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

I started a thread not to long ago entitled "History and the Stimulus Package". A good friend of mine posted on that thread suggesting I was missing the point. He suggested that there is no difference between the parties, and I partially agree.
I sent him a PM:

Au contraire my friend! I distrust the republicans as much if not more than the democrats! with the current bunch of democrats in DC I know exactly what to expect! The republicans you cant tell! My point for the thread was 2 fold. I wanted to point out this little known fact about the Socialist movement in America working to subvert the Democratic party, and also point out that while Republicans may deserve blame for our current state of the economy they dont deserve all of it.
I am a registered republican. Not due to a love affair with the party and their beliefs. It is because of the 2 parties, the republican has the most hope and no third party has a chance in hell until one or both parties crumble to the ground!
My principles are of a conservative nature, as I believe most Americans are, not a republican nature, but the only place that there is even a small voice for conservative values is the republican party, and I hope we take the party back, either that or let the parties crumble so that we may once again have two or more parties that are honorable adversaries with the peoples best interest in mind as opposed to the stink fest that we have there in DC now!

I am not likely to reply to that thread any more as I find that everyone responding to me, without fail, are responding to a stereotype of what they think I am and believe instead of responding to what I am saying!

Good night my friend

Mark

This was his response:

First off, my apologies for stereotyping you, secondly, concerning sticking with the repubs rather than a 3rd party, I have to ask the question, "How do you do the same thing over and over again expecting a different result?". The republican party came into being because of a shift in the thinking of the populace, not because the whigs fell apart.
My next point, the republicans abandoned free market principles a long time ago, they now represent the Globalistic Corporate interests and not American free/fair market interests. They have left us behind. My final point, the dems are not for socialism, they are for power. And like the bankers and industrialists of Germany in the 30's(our republicans of today)they dont care what Herr Hitler(Dems/Feds)do as long as they are free to make money. The people are being controlled by the state for the sake of the state and the dollar simultaneously. To be afraid of socialism is seeing only half of the problem.

He makes some great points, as always! Sharp man my friend!

I replied:

Sorry for taking so long to reply.
If your wine glass was filled with "corked" wine, would you toss the glass or simply dump out the bad wine, wash the glass and refill it with good wine? Do you toss our constitution out the window because our politicians and judges trample it under foot daily or do you dust off the constitution, kick out all the bad politicians and start fresh?
Believe me when I say that if you start a new party, if it has any chance for success it will quickly fill up with con-men and charlatans who are only looking for their own personal gain!
The principles of Conservatism have a home in the republican party. I say persuade the party to act on its original character and values and shun those who only hold these values until it is no longer expedient! The problems we have in the Republican party we will have in whatever party we form until we can stand up and say "No more! We will act on principle and no longer on what is expedient."
This is the way I see it.

Mark

The part I highlighted in red is the point I wish to address mostly but all is open for discussion!

I recently heard about Ron Paul and his earmarks and googled it. I opened the first link and post it here:FOXNews.com - Rep. Ron Paul Defends His Earmarks in Spending Bill - Neil Cavuto | Your World
Its a transcript, not a news story, but here we have Ron Paul, A libertarian and republican presidential candidate, a man with reputed solid convictions. A man against earmarks. puts in the largest amount, monetarily, in earmarks in one of the latest spending bills, and then votes against it, knowing full well that it is going to be passed. It seems to me that Paul shows himself to be a hypocrite. Worse than what we already have in washington? probably not, but I think his actions help to make my point about starting another party.

Honestly guys, does this make any sense to you? It doesn't to me.
I also believe that starting a new party is fraught with dangers of frauds and charlatans! I say we keep the house we have and give it a good scrubbing instead of tossing the baby out with the bath water!

There's more than two parties in the US? who knew

I voted for Nader. I truly believe that both parties are one in the same now, most people I talk to agree for the most part(it's very more or less, but I'll generalize for the sake of sake of argument). However when asked if they would consider a third party the answer is almost always"blah blah blah lesser of two evils, what if the better doesn't win?". I personally find this argument ignorant, people need to remember that their vote is a sign off on whatever their 'slightly less evil' candidate does for the next 4 years. Not to mention it's thinking like this that maintains our corrupt two party system.

I'd like to point out that this last election Nader got about 2% of the vote without the green party backing him, if 8% of the people voting for Obama and wanting Nader had shed their ignorance then Nader would have had 10% of the vote AND Obama would be president. So the "lesser" of two (I think great) evils would still be in office AND Nader would be much harder to ignore come the next election(think about it, did you see ANY media coverage for the guy who got 2% of the vote? Bumper stickers? Yard signs? Hell the news networks covered him as "other" during the actual election count).

I have more to say on the subjects, most of it about how corrupt and well controlled the media is, but it's 3am here and I'm having trouble collecting my thoughts and typing them out(sorry if that is already obvious).

The most important difference between the two parties is that one of them is in power and isn't interested in your petty problems, and the other one is out of power and willing to pretend to be interested in your petty problems.

This is true of any form of government, whether it be our own, or a parliamentary system, or the german-style multiparty system. The difference between these forms of government merely when the coalition of interest groups that will take power is assembled. In the US it happens before the election, where these interest groups rally under the banner of one of the two parties, and in a parliamentary or extremely multiparty system such as in Germany this happens after the election as parties try to form up a coalition goverment.

But always, always, it boils down to a group of politicians in power trying to pillage the system for the benefit of their supporters, and a group of politicians willing to do anything it takes to get back into power to do the same for their side.

Personally I think the ancient greeks had it right - all politicians should automatically be put on trial for corruption at the end of their term.

I'm a registered Libertarian because I feel they reflect my beliefs more closely than either of the major parties, though still not perfectly - it's my best option in the current situation. In a society where a show like "American Idol" can run for seven years, our method of electing public officials has become so perverted that I'm loathe to trust anyone who runs for office. The most popular kid in school isn't necessarily the most qualified to govern. I don't have any suggestions for improvement, but you don't have to be a plumber to know when the sewer backs up.....

*EDIT*

Personally I think the ancient greeks had it right - all politicians should automatically be put on trial for corruption at the end of their term.

Hear, hear!

I think many people get so caught up in the parties, and the popularity contests, that they forget the fundamentals of our republic. Considering the state of affairs with our public education system, I wonder just how many high school graduates, even college graduates, fully understand the Constitution?



Scott

Originally Posted by honedright

I think many people get so caught up in the parties, and the popularity contests, that they forget the fundamentals of our republic. Considering the state of affairs with our public education system, I wonder just how many high school graduates, even college graduates, fully understand the Constitution?



Scott

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

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

There's more than two parties in the US? who knew

Sure there are more than two parties in the US. To maximize their chances of winning they band together under the coalition parties we call "Democrat" and "Republican" instead of running their own slate and getting nothing. For example the Republican party in any given election is simply a coalition of a number of different issue-specific parties, such as the NRA, Fiscal Conservatives, Evangelicals, Zionists, Militarists, Water Rightists, Safe Borderists etc, each with their own different set of organizations that push their own candidates, all of which are sorted out during the primary election. None of these groups are particularly tied to the "R" or "D" label, though some of them have been in one camp for decades nonetheless they can and do drift between the two parties. The NRA for example was founded by a Democrat and was for many decades was in the Democrat coalition, but about 20 years ago moved fairly in the Republican camp. Social progressives used to be under the Republican umbrella (the Republican party was founded as a social progressive party) but were gradually wooed to the Democrat party over the recent decades. And there is plenty of evidence from the last election that many evangelical groups are getting ready to leave the Republican coalition for the Democratic coalition.

These umbrella parties have a very boring characterless public face because it's a homogenized projection of their components, carefully tailored for minimum offensiveness to your average sporadically-interested voter. But it's a mistake to assume that the two parties are exactly alike, or that the two parties are in any shape or fashion a monolithic entity. They're both very fractious coalitions, it's just that these coalitions are formed during the primary season (which is one reason the primary season is so long over here) instead of after the election.

Rabid Libertarian here.

Personally, I think Paul was trying to torpedo the bill with as many ridiculous riders and he could scare up, but it sort of backfired because of the panic and stupidity running rampant in DC right now.

(note: this is actually a pretty commonly used tactic. can't defeat a bill you don't like? then add a bunch of stupid **** to it so that NO ONE will vote for it)

Originally Posted by jockeys

Rabid Libertarian here.

Personally, I think Paul was trying to torpedo the bill with as many ridiculous riders and he could scare up, but it sort of backfired because of the panic and stupidity running rampant in DC right now.

(note: this is actually a pretty commonly used tactic. can't defeat a bill you don't like? then add a bunch of stupid **** to it so that NO ONE will vote for it)

That isn't what he said in the transcript.