As many of my regular readers know, I strongly support the concept of an independent candidacy for the White House this year. What some of you may not know is that I feel equally strongly that this country needs a centrist third party. It is not that I am abandoning liberal ideals in which I have believed for twenty-eight years. On the contrary, now more than ever, in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, we need to be careful that we do not run towards the opposite extreme, an unbridled, irresponsible brand of jungle capitalism that will let children starve on the streets and the elderly languish at life's end in unspeakably inhuman conditions. However, I have come to realize that if my goals, and those of all caring idealists in this country, whether conservative or liberal, are to be realized, we need to create an atmosphere where principled scions of this or that ideology feel free to make the agreements and compromises necessary for progress to take place without fear of being branded by their supporters and sponsors as sellouts and traitors. And I fear that situation lies at the root of the gridlock from which we suffer today.
What is needed is a third force, an honest broker, if you will, who can, in crass, political terms, provide the increasingly liberal Democrats and the increasingly conservative Republicans with plausible deniability in the eyes of their constituents as the necessary deals are hammered out. With a true centrist party providing a healthy third ideological leg of the philosophical triangle in this country, liberal Democrats need no longer fight two-facedly for appeal to both conservative suburbia and liberal urbanites. Republicans need no longer fight two-facedly for appeal to both western capitalist entrepreneurialism and the secular industrial heartland. In an atmosphere where there is no question of where a liberal Bill Clinton, Democrat, stands, where a conservative Lamar Alexander, Republican, stands, and where a centrist freshman Senator Sabatine, Patriot, stands, the bona fides of each politician's beliefs will no longer be vulnerable to question or doubt. An elected public official can feel freer to make the tough decisions in an atmosphere where he does not have to vet every jot and tittle of his actions through the credibility filter. In such an atmosphere, a politician betraying his principles will no longer be a common occurence, and consequently politicans will no longer need to worry so much about being tagged with such an accusation.
And where trust is greater, leaders can take greater risks. And therein lies the other powerful attraction for me of a third party. For too long, we have seen the very word politician fall into greater and greater disfavor. For too long, we have seen the letter "P" used as a scarlet brand on well-meaning and principled leaders. For too long, we have seen the traditional honeymoon for newly elected Presidents become shorter and shorter. Bill Clinton had virtually no honeymoon whatsoever. At some point, the people need to be able to make their choice as citizens, step aside and accept the leadership of those to whom they have delegated their power, and permit a honeymoon period of some sort again. I do NOT believe we can expect any such grace period to be given either of the established parties at this time in our nation's history. But if a truly new party, with new ideas and new approaches, were to emerge and capture the public's imagination, I think we might be able to see some moment of grace, some benefit of the doubt given, which would ease the shackles on those principled public servants in all parties and of all political persuasions who have only the best interests of the nation at heart, and who are ready to make a few politically risky decisions, and take a few courageous stands, so that the business of the country can once again move forward.
Pie in the sky, you say? Groundless theorizing? Well, I could point out the British system, where the Liberal Party has functioned as just such a useful balance beam for many decades. But the fact is we may be witnessing right here in our own country the actions of just such an honest broker currently with respect to our budget debate.
Enter the National Governors' Conference.
For whatever reason, the nation's governors seem increasingly to be bucking the trend towards polarization that we are witnessing in the halls of our national capitol's Congress. From Bill Weld, a Republican liberal govenor, to Roy Romer, fiscally conservative and a moderate Democratic governor, example after example abounds of state governors bucking their party's national leadership, generally for very good reasons.
And now this centrist group, this almost "third party," if you will, has submitted, for Congress' and the country's consideration, a combination welfare and Medicaid reform proposal which they hope, and many in Congress hope, can form the basis for a way out of the mire in which our national debate has been stuck for months.
The proposal makes major concessions to both Democratic and Republican desires. It maintains Medicaid as the federal entitlement Democrats wish it to be, and adopts the block grant approach to welfare that is the calling card of most Republican proposals. This may or may not be the solution. Perhaps the real solution lies in crafting something that would tend precisely in the reverse direction. But the point is that a proposal has been made which has been agreed to by conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats, -- one which in turn may grease the path toward an eventual comprehensive balanced budget agreement where much larger issues like Medicare and the debt could also be addressed.
Reality forces me to admit that there may be no reason why this proposal should fare any better than the proposals of the Blue Dog House Coalition, or the Senate bipartisan Mainstream, or "rump," group. But the governors enjoy a distinct advantage over their centrist counterparts in Congress: they are not trapped in a political and social situation where they depend for their day-to-day professional viability on a large and undisciplined crowd of colleagues, who are in a position to sit on this bill or block that nomination if somebody rubs someone the wrong way. Conversely, congresspersons examining the governors' proposal will not be burdened by considerations of loyalty or enmity when judging it, and therefore may feel freer to give it a fair hearing.
Or so one hopes.
It is a gamble; it may not pay off. But if it does, and in turn provides the impetus for a more comprehensive budget agreement later this year, then we will have seen a powerful argument for the honest broker concept; thus we will have seen a powerful argument for the introduction of a third party into Congress as a way of breaking impasses and reviving good faith bargaining. That is certainly my hope; is it yours? Let me know, by writing me at