Sunday, May 24, 2009

Waiting for 2010 #10: Solve the Cheney/Powell/"Republican" Debacle

As optimistic as I am about the Obama Administration doing what it can to help the country recover from the previous years' economic downturn, and as optimistic as I am about the Democratic Party majority in at least two of the three branches of Federal government, we still need at least one (ideally more than one) party of opposition. We need debate - ideally honest debate about actual issues involving the health of the nation's people, the wealth of the nation's people, and issues relating to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This nation needs a (non-demonized) devil's advocate, to question if a plan of action might not be the wisest plan to execute. Yes, a daily nay-sayer will slow down the process, but it is infinitely better to inch toward prosperity than it is to accelerate to hell.

Several decisions of a previous era attest to ill-conceived acceleration (without naming cliche names). Additionally, several nations throughout the history of the world show examples of the evils of single-party/single-minded totalitarianism, whether fascist right or communist left.

That said, our de facto (really de jure) opposition party du jour - the Republicans - are still torn in (at least) two. Sure, there are the social conservatives (the Evangelicals, the Religious Right, and the Fundies) with a different main agenda than the fiscal conservatives (the Industrialists, the Capitalists, and the Libertarians). However, more clearly, it seems to be a divide between the Cheney/Limbaugh Republicans ("hard right") and the Powell Republicans (more-or-less inclusive "moderates"). General Powell wants to grow the GOP base to include as many varied ideologies in varying degrees of opposition to the current direction of the Obama Administration and the majority Democrat congress. On the other hand, former VP Cheney fears moderates and wants the GOP to remain absolutely to the (hard, far) right of all issues - socially, fiscally (presumably except when big government creates contracts to benefit certain conflict-of-interest corporations), and politically (see: Freedom fries, treasonous dissent, moderates are socialists, etc.).

My rather hyperbolic, but possibly feasible, solution would be to just split the party in two. It's a simple solution, and there are several party names already in use to divvy up between the two estranged factions: (1) One could be the GOP, and the other the Republican Party; (2) one could be the Lincoln Party, and the other the Reagan Party; (3) one could be the Moderate Republican Party/Moderate GOP, and the other the Conservative Republican Party/Conservative GOP; etc.

It is a safe bet that Obama voters who may be disillusioned by the Obama Administration - depending on the consequences of the current economic recovery, etc. - might filter faster to the Moderate GOP than further to the right. In doing so, we could have some great debate between the Moderate GOP and the Democratic Party. If no violence is involved, no needs to censor the Conservative GOP. They can make a lot of noise, which might potentially hurt their cause or rebuild it - who knows? The Conservative GOP might get another shot in the limelight if the Moderate GOP defeats the Democratic Party for an election cycle but somehow does not live up to expectations.

In any case, a true multiple party system might change up the old American political cycle for the better. And yes, if the Democratic Party finds itself in another era of defeat, a party split could also be a feasible solution there as well.

Here's to organized democracy!

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please note: Comments are open only for seven days after publication of each blog entry.