The Commonwealth Party?

As a general rule, successful revolutions combine a vision of the future with an appeal to historic values.  In other words, they find the future in the past.

This was true when Martin Luther challenged the Catholic Church by going back to the text  of the Bible. 

It was true when American colonists declared their independence in words borrowed from John Locke, the intellectual champion of England's  Glorious Revolution of 1688.

It was true when Lincoln developed his justification of emancipation from the words of Jefferson's Declaration of Independence.

And when Martin Luther's namesake - Dr. King - made his case to white America using the selfsame words.

If America is to have a successful third party, it would do well to tie itself - in part, at least - to the great ideas and movements of our national past.  And if it wishes to make the starkest possible contrast with the dysfunctional politics of the present, it might well choose to call itself the Commonwealth Party.

The ideal of the "commonwealth" arose during the Tudor dynasty, and was a powerful part of the ideology of the Parliamentary side in the English Civil War.  Commonwealth thinking reached its greatest influence in the writings of John Locke, especially the Two Treatises of Government - originally written to justify the Exclusion Bill, but published after the Glorious Revolution of 1688.  Locke's Second Treatise was regarded as the definitive statement of English Whig philosophy.

The Commonwealth ideal enjoyed a powerful revival during the twelve years leading up to the American Revolution.  Locke's ideas and language form the core of Jefferson's Declaration of Independence.  The term "commonwealth" became part of the official names of three of the original thirteen states (Massachusetts, Virginia and Pennsylvania) and one later addition (Kentucky).

In simple terms, the ideal of the commonwealth seeks a balance between individualism and commitment to the greater good.  The logic is that of the social contract, by which individuals voluntarily band together in order to protect the right of each - and all - to pursue individual ideas of "happiness". 

Implicit in this ideal is the notion of equal opportunity, since few would choose to enter into a social contract which gave unfair advantage to others. 

In modern politics, a party founded upon commonwealth principles would offer a distinct alternative to the two major parties:  the Republicans, with their unabashed devotion to the interests of the rich and privileged; and the Democrats, a coalition of demographic and other interest groups primarily concerned with seeking advantage for their own members.

In offering an ideal of equal opportunity, equal justice, and equal sacrifice for common goals - balanced by a defense of individual freedom to pursue personal goals - a Commonwealth Party could appeal to both the libertarian and patriotic instincts of the American people, while offering a profound critique of the politics of special interests. 

While such a broad statement would hardly suffice to define an effective political party, it would offer a solid starting point.  The commonwealth ideal is part of the history of the nation - intimately connected with its founding.  In a single word, it says much about our individual pursuit of happiness, as we individually define it - and our mutual commitment to creating and preserving a great nation, and perhaps a world, in which that happiness can be pursued.

America needs to return to the ideal of the commonwealth.

Why not the Commonwealth Party?