Political Crossfire Forums

[EconomicHitman]

When America was founded in 1776 THomas Jefferson and Sam Adams thought that there should be no political parties.

During the Civil War (American) Abraham Lincoln was a Republican even though he stood for many of the morals that modern day Democrats do.

Anybody have any thoughts on how parites should be governed now adays?

[Fido]

I have been reading volume 43, The chronicles of America series, Roosevelt edition (Teddy, not FDR) -The Boss and the Machine, a chronicle of the politicians and party organization by Samuel P. Orth -1921. bought for a dime at a yard sale; and it is good. From what I have gathered so far, the bosses, like those who ran Tammany Hall in New york, all grew out of the strength of party and worked with party to cement political power in the hands of of the wealthy. I can't say what the conclusions of the book are at this point, but it seems that the political system geared to vest power in the hands of the minority was easily subverted into control by a minority of the minority.
Another book purchased at the same yard sale: Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men, The Ideology of the Republican Party Before the Civil War, by Eric Foner. I have not finished this book either, but one fact it makes clear is the fact that many Republicans and anti slavery activists realized how much the economic system centered around Boston and New York (banking), supported slavery, and that the wealthy employers of the North supported slavery as all other property rights. Some equated the lords of the loom with the lords of the lash.
It also mentions that Lincoln was supposedly reelected by a coalition of Democrats and Republican, and apparently in opposition to many Republicans.
I personally believe party is anathema to the idea of democracy. Each elected official should vote only the concerns of his own constituents, and the trading of votes has always acted to the benefit of wealthy powers who in turn support party rather than individual or regional needs. This makes government entirely resistant to change, and makes even the most enthusiastic in support of democracy cynical.

[Lee_p413]

I believe that you're mostly right. That would be best. The problem is that it will never happen, because to get elected, one must be known. To be known, they use the parties.

[Fido]

Lee_p413 wrote: I believe that you're mostly right. That would be best. The problem is that it will never happen, because to get elected, one must be known. To be known, they use the parties.

And the parties use the candidates, when elected, to sell local issues out for national issues. Local issues should remain local. State issues should remain within the state. Issues do not become national only because the national government chooses too make them a part of their domain. The saying is that all politics are local, but the problem is that all parties are national, and elected national officials sell out their locals, and locals they have no business voting against for the benefit of a national organization. Parties are the original special interest, always chasing the money, and tailoring the message to the money.

Let me offer examples. The government gives to congress the right to regulate interstate trade. My state once had meat inspection standards that were more stringent that the federal standards. No more, since some of that meat came from other states even a law that protected both citizen and producer was found in conflict with a constitutional right of the federal government. We might have argued that stringent standards, by the state passing a law, had become our right, and a right we might have carried with us from state to state. The federal government, whose strong point is somewhere other than regulation, would not even let us defend ourselves. But what is it the federal government can not control if it should cross a border? Medical weed? Homosexual Marriage? Assisted suicide, abortion?

[mendosan]

I have a question why is the Republican symbol an elephant, and the Democrat a donkey.

[Jehan]

mendosan wrote: I have a question why is the Republican symbol an elephant, and the Democrat a donkey.

The Democrat donkey was because Andy Jackson was called a "Jackass" by his opponents. He liked it so much it became to new symbol of his party.

The elephant was introduced into American thought via a cartoon by Thomas Nast.

[sibbean]

Fido wrote:
Quote: I personally believe party is anathema to the idea of democracy. Each elected official should vote only the concerns of his own constituents

I believe this also to a certain degree. There is a bigger issue here than just political parties, self-interest plays a role as well. A career politician must stretch to become desirable to the most number of candidates in order to get elected and therefore a lot of the important issues are lost in the scramble for office. Each candidate I see these days are watered down and it's both a tragedy and a blessing.

In theory I am against political parties, but as things stand they are too influential to be brought down. A great divide looms over America between the Republicans and Democrats. That is not what politics should be about: Republicans vs. Democrats, but it is.

[Fido]

sibbean wrote: Fido wrote:
Quote: I personally believe party is anathema to the idea of democracy. Each elected official should vote only the concerns of his own constituents

Quote: I believe this also to a certain degree. There is a bigger issue here than just political parties, self-interest plays a role as well. A career politician must stretch to become desirable to the most number of candidates in order to get elected and therefore a lot of the important issues are lost in the scramble for office. Each candidate I see these days are watered down and it's both a tragedy and a blessing.

The U.S. has one house meant to reflect the will of the people, and that democracy has been perverted in the effort to manage the government. Look at what happens. Only the two political parties have the power almost automatically to place their candidates on the ballot. If one or the other candidate is elected then the minority are not represented, if that politician has the sense to legislate for his base. Then if he gets to Washington and his party is not in the majority then he may find that his vote and the vote of the majority who elected him count for nothing, which perhaps means as well that the desires of the minority who did not elect him count for nothing as well.
Self interest is the cornerstone of democracy. The recognition of every self as the equal of every other provides the essential unity every nation
requires for greatness. Consensus has been a mark of every enduring democracy, but our democracy has canned consensus in favor of expediancy. The larger the numbers electing any candidate the larger will be those shown impotent by their vote. Rather than larger numbers electing fewer number of representatives, the cure is exactly what we began with, relatively few voters electing relatively larger numbers, but this is against the will of parties, which rule as oligarchs on the strength of a minority support.

Quote: In theory I am against political parties, but as things stand they are too influential to be brought down. A great divide looms over America between the Republicans and Democrats. That is not what politics should be about: Republicans vs. Democrats, but it is.

The choice, though I admit it is not obvious, is between democracy and oligarchy. Democracy only requires the people to have freedom to act in their own best interest, and vote accordingly. This is not the power to trade in votes on issues that have no affect on your constituent's interests. When people can longer deny that party, and democracy- stangled at the command of party -is the problem then time will sweep both democrats and republicans into the trash.
Does form follow function? If so, in what sense does the division of government around parties, and the organation of parties around issues actually support what they claim as a function? The function of party and of government through parties is in contradiction to the unity and consensus essential to this or any other nation.

[Wayne L.]

Nobody stands for what modern day Democrats stand for because the majority of Americans aren't that crazy politically.

[sibbean]

Fido wrote: The function of party and of government through parties is in contradiction to the unity and consensus essential to this or any other nation.

I agree. But is more complex than that. I for instance would not mind living in a nation with a party system that was more reasonable. That could get along. As things now stand in America, the division of the two main parties cause hatred and conflict that only hinder our progress as a nation. We spend more time debating and campaigning than actually functioning.

[Quicksurf]

mendosan wrote: I have a question why is the Republican symbol an elephant, and the Democrat a donkey.

Because Republicans are strong and wise like Elephants and Democrats are weak and feeble jackasses.

[Quicksurf]

Wayne L. wrote: Nobody stands for what modern day Democrats stand for because the majority of Americans aren't that crazy politically.

Unfortunatley, I disagree with you. There are plenty of nutjob left wing radicals who support everything that this country is against. It is sad really, but there are people in our country who want it to become communist or socialist.

[Bobicito]

It doesnt stop there eather.

[sibbean]

Jawbreaker Tenderpain wrote:
Quote: Chavez has built hospitals and schools, and has made great strides eradicating illiteracy in his country.

He is not waging aggressive wars based upon ridiculous lies in violation of Nuremberg Principle VI, like Bush.

He is not dropping hundreds and hundreds of tons of Radioactive ordnance(DU) upon the Earth, like Bush.

Chavez is a hero for all time.

Bush is a murdering drunken fool.

And theres proof.

[Green]

Quicksurf wrote: mendosan wrote: I have a question why is the Republican symbol an elephant, and the Democrat a donkey.

Because Republicans are strong and wise like Elephants and Democrats are weak and feeble jackasses.
Republican elephants are fat and feast off the poor(at least George Bush is helping oil companies do so).

Parties are chopping the nation into parts politically. Washington D.C. is now just a place where people argue, not solve problems. Politicians can't follow what they believe, they have to follow what their parties' platform is.

George Washington was anti-partisan.

[Gaea]

I think if there was only one political party then the USA would resemble the old United Soviet Socialist Republik. Wouldn't that be ironic? Be careful what you wish for, it just might come true.

[Fido]

sibbean wrote: Fido wrote: The function of party and of government through parties is in contradiction to the unity and consensus essential to this or any other nation.

I agree. But is more complex than that. I for instance would not mind living in a nation with a party system that was more reasonable. That could get along. As things now stand in America, the division of the two main parties cause hatred and conflict that only hinder our progress as a nation. We spend more time debating and campaigning than actually functioning.

Parties are a holdover from Britain, and exist as a denial of our essential unity, saying in fact that our differences are irreconcilable, and that they stem from some moral perversion; and this system of parties, reactionary and tyrannical, is only possible because our government gives power to a minority to govern the majority, and denies power to people that is essential to their well being. We are entirely scwood by halves. One side gangs up on another and the middle loses. One side gives up rights for another section and all people lose. As a democracy this government could have lasted forever. It will be lucky, and America will be broken forever if the government last three centuries.

[Fido]

Moot wrote: I think if there was only one political party then the USA would resemble the old United Soviet Socialist Republik. Wouldn't that be ironic? Be careful what you wish for, it just might come true.

Napoleon banned parties to secure his dictatorship. On the other hand, in a democracy where each ones interest is his own unless he makes it another's interest, and if none has the power with a vote to interfere with another's interests if they are not properly his own then government will only exist to make the impossible possible by organization. To day government makes life impossible. It solves no problems, and makes problems for solutions. The government's power should be strictly limited because every individuals power over every other individual is limited, and there are only so many issues with truly national significance. If no collusion is required, and there is no benefit in combination because no one can be deprived of rights by a simple majority then there is no need for parties. We are one people, and our government should be the sole engine of our will. If we cannot control government in the interest of all directly, we will never do so through the mechanism of party which only adds its inertia and intransigence to that of government. Without the monumental failure of government to meet our needs, which all parties contribute to, there would be no need for a change of dominant party. They are the cause of the illness they rally us to cure.

[Gaea]

Fido wrote: Moot wrote: I think if there was only one political party then the USA would resemble the old United Soviet Socialist Republik. Wouldn't that be ironic? Be careful what you wish for, it just might come true.

Napoleon banned parties to secure his dictatorship. On the other hand, in a democracy where each ones interest is his own unless he makes it another's interest, and if none has the power with a vote to interfere with another's interests if they are not properly his own then government will only exist to make the impossible possible by organization. To day government makes life impossible. It solves no problems, and makes problems for solutions. The government's power should be strictly limited because every individuals power over every other individual is limited, and there are only so many issues with truly national significance. If no collusion is required, and there is no benefit in combination because no one can be deprived of rights by a simple majority then there is no need for parties. We are one people, and our government should be the sole engine of our will. If we cannot control government in the interest of all directly, we will never do so through the mechanism of party which only adds its inertia and intransigence to that of government. Without the monumental failure of government to meet our needs, which all parties contribute to, there would be no need for a change of dominant party. They are the cause of the illness they rally us to cure.

Government is like a wheel that rolls along, growing bigger with each rotatiton. The bigger government gets, the more intrusive it becomes on our individual lives, turning us into wooden cogs.

So if you think that political parties obstruct or hinder the governments ability to run smoothly, then why is that such a bad thing if you think government is too big and intrusive? Why would anyone who thinks a government that is too big and intrusive should run smoothly? The bumps in the road that slow it down are a good thing, IMO.

I think political parties are a good thing because they prevent us from going to war with or killing our neighbors everytime we want a change in government. Instead, we battle it out in the political arena so that we don't have to shed blood for our political beliefs. As crude as it is, it's much more civilized than people give it credit for.



Quote: We are one people, and our government should be the sole engine of our will.

Let's suppose the major difference in the two dominant US political parties are left brain thinkers vs right brain thinkers. Neither right brain or left brain thinking is wrong, it just is. So, if all the people are not thinking from the same side of the brain, then it's reasonable to suggest that we will never entirely be united in our thinking of how one government for all the people should be. If both right and left brain thinkers could accept this polarity in our thinking, then maybe we could all agree that a government for all the people should be one that allows for people to disagree. But don't we sort of have a government like that now?

Political parties can themselves help keep the opposing political partys in check, which helps create balance in government (or at least it used to). Political parties help keep each other honest by exposing the worst in each other. It's still up to the individuals moral compass as to how much dishonesty they are willing to accept from their political party or government.

If there would be one common denominater that could bind most people and allow them to govern/rule themselves accordingly, it would be their moral compass and knowing right from wrong.

[Fido]

Quote: Moot wrote: Fido wrote: Moot wrote: I think if there was only one political party then the USA would resemble the old United Soviet Socialist Republik. Wouldn't that be ironic? Be careful what you wish for, it just might come true.

Napoleon banned parties to secure his dictatorship. On the other hand, in a democracy where each ones interest is his own unless he makes it another's interest, and if none has the power with a vote to interfere with another's interests if they are not properly his own then government will only exist to make the impossible possible by organization. To day government makes life impossible. It solves no problems, and makes problems for solutions. The government's power should be strictly limited because every individuals power over every other individual is limited, and there are only so many issues with truly national significance. If no collusion is required, and there is no benefit in combination because no one can be deprived of rights by a simple majority then there is no need for parties. We are one people, and our government should be the sole engine of our will. If we cannot control government in the interest of all directly, we will never do so through the mechanism of party which only adds its inertia and intransigence to that of government. Without the monumental failure of government to meet our needs, which all parties contribute to, there would be no need for a change of dominant party. They are the cause of the illness they rally us to cure.

Government is like a wheel that rolls along, growing bigger with each rotatiton. The bigger government gets, the more intrusive it becomes on our individual lives, turning us into wooden cogs.

So if you think that political parties obstruct or hinder the governments ability to run smoothly, then why is that such a bad thing if you think government is too big and intrusive? Why would anyone who thinks a government that is too big and intrusive should run smoothly? The bumps in the road that slow it down are a good thing, IMO.

I think political parties are a good thing because they prevent us from going to war with or killing our neighbors everytime we want a change in government. Instead, we battle it out in the political arena so that we don't have to shed blood for our political beliefs. As crude as it is, it's much more civilized than people give it credit for.


A snowball is the analogy I guess you were looking for. For me, the issue is not the size of government, but the manipulation of government to make a source of personal rather than national power. I do not think government should run smoothly. It should not, except when expressing the will of the people, and we should not always expect the people to be in harmony. The changes in the house of representatives were aimed at a manageable house, and the result was a less democratic house. I question whether national parties have a purpose other than in making local issues into national makeweights. What purpose does my representative have in the affairs of another district if it is unlikely to affect my life? What purpose does another representative have in my district if it does not people from his district? Parties empower parties, and do not empower citizens. You do not need a party to vote the needs of your constituents, and you need a party to excuse the selling out your constituent's needs.


Quote: Quote: We are one people, and our government should be the sole engine of our will.

Let's suppose the major difference in the two dominant US political parties are left brain thinkers vs right brain thinkers. Neither right brain or left brain thinking is wrong, it just is. So, if all the people are not thinking from the same side of the brain, then it's reasonable to suggest that we will never entirely be united in our thinking of how one government for all the people should be. If both right and left brain thinkers could accept this polarity in our thinking, then maybe we could all agree that a government for all the people should be one that allows for people to disagree. But don't we sort of have a government like that now?

Political parties can themselves help keep the opposing political partys in check, which helps create balance in government (or at least it used to). Political parties help keep each other honest by exposing the worst in each other. It's still up to the individuals moral compass as to how much dishonesty they are willing to accept from their political party or government.

If there would be one common denominater that could bind most people and allow them to govern/rule themselves accordingly, it would be their moral compass and knowing right from wrong.

What if the differences between the political parties was rich brain, poor brain; and when the poor brain people are elected and have great gobs of power over all people as a result, then the economic powers offer them huge sums and good deals to become rich brainers. All the corruption of this country's stated goals in the preamble of the constitution have been the result of party politics. All the city and state bosses worked through the party machine, and we can see in our own day how ineffective is the minority party in even making a token gesture against an idiotic underfur like the Iraq war. And it is all well and good to say that your handing of the executive the power to go to war does not mean you want war, but that you rather want your executive to have that as a bargaining chip; but if you cannot make a stand because of party pressure, and party consideration then you have no claim leadership or to leadership ability. If you are not voting the needs of your constituents, and are not using your own head; why exactly are you taking up space in Washington?
Government is not there to work smoothly, but to smooth the nation's roads. Government by parties, and government for parties has put the people of this nation at odd, and made us a fractured and disunited country. We are rapidly becoming two countries, or more, controlled by large minorities or big money. We are broke. And we are made broke by rich people in parties who think nothing of loading years of taxes upon us in a moment, which serve them doubly as an excuse for denying us our entitlements, good health care, fair working conditions, and old age security. A smooth government cannot govern.