Laying New Tracks

This week we move from the question of “leadership” to one of issues. Again, my hope is that our nation will become involved in a widely diversified community based discussion of what kind of nation we want to become – a dialogue about basic aspirations for this nation. But should not the agenda for this discussion be “open ended” as we argued that we need a style of “open leadership?” I will argue, YES, for at least two reasons.

First, the relatively recent political strategy of focusing on single issues, while perhaps effective in the short run, has only served to weaken our democratic governing structure. In Florida, Colorado and many other states the trend toward legislation by constitutional ballot initiatives has limited the flexibility of legislatures while serving the purposes of interest groups that can package complex issues into single issue slogans. This trend does not bode well for the creation of effective public policy, in the long run.

Second, the history of third parties that have run on single issue platforms has not been a happy one. In his column on May 3, Thomas Friedman called for the development of a new” third party.” He focuses on energy as the key issue around which a new centrist coalition can be built. He may be right, but for many Americans “energy” means cheaper gasoline prices, while Friedman has just the opposite in mind. The result would be a third party with internal disagreements and contradictory agendas.

So why not seek reform of the traditional two parties? The Republican Party will be going through a major trauma of self identity and the Democratic Party is already fighting for its new self consciousness. Senator Ted Kennedy has just published, American Back on Track, Penguin, 2006 http://us.penguingroup.com/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9780670037643,00.html While a step in the right direction, there are just too many of us who cannot be enticed into the old Democratic marching band, even with new tunes. The Democratic Party has been compliant on critical issues of Iraq, the “war on terrorists,” the environment, foreign policy, health care, taxes and the increasing income disparity, and issues related to the first Amendment and the “Patriot Act.” Many of us will not be going back.

So if we will not be enticed back into the two party system and resist the oversimplification of the single issue third parties, where do we go? Perhaps there is some direction given in James Carroll’s new book, House of War, Houghton Mifflin Co., 2006.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/10/1345217
Carroll’s thesis is that the United States has, since 1945, become psychologically addicted to the notion of the overwhelming power of our military. The religion of the Pentagon has led to our being the most feared nation in the world, considered by many to be the most threatening “rogue state.” Yet, we have not really “won” a war since 1945. The mythology we live will destroy us and like a cancer eat away at our national resources. This is not a single issue but rather a host of issues that include our domestic budget priorities and our foreign policy. We must find a way to make diplomacy, not war, our first reaction to international challenges. The policy of overkill has never solved international problems. We are still living out the policy agenda of a civilian who suffered from suicidal paranoia, James Forestall; while we should have taken more seriously the final warnings from a seasoned General and President, Dwight Eisenhower.

So our agenda is not to get back on the old tracks but to lay new ones for destinations forged by a serious national affirmation of hope – hope for a new and better future for America and the world.

MFA