DO WE STILL HAVE TRUE AND PURE DEMOCRATS AND/OR REPUBLICANS?
POST said 05/23, 04:41 PM
I must admit, I started this debate with less confidence than I've had in my previous debates.
We have seen a lot of cross over between the two parties over the past years or decades. Mostly we've seen a lot of Republicans move towards Democrats, maybe not because they changed their beliefs but because they had been inspired by the candidates of the other side.
A lot of Democrats embraced Ronald Reagan, a lot of Republicans took their chance with Bill Clinton and now we see a lot of Republicans learning to trust Barack Obama.
This also suggests that there is open mindedness on the issues, though slightly. Does this mean we'll see some of the Republicans change their views on gays and abortion, or Democrats with guns.
I think this will be education for me than a debate.
Elizabeth said 05/23, 05:39 PM
I say NO, they have become indistinguishable copycats of a supposed claim of how to win, and have thrown out the baby with the bathwater, if the baby ever existed in the first place. First address the issue of separate existence! A Republican used to mean a self-supporting, self-sufficient, property holder, pillar of the community civic minded leader, and, guaranteed supporter of our military (what) establishment. (I am inserting sarcasm as I am anti-war) I am from a Republican Family, but registered "independent" when I was 18 and the Vietnam War was a huge issue, seen as not necessary, therefore, unconscionable, yet clearly supported by Republicans. I registered independent because Democrats were looked down up by my family. The Democrat reputation from a Republican point of view was that they did not earn their keep, did not own property due to their own fault (thesis I doubted, I have see inequality of opportunity in our national history and a power elite in spite of proper meritocracy which is due our democracy, my reform hope and goal). America Land of Opportunity based on merit does not YET exist.
Haves v Have Nots is not The Good Fight. Power v Results next?
POST said 05/27, 01:38 AM
Honestly, I think we should have Democrats and Anti-Democrats, because that is what Republicans have turned out to be... Anti, and have since shifted from their fundamental values. Remember we had Federalists and Anti-Federalists in America before the Republicans and Democrats existed and the concept for opposition politics (which is very negative terminology) was born in that era.
The differences between the two parties have become blurred as they seem to have become too flexible wrt their values as long as that will guarantee them the White House.
Kwame Somburu observed in one of his articles that Malcolm X's characterization of the Democratic Party as being like a fox, and the Republican Party like a wolf, Both are members of the canine family, with different methods but common goals, was correct then and is still correct today.
This brief sketch of an early period in our history confirms the fact that both parties represent the interests of one class ??? the capitalist class. The characterization of the Democrats and Republicans still rings true to this day.
A new revolution has to take place, either to give Americans new options or allow for independents.
Elizabeth said 05/27, 11:08 PM
I agree with what you are saying, but I say NO, for this argument, because you are saying they are the true to themselves that they have always been, and not true to the majority of the people, and so they are the same true Republican and Democrat identities. But, if you look at what I wrote, the baby never existed in the first place, when they try to copy each other to gain power, certainly any values they claimed are lost, and we both believe the baby never even existed. The author of Magic of Many, Crocker, c.1999, wrote about Politics in Boston back in the beginnings, and noted the advent of the Republicans claiming to represent the people against the Federalists who had the power. But, I agree, I believe they both have failed the claimed goal of representing the interests of the people for government and instead have sought to rule and dictate. This country does not belong to labels, and the Dems and Repubs do not have a majority in registration statistics. 24 states are NO PARTY registered only, by the states choice. 26 have choice when registering and those 26 show a significant number outside: 20.5M and 25.5 R, and 35.5D. So, the rule of the 2 parties is not there.
POST said 05/30, 06:37 AM
I am feeling strongly on the issue of revisiting the basics of both parties. They cannot continue being defined by the issues they stand for from election to election or by the character of their presidential candidates. We need to sharply look at the core values and principle, those that they were founded on. We need to look at whether they are still relevant. Democratic Party was formed as an alternative to the Federalist party in 1790. Republican party was formed also as an alternative to the Whig Party. They all were opposed to slavery and fugitive law.
The reason I'm raising these events is because, they were ground breaking events that led to the death of both these parties predecessors. If what these parties stance on political and/or social landscape, why then don't we advocate for new thinking, new political positioning and new parties. That is my argument.
Elizabeth said 06/02, 03:56 PM
It is hard to answer your argument ON POINT because we do not have an agreed definition of the two current established major parties who have ruled. We do agree they have ruled, and it appears it is time for change. What established the rule, if indeed it was principle? I agree it should be admitted as to the new landscape that deserves the voter's support at a majority level. IF an election is to result in proper democracy and the opportunity to vote the bums out -- we need to see and vote in the candidates who will deliver the new agenda wanted by a nation. What is the old v. what is a new national agenda wanted by a majority? A necessary step, agreed. We do not agree that the current parties are delivering their claims. Delivering corporate corruption and corporate monopoly is failing intentionally. Politics is supposed to belong to the people, according to the Constitution. Democrats and Republicans have no frontrunner who seeks to uphold the duties of the President defined in the U.S. Constitution. Neither party supports a democratic agenda for this country's benefit. They have abandoned the Constitution. Nader offers honest public interest with principle. No evil box.
Comments
Add Your Comment
I believe the Magic of the Many was written by a PhD student after doing his thesis. The description of party politics in Boston was very interesting. I did not realize that Maine was part of Massachusetts. The book focused on Josiah Quincy who was called the Great Mayor and was for the people. Quincy Market was done in his name, by him, fostering the trade and commerce for the city and the people. When private interest developers tried to take over the city, he protected the city and Boston Commons (which still belongs to the people), and bought up the land for the city. I think it tragic and typical that his good deeds were not adequately appreciated. He was voted out, although the author does not say it was the cause, in modern day view of how money seems to influence people the wrong way, he was voted out due to the debt level, is my suspicion. Certainly it was not what he did, which was very much appreciated when he did it, it was a huge success with obvious long term benefit. Quincy was a Municipal Judge also, and after being a politician, also was in Congress, and there he was horrified at the politics to the point of seeing a fox outside his window, pardon the pun allusion to what you said already, it said that in the book, he really was freaked out by how awful they were in Congress even in those days. The Federalists considered him a traitor, and Maine was a heavy power issue. Political strength was wanted by the Federalists and he saw the proper local view of the benefit for the people who lived on the land, not the powermongering struggles between the North and South which were strong at the time, according to Crocker. I read the book because it was a new book featured on the Boston Public Library display shelf. It was very interesting. I recommend it.
Elizabeth | 05/27/08
Report Offensive Comment
It was almost eight years ago since I read the book, I believe he was for keeping Maine as part of Massachusetts and the Federalists considered it an albatross and they wanted to dump it and let the people fend for themselves. Quincy saw the benefit to all for keeping it as part of Massachusetts. We know Maine is now Maine. It matters, of course. It would be nice if people emphasized what is best, instead of powermongering and money.
Elizabeth | 05/27/08
Report Offensive Comment
Elizabeth, a thought occured to me that someone might do a character count of your comments, because some of them are so long, they are prohibitive to anyone interested in reading what you have to say. by copy-pasteing your first comment into window i see that you have a commment w/ 1465 charaters, with spaces that number changes to 1794 characters. either way your comment is way longer than the space alloted for your main arguement. what you have to saw may be interesting, but it might be easier if you sum it up a bit.
MorgMcA | 05/28/08
Report Offensive Comment
for the record that comment was too imposing for me to really read, i'd like to know what you have to say though
MorgMcA | 05/28/08
Report Offensive Comment
My problem with the concept of the two parties is this: Each party's platform consists of a particular stance on a large number of important issues. The parties' stances, for the most part, reflect internally consistent ideologies. However, many Americans (myself included) do not subscribe fully to either party's set of stances and values. I think it's good for people to understand both sides of every issue, and I think someone who is somewhat on the fence (not to be confused with someone who doesn't know or care much either way) is truly awake. I resent having to buy wholesale into a slate of positions by casting a single vote.
DonkeyDude | 05/28/08
Report Offensive Comment
Ugh.. I wish they let you do paragraph formatting on your profile.
DonkeyDude | 05/28/08
Report Offensive Comment
Matthew Crocker's Book, "The Magic of Many" describes powermongering of the Federalists causing their downfall. Federalists pre-empted popular opinion in decision making and laws enacted. They deemed themselves better than the public and refused public input.... A new party, Republicans, emerged to represent what was wanted by THE MANY, challenging the Federalist RULE....Quincy was a patrician bred into the legal field and Federalism but led the popular movement for public governance.... He was named The Great Mayor and bought up the land for the people. The Law of Eminent Domain is due to him. The emergence of a new political party for the majority to have popular rule, was given authoritative leadership by Quincy. (This is what enraged the Federalists, not surprisingly.) Quincy was autocratic but not a powermonger. He was smarter and better than the average and accomplished much for the public good. Josiah is credited with ushering in the Republican Party's effective challenge against the Federalists. He was a Congressional Representative, Municipal Judge, Mayor of Boston, and finally, President of Harvard College.
Elizabeth | 05/28/08
Report Offensive Comment
Donkey Dude, I will note I saw Howard Dean as a corrupt leader of party against the majority when he demonstrated against Nader's rally in Oregon. IF you asked him if Nader's principles and track were best for people, and he dared to say BUT we want Democrats, isn't that actually evil? He didn't want Nader to have an effective challenge, and although Dean himself had dropped out and the anti-war lead was gone from the Democrats he had the gall to demonstrate against Nader's rally in Oregon in 2004. WHO was FOR THE PEOPLE in that case? And, what kind of Politician values the power more than the principle. Either/or...stupid or evil. Go figure.
Elizabeth | 05/28/08
Report Offensive Comment
Right now the media is trying to suggest a "deal" for the Democrats in Florida, where they say it is 50/50 between Clinton and Obama. I do not see the deal need at all. Even Kennedy saw basic principles being violated for no apparent reason, when he claimed, "she has the right to stay in the race!" I believe he backed Obama, but he wants Democracy. I think both belong OUT of the race due to offensive statements that are warmongering in the face of it by both of them, without conscience. BUT, what is this attempt to cut a supposed tie by forcing an unwarranted concession? That, I know Kennedy could not see either, and he has plenty of long term experience. I am not young, 59, will be 60 at the end of November after the election. Success at using what is left of my youth energy, before the election can make my golden years more golden, certainly. Democracy has a definite reason, and this game playing as if a game between two teams with no real win in view or even wanted makes so little sense it is unreal. As if a contest is actually totally upsetting to the contestants and voters? No reason, no contest, why bother with any claim of democracy or election. Whatever happened to the proper view of politics and the outcome of a good leader as the serious not a game outcome intended by a majority with proper intelligence for reasons that are a clear mandate--peace and prosperity is not an agenda sought for government by a majority?
Elizabeth | 05/29/08
Report Offensive Comment
Before the voting ends, can anyone voting say any TRUE Republican or TRUE Democrat? I say they do not exist, and their claim of any creed or platform that represents the people, also does not exist. They are outside the constitution, in the frontrunner status, both parties NOT representing the proper duties of the U.S. President, which is NOT to declare war. All 3 frontrunners have indicated unconscionably they want to be offensive instead of proper sovereign respect for our country and use of taxes and have threatened Pakistan, Iran, and Iraq, each frontrunner has challenged one of those countries. UGLY. I love Nader and proper U.S. Presidential ability to lead on track for American which is supposedly in high support of BRING THE TROOPS HOME ASAP! And, restore diplomacy and budget priorities.
Elizabeth | 06/03/08
Report Offensive CommentPost A Comment
Please keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.
CNN TOP POLITICAL STORIES
TOP STORIES on TIME.COM
TIME PHOTO ESSAYS
Israeli Soldiers Sweep Into Gaza
IDF tanks and infantry launch a ground offensive in the Palestinian enclave
(Uriel Sinai / Getty)
The Science of Snowflakes
Caltech physics professor Kenneth G. Libbrecht has turned his passion for the study of ice crystals into an art form. In his books and website, Snowcrystals.com, he breaks down some of the basics behind these miniature miracles of nature
(Kenneth G. Libbrecht)
POST: Interesting fox/wolf analogy. You're saying that neither party really has a set of core values, but really they both just have different sales pitches to con the public into electing their guy so that they can run the country? Is that to say Howard Dean, for example, is some kind of evil mastermind? Why can't we just see each party's values as a reflection of the collective values of the party's leaders, which naturally change with time as society changes and new challenges arise?
DonkeyDude | 05/27/08
Report Offensive Comment