Reaching Across the Aisle – The C-Party

Government ShutdownI read something the other day that made real sense to me.  I think a large majority of us feel our elected “representatives” in Washington are causing a real  bottleneck, to say the least.  Nobody there seems to want to play nice in the political sandbox.  Every John Q. Public has an opinion on what’s going on in those hallowed halls that pave our American Way.  The lack of negotiation and compromise is causing some serious problems in this country’s ability to move forward.  And when those in our government reach an impasse, their solution is to buy more time before the next critical deadline and subsequent impasse is to take place.

I’d like you to read the article I read the other day.  It is an outline for a new political possibility that is based on common sense.  It is based on the grounds that we as owners of this country should believe in.  Yes, WE OWN this country.  We the people own this country.  Not political parties, not China, not the television networks.

This article was showcased in the Metrowest Daily News, a publication that serves the western suburbs of Boston.  The author, Glenn S. Davis, outlines the viable possibility of a new political attitude in America.  More specifically, Washington.  He proposes a new common sense-based, truly representative way of thinking in our nation’s capitol called the “C-Party”.  Below is the article.  I hope you read it, act upon it if you feel inclined to do so, and share any thoughts you might have.  Go ahead and share it with your neighbors, friends and co-workers.  It is, after all, a great idea for all of us!

Davis: The C-Party solution
Glenn S. Davis/Guest columnist
Originally Posted:  10/14/2013 12:19 AM

Who isn’t tired of the infighting among opposing parties and houses of Congress? The current budget impasse is just a stepping stone to the next battle over the debt ceiling and other looming decisions to be made. Or not made.

There’s a solution I’d like to call the C-Party. “C” for Compromise; because the only way our government can function is to get past the divisiveness which prevents any beneficial bill from being passed, often from even being discussed.

“C” for Cooperation. In the immortal words of Rodney King, “Why can’t we all just get along?” Perhaps these words were not originally intended for our elected lawmakers, but what would be so bad about them working together for the common good? The American people would embrace such a position taken from their representatives.

“C” for Compassion, for Civility, for Common Ground. We may not all agree on every issue; that’s not the American way. I hesitate to even mention Obamacare. Can we instead encourage our leaders to show some respect for the opposing views of others? The mean-spirited accusations and utter disregard for alternative viewpoints serve no redeemable purpose in running our country or facing the critical issues which lie ahead. We need our elected representatives to listen for elements of an opposing argument that they find they may actually agree with. Don’t discount everything heard just because of who is saying it. This is not a new idea, just a good one.

“C” for Country. We are one America, not polar extremes the likes of Congress. Gather people from opposing sides of an issue, liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, and people talk, share ideas, debate and yet seek common ground. In everyday life; there is no aisle which divides us never to be crossed. Why can’t Congress solve the problems we face without the inevitable politics interfering with progress and of getting anything accomplished for the good of the country. The C-Party offers a solution.

Where in the Constitution (another “C”?) does it say that our representatives must be true first to their party, and albeit a distant second, to what’s truly best for the American people? I believe it says just the opposite. The idea of the C-Party is not aimed exclusively at Republicans or Democrats. Let’s begin by supporting and electing C-Party candidates from either party. It should be an easy transition for the moderates of both sides. But why stop there; gaining a few converts among the wings shouldn’t be so far-fetched.

“C” for Consensus. No one wins when the government shuts down, when the debt ceiling isn’t resolved. But we can work together to prevent these and other undesirable effects of inaction.

“C” for Courage. There is far too much pressure on our lawmakers to toe the party line. Do any individual members of either party have the backbone to declare themselves to be the first C-Partyers? But no, not one, we must begin with two lawmakers; one Republican, one Democrat, who can join hands across the aisle and begin this movement.

“C” for Chutzpa; a chance to declare a bold new approach in our two-party system which is in dire need of refinement. Unlike the Tea-Party, which almost by definition must begin and end at the fringe, the C-Party movement will start from the middle, and spread to the wings. It’s not a revolution, just a simple shift in direction which can only result in positive change. Our form of government needs to return to the days when it was seen as a beacon to the world, not the ineffectual and seemingly paralyzed entity into which it has transmuted. The C-Party movement can help restore our nation to a democracy in its truest meaning and initial intent.

I’ll be the first to vote for the C-Party: candidates who I choose to support not because of my agreement with them on the numerous issues we face, but due to their pledge and corresponding action, not just lip-service, to overcome the partisan division in Congress. “C” for commitment; join me.

Glenn S. Davis (the first C-Party voter) lives in Natick.

Follow Glenn and the movement on Twitter: @CPartySolution

Advertisements
Previous Post
Leave a comment

2 Comments

  1. RE: “The lack of negotiation and compromise”

    Compromise is a technique to move from specifics to generalizations. In true problem solveing resolution(the act of analyzing a complex notion into simpler ones)only leads to understanding. Which of course is progress in overcoming impasse, but not a solution,
    which of course is the answer to the specifics. Conflicts(opposition of interests or ideas)could be resolved thru compromise, that does not mean the problem is solved because it does not guarentee against reocurrense. Seems to me our representatives can compromise to the extent they will talk about specifics on the second Tuesday of next week, which of course never comes. So what good is compromise? Compromise is a liberal idea that doesn’t lead to anything except the “real bottleneck” you mention ‘impasse’. But I
    stated that its a process for overcomeing that. Why the conflict? Because of human ego, they(goverment officals)lack the ability to manage emotion, they deal with the apparent rather than actual or substantial; much like the media. Apparently some politians have
    affairs with their staff; WTF who cares. I would rather see a Substantial decrease in my taxes, tell me if thats being done. Seems to me compromise works best in barter systems: Your two pigs are worth my two chickens. No, why? because sensible thinking humans might know that it costs more to raise pigs. Superficially then two pigs are worth five chickens. In a barter system you could of course take two chickens, logically in a capitalistic system your want five. Give me a law that says: For every two pigs you shall recieve four or more chickens. What? four? Why? Compromise. Are we not influenced by actual value that when you slaughter the pigs; which other than breading is all you can do, your left with meat. While the the chickens can produce meat, more chickens, and an overabundance of eggs. Will this work? Of course not. What if the chickens die? You get your pigs back right? Not if they’ve been turned into meat. Where does this leave you? Besides in court, where you started…IMPASSE. Your understanding of compromise is not reasonable. Its not specific enough, until there is a judgment on the actual rather than the apparent, chickens will die.

    Re: “refinement” “Our form of government needs to return to the days when it was seen as a beacon to the world”

    This ‘ineffectual and seemingly paralyzed entity’ was brought about by the pledges for positive change. Such as the way goverment was to become transparent, the $2.00 gas problem was going to be solved, jobs were to be available, protection for our elders and social security, affordable education for everyone, troop recalls, elimanation of evil(I made that up) all lip service from a party that pledged refinement would lead to individual and global prosperity. So how is this(singular)refinement going to be any different then the requested bi-partisanship by the current administration? Its false, its a lie and its unrealistic. Opposing political parties find common ground through compromise, in theory. Ideologies prevent bipartisanship from finding common ground, if moderates on the
    conservative side hadn’t rolled over on Obamacare, I wouldn’t be getting fined for not having health care I can’t afford. Moderates suck. Give me reduction and a triple A bond rateing, thats how we be will return to the beacon of the world. Give me Competitiveness,
    individual independence, virtue and fairness. Deal with no good cheaters, lyers, criminals, illegal aliens, and hypocrits harshly.

    I just can’t spend anymore time on the C-party, sorry I disagree that this is the answer. Advocating this moderation seems rediculous and an insult to my intelligence.

    Cordially,
    Tony Courser

    Reply
    • I had to read this a few times in an attempt to get a grasp on the meaning of your response. I’m not sure if you think our friends in Washington need to raise farm animals or what. However, your statement of “Advocating this moderation seems rediculous and an insult to my intelligence” makes me wonder just a bit about your level of intelligence, seeing that in that very same sentence you spelled a simple word incorrectly. Regardless, thanks for stopping by and taking a look. I shared your comments with the content author and he is probably going to raise cows and alpacas instead of pigs and chickens, so that’s some good advice, I suppose.

      Reply

I appreciate your comments!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: