Have four or five political parties??
Have four or five political parties??
Hands up who likes a snitch?
That would be a great solution. Give people more variety and more choice. It would also give people who are not Republican or Democrat some actual representation in government, if we switched to a proportional representation system.
"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most — that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least."
- Eugene V. Debs (1855-1926), five-time Socialist Party candidate for U.S. President
I think the real solution is to get past the whole idea of bundled philosophies being served up by a party all together. Then bar Madison ave. from creating a giant $#@! storm that gets us all at each others throats instead of concentrating on fixing our broken system. Campaigning is nothing more than a penis enhancement commercial that drops millions of dollars into all the wrong pockets. Outlaw it. Any person that runs for any elected office would be bound to full disclosure on every aspect of who they are and run for office by submitting a resume of no more than say 5000 words. It would be posted on line at least 6 months before the election. That would be the extent of the process. No media advertising would be allowed what so ever. Then, once they actually get into office they are held fully accountable for any lie. The same people that gave the trust to this person can at anytime revoke it for any reason. Abuse of the system by anyone elected or otherwise would be considered high treason and punished as such. Pay and benefits would be changed to reflect what the average national pay is. They must take up residence in Washington and report to work at least 5 days a week. NO TRAVELING on our dime would be permitted. No pension would be offered. They eat what we eat. They endure what we endure.
My beliefs are a distillation of what I was taught as a child and what I observe as an adult.
The Sage of Main Street (12-30-2013)
I see. In your world if it isn't black and white then it's all the same color. Let's take one point although they all have the same juvenile flaw.
"both support welfare statism"
I am a fiscal conservative. I support the state taking my taxes to help those born with mental and physical disabilities. I support the state supporting someone injured who clearly cannot work and support themselves. I support the state support the elderly who have insufficient income. Now, according to you that's exactly the same as supporting having drunks and junkies on welfare because smoking dope and/or drinking all day prevents them from working. It's exactly the same as supporting someone with a Permanent Emotional Disability of really not wanting to work.
For rational people, it isn't the same. Creating cutesy labels for your nonsense doesn't help. Most on the left and the right think the U.S. needs a military. Oooh, that makes them both supporters of the military-industrial complex. Most on the left and the right support corporations and the products and services they provide. Ooooh, they both support corporatism.
The fact they you cannot see any difference across the political spectrum is a tribute to your problem.
Exactly my point. Practical politics today is about making people think they have two real, distinct choices when in reality the only differences are incrementally distinct based on whatever public policy people are willing to cling to. Do Republicans and Democrats support the same state organs and apparatuses from Departments to agencies and insurance schemes? Yes. Might Republicans and Democrats disagree on a 3% tax cut/hike over the course of four years? ERMAHGERD TOTALLY OPPOSITE.
For a rational person that can cut through the bull$#@! and ideologies and partisanship, they are the same. You're essentially saying "Sure, we support the same things, but I support a little less of it and managing it better. See? We're totally different!"For rational people, it isn't the same. Creating cutesy labels for your nonsense doesn't help. Most on the left and the right think the U.S. needs a military. Oooh, that makes them both supporters of the military-industrial complex. Most on the left and the right support corporations and the products and services they provide. Ooooh, they both support corporatism.
The fact they you cannot see any difference across the political spectrum is a tribute to your problem.
No, you're not different. A Democrat who supports gun registries "to save the children" and a Republican that wants "easier access" to guns but still wants them all registered and licensed. They both support regulating the right to arms. Every Democrat and Republican since the 30's has run, not on opposing ideologies, but on incrementalism. It's a totally Hegelian notion of politics, based on compromises and a slow, incremental elimination of our rights.
How politics has worked since the Progressive era-
A Progressive says "We're at A, I want to go to D."
America says "That's too radical, no D"
Progressive says "How about C?"
America says "No, still too radical"
Progressives say "Ok, let's compromise, how about just B?"
America says "Ok, that's not as bad as D"
(a couple years later)
Progressives say "We're at B, how about E?"
America says "Woah now, that's more radical than you wanted last time"
Progressives say "Ok, ok, let's compromise with... C?"
America says "Well, that's not as bad as E"
(a little later)
America says "Sure, D isn't as radical as F"
Progressives say "I'm glad we could compromise"
This is Hegelianism and the incrementalist approach thesis, antithesis and synthesis. I don't buy it. This is why I said ideologies stopped being important in the 30's. FDR attacked Hoover and then continued his policies, plus the Swope Plan. Republicans ran against Democrats all throughout the 20th century and especially against FDR on the notion that everyone supports statism but Republicans support a more efficient and less corrupt statism. And I'm reading your distinctions without differences and I'm just like, who the $#@! wants a more efficient tyranny? If my choices are a tyranny and a slightly more productive tyranny, do I really have a damn choice? Fudge no.
Even after the boogeyman of the USSR died, we've been to war in every $#@!hole around this rock to "preserve freedom" under every president. We do have a military-industrial complex and you'd be hard-pressed to prove otherwise. We have a prison-industrial complex and you'd be hard-pressed to prove otherwise. We have a Prussian education system and welfare state and you'd be hard-pressed to prove otherwise. The machinations of the state don't end because you think your side is more efficient or the other guy says he's more humanitarian.
I'm not moved by claims, but by evidence. How many in Congress leave politics to go into banking, business and lobbying? How many come from that to go into politics? To ignore the collusion is blindness. I don't care about your tiny, minute differences. Most differences you'll find between any politicians are insignificant and don't mean anything in the grand scheme. It's practical politics. Galvanize a bunch of idiots into arguing over bull$#@! while the system as it is remains in tact only to slowly, incrementally enhance its might.
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and hence clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.“ H.L. Mencken
"Of all men's miseries the bitterest is this: to know so much and to have control over nothing." -Herodotus
"Nobody seems to care. That’s what the owners count on. The fact that Americans will probably remain willfully ignorant of the big red, white and blue dick that’s being jammed up their assholes every day, because the owners of this country know the truth. It’s called the American Dream, 'cause you have to be asleep to believe it. " -George Carlin
Polecat (12-30-2013)
On the outside, trickling down on the Insiders
We won't live free until the Democrats, and their voters, live in fear.
I like that idea!
But we cant even trust them to draw up bills for us, you know.
We need to form a fourth arm of government. A plebiscite of the people, to over rule the other 3 branches of govt.
And the recall, referendum and petition installed.
But first, we must get CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM! Take all the huge PAC money away from them!
The Sage of Main Street (12-31-2013)
Money talks, right? Talk is speech, right? So bribery must be Freedom of Speech! What part of the SCROTUS'S Cretins Untied decision don't you understand?
The next step for the enemies of democracy will be to take advantage of our elitist Constitution's provision that the electors at the Electoral College are under no obligation to vote the way their states' voters did. A little Freedom of Speech spread among them will guarantee that the people will get disenfranchised. If they continue to believe in the sacred cow (or Golden Calf) Constitution, there's nothing they can do about it. On the other hand (the Invisible Hand picking your pocket), that will make sure that the right people are running things, right?
On the outside, trickling down on the Insiders
We won't live free until the Democrats, and their voters, live in fear.