[antimedia] antimedia: A new political party?....

[Email subscription to blog articles]

Posted by antimedia:
A new political party?....
http://www.antimedia.us/posts/1151870731.shtml


   ....There's been much discussion lately about the possibility of a
   third party. [1]Peggy Noonan wrote about it. Today David Brooks writes
   about it in an essay entitled "It's not left vs. right anymore",
   published today in the Dallas Morning News. (Unfortunately, it's not
   available on their website.)
   Brooks argues that, if America could suddenly realign its political
   parties, today's struggles would be populist nationalism against
   progressive globalism.
   The former would be "liberal on economics, conservative on values and
   realist on foreign policy". It would represent "the ordinary
   burden-bearing people" who would oppose "pie-in-the-sky wars to bring
   democracy to the Middle East" and selling "our ports to our enemies"
   while supporting securing our borders. It would "stand up to the
   big-money interests who value their own profits more than their own
   countrymen, who outsource jobs to China and India, who destroy unions
   and control Washington". It would fight to preserve Social Security
   and Medicare and to establish "universal health care and decent
   wages".
   That's clearly not a party that I would support, so I must be a
   progressive globalist then, right?
   According to Brooks, progressive globalists would be "market-oriented
   on economics, liberal on values and multilateral interventionalists in
   foreign affairs". It would support "technological dynamism and
   cultural diversity", "reform education and entitlements", "work
   together to address global warming, oil dependence and protectionist
   barriers".
   That's not a party I would support either.
   Here's one that I would support. Although good relations with other
   countries are important, I would never forget that America is a
   sovereign nation and the freedom we enjoy here does not exist anywhere
   else in the world. Therefore I would resist any attempts to water down
   the Constitution, to sign treaties that subjugate America to
   internationalist tendencies or expose her citizens to internationalist
   courts. I would not be elitist enough to think that ideas from other
   parts of the world should trump the brilliant design of our system of
   government nor foolish enough to think that ignoring problems in other
   parts of the world will keep them from affecting America, and I
   wouldn't wait to ask the world's permission to intervene when
   intervention was called for.
   I would support rational changes to energy policy based upon sound
   scientific principles. That means that, rather than succumbing to the
   strident alarmism of the global warming proponents, I would ask for
   scientific proof both that man is the sole or leading cause of global
   warming and that by making changes, man could actually affect the
   outcome.
   Most importantly of all, I would support all initiatives that promote
   local autonomy and break down the centralized, federalized government
   we suffer under now. (For example, the US Department of Education
   would cease to exist. It serves no purpose other than to centralize
   power and is a clear violation of Article 10 of our Constitution.) It
   is not the job of the federal government to solve every local problem,
   even when those problems manifest themselves in multiple cities or
   states.
   When I committed the nation to war, it would be all-out, total war,
   and the nation would understand that I fully intend to destroy the
   enemy's capability to fight. Our enemies would understand that, when
   they choose to engage the United States, they would feel her full
   wrath and fury, unceasing and brutal, until they surrender and abandon
   all fantasies of overcoming us. (Those who live in a fantasy world
   where war can be "precise" and "antiseptic" and "ethical" need to wake
   up to reality.)
   Lastly, I would allow the states and their people to decide for
   themselves what laws they wanted to pass, so long as they pass
   Constitutional muster. I see nothing wrong with allowing a certain
   behavior in one state and prohibiting it in another. Those who
   disagreed could simply do what they are already doing -- move to an
   area where the politics are more acceptable to them.

References

   1. http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110008453