1. An understanding of technology and how to use it in a post-modern political context.
2. Complete and radical transparency.
3. A focus on genuine dialogue, not on fund raising and media campaigns.
4. Socially Progressive & Fiscally Conservative ideology, with a dedication to markets and economic growth, balanced with personal responsibility to ensure environmental protection and social justice.
5. Pragmatic foreign policy based on diplomacy and cooperation, liberalizing international trading markets, and peacekeeping rather than on dogmatic hawkishness or naive dovishness.
6. There would be a much more Little "D" democratic approach to recruiting and nominating candidates for public office, and power would be much more fluid, rejecting entrenched incumbents for fresh and new ideas.
7. Commitment to substantive electoral reform at both the national and state levels to ensure that government is both representative and responsive.
8. Commitment to substantive reform of both federal and state bureaucracies and regulatory regimes, including: reform of the IRS and the tax code, massive reform of the educational system, and meaningful health care reform that does not wreak havoc on the nation's macro-economy.
9. Self-imposed checks to ensure that the party never becomes just like everybody else inside the beltway.
10. A preference for town halls over TV cameras.
Over the next several days, I intend to detail each of these points. The first step to causing upheaval in the political process is to define what it should look like, and that is what I will be doing in subsequent posts.
2 comments:
America is not my home country, neither my place of residence at the moment, so I have no weight of decision in regards of what's good for it and its people. However, may I share that about 15 years ago 2 major parties as strong and vastly influential as Democrats and Republicans in America nowadays, ruled and ran Argentina, as well as most of its people's minds. Some minorities started to branch off, and others emerged in the middle of so much power and "ownership" left in the hands of only two. Today, Argentina has more than 20 parties running for candidacy in every governmental spot, and about 5 of them are the leading ones, rather than only 2, as it used to be. Changes were brought upon, both positive and negative, of course, but definitely opened a gate to endless opportunities, ideals, and representation for discrepancies of general and public thoughts and standards. Some parties are more efficient and successful than others depending on the responsibilities they are voted for and charges they take. Then again, more choices and more "voices" definitely culminate in a broad flow of changes, thus making progress and improvement more available to the nation and the people it hosts, rather than to a few leaders only.
Voting here is obligatory to every single individual above 18 years of age, thus penalizing the lack of unjustified reasons for no-show; therefore, having more choices for representation was necessary if chaos was to be avoided again. This way, every and each one of us is held accountable and made fully responsible for his/her decisions over government.
Randomly speaking, I don't remember the etymological meaning for number 2; however, I do remember that 3 meant "order", 7 "perfection", and 12 "discipline", or something alike.
10. A preference for town halls over TV cameras.
Not going to happen any time soon-- if at all. With the advent of TV during the Kennedy/Nixon debates, it became perfectly clear that presidential candidates must be pretty, tall, and personable in order to win an election. More importantly, from Reagan onward, the role of religion revved up, as well.
Thus, if we are likely to see a 3rd party emerge successfully, it won't be a party of reason and logic, but of wild hysteria, fueled by the overzealous, angered followers of power and wealth-hungry religious sects. Religion, a now thriving big-business industry, has finally actualized the role of technology in winning arguments and debates. Just take a stroll down to any megachurch's production booth and you'll find equipment that rivals national broadcasting stations. Actually, you might even find a broadcasting station, because you can tune into UHF and VHF frequencies on your television in Dallas and find low-frequency (i.e. low channel number) stations dedicated solely to religious broadcast. Last I remember, there were 2 below channel 13, and 2 more above it.
And, it's not like they'll run out of money-- the undisputed greatest predictor of electoral success-- any time soon. Not only are they tax-exempt to begin with, religious organizations are the only ones not forced to report earnings and expenditures (at all) to the IRS. The exception to this is if they overtly back political candidates or in cases of clear-cut fraud.
I mean, with no paper trail, there's a lot of room for money to fall off of trucks. Better yet, once you've convinced people that they're doing the work of god... well, let's just say even the most advanced civilizations become vulnerable to attack.
My prediction? In the next 10-20 years, the 8-year olds who go to their youth groups religiously will reach voting age. 10-20 years after that, their kids will as well. All things considered, within the next 40 years, the voting base (that is, that 25-30% of people who trust Bush implicitly) will both increase geometrically (because, after all, they're the same people pop out families of 12) and will also see the Republicans for what they are-- abusers of religion. Instead of voting for more Republicans (read: businessmen), it will be much easier and much safer to rally the congregations around a seemingly true man of the people-- a pastor.
Anyway... cheers.
Post a Comment