Posted on 06/08/2008 12:54:33 PM PDT by Dawnsblood
For the last 44 years, Kelleher has run for office 16 times and lost 15. His only taste of victory came in 1971, when he was elected a delegate to Montana’s Constitutional Convention. There, he helped replace the state’s century-old territorial constitution with one of the most progressive governing documents in the nation. Kelleher’s political passion then, as now, is unique - and largely unpopular: He wants to replace the U.S. Senate, House and presidency with a parliament.
Under a parliamentary system, citizens vote for parties, not individual candidates. The party with the most votes selects a prime minister, who serves as a kind of president, from the ranks of the legislative branch. Under a parliament, Kelleher said Wednesday, you can’t have a president of one party playing the blame game with a Congress controlled by the opposing party while the nation’s real problems and real people wait endlessly for real solutions.
“There’s no more passing the buck,” he said. “The party in power is responsible for everything that goes wrong, as well as everything that goes right. Now, nobody is responsible, really.”
Such broad representation would free America to deal with the problems that have literally been known to bring tears to Kelleher’s eyes: He is passionate about eradicating poverty. He believes health care is a right of all citizens and the government should pay for it with tax dollars. He believes bad trade policies have shipped American jobs overseas, while bad tax policy has created a startling dichotomy between rich and poor that threatens democracy itself. He believes government exists to serve the common good, not necessarily private interests, and that taxation, if spent wisely, is a solution to America’s problems, not the cause.
(Excerpt) Read more at missoulian.com ...
A “Charming Kook”
The US Constitution was intentionally written to prevent exactly such a concentration of power. It's worked pretty well for 225 years.
There were no viable candidates running and the primary got very little press or attention.
Question for this guy:
It would bring tears to his eyes to see us eradicate poverty, but, what exactly does he propose? President Johnson lauched the War on Poverty in 1965. Many government programs have been enacted to fight poverty. Exactly what more can government do to fight poverty? We have spent trillions of dollars on the war on poverty in the last 40 years, and the results are not good. We certainly have not eradicated poverty. Can we really fight poverty with any more government programs; that is a good question.
In the USA our system of two major political parties is a “parliament by other means.”
In Europe a dozen or more small parties run candidates.
After an election, successful small party candidates join larger coalitions in an attempt to create a majority.
In the USA if a small party is successful in some way, it’s best policies are quickly folded into one or both of the major parties.
In the USA we make our coalitions BEFORE the election.
In parliamentary nations, coalitions are made AFTER the election.
Actually, it hasn’t. Because the U.S. has not been governed according to the U.S. Constitution since about 1804. But it was a really good plan. The best that can be said is that life is more tolerable under the system we do have. The U.S. Constitution poses no serious threat to our current form of government.
I meant: Life is more tolerable here than anywhere else. I did not mean that life is more tolerable than it would be if we were living under the U.S. Constitution.
I understand and to some extent agree. Certainly the Founders would agree that their system isn’t working as designed.
Congress and the President disagreeing continues to slow the governmental juggernaut down, as does disagreement between the Houses. This was all designed in and still functions to some extent.
Congratulations on understanding how our party system works. My experience is that maybe 1 in 100 Americans understand these basic facts.
It’s why we’ve only really ever had two major parties. When one falls apart, another appears almost by magic by a splitting of the one still standing. This has essentially happened twice in our history: when the Whigs grew out of a split Democratic party, and when the GOP grew out of the wreckage of the Know-Nothing and Whig parties, joined by dissident Democrats tired of being pushed around by the slaveocracy.
ALL the folks who wrote the Constitution had lots of very FRESH experience at the hands of a "parliamentary government". They rejected it "hands down". The guy promulgating this is a loon.
Sounds like Mike Gravel’s brother
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.