Unity08. A people's movement to take our country back.

I hope that this thread can be revived and considered more. HC has made a point of critical importance here. The whole of the US citizenry is aware, in varying degrees, that our system is flooded with money to sway legislators away from the will of the people and towards those proverbial special interests.

Yet, we reflexively find ourselves stuck in the mentality that we need to vote for one of the two major parties, because if we don't, impending doom (TM) shall swallow us all. It's a strange circumstance: to openly acknowledge that both sides have been bought off, and by way of logic, will pursue the same ends, yet not muster the courage to vote outside the system. If we know who pays the two pipers, why should we ever expect a different song? If the two pipers, in turn, believe that few will take a chance on a new piper, why should they change their song?

This poses a major tactical hurdle for our centrist endeavor:

We are trying to achieve the center of what?If we can acknowledge that what ails us is a universal severing of civic good by means of money, finding "middle ground" becomes difficult: there is a middle ground between words that they say, and there is a middle ground between citizen desires and present reality.

Take healthcare as an example. We the people would like to see reasonable coverage for our fellow citizen, but both parties are highly-funded by the industry, and the language the candidates advance suggests that private industry will still call the shots, which suggests little change. After all, why would those who pay the pipers change the rules if those who want change can be bought off with $1M or so in cheap words?

Once again, when we seek the center, we should ask of what two forces are we seeking to find the center of?

• The center between democrat and republican language?
  
• The center between the will of the people and the will of the system?
  

If we choose the first definition of center, we will certainly sound "centrist" as compared to the predictable words of the two parties, but we might still be miles from the citizen will. If we choose the second definition of center, we're closer to what the citizens want, but we will almost certainly be branded "leftist."

It's quite a dilemma. I wonder if we may have to employ both definitions? How would we do it? I'd love to hear what others think...

Let's do as The Beatles' said: "Come together, right now. Unity." Something like that... ;)

I support a "traditional" centrist policy. I am not necessarily against the formation of a third party, but I believe we will end up having to reform the government largely within the limits of the two-party system.

There is a fine line that should be drawn between a sober realization of the undue influence of big money in politics today, and an urge to scrap our political institutions based on the idea that they are unable and unwilling to cope with the current state of affairs. I don't buy into the "burn down the village to save it" philosophy.

The situation in government today can be compared to 19th century American politics during the so-called "Gilded Age". Many at the time predicted the failure of the America system of government; it is interesting to look at the forum to read some of the same complaints and suggestions for "fixes" regarding our current situation that have an uncanny resemblance to the political dialogue of the gilded age.

Our current problems are not unique in the American experience. Our current problems can be solved without scrapping our system of government.

But there is some room for third party thinking within that framework. Unity08 could well achieve the same results as the American Progressive Party; this organization (Unity08)could provide a necessary jolt to the two major parties even if Unity08 never wins an election.

One aspect of our current situation is far different from the 19th century. During that time, the two major parties were virtually joined at the hip in overall political philosophy. Looking back it is very difficult to see much difference between Grover Cleveland, and William McKinley. Both men reflected the thinking of the leadership of their respective parties.

Not until the nomination of William Jennings Bryant was there a major difference in party ideology - and Bryant was doomed to failure because he alienated the Democratic party leadership with his soft money principles. Bryant's nomination split the Democratic party, and this split lasted until the party bypassed Bryant in favor of Woodrow Wilson in 1912. The rise of the Progressive party helped to change the policies of both parties, and the Republican party fractured when Roosevelt decided to run against Taft in 1912.

Both parties ended up moving to the left, because the American people were more progressive than the leadership of either of the two major parties at the time.

Today, many see the republican party and democratic party as two aspects of the same problem, and while they admittedly both have dirty hands from special-interest money, there is still a large philosophical gulf between them.

Today, most people are philosophically between the two parties, and the parties will end up reflecting this - when they are forced to listen.

Unity08 can shake the foundation of both major parties, and when that happens, everybody in government will be forced to be more responsive to the people. When government officials are forced to listen and act to the will of the people, then there will be real reform in government across the entire spectrum. To do this, Unity08 will have to appeal to the center. If Unity08 fails to do this, then the organization will never speak with a loud enough voice to be heard.

Some will reject my argument, because they see every politician as corrupt. They would rather have a "scorched earth" policy where everything in the political process is altered, or destroyed in the name of reform. The American People will reject this; they want reform - not revolution.

I don't see a "scorched earth" solution happening, and I will never believe it is necessary; the political process will never be completely clean, but it is wrong to see it as a fatally flawed, outmoded system. This sort of thinking allows us to rationalize away our culpability; we can truly solve our problems only when we realize that we own and manage our government.

Jeff C leikec@yahoo.com

The cure for what ails us is within grasp - all that has to happen, is enough Americans of Voting Age have to get the message, understand and accept it - then get out and vote to bring about the needed changes ..

As I've said repeatedly - the System is not Broken ...

It became redundant in a crucial area - The Moment We Became A Super Power and Leader Of The Western World ..

Please, follow me on this because I agree with you completely : we have some good and dedicated members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, these people need our help not our condemnation ..

If we are willing and able to eliminate the "crucial area of redundancy" in the system - in time for the Elections of 2024, we can get this country back on course with very little disruption in the day to day business of Government ..

As a Superpower and Leader of the Western World, and A Nation others look to for help and guidance : we can no longer afford to Gamble on the willingness and ability of those we Elect and Empower - to do the job, in accordance with our Constitution, Bill Of Rights and our best interests ..

Candidates for office, Local, State and Federal - Must be selected on the basis of Confirmed/Applicable Qualifications, and Willingness To Sign Reasonable/Appropriate Employment Contracts Governing Conduct, Performance & Accountability !!

Jeff - these are the fundamental requirements accepted by every expert in the world, as the only means to insure the continued healthy operation and growth of any enterprise !!

Any Candidate for Office or Incumbent - that is unwilling to accept such terms for Employment : must be considered ineligible to serve the people of this Nation.

To paraphrase, I believe this "pin-points" the location of the cancer within our system of Government - and allows us to cure it without destroying the healthy body that surrounds it.

I hope this makes sense to you Jeff - and the rest of our Delegates ..

Pete(popo)Evans

We see this disconnect time and time again in Pennsylvania.

Here is an article published in the last few weeks that says it about as well as it can be said here:

http://centristatheart.blogspot.com/2007/06/disconnect-between-politicians-and.html

We have had much success in Pa with voting out inscumbents. We have found that those left (and some of those put in in place of incumbents) simply can not understand that we distrust them and that they need to do the things to rebuild that trust. It may take some time to turn over incumbents until the party structures that give us the choice between two bad choices is seen by potential candidates as a liability rather than a support.

See www.pacleansweep.com

Populism is on the rise and just what the doctor ordered to begin to fix stuff in the US.

To join the council mail list send an email to
u08delegatecouncil-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Good questions there GP.
http://unity08.com/node/1460#comment-24523

One we WILL have to answer to get anywhere in this movement. I would say both and none to the above two definitions you pose there GP.

I would say the center we should strive for is the place where our "oughta-dos" and "can-dos" intersect. Rather than parsing Demo/Repub pandebear language or the will of the poeple versus will of the system perceptions, I really think seeking the new center all comes back to that Rory Stewart "Ought Implies Can" thing I keep harping on and will repost again below for all here to take to heart as we seek to define the NEW center in new ways not tied to the old definitions that have been pulverized into meaninglessness by Demos/Repubs/Populists/Libertarians/Conservatives/Liberals/Special intersts:

We at Unity must always temper what we OUGHT to do (many and wondorous things) with what we CAN do (the art of the possible).
I hark back to Rory Stewart's fine NYT op-ed I cited a few days ago;

http://freedemocracy.blogspot.com/2007/03/rory-stewart-what-we-can-do.html

In ALL our deliberations and policies we synthesize here at Unity. We need to connect the dots so to speak and the ends-means disconnects by asking and prioritizing “Ought” with the “Can”. We ought to do a a lot of wonderful things such as maybe health care, political reform, immigration reform, Foreign/Defense Policy/Grand Strategy, Comprehensive Entitlement reform, Domestic Economic Stability, Energy/Environment, education, etc. Throughout all we need to ask that all important “Ought Implies Can” question, because as Stewart say in the last sentence of that op-ed – “We have no moral obligation to do what we cannot do." If we talk about all the wonderful “oughts”, we at the same time need to sync up with the “can”.

If there is a discrepancy between the two, we need to be truthful and upfront (the hard truths) with the American people and lay it all out (options/tradeoffs/priorities) how we will boost the “can” (what is possible – through shared sacrifice or whatever) to make sure we do what we need to do as a nation for our people and the world (the “oughts”). So to me this whole Unity08 process is a big syncing ups so to speak of determining what is in our true and vital National Interests (the “oughts”) with the means of delivering on those oughts (the can) on all the issues we present.

Policies propounded DO have costs of implementation that are oft time not full considered in the heat of legislation/electioneering. The PACs and lobbyist special interests are particularly adept at exploiting this vast and growing ends-means disconnect to the detriment of the medium and long-term National interest! Thus their proliferation here on K St in DC. Jonathan Rauch in his books (‘Government’s End’ and ‘Democlerosis’) shows so well how this nexus has occurred. It’s only getting worse folks!

Our Unity candidates we present should be the best to sync up those “Oughts” and “Cans” so we do not have to suffer the big ends-means disconnects BOTH parties have foisted upon us in the last several decades of the republic! To me all the troubles we have experienced domestically and internationally in the last few decades has been the abject failure to sync up the two. If we do not synch up fast we will be in deep trouble asa Republic.

Politics is the ART of the possible/doable and centrist politics in that regard is no different. It come down to the effecting matching of what we Must to (OUGHTA do) with what is possible to do (what we CAN do) and be as fothright and honest (tradeoffs/options/priorities) and objective about that bridging of disconnects with the American people. THAT is something all the OTHER parties and special interests in the country fail to do.

THAT is the beacon and objectively verifiable indicator I would use to define our centrist goals here at unity. Then we CAN and take that to the nation in a new way that has not been defined before or at least of recent. Because as Stewart does say "we have no moral obligation to do what we cannot do". It ALL comes down to that!!!

DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com

http://milligansstew.blogspot.com