Reply
Sun 3 Aug, 2008 02:57 pm
Well, in theory, Democrats are liberal/progressive, generally speaking. Republicans are said to be conservatives. However, too many Democrats in congress have been voting as the Republicans vote. Clinton was the prime instigator of this trend, when, as President, he usurped Republican causes, repeatedly. Republicans, instead of voting conservative causes, vote ala the neocons. I am voting Democratic this year, only to get as many neocons out of power as possible. After that, I don't see the point in electing Democrats who campaign as liberals, then vote the Republican agenda. In fact, if they continue to do so, I will only vote alternative candidates, beginning with 2009.
My vote, and point of view, may be miniscule, compared with the votes of the masses, but I hope to influence as many potential voters as possible, to hold out for a true party of the people, before supporting any such organization again.
When in the course of human events . . .
We have needed a viable third party for 20 years or more.
Rockhead wrote:We have needed a viable third party for 20 years or more.
My estimate is forty years.
We have a two party system. Deal with it.
There will never be a viable third party. When another party comes, one of the original two parties will soon disappear since, with winner take all elections, three parties are mathematically unstable.
Wishing (or waiting or working) for a third party is foolish. (Unless, of course you are proposing to change the rules, getting proportional representation for example, which I don't think will happen, but is a little less foolish).
In my opinion the two party system works just fine. As the needs, or desires of Americans change, the parties change. I choose to be a Democrat because the party often supports my values. Being a Democrat gives me the ability to influence the party... from policies to the nominees they pick.
People are always complaining about whatever political system they are under. All things considered, ours does as good a job as any at providing a platform for debate of important issues.
If you want to have an impact... you need to accept the world you live in.
ebrown_p wrote:If you want to have an impact... you need to accept the world you live in.
Seems to me that the world we live in was, for better or worse, mostly shaped by people who
didn't accept the world they lived in.
Yeah, this handbasket suits us just fine...
:wink:
ebrown_p wrote:We have a two party system. Deal with it.
There will never be a viable third party. When another party comes, one of the original two parties will soon disappear since, with winner take all elections, three parties are mathematically unstable.
Wishing (or waiting or working) for a third party is foolish. (Unless, of course you are proposing to change the rules, getting proportional representation for example, which I don't think will happen, but is a little less foolish).
In my opinion the two party system works just fine. As the needs, or desires of Americans change, the parties change. I choose to be a Democrat because the party often supports my values. Being a Democrat gives me the ability to influence the party... from policies to the nominees they pick.
People are always complaining about whatever political system they are under. All things considered, ours does as good a job as any at providing a platform for debate of important issues.
If you want to have an impact... you need to accept the world you live in.
I don't have to deal with it. Both paries are no longer responsive to the electorate. Only by losing members in droves will they see how serious the situation is. The yayhoo that challenged Clinton and Bush proved that the public is aware something needs to be done. If the guy with the pie charts had been intelligent, with good ideas, he had a real shot at getting elected. Never say never.
I disagree Edgar. Both parties are quite responsive to the electorate.
You just need to remember that change sometimes lags by a few years... but that will happen in any democratic system. The Democratic candidates are quite influenced by public opinion on major issues (This is different than democrats in Congress who represent the last generation)
This years candidates more anti-war than ever, stronger on wiretapping and civil rights than ever and more insistent on health care than ever.
Progressive democrats get to shape the democratic party which, in turns shapes the national debate.
Third parties do more harm then good (assuming the goal is to promote more progressive policies).
I disagree. The entire structure of government has become congress, president, supreme court, military/industrial, with the voters a manipulated mass of consumers.
OE,
Maybe the word "accept" was a poor choice, I meant it in the sense of "work with".
People who have an impact must understand and work within the present reality. You need to understand the rules of the game and then act to reach your goals based on them. You can't reject reality if you want to be successful.
I would be happy to discuss this in terms of any example you want to bring up; Martin Luther King seems an obvious example. He knew the key to victory was press... and the actions he took were not only courageous and noble; they were also part of a well thought-out strategy that showed a real understanding of the current situation.
There are all sorts of examples of people who want to create social change, but aren't willing to work within the current reality.
They don't get very far.
edgarblythe wrote:I disagree. The entire structure of government has become congress, president, supreme court, military/industrial, with the voters a manipulated mass of consumers.
I don't get what you are saying.
You think voters are "manipulated consumers". It seems to me that this is the responsibility of the voters.
At any rate, I don't see how Bob Barr is a solution to this problem.
King had lost much of his clout at least a couple of years before he died. Having reached a point of diminishing returns, he actually appeared more strident and less noble on TV in the final months. I don't want to make this about him. I know about the power of the press (which today translates to the internet). It was a piece King wrote on the Vietnam War that helped convince me to join the Peace movement. Nixon used the power of the press and a few well placed operatives to stifle the momentum of the Peace movement.
It takes people working outside of the system to make the ones in power turn honest. I acknowledge that a strong entry by a third party would most likely cause the established parties to absorb the popular parts of its platform and cause the new party to die. But, that's not being part of the established system and it does get results when that happens.
Bob Barr has a right to his opinions, but I do not follow his lead. He has nothing to do with where I want to go.
You don't think of us as "manipulated?" How do you think we got into a war in Iraq? They put people out of business or in jail over personal health care decisions. They put ingredients in food, knowing they make people addicted to bad eating habits that lead to illness. They place jobs in oher countries and return sweat shop goods. They promis anything to get elected, knowing the special interests get first dibs on loyalty. Etc.
The examples you are giving don't support a third party. In fact, ironically, had Al Gore (who was hurt by a third party run) won the election in 2000, it is quite likely that the Iraq war would never have taken place. (For the record, I voted for Nader and now regret that decision).
You are also failing to show how a third party will do anything to keep voters from being manipulated.
And, you also haven't defined the word "manipulated". It seems this word is awfully subjective (whether you think a politician or party is "manipulative" has a lot to do with whether you agree with them or not).
Martin Luther King gave widely publicized speeches and did things carefully calculated to change people's mind and win a what was ultimately a political victory. Don't get me wrong, I deeply respect Dr. King and his ability to enact social change. But, how is this different than what you are calling "manipulation".
In a free democracy, voters can vote for whomever they want for whatever reason they want. At the end of the day, the winner is the candidate or party who can persuade the most voters?
A third party doesn't do anything to change this.
Manipulation in a subversive sense is what I mean. King prevailed when he did by examples of courage and clearly stated vision.
I have had it with the major poliical parties, because, in the forty plus years I have been old enough to vote, they have lost ground for us continually. I don't see that improving any time within the span I have left.
Subversion is also subjective (although I often take the word to be a compliment). One man's courage is another man's subversion.
But let's address the major contention. Democracy is about what policies American voters want to see enacted, and what values the voters believe.
In that sense, the current political parties do just fine (understanding that some of us are outside the mainstream).
I challenge you to find a position on any issue that is held by the majority of Americans that is not held by at least one of the major party presidential candidates. I challenge you to find any position even held by a significant minority of Americans that is not championed by major party congressional candidates.
The parties are certainly responsive to what voters feel and want.
Of course, they are for what the public wants. It is one thing to give it lip service, quite another to deliver, however. They say they favor what the public wants, but their actions don't match. Anybody can be for government responsibility to achieve such and such, but avowing and accomplishing are not the same thing. When an employee does not perform satisfactorily, they need to get rehabilitated or fired, but not blindly followed.
edgarblythe wrote:Of course, they are for what the public wants. It is one thing to give it lip service, quite another to deliver, however. They say they favor what the public wants, but their actions don't match. Anybody can be for government responsibility to achieve such and such, but avowing and accomplishing are not the same thing. When an employee does not perform satisfactorily, they need to get rehabilitated or fired, but not blindly followed.
You don't explain how a third party would help this.
I don't buy the point you are trying to make. Bush was a failure... but he didn't deceive anyone. Everyone knew what they were getting (certainly the second time).
Furthermore he followed through on the reasons he was elected. He was elected by people who oppose abortion, want the right to carry firearms, believe in tax cuts and want to stop gay marriage. He was true to his constituents. He delivered a conservative supreme court, passed tax cuts and made it much easier for aggressive law enforcement... things that you and I don't like, but don't pretend for a second that these are not supported by lots and lots of Americans.
Had Gore, or Kerry won, things would have been much different on all of these fronts.
If only the Democratic party had gotten enough votes.
You making general claims about the parties that I don't think can be supported by fact. How about a specific issue?
What position do you think has significant support of the American public that is not being championed by one of the major parties?
As I have said more than once, they champion, but they don't deliver. Both parties act to "save" Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, because the public wants that. Result: All three get weaker every time they "fix" them.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace