Where feminine hygiene is no laughing matter ...Rick's Cafe Americain

I am very much in favor of the green party movement and I do not like America’s two party system.  But the two party system in America is strongly entrenched (largely because of the way we elect our leaders) and it will be very difficult for a strong third (or fourth) party movement to emerge.  I do believe that there is a space for a third party since neither party advocates what I think a large percentage of Americans really want/believe in, which is a government that is fairly hands off on social issues and the economy (of course, this might also be why Clinton was so popular as he came close to that).  I also think that a viable green party is, unfortunately, largely impossible because of the way our electoral system is set-up, but I still strongly advocate a viable green party and, generally speaking, would support it in the hopes that it could buck the structure of our electoral system and emerge as a real party.

But this is not the year for such a stand.  Liberals—and even those who are more mainstream—are strongly united that Bush has got to go.  Nader can crow all he wants about the similarities of the two parties, but the Bush administration has marked a strong shift towards conservatism in the Republican party and democrats and liberals and greens and those who consciously would favor a third party along the lines of the one I describe in the paragraph above (as opposed to what I believe are a large percentage of people who would support that if given such a vialbe option, but don’t think enough about politics to help such a party form) are nearly universally united towards knocking Bush off this year.  Consequently, the timing for another Nader Presidential bid is awful (it was awful in the last election as well, but hindsight is 20/20—which is exactly the point). 

Nader has a point, that such an argument can often be made and that the importance building a viable third party movement is bigger than any one election, but Nader also has to recognize reality.  And that reality is that his running for President will create resentment among many people who, in another election, would consider voting for him in order to support either the idea of either a viable third party and/or a viable green party (I view a green party as more of a fourth party).  That reality will potentially hurt the movement, as Nader will probably gather fewer votes this time around. 

Hopefully, people will recognize that Nader’s run in this election is more about personal hubris than third party politics.  Thus, I hope that he run will not hurt the movement (and hopefully won’t throw the election to Bush—again) and will simply serve to marginalize Nader, who has not emerged as an ideal leader in the movement for a third party. 

I am very much in favor of the green party movement and I do not like America’s two party system.  But the two party system in America is strongly entrenched (largely because of the way we elect our leaders) and it will be very difficult for a strong third (or fourth) party movement to emerge.  I do believe that there is a space for a third party since neither party advocates what I think a large percentage of Americans really want/believe in, which is a government that is fairly hands off on social issues and the economy (of course, this might also be why Clinton was so popular as he came close to that).  I also think that a viable green party is, unfortunately, largely impossible because of the way our electoral system is set-up, but I still strongly advocate a viable green party and, generally speaking, would support it in the hopes that it could buck the structure of our electoral system and emerge as a real party.

But this is not the year for such a stand.  Liberals—and even those who are more mainstream—are strongly united that Bush has got to go.  Nader can crow all he wants about the similarities of the two parties, but the Bush administration has marked a strong shift towards conservatism in the Republican party and democrats and liberals and greens and those who consciously would favor a third party along the lines of the one I describe in the paragraph above (as opposed to what I believe are a large percentage of people who would support that if given such a vialbe option, but don’t think enough about politics to help such a party form) are nearly universally united towards knocking Bush off this year.  Consequently, the timing for another Nader Presidential bid is awful (it was awful in the last election as well, but hindsight is 20/20—which is exactly the point). 

Nader has a point, that such an argument can often be made and that the importance building a viable third party movement is bigger than any one election, but Nader also has to recognize reality.  And that reality is that his running for President will create resentment among many people who, in another election, would consider voting for him in order to support either the idea of either a viable third party and/or a viable green party (I view a green party as more of a fourth party).  That reality will potentially hurt the movement, as Nader will probably gather fewer votes this time around. 

Hopefully, people will recognize that Nader’s run in this election is more about personal hubris than third party politics.  Thus, I hope that he run will not hurt the movement (and hopefully won’t throw the election to Bush—again) and will simply serve to marginalize Nader, who has not emerged as an ideal leader in the movement for a third party. 

Perhaps we could slow the tide with protectionist policies, but I worry about other negative effects on our economy that protectionism can have.  What frustrates me, is that none of the candidates and neither party are discussing what we should be doing to prepare for the coming global economy.  I am not economist and no soothsayer, but certain things seem obvious to me (1) no matter what, manufacturing style jobs are going to increasingly be performed in China, India and other “rising” nations with cheap labor; (2) America’s share of the world’s wealth, on a percentage basis, is not sustainable; (3) our educational system (K-12) is woefully inadequate in comparison to that of most Western nations; (4) our position of world dominance is not as secure as most Americans think it is (i.e., I think most Americans can’t imagine that we could possibly slip from the ranks of clear number one anytime in the forseeable future).  I think we need to start beefing our educational system up now ... and I am not talking about no child left behind, or things like that, but making available to the best and brightest (regardless of whether their parents can afford to send them to great private schools) a quality education that will help to produce more great entrepreneurs and thinkers.

But, these are things that happen over time.  The type of things that rarely get considered in the immediacy of an election.  I like John Edwards, but I think his stance on trade policy is shortsighted.

Perhaps we could slow the tide with protectionist policies, but I worry about other negative effects on our economy that protectionism can have.  What frustrates me, is that none of the candidates and neither party are discussing what we should be doing to prepare for the coming global economy.  I am not economist and no soothsayer, but certain things seem obvious to me (1) no matter what, manufacturing style jobs are going to increasingly be performed in China, India and other “rising” nations with cheap labor; (2) America’s share of the world’s wealth, on a percentage basis, is not sustainable; (3) our educational system (K-12) is woefully inadequate in comparison to that of most Western nations; (4) our position of world dominance is not as secure as most Americans think it is (i.e., I think most Americans can’t imagine that we could possibly slip from the ranks of clear number one anytime in the forseeable future).  I think we need to start beefing our educational system up now ... and I am not talking about no child left behind, or things like that, but making available to the best and brightest (regardless of whether their parents can afford to send them to great private schools) a quality education that will help to produce more great entrepreneurs and thinkers.

But, these are things that happen over time.  The type of things that rarely get considered in the immediacy of an election.  I like John Edwards, but I think his stance on trade policy is shortsighted.

The only problem with a complete walkover is that the media is going to lose interest.  Kerry is hot right now and he wants to keep that momentum as long as he can.  But if there is no race, Kerry will get less coverage over the next couple of months and that means that he’ll have to spend money to stay on the radar screen.  Howard Dean’s last stand (sort of) in Wisconsin will help for the next week.  But I think Dean will be done after he gets clobbered in Wisconsin.

That leaves Edwards.  Clark is out and the rest of the candidates are jokes.  If Edwards stays, as he has been largely throughout, positive in his campaigning, Kerry is probably better off if Edwards can stay close enough to him to pass the laugh test.  It will keep the media hungry and talking about a Super Tuesday showdown.  Kerry can still just attack Bush and get coverage and then Kerry can go out and win Super Tuesday in a landslide and get yet another big bump.  But how big of a story Kerry’s Super Tuesday landslide is (because that is a given) will probably depend more on Edwards than Kerry.

The only problem with a complete walkover is that the media is going to lose interest.  Kerry is hot right now and he wants to keep that momentum as long as he can.  But if there is no race, Kerry will get less coverage over the next couple of months and that means that he’ll have to spend money to stay on the radar screen.  Howard Dean’s last stand (sort of) in Wisconsin will help for the next week.  But I think Dean will be done after he gets clobbered in Wisconsin.

That leaves Edwards.  Clark is out and the rest of the candidates are jokes.  If Edwards stays, as he has been largely throughout, positive in his campaigning, Kerry is probably better off if Edwards can stay close enough to him to pass the laugh test.  It will keep the media hungry and talking about a Super Tuesday showdown.  Kerry can still just attack Bush and get coverage and then Kerry can go out and win Super Tuesday in a landslide and get yet another big bump.  But how big of a story Kerry’s Super Tuesday landslide is (because that is a given) will probably depend more on Edwards than Kerry.

“Scott S” writes:

(Read the whole thing here.)

“If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.” I have no idea who said it first, but I’m saying it now.  Since the “uniter, not a divider” restored honor and dignity to the White House, national politics has increasingly become a matter of party warfare: and the Republicans are much better at it.  Why?  Because what the Republicans seem to want more than anything else is to win, while the Democrats still seem at least nominally interested in effecting change for the better.

I increasingly feel in my discussions with Republicans that their most strongly held convictions are not rooted in ideology or logic but in loyalty and defensiveness.  I think many of them feel that their leaders have failed them, but they are unwilling to show weakness.  Republicans have control of the White House and Congress—and keeping that control has become more important than making good use of it.

What that means, however, is that so long as the Democrats continue to try to make change—pass good laws, make good policy, stand up for what is right—they will be distracted from the fight for control in a way that the Republicans are not.  So, I say to you, Democrats:  Join the Republican party.

Think about it.  Then there will be no question about which party is the biggest, strongest party.  Republicans will control everything!  Then, there will be nowhere to hide.  Our leaders and pundits will not be able to drive the wedge of partisan politics through the public discourse.  Maybe they will start taking responsibility for their actions and their words.