Skip to comments.Has the Two-Party System Failed?
Posted on 04/30/2012 9:01:32 AM PDT by Mozilla
The truth in American politics today, is that we have a one-party system, with Democrats representing one-side of the Big Government Party and Republicans representing another side of the Big Government Party.
Are "we the people" truly represented anymore?
We've grown so accustomed to the 2-party system, that we take it for granted that in America, the land of unlimited possibilities, choosing either a Democrat or Republican amounts to our only available option. And in a sense this is true, because over the years, our Overlords have written laws that game the system in their favor.
So, does our current 2-party system of Democrats and Republicans provide an accurate representation for "we the people"? Or in reality, does it act more to divide us, thus causing our country harm?
Our Founders were not necessarily advocates of political parties. Ben Franklin believed that "confusion engendered" with political parties. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay warned that a political party system would only create a "spirit of faction."
George Washington, our first president, refused allegiance to any political party during his 8 years in office, and thought that alternating between 2 parties would be a "frightful despotism."
At the beginning of the 20th century, the Republican Party came to represent farmers, the gold standard, fiscal responsibility, and a non-interventionist foreign policy. The Democratic Party represented the Southern landowners, Northern laborers, a fiat money system, a more powerful federal government, and an interventionist foreign policy.
Fast-forward to the modern parties ... The end of the Ronald Reagan administration and Cold War brought significant changes to the parties. The first being the ascendancy of "neoconservatism" with the Bush Sr. administration, and the second being Bill Clinton's "New Democrats."
The "New Democrats" began championing unrestricted globalization, social engineering and more government authority, while paying lip-service to free markets. The "neoconservatives" championed unrestricted globalization as well (while paying lip-service to the free markets), but also demanded an aggressive and interventionist foreign policy.
It's obvious our 2-party system hasn't solved the "issues" of the day. Instead, the system has become increasingly corrupt. Both parties continuously make promises they never intend to keep, and neither represents the people they claim to represent.
Why? Because both parties are committed to only one purpose - expanding the size and scope of government, and thus, their power. They both want control of our multi-trillion dollar federal budget, and nothing more.
As Ben Franklin warned too, the 2-party system has engendered confusion. The partisan name-calling of "wingnut" and "moonbat" offer nothing of substance to the debate, but merely divides. If you're anti-war, you're automatically a "radical leftist," while supporting the right to life makes you a "right-wing religionist." Even the words "conservative" and "liberal" don't have clear meaning anymore.
I believe the 2-party system has greatly divided our nation, pitting "we the people" against each other, whereas we once were united against the State.
One might argue that it was set forward 60 years, we now have 80 Black Caucus members that communists or at least recognized Socialists. We have more Communists in Hollywood than we ever did. If we had gained anything then the Venona papers would have been big news, they weren't. Those declassified KGB papers by the way, proved McCarthy was absolutely correct.
The Two-party system has failed because at this stage of the game both parties stand for the same thing: “Goodness”! Neither party has principles or an ideology other than to be everything to everyone. And we are all at fault mocking the minor parties for having distinct programs and ideologies. In Italy, why, in Russia, the Communists have their own parties, here a Communist can join either major party and be elected, no one will kick him out of the party (what an ideer!) as would happen in multi-party systems if a member stepped out of line. You toe the line in such systems, and coalitions are built in the legislature and not within the party which stands for this and that and not for other things. We’ll be bitching about RINOs until the cows come home, but that is how the political system is constructed.
Votes don't elect our president, Delegates do, so it is a ed herring to say that we elect someone with less than 50% of the vote, when in fact they may get less than 50% and still get elected, that is the way it is supposed to work. The RINO primary however is controlled by an Oligarchy.
“Instead, the system has become increasingly corrupt. Both parties continuously make promises they never intend to keep, and neither represents the people they claim to represent. “
It’s time to say “Enough!”
I won’t do it anymore. I will not pull the lever for this garbage again. Ridicule me all you want. Tell me I’m not thinking strategically. Whatever. It’s time to get down to business.
Every traitorous, self-serving @sshole out there is pushing their luck. I honestly hope that they are enjoying their last few moments of largesse. It will make it that much sweeter when they realize they’ve gone too far.
Care to translate that into English?
America's Party is rock solid on secure borders and a strong defense.
Campaign financing and the high cost of television advertising could be said to encourage oligarchy, but the problem is more open primaries in the early states, which give us candidates that party loyalists don't always want.
But I'm not so sure about the "Oligarchy" thing in general. The question is whether you want the party to be more representative of a particular philosophy or of opinion in the country as a whole.
Change the rules to get candidates who are more consistent ideologically but further from where most of the public is right now and somebody would still say an oligarchy controls the system, but it would be an oligarchy that you support.
Or said another way; Good government went out the window with Morality. Even America's exclusive site for God, Family, Country, Life & Liberty conservatives, we find great resistance to the idea that we didn't just arrive in this situation because we elected a couple bad presidents.
We arrived here because we have rejected God and the unabridged teachings of out founders.
So, let me say this about that, of the four you named TWO ARE RINOS and you didn't even realize it, so why should I discuss the matter further.
But I'm done with
the GOP Democrat Lite.
Several of the other candidates were running just to make Romney look good.
That's how they do it in Europe.
Most Americans have no idea what goes on in European parliamentary politics and you'd have a hard sell.
Most Americans have no idea what goes in in American party politics. My proposal would make “parties” not a part of the structure of the system. You can’t outlaw alliances, it would be a waste of time, but you can remove them from the structure. Which would remove a lot of their power, if only by opening it up to other “parties”. That’s part of the big problem right now, the structure of the federal government is built around there being 1 party that has the majority in a given chamber and a second party that has the rest of the seats. When was the last time when somebody without an R or D after their name got legislation even on the floor much less passed? Can’t do it, they’re outside the structure. Removing that structure opens things up to independents, new alliances, dissolution of alliances, and getting away from out headcount oriented politics.
What that means is you MUST ally with other groups to get your candidate into office.
To eliminate "that problem" you need to abolish single member districts and set up the US as a single electoral district where all the Congresscritters are elected in a big ol' lump.
Then you'd get your third parties and everybody would have to campaign nationwide to get enough votes ~~~~~~~~~~~ and you'd have to be REALLY REALLY RICH to even think of running for office.
You think campaign ads are bad now, wait until you have 600 politicians running those ads in every city in the country ~ ~
But of course that district has been constructed to give 1 party a distinct advantage. It’s one of the reasons congressional approval is in the single digits on a general poll but 95% of them are going to be re-elected in November. If there aren’t parties constructing districts that problem goes away, you can still have districts without gerrymandering, and the districts become actually useful because the people in them are no longer pre-selected to keep one party in power.
Guys run for primaries now nationally without having to be really really rich. That’s what campaign donations are for. The only real difference in my system is that primaries reduce the field (probably to 5 for president, fewer for lower offices) instead of creating party nominees.
Campaign ads wouldn’t change at all. Primaries would be wide open like they are now, general elections a reduced field. Except of course you no longer have deep pocketed parties buying ads, because their alliances are now informal they’d have to donate to the campaign just like everybody else.
I was waiting for someone to say the truth. We are controlled by an Oligarchy the two parties are a joke and both are controlled by the ruling elite. In short an Oligarchy, not a Republic. In the GOP primary there were really only two candidates Ron Paul and everyone else, since everyone else was to a large degree a Bush like neocon GOPEer too, of that lot Newt was the best, Romney the worst.
(But it is basically because there is no party with significant government positions/seats/power that truly espouses small government, individual rights, and free markets.)
If you had 600 politicians doing full nationwide advertising to get votes to represent the biggest district on Earth, you wouldn’t have time left for other broadcast communication. It’d eat all the bandwith!
It’s not going to be 600 politicians doing full nationwide advertising for the biggest district on earth, I already showed you why every piece of that is false. Read it and use your brain. Not having parties does not get rid of congressional districts, in only gets rid of having parties gerrymander districts to maintain their power.
Really? That's great. Let me know when they elect their first dog catcher.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.