Ever hear of Lateral Thinking? It's a problem-solving method of using non-conventional or unorthodox means to solve an otherwise intractable problem. Where logic fails, you apply some illogical method that most people wouldn't see coming.
An example would be the legend of Alexander the Great confronting the problem of the Gordian Knot. Where most everyone else tried to physically untie the knot, Alexander cut it with his sword. It may seem like cheating, but it wasn't against the rules. It symbolized how Alexander would conquer Persia/Middle East with the sword.
A modern-day Gordian Knot is the whole Middle East itself: war-ravaged, divided, tribalistic... if there's been a solution to stopping the ongoing violence that has plagued the region since, well, ever, no one's found it yet.
Part of the problem is that each region has its own internal issues that forces external politics to react disproportionately... and reverberates against every other problematic nation within shouting (or shooting) distance. You've got 20 Gordian Knots adding up to one big Knot... and there's not a big enough sword to cut them all, not all at once.
For the United States, tied into the Middle East due to our alliances to various nations in the region (Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Libya) - and our opposition to other nations such as Iran and Syria - we're coping with the disastrous civil war in Syria by trying to enforce the unenforceable. Syria is one of the nations with a sizable chemical weapons stockpile, and there's been recent usage of chemical weapons that's killing/wounding hundreds of civilians caught in the cross-fire of the civil war. Obama tried earlier to push a "red line" stance on the use of chemicals... but now that they've been used, Obama's finding himself in almost no position to enforce it.
The standard response to what's happened in Syria is a "surgical" or tactical strike against key Syrian government targets, usually buildings that we plan to have as few people in them as possible when the missiles/bombs hit. However, this most likely won't discourage Assad or his allies: it may actually make them react in the worst way.
Troubling Obama is the fact that this time the United States doesn't have many allies lining up to back any such strike. The British Parliament voted against it. NATO (outside of France, who will only provide political cover and not much else) is reportedly not in favor either. There hasn't been an attempt to take this to the UN for a resolution, since the odds are Russia (Syria's biggest ally) and China will not play along. It's gotten to where the only way Obama can get any political cover for striking Syria is by taking this to Congress to get a vote on a "limited military action", which he's kinda supposed to do under the War Powers Act but is something most Presidents haven't done in what seems like ages (or at least since the first Persian Gulf War in 1991).
Worst of all: most Americans do not want to get involved in Syria. And it's not just the Far Right population opposing Obama's stance on Syria simply on principle (of hating Obama). And even in the face of the growing humanitarian disaster that is the refugee crisis. We've been burned out by 10-plus years of unending wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Getting lied to by Cheney and Bush the Lesser about Saddam's WMDs is affecting the national mood. If Congress votes No on Syria - and after my earlier contention that Congress might go along, there's signs now that the Far Right might not give Obama this - Obama will have no political cover to push for a strike. He could still order it - the War Powers has yet to be constitutionally upheld, and it's in a grey area at best - but Obama would be held responsible on both the national and international stage for ignoring the people he's supposed to represent... and would be violating national laws he's supposed to uphold.
This is where Obama would be looking for a third option... an alternative solution to cut the Gordian Knot he's just tied himself into.
Who would have thought it would be diplomacy and NOT the sword that might actually solve the problem?
Secretary of State Kerry seemingly threw out there during a meeting with the UK Foreign Office the possibility that if Russia could talk Syria into giving up control of their chemical weapon stockpiles to international observers (UN most likely), it might resolve the issue and make a military strike moot.
When the State Department tried to talk back Kerry's statements, making it look like an off-the-record "gaffe" (wink wink), Russia's Foreign Minister quickly responded with favorable language, and Syria's foreign minister joined in. This is kinda how Hollywood works when movie blockbusters have to be ironed out between supersized egos, I've been told.
If it turns into something that can get worked out between the key parties, the whole matter of chemical warfare - one of the Big No-Nos of fighting - could be taken out of the equation.
It won't resolve the civil war itself: Assad is fighting for his life, with his minority ethnic clan struggling alongside him, against a nationwide uprising against his family's brutal decades-long rule. It will, however, get Obama and the United States out of a nasty political nightmare and give the major powers involved - Russia, US, France, Britain, Turkey and Iran - some room to maneuver regarding the Syrian disaster.
And who knows? This diplomacy thing might catch on across the rest of the Middle East. Trick is, of course, to make sure the goddamn killing stops first...
Showing posts with label take a third option. Show all posts
Showing posts with label take a third option. Show all posts
Monday, September 09, 2013
Thursday, October 25, 2012
What Third Parties Are Doing Wrong
Last night on MSNBC, Lawrence O'Donnell came out in defense of Third Parties in the United States, highlighting a barely-noticed debate between the lower-tier Presidential candidates that NOBODY in mainstream media ever mentioned until he did.
But then he suggested something I feel is the wrong thing to say in a closely-held election we're having this 2012, when every vote counts for Obama facing a "why is Romney even getting this many voters considering how UNPOPULAR Mitt is" situation. O'Donnell encouraged the voters in the non-battleground states - especially California - to go ahead and vote for a Third Party Presidential nominee. O'Donnell may be thinking that "oh, enough party-line voters in places like California will STILL vote for Obama," but making any kind of protest vote even in supposedly solid states can bring up the woes and follies of the 2000 Election all over again. Where enough votes get siphoned away from a major party candidate that DID NOT deserve to lose those votes (Gore) against the other major party candidate who'll turn out to be an unmitigated disaster (Bush the Lesser).
I get a little bit why Lawrence O'Donnell is saying this: he's as frustrated as a lot of us are about how the Two-Party system is strangling our government, our voting choices, our chances of branching off into different yet potentially incredible actions for our nation. But O'Donnell is looking at this the wrong way. Mr. O'Donnell sir, this is NOT how you encourage Third Parties to thrive in the United States.
This is the problem with Third Parties: they are more focused on the top office for election - The Presidency - and almost not at all for the more important offices lower on the ticket - such as Senate, House, Governorships, State Legislatures, etc.
The Third Parties all operate under the assumption that winning the Big One - the White House - will spring up enough voters to maintain a solid party base for years if not decades. They seem to think that all it will take is the right face, the right celebrity, the right charismatic leader and enough people will rally to that person and viola! They get a regular seat at the political table. This is why you more often than not see a ton of names in the Presidential ballot - here in Florida, I'm counting TWELVE party candidates for Presidnet/VP, not including the Write-In option - but barely ANY in the other open elections for Congress, Senate, State Representative, etc.
But this is all wrong. At least in this day and age.
Maybe back in the beginning, when Parties formed during the first years of our Constitutional system, it helped that the parties had natural leaders around which they formed - Federalists to Hamilton, Republican-Democrats to Jefferson - if only because everyone was starting off on the same footing. And the way the voting system was set up - Winner Take All per district or state - it was simplest to have two parties fighting over parking spaces in DC (well, for the horse-drawn carriages). It's interesting to note how when one party died off - Federalists, by the 1820s - the system so abhorred a vacuum that a replacement party - Whigs - formed to fill that vacuum.
But the Whigs quickly demonstrated why a party formed around one person - or one issue - doesn't last very long or do very well. For the Whigs were formed in specific response against one person: Andrew Jackson. When it came time to actually do anything regarding issues, the Whigs found themselves disorganized and leaderless. Hating Jackson - which is natural, considering how much of a bastard he was - could only go so far. It especially hurt because thanks to fate the first President Whig - William Harrison - died in 30 days, leaving his VP John Tyler the keys to the White House... and Tyler was only a Whig specifically because he hated Jackson. Tyler quickly turned out to be a Democrat at heart and vetoed nearly every Whig legislation that crossed his desk. This killed party unity before the party had a chance to solidify.
The successor to the Whigs - The Republicans - succeeded a bit better because they worked not only at putting up Presidential candidates - first in 1856 - but also lined up party members for the House and Senate. They put a full platform, unlike the other potential Whig cast-offs like the Free-Soil Party: and THIS is how you're supposed to get a successful Third Party going.
The party is not as much its leadership as it is the voting base, the people who actually VOTE for those leaders in the first place. For all we rail against the wingnut factions of the major parties, they serve a purpose of basic party foundation (the trick is to find the saner members of those factions to offer up for elections). You need to coalesce a large enough group of like-minded citizens, get enough of them to volunteer for the less glamorous but still-vital offices at the state and congressional levels, and work hard at getting enough of those candidates elected to make a difference in office.
Better still, the ones you elect to the lower offices become viable candidates for higher office. State Senator can campaign for Governor. State Representative makes a try for Congress. From the U.S. House to the U.S. Senate. And from any of those higher offices, a genuine shot at the Presidency.
The thing the Third Parties need to do in this day and age is build from the ground up. Don't even run a candidate for President until you've got enough party members elected to other offices who can then prove themselves in those duties that one of them can perform the duties of the President.
The other thing about getting a successful Third Party going is to KEEP GOING AS A THIRD PARTY. We've had other attempts - The Populists in the 1880s-90s, for example - where that third party was gaining ground... only for that party to get absorbed by either the Democrats or the Republicans, whichever was closest in ideology to them. Other times - the Bull Moose progressives under Teddy Roosevelt, the Reform Party of Ross Perot - the third parties were the vanity project of a particular headstrong candidate who focused only on the Presidency and did little to establish a solid ground game for their vanity parties to survive. Once Roosevelt and Perot were out of the picture for each one, both parties crashed and burned. It didn't help for the Reform Party that they got hijacked by Pat Buchanan in 2000 who turned that party into a mirror of himself - twisted and evil - before driving it into bankruptcy and then heading back to his home party of the Republicans with nary a scratch.
The successful Third Party is going to have to defend their way. There will be attempts by both established parties - Democrats and Republicans - to kill off a third option for voters (because two parties make it predictable). The Third Party is going to have to insist on retaining its own existence even when/if it has to caucus in Congress with one of the two major parties (especially making sure their party leaders do get key chairmanships to prove party value, and also not switch brands).
Dear Mr. O'Donnell: if you want a Third Party to come along and talk about the issues that NEED talking, that NEED solutions, then by all means promote the concept. But do us all a favor: push those Third Parties to do the hard work of getting a groundswell of support by spreading out and getting more candidates into more offices down-ballot. Meanwhile, right now, GET THE DAMN VOTE OUT FOR OBAMA AND MAKE SURE ROMNEY NEVER GETS NEAR THE OVAL OFFICE. ahem. Needed to be CAPS LOCKed, sir...
AND FOR YOU LOT READING THIS! YEAH ALL SEVEN OF YOUSE: GET THE DAMN VOTE OUT! GO! GO! GO! Stay Sane and VOTE OBAMA!
Now, off to lunch. When I get back here, I wanna hear back from the most moderate party out there (hope that's the Modern Whigs) about getting on the ticket for Governor in 2014.
But then he suggested something I feel is the wrong thing to say in a closely-held election we're having this 2012, when every vote counts for Obama facing a "why is Romney even getting this many voters considering how UNPOPULAR Mitt is" situation. O'Donnell encouraged the voters in the non-battleground states - especially California - to go ahead and vote for a Third Party Presidential nominee. O'Donnell may be thinking that "oh, enough party-line voters in places like California will STILL vote for Obama," but making any kind of protest vote even in supposedly solid states can bring up the woes and follies of the 2000 Election all over again. Where enough votes get siphoned away from a major party candidate that DID NOT deserve to lose those votes (Gore) against the other major party candidate who'll turn out to be an unmitigated disaster (Bush the Lesser).
I get a little bit why Lawrence O'Donnell is saying this: he's as frustrated as a lot of us are about how the Two-Party system is strangling our government, our voting choices, our chances of branching off into different yet potentially incredible actions for our nation. But O'Donnell is looking at this the wrong way. Mr. O'Donnell sir, this is NOT how you encourage Third Parties to thrive in the United States.
This is the problem with Third Parties: they are more focused on the top office for election - The Presidency - and almost not at all for the more important offices lower on the ticket - such as Senate, House, Governorships, State Legislatures, etc.
The Third Parties all operate under the assumption that winning the Big One - the White House - will spring up enough voters to maintain a solid party base for years if not decades. They seem to think that all it will take is the right face, the right celebrity, the right charismatic leader and enough people will rally to that person and viola! They get a regular seat at the political table. This is why you more often than not see a ton of names in the Presidential ballot - here in Florida, I'm counting TWELVE party candidates for Presidnet/VP, not including the Write-In option - but barely ANY in the other open elections for Congress, Senate, State Representative, etc.
But this is all wrong. At least in this day and age.
Maybe back in the beginning, when Parties formed during the first years of our Constitutional system, it helped that the parties had natural leaders around which they formed - Federalists to Hamilton, Republican-Democrats to Jefferson - if only because everyone was starting off on the same footing. And the way the voting system was set up - Winner Take All per district or state - it was simplest to have two parties fighting over parking spaces in DC (well, for the horse-drawn carriages). It's interesting to note how when one party died off - Federalists, by the 1820s - the system so abhorred a vacuum that a replacement party - Whigs - formed to fill that vacuum.
But the Whigs quickly demonstrated why a party formed around one person - or one issue - doesn't last very long or do very well. For the Whigs were formed in specific response against one person: Andrew Jackson. When it came time to actually do anything regarding issues, the Whigs found themselves disorganized and leaderless. Hating Jackson - which is natural, considering how much of a bastard he was - could only go so far. It especially hurt because thanks to fate the first President Whig - William Harrison - died in 30 days, leaving his VP John Tyler the keys to the White House... and Tyler was only a Whig specifically because he hated Jackson. Tyler quickly turned out to be a Democrat at heart and vetoed nearly every Whig legislation that crossed his desk. This killed party unity before the party had a chance to solidify.
The successor to the Whigs - The Republicans - succeeded a bit better because they worked not only at putting up Presidential candidates - first in 1856 - but also lined up party members for the House and Senate. They put a full platform, unlike the other potential Whig cast-offs like the Free-Soil Party: and THIS is how you're supposed to get a successful Third Party going.
The party is not as much its leadership as it is the voting base, the people who actually VOTE for those leaders in the first place. For all we rail against the wingnut factions of the major parties, they serve a purpose of basic party foundation (the trick is to find the saner members of those factions to offer up for elections). You need to coalesce a large enough group of like-minded citizens, get enough of them to volunteer for the less glamorous but still-vital offices at the state and congressional levels, and work hard at getting enough of those candidates elected to make a difference in office.
Better still, the ones you elect to the lower offices become viable candidates for higher office. State Senator can campaign for Governor. State Representative makes a try for Congress. From the U.S. House to the U.S. Senate. And from any of those higher offices, a genuine shot at the Presidency.
The thing the Third Parties need to do in this day and age is build from the ground up. Don't even run a candidate for President until you've got enough party members elected to other offices who can then prove themselves in those duties that one of them can perform the duties of the President.
The other thing about getting a successful Third Party going is to KEEP GOING AS A THIRD PARTY. We've had other attempts - The Populists in the 1880s-90s, for example - where that third party was gaining ground... only for that party to get absorbed by either the Democrats or the Republicans, whichever was closest in ideology to them. Other times - the Bull Moose progressives under Teddy Roosevelt, the Reform Party of Ross Perot - the third parties were the vanity project of a particular headstrong candidate who focused only on the Presidency and did little to establish a solid ground game for their vanity parties to survive. Once Roosevelt and Perot were out of the picture for each one, both parties crashed and burned. It didn't help for the Reform Party that they got hijacked by Pat Buchanan in 2000 who turned that party into a mirror of himself - twisted and evil - before driving it into bankruptcy and then heading back to his home party of the Republicans with nary a scratch.
The successful Third Party is going to have to defend their way. There will be attempts by both established parties - Democrats and Republicans - to kill off a third option for voters (because two parties make it predictable). The Third Party is going to have to insist on retaining its own existence even when/if it has to caucus in Congress with one of the two major parties (especially making sure their party leaders do get key chairmanships to prove party value, and also not switch brands).
Dear Mr. O'Donnell: if you want a Third Party to come along and talk about the issues that NEED talking, that NEED solutions, then by all means promote the concept. But do us all a favor: push those Third Parties to do the hard work of getting a groundswell of support by spreading out and getting more candidates into more offices down-ballot. Meanwhile, right now, GET THE DAMN VOTE OUT FOR OBAMA AND MAKE SURE ROMNEY NEVER GETS NEAR THE OVAL OFFICE. ahem. Needed to be CAPS LOCKed, sir...
AND FOR YOU LOT READING THIS! YEAH ALL SEVEN OF YOUSE: GET THE DAMN VOTE OUT! GO! GO! GO! Stay Sane and VOTE OBAMA!
Now, off to lunch. When I get back here, I wanna hear back from the most moderate party out there (hope that's the Modern Whigs) about getting on the ticket for Governor in 2014.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)