About our current political system in the United States

Our current system isn't producing great or even good presidents.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. We are insane. Our culture is insane, unsustainable, irresponsible and deadly.

It's time for change people.

If we refuse it is going to be the end of us

I'm telling you the truth and you need to listen.

Please wake up, you're dying!!!

It is up to us. We MUST push back. NOW.

reply to post by MsAphrodite

Dear MsAphrodite,

Do you see the growing rejection and mistrust of our current President as at least part of the push back you're calling for?

Is the Tea Party your push back?

I don't think I'm clear about what you are calling for.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Thank you for your reply. I don't trust either entity any longer. I'm interested in the New Whig Party. Are you familiar with it?

Link to the Modern Whig Party

reply to post by MsAphrodite

Dear MsAphrodite,

Thank you very much! I was not familiar with the Whigs until I followed your link.They look good. I'm philosophically supportive. Of course, I've got questions. (Which will probably be answered as I spend more time on their site, but may I offer my first thoughts?)

I understand the frustration with the current two party system, but they won't just disappear. Are the Whigs thinking of being a third party? Or pushing for a parliamentary system?

Hypothetically, assume everyone in the country is either Republican or Democrat in a 50 - 50 split. Then the Whigs are announced and get 10% of the population to support them. Will the other 90% split 45 - 45? I don't think so. It would seem that the Whigs would come primarily from the Republicans, leaving something like 48% Democrat, 42% Republican, and 10% Whigs. Is this a good thing?

I recall the Cuccinelli (Republican) and McAuliffe (Democrat) race for Governor. McAuliffe won by 2.5%. The Tea Party candidate had 6%. I can imagine a Cuccinelli meme "Y U no vote for me?"

My state doesn't require registration by party, so I'm spared the need to make a decision right now, but you've given me a lot to think about.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by MsAphrodite


You'd think that out of 350 million people, we'd find one person with values, dignity, honour, and principles.

You'd think that we'd find one person capable of leading the nation.

We are Diogenes.

reply to post by beezzer

Dear beezzer,

Please forgive my pessimism and despair, but say we find such a person. What happens to him? By the time IRS, NSA, and everybody else searches through every aspect of his life, the world will be convinced he's another Hitler, if not Satan himself.

I don't know how good a President Ron Paul, Herman Cain, or Sarah Palin, might have been. What I do know is that their ideas weren't discussed seriously, and scandalous attacks seemed the order of the day.

Even if I was a young, strong, energetic bunny like you, eager for the fight, I wouldn't know what I could do.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


We don't give up.

I'm an old cold warrior. Battles are won and lost daily. Wars take the long view.

I'm old. I'm mean. I'm stubborn. I will not quit. I will not cede.

I think the human spirit has much to do with this.

reply to post by beezzer


We need to make what you have contagious Beezer! I love your spirit. What do you think of the Modern Whigs?

reply to post by MsAphrodite


The two-party system is simply part of the problem, but the real reasons lie way deeper in the roots - the culture and the political system itself.

US is the advanced nation where compared to others money plays the most role in politics. If somebody wants to get far, they need serious sponsors behind themselves, usually corporate ones, who have the big money. Although this does not come for "free", companies who donate to candidates want something back too, whether taxbreaks, legislations supporting their actions or some other benefits via supporting votes. This from the beginning is anti-democratic, as the people who vote for the politicians expect them to take decisions on behalf of people, not sponsors, yet the politician would not even reach most people without having sponsors behind...

This is not problem only in US, although in US it is most visible from the advanced nations, as others do not have the "legal" lobbying and also there are laws preventing certain sponsorships for politicians.


The cultural issue lies in highly individualistic (thinking only on oneself, not on team/other people) and materialistic (money matters the most) consumerist (the more stuff I have, the more successful I am) culture, in others words very right-wing. There is a saying that in democracy leaders of a nation are the reflection of the nation, can you recognise some of the things mentioned in the first sentence when thinking about previous high-level politicians?


If someone is very successful in US, it is very likely that person can be softly referred to as a shark. As the overall workplace regulations are quite soft, in many sectors the ones who exploit their lowest employees the most win, earn the most benefits, just as their families. Social mobility is very low in US particularly, largely due to the high costs of education. When you were born in the rich family, you got better healthcare, better nutrition, better education. Most of the currently wealthy people were raised in the "greed is good" culture in 1980s and the kids of them are often raised the same way. More money, better education, better family contacts give a strong advantage in politics, how you were raised gives values.

The average person does not pay much attention into what is happening in the world, as their financial needs, needs for entertainment matter more - as long as I am okay, why should I care how others do?

Again I do not say the issue lies only in US, although in US it is the clearest. Other advanced nations have managed to limit these problem up to certain point, but future might change it, when US corporations focus on European nations and local corporations become stronger.


To be honest, I have no idea, how to fix the current US system. I doubt Whig Party would help much, as a lot of money is required for successful campaigns and corporations have too much influence on politics. Although a strong left-wing party is needed, as currently the system is fully right-wing. Tea Party would make things even worse for the average citizen in the long run.

beezzer
You'd think that out of 350 million people, we'd find one person with values, dignity, honour, and principles.

That one person does not go into politics or simply is not ruthless enough to make it there. ''

Also without the money from corporate sponsors for the campaign it is near to impossible to gain lots of votes.

MsAphrodite
reply to post by beezzer

 

We need to make what you have contagious Beezer! I love your spirit. What do you think of the Modern Whigs?

I don't see anything wrong with their platform. But on the face of things, I could probably find nothing wrong with most any party platform.

The problem isn't in what they say they'll do.

The problem lies in what they actually do.

New party will make sure democrats win each time.

similar stuff happened in Canada, but it was the Democrats who had another party... which gave the "less popular" conservative the win.

Only way to win is to not split off, i know this promotes 2 party system, but it is what it is and that is why it survived this long.

reply to post by Cabin

Dear Cabin,

I starred your post, but I wonder about one line in it. It might very well be a typo. Do you realize you wrote:

Although a strong left-wing party is needed, as currently the system is fully right-wing.

Surely, you meant it the other way around.

But if, by some odd chance, you meant that, what do you think "left-wing" and "right-wing" mean?

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


left -> right is like society-> individuals and people -> companies on most broadest terms. Also strong environmental policies and employee rights are considered left-wing.

Currently however I take it, US has two right-wing parties. Democrats might be left-wing on paper, but when you take a look at their actions, these are more right-wing. I would say Democrats are centre-right, while Republicans are pure right-wing. Tea-Party would be far-right.

I am not supporting socialism, after all I have certain experience with USSR. Although I fully support hybrid systems, which Nordic nations and certain Central Europeans have proved to work very well for majority of the people, which take best ideas from both ends. Strong social safety nets, universal healthcare, strong public education system, free-of-charge universities, strong employee rights, public utilities companies and strong environmental policies. All of that,while personal responsibility still is there. You have to work hard to be rich, but if you don´t work at all for whatever reasons, you can still live reasonably well. I believe in equal opportunities for everybody, where someone´s opportunities are dependent on him/her not his/her wallet/parents wallet. No person in advanced nations should suffer from health issues, because he/she has no money to pay for cure, no person in advanced nations should be exploited by companies for profit (=reasonable salary/not taking advantage of inelastic demand). No child should starve and every kid, whoever their parents are, should have equal opportunities to the rest.

In US, majority of decisions taken, whichever party is in charge are supportive to certain individuals (rich) and corporations, which also serve these particular individuals, while many corporations rape the nature or exploit employees by paying non-livable wage for increasing the profit for these individuals or in certain cases customers (health sector) . Certain left-wing policies might not support these individuals, but these are positive for the nation as a whole in the long run.

That is why I said strong left-wing party - a party which would add non-corporate dimension to the political landscape - a party who would do things for the people, not for the wealthy.