Truth! As if it were politic.
Article 4
A lot of complaining up to this point; finally, I do have some suggestions. First off, a different take on a third party, a non-spoiler party, and a change that does not require a constitutional convention to enact. If a sizable percentage of the voting public got behind a "Moderate Party," made up of existing Democrats and Republicans. Current politicians with the added label of "Moderate," constituting: 50% of each party and 50% of the total chamber. For instance, the Senate, 100 persons total, with the divisions: 25 RM, 25 DM, plus the largely dysfunctional 50 Delinquent Reprobates. Using a merit-based allocation of seats (you'll note, I was tempted by, but then avoided, the obvious bias implied in MD and MR).
Lost to the culture wars, most voters are better thought of as moderates. That is, "Mostly, we just want something to be done! Slightly better than half-assed." To that end, if a majority of us supported a moderate party, their power would be significant and not overly moved by changes in party majority. Being more independent, they would also put a more reasoned and consistent control on the Executive Branch, hopefully eliminating unnecessary swings in policy. More to my theme, this configuration would promote discussion. Stepping over ideological walls and then realizing it was merely a nicely fitted picket fence, nothing like "The Wall!" Not surprisingly, by virtue of in-depth collaboration, most legislation of substance is bipartisan.
If this Moderate party had been in place, our recent debacle over the Supreme Court would never have happened. Undermining our international credibility from 2017 on, we doubled down by reversing our position concerning what is supposedly sacrosanct, the judicial (i.e., adhering to a reasoned and consistent appointment system). It is only natural that the courts are relatively conservative, but this is something altogether different. We find the zero-sum game of politics has metastasized into the Supreme Court. I argue, a biased court is simply human and the best we can do, but one with a mandate becomes an extension of the political party that hired them for the job. When those promoted to the court see their function as the opposite of listening, that is, dictating terms of surrender, we move from a rule of law, to the seedbed of a dictatorship.
Each person, from their perspective, knows what I'm talking about. Even those who are genuinely conservative had to hold their noses, seeing the GOP lean into the confusion of 2016, right-wing noise, and ends justifying the means. Then feeling compelled to choose sides, they appeared overly enthusiastic, as they voided the court of any responsibility for justice. One could argue, the US never held the high ground, but now, primly robbed, we have our head in the toilet. At the same time, putting a positive spin on all that: it is a weak mind that can't justify itself.
Backing up just a step, this conversation is all about listening and relationships, essentially promoting our humanity in a decisive fashion (the following is not the least legal, but rather obvious). We all demonize lawyers but then put them in charge. Obviously producing the best possible outcomes? I don't quite understand that, but I would suggest that the entire justice system, along with our politics and Wall Street are merely symptoms of a problem (I'll leave you to figure out that lawyer thing). Specifically, nine justices, whom I would assume are, by any measure, far better human beings than myself. That being the case, how the hell did they manage to do this to themselves? To say the least, firmly attaching themselves to that demoniac thing seems an odd legal maneuver.
I am of the opinion that this sorted situation has insidious origins, the elite nature of higher office causes an individual to become the answer to every question, very like a cult between one's ears. A judge in particular is a relatively isolated and driven individual for much of their adult life. During their career applying a very narrow and censorious application of listening. Being steeped in the artificial complexities of the law, as they stand above us in judgment. One would hope that being amazing people they weather that just fine; still we're back to the situation of those nine judges. I would wonder if perhaps they had taken up hobbies, like mud wrestling or jazz singing, those nine justices might have recognized the error of their ways (btw, I don't think Thomas sings worth a shit). Interestingly, I believe the high court has one other option.
I would add one critical measure to the confirmation process: an open minded prowess in collaboration. A criterion the court itself would weigh in on, after a lengthy, closed door interview. Discovering a justice who will pour themselves into a team of nine, excited to rediscover the potential of the judicial system through the rarefied air of simple listening and relationship. Optimistically, this would deliver to us a high court that roughly fits into the society they serve, most certainly omitting that "mandate" thing. Producing a court that prefers bipartisan/unanimous decisions and serious collaborative work, providing a more reasoned and insightful function to our democratic republic.
I see the high court becoming a tight-knit team that seals themselves into a chamber, sweating blood over the existential nature of life. An entirely practical deliberation, requiring that they become utterly reliant on each other, holding each other accountable, and also highly protective of their individual idiosyncrasies; ultimately, the most trusted body on earth. With that high court dynamic being completely different from the congressional branch, which must be entirely transparent as they accomplish the will of the people (hopefully, all of that standing against the small mindedness we all so easily embrace).
There are many well-considered interventions that might fix our poorly running political machine. Typically requiring constitutional rewriting, i.e., a cold day in hell. Whereas, my moderate-party idea only requires that we come together and force the issue. Still, being a deeply practical way of doing business and highly responsive to the assigned work, maybe a nice day in hell? That is, conservatives left in Washington hold no power, and progressives faced with an increasingly right-wing stranglehold on the truth are busy with... honestly, I'm not sure. Most especially, they can all duck responsibility with the current system. Then, to cement all that in, we the voting public are pissed off, "If my congressperson doesn't tell me exactly what I want to hear, busily shaking my hand and doing what it takes to win the day, proudly confirming that those other people are wrong!"
Strictly speaking, most legislators, on both sides of the congressional aisle, are better thought of as moderates. And therein lies some confusion; right wing vs. liberal is the contrast. True conservatives are moderates; the words are almost synonymous, as are the progressives. With the two groups, at their core, typically seeing eye to eye. Therein, you have a landscape of
- liberals - progressives/conservatives - rightwing -
(This is 'Micky' political science typology; please excuse the impertinence.)
Certainly, we can all attest that we are being pulled to the outer edges of that landscape. Think of it as a flat earth dimension of our life together here; wherein one can easily imagine how running headlong to the extremes has you over the edge, a real mess. Just one of many good reasons to stay connected with the center, but most importantly, the center is where relationships are emphasized. By that I mean, a pervasive emphasis on relationships; which includes, a Washington, D.C., village and each representative carrying a heartfelt obligation to their constituency. A real challenge, pulling those ends together; seeing how myopic interest groups constantly pick it apart. "Myopic," as in a complete lack of creative problem solving while renouncing inclusive relationships and listening. But honestly, there are no easy solutions, as each of us must commit ourselves to the noble pursuit of self-government. An individual responsibility that embraces the whole country, even those other people. Increasingly difficult, finding emotional intelligence and even psychological stability are being replaced with noise, and a lot of it!
One could see my flat earth analogy as being uniquely suited to developing the concept of democracy. For instance, it tells us why democracies erode when they swing hard left or right. Historically, once you reach a tipping point, that flat earth becomes a "1," equal to a singular expression of the "Truth." In addition, aiming to be inclusive, one should view that right and left as critically important. Having a unique perspective, those ends will call into question the excesses of the dominant center. They're providing a reality check and quite often propel the whole thing forward, thinking outside the box as they look to the horizon. In other words, it takes a village - not nearly perfect, just human. Leading to my next point, next week. Delayed gratification is a beautiful thing.