“The political party, as currently defined in America, feels like an out of date, anachronistic apparatus whose value is in the past, not the present and certainly not something aligned with the future. If it is to survive, it must reconstitute itself or crumble under its own dead weight.” -www.evolutionshift.com 5/31/06
When I set aside any personal and political points of view and look at the state of electoral politics and the two party structure in the United States, I absolutely believe the above statement to be true. As mentioned in earlier posts, we are in one of those historically infrequent periods of transformative change. As someone who has taken on disintermediation as a subject to explore, I can’t help but see that dynamic force taking place to some degree in American politics. As a futurist who looks at the larger dynamics affecting the world today to help see with some clarity as to what lies ahead, I think that the next 10 years could be a time of true historic change as far as the state of politics and political parties in America are concerned. I cannot predict exactly what will happen but I do think there are some interesting possibilities to consider.
It’s not working.
That is the first thing to see and accept. As written in a post last week, members and voters of both the parties are less than excited about the state of their respective parties. Substantial numbers of people feel disconnected with the direction, or lack thereof, of the Democratic and Republican parties. The number of people who say they are Independents goes up each year. The amount of voter apathy seems to be going up. People have not been given candidates that excite them with leadership and vision. People no longer believe or trust the leaders of their parties to speak the truth, or have a concern for the larger non-moral issues of the day. The phrase “He/she is just a politician” is a statement of derision and distain. All this describes a situation ripe for change or large scale restructuring.
The Internet
The Internet is one of the greatest forces of disintermediation in history. I cannot help but think that it will have a profound structural effect on the political process and on political parties in America and other countries around the world. In 2004 it started to take center stage as a vehicle for voters to organize around candidates and issues. It became a new force in campaign contributions and financing. That function will only continue to grow in magnitude.
The Internet has the inherent power to quickly situate itself between voter polling at one end and actual elections at the other and play a real role in providing voter direction to political leaders. The fraud detection technology is in place for on-line commerce; it can serve the same function for voting and polling. Along with wireless technology, the net provides easy ‘frictionless voting’; it is easy to make a couple of clicks or dial a toll-free number without leaving home, going to a polling place, and waiting in line to vote. Just look at the more than 64 million votes cast via phone in several hours for the two finalists on “American Idol”.
As mentioned earlier in the broadband post, in the coming year the number of households with broadband Internet will pass the 50% mark. In the workplace it is over 70%. This could open the door for each candidate in every election in the country to have a web platform where, on a daily or weekly basis they could speak to the camera about their positions on major issues, speak their vision and make their promises (that will be archived as historical record). While the presidential debates make it to national television, the Internet would allow a forum for candidates at all levels to have broadband televised debates. All of this could be available whenever the voter may want to see it, which should increase viewing. We increasingly live in an on-demand world. Why have the candidates for the most powerful office in the world compete live with sports or entertainment programming?
The Internet could also help disintermediate one of the road blocks to fundamental electoral change: the fact that the two governing parties have institutionalized themselves in the electoral process making it extremely difficult for third parties to take root. In this digital age, why do third parties have to stand on street corners gathering signatures and jumping through other real time real world hoops? Any state could open up for registered voters to decide on-line as to how many parties can field a presidential, senatorial or congressional candidates in any election year.
Multiple Parties
The current two parties, the Democrats and the Republicans seem to have lost their way, if recent polls are to be believed. Clearly that means that they have to get back in touch with the people they lead, or the people will sooner or later lead them. Politicians are very easy to persuade if political survival is at stake. The ‘Dubai Ports Deal’ is a bellwether event in this regard. Within days of it becoming public that the Bush Administration was about ready to sell operational control of America’s ports to a Middle Eastern Islamic country, America rose up in such a manner that even the most docile of Republicans were thumping their chest about the stupidity of the idea. It didn’t matter that the US has been selling off control to ports in years past. Nothing mattered except that seemingly as one, America rose up and said: “What, you have got to be kidding! No way!” Somehow, through the connectivity of cyberspace and the electronic airwaves, Americans rose up and said “No!” That was it, end of story.
The power, authority and possibility of voters rising up with the amplification of electronic media and wireless technology is real and palpable. Currently there is a lot of similar voter volatility simmering below the surface. What are the issues in America that are capable of causing an eruption like the ‘Dubai Ports Deal’? Immigration, the war in Iraq, energy and environmental policies, and the deficit would be ones at the top of my list. All of these issues are large, divisive and essential to face.
Now let us take the next step. Historically third – and fourth – parties in the United States have taken hold around specific issues. Theodore Roosevelt in 1912 ran on the issue of progressive government intervention to protect the people from ‘selfish interests’. Strom Thurmond ran on the issue ‘States Rights’ (read segregation) in 1948. Henry Wallace also in 1948 ran on an integration and universal health care platform (hmmmm). George Wallace ran in 1964, 1968 and 1972 on law and order. John Anderson, a centrist, ran in 1980 suggesting that there be a gas tax to lower consumption and use those revenues to fund social security ( a great idea for 2008), and H. Ross Perot ran in 1992 and 1996 on the platform of a balanced budget and the rejection of NAFTA.
Now, think ahead to 2008. It is not far fetched to have one or two additional candidates/parties on firm issue platforms in the presidential race. There could be a conservative candidate running on the platform of strict immigration enforcement and balancing the budget. There could be a centrist-liberal candidate running on the environmental and alternative energy platform. The Republicans would be left with running on the legacy of the Iraq War, anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage and record deficits. The Democrats would be running on the ‘we are not Republicans’ platform. If all four parties got on the ballot, it could be an interesting and close race.
What do I really think might be brewing for the 2008 campaign? I sense that there could be a real opportunity for a charismatic, populist candidate that rises up and runs on the platform of ‘truth-telling, anti-corruption and vested interests, spending tax dollars on America’s problems and a real need for visionary leadership and a new agenda’.
When a system is locked, exclusionary, perceived to be non-functional and non-responsive and unable to serve those it represent, anger and urgency combined with new, powerful technologies could become a transformative force that will re-order the political landscape. The disintermediation of the American political party system might be at hand.
June 14th, 2006 at 7:17 am
The two-party system in the US owes a lot to the Electoral College. You can’t be a serious party unless you can compete for the Presidency, and you can’t compete for the Presidency unless you can attract a plurality of the votes in enough states to get a majority of the Electoral College. That, combined with campaign spending laws that channel money to the two major parties, create huge institutional hurdles that make it extremely difficult for secondary parties to gain a foothold.
What I think is somewhat more likely than the parties themselves being disintermediated is that the established LEADERSHIP of either party could be disintermediated. The early signs of this were Howard Dean’s run in 2004. The party “brands” have value; it would make a lot more sense for the Green-minded to try to take over the Democrats and for the immigration hawks to take over the Republican apparatus.
The established leadership’s control of both parties is very weak. It is secured by access to big, mostly corporate, money. Dean, MoveOn, and others have demonstrated that the power of lots of small money can be marshalled on the Net. The real question is whether it can made to coalesce around a small enough number of challengers to stop the early favorites (Clinton and McCain), to which the big money will very likely go.
June 14th, 2006 at 8:31 am
Mike-
Spoken like a true political realist. I agree that the “leadership” could be disintermediated as there really isn’t any. The other thing that seems to be missing is charisma and straight talking. It is those two qualities, combined with the net that could rock the foundations of both parties, either from within or without.
David
June 14th, 2006 at 8:39 am
Great post!
You sparked a thought though, that may skew things a bit.
As responsible voters, we cast our votes based on what we’ve been told by others, mainly our political affiliates. We trust this information to be true, and we take in information from all different sources to form our opinions before voting.
It is inconvenient to go to the polls to vote. You fight the crowds and stand in line only to have your voice thrown into the bag with everyone elses’, and by the time that bag of voices reaches the capitol, it sounds like static.
But what if you make voting easy (as you say, by loging on or dialing in)? How will all the uniformed people that are too inconvenienced to vote at the polls affect the outcomes of our new digital system?
Right now our system is slow and inconvenient, however due to that inconvenience, you assume that the people who DO go vote are at least halfway informed about the issues they’re voting on.
While I agree that the internet could provide a very useful avenue to my elected officials, I base that opinion on the fact that I take the time to gather facts about the issues and form my opinion.
I fear a large number of the ~60% of those who DON’T vote today will vote tomorrow based on ill-formed opinions.
It’s kind of a catch 22. If we could get our politicians to reach out and inform their voters of facts, we’d have a better case for making voting easier…
-Grant
http://www.TheCornerOfficeBlog.com
June 14th, 2006 at 3:35 pm
Third parties in our system have done little to accelerate progress or improve governance. For example, Ralph Nader put Bush in power. In a parliamentary system we can speak of multiple parties more productively. The internet may be an opportunity to cut through voter apathy, to open up candidate competition within the two party system. The danger of mediocraty, demagogery, and constitution saboteurs achieving power is likely to be increased not decreased by encouraging and opening the door to multi parties
George
June 15th, 2006 at 5:06 am
George-
Yes, Nader gave us Bush, but Perot gave us Clinton and Teddy Roosevelt gave us Woodrow Wilson. What might happen if the ‘Environmental Party’ was threatening the Democratic turf so much that the Dems publically embraced the Environmental Party policies, and perhaps the candidate as VP. I am not endorsing third parties as much as I am saying that the current situation with the two party system is ripe for change.
I am not sure that you need to look ahead for a third party to institute mediocrity, demagogery or constitutional threats. Seems the Republicans in power are already trying to do their best to deliver those goods.
David
June 15th, 2006 at 7:04 am
Woodrow Wilson was one of the worst presidents we ever endured. He lied himself into office and then lied the country into WWI, but worse, he was responsible for the most extreme example of government mismanagement of the public health establishment’s response to the influenza pandemic. Read John M. Barry’s book, The Great Influenza.
My experience is simply that I cannot find anyone who agrees with anything any government entity does; everyone assumes that all government is incompetetant and essentially self-serving. If government could be reduced, we’d all be better off.
I’m a Libertarian; I admit it, but unfortunately we have a penchant for nominating fringe candidates, and fail to engage mainstream America.
I hope you are right in predicting a demise of the current Republicans and Democrats, or at least relegating them to a left-wing nutjob party of Pelosi, Boxer, Reid, and Kennedy and a right-wing party of the Santorums and Bushes.
Good Luck!
June 15th, 2006 at 10:54 am
Fascinating original post and thread. I wonder, David, if you have considered the intricacies of McCain-Feingold and how it might affect the prospects of a third party arising successfully. As I understand it, the law’s provisions weaken the two major parties through its restrictions on soft-money deployment. It strikes me that the 527s that have arisen in its wake are a funding vehicle that could greatly increase the chances of success of a third party. Suppose a charismatic, well-known leader — or pair of the them (McCain-Lieberman?) — were to persuade Soros, Buffett and Gates that their interest would be well-served by upsetting the applecart of the current two-party system. An argument to that effect would be fairly easy to sketch. Under the 527 loophole to McCain-Feingold, the conceptual underpinnings of a third party could be well-established and publicized before the party itself even came to exist. With a well-organized, net-based publicity effort and a populist platform, the system as it currently exists could be overtaken in a single election cycle.
June 16th, 2006 at 10:34 am
Bob-
Interesting comment. Money, combined with vision, a clear stance on the issues and a strong populist message can win the day. There is still the issue of gaining electoral votes, at least enough to be able to act as a broker in the negotiations for who gets to become President.
I must disagree that a McCain-Lieberman ticket has charisma. McCain seems to no longer be the ‘independent’ Republican that ran in 2000. Lieberman put people to sleep in 2000 and right now is in danger of losing his Senate seat. Both guys support the Iraq war, so I think that ticket couldn’t get off the ground. Feingold, however, seems to have possibilities.
Part of the problem right now is that people don’t see leaders with both conviction and vision – anywhere.
David
June 16th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
The two existing corporate parties are a debacle. On the other hand, there is no such thing as democracy without organized politics, i.e. parties. Trying to create an authentic third party that stands for something real is fantastically difficult. Personally I support the Green Party’s efforts this year in several important Congressional and Senate races.
While we’re at it, let’s be clear about electronic voting — as we already know from the Ohio experience in 2004, voting mechanisms that leave no paper record are wide open to fraud. George W. Bush seems to have truly made history: the first president to serve two terms without being elected even once. (He and his Cabinet certainly ought to be serving consecutive terms, but in a different kind of institution.)