| Author |
Message |
    
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 14732
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 16, 2006 - 8:25 am: | 
|
June 16, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
Seeds for a Geo-Green Party
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
The recent focus of the Republican-led Congress on divisive diversions, like gay marriage and flag burning, coupled with the unveiling of Unity '08, an Internet-based third party that plans to select its presidential candidate through online voting, has intensified the chatter that a third party, and maybe even a fourth, will emerge in the 2008 election.
Up to now, though, most of that talk has been about how a third party might galvanize voters, using the Web, rather than what it would actually galvanize them to do. I'd like to toss out an idea in the hopes that some enterprising politician or group of citizens — or Unity '08 — will develop it. It's the concept I call "Geo-Green."
What might a Geo-Green third party platform look like?
Its centerpiece would be a $1 a gallon gasoline tax, called "The Patriot Tax," which would be phased in over a year. People earning less than $50,000 a year, and those with unusual driving needs, would get a reduction on their payroll taxes as an offset.
The billions of dollars raised by the Patriot Tax would go first to shore up Social Security, second to subsidize clean mass transit in and between every major American city, third to reduce the deficit, and fourth to massively increase energy research by the National Science Foundation and the Energy and Defense Departments' research arms.
Most important, though, the Patriot Tax would increase the price of gasoline to a level that would ensure that many of the most promising alternatives — ethanol, biodiesel, coal gasification, solar energy, nuclear energy and wind — would all be economically competitive with oil and thereby reduce both our dependence on crude and our emissions of greenhouse gases.
In short: the Geo-Green party could claim that it has a plan for shoring up America's energy security, environmental security, economic security and Social Security with one move.
It could also claim that — however the Iraq war ends — the Geo-Green party has a strategy for advancing political and economic reform in the Arab-Muslim world, without another war. By stimulating all these alternatives to oil, we would gradually bring down the price, possibly as low as $25 to $30 a barrel. That, better than anything else, would force regimes like those in Iran, Sudan, Egypt, Angola, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia to open up. Countries don't reform when you tell them they should. They reform when they tell themselves they must — and only when the price of oil goes down will they tell themselves they must.
Moreover, by making America the leader in promoting clean power, the Geo-Greens would be offering a credible plan for recouping a lot of America's lost prestige in the world — prestige it lost when the Bush team trashed Kyoto. This would put America in a much better position to galvanize allies to combat jihadism.
Last, Geo-Greenism could be the foundation of a new American patriotism and educational renaissance. Under the banner "Green is the New Red, White and Blue," the Geo-Green party would seek to inspire young Americans to study math, science and engineering to help make America not only energy independent but also the dominant player in what will be the dominant industry of the 21st century: clean power and green technology.
Frankly, I wish we did not need a third party. I wish the Democrats would adopt a Geo-Green agenda as their own. (Republicans never would.) But if not, I hope it will become the soul of a third party.
"Historically, third parties arise in America when they seize a neglected issue and demonstrate that there is a real constituency for it," said Micah Sifry, author of "Spoiling for a Fight: Third-Party Politics in America." "They win by forcing that issue into the mainstream — even if the party itself is later forgotten. Conditions certainly seem ripe for such a third-party bid today."
But rather than artificially splitting the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, Mr. Sifry added, "a successful third party has to get in front of both — with an agenda that inspires hope and with leadership that inspires trust. Fear of a dark future isn't the best motivator; hope for a better one is."
That's Geo-Greenism. To be sure, Geo-Greenism is not a complete philosophy on par with liberalism or conservatism. But it can be paired with either of them to make them more relevant to the biggest challenges of our time. Even if Geo-Greenism couldn't attract enough voters to win an election, it might attract a big enough following to frighten both Democrats and Republicans into finally doing the right things.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
|
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1483
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 16, 2006 - 8:36 am: |
|
I dont think any third party will ever get off the ground unless and until they begin at the grass roots level. A third party cannot start at the top and say they have a mandate. There has to be representatives, senators, state legislators, mayors, etc that are members of this third party before there is a possibility of a true 3rd party choice.
I do think that there is some good in the proposal although I dont know if what they are suggesting will actually work. In fact there are many methods to accomplish the same thing and in my opinion our government today is not discussing any of them. The right wing is only concerned with war, cutting taxes and gutting all semblance of social programs. The left wing has some concern about the deficit, jobs and fairness but is fractured on the what to do to fix the problems caused by the war in Iraq.
|
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 251
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Friday, June 16, 2006 - 9:29 am: |
|
The $1 a gallon "Patrriot Tax" is a bad idea because it would be squandered on the usual things rather than spent on shoring up Social Security, clean mass transit. etc. Friedman can't be that naive, or can he?
It's nice to think about 3rd parties sometimes, but a significant challenge to the bi-partisan duopoly is unlikely because they would close ranks in opposition. I think it was Rlaph Nader who said we don't need a 3rd party, we need a second party. Joe Sobran is right:
A Vibrant Democracy
May 25, 2006
Just when I was almost convinced that President Disastro had guaranteed Democratic gains in this year’s elections, and maybe in 2008 as well, I read Jeffrey Goldberg’s article on the Democrats’ strategies in The New Yorker. These guys are hopeless.
Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, insists that “this is a Democratic country, with a big D” — though Goldberg observes that self-identified conservatives, the Republican base, outnumber self-identified liberals, the Democrats’ base, by a 3-to-2 margin.
Dean’s idea of a winning issue for his party? “The Republicans are cutting school-lunch programs.” That ought to set the voters on fire! More free lunches!
At the local level, Goldberg finds Democratic politicians much more sensible. Many of them fear for the party if Hillary Clinton gets its presidential nomination in 2008, because she alarms conservatives without satisfying principled liberals. In this, she mirrors George W. Bush, who horrifies liberals and increasingly estranges the conservatives who once supported him.
Bush’s plunge in the polls doesn’t translate into Democratic popularity. It may translate into opportunity for a third party, such as the conservative Constitution Party, which is beckoning to the base Bush has driven to desertion.
In 1992, Bush’s father lost in his bid for reelection in large part because he had betrayed his conservative base, which stayed home in November. The younger Bush was determined to avoid his father’s mistakes, but he has repeated them, even surpassing the old man’s unpopularity.
But conservatives aren’t going to turn to liberals for relief from Bush. Their chief complaint is that he has given us even bigger government than the Democrats had. Some of them have finally figured out that war is pretty hard to reconcile with modest government.
The president Bush is most often likened to is Lyndon Johnson, who expanded government in every direction with both war and entitlements but only wound up loathed by both parties. And Johnson was a far smarter politician than Bush.
The elder Bush made a famous miscalculation. He thought he could get away with breaking his promises to conservatives because “they have nowhere else to go.” He didn’t foresee that they might vote for Ross Perot or simply refuse to vote.
Discontent with both major parties was so strong in 1992 that at one point Perot led both Bush the elder and Bill Clinton in the polls. Then he suddenly withdrew from the race; when he jumped back in, his base wasn’t there anymore. He appeared merely eccentric, and nobody knew quite what he stood for. He’d wasted a golden opportunity for a new party to defeat the country’s political duopoly.
Now that opportunity has come again, thanks to a second Bush. It’s easy to forget how appealing and refreshing Perot seemed at first; he also had the advantage of a huge fortune, despite his populist manner.
All of which raises the big question: Can a third party challenge get anywhere without a billionaire? Or is this “democracy” now doomed to the dreary power struggles of the two plutocratic parties, debating school-lunch programs?
Think of it. If Hillary serves two terms in the White House, we will eventually have spent 28 consecutive years under presidents named Bush and Clinton. Then, by my reckoning, it will be time for another Bush. Thank heaven for equal opportunity.
We are said to be in a conservative era. That seems to be true in the sense that both parties now feel it’s vital to deceive the voters with conservative slogans. Liberal slogans don’t seem to work anymore.
Some conservatives are so alarmed by the specter of President Hillary that they are frantically warning that her attempt to position herself as a moderate is phony. But it can hardly be any phonier than Bush’s efforts to pose as a conservative. Being confusing doesn’t necessarily make you interesting. Both major parties are exhausted.
Goldberg quotes House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on how a big Democratic victory this fall might liven things up: “We win in ’06, we get subpoena power,” meaning full investigations of the Bush administration. But other Democrats fear that such talk may backfire, scaring off moderate voters and rousing dispirited Republicans to fight.
One party can’t do anything right, and the other doesn’t know what to do.
In my lifetime, the number of major league baseball teams has grown from 16 to 30. The number of television networks has exploded from three to several hundred. Even the McDonald’s menu is much longer than it used to be. But the number of major political parties has been kept stable: two.
http://www.sobran.com/columns/2006/060525.shtml
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5730
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 16, 2006 - 11:25 am: |
|
A 3rd Party running on gas at $4/gallon is a sure-fire loser. Friedman can occasionally report well on what's happening in the Middle East, but his solutions -- particularly in things political -- are usually off base. |
Smarty Jones
Citizen
Username: Birdstone
Post Number: 766
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 16, 2006 - 12:10 pm: |
|
This is ignorant on so many levels, I'll only point the immediately obvious:
1. Bush didn't trash Kyoto, the ENTIRE congress under Clinton/Gore did, when they unaminously voted against what Gore unilaterly took upon himself to do. (On a bipartisan level).
2. Billions to help all those issues? New York City alone would mop that up in a weeek. Try trillions next time a sweeping proposal is offered.
3. Lest we forget that Gas is a commodity...I'm still fuming about the 15% increase PSEG jammed through on our natural gas during the brief 4 month time period it traded up so sharply.>>now that it's down BELOW where it was originally, I have yet to see a 15 or more decrease....
4. If our demand and oil pricing crap out, the highest probable outcome is complete and total chaos in the middle east. At least now, their people are eating.
Why are we so obsessed with Clean Power? What is so darned wrong with our current power grid? The feedback I'm seeing on the great Al Gore movie, is that it's done a better job exposing all the mistruths around the Global Warming claim, than it has of educating the masses. (ie showing time lapse photos of Glaciers in various seasons to try and enhance the amount of "Shrinkage" experienced.
Oh well. |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1511
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 16, 2006 - 1:44 pm: |
|
How can I take this dude seriously?
-SS is fine, dont touch it.
Instead of using current tech to make changes now, he writes about:
"seek to inspire young Americans to study math, science and engineering to help make America not only energy independent"
Holding up Energy Indpendendance as if its some Holy grail to be assigned to the next generation of youth, just shows the writers ignorance. The US could be exporting oil in 5-7 years, if we did this:
-CAFE standards to match the rest of the Ind. Countries.
-increase energy standards on Home appliances.
-National program to put solar cells on roofs.
|
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3453
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, June 16, 2006 - 2:22 pm: |
|
The feedback I'm seeing on the great Al Gore movie, is that it's done a better job exposing all the mistruths around the Global Warming claim, than it has of educating the masses.
Um... what feedback is that? Show me, I'm beggin' ya. Gore's movie is almost completely spot-on accurate, according to the experts. Every "refutation" of the film gets torn apart by the scientific community.
Foj's points are great, but I don't see any of them being any more likely than a $1/gallon gasoline tax. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1136
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 16, 2006 - 5:01 pm: |
|
I pray for a green third party. Nothing like watching Dems piss votes away for a "cause" only ensuring a Republican victory. Too many factions, too many causes. I'd love to see 3 or 4 parties. |
Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 1962
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 17, 2006 - 8:59 am: |
|
Prayer is ineffective, so go ahead and enjoy yourself. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1145
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, June 17, 2006 - 10:36 am: |
|
I will and am. And with this lot of Democrats prayer really isn't needed. |
Smarty Jones
Citizen
Username: Birdstone
Post Number: 780
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, June 17, 2006 - 10:55 pm: |
|
Notehead, from what I've read (purely subjective) but the Gore movie has actually succeeded in mobilizing a segment of the science community that has finally had enough and no longer remains silent.
I recognize this is an important issue to you, so you don't need me to point out where Gore went Hollywood on this, and steared "science" in the direction he needed it to go......You know this better than I, and I'm sure the inconsistancies jumped off the screen to you.
The very fact that Katrina was worked into the equation should lead any independent thinker to the same conclusions...... |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page