It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Should Political Parties Be Held Accountable For the Record of Their Leaders?

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 03:47 PM


It shouldn't be. Rational thinking and logic would tell you that the Democrats should be running away with it given the state of the country:

  1. An unnecessary and costly war in Iraq.
  2. A struggling war in Afghanistan.
  3. Osama Bin Laden loose... Still.
  4. The unemployment rate breaking 6 percent.
  5. Less overall job creation that in the previous administration.
  6. New Orleans still in ruins years later.
  7. Galveston, TX in much the same state.
  8. Diminished US standing across the world.
  9. The burst in the housing bubble.
  10. The outright explosion and crisis of the US financial system.
  11. A trillion dollar financial bail-out for failed companies, but none for average hard-working Americans.
  12. Blatant elite socialism on the part of the so-called anti-socialist party.
  13. Record oil profits along with record oil prices.
  14. The worst economy since the Great Depression.
  15. Unaffordable Healthcare.
  16. Cost of Living increases...

And an administration that says things are just great, with a candidate that says the "fundamentals of the economy are STRONG!" Yep... for them and their rich pals it's strong...

Given this dismal record, please explain to me why anyone capable of an independent thought would even consider voting back in the same political party? Isn't that the definition of insanity? To do the same thing OVER AND OVER AND OVER but expect a different result? Isn't it intellectually dishonest to assert that another Republican administration, who will have the exact same players as the current, is in fact the party of reform and change?

Isn't it self-evident that McCain will be a continuation of Bush? Wouldn't the same have been true about a Democratic predecessor to Bill Clinton?

Do you agree with me that entire parties need to be held accountable for the mistakes, or successes, of their leaders and that, by changing the game in this way, more clarity presents itself when making voting decisions?

What do you think?

P.S. Don't bother telling me how much of a horrible alternative Obama is, or try justifying how the Democratic Congress is really at fault. Tell it to a Democrat... Tell me whether you believe an incumbent party deserves re-election after 8 years of a record like the one we've seen.

posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 04:08 PM
Absolutely not.

That's simple minded thinking, on par with racism or sexism.

We must judge these people by individual actions, voting record, and not give into the collectivism that is so popular among all the village idiots. As politicians have proven, they swing from left to right with no regard for the Constitution or the welfare of the average American. Collectivism is a huge problem in modern politics itself. You'll hear a lot about democrats or republicans bundling their votes or teaming up to knock down an issue. That very same thinking gets us in the bind we're in now.

"I'm voting democrat! No more bush! No more war!"

Firstly, Bush is out. He's a non issue at this stage in the election. Simpletons.

Secondly, Barack and Hillary are both for keeping our boys there with unspecified time lines. And even though he's given one, just last week he said "he'd have to reconsider."

Voting Democrat will not get you out of this war.

"I'm voting Republican! No to socialism/communism! No more abortion!"

Firstly, what do you think is going on with Bush and these bailouts? 1930's Russia anybody?

Secondly, Abortion will not change federally. There may be small variations of certain law, but the guy you vote for isn't going to step up to the plate and eliminate it. It would be impossible for one man to do so. Bush was adamantly pro-life. Last time I checked most underage girls can get an abortion free of charge without telling their parents. There's your anti-abortion argument.

This is why judging an individual by who they are associated with is a bad deal all around. We need to make people individually accountable/responsible for each individual vote and vote accordingly. Better to judge them on their contributions to the nation instead what animal sticker they have on their letterhead.

posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 04:18 PM
I;m going to have to agree with DFB. Every man should be held accountable for his own actions, and no more. You can perhaps get a politician on *not* stopping war or genocide or whatever, but you can't hold him accountable for someone else's implimentation of the same thing.

posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 05:19 PM

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
Firstly, Bush is out. He's a non issue at this stage in the election. Simpletons.

DFB, it's the same people running McCain's campaign! It'll be the same advisors, the same appointed positions, the same thing all over again!

I agree that traditionally and in everyday life, we should never judge people en masse, but politics to me is different.

Example: I'm Hispanic and I live in LA. But I do not work in construction, and I am not illegal. Not all hispanics fit that mold. Same can be said about any other race and whatever prejudices they may have to deal with. Another: Palin is a woman. But just because she is a woman, that should never disqualify her from being VP or even president.

Political parties, however, subscribe to very specific philosophies and ideals. Not only that, they run in herds, meaning that regardless of who the candidate is, it's the same people that pull the strings. For instance, I can assume that a Republican candidate will support Pro-Life policies. I don't need to know what his/her personal position is on the issue. They ran as republicans and, therefore will toe the party line on major issues. If a candidate did not subscribe to their basic political tenets, then they wouldn't be members of that party.

Another point: I agree that judging candidates/people collectively in principle is bad. However, before we can hold politicians individually accountable, we need to shatter the notion for them that it is safe to vote as their party does (as most do). The only way to do this is to make it very clear that if you toe a party line on policies that are counter-productive or dangerous, you will be voted out. This gives the incentive of independent thought on the part of our political leaders.

The message should be clear:

If you vote the party line simply because of the letter after your name, even on failed policy or lack of direction, then you're out.

new topics

top topics

log in