Posted on 04/30/2012 9:01:32 AM PDT by Mozilla
The truth in American politics today, is that we have a one-party system, with Democrats representing one-side of the Big Government Party and Republicans representing another side of the Big Government Party.
Are "we the people" truly represented anymore?
We've grown so accustomed to the 2-party system, that we take it for granted that in America, the land of unlimited possibilities, choosing either a Democrat or Republican amounts to our only available option. And in a sense this is true, because over the years, our Overlords have written laws that game the system in their favor.
So, does our current 2-party system of Democrats and Republicans provide an accurate representation for "we the people"? Or in reality, does it act more to divide us, thus causing our country harm?
Our Founders were not necessarily advocates of political parties. Ben Franklin believed that "confusion engendered" with political parties. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay warned that a political party system would only create a "spirit of faction."
George Washington, our first president, refused allegiance to any political party during his 8 years in office, and thought that alternating between 2 parties would be a "frightful despotism."
At the beginning of the 20th century, the Republican Party came to represent farmers, the gold standard, fiscal responsibility, and a non-interventionist foreign policy. The Democratic Party represented the Southern landowners, Northern laborers, a fiat money system, a more powerful federal government, and an interventionist foreign policy.
Fast-forward to the modern parties ... The end of the Ronald Reagan administration and Cold War brought significant changes to the parties. The first being the ascendancy of "neoconservatism" with the Bush Sr. administration, and the second being Bill Clinton's "New Democrats."
The "New Democrats" began championing unrestricted globalization, social engineering and more government authority, while paying lip-service to free markets. The "neoconservatives" championed unrestricted globalization as well (while paying lip-service to the free markets), but also demanded an aggressive and interventionist foreign policy.
It's obvious our 2-party system hasn't solved the "issues" of the day. Instead, the system has become increasingly corrupt. Both parties continuously make promises they never intend to keep, and neither represents the people they claim to represent.
Why? Because both parties are committed to only one purpose - expanding the size and scope of government, and thus, their power. They both want control of our multi-trillion dollar federal budget, and nothing more.
As Ben Franklin warned too, the 2-party system has engendered confusion. The partisan name-calling of "wingnut" and "moonbat" offer nothing of substance to the debate, but merely divides. If you're anti-war, you're automatically a "radical leftist," while supporting the right to life makes you a "right-wing religionist." Even the words "conservative" and "liberal" don't have clear meaning anymore.
I believe the 2-party system has greatly divided our nation, pitting "we the people" against each other, whereas we once were united against the State.
Morality went out the window with government.
Banning parties would be easy, you can’t ban alliances, but the party system is easy to break apart. First step: no mention of any level of affiliation on any ballots ever, no R candidates, no D candidates, just candidates. Then you get rid of all that majority-minority stuff on the Congressional floor. Third change the primary system from one that makes party nominees to one that picks the 3 candidates with the most support (basically like the NASCAR Cup). Those three steps right there would take away most of the power political parties have, sure politicians could still form alliances, and they could be large alliances, but those alliances wouldn’t be built into the structure of the system. That’s a big part of the problem right, because 2 parties are built into the basic foundation of the system anybody trying to come at politics from outside those 2 parties is immediately on the margin even if they somehow win.
The same corporate money interests contribute to both parties. We have only one party.
“And any Conservative or Republican who thinks there’s really a significant difference between Romney, Perry, Gingrich and Santorum is DELUSIONAL.”
Well then if your right we had no choices from the first gun. My first choice Michele Bachmann just had no chance from the start because both the establishment hated her and various people for other candidates just brought out the claws against her and the Democrats took the opportunity to join the attacks against her.
It really was a mess of epic porportions. It got worse when She did not try to attack Romney but aimed her fire at other candidates. The Vitriol against her was high. The Palin crowd was never recepetive because for 90% of last year they kept trying to get Palin to run to no avail. To many Palin supporters Bachmann was a threat to Palin, it seemed.
Things just went downhill from there for Bachmann. The idiots in the GOP and the idiots in the Ron Paul campaign colluided to finish her off. By attacking her as fake despite her support about 80% of the Ron Paul and Allen West Fiscakl policy. When she finally took on Ron over his social and foreign policy that was the last nail. Because they really went after her. And a supporter fled to the Ron Paul camp at the last minute.
That and her voting for the Patriot act also affected her stance with some. Along with Perrybots attacking her. And othewrs went after her too. I went blank on what else I was going to add. But I recall an active base atatcking her instead of being for her. many lied that she was their second choice. and then they would say but after such and such....she is done with me.
Well then who else? Before Jim endorsed Gingrich.... many were against him. bachman must have got the hint that people were not happy with him. She starts attacking him and his supporters come out of the woodwork to trash her.
Then you have the catholic factor and Santorum. It got this bad because I was for Santorum for a while. But Santy pulled the strings. For some reasonw hen he was way down the polls and lower than Bachmann and bachmann had actually began increasing her poll numbers nationallly and int he state of Florida and Iowa and New Hampshire by 5% to 10% and hit the 20% mark, Santorum convinced all this backstabbing Catholics to support him and call for her to step out of the race and unite with Santorum. So if anyone, wamts to know how Santorum made it so far, it is because of this underhanded move. Various people looking to endorse bachmann went to Santorum. Social conservative vote then start shifiting towards Santorum.
Now I like the guy and wanted him over Gingrich and Romney. But what oppositon was left after he helped or ratehr did his part in ending not only Bachmann’s campaign but Cain’s.
But they all the candidates staretd infighting within eachother so all are gulity of the same. And oddly enough, so siad some at the time, it was the only person Bachmann did not bash that cost her. She should have gone after romney vigorously. However, Perry did go after Romney and it backfired on him because of his poor debate performances.
So what can one do. I didn’t warm up to Perry because he purposely was trying to steal the voitng base of Bachmann after the Iowa straw poll win because he enetered and took the lead from her.
So as you can see it got so divisive that it bound to end up in the mess we have now.
I am correcting for grammar errors. So re-posting my reply.
“And any Conservative or Republican who thinks there’s really a significant difference between Romney, Perry, Gingrich and Santorum is DELUSIONAL.”
Well then if your right about the candidates who ran as being big government then we had no choices from the first gun.
My first choice Michele Bachmann; just had no chance from the start because both the establishment hated her and various people for other candidates just brought out the claws against her and the democrats took the opportunity to join in the attacks against her.
It really was a mess of epic porportions. It got worse when She did not try to attack Romney but aimed her fire at other candidates. The vitriol against her was high. The Palin crowd was never receptive to her because for 90% of last year they kept trying to get Palin to run to no avail. To many Palin supporters Bachmann was a threat to Palin, it seemed.
Things just went downhill from there for Bachmann. The idiots in the GOP and the idiots in the Ron Paul campaign colluided to finish her off. By attacking her as a fake fiscal republican despite her support for 80% of the Ron Paul and the Allen West fiscal policy.
When she finally took on Ron over his social and foreign policy stances that was one of the final nails in her campaign. And that was because the Paulbots then really went after her with a 24/7 campaign, of their own, to end her bid. And then a supporter fled to the Ron Paul camp at the last minute before the Iowa Caucuses.
That and her voting for the Patriot act also affected her stance with some and I was forced into defending it. It was all in how you viewed the act or bill what you thought about it. For people on this site they became heavily libertarian when it came to the legislations renewal saying that under Obama civil libertires would be curtailed. But Bachmann voted for it to keep a strong national defense against terrorism and to keep stopping further attacks.But Allen West, who became increasingly against the Patriot Act, was at odds with Bachmann and people were siding with him.
Then add the fact the Perrybots attacked her. And others went after her too. I recall an active base atatcking her instead of being for her. Many lied that she was their second choice. and then they would say but after such and such....she is done with me.
Well then who else? Who else that actually run was better than Michele Bachmann?
Before Jim endorsed Gingrich.... many were against him. It is why nobody was trying to unite the site for him until after Jim’s endorsement. In fact Jim has trouble with him as well at the time. Well Bachman must have got the hint that people were not happy with Gingrich, but she never not the memeo that it had changed by the fall. Because she starts attacking him, whith most of what we know about him now, and his supporters come out of the woodwork to trash her and Glenn Beck who also was opposed to him.
Then you have the catholic factor and Rick Santorum. It got this bad because I was for Santorum for a while. But Santy pulled the strings to win Iowa. For some reason when he was way down the polls and lower than Bachmann and Bachmann had actually began increasing her poll numbers nationallly and in the states of Florida, Iowa and New Hampshire by 5% to 10% and hit the 20% mark in Iowa, Santorum convinced some backstabbing Catholic leaders to support him and call for her to step out of the race and unite with Santorum. So if anyone, wants to know how Santorum made it so far, it is because of this underhanded move. It started his rise up the polls. Various people looking to endorse Bachmann went to Santorum. The social conservative vote then started shifiting towards Santorum.
Now I liked Rick Santorum and wanted him over Gingrich and Romney. But what was left in the race to support after he helped or rather did his part in ending not only Bachmann’s campaign but Cain’s.
But then all the candidates started infighting with each other so all are gulity of the same thing. And oddly enough, so said some at the time, it was the only person Bachmann did not bash that cost her. She should have gone after Romney vigorously. However, Perry did go after Romney and it backfired on him because of his poor debate performances.
So what can one do. I didn’t warm up to Perry because he purposely was trying to steal the voitng base of Bachmann after the Iowa straw poll win because he enetered and took the lead from her.
Every candidate that ran had their conservative, tea party detractors who vigorusuly attacked the candidate.
So as you can see it got so divisive that it was bound to end up in the mess we have now.
So the two party system has many problems beyond repair. Not the least of which is people can’t agree on candidates. And the GOP feeds off the division to push a rino to victory. Romeny and his super pack atatcked all those who got close to defeating him and the GOP+e poured in the money needed to defeat him.
GOP-e poured in the money needed to defeat them.
The two-party system itself hasn’t failed - all it is is a structurally-enforced byproduct of our Single Member Plurality District electoral setup.
What has failed are the *participants in* the two-party system.
Don’t forget the other things that seem to reek of GOP-E.
For instance, are we *really* to believe that both Perry and Gingrich were so incompetent that they couldn’t even get enough signatures for ballot access in VA? Really? Neither the successful multi-term governour of our second largest state nor the architect of the Contract with America and the Conservative revolution of 1994 had enough organisation to simply get enough names onto pieces of paper to be able to run in one of the larger Southern states where both ought to have been able to do well?
I don’t believe it, especially when we consider that both Perry and Gingrich had their lists gone over with a fine toothed comb, and just enough sigs were eliminated to disqualify them. Meanwhile, Romney’s lists went unchecked. Now wait, who did the VAGOP establishment, from Bob McDonnell all the way down support?
Mitt Romney.
Go figure.
Or how about in Florida, where in the week prior to the primary, TV and radio stations were holding up Newt’s ads, on the premise that “they needed to be factchecked,” while Romney’s ads got all the air time they could pay for.
Who did the FLGOP establishment support?
Mitt Romney.
Go figure.
No, we have failed the 2-party system.
"I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume."
-- President George Washington, Farewell Address
I see a whole lotta bitchin’ but not much solvin’!
"The people they claim to represent"? There's the problem.
The two parties more or less do represent the people who vote for them, and now, more than in the past, they do represent one of two opposing ideological positions.
But representing "the people" and promoting an ideology conflict: getting to 50%+1 means being less ideologically purist and standing for one set of starkly opposing ideological positions all up and down the line means forfeiting those centrist votes that mean the difference between winning and losing.
There is a hardcore that represents strongly defined views, but that doesn't get you to 50%. To win, parties need to rely on people in the middle who only want a little bit more of one alternative and less of the other.
When people vote for a party they usually recognize this and vote for the party anyway. There's only so much that a party, a politician, a Congress can do anyway, and if you just frustrate the other side's plans you've done more than one can reasonably expect of any particular party or politician or Congress. But then the purists or militants or activists complain that the party didn't do what it couldn't do and wasn't ever going to do.
Unicorns and two-party systems seem to go together.
Agreed.
If I knew no one could win with less than a majority, I would vote for a third-party conservative without hesitation.
But, everyone knows a runoff would be "too expensive."
We can throw billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars down bottomless entitlement rat holes every day for decades on end. But, suggest taking 1% of that money to fund a runoff election? That would be RACIST, right? /s
The US has dozens of political parties. It wasn’t meant to be a 2-party system. It’s just that human nature tries to reduce things to either-or, even if it means a false dichotomy.
You can see this tendancy in almost every debate, no matter what the subject. Just say “I don’t like X” and the other person will most often respond by accusing you of being the most extreme sort of supporter of Y. There’s no logic to it.
Rather, a people get a Government they deserve, reflective of their national character.
BTDT. Open borders. Disarmament. No can do. Sorry.
Principles are a little easier to maintain for those of us that live in Redder than Red states. Having said that, there has to be some way to stop this, or it won't matter anyway.
When it was apparent that McinSane was in the bag, I said then that tis man never intended to leave office, I really don't want to be right on that, but fear I may be. I also said when we had the original nine candidates that nine of them would ever be president. Again I suppose I would rather be wrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.