In an airport bookshop, prior to a flight, I bought a copy of a book by P.J. O’Rourke, entitled “How the Hell Did This Happen?”  It is a very funny laugh-out-loud book about the 2016 national election.  He starts with a paraphrase of the Preamble to the Constitution:

“We the people of the United States, in order to dissolve what unity we have, establish  injustice, insure domestic idiocy, provide for the common offence, promote the general despair, and secure enmity toward ourselves by our posterity, do ordain and establish this obnoxious political spectacle, the election of 2016”.

It is remarkable how close to fulfilling his words the last national election would come.

What does this say about the state of our national politics?  To me, it says several things.  First, the two national parties are unable to field candidates for the Presidency that are exceptionally competent, that want to represent a maximum number of citizens (rather than just their core supporters), and that can provide leadership to a great nation that is in danger of going adrift.

How has this come about, and how likely is it to continue?  Can it reverse itself without outside impetus?  I believe the inability to field the right candidate has come about because the experienced party elders have lost control of the nominating procedure.  Primaries and caucuses have made the national convention a symbolic rubber stamp. Those primaries and caucuses are dominated by the party activists, who, almost by definition, are the folks at the left end of the Democratic party or the right end of the Republican.  People are passionate at the extremes, moderate at the middle.  Most people over the age of 40 remember that communism and socialism don’t work well for people, and many understand that the nanny state and over-regulation has its ill effects.  And most people over 40 realize that laissez-faire capitalism has its drawbacks, too, and that isolation and prejudice aren’t good ideas either.

It is easy for a Progressive Democrat to revile a Mike Huckabee or a Newt Gingrich, just as it is for a Tea Party Republican to revile a Nancy Pelosi or a Bernie Sanders.  In the smoke-filled rooms in days of yore, the party elders chose a candidate who they thought could win, which always meant not only inspiring the faithful to vote, but also attracting a majority of the independent, swing voters, who are typically in the middle.  For better or for worse, those days are gone forever.

This condition is likely to continue, mainly because of the influence of the media, especially the new media.  It is now possible to absorb news, and opinion cloaked as news, 24 hours a day, from sources who will only echo what a person already believes.  Whether it is Fox News or MSNBC, Huffington Post or the Drudge Report, more and more people refuse to listen to the other side of a debate.  And universities are amplifying this tendency, with trigger warnings, safe spaces, and selective outside speaker policies.  It is far easier to “sell newspapers” (remember them?) by highlighting a contest of wills, a competitive winner-take-all contest, than it is by urging compromise, looking for ways of bridging differences.  And the media is in the business of “selling newspapers”.  The more combative and extreme candidates will thus get the free PR.

Can the current state of affairs be altered to a better position?  I think it can only be done by the establishment of a third party, one that represents the large number of Americans who are politically in the center-left, absolute center, and center-right.  Third party Presidential candidates who emerge in election year create a party as an after-thought, and always fail.  Only by forming a party that takes the long view, one of building membership, grass roots support, and financing will the movement have some permanence.  Only a party that fields winning candidates in state legislatures, the House, the Senate, and governors’ mansions, will find it possible to field a viable Presidential third party candidate.  Think 2024.  Remember, the newly created Republican Party was in existence for 7 years before it nominated Abraham Lincoln for the Presidency.  On the way, as third party candidates for lesser office win elections, the two mainstream parties will understand they have to listen to this voice, or die themselves.  Four to six senators can have enormous leverage on the Senate, as 100 senators are usually closely divided, but they will only have that leverage if they are of one party, speak and vote with one voice.

Who can do this?  If not us, the ordinary people of this nation, it will not get done.

10 thoughts on “The Need for a Realignment in American Politics

  1. Bob, you’ve got my vote.

    You spoke of the passionate extremes at both ends of the political spectrum. My experience, unfortunately, has been that to “passionate” might be added “and generally quite ill informed, at best.”

    I do think that it will take an extreme event in order for the populace to identify as Americans rather than assuming the status, and in doing so bringing it closer to center. Evolution being the tricky business it is, I do not think that time is on our side.

    Moreover, I am a firm believer in term limits for both the house (perhaps with a somewhat longer term of office) and senate.


    Ken >

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Hi, Ken, and thanks for your comments! Maybe it’s wishful thinking, but I believe strong leadership could obviate the need for a national crisis (e.g., a war with North Korea) to bring us back together. On term limits, when I was younger I thought them a terrible idea; now, full of either wisdom or crankiness, I agree with you on their need.



  2. Totally agree with your point of view re need for a new, third party of the middle. Do believe it would have packed a stronger punch, if you had also included the rise of the current state of oligarchy after Reagonomics and loss of union political importance and role in wage negotiations (some of which was necessary, no disagreement there)!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks, Sue. Agreement from you means a lot! Things have gotten a bit muddled, as Teamsters tend to be Republican now, while the Service Union is staunchly Democratic. Hillary raised far more money for her campaign from wealthy bankers (oligarchs) than did Bernie or any of the Republicans. It’s more the “elite” of both parties, ostensibly battling each other, but really collaborating to the detriment of middle and lower-middle class Americans. I recommend “Listen, Liberal”, by Thomas Frank on that subject.


  3. I am almost finished with the book (thanks for the recommendation), and I was struck by this paragraph:

    “In America, instead of political parties, we have two vague political tendencies. One tendency is to favor a larger, more powerful government to make things better. The other tendency is to favor a smaller, more limited government to make things less worse. Then there are a few other vague tendencies—slightly isolationist versus somewhat internationalist, and reasonably pro-business as opposed to moderately in favor of whatever’s out-of-business at the moment. Plus a tendency to be hypocritically prudish and exclusive in contrast to a tendency to be cynically inclusive and insist on enforced freethinking. This makes for a mess of a Venn diagram depicting the logical sets (or, as they should be called in American politics, “illogical sets”). Over time, the Venn diagram sometimes shows extensive overlap of common elements. And sometimes not—2016 being a “not” year. Also, lately, the Venn diagram has been paintballed and TP’d and had rotten fruit thrown at it.”

    It will be interesting to see if this polarizing time we’re living in is just an ebb in the ebb and flow of the Venn diagram O’Rourke mentions above, or if things are permanently broken.


    1. Thanks, Matt. Is that “interesting”, as in “May you be spared from living through ‘interesting’ times”? There certainly is a lot of confusion going on as each party has loudly competing forces fighting for its soul.


      1. Yes, and having finished the book this morning, I noted his final paragraphs were quite telling on this point. When people are afraid, they look for someone to blame (right or wrong) and look for someone to protect them (good or bad). Since the people who control both parties are generally to blame, protection got voted in this last time around from outside the system. But that’s not working so well either, so far anyway.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s