Increasingly it is looking like our choices for President in the Fall will come down to three choices; Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, and Roseanne Barr. Lately it seems that every four years we ask ourselves the same question, “Is this the best we can do?”.
It is perplexing that in the contest for leader of the free world that we end up talking about choosing “the lesser of two evils”, or “holding our nose” while we vote. Everyone is waiting for the next George Washington, but notwithstanding the political advantage of his personal fortune, one wonders if Washington would make it through the primaries today! For one thing, Washington believed that political parties were an evil that could lead to the downfall of the country. One wonders what our nation would be like had we codified Washington’s admonition against political parties by banning them in our constitution. Washington was also a man of strong convictions and bold actions. He was not without enemies; the negative ads would abound. Washington would have to run an independent campaign, and would probably garner less than 15% of the vote. The only question is who the American public would elect instead of George Washington… Obama or Romney?
In a blog from Great Britain, Dave Trott revisits the concept of the Budweiser Theory as it applies to politics. Simply put, the Budweiser Theory is that Budweiser became the best selling beer in the U.S. by being everyone’s second choice… the beer that nobody hates. While it might not be your first choice for yourself, it’s the safe choice if you’re buying for several other people; its blandness is its strength. In the world of politics the term “blandness” is re-labelled “electability”. This is how you end up with candidates like Romney and Obama. Romney is a shape-shifter. He becomes whatever it takes to win elections. This year he’s a conservative, militantly against Obamacare, which is based on his own health-care initiative in Massachusetts. Of course when he ran for governor of liberal Massachusetts, conservative leanings were far less emphasized! Inevitably, this leads people to question his core values, or whether he even has a core; but in the end that is what makes him “electable”. Obama is a silver-tongued magician. He takes shape-shifting to the next level, allowing the shifting to occur in the minds of the electorate. Despite extraordinarily weak credentials, he defeated heavy-weights Hillary Clinton and John McCain by using an oratory skill that both aroused passion and devotion by using words nebulous enough to seem to agree with various factions of the electorate. Words like “hope and change”, meant different things to different people, but the vacuum of his political record allowed people to believe he agreed with them, and this became his greatest strength. With three years of policy behind him, this becomes a more difficult trick to pull off; time will tell just how magical he is.
I don’t mean to join the throngs coronating Romney, but Florida did end up being the perfect storm for him. His only serious competition, Gingrich, faltered badly both in style and strategy. Romney performed very well in the debates, as did Santorum which resulted in both grabbing votes from Newt. Now Santorum will continue on to Missouri, which in all probability will fatally prolong the division of the “not-Romney” vote. The upcoming primaries are almost all favorable to Romney, who already has the momentum. The only hope for the anti-Mitt folks is a far-fetched pipe dream for a brokered convention; a dream that will be shattered by the sunrise of reality in the form of cold hard cash; the expense of running a campaign in the face of dwindling contributions.
IMHO: And so it would seem that we are set up for the “battle of the blands” in November as both candidates move to the center “where elections are won or lost”. Will there ever come a day that the American public will look for a more substantial candidate? Will we ever become sickened by the blandness of the party choices, and take a risk with someone of depth and convictions? It would take a very special person and special circumstances; yes, perhaps another George Washington, or God forbid, an Adolf Hitler. Until that day, I guess I’ll have another Budweiser.
I’m not an expert on American history but from my understanding George Washington’s opposition to political parties was motivated by his desire to keep a young country together. In his Farewell Address, Washington asked the people not to focus on their political differences but on their identity as Americans. For the same reason, he warned against premature amendments to the constitution, in an effort to give the country and its government time to grow.
We must be careful not to take George Washington’s words out of their historical context. The two-party system with all its implications is the reason why Americans are stuck with two “bland” candidates, not the existence of political parties in general. Political parties are essential for a democracy to function as they allow people to participate in the political process. Taking away people’s rights to organize (which, to a large extent, is the case in the American workplace) will inevitably result in less democracy.
Washington’s words:
“I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.”
Your point that the lion’s share of the problem is the result of the development of two mega-parties is well stated. Like so much of our society the aspect of being “too big” is where the greatest hazard is realized; big banking, big government, big unions, big agriculture, big corporations, big pharma, big church… big parties. Some of this “bigness” is inevitable and possibly sometimes necessary, but as Washington alludes to, it hardly needs to be encouraged; rather it is generally best resisted to be kept in check.
Great analogy! Great blog.