Who isn't for more parties?

This has been an interesting week in politics. Everything points to massive discord in the American public with respect to the direction of the country. People are (rightly) upset.

Bloomberg Switches Parties, Again

Yesterday, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg filed paperwork with the Board of Elections changing his party affiliation from Republican to no affiliation, saying "The politics of partisanship and the resulting inaction and excuses have paralysed decision-making, primarily at the federal level, and the big issues of the day are not being addressed, leaving our future in jeopardy." This is very old rhetoric; I do wish he could come up with a more inventive line.

(Remember he switched from being a Democrat to being a Republican when he ran for Mayor initially). The media is now abuzz with speculation that this means he is running for President. As much as I would like to see a Bloomberg candidacy, I think the odds are that he will not be in the race. Here's why: All of the reports are saying that according to his intimates, he will only run if he thinks he could actually win. What billionaire wants to be a spoiler, after all?

But it gets worse. Bloomberg apparently thinks he can win only if the Republicans nominate a Right-winger and the Democrats nominate a Left-winger. The latter is almost assured to happen(though the Left wing of the Democrat party is, as I will discuss momentarily, a bit disgusted with Mrs. Clinton), but none of the top four GOP candidates could come close to being classified as far Right (Giuliani, McCain, Romney, Thompson). Thompson, the most conservative of the bunch (and the increasingly likely GOP nominee), was considered a moderate when he was in the Senate, and has as little in common with the Tom DeLays of the world as Mahmoud Abbas has with Benjamin Netanyahu. If the Democrats nominate Hillary, and the Republicans nominate Thompson, is there really enough room in the middle for a Bloomberg candidacy? I suppose some of his billions will be spent trying to figure out the answer to that very question.

Hillary Gets Booed
Apparently the Left-Wing of the Democratic Party, or to use Howard Dean's phrase, the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party, is not so happy with Hillary, especially when it comes to the War in Iraq. At the Take Back (Read: Hijack) America Conference, her initially warm reception switched into a fever pitch of anger when she began talking about Iraq, likely because of her initial support of the War, and continued moderate stance (until she formally announced for the Presidency. Talk about win at all costs.). The issue of the War is why Barrack Obama has not already been completely annihilated by the Hillary juggernaut. We'll see how the campaign develops, but it appears that Hillary's coming to Buddha on the War is easing her poll distresses as of this week.

America is Unhappy
Two Gallup polls this week indicate that the mass majority of America is unhappy about the state of affairs in this country. The first poll, released yesterday, found that only 23% of Americans think the U.S. economy is getting better, down from 28% just a month ago. 7 in 10 say it is actually getting worse. Health care costs and high fuel prices comprised more than a quarter of the respondents' reasons for their discontent, proving that in politics, perception (even when wrong) is still reality.

The second poll, numerically a carbon copy of the first, shows that 71% of Americans disapprove of the job Congress is doing, with only 24% approving. Gallup observes that Congress's approval rating has only been this low at three times since they started this poll four decades ago: during the energy crisis (1979), the period leading up to the Republican takeover of Congress (1994), and last year. This is not good news for the Democrats who swept into office thinking they had another 40 years ahead of them. But I'm not so sure it's good news for Congressional Republicans, either.

What this poll proves is that the American people, massively dissatisfied with the Republican majority in 2006, is no more happy with the Democratic majority in 2007. This leads me to the crux of today's comments.

People are Pissed Off--So Let's Clean House, Literally

Independent candidates can get elected; but there is no such thing as an "Independent movement." It is simply impracticable. People naturally divide themselves into groups, and in politics, that usually means groups who identify with them ideologically, or at least on pertinent points of policy. The United States has had a relatively stable two party system since Abraham Lincoln's election in the 1860s. It made some sense, especially in the wake of reconstruction, that the North would cleave along certain ideological lines, and the South along others. The system was, until Richard Nixon's Southern Strategy (and excepting FDR's tenure) a Northern Party vs. a Southern Party. After Nixon, the dynamic was upturned. Ronald Reagan then came along and we became familiar with the term "Reagan Democrats" who, by 1994, were calling themselves Republicans and sweeping Newt Gingrich into power in the second Republican Revolution.

In 2000, the South was once again Solid, but for a Republican, not for a Democrat, and that phenomenon was repeated in 2004. But it's just not working. Air conditioning enabled millions of Northerners to migrate to the warmer states, and modern transportation and communication has made this country more homogeneous than it ever has been before, with respect to the kinds of lifestyles most people lead. There is a greater dichotomy between urban and rural life than there is between East coast and West coast, or between North and South. It seems like we can finally stop fighting the Civil War.

This opens the door to the prospect of a more multi-party system, and what better time for it to start than today, at the Congressional level, cleaning out most of the 435 pork barreling politicos that call themselves "The People's House." More to come on the subject in the coming days.