The So Called Two Party System

[MBlovr]

As I have been saying:

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=72&ItemID=13532

I actually tend to respect the Repubs more because they are more upfront about their intentions.

[LUVMBDiesels]

I have not hear rhetoric like that since I gave up my subscription to the "Daily Worker" Where did you dig these guys up?
Remember that in the perfect world we would all be subject to the dictatorship of the Proletariat and Imperialist wars would give way to world socialism...

As if...

[dlssmith]

There are some that consider national sovereignty to be an anachronism. We should just open the boarders and let the UN run everything. Personally, I like that we have made Iraq a destination attractive to terrorist thugs, and not main street USA. Our boarders must be a filter not a barrier.

[GermanStar]

At what point does the lack of real choice translate into rendering our so-called democratic republic a complete sham? One could argue that Japan has been a democratic republic since shortly after the end of WWII, but that argument starts and stops with the right to vote, since they really have/had a one-party system, although a second party recently grabbed the reins of power, if only briefly. It seems that while Japan is struggling to achieve choice toward the end of establishing a true democratic republic, we are moving hastily in the opposite direction.

[Botnst]

^^^ Parties are nowhere to be found in the definitions of democracy that I am familiar with, though apparently, they are organic. Even one-party totalitarian rulers had or have factions within the ruling party -- and that's politics. I'm thinking there must always be factions in politics, else no need for government? I mean, if we all thought exactly alike then the need for government would never appear.

From the very beginning of this particular nation, George Washington fought the creation of parties, even though a party grew-up around his own administration despite his efforts to kill it. Curiously, his vice president loved party politics and used that tool to undermine the president whenever possible.

Here's a little ditty from Dubyah the First:

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.

[dlssmith]

Originally Posted by GermanStar

At what point does the lack of real choice translate into rendering our so-called democratic republic a complete sham? One could argue that Japan has been a democratic republic since shortly after the end of WWII, but that argument starts and stops with the right to vote, since they really have/had a one-party system, although a second party recently grabbed the reins of power, if only briefly. It seems that while Japan is struggling to achieve choice toward the end of establishing a true democratic republic, we are moving hastily in the opposite direction.

Considering that the republic is roughly equally divided, democrat/republican, are you asserting that the parties offer no real choice? Or, that you just don't like either one?

[GermanStar]

^ Both.

[GermanStar]

Originally Posted by Botnst

^^^ Parties are nowhere to be found in the definitions of democracy that I am familiar with, though apparently, they are organic. Even one-party totalitarian rulers had or have factions within the ruling party -- and that's politics. I'm thinking there must always be factions in politics, else no need for government? I mean, if we all thought exactly alike then the need for government would never appear.

From the very beginning of this particular nation, George Washington fought the creation of parties, even though a party grew-up around his own administration despite his efforts to kill it. Curiously, his vice president loved party politics and used that tool to undermine the president whenever possible.

Here's a little ditty from Dubyah the First:

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.

Point taken, and you're quite right, but I think it's safe to say that political parties are here to stay. Somehow, we need to step up and find a way to loosen their hold on our political system toward the goal of achieving greater diversity and better representation.

[MBlovr]

My ongoing point is that the vast majority of politicians in this country commonly serve the interests of a vast minority of constituants, regardless of the political theatre which may imply otherwise. So to got all hot and bothered about Dem this Repub that merely serves to extend the theatre.

[MBlovr]

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=11817

[tankdriver]

Originally Posted by MBlovr

My ongoing point is that the vast majority of politicians in this country commonly serve the interests of a vast minority of constituants, regardless of the political theatre which may imply otherwise.

That is the intent of our system.

[Gurkha]

Originally Posted by MBlovr

My ongoing point is that the vast majority of politicians in this country commonly serve the interests of a vast minority of constituants, regardless of the political theatre which may imply otherwise. So to got all hot and bothered about Dem this Repub that merely serves to extend the theatre.

Its all about lobbies and donation, nothing else in it.

[Carleton Hughes]

Originally Posted by Gurkha

Its all about lobbies and donation, nothing else in it.

Money,Entitlement. More Money and Entitlement plus "media" exposure.

Did I mention Money and Entitlement?