Geopolitics of Other People's Money: Total Spending Power Begets Unilateralism

As Americans we strive for independence, independence from tyranny and oppression, independence in our finances and our personal lives and independence sometimes from the rest of the world too.

This goal and ideology can be our greatest strength and at times in our history our greatest weakness. 

Teenager strives to gain independence from their parents, getting a car and some money in their pocket so that they can do whatever they want to do.  They equate mobility and money with independence and sometimes make the mistake of believing that this absolves them from responsibility for anyone other than themselves.

Politicians sometimes fall into this trap and we have seen it played out recently under the Republican leadership.  For years Republicans have sought independence from Democrats so that they could do what ever they wanted.  They wanted control of money and of the mobility vector of the country.  When they received that control, they preceded to stop doing all of the things that had earned them that power.

They stopped negotiating and working with people in other parties within the United States and with other governments around the world.  They stopped because they had the money and control to stop.

A political party in full control over a government's finances does not need to work with the rest of the world in the short term, because they feel like they have money to burn.  By contrast Bill Clinton became a recognized international collaborator with many countries working with them out of necessity, he didn't control the purse strings in Washington and if he wanted something done, he had to get some help.

For six years George Bush and the Republican led Congress had a blank check to spend with no accountability and as such no motivation to work with any other countries that didn't agree with their perspective.  The leadership of the last six years did not have the wisdom nor the experience to wield the power they were granted effectively.

It could be possible that in this modern day and age no single party can control themselves with that much power.  This recent election may mark the early beginning of a shift in politics that will always be highlighted by the Iraq War.  The legacy of the Bush Administration may be that in the future we will come to the conclusion that no single party should ever receive total control again. 

With a two party system it is impossible to prevent this from occurring, however as the country grows in population and diversity we may see a trend towards empowering more third party movements.  With a three party system, the odds of a single party taking and keeping total power for six years through multiple years of misdirection and false starts would be greatly reduced.  Maybe like an atom that has Protons, Electrons and Neutrons to remain in balance we need a third party, called the Moderates to serve as the balancing Neutron in our political system in essence the party that will ensure balance as opposed to imbalance on one side and Gridlock on the other.