I read a few boards online, and as the presidential election posturing begins to heat up, I am noticing one thing the republicans and democrats have in common.
They are both stupid.
I've been watching the arguments go back and forth, and the central theme seems to be, "The guy from my party is always right, and the guy from your party is always wrong." How can otherwise intelligent people believe this?
If you are a democrat, how can you deny that Bill Clinton WAS in fact a philandering liar?
If you are a republican, how can you deny that George Bush came into office with the preplanned goal of ousting Saddam, then manufactured evidence to support it?
Does that mean that those two presidents NEVER did ANYTHING right?! No. But it seems like people have replaced, 'America, my country right or wrong' with 'My party, right or wrong'.
Why does this happen? Why do otherwise intelligent people feel this need to instantly become apologists when a leader of their party is criticized in any way? I have yet to see anyone say anything like, "I voted for Bush, and I really like his fiscal policies, and his stance on abortion, but I think he made a huge mistake with the invasion of Iraq."
Why is that? Does membership in one of the two parties require turning off your brain and becoming a party position spewing robot?
You know, the amazing right that American's have to criticize their leaders is one of the coolest things about democracy. You have the right to criticize. In fact, if you are politically involved, you have the DUTY to criticize. And this includes the people that run your party, and your party's elected officials. And yet, that seems to be the major taboo. Party members who do attempt to criticize are instantly villified by the vocal majority of their party. Reasonable discourse becomes impossible.
Do people worry that if they let someone criticize, everyone will leave the party?
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
'My party, right or wrong'?
My battle cry is, "My party, the lesser of two evils." Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
Do you openly criticize it? Or do you openly defend things your party leaders do, while internally disagreeing?
If it is in fact the lesser of two evils, do you point out the evils openly, trying to change it into 'more good' rather than 'less evil'?
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Why does this happen? Why do otherwise intelligent people feel this need to instantly become apologists when a leader of their party is criticized in any way? I have yet to see anyone say anything like, "I voted for Bush, and I really like his fiscal policies, and his stance on abortion, but I think he made a huge mistake with the invasion of Iraq."
Why is that? Does membership in one of the two parties require turning off your brain and becoming a party position spewing robot?
Becoming a party position spewing robot seems to be a prerequisite of really liking Bush's fical policies...
But to answer your question, few people want to paint their party's candidate as fallible because if they honestly assess their candidate's flaws and the other candidate's party doesn't, it'll look as though the honest candidate's "admitting" failure -- whereas the other perfect candidate can dismiss criticism, right or wrong, as partisan politics.
Though, to be honest, I see far more self-analysis in the Democratic party than I do in the Republican party. On this board alone, three of the strongest liberals -- Tom, Kasie, and myself, possibly the only liberals who mentioned Howard Dean at all -- have all strongly criticized certain aspects of Dean and even wavered to not voting at all. I'm not sure you can say the same about the GOP party pool. And if I can speak without bias, I see far more flaws available for criticism in Bush and his presidency than I see in Dean -- and Dean's far more accessible and honest and consistent with his stances than Bush ever has been.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
This is why I'm definitely staying independent...
(Well, also the fact that both parties are kinda dumb. )
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I know several Republicans who have very publically said they disagree with Bush's fiscal policies but vote for him because they agree with him on abortion and a few other policies.
Not that Bush has really bothered to do anything about abortion which is why I will not be voting for him in the next election, because it was the only thing he had going for him.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Slash, I think in a debate among intelligent, articulate people, one gains more credibility by admiting that their position or party is fallible. I do not trust people who never concede that their party has made a mistake. (That's why I visit Hatrack much more than Ornery.)
Unfortunately, the party leaders believe that in order to win the undecided vote, their party must present a "united front" to the public.
Strategically, the party leaders have a point. Paul O'Neil's dissent, while courageous, just gave the Dems tons of ammunition for the upcoming election.
So if your goal is meaningful political discourse among friends (Hatrack), then of course you should be out spoken about the flaws of your own party. But if your job is to ensure the victory of your candidate, then it is best to focus the spotlight on your opponent's warts than your own.
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
Doesn't that seem like perpetuation of stupidity to anyone else?
How else do you explain Al Gore or George Bush getting any votes? Because no one better could be found? Or because that's who the invisible hand picked for their party to rally around.
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
I mean, I am not political, except to make fun of it. But if I was a republican (I like not paying taxes), I would have taken one look at GWB's nomination and said, "What the HELL?! This idiot is the best we could do? There isn't a more qualified republican ANYWHERE in the party? How can that be?!"
To be perfectly fair, as a democrat I would have said the same thing about Al Gore. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Maybe part of the problem is that what sounds like an admission of a flaw to one person sounds like backpedalling to another. The liberals on this board think it is dangerously conservative. The conservatives think it is blindly liberal. It's like a cone that looks like a circle from above and a triangle from the side.
I know Bush wanted the war with Iraq all along. I've always said it was more about finishing the Gulf War than continuing the war on Terror. And I think I'm one of the more conservative on the board. Though I don't know if I rate the Triumvirate of Conservativeness (TM).
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I'm critical of both sides, but this doesn't mean that I don't see their good points. I just wish there were more politicians interested in middle ground and what's truly right for the country than just bipartisan arguing and nitpicking. Like when their canidate is no different than the other and yet they STILL act like they are God.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Part of the problem is that, even when members of a given party actually think their party is wrong on a point, they feel compelled to defend it. This isn't just a phenomenon among party heads - it occurs on Hatrack too I think, to some extent. Once you give yourself a label, you get a feeling that any attack, justified or not, on that label is an attack on you, and thus feel the need to defend it.
It's not really that the two party system makes you stupid - it makes you biased.
[ January 12, 2004, 10:31 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"If you are a democrat, how can you deny that Bill Clinton WAS in fact a philandering liar?"
I don't think most Dems DO deny this. I think they say it doesn't particularly matter, compared to the Republicans who were running against him.
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
What I wouldn't give for a candidate that spends time talking about things and less time being mean and petty about things. Even if the guy was crazy and ultra conservative/liberal, it would be a nice change of pace.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I continually miss Bill Bradley. I was deeply disappointed that he didn't stay in the race.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Me too. Didn't Bradley just openly endorsed Dean last Friday? One more reason to be a Dean supporter!
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
That's why you need some more parties...
I don't, however, have any content to add.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I thought that W was really nice. He's just nice about things that drive some folks crazy.
Tom- the trouble with Clinton is not that he was a philanderer. It's that he was a sexual harasser. Philandering made him a jerk. Harassing made him a hypocrite.
What's amazing is that when OSC crosses lines on 2 points, everyone suddenly thinks he is a raging conservative.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:Harassing made him a hypocrite.
I'm a strong Clinton supporter, but I completely agree with this statement. The Democratic party is the party that is suppose to be strong on women's rights and political correctness. For Clinton to have sex with a young intern is just plain disgusting.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
pooka, you won't get any argument from me. The issue, however, is that Clinton was STILL preferable to the jerks in the other party. I hate to sound pragmatic about this, but I consider sexual harrassment to be less of a national security issue than the semi-treasonable manipulation of a country into war.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I've certainly seen a lot of Republicans admit that they disagree with the police-state excesses of Asscroft and the PATRIOT Act. They just follow up and say that abortion and defense are more important issues.
Sigh.
Even granting that abortion is murder, I'd rather live in a country with a few extra murders than one where the authorities can screw you any way they want.
At least the places where I disagree with Dems are relatively small issues like affirmative action.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Slash raises a good point. Ornery is probably the perfect illustration. I think that part of the issue is this:
It is so difficult to know what happened in any given situation because we no longer believe what anyone tells us. We all see spin in the news and so we assume that everything is spun to the left or right. Take the tax cut for example. The liberals tend to say that the cut was mainly a refund to the rich and that the poor barely benefitted at all. The Republicans say that the cut was mainly for the middle class while both the rich and poor also benefitted.
So how does one know what is really the case? Reading the bill itself won't tell you much unless you already have a good understanding of pre-tax cut tax rates and laws.
Basically I think that for many issues no one really knows where their party stands and so they just support the party line their spin doctors create.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Lalo said: On this board alone, three of the strongest liberals -- Tom, Kasie, and myself, possibly the only liberals who mentioned Howard Dean at all -- have all strongly criticized certain aspects of Dean and even wavered to not voting at all. I'm not sure you can say the same about the GOP party pool.
Maybe you’re just not paying attention. Robespierre alone has criticized Bush decisions on numerous occasions, as have several others. I’ve disagreed with several of his positions on this board.
Myself, I prefer to do my self-analysis on boards where the people who disagree with me don’t dismiss my opinions as those of a “drooling idiot,” “cattle,” or a “party position spewing robot.”
quote:Destineer said: Even granting that abortion is murder, I'd rather live in a country with a few extra murders...
1 million a year is a few?
Dagonee
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:...and Dean's far more accessible and honest and consistent with his stances than Bush ever has been.
Yeah, well, unless you're asking about papers during his term as Vermont governor, that is. Right? And one wonders just how much balanced, intelligent reflection you do, Ed, when you constantly label your political opposition things like "party-spewing robot" and "cattle" and "idiots". I've slipped up before, granted, but you revel in it. Do it all the time.
quote:I mean, I am not political, except to make fun of it. But if I was a republican (I like not paying taxes), I would have taken one look at GWB's nomination and said, "What the HELL?! This idiot is the best we could do? There isn't a more qualified republican ANYWHERE in the party? How can that be?!"
To be perfectly fair, as a democrat I would have said the same thing about Al Gore.
More or less what I said, to myself anyway, a few times. 23 is young to be so cynical about politics that I take these things as a matter of stride.
The two party system doesn't make the individual stupid. It makes individuals in groups stupid. I'm going to sound like a hipster doofus, but it's like the quote in Men in Black. Something like, "A person is smart and cautious and can handle things, but people are dumb, violent, panicky animals and you know it."
Two-party systems (any political systems) don't make people stupid, they take advantage of the stupidity of people in groups and, over time, magnify them.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Churchill said that "Democracy is the worst form of government on earth except for all the rest."
I think that can be paraphrased as "the guy I'm voting for is the worst possible candidate, except for all the rest"
Forget the two party system, the party system in general is outdated and ineffectual. Parties were created to give candidates platforms so that they could get the word out to larger groups of people. I don't know this guy, but he's a populist, so I know he supports a, b, and c. Parties were meant to rally people together around common goals, and they changed frequently as new parties emerged, old ones split, or obsolete ones died off.
When was the last time we had a new party form? When was the last time a party truly all supported the same platform? The concept of "party" has become "financial backers" more than anything else. A democrat from wyoming and a democrat from new jersey may be entirely opposed on a great many things, whereas a republican in missouri and a republican in massachussettes may stand for entirely different things.
The party label gets them money, and it gets the votes from citizens too stupid or apathetic to actually think about a candidate. My grandmother voted on every election day, walked in, pulled the democratic party lever that voted the party line, then walked out.
Parties do make you stupid, because the label takes a measure of thinking and analysis away. Who is this guy? Oh, he's a democrat! In truth, that means pretty much nothing. But it stigmatizes him to some people, and lionizes him to others. It takes the thought out of voting.
It's branding, but on a more serious level. Quite honestly, candidates might as well have corporate sponsors instead of parties... it's not like they don't already.
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
Matt, thank you for eloquently stating my original point, much better than I did.
^what he said...
Posted by Han (Member # 2685) on :
"If you are a republican, how can you deny that George Bush came into office with the preplanned goal of ousting Saddam, then manufactured evidence to support it?"
Perhaps because there's no credible evidence that he did so, while there's plenty of credible evidence that the U.S. policy of regime change in Iraq (signed into law under Clinton) was a very good idea, given that there is plenty of credible evidence that Saddam was evil.
"I have yet to see anyone say anything like, "I voted for Bush, and I really like his fiscal policies, and his stance on abortion, but I think he made a huge mistake with the invasion of Iraq.""
Perhaps you haven't been paying attention. And if you haven't heard anyone say, 'I like Bush's foreign policy, but his fiscal policy is driving me crazy' then you really haven't been paying attention, and have completely destroyed your credibility on the issue of current political discourse.
"You have the right to criticize. In fact, if you are politically involved, you have the DUTY to criticize."
And yet the politically uninvolved and ignorant seem to feel that they have a duty to criticize, without actually understanding what they're criticizing.
"That's why you need some more parties..."
Without significant changes to the electoral stucture, it won't happen, for reasons that should be obvious to anyone who's taken any government/comparative course. And even if FPTP isn't perfect, PR carries its own set of nontrivial problems.
Casual, evidently serious equating of "police-state excesses of Asscroft and the PATRIOT Act" to "the authorities can screw you any way they want" does demonstrate that ignorance and stupidity are alive and well. I wonder what will happen if the wolf ever really does come.
"the party system in general is outdated and ineffectual."
Oh please. Offer some shred of evidence, or even intelligent speculation/analysis.
"When was the last time we had a new party form?"
In the 1850's, when the Whigs were imploding over the slavery issue. If one of the current two parties manages to implode over something (Reps on homosexuality differences, Dems on overrigid adherence to extremism abortion politics being two of the more plausible possibilites), a new party will arise to take its place.
"When was the last time a party truly all supported the same platform?"
Likely never. Parties have always been large coalitions of diverse interests, often involving strange bedfellows.
"Parties do make you stupid, because the label takes a measure of thinking and analysis away."
Or you choose to let it, which would happen under any system. Of course, the party label does provide some useful information, while a system without parties would be a chaotic mess (do you seriously claim that you would research intensively research thousands of candidates for president to determine which one most closely adheres to your views?).
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
I feel the same way about Dubbya that I did about Daddy Dubbya. I can't stand the majority of his domestic policy but think his international policy is right on target.
But nobody ever starts threads about how wonderful his domestic policy is so I never feel inclined to argue about it. People do post how lame they think the war is, and so I get riled up and post about that.
I actually don't find the question of why people defend thier own guy to be as paradoxical as why they have to paint the opponents as being evil. MY guy is kind and generous and doing his best, they say, but THAT guy is mean and nasty and deliberately out to ruin the world.
The fact is, every politician is pretty much the same. They've got really big egos that need fed, a craving for popularity, but also a belief that they want to be in a position where they can do something for people, because they think they know how to do it better than the other guy.
Clinton, for example, was not motivated by evil and stupidity, and all the other things that the Right wants to accuse him of. That's silly and ridiculous. Clinton's biggest desire, as far as I've been able to determine through reading and talking with people who've worked with him since his days as Governer, is to get himself written nobley into the history books. He really wanted (and still wants) to be an FDR, the guy who introduces a program that makes the nation better and improves people's lives. That's what the healt care bills were all about, that's what the education bills were all about. He really, really wanted to go down in history as the guy who did a lot of good for a lot of people. The tragedy of it is that, despite his efforts, he's going to go down in history as the guy who chased interns in the oval office.
And on the other side, it's equally ludicrus to paint Bush as some kind of empire-building megalomaniac, for reasons that I'm sure this thread will become innundated with if anybody posts that I didn't provide any evidence to this statement.
My philospophy about politics is the same as Dave Barry's philosophy on advertizing. The truth is probably the opposite of whatever they're paying millions of dollars to convince you of. If Coke and Pepsi are going nutso trying to convince you that one is so much better than the other, and one will make you popular while the other will make you die a horrible, lonely death, then its probably all just fizzy sugar water.
Anybody in office is going to be pretty much the same as anybody else--the same pandering, the same waffling, the same eager-to-please puppies who run around trying to make people like them right now, today, rather than leading the country with square jaws held high, standing for what they believe.
Oh, and to suggest that the Republicans don't self analyze--we do, and we do it often. The only reason it seems like the Democrats are quicker to self-analyze is two fold. First, you're seeing it more, because you're watching more liberal news sources than listening to conservative commentators (Have you heard ANY of the commentary about the Bush/Fox talks? Bush is not being spoken highly of). Second, the democratic party is more fragmented. Not to say it's less united--just that there are more "types of democrats" than there are "types of republicans."
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote: Without significant changes to the electoral stucture, it won't happen
That'd be nice, wouldn't it? Seeing as our current electoral structure pretty much eliminates the value of dissenting votes. F'rinstance, voting republican in New Jersey is throwing your vote away, while voting democrat in state like wyoming isn't going to count either.
Further, the system structure virtually eliminates the possibility of a third party. A party shouldn't have to implode - a third should be able to emerge in competition, but it can't.
quote: Oh please. Offer some shred of evidence, or even intelligent speculation/analysis.
Sure. Parties have no ideological standard at all. Voting democrat or republican means absolutely nothing, since a given democrat can be more conservative than a given republican. The term "republicrats" has even been coined to point up this inability to discern the differences between the two.
Parties platforms aren't even really discussed much anymore. Personal platforms for each candidate are focused on instead, and voting record. If anything, people argue over how liberal or conservative a given candidate is compared to his own party, or compared to others.
Parties evolved in a time when communication was limited. It was difficult for anyone to know for sure where a candidate stood on the issues, especially if that candidate never visited their town. They relied on local and regional newspapers, and often candidates said one thing in one town and the opposite in the next without anyone knowing the difference. It was near impossible for the average person to access voting records for a given candidate, or even past behavior and quotes.
Now, we have instantaneous communication and access to matters of public record. A candidate can run on his own, getting the word out, talking about the issues, and having his record stand for itself. It is impossible to pitch entirely opposite speeches in two public venues to garner votes, because words are recorded and played back nationally on the evening news.
The only purpose a party really serves is a financial one, a fundraising group to back a given candidate or another. The money is running the candidate, rather than any issues. If the money decides to disagree with you, you need to go along or risk the party throwing their funds behind someone else.
Parties are very much akin to corporate sponsors. If Nike doesn't like what a given sports star is doing, they might drop him and pick up someone else. There goes the money. If a party sours on a candidate, the same happens.
Then again, the founding fathers were pretty sour on the idea of parties at all and spoke out against "factions" - so maybe they're not outdated so much as never having been the best idea in the first place.
quote: In the 1850's, when the Whigs were imploding over the slavery issue. If one of the current two parties manages to implode over something (Reps on homosexuality differences, Dems on overrigid adherence to extremism abortion politics being two of the more plausible possibilites), a new party will arise to take its place.
So, in over 150 years, we've had the same two parties, with no evolution at all... after a first 75 years that saw several different parties. A little stagnant, really, with more and more people becoming apathetic because of interparty bickering or simply upset that no party really represents their interests.
Unfortunately, even with neither party having a stable platform, and an increasing number of people falling between the two extremes, a third party can't develop unless one of the major two implodes. A little disheartening.
Maybe I'll move to a state with an even distribution of voters, so my vote will count. Then perhaps I'd have a say in who becomes our president. As it stands now, I have none - I'm either riding the bandwagon, or being ground under its wheels.
[ January 14, 2004, 09:23 AM: Message edited by: FlyingCow ]
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
Sadly, Han's vehemence seems only to prove my point...
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:you really haven't been paying attention, and have completely destroyed your credibility on the issue of current political discourse.
This is one of my big pet peeves in online debate (although I'm sure I've done it from time to time). People have this tendency to try to speak for the audience without any justification. They'll say things like "I've won this debate because of x and y and z." or "No one trusts you because of this and that."
I don't know, maybe it's because I'm trained in debate, where it's considered important to show, rather than tell victory. The idea being, if you actually have won the debate or shown that someone is untrustworthy or whatever, the audience judging you will see it and will make that decision on their own. However, stating it bald-faced makes it seem like you are not confident in either the merits of your position or the audiences discriminative abilities. It makes you look weak, mostly.
There are some cases where characterizing some else or their argument makes sense. You could be reflecting your impressions of them so that they can see how you are taking what they are saying. In rare instances, you may acutally be presenting a new way - one that the majority of you audience wouldn't neccesarily see - of looking at what the other person is saying.
However, this is not true in most cases. For myself, I don't need you to think for me. By all means, present evidence, make arguments, bring up facts. Just don't try to make conclusions for me. And remember, when you feel the need to claim victory, it's probably because you haven't achieved it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Slash the Berzerker said: Sadly, Han's vehemence seems only to prove my point...
He’s raised some prima facie valid objections to your claims. You’ve dismissed him as stupid without refuting his objections.
Who’s more dangerous to reasoned political discourse?
Dagonee
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
quote:Reps on homosexuality differences, Dems on overrigid adherence to extremism abortion politics
This is a perfect example why any sort of political discussion will wind up going nowhere.
Sure, there are two examples so that 'both' parties (more accurately, the two major parties) are covered, but look at the obvious bias. The dems stance is over rigid and extremist, but the reps stance isn't bigoted, outdated or even prehistoric. Interesting…
I think the 'two-party' system sucks big-time. We never get to choose who we want, we can get combo-meal A and combo-meal B but no a la carte. There's no way for a candidate to offer a little of this and a little of that and still stand a chance.
So we're reduced to voting for the lesser evil (which for me is the candidate that is least likely to restrict my rights and the rights of those I love, so I take that and have to give up on other things).
But I guess it could be worse. A lot worse...
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Here's my favorite quote from The Lord of the Rings trilogy:
quote:I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only what they defend"
I think that this says a great deal towards factionalism. In a perfect world, things, organizations grow up around ideas with the goal of serving or furthering these ideas. In this utopia, an organization that ceases to serve the idea ceases to exist.
In our too imperfect world, it's rare enough even for ideas to lead to organizations. More often, it is the other way around. Even those organizations whose origins were in ideas soon outgrow this centeredness, and come to exist largely for their own sake. Thus, they regard as good whatever is good for the organization, regardless of the effect on their ideas. It's like, say a watchdog organization that will never claim that the problem they were watching is solved, because that would mean that they were no longer needed. Even the rules of the organization themselves become twisted to serve this now overriding goal of maintaining power. In a funny way, this makes all these organizations pretty much the same, even if they are one opposite sides of an issue.
More than one theologian expressed this idea of making an organization more important than what it stands, of worshipping the work of human hands over the transcendant truth, as idolatry. Some have claimed that this idolatry is the chief sin of the modern era.
---
In my opinion, one of the main causes of the growing trends towards factionalism in our country is precisely how weak and corrupt both political parties are. It's because George Bush and Al Gore and Bill Clinton and Ronald Regan, etc. are so far from the best that our country has to offer that people need to block out this awareness with blind enthusiasm. It's precisely because President Bush is such a mediocre person and makes so many mistakes that people feel the need to trumpet him as the best president ever who can do no wrong. Otherwise, they'd have to come to terms with the depressing reality that we currently live in.
[ January 14, 2004, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:when you feel the need to claim victory, it's probably because you haven't achieved it
And when you feel the need to claim authority, it's probably because you haven't earned it.
[ January 14, 2004, 12:42 PM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I'm suprised no one has mentioned gerrymandering. Does no one realize that only about 20% or so of seats in congress are really 'in play' these days? This month's Atlantic has a great article on it. To my mind, it's one of the most troubling aspects of American politics and is done by both parties.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Mr. Squicky... you're awesome. (said with best Strong Bad voice)
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
Dagonee:
Don't put words in my mouth.
I never said he was stupid. I said he was vehement. If you are unaware of the different meaning of those two words, then you ARE stupid.
I am not saying Han didn't try to make valid points. In his opinion, Bush didn't lie to get the country to go to war. Ok. Fine. I am never going to win that argument, and even trying to is an exercise in futility.
However, he immediately launched into aggression and attack along with his reasonable arguments, rather than letting the reasonable arguments stand on their own. Notice he did not attack with the same vehemence my critical remarks about democrats. Care to guess which party Han gives his allegiance too?
And that vehemence, whenever someone criticizes any aspect of the party one has attached themselves to, proves my point. The facts of politics are always in dispute. The mindless and automatic aggression when one's party is criticized is *exactly* my point.
So, my post was entirely valid. Han did indeed prove my point.
[ January 14, 2004, 01:04 PM: Message edited by: Slash the Berzerker ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Slash the Berzerker said: Dagonee:
Don't put words in my mouth.
I never said he was stupid. I said he was vehement. If you are unaware of the different meaning of those two words, then you ARE stupid.
You put the word “stupid” in your own mouth. You didn’t just say he was vehement. You said his vehemence “proved your point.”
What’s your point? “The two party system makes you stupid.” So, according to you, Han’s post proved your point – that people who show party loyalty are “stupid.” How can this be interpreted in any way other than you think Han is stupid?
You used the term “stupid.” You chose to title this topic that way. You chose to reiterate your word choice in your first post. Remember where you said “They are both stupid”? You chose to make a one-line, conclusory, unsupported post saying Han proved your point.
Apparently you think anyone who exhibits reading comprehension is “stupid.”
Dagonee
Posted by Han (Member # 2685) on :
"Anybody in office is going to be pretty much the same as anybody else."
And if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you... People in both parties tend to believe many of the same things. And people in both parties tend to believe and enact policy reflecting many different things. If you're a single-issue voter on whether or not democracy is preferable to communism, then both parties may seem similar. However, if you care about judicial philosophy, the proper role of government in seeking social justice, or a host of other issues, the parties tend to offer clear-cut differences.
"That'd be nice, wouldn't it? Seeing as our current electoral structure pretty much eliminates the value of dissenting votes."
But as mentioned above, any other system carries its own set of nontrivial problems (thanks to Arrow's theorom, if nothing else). What precisely are you proposing?
"Further, the system structure virtually eliminates the possibility of a third party. A party shouldn't have to implode - a third should be able to emerge in competition, but it can't."
Why? If you feel strongly about a certain issue, and a large number of your fellow citizens do as well, then one major party or the other is likely going to make a real effort to win your trust and votes. If both major parties tell you to go to hell, it's probably a good sign that you don't represent a significant bloc of voters--so a third party wouldn't do you much good either.
"Parties have no ideological standard at all. Voting democrat or republican means absolutely nothing, since a given democrat can be more conservative than a given republican."
And yet we still use the labels as benchmarks in measuring a particular candidate's ideology.
"Parties evolved in a time when communication was limited...The only purpose a party really serves is a financial one."
I don't think I've seen this analysis of the rise of parties before. Some elements of it may have some truth, but parties certainly serve many more roles than just financial, including providing information, organizing the ballot, providing meaningful choices, turning preferences into policy, aggregating groups, mobilizing the electorate, and serving as loyal opposition.
"If a party sours on a candidate, the same [dropping him] happens."
Quite the reverse, actually. The party has no control over who runs under the party label in the primaries, leading to situations where the last candidate party leaders want ends up with the nomination. In many cases, party leaders reluctantly support a RINO or DINO just to keep the seat. And people switch parties with some regularity, and still manage to get re-elected if the voters like them.
"Then again, the founding fathers were pretty sour on the idea of parties at all and spoke out against "factions" - so maybe they're not outdated so much as never having been the best idea in the first place."
The Founders said a lot of high-minded things about the evils of parties. Then they discovered they couldn't actually run a government without them. Maybe we should look at what they did, not what they said.
"So, in over 150 years, we've had the same two parties, with no evolution at all... after a first 75 years that saw several different parties."
Not really. The Democratic Party of today is descended from the same organization Jefferson organized to challenge the Federalists. After the Federalists collapsed, the Whigs (as they eventually became known) opposed them. The Whigs collapsed and the Republicans filled the void. However, throughout this process, party ideologies evolved and changed, as new issues arose and the political landscape changed. Free soil or the coining of silver 16:1 is considerably less of an issue today, while abortion or the proper role of the United Nations were not issues that concerned parties in the 19th century, or even 75 years ago. Since parties serve as coalitions of diverse interests, the nature of just what a party label means and stands for changes every generation or so, as interests rise and fall on the political landscape.
"an increasing number of people falling between the two extremes."
I don't believe I've seen much credible evidence to suggest that this is the case. I've seen it argued occasionally, but if it really is the case, it's only going to be so long before one party moderates and captures the center. The self-interest of elections provides several long-term constants, even when the short-term is in turmoil.
"Han's vehemence seems only to prove my point."
I thought your point was that people irrationally defend indefensible candidates. Since I've been focusing on rationally defending a definsible system, I fail to see the connection. An opposite point, that people irrationally criticize the defensible, might have merit, but I leave it as an exercise for the student as to who is filling which role.
"People have this tendency to try to speak for the audience without any justification."
I actually wasn't attempting to speak for the audience. I meant 'you've completely destroyed your credibility with me,' since the statements made about what was and was not being said didn't seem to bear any resemblance to things I was reading on a near-daily basis.
"stating it bald-faced makes it seem like you are not confident in either the merits of your position or the audiences discriminative abilities."
Or it could be a response in kind to a similar bald-faced statement, which is admittedly not the best technique, but the quality of political discussion on hatrack has been so low I hesitate to commit major amounts of energy to something longer and more nuanced.
"The dems stance is over rigid and extremist, but the reps stance isn't bigoted, outdated or even prehistoric."
Did I ever pretend to be neutral on either issue? I was simply giving, what looked to me, like the most plausible way that either current party could self-destruct. A significant portion of the Republican party is adamantly opposed to giving sodomy special legal privileges, while another significant portion (and society in general) may be moving in exactly that direction. If the majority of the Republican party embraces this position, some elements might refuse to compromise, leading to a major rift and possible complete dissolution of the party. On the other hand, a significant portion of the Democratic Party is firmly committed to keeping any and all abortions legal, while society in general seems to be moving farther away from the position. If the abortion extremists also refuse to compromise, the Democratic Party could fissure and collapse. Admitedly, both scenarios are speculative. Since we only have two instances of major party collapse, it's difficult to measure plausibility. The more significant case, however, dealt with the Whigs' inability to come to terms with the slavery issue, which makes me suspect that if any issue is going to be a party-breaker it's going to be a similar moral/cultural issue (so I doubt that the Dems will be unable to eventually weather their current differences on national security, for instance). Now obviously people have different opinions on whether sodomy or abortion is desirable, and even people with the same opinions may differ in whether the issue can be compromised on or not. I was simply trying to point out what to me seemed two of the more probable (not that either is terribly probable) party collapse scenarios. And, for what it's worth, the impression I've gotten is that it's much easier to buck the party trend on these two issues in Republican circles than in Democratic circles (which can be good or bad depending whether you prefer to win elections or maintain ideological purity). Of course, others may see the world differently--they're welcome to present evidence to bolster their case, though I might suggest a different thread since it's rather tangental to the main point.
"In my opinion, one of the main causes of the growing trends towards factionalism in our country is precisely how weak and corrupt both political parties are."
There's plenty of room to discuss whether the weakness of the current parties is a significant problem. The first place to start would be to discuss the implications of recent reforms that have weakened parties, such as denying party control of the nomination and campaign finance "reform." Crippling the parties and then arguing that they don't do their jobs properly, though, is not a way to impress me.
"It's precisely because President Bush is such a mediocre person and makes so many mistakes that people feel the need to trumpet him as the best president ever who can do no wrong."
Strangely, I've seen relatively little of this, while I've seen far more people try to demonize him as the worst president ever who can do no right. I think Republicans slipped into this mindset a bit under Clinton, though. Perhaps overwrought extremists in both parties will have learned a valuable lesson when the dust settles.
"he immediately launched into aggression and attack along with his reasonable arguments, rather than letting the reasonable arguments stand on their own."
As mentioned above, a possible shortcoming, but considering the initial provokation was, among other things, being called 'stupid,' the question seems to be whether it was 'aggression and attack' or a spirited defense. Perhaps if the aggression and attack had been absent from the first post, I wouldn't have responded in kind.
"Care to guess which party Han gives his allegiance too?"
I wasn't aware that I had made any attempt to conceal those of my issue positions that I've bothered to comment on. I also suspect that anyone who disagrees with your inaccurate statements about positions I don't care about is also free to correct you, and don't know why you think it my job. And, if in a discussion of the merits of the two-party system you try to shut out anyone who actually thinks the two-party system has anything going for it, you won't learn very much (which, ironically, neatly illustrates one of the benefits of the two-party system).
"that vehemence, whenever someone criticizes any aspect of the party one has attached themselves to"
Major logical error here: You assume that if I 'vehemently attack' some inaccurate criticisms, that I must vehemently attack ANY and ALL inaccurate criticisms. And you wonder why I question your credibility?
Ultimately, this type of discussion (which seems to recur on hatrack with some frequency) annoys me because I actually study and teach about American politics, and haven't learned not to be annoyed when someone who hasn't bothered to learn anything about the subject procedes to lecture me on everything that's wrong with American politics today. It seems somewhat akin to me explaining to a rocket scientist exactly why his latest design is flawed, or (heaven forbid) explaining to a Jehovah's Witness exactly why he can't possibly believe such-and-such if he's read the Bible. Intelligent discussion and even disagreement may be possible, but not if one doesn't start from a basis of common knowledge and understanding of positions.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Han, you make some very good points, though there are a couple things I'm either a) unclear on, or b) disagree with.
quote: And, if in a discussion of the merits of the two-party system you try to shut out anyone who actually thinks the two-party system has anything going for it, you won't learn very much (which, ironically, neatly illustrates one of the benefits of the two-party system).
True. It's also one of the downsides of the current two party system. One side often shuts out any ideas from the other side as being wrong, and only listens to their own party. In a multi-party system, there aren't simply two sides to choose from. There might be three, or four, or six, or more - which isn't so much "who's right" but a way of seeing things from more than simply two angles.
It can be argued that our parties are multifaceted enough to provide such perspective, but that is from the more astute party members rather than the rank and file. Many responses to criticisms of Democrat issues begin with "Well, Bush is..." and we've all heard the "Well, Clinton is (was)..." refrain when responding to problems with the republican party.
I think Slash's point is that people tend to jump to the defense of their party without thinking, and attack the other with just as little thought. It's almost as though many party-liners are religious devotees who view their opponents as barbaric heathens who haven't seen the light. Plenty of wars have been fought over that sort of closed-mindedness.
A Democrat who could say "you know, that's interesting" to a conservative point and incorporate (or adapt) it into their own viewpoint is far ahead of the Democrat who refuses to listen. Same goes on both sides. Unfortunately, those people are few, and those who "buy in" to the system are often the first to start foaming at the mouth.
Giants fans and Jets fans foam at each other enough, as to Duke and Carolina fans - and there's basically nothing even on the line in those instances. Give a person a team to root for and actual weight to the issues, and it can get ugly. I'm surprised people don't paint their chests colors at caucuses and wave giant foam fingers sometimes. Politics often comes off as the "high brow" version of football to me.
quote:But as mentioned above, any other system carries its own set of nontrivial problems (thanks to Arrow's theorom, if nothing else). What precisely are you proposing?
This is the real problem. "Doctor, my throat hurts. Fix it." It's easy for me to try to diagnose what's wrong, but it doesn't mean I'm right. I could have a pain in my arm and complain, only to find out that the pain is actually from a pinched nerve in my neck or back.
Right now, the symptoms seem bad. Bad to the point of "how much time do I got, doc?" And, from all accounts, there doesn't seem to be a cure. Certainly not one I've come up with.
I've toyed around with the idea of making networks provide free airtime for all candidates to run campaign ads, which would reduce the need for money (which, really, seems to be the root of a lot of problems... more on that in a bit). Doing away with the electoral college and going for a straight popular vote, possibly. Even more, expanding Congress a bit to actually give some semblance of representation in our government (a senator representing on average over two million people seems a bit much - and in New Jersey, representing over 4 million people is downright ridiculous... even our Congressmen each represent over 600,000 people each).
There are no easy answers, but we've created what seems to be a petry dish for problems to fester. Money rules at the moment, and special interest groups. The constituency takes a backseat - certainly when the senators and congressmen go away for most of the year to DC and lose touch with the millions they are "representing". The only people I grew up with that have actually met any of our senators or congressmen work on political campaigns.
Again, though, there's no panacea. But I'm a pessimist. When the education system collapses, followed closely by social security... and the nation regionally polarizes over moral issues, maybe something new will rise from the phoenix's ashes. The United Regions of America? Break the country into four regions of autonomous government with a loose federal body on top? I dunno. Just speculating.
quote:"If a party sours on a candidate, the same [dropping him] happens."
Quite the reverse, actually. The party has no control over who runs under the party label in the primaries
Technically, true. Unfortunately, neither do the people. Nor do the people really get to decide who comes out of a primary - unless they've registered with a party. So, if I was a democrat or independent who liked McCain, I couldn't have voted for him... unless of course he came out of a primary. Too bad he was more centrist and sought support over a wide base... rather than amongst the conservatives of his party.
Doing away with primaries might be a good start, too. Let the parties appoint a candidate of their own to run, and let other candidates splinter into smaller subparties or shootoffs to run on their own if they can do it without the financial backing of their party.
Which they mostly can't. When the party speaks, and pays, the candidates are beholden to them. If a candidate loses a primary, he likely can't run on a third party ticket because he doesn't have the financial machine of his party. It's like a guy in a lifeboat taking on a battleship.
quote: Maybe we should look at what they did, not what they said.
Dangerous proposition, when you take slavery, women's rights and whatnot into account. Personally, I think it's better to follow what they said rather than get mired in the same problems they did. Maybe find a way to make the words work as actions where they failed to.
Truth is, I'm pretty sure they never envisioned a country of close to 290 million people. Certainly not a country that size agreeing on anything. The colonies couldn't even agree - what do you think would have happened to the constitutional congress if 37 more states were thrown into the mix?
quote: The Democratic Party of today is descended from the same organization Jefferson organized to challenge the Federalists.
Yes, but the Democratic-Republicans are gone. As are the Democrats of the 1880's, the 1910's, the 1950's, etc. The party has evolved, true, but have they not also nearly dispersed? Are they held together in name only, using the label "democrat" to draw voters and benefit from the branding that word creates? Third party candidates often link up with a party for support, but don't change their ideals at all. They just want the Republican "swoosh" hats so they have street cred.
That's what I'm talking about with corporate sponsorship. Yeah, people jump parties. Why? Better deals. Did they fundamentally change their core beliefs? No. They just signed as a free agent somewhere else, taking advantage of a new label to draw a new group of consumers... er... voters.
It again goes back to the football analogy. Two teams, beating their brains out to get a yard here, a yard there. Fans all around yelling their lungs out at each other, wishing each other ill, hoping certain players succeed and others fail, and getting all worked up.
From the outside, it looks silly. I feel like I'm on the outside, since I'm independent and have no party allegiance. Which eliminates me from primaries altogether and forces me to vote for one of the nitwits the ravenous fans have decided to carry off the field on their shoulders.
quote: It seems somewhat akin to me explaining to a rocket scientist exactly why his latest design is flawed
"Hey, um, was it supposed to blow up like that? I mean, I saw a huge gaping hole the side on the launch pad, but I figured you knew what you were doing. Should I have said something?"
The problem is, government isn't only for those who study american politics. Government is also for the guy who flips burgers at Micky D's and the woman who sits at home and listens to sound bytes. So, when one of those people sticks their head up and says "hey, what's going on here, this doesn't seem right" it's not exactly polite to laugh and say "she doesn't even know what's going on, she's obviously wrong about there being a problem."
The elite who "run things" look down on the common people and disregard their take on things. It's another reason why I consider the US currently more oligarchy than democracy.
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
Yeah. Han? I don't want to fight with you. You are making a claim to authority here, and you know what? I'm gonna give it to you. I believe you have studied politics more than I have.
But so what?
I am an intelligent and well read guy. I am also, like Cow, an outsider. I too look at the struggle on the field and wonder what the hell people are thinking.
And maybe when the repubs and dems get behind closed doors, they bash their own candidates. I don't know, but it's possible. But outside, this need to present a united front has caused some people who seemed very bright to defend some party actions that appear very stupid. Spend some time at ornery. It will amaze you how rabid people get when their guy gets any criticism at all.
And my initial point remains the same. When you use party lines to define what you believe politically, you are turning off your brain. Cows story about his grandmother voting straight democrat every election scares the hell out of me. A republican doing the same thing is just as scary.
PS
My thread title is hyperbole, in case anyone is confused on that. I know a lot of very smart people who belong to one or the other party.
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
Oh, and Han? Your assertion that only political experts should partake in debate is insulting and elitist. Why not just find the most qualified political expert in America, and let him/her pick for all the offices that are open.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The thread title might be hyperbole, but you do like to call people stupid, don't you?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If he thinks they're stupid, I'd rather he call them stupid than shilly-shallying around it.
*shrug* Everyone is stupid or ignorant in at least one area.
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
Dagonee:
Not usually, but I admit I did enjoy it with you.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That must be why you didn’t respond to my post – it would destroy the one thrill you got today.
Dagonee
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Oh, and Han? Your assertion that only political experts should partake in debate is insulting and elitist.
The real question is, is it true or false?
[ January 14, 2004, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Casual, evidently serious equating of "police-state excesses of Asscroft and the PATRIOT Act" to "the authorities can screw you any way they want" does demonstrate that ignorance and stupidity are alive and well. I wonder what will happen if the wolf ever really does come.
I see someone is in favor of holding US citizens indefinitely without trial or the right to legal counsel.
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
Well, there you go.
I am starting to remember why talking politics is so irritating. It's like religion. People just have no sense of humor. Plus, it's the topic where you are most likely to wind up in a semantic war. "You said this! Admit it meant this!"
Bleh.
But yeah, I guess I must admit I *do* think party loyalty is stupid. For all of the reasons so eloquently stated by people above. So, while I may not think a person is stupid, if they are blindly loyal to a political party, then they are acting stupidly in my opinion.
BTW, an appeal to anyone that I know. Who is Dagonee? Is this person always like this, or did I just bring out the worst in them?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
He’s just someone who finds it ironic when someone complains about the level and tone of political discourse and in the process calls someone stupid while ignoring his substantive posts, then tries to pretend he didn’t actually do it, and finally tries to pass it off as a joke.
You seriously don’t see the hypocrisy there?
Dagonee
Posted by Han (Member # 2685) on :
"True. It's also one of the downsides of the current two party system. One side often shuts out any ideas from the other side as being wrong, and only listens to their own party."
This may happen sometimes, but over the long term, the loyal opposition serves as a powerful check on the majority party. If the minority critique is valid, it will cost the majority votes unless it responds somehow to neutralize the critique. In this manner, politics is kept more toward the center than the extremes over the long run. If every politician in one party refused to listen to the critiques of the opposition, eventually the string of bad decisions (since everyone makes mistakes) would catch up with the party, and the majority would become the minority. Many recent legislative battles have been decided by moderates who either went against party leadership or forced the leadership to moderate its proposals, precisely because they were afraid of what the opposition would say in November.
"In a multi-party system, there aren't simply two sides to choose from. There might be three, or four, or six, or more - which isn't so much "who's right" but a way of seeing things from more than simply two angles."
True, but two points apply: First, many issues have only one dimension--everyone has fairly discrete position which can be defined as either more 'left' or more 'right' than whatever point is under consideration; in these situations, there's no need for more than two parties. Second, even if complex multidimensional issues are the overriding concern of the electorate, how do you decide who makes the decisions with respect to situation D if parties A, B, and C equally split the vote? Any solution will not work for every situation (including the two-party system; it merely has the advantage of having worked for over 200 years).
"I think Slash's point is that people tend to jump to the defense of their party without thinking, and attack the other with just as little thought."
Some people may tend to. This doesn't mean that everyone who attacks or defends a partisan action is doing so. I tend to agree that we shouldn't blindly follow anything, including the proposition that all partisans must be blindly following their party in all matters.
"Right now, the symptoms seem bad. Bad to the point of "how much time do I got, doc?""
What's that ES quote about Christians predicting the end of the world for millenia, and yet it keeps not ending? Seriously, while I see some negative trends, I also see many positive trends, and am reluctant to give up hope just yet. In all of the rancorous disputes throughout American political history, it's only come to widespread bloodshed once. Every other time we've managed to muddle through somehow (certainly not with my preferred solution in many cases, but it could be a hell of a lot worse).
"I've toyed around with the idea of making networks provide free airtime for all candidates to run campaign ads, which would reduce the need for money (which, really, seems to be the root of a lot of problems... more on that in a bit). Doing away with the electoral college and going for a straight popular vote, possibly. Even more, expanding Congress a bit to actually give some semblance of representation in our government (a senator representing on average over two million people seems a bit much - and in New Jersey, representing over 4 million people is downright ridiculous... even our Congressmen each represent over 600,000 people each)."
Interesting ideas, which we could discuss further elsewhere, if you'd like. I'll just note that none of those suggestions seem to change the underlying two-party dynamic, though they would certainly have other changes, significant and not.
"Money rules at the moment, and special interest groups."
I've heard that said widely, but have difficulty separating the hyperbole from the facts. Certainly money is a factor in politics, but so are many other things. How much of a factor it is, whether or not it's a serious problem, and what should be done about it if it is are questions that are far more complicated than saying 'it's all about money,' though. Also, what makes an interest group 'special,' and why is there a presumed dichotomy between 'good' interests and 'bad' interests, and how can we tell the difference?
"The constituency takes a backseat - certainly when the senators and congressmen go away for most of the year to DC and lose touch with the millions they are "representing"."
To the best of my knowledge, to the degree that this happens seriously, the representative tends to get knocked off or mend his ways. Gerrymandering, as mentioned above, may be the most significant barrier to this happening, but even the safest seat in the general can be subject to a primary challenge. In general, I suspect that voters get the quality of representation they deserve.
"Nor do the people really get to decide who comes out of a primary - unless they've registered with a party."
Which everyone is perfectly free to do. If you're part of a large organized interest which isn't currently affiliated with either major party, try joining one party en mass and putting up candidates in the primaries. That's essentially what happens over time anyway. The problem with complaining that 'independents' aren't represented by the two parties is that independents have only their independence in common--if significant numbers of them actually united behind a common cause, they would have far more impact (and, in the process, become partisan).
"When the party speaks, and pays, the candidates are beholden to them. If a candidate loses a primary, he likely can't run on a third party ticket because he doesn't have the financial machine of his party."
Except that usually incumbant candidates can easily win primaries without support of party leadership--and party leadership usually doesn't try to openly interfere in the primaries anyway, for fear of a nasty backlash.
"Dangerous proposition, when you take slavery, women's rights and whatnot into account."
Point taken. But in this case, I don't think it's that the Founders articulated noble ideals that they weren't ready to live up to; rather, it's that it's actually impossible to run a democratic government without some sort of organizing mechanism provided by parties (or the equivilent).
"Yeah, people jump parties. Why? Better deals. Did they fundamentally change their core beliefs? No."
But that's precisely the point I'm trying to get at. Parties serve as umbrella coalitions for various interests. Interests use parties to try to get their goals accomplished. For instance, some fiscal conservatives and social conservatives agree on practically nothing except that if they elect Republicans they'll get better outcomes on thier preferred policies than if they elect Democrats (who tend to favor socially liberal and fiscally liberal policies). Interests, and politicians, only affiliate with parties so long as it serves their interest--the opposite of the 'blind loyalty' decried in this conversation. It's in the parties' self-interest to try to attract as many interests as possible; hence, the system is responsive to most significant interests.
""Hey, um, was it supposed to blow up like that? I mean, I saw a huge gaping hole the side on the launch pad, but I figured you knew what you were doing. Should I have said something?""
But I, as a layman, still have no idea WHY it blew up, so my suggestions about to do next won't help much. The analogy I offered is certainly imperfect; let me try again. Saying things like "the two-party system is an abomination, and we should do away with parties" strikes me as wrongheaded in two ways. First, it's based on information that simply doesn't work in the real world--parties (or the equivilent) are inevitable in all forms of democratic government. It's like walking into a mathematics class and saying 'the reason your problems are so complex is because you're using 3.14159... for pi. Everything would be much more elegant if you'd just use 3.' Everyone who knows anything about math just stares in amazement while mentally vowing to never cross a bridge you help design. Second, it's seemingly based on a lack of contextual knowledge. Even if there's a valid argument to be made (such as that PR is better than FPTP), if the person trying to make it sounds clueless as to the context of the debate in question, he won't gain any credibility. It's like a newbie popping and saying 'I'm offended that OSC plagarized the Book of Mormon in his Homecoming books.' Even if the person's offense is grounded in fact at all, he still comes off as annoying because most people here already are quite familiar with the issue, and resent the newcomer's inability to phrase his argument in terms that will be understood by everyone else as being new and relevent. If you want to take part in a conversation, you need to understand the issues in question, or at least understand the borders of your ignorance.
"The problem is, government isn't only for those who study american politics. Government is also for the guy who flips burgers at Micky D's and the woman who sits at home and listens to sound bytes. So, when one of those people sticks their head up and says "hey, what's going on here, this doesn't seem right" it's not exactly polite to laugh and say "she doesn't even know what's going on, she's obviously wrong about there being a problem.""
And this brings us back the above allusion to the ongoing decay in our country's educational system, which is probably the one area that has me the most worried. Not that I have any idea how to fix it without a major change in the cultural values of most Americans. If we can't educate citizens on how the government works and why, we shouldn't be surprised if they end up running it into the ground.
"When you use party lines to define what you believe politically, you are turning off your brain."
Possibly, though there are places where the opportunity cost of doing additional research is greater than the cost of trusting a reliable source of information. But blind faith in any source of knowledge is problematic, just as refusing to place reasoned faith in any source of knowledge is problematic.
"Your assertion that only political experts should partake in debate is insulting and elitist."
If I had made such an assertion, then it might be considered elitist. What I actually said was that I get annoyed if someone who doesn't exhibit any knowledge thinks he has all the answers. Expertise is not necessary to take part in discussion; basic competance is. It's not even the ignorance that annoys me, but the unwillingness to open one's mind and learn about the subject. Which, ironically, bears some resemblance to what the discussion has come around to.
"So, while I may not think a person is stupid, if they are blindly loyal to a political party, then they are acting stupidly in my opinion."
Yet this isn't what you started out saying. You said that ALL people who discuss politics are blindly loyal to a political party, and therefore stupid. If you had said that it seemed to you that SOME people were behaving in this manner, I likely would have agreed (and seen no need to get involved in this discussion in the first place).
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote: Expertise is not necessary to take part in discussion; basic competance is.
Except expertise is not a prerequisite to vote, nor is competance. Or even the barest knowledge of the issues at hand. Or even the name of the candidate.
As long as you have a party, though, none of that matters. And, whether you like it or not, that's how a lot of people think. I work with people that, no matter what the other side puts up, they will faithfully vote their party. In fact, when I bring up a point they seem to agree with, then attribute it to a member of the other party, they quickly write it off as being wrong.
Which is much like my grandmother, who said she "didn't get involved with politics" yet voted for every democrat the party would run.
quote: First, many issues have only one dimension--everyone has fairly discrete position which can be defined as either more 'left' or more 'right' than whatever point is under consideration; in these situations, there's no need for more than two parties
Yes, but the difficulty comes in when someone is pro-choice, anti-gun control, anti-gay marriage, and pro-environment. Where do they fall? They're independent, and have to vote the issues instead of the parties (as everyone should, imo)
So, for instance, I may vote for both republicans and democrats (and other) from election to election, but I wouldn't consider myself part of any of their parties. Similarly, I can always register democrat to vote in the dem primary, but then register republican the following year to vote in that primary, and back, and forth, and so on... which is playing the system like a fiddle.
All the republicans this year could decide to register democrat to flood the primary and get the most conservative dem on the ticket, too, or the most wacko leftist to ensure a Bush victory. It's still just playing the system.
quote: Some people may tend to. This doesn't mean that everyone who attacks or defends a partisan action is doing so.
No, but the loudest get heard. So you end up with a vocal minority that gets the most attention. Even if most republicans are reasoned human beings, the left will always point to the jokers like Pat Robertson. And react to those views with venom (same as the right reacts to the views of someone like Michael Moore)
The moderates often go with the flow, and don't jump in to conversations as often. Those with firmly held convictions dive in head first more often, and a great many times feel that any sign of weakness on any of the party issues makes the rest of the party's issues seem weak.
It's what comes with having an entity as the focus instead of individuals. The entity is then defended, insead of the individual, along with all the problems that entity may have.
quote: Seriously, while I see some negative trends, I also see many positive trends, and am reluctant to give up hope just yet.
I wonder if anyone in Rome was thinking that around 300 AD, or in Constantinople circa 1180, or possibly in London around 1770. There are many similar concerns that have cropped up in history time and again, and our empire's lasted a goodly time already.
quote: Also, what makes an interest group 'special,'
Point taken. Though I worry more about someone like Tyson chicken or Philip Morris leaning on a candidate than I do on, say, the teacher's union, or the ACLU. Unfortunately, those first couple sometimes swing a bigger axe.
quote: In general, I suspect that voters get the quality of representation they deserve.
Well, that's a pretty damning statement, now, isn't it.
quote: it's that it's actually impossible to run a democratic government without some sort of organizing mechanism provided by parties
Well, not so much. First, we don't have a democratic government in the true sense. We're far too big for that. We have a representative democracy, in which we elect people to represent us. So, the democracy really takes a backseat to those who can wrangle the representatives - who are as much in it for themselves as they are for the people.
quote: Interests, and politicians, only affiliate with parties so long as it serves their interest--the opposite of the 'blind loyalty' decried in this conversation.
This doesn't happen as often as one would hope. For example, the black caucus isn't likely to jump ship and back the Republicans no matter what the Dems do. Just as the Christian Coalition isn't going to jump to the Dems. Most interests have picked their horses, for good or ill, regardless of the moderating opinions of a given member of the opposition.
This is again not a good thing. An interest such as these is *only* effective in primaries. It's a foregone conclusion that they won't vote for the "other guy" in the general election, but they can darn well pick their guy. Because of this, the fodder that comes out of the primary is always tempered by these extremes within the party. (one of the reasons McCain got the boot)
A truly independent candidate, that voted his/her mind on each issue without hewing to the party, wouldn't make it out of the primary, though he/she may be able to win the general election. Which is damn annoying, actually.
A party isn't going to back someone in a lesser election (which doesn't have a primary) that doesn't support their ideals, either, leaving truly independent-minded candidates to fund their own campaigns. Which leaves us with the likes of Perot, who can actually fund his own, on many occasions.
Without the party's guidance and support through the lower steps of the political process, a candidate won't work his/her way through the system (unless there's some other popular draw - marriage to a successful politician or a successful film career come to mind).
Posted by Han (Member # 2685) on :
"Yes, but the difficulty comes in when someone is pro-choice, anti-gun control, anti-gay marriage, and pro-environment. Where do they fall? They're independent, and have to vote the issues instead of the parties (as everyone should, imo)"
But the fact that fewer people meet that profile means that the parties have less incentive to cater to people with that exact list of positions. In broad terms, because there are fewer libertarians and communitarians than modern conservatives and modern liberals, the two major parties stake out positions accordingly, and people caught between them have a harder choice to make at election time. If, however, more voters became libertarian, we would see one or both parties shift accordingly.
"So, the democracy really takes a backseat to those who can wrangle the representatives - who are as much in it for themselves as they are for the people."
You seem to be getting at two 'problems.' One is that politicians are self-interested. I'm not convinced that that is actually a problem. I think we would have far more to fear from a dedicated ideologue who ignores the people and retires after one term than from a self-interested politician who knows that he must keep pleasing the majority to stay in office. The other problem, the disconnect between the voter and the policymaking process, is inherent in any system. Even if we made all policy on the basis of internet initiatives, someone would have to write the initiatives and set the agenda, a process which Arrow assures us is open to manipulation under any system. And people would still look for informational cues from other sources (ie, 'parties') rather than making studying the issues a full-time job. My original statement stands--parties, or some similar mechanism, are inevitable in any system that attempts to measure majority will.
"For example, the black caucus isn't likely to jump ship and back the Republicans no matter what the Dems do."
Except that this tendency is arguably so much against their self-interest as to be mind-boggling. As it is now, Democratic officeholders have almost no incentive to work for 'black' issues, as blacks continue to vote Democratic regardless. Other groups have similar problems, but in most cases it's self-correcting--even if the other party doesn't make a credible play for the group's votes, they still might either give their votes to a spoiler candidate (such as Nader) or just stay home.
"Because of this, the fodder that comes out of the primary is always tempered by these extremes within the party."
Yet we had complaints in this same conversation that the parties are 'indistinguishable.' Something doesn't add up--if primaries move candidates away from the middle, there must be a genuine difference between the parties after all--and parties who consistently nominate less moderate candidates will start losing elections to moderates in the other party, so the system is again self-correcting.
"A truly independent candidate, that voted his/her mind on each issue without hewing to the party, wouldn't make it out of the primary, though he/she may be able to win the general election. Which is damn annoying, actually."
But we're back to the problem of just what this 'independent' stands for. If his positions are favored by a significant number of voters, why hasn't one or both of the parties taken this into account? And if they aren't, why should we elect him in the first place?
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote: But the fact that fewer people meet that profile means that the parties have less incentive to cater to people with that exact list of positions.
quote: even if the other party doesn't make a credible play for the group's votes, they still might either give their votes to a spoiler candidate (such as Nader) or just stay home.
These two things are key to me. I don't think fewer people meet that profile, first of all. I think there are plenty of people who don't agree with significant parts of the party line (pro-Iraq invasion, anti-NCLB, for instance... or pro-life, anti-Iraq invasion), so much so that they stay home.
If all the people who couldn't choose between the parties because neither represented them actually voted for one candidate, that person would win pretty handily. No federal election has had a turnout higher than 55% of those of voting age since 1968, and no non-presidential federal election year has topped 40% since 1970. link
The majority of people really don't care one way or the other. Could this be because neither side is offering anything worth voting for, coupled with the fact that voting for a third party is "throwing your vote away" because of our two party system?
We discourage voting for anyone other than a democrat or republican, both through peer pressure and the way the system is designed. Even if you get a significant following (Green Party), many who would vote your way won't do so because they know that a third party candidate cannot win. So they vote Democrat instead, or Republican instead, so their vote "counts". Or they don't vote.
In all honesty, given the choice between spending the time and effort to go and vote for a "noncandidate" and sitting at home watching television, most people will choose the latter, I'd think. Why put out effort for something that will never have any foreseeable result?
I didn't vote in the 2000 election, primarily because I was abroad at the time. But I could have gone through the trouble of getting an absentee ballot, had I thought my vote mattered at all.
Turns out (surprise) that NJ sent its electoral votes to Gore. Which it would have done no matter who I voted for, as it has gone democrat in each election for the past five, I think.
quote:Something doesn't add up--if primaries move candidates away from the middle, there must be a genuine difference between the parties after all
Okay, what I said wasn't clear. I wasn't saying that extremist candidates were being selected - neither Bush nor Gore were that, certainly. However, those candidates who feel it important to have bipartisan support waste any such efforts in the primary. So, when a candidate says "liberal, liberal, liberal" in the primary to get elected, then "moderate, moderate, moderate" in the general election, it's almost a farse.
It's not so much that the two parties are indistinguishable in philosophy. The "indistinguishable" bit is more aimed at the fact that it doesn't matter who is elected, since they all are answering to their handlers and their own interests instead of their constituency anyway. The voters only matter in the months leading up to the election, since their memories are so short that anything a candidate did or said previously is almost washed away.
Maybe instead of saying "two parties make you stupid", we should say "two parties exist because people are stupid". Churchill (again) said that "the best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." Stands to reason if the people were smarter, the parties (and democracy) would work better. As it is, they are mainly different groups of cowboys trying to move a herd by yelling "Heeya" and "Git".
And any other cowboys that come in to help are run off the range. The two parties are two busy getting fat off their portion of the cattle to really want any others cutting into their herd.
quote: But we're back to the problem of just what this 'independent' stands for.
How about independent in thought. Open minded. Not subject to the "us v. them" problem so many party hacks fall into. Not answering every question about policy with "the other guy did this". Trying to come to a thoughtful conclusion rather than spouting a party line or sound byte.
You know. Independent. Not dependent. Not needing a political machine to make the decisions for you. Not reliant upon the party leadership to let you know who to vote for. Making your own decisions.
Unfortunately, many of these decisions come down to "okay, who's worse" or "I could vote for this third party candidate instead of the Democrat but that'll just help Republican win" (or vice versa). Independent voters vote at the mercy of the parties. They reject party, so therefore are bound by a system that rejects those who have no party.
Or, contrarily, they don't register and don't vote, preferring to abstain from the political infighting and backbiting between two parties focused as much on getting at each other as they are on getting a job done.
quote: Except that this tendency is arguably so much against their self-interest as to be mind-boggling
Exactly. It's totally counterintuitive. It's, dare I say it, stupid. It makes it so the party system breaks down - they don't have to cater to their base, because the base won't change sides. They can really do what they like, and remain confident that those districts controlled by their base of voters will always elect them. The democrats could actually run a donkey and New Jersey would elect it, for instance.
For these groups, the issues don't matter. The label does. They would no sooner vote against their party than jump off a bridge. They've stopped thinking. They are no longer independent thinkers, or voters. They are chained to the party and do what the party tells them.
So the choices as I see them are: a)Agree with and vote for the Republicans b)Agree with and vote for the Democrats c)Abstain from voting entirely d)Make decisions independent of parties and try to elect the best person for the job. e)Move to another country
Somehow, I'm leaning towards "d". But I'm in the minority, so my vote isn't supposed to count in a democracy, anyway.
Though I hear Switzerland makes good chocolate. And cheese. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Slash, Saying that Han was vehement was sort of uncalled for. He really wasn't, although I could see how you would read that into it. Oh, and Dagonee is like that most of the time, but he's a good prospect. Give him a little time to mellow.
Han, The big problem I have with what you are saying is that you're just repeating theory at me. I get it. I know the theoretical basis for the two party system. We're not talking theory here, we're talking reality.
For example, voter turnout is a big issue. Presidential elections are usually the ones with the highest voter turn out, and yet, President Bush won the election with, what was it, 18% of possible votes? If democracy is the rule of the majority, then our majority has spoken; they don't want any of it. There's a host of reasons for this, but there is one that has been a growing trend for some time. Potential voters (or actual ones, like me) feel as if there is no choice that they can make that will represent their interests. We've got a prisoner's dilemma the size of Kentucky over our heads and more and more people are choosing to opt out.
It's a mistake to think that the only downside to voting is the little bit of time that it takes one or maybe two days a year. For many people, it's a sort of mental disengagement from a painful part of existence that has betrayed them so many times. Voting represents, for some people, a vulnerable sort of hope that they don't think will ever be fulfilled. So, they don't not vote because they never cared. They don't vote because they did care and caring got them hurt.
That's why there's a drive for "outsider" candidates. People want to believe in someone, but politicians are about as well regarded as lawyers, which many of them also are. In some cases, California for example, it's better the devil you don't know, then the filthly pieces of slime that you do.
That's why I think that your (or rather the traditional) analysis of third parties is off. In the past, a third party was either a single issue party, a personality cult that lasted as long as their leader did, or, in very rare cases, emerging at a time when one of the traditional two parties was losing it's power. However, all these parties were attempting to get support from a pool of committed voters. Right now, there are nearly twice as many non-voters as voters in the American population. Harnessing a fourth of that potential would put a third party (or coalition of other parties) on par with the two big boys, and that's assuming that such a mass movement didn't suck support away from them.
Of course, for a third party to become powerful, it needs far less support. With the two main parties more or less equally balanced, a new party need only have a few wins to become the swing vote, making them potentially the most powerful force in our government. (Yes, I know that the two party theory assumes that the two main parties would then collude to deny the third party any power. Nonetheless...)
Though I doubt that this will happen any time soon, I'm hoping that it will. The world we live in is far too complex to be well served by the almost childishly simplistic two perspective method that we're currently locked in. Not only do issues have more than two side, there are far more axes to judge things on than liberal vs. conservative. Myself, I'm a big believer in the conservative (both political parties fall here) vs. progressive axis, but there are plenty of others that are presently ignored.
And let's talk about the people who do vote. There's tons of problems there too. Litmus test voters who pick one issue that they vote for make up a significant part of our electorate. Other voters feel a strong pull to vote for the guy who's going to win, or at least not vote for the guy who's going to lose, making the news' announcement of the election's front-runner a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy. And, it's remiss in any aspect of American life to neglect the immense distorting effect of money, which, I've noticed, is conspicuously absent in your posts. Other people have already complained that politicians eschew issues in favor of getting paid. I believe that the entire system of American elections have become much more about sucessful PR campaigns than about the issues. Many American voters vote for or against images. The people who does the best job of branding their candidate while demonizing their opponent is going to win.
Posted by Bulldog Drummond (Member # 6118) on :
First of all, very interesting topic. Thanks for posting it, Slash. I'm usually lurking over in the Writing Workshops, hadn't wandered over here yet. FlyingCow pointed out to me, and I'm a big fan of discussing politics, so I thought I'd drop by. Good comments by lots of folks here.
An observation I thought I'd share is that it seems to me that many people who are arguing against the two-party system seem to have more fundamental concerns than the existence of the two parties per se.
Democracy is indeed the worst form of government... except for all the others. There are days I despise our democracy (or rather our Republic), but then again, I wouldn't really trade it in for anything else out there. Any system will have its own problems. That's the wonderful thing about life on Earth. Any system we trade for will have its own set of problem... and I guarantee you that if we fundamentally reform our own system, there will still be big glaring flaws. Getting rid of two parties will not a utopia make.
That being said, we can surely ponder how things could be different, and heck, maybe reforms could be made. It's worth the ol' college try.
Voters are funny critters. Yes, we are all sheep. If you prick me, do I not bleat? But is this a flaw inherent in a two-party system?
Let's just imagine we have a multi-party system. Three parties, four parties, five parties, twelve parties. Each party (if it is to be called a party or a faction) will surely have some sort of ideological base. Maybe the States now has the Green, the Moderate Liberals, the Fighting Middle of the Roaders, the Fiscal Republicans, the Social Republicans, the Libertarians, the Anarchists, and the I-Like-Jacko parties. Great. Each has a more limited and closely defined ideology. The people in the party agree, "Ok, if we're going to get anything accomplished, we need to work hardest to advance Cause A, Cause B, and Cause C. That's our platform, and we're sticking to it."
Fifty years down the road, in our Grand Utopian Republic, what are people going to most likely do? Well, said person in all likelihood will have grown up believing that the Fiscal Republic Roaders, the Fighting Middle of the Roaders, or maybe even the I-Like-Jackos are the party of choice. Sure they might listen to the other parties, but there will undoubtedly be some people who walk into the voting booth every year and pull the I-Like-Jacko lever.
Why?
Maybe because that person has truly analyzed every party out there and decided that I-Like-Jacko cares about the positions most dear and near to his or her heart. Maybe because his or her mom voted for I-Like-Jacko, so does brother, so does sister, and goll darn it, that's just the way this family works. And I'll guarantee you that there will be some people, that if you criticize the I-Like-Jacko party, you will get a vehement defense of the I-Like-Jacko scion and a scathing drumming-down of the leading Fighting of the Middle Roader.
That's just the way folks are. Look back through the centuries, and I'll guarantee you'll find people acting exactly that way pretty much no matter what epoch you peek into. I don't really think that's a flaw inherent to the Two-Party system, but if you beg to differ, I'd be glad to hear why.
Beyond that, would it really be a good thing if people could choose to be a member of the I-Like-Jacko party? Well, sure, they'd like being with the other Jacko-Likers and all. We could create a plethora of parties. The anti-abortion, no-gun control, robust foreign policy, fiscally responsible, pro-trade party. The anti-abortion, pro-gun control, robust foreign policy, fiscally irresponsible, sort-of-pro-trade with a few stipulations party. You could create ten parties, twenty parties, a hundred parties. Every person in the country could have a party that EXACTLY matched his or her preferences.
Would this be a good thing?
Well, if we're talking about Founders' intentions, maybe. The Founders intended for the government to accomplish pretty nothing. If everything is working correctly, with checks and balances and all, we should have very little change in how our governance works. The whys of this are probably a topic for another discussion, but if we did have a zillion parties, probably not very much would get done.
The only way that would actually work, of course, is if we scrapped our current constitution for the most part and slapped in a British-style Parliament. Their legislative model is far more conducive to a multi-party system. (Just for kicks and giggles, I dare you to go over there and ask Brits if they think this equates to Utopia, simply because they don't have two parties... ask them if the same stupid things don't happen there.)
Anyhow, point being, the reason the Founders didn't want government to accomplish much on a regular basis was because they only wanted significant change if a pretty significant majority of the country wanted that change. Wait! That's sort-of Democracy, isn't it? Yes indeed.
Anyhow, so if you have the Zillion Partied United States, then what you would assuredly see happen is that if parties wanted to get anything accomplished, the I-Like-Jackos would need to turn to somebody like the Fighting of the Middle of the Roaders and say, "Hey, if you pass a bill that says you like Jacko, I'll help you fight through the middle of the road." A deal is struck. Next election comes around and it turns out the majority of the Fighting of the Middle Roaders don't really like Jacko. So the alliance is broken and people who like Jacko are very, very sad. Alliances shift, compromises are made, and sometimes people get what they want and sometimes they don't.
If a bunch of parties agree on something, they get together and make it happen. If they have a majority, victory!
If a small group of people believes strongly in something, but they are not a majority, well they will probably be sad. They might conclude their votes are worthless. That's their decision, of course. The alternative is that they could find some other people to compromise with in order to advance their cause.
Well what if we just scrapped parties altogether? What if we just voted for people who seemed like smart leaders that thought about different issues and made sensible decisions?
That goes well and fine until said leader thinks about an issue and then decides "Hmm, well I know I said that I thought A, but I listened to this fellow and now I think B is the way to go."
"But I really care about A," you say. "That's why I voted for you!" Sure, you thought he was a good decent fellow, but A was what was really important to you. You also cared a lot about C. What if he chooses D instead? Now, E, Q, and Z... you just don't know what this guy will do next. Within a few months he's done F, M, and horror of all horrors, T.
Now maybe that's just an example of somebody being inconsistent. Surely that dude would get booted out of office next election by the people who cared a lot about A, C, E, Q, and Z, though he may pick up support from people who support B, D, F, M, and T: though they will likely not trust him to be consistent.
What I'm trying to say with the above examples is that, sure, you want to elect thoughtful leaders who be open to new ideas: but you also want people who are going to consistently support issues you care about most. And if you actually want to make sure something happens with those issues, well doll garn it, you better be willing to compromise with some other people in order to make that happen.
A party is one way to do that. Every person in the party may not be a carbon copy, but if the people in the party agree to support a certain set of issues, then people who want to see those issues get advanced can be reasonably sure that voting for people in that party will accomplish that. To have a better chance of being successful (especially in a system of majority rules), it's advantageous to compromise with a significant number of people so you can all advance a relatively coherent set of policies. Get enough people together and you win. You don't, and you won't.
Could you have a zillion parties? Sure. Could you have three? Yeah, but they better be pretty evenly divided... if the Dems split in half, their causes will get hosed by the Republicans (which is why I think Naderites' claim that "It's not our fault about Bush" is disingenuous at best). If a new party arises in the middle... well, it's a question of what they support. Do they have a coherent set of policies that everybody can rally around? Or are they just a party of "we don't like the other guys," which does not seem to be a very good ideology.
Anyhow, those are my thoughts. Maybe that clears some things up. Maybe it muddies the waters. Feel free to tear apart my logic if you like. I'm always up for a good discussion.
Cheers,
Bulldog Drummond "All bark and no bite."
Posted by Han (Member # 2685) on :
"If all the people who couldn't choose between the parties because neither represented them actually voted for one candidate, that person would win pretty handily."
But that's the rub--all the people who don't agree with the current major stands of the parties don't disagree in the same ways--so no one has been able to find a set of issue positions they all will support.
"We discourage voting for anyone other than a democrat or republican, both through peer pressure and the way the system is designed."
And yet members of both parties have to worry both about motivating their bases and about preventing significant spoiler defections to a third party.
"The "indistinguishable" bit is more aimed at the fact that it doesn't matter who is elected, since they all are answering to their handlers and their own interests instead of their constituency anyway."
Point one: even if this is true, surely the differing goals of the different 'handlers' will yield vastly different outcomes, making it a meaningful choice. Point two: if this is so obvious, why do voters keep returning these politicians to office instead of voting for someone more sincere?
"How about independent in thought. Open minded. Not subject to the "us v. them" problem so many party hacks fall into. Not answering every question about policy with "the other guy did this". Trying to come to a thoughtful conclusion rather than spouting a party line or sound byte. You know. Independent. Not dependent. Not needing a political machine to make the decisions for you. Not reliant upon the party leadership to let you know who to vote for. Making your own decisions."
Do you have any firm data on how many people fall into each category, or even how many national politicians?
"backbiting between two parties focused as much on getting at each other as they are on getting a job done"
Again, empirical support for this conclusion, or just cynical impression?
"For these groups, the issues don't matter. The label does. They would no sooner vote against their party than jump off a bridge. They've stopped thinking. They are no longer independent thinkers, or voters. They are chained to the party and do what the party tells them."
But I suspect the problem is far more with those voters than with the system. Democracy is the one system in which if the masses get exploited, it's really their own fault. And I am immediately suspicious of any scheme designed to save the masses from themselves whether they like it or not.
"yet, President Bush won the election with, what was it, 18% of possible votes?"
"our majority has spoken; they don't want any of it. There's a host of reasons for this, but there is one that has been a growing trend for some time. Potential voters (or actual ones, like me) feel as if there is no choice that they can make that will represent their interests."
That's one theory of low turnout, the voters are dissatisfied. The other theory (which seems more compelling in many ways) is that turnout is low because voters are satisfied. If there really was a large uniform bloc of dissatisfied voters, why has no one been able to mobilize them? The other evidence which leads me to believe that low turnout isn't much of a problem is studies which indicate that nonvoters would have voted about the same as the electorate did.
"world we live in is far too complex to be well served by the almost childishly simplistic two perspective method that we're currently locked in. Not only do issues have more than two side, there are far more axes to judge things on than liberal vs. conservative."
This may get at the root of the problem I have with this discussion. I have a feeling that many people view parties as a uniform mass of people who all think the same thing. THIS ISN'T THE CASE. Parties serve a valuable organizational function, aggregating people who tend to agree with each other more than with the other party(ies). However, they disagree with each other in significant ways too, and intraparty battles can be even more fervent than arguments with other parties. Parties serve to organize interests to win elections--every effective individual within the party is constantly wondering if his interests are being served, and if the party is in a position to win the next election. It's remarkable how pragmatic this can make you--if your position's too extreme, you moderate it to win more support. If your party isn't aggressively pursuing your interests, you flirt with another party to see if your options improve. And, of course, if the opposition goes against the will of the people too much, you point that out (and point to your own more moderate positions) in order to win the next election. The clash of ideas, all pursued by people seeking their own interests, tends to bring better public policy to the forefront than any other method except benign dictatorship (which, for obvious reasons, we reject). So ultimately, I feel that the critique that parties only provide two ways of looking at each issue is misguided--plenty of disagreement and debate exist on every salient issue within every party seriously committed to winning elections. Within the Republican Party (which I follow more closely), there have been recent significant contentious debates on immigration and federal spending, to name just two obvious examples.
"And, it's remiss in any aspect of American life to neglect the immense distorting effect of money, which, I've noticed, is conspicuously absent in your posts."
How so? Again, cynicism is cheap, easy, and accomplishes nothing. What specific complaints do you make, and how would you change the system to eliminate them? I'm not saying I don't think some aspects of campaign finance aren't being handled as well as they should be, but I suspect that nine out of ten people who blame money for political problems are just being intellectually lazy.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
which is why I will not be voting for him in the next election, because it was the only thing he had going for him.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)