If you've followed this blog for any length of time, I'll assume
you are at least interested in the idea of starting a third party dedicated to
serving the interests of all of us - the commonwealth
- as opposed to a randomly assorted
collection of special interests.
Right there, you've chosen to embrace a radical agenda, in
the original sense of the word radical,
which has to do with roots. (Think of "powers" in math, or, for
that matter, radishes.)
The Founders of the Republic - and English Protestants who
settled many of the original colonies - embraced the notion of the Commonwealth as one of the
fundamental, moral obligations of good citizenship. No one expected real, flesh-and-blood human beings
to ignore their own interests, but they did expect citizens to balance those interests with a decent
respect for the claims of society as a whole.
So I assume you are attracted to the notion of a
Commonwealth party.
In past posts, I've made the case that such a party would
embrace such values as defending the global environment; moving toward a more equitable
and sustainable economic system; curbing the power of corporate interests;
restoring the dignity of the individual; reducing the size of government by focusing
its energies on essential tasks; and insisting that government address its more
limited agenda with ample resources and a commitment to excellence.
I've assumed, too, that a commonwealth party would seek the support of politically aware
Americans who have been abandoned by the current two-party system. It would position itself, at least initially,
in the vast gap which has opened up over the last century in the space once
occupied by liberal-progressive, or "citizen" Republicans.
Assuming all these things, inevitable questions arise about running
candidates for public office. When a new
party does that, it runs the risk of defeating candidates who are "the
lesser of two evils" - which, at present, generally means Democrats.
Is it worthwhile starting a new party which will mainly help
candidates of today's ultra-conservative Republican Party? Isn't almost any Democrat better than almost
any Republican?
These are serious questions - no less serious for the fact
that the answer, to both, is "Of course not!"
To be sure, there are times when electing the lesser of two
evils is only common sense. But there
are also times when it would be preferable to demonstrate to the Democrats that
they cannot take for granted the votes of Americans who care deeply about
global climate change; or serious election reform; or curbing corporate power;
or restoring some balance to the distribution of wealth in our society; or designing
schools that actually educate our future generations.
And because all of these are issues on which most Democrats
provide, at best, lip service, there is a strong case for a new, progressive Commonwealth party.
So - if the goal is to build a third party within a
two-party world, while doing as little harm as possible to the causes its
members care about - where does one begin?
On this topic, I rather like the advice of Wee Willie
Keeler. Though the quote is sometimes
attributed to other baseball greats, it was Wee Willie - a turn-of-the-century
outfielder with a lifetime .385 batting average - who gave this shrewd counsel:
"Keep your eye clear, and hit 'em where they ain't."
By "they", Wee Willie was referring to the opposing
team's fielders, but the idea works well for a new party seeking to establish
itself in real-world politics.
First off, it works in the sense of running candidates for
offices where there is no Democrat in the field. Some of these are offices which are, by law, elected
on a non-party basis - or which seem, to most voters, to be non-partisan in
their essential function.
Most of these offices are local - the sort of offices a
professional politician would regard as "minor". But
such offices are often very important to a community's quality of life - and
they can be equally important in building a new party.
First, because these offices tend to be close to the voters,
the personality and reputation of a candidate is often more important than her
party label. Further, less money is
needed to create an image, since the candidate will be known - or become known
- to her constituents by personal contact.
Thus, an honest, intelligent candidate with constructive ideas and a
good reputation in the community will hardly be ignored merely because she is
connected with a third party.
Moreover, local offices are the essential training-ground
for candidates just becoming involved in politics. Campaigns for local office are a fine way to
introduce a promising young party leader who is destined for bigger things.
Curiously, local elections are also a fine opportunity for
older activists - including those who have no higher ambition - to make a
contribution. Campaigns build
organization, and a grey-haired candidate can do that as well as a rising star.
Either way, a third party would do well to focus a good deal
of its attention to identifying, grooming, and running candidates for local
governing bodies. Such campaigns are a
good way to introduce the third party to the public, without confronting voters
with the sort of life-or-death, "lesser of two evils" choices which
can arise in an election for President, governor, or US Senator.
They are also a fine way of developing a campaign
organization, identifying volunteers and contributors, and allowing leadership
to emerge in the arena of action - rather than the forum of mere talk.
The first way a new party can hit 'em where they ain't is to run candidates for local
office.
But there are many other ways a Commonwealth party can
follow Wee Willie's advice. We will
explore these shortly.
No comments:
Post a Comment