WASHINGTON, Nov. 13 (UPI) -- Americans are increasingly disenchanted with politics because our system of government -- from the way we elect politicians, to the policies they enact, to the rules under which they operate -- is woefully antiquated, a new book argues.
As a result, growing numbers of voters are identifying themselves as independents, and the authors hope to galvanize them behind a sweeping reform agenda.
The book, entitled "The Radical Center" by Ted Halstead and Michael Lind (Doubleday, 224 pages, $24.95), makes the case that advances in technology alter critical aspects of national life and create periodic schisms between Americans and their government, and that the country is undergoing a similar transformation now. The government has no choice but to evolve, the authors argue, but so far no clear, new breed of politician has emerged to answer our new needs.
"The future of American politics may well belong to the major party that is first to renounce its more extreme positions, and embrace a new Radical Centrist agenda," write Halstead and Lind. Halstead is president of the New America Foundation, a Washington-based think tank. Lind is a visiting fellow there.
At its essence, the Radical Centrist agenda is to "expand America's perennial goals of individual liberty, equality of opportunity, and national unity in the new circumstances of the information age."
The authors argue that technology has transformed American politics twice before. In the 19th century, efforts to develop steam power led government to move toward urbanizing America and to adapt to factory towns. In the 20th century, the New Deal programs harnessed electricity and the internal combustion engine to establish "the world's first nation with a mass middle class."
In both instances, American political institutions, leaders and policies were forced to buttress and even promote the larger effects technology was having on American society. The authors argue America is now caught in a new technological revolution -- of microchips and biomedical advances -- which combines with the fact that Americans lead an increasingly mobile lifestyle.
Halstead and Lind argue that the catalyst for change is often a national crisis.
"It tends to be only in periods of crisis ... that the forces of innovation overcome the forces of resistance and attachment to the status quo," said Lind. Like the Civil War and the Great Depression, both of which ushered in new eras in American governance, the events of Sept. 11 might provide the spark now.
"There is the prospect of this trauma providing the opportunity for rethinking the way the United States works," said James Fallows, a writer and the chairman of the New America Foundation's board of directors, who introduced the authors at a National Press Club book launch last week.
"There's a real longing there on the part of the public for a new set of options," says Halstead. "Both major parties are currently tinkering around the edges of national issues and national problems rather than going to their root causes."
These root causes, the authors argue, lie in the fact that Americans are increasingly becoming "free agents," and as such need far more flexibility and choices in all aspects of their lives, from voting to social services. At the same time, however, Americans want to temper this flexibility with fairness.
"Republicans stress the former (choices); Democrats the latter (fairness)," says Halstead. "But Americans are left in the awkward situation of choosing between the two. What the American people want is a combination (of both) that neither party has been able to offer."
To that end, Halstead's and Lind's propose what they call "citizen-based reform agenda" as part of their Radical Centrist approach, which contains a number of provocative changes. With respect to social welfare programs, for example, they say that "as many programs as possible should be tied directly to individuals rather than to intermediaries" such as employers and institutions.
As an example, Halstead cited the conflict between the present employer-based healthcare system, and workers' decreasing fidelity to employers. "People, as they change or lose jobs, have to lose their insurance or change their insurer," he said.
Under a system of "mandatory self-insurance" proposed in the book, Americans would be required to purchase healthcare insurance in the same way they are required to do so for their automobiles. The health plans would be fully portable and government subsidies would be provided for those who could not afford it.
The authors do not, however, make clear what health insurance services would be mandatory for a government-approved program, or indeed if varying insurance packages would be offered. And the book does not address realities presented by studies that have shown that younger Americans in generally good health opt not to purchase health insurance.
The authors' Radical Centrist agenda would also make fundamental changes in education funding. Presently, disparities in local tax allocations create school funding inequalities, and studies have shown that students who live in poorer areas generally perform worse than their wealthier peers. Lind and Halstead propose "national equalization for school funding on a per pupil basis:" students would be given an education tax rebate which they could apply to a school of their choosing.
However, it is not clear whether more parents might choose to send their children to private schools in that case, and whether this too would perpetuate disparities in education. And they do not address the point that funding is the only critical factor here: a number of conservative and liberal education experts have attributed poor student performance not to funding problems alone, but to a combination of funding and the emphasis placed on education in students' communities and homes.
Not all of the changes Halstead and Lind advocate concern ideology or policy. When it comes to electing our politicians, for example, they would permit voters to rate candidates in order of preference, rather than requiring them to pick only one. Under such a system, says Halstead, "George Bush, Sr. would have won in '92 because Perot cost him the election, and Gore would have won in 2000 because Nader cost him."
Likewise, Halstead and Lind argue that citizens can change the political process right down to the very rules under which Congress operates. As an example of excess, they offer the 1997 debate over campaign finance laws, when then-Majority Leader Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., was able to stave off a Democratic version of legislation by means of parliamentary procedures.
"Amendment tree? Cloture? Filibuster? What on earth is going on? Most American voters expect their representatives and senators to debate bills and then to engage in up-and-down votes on them, not to play tricks with antiquated Senate or House rules in order to 'prevent' a debate," they write. (A filibuster may be defeated if 60 senators vote for cloture.)
Conspicuously absent from "The Radical Center" is any substantive discussion of the Republican Revolution of 1994 -- a decidedly non-centrist public event -- when the GOP made significant electoral gains and wrested control of the House and Senate from Democrats.
Many attributed these coups to the Contract With America, a series of reform initiatives, both big and small, that seemingly drove increased voter turnout. But Halstead dismisses this. "People at the time made it sound like it was a big landslide that would change everything," he said." I don't think it really has."
"It is just as unrealistic to assume that voters endorse the platform of a party or a candidate," he and Lind wrote. "Only a minority of the American voters who gave Newt Gingrich's Republicans a majority in the House of Representatives in 1994 knew what the Contract with America was; however, that did not prevent Gingrich and his allies from claiming that the American people had endorsed the Contract."
Despite the current closely divided House and Senate, the authors argue that the considerable sway currently held by the centrist politicians in both parties represents a "Squishy Center" -- a halfway point between Left and Right -- rather than a "Radical Center" which provides a new ideology.
"These centrists are constantly overshadowed and overpowered by the more extreme elements of their own camps," they write.
A growing assertiveness among the public for reform might embolden some politicians -- or encourage new ones -- to propose fundamentally new centrist ideas. Halstead and Lind just hope they are the ones they advocate.
