We Can All Do Better (21 page)

Neither major party appears to have fully registered the implication of what happened. As late as the spring of 2011, Karl Rove, George W. Bush's former political guru, was saying that there would never be another third candidate in a presidential election.
⁷

While each party was preparing for 2012 in the traditional way, Americans Elect was busy developing their alternative nominating process. Both parties suffered from the arrogance and laziness of a duopoly—think IBM and its mainframe before the arrival of the personal computer. The media was equally clueless, buying into the view, fostered by both parties, that the current system would never change. We seemed stuck with a few small states—Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina—arrogating to themselves the job of selecting who would get on the fall ballot. (In the 2012 Iowa Republican caucuses, fewer than 120,000 thousand voters participated.) The nomination process was hardly democratic. Nothing would change. Both parties liked it that way: If the selection process could be kept closed, there was big money at stake. One of the two parties would control the federal purse strings and reward its supporters; the other would have to be satisfied with the crumbs until the next election. No one could possibly emerge who could shake up the system.

Until now. Americans Elect was on the ballot in fifteen states by January 1, 2012, and had gathered the needed signatures in fifteen more states by the same date. By summer, Americans Elect hopes to have all fifty states covered. For the first time in our country's
history, there will be an electoral process free of control by the major parties. The sign-up rate of citizens on petitions to get Americans Elect on the ballot in various states has been an astonishing 70 percent of those asked and includes nearly three million Americans.

The nominating process is simple. Citizens who are registered voters go online to
www.americanselect.org
and sign up as delegates. They are asked to suggest questions they want candidates to answer and make a contribution; both requests are optional. In mid-April 2012, the Americans Elect online convention begins. In a series of three preliminary votes, the field of candidates proposed by delegates will be narrowed to six by the end of May. At that point, each candidate must declare whether he or she will run and fill out an extensive candidate questionnaire that reflects the questions the delegates have posted and those that a bipartisan platform committee has chosen. In addition, the candidates must select a vice-presidential running mate “from a party other than their own” or someone who is an independent.
⁸
Between May 8 and June 1 there will be three weeks of debate among the six candidates (inevitably, these encounters will be televised) and then a secure online vote of all delegates to the Internet convention. If one of the six receives a majority, he or she will become the nominee. If not, the bottom three vote-getters must drop out. There will be a week of debate among the three remaining candidates. On June 8, there is another vote of delegates with the bottom candidate dropping out if there is still no majority. After two weeks of debate among the remaining two candidates, a winner will be determined by a vote on June 21. The nominee will then take his or her place on the ballot in potentially all fifty states on November 6.

The identity of the eventual nominee depends on who shows up as delegates. Will it be trade union members or Tea Party true believers? Will it be young people or older Americans? Will it be city dwellers or small-town activists? If a liberal or a moderate gets
the nomination and ballot position, President Obama's re-election chances will be hurt. If a Tea Party candidate wins, the Republican nominee will be at a disadvantage. If lightning strikes and the Americans Elect candidate is the right person at the right time with the right set of views and communication skills, he or she could be elected president of the United States. No one knows how it will turn out. Obama partisans could vote for Republicans and vice versa. Mischief, even disaster, is possible—and so is political transformation.

What is so exciting about Americans Elect is that once again there is innovation in our democracy. Just as occurred in the expansion of the franchise and ensuring direct election of U.S. senators, Americans Elect takes the decision about who will appear on the ballot away from the exclusive control of the current political parties and gives it to citizens.

The Americans Elect process of 2012 could lead to a surprising development in 2014, when only the Congress stands for re-election. The court decision that allowed the financing of a presidential election process apart from the campaign finance laws also applies to an Americans Elect process in various congressional districts. Thus there is a real possibility that a third party could organize on the Americans Elect platform.

When third parties have emerged in the immediate past, they have always been centered around a candidate (Wallace, Anderson, Perot, Nader) and an office (the presidency). But the problem of our democracy is not the presidency, it is the Congress. Recall that the Congress had an approval rating of 6 percent last fall, whereas President Obama had a 40 percent rating. That tells me that Congress is more vulnerable to a third party effort than is the presidency. Even if an Americans Elect candidate won the White House in 2012, he or she would still have to deal with a Congress composed of Democrats and Republicans, whose joint purpose, if recent history is our
guide, would be to thwart the presidential agenda. Although the election of an Americans Elect president in 2012 is unlikely, the experience gained from the journey could be valuable in 2014.

There never has been a congressional third party. Today, that is the opportunity. Other countries have several parties. Canada has five. Germany, England, Japan, and Mexico have three major parties. Granted, they are parliamentary democracies, but the New American Party (let's call it) could learn from them. A congressional third party whose objective would be the three R's—Raise our standard of living, Reset our foreign policy, and Reform our politics—could have broad appeal. Those who sought the party's nominations would be problem solvers. Some might have political experience; others might not. Each House candidate would be asked to commit to running for two additional terms if initially successful, and each Senate candidate would be asked to commit to one term. The slogan could be “Six years for the country.” The party could field candidates in fifty congressional districts and five senatorial elections. The objective would be to win enough seats so that the party could be the fulcrum of power. If neither party had control, each would need the support of the brand-new congressional party on one issue or another. In order to obtain the New American Party's support, the major party seeking it would have to make commitments to the agenda of the new party. This leverage, combined with the clarity of a limited substantive program articulated by its members, just might be the antidote to our partisan paralysis and the catalyst to meet our country's needs.

No one knows how the Americans Elect process—or, for that matter, the possible development of a third congressional party—will turn out. When James Madison headed north from Virginia and John Adams headed south from Massachusetts, each on his way to Philadelphia for the Constitutional Convention in 1787, neither of them knew how that would turn out, either. They knew that they
were dedicated to building a new country, one unlike any that had ever existed before. They were good people, honorable men, patriots who understood the stakes. They acted without cynicism, and with a deep-rooted belief in America's future. Why should we not assume that good and honorable people will show up at the Internet nominating convention? Why should we not expect that people who are currently uninvolved in politics will become involved in a congressional third party when they see what is possible? Why should we not expect that many of those who give to others with no thought of return will take up their responsibility as citizens and make their voices heard? The country needs all of us in order to face its future with confidence. Once again in American history, democratic innovation might herald a better day.

A
friend of mine who just came back from China told me that the one theme in all of her meetings there was the observation that the United States is in decline. These iterations were not a matter of Chinese bravado but only a description of what the Chinese perceived to be the facts. Our situation seems evident not only to the Chinese and other foreigners but also to millions of Americans—and too many of our citizens are losing hope. Hopelessness is a serious danger for a culture whose historical attitude has been optimism. It is the equivalent today of what fear was in the Great Depression. But, in the spirit of FDR when he confronted a fearful nation, I would say to those who feel the ground falling away under their feet that the only thing that can make our situation hopeless is hopelessness itself. It's time, in FDR's words, “to convert retreat into advance.”

It is within our power to take control of our American future. The way forward is clear. To raise living standards, we must tax labor less and things more, adopt a massive infrastructure program,
invest heavily in research, educate our citizens for a lifetime in a world of constant change, and reduce the structural budget deficit. To reset our foreign policy, we must recognize that while terrorism remains, the real threats rest in economic performance and strategic surprise and the challenge is to avoid lengthy military involvement in faraway lands while capitalizing on our real advantage: our example. Reforming our politics requires a constitutional amendment to limit the amount of money that can be spent in a political campaign, voluntary public financing of whatever amount is set by the Congress, and a plan to change the way congressional district lines are drawn. If we do all of this, our future will be bright.

None of these things can be accomplished without fortitude. Politicians should put country ahead of party and tell us the truth. We need brave leaders who are unafraid to take on the power of special interests, challenge the conventional Washington wisdom, and fight with all their energy for the emergence of a more creative and just society. The various Occupy protests this past winter against income inequality and the greed and mismanagement of the financial sector struck a chord with most Americans. Without our leaders explaining how, exactly, the country has arrived at this low point in its fortunes, the people's anger and desperation will continue undifferentiated. Without leaders who level with them about what needs to be done and how long it will take, there is no way to build support for the tough decisions necessary to solve our problems. People are tired of seeing the monied interests dominate the House of Representatives—the peoples' house. They're tired of narrow interests raiding the U.S. Treasury in collusion with congressmen who, when they leave office, are employed as lobbyists by the very industries whose interests they promoted in the Congress. (The same applies in spades to congressional staff.) They're tired of seeing their presidents appear at fund-raisers and hedge their bets and
compromise their beliefs to raise campaign money. The people are tired of being taken for granted. They yearn for leaders who will level with them, not pander to them.

Leaders should begin by telling people where we are in comparison to other countries—and why, without action, we risk becoming a second-rate power. Too often, our politicians dismiss this kind of truth-telling as anti-American, whereas what's truly anti-American is a refusal to confront the cold, hard reality of our times. When Lincoln, in his second State of the Union address, spoke to a nation at war, he did not mince words:

The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.

Fellow-citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this Administration will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance or insignificance can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass will light us down in honor or dishonor to the latest generation.

Today we need that same candor and sense of urgency. We need that same belief in our unique capacity to weather the storm and control our own destiny once again. We need to relinquish “the dogmas of the quiet past”—the imposition of reckless tax cuts, the promotion of income inequality, the surrender to international competitors, the denial of climate change and other environmental hazards, the objections to government's proper role in our lives. And we need to acknowledge the human costs of rapid technological change whose
side effects—the loss of well-paying jobs, the need for re-education and portable health insurance—have not been effectively faced. The key is shared sacrifice now, so that all of us can have shared prosperity tomorrow—something we've missed out on for thirty years.