I think one of the reasons that the Republicans pose as such stronger political front that Democrats (in terms of achieving policy objectives) is because what they support is largely maintaining and enhancing the existing hierarchies of wealth, power, and prestige, while Democrats are against that, however there are far fewer ways to be in favor of it than there are of being against it.

So, for example, Republicans don’t split over, say, health care reform: they’re against it and there’s only one way to be against it so they all pretty much vote that way. However, once you decide you want reform, there are many ways to go about reforming the system, and thus Democrats split preferences among these ways and correspondingly lose political power.

But, the Democrats are at least somewhat united, insofar as they tend to have a certain direction they would like to push the existing hierarchies. A “no label” platform — if truly independent of such ideologies — would likewise be truly powerless against these political fronts. It’s unfortunate, but I think that’s the way things are.

Instead of allowing our politicians to assert “plan A is the best solution to problem A” I’d like to see, “we’ve agreed plans A, B, C and D are the most promising, so we’re going to implement each one in a scaled down trial to better understand the strengths, weakness, and unforeseen consequences of each plan. Afterward we can return and determine the best mix of these plans to achieve the results we desire.”

Of course the main flaw with this is that we can’t even agree on what outcome is most desirable! (You’d figure that’d be a no-brainer in some cases—as we’ve seen with evolution, even the most well established facts can be debated.) A lot of the debate stems from the anti-intellectual attitudes so popular in our country, and the attitude that our voices are (or should be) all equal, rather than weighted by expertise. (I think this will resolve itself in the next 40 years as China soars past us—they seem to hold intelligence & education in high esteem.)

It bothers me that we argue over the same left and right positions on economics, education, international policy, healthcare, arms control, etc., and very few of us are happy with the results of any of those systems. So let’s get experimenting already!

And not a shred of explanation exactly, precisely, W-H-Y.

Most of us are on to you though, so don’t bother to overdo what you already find so easily overdone. (sniff…hmmm, yep, it’s way past digestible by now, unless you like the common flavor of burnt soot).

The rest of us rather like to wallow within some semblance of dynamic organic freedom exposed to any chemical challenges without ever needing – EVER – to arrive at an idiotic stability in the form of soot.

I’m just trying to figure out how the clarity can be neglected for so long and that it apparently needs to be triggered by the likes of Bloomberg in the first place.

Never mind: anything that provides the necessary charge separation to provoke the lightning is okay in my book….

Those words should be enshrined in every quotation archive…under a heading of ‘common sense’ and ‘ethics’ as well as ‘politics’.

—

“Politics has a bad reputation. People don’t like it. You see family members saying silly things and then getting overly emotional about their commitments. There is an appealing fantasy that we could just learn to work together and get along, and then all of our problems would be solve[d].

“But at the end of the day, the marginal rate of the top tax bracket has to be a certain number. There is or is not a public option for health insurance. We do or do not invade Iraq. People disagree about these issues. And politics is the way we make decisions in the face of those disagreements. Pretending otherwise is not principled, it’s wankery.

“Politics might be distasteful, but it’s necessary, and taking it seriously is a virtue. Pretending to float above it all is not.”

—

That is superb….because it is absolutely correct.

@17. Toiski, we need multi-vote districts, where each district has, say 5 votes in the legislature, and those votes are given proprotionately to the candidates. It’s like proportional representation, but it goes by individuals instead of parties, and keeps local geography important.

The Lib Dems constantly trim their sails according to what they perceive will be slightly more popular policies, but have always seemed to have no coherent set of policies besides promising anything they think will get them into office (as today’s students are finding out in relation to student loans).

Many Lib Dems seem to relish all the “politicking”, regardless of their success at the ballot box, and one sometimes wonders if they don’t really prefer sniping from the sidelines and all the procedure more than actually winning seats! But on the rare occasions they do scent victory, they are notoriously sneaky and dirty fighters behind the scenes.

The Lib Dems do have one unshakeably firm policy though – They are obsessed to the point of madness with proportional representation (as opposed to the UK’s current First Past the Post system). But again, this is only to further their aim of attaining office in larger numbers and staying there.

In short, that is what to expect from this No Labels mob.

The two aren’t mutually exclusive. Of course the issues matter, but disputes about issues can’t be resolved without some sort of viable process. If you’ve got a process that guarantees a null zone of possible agreement on all issues, then nothing is going to get done, ever. That’s pretty much where we are today, which is great when nothing needs a political resolution, but not so good when inaction no longer promotes the common weal.

Now, I agree that some fatuous, Rodney King-like whine isn’t really going to do much, but you’ve cast the problem in such a way as to guarantee a null ZOPA forever. There **isn’t** just one number for the top marginal rate–there’s a range, from which one number has to be negotiated. The public option is only one of a range of solutions to health insurance. On invading Iraq, you’re right–but that’s why we have a constitutionally-mandated executive.

And the problem isn’t just that the Right and the Left say nasty things about each other in public. The problem is that they don’t talk at all, even in private. If there are party dynamics that are preventing that, they need to be fixed. On the other hand, if it’s just that everybody’s fallen into bad habits–which is what I suspect–then they need to get over themselves.

It used to be routine to have a ton of cross-party negotiation in bipartisan US government. The Civil Rights Act are one clear canonical example where regional splits swamped the signal from any partisan divide. But in coalition-based parliamentary government, the minority is even weaker than it is in the US system–an opposition party’s main role is to make the PM look stupid during Question time.

And, if no single party gets a majority of seats, all power, including who the executive is, is alloted in backroom deals between party leaders. It’s a tradeoff between choice at the ballot box and control over the outcome.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/09/you-vs-corporations/

So if there is any place where Michael Bloomberg and other corporate elites are located on the political spectrum, it is in the Middle. And because corporate elitists across all sectors of the economy are masters at manipulating us plebs, then it is the Manipulative Middle, not the Extreme Right or Extreme Left, that is the enemy of the people. Unless you didn’t already know by now, the Manipulative Middle is not only occupied by the corporate likes of Michael Bloomberg, but also by most, if not all, of our political leaders from both sides of the aisle, including all of our neocon/neolib spin doctors from K Street, and all of our banksters and war profiteers from Wall Street and the Pentagon.

Given this reality, I can’t complain about something like No Labels. Even if it’s pointless in the end. The belief that people should drop party labels, run for office based on what they believe rather than a party platform, and the people should vote the same way is something I can applaud. That’s how a representative system is supposed to work. It’s pointless though because as people group together under a common ideology, they gain power. Individuals have no chance to compete unless they form their own groups and even if you somehow reset everything, political parties would form again.

I think the only comprehensive solution would be to march all the “professional politicians” out of DC and into Virginia like they did with the DC hookers a few years back.

Re: http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1989-07-26/news/8907264884_1_northern-virginia-virginia-sign-photographer