Republicans vs Democrats: A rivalry gone too far

[Bennu]

I really hate this, every time when both parties discuss their differences, the discussion turns into a "Show", even if someone has a small disagreement the supporter of the other party would insult him calling him names like Anti-American or "Tree Hugging Hippie". I remember when Howling Wolf had a disagreement about Bush, Ralph went out comparing the fellow to Tokyo Rose, Axis Sally, Hanoi Hannah and Lord Haw Haw. The problem is that there a number of liberals who want to pass laws like Gun control... etc and that people like Gilly Gopher do exist unfortunatly however Republicans aren't perfect either. Its true that democrats can be crybabies when Republicans have more power however Republicans did the same when Democrats were in power. Democrats are like "We have to be right because we actually care about you, about the small people and the hippies' ideals of peace and love even if its seems wrong", while Republicans are like "Our way is the TRUE way even if its screws your life" basicly, no matter the good things they do, both will always screw things up for everyone.


And for crying out loud, because of the Dixie Chicks issue a lot of pro-war groups believe celebrities should NOT express their opinions. COME ON!!! Just because they're celebrities doesn't mean they can't express their own opinion. They're HUMAN BEINGS FOR GODSAKE, they have every right to express their opinion! Having freedom of speech is one of the great things of being an individiual.

I'm SO sick and tired of this Republicans vs Democrats crap! This doesn't happen in America alone, it happens the other parts of the world, I live in Egypt and political parties here don't even try to improve the country unless an election was about to begin.

There is no such thing as a perfect political party, they all make mistakes. It's just that the slightest mention of a bad act by either party creates this crazy argument and both sides acting like cry babies.

[BrockthePaine]

Well, a lot of what you see is because the internet is very much a place of polarized arguments. The people with a bone to pick stay loud, while the people in the center just say "I'm in the center" and then never say much more than that. I'll have to admit that on certain subjects I am one of the loud folks... but the core of the American system is the ability to state your opinions, yes?

As an aside, are you a native Egyptian or a westerner living in Egypt? If the former, your english and writing style is very good for a non-native speaker, just wanted to compliment you on that...

[Bennu]

I'm Egyptian, but I was born in England to an Egyptian moderate muslim family (e.g.: my mother doesn't wear a hijab or anything like that). However many say my accent is a mixture of British and American (mostly due to my fasination with American culture). Thanks for the compliment .

[Sebastis]

I believe we had a discussion about the Dixie Chicks before. Yes they do have the right to speak their minds, but they also need to be ready for the flack that they will get when holding a potentially unpopular opinion.

That goes the same for me or anyone else. I think I may have lost my last job because I held views that my employers didn't like. So there for I have sucked it up and moved on with my life. You won't see me complaining, because I spoke my mind and someone had a problem with it.

Celebrities are not above rebuke just because they are celebrities.

(BTW gladd to see you back on the thread I was wondering if you were OK)

[Bennu]

Sorry, if I worried you.

[Rokas]

The problem with celebrities expressing opinions is due largely to the fact that a good number of idiots actually LISTEN to them. Somehow, it's gotten about in the mindset of people that if someone famous says something, then it's Canon, as if those bubble-brained line-readers have some sort of pipeline to the truth.

"I disagree with what you say, though I shall fight to the death for your right to say it." (I forget the guy who said it.)

That sums it up, though. Celebrities can express their opinion, but I can exercise my right to call them shallow, numb-skulled crack-smoking amoral liberal fingerpuppets who can stuff a lemon into their mouths, because they have as much right to talk politics as a fish does to talk about the breeding habits of elephants.

Sorry for the tirade, but for the love of God, I get tired about hearing about how this celebrity or that is saying this or taking up that cause. The constant attention given to them is sickening, and when they express their opinions as if they have more authority JUST BECAUSE they're famous... It really ticks me off.

That's my two cents.

[Tbolt]

Just to put in my two cents:

Politics in general are despicable. Parties care only about themselves and how they can keep themselves in power. The top priority of a political party is not necessary the welfare of the nation, but the welfare of the party.

When I vote I do not pull the lever to blindly follow the party line, I look at the issues that concern me and vote for the people that I think will benefit the nation the most.

What needs to happen in this nation is that the people need to start paying attention to the actions of their leaders. If a candidate offers A, but gives B when in office, throw him out. Repeat this process enough times and eventually the party will realize that they cannot rely on blind obesiance. and will start listening to what the voters want, and not just to a vocal minority.

Of course this also means that the general population will need to be able to think for itself, and the core of that lies in a strong family structure. Without a good basis, a society cannot stand. Public education right now seems more centered on winning games of trivial pursuit than generating rational thinkers.

[Angua]

I have to admit, I hate the two party system. There are just too many people who feel the need to vote for the democrat simply because the candidate is a democrat and the same goes for republicans.

I go to a pretty far left university so the idea is slighty skewed but for the most part I feel I have to choose if I am on the left or the right. People there don't like it if you say you are in the middle and agree with certain aspects of both parties. Just by not agreeing with everything slightyl liberal makes you automatically a conservative on the campus and sometimes a white supremist.

Where I get really annoyed is when this idea carrys over to politicians. They seem to be afraid to say things which aren't completely aligned with the stereotypical viewpoints of the party in case they don't get elected. Not everyone has completely standardized viewpoints, in fact most people do not, yet they pander to those who do.

[The JAM]

As any Mexican can tell you from last Sunday's experience, a multi-party system isn't exactly The Best Place On Earth, either.

[Rokas]

As any Mexican can tell you from last Sunday's experience, a multi-party system isn't exactly The Best Place On Earth, either.

You're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't.

A.k.a.

You can't win, you can't break even, and you can't even quit the game.


And note, I am speaking of all political systems. Not pickin' on anyone in specific here.

[BrockthePaine]

Well, this country was designed for a NO-PARTY system - people would vote for the best person who ran. That system lasted a whole 1 president and then died when George Washington retired. No-Party is better than One- or Two-Party, but it just doesn't tend to be stable.

[Webkilla]

this is why I love the danish multi-party system...

we have over seven different parties - from exteme right wing to equally extreme left wing, with the majority being more center-ish or just a lil' to either side.

makes for far more fair elections, since any 'winner' can't expect more than 30% of the combined votes - and thus we always end up with a nice coalition goverment being formed, the winning party seeking out one or two lesser ones to team up with, so they can get a majority vote.


to that end, I think that american politics resemble bolsjevik (spelling?) communism more than democrazy...

- if one of the two parties gets all three big seats, that is, majority in senate, congress and the presidency then you technically do have a one party system in that period

- the amount of blatant election fraud is more or less similar to communism, plus the whole use of the 'if you dont vote with us, you're not patriotic' reminds of the 'if you dont vote with, you're not supporting the revolution'

I could go on... but come on - Ann Coulter...

[The JAM]

We've had that for the past 6 years, and ALL the factions are so stubborn that sorely needed legislation has been BLOCKED by just about everyone. And it looks like we're going to get 6 more years of that.

[BrockthePaine]

this is why I love the danish multi-party system...

Hmm, I disagree. While a 2-party system is not exactly the best way to run a country, having six or seven leads, in practice, to more bureaucracy and gridlock. Witness the current fiasco in the Netherlands: a minority party, with two or three seats, pulls out of a coalition and might just cause a whole new election with all the expense and tussle that occurs.

to that end, I think that american politics resemble bolshevik communism more than democracy...

Oh thanks. We really appreciate that. I should point out that we are a union of states, where the power is SUPPOSED to rest in the hands of the state legislatures, and the federal government is supposed to deal with trade, treaties, and national protection. The people voice their views about candidates in the primary elections, which, in my view are far more important than the finals. The primary candidates must appeal to the wings, while the final candidates must appeal to the middle.

While it's possible for a single party to take the House, Senate, and Presidency all in one sweep, that doesn't mean as much if the other party still controls in the state legislatures. Like I said, power is supposed to be concentrated at the state level. Witness, for instance, the current fights over abortion, homosexual marriage, and gun control - these arguments are being settled in STATE, not national legislatures. On one hand, you have lefty states like California or Massachussetts, who are very liberal, and very conservative states like Kansas or Utah, or middling states like Ohio and Florida.

[MikeVanPelt]

this is why I love the danish multi-party system...

Hmm, I disagree. While a 2-party system is not exactly the best way to run a country, having six or seven leads, in practice, to more bureaucracy and gridlock. Witness the current fiasco in the Netherlands: a minority party, with two or three seats, pulls out of a coalition and might just cause a whole new election with all the expense and tussle that occurs.

That's the big problem with the parlimentary type system.

Not that "plurality takes all" doesn't have its own horrible problems, with one of its most infamous catastrophes being Chile in 1970, where the Communist candidate won even though the "*ANYBODY* but Allende" vote was 64%.

I kind of like the idea of some kind of multiple preference voting, with "none of these candidates" one of the choices, and no primaries. You rate the acceptable canddiates in order of preference, "none of these", then the unacceptable candidates in order of offensiveness.

There are a number of proceedures for picking the winner out of this. The one I'm most familiar is the Australian system which is used for Hugo Award balloting, but there are others that are "better" by some measurements of goodness.

[Atarlost]

Two party democracy and parlimentary democracy are the two best arguments ever devised in favor of enlightened despotism.

[Tbolt]

One other thing to note: perhaps not all systems are scalable. Dennmark has a population of about 5-6 million people, which is about the size of the average american state. Overall America has a population of about 300 million. What works on a small scale might not work on a large scale.

If Denmark has 7 parties representing the will of 6 million souls, theoretically that could blossom into 350 parties in a nation the size of the US. Given human ego (the downfall of ANY political system) could you imagine the ensuing log jam from that many parties?

Again, this is where I agree with Brock. The theorey behind the federal government is that it acts as a cohesive force among the states. If you want to pick on Hawaii, you are raising the ire of Hawaii's 49 brothers.

However, the individual states should be free to determine their internal affairs. A Washington bureaucrat from Virginia really has no clue what is best for the citizens of Alaska, but he probably knows well the needs of those in his home state (assuming he's worth anything)

The larger the central government gets, the less wieldy and efficient it becomes. I don't care what you have, communism, socialism, republic, democracy, monarchy, despotism, whatever.

If the leadership of the prople view their role as a public service and a grave responsibility, not a right, nor even a privelige, if they put the welfare of the nation and its people above their own self interest and ego, if they recognize they are not the highest authority, but they are answerable to another even higher authority that they will never be able to usurp, bribe, con, change or corrupt, then the nation and its people will prosper.

[Reignbow]

Well, there are solutions to the too-many-parties problem. Germany learned a painful lesson on this in the 1918-1933 period: The system was geared towards many small parties who quarreled all the time and dissolved their coaltions. One time, the party with the majority of votes actually refused to form a government - talk about running away from your mandate. After WW2, the new constitution emphasized stability; e.g., impeachment may only happen when a new candidate is already named.

To deal with the party problem, there is a 5% vote limit on federal parliament. That means that only parties which capture more than 5% of the federal vote are admissible to the Bundestag. This currently makes for five parties, the two largest of which are currently in coalition government. They are usually rivals, but each of them would have needed to ally with two other parties to form a majority, and that seemed to much hassle to either of them.

The result is that while there is a lot of choice, it's mostly the parties which end up forming the goverming coalition that are heard; people who voted for one of the others get little out of it. And of course, in the formation of a coalition, parties usually have to compromise on some of their key objectives. I can agree that a many-party system is far from optimal; but I suspect that the two party system has slightly larger drawbacks. The overwhelming importance of swing states and most importantly, the uncompromising them-or-us mentality that a lot of people seem to derive from it hinder democracy.

Hostility between Democrats and Republicans is not particularly productive and leads to a lot of worthless and disproportionate mudslinging. It reaches from comparing Bush to Hitler (I may not be a fan of Mr. Bush, but I don't think he's gassing arabs on his ranch, either) to accusing anyone calling for moderation in goverment supervision a terrorist-lover (vague and difficult-to-refute accusation of the year: unamerican). It's true that too much compromise and consensus turns politics into a sort of bland porridge, but having a country switch from one party line to the other at intervals while siginificant parts of the population are spewing venom at each other can't be much better. After all, neither party stays in power forever.

Okay, and now I'll shut up.

[Tbolt]

Although if one thinks about it, mudslinging has been a part of the American political landscape since the nation was founded. John Adams's political rivals accused him of wanting to set up a monarchy in the Fledgling US. Ultimately it was the political infighting that cost him his second term.

Look at the politics that led America into civil war, and the results of politics afterwards. As I've said before, I don't like politics, it's a pity we cant form a government without it.

[Quinch]

this is why I love the danish multi-party system...

Hmm, I disagree. While a 2-party system is not exactly the best way to run a country, having six or seven leads, in practice, to more bureaucracy and gridlock.

{checks the candidate list for the last presidential election in his country}

Howzabout thirteen presidential candidates and about thirty-four parties on average running for the parliamentary elections?


Reminding you that it's just as bad on the other extreme of the spectrum,

Quinch