hsifeng | Really People?

While the GOP's use of 'think tanks' is crappy, "We'll choose what the members of our party should think about, and how they should think about it, and then we will tell them"; the Democratic ideal of 'grassroots' doesn't seem to work very effectively in the massively Federalized system that our country promotes and that most Dems think is the key to fixing our social ills (Big Government = Big Socialized Assistance To Those In Need).

Grassroots movements work better in de-centralized systems where local politics have a larger effect on social outcomes. Of course, that also meant that you could end up with a Texas where no one was allowed to be gay, non-Christian, or richer than a member of the Bush clan. *rolls eyes* So don’t live in Texas.

If the Dems are going to get my wholehearted support, they need to start acting like something other then the 'nice' Republicans: There is only a sliver the distinguish the two parties from each other any more – and that is not much of a choice in my opinion.

I'm slowly becoming disgusted with "my party." I'm registered Democratic, but I see some of the shit that's going on (like Nicole Parra getting shit on, and shit flinging back by backing Danny Gilmore, a Right Wing nutjob), and I'm saying "Maybe it's time to get more neutral..." Unfortunately, the alternatives are so fringeworthy as to not even be viable options, so I stick with the only viable alternative to the Republicans, and that ain't the Libertarians.

What the Think Tanks really do for the Republicans is they study language and popular meanings and the current Zeitgeist, then figure out how to manipulate language to manipulate the duller majority of society. They aren't just telling the party how to think; they're teaching them to manipulate and twist language (like what I posted a while back about the usage of the word "elite"). It goes somewhat deeper than just giving marching orders.

As to Big Government = Socialization, it's the fact that the government and many of us out here in the public aren't looking to change our world view enough. The New Deal worked for about 20 years. Once the 1960s hit, things started breaking down. New social programs are needed, with new ways of looking at them, but Liberals and Progressives are still looking at that era, 60 years later, and think what we need is a "New 'New Deal'", rather than look for modern answers like a secular version of Bush's "faith-based initiative," which seems to be essentially what your "grassroots"/decentralized aid idea is.

Yeah, I'm not as committed to some ideals as I used to be, even a few months ago...

What worries me it that 'two party thinking' (ie. I have to be with Party A because I don't like Party B and Party C isn't big enough) is exactly what got us here: If we all believe and act like there are only two options, there there *are* only two options. If we all went with whatever kooky party really defined who we are, then we'd have a multiparty system. If we got really diverse then we'd end up with political candidates that couldn't use 'talking points' because they wouldn't have enough of a 'base' to pander to. How nice would that be?

Yeah, it's hard to imagine where we are now - but it works well enough in other countries. Sure, various smaller parties glom together to get bigger initiatives passed, and there are compromises that they make in the process - but their core constituency is knitted to their political ideology in a way that most disassociated Dems and Repubs in our country aren't: Here they are just voting as they always have.

For the two-party system to shift to a multi-party system, the parties outside of the Big Two have to curb some of their nuttier policy planks. For example, Libertarianism. The Libertarian party promotes even less government than Small Government Conservatives. As much as people say they want that, they also want to feel safe in their beds, and they realize that requires money in the form of taxes. Armies and police, etc., are what the American people want. They are afraid of a government that doesn't have the money to support these things. Libertarian dismantling of the government (including the military and police) terrifies most people, even Small Government Conservatives.

I believe the problem is more that the 13th Amendment has changed since 1875. Prior to that, the wording made clear that lobbying is bribery, and thus accepting said is treason. Now, they've had to make new "ethics" laws that include so many loopholes that the ABC Evening News has had reports on how much money Obama's supposedly "small contributor money only" campaign is really a joke. We'll see the same reported next week of the Republican convention and campaign.

Eliminate lobbyists and the money going around, and you might have politicians who actually are in it to serve the public.

I disagree with the argument against a multi-party system being predicated on the 'toning down' of alternate party choices. While you are no doubt correct that some of the nuttier platform statements of *any* party dissuade people from wanting that party to have enough power to dismantle our government structure and rebuild it in their own image: I would counter by saying that the *more* parties you have, the *less* likely it is that any one can gain a majority, thereby gaining the power to make those sort of radical changes possible.

By having - lets say - five parties, each with it’s own strong base and support system, you would manage to get more than two sides on any given debate. Compromises would be more than just ‘he said, she said’ affairs with only two (supposedly) polar opposite viewpoints to choose from.

Furthermore, I think multiparty systems would be much harder for lobbyists (those bastards) to operate in. If you have only two sides to bribe, I mean, “contribute to” then you have a much cheaper (relatively) lobby cost.

And yes, I fucking hate lobbyists: Fuck you assholes for buying off this countries political process. And fuck career politicians for taking the checks all the way to the bank. In the Bahamas of course….

The oddball policy planks of the smaller parties scare Americans because they only see issues as black or white. So, if the smaller parties get in, they will have total control (from the average American's point of view). Thus, a two-party system works, because it plays to the "Black Hats vs. White Hats" mentality the average person has.

Your argument for multiple parties (too much for the lobbyists to bribe) is the exactly why the lobbyists work against it. It costs them less to manipulate two-parties. So they spend lots of money to promote a two-party system as well as manipulate those parties.

Really People?

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject