Texas Blue Mailbag: Week of 7/29/07

This week's mailbag has a little bit of everything, from yuks to some kind of serious examination of why a multi-party system, while democralicious in other nations, just isn't happening here at home.

LP pines for:

How would a true multi party system benefit america and why is it so impossible for us to have one?

George sighs and buckles down:

Wow, that's one huge question. Firstly, I suppose I should address the initial assumption, that a multi-party system would benefit America — which many would agree with (myself included, as long as no one is looking that I'd have to answer to later), and many others would disagree with vehemently. At its face, the benefit of a multi-party system is pretty straightforward, particularly for those of us with populist bents: more voices get represented. More parties mean more points of view, right? Debates become more reasoned and nuanced, and would tend to avoid the polarization that a two-party system gets you. Sounds great!

Why it is impossible to have one is a much more drawn-out question, which requires us distinguish between the two major kinds of multi-party systems and define their drawbacks and limitations; only then would it make any sense to try and guess what a system like that would look in the United States. Frankly, I'd started going into the answer, and then realized that I was about to take over the entire mailbag. So let's say I owe you an article on multi-party systems. I'll write it over the weekend; expect to see it early next week.

OK, OK, I just can't leave well enough alone; it's really an interesting subject. So let's at least go with some homework: what, in your opinion, is stopping us from having a multi-party system now? At least in theory, it should be possible, right? America has a Green Party, a Libertarian Party, a Socialist Party, a Natural Law Party, a Constitutionalist Party, and so on and so on. There is no physical barrier stopping them, at least theoretically, from winning some Congressional elections among them. And if enough seats were taken by what would then be increasingly misnamed "third parties," some sort of coalition would have to be formed to successfully choose a Speaker of the House. That's definitely a good deal closer to a multi-party system than what we deal with now. So why doesn't it happen?

OK, everyone. Your essays are due Monday. Class dismissed.

Linda McGonagill, Bailey County Democratic Party Chair, says:

I think the Congress should pass a bill with a timetable GOAL, at least. But to not pass anything on Iraq is disastrous for the Democrats in Congress.

Josh replies:

I'm assuming this is in response to George's article, but I'll weigh in. I agree with you that to not pass anything on Iraq is disastrous for the Democrats in Congress, the operative word here being "pass." There are often two conflicting definitions about what politics is. Some have said it is the art of controlling your environment, and others have said it is the art of the possible. You will probably never again see me agree with Otto von Bismarck over Hunter Thompson, but in the case of a razor-thin Senate majority and a President more veto-mad than a ginned-up Richard Nixon, what is possible is all that matters, because your ability to control your environment is low compared with your ability to gum up the works by overreaching.

Now I'm not saying that nothing should be done; rather, I am calling for just the opposite, saying that what must be done must be done intelligently so that progress can actually occur. That's a long way to go to agree with you on the second part. On the first part, I don't know how politically useful a timetable goal would be, and you run the risk of falling yet again into the non-binding resolution trap. Better to make an end run around the headlines and write effective legislation, like the required home leave bill they passed this week, that has an admittedly non-sexy but demonstrable effect on conditions for our troops and diminishes Bush's ability to continue grinding them down, seriously compromising our national security.

(George would like to add a bit, by putting the same argument forward in a different way: Congress probably knew that to not pass anything on Iraq might be disastrous — that's why they *did* pass a bill on it. Let's not forget that. The bill passed Congress, and Bush vetoed. Lacking overwhelming consensus, that's about as far as you can get in passing a bill. Why they still get the blame for "inaction" is beyond me.)

Texas Cloverleaf plugs:

Howdy from the Texas Cloverleaf!

We just started (though our blogger is not new to the blog scene). We hope we can be as big and liberal as you other bloggers. In the meantime, check us out and maybe be so kind to add us to your links section and stuff.

http://texascloverleaf.wordpress.com/

George says howdy back! The more the merrier in the progressive intertubes. Guys, check out the new guy and throw him some lovin'. Foster that sort of freedom of expression that the Internet kicks the mainstream media's butt at. (But do it at http://thetexascloverleaf.blogspot.com/ — his site just moved.)

And Cloverleaf — I'll have you guys in our blogroll some time this weekend. Good luck, and happy hunting!

Mike Engelhardt writes:

Dear Josh:

As you may know, I am running for the 151st Civil District Court in Harris County, Texas. Please check out my blog, www.engelhart4judge.com. We have a bunch of articles about us linked on the right side. Thanks.

Josh says:

Mike, I knew I was forgetting someone. Thanks for writing in. We have a lot of readers from Harris County, so if any of you haven't already been directed there by the local party, the Chron, or Carl Whtmarsh, take this opportunity to go visit Mike on the web.

Also, I got an email that I had forgotten Emil Reichstadt, but that isn't true. I thought about him and went to his website, which is how I learned it wasn't up yet. Maggie from Brazos County mentioned Reichstadt as well as Judge Linda Yanez for Texas Supreme Court, but I couldn't find a website for her. If someone knows where it is, let us know.