Posted on 03/13/2002 2:47:41 PM PST by Michael2001
I've heard him criticize Republicans before. As for his "irrational hatred of Alan Keyes" (a mischaracterization and exaggeration, to be sure) and "third parties", as far as I'm concerned, his credibility is only enhanced by your description.
What we have now is the GOPs nearly completely abandoning the Conservative ideology, losing all respect for our Constitution and competing with the Democrats to grow and empower the gov't as much as possible. And, while at it, faking some huge disagreements with their fellow Dems, claiming 'conservatism' for themselves and though their sheer well-funded weight, preventing any true freedom or Constitution-loving voice from being heard.
Several viable political groups would facilitate debate and would give the people the ability to more closely align themselves with the groups that best represent their view. The fact that 50% of our electorate doesn't vote could mean that many of those 50% can't find anyone to represent them or can't even imagine any alternative to the ever-growing daddy-knows-best state. I and many people that I know can't identify with either of these two political Mafias. I found a presidential candidate to vote for last time around but I knew he would not win long before the election started. Most of those who knew didn't waste their time.
Would it be 'different' if there were more political parties? Of course it would. The first visible difference: we would no longer have this ideological monopoly that suffocates most original political thought. How many original political thinkers are alive and producing today?
Would it be better? I personally don't know but enquiring minds would very much like to.
This is not the fault of the two-party system, but of the voters that blindly support the RATS. The two-party power-sharing structute is the bedrock of our nation's political system; except for a roughly ten-year shakeout period just after the Constitution went into effect, the US has always been a two-party system. The two parties sharing power have changed over those 200 years, of course, but there have never been more than two. It's just the way the system turns out to best work, even if the Founders didn't realize that particular fact ahead of time.
The US will always be a two-party system. Hopefully, the Democrats will eventually screw up enough to fall completely out of power and either have the DNC taken over by people with an actual value system, or be completely replaced by a new party (which will not have anything to do with H. Ross Perot or Jesse Ventura). But in the end, there will still be only ever be two parties sharing power.
True, but don't you think he should uphold his oath of office and enforce the laws of this land? You and I can disagree on whether it is good policy to allow millions of people who came here illegally to remain. At least he is working to make that possible in some form of legal manner. But what about his NOT upholding campaign finance, bribery, blackmail, privacy and election laws (where democRATS are concerned)? What about his not upholding the laws against murder and mass murder (just because democRATS may have committed those crimes)? What about his not upholding the laws regarding national security and treason (which democRATS appear to have broken)? That is not something that we can just have a different opinion about. If you want to change those laws and not make those things a crime, go ahead ... but do it legally. Otherwise, you can go on expecting people like me to call Bush on it.
I do know. It would not be better. See my response #865. The system set up by our Constitution pretty much demands a two-party power struggle to operate properly. The addition of truly powerful third, fourth or fifth parties would throw the entire government into disarray and gridlock. (Not that gridlock is always bad, but gridlock always IS bad.)
The first visible difference: we would no longer have this ideological monopoly that suffocates most original political thought. How many original political thinkers are alive and producing today?
A good point, but we have the First Amendment. There is no need for full national party structures to exist in order for people to come up with and distribute their political ideas. If they're any good, their ideas WILL be noticed. (For example, the Libertarians have a pretty decent national structure to get their ideas out, but 98% of the country still thinks their ideas are nuts when they are presented with them.)
I'm not sure what you're getting out. The President is not the leader of the judicial branch. He can't just declare the Clintonoids "guilty" and have them locked up like a South American dictator.
Of course not, but surely you don't think that if Bush says "investigate", Ashcroft won't ... AND vice versa. Ultimately, the ONLY person now keeping the crimes committed those 8 dark years by the democRATS from being properly investigated is Bush. All I want is a PROPER investigation and all I hear the defenders of Bush and other "move-on"ers doing now is SPINNING ... just like Clinton's defender's did.
Not that easy to do, especially since the 2 Parties have arrogated the unConstitutional power to grant favors and preferences to their chosen groups in exchange for votes and money. Their ability to enact unConstitutional statutes is little different from the King permitting the peasants to bring their requests to their Master in exchange for property or service to the King. A good example of this lies in the way our illegal Tax Code functions. The Parties can submit legislation that gives a tax benefit or exemption to one American citizen (or group) at the expense of another American Citizen. Yet the Constitution mandates that all taxes be "uniform" and none can be based on one's productivity (income).
This is only one example, however. Because the government is allowed to operate unConstutitionally, it can operate as a King -- doling out favors, privileges, benefits, etc. Thus, to participate in the system, individuals and groups must organize and offer money, votes, and quid pro quo arrangements to their Party in order to be the beneficiary of the government's omnipotence.
Any new or principled Party, who might be reluctant to participate in this illegal and corrupt process would have little chance of making inroads into the existent power structure. There is no doubt, a power monopoly can oppress and even eliminate its competition. After all, that's what monopolies do.
Yeah, well, that was their greater than sliced bread idea. Now you gotta do them one better. Come up with a better idea, then get millions of people to join you and you've got a viable party. How else can you do it?
And; although I have very serious reservations about the Ron Brown theories; very fine in the abstract.
But what are you DOING?
Best ones -- Brian
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.