Ending the Two Party Stranglehold

Fearless-Flyers.com ^ | 2-7-04 | Matthew B. Rogers

[Willie Green]

"The parliament is, by corruption, the mere instrument of the will of the administration. The real power and property in the government is in the great aristocratical families of the nation. The nest of office being too small for all of them to cuddle into at once, the contest is eternal, which shall crowd the other out. For this purpose, they are divided into two parties, the Ins and the Outs, so equal in weight that a small matter turns the balance. To keep themselves in, when they are in, every stratagem must be practised, every artifice used which may flatter the pride, the passions or power of the nation. Justice, honor, faith, must yield to the necessity of keeping themselves in place. The question whether a measure is moral, is never asked; but whether it will nourish the avarice of their merchants, or the piratical spirit of their navy, or produce any other effect which may strengthen them in their places. As to engagements, however positive, entered into by the predecessors of the Ins, why, they were their enemies; they did every thing which was wrong; and to reverse every thing they did, must, therefore, be right. This is the true character of the English government in practice, however different its theory; and it presents the singular phenomenon of a nation, the individuals of which are as faithful to their private engagements and duties, as honorable, as worthy, as those of any nation on earth, and whose government is yet the most unprincipled at this day known."

-- Thomas Jefferson to Governor John Langdon, March 5, 1810

[FairOpinion]

TWo words for you:

Perot and Clinton.

[goldstategop]

A change to proportional representation from our current first past the post election system would both break the evil of gerrymandering and encourage the formation of true ideologically based parties in American rather than the two broad-based coalition parties that exist under our current electoral system. It would create a political order far more representative of voters' opinions. I think we'll be going in the direction of Canada and it'll be region based first and then become ideological and once the public accepts the existence of viable third parties they'll never want two parties again.

[E=MC²]

After 9-11 this election has been the President’s to lose

Not really, when 43% of this nation's voters' loyalty hangs on their next government handout and 20% is fickle and easily swayed by the bash du jour and 10% is stubbornly insiting on EVERYTHING they want IMMEDIATELY even though it took 60 years of incremental pinkoism to get us to where we are.

[Terpfen]

"When our Nation was being formed and the Constitution debated, the policies of today’s Democrats and Republicans would have been laughed out of the forums. The debates of our Founders were more inline with the policies of Constitutionalists and Libertarians. But the Nation will never be able to return to those debates as long as Republicans and Democrats are allowed to dominate the national spotlight with their liberal philosophies."

This is the only part of the article I have a problem with. The reason we don't have the same debates as the founders is largely because we've resolved the issues they spent years debating on. The issue conservatives face today is not creating Constitutionalism, as the Founders did, but enforcing Constitutionalism. This is what Republicans and conservatives both need to ask themselves at the polls; "Who will best enforce the Constitution?"

If Jefferson ran today, he would be considered unelectable. If Lincoln ran today, he would be considered unelectable. If Teddy Roosevelt ran today, he would be considered unelectable. If Eisenhower ran today, he would be considered unelectable. If Reagan ran today, he would be considered unelectable (and I ain't talking about his health).

[Consort]

Third Party fatigue.

[Leroy S. Mort]

"When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it. "Compromise" was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything.

"I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: 'I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.'

"If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it.

~~ Ronald Reagan, in his autobiography, An American Life .

[Lexington Green]

Sure is a small world
The land of the free
Where the choice is always
Whiffenpoof A?... or Whiffenpoof B?

[beckysueb]

I believe this is a very clever try at dividing the Republican party. Truth is, the party is very much united with the unappeasables being only a small percentage. And I believe our values are still very conservative. These are just different times we live in. If you want to go back to the founding fathers time of course the people were much more conservative than they are now. But back than, even back to the 40's and 50's you wouldn't catch a woman in pants either. But that doesn't mean the majority of the party has moved to the left in core beliefs.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

I can sum up a generic "third party" rant, er..excuse me, post. (As follows)

Remember CFR, amnesty, loss of our constipational rights, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, bushbot, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, "true conservative" BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, record spending, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, socialist, BLAH, BLAH Tancredo, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, won't vote for bush ever again if Satan himself were running as a Democrat!

(In all other threads, posts, rants, etc....repeat the above continuously, as if it were being said for the first and only time. Refuse to see logical outcome regardless of all else!)

[beckysueb]

You hit the nail on the head! Good post!

[nopardons]

We have one...........PRESEDENT GEORGE W. BUSH !

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Democracy isn't much good at multiple guess questions. The American system has defaulted to two parties, and those two parties frame the issue by the candidates they select. And we are stuck with the binary choice they present.

Unfortunately, as in the present case, it is typically a stretch to call either party's candidate conservative. GWB resembles no other president as much as his predecessor by 40 years, JFK. A Democrat, then--but although JFK is idolized by the party faithful, a real candidate who proposed to be JFK redoux would be--George Bush. Who couldn't get nominated for dog catcher in a Democratic primary, but is odds-on to be the Republican nominee--again.

[winker]

Change is something most people don't like; myself included!The government is certainly more than a singular selfish entity leading the charge to some imaginary finishing point in the great beyond. The "PARTY" may not be over but it certainly needs to be exterminated, stand still like we have done over the years and you will see how we are covered up by "ANTS" of the liberal & socialist persuasion. Our problem is it is too easy to conform and become lazy and stagnate losing our focus and direction. Some of us are "REPUBLICAN TO THE CORE" and thats fine like some are DEMONCRATS but there is a few of the remaining "US" who say maybe there is something better, something fresh and New and worth changing for the Better. One thing for sure things won't stay the same!

[JackelopeBreeder]

Perot? Is that as in "when the going gets weird, the weird go Perot"?

Oddly enough I was just idly wondering what would happen if Hunter Thompson sunk his teeth into this election. Especially if he collaborated with P.J O'Rourke.

[truth_seeker]

"Bush doesn’t stand a chance because he’s already turned away his base support, so the lesser of two evils that has a chance of winning is the third party candidate. This is a good reason why the time is prime, to look for a compromise between Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Reformers and disenfranchised Republicans."

What the writer proposes is composite candidate from these 3rd party elements?

Sort of a hybrid of Pat (blame Israel) Buchanan and Harry (blame America for 9/11/01) Browne and Ross (chartman) Perot.

I'd wager that herding cats is easier, and more productive.

The probability of a 3rd party candidate winning the 2004 Presidential election, in the USA, is less than one tenth of one percent.

This is a time wasting exercise.

More can be done, to influence politics in the conservative direction, by influencing the Republican party, by helping them win.

[spodefly]

The debate many Republicans refuse to acknowledge, is that the conservatives speaking out against the liberal policies are recognizing the two political parties are eliminating conservative theory in government and the Nation is gaining momentum towards a mono political party system, liberal in nature, divided between Republican and Democratic factions.

Even "conservatives" don't recognize this, much less Republicans.

[NYCVirago]

I got two words to show you how much voting for a third-party candidate helped the conservative cause: Ross Perot.

[farmfriend]

Short list.

[farmfriend]

the conservatives speaking out against the liberal policies are recognizing the two political parties are eliminating conservative theory in government and the Nation is gaining momentum towards a mono political party system, liberal in nature, divided between Republican and Democratic factions.

Brilliant!!!!