NEWS FLASH! Presidencies will Never work, until...

We dissolve this 2-party system of governing. Remember this throughout the thread, "The Two Sides are fundamentally against each other."

*This thread is purposely overlooking the "Red-Tape" Aspect of DC, so we can focus on the simple, in-your-face aspect, "The 2-Party" System. We all love to boast whether we're a Democrat or a Republican, as if they are rival football teams. But Government is not a sport or a competition, it is a mechanism for the betterment of America... OR SHOULD BE.

Moving on...

I love hearing people say, Oh I loved Obama, he said all these things he would do, but so far he hasn't shown me S%$#!" Another NEWS FLASH... Obama said it himself in the Primaries, "Washington DC is where good ideas go to die." Were you not listening?

Every presidential candidate for the last 30 years has campaigned on CHANGE. Still looking?

The 2-party system is set up to work in the disfavor of the American people. The parties are Against each other. They compete. They do not want to see the other side gain momentum (unless bad), achieve or succeed in following through on a promise. If and when that rarely happens, the succeeding party uses that as leverage in the next election to validate their reason for office. Too many of those achievements on one side will create things like a Majority in Senate or Majority in House, or the much coveted filibuster lead that creates a cart blanche, so to speak, in DC policy. Something both sides fight feverishly to prevent their counterparts from achieving.

So getting back to Obama. He is president during one of the most crucial moment in America economic history. If he pulls us out of this moment, or finds a way to achieve on a few promises, guess what happens, he uses that for leverage to be re-elected. Republicans do not want this, so they fight his policies, refuse his legislation, and point their fingers when his candidacy stalls.

This is not going to change. We are all fooled to think the vote matters. It's not the vote that is the problem, it is the process... THE 2-PARTY SYSTEM.

Think about it... If all this is even remotely true, Congress is better described by a group of self-righteous people working AGAINST the better needs of it's citizens.

RANT OVER. Down with the 2-Party System!

AAC

reply to post by AnAbsoluteCreation


The easy part is pointing out the flaws.

The hard part is coming up with viable solutions.

And one may very well counter you and say that without a viable solution, "Down with the Two Party system" will turn into, "Up with the Fascist Dictatorship".

reply to post by LifeIsEnergy


Take the competition out of Government. Competition breeds anger, anger, breads hate, and hate breads fear. What's left?

AAC

reply to post by AnAbsoluteCreation


Sounds so simple doesn't it?

But what makes you think a one party system would be void of competition?

reply to post by LifeIsEnergy


Policies would only be permitted if they benefitted the majority. We live in an age where we can conceivably reach out to the population for a consensus within a couple days. Of course its not an easy fix, but my thread was mainly there to get people from fighting about the structural constant of the way we vote and realize how that is destined to be against our better interest. It's like some people think that once you get to DC everything is possible because you're the G-D president. It seems ignorant to ignore.

AAC

Let us examine your model then.

First, you state that "Policies would only be permitted if they benefitted the majority." With this, you then run the risk of alienating and then eventually pushing out a possible 49.99% of the People; this all in the name of 'benefitting the majority'.

This was the very problem that was tackled by Jefferson, Adams, Madison, et.al. While they wished the People to be as close to Government as possible, they understood the dangers of majority rule. Thus the dilution of Democratic principles throughout the many levels of Government was instituted.

The two-party system is a product of the system. It is a natural occurance due to the 'winner-takes-all' election setup. This is otherwise known as plurality voting system. This system is to provide each person eligable to vote, one vote for a particular issue/office. This system is a product of the developed and well organized political parties we have today in the United States; as it favors them the most.

To that, I agree that it needs to be examined, but this is nothing that a free People can ask their Government to regulate. By doing so, places the Government in direct conflict with itself and given the power to regulate such systems, would give them unprecedent powers in electioneering.

The real debate isn't that the two-party system is a well disguised veil, which it may very well be; but rather that the two-party system is designed to keep politics relatively within the center of the spectrum. At the same time, giving each party the ability to easily put down debate, progress, and maintain the status quo. Which we have seen over and over from not only Presidents, but also Congress.

"It's like some people think that once you get to DC everything is possible because you're the G-D president. It seems ignorant to ignore."

This statement here is quite possibly your truest statement. This is something I fight everytime I come aboard here. The faith that one man can change the whole of Government is not and was never to be the way we were to be governed. One man is too fickle, but spreading that power amongst the People and the States insured that the country will still move forward but without constant and drastic changes.

So in that you are correct. People, both for and against President Obama (Bush even) need to realize that they are just one man with the vision of direction. It is those in Congress that set the course we are destined to be upon.

reply to post by rajaten


And how do you suppose they are going to do that? The next step that is going to happen is another civil war at the end of obamas reign of ignorance.

reply to post by AnAbsoluteCreation


I respect your intentions to alert people about the damage caused from the unnecessary strict partisanship and attachment to party lines. The best way to show them this is by equally holding both sides accountable to the same rigorous criticism and pointing out there moderate, corrupt behavior. However, without a solution you are merely preaching to the choir brother, and people will continue to choose sides.

Here is a few things you may want to consider when thinking about solutions:

The two most popular styles of Governance in the West come from Ancient Greeks; Athenian Democracy and Plato's Republic. All other forms of Governance; Communism, Socialism, Totalitarism, Fascism... are reactionaries to these two ideologies.

The word Democracy comes from the Greek words of "Demos" (meaning "People" or aka "Mob") and "Kratos" (meaning "Force" or "Power"). This ideology had a short lived span in Athens until it was ultimately overrun and replaced with a diluted form of Plato's idea of the Republic. Critics often referred to this ideology (Democracy) as "The rule of the mob" and was frowned upon because it placed power in the hands of the 'ignoble', 'corrupt', and generally uneducated class of people. Critics, mostly the scholars, warned against this ideology by saying it would be giving poor and uneducated people power over their betters and this seemed a reversal of the proper, rational order of society. For them the demos in democracy meant not the whole people, but the people as opposed to the elite. Instead of seeing it as a fair system under which 'everyone' has equal rights, they saw it as the numerically preponderant poor tyrannizing over the rich. They thought that it would eventually destabilize the state through internal conflict until the point the state would be left vulnerable to outside attack, which it ultimately was. Socrates was one of these beloved critics and after he was executed for his beliefs, Democracy was forever stained by his blood and not soon there after Plato's Republic came into play.

Plato's Republic was set upon the belief that only the most noble, intelligent, and wise men should have authority to dictate policy. He labeled these men as the "Guardians" and said they should be found by watching over the elite (educated) class and picking out only the men who had led completely virtuous and noble lives, those who showed no signs of corruptness, greed or hatred. He proposed that they should not be paid hefty wages and that they should live amongst the people, serving out their entire life inside of governance without the option to pursue other careers. His main argument was that everybody in society had an equally important role to play; from the carpenters, to the blacksmiths, to the farmers, to the "Guardians", and if everybody focuses solely on their job in a noble and virtuous manner, than society would remain healthy and would continue to progress. However, some may say his ideas were too far fetched and not probable enough, and ultimately this showed to be true as his ideology was never completely established in the manner he intended. Instead it turned into more of an monarchial empire, far from what he described. Later on, others such as Machiavelli refurbished the idea of a Republic in a more practical form.

Both of these ideologies molded our current political ideology in the United States. Essentially it is like a synthesis between the two, with a few more modern ideals added on. I think the founding fathers did a good job in creating a better system, especially compared to the old world systems of europe at the time, although there are certain aspects of both ideologies that I feel should be more decisively implemented now days, especially from Plato's Republic. Politicians should not be able to leave office and resort to higher paying jobs, this in my eyes obviously breeds corruption. Also they should not be giving luxurious homes to live in, they should live amongst the people, this ensures they are 'in-touch' with 'reality'. They also should be held to a higher level of scrutiny and oversight to ensure they are truly noble and virtuous people, instead of the narcissistic and power hungry people we have in office today.

But ultimately we the people must understand that our societies condition is mostly the result of our own actions and in-actions, not so much theirs, although there actions and in-actions do have some effect upon us. If society is corrupt, greedy, unequal, and generally sick, then it is a direct reflection of our own doings, the system is merely sustaining these things and preventing them from changing. In conclusion, these problems are the problems of the Human Mind as a whole, across the board, in every nation, class, race, and area of the world. Until we deal with these problems on that level, then corruption, greed, hatred, inequality and war will continue. To the contrary, until every human being has access to the basic needs of water, food, shelter, security (physical and economical), these problems of the Human Mind cannot be properly addressed and fixed. This LINK (Maslows Hierarchy of Needs) describes this process of reform in further detail.