Journal. | Read more of his columns on his blog.
Mr. Dearing,
America may be dissatisfied with the 2 major parties, but our winner-take-all electoral system makes it very difficult for third parties. In supporting a third party, a voter is more likely to inadvertently aid the candidate(s) of the major party they most dislike than to propel the third party's candidate(s) into office. Recall how Ross Perot's candidacy helped Bill Clinton defeat George Bush in 1992 and how Ralph Nader's candidacy allowed Bush Junior to finish close enough to Al Gore in Florida to enable the theft of the 2000 election. Also, the major parties have learned to co-opt just enough of the insurgent party's agenda to reduce their momentum.
Even if a third party were to assume power, it would likely soon be corrupted by big money. The public would do better to support public campaign financing than a third party.
Gee, I thought the whole country was too caught up in Obamamania to be thinking about a third party.
Good point JimShaw.... changing the way candidates win delegates would be critical if we want a viable 3rd party. Many people would love to get excited about a 3rd party candidate.
"John McCain is a political maverick." Sure he is, if you call supporting almost every one of George Bush's policies, and changing his mind to support the rest, being a maverick. If trotting out the same failed republican philosophies on every single issue is being a "maverick" than, yes, he is a maverick; along with every other Republican who has spent almost his whole life in D.C.
This was just another article written in support of John McCain, the staunch republican who supports every single republican ideal there is. Dearing can try and hide behind his third party nonsense all he wants. The whole gist of the article is about the greatness of his republican party.
Political maverick my tail.
I didn't know supporting the current administraion on almost every single issue is being a political maverick. Maybe this guy should actually pay attention to what John McCain stands for instead of blindly supporting him and trying to actually convince the good people of Michigan that he is something he is not.
John McCain lost the political Mavrick thing long ago, and most people know it, we're not as stupid as you think we are.
Here is the gist of this article: people want a third party and John McCain is a political maverick. Right. John McCain USED to be a political maverick, until he started running for office and realized he was going to have to cow tow to Big Business and the New Right on EVER SINGLE ISSUE. John then changed his mind on several issues to conform to the Republican Party, or, more accurately, the New Right. Remember what John's views on tax cuts for the rich, domestic warrantless wiretaps, torture, etc. USED to be?
rarules, sounds like you need to stop reading what you want to read and start reading what the writer is actually saying. while i'm not a big fan of either candidate - more of a classic goldwater conservative, or libertarian, in the parlance of our times - i didn't ready anything tony dearing wrote as being fierce support for the republican party.
dearing used that party as an example because it was a third party that broke into the main political scen quickly, and is now one of the sadistically dominant parties in the country.
relax, take your pills, and read the column over. you just might find yourself agreeing with dearing's principle. which is, in my opinion, spot on.
My only hope is that one day, the people(slaves) of this country will realize that the Owners(corporations and extremely wealthy individuals) of this country have already bought and paid for this election and many to come. Its time to take the power out of the Federal Government's hands and de-centralize it.
McCain will offer us more of the same, Lower Taxes without cutting spending driving up our nearly 10 tillion dollar national debt.
Obama will raise taxes which will slow the economy and also raise spending which will create a larger more ineffective burecracy.
Neither canidate will bring home the troops, Obama may pull out of Iraq but he will end up sending the troops to Afganistan.
As for the economy we will have more of the same, "Greenspan Bubbles" that will burst every 5-10 years. The lastes bubble which is bursting right now or just bursted , started in 2001 with the intrest rate cuts, even though those GDP numbers went up we in Michigan know that it didn't fix the root of the problem. Since 2000 Michigan has lost over 1/2 a million jobs. The Second Most powerful man in the world Ben Bernake(federal reserve chairman) has already started the new bubble by slashing the intrests rates to promote economic growth. Have the rate cuts done their job? or have the only contributed to skyrockting inflation particularly in Food and Gas prices.
When we people realize that the system is not working and changes need to take place. For now enjoy the shrinking middle class. the poor getting poorer and the rich getting rich, just the way the owners like it.
For those of you that really read into the politics in America ( in otherwords do not listen to the mainstream media outlets) this discussion has been going on for about 10 years. There is in fact a newly formed Nationalist party that is being spearheaded by a few people such as Newt Gingrich, Shawn hannity, Micheal Savage. Mayor Bloomburg and a few others. The premise of this party is to find ways to return this country back to the type of government that it was formed to be when the constitution was written. A governemnt that was designed to protect the rights of its people not involve itself into our every day life decisions.
I do not know if this movement will ever come about to be a strong 3rd choice, but when it does we the American people should not be afraid to step out of our comfort zone and back a third party. If we want real change in Washington. This is how we get it.
A party spearheaded by Michael Savage, the biggest idiot alive, who thinks autism is fake? Sign me up!
I seen Michael Savage and laughed too. Have you ever listened to his radio show? OMG I had some guy doing some work at my house listening to it while he worked, I wanted to kill myself after that show. I had no idea the world was literally on the verge of destruction. This guy is selling fear (between pitches for his CD's and DVD's) wholesale. And to think people are actually buying it!! If anyone is looking for an example of what’s wrong with this country, just tune into the Savage show.
And what’s this business of a government the way the constitution was written? This country is very different now than 230+ years ago. Are you suggesting we reinstitute slavery? Take away the rights of women and minorities? I think what you’re really suggesting is a government where white men have institutional advantages over everyone else. Have you noticed who is driving this so called “movement”? That’s right, angry white men. Now that the playing field is more level they don’t like having to actually compete. By the way, I’m a white guy.
Wow, did you even read what small wrote?!?! He/she said protecting rights and less getting involved in our personal lives. While I don't agree with small on some of the things I've seen him/her post and sometimes agree with you, to draw those conclusions from what he wrote is sad and sounds like a different sort of angry white guy.
I have nothing against cutting wasteful spending and getting the government out of our bedrooms and so forth, but that's not what Savage, Hannity, and Gingrich actually stand for. They hate gay people, want to go back to a time when women were submissive at all times, and would like to have endless wars going at all times. How is that for small government?
First off the independent party movement Michael Bloomberg is/was involved with doesn't count Hannity or Savage among its participants. I'm not sure Bloomberg would appreciate being lumped in with Savage or Hannity.
I'll assume when smallgov is talking about protecting the rights of people he means how the Bush administration has trampled the constitution like no other president in history?? Maybe smallgov can give a couple of examples of how government is too involved in his life? My guess if he'll say things like too many laws or regulations which don't allow him/her to behave however they choose, regardless of whether it impacts others in a negative way. What he/she fails to realize is that when you behave badly you infringe on others rights, so then a law or regulation is put in place to protect those people’s rights. Then he/she complains about his/her rights being violated, pathetic.
Actually hating on gays would be less government because then there'd be less benefits going to gays. Ok, I know what you really mean and I do agree that the people who are working on this party are not necessarily the people I want to throw my hat in with. I like some of the principles but don't like others. My initial objection was to an earlier comment that seemed rather kneejerk and took one comment to extremes that I don't believe were meant based on the condition given.
The big problem seems to be that both parties are for bigger and smaller government, but give lip-service to their particular supporters. The Republicans say they are for smaller government and in terms of money and increased personal responsibility, they are. The problem is they also want to regulate what people do in terms of personal morals/ethics and don't seem to have a problem spending little money on helping those who need it but spending tons of money blowing stuff up. On the other hand you have Democrats wanting bigger government with more social programs but also want to tell everyone what to do with their money and want the government dictating morals less. Seems like it's hard to find a group that fits the balance on all the various issues. It seems to me, and I'm guessing I'm not alone, that the two major parties would rather hammer away at their extremes rather than have any compromise and meet in the middle. Then again, perhaps I'm just terribly cynical.
The problem I see though is that there is a difference between rights and (not-so-common) courtesy. The Constitution gives certain rights and behaving badly and affecting others doesn't necessarily violate their rights depending on the situation. In a huge number of cases it does but definitely not always. To me this is where personal responsibility/courtesy kicks in and the government needs to stay out of people's business. If we all agreed on what is "behaving badly" and "behaving goodly" (yeah I know, but it sounds funny), then it'd be really easy and no one would care about the government legislating things. We don't agree on that though so what might be behaving badly to one person might not seem like behaving badly to someone else. When the government gets involved it could be more legislating morals rather than protecting rights. It seems to be a very fine and gray line between the two that isn't in the same place for everyone.
What I mean by "negative" impact is where someone’s health or safety is "proven" to be put in jeopardy due to others behaviors. Not just someone who is annoying. The very reason we have speed limits, and drunk driving laws. But you certainly read the uproar about "trampling private rights" when the state voted to ban smoking in restaurants and bars. These people believe their "rights" trump the "proven" health risks the workers are being subjected to. There isn't a workplace in America that isn't subject to workplace safety rules. This is just one of many examples. I'm amazed to see so many people using this "constitutional rights" argument, when it doesn't even apply. In the preamble to the constitution it states we have the right "promote the general welfare" of our people.
But back to the original editorial..... we do need a viable 3rd party in this country, but personally I would like it to be a moderate party, not one that is more left or right the two we have. You may think I'm a hard core liberal, I'm not. I just currently find the far right to be repulsive currently.
This editorial assumes there are only two parties on the ballot. There are other parties including strong alternatives to both major parties. However, you are wrong on the point people want to elect a third party candidate for major office. If they did they would simply vote this way.
- BLOGS
-
Feedback
by Journal staff -
From the Editor
by Tony Dearing -
Come Heller High Water
by Andy Heller -
Head over Heels
by Brenda Brissette Mata
- COLUMNS
-
Kori Carson Dean
-
Gary Flinn
-
Kelly Flynn
-
John Foren
-
David Graham
-
Rickey Hampton
-
Ron Krueger
-
Christofer Machniak
-
Theresa Roach
-
Elizabeth Shaw
-
David Smith
-
John Tomlinson
- COMMUNITY
-
Jack Blosser
-
Jackie Braun
-
Eileen Button
-
Julie Zaher
