A New Beginning

I have been plugging away at this blog for a number of years, now, without reaching a widespread audience.  To be sure, I haven't tried that hard.  Until last year, I had my newspaper column in the Village News - a hyper-local paper, to be sure, but one which reached thousands of people who were my actual neighbors.  In eleven years, I think I managed to penetrate the thick layers of habitual Republicanism in the Chester (Virginia) area - at least a little.

But now, I want very much to reach a wider audience with the core message of this blog - which is that America desperately needs a third party.  Not a third party of the left or right.  And not, as many would urge, a third party committed to some vague, ever-shifting notion of "the center".

A party committed to the greater good, to principled citizenship.  A party of people who put the public interest, if not absolutely first, at least somewhat ahead of their own personal interests or the interests of whatever demographic group they happen to fall into.

A party dedicated to what the Founders called "the general welfare" or, in term I love, "the Commonwealth".

My reasons for advocating a third party are of long standing.  Having grown up in a political family, I have been involved in politics since my childhood.  (I first worked the polls as a nine-year-old, helping my Dad hand out literature for a congressional candidate in the early morning hours of November 8, 1960 - the day JFK defeated Richard Nixon for the presidency.)

I grew up a Democrat, because my parents were moderately conservative, Southern Democrats.  My Dad served as Attorney General of Virginia and, for eighteen years, in the Virginia General Assembly.  But when I came of age, I realized that I was not, at heart, a Democrat.  The Democratic Party seemed to me too much an awkward coalition of ill-sorted groups, held together with duct tape and bailing twine.

The Republican Party - and, specifically the moderate-to-liberal "citizen" wing of the Republican Party - seemed to me far more appealing.  So I joined the Republicans, working in the inner circle of John Warner's 1978 campaign for the US Senate (against a hard-core right-winger, Dick Obenshain).  I was even appointed to a political office - Secretary of the Commonwealth of Virginia - by Republican Governor John Dalton.

But my days as a Republican lasted only briefly.  With the nomination of Ronald Reagan, it became clear to me that the GOP had been transformed in its essentials, overwhelmed by a flood of refugees from the Democratic Party - Southern segregationists hostile to civil rights and Southern and Midwestern evangelicals horrified by Roe v. Wade.

The "citizen wing" of the Republican Party was swept away by this tide.  The GOP became, in effect, a second Democratic Party - another coalition of aggrieved demographic groups - losing all touch with its original commitment to the national, general welfare.

I became politically homeless.

Over the years, disgusted with what my former party had become, I tried to reconcile myself with the Democratic Party.  But the things which frustrated me in my twenties continued to trouble me as I matured.

The Democratic Party remained what it has been since its founding.  Whether you trace it back to Andrew Jackson or to Thomas Jefferson, the Democratic Party has always been a lose coalition of demographic groups and special interests, held together - whenever possible - by one charismatic leader.  Over the years, it has occasionally stood for worthwhile causes, but none so central as the cause of winning the next election.

Its preference for charismatic leadership has assured that the "next election" that mattered most was the presidential election - which is why Democrats have seldom made full use of legislative power.

And, since the Republican Party had become, in my judgment, a second, right-wing version of the Democratic model, I had nowhere to go.

So I became a reluctant independent.  Occasionally, I supported a maverick in one party or the other - Gary Hart in 1984, John McCain in 2000, Howard Dean in 2004, Bernie Sanders in 2016.  In 1984, I actually presided over the Hart caucus at the Virginia Democratic Convention.  In 2003, I spent my Christmas vacation in Manchester, New Hampshire, knocking on doors for Howard Dean.

But I remained essentially homeless.  And I sensed that millions of other Americans felt the same way.

In ordinary times, I would probably have been content to remain where I am - without a political home, but free to lend my energies, skills and experience to the occasional maverick.  Nearing 66, I could certainly get away with living out my life as an eccentric political curmudgeon.

My problem is climate change - what I call AGW (anthropogenic global warming).  I take climate change seriously - seriously enough that, earlier this month, I flew to Denver for three days of intensive training with Al Gore and his organization, Climate Reality.  Now, as a duly accredited Climate Reality leader, I am tasked with spreading the word through local presentations of Mr. Gore's justly famous "slide show".  I'm looking forward to that.

But my concern is this:  In Denver, I met many of the 950 other volunteers there for the training.  Nearly all were Democrats, or independents who reliably vote Democratic.  And that worries me.

Because I don't trust the Democratic Party to get the job done when it comes to saving the planet from AGW.

A party built as a coalition of special interests isn't well-designed to put an issue of the greater good high on its agenda.

A party which clings to its ties with big-money contributors, big-city machines, and old political dynasties isn't likely to break with the corporate or political Establishment on energy policy.

A party identified primarily with an agenda focused on racial, gender, immigrant, and other identity issues is not well-positioned to advocate a cause which requires the united commitment of the great majority of the American people if it is to succeed.

A party built largely on rewarding its member constituencies will never be comfortable with calling for sacrifice for the common good.

I don't trust the Democrats to get the job done, and clearly, no one in his or her right mind can trust the Republicans, who seem to live in an alternate world which could only be called "reality" in the sense of "reality television".

So the answer, by default, is a third party - a party of the general welfare, of the Commonwealth.  A party in the tradition of Hamilton, Clay, Lincoln, and the greatest of all American environmentalists, Teddy Roosevelt.

Establishing that third party is the program of this blog.  I will try, very hard, to post more regularly.  I invite you to read and share anything I post here - as well as my old posts.

I welcome your comments.

Climate Change and a Third Party

In terms of present-day American politics, it seems clear that progress toward combatting climate change, at the Federal or international level, has come to depend almost entirely upon the Democratic Party.

One need only glance at the willingness of Senate Republicans to confirm nominees like Rick Perry for Secretary of Energy and Scott Pruitt for head of the EPA - or the lack of outcry from either the Senate or House majorities at proposed cuts to the EPA's funding - to understand how entirely the modern Republican Party has become unreliable as a steward of the environment.  Or really, as being on the side of planetary survival.

Curiously, however, the Republican Party's official obtuseness on AGW does not mean the Democratic Party can be counted on to step up on climate change.  To begin with, as our two-party system is currently configured, each party relies less on visionary leadership than on fear-mongering.
Consider the Election of 2016.  Both parties nominated severely flawed candidates.  To be sure, Hillary Clinton offered an impressive resume, while Donald Trump was, by historical standards, one of the most unqualified candidates ever offered by a major American political party.  That said, Mrs. Clinton was disliked or distrusted by nearly half of the electorate - nearly as many as disliked or distrusted Mr. Trump.

The strategies of both parties came down to, "Vote for us.  The other candidate is far worse."

And indeed, at the presidential level - and increasingly, at all levels - this gun-to-the-head approach has become the default strategy of each major party.  Each party in the American two-party system relies on a form of fairly primitive blackmail, and the result is that neither has much incentive to lead.  What matters is to be measurably less dreadful than the opposite party on enough issues of importance to the decisive groups of uncommitted, undecided, or uninformed who decide elections.

Now that, in itself, would be bad enough.  A party committed to a strategy of being not quite as objectionable as the other party has little incentive to lead.

But on the issue of climate change, the problem is multiplied by the fact that the issue is not rated highly by most voters.  In other words, since climate change is not an issue most voters understand to be vital, there is no particular reason for the Democratic Party to raise the visibility of the issue in any election campaign - i.e., no reason to engage in educating the public.  From a practical standpoint, Democrats need only campaign by means of targeted messages to identified environmental voters - without making climate change a major issue before the broader public.

And this is even more true as the Republican Party has grown so extreme on the issue that the Democrats really need say almost nothing - even to pro-environment voters - to assure themselves of those voters' support.

To sum up, then, the realities of the two-party system dictate that the only party with a sane position on climate change has little or no practical incentive to adopt an aggressive stance on this issue - and every reason to keep its advocacy on the "down-low", whispering encouragement to identified environmental voters, but doing nothing to risk alienating voters for whom climate change is not yet a major issue.

Now, to be sure, organizations such as Climate Reality (to which I belong), the Sierra Club, and 350.org can do something to raise consciousness about climate change - gradually moving the issue up from its current place on Americans' list of priorities.  But we live in times when a plethora of issues must compete for public attention.  The educational efforts of climate groups can hardly compete with the sort of media coverage and citizen attention accorded to candidates and parties during an election campaign.

Which is why third party with a strong stance on climate change makes sense.  It could run candidates for office, thus claiming voters' attention when it is most available.

But wouldn't this be the Green Party, one asks?

Hardly.  For all its efforts, the Green Party is essentially a party of the Left, competing directly with the Democratic Party for the votes of those who don't regard the Democrats as liberal enough.  We've seen the results of that.

What's needed is an environmentally-aware party closer to the center - a party informed by the Progressive Republicanism we might associate with Teddy Roosevelt.  Such a party could compete, not just for voters who usually - if reluctantly - vote Democratic, but also for voters who usually - often disgustedly - vote Republican.

I'll elaborate on this theme in future posts.  For now, the important point is to understand why the Democratic Party is not a safe repository for the hopes of those who are committed to doing something serious about climate change.

The Democrats might come to this someday, but by then, it could well be too late.  For the present, the realities of two-party politics give them little incentive to embrace this issue - and many reasons to avoid it.

After Denver

After attending Climate Reality's three-day leadership training in Denver, I have a certificate, a green lapel pin, a few new friends, a dozen or so friendly acquaintances - and a much greater commitment to becoming active in the cause of combatting AGW.

AGW.  Anthropogenic Global Warming.  My choice of terms, not anything official from Climate Reality.

Because, while I have taken the training and signed on with the organization to spread its message, I've never been much of an "organization man".  Climate Reality is an impressive group, as is - I can now say - its founder and chairman, Al Gore.

But I'm still my own man.  Always will be.

But about Al Gore.  The Denver event was Al Gore's event.  I'd expected him to give a welcome address and drop in occasionally to cheer us on.  Not a bit of it.  Of all the speakers, teachers, and panelists we heard over our three-day training, Al Gore shouldered the greatest part of the burden.  He did give a welcoming address, as well as a moving "commencement" speech at the end.  He also chaired several panel discussions.

But the main thing he did was to train us in adapting and presenting of own versions of his famous, and constantly updated, "slide show" - the original of which was featured in the film that won him the Nobel Prize, An Inconvenient Truth.  

Mr. Gore has built a sophisticated organization around this slide show, which has trained some 11,000 volunteers to spread the word about Climate Change, and is rapidly ramping-up its operation.  There were just under 1000 of us at Denver, culled from nearly three thousand who applied to attend.

Two more training sessions will be held in 2017.  The effort is global.  Climate Reality is an impressive organization.

I came away from the Denver training with two main thoughts.  First, I want to do my part as a Climate Reality "leader" - essentially, as a teacher and public speaker.  I want to present a personalized version of the "slide show" - which is what we're mainly asked to do - to as many groups as possible in my part of Virginia.

But second, I want to work outside Climate Reality on the one thing I believe will do the most good - building a third party of the progressive center.

This, in truth, has long been my hope for America.  At the Denver training, as I expected, an overwhelming majority of the attendees were Democrats, or at least, outspokenly anti-Republican.  It would be fair to guess that an overwhelming majority were politically liberal.

For sure, most of them looked at the issue of combatting climate change as a partisan, left-vs.-right battle.

And I don't.

I can readily agree with my fellow Climate Reality members that Donald Trump's administration will be a disaster for America's role in the struggle to maintain a livable planet.

I just don't agree that electing Hillary Clinton would have been a great deal better.  Eight years of Barrack Obama got us a little closer to doing something real about AGW.  Mr. Obama certainly said the right things, and there were some important executive actions - if mostly too little, too late, and too easily reversed by his successor.

But the problem is, the climate fight has become bogged down in partisan trench-warfare.  Democrats embrace the issue of climate change, so Republicans feel obliged to deny its reality, or its urgency.  And that leads to Congressional gridlock.

But not even the Democrats place the issue high on their list of priorities.  Maintaining entitlements, better pay for teachers, equal pay for women, abortion rights, child care, blue-on-black violence, tax breaks for the middle class, infrastructure projects, and a half-dozen other issues - all demanded by one or another of the Democratic Party's constituent tribes - outweigh doing something about a planet which is rapidly warming to a point where really bad things will happen to us all.

And keep happening for centuries, because irreversible processes will have been set in motion.

Now, I don't for a minute believe that America's political paralysis will doom the planet.  Other countries - less troubled by corporate-funded denialism - are moving forward rapidly on this issue.  As are many American cities, a handful of states, and more than a few forward-looking corporations.

We will - as Al Gore believes and argues - save the planet.   The rapid pace of technological change, coupled with market forces and the leadership of the EU (especially Germany and the Scandinavian nations), many developing nations (which will skip right over the fossil fuel stage), and China, will likely save the day.

But in the process, America will cease to lead the world - politically and economically.  We will fall behind, yielding our place of prominence to those who offer real solutions to a grave existential problem.

History works that way.

For me, the answer has long been a new party.  A distinctly nationalistic party, embracing American exceptionalism and American leadership in the world.  A party that sees leadership on AGW as both a noble cause and as an opportunity to extend this nation's influence - for the good - for another half-century or more.

I'll keep writing about this.  And presenting the Climate Reality slide show.  Because to me, the two things go together.

We'll probably survive America's partisan political gridlock.  Just not as the world's leader.

And that shouldn't be.