Winning The Election of 2006 and Beyond

Everybody has been talking about the problems that both major parties have. The Republicans have this problem, the Democrats have that one. Snipe, snipe, snipe. Everyone is saying what a low approval rating President Bush has, while the commentators I respect note that Congress' is even lower. The way I put it in a conversation the other day is that as unpopular as he is, the President has half again the popularity of Congress.



Congress doesn't have to have a lower rating than the President. Back when the Republicans took control in 1995, its ratings were significantly higher than the President's. Why? Because they were doing their job, what they said they would do in order to get people to vote for them and get elected. There were also points in the latter part of Reagan's presidency, and Bush pere's, and Carter's, where Congress enjoyed higher approval than the President. Of late, however, both parties have allowed themselves to be held hostage, to one degree or another, to various special interests within the party. My observation is that people appear to be tired of partisan politics, tearing down the other side to no good purpose, even damaging our national interest, just to score points with the extremists in your camp.



It occurs to me that this gives both major parties a real opportunity, as well as a problem. The first party that "grows a pair" politically, and moves decisively towards the center will capture the election. If they stay there after the election, they will cement an electoral alliance that will rule for years.



This victory isn't going to come free or without risk. Each and every candidate of the party is going to make a decision to sign or not sign on board the pledge. If they don't get enough candidates sign on to make the public believe they mean it as a party, there will be no gain and they will have alienated their base activists, likely depressing turnout among that group. Obvious solution, of course, is to get at least 200 sign ons before they take it public. Keep in mind, however, that it's not like the Democratic special interests will turn and vote Republican, or vice versa if the Republicans move first. Vote for the enemy because your longtime allies get less cozy? Not likely.



Nonetheless, the leaders of either party could pick any group of at least four or five points from this list, get enough of their candidates to sign on for critical mass, and make the following declarations:



"Citizens of the United States, we have been listening to what you're saying, and we have learned that you are mostly tired of partisan bickering, sniping back and forth between the major parties to the detriment of the country, all to score points with a handful of dedicated partisans, when the majority of the electorate knows the steps that have to be taken and is willing to undertake them."



"We hereby pledge a less partisan atmosphere in Washington. Whatever the outcome, we will not treat President Bush or whomever wins the election in 2008 as the enemy. The President is always the only person in this country to have been elected as the result of a national election, and is therefore entitled to our respect. We reserve the right to disagree with specific positions, and will work in favor of our viewpoint, but we will attempt to reach compromises acceptable to all. Once we have agreed to a compromise, we will commit ourselves to that course of action and not attempt to undercut it in order to alter it after the fact."



"One of the things that has contributed to the partisan atmosphere is the partisan gerrymanders passed by many legislatures, permanently putting as many seats as possible beyond the reach of one party or another. This means that the winner of one particular primary is guaranteed a victory in the general election, and encourages them to appeal to the partisans of that party, rather than the electorate at large. In order to correct this, we hereby commit ourselves to amending the federal code to making equal representation and minimum length of the boundaries between districts the only two criteria to be considered in drawing boundaries. To the extent possible, we believe that you should have the same choices as those living near you."



"We have heard many stories of voter fraud and voter intimidation. In order to be honest, our elections must be free of any intimidation, but they must also be free of fraud. Every fraudulent vote negates the value of one real citizen fulfilling their duty to this country. We commit ourselves to a requirement that every voting machine in this country make a permanent paper record of each vote as it is cast. We shall also take steps to ensure that only citizens may vote and nobody may cast more than one ballot per election. Voter intimidation and vote fraud, as well as conspiracy to commit either, shall be a felony punishable by the permanent forfeiture of your right to vote or hold office. Non-citizens who attempt any of these shall be subject to mandatory deportation. Voting is a right and a duty of citizens, and only of citizens. Voter fraud and voter intimidation are crimes against all of us."



"We must have a common language that we can all speak. If we cannot talk to one another, we are not one nation. English is the language of our government, and of our businesses. It is no kindness and no service to those who do not speak English to allow or encourage them to remain forever closed to and forever apart from the world of our public discourse and opportunity. The only people who gain from such a situation are those who derive their power from that separation. Therefore, we shall commit ourselves to limiting the availability of government materials in a language other than English. Within ten years, it is our goal that we will all be able to read, write, and speak in English. Ten years in our midst should be plenty of time to learn enough English to communicate with your fellow Americans. Within ten years, we should all vote in English, fill out government forms in English, and be able to apply for a job in English. The only exceptions to this should be the forms for official translations, and the forms for immigration."



"The United States is a nation of immigrants, but our past immigrants were legal immigrants. We need legal immigrants for any number of reasons, but we must insist upon the legal part of that designation. Countries that lose control of their borders soon lose control of their country, as well. Nonetheless, there are those currently here illegally who have been productive members of our society for many years, and we must come to an accommodation which acknowledges this fact. Once we have done so, however, this must be the last time we reward lawbreaking, as we have done in the past. Future illegal immigrants shall be deported and forever barred from entry. Employers who employ those in this country should face fines of three years' of this country's median cost of a legal employee, per emploee per incident. To counterbalance this, we shall commit ourselves to raising quotas and streamlining the process for those who wish to become Americans. Priority shall be given to those who possess skills in short supply, such as nursing currently is, and those who can pass an examination in written and spoken english. We will always welcome as many of those who wish to become Americans as possible."



"The point of our government is neither the creation of jobs nor the subsidization of large corporations. When the United States pays out our taxpayer's dollars, it should be for things that benefit the country as a whole, and only those things. Too many programs exist despite the agency involved being willing, even eager to dismantle them and use the savings elsewhere, because it meant benefits to a powerful member of congress, rather than the nation as a whole. We commit ourselves to the elimination of all earmarks, and a requirement that members of congress whose district benefits from a particular program more than the average district of the house or senate must recuse themselves from deliberations or voting in committee, although they should still be permitted their vote on the floor of the entire chamber. If ninety percent of the program's activity takes place in your district, you are not a disinterested judge of its value."



"We commit ourselves to a sane budget process. No family or corporation starts with a budget that spends every penny they possess and then permits anyone and everyone to suggest or demand additional money without corresponding cuts. We must set a yearly spending limit, and pick and choose what to spend, and at what priority, within the framework of that limit. We can no longer pretend that we can fully fund everyone's wish list. That way lies national bankruptcy."



"The actuaries have been telling us Social Security needs to be reformed for thirty years. The politicians of this country, ourselves included, have ignored the increasingly imminent course for fiscal disaster this has placed us upon in the name of political expediency for at least that long. Whereas those currently receiving benefits and those approaching retirement are morally entitled to the benefits they have been promised, those twenty years or more from retirement should be afforded the opportunity to direct part of their retirement funds away from the government, into an account associated with their own names, for their own benefit in their eventual retirement and able to pass them to their heirs, in exchange for which we will gradually decrease and phaseout retirement checks from the government treasury for new retirees altogether."



"We feel that whereas the separation of church and state need not be absolute, there can be no favoritism for the practices of one religion over another; nor can there be discrimination against the practitioners of any given religion. Religious symbols in public affairs should be preserved where they have real historical significance, but no additional ones should be emplaced. There is currently one religious legal holiday; those of other religions, or none, should be allowed to replace it with a substitute holiday of their own choice. Neither will we continue our more recent practice of permitting displays of religious activity of any other religion, while pointedly snubbing only our historically dominant one. If a school or other public entity wishes to have an activity promoting one religion, they should be required to so promote every other religion for which there is a request. Practitioners of every religion or none should be able to promote their viewpoints in public discourse and vote their consciences according to their various religions, but not to exclude those with other viewpoints from the public debate. Such was the intent of our founders, and our party is determined to return to that ideal."



"The idea of censoring speech to prevent offense is repugnant. To attempt to do so is the mark of a moral coward. There is no limit to what someone can or will claim offends them. If the mere act of expressing disagreement is potentially offensive, and therefore subject to censorship, we have lost the ability to discuss our issues in the public forum and resolve them in a way that brings justice and fair-mindedness, rather than strife and bitterness, to that resolution, and the issue will never be settled so long as many of our citizens believe they have not received a fair hearing or evaluation of their viewpoint. If the speaker is someone who indeed practices hate, prove them wrong by your speech in response, and by your deeds, not by being afraid or unwilling to answer their hate with your sanity, their accusations with your reason, their despite with your dignity. We shall commit ourselves to the nationwide removal of speech codes everywhere."



"Similarly, the relative ethnic, religious, or political alignment of the victims and perpetrators of a crime should be of no consequence to the severity or sentencing of a crime. The idea of laws against murder, against rape, against assault, is that the people of this great nation be secure in their lives from these threats. The idea of increasing the sentence for a crime because the victim was a member of a protected group, or because the perpetrator was not, brings back the worst spectres of the time before our civil rights movement, when there were people in jail or worse because of the color of their skin or the house of worship they attended or didn't. If were are dedicated to the proposition that we are a nation of idividuals who are equal before the law, this in intolerable, and although such determinations are largely reserved to the states, we intend to work against it to the maximum extent allowed by the Constitution."



"Most importantly, we are at war. We did not choose this war, and all wars with any hope of success involve offensive operations. Whatever the antecedents, the consequences for us as a nation of defeat would be far worse than any stain upon our honor of fighting the war as it needs to be fought. We shall continue to require our conduct, and that of our soldiers in this war, to reflect favorably upon us as a nation. Nonetheless, it is an unfortunate fact that some mistakes are unavoidable in war, and and that there will be casualties. We shall no longer accept conduct that undercuts the efforts of our brave defenders and endangers their lives for political gain. Henceforth, our position as a party shall be limited to giving our best advice as to how to most effectively win this war. Whether President Bush's successor is of our party or of the opposition, we shall urge that President to vigorously conduct this war to a successful conclusion."





I am sure there are other issues they could select. Except for that last issue, which is a trump with many rational centrist voters who have understandable nightmares about terrorists unleashing weapons of mass destruction or their functional equivalent upon our cities, none of them is mandatory, and in fact, this might work with as few as three such points, but the more ways in which they commit to moving to the center, the less they will have to work at convincing the voters of their sincerity. The idea is to move strongly towards the center, and in so doing crowd the other party into appealing to small portion of the political spectrum. Admittedly a tough deal to swing with those who are used to holding conversations only with the most dedicated partisans of their own party, but here's the bait: The first party to persuade the voters they mean it will win a veto-proof majority of Congress, control of most state legislatures, an increased share of governorships, and have the inside track on the presidency, and this advantage will last for a political generation. If either party doesn't like the opening this gives the other, they should move first.