I Feel Sort Of Dirty

I don't consider myself part of the "blogosphere" or whatever ridiculous title those in the "traditional media" give to those who comment on them. Yes, I have a blog. But, those of you who know me (and I'm guessing, from my visitor logs, that most of you that read this site know me) know that the only reason I post this here is because you are there and not here - otherwise I would just tell you these things. Trust me, if you were here, there'd be no need to post this stuff - ask Erin - she gets the long version of most of these post topics (despite the fact that she's probably tired of hearing it by now!).

Today, I'm going to depart a little from my normal course of rambling though. This article in the Washington Post piqued my interest. The basic gist of the article is this: some folks in Washington DC ("Democrats Hamilton Jordan and Gerald Rafshoon, who gained political fame for their role in electing Jimmy Carter 30 years ago, as well as Doug Bailey, a media adviser to former president and representative Gerald R. Ford (R-Mich.). They are being joined by former Maine governor Angus King, an independent") finally realized that the reason Americans don't turn out to vote is not because they aren't interested in politics, or because they don't care, but because they are sick of the political system as it has devolved through the two-party system. These folks, so the article posits, have created a new forum to give most of us in the center a new way of interacting with the political system.

In theory, this website, this movement, called, for now, Unity08, would provide forums for discussion and debate amongst those with opinions - a gathering point, if you will. When (Presidential) election time rolls around they will have what amounts to a royal rumble style vote to determine who the candidates will be. The candidates will not be limited to either party or, indeed, any party - eveyone is fair game. The article is unclear how they would go about persuading such a person to accept the nomination, but let's leave that alone for the moment. In any event, the issues this person would support, or the platform of the candidate - those issues which the candidate addresses would be those of interest to the people, not the party heads with bought and paid for interests. The candidates would be those who the people trusted to make decisions, not those who the party heads felt would most easily kow-tow to the whims of the biggest donors.

So, I go check out the website. It's at http://www.unity08.com. First off everything is very vague. And while I can certainly understand that they haven't exactly been up and running for a long time, there are very few specifics on how they envision themselves, or what they see their place as being. Most of the site is "preaching to the choir." Second, the game is really really lame. Third, and perhaps most interestingly, the "Founder's Council" is run mostly by college students. Now, I don't have anything against college students - I was a college student once (OK, three times), and to be fair college students are probably the ones most interested and with enough time to devote to such a cause - but I can't say it exactly helps the credibility.

Most importantly, though, I think I disagree with their beliefs and their division of "crucial issues" from "important issues"

In our opinion, Crucial Issues include: Global terrorism, our national debt, our dependence on foreign oil, the emergence of India and China as strategic competitors and/or allies, nuclear proliferation, global climate change, the corruption of Washington’s lobbying system, the education of our young, the health care of all, and the disappearance of the American Dream for so many of our people.

By contrast, we consider gun control, abortion and gay marriage important issues, worthy of debate and discussion in a free society, but not issues that should dominate or even crowd our national agenda.

I'm not sure I understand why the national debt is "more important" or "crucial" while "gay marriage" is merely "important." I think that their "important" issues are just issues that affect the individual, while the "crucial" ones are ones that affect the nation as a whole. But I'm not sure that this distinction necessarily makes an issue more important than another. And what do you do about, say, Welfare and/or social security? Welfare affects the nation (we all pay for it), but it also affects individuals (not all of us receive it). And it seems that saying "abortion" is an "important" one and "health care of all" is a "crucial" one ignores the fact that abortion is a health care issue for many, many people.

Moreover, I'd like to see this organization be more aggressive. I think by limiting themselves to just candidates for '08 Presidential election, they will run into two problems, both of which are related: 1) they will have a hard time convincing citizens they are legitimate; 2) they will have a hard time convincing politicians they are legitimate. I understand that the Presidential election is "easier" - it's only one candidate and it has national appeal. But it's also an "all or nothing" deal - either you succeed or you don't - there is no opportunity to take the idea for a test drive and kick the tires, so to speak. Whereas, if they looked at the intervening minor elections, or even local elections, they might be able to tweak their ideas a bit so that the Presidential process runs smoothly.

I'm not sure I've really said anything here. But I can say that I am frustrated by the current political process and parties. So, I'm willing to try anything I guess because I believe in our democratic system and this nation (yeah, I know, sappy - but it's true - no other country in the world has the options and choices that we have - and I mean "we" not just those who can afford to have options). In any event, I just wanted to make y'all aware of this thing and you can form your own opinions. I've thrown my name on the mailing list, so we'll see what comes of it. I promise to keep you updated.