It happens every time a party returns to power in Washington.

Suddenly, they claim superiority of ideas, a monopoly on knowledge and an absence of fault.

Republicans did it when they took control of Congress in 1994, mistaking voter anger towards Democrats and then-President Bill Clinton as a carte blanche endorsement of their ideas and philosophy.

Now Democrats commit the same sin, extolling a voter mandate that doesn’t exist.

Got a news flash for the party of the jackass. After eight years of George W. Bush, most American voters would have cast their ballots for a one-armed paper hanger fresh out of prison over anything the Republicans had to offer.

Another news flash: Voter anger towards the swagger and strut of Democrats is growing and the 2010 mid-term election could be a rude, but deserved, awakening for abuse of trust.

Polls show it’s been a long, long time since a majority of American voters actually cast their ballots “for” a particular candidate or party. The votes usually come as a protest against the party in power.

Voters threw out the Democratic leadership in Congress in 1994 because they didn’t care for the liberal agenda of Bill Clinton and his cohorts in Congress. Clinton responded by moving back towards the center and survived to serve a second term.

Americans nowadays have a hard time time figuring out just what the hell Barack Obama is up to in the White House. Sometimes he’s liberal. Sometimes he’s Bush in a better suit.

But most surveys show increasing voter dissatisfaction with the failed Democratic leadership in both the House and Senate and political strategists from both parties predict Republican gains in 2010. If Obama doesn’t get his act together, he will be a one-term President.

The bad part of this whole equation will be, as usual, a lack of real choice for voters. For the last several decades, both Republicans and Democrats proved they aren’t capable of leading Congress or the nation. Sadly, they are the only choices we have on most ballots.

Whenever a third party canidate emerges on the national stage, their presence usually stems from voter anger and dissatisfaction with the status quo but the candidates too often come from the fringe. While what they say may make sense for a while, a closer examination reveals extremism that makes them unelectable.

Ralph Nader, Ross Perot and Ron Paul attracted fanatical followers for a while but each candidate came with too much baggage from the fringe. What we need is a new third party that fields a mainstream candidate who serves mainstream America, someone who is not a consumer activist, a billionaire with too much time on his hands or a long-time member of Congress with too much extremism in his past.

Perhaps such a person does not exist. Perhaps the two-party system has too much control over the political system that rules our government.

Perhaps a more radical solution is required.

Something radical like revolution.

Comments are closed.