U.S. Better Served By Political Parties That Are Strong And Stand On Principles

Toogood Reports ^ | October 8, 2002 | Philip Safran

[Stand Watch Listen]

When I was 18 years old I received the right to vote. I grew up in New York City where the Democrat Party had a monopoly on power. Common sense dictated that I register as a Democrat or I would in effect be disenfranchised. The winner of the Democrat primary in New York was the winner of the November election in 99% of the cases. Therefore the primary was the election and anyone who was not a Democrat did not get to vote in the election.

I also believed in the party to some degree. This was the era when Senator Henry Jackson was a major player in the party. Patrick Moynihan was the first Senator I voted for. Both had forcefully represented American interests and were liberal on domestic issues. These were men who I agreed with on most issues. I had not been properly educated on free market economics and had never had to earn a living so it was easy to believe that government should do more for people. I rejected Communism when I noticed that people who disliked the system in Communist countries were physically forced to remain in those countries. I assumed (correctly) that any system which had to force people to stay in could not be too good. So a policy of active government intervention to help people in addition to strong anti Communism sounded right for me.

In time I did have to earn a living. I worked for the State of New York and saw how poorly government was run. Men in their forties talked about how long they had until retirement, the civil service bureaucracy repressed all initiative in employees and created tremendous waste and laziness. My philosophy changed from believing government should solve most problems people had to believing that government could tie its own shoelaces less than half of the time.

When I moved to California I decided to register Republican. I had become much more interested in free market economics and was excited about Ronald Reagan as a presidential candidate. I have since become less interested in politics and believe that most important things happen outside of government. The only thing I want government to do is to protect me from criminals (even there I have doubts) and from foreign enemies. I have no real attachment to any political party although I am registered Republican and more often than not vote for their candidates. However, if the Democrats put up better candidates and had better ideas I would vote for them.

The Democrat Party that exists today is much different than the party my parents voted for or that I originally supported. They have become a collection of special interests with few core beliefs beyond supporting abortion and political correctness. They have embraced men like Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton. Sharpton has on two separate occasions incited violence in New York City that led to the death of people. He has slandered men in the Tawana Brawley case, which was nothing more than a pathetic hoax. He was held liable for slander by a jury but in a pathetic OJ Simpson style avoided paying his judgment. Still the Hillary Clintons and Al Gores kiss his feet and other body parts in order to gain favor with their special interests.

Bill Clinton brought the level of integrity of the Democrat Party to depths I would not have imagined possible. His successor in spirit is Bob Torricelli the sleazy New Jersey Senator. Mr. Torricelli took illegal gifts from a constituent. Torricelli received a slap on the wrist while, the person who gave the gifts went to prison. This was the embodiment of the Clinton principle that it was possible for a woman to have sex with a man while the man was not having sex with her. Someone illegally gave gifts to Mr. Torricelli but the Torch did not illegally receive them.

Well the Democrats looked the other way as the Torch ran for reelection. His illegal activities were not a real problem for them until his poll numbers showed that his constituents actually did mind his criminal behavior. Five weeks before the election the Democrats who stood behind him, despite knowing of all his activity, asked him to pull out of the race. He obliged them.

The Democrats then tried to substitute a new candidate despite the fact that the law requires them to do so no less than 51 days before the election. The New Jersey Supreme Court has said this is not a problem, the law is not what counts. They had some language about the importance of the two party system and giving the voters choices. No law or constitutional precedent, that I know of, exists for enforcing a two party system. The United States at times has functioned with one, two, or three political parties. Most major cities have a one party system. In fact it is in Communist countries where the law revolved around protecting the interests of the party. The idea that a court felt a need to protect a party or two parties is outrageous.

More important we have a court deciding the rules even though they were clearly the opposite of what the Court decided. Could the Republicans run Rudy Guliani under these new rules? It would give the Republicans a stronger candidate and the voters more choices. He lives in another state but he is right across the river. What is more arbitrary than a state border? The idea is to maximize choices not follow residency requirements.

This case in itself would be an overwhelming example of the pathetic level of integrity of the Democrat Party. However, the same week that brought the image of Tony Soprano to the top of the Democrat Party we saw this generation´s equivalent of Hanoi Jane emerge. This time it is Baghdad Bonoir and Jim. Two Democrat Congressmen were touring Baghdad. While there Congressman Jim McDermott stated that he took Saddam Hussein at his word. During the same visit he noted that he thought George Bush would lie to us about war since Lyndon Johnson had done so. He claimed to be a Viet Nam veteran even though he had not been in Viet Nam during the war.

One would think the Democrat Party would be disowning these two men. In fact there has been no criticism. Going to a nation that we are close to being at war with, and speaking favorably of one of the most vicious dictators of our time while at the same time trashing the American President, is not that much of a problem for the Democrats. David Bonoir has been the Democrats second ranking House member.

I am amazed at how poorly the Democrats have conducted themselves as a political party for many years. To some degree this is a reflection of the total failure of liberalism as a philosophy. The last candidate to run as a straight forward liberal for national office was Walter Mondale in 1984. He won one state. The next Democrat presidential candidate was Mike Dukakis. He was quite liberal but tried to downplay that fact. He stated that competency not ideology was the issue. That is understandable from a candidate who possesses a discredited ideology.

Some Republicans might delight in the manner in which the Democrats are embarrassing themselves. After all they are weakening the competition that Republicans have. In some ways this is good news. The Republicans tend to favor greater reliance on free markets and less government interference in the life of people. They also tend to favor recognition in the superiority of the American way of life and vigorous defense of our nation than the Democrats do. So some voters may think it would be great if the Democrats show that they cannot be taken seriously.

I don´t share their happiness at this turn of events. History has shown that the Democrats can continue to attract the votes of half of the nation no matter what they do. Bill Clinton continued to attract feminist voters even after he demonstrated that he was an abuser of women. Hillary Clinton won the votes of most Jewish New Yorkers despite a history of overt support for anti-Israeli terrorists and despite credible evidence that she used vulgar anti-Semitic slurs against somebody. Relatives of mine who would have demanded unlimited punishment of a Republican who had done that happily shined it on and voted for her. They even somehow convinced themselves she had a real connection to New York when she was an obvious carpetbagger.

The Democrats can be awful but fairly often those awful Democrats will win. The Democrats are short on ideas but long on ways to get votes. They have a strong position with unions, some minorities, immigrants etc. They have a long track record of stealing votes when necessary, the most famous being the 1960 Presidential election in which John Kennedy was helped enormously by the votes of deceased citizens in Chicago. It is not worth winning the 2002 elections at the cost of knowing that the Bonoirs, Sharptons, and Clintons will be in charge of the nation sometime in the not too distant future.

In addition I would like to have the option to vote Democrat at times. I don´t want to be like the teachers´ union or feminists who will support the Democrats under any circumstances. I want to support the Republicans when they are right and support their opposition when they are wrong.

In any marketplace a choice is the best thing. Good competition strengthens competitors. If the Republicans have no competition we could only expect them to nominate poor candidates and to become more corrupt. We can expect ourselves to be constantly choosing from the lesser of two evils. We would be better served by political parties that are strong as a result of standing for principles.

[William McKinley]

We Salute Free Republic's Donors! Be one!
	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The United States at times has functioned with one, two, or three political parties. Most major cities have a one party system. In fact it is in Communist countries where the law revolved around protecting the interests of the party.

Pious protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, the SCoNJ ruling had no other effect and no other intent, than benefiting the Democratic Party in particular. The fact that "most major cities have a one (Democratic) party system" makes the idea that anyone can or should create a two-party system in that environment patent nonsense.

The idea that a court felt a need to protect a party or two parties is outrageous.

Especially when the "poor, underdog party" in question has the governorship and both sitting senators in New Jersey.

In Slander (written long before the subject ruling), Ann Coulter pointed out that Christine Todd Whitman's proabortion philosophy had driven her to create ("against some stiff competition") the worst state judiciary in the nation. This decision was nakedly pro-Establishment.

[Zon]

A political party with principles? Man THAT's a good one.

Government and politics is not the solution. They're the problem. As the author said: "The only thing I want government to do is to protect me from criminals (even there I have doubts) and from foreign enemies."

War of Two Worlds
Value Creators versus Value Destroyers

The first thing civilization must have is business/science. It's what the family needs so that its members can live creative, productive, happy lives. Business/science can survive, even thrive without government/bureaucracy.

Government/bureaucracy cannot survive without business/science. In general, business/science and family is the host and government/bureaucracy is a parasite.

Keep valid government services that protect individual rights and property. ...Military defense, FBI, CIA, police and courts. With the rest of government striped away those few valid services would be several fold more efficient and effective than they are today. 

Underwriters Laboratory is a private sector business that has to compete in a capitalist market. Underwriters laboratory is a good example of success where government fails.

Any government agency that is a value to people and society -- which there are but a few -- could much more effectively serve people by being in the private sector where competition demands maximum performance.

Wake up! They are the parasites. We are the host. We don't need them. They need us.