The Birth
Of
The American Centrist Party
September 2008
When the Democrat Party is in power, the Middle Class
pays for the poor. When the Republican Party is in power, the Middle Class pays
for the rich.
Here, in 2008, neither the Democrat Party nor the
Republican Party represents the vast majority of Americans. There is a clear
and current need for a new political party which represents
the strong, vibrant, hard working, patriotic and ever present Middle
Class which has, essentially, been abandoned by the current two party system.
The Societal Line
In order to understand why
there is a clear and current need for the establishment of the American
Centrist Party (ACP), it is essential for us to understand the nature of
societies, past & present. Such an analysis will clearly show where we, as
a nation, are and why this time in our history is a true and important ‘turning point’. A summarized
examination of The Societal Line
will provide such an analysis.
All societies, past and
present, all organizations, public or private, and all individuals, powerful or
humble, can be placed on The Societal Line. A review of this line will show our
history as a nation and provide an explanation as to why we have been
successful and have become the greatest nation ever on earth. The Societal Line
will also clearly reveal why we need the establishment of The American Centrist
Party at this juncture in our nation’s history.
If we can imagine a straight
horizontal line extending in both directions toward the left and right with a
clear and well marked center, this serves as the basis for our discussion.
Throughout history, on every continent on earth, wherever humans have attempted
to organize and manage themselves as societies, there are two, and only two,
approaches which have been attempted. All attempts at societal management will
fall into one of these two approaches.
The two approaches are “collectivism” which we’ll discuss on
the left side of the Societal Line and “individualism”
which we’ll discuss on the right side of The Societal Line. Let’s define each
of these.
Collectivism
In the collectivist approach
to societal management, the common good prevails. The society and all of its
inhabitants relinquish their own personal interests, goals and dreams for the
good of the society as a whole. Personal happiness is derived through a clear
and unwavering belief that the individual, through his/her contributions, truly
and positively affects the overall society such that, without each of them, the
society would not be full or complete. The wheel
and spokes model exemplifies the collectivist approach. The wheel can not
function properly unless all of its spokes are performing as required. In
general, we’ll place the collectivist societal model left of center on The Societal
Line. In order to implement this approach to societal management, both
political and economic models will emerge to the left of center.
Immediately to the left of
center, along The Societal Line, the political model known as a democracy emerges. A democracy is a
political model in which the governing power over the people is derived
directly from the people. It’s defined as government of the people, by the
people and for the people. Collectively, the people decide how the society is
to function. Hence, democracy is just immediately to the left of center along The
Societal Line.
An economic model begins to
emerge a bit further left of center which is designed to address the needs of
all of the people. This economic model strives to use the fruits of the labor
of the members of the society to benefit all of its members. This is pure
collectivist thinking – the concept that all should benefit from the fruits of
the labor of all of the people in the society. Since collectivism is the
philosophical driver for this type of society, it is expected that all members
of the society will work for the common good, thereby reaping the common
benefits.
Since the collectivist
economic model is designed to reward all members equally for their work,
assuming that all members are contributing equally, this economic model can be
referred to as socialism.
When it becomes evident that
only some members are working for the common good, collectivism, by itself,
immediately begins to fail. As we move further to the left along The Societal
Line, we see where this leads.
Socialism, as the
collectivist economic model, requires redistribution of wealth – the very
essence of the collectivist approach to societal management. This, in turn,
drives democracy to the left and modern liberalism
emerges; a system which strives to convince all members in the society that the
redistribution of wealth is in everyone’s best interest – collectivist
thinking. Modern Liberalism is not to be confused with liberalism as understood
and explained by some of the founding fathers of the USA. To many of them, at
the outset of our nation, liberalism meant individual freedom and inalienable
personal rights. We will, therefore, use the term modern liberalism on the left side of The Societal Line left of
democracy.
If the attempt to convince
all members that modern liberalism is in all of their best interests is not
successful then the leadership of the society continues to move further to the
left along The Societal Line embracing full socialism. It begins to force what
it believes is in the best interest of the society as a whole. If there is no
discernable ‘push back’ from the members of the society, socialism prevails,
redistribution of wealth occurs and personal and societal mediocrity emerges. The
Middle Class begins to disappear.
If there is resistance to further
modern liberal and socialistic attempts to manage society, more forceful action
moves the society further to the left along The Societal Line. Through such
moves, collectivism takes the form of dictatorial societal control. In the 20th
century, such extreme forms of socialism were Nazism, Fascism and Communism.
All of these forms of societal management and attempts to force collectivism are
extreme forms of socialism and are far to the left of center along The Societal
Line. The history of the 20th Century teaches us that such extreme
forms of socialism eventually lead to totalitarianism, corruption, revolution
and societal disaster.
Later, we will examine some
clear examples of various positions along the left side of The Societal Line.
The key ‘take away’ here is that moving far to the left will, undoubtedly, lead
to societal disaster. This is not a hypothesis. The history of the recent past
(last 100 years) has proven this conclusion to be true.
Individualism
To the right of center along The
Societal Line is the concept of individualism. In this approach to
societal management, each individual is free to choose his/her own path in
life. Here, the concept of inalienable rights emerges – the thought process
which endows each individual with rights from our Creator that can never be
removed by any societal structure. In a society which embraces individualism,
the choices of each individual are free and unburdened. The society, in general,
benefits from the enthusiastic and unencumbered paths which each individual
chooses for himself or herself. Individual happiness is derived from the free
and unobstructed paths available for choice – paths that may lead to personal
failure and/or success but, nevertheless, free paths, one and all. The common
good is not at the center of the society. Individual happiness is at its center
and, because individuals are not confined by the need to provide to the common
good; the common good, because of individual freedom, flourishes. The economic
model which emerges to the right of the Societal Line is referred to as Capitalism.
Immediately to the right of
center along The Societal Line is a republic.
A republic is a form of individualism where the people in the society elect
temporary representatives. The sole purpose of these representatives is to
learn the specific intents of those that they represent and to work together to
make broad decisions which benefit the society in general without removing
personal freedom or limiting individual inalienable rights.
Capitalism, the economic
model of the right, is not focused on the common good, but rather on the rights
of the individual to find, through creativity and personal hard work, financial
success.
Although capitalism is not
focused on the common good, it does create a free marketplace, which, in turn,
is self governing such that only those individuals providing goods and services
commonly in demand, will be successful. Individual financial success, therefore,
is proportional to personal creativity, hard work and the dictates of the free marketplace
and not to the controlled interests of the common good. Therefore, in an individualistic
society such as a republic, personal freedom results in overall societal
success even though no overarching societal control exists.
However, what happens to
those individuals who, for whatever reasons, are not capable of finding
individual financial success through capitalism? Also, if we move further to
the right along The Societal Line, what other forms of individualism emerge?
Left totally unchecked by
even a minor focus on collectivism, we find that a fully individualistic
society moves further to the right and defines a more pointed form of
individualism referred to as libertarianism,
which, in its purest form, embraces the concept that all rights are individual
and that the individual is not responsible to anyone or anything except himself
/ herself and that every decision is
free and personal. The jungle model - ‘survival
of the strongest’ seems to summarize this approach. The thought process
here is that the society becomes stronger and more self reliant when only the
strong survive.
As we move further to the
right along The Societal Line, the weak fall away because of their inability to
compete with the strong. The strong, in turn, consolidate greater and greater
personal power to the point where monarchies begin to emerge. The ultimate
strong become equivalent to emperors, kings, queens, dukes, princes, princesses,
etc. As time progresses, these strong individuals, and/or their heirs, lose
touch with the societies that they’re supposed to manage.
Extreme and unchecked concentrated
wealth associated with true monarchies
eventually leads to totalitarianism, corruption, revolution and societal
disaster.
The key ‘take away’ here is
that further moves away from a republic toward the extreme right along The
Societal Line lead to societal disaster. Here again we will examine some
examples of the 20th Century where societies of the extreme right
have failed. And, here again, we will see that these observations are not
hypothetical, but historically factual.
Movement along the Societal Line toward
the extreme left or toward the extreme right leads to totalitarianism,
corruption, revolution and societal disaster.
On the extreme left, the
leadership views itself at the center of the society (axis of the wheel)
attempting to uphold collectivist ideals while crushing any forms of dissent.
The Middle Class is economically ‘flattened’ and a small, strong and oppressive
governing body controls. As time passes, widespread governmental dependence
emerges and the Middle Class eventually disappears.
On the extreme right, the
leadership loses sight of its commitment to the society and becomes divorced
from the society. It concentrates its own individualistic wealth and drains the
society, and particularly the Middle Class, of its ability to employ
capitalism. The Middle Class disappears, the poor fight over crumbs and the wealthy
leadership simply rules its own household.
Examples on the Left
Moderate socialism or, as often
referred to in a modern context, democratic socialism, seems to be working in
some nations throughout the modern world. It should, however, be pointed out
that, because mediocrity emerges in such societies, nations embracing
democratic socialism are not in worldwide leadership positions. And, only time
will tell how these nations fair over long and extended durations.
Some extreme forms of socialism
began to emerge in Europe after World War I. The people of Russia in 1917, as a
result of corruption and totalitarianism which emerged from a society suffering
from a government of the extreme right and the lack of the emergence of a
strong Middle Class, revolted and moved not toward the center of The Societal
Line, but toward the extreme left – an attempt at Communism, which in the
Soviet Union in 1991 collapsed. Russia failed on the extreme right in 1917 and
on the extreme left in 1991. No strong and sustained Middle Class existed. This
is, perhaps, the most vivid example of the effects of extremism on either side
of The Societal Line.
Nazi Germany, following the
great depression and suffering from its losses in World War I, embraced the
concept of a future which promised a controlled and utopian society – extreme
collectivism. This form of extreme socialism failed in 1945.
Fascist Italy, in an attempt
to help define the future utopian world which could emerge after World War II,
also attempted to force an extreme form of collectivism on its people which
also, at the end of World War II, did not achieve its goal, but instead, failed.
These are but a few examples
of the recent past and modern emergences which clearly show that the extreme
left holds the promise of only societal disaster.
Examples on the Right
It can be argued that World
War I was the result of the need for a world wide shift away from the extreme
right. A broadly based analysis would lead us to observe that many of the
monarchies which existed in Europe prior to World War I were ineffective, corrupt
and led by individual monarchs who, either by choice or apathy, cared not for
the people of the nations which they led. We could define Europe prior to World
War I as a continent on the extreme right of The Societal Line, which in turn,
led to disaster and eventual world war. The European shift toward collectivism
emerged after World War I.
Perhaps we could observe some
of the oil rich nations of the
Where is the USA on The Societal Line?
The American Revolution was a
direct response of the colonialists to a system of societal management which
was, at that time, on the extreme right. Governed by a monarchy philosophically
and ideologically indifferent to the emerging needs and concerns of the
colonialists and physically removed by an ocean, the revolutionary colonialists
chose to move away from the extreme right. Here again we see that an
intransigent monarchy removed from the needs and concerns of its colonial
subjects caused revolution. The
However, unlike the Russian
revolution and many other attempts at shifts in societal management, the
leaders of the American Revolution and the eventual founding fathers of our
nation understood the basic precepts of The Societal Line and the essential
need for a strong and vibrant Middle Class. Therefore, they chose not to move
to the extreme left. They, through incredible shared wisdom, unselfish
leadership and an immeasurable share of divine intervention, chose to move
toward the center of The Societal Line.
In so doing they formed a
nation which, ideologically, straddles the center. They embraced a combination
of individualism and collectivism and formed a democratic republic; a society
of the people, by the people and for the people AND with
individual freedom for all. Never in the history of human endeavor has such an
incredible social experiment been implemented with such success - a combination
of both collectivism and individualism near the center of The Societal Line that
works!
This unique nature of the
USA, preserving the inalienable rights of each and every individual while still
embracing a union which recognizes the importance of the common good, placed
our nation on a path which eventually led to world wide leadership. The
combination of collectivism and individualism in one form of societal
management is at the heart of the unique and singular nature of our nation and
is at the foundation of its incredible success among nations and throughout
history.
The Current Political System in the USA
The political result of the
straddling of the center of The Societal Line was the eventual establishment of
the current two party political system in the
A brief study of presidential
administrations from 1928 to 2008 seems to support this observation. From 1928
to 2008 there have been twenty presidential terms. Considering a presidential
term as defined as four years in duration and accounting for presidential
deaths in office, assassinations and resignations, we can see that of the twenty
presidential terms, ten have been democratic and ten have been republican.
This observation seems to
support the conclusion that straddling the center of the Societal Line,
oscillating back and forth across the center, has been economically and
politically good for our nation and for its citizens.
The USA still holds a
substantial leadership position in the world. We may also conclude from this
presidential analysis that most Americans embrace the center and avoid the
extremes of The Societal Line. If this were not the case, then at some point
during our nation’s history (over 230 years now), we surely would have moved
too far toward one extreme or the other.
What about our Two Party System now?
As stated earlier, all
societies, all nations, all political structures, all organizations - both
private and public - and all individuals can find their respective places on The
Societal Line. If we define the regions near and on either side of the center
of The Societal Line as a democratic republic, the region where the USA has
found singular success throughout history, we can observe recent presidential
administrations to see if they fall within that region or outside of that
region.
For the purposes of this
discussion, let’s define a democratic presidential administration which falls
within this region as a Centrist Democratic
Administration, a republican presidential administration which falls within
this region as a Centrist Republican
Administration, a democratic presidential administration which falls to the
left of this region as a Progressive Administration
and a republican presidential administration which falls to the right of
this region as a Conservative
Administration.
Here’s an observation of what
seems to emerge:
Herbert Hoover Conservative
Administration
Franklin Roosevelt Progressive Administration
Harry Truman Centrist Democratic
Administration
Dwight Eisenhower Centrist Republican
Administration
John Kennedy Centrist Democratic
Administration
Lyndon Johnson Progressive
Administration
Richard Nixon Conservative
Administration
Gerald Ford Centrist
Republican Administration
Jimmy Carter Progressive
Administration
Ronald Reagan Centrist Republican
Administration
George H. Bush Conservative
Administration
William Clinton Progressive
Administration
George W. Bush Conservative
Administration
An initial review of this
list along with an understanding of The Societal Line would lead us to conclude
that all is well with the two party system. We see a continual straddling back
and forth across the center with no obvious trends toward either of the
extremes. But, on closer analysis, is
this conclusion valid?
To further understand what
seems to be occurring, let’s briefly consider numerical statistics. The average
of the numbers ‘2’ and ‘20’ is ‘11’. The average of the numbers ‘10’ and ‘12’ is ‘11’. Although the averages are the
same, can we conclude that the input data describes the same situations? The
answer to this question clearly is no. The numbers ‘2’ and ‘20’ are much further from the center than
are the numbers ‘10’ and ‘12’. So, although ‘2’ and ‘20’ straddle the average,
they are not near the center.
If we honestly observe the durations
of the last three presidential administrations (twenty years), we see a straddling
of the center which is good for our nation. But, for the first time in the data
shown above, we see the straddling occurring between Progressives and
Conservatives rather than between Centrist Democrats and Centrist Republicans. Have
we reached the point where the only choice left to the electorate, in an effort
to continue to straddle the center of The Societal Line, is to respond to one
extreme by electing the opposite extreme? Are we straddling the center but
abandoning the democratic republic that our founding fathers established? And,
if the democratic republic politically and economically defines the Middle
Class, are we abandoning the Middle Class in favor of the extremes? Is our
two party political system becoming more of a ‘2 & 20’ system rather than a
’10 & 12” system?
Will we fall into an oscillatory future
where the successful response to one extreme will always be the other extreme?
And if so, will we find our beloved nation on the verge of disaster and
collapse on either end of The Societal Line because of our lack of choices near
the center?
Consider the ‘bungee
cord’ effect. As our current two party political system pulls the
nation further to the right, the electorate responds by pulling even further to
the left. This, in turn, forces the electorate to pull even much further to the
right at the next election cycle thereby mimicking a bungee cord oscillating
wildly in response to actions beyond the limits of safe oscillation. The bungee
cord eventually fails!
Has the Middle Class, the
economic, moral and ethical foundation of our nation, been adequately and
passionately represented by the democratic and republican parties over the past
twenty years? Most middle class Americans would probably vehemently answer NO to this question!! Yet, the Middle Class
is offered only two major choices, neither of which represents them adequately.
The original reason for establishing a new political party clearly focused on
the center of The Societal Line is herewith restated.
When the Democratic Party is in
power, the Middle Class pays for the poor. When the Republican Party is in power,
the Middle Class pays for the rich.
Why do we need a new political party?
Since currently neither major
political party represents the Middle Class, those hard working, tax paying
individuals in that economic sector find themselves at the mercy of political
parties striving to find societal success at points on The Societal Line either
to the left or to the right of a democratic republic. In either case, the Middle
Class is expected to fund progressive or conservative programs with little or
no reward. The current two political parties have lost sight of the goals and
intentions of our founding fathers and no longer embrace the combination of
collectivism and individualism which formed the basis for our democratic
republic. Furthermore, there seems to be little tolerance for those potential
leaders viewed as near the center.
In addition, the current
mainstream media, in an ever increasing search for the ‘exciting story’, fuels the push towards the extremes more. There
seems to be no story associated with candidates near the center. The word
‘boring’ seems to characterize them in the eyes of the current mainstream media.
Those candidates, however, on the extreme ends are viewed as exciting, and
therefore, story worthy. Democrats moving toward the center and away from
progressivism are viewed as ‘selling out’ to the right. Republicans moving
toward the center and away from conservatism are viewed as ‘selling out’ to the
left.
Where does this leave the economic
and moral foundation of our nation which is the vast, hard working, tax paying Middle
Class? The Middle Class is left in a shadow
zone along the center of The Societal Line with no representation.
Furthermore, there seems to be no interest in either political party to
recognize this dilemma and attempt to correct it. Usually, during presidential
election years, both major political parties campaign strongly in favor of the
Middle Class because of its massive economic and political power. Yet,
regardless of the election outcomes, tangible benefits directed toward the
Middle Class are usually non-existent!
The
The American Centrist Party
It can be argued that efforts
over the past few decades to successfully mount independent challenges to the two
party system have failed. There are two reasons for these failures.
First, the
true need for such independent challenges was not as clear before as it is now.
Second,
independent challenges over the past few decades did not successfully identify
their platforms and differentiate themselves from either the Democrat Party or
the Republican Party. They clearly stated what they were not, but, did not
define what they were! It is not sufficient to mount an independent
challenge to the status quo by simply digressing.
It’s imperative to define the
platform of the new political party, departing from the word ‘independent’ and
embracing the core values of a democratic republic. Even the word ‘independent’
implies a negative shift from the established norm even though the established
norm no longer represents the Middle Class.
The Middle Class Defined
The Middle Class can be
defined economically. At one end are those proud, hard working individuals or
families who are not financially dependent on any state or federal government
subsidies, who are working, earning their incomes and paying their own way.
They’re not seeking government subsidies and are continually struggling to
improve their financial positions through education and a commitment to self
reliance and hard work.
At the other financial end of
the Middle Class are those individuals or families who have achieved a
substantial degree of financial success, but are not considered ‘wealthy’. Based
on 2008 dollars, the upper limit of annual income for such individuals or
families could be considered to be in the range of $300,000 per year.
Independence or Dependence?
The American Centrist Party
is not independent. It is fully dependent on the desires of the American people.
The fact that it’s neither democratic nor republican makes it no less American.
In fact, since it strives to straddle The Societal Line in the center where
most centrist democrats and centrist republicans politically reside, it can currently
be viewed as much more American than either of the two current existing
political parties.
Core Precepts of the American Centrist Party
The American Centrist Party
believes in the following:
1.
Full and
unwavering political and economic representation and support of the Middle
Class as defined above.
2. Strict adherence to the center of The Societal
Line embracing the founding
concept of our democratic republic.
3. Individual freedom and individual
responsibility for all, unencumbered
by an oppressive socialistic tax structure.
4. Much smaller federal government,
decentralization and substantially reduced
federal taxes. The federal government should be responsible only
for those aspects of society which truly affect the common good such as:
- International Diplomacy
- National Defense
- National Security
- Some Environmental Oversight
& Regulation
- Some Energy Oversight & Regulation
- Some Financial Oversight
- Some National Transportation Networks
Oversight
- Some Communications Networks
Regulation
- A National Parks Network.
5. Individual states rights with minimal federal
funding and minimal federal intervention.
6. Much, much, much lower federal taxes and a
fair, unencumbered federal tax
system which rewards rather than punishes the Middle Class.
7. A compassionate view toward those truly in need
with plans to direct them toward
privately funded support programs, not government mandated programs funded by the Middle Class. The number of privately funded compassionate organizations and
support programs in the USA is
extremely extensive and Americans are the most generous
and giving people on earth. Why should government interfere with these privately funded efforts which are already
established and functioning
successfully?
Capitalism and American Centrism
Although along The Societal
Line we can define capitalism as the economic model to the right of center, we
can clearly observe that capitalism is extremely effective across the center
and throughout the full range of American Centrism which includes both centrist
democrats and centrist republicans. Therefore, the American Centrist Party
strongly embraces capitalism as its economic model with full faith in free
market strategies.
Dare to Imagine!
Can we ever begin to imagine the incredible innovative
strength and power of the Middle Class American people if the enormous burden
of oppressive taxes is removed from them?
Can we ever begin to imagine the enthusiasm of our Middle
Class youth if they are encouraged to succeed on their own without government
oversight and without the tax burden that goes along with it?
Can we ever begin to imagine the incredible world wide
leading position which our nation will continue to hold as it once again
becomes the ‘shining city on the hill’ for all the world to revere?
Can we ever imagine such
things? Or, shall we be content with the mediocrity and oppression which the current
two party system seems to be continuously pushing us toward without opposition?
Will the Middle Class in the
United States continue to be the economic engine that drives our nation? Or,
will the wild swings toward extremism, back and forth across the center of The
Societal Line, result in the elimination of the Middle Class?
Do we as a nation want
extreme socialism or extreme monarchies? Or, do we want the nation that our
founding fathers established and the nation that has served as a true light of
hope throughout the world for more than two centuries now?
The Middle Class drives our nation!!
It’s time for a political party to unabashedly represent it. It’s time for The
Birth of the American Centrist Party!
Frank E. Falcone
Captain, USNR (retired)
NOTE: Please feel free to
send comments, criticisms, thoughts and/or suggestions to: AmericanCentristParty@yahoo.com