Thread: third parties in American politics? What say you?

Great thread Mark, thanks. Ill comment later, right now Im packing for my trip to Omaha.

Originally Posted by JMS

That isn't what he said in the transcript.

I hadn't read the article, but now I have.

Seems to me he's using it as an underhanded tax credit to his constituency, which is in keeping with his philosophy. He seemed pretty ****ed off during the interview, the message I got was "well, the system is hopelessly broken, I might as well try and run damage control for my constituents now"

Originally Posted by Del1r1um

I wonder how many have read it... let alone understand it...

Exactly.

Rather than a third party to further razzle dazzle and divert attention, I think what we really need is a better informed citizenry that can discern the difference between elected representatives who perform their sworn due diligence to the Constitution, and those who do not.


Scott

I think parties are obsolete. it's just a way to bolster cronyism.

personally, i think all parties should be done away with, and candidates can specifically enumerate their positions on issues. that way, no one is tempted to just tow the party line (biggest cause of braindead lemming behavior in modern politics, imho) they'll have to think for themselves.

but what do i know, i'm a crazy idealist who doesn't like democrats OR republicans.

Originally Posted by jockeys

personally, i think all parties should be done away with, and candidates can specifically enumerate their positions on issues. that way, no one is tempted to just tow the party line (biggest cause of braindead lemming behavior in modern politics, imho) they'll have to think for themselves.

We tried that.

The founding fathers wanted to avoid the party politics that they felt had plagued England, so they intentionally designed a party-free constitution. You can't forbid the organization of parties without infringing on some basic human rights (free assembly, free speech, etc), but they did try to design a system that did not depend on the existence of organized parties, and they hoped that this would be sufficient to prevent their rise. Unfortunately the advantages of party organization are just too great. Once the Democrats succeeded in organizing themselves in the early 19th century then their opponents had to do so as well in order to win any elections. It took a few election cycles before they realized that this wasn't a fluke, that they were getting their *ss handed to them at all levels of government, across the entire US. There were various attempts by their opponents to join forces to challenge the Democrats, but the years of electoral shellacking meant that they were starting from a position of tremendous weakness that made it very difficult to organize and compete successfully. And it didn't help that the patronage system that was in place at the time provided a tremendous benefit to the party in power. For example the entire federal treasury was deposited in privately held banks (there was no system of federal reserve banks at the time) - and which particular banks held those deposits depended on who had made bigger donations to the winning party (aka the Democrats), and a fair chunk of the revenues to those lucky banks from those treasury holdings were once again plowed back into the Democratic party as campaign donations if the bank wanted to keep those big accounts. And the opposition parties couldn't use the national post because the mails were regularly opened and read. This level of party influence reached through all levels of national and state government since there was no civil service protection, so pretty much the entirety of government was replaced with supporters of the winning ticket, not just the top levels like happens today.

The Whigs were moderately and briefly successful at encompassing the various anti-Democrat parties but never really came close to matching the Democrats on a national level, though they did manage to elect a president or two this was largely on the basis of a few big states, and they ultimately fractured over the slavery question. What finally opened the door for a strong second party was the Democrats themselves splintering over the slavery issue a decade later, and this provided a window of opportunity for the latest anti-Democrat coalition (i.e. the Republicans) to finally build up enough of a record of electoral and governing success, complete with a crushing military defeat of half the Democrat party, to build up enough of an organization and support base to compete with the Democrats long-term. The assassination of James Garfield by a disgruntled supporter who was unhappy with the government job he'd been given led to the nearly complete dismantling of the patronage system that had been a bulwark of Democratic power, and the federal reserve system helped eliminate the political leverage provided by the federal treasury.

Still, in the early 1800's we came surprisingly close to the sort of one-party democratic system that our neighbors to the north have enjoyed these last hundred years or so, so in some ways I guess we're lucky that we managed to have the two parties we have.

Originally Posted by honedright

Exactly.

Rather than a third party to further razzle dazzle and divert attention, I think what we really need is a better informed citizenry that can discern the difference between elected representatives who perform their sworn due diligence to the Constitution, and those who do not.


Scott

This is exactly my point!

Originally Posted by jockeys

I think parties are obsolete. it's just a way to bolster cronyism.

personally, i think all parties should be done away with, and candidates can specifically enumerate their positions on issues. that way, no one is tempted to just tow the party line (biggest cause of braindead lemming behavior in modern politics, imho) they'll have to think for themselves.

but what do i know, i'm a crazy idealist who doesn't like democrats OR republicans.

But I love a good party

Sorry all. The current system is used by both the major parties in such a way as to exclude as much as possible any third party, or independent candidate. Until the system itself isn't slanted in favor of a two party system and is actually allowed to work the way it was designed to we will never again see an honest politician.

I'm also a Libertarian by the way. In large part because their prioity isn't getting elected, its simply trying to level the playing field so the best man can win. They think that they have the best man, but who knows, right now no one can find out.

I am pretty close to being a Libertarian. I part ways with them over drugs. I am TOTALLY opposed to the recreational use of drugs. THAT is my sticking point. Otherwise I would change my registration today.
I look at the Democrats and the Republicans as Socialist Party A and Socialist Party B. Politicians from BOTH camps have trampled all over the Constitution in the last few years.
BTW the 'lesser of two evils' is still evil and that description is NOT any kind of a recomendation. At least not in MY opinion. That sounds like a man bragging what a fine upstanding citizen he is, because he doesn't beat his wife as much as his neighbor does. They BOTH ought to be locked up!
Congress is spending money like it isn't theirs...wait a minute, it really ISN'T theirs! I have an idea. What we need to do is give every Senator and Representative a 'paper account' containing a million dollars when they first enter Congress. Every Bill they vote on, that spends money, they lose 1% of their million bucks. If the Bill totals more than a set limit, they each lose a proportional amount of the million. When their million dollars is 'gone' they have to go home and they can never run for office again! If it cost THEM something, they would be a lot more careful. The $700 Billion pork bill would have emptied the Capitol building. The same thing should apply to the President. When his account is exhausted, out! He is still limited by the two term limit, even if he has money left in his 'account.' To clarify...ALL Washington politicians are subject to being voted out and they only get the million dollar credit ONCE.
IMHO a two term limit would be good for EVERY elected "Public SERVANT."

Originally Posted by Wildtim

I'm also a Libertarian by the way. In large part because their prioity isn't getting elected...

I used to be a Libertarian, until I realized that getting elected wasn't really a priority for them. They're really quite good at not getting elected.