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.

 

Up the One-Party State!

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 11:33 AM
link   
I was having a discussion with someone on another thread last night.. I asked, what do we do about the wretched state of today's (American) national party politics? The only thing I felt I could do in the 2004 election was vote for as many Libertarians as I could. I knew the act was largely empty, but it felt good.

Here's an interesting analysis on this question..



The one-party state: A modest proposal
By Michael J. Smith
Online Journal Contributing Writer

Dec 31, 2005

It's not just Lefties like me who are unhappy with the party they're supposed to be part of. I have friends and kinfolk who regularly vote Republican, and they're just as contemptuous of the Republicans as I am of the Democrats.
onlinejournal.com...


Mod Edit: BB Code.


[edit on 3/1/2006 by Mirthful Me]




posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 11:10 PM
link   
I'm hoping everyone is just really away for the holidays.

Does anyone out there really think either the Republican or Democrat party is remotely responsive to their needs or wishes?

I know I don't.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 12:38 AM
link   
The true business of politics is to accumulate power, then to sell that power to the highest bidder.

We, the people, are never the highest bidders, so politicians don't have to really represent our wishes any more than is necessary to at least give the appearance of doing something for us in order to win reelection.

As US politics becomes more divisive and more bitterly partisan, it actually becomes less important for politicians to even give the appearance of representing our wishes. All they really have to do is to show some of the many ways in which the politicians of the opposing party do not represent our wishes.

As Mencken said so accurately, "Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right."


The only viable short-term solution that I've been able to come up with is the same that you've posited-- to vote for third party candidates. I too favor libertarians, since they advocate a combination of social liberty and fiscal restraint. When the choice is between the Republicans who wish to interfere in half of my life and the Democrats who wish to interfere in the other half, I appreciate a party that promises to interfere in either.

However, there's something of a Catch-22. Most of the reason that the Libertarians (or any other third party) can actually be expected to represent our wishes is because they don't yet hold enough power to attract the attention of those who currently own the Democrats and the Republicans. If a third party were to actually win some elections and begin accumulating some power, the same people who have already bought the Democrats and the Republicans would simply redirect their spending and buy the third party politicians. Given enough time and enough influence, any party that gained power comparable to that of the Democrats and the Republicans would end up just as corrupt as they are.

I honestly don't know what the solution is. The obvious solution would seem to be to eliminate the influence of money on politics, but that's essentially impossible. Even if it were possible to get those who wield the power to pass the necessary laws to enact such a thing, it still wouldn't stop it. If there wasn't a legal avenue for wealthy and power-hungry people to buy influence, they'd just do it illegally. Since there's no viable way to stop one group of megalomaniacs from accumulating power so that they can sell it to another group of megalomaniacs. It might be more effective to somehow eliminate megalomania, maybe by a regimen of testing and treatment, but that would be a massive undertaking, and, ironically enough, the only people who would be willing to take charge of such a thing are megalomaniacs.

I've toyed with an idea for a variation on the original Athenian republic. In the earliest days, representatives weren't elected, but were instead drawn by lot from all the eligible voters. That only lasted for a while before a group of megalomaniacs convinced the people that they'd be better off with professional representatives than amateurs, and that was that, but I think the idea has some merit. Being a representative-- essentially a congressperson-- would be similar to jury duty. One's name would be drawn and one would serve a predefined term. Representatives would have to be sequestered to remove outside influences (bribes, extortion, threats and the like). They'd be given access to whatever reference materials they might want, and would be empowered to propose and vote on legislation just as representatives are now. While there would certainly be poor decisions made through ignorance or any of a number of human failings, I would think that would still be preferable to the poor decisions that are made now through duplicity and greed.

I see a lot of potential flaws in the idea, not least of which is that those who currently hold the power have already demonstrated that they'll stop at virtually nothing to keep it, but it's still an idea I mull over from time to time...

One thing is certain-- the current system does NOT represent the will of the people, regardless of the party in power. It represents the will of the few who pay them for that privilege.


Hmmph. I really didn't plan on getting that cynical tonight.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
I'm hoping everyone is just really away for the holidays.

Maybe they just don't like responding to the 'same old, same old'.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Although even the Libertarian party has gotten off track at times, especially at the national level. At this point in my life I am more worried about local politics and affecting them.

As far as concerns raised here go, they are all legitimate. There are always going to be problems with any form of government because government is simply inherently problematic for a number of reasons. No matter how you try to shape it, government will always entail problems.

The only lasting solution would be a state of capitalist anarchy as envisioned by Murray Rothbard, along with an educated - not indoctrinated - populace with the sort of ethic that would support it.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob LaoTse
It might be more effective to somehow eliminate megalomania, maybe by a regimen of testing and treatment, but that would be a massive undertaking, and, ironically enough, the only people who would be willing to take charge of such a thing are megalomaniacs.


That's the best thing I've heard all year.



Being a representative-- essentially a congressperson-- would be similar to jury duty. One's name would be drawn and one would serve a predefined term. Representatives would have to be sequestered to remove outside influences (bribes, extortion, threats and the like). They'd be given access to whatever reference materials they might want, and would be empowered to propose and vote on legislation just as representatives are now. While there would certainly be poor decisions made through ignorance or any of a number of human failings, I would think that would still be preferable to the poor decisions that are made now through duplicity and greed.


Hey, that's what we tried here at ATS last summer. (Not sure where its at now.) I was nominated and elected by the ATS community to be the "congressman" of Politics@ATS. It was very cool. We sequestered ourselves from the ATS body, when necessary, and we were given access to the unseen. We came up with ideas for things and voted and argued and hopefully caused something positive to come about. We listened to many, many ATS constituents/members and did our best to go to bat for them wherever and whenever we could. That is what being a congressman/woman should be about. In Washington, or here at ATS.

[edit on 1/3/06 by EastCoastKid]



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
I'm hoping everyone is just really away for the holidays.

Maybe they just don't like responding to the 'same old, same old'.


And happy New Years to you, too!



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Vote for Oprah.
We can elect her to run this circus whether she likes it or not!
Whos with me?!



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 01:42 AM
link   
Oprah's scary. I always like her, but lately she's kind of gone Tom Cruise. Am I the only one to notice this?

It's nice that she gives all that stuff away, but for God's sake, does she have to go to so many commerical breaks?!



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Can we please get back to the discussion about the US being a one-party state?

I know I don't see much differences between the morality/ethics of the dems and repubs. The repubs often look like bad used car salesmen and the dems look sneaky, both other than that.....

Since they are so similar, I assume they will sorta mergeand another party will become more popular. Let's just say it's the Libertarian party.
How long do yuo think it will take before greed and corruption take over this new challenger to the dem/rep party?



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bob LaoTse
The obvious solution would seem to be to eliminate the influence of money on politics, but that's essentially impossible. Even if it were possible to get those who wield the power to pass the necessary laws to enact such a thing, it still wouldn't stop it. If there wasn't a legal avenue for wealthy and power-hungry people to buy influence, they'd just do it illegally.


There is a way, Bob. It's been done, just not in this country. All of the remedies proposed in the U.S. have been supply side: restrict how much money can be given to a candidate, or a party or PAC, outlaw direct contributions by corporations, and so on. But as long as there's a demand, someone will find a way to supply the demand.

The amount of money a candidate has to spend doesn't determine the electoral outcome. Candidates who spend less money often defeat those who spend more. But there is a certain minimum amount of money absolutely required to get the message across. If you have less than that minimum, you can't win. So the fat cats currently have veto power over who can win elections, rather than the ability to micropick who does win. Hence the practice of giving to both Pubs and Dems, and hence the one party state. (Pretty much true; we have two corporatist parties that only diverge on social issues.)

That's the reason why the government is for sale to the highest bidder. Candidates still have to appeal to the voters, but first they have to appeal to corporate America in order to be allowed the means to appeal to the voters. If that weren't so, the government wouldn't be for sale.

The solution, then, is to implement a demand side rather than a supply side solution. Find another, more democratic source of funding for elections. European democracies do this through actual government financing. Currently, an organization originally designed for the Howard Dean presidential campaign in 2004 is attempting to achieve the same thing through contributions sought over the Internet. As long as Dean remains DNC Chairman, that organization will be semi-affiliated with the Democratic Party. It MAY succeed (although I have my doubts). We'll see in the next election.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Yeah... I've played with the idea of publicly funded elections a bit, but haven't really pursued it, since I think there's a fatal stumbling block to implementation of such a thing-- the people who most benefit from the current system have control over whether or not any such legislation might get passed, and the people who would most benefit from publicly funded elections are specifically those that the power-mongers do NOT want in office.

Actually, that's the basic stumbling block to many, if not most reform ideas. There really are people who would be willing to hold political office in order to be of benefit to the nation, but those are exactly the people to which the current duplicitous, mendacious and self-absorbed office holders do NOT want to have to be compared. If there was any chance that we might get higher quality representation, that would simply lead us to raise our expectations, and our current low expectations are part of what keeps politicians who can't claim to be anything better than "the lesser of two evils" in office.

Hmm.... now I'm pondering ways in which such a reform could be implemented. Referendum wouldn't work-- legislatures have already passed legislation to effectively overrule referenda-- now that that precedent has been established, referenda only hold power if they allow them to. One might build a groundswell of public opinion strong enough to make it expedient for the politicians to make the reform, but not only would that be difficult in the face of the certainty of a better funded PR campaign to oppose it, but even if they were backed into a corner and forced to pass such legislation, it would be designed much like past election reforms-- with enough loopholes and/or outright flaws as to make it ultimately ineffective, unenforcable or both.

Still though....

Thanks for the food for thought.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
How long do yuo think it will take before greed and corruption take over this new challenger to the dem/rep party?


I have no idea, but we need a third and fourth and fifth party. The only way its gonna happen is if people start voting for them.



posted on Jan, 7 2006 @ 01:41 AM
link   
Forgive a non American for putting in his 10 cents.

1 Some Americans tell the world that it is there god given right to bear arms it time to put your money where there mouths are. The government appears to have gone bad and yet nobody is doing anything.
2 Vote for a thrid party I dont know how many options apart from the libertarian party.
3 Start your political party with a group of like minded people if the USA is headed down the toliet and you feel you can make a differnce run for office.

[edit on 7-1-2006 by xpert11]



posted on Jan, 7 2006 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
2 Vote for a thrid party I dont know how many options apart from the libertarian party.
3 Start your political party with a group of like minded people if the USA is headed down the toliet and you feel you can make a differnce run for office.


We are trying, but keep getting shut out. The people who make the rules on who can get on the ballot and in the debates are the same ones who have an interest in keeping us out. Its like trying to fight a speeding ticket when the only reason the judge has a job is ticket revenue.

I spoke about the rigged political game and the 1 party system in this thread that I started.

[edit on 7-1-2006 by cavscout]



posted on Jan, 7 2006 @ 07:05 PM
link   
The establishment (government/big media/corporate) have made politics such a rigged game. You have to have so much money to compete, its insane.

I'm still pissed that the establishment ganged up Howard Dean during the primaries. Forget about that stupid "scream," he was well on his way to capturing the Democratic nomination and that freaked the Democrats and Republicans out. It mainly the media telling America that he was crazy. And, of course, a vast majority of our population bought it hook, line and sinker.


What'd he do to run afoul of the powers that be? He was speaking the truth. Saying NO! to the invasion of Iraq. He's the first Democrat I ever considered voting for - in my life.



posted on Jan, 7 2006 @ 08:09 PM
link   
EastCoastKid your comments make interesting reading I remember seeing bits of media coverage concerning Howard Dean "scream" and I wondered what the big fuss was about.
How could anybody be dumb enough to take everything the media says as fact?



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
I remember seeing bits of media coverage concerning Howard Dean "scream" and I wondered what the big fuss was about.


Yeah, I have to admit that I feel the same way. What was the big deal with the scream? Why was the scream not a good thing?



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 04:31 AM
link   
Instead of one party state, there should be NO PARTY STATE. Both republican and democrats should be dissolved and all political parties declared illegal.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by longbow
Instead of one party state, there should be NO PARTY STATE. Both republican and democrats should be dissolved and all political parties declared illegal.


Well, now.. we wouldn't get much of anything done then. You have to have your parties. My only gripe about American politics is that its a rigged game, as I said. Both mainline parties are thoroughly bought; therefore, irregardless of who wins, the powers that be are gonna have a compliant office-holder, no?

I'm all for progressives moving up within the mainline parties and I'm also for giving way more face-time to the Libertarians and Independents and greens, and whoever else out there wants to compete for office.

In the 2004 elections, I voted for more Libertarians than I ever had before. There was no way, as a Republican, that I was gonna vote for the Republican candidates. They way too YES Bush for me. I like the mavericks. The independents. Like Congressman Ron Paul from Texas. He's a Republican, but he's never gonna be featured on ABCs World News Tonight. Why not? Because he tells the truth. He's a crusader. A fine man.

Speaking of fine men, let's get back to Howard Dean. Yes, the establishment crushed him before he could take the Democratic nomination. Dean did not read off the establishment script, therefore, he was a danger.. to the plan. That plan can be traced to the PNAC.

Dean opposed the war and was a fiscal conservative. That's why he became wildly popular. That's how he won me over, me a lifelong conservative Republican.

So, with the powers that be cringing (b/c their Dem candidate Kerry was so milquetoast), they were scrutinizing Dean's every move and every word, looking for anything to destabilize his popularity. When he got up in front of that rally and started whooping and hollaring - doing the 'scream', they pouned onnit. But in shades, they misconstued it. He was full of the spirit, bouncing off that revved up crowd; he dropped his guard and became young and excited again. He yelled and preached... like any firebrand candidate you'd want. The American people meekly allowed the media to tell them that Dean was crazy, unfit for office. Instead, the American people should have roundly rejected that nonsense.

Unfortunately, they allowed the media to win the day - for Bush and for Kerry.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join