Room for a Third Party

The duality of American politics is an intriguing phenomenon. Anyone who has a decent memory of history knows George Washington was against political parties. Whether that had any bearing on the actions of future generations is clearly evident, we don't care what our forefathers think. In some ways. this is positive. For example, George Washington was also keen of slavery, not quite to Jefferson's extent but still not a good legacy.

However, Washington envisioned a split of many ways, but for twenty years there were just two parties. It was simpler back then so the parties had very similar ideas, so much that the first argument was simply I like Great Britain, you like France, let's get irrevocably pissed off with each other. The Federalist party suffered the fate of its only President and faded into political irrelevance and Washington's wish seemed to have come true.

Then slavery and bigotry reared its ugly head and from its debates sprung several parties, the Whigs, the Constitutional, and eventually the Republican party being the only to win electoral votes. In the Whig and Republican case, both won the Presidency in their second Presidential elections as national parties. Before the Civil War, the Whigs disappeared and with the exception of the strange partitioned election of 1860, their have only been two political parties of any clout the Democratic and Republican parties. Politically they have intermingled over the years even to the point where major shifts have occurred juxtaposition their viewpoints, most notably the Goldwater-Rockefeller and Civil Rights Act of 1964 which made the Republican party the de facto "party of the South".

Now, we find that the inter-mingling has ceased and each party is striking where their opponents are weakest and consolidated power by defeating the moderate members of their opposing parties. This is well-documented in the Senate by Five Thirty Eight here, but I would imply that their analysis would say the House as well if they went to such trouble.

The American system has never been fair to a third party. Essentially, you've already been bought out of any race you enter. Also, American third parties have always tended to come from far reaching ideologies: Nader's Green Party (Far Left), Libertarians (Far Right), Dixiecrats and many versions before (Racists). What is different this time is that the absence of power is in line with the country much like the Republican's quick ascent before the Civil War.

Where does public opinion lie? We are a conservative country. Unfortunately, we are also horribly concerned with moral issues and privacy that frankly doesn't concern us, but we are voyeurs, rubberneckers, and assholes in many regards. So where in the world could we find a legion of moderate politicians willing to try something new. Oh, right. We just voted them out of office, because they voted with Obama on the wrong issue or supported the war in Iraq. Mostly we voted them out of office because we have no idea what the hell we are doing in a voting booth.

The nuances between European political parties are much more subtle. There is much more common ground so things actually get done. Has this worked out for them? Not really, because they aren't nearly as comfortable with bankrupting their future as we are and certainly more intent on maintaining the general welfare in the present. Expensive social programs need money, and to get money in the world economy you have to borrow like well, Feudal European kings grinding each other into dust.

Back to the United States, how many of the voters are moderates that claim to be independents? Declaring oneself independent is the most soft sword answer to affiliation since scientists made up agnosticism to prevent themselves from being stoned to death by villagers for being an atheist. In reality, independents do align themselves with a party and it takes a significant push to get them to change their minds. It's why when one candidate is so much better from a political standpoint the balances never tip too far in the opposite direction. Obama should have won by more if independents were what they say they are, and on the same page Gore shouldn't have won the popular vote in 2000. People don't flip flop on their votes from cycle to cycle. Different people vote.

So what if we give these so-called independents a middle ground party. The party's platform is simple. They are fiscally conservative. In fact, the major party issue is lowering government spending and trying to manage the cinder block tied to our legs as we stand on the bridge's ledge. They don't believe in government welfare programs as a solution. They do not wish to privatize them, but rather to limit their use to situations of truly dire need. The same goes for health care. They aren't against Obamacare, but rather wish it to be used as a regulatory measure to maintain low cost health care. The specific aim to lower medical costs should be tort reform, the limitation of frivolous lawsuits, and malfeasance by insurance companies.

What do we favor spending money on? Infrastructure, Education, and Defense. Defense does not include interventionist policies nor fulfilling contracts that have never been delivered on. Nor does it include nuclear proliferation or idiotic policies to defend against nuclear incursions. If the worthless organization full of meaningless gestures we house in New York cannot find ways of ensuring peace, screw them. We are not the world's parents and while we have certainly made things worse; we are never putting them back together. What can we fix? Ourselves, by ensuring that our youth aren't as stupid as my generation is. God knows our pop culture isn't going to teach them shit (looking at you Bieber and CBS).

As for social issues, the official policy is: who gives a fuck? Let each politician speak his mind about whatever, we aren't legislating morality. Does that bother you? Become a Republican, they've got a stick up their ass about everything. Gay marriage? Who are we to define marriage? Abortion? Your call, but do it early and safely. Drugs? Stop using them, dumbass. Get treatment and stop beheading people, Mexico. There are so many things wrong with this country and I will tell you which aren't important: war, drugs, abortion, gay marriage, immigration, religion. All that matters is money, jobs, and education. If you take care of those three, then what do you have: an affluent, working, educated society. The rest of it falls into place (except for drugs/religion, we'll never quit you).*

*Also, we'll start using birth control which will cause us to be overrun by Catholics, Mormons, and immigrants. Or as I like to put it: booze, morality, and cheap labor.

The problem with this third party is I'm a nobody. I'm a poor aging adolescent just living his life. If I were some asshole legacy of a dead guy somewhere, this wouldn't sound like a bad idea. Or if my dad were a rum-runner with mob ties. That sounds like a brilliant plan. We'll call it the Rum-runner Party and somehow tie it into NASCAR. Thankfully, all the government money in the South/entire country was spent on sporting venues so none of them are educated enough to see this rouse coming.

Tweet Follow @GingerAfflicted

Election 2012: Obama Makes First Move, Republicans Bold Strategy, And What to Do With Ron Paul Supporters

"I was watching "Will and Grace" last night, and did you know
homosexuals aren't too bad. I would punch Sean Hayes in
the face, but that's just because he's a shit actor."

First, of all let me apologize to my father for the style issues in the title, just a standard that SBNation forced upon me that has carried over to here. Second, let me apologize for ignoring politics for a while because it has been...boring as hell. The campaign had a lurch today as President Obama made a wish-washy statement which Americans think meant something. It did politically and didn't in the grand scheme, a perfect summation of Barack Obama the President.

Obama's "Bold" Move

The numbers will tell you what President Obama said was not revolutionary (more dead men and women will vote for Romney in November than homosexuals). This has zero effect on policy, there is no inclination that any move will be made by Democrats to legalize and nationally empower same-sex marriage. That is the note Republicans will continue pounding until we are deaf. The reality is President Obama was simply noting that (state) governments making it illegal was a violation of rights and goes against the principles embodied by the United States of America and perhaps acknowledging his own failures to previously state that. So essentially, he just echoed Joe Biden without making a idiotic reference to an NBC sitcom with gay characters.

I was hoping that this election was not going to be a referendum on social issues in America, but at this point, it is the most positive course for Democrats to take. Romney faces an uphill battle due to the far more likable opponent he faces (My dad calls him a robot; I think of him as more wooden like Pinocchio). He can't afford a slip-up, while the national party must take risks to put forth a platform that they like, (which most likely will hinder him in his run for the Presidency). That is for Romney to win it must be a team battle against Obama rather than just mano a mano. So for Obama to take such a calculated risk from a position of only slight power, it shows that perhaps 2008 Obama has returned. As as a President he has been a poor fit, but their hasn't been a recent comparison for oratory and campaigning that can beat him on those terms. Republicans may have to find another way.
My Electoral Map If This Becomes The Major Issue via 270towin.com

The Bookend: May 4, 2012

This is my first time doing this, so I will start out with an explanation. This isn't a guide to St. Louis per say, but more of a helpful push out the door. The idea came from something that EDSBS did called the Digital Viking, but I'll say this is far more regional and more down to Earth. Every week I'll give you a restaurant, book, a beer, a concert/show/event, and an album. Hopefully from there you can take the initiative to heed my advice or blatantly ignore it and either sounds good to me. For the first few weeks, we'll be going through my favorites and then after that, everything will be more like a critical review as I discover new things with you. 

Restaurant 

Omar's Restaurant 

10111 St. Charles Rock Rd. St. Ann, MO 63074
Open 7 Days 11 AM-10 PM
http://omarsstl.net

 I will probably bore you to death with my love of pizza on this blog. The same applies to a good gyro, and Omar's is a place that has both so we might as well get it out of the way. You'd be surprised by this restaurant mainly due to location or a lack thereof. However, being a smaller family run establishment with fewer employees, the consistency here is fantastic. While the restaurant itself is a no-frills type joint, the food is a solid blend of Mediterranean cuisine. The owners are Lebanese Muslims so you may not like the absence of pork sausage at a pizzeria, but the pizza itself is good enough that my American pizza staple can be left out.


My quest in life is to find both great deep dish or Chicago style pizzas and gyros and they collide here with a vengeance. The deep dish is comparable to Pi's and I would say that I like the sauce better as Pi's can be overwhelmingly salty if you add the wrong topping (kalamata olives is a no-no). As for the Gyro, they add a pickle spear to it that gives it an unfamiliar crunch, and adds to the dill of the tzatziki sauce. I haven't been back yet to try the Shawerma, but it's one of their featured items. As for appetizers, both the hummus and falafel are fantastic, but hopefully you aren't alone because they do fill you up as does the bread.

I've seen some complaints on Urbanspoon about the service, but then again restaurant reviewers are typically impatient assholes. Don't expect to be coddled, but expect to be well-fed and you'll be happy.

(More after the jump)

If Life Had a Soundtrack: Finding Your Religion

To be honest, there has been no blasphemy against God higher than Christians making rock music. If you believe in all that, I assume you need to know that your devil listens to Creed. Why? Because no group of Christians has utterly repelled non-Christians from the faith more than Creed.

Gospel music has its moments, but the power of gospel music isn't in the words but rather in the ability of a group of people to harmonize in such a powerful way. In this way, hymn that sound weak when sung by a regular group of people are given power. Which is one of those reasons, I think religions underestimate music.

Now, there is one example of good intentional church music and that is certainly classical music, the majority of which was written for liturgical purposes before the 19th century (the most obvious example is Handel). However, I don't deal much with classical music, which always sounds better in person than on YouTube or a CD. Same goes for Gregorian chant, which I'm also fond of in an uncool way.

George Harrison - "My Sweet Lord"

Sure, he's a Hare Krishna, and most anybody can find that mockable. However, this is just a fantastic religious song, and really if you can ignore the straight up chanting for Krisha. More and more, I'm finding a fond remembrance for the "forgotten" Beatle. The key to this and most of the songs to follow is the absence of grief even in hard times, which if religion doesn't help you in that aspect I don't know what you're in it for.

(Lots more after the jump)

If Life Had A Soundtrack: The Wedding List

In honor of a friend's wedding, I put this little ditty together a year ago, but never completed it. Since tomorrow will probably be my last wedding for the next six months, and after that probably even longer, it is prudent that I write it now, or people may have to go without my vague and unintentional wisdom. Now, it's not typical wedding fare; more first dance type songs or background music. Everybody needs "Shout", that's obvious. This is a list built out of sentiment and high ideas, not the late wedding fare of "Can I get drunk enough to take home one of the bridesmaids?"* To be honest, weddings aren't the most romantic occasion in life. They are slightly narcissistic, obligatory, and sometimes just a formality in the relationship's progression. This may differ for some people, but mostly it's an excuse for old friends to get together and admire one friend's happiness while getting sloshed on somebody's dime. So consider this a dose of romance, from a man who stands out as cynical at his atheist convention.

 *In hindsight, not a bright tactic.

  (Videos after the jump.)

Ideological Stagnancy In Elections

Have you ever just stared hate through someone while they
talk? If not, you should spray tan some more. It drives
people mad.

 

In 2008, I was mobilized and enthusiastic. It was the first time I voted in a national election (out of three chances, give me a break.), and for good reason, there was a candidate on the ticket I actually liked. President Obama was destroying the Republicans with rhetoric, and at that moment I should have realized it was mostly void of any power. As he took office, he took on the hardest of his goals, and had mixed results. Despite the death of Osama Bin Laden, Afghanistan has worsened significantly. Most now realize that the Taliban may have been the lesser of two evils, but we cannot back down because they enabled terrorism. Also, the little problem that Republicans would paint the President as weak, while secretly agreeing with withdrawal. He also passed a health care bill, but due to both his lack of resolve and the eternal weakness of congressional Democrats, they passed a version that is weaker and most likely going to be short lived. Everything since has been gridlock and useless debate.

The stagnancy of the current America government is hard to accept. I'm fascinated by numbers and polling and political machinations, but at some point it has to be for a reason. Sometime, the two sides have to sit down and think of what they agree on past terrorism bad, defense good. However, that can't ever happen. The election cycle of the United States doesn't allow for that time. We knew in 2008 that Romney was running for President again, and he would be the favorite. That hasn't changed much, although it has from time to time been less apparent. Freshman congressmen take office and immediately have to think about reelection campaigns. Incumbent congressmen in most of the gerrymandered districts have their districts down, and can rest a few months before crushing an opponent while hoping for style points. Senators have six years, and turnover is so ridiculously low that who really pays much attention to their races.

The realization is that ideologies do not change in America overnight. The largest single policy change ever made by the American government was the Emancipation Proclamation. It took seven years to pass the required amendments to ensure black equality. It took 101 years for the government to clear out the loopholes the South and Supreme Court created so that this wasn't possible. At this point, there are still Americans out there trying to stop African Americans from voting and some who think that they shouldn't. That is 150 years of American history in which our greatest ideal of freedom and liberty is still being questioned in some minds.

That segue illustrates that change, as Obama so often invoked, does not come naturally to Americans. Unlike the rest of the world, we still are a very insular society and haven't been thrust into grand changes by world events. The Great Depression changed how the government works, but really did nothing to change the ideals of the people who elected the government. The wars of the 20th Century changed our standing outside the United States, but changed little about how Americans view foreign policy. Even when we took an interventionist stance on foreign policy, the mishaps in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq have reenforced the general isolationist stance of the American public. Policy changes can be made overnight, but general opinion does not change rapidly.

Americans inherit their political beliefs mostly from parental advice or behavior. The way your parents voted is most likely to be the stance you take up. In families, where the parents differ, you may have an amalgam of ideas, but this again just reflects your parents beliefs. The only way this changes the demographic if parents of different parties have more children than others. Don't worry, this isn't true. The only examples of vast shifts in politics are the creation of the Republican party and the reversals of Democrats and Republicans during the 1960's as the Rockefeller and Goldwater split occurred. With the exception of extreme party changes, the electoral map doesn't change often. The United States remains a center-left nation, and if we lived in harmony our politics would reflect that. However, we essentially live in voting blocs created by our race, affluence, and ideologies which inherently create a divisive political system.

Now, with be specter of extreme partisanship looming, the lines have been drawn even farther apart. Political change does not come from extremism but rather from moderates. The only way parties are allowed large policy shifts is by joining with people already on the other side. It's how Joe Lieberman essentially became a Republican, or how Ike Skelton got elected as a Democrat in a Republican heavy district for over twenty years. However, the men I listed are gone, and the other moderates are falling away. Olympia Snowe is retiring opening a seat to most likely a Democrat, but she was a moderate to begin with. John McCain stopped his amazing roguish ways to run for President and failed epically when Sarah Palin tipped his moderate boat over. No democrats are moderates anymore because the Republicans target their easy to pick districts, because they prefer divisiveness to actually helping America.

So while I try to talk about the key elections this year, always keep in the back of your head that none of them really matter, because come January 20th, the status quo will be maintained.

Some Changes and Things to Come

One of the problems with me is I've always been a bit unbalanced. This has the benefit of allowing great room for creativity, but also limits productivity to a minimum.

If you read this a lot, and I'm guessing you don't, the page may look different. This is an effort to streamline my blog a bit, that I learned somewhat from blogging elsewhere. Gone are the days of 2 AM posts and off-topic straying. I'll try to keep to a few subjects and if I'm writing about something else; it's probably personal. I'll keep writing those personal rants that tell my family so much and so little about myself. I'm sure it helps them feel better or worse about me.

If you are familiar with my writing, the best stuff is on politics and music. Since the election cycle is coming around, I've got a lot of ground to cover in a short period of time. I've got a fun mixtape thing I do with my computer that I'm hoping to do weekly, with some help from my friends. If you have a suggestion for a mixtape, just comment here or tweet me @GingerAfflicted. It can be anything from the mundane ("The weeding the garden mixtape") or important (This week will be a wedding mix.)

My writing that is posted here (poetry, short stories) is never likely to be published. Every person who writes should have a corner of the room filled with failures, instead I use this blog as my corner and let you judge what I deem to be poor writing or in some cases just exercises I went through. Generally, all of my poetry goes on here because I'm a shit poet and poets that can't play an instrument are both lonely and poor. If you go back, some of my writing may be missing. There is a theory that once something's on the Internet it cannot be destroyed, but in essence I tried to wipe some of my writing off the Internet. I also added tabs to better help navigate to the stuff I write about.