ANTONIO GRAMSCI, 1891-1937

I hate to burst your bubble, but isn't the Libertarian Party a political party? So many of the so-called 'third parties, with their own candidates, are political parties just the same as the Republicans and Democrats, aren't they? Of course they are!

They rave and rant about the two parties, but refuse to acknowledge that these groups are parties, and their candidates are (gasp)Politicians! If these other parties ever gained any strength, and got into Congress, we would definitely have a parliamentary system, wouldn't we? That wasn't what our government was intended to become, was it? Would that be any better than what we have with two parties?

These may seem like 'dumbass' questions to some, (pardon the vulgarity'). But whenever someone harps about the 'two party' system, then promotes a myriad of other parties, with some overlapping others, I can't understand what they're exactly complaining about! A multitude of parties being put forward, is no better than a parliament, in some ways. Maybe we should do away with ALL political parties, if we want to go back to what the Founding Fathers may have had in mind.

The only trouble is, even they fell into factions, which in turn, became parties! I don't exactly recall that the "Consitution" decreed that it was forbidden to have political parties. However, many of the Founding Fathers were wary of them forming. The "Constitution" wasn't meant to be like the "The Ten Commandments". It wasn't like "Thou shalt not..."

The ancient Roman Senate was quite a lot like it, from what I gather from reading, movies, etc... Now, in spite of ourselves, we have become like they were!

No problem. You did not burst my bubble.

I did not say anything regarding parties or the one-party system. Just the principles of the parties, which you did not address. BTW, We do not have a two-party system. It is a one-party system with two factions. There is one set of rules for the government approved party and another set of rules for everyone else.

In fact, it should be noted that the ONLY popular revolutions in the 20th century were ANTI-Marxist as in Berlin in 1954 and Hungary in 1956.

This is wrong. The Marxist revolutions in Cuba, Nicaragua, Viet Nam, Laos, Cambodia, and Mozambique, among others, enjoyed widespread popular support, even if the eventual results were not quite as expected. (Yes, the Russians supported them -- but the grounds and support for revolution were already there.)

Mr. Burns had to have known this, but apparently chose to ignore it to make his tinfoil-hatted point. It's almost (dare we say it) a Gramscian move on his part.

The stuff about Gramsci is somewhat interesting, but Burns clearly can't be taken seriously.

How do you mean "government approved party?"

The government has pre-approved the Democratic and Republican factions of the one-party system. Taxpayer money funds their conventions, primaries, and presidential elections. Ballot access restrictions keep other "parties" off the ballot unless they jump through impossible hoops. It is the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks only Americanized. The campaign reform law has turned the two parties into a pre-approved "nobody else need apply" organization that forces all political dissent to associate with one or the other faction. Campaign reporting laws prevent anyone from donating to anything but the approved parties out of fear of retribution by having to be on a list.

It goes on and on.

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.