posted
I think that the Two Party System is damaging to the people, and i was wondering if i was alone. As a libertarian that votes Republican so as not to waste my vote, i now find my options distastful. have there ever been serious alternatives put forth to provide this country with some serious debate, instead of the same platforms being reconstructed bi-annually? The ridiculous Republican vs. Democrat demagoguery is getting old and i need some fresh thoughts to help dilute my cynicism. Thank you.
-This post is dedicated to Ted Stevens' recent display and the childishness of Hatrack's very own Jay.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I've noticed is that the two parties are actually the same... both are Constitutionalist, industrialists, and capitalists... they only differ in very small ways. Only with the work of Karl Rove and his unifying of all the Right has the Republican party become more socially conservative then usual.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree. A two party system in this country would actually be an improvement on what we have now.
On the other hand, I think my view of the single party with its two factions is the opposite of Teleperion's. Both are statist in the extreme. Both view American citizens as cows to be milked and both use government giveaways as bribes, getting votes and influence in return.
Both factions give our hard-earned dollars away to the rich and to the poor. The Republicans a little more to the rich and the Democrats a little more to the poor.
The Republicans bash the Democrats for giving goodies to the poor, in an attempt to obscure the fact that they do as well.
The Democrats bash the Republicans for giving goodies to the rich, in an attempt to obscure the fact that they do as well.
Neither one is Constitutionalist in any sane sense of the term. Not that the Constitution is without flaws, but it was intended primarily to limit the government so that it couldn't take over the lives of the people. That intent has long since been thwarted, and we are more like subjects than citizens nowadays.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree - we DO have a two party system, and the two parties are noticably different. They're just not different in every way. And if you're not a member of one of the clubs, they are both frustrating.
But are we better with a two party system like we have? Many poli sci classes debate this.
The argument that I like is that having a two party system keeps the real extremists on both sides from gaining too much power (or too much power more than the too much power they already have), but more than that, the two party system as well as the system of government in the constitution is deliberately constructed as to slow down change. That way, if any major changes happen, it takes time, people can debate it, etc, at least in theory. And it does work that way a lot.
But, one says, slowing down change can be bad! Yes, if it's your change. But what if it's mine? Are you sure you want to live in a society where the week that my people are in power, abortionists are given the death penalty? Sure, that's extreme, but if we allow change to happen quickly, we run a greater risk of negative changes.
Sure, the status quo sucks, but I remain unconvinced that the alternative is better.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
