Is America becoming a one-party state?

I dont know about everyone else here but it seems to me that as time goes on the Democratic party is loseing the little credibilty it had left.
It is my personal opinion that eventually the Democratic Party in a way will completely disband leaveing only the Republican party behind. After this happens i believe the party will then break up into the Republican party (mostly made up of old Democrats and less opinionated Republicans) and then the rise of the Conservative party (the more radical Republicans)

A crack-up of the Democrats has happened before, they've lost the south and the catholics, and seem to be composed now of blacks, labor leadership , femisnists, haters and socialists. They were also the party of government, but it remains to see how years out of power can change that.

As has been pointed out, little apparent difference between the parties on issues like "free" trade and income redistribution, but radicalization seems to be taking place now, with "MoveOn" types replacing the old barons. This can not lead to majority status for the party.

How the vacuum of responsible political opposition this situation creates is to be filled remains to be seen.

no one has yet mentioned the CFR?

the fact is..we are in a one party state and have been for a good while

no matter which pawn wins..his cabinet is stocked with CFR members....so what choice are you really getting? In either case the elite controllers win


-------

also, this last election sort of pointed it out in graphic terms.....you could either vote for Skull and Bones guy "A" or Skull and Bones guy "B"

so whoever you vote for, and their whole cabinet...will basically come from CFR, Skull and Bones, Demolay, Rhodes Scholar or some other such elite organization that promotes those who are friendly toward the global agenda

if you look at the stats of secretary of defense/secretary of state etc for the last 40 years or so...and you see how many of them are CFR...you will see that we have been in a one party system for quite a while

JP

I see the logic in this. Even thogh many will try the scare tactics of saying the republican party is controlled by conservatives and the religious right, this is quite incorrect. The republican party is more moderate than it has ever been and actually has quite a few political rifts because of it. I consider myself an non-religious conservative. I was brought democrat in a lower middle class union dominated household. The democrats have allowed themselves to be defined by 2 groups now, 1 far left socialists, and the elitists. This will not fly in the majority of the country. The dems are also (as I see in a post above)so blind to reality that they actually think they are losing elections due to "fixed" voting machines and fraud. This is dangerous. When you allow yourself to think that, the 1st victim is introspection of your ideas. The dem need to take a good long look at themselves to see why they are losing ranks. I could list tons of reason, no legacy of success in these expensive social programs, the demeaning of fly-over country, general un-patriotic views about America, perputuation of the "victim" culture, anarchal tendencies in terms of community standards, disdain for the private sector, etc etc.
I think we are ripe for a 3rd party. This more conservative/libertarian movement could divide the republican party and give the dems some elections by default. Why do you think Nader got no press and Ross Perot was all over the place. The mainstream media is part of the coastal elitist and disinformation wing of the democrat party. They will find some right-wing 3rd party candidate and give them tons of press next presidential election in a vote split attempt. Mark my words...

It would be a nice thought,that both major parties are breaking themselves up.

I am but one of many former Republicans who voted that way because we thought we could raise enough telephonic and e-mail Hell and get the party that talks our talk to walk our walk. They will not do it.

Bush made himself sound like the great conservative hope; he made himself appear to be closer to the national foundation than any otehr president in a long time. His actions, though, have not followed his mouth. Instead, he has continued the drive to national ruination that Clinton left off, who picked up after Bush '41, etc.

I am but one of many former Republicans that will not be voting Republican come 2008. Of course, I won't be voting Democrat, either.

www.constitutionparty.com...

Hmm kinda makes you wonder what America would be like under a parlimentary system...

America has basically had a 2-party system since the parties emerged in Jefferson's presidency. Back then it was Whigs and Democratic-republicans, I think. (reaches for a college history textbook . . . )

Not passing judgment on either party or their supporters, it seems that Dems have not done a good job of articulating their vision for some time now. I always thought that Clinton had trouble with this--that he had immense personal support, rather than support for his vision of the world.

I listen to a lot of minor Dems and Repubs on CSPAN, and the Dems just seem less able to hold up an "answer." They are sure that conservatives represent all that is wrong with America, yet don' t have a lot to say as regards defending their own party.

This state of affairs mirrors the 1932 and 1936 elections, when republicans were universally vilified, and no one could admit to voting for them. FDR and the Dems seemed more "American" than their enemies did. Though now the labels are reversed.

I think this Republican trend will crest sometime in 2007. Who knows--they might even carry another presidential election. But even disco got boring after a decade or so.

By the way, Thomas Crowne. I've been reading up on the Constitution Party. I'm pretty impressed, even when not in agreement with every single platform. Can't imagine them winning anything, though. I think a lot of Americans of BOTH parties would come unglued if some of the Constitution Party's platform got enacted.

Besides, what will people call them. Democrats are usually DEMS. Republicans are REPS, but that sounds too much like 'representative.'

But what would the Constitution party members be called? CONS? That sounds sort of negative, doncha think?

This is what I see going on. One party while feigning ignorance has sent their hinchmen out to portray the other as having no "faith". This is, of course, eaten up by those that do not take the time to follow truly what is goin on.

I call this the party of "FEAR". Passing God's LOVE off as a terrible attempt to portray millions as "secular"-the definition is free thinking.

The other party does not want God brought into the picture for most like myself don't believe that is the intention of the Lord. This country will implode from within in the name of "god".

It is a sad state of affairs.

Originally posted by sardion2000
Hmm kinda makes you wonder what America would be like under a parlimentary system...

Good question. The majority rules without the super-majority margin senate democrats are looking to achieve tomorrow.

On the other hand, most "real" parliamentary systems split the vote between multiple parties, leading to coalition governments to achieve a majority that are fragile to votes of no confidence.

The checks and balance structure of American Executive/Legislative/Judicial government was designed to impede quick change and progress.

My question is: Are the Democrats so weak as to permit Republicans an unchallenged control of all three branches, a one-party state?

What about the patriot act? I saw an episode of "Law and Order" the other night where they used it as the basis for a warrent for a suspect who wasn't actually a terrorist. They fudged it so they could get paper work that they weren't normally entitled to. What are the possiblities for this being abused, and how could it help lead to the totolitarianization of America?

By the way, Dennis Farina's great in the role, ain't he. I've been a fan of his ever since Micheal mann's "Crime Story". If anyone could follow the irreplaceable Jerry Orbach, Den's the man!

[edit on 24-5-2005 by GrandCourtJester]

Oh, they will be abused, as are no-knock warrants and property confiscation are by prosecuters today.

IMHO....the growth in the Republican party could be due to the aging of the US overall population. Baby Boomers are now reaching their mid to late 50's and this age group tends to migrate more to conservatism than younger age groups. It's ironic because Republicans have historically disenfranchised themselves away from most entitlement groups such as the elderly, handicaped, impoverished, etc.

My two cents,

W.E.S.B

Originally posted by Wild_Eyed_Southern_Boy
IMHO....the growth in the Republican party could be due to the aging of the US overall population. Baby Boomers are now reaching their mid to late 50's and this age group tends to migrate more to conservatism than younger age groups. It's ironic because Republicans have historically disenfranchised themselves away from most entitlement groups such as the elderly, handicaped, impoverished, etc.

My two cents,

W.E.S.B

On this I would have to disagree. The majority of elderly I know do not become more conservative as they age, but realize that some of their thinking was flawed and actually become quite moderate.

The great Barry Goldwater, the original darling of conservatives, even admitted in later life that much of his thinking was flawed. The same for George Wallace.

If you wanted to be a conspiracy theorist on this subject you could say that we've been a one party state AT LEAST since the 70s. We've got one party in two halves which put on a good show but never seem to undo eachother's works when they get into office. How is that that an entirely republican law making aparatus can't manage to dismantle the welfare state, even though republicans control the whitehouse something like 2/3s of the time?

They don't want to undo eachother, they each press a separate half of the agenda. Republicans are Nationalists, Democrats are Socialists. Anyone who knows their history can tell you what that would make the two parties if they were really working in cooperation towards a common agenda.


If you wanted to be partisan you could say that yes America is becoming a one party state, but only because the far left is hell-bent on alienating the common man in favor of the a handfull of egocentric metropolis dwellers who see themselves as a social and intellectual elite.


If you wanted to be downright rational you could say that America has two major parties and that it's two major parties too many.

EDIT TO INSERT: The partisan bickering is keeping both parties from accomplishing anything for the common man because they're too busy pandering to their respective bases on the far fringes. END EDIT

I can't wait to see the Democratic party finish self-destructing, but not because I'm a rabid conservative. I hope for this because I would love to see a new moderate left which could present a real choice for me so that I'm not cornered with the Republican party which has done so little for my interests as a decent working citizen who simply wants to earn an honest wage and invest as much of it as possible in my own future.
EDIT If we can't get rid of parties we may as well have one of them be somewhat centrist (and force the other one to the center) so that elections become about winning over the common man instead of rallying the radical base. That would produce greater progress in my opinion.

[edit on 24-5-2005 by The Vagabond]

Vagabond, there are quite a few of moderate Demo's around. The problem is if we are anywhere to the left of Attila the Hun we have the big "L" word thrown at us.

When Howard Dean made the statement he represented "The democratic wing of the democratic party" most analysts were way off on what he was talking about.

He was speaking of people like myself. White, 51, wife and three kids. Doesn't think Iraq was right, tired of getting stuff shoved down the middle class throat, tired of seeing what we work for disappearing for the corporations to get the tax breaks, tired of seeing prescription drugs eat middle America alive, tired of our seniors deciding between their prescriptions and a happy meal at McDonalds, tired of rising health care costs where certain individuals and companies are making millions off of people's poor health, just plain d@mn tired.

There are plenty of us. Join the fight.

Originally posted by madmanacrosswater
Vagabond, there are quite a few of moderate Demo's around. The problem is if we are anywhere to the left of Attila the Hun we have the big "L" word thrown at us.

That's exactly my problem with extremists. I know there are moderates out there in both parties, but they don't have enough pull because many of them couldn't defect in good conscience.
The problem isn't that you're not to the right of Atila the Hun exactly- the problem is that even though you personally may be a moderate, your party is electing certain people who are left of Vladamir Lennin. And the converse is also true: my problem is not that I'm to the not to the left of Lennin. My problem is even though I may be a moderate, my party is electing people who are to the right of Atila. That's what the extremists do to us.

Just for example, I think Bush is out of his friggin mind on the stem cell issue. It seems like there's a pretty good section of the conservative side which feels that way in fact. But what are we going to do about it? Put our support behind Dean's left and get stemcells as a package deal with abortion, lack of parental notification, etc?
Then if I was a liberal, I might think that local democrats like "One Bill" Gill Sedillo are wrong on immigration, but what would I do about it? Go over to Bush's right and accept it as a package deal with unconstitutional investigation processes against immigrants who are suspected of terrorism just for having arab names?

So my point is that I'd like to see the parties have to fight for votes by coming towards the middle and taking positions which represent the majority view in as many issues as possible.
For example, if an overwhelming majority of Americans wanted A, which a given party was against, and yet that party got elected on other issues, I think that party has an obligation to give in to the majority view. That's never going to happen though unless the parties come so close to the center (and thus to one another) they have to make the right choice on every issue.


I consider myself a conservative with liberal motives. I want the things that liberals want- high wages, universal healthcare, freedom from legislation of morality, especially where it stands in the way of progress (like the stemcell issue) etc.
I just happen to think that we have to get there by conservative means. I virtually never like to see a government organization handling something that could have been put in the hands of a business. Companies which are in it for a profit will be more efficient, more dilligent in preventing abuse, etc. Just for example, my plan for universal healthcare would be to mandate insurance programs for full time workers and institute minimum contributions to those programs in lieu of minimum wage increases. That's what my union does for me- they bargain insurance costs into my wages and put that money straight into our group plan.

I don't want to digress too much into all the details of my views, but the relevance here is that the current political situation is incredibly frustrating because one party (Republican) is right on many issues in my opinion, especially where the nation itself is concerned, but doesn't seem to care about the common man. The other party (Democrats) is dead wrong on a lot of important issues in my opinion, and although they at least have some concern for the common man I don't feel that they're way of doing things is the best way to achieve that goal. So where can I turn?

If one of the parties falls (I don't care which, I just singled out Democrats because it seems more likely than the Republicans falling at this point) then there's going to be something new coming down the pike which has to earn votes, and that would hopefully bring about a situation where we had two moderate parties that generally agreed on the issues as the majority opinion dictated and only presented different means to the end desired by the majority.

I think a lot of people vote against a political party rather than for your candidate, I hold my nose to vote for some of the people I've had to cast a ballot for; sometimes I have to pinch harder than others.

It seems both parties are big-government, big-spending entities, and that public opinion specialists in both are busy polling all the time to see what puts them in a majority status.

There just isn't a lot of positives coming out of the Dems mouths these days, and I can't see them jumping back into parity status with a bad attitude and socialist core constituancy.

They don't want to undo eachother, they each press a separate half of the agenda

I absolutely and totally agree...the puppeteers can affect certain things through Democrats...certain social programs etc....and certain other things through Republicans, for instance the "God" talk and rabid flag waving needed to take over countries, lol


you can call it "different parties" all you like...but that isnt what matters....what matters is who owns BOTH parties.....I mean...if I own both fighters in the ring, I WILL get my way no matter what




as far as the partisan bickering etc...I see a lot of that simply being for show....almost a "good cop/bad cop" routine....sort of a false dichotomy.....emphasizing petty "differences" in a major way while obscuring the fact that both "parties" are pretty much the same on major issues.....Clinton signed Nafta/Bush wants Cafta for instance

[edit on 26-5-2005 by John Prophet]

Both give excellent examples. However, WHY are the moderates in this country sitting on their hands and not doing anything about it? There are millions that could make a heck of a lot of noise. Like having a "walk out of work day" or something. Grab EVERYONE'S attention.

I would love to see someone like McCain bolt from the Republican party, and declare his candidacy as either a Democrat or an Independent. Yes, his views are different from mine on many things, however they are very close to mine on others. HE is a true legislator, concilator, etc. I would wager my maxed out credit card that if he bolted to the Dems and ran he would win in a landslide. Sure wish someone would talk him into it.

There will be a civil war. Democrats at large, greatly disagree with republicans, or at least where i'm living here. Little passive battles are already brewing, and i think its high time there be another civil war, lol, so people can once again see how stupid they are. Sorry, just ranting a bunch of nonsense