First, a bit of a history reminder. In 1992, Bill Clinton ran as a center-left candidate, even adopting the line that era of big government is over (remember, Clinton was a Democrat). In 2000, George W Bush ran with the bumper sticker of a Compassionate Conservative, and the uniter, not divider (as a Republican). Most recently, Barack Obama vowed to cut through partisan politics/bickering and be President of One Nation, not one party.
Much has changed in eight (8) years. Most campaigns face a critical challenge when running for their respective parties nomination. Do I attempt to move to the middle of my parties base platforms, thus, potentially expanding my voting block, while not alienating my core. Or, do I attempt to move far right and/or left of my base, thus, firing up my parties core and getting them in mass to not only vote, but recruit others.
While this second strategy may help win nominations, and potentially elections, it often means large governing challenges ahead. If the next President wants to pass any legislation, they will most likely nee to work with the other party (Congress/Senate). However, with the highly polarizing bases of today, it simply invites gridlock, and nothing will get done.
So, we get back to our central theme. After all, if you don't get elected, you can't do anything, so it must be better to either move to the center or the extreme right/left, and after election day, slide back one way or the other to govern effectively.
Let's talk about another option. How about a leader who says what He/She truly believes, frames debates as to what's better for the country, not their party, and a President who can build consensus?
I realize in the era of MSNBC and Fox News it's not easy to be a non pandering candidate, but isn't it worth trying? With all of the name calling, venom and general dislike, isn't it time for a new approach. A candidate that reaches beyond parties and talks about what's best for us, not for the party?
That would be an independent. The last time we had a candidate that ran alongside of the 2 main parties and made any headway, was in 1992. Ross Perot, a billionaire who took a sizable piece of the popular vote. Dems and Repubs are beholden, no? Janet
ReplyDeleteHi Janet and thanks for reading and sending your comments. You are right about Perot, but how many candidates are willing to put their own money into this campaign. By running as an independent, you would lack all the fund raising resources and rolodexes of your competitors. It's a bid sad, but it's all about fund raising.
ReplyDeleteWhat a great post and my sentiments exactly. It is unfortunate that the other parties do not get any exposure due to the lack of funds. Campaign funding should be more heavily regulated because it seems to be getting out of control. I personally do not fully agree with either party and would like to hear some fresh ideas from people that are not restricted to the ideals of conservatives or liberals.
ReplyDeleteHi Ven/Econ - Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts. Many agree/disagree on candidates/positions, but not too many disagree on too much money being involved.
Delete