The New York Times reports today that House Republicans are delaying passage of a $37.4 billion dollar appropriations bill due to concerns over...earmarks. Of course, under Republican control, the number and amount of earmarks increased exponentially and now the Democrats are trying to get theirs.
Ralph Nader is fond of stating that there isn't a significant difference between the two major parties and this news supports that view. Unfortunately, the system at this point is designed to perpetuate two party dominance. And such a system only encourages corruption--if the people only have two choices, indignation at one party only puts the other, equally unethical, party in control.
Of course, it doesn't have to be this way. For one, the media can give more time to third party candidates and independents. Why not sponsor a debate for such candidates? Additionally, public financing of elections could break the Democrat and Republican party monopoly. Numerous political parties have emerged and met their demise throughout American history. Let's not assume that the Republican and Democratic parties are the only games in town.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think public financing for campaigns is a good idea. But you also called for the media to give more attention to third party candidates. You must remmeber that media outlets are businesses like all others. They want to make money. They write about or broadcast what they think their readers or listeners or viewers will want. More of an audience creates more ad revenue. So media outlets will cover popular candidates by nature, unless a third party candidate did something really radical or interesting that an editor thought her readers would care about. The only way to force a third party debate, other than by popular demand, would be to use public television.
There's your third party candidate - Bloomberg.
http://www.nysun.com/article/56898
Post a Comment