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.

 

If the Democratic Party Dies America will become a Dictatorship.

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 03:08 PM
link   
I have been thinking lately about the current situation of the Democratic Party and what it means. According to several sources the Democratic party is losing its base due to death of the baby boomers and is failing to recruit new members. My first thought as a Conservative Republican is "alright that is great news!" However, after further consideration if the Democratic party perishes then America will be a dictatorship.

America was designed to be a multiparty system to allow each party to debate the other and the system ultimately promotes the most qualified canidate. Over the years America has evolved into a 2 party system that consists of the Democrats and the Republicans. This two party system seems to be degrading into a one party system.

If the democratic party dies out then only the republican party will remain leading the way for the party to drop its platforms since there will be no organized force to oppose it. With no opposition the Republican party could basically pervert the government to whatever they see fit.

This is not a laughing matter. Just because the republican party may seem good to conservatives today if they don't have to worry about winning votes then do you think they would care about appeasing the public.




posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Blackjackal Qouted:


America was designed to be a multiparty system to allow each party to debate the other and the system ultimately promotes the most qualified canidate. Over the years America has evolved into a 2 party system that consists of the Democrats and the Republicans. This two party system seems to be degrading into a one party system.


It's sad but true. Rember we used to hack on the Soviets and other communist regimes for having a "one" party system. We're not too far behind. Which is why I vote..........

Libertarian! My man Harry Brown ran for president in 2000, and received about 1% of the total vote, hehe.

But there are many others parties to look at if the demo's go away. It would just take time for people to align themselves with the party they best match views with.



posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 03:30 PM
link   
As much as I despise Deans politics, I grudgingly have to admit he is/has changed the process by engaging his base on the internet where younger people seem to be reached.

Only the return to solid integrity (real or perceived) by Dems will re-engage their party across the full spectrum of voters and prevent a balkanization of the party.

Really both partys need to feed their roots, not see how fast they can grow their branches.



posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 03:42 PM
link   
The Democrats wont die

But Democracy wont die if Conservative are left, the US Government will become smaller, stronger military ect (Republican Ideals).



posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Hey, we've always got the green party



posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 04:01 PM
link   
The Democrats will not die. They will have resurgence in time for 2008 election when Hillary takes over and wins election.

Will she receive the ultimate honor, that of the christening of the unholy one, the anti-son of light?



posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by THENEO
The Democrats will not die. They will have resurgence in time for 2008 election when Hillary takes over and wins election.

Will she receive the ultimate honor, that of the christening of the unholy one, the anti-son of light?


You mean 'ol beer keg legs? Forget about it.



posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 04:04 PM
link   
The U.S wasn't actually written to be a two party system though it did become that after a while. We went through several different parties until we came up with the democrats and republicans. What seems to happen is that a party will die out over a central subject, one goes on, the other dies and another comes up to oppose that surviving party. So even if the democratic party fails, another will come up to replace it.

I seriously doubt the democratic party will fail, becuase Bush and the publicans will # up somehow and nobody will want to uphold their ideals anymore.



posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 04:45 PM
link   
[Edited on 15-1-2004 by darkwraith]



posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 08:59 PM
link   
DW, thats the best post I've seen that spells out whats wrong with politics today, As a conservative I could be persuaded to vote for a Truman type person put up by either party - Integrity is lacking.

For you others out there that might be tempted don't even try to convince me anyone in the current field comes close - because they don't.

Ah all except that part about extreme right wing that is


[Edited on 13-1-2004 by Phoenix]



posted on Jan, 14 2004 @ 07:30 AM
link   
As many of you may know or may not know I am a democrat in the Southeast US. This topic strikes a very familiar chord with me because its a topic I've been lamenting for about 6 years now. See, locally, our democratic party retains most of the principles that we developed through people like Andrew Jackson and JFK. Self-suffiency, a government for the people, and help for our fellow man. But nationaly, we seem to be getting less support from our party in areas of family values, national defense, and economic growth. Over the decade of the 90s, the average everyday working stiff which the democrat party claims to represent saw his or her taxes skyrocket all the while wondering if the economy was so great, why he or she was falling farther and farther behind. We saw the law allow get rich quick schemes to flourish while less and less came to those who work 8 to 12 hours per day. After years of blaming the republicans, I finally (thinking things just could not be as one sided as I was being told by the party leaders) began really looking at what was going on.

What I found really hits home with this thread. Our democratic party has moved so far left of the mainstream that most of us cannot relate to its national message of appeasement for our enemies and taxing the working to pay the players because they just can't seem to haul it out of bed for a real job. Sure, much of what has hit our economy is due to Bush but just as much ties to our own actions as well. I was once told that as a democrat I should never ever talk about what people earned because the word "earned" was no longer to be used. The word "distribute" was the choice in grammer. Why? I grew up working. I was always proud on an honest days pay so why now must we pull away from that?

Now I know this post is going to draw major fire from fellow democrats because this is simply something that isn't said aloud even if it is widely known. I have been deemed a traitor, spy, and countless other accusations because I know our playbook and for a while tried to change the way we as a party delt with the issues. See, we never delt with issues, we delt in personal attacks when it meant admitting that we might have been wrong. But, thats more human trait as pride guides us all from time to time. But as one of the representative parties that govern the US, we must put that aside and put the development of our country first. We must purge ourselves of people like Dashle and McKaulif and turn toward the leadership of people like Lieberman and Gephardt who , I think, try to call like they see it but still we see their values corrupted to a degree by the insatiable desire for government regulation and control of every aspect of our lives. People, that used to be a republican idea. Yeah, thats right.

The kicker is that now that we've let thses extremist hi-jack the party initiative with the ideology that the mainstream will follow wherever we decide to go, looks whos played in with ethics and morals and family values. Look whos all of the sudden took national defense and has found a comfy little bed right in the heartland of America. MY point is, we made a move and not everyone came with us. In fatc, we lost the most important people. We traded the people that produce for the people who reproduce and do little else.

Yes, if this party dies, we are all screwed. We will have no choices. I don't believ it will die however because I think what we're seeing is its restructure and during times of restructure, things seem disorganized because largely they are. We are still trying to play somewhat to family values while at the same time pushing an economic plan which all but deletes the opportunity for the male to earn enough of a living to allow the mother to raise the child. We're straddling the fence but sooner or later, we'll fall to one side or another. The question is, will we fall to the people who will support us on their shoulders or to those who will devour us?

Pretty picture isn't it?



posted on Jan, 14 2004 @ 07:33 AM
link   
W was quoted as saying "Dictatorship wouldn't be bad as long as I'm the dictator"



posted on Jan, 14 2004 @ 08:59 AM
link   
The Democratic party will not die at least no time soon. I think though that more people are calling themselves indepents.



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 05:54 PM
link   
I am bringing this back to the forefront now because the Democrats have lost their old stronghold of the South. With the exception of Florida the Kerry Campaign has shifted their focus to the Midwest in his quest for the whitehouse.

www.buzzle.com...



As far as crude numbers go, the appeal of avoiding the South is clear. The problem is that they do not go nearly as far as some claim. The strategy would arguably also suit the Republicans. With the South in the bag, they could also concentrate their resources elsewhere. Making less effort to entice white southerners would allow them to foster a national message that might win over voters in swing states they narrowly lost last time.

If the short-term prospects for abandoning the South are debatable, the long-term effects for the political culture of the nation and the region, not to mention the Democratic party, could be disastrous. Democrats lost the South for the same reason they lost Strom Thurmond - race and racism. The New Deal followed by the civil rights movement transformed their most loyal base from white, racist southerners to African-Americans. Integration of the races heralded the segregation of the parties; with few exceptions in the South, whites vote Republican, blacks vote Democrat.

The Democrats' failure in the South has been due to their inability to capture the votes of a sufficient number of poor whites, by convincing them that whatever privilege they get from their race is more than offset by the disadvantage experienced by their class. Being white has not saved many of them from having no healthcare, poor education and low pay. The South may be the most conservative region in the country, but it is also the most impoverished.

Failing to connect with poor whites and enthuse poor blacks is the Democrats' national problem, not a regional one. Of the 10 non-southern states with the highest rates of poverty, the Republicans won seven in 2000. Meanwhile, black Americans are the Democrats' most loyal base, yet among the most reluctant to turn out. For the Democrats to turn their backs on the poorest, blackest region in the country is unlikely to be the solution. As a short-term electoral tactic it might just work, but as a long-term approach it reflects not a means to an end but a mindset.


Again I beg the question is the democratic party dying?



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Dying? Nah. Maybe doing poorly in this one election, but hardly in the death throes. Should a void be left where the Democrats sued to be (by some act of God they implode), then either the more conservative or more liberal republicans will break off and form a new party. The Republicans as a whole couldn't expand fast enough to fill in the gap.



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 06:10 PM
link   
If the Democratic party does die, modern Republicans will become Democrats and Libertarians will become the Republicans. Third parties are picking up pace and don't worry, they'll be there to replace either monolith political two.



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Blackjackal my friend, if I could or knew how to vote for you for the Way Above Top Secret award, I would.

A single-party situation, and especially a party in power for a very long time (say, more than two decades) automatically endangers the democratic process by breeding corruption and spoils. For those of you familiar with Mexican politics, look what happened during the last two decades of rule by the Party of Institutional Revolution (1924-2000) - Mexico almost went bankrupt during the 80's, then underwent its worst scandals during the administration of Carlos Salinas de Gortari (1988-1994, see info here: www.mexconnect.com...)

In Canada and the United States, the longest period of power for a party was respectively 22 years (the Canadian Liberal party, between 1935 and 1957) and 20 years (the Democratic party, 1933-1953). In each case, I think it should be the absolute limit before another party takes over. If only to allow a "clean-up" and nip any corruption due to career politicians growing roots in the centers of power.

America needs the Democratic party. It also needs the Republican party.



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 06:41 PM
link   
The 2 party system SUCKS!!! It's this or that. I think AMERICA should have 3-5 party's running for federal election. Because as of now, it is voting for the lesser of 2 evils. We should be given a fair choice to represent our REPUBLIC....Yes I said it, not a democracy, But a REPUBLIC! Were the PROPLES representatives, represent them. It's time more people started looking at the constitution and lived by it!!!



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 06:44 PM
link   
If Kerry wins, he will be assasinated soon.



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 06:52 PM
link   
astrocreep - about your feeling that the Democratic party has moved too far left of your preoccupations, it is to be noted that both parties, from what I've seen, are actually vast coalitions. Each party has a more militant wing and a more moderate wing.

What I find very interesting is that until 1980, the party that gained power was the one that managed to best represent the "Rooseveltian coalition" - a mix of good social programs and toughness on communism that appealed to a wide range of states. Even the Nixon administration heeded this principle - while fighting communism in Vietnam, Nixon built more social housing than all his Democratic predecessors.

From 1980 to 2000, the party that gained power was the one that could best reproduce the "Reaganian coalition" - moderate social programs and fiscal responsibility, reducing the size of government.

However, there's a radicalization going on in American politics. The Republican party went through it between 1992 and 2000, where the rift between moderates and right-wing appeared - best exemplified by Pat Buchanan challenging George H.W. Bush for the Presidency.

The Democratic party is going through the same process. It traversed the nineties with a moderate President - Bill Clinton - and got to 2004 with a moderate candidate, John Kerry, who has to move left to heed all those who would've rather have had Howard Dean.

It appears to me that neither of the parties are able to truly occupy the centre of the political spectrum right now, to recreate the "Reaganian coalition" which responds to most people's preoccupations. The militant wings are out, they're strong, and from what I've read on the net and in the news... they want blood.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join