Switching Parties.

@Elmud,

But then what do you do with

Traditional Values v. Individual Freedoms?

Free Trade v. Public Welfare?

Elephants v. Donkeys?

There are still very strong reasons for people to argue and draw lines, even though I've always felt they weren't very good ones.

1 Reply

@Elmud,

Parties are the problem and not the solution...We have a great deal of resistence to democracy built into our government...Parties, as extra constitution organizations just add resistence to resistence so the government can barely work... Is there some reason national parties are trading on our rights???Is there some reason national parties are making national issues of local problems???We have parties making national issues of problems affecting single individuals and trying to make laws for the benefit of 5% of the population, and the loss for all the rest... Would this be possible if there were no national organizations to sway with ideology or money??? Parties are a hold over from England, and there they have done no good, and never led to the freedom of the people...Freedom does not flow out of our parties too...The one thing they will agree on is the desirability of curbing individual freedom...

---------- Post added at 07:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:25 PM ----------

Aphoric wrote:

But then what do you do with

Traditional Values v. Individual Freedoms?

Free Trade v. Public Welfare?

Elephants v. Donkeys?

There are still very strong reasons for people to argue and draw lines, even though I've always felt they weren't very good ones.

Parties divide the population... Look at our most democratic body...It was the parties which agreed to fix the number of representatives, so that while our founding fathers had one representative to every thirty thousand, and we have one rep for every six hundred thousand...And they divide districts to give a few districts to minorities, or the other party, and to make the rest safe with a few percentage points... They deliberately deny huge numbers their vote... What is it like to be in a district where you will never elect a representative of your choice because the parties have already set the break point so that only a miracle would change the issue... Specter was from a safe state, and the only danger to him was in the primary... That usually does not affect senators...But increasongly ideologues in the parties are using the primaries to punish their representatives or get rid of them completely... It is inevitable that parties that play upon our division will divide us completely...It is treason, and against all true democracy which thrive on unity and die in disunion... Union is one of the goals of our constitution,but none of the stated goals of the constitution has been reached because parties have carved up the people between themselves... Most of us have no choice...We hate our party and only hate the other worse, but we cannot abandon our own for fear of the other... It does not work, and no one feels it works, but most people are trapped by the form...They cannot imagine a world without parties...

1 Reply

@Elmud,

All Specter did was jump off a sinking ship to the only one that can potentially prolong his political career. The Republican party is in tatters from appealing to the Christian Right movement, calling for a smaller government and then inflating it, not being in touch with young and minority voters, and rallying against programs that many people rely on. The Democrats are not really in that much better of shape, but compared to the Republicans it doesn't take much.

The only way that new parties will be taken seriously is if people abandon the Democrats and Republicans. Quit giving them money. Quit going to their rallies. Quit watching news programing focused on them. Find new leaders that come from different ways of thinking, and then vote for them. This reminds me of an episode of the Simpsons from the Tree House of Horror Halloween series, where Homer uncovers that both Dole and Clinton are the two aliens, and they plan to take over the world. Rather than vote for anyone else, everyone votes for one of the two candidates, because they think they have to, and as a result, get enslaved by the aliens. The moral of the story is that people will continue to vote for the candidates that do little to represent them because they think they have no other choice.

3 Replies

@Theaetetus,

Specter is switching parties because he will have a Republican primary challenger. This challenger will be far to the right of the moderate Specter and would most certainly win the GOP primary. Of course, in the general, this extremely conservative challenger would be trounced by any moderate Democrat.

I'm happy to see this shift. I disagree with a great many of Specter's notions, but respect the man as an effective moderate legislator. Let the Republicans shoot themselves in the foot by forcing out one of their most popular and successful Senators.

The GOP is playing a losing game.

0 Replies

@Fido,

Fido;60593 wrote:

Parties divide the population... Look at our most democratic body...It was the parties which agreed to fix the number of representatives, so that while our founding fathers had one representative to every thirty thousand, and we have one rep for every six hundred thousand...And they divide districts to give a few districts to minorities, or the other party, and to make the rest safe with a few percentage points... They deliberately deny huge numbers their vote... What is it like to be in a district where you will never elect a representative of your choice because the parties have already set the break point so that only a miracle would change the issue... Specter was from a safe state, and the only danger to him was in the primary... That usually does not affect senators...But increasongly ideologues in the parties are using the primaries to punish their representatives or get rid of them completely... It is inevitable that parties that play upon our division will divide us completely...It is treason, and against all true democracy which thrive on unity and die in disunion... Union is one of the goals of our constitution,but none of the stated goals of the constitution has been reached because parties have carved up the people between themselves... Most of us have no choice...We hate our party and only hate the other worse, but we cannot abandon our own for fear of the other... It does not work, and no one feels it works, but most people are trapped by the form...They cannot imagine a world without parties...

Bro, I never said I agreed with the ****. I said myself the reasons for ideological divisions in America are stupid. It's all spurred and encouraged by pop culture and the media so that a few rich folks at the strings can get richer. Unfortunately it's about progress, it's not even about parties, it's all about profit.

0 Replies

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus wrote:

The moral of the story is that people will continue to vote for the candidates that do little to represent them because they think they have no other choice.

Ya know T, you reminded me of the time, many years ago, when Ross Perot was running as an Independent. I was going to vote for him then. I was probably young and naive then, but I was impressed with the notion of a successful business man being President. Also, I liked the fact that he said he would take no salary. But, he dropped out and all I got for registering that year was a stint in jury duty. They call it a throwaway vote. Tell you that there is no possible way they can win and there is no sense in throwing away your vote. I guess the only difference people like Perot and Nader and whoever made, was to take away votes from one or the other of the major parties. Still, back then, I was hoping for a radical change.

0 Replies

@Aphoric,

Aphoric wrote:

But then what do you do with

Traditional Values v. Individual Freedoms?

Free Trade v. Public Welfare?

Elephants v. Donkeys?

There are still very strong reasons for people to argue and draw lines, even though I've always felt they weren't very good ones.

I agree. All of the talk about bipartisanship is absurd and aimed at marginalizing anyone with a differing opinion. Yes, let's all do what's best for the country and forget about petty politics...but then the obvious question; what is best for the country?! That said, the Republicans and Democrats are the same. They are funded by the same special interest at the same time, they both favor government intervention in the economy, welfare, open borders, imperialism around the globe, an inflationairy monetary system, the PATRIOT ACT and like legislation that limits individual freedom, etc, etc. They unite for everything important, everything important to their private masters. They only disagree on the extent to which those various statist, authoritarian policies should be implemented (D: we should have universal, federally run health care; R: No, that's socialism, we should have federally subsidized and regulated healthcare :sarcastic:), Or on asinine BS like abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, etc. We have a ONE party system already. Have you ever noticed that the republicans and democrats unite in suppressing any possible third party or independent movement?

1 Reply

@BrightNoon,

How about no parties at all?!!

0 Replies

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus wrote:

All Specter did was jump off a sinking ship to the only one that can potentially prolong his political career. The Republican party is in tatters from appealing to the Christian Right movement, calling for a smaller government and then inflating it, not being in touch with young and minority voters, and rallying against programs that many people rely on. The Democrats are not really in that much better of shape, but compared to the Republicans it doesn't take much.

The only way that new parties will be taken seriously is if people abandon the Democrats and Republicans. Quit giving them money. Quit going to their rallies. Quit watching news programing focused on them. Find new leaders that come from different ways of thinking, and then vote for them. This reminds me of an episode of the Simpsons from the Tree House of Horror Halloween series, where Homer uncovers that both Dole and Clinton are the two aliens, and they plan to take over the world. Rather than vote for anyone else, everyone votes for one of the two candidates, because they think they have to, and as a result, get enslaved by the aliens. The moral of the story is that people will continue to vote for the candidates that do little to represent them because they think they have no other choice.

The whole country is a sinking ship...That is why we are always trying to throw people over board or get them to walk the plank...

---------- Post added at 10:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:31 PM ----------

hue-man wrote:

How about no parties at all?!!

nd how about no Senate at all...If democracy is government of the people; why all the grief to have equal representation... Why do we allow dictators for life like the Supreme Court... They leave the place feet up, or 99% dead, and those are the people making your laws... Nothing about the thing works, but the parties make change totallyy impossible...

2 Replies

@Fido,

Quote:

and how about no Senate at all...If democracy is government of the people; why all the grief to have equal representation... Why do we allow dictators for life like the Supreme Court... They leave the place feet up, or 99% dead, and those are the people making your laws... Nothing about the thing works, but the parties make change totallyy impossible...

I believe, like the founding fathers, that political parties separate people based on ideological lines. Government should be based on pragmatism, which favors good practice over ideology.

2 Replies

@hue-man,

hue-man wrote:

I believe, like the founding fathers, that political parties separate people based on ideological lines. Government should be based on pragmatism, which favors good practice over ideology.

Of the goals the government set for itself in the constitution, unity was present and ideology was not... We should look at gentile governments like the Iroquois confederacy to see democracy in action, and there, until our war of independence through hundreds of years, those people sought consensus, and found it...Compared to all the problems facing any people, disunion is the greatest, because it spells their doom...We are seeing the end of majority rule... The minority has simply stopped automatically going along... All through Clinton the minority resisted... All through Bush the minority resisted, though not very effectively, and now people are talking serious revolt, and lamentng the want of amunition... We have to go back and find common ground, and get rid of all those people in the process profiting from our division....As Lincoln noted many years ago: there is no natural border between us...We would no sooner be divided then we would be at war...The Civil War did not finish anything...We have before us a great division...Parties have brought about this condition and made it critical... Our differences will not be easily healed...

0 Replies

@hue-man,

hue-man wrote:

I believe, like the founding fathers, that political parties separate people based on ideological lines. Government should be based on pragmatism, which favors good practice over ideology.

The purpose of the constitution was to prevent pragmatic government. A pragmatic government does not recognize ideological statements like those in the bill of rights. Pragmatic government means that the government can do whatever is 'best' in any given situation, as determined by itself. What does this not justify? What government ever claimed not to be acting in the nation's best interest, even when commiting horrific crimes and violations of individual rights?

1 Reply

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon wrote:

The purpose of the constitution was to prevent pragmatic government. A pragmatic government does not recognize ideological statements like those in the bill of rights. Pragmatic government means that the government can do whatever is 'best' in any given situation, as determined by itself. What does this not justify? What government ever claimed not to be acting in the nation's best interest, even when commiting horrific crimes and violations of individual rights?

I guess you're right, but don't you agree that this ideological thinking in government makes it less efficient? I'm not saying that the government should be able to do whatever it feels is right without the input of the citizens. I'm simply saying that the government should be more practical. To be honest, my ideas for a new type of government and society will not work with the current socio-political-economic system we have.

2 Replies

@hue-man,

Its appears human nature needs to draw defined lines between us all.A three party or more system inclines us to think of weakness rather than a compromise.Its not the system that creates political divisions or entrenched opinions, its us.We choose a tribe and do our best for that tribe.We can excuse our tribes weaknesses but not our enemies.We have to change and then politics will change.You first....

1 Reply

@hue-man,

Arlen Specter is the perfect example of how our public officials are not ideological at all; they are interested in keeping and increasing their power for the sake of itself, and the cushy life it brings. What we need is principled people who can debate the issues important to their constituents: i.e. people with actual ideologies. The apparent 'ideological divide' between republicans and democrats is a charade and a distraction. They agree on every important issue. If they have principles, which I doubt (they are pragmatists and puppets for the special interests), they all have the same principles: namely, that the government has the right of infinite interference in everything.

0 Replies

@xris,

xris wrote:

Its appears human nature needs to draw defined lines between us all.A three party or more system inclines us to think of weakness rather than a compromise.Its not the system that creates political divisions or entrenched opinions, its us.We choose a tribe and do our best for that tribe.We can excuse our tribes weaknesses but not our enemies.We have to change and then politics will change.You first....

I agree completely. The political system is a reflection of human tribalism.

---------- Post added at 10:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:22 AM ----------

BrightNoon wrote:

Arlen Specter is the perfect example of how our public officials are not ideological at all; they are interested in keeping and increasing their power for the sake of itself, and the cushy life it brings. What we need is principled people who can debate the issues important to their constituents: i.e. people with actual ideologies. The apparent 'ideological divide' between republicans and democrats is a charade and a distraction. They agree on every important issue. If they have principles, which I doubt (they are pragmatists and puppets for the special interests), they all have the same principles: namely, that the government has the right of infinite interference in everything.

Politicians are ideological, but I agree that they are more concerned with attaining power and keeping their pockets fat. I think that some politicians, albeit a few, are genuine.

0 Replies

@Fido,

Since I'm a Pennsylvania voter, and therefore a member of the demographic Specter's appealing to, let me say that he's the world's leftest Republican and rightest Democrat. A perfect moderate.

This isn't the first time he pulled this trick. Way back in 1980, he switched from the Democrats to the Republicans in protest over the Philadelphia Democratic machine's endemic corruption (Philadelphia hasn't had a Republican mayor for over half a century). Since then, he's been acclaimed for his moderateness, and somehow, when the national Republican party is in tatters, a victim of its own internal corruption (just like the Philadelphia Dems), it doesn't surprise me that Specter switched sides...again.

The question now is, how well will he do in the Democratic primary? Who will his opponents be? He didn't stand a ghost of a chance of winning the Rep primary, we can all agree, because at a national level, the Reps have been nominating more and more sacrificial lambs instead of taking the fight to the Dems on the issues. But what about the Dems? Hoeffel came close to beating him in 2004 IIRC (on a purely negative campaign, I might add); Rendell's gubernatorialship is soon coming to an end as well and he might seek the senatorship; the only person I can think of who wouldn't challenge Specter in 2010 would be Bob Casey, our other U.S. Senator.

0 Replies

Switching Parties.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know