March 4, 2009
Politics are in my blood. My maternal grandparents were active and vocal supporters of Eric Williams and the venerable PNM Party in Trinidad & Tobago. I was raised in a home where political debate and argument was an integral part of family discourse. I knew my wife and I were meant to be when I visited her in Los Angeles and realized that her African-American family values literacy and political awareness as much as my Afro-Caribbean family does. (Funny – the things that ultimately become important)
All that said, I am neither a registered Republican nor Democrat but an independent, currently unaligned citizen. I am too cynical about individual politicians to be a political party loyalist the way my grandparents were. More than my cynicism, the tepid inadequacy of the American political parties is keeping me staunchly independent.
The Republican and Democratic parties are essentially shodows of each other. They typically stake out opposing positions on key issues ranging from taxes to reproductive rights and education reform to military spending. They engage in expensive and elaborate public debates on the issues, touting their programs and prescriptions while deriding their opponent’s. In the end, a lukewarm remedy is typically enacted that is the product of genuine compromise and/or outright deal making.
My major gripe is not with the process by which our two major parties ultimately arrive at solutions. The alternatives of governing by military coup or institutional bribery are wholly unattractive. My beef is with the generic set of ideas and suggestions that get placed on the table at the beginning of the debate.
Both parties are constantly pandering to the imaginary “center” of American politics. They yearn for the approval of those Americans in Ohio, Indiana and elsewhere who apparently look like Ward and June Cleaver and supposedly personify the core attitudes, values and opinions of America. Never mind that more Americans live in San Francisco and New York City than in some states in the Union.
When the Patriot Act was “debated” and passed under the cover of darkness, both parties, with the exception of Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, avoided any real discussion of the bill and the tremendous powers it was conferring to President Bush. In fact, Congresswoman McKinney was subsquently redistricted out of Congress for her temerity.
The ongoing debate on the troublesome banking system focuses on middle of the road regulation tinkering and has not honestly explored more radical programs of nationalization that have actually worked extremely well for countries like Sweden.
The entire country would be served by the creation of at least one other major party culled “extreme” wings of both parties. A culturally conservative and fiscally progressive party might stand a chance…
Whatever the permutation, more ideas need to see the light of day on a national stage. If more “fringe” or “radical” economists had been given a fair hearing, these banks might not have gotten so far up the block with our cash… And those tree hugging libertarians appeared clairvoyant after we found out that the NSA was eavesdropping on us… all of us.
Even if elections for President stay dominated by the two major parties, municipal congressional elections need more variety. There are more than two valid opinions on every subject in American political life and its time our representative government expand its horizons and embrace the complexity of ideas that a free society like this one supposedly encourages.
All in favor of a political party who will push both Democrats and Republicans to get to work…
A. Baraka Scott (… brother from another)