There’s an outbreak of hatred and resentment that is bigger than is generally healthy for a superpower. There’s widespread hatred towards the decade-long war with no end in sight, even if we don’t agree on what comes next. Almost everybody lives with some resentment towards shadowy, malevolent corporations and sprawling, opaque government. Something Big and Powerful has been eating away at our paychecks and home equity and gorging itself on skyrocketing health insurance premiums and social security checks for someone else.
We we may be at each other's throats, but we're more connected to one another than at any time of history. Everything is viral. We share our beliefs like social diseases. So much human interaction primes us for an epidemic of belief systems.
We we may be at each other's throats, but we're more connected to one another than at any time of history. Everything is viral. We share our beliefs like social diseases. So much human interaction primes us for an epidemic of belief systems.
We hope for panacea, some political party or ideology to finally break the logjam in government, end the war, pay our nation’s debts while give us the dignity of a good-paying job and a clear conscience. Most of us have only two parties to choose from in this process. It’s not enough choice and there’s widespread suspicion that that the Big and Powerful run it all anyway. Nobody but the daft really likes their polished, cloying options in political parties and a few doe-eyed suckers still hold out hope that their side isn’t quite as sold out as the other.
In times like these, it’s not that people haven’t tried something different. During a war and a recession, Ross Perot combined his own wealth with a certain brand of pragmatic-but-crazy ideas and managed a little under 20%. This time around, Americans Elect employed the best political minds in some vaguely centrist quest for Twitter followers, but they never even made it on the ballot. The lesson is that you can’t go it alone, nor can you crowdsource ideology. To truly go viral, you have to start from some set of ideas. But in this time of free-thinking, frustrated people, each with access to thousands of viewpoints, the possibilities for new majorities are endless, and the demand is greater than at any time in living memory.
The two parties resemble sick, sclerotic, overfed businesses who jealously guard their profit margins and send armies of lawyers after any young upstarts. A third party might assemble a team of personalities and ideals that would win over voters, but the rules of the game (and the players themselves) keep them off the field. Maybe the way is to avoid playing the game in the first place, and not form a party at all.
Call it a Political Interest Network (PIN®) instead of a political party. A few strangers could come together around 3 to 5 seemingly unrelated interests that transcend the political parties and happen to agree strongly with some segment public preferences-- Things like campaign finance reform, energy independence, and ending the Afghan war come to mind. Politicians, experts, and civic-minded individuals can meet in some public space, online or in person, and talk through ideas under the umbrella of an interest group. They can quietly raise money for individual network-affiliated candidates through the partys’ own fundraising channels, or at the grassroots, where nobody is looking. PINs could take great advantage of the political realities of Super PACs and Citizens United.
It could start small, winning a few statewide races and growing a small caucus in some minor legislature or city council that one party or the other needs to win. Like a virus, it can get larger and replicate by using the existing, vulnerable infrastructure, working the RNA of a concrete set of ideas into caucuses and committees in both major parties, slowly building a brand around your people and ideas, allowing for change and making compromises. Sell subscriptions to politicians who want access (or immunity).
To avoid dangerous virulence, my ideal PIN would adopt bylaws from the outset that restrict the influence of industries, government officials, associations, and powerful individuals. It will need to have experts in political organizing, money, communications, and other aspects of a movement, all while retaining connection to the core set of popular principles the network agrees on, and being responsive to people’s interests. At some point, PINs will become voting blocs independent of the parties, and possibly new parties themselves. They can't do that by killing the host.
There are some ground rules to consider. For me, I’d want it so that no individual or group will have control over where it goes. Its founders will have to accept the high probability that the network will go in directions they strongly disagree with. The PIN that is interested in campaign finance, energy independence, and ending the war might also develop a position on abortion or health care. A politician or an individual might subscribe to more than one PIN, depending on their rules.
Viruses mutate. No matter what rules are established at the beginning, the PIN might become a political party in its own right, end up co-opted by some special interest, or disappear entirely. The point is that with a third, or a fourth, or a fifth party, each with its own distinct set of issues. To actually get things done they’ll be forced to compromise on the job, instead of the zero-sum fight to the death of the modern two party election. Who knows? People might even stop thinking of themselves as Democrats or Republicans, and instead think of themselves as subscribers to beliefs.
At the beginning, at the local level and among a group of people who know one another to respect their views, we don’t have to agree on everything-- Just enough to create a network around a few easy ideas that straddle the party divide. Hurricanes can start with sneezes.
