blah blah politics blah blah

I think that the various political threads that have been in the Café since I've discovered the CPF have done more to show the flaws inherent in a 2 party system than anything else I have come across.

Questions about the current administration's actions/motives are overwhelmingly "answered" with comments about Clinton/Gore/the Democrats in general and their own doings.

Now, if the question was along the lines of "doesn't this action by the current administration make it clear that the wonderful and infallible Democrats are the only ones capable of honorable and effective governance," perhaps such comments would be helpful. But since I have yet to see such a thread or question therein, these comments are just plain pointless.

Whenever I do post my thoughts on any given issue, I can count on at least a few folks on this board to take my comments as some kind of endorsement of a ridiculously vile behavior or belief that is an outrageous exaggeration. And I can always count on someone to declare that I am something that I most definitely am not.

Hey, if that's what you want to do, go for it. I both strongly support, and enjoy the exercise of, your right to mischaracterize and editorialize anything and everything I decide to post on this board.

[awkward segue]
It does clearly point out some of the failings of the 2 party system.
[/awkward segue]

It is my opinion that the 2 party system serves it's citizenry inadequately. People are left with precious few options:

1) Get behind a party that best suits you and act like the OTHER party couldn't find their backside with a map and a sherpa guide.

2) Pick the party that agrees with the 1 or 2 positions you find most important and suck it up when it comes to the million other things that you feel they don't get right.

3) Give up on politics in general and patiently polish your weapons in anticipation for the day of reckoning when the people will rise up and overthrow the body politic/patiently polish your resumé in anticipation of the day when corporations wield so much dominance over their customers that governments become an antiquated concept.

4) Ignore it/move.

Most people - in this country at least - like to think that they can tell right from wrong. Most people believe that it is their right/duty to contribute to their government by way of voting. With a 2 party system, it stands to reason, most people believe that one party is right, and the other is wrong (well, "more right/less wrong"). This kind of thinking just perpetuates the problems with having only 2 choices.

Do you think either party wants to see other parties develop? Of course they don't. And by and large, the people don't want it either - even some of the people who think a 2 party system is wrong in the first place. That's because most people vote against the OTHER party, not for their own. Remember all that talk about Ralph Nader taking votes away from the Democrats in 2000?

It's too easy to see politics in a 2 party system as a battle against good and evil. And much of the talk that such a system creates becomes a banal discussion of who did what when and how worse it is than what so and so did and what were they thinking, etc. Issues aren't being discussed - parties/people are being discussed, or rather, compared.

Defending politician X's actions by criticizing Politician Y's actions is like defending Hilter by saying Stalin killed more people (I honestly don't know or care whether that is a true statement). Defending one politician by calling another a jackhole/liar/cheat is silly for 2 reasons; the above reason, and the fact that most (if not all) politicians are jackholes, cheats, and liars.

Having only 2 parties makes it easier for politicians to manipulate our government by toeing the line. That's why having one or two extra seats in congress for a party is so significant. Imagine how different things would be if there was a third party that believed strongly in states' rights, universal healthcare, cutting taxes and a woman's right to have an abortion. Suddenly, the party with the most seats in congress wouldn't necessarily get its way simply by voting with the party. If you ask me, that's good for everyone.

As it stands, a politician pretty much has to act like everyone else in the party acts to stay in office. Sure, the media always talks about how this politician or that one is "moving to the center" to get some more votes during an election, but more often than not, these moves are just more empty promises. Nobody survives for long as a politician if they actually have opinions that differ much from either (or both) parties: Their money->exposure->votes dry up real quick.

So, the American citizen is left with only 2 choices for what is best. The individual candidates hardly even matter: I know a few people that would probably vote for an actual elephant or donkey if they were being supported by their pet party, and most questions like "is what administration X doing right?" are responded to with "well, administration Y did something wrong" or "so, you're saying that killing puppies is the right thing to do" or something equally pointless, and that way noone has to actually think about the topic at hand.

My point to all of this? I'm not real sure, but I think it boils down to "speak your mind, but actually use it a little before you do" and "very little in this world is black and white, but assuming that a political party can see any color other than green is dangerous."

Or something like that.

Excellent points BUT....
As simple as it seems -- it really is only a 2 party system as long as the people let it be.
3rd part candidates have won when the people have spoken.
Now we just have to make it happen more often.
I think that term limits and campaign finance reform would go a long way in helping with that.
That and taking away the politicians power to vote themselves payraises.
Show me where THAT is in the constitution.

In Michigan, the state senate can get a pay raise without actually voting for it - all they have to do is propose it, and then not vote on it at all. It goes through automatically.

How sleezey is that?

Yep, that's pretty sleazy.

About your CPF comments... I think the amount of openness in the discussion depends on the original posting.
A post that starts as an obvious attack/criticism usually gets answered in kind.
But a post that poses or offers a genuine question usually gets some pretty spirited and open discussion.
My $.02 anyway.

On the whole, I think that's a fair enough statement, but I also think there is some kind of rhetorical entropy effect that comes into play too - the longer the thread, the less relevant/coherent the posts become.

P.S.

Thanks for showing everyone how to spell "sleazy" I'm such a doofus sometimes!

[ QUOTE ]
Brotherscrim said:
In Michigan, the state senate can get a pay raise without actually voting for it - all they have to do is propose it, and then not vote on it at all. It goes through automatically. How sleezey is that?

[/ QUOTE ]

[grumble40FlippingPercentIn3YearsgrumbleCrookedgrumbleBastards]

Yeah! And now they want to cut state employees big 3% pay raise...

Anyways, Scrim you'd have a good gripe if the 2 party system was a formally organized system that could be changed. But instead it is the result of the choices of a majority of the people that choose to get involved with politics. As I keep saying, parties form naturally because people that believe one thing generally tend hold other beliefs in seemingly unrelated areas. Hence, while you're entirely likely to find people that are strongly anti-abortion, pro-gun control, and pacifist, there aren't usually enough of them to challenge the number of folks that find themselves in the "anti-abortion, keep your mitts off my guns, strong national defense" crowd. And in a democratic republic the majority rules.

So any formal solution to your percieved problem (which I don't believe you're arguing for) would only be effective if it limited their choice to populate the parties in the numbers they do.

And while you're generally right about answering questions about one party with charges against another, the technique does have its place. ie. If you as a good Democrat (no, not you specifically) supported President Clinton when he bombed Serbia from high altitude for 77 days to address the atrocities of Slobodan Milosivic, then you are on shaky ground criticizing President Bush for going after Saddam Hussein who, if massacres and oppression are the criteria, was much worse than Slobodan ever had a chance of being.

IOW, it demonstrates justification of the action being criticized by showing that identical behavior had already been defended, often by the person doing the initial criticizing.

[ QUOTE ]
MichiganMan said:
Yeah! And now they want to cut state employees big 3% pay raise...


[/ QUOTE ]

Heck man, don't have to tell me - I work for the MEDC. A group of politicians are trying to do away with the whole dang agency!

Actually, that story is a good example of how a 2 party system can work against the people they claim to represent.

When our former governor took office, the state agency I work for was already in place. the MEDC (called something else then) do a bunch of things, but it all pretty much amounts to attracting businesses to/keeping them in Michigan by offering them incentives (tax breaks, low interest loans, etc). It's something that most states do, and all of the large employers have come to expect.

Anywho, when Engler was elected, he shut the whole program down, because it was "corporate welfare" - and perhaps because it was started by former democrat gov. Blanchard. Now, Engler wanted nothing from the agency, and union rules (and public outrage) made firing these people unsavory. Engler didn't want to reallocate them either, that's adding to do the various depts. pool of government workers...kinda. So what happened? For a couple of years, the state was a bit more selective about who got some state money (I imagine generous contributers to politicians' campaign funds - GM and others - weren't left completely out in the cold). And companies quit coming, started leaving, and didn't grow very fast in MI. Oh yeah, and all those workers? They did NOTHING. Sat at their desks. Read books. Pushed paper. For more than a year.

Engler finally came around, and eventually renamed the agency the Michigan Economic Development Corporation (MEDC), increased its funding with money collected from casinos (for political reasons, we don't call that money taxes), and hired a CEO that got paid more than the governor. This new MEDC was really popular with politicians: it gave money/cut taxes for corporations (which made the republicans happy) that made more jobs (and who doesn't like that?). And all the time Engler was cutting the different state depts' budgets (forcing them to do layoffs and hire temps that don't get any benefits or raises to speak of at rock-bottom wages), the MEDC CEO was getting very public and very large bonuses.

I'm not saying he didn't deserve them, mind you. Like I said, the MEDC was very succesful.

Fast forward to the present day. The economy shrinking, and a new democratic governor in office, and suddenly many of the republican state congressmen who adored what we were doing are calling for its head. Why?

Well, I'm sure lots of reasons, but remember why Engler had a change of heart about it in the first place - the MEDC keeps jobs in this state. But now that there's a new governor in town, and because a democrat is in charge again, its looking to some of them like the corporate wellfare that Engler wasn't so keen on when a democrat was in office. Good idea or bad, it looks bad to support a governor when they're from the OTHER party. It's the very same thing at the federal level, which is some of what I think you were getting at, MichiganMan.

As for the unlikelyhood of changing our 2 party system, I think GJW has a point with campaign finance reform and such.

I'm not sure what all I'm trying to say, but I think more than anything, it's this kinda "party bickering for its own sake" kinda thing that really chaps my...well, you know.

I didn't have the skinny on the MEDC story. It kinda surprises me since giving tax breaks to employers to stimulate increased tax revenue from increased employment is textbook Reaganomics and Uncle John was nothing if not a true believer. Good to see he came around. Don't get me started on the Republicans in the legislature. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/jpshakehead.gif

As for campaign finance reform, in its traditional form its a horribly bad idea riding on the distaste of the public for campaigning in general. Telling American citizens whom they can give their money to in support of political causes, and that they lose their right to broadcast political speech over the airways within a set number of days before an election strikes me in all the wrong constitutional places. I'll lay money that the Supreme Court agrees later this year.

The only reform I endorse is mandatory full and complete disclosure of all donations to a political candidate. That way the public can see and judge for themselves if a politician is beholding to special interest.

I came to the realization some time back that "the last people in the world who should be politicians are the only people that aspire to public office". Brotherscrim made some good points and I want to add just one. Our national debt was 900 billion dollars after the first 200 years of our existence.(world war I and II, Korea, Vietnam included in that debt total) Then, between 1980-1992 the deficit in peace time went to 4500 billion dollars and now we are off and running again. I don't get it, whatever happened to fiscal responsiblity. This debt is absolutely ruining our future.

Ya know... except for the part where you like beating innocent puppies, I really enjoyed reading your post, Brother.

In a way you are singing at least some of the song that I sing far too often. Political discussions so often tumble into the "if you're going to criticize MY party, then let me show you all the ways that your party sucks!" and down the same gutter we go as the TV commercials during election time. It is often assumed that if somebody is critical of politician X, then that somebody must be a wildly enthusiastic supporter of politician Y. Some of the time that is probably a valid assumption - but it certainly isn't a safe one to make. Nor does anybody learn anything this way.

Good stuff to think about.

Be interesting to see just how long it takes for this to spiral into a partisan crap-tossing contest. Who's holding the books on this?

[ QUOTE ]
Darell said:
Be interesting to see just how long it takes for this to spiral into a partisan crap-tossing contest. Who's holding the books on this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not long, I'm in the houssseeeeee

I love the concept of at least 3 distinct parties. Dem., Reb. and DD's (mine). In my party, the third party that is the one true party we would do things the right way. Every issue would be just like I want it. No more of, I like most of what one party does. It would be perfection personified. So what if 99%+ of the people disagree with some or most of the way I believe, I would have the perfect party. I would need a voting handicap to be competitive but that's only fair, right? Even though most people don't agree with everything their current party promotes they would likely like mine even less. I would get few votes from outside my immediate family and they would only vote for me because they know how pitiful I can be. If each one of my votes counted as 10 million I could make a pretty good showing as a Presidential candidate. Only problem there is I don't want to really do anything other than reap the benefits of my policies. I don't enjoy traveling on business or wearing a suit. I just thought about it and I can't think of anyone to represent me as President that will only promote my way of thinking. I guess I will stay with the current party system but nirvana sure would be nice.

Any party that is going to be victorious must have the majority support and you can't be all things to everyone. So far in our history people have made compromises within the 2 party system. It doesn't work great and often doesn't work at all but at least there is a voice loud enough to be heard. In DD's party you could hear a pin drop during the crescendo of the nomination speech. I think I will stick with my current non-DD party because they represent most of what I value and do battle with most of what I disagree with. The DD party will have to wait for mass cloning.

PS: I am accepting donations for the DD party now. I do not require any disclosure. All amounts above $1,000 will get a nice e-mail form message thanking them for supporting the some day DD party. All monies raised will be deposited in a special acct. that only I will write checks from for necessities and administrative cost. At some point my wife, I mean my campaign chairman will take over and redirect the funds to other areas of vital interest and to help DD party! Thank you all and goodnight.

Let's bring back the Bull Moose Party (aka the Progressive Party).

It was good enough for Teddy Roosevelt; it ought to be good enough for us.

Pat

Re: blah blah politics blah blah /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/yellowlaugh.gif

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Heck with the rest of you, I'm partying with Dave.

After a couple of beers, we'd probably end up killing each other. But right up until that point it would be GREAT fun. Now, where's that serving wench?

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
treek13 said:
Let's bring back the Bull Moose Party (aka the Progressive Party).

It was good enough for Teddy Roosevelt; it ought to be good enough for us.

Pat

[/ QUOTE ]

Heck yeah!

By the way, for those politicians out there who might be reading, a guaranteed way to earn my vote is to start a 2 hour speach with "I must be brief, for the bullet is still in me."

Go Teddy!

You guys heard of Campaign Reform? Work on that then you can have more parties, particularly the part about limiting campaign funds and expenditures. Although I have to admit I don't think I want to hear alot of the madness the fringe parties are spewing, We got plenty with the two we have! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

TSG /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif