It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A way to bring the Republicans and Democrats together

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 02:10 AM
link   
I was reading about the Sri Lankan presidential elections the other day (don't ask my why, I just was) and I found something interesting. First, one of the candidates promised every household in Sri Lanka a cow. If that isn't a great campaign promise I don't know what is. But the thing that got me was the same candidate also promised to make his opponents presidential advisers and cabinet members. Think about this....

I a newly elected president made his opponents members of his cabinet and/or presidential advisers, this would really bring the political parties together wouldn't it?

You can just imagine the uproar that this would cause. Interestingly, I think that this idea would excite the people because of it's novelty and because, on some basic level, this concept makes sense.

The difficulties and the uproar would probably be on the political level -- from the national political parties; the Democrats and the Republicans (the alternative parities would love this as it would actually place "real power" within their grasp).

Now a certain sense of secrecy exists in both major parties. I wonder why this is? Some might say that the secrecy of the party's exist because o their connections between themselves and "them" -- big business, the Illuminati, the greys, etc.

By inviting the opponents to ones cabinet, the veil of secrecy would come down. By inviting ones opponents to join the cabinet and become presidential advisers would shake up the government. For too long, each party has held that "they" are only ones' who have all of the answers....by having members from both parties in the cabinet would certainly demonstrate that no one party has a monopoly on the way things should be.....but it would force both parties to work together for a way to make things work for the people.




posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 02:51 AM
link   
I would like to see an end to partisan politics as well, but it aint gonna happen. They would lose all of their constinuencies and strongest support bases, kind of a working with the enemy thing. But I do agree it would clean up some of these guys acts.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 05:51 AM
link   
I see a couple of problems.

Firstly you'd never know which party to vote for when voting time came around, because the performance and policies of each would be impossible to distinguish. It would end up that voters only choose between two leaders based on charisma. Our system of democracy in the West is enough of a shallow cult of personality as it is.

Secondly, when the lines between multiple parties are erased, what you have for all intensive purposes is a one-party system, i.e. a dictatorship. Oops...

[edit on 2005-11-17 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by benevolent tyrant
I a newly elected president made his opponents members of his cabinet and/or presidential advisers, this would really bring the political parties together wouldn't it?


This is pretty much exactly what Lincon did. There was a book recently release don this topic called "Team of Rivals".



www.amazon.com/

Goodwin makes the case for Lincoln's political genius by examining his relationships with three men he selected for his cabinet, all of whom were opponents for the Republican nomination in 1860: William H. Seward, Salmon P. Chase, and Edward Bates.


[edit on 17-11-2005 by negativenihil]

mod edit to shorten link

[edit on 17-11-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 11:40 AM
link   
It's traditional for the President of the US to have at least one advisor from an opposing party. I'm not sure when that began.
The funny thing is, the United States of America tried to balance political parties in a similar way. According to their constitution (article 2, section 1, clause 3) :



The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President...In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President...


source: www.house.gov...

As a historical note, the 12th amendment was ratified in 1804; which changed the voting procedure to separate voting for President and Vice President. 3 States rejected the amendment.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 11:43 AM
link   
The difference between this idea and what Lincoln did is Lincoln had people from his own party in his cabinet...these 3 were just running for the republican nomination against him. Quite different than appointing members of another party.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Busymind
It's traditional for the President of the US to have at least one advisor from an opposing party. I'm not sure when that began.


Yep. Clinton had several Republicans in his administration, and Bush has Mineta (a Democrat) as Secretary of Transportation.

They usually aren't top politicians though, as they usually don't want to be working for the opposing party.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join