We have two political parties. We have always had two parties. So why should we need a third? We’ve worked with just two for a couple of centuries. But since it seems that today only the Democrats are actually functioning (not functioning well, not functioning intelligently, but still functioning), it is not unreasonable to say that a third party is needed.
The Republican Party seems to be only a myth. There appears to be no mention in the legacy media of such a beast being abroad actually doing anything, so it would appear that its existence is about as real as unicorns or dragons.
But perhaps the Republicans are just hibernating. Perhaps they’re waiting for the strength of a vigorous, committed leader who will guide them to the promised land of congressional majorities.
What is much more likely is that they are lying low to avoid becoming targets for the Democrats in 2010. They have pretty sweet jobs right now. Good pay, great benefits, people bowing and scraping to them since, even though not in the majority party, they are, after all, Congressmen and Senators, and who would want to lose all that? Besides, based on recent polling which shows that unless they do something egregiously stupid, Republicans stand a better chance of keeping their jobs than their Democrat colleagues, keeping quiet is a smart strategy. After all, as Tom Clancy phrased it in one of his novels “A closed mouth gathers no foot.” For those who need proof of that, one needs only to listen to our Vice-President.
Rather than risk running afoul of the Democrat buzz saw, Mitch McConnell in the Senate and John Boehner in the House are, like Elmer Fudd, being “vewy, vewy quiet”. If so, they deserve to remain in the wasteland of minority status.
No, on second thought, even retaining minority status is more than they deserve. They deserve to be replaced.
A significant part of Congress from both parties needs to be sent a message in November 2010. A simple message. A two word message: “You’re Fired!”
Congress has taken our money, and spent it wastefully to get themselves re-elected.
Congress has drafted legislation that they don’t even read, much less understand.
They have arrogated to themselves privileges and power that hasn’t been equaled since the months just before the French Revolution of 1779 and the bloody end of the French nobility or perhaps the last members of the Romanov dynasty. And this has happened while they ignored their responsibilities as defined in the Constitution, and surrendering their legislative authority to the White House. How many times does the 2,000 page Obamacare magnum opus use a phrase similar to “…and such regulations as defined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services”?
Key to this is remembering that members of Congress are holding “temp” jobs. Think about that for a minute. The Founders thought that two years was enough. They had definitively limited what the Congress was supposed to be able to do, so it wasn’t ever supposed to become a career. In fact the members of the early Congresses were paid on a per diem basis! Never mind that successive Congresses, especially since the dawn of the 20th century and the growth of the Progressive movement have distorted the clear intent of the Constitution as envisioned by the Founders out of all recognition. These were supposed to be temp jobs. Each member of Congress was liable to replacement in fairly short order.
Every member of Congress swears an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, from all enemies, foreign and domestic.” The question is, are they defending the Constitution and our form of government? If so, perhaps they could explain to someone who is not a Constitutional scholar how it is possible for a position to be created in the Executive Branch of the government that will oversee the “reasonableness” of compensation without the appointment of that individual being subject to the “advice and consent” of the Senate? How is it possible for such a position to be created without any authorizing legislation? Perhaps they could point out to me which section of the Constitution allows the government to control, modify, or even invalidate a private contract between an employer and an employee with regard to compensation. Does that mean that any contract can be modified? Say for home purchases, or the construction of a factory, or the dissolution of a marriage.
That’s why it is time for a third party to emerge. To those who believe that only a two party system is workable, what evidence leads them to that conclusion? No matter whether the Democrats or the Republicans, the party that holds a majority of the seats in Congress slips quickly into corruption. And the more corrupt they become, the less able the ordinary citizens are to find the strength and resolve to “toss the bums out.”
Today, incumbent Republicans feel a need to “negotiate” our freedoms away for a chance to sit at the table. They are dead wrong. Their job is to strongly denounce the radical leftward shift that the Democrats and White House are insinuating into the every day life of average Americans.
Apparently neither Democrats nor Republicans seem to comprehend their role is to not only represent their constituents, but to protect their constitutional rights. Their role is to fight to preserve the liberties of the individual citizen. It is not to negotiate, nor barter, nor “work together” to eliminate the bedrock principles of independence and self-reliance that are the foundation of our nation, and our phenomenal prosperity.
All Americans must mobilize to send that message to BOTH parties. “Thanks for coming, but you are no longer needed or wanted. Try not to let the door hit you on your butt as you leave.”
A third party would, hopefully, deny both Democrats and Republicans the chance to have a majority. A third party could prevent either party from forcing legislation opposed by a majority of the citizenry from becoming law simply to please special interest groups or that reflect the bizarre philosophies being espoused by some “czar” who thinks that health care for the very young or the very old should be limited. Harvard faculty lounge philosophers who might argue that since the very young are like eggs that haven’t hatched and have a slight crack in the shell, we can simply toss ‘em out, and the elderly are like milk that has passed its “sell by” date, so they, too, can be relegated to the garbage can.
Many Americans view all politicians with contempt. They pay their taxes, and generally ignore the nonsense that their representatives spout. But when politicians shift from naming new post offices to deciding who should be allowed to live and who will be consigned to die, most Americans are ready for some real change. Not the kind espoused by the President, his “czars”, his paid ACORN and SEIU supporters, but true, seismic change.
The inherent “old boy” network that exists in both parties eliminates any chance that thoughtful, intelligent and reasonable people could win a stand-up primary fight with incumbents of either party. With only anecdotal evidence supporting the size and rate of growth of this frustrated and dissatisfied segment of the nation, it’s safe to say that there will be a large number of potential candidates for both the House and Senate in 2010, and again in 2012 and 2014. These are candidates that are worth supporting. The old saw about “the devil you know is better than the one you don’t” hasn’t done us any favors. So thank you President Obama. You’ve brought real change to America, even if it turns out to be the last kind of change that you saw coming, and it’s the kind of change you are really going to hate.