American government has become unbelievably uncontstitutional over the past century, right under our noses. The New Deal, the unexpicable reluctance of Congress to actually declare war, the usurpation of states' authority by the federal government, and more.
But one drive against the intentions of the Framers, although not technically unconstitutional, has plagued our government since the election of John Adams, the second president: the presence of political parties.
Now, on the surface, this probably doesn't seem like a very big issue (after all, we've just about always had parties, right?), but it is. Political parties can be an enormous force in governmental corruption, paying voters to vote for their candidates, and making life difficult for those who don't. But, formost in my mind is the affect they have on voters- after all, it is a lot easier to just tow the party line than to think for yourself.
Now, before I go on, I can just hear you screaming Foul! Since when did the political parties act like bullies?
Ever heard of the politcal machine? Around the turn of the century, almost every city had a political 'machine', either Republican or Democrat, that could do the aforementioned, as well as decide who got jobs in the city government, and exert enormous influence over politicians, basically turning them into puppits. By now, the political machine has died out, and I'm not saying that they are going to make a comeback, but political parties still have an unsavory chance to unfairly influence elections.
Which brings me back to the main point: political parties influence voters. When there is a party that you generally agree with, you (supposedly) have no need to look into each candidate, you can just vote Democrat, or Republican, or Green, or Libertarian, etc.
The framers made very clear their hostility to political parties; Washington even warned against embracing "factions", or political parties, fearing that they would cause fractures in the country, which they eventually did, helping to ignite the Civil War, and causing high tensions today.
My solution: disband the political parties and outlaw the creation of any new ones. This would force both voters and candidates to think for themselves. Candidates would have to form their own platforms and positions, rather than relying on the party's reputation for votes. In turn voters would have to investigate candidates for themselves, which is actually quite easy in the Information Age.
Now, I know that this is extremely unlikely to happen in the near future, but it would be good for the country. The unlikelihood of any disbandment of the parties is just another illustration of our society's tendency towards what I like to call 'sit-on-butt-syndrome'.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Good points... and a good idea. But extremely unrealistic. People like having others to think for them. ; )
That's because people are sheep and are too stupid to think for themselves.
Baaaaaaaaaaaaa
lol
but their will never be no political parties because we are always split into two camps or more.
What people really need to do to help change the system, is just vote for a different party. I mean not rebuplican or democrat. If another party gets just three percent of the vote they would get federal money (yes federal money) for their candidates. If 3% of the people who are fed up with politics as usual would just vote for those little guys it would be enough to shake up the system.
Voting for a third party could be a good first step, but it doesn't solve the problem. Today's small parties would be just as bad for America if they were the big parties.
P.S. As a side note, money is not what makes a party (federal or otherwise) people do.
I apologize for the fact that this is cynical, cynisism is a requirement in politics, but systems which work against "We the people" have been put in place in the interest of people in power since forever. One of my first impressions regarding what politics was about was juxtaposing the concept of Republicans vs. Democrats with what Lincoln said in his Gettysburg address that "a house divided can not stand". Decades later, I still see no good reason for it.
I'm not exactly sure but it seems to be in support of your "can the parties" concept to note that there is actual proof of differences in brain ontologies between liberals and conservatives in this Scientific American article: Are We Predisposed to Political Beliefs?. I would think that being as such "predisposition" is an accident of birth, like race or sex, such a division is biased towards one side or the other. Like those stinking Replicons who would plunder the Earth, enslave humanity and kill all of those who dissented. But I digress.
Just a final thing about "a house divided". In the mean time, until this can be corrected, "We the people" just get stuck with whatever system gets put in place and have to work it. "We the people" in my opinion will do best to leave self serving people who seek power off to one side and choose the lesser of two evils.
Restoring Faith In Humanity One Acquaintance At A Time
While it's possible we may be predisposed to liberal or conservative views, just how much of that is caused, encouraged, and expanded upon by the societies in which we are raised?
Regardless of whether or not we're predisposed to think a certain way, there's not doubt that society has used that to create quite a radical split between people (even more so than what might be there naturally). The political parties and the way they act is an example of just how extreme these things can be.
How much do you want to bet that the next President will be of the opposite party as Bush? The odds are quite high because a lot of time and effort are often spent trying to get it into everyone's heads that [insert current party in office] is doing a terrible job and that only [insert other party] can do it right and fix things.
Many people vote one way or another solely because they are of a certain party. Why do you think Nader never gets voted in (aside from the fact that he's now become a joke)?
This election, in my opinion, is the closest we've come to not having vastly different opinions because of political party. For the vast majority of the issues that I've seen, most, if not all, of the candidates share roughly the same views as someone in the other party. Bring home our troops, put more focus on education and healthcare, etc.
People need to learn to stop voting for someone because of party and start looking at the issues and what each person plans to do. My top two picks to vote for are in different parties, for example, because I agree with what they, as individuals, have to say about matters.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I suppose I would be expected to say who would be behind a strategy of divide and conquer if I were to make such a postulation as to say there was such a strategy, so I won't.
There are two major problems with the US electoral process, the most glaring is the lack of accountability to the rhetoric a politician uses to get elected. The second is what I call the "glamor factor". The vast majority of votes are cast by people who slurp up every bit of dribble they are spoon fed by the Mass Syndicated Media. The MSM has at it's disposal the ability to decide who is elected or at least narrow down the field to those who fit a profile which will keep focused on issues which maintain the status quo and not address the real issues which create the problems we have as a nation.
The main problem the US could address (in an ideal world were the strivings of the current White House administration's towards global imperialism wasn't a roadblock to solving problems) is the Federal Reserve and how to get out from under that system and buy back my Social Security from the Chinese. Somehow I don't think I am entirely unbiased on this issue. But as the status quo is likely to have it's way, asserting the that the Fed is an unconstitutional cartel isn't anything any "popular" candidate is likely to do until it is way too late.
That's an interesting opinion about the nation being less divided on issues, although bringing home the troops would mean either leaving Blackwater et al to manning the bases we've built in Iraq or leaving them to the Iraqis, either way it seems to me to be a well calculated means towards global imperialism.
Restoring Faith In Humanity One Acquaintance At A Time
Personally, I don't think we should have ever went into Iraq to begin with, or at least not the way Bush did it. We, humanity, created a monster a long time ago that will continue to plague all of us for the rest of humanity's time in this universe -- nuclear weapons. Through international trading and spies, it's only a matter of time before every semi-developed country has the means to make nukes and other weapons of mass destruction. We're quickly coming to an age where squashing anyone who is even remotely considered a threat isn't going to work any more because for each one we squash, two more will rise up. We need to start making peace, and/or learn how to defend against the ever-deadlier military weapons.
I don't think anyone (or the majority, anyway) ever truly backed Bush's decision to go into Iraq to begin with. He fed everyone the lines that there were WMDs in Iraq, but even most of the military will tell you it was for oil, if there was a real purpose. There were no WMDs, and if there were, Bush spent so much time talking, before a blatant, all-out attack, that we never did find any intelligence confirming the existence, let alone the location, of any WMDs, either because they never existed in the first place, or Saddam had time to move them.
As for cartels....despite the fact that they're illegal in the United States, we're dependent on the biggest one of them all -- OPEC. Now, they aren't based in the US, so the organization itself isn't illegal, but us working so closely with them makes us hypocrites, if nothing else.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Great blog.
One other supporting fact for your thesis is contributions to these two parties. Just over 80% of all the money BOTH raise comes from sources that contribute within 10% of the same amount to BOTH parties. They don't care who wins, as long as they have both sides in their pocket.
Since I agree with your proposal the big question is; How do we do it? I'm afraid I can not see a method with even a chance of success. Most people buy into the illusion that their preferred party is different from the other one.
A fact is always better than an ideal
People in America have a sense of needing to belong. Therefore, you'll never get rid of our "factions."
However, I think another solution would be to provide more political parties, rather than none. Parties do the important purpose of nominating candidates, acting as watchdogs over the party in power, thus preventing things from getting too out of hand for fear of losing votes in the next election, and getting people involved in politics, as well as providing (one-sided, though it may be) information to the general public who may be clueless without the parties; they're an important part of our country. However, Dems vs. Reps is a bad system because nobody can possibly agree 100% with either party. Thus, we should have more parties so that peoples' views may be more accurately represented.
Plus, this really isn't an anti-party argument. Maybe an anti-major party argument, but you're not including things like interest groups, splinter parties, economic protest parties, etc. What's your opinion on unions?
If you want to know my opinion on unions, check out my blog on that topic: http://www.progressiveu.org/122921-unions-and-the-decline-of-the-america... .
Political parties are an expression of the stupidity of the public, not the cause of it. At most I would concede that they are mutually reinforcing.
I agree that political parties force us to choose sides and too often people don't look at the bigger picture and we only vote for one side, regardless if the candidates are worthy or not. I don't think that getting rid of political parties alltogether is a good idea, though. In other countries, they have many more than just two ploitical parties, so it's easier for people to choose candidates that they completely agree with, and it's not just a black and white political race. I know in Italy they have parties for Communists, College students and the elderly, to name a few. I think the two party system creates too much tension and separation between people. We should be arguing over who is the best candidate, not which party is the best.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
--The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return--
I stopped reading this after the first sentence that says we've become unconstitutional. That piece of paper was written over 200 years ago, a lot has happend sense then. I garuntee that our nations forefathers would have made the same decisions Roosevelt made with the New Deal. Whether you like it or not social safety nets have done good for this country. Even though I don't advocate the Bush Administration I believe Homeland Security has progressed into a descent organization. So don't badger the good policies of this country, we'll always keep degrees of the constitution in tact (if not theres no reason for the judicial government). Go join the ACLU and continue to be ignored by the important policy makers of the world!
If you stopped reading it after the first paragraph, then why did you bother commenting at all?
"We'll always keep degrees of the constitution in tact."
First intact is one word. Second, waterboarding is considered a form of torture which is outlawed by the Constitution, so way to go and make a band statement. I guaranteed that you've never met one of the founding fathers, so don't be like the other knuckleheads who made statements that have no backing. What social safety nets have done good for this country? I know some have, but most in my opinion have made it worse, hell even the New Deal gave us some horrible social safety nets. Homeland Security is anything but a decent organization, they've even lied with the Armed Forces, to cover up Pat Tillman's death, that doesn't sound very decent to me. We're already written off as zealots by important policy makers, so why does continuing to be the way we are, make us more ignorable then we already are?