posted
First, do you agree with me that extremists/radicals dictate the tone and tenor of the Republican and Democratic agendas?
If so, why is it that way? or, how did it become that way? Has any newspaper columist investigated this before?
And three, how could the moderates of each party temper the extremism in their respective parties? If the independents wanted to join a party, how could they help?
Would the solution lie in each party picking a moderate presidential candidate in their respective primaries? Do extreme candidates get chosen in the primaries because the moderates don't vote in the primaries? Or, do things get screwed up at the convention level? Does the problem lie with New Jersey, Iowa, and South Carolina, the first states to have primaries?
Posts: 264 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:First, do you agree with me that extremists/radicals dictate the tone and tenor of the Republican and Democratic agendas?
No, unless you call Senators Reid and Clinton extremists.
I'll agree that the two parties are out of whack, but it's not a matter of extreme politics, as much as the two parties are two sides of a bent coin.
Maybe the problem is as simple as the primary order. Maybe. I really think that New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina are all too provincial. Lended gentry voting with the same considerations and priorites as their parents voted, all the way down. The parties may have changed, but the voters in those states are the same, and I don't think that's a good thing.
It would be different if there were a vibrant, arresting political conversation ever erupting from the electorate of those states, but that's not the case. It's not wisdom emanating from Iowa, it's ethanol.
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: Maybe the problem is as simple as the primary order. I really think that New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina are all too provincial.
posted
Clinton was definitely not an extremist, but I grant your point, in general.
I think it's the fault of moderated like me: from 1990 until last week, I was a registered independent. Why should I register for either party, I thought. I don't agree with either of them wholeheartedly, and think both have good and bad points. I don't feel like a republican or democrat. But here's the problem: assuming a lot of moderates are registered independent like I was (I don't know if this is a valid assumption or not) we don't get a say in picking the candidates for public office (in most states). Our voice is completely missing from that part of the democratic process.
Sorry guys. :-\
So last week I changed my registration specifically so that I can vote in primary elections.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: Maybe the problem is as simple as the primary order. I really think that New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina are all too provincial.
posted
In Virginia if you are a registered Independent you have the option of voting in one of either major party's primary election. You can't vote in both but you can exercise the option to vote in one or the other and begin participating in the voting process from the start.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok. Excuse me, I read the table incorrectly. Between 55% and 60% of the population voted. That still leaves 40-45% of the voting eligible population that didn't vote.
Why are the numbers different? Because the table breaks things down between who voted for President (Highest Office numbers) and those who voted including those who didn't vote for president (total turnout). Remember, just because you go to vote doesn't mean you have to vote for every office on the ballot.
So 60% of the population voted but only 55% of the population voted for president.
This means two things. 40% of the eligble population didn't vote at all and 5% of the people who did vote, chose not to vote for president, so 55% of the population did not vote for president in the last election.
I have friends at work who claim that if the remainder of the voting eligible population voted it wouldn't make a difference. I disagree, because extremists are more likely to vote in order to keep people who agree with them in office IMO.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by andi330: This means two things. 40% of the eligble population didn't vote at all and 5% of the people who did vote, chose not to vote for president, so 55% of the population did not vote for president in the last election.
You mean 45%, right?
quote: I have friends at work who claim that if the remainder of the voting eligible population voted it wouldn't make a difference. I disagree, because extremists are more likely to vote in order to keep people who agree with them in office IMO.
I don't know. People who don't vote obviously (?)don't have strong feelings on the decision, so it seems reasonable to assume that the nonvoting population, were they to vote, would split more or less evenly, don't you think?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Depends on WHY they didn't vote, Icky....a LOT of those who didn't vote were minorities who usually vote Democratic.....and a LOT of them were barred from voting using questionble tactics.
FL voting standards are one of the reasons I wasn't thrilled about moving down here, to be honest.
And they don't appear to have imporved much since then, either.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
I don't agree that people who don't vote, don't have a strong opinion. I believe that many people who don't vote have very strong opinions on how they think the country should be run. Unfortunately, I think that many of those people have become convinced for many reasons that their one vote won't make much of a difference.
Bush won the last election by less than 3% of the popular vote. In the popular election that number is 3,012,720 people. However, 101,337,387 people who were eligible did not vote. If all of those people voted, it's entirely possible that the vote would have gone the other way.
Before someone else brings it up, yes, it is possible to win the popular vote but still lose in the electoral college. However, this is rare. In fact it has only happened four times in history. In the elections of 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000.
It would be a safe assumption therefore, that if the total voter eligible population turned out to vote, there might have been a very different turnout to the most recent election.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
My family is from Lake City, South Carolina. Everytime I go there, it makes me appreciate the Bay Area, California. My visits to South Carolina have not put me in the face of the most engaging or engaged populace, just simple, poor people trying to get on one day at a time.
New Hampshire I just know from books and my old roommate's stories. Nice as the day is long, but somehow he had gotten to Berkeley thinking that spic is a language, as in, "I speak a little spic. I took it in high school." I think that the general populace of the state is too homogenous and complacent to solve or see the great problems in this nation. Even with all of the great secondary education in that state, it's all just too old and white and entrenched.
As for Iowa, I've met a lot of good people from the small towns and farms in the state, but see the same issues as those incumbent in New Hampshire.
___________
What's needed is a critical mass of politicians with radically different, and I believe wiser, priorities and approaches than the standard bearers of both parties. We don't need more moderates. More moderates will just succeed in more wars and lower voter turnout.
I think that the problem is that too many people are generally satisfied with our institutions and our nation's culture, or at least, they act that way, and the politicans do so because the people who definitely vote, rain or shine, are mostly satisfied with our institutions and our nation's culture.
As long as cats like OSC, 50 year old white guys, are exhorting the virtues of moderates, American politics is going to be drowning in self-styled moderates, either because the system is going to select and promote them, or because they are going to be too scared to be seen as anything else.
____
For example, felons released from jail should be able to vote. The debate should be whether we should extend the vote to all people in jail. Apparently, my opinion is a radical one. I just happen to think that part of the dignity of being a human living in a democracy comes along with casting a ballot, and that we should not be so casual about taking away that sense of dignity just because someone was caught being socially inconvenient.
If presidential candidates have anything to do with setting the tone of their party, then the primary process which helps select a party's candidate for the general election may affect the direction and platform of the party.
Most primaries are decided in the first week (or two) of the primaries. After the results come in from NJ, SC, and Iowa (and a few others), any candidate that is not the front runner or in 2nd place, often drops out of the race. This often leaves the rest of the country with one choice per party. So, the direction of each party has already been decided for the rest of the country at least during that presidential year and for the party that wins, the direction has already been decided for the next 4 years.
All of this is due to what primary voters in NJ, SC, and Iowa (and a few others) chose.
Posts: 264 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, I argue that extremists are more likely to vote in primary elections. Registered voters have the right and priviledge (sp?) to vote in their party's primary election. Independent voters, (at least in Virginia) have the option to vote in one of the parties primarys.
I will admit to being guilty for not voting in my state's primary elections. In fact the only people I know who take the time to vote in the primaries are extremists. Is it any wonder then that people who are often extremists are the ones who win?
A good example of this is John McCain. In retrospect, John McCain seems like the kind of guy I wouldn't mind having in office. I even considered voting in the primaries that time around. (I was still registered in Virgina at the time.) Unforutnately, I also use websites like votesmart.org to help determine who I'm going to vote for. No one, republican or democrat filled out any of the surveys answering questions. Or if they had, they were several years old and mostly incomplete. And at the time, McCain seemed more interested in garnering votes from college age students by throwing keggers than by answering questions.
Bush, well, what can you really say, and I'm sorry, but Gore was an automaton who won lots of college and younger adult votes because he Frenched his wife on national tv.
Frankly, for the 2004 election, it's not surprising that Bush won. It's rare for an incumbant not to win during wartime, whether the public agrees with the war or not.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wish I had time to deal with the problems in more detail, but I must leave for work.
However, there is a serious difficulty in allowing felons in prison to vote. Namely, they will quite naturally vote for people who will reduce their sentences, whether this is just or not.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the same logic, Mabus, we should not allow homeowners to vote, as they will quite naturally vote for people who will reduce their property taxes. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by enochville: First, do you agree with me that extremists/radicals dictate the tone and tenor of the Republican and Democratic agendas?
If so, why is it that way? or, how did it become that way? Has any newspaper columist investigated this before?
It's pretty obvious why it's that way. The average person is apathetic. Or at least willing to let others do the work. Only the True Believers are going to take time out of their busy schedule of action dramas and sitcoms to go and work in politics.
What you wind up with over time is the strongest ideologues, and the people most interested in power for its own sake, taking all the leadership roles. It is absolutely an inherent and unavoidable aspect of the system as it exists. Parties will always move to the extremes.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Extremists? Maybe, if extremist is code for corrupt and so insanely political (whether for cash, control, legend, etc) that they forgot everything they wanted to achieve in the first place.
Unfortunately, I think its us sheep who cheer every time someone speaks like John Wayne who set the tone. They decide the agenda, we decide the language its delivered in, cuz we are the market. If we want any kind of change, we have to be more demanding of meat and less distracted by how the waiter makes us feel important.
Is it me, or is much of what is now stated and supported as "smart tactics" the kind of stuff that used to create scandals of epic proportions? I guess there is a place for shame after all.
Posts: 49 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, I tend to think a reduction in property taxes is an act that can stem from legitimate motives, but you may be right. I was in too much of a hurry to think it through. We'll let it lie--I forgot what the main topic was.
As an extremist, I have to say I'm not sure the parties are extreme enough. I'm not sure they're not too extreme either, you understand--it could be an effect of gridlock. (This particular Republican Congress isn't doing anything particularly Republican--just enriching itself.) We're heading into several major crises at once--peak oil, global warming, a general foreign policy disaster (which is the result of Republican actions but has little to do with conservativism as I know it), a massive budget crisis, etc.--yet no one seems willing to take decisive action. I'm not sure it would even matter which kind--Democratic and Republican extremist action might be equally effective, under the circumstances.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Practically, both parties are extremists in their desire for power. What they tell the voters they will vote for is irrelevent unless they actually think doing it will get them more votes, and thus, let them feed on the public corpse like the Hyenas they are for a little longer. (I hope that run on sentance didn't come across too angry.)
Idealogically, that is, what they CLAIM to believe, they are also extremists.
The Republicans are controlled, not by the fiscal conservatives that get my vote, but by the social conservatives. The pro-lifers, the people who want to turn back the clock on gay rights much less give gay people equal rights.
They give token tax cuts and turn to the fiscal conservatives and say "See? That's what you wanted right? Now go away while we concider an anti-gay marriage amendment." The social conservatives will spend and spend and spend on social programs in an attempt to steal votes from the democrats. They don't care how much it costs. They don't care that social programs don't help anyone except those administering the programs.
The Democrats have gone one eye bigger than the other crazy 0.< since Gore lost the 2000 election. In their bitterness and rage they've stepped off the deep end. You all know where I stand on them so I won't repeat it here. I don't feel like getting flamed any more than I already will.
posted
But once a felon is released after their sentence, they are a former criminal. Criminal describes something you do, not something you are irrevocably.
The proposition was in part to provide voting rights back to people who have served their time. There was also a part about providing felons the vote during their sentence. I am all for the former, while not decided on the latter.
posted
People who disregard the law to such an extent they are sent to prison should have no hand in making it.
There ARE unjust laws. Those laws should be changed. But not by Ex-Cons.
I can't help think that this is a vote grab. I think those pushing this just assume most criminals will vote democrat (as this seems to be partisan issue.)
But don't worry. There are plenty of dead people who vote democrat. You don't need the convicted felon vote too.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by enochville: First, do you agree with me that extremists/radicals dictate the tone and tenor of the Republican and Democratic agendas?
No. The GOP, at least, is controlled by a bunch of mushy socialists, indistinguishable from the Democrats of 15 or 20 years ago. The Democrats have also moved leftward, but I wouldn't say they're controlled by extremists, either.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can't help think that this is a vote grab. I think those pushing this just assume most criminals will vote democrat (as this seems to be partisan issue.)
I'm pushing the issue, and I'm not running for any office. We live in a democracy, and I consider the denial of the vote as cruel and unusual punishment.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: People who disregard the law to such an extent they are sent to prison should have no hand in making it.
There ARE unjust laws. Those laws should be changed. But not by Ex-Cons.
I can't help think that this is a vote grab. I think those pushing this just assume most criminals will vote democrat (as this seems to be partisan issue.)
But don't worry. There are plenty of dead people who vote democrat. You don't need the convicted felon vote too.
Yes, because everyone knows that former convicts will vote to repeal whatever law they were convicted for so they can do it again There's no such thing as rehabilitation, all convicts are just waiting for the chance to break the law again.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:No. The GOP, at least, is controlled by a bunch of mushy socialists, indistinguishable from the Democrats of 15 or 20 years ago. The Democrats have also moved leftward, but I wouldn't say they're controlled by extremists, either.
I'm very curious how you come to that conclusion. If you pull up the republican party platform from the 70's, it considerably to the left of the current democratic party platform on most domestic and foreign policy issues. Richard Nixon was considerabley more liberal than Clinton.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Whichever kind of extremist you may happen to be, it seems pretty clear the parties are not in touch with the masses.
Posts: 49 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I definitely would not agree that extremists have control of both parties.
It's moderates, or rather one moderate, that has control of the GOP. The President is always the leader of his party, whoever is chairman. This President proposed the faith-based funding thing, which horrified liberals and conservatives alike; the only people who liked it were moderates. The President is a Republican who introduced a new entitlement, for prescription drugs. The President is, well, *radically* moderate.
Extremists have control of the Democratic Party, but there's no reason to think it's permanent. If Hillary Clinton gets her way, it won't be. I think the reason extremists have control of the Democrats is that the news media is to the left of the Democratic Party, so there's not much challenge to leftist ideas in the press. However, there is a challenge to them in the electorate, and although Dean, Pelosi, McKinney, Kennedy and Kerry don't seem to realize this, H. Clinton does.
Moderates can get control of the Democrats simply by luck: if a moderate is the one with a good war chest and a good TV presence in '08. Moderates already control the Republican party. How could extremists get control of the GOP? Same way: a viable and well-funded candidate in '08.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is nothing worse to me than the inability of people to think for themselves. The ease at which they are swayed to and fro by the various sleeze and scum that defile our government.
Many years ago I heard the biggest farce to be heard in my years. "Work hard and you could grow up to be President of the United States". That "The nice thing about America is that anyone can grow up to be the President."
I always laugh now, remembering the absurdity of it, especially in this day and age. Perhaps it should have been said instead, "Work hard and one day you might be a multi-millionaire and will be able to run for President using your vast wealth to show how great you are." or perhaps "The nice thing about America is that anyone who has lots of money and is a 'white' male can grow up to be President if they are a member of one of the two political social groups. "
Until wealth is not how people get elected. Take the money from these campaigns and use them to fix the budget problems. Use it for education, charity, research, anything! But don't waste it on getting elected so you can get kick-backs. The greed has to stop, and the American people have to stop it. Candidates should be elected on merit, honesty, and a respectable nature and NOT on who spent more money.
Until the time that we can stop this absolutely despicable behavior we'll have plenty of losers populating our political scene.
Posts: 119 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow. I never thought so many posters would not think that Bush is an extremist/radical, even those that don't like him.
I also have come to see that not all see extremism as a bad thing or moderatism as a good thing. I would think that in a democracy, even a representative democracy, that majority rules as long as they don't trample on the rights of the minority (ergo the Bill of Rights, etc.). And in any population, there tends to be a bell curve, with most of the people being moderate. I suppose that if you are on the fringe, you would want the country's policies and leadership to be on the fringe as well.
I knew that this forum was special, being that the posters are better informed and more analytical than the general populace, but I did not expect as many political extremists as we have. This of course is not to ignore the moderates. And I am not trying to label anybody anything just based on whether they agree with me or not. I am looking at the statements by a number of posters that think the parties should be more extreme.
Posts: 264 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:No. The GOP, at least, is controlled by a bunch of mushy socialists, indistinguishable from the Democrats of 15 or 20 years ago. The Democrats have also moved leftward, but I wouldn't say they're controlled by extremists, either.
I'm very curious how you come to that conclusion. If you pull up the republican party platform from the 70's, it considerably to the left of the current democratic party platform on most domestic and foreign policy issues. Richard Nixon was considerabley more liberal than Clinton.
I won't argue with that, but it was before my time. I'm a child of the Reagan era. The GOP has certainly moved leftward since then.
Secondly, the official platform does not necessarily reflect the true agenda of those who are in charge. The 2000 and 2004 GOP platforms talk up limited government, spending restraint and confining government to its Constitutional boundaries, but a Republican Congress + a Republican President have produced massive spending, largely toward unconstitutional goals.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you look at their domestic politics, there's little practical difference between the two parties. One want to expand government and increase spending while paying for it with higher taxes... the other wants to expand government and increase spending while paying for it by borrowing money from communist China.
If you look at their foreign policies, one wants to engage in military actions and nation building all over the world for the sake of world peace, and the other wants to engage in military actions and nation building all over the world to fight terror.
There's a false choice if ever there was one.
At any rate, thanks to the rampant gerrymandering that took place after the last two censuses, I doubt there'll be very many competetive congressional races. There's a better chance for turnover in the Senate than in the House, ironically. Ultimately, though, it will, as usual, boil down to picking whoever may be the lesser of two evils based on some 30-second ads and their ballot statements.
Posts: 196 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There seems to be an assumption by some that the political spectrum is one dimensional. If a policy isn't either liberal or conservative it must by moderate. That just doesn't match up with reality.
So for example, Will B insists that "faith based funding" must be a moderate idea because it infuriates both liberals and conservatives.
A moderate policy, is one that attempts to strike a balance between the extreme positions. Typically, moderate policies don't give any group exactly what they hoped for but strike a balance that most people on both sides feel they can live with. Faith based funding is third extreme positions, not a moderate position.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I won't argue with that, but it was before my time. I'm a child of the Reagan era. The GOP has certainly moved leftward since then.
You are thinking in far to bipolar a position. The Neo-conservatives who are in power now have moved away from Reagan era politics, but the movement has not been to the left in any traditional sense of liberalism.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Moderatism is usually based on a lack of coherent, consistent principles, IMO.
In my opinion, moderatism, generally, shows rational thought and recognition of the world's complexity. Extremism seems more to be about rallying around special "hot-button," issues at the expense of what's actually important.
I think we can be friends, Irregardless. Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are so many problems with politics in America, it's difficult to figure out any issue. Politics are like sports teams, with people picking a side and supporting it no matter what. The more vocal fans are the ones who make the biggest impression.
The way we elect politicians is set up in such a way that people feel powerless. Only candidates with money can get their messages out, people don't believe that a third party candidate will ever win, the electoral college makes many people's presidential vote meaningless, and the order of primaries make some entire states meaningless.
Add potentially illegal or unethical behavior like redistricting, poor vote counting, and even oddball behavior like hauling senior citizens out of retirement communities to polling places to make sure to get their vote, and the public largely doesn't trust the election process, even if they do feel that they can make any kind of difference.
A lot of people don't trust politicians in general. We know that politicians will lie, cheat, and steal to get into office and stay in office. We realize that a lot of them are more interested in kickbacks and their own feeling of power than representing their constituents.
So the people most likely to vote are those who have a specific agenda to push. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, as they say. Politicians find that they can earn backing both from voters and lobbying groups by supporting their extreme views.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also find it difficult to believe people think the GOP is currently moderate. It has been many years since it has been as represented by a chanted litany of slogans that are mainly "me and mine" oriented and less America-at-large oriented. It has never been more characterized by preachiness and less willing to demonstrate how its proposals could actually work in the whole rather than as vague ideals. As long as you speak like a minister or a cowboy, all is good. Talk kickass, say "by God" alot, namedrop religion and use slightly incorrect grammar in a folksy accent and all sins are forgiven and votes are cast.
Unfortunately, the democratic party has likewise been reduced to spewing anything that points out fallacies in the GOP, and thats pretty much it.
There are vast numbers of genuine moderates who just want to find actual resolutions to real problems rather than play nananabooboo games. They are not represented.
Posts: 49 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
