To Create the Democracy We Want - Challenge the Corrupt Two-Party System

[AZXD]

To Create the Democracy We Want

Challenge the Corrupt Two-Party System Don't Participate in It

An interesting article that IMO is well worth the read. I do not subscribe to all the views mentioned, but some of it is right or target. The system is broken!

The two party system reminds me of when I was raising my kids. If they were doing something I didn't like, call it “C,” I would say -- “you can do either A or B.” They felt they had a choice and stopped pursuing “C” but in reality I had already made their choice for them. The two party system is much like that for voters -– treating us as children.

Will either Party challenge the military industrial complex? Will they challenge the pharmaceutical or health insurance industries in order to provide health care for all? What has either Party done to ensure decent jobs at home that pay a living wage? Haven't both parties supported the corporate trade agreements that masquerade as “free trade” but really empower international corporations, undermine the environment, labor standards and consumer protection? Will either Party criticize Israel when it violates international law or the basic human rights of the Palestinian people? Will either Party end the failed war on drugs? Will either Party put in place universal voter registration -- the international standard for elections? Will either Party reduce barriers to third party and independent candidates -- or will they cynically hold onto power by denying democracy? Will either Party cut $300 billion in annual corporate welfare? On all of these and many other issues both parties fail to represent the interests of the American people.

[deepdiver]

While I agree with the the basic premise, the writer obviously is a leftist who doesn't understand our system of gov't. First of all, we do not live in a democracy. Democracies don't work. We live in a Republic. That is a VERY important distinction and one both parties ignore.

If the libertarians ever put up a decent candidate I would get behind that. Repeal all firearms laws and "illegal" drug laws. Dismantle the welfare system, eliminate social security (that's a tough one as I do agree with a safety net for those mentally or physically disabled, but it should be done on the state level and the transition wouuld be difficult, and I know this sounds hypocritical and I'm still struggling with that), eliminate the Dept of Education and HHS. Get rid of Medicare/Medicaid. Repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments and go to a flat tax or fair tax system and let the states have representation on the federal level again. Actually, about 90% of all federal law should probably be repealed. Give the rights and power back to the states where it belongs and was intended to reside. Yeah, I could get behind all that. The republicans and dems would all hate it and it would drive them nuts for people to actual have personal freedom to succeed or fail on their own again without a nanny-state. It would also eliminate almost all power of the politicians and vest it back in the states and the people.

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by deepdiver

While I agree with the the basic premise, the writer obviously is a leftist who doesn't understand our system of gov't. First of all, we do not live in a democracy. Democracies don't work. We live in a Republic. That is a VERY important distinction and one both parties ignore.

If the libertarians ever put up a decent candidate I would get behind that. Repeal all firearms laws and "illegal" drug laws. Dismantle the welfare system, eliminate social security (that's a tough one as I do agree with a safety net for those mentally or physically disabled, but it should be done on the state level and the transition wouuld be difficult, and I know this sounds hypocritical and I'm still struggling with that), eliminate the Dept of Education and HHS. Get rid of Medicare/Medicaid. Repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments and go to a flat tax or fair tax system and let the states have representation on the federal level again. Actually, about 90% of all federal law should probably be repealed. Give the rights and power back to the states where it belongs and was intended to reside. Yeah, I could get behind all that. The republicans and dems would all hate it and it would drive them nuts for people to actual have personal freedom to succeed or fail on their own again without a nanny-state. It would also eliminate almost all power of the politicians and vest it back in the states and the people.

Great post. I believe that Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo would agree with just about everything you wrote.

They are both Republicans with libertarian leanings and they are running for President.

Frank

[AZXD]

Originally Posted by deepdiver

While I agree with the the basic premise, the writer obviously is a leftist who doesn't understand our system of gov't. First of all, we do not live in a democracy. Democracies don't work. We live in a Republic. That is a VERY important distinction and one both parties ignore.

If the libertarians ever put up a decent candidate I would get behind that. Repeal all firearms laws and "illegal" drug laws. Dismantle the welfare system, eliminate social security (that's a tough one as I do agree with a safety net for those mentally or physically disabled, but it should be done on the state level and the transition wouuld be difficult, and I know this sounds hypocritical and I'm still struggling with that), eliminate the Dept of Education and HHS. Get rid of Medicare/Medicaid. Repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments and go to a flat tax or fair tax system and let the states have representation on the federal level again. Actually, about 90% of all federal law should probably be repealed. Give the rights and power back to the states where it belongs and was intended to reside. Yeah, I could get behind all that. The republicans and dems would all hate it and it would drive them nuts for people to actual have personal freedom to succeed or fail on their own again without a nanny-state. It would also eliminate almost all power of the politicians and vest it back in the states and the people.

Yea, that's why I said up front I do not agree with some of the views. But the basic idea seemed pretty good. I'm glad I'm not in Maryland where this guy is running. It's way to out there for me. I prefer your write-up of what should change. In fact I'd back these principles if you ran. It sounds a lot like the only 2 candidates who are making any sense.

Ron and Tom = Keeping my fingers crossed.

[ActionAl]

I've promoted the idea of eliminating the (two) party system, but I don't see an easy way to do it. For a while I thought the Reform Party of Perot would crack the two party system, but it couldn't get enough support or money to do it.

It appears that the so-called campaign reform has just strengthened the parties control over candidates and policy.

Any ideas on how to crack the parties?

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by ActionAl

Any ideas on how to crack the parties?

End federal funding of political parties. Taxpayer money should not be used to fund political parties. That is one of the major reasons that the two-party system is so hard to break--the two parties in power keep passing bills that allocate money to their own parties (and even to their national conventions!).

This shuts out 3rd parties and it is wrong.

Frank

[AZXD]

Originally Posted by FrankRizzoXD40

End federal funding of political parties. Taxpayer money should not be used to fund political parties. That is one of the major reasons that the two-party system is so hard to break--the two parties in power keep passing bills that allocate money to their own parties (and even to their national conventions!).

This shuts out 3rd parties and it is wrong.

Frank

I will only add, set an upper limit on contributions that any taxpayer can afford. This will allow any who wish to contribute, a chance to be heard just as loudly (financially) as anyone else.

I have heard the 08 elections will probably exceed 1 billion dollars. That's just crazy!

[deepdiver]

Unfortunately, historically new political parties arise because of a crisis or at least a perceived crisis that the populace does not believe the current parties can or will address. These crises have been social, economic or military, but I cannot think of any party in any western country that came to any significant power without a crisis. Can anyone else think of one?

[Powerman]

I would say that we are in a rather large crisis now. I think both partys would agree, but for different reasons. Perot actually made sense and came at a time when people were willing to listen. Too bad he turned out to be a complete nut job. Or is that what the 2 partys wanted us to believe? I think we are at a simillar time when normal Americans are feeling left out. That niether party represents the people, but represent the party.

I can complain about it, but I don't see how it will ever change. First off, we could disband them today, but they would simply reorganize under different names. There always has to be a us against them. It is natural for people to think that way. Even if there is more them's, there will always be an us and they will stick together.

Also, the two partys have so much control now there is no way a third could survive. Nobody will give money to something that will give no results. Those in a party can't break off either cause they won't survive. Even rougue Demos and Reps that disagree with their party won't shrug off the name. They need the recognition that comes with the party to have a voice. If Ruddy switched to Democrats Reps wouldn't listen to him and Demos wouldn't trust him. So he might have some Demo leanings, but he has to stay Republican.

So how in the world is a true independent third party ever going to survive? The game is already in play. The rules are set. If you want to win, you have to play by the rules. Money is the root of all evil. It is what gives power to the partys. It is also the thing that keeps a third from having a chance. Those that hand over the money, want results. They will get that with one of the two partys.

The one thing that Republicans and Democrats can both agree on is that a third party would be bad for buisness. They would both work together hard to keep that from happening.

[deepdiver]

I agree with you to a point powerman. While we are in a crisis, that (those) crisis doesn't actually touch most people day to day. Most people hear about Iraq, illegal immigrants, tax rates, energy issues daily, but it doesn't really effect their lives. It may inconvenience them, irritate them or cost them a little more money, but frankly, most people in this country have it so very good that those irritants don't really effect how most people live day to day. So while we may be in crisis in one sense, it isn't a national crisis in another sense. Even 9/11 wasn't really a national crisis per se. We all were shocked, grieved, horrified, etc. but having .001% of your population killed in an attack, having .001% of your population killed in war really just doesn't effect the daily lives of most people. All you have to do is put down nthe newspaper or turn off the tv and *poof* problem is gone for as long as you want it to be. Am I making sense? I'm not trying to minimize any of these issues as they are serious issues to those of us who pay attention, to most people it is a theoretical moral problem, not one effecting their daily life.

The kind of crisis I was talking about was one like what caused the Republican party to be created. Slavery and states rights incorporating possible economic and social ruin for 25% of the population and 1/2 the geographic nation, a fundamental change in culture and society that would daily effect that 25% of the population, SCOTUS rulings and federal law being flaunted by significant portions of the population, threats to the complete breakdown of the rule of law in certain parts of the nation, etc. Those were issues that effected a HUGE proportion of the population (actually nearly everyone depending on how you analyze the economic issue, food and clothing supply). Obviously those issues led to the "Civil" War.

If our economy collapsed, if foreign troops invaded on our soil (beyond Mexican Army troops shooting at our border patrol and national guard troops I mean), etc it may be enough of a crisis to cause a third party. Even if there is a serious enough threat really believed by the majority, a charismatic third party leader may be able to come to power. Economic ruin in Germany following the Versaillies treaty led to the rise of the Nazi party, but even that took over a decade.

I hope this makes sense. I'm not trying to get into specifics of how people are effected or the morality or significance of those who are effected. I'm purposely talking in general terms because my argument is about a general actual or perceived crisis agreed to as being a crisis by a majority of voters.