January 23, 2010: Oregonlive.com

America's 'three-party system'

My first involvement in grassroots politics occurred almost 20 years ago during the presidential campaign of 1992. My initial allegiance was neither for Bill Clinton or George H.W. Bush -- I chose to organize for Ross Perot. I felt a personal connection with him because only one year earlier, he had thoroughly roused my patriotic spirit in a keynote speech to my college graduating class.

Alas, after attending only a small handful of local campaign meetings it became clear that his run was going to be a joke, at least organizationally speaking. Besides, 23-year-old Asian-Americans don't really fit in well with a crowd of angry, old-time Ohio farmers. So I switched over to the Clinton campaign and many months later got to experience the exhilaration of hearing Peter Jennings announce that Ohio's electoral votes had put Clinton over the top to victory.

That I switched allegiances during that impressionable summer long ago underscores my flexibility when it comes to politics. Like many Americans, I have lamented countless times the absence of a party that might represent those of us who speak with a civil, sane and centrist voice. And I have often admired those individuals who have teased us with the tantalizing possibility of jump-starting a moderate, third-party movement. (In addition to Perot, think Ventura, Schwarzenegger and Paul.)

That's why I was shocked to realize this week that not only had my wish for a centrist third party been granted 12 months ago, but that I find myself utterly disgusted by the results. For you see, we currently do have three political parties.

We have a Republican party that is smaller but more disciplined than in the past. We have a Democratic party that is dispirited but still clamoring for change. And we have a surprisingly cohesive moderate party -- the party that I have long wished for -- best exemplified by a group of 10 or more senators who, practically speaking, bear little allegiance to either party. The most prominent names among it are Lieberman, Nelson and Snowe.

When combined with a similar but less publicized dynamic in the House of Representatives, the stunning truth becomes clear: President Obama has not for a single day been presiding over a "Democratically-controlled" Congress, much less one with a filibuster-proof Senate. Instead, what we have witnessed over the past year is a two-party coalition government, combined with an obstructionist third party of the sort you witness in parliamentary systems such as those in England, Japan, and Israel.

Worst of all, in critical matters such as the debate on health care, some of the most repugnant ideas have come from those very moderates whom I thought stood closest to me politically. Flooding the health insurance industry with new revenue by requiring under threat of penalty that every citizen purchase insurance -- without forcing the companies to lower their costs? Widening the public divide on abortion by forcing women through the demeaning process of purchasing a separate policy for that procedure? Exempting only Nebraska from some of the costs associated with the bill?

I will always cherish the memories of my brief flirtation with Perot, but if this is representative of life under a three-party system, count me out.