A Glimmer of Hope
This is not a political blog. It never has been, and it never will be. That being said, I recently learned about a political movement that I think would appeal to a lot of the folks who read this site. This weekend on The McLaughlin Group, John McLaughlin started talking about a web site called Unity08. I was intrigued by the premise, so I checked it out.
Unity08 believes that neither of today’s major parties reflects the aspirations, fears or will of the majority of Americans. Both have polarized and alienated the people. Both are unduly influenced by single-issue groups. Both are excessively dominated by money.
For most of the 20th Century, the contest for the U.S. presidency was waged over those “in the middle.” Recent Presidential elections, however, have not been focused on the middle but on the turnout of each party’s special interest groups — with each party’s “base” representing barely ten percent of the American people.
We believe that, while the leaders of both major parties are well intentioned people, they are trapped in a flawed system — and that the two major parties are today simply neither relevant to the issues and challenges of the 21st Century nor effective in addressing them.
As a result, most Americans have not been enthusiastic about the choices for President in recent elections, the key issues they ran on, or the manner in which the campaigns were conducted.
Therefore Unity08 will act to assure that an alternative ticket is presented to the American voters in 2008.
Now, I’m not naive. I know full well, as someone who once voted for Perot, that a third party probably doesn’t have a chance in hell. However, this is a different approach than any that has been taken before. You can go to this site right now and sign up as a delegate. Once you’re registered, you will be able to vote in an online primary to select a unity ticket to run for the presidency. ANYONE can be involved. As a result, I think there is a very good chance of ending up with a moderate, libertarian ticket that will finally appeal to the political middle of this country. That ticket may then be totally insignificant, but if it turns out not to be, I know I want a lot of atheists involved in selecting these candidates. You have little to lose and potentially much to gain by getting involved.
I played around with their “Dream Ticket” function, and created the button you see at the top of the right column. I’m not totally sure these are the people I’m going to vote for in the primary, but I think it’s an intriguing combination. There are also plenty of non-politicians to choose from. If the idea of voting for Bill Cosby and Lance Armstrong or Warren Buffett and Shaquille O’Neal appeals to you, you have that option.
I’m taking a wait and see attitude toward this whole thing at the moment, but if there is any sign over the coming months that this experiment could actually play a significant role in the next election, I plan to make the first political contribution of my life.
So, go take 20 seconds to sign up. You’re probably wasting your time, but you might help change the world.
~I AM~
June 6th, 2007 at at 8:46 pm
Unity ‘08 is a crapshoot. Since their ticket consists of a President/VP voted on as a unit, and must consist of one Republican and one Democrat, whichever party is at the top of the ticket will likely drain support from that party disproportionately.
Remember how Republicans were big donors to Nader’s Green Party run in 2000, and to Former Democrat Joe Lieberman’s 2006 Senate run against the real Democrat? If, for example, Lieberman tops the Unity ‘08 ticket, watch the Rebublicans pour money into that campaign - a vote for U08 would be one less vote for the Democrat. I estimate that Dems could not risk similar shenanigans against a “moderate” Republican at the top of the ticket, for fear of draining off their own support.
June 6th, 2007 at at 11:38 pm
I agree. Let’s stay with this system. It’s worked so well for us so far. Trying new things could only hurt s like Nader did to the Dems in 2000 and Perot for the Reps in 1992. Thus, let’s settle for this two-party system that represents the most extreme 20 percent of us. Perhaps at some point in the undetermined future, a group of activist people will provide some form of movement to change the system. Let’s just hope we realize this movement when it shows up.
… (satire is so mean. Sorry
)
June 7th, 2007 at at 4:59 am
Interesting idea, but I think I am more comfortable voting for someone with whose platform I agree rather than trying to bridge America’s cultural divide by voting for a combined Democrat-Republican ticket. There are many areas where I find myself in disagreement with most Democrats, but virtually no areas where I agree with Republicans.
What I’d really like to see is a secular candidate who extolled the virtues of science and reason. Such a person would never get elected, but at least voters might reflect on their superstition a bit.
June 7th, 2007 at at 9:12 am
First of all, thank you for posting about Unity08. I’d like to address a couple of issues that have been raised in the comments. The third party “spoiler” question is one that we must address often. It is easy to point to Nader and Perot in this instance, but you must also consider the state of the nation at the time those two ran. There has never been a time in this country, like now, when so many crucial issues are facing us. 2008 will be a moment of truth where the future health of the country is on the line and Americans will stand up and speak — like in 1860, when a third party candidate named Lincoln was elected president and saved the union — like when Eisenhower declared he was a Republican after both parties had been courting him, got elected, ended the conflict in Korea, and held ground during the Cold War. Unlike recent elections, most voters consider 2008 the most important election in their lifetime — and perhaps in the lifetime of their children as well. They will be ready to make effective change to end the paralysis in Washington.
Keep in mind that a Unity Ticket must consist of a strong President and VP that respect each other and are willing to work together. Which, in actuality, is a requirement for effective governing. There has rarely been a major piece of legislation passed without bipartisanship.
Anyhow, I appreciate the conversation and hope that you will join us, if even in a “join and see” stance!
June 7th, 2007 at at 3:54 pm
Bob Roth said, “Keep in mind that a Unity Ticket must consist of a strong President and VP that respect each other and are willing to work together.”
Good luck with that. Other than Senate tiebreaker, the VP has no power except that which the president chooses to give him. Whoever is at the top of the ticket has the vast majority of the power. Even assuming the theory of a right/left executive team is desirable (which I don’t), Unity ‘08 will still wind up with a nominee selected because of either money (equals name recognition), just like in the 2 party system, or shenanigans, neither of which adds anything to our sad politcal landscape.
Bob, do you know who first came up with the idea of U-08?
Pixel - I totally agree that the 2 party system stinks, but Unity ‘08 doesn’t fix it.
June 7th, 2007 at at 4:11 pm
When I say “strong,” I mean strong within their party, such that they can bring politicians to a place where they will at least converse with each other about the crucial issues… which would be better than the lack of communication that we have now. There was once a day when politicians had their families in DC, they were constantly in social situations together, and things progressed. Reagan and Tip used to get together for cigars, bourbon, and at the end of the night do a little red-lining. We need to find a way to get politicians from each side to start talking again. Maybe we should form the Bourbon Cigar Party?
The organization was founded by Democrats Hamilton Jordan and Gerald Rafshoon, Republican Doug Bailey, and former Maine Governor Independent Angus King. Each of them amazing men with a plethora of stories and passion for the movement and its potential success.
June 7th, 2007 at at 9:34 pm
Bob Roth, if someone sticks it to his party by running for office outside of it, doesn’t that make him a pariah in his former party, forfeiting whatever strength he had?
June 7th, 2007 at at 9:47 pm
op,
I completely understand how you feel. Heck, after the past dozen elections, I find that politicians end up pandering to the lowest common denominator of the country’s memetic culture. Tall poppy seed syndrome or the lesser of the evils it is sometimes called. I prefer to think of it as the mediocre candidate rising to the top :-).
The solution, if it can be called that, is to realize how useless it is to fight this battle. We’ve been beaten down again and again. You’d think we’d realize that it’s not going to change by now. I call it Battered Voter’s Syndrome. The solution is to worry about local politics first. National issues will only follow when local politics are solid.
Those are my two cents. Your objections to Unity’08 are good ones (and potentially damning to the whole concept), but I’m an optimist and I’ll refrain from judging it until it’s had it’s fair shot at the big time.
June 8th, 2007 at at 12:14 am
op99 says, “If someone sticks it to his party by running for office outside of it, doesn’t that make him a pariah in his former party, forfeiting whatever strength he had?”
It is an interesting comment, because it assumes that the parties have a solid base. What if the parties have a hollow base? Consider this for a second, because I know both parties are considering it… what if Obama doesn’t get the Dem nod in the primary? And, since we are really waxing philosophical, what if Obama teams up with a prominent Repub up-and-comer like Huckabee who is starting to gain momentum? This may be an aside, but there are more registered Independents right now than there are Repubs or Dems… if one could find a strong ticket that picked up a percentage of Dems, Indeps, and Repubs… well then, we have a ball game, don’t we?
June 8th, 2007 at at 7:56 am
Bob, I was referring to the president having political leverage in Congress to advance her/his national agenda, not just getting elected. At last count, there were only 2 independents in the Senate, for example. The rest are all Democrats and Republicans.
Say Chuck Hagel was the U08 Pres, and was trying to get some piece of compromise legislation passed, which the Republicans had problems with. Hagel can’t twist arms in Congress the way Bush can now (or could earlier in his tenure) - Hagel’s not a Republican anymore (in this example).
June 8th, 2007 at at 9:27 am
This is what I like about it, the fact that we can have this type of conversation! The premise of Unity08 is that the P & VP are largely following a national agenda that has been dictated by the delegation. The people vote on the most important issues and how to resolve them. The people will then nominate the team (who have also proposed cabinet members in a few key positions) to pursue the agenda together. Speaking of Hagel, did you see the Bloomberg/Hagel rumors in the news a few weeks ago?