Type to search

Is There A Way Out Of Our Nation’s Two-Party Stranglehold?

Campaign 2016 Elections Featured Post Memo Pad Politics Top News

Is There A Way Out Of Our Nation’s Two-Party Stranglehold?

Share
U.S. Senate Independent candidate Greg Orman, left, shakes hands with Sen. Pat Roberts following their debate at the KSN television studio Oct. 15, 2014 in Wichita, Kan. (Fernando Salazar/Wichita Eagle/MCT)

America is nearly gagging over its two probable choices for president.

The upcoming general election feels like an indigestible dinner menu: Would you like boiled liver or the five-day-old pot pie? Can’t there be a third option?

For those with that fervent yet unrealistic wish — and that likely includes a substantial number of voters — a new book on the political circuit will appeal.

“A Declaration of Independents: How We Can Break the Two-Party Stranglehold and Restore the American Dream” is the title. It was written by Greg Orman, who tried to blaze a trail around politics as usual in a run for the U.S. Senate, and failed.

Orman’s 15 minutes of national attention came in 2014, when he threatened to end the Congressional career of Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas, who was a three-term incumbent at the time.

Orman, a Princeton-educated, self-made businessman, ran as an independent. Through a confluence of breaks, savvy and hard work, he drew enough support to freak out the GOP. Losing Roberts’ seat would have put the party’s control of the U.S. Senate in jeopardy.

Suffice it to say, it was an all-hands-on-deck moment for Republicans. The heavy hitters of the party were trotted out to Kansas. Their job was to tar Orman as a liberal in disguise, a stooge of Harry Reid who would solidify the Obama White House agenda.

It worked. Orman lost, although he garnered 43 percent of the vote.

Many of Orman’s positions on issues fell in the middle of the political spectrum; some aligned with views more typical of Democrats, others with Republicans. His platform was nuanced — not what voters get from the typical candidate of either party.

The experience of that election confirmed in Orman a determination to address America’s political malaise head-on. Hence the book. One of his guiding insights is this: “Partisanship has become the new prejudice.”

Consider these statistics, highlighted in the book: In 1960, 4 percent of Democrats and 5 percent of Republicans said they would be “displeased” if their child married someone from a rival political party. By 2010, one-third of Democrats and half of Republicans said they would be “somewhat” or “very” unhappy at the idea of their child marrying a person of the opposing political party.

On the other hand, a full 43 percent of Americans identify as independents. And 35 percent say they are moderates. The problem is they often don’t have a candidate to support. So they hold their nose and choose. Or they sit out Election Day.

In the book, Orman details the many factors that have contributed to this problem: the gerrymandering of Congressional districts, the negativity that has chased moderate (often female) candidates from the field, the rise of partisan think tanks and news outlets, the shrill voices of talk radio, the ethical pollution of lobbyists and campaign contributions.

Orman writes: “[I]ndependence from the party line, from the special interests that control both major political parties through campaign cash, and from extremists who control each party’s primary process — that’s what this country needs to move forward.”

Orman’s plea is for the centrist, unaffiliated electorate to back independent candidates who can run up the middle to victory while the two other parties push candidates on the extremes.

Yet in the political scene as it’s now constituted, independents run the risk of becoming ciphers in Congress, shut out by party loyalists. They also face the question that stymied the Orman campaign: Who will you caucus with?

Orman’s answer on the campaign trail was simple: Whichever party is working to solve the problem under consideration. He was branded a liar.

That dynamic might change if even a handful of such candidates are elected at the national level — say, five true independents the Senate. That is a long-term goal of the Centrist Project, which backed Orman’s campaign.

The Centrist Project reports that 74 percent of Americans are angry about the way government works. And 89 percent disapprove of how Congress does its job.

Sadly, those very people are likely backing opposing candidates in the current election cycle and might not recognize each other for all the shouting and finger-pointing.

People fed up with Washington are largely fueling the campaigns of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. One wonders what might be possible if those people could be persuaded to recognize their shared values, to research the roots of their problems dispassionately and to withhold assigning blame to scapegoats.

(Mary Sanchez is an opinion-page columnist for The Kansas City Star. Readers may write to her at: Kansas City Star, 1729 Grand Blvd., Kansas City, Mo. 64108-1413, or via e-mail at msanchez@kcstar.com.)

(c) 2016, THE KANSAS CITY STAR. DISTRIBUTED BY TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC

Photo: U.S. Senate Independent candidate Greg Orman, left, shakes hands with Sen. Pat Roberts following their debate at the KSN television studio Oct. 15, 2014 in Wichita, Kan. (Fernando Salazar/Wichita Eagle/MCT)

Tags:
Mary Sanchez

Mary Sanchez has spent years covering immigration, schools, and other volatile beats for The Kansas City Star. She is now an editorial columnist for the Star, where she continues to offer insightful commentary on immigration, culture, and politics.

  • 1

31 Comments

  1. cradulich May 7, 2016

    article is crap. No solutions offered at all. Want third parties to stand a chance go to IRV (instant runoff voting). I would also remember that Obama spent over 6 years trying to work with the republicans but working with a party(republican) that is only bent on your destruction and is in complete denial of science does not work.

    Reply
    1. Feliciajgoodlett1 May 8, 2016

      “my room mate Mary Is getting paid on the internet 98$/hr”..,……..!wc278ctwo days ago grey MacLaren P1 I bought after earning 18,512 DoIIars..it was my previous month’s payout..just a little over.17k DoIIars Last month..3-5 hours job a day…with weekly payouts..it’s realy the simplest. job I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making over. hourly 87 DoIIars…Learn. More right Here !wc278:➽:➽:➽➽➽➽ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsExpressGetPayHourly$98…. .❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦::::::!wc278……..

      Reply
  2. atc333 May 7, 2016

    Not really sure what the point of this article is, except perhaps an acknowledgement that the writer has no clue as to the actual positions of Clinton are, (moderate) and that he, as well as many of her oppositon have bought into as a result the Fox News Entertainment attempts to distort her record, and sell the “criminal” claim with Bengahzi and Email claims. Like it or not, the Right Wing of the GOP has created this mess using every tool available to them begining with Bill Clinton’s election to thet office.

    If more people would actual exercise some of their inherant intellectual curiosity and research out Ms. Clinton’s record, including Politifact and other fact checking sites, instead of swallowing all the Right Wing Talking Heads claim, the choices between Trump and Clinton or Sanders might become much easier.
    So far only Trump has won Poltifact’s Lie of the Year Award. yet the Trump supporters totally ignore that reality. as well has his many, many changes of opinion on about any topic he talks about. After all, if you don’t agree with his current opinion on any topic, just wait a few days,

    Regardless of their personal preferrence, most Democrats, and moderate independants can cheerfully live with either Sanders or Clinton. Can the GOP claim the same?

    Reply
    1. The lucky one May 7, 2016

      No need to reference Benghazi or the e-mails for me although she may yet be indicted over the e-mails. Clinton is a hawk, pro-fracking and much too cozy with banksters who crashed the economy. She does have experience as SOS and senator but her service was not distinguished in either role. She now claims to be against the TPP but if you read her statements she has given herself an out to flip again and support it. That said I believe any one with a brain and open eyes can see that Trump lacks any qualifications whatsoever and his presidency would be an utter disaster. The way it looks i will not be voting for either member of the duopoly this year. Congressional races do sometimes offer a Dem worth voting for however.

      Reply
  3. Matforce May 7, 2016

    Concerning the deceptive, obstructionist, Party of “NO!’s unraveling… Who’d have guessed?

    When your party’s culture, focus, narrative, and philosophy are all dominated by think tank groups like American Enterprise Institute, ALEC (A Legislator for Every Corporation), Americans for Prosperity, Heritage Foundation, Free Congress Foundation, etc., etc., etc. whose only interest is forging back-room deals, and furthering the cause of moneyed, special interest, but who posture like they are the Champion of the common Christian folk, it’s only a matter of time until your “wolf in sheep’s clothes” ruse is revealed for what it truly has become: The GOP = Guardians Of Plutocracy!

    It was just a matter of time until their “common man” rhetoric, wrapped in Red, White, and Blue with its touch of Norman Rockwell, gave way to their true colors; dark money, Corporate influence, and the continued evisceration of the vanishing middle class they’ve deceived. And “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned,” or an electorate who’s come to the realization that their beloved GOP has tricked them into casting their vote, a vote that served to secure their own demise!

    Trump has tapped into that middle class anger; the result of their slow awakening to the fact that their GOP has sold them out!

    Reply
    1. A_Real_Einstein May 7, 2016

      And the Democratic establishment has sold us out, too. We are just a couple election cycles behind. But is coming.

      Reply
  4. pjm19606 May 7, 2016

    “Is there a way out….?” Yes. How about starting by properly educating our children about the true purpose of the system: to keep the wealthy in power. And how the US is, in fact, NOT a Democracy, but a Republic. And how “Representation” is actually a tool of control. The 1% and our oligarchic system was NO accident. It was created from the very beginning by design.

    Reply
    1. Matforce May 7, 2016

      The design does have built-in checks and balances to give “we the people” a voice. So I believe your criticism is maybe too harsh.

      However, in view of how this system of checks and balances has been completely by-passed by the use of an extremely well designed conspiracy to keep “we the people” preoccupied with elaborate bait and switch, slight of hand political schemes, as well as a propaganda machine that would have made Joseph Goebbels blush, your point is well taken.

      One interruption to the complete domination of the system by the Oligarchs was the New Deal; the offspring of the Great Depression. A review of the tenants of that time is now become a necessity, as many have forgotten…

      Reply
  5. Aaron_of_Portsmouth May 7, 2016

    This article addresses an over-all “Systems Failure” of what started out as a noble concept. If we had foresight at the time the system of governance was being conceived, we would have readily realized a number of weaknesses:

    1) The ideal of governance had embedded in it the notion and “echoes” that only certain people are “created equal”— a built-in clock for the fracturing of America.

    2) A system that gave the right to vote to males only, while relegating women to the status of subservience, was like a bird trying to fly with one wing. It may achieve limited flight, but will eventually tire and fly off course. That system eventually and half-heartedly gave the right to vote, but only after kicking and screaming.

    3) A system of governance that highlights a person’s measure of wealth, pays more attention to the ability to assert himself/herself over others, puts heavy emphasis on “proper lineage”, and disdains the concept of moderation and consultation, has led to a plutocratic/oligarchic style of government with an electoral process that promotes such prerequisites. This has led to an adversarial approach to decision-making. and the reliance on having deep pockets and the backing of vested interest in order to be elected.

    4) Promoting primary focus on materialism while systematically, and in parallel, belittling the cultivation of spiritual values. (A current dominant figure in today’s politics and his cohorts exemplify that, and may be considered the national icon(s) for the “god” of Materialism).

    5) An insular/”nativist” perception of the world and of the members within its own social sphere. A myopia that has contributed to a steady “macular degeneration” of many in America.

    6) A general lack of “Altruism”, as an implication in “4”, that has skewed and skews the policy-making in favor of a “select group”, while promoting disdain for the “others”.

    7) A system that exalts the Religion of the Status Quo and the “select group”, while denigrating or ignoring altogether the Religion of other members, has been a cause of religious bigotry, while at the same time ignoring and deeming inferior the Traditions of the indigenous peoples of this continent. This poses an ever-present danger and is a constant source of instability also.

    8) Relegating the “dominant” Religion to a lip-service, perfunctory ritual with little concern for putting what one says into practice, is a feature that renders the Religion an ineffective source of inspiration. It becomes a “Sunday only” affair while the rest of the week(and Sunday as well) is devoted to the display of amoral behavior.

    9) An inordinate and immature infatuation with the accruing of wealth and “stuff”.
    The constant preoccupation with “how do I protect my hoard, and make it “grow” is a prominent concern.

    These features and more result in the instability(to put it mildly) that shakes America.

    Our level of neglect of others and a dissociation from those who look different has been directly responsible for the emergence and thriving of hate-groups; looking for expedient solutions via the gun is another outcome; assertion of the right of the individual over the welfare of the whole; “balancing the budget” while poisoning residents and the land; fracking the earth to the point of creating geological instability.

    These are some of the current “features” of American society. And things are generally getting worse.

    Such symptoms are the result of the faulty social/spiritual structure which we have allowed to become a fixture in America while tending to our own personal affairs.

    It would seem that the fundamental pillars of the New Change should be based
    on 3 concepts:

    a) “The Oneness of God”
    b) “The Oneness of Religion”
    c) “The Oneness of Humanity”

    “a” implies that whatever one calls her/his Creator, that unknowable Essence is unchanged and unalterable. It allows for all beings to see themselves as coming from the same Source; “b” relates to the paradigm of “Progressive Revelation”—that all the Religions are intricately related but they differ outwardly because of the era it was revealed and to whom it was directed primarily, and it implies that all the Messengers(even those we don’t know of are from the same Source; “c” is the starting point for a new perception which would begin the process of erasing racism, tribalism, ethnic biases and other forms of prejudices and “limited unities” that humans have conceived.

    The change that is needed must be comprehensive as the above suggests, and can’t come about by patching up a “dike filled with holes”.

    If I may, I would like to submit as a reference for starting the following:

    ==================================================================
    “The well-being of mankind, its peace and security, are unattainable unless and until its unity is firmly established. This unity can never be achieved so long as the counsels which the Pen of the Most High hath revealed are suffered to pass unheeded.

    “Through the power of the words He hath uttered, the whole of the human race can be illumined with the light of unity, and the remembrance of His Name is able to set on fire the hearts of all men, and burn away the veils that intervene between them and His glory. One righteous act is endowed with a potency that can so elevate the dust as to cause it to pass beyond the heaven of heavens. It can tear every bond asunder, and hath the power to restore the force that hath spent itself and vanished….”
    (Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u’llah)
    ===================================================================

    Just the personal opinions of a person born and raised in Jackson, Miss. who personally had to deal with “Jim Crow” restrictions and gain certain insights as a result, being the target of epithets, and living up close to tragedies in the South and elsewhere in America.

    Reply
  6. HowardBrazee May 7, 2016

    Before going to a multi-party system, figure out how to stop what happened to Germany when Hitler used a multi-party minority win to gain power.

    Reply
  7. dtgraham May 7, 2016

    If you want more than one party, just do it. A couple more could be added. You either have to live with a winning candidate who doesn’t have a majority of the vote — it’s called first past the post — or pick systems in use around the world that are designed to deal with that.

    You could go with a runoff system that’s often called IRV or ranked ballot. You rank the candidates of your preference in order and the eventual winner will have at least 50%, unless they did on the first count. If the winner had 50% on the first go round, then the process stops and they’re declared the winner right away. That usually doesn’t happen though in a multi-party election.

    Another system that I like is proportional representation in all of it’s various forms. There are several — mixed member, regional, etc… The basic idea is that if party x receives 21% of the total Congressional votes across the country, that party should have 21% representation in the Congress, or 21% representation in the Senate for Senatorial votes across the country. There are numerous ways of working this out depending on the type of PR system used. PR can work for Congress and Senate but obviously not the Presidential race. That would require a ranked ballot.

    I know that some local or regional elections in the U.S. do use a runoff but basically, Britain, Canada, and the U.S. are the only democracies left still using first past the post (I think). FPTP works just fine in a two party system (except for certain primaries) but the U.S. may be the only democracy left with a two party system.

    This is being hotly debated right now in Canada as that country is getting rid of FPTP before the next federal election there, and is trying to settle on what system they will be using. It’s a white hot debate, trust me. On Canadian political websites like this one, the comments and arguments go on forever and there are a lot of extremely knowledgable people and groups who weigh in. You have to watch, because people will argue for a system that they think benefits their own party the most instead of one that is the most democratic overall.

    Reply
    1. Otto T. Goat May 7, 2016

      Proportional representation in the Senate is unconstitutional.

      Reply
      1. dtgraham May 8, 2016

        I can’t prove or disprove it so I’ll take your word for it. This stuff is mind numbing to read through. The U.S. Supreme Court constantly contradict and overrule themselves pretty randomly on this topic, almost ignoring reality and principles of democracy as they go along. There are themes there, but there’s not much basis for predicting how they’d rule on PR.

        Anyway, the gridlocked and gerrymandered House is the problem, not the Senate. I don’t like the idea of a second chamber for legislation to have to go through…period. I also don’t like how one Senator can gum up the works, but you might improve it a little with different parties in there in a multi-party system. Some form of run-off ranking system ballot would do for Senators.

        Reply
        1. Otto T. Goat May 8, 2016

          It’s not something the Supreme Court could ever rule on, and it’s not only unconstitutional, but not subject to amendment.

          Reply
          1. dtgraham May 8, 2016

            If it’s truly unconstitutional but lawmakers decided they wanted to change the Senate voting system to PR, I think the Supreme Court would be getting involved in making a ruling. That’s why they’re there.

            Reply
          2. Otto T. Goat May 8, 2016

            See Article V.

            Reply
          3. JPHALL May 8, 2016

            See all the amendments to the US constitution.

            Reply
          4. Otto T. Goat May 8, 2016

            Article V is about amending the Constitution, try reading it.

            Reply
          5. dtgraham May 9, 2016

            You’re jumping the gun. Article V just describes the process of amending the constitution. Who says that PR voting for Senators necessarily needs an amendment?

            There have been regional and local governments through the years that have jiggered their voting system. Cambridge, Massachusetts uses PR for it’s city council for instance, as has several other city governments in the past. Hence the involvement of the courts in rulings on the matter.

            The right to vote is mentioned 5 times in the constitution but not the type of voting system to use. That’s why I was reading through U.S. laws and court rulings concerning districting vis-a-vis PR. Here’s an example:

            1967 “An Act for the relief of Doctor Ricardo Vallejo Samala and to provide for congressional redistricting,” approved 14 December 1967 as Public Law 90-196:

            Congress reimposed the requirement that Representatives must run from single-member districts, and forbade “at large” (i.e. statewide) representatives. (81 Stat. 581.) Various states at various times in US history had elected congressmen at large (e.g. CA in 1861) or via multimember districts (examples), which indicates they, while illegal, are constitutional. This 1967 law remains in effect as of 2009. (A quote from it.) It was codified as Title 2, U.S.C.§2c. It arose in a peculiar way as a Senate amendment to a House-passed private immigration act – H.R. 2275, 90th Congress, “an act for the relief of Dr. Ricardo Vallejo Samala, and provide for congressional redistricting.” No hearings were held or reports issued.

            This Act talks about at-large members and multi-member districts, which is PR talk. It seems to forbid it but then says that while illegal, they’re constitutional.

            Reply
          6. Otto T. Goat May 9, 2016

            If you read Article V you would see not only is proportional representation for the Senate unconstitutional, you also can’t amend the Constitution to have it.

            Reply
          7. dtgraham May 9, 2016

            I don’t see it. Where am I going wrong? The people are still electing two Senators for every state. They’re just electing them in a different way. Are we talking about two different things?

            Article V

            The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

            Reply
  8. 2ThinkN_Do2 May 7, 2016

    Unfortunately, it will likely require an act of Congress (oh boy) to increase the probability for such an event to occur. Until we prohibit the seemingly unlimited amount of cash being dumped into campaigns, and promises being made to those who control our lives and society; it will remain extremely difficult for a 3rd party to make the step into office. There is so much BS that infiltrates the campaigns, whether it be true or not, much if it has no bearing on the person and their policies but it still sways the public and their vote. However, since the true public vote isn’t the all encompassing final word, until we eliminate the delegate equation, it will still be difficult for a 3rd party to infiltrate the capitol with any real success.

    As a nation we attempt to portray this Freedom attitude, yet we all seem to want to control people in our way, for our own reason(s). We all want Our Rights, but we want everyone else to agree that Our Ideals are the Right Ideals. We as a nation of supposedly Free People cannot even agree on what the heck Freedom means or should relate to. Where do my Rights begin and end? How do the thoughts/ideals of others become the laws that control my Freedom and Rights and why are they infringing on My Rights? Why do others have the right to control my life and that of my family and body, but I don’t have the right?

    Reply
  9. yabbed May 7, 2016

    Have a look at the mess of Canada with 3 parties and you’ll see why it’s not a good idea. The parties most in tune with voters split the vote and the other party waltzes in. Canada finally and desperately came to its senses last election and did not let the NDP cause the two progressive parties to fall to Harper’s conservatives. We’ve seen the same thing happen when a rogue candidate runs as an Independent and splits the vote, letting the goofball (i.e. Trump) into the Oval Office.

    Reply
    1. dtgraham May 7, 2016

      It does complicate things in the U.S. because there are a lot more left and center-left voters in Canada than there are in America. That’s why you could have FPTP in a multi-party system in Canada and yet still have a long succession of Liberal governments despite the NDP, and later Green party, drawing from the same voter pool more or less. The progressive pool is bigger in Canada. I understand that. The Conservatives still do exploit that from time to time.
      That’s why the first past the post system would have to go in the U.S., as it has virtually everywhere else. However, if there were two additional parties, with one being to the right of the establishment Republican party (Tea Party) and one being to the left of the Democratic party, that would even things out nicely.
      In any event, a proportional system would work for even three parties, with a ranked ballot being used for the Presidential election.

      Reply
      1. Charles Winter May 7, 2016

        Proportional representation would require a constitutional amendment. An easier (but still difficult) way would be to have an instant runoff, in which you vote for your first, second, and third choices. That way, you wouldn’t be “wasting your vote” by voting for a third party candidate.

        Reply
        1. dtgraham May 8, 2016

          I’m not so sure about that. Otto the Goat feels that PR is unconstitutional only in the Senate. I’ll have to look that one up. That’s crazy. Republican voter suppression is constitutional but just changing the way that voters elect their representatives is not.

          http://ivn.us/2012/04/24/test-2/

          Reply
    1. dtgraham May 9, 2016

      Yeah that rocks. Still hate the guy though. All those metal bands back then had muscular dangerous sounding names. They were all called Wounded Death or Beyond Slaughter or something. Why didn’t they just call themselves what they really were?

      “Give ’em a big warm welcome and give it up please for ‘Wimps With Big Hair’!” “Let’s bring ’em out.”

      Reply
  10. Aaron_of_Portsmouth May 8, 2016

    After my my previous thoughts on the vital question put forth in the article above, I would like to add an addendum.

    In the world of physical phenomenon, at least in our dimension, “positive” charges attract “negative” charges as witnessed in dipolar nature of magnetism for example.
    However, in the human realm we have like-mindedness among people attracts those of similar temperament and insight: The more child-like elements in society and in governance attract similar childish mentalities.
    This “attraction” is enhanced in a two-party system where we have a faction that is extremely suited for a recalcitrant, bellicose disposition attracted to proposals and an ideology that is extremely child-like and immature in its posture—not surprisingly, this element naturally attracts similar immature individuals and groups. This doesn’t imply that the other faction is fully mature; it just happens to be be less juvenile as a whole that the first group.

    The level of immaturity of thought and behavior of what is referred to as the “Wing Nut” arm of governance is especially evident when we have the expectation that adults are supposed to act as adults; and when they don’t, their juvenile behavior stands out clearly. (The same phenomenon is seen in certain Far East nations, in Russia, Europe, Africa, and elsewhere).

    The process of the dissolution and disintegration of current systems is being matched by an as yet unseen process of integration. In many communities this “rebuilding” process is taking place in a world-wide network of communities whose members of roughly 7,000,000 straddle both the realm of “disintegration” and that of “integration”.
    (I’m fortunate to be a small part of this “rebuilding” effort).

    After reading the book entitled “TAMBORA: The Eruption That Changed The World”, I was then compelled to start reading about the Irish Famine (“The Famine Ships”), and simultaneously “The Little Ice Age”.

    These books alone show how our world is both fragile and so interconnected that a small perturbation in one part of the world can easily create an instability on the other side of the globe. The “immature” element cited above are of such magnitude in the perturbations they’re creating that its temper-tantrum style of discourse affects not only America but extends across the globe.

    “Conservative” mentality on the one hand and an unbridled “liberal” attitude on the other are two major fault-lines along which tensions are building up and which can only result in disaster for humanity. Clearly, a reassessment of our style of governance and our level(or lack thereof) of “maturity is required.

    Reply
  11. I of John May 9, 2016

    A third party would be fine. But right now I would settle with a functioning two party system. Currently we only have one working party. The other is disfunctional in the extreme. Its polticians refusing to function and contribute to governing. It has become negatively charged against every part of the US Government. How does anyone work in a system that they hate.

    Reply
  12. domenica2 May 14, 2016

    In that context – what’s wrong with Sanders???

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.