I don't have an answer to that question, but a little more evidence trickled in today that America is, indeed, fixing to move on from extreme partisan politics.
No Labels is now here to "bring together leading thinkers from the left, right, and all points in between" and "work to break down false divisions and lift up the common ground on which we can build solutions." It has a snazzy new website and a couple of ex Clinton and Bush administration leaders at its helm, so it clearly has smarts and gravitas to back up its pollyanna goals.
It's not entirely clear how they plan to turn the tide of hyper-partisanship, but they have some initial ideas: cut down on gerrymandering so districts are actually competitive; open up primaries to do the same; and change campaign finance rules so money is the overwhelming driver it is today.
But even with these great ideas, their fundamental principle - that labels are bad - may be a faulty one. Sure, our political parties can seem like pretty sleezy and unprincipled groups, but party affiliation serves a purpose. Without parties, it becomes that much more difficult for citizens to figure out who to vote for and to keep their elected officials accountable. Parties help define the issues, simplifying the decision of voters. While it's common (and justified) to complain that parties over-simplify the issues, the reverse prospect - of every candidate defining and explaining policy positions - could create a cacophony of ideas that overwhelms voters and makes it hard for legislators to align on any policy solutions.
No Labels doesn't seem to go as far as to want to abolish parties (which would be politically and logistically impossible to do), but I wonder if even putting the emphasis on the negative of labels hampers the ability of labels to do good. Perhaps we shouldn't be trying to impair the power of parties - but rather find ways to force them to use their power responsibly.
No comments:
Post a Comment