General discussion

  • Creator
  • #2276567

    Well done America


    by james schroer ·

    Ha I know that would get your attention. I’m starting this discution not to talk about the good and bads of Bush or Kerry but to raise another issue in American Polotics.

    Where’s the third party??

    That’s right where are they when we need them most? I believe if Ross Perot ran this year and was was to debate this time he would of raise a lot of issues that bot the Democrats and Republicans want to hide. I think the American people need to fight for a third party to help us here. I frown at the Democrate for trying to get Nader off the ballot in Florida. I believe that you can get your name on the ballot that you should get equal debat time as do the Democrats and Republicans. We are the land of the free and yet there are contracts that stop potential canadates from debating or even asking the canadates true hard questions.

    Here at Tech Republic there is a large group of very smart very hard working people and I believe that if we start working now we can have change before that next election. IDEAS???

All Comments

  • Author
    • #3295347

      Third parties indeed do a lot of good

      by dc_guy ·

      In reply to Well done America

      No Communist Party candidate ever won a major election in the U.S. — nothing above the city council of a modest-sized town. Yet the party won enough votes in many elections between the two World Wars that the Republicrats considered them a threat.

      Since the main political parties exist for the purposes of sustaining their own growth, attracting handsome donations, and enriching the party staff, rather than actually promoting a coherent political agenda, they have no qualms about shifting their ideologies in order to remain attractive.

      As a result, by the mid-1950s, both the Democratic and Republican Parties had co-opted the entire 1928 Communist Party platform. Everything from strict government control of the schools to a giant central bank. Remember that the Department of Health, Education and Welfare was established by Eisenhower, a Republican President.

      The Communist Party is dead, but today we have the Libertarian Party, the Constitution Party, the Green Party, and several other options. For a while the Republicrats seemed to consider the Green Party a serious threat. Democratic and Republican leaders alike were falling all over each other to co-opt much of its platform.

      The Libertarian Party is the scariest monster of the third parties, from the perspective of the established parties. Its philosophy can be summed up in a single sentence: Government has gotten too big for its britches. The only things every Libertarian candidate promises to do is shrink the government payroll and budget through attrition and a decades-long hiring freeze and to add an expiration date to every law.

      If we shrank the federal budget by ninety percent, it would still be at the level it was around 1990, when everything seemed to work just fine.

      If the government would take all the tax money it collects to support welfare programs, threw it into a big fund, and simply started handing it out directly to the poor, every family now below the poverty line would suddenly have a $40K annual income.

      • #3295303

        Big Tents

        by jamesrl ·

        In reply to Third parties indeed do a lot of good

        The Dems and Republicans, in Canada, the Liberals and Conservatives, and many other political parties around the world are what you would consider to be Big Tent Parties, or “Coalition Parties”, as they teach in Political Science.

        They specialize in building a broad base, and being open to a fairly wide spectrum. As Zell Miller demonstrated, there is often quite a bit of overlap. The parties elect a leader based on the most powerful factions at the time, and based on winnability. There is not unanimity in the party based on beliefs, but based on power.

        I am sure in the last campaign there were many Republicans who didn’t support everything Bush did and similar situations in the Democratic party, but they keep quiet because they must in order to gain power. This is called “the discipline of power”. The theory is that you compromise a little to gain power, and hope to have some positive influence when you get there. Policy is framed in broad strokes. Specifics are hard to pin down.

        Third parties often have narrower policy focus, and tend to be more mono-cultural. They attract the “true beleivers” who won’t compromise. When divisions do occur they are often fatal.

        Yes Coalitions co-opt third party policies. Happens everywhere, not just the US. In Canada, after WWII the centrist Liberal party moved far left to counter the CCF, the leftists, and virtually stole the entire plaform. In the 90s the same party moved to the right, slashed government spending, eliminated the deficit and cut taxes. Now that spending is under control, they are moving back to the centre.

        As for welfare, I have seen similar studies in Canada – the idea has been proposed as a Guarenteed income – Start taxing people for every dollar they make above the rate, and top up thier income if they are below the rate. While it does have some negative social implications, it is simpler and cheaper to run than all the welfare, rent subsidies, heating oil subsidies etc.


        • #3295164

          It has happened in Australia also ….

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Big Tents

          I think that most Australians of whichever political leaning would agree that Gough Whitlam is the only real statesman we have had in the past 50 years.

          He won power in 1972 after Labor had been in opposition for 23 years. He introduced more good legislation in 3 years than all Liberal/Coalition governments combined.

          But he was seen as too much of a threat to the conservatives and was removed from power. I strongly suspect that the CIA may have been involved in this.

          After a few terms of conservative government, Labor Prime Minister Bob Hawke was elected. He was a pragmatist. He had been very successful as president of the ACTU (Australian Council of Trades Unions) with a great gift for defusing industrial disputes. He realised that the original Labor platform advocating socialism as its primary goal was outdated, and moved directly to the centre.

          He was a very successful Prime Minister and was elected for four consecutive terms (one of the goals for which Howard was aiming at the recent election — to match Hawke’s performance by being elected for a fourth term).

          Under Hawke and his successor Paul Keating, Labor moved more and more to the centre. To such an extent, in fact, that a great many people complained that they couldn’t distinguish one party from the other.

          Because Labor, minor parties and independents have held the balance of power in the Senate throughout Howard’s Prime Ministership up until October 9, his party has had to absorb many left-wing policies in order to remain popular. This has left Labor with very few policies that are markedly different from the conservatives.

          A further problem for Labor has been that, because of our affluence, with many or most families having two breadwinners, Labor’s traditional support base has simply ceased to exist. There is no longer a disadvantaged working class. A poverty class, yes, but the bulk of the former working class have moved up to the economic level of the middle class.

          So with its disastrous defeat at the October 9 election, Labor virtually has to start from scratch and work out a platform of policies which clearly distinguishes it from the conservative coalition, but without sacrificing is fundamental principal of a fair go for everyone one.

          Now to get back to the content of the discussion, while minor parties and independents have held the balance of power in the Senate for the past 20 years or so, they are not permitted to participate in televised debates with the leaders of the two major parties in the election campaign.

          So currently Australia also is virtually a one party country and that party — a coalition of the “Liberal” and National parties — is identical in its agenda to the American Republican Party.

      • #3295182

        Realpolitik Summarized in a Few Paragraphs

        by olprof67 ·

        In reply to Third parties indeed do a lot of good

        Well Said, Sir!

      • #3296283

        No Parties do Better

        by bucky kaufman (mcsd) ·

        In reply to Third parties indeed do a lot of good

        Parisan politics accomplishes nothing except to shut people out of government.

        The way to *resolve* the current problems are to eliminate party politics – and return the nation to the people.

        Unfortunately, the whole basis of the Republican party is to give corporations and large enterprises a voice, and to shut out the individuals.

        • #3313549

          Ok Comrade SIT DOWN

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to No Parties do Better

          Return the nation to the people… ;o) Are you sure you wouldn’t be happier in Russia comrade?

    • #3295283

      “Girly men”

      by james schroer ·

      In reply to Well done America

      One thing I do like is Arnold Schwartiniger (can’t spell) He is catorized as Republican but he has a big set of “nuts”. He will work with the people and the government to get things done. The best part was only a week or two ago he came out on stem cell research. He said no matter what my party says I’m for this. But only a few days before election he was on the campain trail with Bush.

      It’s these types of people that we need. I thought maybe we were moving that why whe Jesse Venture got elected Govenor. But it’s looking like the Democrats and Republicans are scared of these people create ways of keeping them out.

    • #3296298

      Grandious Ideals

      by thechas ·

      In reply to Well done America

      The problem that the minor political parties have in the US is that they are putting the cart ahead of the horse.

      Despite third party candidates winning the occasional Governors race, they have no low level political presence.

      To effectively govern the entire country, they need to have support in the legislature.

      Here’s what a third party needs to do in order to have the opportunity to win a Presidential campaign:

      Win a few city council and mayoral races.
      Show that your ideals and candidates actually work in the real world.

      Once you prove your effectiveness at the local level, run for a seat in the state legislature.

      Now, it gets tougher. You need to win races so that your party has at least 10% of the seats in the state legislature. Then, you can begin to effectively field candidates for state-wide and federal offices.

      On the federal level, you likely need around 20 Senators, and 100 Congressmen in place before you can seriously hope to have a significant impact on the Presidential level.

      Once 1 third party breaks the 2 party monopoly, it will be much easier for other parties to join the fray.

      Then, we have a new problem. The Electoral College functions very well with a 2 party system. With 3 or more parties winning electors, the dynamics of the system become much more complex.


    • #3296284

      Bloody Revolution

      by bucky kaufman (mcsd) ·

      In reply to Well done America

      Karl Marx said that when the government takes people’s money and uses it against them, when it ignores the needy and feeds the wealthy, bloody revolution is the inevitable result.

      When the Democrats were in power, this wasn’t a problem – because they gave the minority a voice in the issues of the day.

      Republicans have chosen to not only take over, but to shut out the voices of the Democrats, liberals, libertarians, reformers, socialists and everyone else.

      As the Iraqis have so clearly demonstrated – people with nothing left to live for will find something worth dying for.

      The ball’s in the Republicans’ court. They can choose to advance Militant Christian policies, and shut out moderate voices. They can continue to lie about WMD and al Quaeda, while doing nothing about either. It’s their call. War or peace.

      • #3312330

        Democrats and the minority

        by james schroer ·

        In reply to Bloody Revolution

        You would like to believe this but this is not always the case. The Republicans have brought in minority judges and the Democrats have filibustered them. They would like you to believe they are for the poor and the minority but are more about government control. The would like to give handouts to the poor instead of training them and giving them an insentive to work. They believe themselves to be Robin Hood. But if they would teach the people how to fend for themselves they wouldn’t have to give them handouts BUT they are afraid they would loose thier vote then.

        Now don’t get me wronge the Republicans aren’t any better and that’s why I started this discusion. We need a third party in the mix to straighten these two parties out and to actually speek the true and to follow through with the truth.

        • #3313064


          by bucky kaufman (mcsd) ·

          In reply to Democrats and the minority

          The would like to give handouts to the poor instead of training them and giving them an insentive to work.
          —– —– —– —–

          It’s dumb to think you can’t do both. Starving people make for lousy laborers.

        • #3313034

          Who said you can’t do both

          by james schroer ·

          In reply to Compassion

          Didn’t say anything about not feeding the people while they are being trained. A great man once said… “You can feed a man one day by giving him a fish but the same man could eat forever if you spend that day teaching him how to fish.”

        • #3311396

          You did.

          by bucky kaufman (mcsd) ·

          In reply to Who said you can’t do both

          The(y) [Democrats] would like to give handouts to the poor instead of training them and giving them an insentive to work.

          Clearly, you believe (or at least claim) that the Democrats provide no incentive to work, while Republicans do.

          Contradicting that are the facts – under Democrats more people did more productive work.

          Under Republicans – too many more people are receiving tax dollars instead of doing productive work. And they oppose collecting those taxes.

          That’s just nuts.

Viewing 3 reply threads