Wed Nov 21, 2012, 12:28 PM
AgingAmerican (11,024 posts)
Bipartisanship Vs. Democracy: The Third Way Fallacy
By Richard (RJ) Eskow
Clinton played the "centrist" angle brilliantly in the 1990s, artfully fusing Republican and Democratic positions and rescuing his own political fortunes. But times have changed, even if Washington's illusions have not.
Today the country's real center - the commonly-held set of goals and aspirations shared by Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike - has never been farther from the narrow right-leaning viewpoint that's still being peddled as a "centrism." If the White House and other Democrats buy into that illusion, as they seem to be doing, they'll lose the country.
Politicians and journalists in Washington cling to the belief that there's a better way to run government, one that dispenses with the messy process of debate and disagreement. Call it "the Third Way Fallacy." It suggests that all will be well if we just stop all the partisan "bickering" - "bickering" being a pejorative word for the political discourse that permits voters to distinguish one politician's views from another and vote accordingly. The Third Way approach would replace the quarrelsome democratic process with a system in which powerful people from both parties sit down amicably to "work things out," presumably in quiet - and private - places.
4 replies, 838 views
Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Bipartisanship Vs. Democracy: The Third Way Fallacy (Original post)
Response to AgingAmerican (Original post)
Wed Nov 21, 2012, 12:31 PM
nadinbrzezinski (150,288 posts)
1. The problem is that hard core partisans on both side
(And the House) need to read the Constitution. The political system is messy, it is slow, but in the end it requires the c word.