I'll probably write in Palin.
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.
I think you've got that wrong. We ALREADY HAVE a government that "truly represents the interests of this country"; i.e., we have the government we want and deserve.
By and large, we would rather have a government that will give us things rather than just protect our liberties (because liberty comes with personal responsibility, and nobody wants that).
Even many people who call themselves "conservative" are caught up in this conflict of interest. For example: conservatives generally support the personal liberty to smoke cigarettes or drink to excess. However, how many of these protectors of liberty would be willing to pay out of their own pocket for the inevitable health consequences of this behavior (or pay for special insurance that accurately reflect these costs)?
Any Republican or Conservative who says it’s better to just accept Romney than to demand he step down is an IDIOT.
Absolutely, and the root causes are the complete bastardization of the general welfare and interstate commerce clauses of the constitution, that and the ability to print and squirt infinite sums of “money” in any direction.
I agree, but unfortunately there are a lot of fools who will vote for Romney on the lesser-of-two-evils, “Anybody but Obama” idiocy.
I can only conclude that this country is doomed. Between the servile peasants who want a welfare state and the deluded “conservatives” who think they’re going to get something different with Romney, the rest of us are screwed.
This country has become two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.
One party, one goal, one path, two names...
“Has the Two-Party System Failed?”
Yes,if you are We The People.
No, if you are a politician.
Expect the failure to continue.
“They’ve only recently become more Conservative.”
Just to clarify, when I use the term conservative, referring to American conservatives, I mean the resurgence of classical liberalism politically. In that respect, you are correct in saying the movement is new to American politics, rather revived. It has always been with us, but not like now, where people are beginning to see the dividing lines between 19th century clarity of values, and 20th century confusion.
That should read..."we have a one-party system, with Democrats espousing and implementing Big Government, and Republicans espousing small government and implementing Big Government.
>> One party, one goal, one path, two names...
When we commit national suicide in November do you recommend the white pill, or the black pill? :-)
I agree, we need a run-off system. No one should become president with less than 50% of the vote.
Even though there are 2 parties they share a common ideology. That and they pull candidates from a small pool. Even so none of this would be a problem IF the electorate was awake. Make no mistake We the People are THE problem in this case.
And any Conservative or Republican who thinks there's really a significant difference between Romney, Perry, Gingrich and Santorum is DELUSIONAL.
Term limits!
I'll probably write in Palin.
You can’t ban something like political parties. You might as well try outlawing gravity. Even in one-party states, internal political factions similar to parties rise inside the singular party. Factions will emerge in groups, no matter what.
You make a valid argument. But since I am stuck between a rock and a hard place and I would love not tot be in the situation. I can not vote for a bad republican.
Thus, I have a major problem with electing Romney. I wish it were easier to just defeat Obama and ensure the right work is done to fix the country, but it isn’t that simple.
I hedged my bets on voting 3rd party for Virgil Goode or Laurie Roth if she is able to get on a national ballot or even Gary Johnson if neither of those two appear. But I have full faith Virgil Goode will appear on the ballot and thus I willl be voting for him.
The big problem is the tea party and conservatives are stuck between two fights.
Fighting the establishment and fighting the Statist Democrats. It means having too many different opinions on what to do when a bad republican is nominated for president against a bad democrat.
You have people who agreed with the late Andrew Breitbart that taking on the left was the number one goal and that helping defeat them was the main obstacle to fixing America. So ending Obama’s presidency is the right way to go.
Then you have those like Alan Keyes or Michael Savage and to an extent Glenn Beck who spoke about the corruption of the republican party and progressivism in both parties and why it is not a adequate opposition to the left.
Then you have the Mark Levin types who opposes Romney, but were hoping to defeat the rinos at the ballot box and ensure a good nominee, but now that it failed they have no choice but support Romney because they have to kick out Obama.
And then you have libertarian types who are prone to attack both party systems as a form of one party government and a new world order created to rule the country over all others with no real options to elect a constitutional government as envisioned by the founders.
Then you have people like a one, Dr. James Manning, who feel the enemy within is the greatest enemy. And attack the tea party as having been co-opted by the establishment and rino GOP. They attack Fox News because it has not embraced every issue that could be used against Obama and for dumping on us Romney who is equally bad. His perspective is that if one can’t truthfully speak their mind because the GOP and some in the tea party censor him then what good is it. So he has been actively attacking the Bill O’Reilly’s for false reporting and Sean Hannity for embracing the establishment. And for Fox News not taking on the Birther issue.
So right now it seems that not everyone is exactly lock step on what to do. But for me I oppose Romney and Obama equally. And realize the two party system is broke along with the mass media. Therefore for me I can’t come to voting for either party and will vote for another candidate, namely Virgil Goode.
I do agree that getting rid of Obama should be the number one priority. But the plan was not to nominate Obama lite. Thus I just can’t come to voting for him it would be a bd mistake to do so on my conscience after all I know about him.
I do agree that getting rid of Obama should be the number one priority. But the plan was not to nominate Obama lite. Thus I just can’t come to voting for him it would be a bd mistake to do so on my conscience after all I know about him.
I agree with that statement. If the people had been awake they would not have nominated Romney. but they were alseep at the wheel.
However, the tea party base was not unified in one candidate once Palin did not run. All I can add is people made the case for and against Perry, Gingrich, Santorum, Bachmann, Cain and DeMint, who did not run. And it resulted is squabbles and infighting.
People still attack Santorum and Gingrich as being Big government. Well it was the only two left who could stop Romney who was far worse than either of the other two and because they could not rally around one of them then the house collapsed on us and we have Romney.
I totally understand what you are saying and agree with most of it. However, there’s always a “however”.......if we split the Republican part vote, we assure Obama’s re-election. That’s why we need a concerted effort during the next four years to really change things. Starting right after we kick Obama out of office. To try and do it now is a waste of time. I believe Romney can be controlled by Congress if we change Congress at the same time. While he is controlled, we work to change, really change, our country.
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.