Special Interest Gripes

I think there exists three opposing viewpoints about the concentration of power in American government.

1. Some say that the people have the voice with thier one vote. Uh huh. Don't think so about that one.

2. Others will point to the dangers of special interest groups, businesses who influence the representative governmental process
through legalized bribes. Cmon. Let's just call it like it is, folks.

3. The third group, consisting of conspiracy theorists that admittedly have valid observations, will say that the majority of power is concentrated in the hands of a few super powerful leaders on the uper crust of the economic/ social pie.

So which viewpoint is more correct? They cannot be reconciled can they? The power either belongs to the people, some people's interest groups, or the elite.

First of all, the daisy-picker's choice of the "people's government" has to go. Sorry, it is just avoiding too much evidence to the contrary. Number 1, leave the bridge.

Choice number two. Functionalist would say that pluralism, a diffusion of power among many differnet interest groups, serves as a check and balance on any one group's power. Meaning, at least the people will not be dominated by one group. Gee, thanks.

Number three is C Wright Mill's power elite, the top Corporate, Political, and Military minds that control our nation's destiny.

I believe at the middle level, the interest groups prevail (Farming and small business and such).
But the really important decisions, the wars, continental mergers, and other world-shaking matters, are decided by our suit-wearing friends at the top.

What do you think? 1, 2, or 3?

Ralph Nader: A serious contender this time around?

The Green Party's Ralph Nader is running again. Do you think he will do better or worse than the last time around? Will Democrats jump ship to vote Nader?

Independents are stupid.

Put not so bluntly, this is basically the statement that I have heard from late night radio's Jim Bohannon. He said that the elitist rogue status that has become synonymous with the "Independent" affiliation is largely misplaced. Basically, if Independents had principles or more knowledge then they wouldn't be Independents. They would be Biparty (Republican-Democrat) members.

What do you think about these sentiments?

Do you agree?

As for myself, I am Independent BECAUSE I HAVE PRINCIPLES.

A Unity pick: Obama and Bloomberg

New York's Mayor Mike Bloomberg is an American businessman and philanthropist. He gained his vast wealth as the founder of Bloomberg LP. He became mayor, first as a Democrat, then as a Republican, and I believe he is now simply Independent. This biparty history combined with his prominence made Mr. Bloomberg a much debated upon likely candidate for the Unity08 ticket. The founders of the currently disbanded third party had made mention of Unity's thought contribution to his possible independent run for the Oval office. Whether or not Unity members carried much weight in the titan's opinion is a mute point with members recognizing early on that our need for a strong candidate was much larger than the billionaire's need for our online third party. He has opted not to run anyway. He ended speculation on the matter in a February 2008 New York Times piece where he was quoted, "I listened carefully to those who encouraged me to run, but I am not — and will not be — a candidate for president."

He originally showed interest in running with Barack Obama as his veep, but now with Barack's strong takeover of the Democratic party some have whispered of a Vice President Bloomberg to a President Obama. What do you think? Do you even like Bloomberg?

The biggest problems for third parties.

There are many problems that have plagued any party attempting to usurp the bipartisan throne.

The Balkanization of the party is a big problem. One only need take a quick look at the Reform or Green parties to find more splinter groups and sub divisions than the modern church. For whatever reason (or reasons I should say) once a significant amount of party members hear some news that they find unacceptable, they jump ship and start sailing off with part of the crew.

Money. When you have gone past the money thing, you have gone too far. That being said, a rich candidate definitely does not equal an elected official (Howard Dean among many others) but it doesn't hurt. It definitely did not hurt Ross Perot's candidacy.

Some of the most successful (on a large scale) third parties are the ones that have the 800 pound gorilla in their corner. Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, and Pat Buchanan come to mind. A strong candidate to rally supporters has proven to really benefit the third party, in presidential elections anyway. This leads to my last point.

The biggest problem that third party candidates face is the unavoidable media exposure they will be denied. The biparty has an absolute monopoly on the media. Unless the presumptive third party upstart can gather the billions in funds that it takes to shove himself into the media spotlight, he would be hard pressed to make a dent in any election. This is something that I believe will change.

Increasingly the internet is being viewed as a viable source of news and other information. This is great news for all third parties that are savvy enough to take advantage of it. Whereas the typical TV and newspaper media outlets are inaccessible except to the power elites, the internet is the level playing field that the third party has always needed.

It carries one other benefit along with it. With thousands of different voices from blogs to "reliable, traditional" news sources, the internet is a mass of tangled opinions and facts. Though some might say this is a negative, I view things in a different light. From it's kooky shifty lies to it's cold hard facts the world wide web cannot be trusted in all of it's content. The reader knows this and to counteract this unfortunate eventuality he must learn and master a forgotten art.

He must think for himself.

Besides, who reads more than bloggers? Who sifts through more information both good and bad? We are the future and as soon as we can unite effectively, life as the corrupt selfish politician has known is over. We are too informed to fall for the status quo.

Mr. Obama, come on down.

Many will recognize the Democratic entity that Barack Hussein Obama has become. With all the hype and superstar status that surrounds the Senator, it is easy to forget that his vault into the public eye was relatively sudden by most front runner standards. He has failed to "pay his dues" in the eyes of some old Democratic leaders (ahem...Hillary). But what element was it that served as the rocket fuel to his preschool presidential aspirations and had him landing on the moon in his current position as the Democratic front runner.
Of course Senator Obama's charisma and speaking skills have played a central part in his campaign. But also something else. In my opinion, with the exception of maybe Ron Paul, Obama was the first to truly maximize the internet's potential in a political race. His connection to the people through the internet not only funded his campaign with millions of dollars in mostly small donations but also gave him the appearance of being the people's choice. It gave him the solid base to gather up enough momentum to take the Democratic party and the rest of America by storm.

Now, let it be said that I am not an Obama supporter. But, one must recognize the effectiveness of his strategies, especially his ability to connect with the people in the way that he has. Like him or not, a lot of people dig him. This effective use of the internet is a brilliant, and I would argue, necessary strategy for the modern third party. If third parties want to truly become players in this modern political arena, they must learn to create online coalitions and grassroots movements to raise funds, sign petitions, and gather voter support.

Unity 08 had the right idea. The online third party gathered a significant amount of members and money before it went the way of the Giuliani. The party's biggest flaw, in this humble author's opinion, was the shoot for the stars mentality. A presidential race to serve as the party's launch pad? Shouldn't a grassroots movement be built from the ground up? What do you think?

For more on online third parties and my own grassroots petition check out earlier posts.

Why are they called "parties"?

You ever wonder how so much of our tax dollars gets spent and how so little gets accomplished? Congress spends days "debating" on legislation that they have already been assured would get the veto. Then they will deliberate a few more weeks about the correct phrasing of an "economic stimulus package." At least Bush gets things done.

By done I mean an increased federal deficit and crippling of our economy.

Some say the paralyzation of modern politics is due to extreme bipartisan hate. If Bush happened to stumble upon a semi intelligent thought Congress would immediately denounce it solely based upon the fact that the thought came from their arch enemy and his Administration. There is also this to consider.

Have you ever worked with someone who was content to waste the company's time performing a boss-ordered duty at an incredibly slow pace. This slovenly co-worker had discovered that finished work only leads to more work to finish. Why work so hard when you can receive the same benefits from not working hard?

And this leads us to the modern political "party." The only thing that would force these political ravers to roll up their sleeves and get back to work is the boss looming over their collective shoulders threatening them with a few hundred pink slips.

So where is the boss?

Who is the boss?

That would be you and me. Lets start handing out those pink slips.