Why Ideology Based Parties are Bad for America

A short essay discussing the pitfalls of ideology and politics.

November 30, 2001

Changing Parties: It's not always a bad thing when officials change parties.

Clean Coal: Those who oppose replacing old plants are just blocking environmental progress.

Confidentiality: My safe guards against revealing political secrets on NYC.

Conservatism: A look at real conservatives.

Democrats and Taxes: Overcoming the weakness Democrats have on the issue of taxation

District Attorneys as Agents of Political Change: District Attorneys have an important role beyond just enforcing the law.

Global Warming: Global warming is a real problem needing real solutions.

How a Liberal Can Win in a Conservative Countryside: Some thoughts on new libertarian Democrat.

Liberal Cowboy: Why one liberal is proud to wear his cowboy hat.

Liberalism v. Conservatism: Neither ideology is desirable in it's pure form.

Libertarianism: A pratical look at libertarianism.

Progressives: An Uneasy Relationship: Progressives need to do more to change insitutions and not individuals.

Radicalism: What does it mean to be a radical?

Ron Paul's Revolution: His libertarian ideas deserve consideration, as does the commitment of his supporters.

Self-Enrichment in Government: Just because people benefit from a policy doesn't mean they're corrupt.

Shovel the Cow Dung: Sometimes you just have to get a little dung on your shoes to be succesful.

What is a Watt?: People don't often under the cost of energy.

Why Ideology Based Parties are Bad for America

As we all know by now, the perfect party model never happens, and it will certainly not happen in the future. Nor will parties get away from ideological identification.

However, in the long run, I can see a system, where parties are about presenting two alternative solutions to a problem—a package that is not just limited to conservative or liberal solutions. One the presents the best alternatives to deal with a problem.

For example, a party could present both liberal and conservative solutions to a problem such as urban development. A candidate could suggest a program that is tough on crime (conservative) and promotes urban development through government monies (liberal). The competing party would offer a second solution.

Already we are seeing some of this in America. Nelson Rockefeller with his urban solution, similar to what is described above. Unfortunately, his party didn't follow his leadership and make that the Republican national solution.

If the Republicans agreed such a mixed solution was best, it would greatly improve straight line ticket voting, follow the rules of the perfect party model, and generally increase the Republican party turn out.

In my opinion, the Democrats have a solution closer to that. They often are willing to consider many conservative ideas in solutions to problems, while also offering many liberal solutions.

Part of that of course is a result of the political culture today in America. Liberals have to except conservative ideas, if they want to get elected, and if they want to be successful. That's good.

Of course, as I've said above it's a two way street. Republicans should also openly embrace liberal solutions, if they are best. Fear of making the government bigger is lame. If the government provides the best solution, so be it. If the free market provides the best solution, by all means support it (ie. Democrats).

I think part of my frustration with politics lately is the inability for Democrats and Republicans to agree on a stimulus plan. Can they not patch together a best possible plan—using both free market and governmental solutions?

Again, Who really cares if the goverment gets larger.... besides some conservative ideologs. If it offers the best solution, then god damn it, use it.