U.S. Multiparty system
Jim Henley, responding to my earlier post,highlights the dilemma that we (classical) liberals/libertarians face on election day in this two-party system (yes, yes, I know that there is a libertarian party) when he points out that he dislikes (well, despises) Jim Webb's economic nationalist agenda while approving of his position on Iraq. This is when many of us fantasize about a multi-party system in this country (and yes, yes, I know why our sytem is more effective in preventing the rise of dangerous demagogues, is more stable, etc.). So here is my proposal for a new multi-party system (and note that I've chosen "fresh" faces to lead them, e.g., Sailer, and not Buchanan to lead the Nationalist Party).
The Liberal Party led by Arnold Schwarzenegger. Supports free markets/free trade. Liberal on social-cultural issues (drugs, gays, abortion, etc.). Pro-immigration and anti-interventionist (although I can imagine a scenario when a few neocons influence the party's foreign policy agenda in a more "Wilsonian" direction). Jim will probably vote for these guys.
The Nationalist Party led by Steve Sailer. The Jacksonians. Orientation towards economic nationalism and anti-immigration. Expect some divisions over social-cultural (Buchanan Catholics and Southern Protestants vs. Midwestern conservatives) issues and foreign policy (Buchanan vs. Malkin).
The Christian-Democratic party led by Chuck Hagel. The moderate/centrist party on the political right. You get the idea.
The Social-Democratic party led by Russ Feingold. The moderate/centrist party on the political left. Again, you get the idea.
The Green Party led by Robert Kennedy Jr. Economic nationalist, pro-immigration, liberal on social-cultural issues and anti-interventionist.
Now... you have to admit. That would be an exciting election. And even more exciting would be the efforts to form post-election coalition. What's you favorite combinations? Liberal/Christian-Democrats? Green/Social-Democrats? Nationalists/Christian-Democrats? Liberal/Green/Social-Democrats? Christian-Democrats/Social-Democrats?
The Liberal Party led by Arnold Schwarzenegger. Supports free markets/free trade. Liberal on social-cultural issues (drugs, gays, abortion, etc.). Pro-immigration and anti-interventionist (although I can imagine a scenario when a few neocons influence the party's foreign policy agenda in a more "Wilsonian" direction). Jim will probably vote for these guys.
The Nationalist Party led by Steve Sailer. The Jacksonians. Orientation towards economic nationalism and anti-immigration. Expect some divisions over social-cultural (Buchanan Catholics and Southern Protestants vs. Midwestern conservatives) issues and foreign policy (Buchanan vs. Malkin).
The Christian-Democratic party led by Chuck Hagel. The moderate/centrist party on the political right. You get the idea.
The Social-Democratic party led by Russ Feingold. The moderate/centrist party on the political left. Again, you get the idea.
The Green Party led by Robert Kennedy Jr. Economic nationalist, pro-immigration, liberal on social-cultural issues and anti-interventionist.
Now... you have to admit. That would be an exciting election. And even more exciting would be the efforts to form post-election coalition. What's you favorite combinations? Liberal/Christian-Democrats? Green/Social-Democrats? Nationalists/Christian-Democrats? Liberal/Green/Social-Democrats? Christian-Democrats/Social-Democrats?
Comments
You bet! If only....
Your "Arnold" party will take in lots of low-skilled left-leaning immigrants, and thus quickly undermine any support for economic freedom. At any case Arnold and other soft libertarian types are never especially pro-market in practice, look at 3 billion socialist Stem cell initiative.
Sailer/Buchanan are economically pretty leftwing, they accept most populist "Oh the powerful rich are screwing the workers" rhetoric and world view. Paleos also seem to have a weakness for Al-Gore style environmental nonsense. Anyone read the last article in American Conservative about Global Warming? I almost puked.
Hagel is basically a leftist, AND wants more unskilled immigrants.
Put in a secular hardcore rightwing choice in there. Milton Friedman is unfortunately too old, let me suggest Newt Gingrich or Charles Murray as leader.
Yeah Steve!
But I don't know even a proximate position of his on many issues of importance. Then again, I'd just as soon he stays focused on what he does well.
I suspect a real American multi-party system (God speed the day) would have no more than three big centerish parties and a handful of smaller, more radical ones.
Its interesting that the people who do get nominated by both the Democrats or Republicans (and then get elected if their district and/or state trends their party's way) are the people who best paper over the differences between their respective party's financial base and electoral base.
If we had public financing of elections, the parties would have it easier-- Find the best looking guy who agrees with their electoral base.
It just reflects niche groups within the main two parties.
The dominant political belief in the United States is either Clinton Democrat or Bush/Cheney Republican.
Both CD and B/CR share most of their core beliefs though: globalization and outsourcing, internationalism and interventionism in foreign policy, Alan Greenspan style economics skewed to benefit the investment banking industry at the expense of labor or industrial production.
Basically, the only difference between the 2 major parties are subtle shifts in emphasis. For instance, the disagreement in the duopoly is not over substance, but over implementation. For example, Bush2's "unilateralism".
The Clinton Democrats definately support the projection of US power in protection of the "New World Order" of world government and international finance capitalism. They merely criticize the management of the project by Bush as inept and blundering.
I would agree however, that by temperament, the majority of Americans are skeptical of interventionism, nor do they like "free" trade (which like "free lunches" doesn't exist) and would prefer "fair trade" that protects US jobs and industries from Chinese "dumping"---which is what they are doing.
"Libertarianism" is missing. But on the other hand, most libertarians are not libertarians at all, but pimps for Wall Street or the CEO classes parading about with the flag of "freedom" wrapped around their necks.
For instance, the Libertarian Party is very divided on the "War on Terror", with half of them believing the US government is justified in military occupation of the world, to make it safe for international finance capitalism.
As a political force, true liberatarians are scarce, I'm afraid.
They don't fit the Arnold nor the Green. But they would draw alot of support.
Maybe not . Rather, maybe he would have cut a deal with Saddam - He would offer pull out the weapons inspectors outr of Iraq if Saddam agreed to provide him and other western lab with genetic DNA samples and IQ results from all the major Iraq tribes in the Mesopotamian phylogenetic tree. Then he would explain the cruel logic of the bell curve to Saddam as a way to coax him to make peace with Israel - the with money save, he would build a fence on the rio grande and then ask the UN Security Counsel to remake itself to include some of the better haplogroups that have been left out. After being impeached and hounded out of office - he can make a comeback as sports writer.
(The Lost Gospel of Jed Babbin)
Then Rumsfeld was led by the Old Spirits to the top of the Pentagon to be tempted by The Shinseki. After cancelling forty legacy weapons systems and closing forty cold war bases, Rumsfeld became politically insecure..
The Shinseki came to him and said unto him, 'If you leave my army and all my leftist Generals alone, I will make sure you are popular on Capitol Hill.'
Rumsfeld answered, “It is written: 'Rumsfeld does not live on popularity, but every word of praise that comes from conservative journals.'
Then The Shinseki took Rumsfeld downtown and had him stand on top of the Washington Monument. ”If you are truly the hero of the intellectuals,“ The Shinseki said, ” the jump off this Monument. For it is written: Midge Dector writes great obits.“
Rumsfeld answered him, ”It is also written: 'Do not put The Dector to the test - She may change her mind.'
Again, The Shinseki took Rumsfeld to the top of The Pentagon. “All of this will be yours,” The Shinseki said, “if you promise to leave me and other Clintonian Generals alone so we can slither about the hallways and sow dissent and division.”
Rumsfeld said, 'Away from me, Shinseki! For it is written: 'Defend the Consitution against all enemies, and remember that civilians are in charge!'
Then The Shinseki left Rumsfeld and the Conservative Pundits came to help Rumsfeld and repair his image.
“You were so gentle with The Shinseki,” said one genius pundit, “now that The Clintons have been banished can we promote some war fighter Generals?"
--
This is a reminder to include find a place for Rumsfeld in the next election.
hyundai dealers in st louis | birthday cards free | Triglycerides High | labor lawyers | ocean city nj hotels