The Dangers of One Party Rule 569
Marxist Hacker 42 writes "Now that the Politics section is up and running, I can submit this story. Back in February, The American Prospect ran a speculative article on The Danger of NeoConservative One Party Rule. A quote: 'Benjamin Franklin, leaving the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, was asked by a bystander what kind of government the Founders had bestowed. "A republic," he famously replied, "if you can keep it." There have been moments in American history when we kept our republic only by the slenderest of margins. This year is one of those times.'"
Please... (Score:2, Interesting)
Am I upset about the direction our country is heading? Of course. Do I think we're in danger of "losing" our republic? Hell no.
Re:Why Democrats lose (Score:2, Interesting)
As you say, we're a divided nation- and nations in division have a tendency to go totalitarian in this world.
Re:Utter Crap...... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'll settle on fairness and contention.
For 6 of 8 years, we had a balanced Supreme Court, a President from one party, and the House from the other. I don't remember, but I believe the Senate might have been Democratic, but not strongly so. All in all, it was a balanced government. NOBODY played "winner take all!" Incidentally, the Republicans kept a tight rein on Clinton's Judicial appointments.
For nearly 4 years, we've had a balanced Supreme Court, and a President and both Chambers of Congress (aside from a few months, after Jeffords) from the same party. Many of us feel that the Right Wing has been playing "winner take all" these past years, acting like they have a popular mandate when they have a slim majority. The Democrats have kept some rein on Bush's Judicial appointments, though either 188 of 198, or 198 of 208 have been confirmed. Now we hear of the "nuke" option coming so they can confirm on simple majority, increasing the "winner take all" feeling. Then we're on the verge of several Supreme Court retirements, and it would seem that the Court will go Right Wing in the next 4 years, conceivably for most of the rest of my life.
Oh, and at the State legislatures BOTH parties are Gerrymandering, consolidating their Congressional districts and cementing the composition of Congress. At this point the Republicans are more successful at it, though both are guilty.
Given the Congress we have right now, and are likely to have after elections, a Republican President is the greater evil. That's not a comment on Bush or Kerry, that's a comment on the present and future composition on the Hill.
Going into the 2000 elections, any number of studies cropped up about how the country was best off when the President and Congress were of opposite parties. I tend to agree.
Correction . . . (Score:3, Interesting)
What do you call the Democrat control of both houses of Congress for as long as they did--almost 30 years? How close were we to a one-party system then? And you complain only because for the past decade the Republicans have been on the rise.
Even if the Republicans do gain control of all three Branches, they won't have it perpetually. Just as the power swing has now gone Left to Right, it will swing Right to Left. But, what you haven't noticed is that Leftward swings have moved this country further than the Rightward.
Re:Utter Crap...... (Score:2, Interesting)
(Reference [alamedanet.net])
The process you talk about starts and stops with the man in the classroom. Some reports indicate that Cheney gave the go ahead... tough shit. He isn't in the chain of command and nobody would listen to him, because they know his place is in the shitter with every other civilian.
By the time Bush's handlers got their act together, it was too late.
Don't trash the military because they have to accept this guy as CIC. They were in the air and waiting for orders.
Check out this timeline [alamedanet.net] and realize that what should have been done was canceling the photo op and taking care of business. Pay particular attention to what each person did at 8:45.
Re:We Already Have It (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm so sick of hearing this crap.
Four years ago, a sizeable chunk of Democratic voters cast their ballots for Nader, using the same logic. If the parties are truly so similar, why is Nader having trouble even getting on the ballot this year? (Hint: it's not a Democratic conspiracy against him.)
Really, now... just look at the social and public policy decisions that took place as a result of White House proposals in the last four years:
- We have (essentially) pulled out of the Kyoto accord.
- We've gutted federal water quality standards regarding arsenic and heavy metal contamination.
- We cut funding to international family-planning organizations that conduct abortion counseling.
- We're proposing new road-building into Wilderness Areas.
- We've made it much more difficult to declare certain types of bankruptcy.
- We've hobbled basic stem-cell research, in the name of "pro-life" activism.
These are just off the top of my head, and many didn't even require congressional intervention (the Kyoto accord, family-planning funding and stem-cell research decisions are Pure Bush). Are you honestly suggesting that these decisions would have been made under a Democratic administration?
Do Democrats support conservative initiatives? Sure. And Republicans support liberal initiatives too, sometimes. Does that make the parties "identical"? I don't think so. I like to think that governing a nation the size of our own is a complicated and intricate task, and that sometimes partisan bullshit has to take a backseat to cooperation and actual thought.
IMO, if you don't see the differences between the parties in this country, your overwhelming cyncism is impairing your ability to think critically.
(for the record -- I am a Bush-hating moderate who regularly votes Republican and Democrat. Gasp!!)
Re:My two discussion questions (Score:2, Interesting)
John Kerry's foreign relations would look pretty much like GWB's, equally bad for Europe, just using nicer words. I'd prefer a 2nd GWB term for that matter. At least, European politicos won't be allowed to snooze for 4 years thinking they have a friend in the White House. In their own twisted (and wholly involuntary) ways, the Republican loudmouths are more honest.
I have a lot of sympathy for Rumsfeld. So transparent...
That's it! I'm now filtering the Politics Topic (Score:3, Interesting)
I get enough of this from the media, don't need to see it on a techie site. News for Nerds is one thing but Politics from Nerds? Now that's something I'd rather not read.
I read a heck of a lot of political blogs, closely follow the news, study history and I can clearly state that this particular forum is filled with ignorance, anger and hate from both sides.
Frankly the comments made in the Politics articles that get rated up and the ones that get filtered are completely bogus. Calling Stalin Right-Wing is just plain stupid! Comparing Bush with Hitler is equally stupid. Publishing a forum discussion on a leftist document warning about one party rule by neo-conservatives is ridiculous. Of course one party rule is a bad idea, that's why this country was founded in a balanced way. The democracy of the USA was designed to prevent this very thing from happening. Power is counter balanced and the people get to vote for 2/3rds of the structure. Trying to claim that pre-WWII Germany was a balanced government prior to Hitler's rise to power is just plain wrong! Sure someone didn't say that exactly but it was implied.
It's ironic how people who can be so scientific about things can completely throw out the concept of making a statement and backing it up with facts that actually checkout. Geeks are very logical in most matters but when it comes to politics it suddenly becomes all emotion and the logic goes out the window.
Sorry, but I will have no part in party politics, at least not with this crazy history starved group. I don't have the time to contribute to moderation nor due I have time to read the senseless drivel either.
Whatchamacallit will boycott the Politics channel from now on.
Re:So true (Score:4, Interesting)
How has your life changed so drastically under the Bush administration? Please tell me.
Once you've come to your conclustion, start telling everyone you know to vote Kerry
Why? What exactly would Kerry change or do so differently than Bush? I fail to see any large contrast from the campaign that Kerry has been running.
The reason the Democrats are losing ground to the Republicans is because the republicans are actually more tolerant of different views within the party. Both Schwarzenegger and Guliani are pro-abortion conservatives that spoke at the Republican National Convention. When was the last time a Democrat allowed a pro-life speaker at the DNC? Democrats are hardliners on their issues, while the Republican party is a big tent with many different views included. You don't have to agree with the whole Republican platform to be a Republican. If you don't agree with the whole platform of the democrats, they smear you with names like "racist, sexist, homophobic, etc"
Their problem in this election year is they picked the wrong guy, who is running the wrong campaign. Howard Dean would have done much better because he offers contrast to the president. Edwards would have been better because he would have focused on Jobs and domestic issues. Kerry spends most of his time talking about Vietnam. He needs to stop and attack Bush on the issues if he wants to win. He's boring as fuck too. Unlike Edwards or Dean who are at least motivational when they speak
And for those who are worried about a one party America, don't. The second the Republican party can manage even 60 perecent of the vote consistantly, there will be a split between paleocons and neocons. See the American Conservative Magizine [amconmag.com] website if you don't believe me. There might even be a split before then.
Re:Couldn't envision!?!? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'll try saying it again.
Maybe it will "stick" this time.
1. I can imagine (and have seen) lots of things I would deplore from a Dem-controlled govt.
2. But I'm saying that the evils likely to result from such, differ not only in degree but also in *kind*.
3. The evils likely to be perpetrated by Dem-controlled govt are a lot less frightening,
and a lot more likely to be eventually reversible.
Encroachments to civil liberties threaten the very mechanisms and structures and institutions which are necessary to reverse those encroachments.
Socialized medicine does nothing to make it harder (judicially threatening) to work towards reversal of socialized medicine.
Nothing about socialized medicine, confiscatory taxes, affirmative action, political correctness, etc., impairs or intimidates my ability to decide to go somewhere else where I like it better.
But now I'm living under a regime which is planning (and starting to implement) procedures to detain / interrogate / "validate" me when I want to EXIT MY OWN COUNTRY.
Do you sincerely claim not to see the difference?
Voting Reform (Score:3, Interesting)
This is a prime example that two major political parties have way to much control on the whole election and legislative system.
I feel that Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) can truly help to give the power back to the voters.
Take a look at these sites:
IRV Info [fairvote.org]
IRV Flash Demo [chrisgates.net]
If you are a Green, or other third party, supporter please help to get the the following, or similar message out.
"If Kerry supports IRV, Greens will support Kerry"
There are IRV initiatives going in most of the states now. Please investigate IRV and if you agree that is could help bring about positive changes please support the local action in your area and help spread the word.
We have to take the power back - RATM