Reply
Mon 18 Jul, 2005 11:39 pm
It is taken as a sign of political wisdom these days to decry the divide between the two major parties. I will refrain from referring to them as the left and right, because both are considerably to the right of left-wing political organizations in other countries. I think this is a canard. When a young Theodore Roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge bailed from the Republican Party in the 1884 election, because of the selection of James Blaine as the Presidential candidate, they were branded "mugwumps," meaning fence-sitters, with their mugs on one side, and their "wumps" on the other. This was actually not true, as they simply abstained from campaigning for the Republican candidate--true mugwumps campaigned for and voted for Grover Cleveland. Blaine, orginially a leader of reform Republicans, had been accused of corruption in the House in 1876, and had gotten his hands on the documents which would have damned him, and then refused to hand them over to the ethics committee. Those "Mulligan Letters" were brought up in the campaign. His opponent, Grover Cleveland, was accused of fathering an illigitimate child. A New York Presbyterian minister, Samuel Buchard, then publicly damned the Democrats as the party of " . . . rum, Romanism and rebellion." The latter reference was to the American civil war. It was a dirty fight, and no less viturperative than anything which occurs today.
The point of all of this is that deep and acrid partisan divides are nothing new. Jefferson's Republican Party was not a political party as we know it--people associated with it freely, and just as freely ignored it. The Federalists were better organized at the time of the adoption of the Constitution than was any other political group, but neither they nor the Republicans had a party organization which we would recognize, and neither would survive the coming years. There was sufficient fluidity that John Quincy Adams, who would be the last Federalist to enter the White House, served as Secretary of State to James Monroe, the last Jeffersonian Republican to reside there.
The Missouri slavery issue, and a host of lesser evils, broke up Jefferson's party, by then known as the Democratic-Republicans. Andrew Jackson would sweep up many of the remnants to form his Democratic Party, and it was organized from the ground up--with the full panoply of ward heelers, precinct committeemen, state committees and a national committee. John Quincy Adams attempted the same thing with the shattered remains of the Federalists, attempting to organize a National Republican Party. It failed, but largely because young men who might otherwise have associated saw it as tainted by the corruption of power, and they formed their own party, the Republican Party.
And so, we have today a "two-party" system, Democrats and Republicans, and it is often hailed as something worthy and great. I beg to differ with that judgment. To me, they are often two factions in a conservative politburo which rules from inside the beltway. Be that as it may, what i can assert without too much fear of contradiction is that the two parties have a death grip on the national political process. State primaries are organized along party lines. Third parties haven't a snowball's hope in Hell of attracting the kind of support which the two parties get, and the buying of influence by political donors is scandalous.
Bitter partisan warfare is not going to go away any time soon. It has been with us from the beginning, regardless of the name of the party. What concerns me more is whether or not the current system is a shell game, a bill of goods sold the public by a pair of twins who squabble publicly between one another, but close ranks to exclude any outsider. What are your thoughts on the state of and the future of partisan politics in the United States? I'd ask that everyone be civil, but i've been online too long to believe in such a likelihood.
I would like to think (and hope) that enough people will finally get sick of all the do-nothings from both parties, spewing their political double talk, and force a third or more party into the system. It seems that there are enough people that fall into that huge gray area in between the Liberal land of the Dems and hollier than thou faction of the Repubs.
I agree that the current system is just a shell game in better suits. To me, its obvious that neither party wants to actually accomplish anything, as then they wouldn't have the "problems" to run on...or attack the other side about.
I know what I am hoping for is just a dream and has about a good a chance of happening as me getting that winning lottery ticket.
I would like to argue that my country's politics are less moribund than those of the US but I can't. We too have moved the centre to the right and both our major parties (well one is a coalition of two conservative parties) struggle to occupy that centre-right that seems to be the essential ground.
I got a chance in 1996 to see US (well, Texas) politics up close and I was amazed to see the apparent fluidity of movement between Democrat and Republican. That won't happen in my country because of the incredible paty discipline but the parties themselves have almost morphed into each other.
I think the Brit parliament is the only one that offers its electorate a real choice.
Set: What are you trying to say? Are you trying to say we aren't well served by our two-party system? How can you say that when we have one party serving the interests of the wealthy elite minority and the other party serves the interests of the wealthy elite minority--all the people who actually matter have adequate representation in our government!
The optimist in me agrees with tommrr that people will eventually tire of this political farce and change the system. The cynic in me thinks we're too lazy, complacent or easily distracted to take the necessary steps now, and by the time things are bad enough for people to take action, we'll be too confused and divided by the propaganda machine to do much more than lash out at each other in frustration.
Ah, you renew hope in my breast, Mills, just exactly my thinking on the subject . . .
Mills75
Quote:The cynic in me thinks we're too lazy, complacent or easily distracted to take the necessary steps now, and by the time things are bad enough for people to take action, we'll be too confused and divided by the propaganda machine to do much more than lash out at each other in frustration.
Uhhh...I think that we are already to that point, but only a few of us realize it.
Set: it may be that I read too much Chomsky. :wink:
tommrr: maybe; I don't think we'll be at the final point until most of the middle and working classes can't afford to put gas in their cars and are struggling to acquire the basic necessities (i.e., the economic equivalent of being hit in the head with a baseball bat).
I wish we could do this.
Actually discuss issues without devolving into partisan sniping and rehearsed talking points...
If you can talk any number of those mugs into doing this, I can almost assure that the wumps will follow suit.
I'd love to post on this , but my day is far too busy.
First I have to run to Jiffy Lube to pick up diapers, then to WalMart for my dental checkup, then to meet my 2.3 tow headed children after marching practice, and then on to McRonalds for a nutritious meal. Maybe after church tonight...
I'm with tommrr on this one. I think we are already at the point of "too confused and divided by the propaganda machine."
I've wanted a third or fourth party from the time I was able to vote. I say that, and yet I am basically a moderate, finding myself in the middle ground of the current two parties on most issues. (Or, at least until the recent take over by the religious right which caused me to move my mug a little more to the left)
I wasn't interested, nor did I keep myself informed on politics until around 1996. The bickering and division that I see as having started with Gingrich (probably because thats when I started paying attention) forced me and many others to choose a side. There were only two real parties, so it had to be Dem or Repub.
I think, on quick analysis, I can link the feeling of having to make a choice of which party to support to my sense of fairness. The attacks on Clinton didn't seem fair to me. It was one thing after another. There were investigations into everything, at great expense to us, and in the end no finding of guilt for anything of importance to the running of the government.
It made Republicans, to me, appear to be bullies, sore losers and downright hateful. So, I chose the other party, which I prefer to think is more a reflection of me and my desire for fairness in the world.
But, look at what has happened lately. Bill Clinton teams up with GHW Bush on the tsunami funding/spending oversight. Clinton states that Saddam was a threat.
Then we have an election, which to many was not a free and fair process, and what does Kerry do? Nothing! No defense for his supporters. No fight. Was it a set up? A skull and bones brotherhood agreement? (that is not an attempt to start a conspiracy theory - just a "what the heck is up with that?" in my gut)
Even with the 2000 election, while Gore didn't exactly cave like Kerry did, where was the one Democrat senator needed to contest the election results when the electoral votes were cast?
That Clinton has appeared to agree with Bush Sr and Jr on a number of issues lately has made me wonder how different the politicians really are in each party. And, if there is little or no difference, and the propaganda machine already has the majority boogered, yeah, we're in trouble.
Setanta wrote:Bitter partisan warfare is not going to go away any time soon. It has been with us from the beginning, regardless of the name of the party. What concerns me more is whether or not the current system is a shell game, a bill of goods sold the public by a pair of twins who squabble publicly between one another, but close ranks to exclude any outsider. What are your thoughts on the state of and the future of partisan politics in the United States? I'd ask that everyone be civil, but i've been online too long to believe in such a likelihood.
You say.....It has been with us from the beginning, regardless of the name of the party.
If this were true, how do you explain the creation of what even you call, a wonderful document(the constitution) complete with a bill of rights and the fact that we have evolved into such a wealthy and powerful country complete with compassion and generosity. I believe you are being far too pessimistic and cynical.
It would seem to me that the case you make is a cause for optimism instead of cynicism and testimony to the fact that for 200 plus years those we have elected, some good, some bad, have come together in times of crisis and somehow "muddled through". You have built a good case, but we completely disagree on the conclusion. Why do we need more than two parties? It would appear to me that every agenda is represented by just two parties.
More often than not I agree more with conservatives than liberals......perhaps this is the reason the Dems/Liberals have established the reputation as being the party of pessimism and the conservatives have established the reputation as the party of optimism. I know which I prefer........optimism allows one to digest food and sleep soundly.
:wink:
Mills75 wrote
Quote:tommrr: maybe; I don't think we'll be at the final point until most of the middle and working classes can't afford to put gas in their cars and are struggling to acquire the basic necessities (i.e., the economic equivalent of being hit in the head with a baseball bat).
Great analogy, I can see myself using that one in the future. I would agree on your final point, but I would like to hope that we haven't become such a dumbed down society that we don't try to do something about before that point is reached. What worries me more, is that fact that there aren't more people standing up and saying, "Just what the hell is going on here?"
rayban1 wrote:More often than not I agree more with conservatives than liberals......perhaps this is the reason the Dems/Liberals have established the reputation as being the party of pessimism and the conservatives have established the reputation as the party of optimism. I know which I prefer........optimism allows one to digest food and sleep soundly. (emoticon removed in the interest of good taste)
I have nover described the constitution as a "wonderful" document. Anyone with a good basis in the history of the constitutional convention will know that there were bitter factional rivalries worked out in the formulation of the document. Anyone familiar with that process will know that the constitution was not favorably regarded because it lacked a bill of rights, and that it was only just ratified because of repeated assurances by the Federalists that one would be immediately formulated upon the ratification of the constitution. The Federalists, in fact, played a masterful political game--their name left their opposition with the feeble choice of being described as Anti-federalists, and their focus at acheiving something gave them a drive those who simply opposed that something lacked. The ratificaiton of the constitution was the nation's first exercise in partisan struggle.
To describe the Democrats as liberal is to display oneself as truly naïve--and as completely unaware of the political spectrum found throughout the civilized world. The Democrats are only less conservative the Republicans--they are by no stretch of the imagination liberal, and even in their most liberal incarnations, long ago, they were barely centrist on the scale of politics as it exists throughout the world. I suggest that it is only in your fevered imagination that Democrats are established as the party of pessimism and the Republicans as the party of optimism. That is truely laughably absurd to hear about a group of conservatives who rant about lack of morals, lack of patriotism, lack of self-reliance, and which cynically supports the interests of the monied few over the interests of the wider population of the country.
Your post was a complete exercise in partisan fantasy, and no less than one can expect from you.
Setanta wrote:Your post was a complete exercise in partisan fantasy, and no less than one can expect from you.
So much for your call for civility............you are so predictable. Seems you always want a dogfight instead of a discussion. Do you have any mirrors that aren't broken?
It is not uncivil to note that you have introduced an attempt at scurrilous partisan characterizations--if you consider it reasonable to excoriate the members or one party and praise the members of the other in a thread which seeks to look beyond both special interest organizations, you can hardly expect that it won't be commented upon.
I believe the fundamental cultural divide will not soon be breached. It waxes hotter, then cools somewhat, but never allows the two sides to bury the hatchet. How's that for mixed metaphors?
Not bad, EB. Although "communism" is dead and mostly buried, i think "socialism" is just feeling poorly. Although i do not believe that i will live to see it, i think a terrible retribution will some day be visited upon the greedy and venal. They have substituted a war of the powerful few on the powerless many for Hobbes' "war of all against all." Some one will have to settle accounts someday, it seems to me--that's just human nature.
Setanta wrote:It is not uncivil to note that you have introduced an attempt at scurrilous partisan characterizations--if you consider it reasonable to excoriate the members or one party and praise the members of the other in a thread which seeks to look beyond both special interest organizations, you can hardly expect that it won't be commented upon.
Your hypocrisy is overwhelming.........when in the hell have you ever been fair minded about anything. I can't remember ever reading one of your missives when you didn't excoriate the members of one party or another. Perhaps if you could bring yourself to resist the impulse to snarl at every perceived slight, you would be more successful when you wanted to have a serious discussion.
Furthermore your constant insistence that our gov't is going to hell in a racecar is wearing thin even though you admit that the same forces of human nature have existed for the entire life of our nation. Your cynicism and pessimism are becoming very boring even if you don't recognize the effect you're having.
It is obvious that there is one word that is non-existent in your vocabulary........empathy. Not every member of our gov't is corrupt and not every participant of this forum who is a member of your concept of conservatism, is a narrow minded fool.
You are contributing to the cultural divide and either you don't care or don't realize it.
Yeah, I know you will accuse me of the same sins, but I am capable of introspection and I will freely admit it when I'm wrong.........you appear incapable of the same.
If you're so damned bored, Rayban, why do you hang around?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace