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.

 

Education Post 1: US's Two Party System

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 07:42 PM
link   
This is an EDUCATION POST - I conceived of it when I figured it's less visible posted in a topic of this matter, but rather itself should be VERY visible for all to see so they can learn something.

We can debate this of course, but I think you'll find the logic fairly understandable.

There is no "two party system" in the US. Like the only other real Republic before the US - Rome - the US has "two parties" whose platforms may as well be written by one man.

That is - the two party system is the manifestation of how to approach the same problem.

Multi-party nations such as in Europe tend to have "different problems".

That is - various parties and sects of people and coalitions etc. don't agree on what the problems are.

Most Americans (a great majority) would tell you the exact same thing when asked what are the problems.

The difference is in how to approach it, like 2,000 years before the US, in Rome, the US now has a party system built around serving the needs of the public (Democrats) and the needs of the entrepreneur (Republicans).

The Republicans see themselves serving everyone because everyone can be an entrepreneur - though many are not.

Democrats see themselves as serving everyone because they try to directly help everyone.

Republicans don't think people need help from the Government, that its inefficient and that....well on with the point.

Both Democrats and Republicans are middle ground and seek to help a person - either by making it easier for himself to make himself wealthier, or by giving him hand-outs and incentives etc.

In Europe different parties see different problems. Some see a social problem and think they have the remedy, some may see no social problem.

In fact - the difference could be near-sightedness between multi-partied systems.

The two US parties are very good at what they do, and are very comprehensive, all having a plan based on foreign policy, econmics, down to things like farm support.

A third party such as the Green party - lacks in foreign policy and energy policy and industrial policy and agricultural policy and economic policy: it is solely based on Environmental policy.

The more single issue - the less likely you have heard of the third party.

In Europe - single issues sometimes make strong parties. Social Democrats for instance make an issue out of economic policy almost entirely. In various countries their counter parts almost completely ignore foreign policies and defense policies.

This doesn't cripple them but it does set them behind the US as far as capability.

So next time you talk about wanting a third party, ask yourself what would a third party give you that the Republicans or Democrats don't do entirely? If you're looking for a different approach - it doesn't really exist here anywhere. Third parties almost always follow single policy issues.




posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 08:37 PM
link   
The two party system sucks. Its amazing how they control the money to run. Make lobbying illegal. Make all of these extra funds coming in from corporations illegal. Allow all candidates a debate platform. Make the amount of tv airtime equal during run offs. There should be a free cable television channel that shows candidates and what they stand for 24 hours a day. Equal time for all people.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 12:05 AM
link   
I agree with "MOST" of what you have presented....

BUT

What is your point?

You have illustrated the Party System fairly well, and yet only stated the obvious.

Most of those that feel they are Independent minded and able to subsist on their own, are Republican... (Conservative)

Those that feel a Government running their lives is more appropriate for them... Democrats (Liberal)

Semper



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 09:52 AM
link   
Actually, both Republicans and Democrats favor government control. It's just the issues that they want controlled that differ. For example, Democrats think it's okay for the government to control guns, but it shouldn't be able to control basic civil liberties. Republicans don't want the government to control guns and things like that, but they want the government to step in and pass laws against gay marriage.

Both parties always propose the same solutions to any problem: pass more laws, start more programs, spend more taxpayer money, and take away more freedoms of Americans.

This is why I am a Libertarian. If you're interested in this sort of thing, I highly recommend that you read The Great Libertarian Offer by Harry Browne, it was an eye-opening book for me.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 01:30 PM
link   


posted by southern_cross3

This is why I am a Libertarian. If you're interested in this sort of thing, I highly recommend that you read The Great Libertarian Offer by Harry Browne, it was an eye-opening book for me. [Edited by Don W]



I am a strong central government person. The major reason America is mucked up is the 50 states and the parallel mentality that everybody can do his own thing. I estimate that 15% of the cost of everything is due to the multiplicity of jurisdictions. Today I heard on our local education channel that there are 87,000 separate and more or less independent authorities in the US. If you are Wal-Mart, you cannot hire one lawyer to represent you. You almost need one lawyer for every store. Every county in America, the program said there were 5,000 counties in America, has different t zoning laws. Even those counties that use model law codes begin to vary as each local judge interprets how the laws apply under prior existing laws and circumstances peculiar or unique to his jurisdiction.

I contend that our democracy has run amok! That it - excessive democracy - is the most dangerous issue threatening democratic government itself. There are so many offices to fill, so many ballot initiatives to decide, so many judges to evaluate or to select, that it is absolutely impossible for the ordinary citizen to keep up, which puts it all back into the hands of the manipulators. In my old county of Jefferson in Ky, Louisville is the county seat, we had 23 District Court judges (4 year terms), 16 Circuit Court Judges (eight year terms), 2 Appeals Court Judges (eight year terms) and 1 Supreme Court Judge (eight year term). We think it is democracy, but in reality it guarantees oligarchy.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 01:56 PM
link   


posted by southern_cross3

Actually, both Republicans and Democrats favor government control. It's just the issues that they want controlled that differ. Both parties always propose the same solutions to any problem: pass more laws, start more programs, spend more taxpayer money, and take away more freedoms of Americans. [Edited by Don W]



I agree in part, but I disagree in larger part. When I was a child, I went to the library and found a book of Kentucky’s laws, in one volume. Large, for sure, like Webster’s International Dictionary on its own stand. Just after War 2, the legislature revised the laws, and put them in a set of 3 loose leaf binders. A couple decades, they again redid the laws, and this time, put them in a set of 7 loose leaf binders.

Finally, in the early 1980s, they went to a private company to print the laws and they issued them in a 22 volume set of bound books. Now, in fairness, in each instance, those were the “annotated” law series. That is, all court cases related to each statute were mentioned and a short synopsis of the case and its significance was included. 75% of the paper was used up in annotations. Around 1980, Ky also began a separate bound volume set of 7 books containing Administrative Regulations which have the force of law in the area they regulate.

The current 1891 constitution provided for one 60 day session of the legislature every 2 years. Only the governor could call a special session and that for a designated purpose. Legislators were paid a per diem and one mileage allowance to Frankfort, the capital. We amended the constitution and now the legislature meet 75 days every year - not counting Sundays or holidays - and are paid an annual salary plus expenses and mileage once a week, to the capital. And, during sessions, a secretary from a state pool.

We have a motto: If you don’t like something, make it against the law; if that does not stop it, double the penalty. So, I used to ask friends, “Do you feel safer on the streets today than you felt 25 years ago?” If not, then we may be doing something fundamentally wrong.


[edit on 12/13/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 02:58 PM
link   
It doesn't sound like we disagree. I should clarify. I'm not an anarchist, though I used to think I was for a few rebellious months. I support having a government. In fact, I support states' rights. A lot of people raise a ruckus about gay marriage and such. I don't support a constitutional ban on it; but I believe each state should be able to decide what it wants to do. In this way, if someone in Massachusetts doesn't like the policy of the state, they can move to a different state.

However, when the federal government makes laws, you can't get away from them. There is no alternative. And, it's much harder to get federal law changed than it is to get state law changed.

If you look at the Constitution very carefully, you'll see that it actually gives the federal government very few powers. Its primary concerns are the defense of the states, a federal court system, and a couple minor things. Unfortunately, there is a phrase that says the government can do what is deemed necessary for the well-being of the states. This has been exploited since the day it has been made, and Congress has used it as an excuse on almost every law. There are some who argue that almost every law is unconstitutional, since it doesn't fall under the federal government's enumerated powers.

The Constitution also explicity states that any right not given to the federal government, is exclusively reserved to the people and the states. This is not the case. The federal government has become so powerful that it has essentially rendered states into little more than a geographic location. It used to mean something when you were a Virginian, and you thought Pennsylvanians were a bit odd. Now, no one gives a rip, because everywhere you go the federal government still controls everything.

I support cutting back the federal government to only its Constitutional responsibilities. Get rid of every other government program. Some might not like this, but it would benefit us in the long run. Libertarians have a plan to do this, and in return you would never have to pay income tax again. I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't want this, but I hope to see it fulfilled some day.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join