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.


Political parties versus Statesmen

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 18 2010 @ 07:19 PM
Why do we keep re-electing the same jokers that did all of the bad things they did last term?

The biggest problem in Congress is that the people who are there have more loyalty to their parties than to their country. This country was started by people who were statesmen, that were willing to sacrifice their lives, homes, and welfare for the betterment of this nation.

Why is it, that in 300 million people, our political parties have become so polluted that they can't find a decent person to elect to office?

posted on May, 19 2010 @ 12:48 AM
The USA doesn't have political party's in the sense of the Westminster System because Americans elect their leaders rather then electing MP's . Statesmen are very rare because they think about the next generation rather then getting reelected . Gerald Ford was the last American president who was a statesmen his pardon of Nixon and letting South Vietnam refuges into the country were deeply unpopular at the time . Both decisions stand up very well today in spite of there past unpopular in the past.

posted on May, 19 2010 @ 12:55 AM
reply to post by Truth1000

I think if many parties were fronted by what we could call statesmen, it would change the face of politics. I believe this is something that needs to be done if the state is to begin working for the people again, instead of the other way around.

Politicians need to put morality, people, and the interests of the people within the nation before catering to corporations. We need seasoned politicians who know not how to make money or get elected, but to stand up for what is right, which may not always be what they believe.

If we can get true statesmen in politics who know how to do what's right for the people, then we can see the attitudes towards politics change. That of course, is no easy task I would imagine.

posted on May, 19 2010 @ 06:23 AM
One of the biggest problems I see is that in primaries, mainly the "loyal" party people vote. That means a Democratic politician has to strongly lean to the left to win the primary. A Republican politician has to strongly lean to the right to win the primary. A true moderate has difficulty winning a primary from either party.

posted on May, 20 2010 @ 10:04 PM
At least the Democrats tend to have more leeway. If you are now a Republican, either you toe the party line or you have no chance. That is why I expect that the mid-term elections are not going to be as bad for Democrats as many people expect.

There are lots of different kinds of Democrats. For Republicans, either you publicly agree with the Conservative platform or you are OUT!

posted on May, 20 2010 @ 11:40 PM
Political parties are like tar pits of patronage, charisma, acting & consensus at the expense of intellect or structured, ordered thinking.

What would happen if you banned political parties?

That almost sounds like a good idea to me.

Each person stands or falls on their presentation & actions to voters.

It wouldn't be perfect, but it might be so much better.

They are so meaningless at this point.

Parties are distinctions without any difference.

posted on May, 20 2010 @ 11:45 PM
Parties create all the slush funding.

Instead of the interested parties of a community either contributing or not to a campaign, all the foreign, external interests have derailing influence & effects.

Elections should belong exactly to the residents & voters of a district, & to no one else. Only residents of a voting area should be allowed to contribute to the campaign of a candidate of that area.

That is how REAL democracy works.

Representatives are elected by the people of that district, PERIOD. And it is nobody else's damn business to meddle in their elections.

posted on May, 21 2010 @ 10:54 AM
Very true, slank!

That is how the system SHOULD run. However, the way it does run is somalfunctioning that I think there are people who do want to participate and make a difference, but the people who run their little pieces of the pie are so concerned about maintaing their power that they don't want anyone upsetting the apple cart, even if that person should be capable of being a benefit to our country.

However, I disagree that the parties are indistinguishable and meaningless. They are the structural systems to create the environment of how the government operates. While I have tended to think of myself as an independent, because I have significant differences of opinion with both major parties, it seems to me that the Republicans have gone so far to the right to support the rich people that run that party that it is really separating themselves from the mainstream of the population.

I believe it is the mainstream "moderates" that have cause Obama to move away from his historical leftward lean, even to the point of upsetting many of the powerful Liberals that helped get him elected. But, he is still far enough from the Republicans that they dislike him also.

If the left dislikes his policies, and the right dislikes his policies, he's probably closer to the middle than most people think.

Because the Democrats are so diverse, as the population becomes ever more mixed by the changes in attitudes of the modern society, they will likely continue to gain strength, in the long-run.

top topics


log in