Baby Eating Republicans and Moronic Democrats -- The Game of Political Parties

In my time here on ATS, I have grown and expanded my intellectual anarchy and how I see the world, along with how utterly absurd our Republic has become. While I still hold true to my strong republican (little 'r' meaning the structure of Government -- not the political party), I also am not so rigid that I cannot at least understand an opposing view. To many here, I have seen the same.

It is the basic human right to exchange ideas freely without fear of the State (who we authorize to exist), to punish us for thinking contrary. In that interest, I seek to see just how fare we can take the issues of the day, may they be Federal or State; agreeable or disagreeable; right or wrong.

To start off I was perusing the posts and one caught my eye. It was relating to "who started the Tea Party" and they make claim that it was the Koch brothers and "Big Tobacco". While the thread was well thought out, it was painted with a broad brush that was riddled with partisan infighting and pure dismissal of any views contrary. That isn't healthy nor does it actually accomplish anything. Trenches were dug and the sides drew their battle lines without even trying to figure out why they were engaged in battle.

So along those lines, I propose a solid discussion on political parties and what they mean to the American political system. Are they necessary? Why do we have them? Should one party be disparaging towards another (especially if they are the party in power)? Are they a product of our natural right to freely associate or are they a product of a republican form of government?

I do not believe political parties are necessary but also, they will be inevitable due to our ability to freely associate with each other. If we look at our history, from the founding of our nation, there was only one election that never involved political parties: our first president, George Washington. After that, battle lines began to form and an ideological divide was created. At first, it was Federalist v. Anti-Federalist. Interestingly, those forces were not new as they were prevalent during the formation and debate over the structure and wording of the Constitution. To prove this, just see the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers.

Since then, it has further divided into this ideological cesspool of "I'm right" -- regardless of any points, people retain their beliefs without even listening to what the other side has to say. A problem I believe, exasperated with the inability to express the belief and complete unwillingness to even be open to opposing ideas. It is through this, that political forces have recognized this small, but significant, human failing of the People. They have used it to further the divide and create a false sense of division that has established an invisible chasm of competing ideas.

Why though? Political madness and chaos is why. The further we continue to perceive this divide, the further we allow ourselves to be conned into a false paradigm of left v. right.

What say you ATS?

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Just updated the title to reflect what I really am getting at in regards to how it equates to the political madness we endeavor in the United States and how we interact with each other from opposites of the "political" aisle.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Aww no fair Own made the republicans sound more evil than the democrats.



As a baby eating republican on this site who has had enough arguments I am guilty of being just as biased as the next guy.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

Aww no fair Own made the republicans sound more evil than the democrats.

As a baby eating republican on this site who has had enough arguments I am guilty of being just as biased as the next guy.

And being biased is not bad -- not in the least. Being unable to recognize that there are probably underlying agreements to be had, we resort back to those biases because they are comfortable and safe.

But honestly -- I would rather eat babies than be a moron

I'll tell you what I think.

The passions are momentary.

When Bush was president, there was a lot of Bush bashing but I wouldn't join in.

I'm willing to criticize someone when they are running for office,
and when they are out of office, but not while they are in office.

I took notes, saved up my points, and when Obama was elected,
I tried to discuss my opinion on Bush. Finally.
The threads died.
No one cared.

People argue about Obama,
but watch,
After he is out of office it wont be trendy anymore and no one will really care.

Why is that?

How have Americans been conditioned to see political parties as team warfare.

Who told everyone that it was their job to attack or defend the character of persons WHILE they are in office.

When, if ever, are we going to have a sane review of a term of office
after that term is ended, instead of trampling each other to get seats for the next kick off.

And where are the Americans, who understand the phrase representative.

Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people.

-Exodus 20:28

People these days can't read past the first half of that sentence without their heads exploding.
Yet, ironically, they think it is their God-given duty to curse the elected ruler daily.

I'll tell you what.
It's making America into the laughing stock of the world.

President: This is what we want from you.
Foreign Leader: Why should I listen to you, your own people don't.
President: . . . . .>.<


Mike

reply to post by mikegrouchy


I don't see it as making us a laughing point to the world. We have effectively transferred power 43 times, without war or coup. That is an achievement to be looked upon in the manner of how we deal with our Government.

This issue goes much deeper than the current or even most recent presidency. It is so engrained that we even assign ourselves as "Reagan Republicans" or "Kennedy Democrats"; how about we are free thinking individuals not confined to slapping some label on the end of our beliefs or ideas to better our country in a self-governing society?

I agree,
it does go beyond political parties.





=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*

Political parties are unconstitutional

The founding fathers already divided the powers into camps. Three of them. The legislative, Judicial, and executive. These three branches of government are supposed to disagree, argue, and fight. So no one group has _all_ the power.

The Party system, as it exists in America, undermines this. If one party gets a president, and a majority in the Legislature they have control of government. Judicial appointments are sure to follow. Clean sweep. Grand slam home run.

One should only be able to Join the Legislative party, Executive party, or Judicial party. If you want to run for President join the Executive party. If you want to be a supreme court judge or help them, join the Judicial party.

Political parties are unconstitutional.
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*


These elected officials
they work for us,
yet the average American treats them
like pieces of the fantasy football league.

If that isn't laughable, what is.
Reality TV?


Mike

Maybe a multi-party system is all about checks and balances ?

What happens when we get a single party in full control ?

any examples, recent or past ?

Originally posted by xuenchen
Maybe a multi-party system is all about checks and balances ?

What happens when we get a single party in full control ?

any [color=gold] examples, recent or past ?

Document showing King Henry VII sitting in the Star Chamber.

[align=center]
The [color=gold] Star Chamber (Latin: Camera stellata) was an English court of law that sat at the royal Palace of Westminster from the late 15th century until 1641. It was made up of Privy Councillors, as well as common-law judges and supplemented the activities of the common-law and equity courts in both civil and criminal matters. The court was set up to ensure the fair enforcement of laws against prominent people, those so powerful that ordinary courts would never convict them of their crimes. Court sessions were held in secret, with no indictments, and no witnesses. Evidence was presented in writing. Over time it evolved into a political weapon, a symbol of the misuse and abuse of power by the English monarchy and courts.
[/align]


Mike

Originally posted by mikegrouchy

Political parties are unconstitutional

I am not so sure about this. How do we define it and measure what is a "political" party? We are allowed to freely associate -- thus the natural creation of groups of like minded individuals. The problem is when those like minded individuals exercise that power and control the process. There is a natural check against this in the House, but the Senate's natural check was destroyed by the 17th Amendment.

Furthermore, there is a continued and growing call to abolish the Electoral College (which would squarely put power into the 'majority'; thus fully answering any questions as to if we are a Constitutional Republic or a Democracy).

The founding fathers already divided the powers into camps. Three of them. The legislative, Judicial, and executive. These three branches of government are supposed to disagree, argue, and fight. So no one group has _all_ the power.

The Party system, as it exists in America, undermines this. If one party gets a president, and a majority in the Legislature they have control of government. Judicial appointments are sure to follow. Clean sweep. Grand slam home run.

Agreed to the premise. That is why I highlighted the 17th Amendment (but it isn't as simply repealing that amendment -- the Judicial branch has heavily swung for the power of Government more so that of the Individual over the past century).

One should only be able to Join the Legislative party, Executive party, or Judicial party. If you want to run for President join the Executive party. If you want to be a supreme court judge or help them, join the Judicial party.

Agreed.

These elected officials
they work for us,
yet the average American treats them
like pieces of the fantasy football league.

If that isn't laughable, what is.
Reality TV?

But who are we laughing at then really?

Crap,
Now I have to go look up the 17th Amendment
and read up on it.

.... a while later....


Direct Election of Senators,
instead of being elected by the States Legislature,
pushed by progressives...

Say...are progressives a political party?

If so, it's worse than I thought.


Mike

reply to post by mikegrouchy


When you visit the 17th Amendment, it is worth to examine why the Founding Fathers argued for a bicameral Congress; why one would be the popularly elected and the others, at the determination of the individual States.

Federalist Paper #62 (James Madison)

It is equally unnecessary to dilate on the appointment of senators by the State legislatures. Among the various modes which might have been devised for constituting this branch of the government, that which has been proposed by the convention is probably the most congenial with the public opinion. It is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems.

Madison furthers his argument in why having this setup is a must:

Another advantage accruing from this ingredient in the constitution of the Senate is, the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation. No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the States.

With the 17th Amendment, the above no longer exists. The Congress is no longer bicameral in effect, only in structure. By excluding the States, the major parties (Republican and Democrats) could focus on securing their seats of power without fear of their respective State Governments.

Madison continues with this excellent point:

It must be acknowledged that this complicated check on legislation may in some instances be injurious as well as beneficial; and that the peculiar defense which it involves in favor of the smaller States, would be more rational, if any interests common to them, and distinct from those of the other States, would otherwise be exposed to peculiar danger. But as the larger States will always be able, by their power over the supplies, to defeat unreasonable exertions of this prerogative of the lesser States, and as the facility and excess of law-making seem to be the diseases to which our governments are most liable, it is not impossible that this part of the Constitution may be more convenient in practice than it appears to many in contemplation.

Yes it makes Government a pain. That was the point. To provide checks and balances between not only the Federal Government (Legislative, Executive and Judicial) but also to ensure that the checks were spread to the individual States.

The 17th Amendment decimated those checks and gave rise to the current party politics we see today. Think about the "advice and consent" provision levied on the Executive and given to the Senate. That ensured that States wouldn't be subjected to an ever encroaching Judiciary or subject to the "will of the People" as we have seen. Instead, the States would have say in their consent to judges who could, in effect and have, change their stake in the Federal Government and their own sovereignty.