Now, would you actually put money before people's civil liberties? Would you want to have continued torture? I think there's a heck of a lot more that Republicans have to straighten up before anyone with half a brain can begin to endorse them.
It's not just about money. In fact, taxpayer savings have a lot less to do with the current problems that the Republican party faces. Largely, it's about democracy, civil liberties, political rights, the standing of minorities, marriage, abortion, the separation of church and state, international affairs, failed economic policies [& possible limits/implications of Keynesians], illegal immigration, and on and on.
Would you really ever want to support the Republicans... even if they changed? Just look at the mess they've made the last 8 years. Any party that will stand by a failed presidency that long and enable it is not really a party that I feel anyone should be comfortable supporting. It will be hard to forget that. I would hope people who despise the Democrats would sooner vote for a third party than for a Republican... surely they realize it wasn't the Democrats spending policy that put us in the mess to begin with, nor was it lack of Democratic oversight...
Largely, it appears as though today's Republicans are really just against Democrats and not entirely for Republicans. The issue is that these people need to choose what they value more... the so-called "economic freedoms" of the Republicans, or the more literal social freedoms of the Democrats. Sadly, in a consumerist society like ours, Republicans tend to win those supporters- who prefer the potential financial benefits to increased civil liberties [need I mention the Patriot Act??].
Either way, the ideological "drift-shift" further emphasizes the need for a REAL third party that would be capable of keeping both sides from going into the ideological "deep end..." for the sake of establishing "distinguishable differences" just to win future elections.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
I agree entirely with you Eric, however the conclusions I have to draw are much more depressing. I think without the overthrow of the two party system. That in itself has to be solved by abolishing the electoral college, and establishing some sort of multiparty system. Or else founding the environment that is conducive for such a system to flourish. But I need more time to think of such a system and how to achieve it.
Well of course I agree with you. I don't care for the electoral college at all... Bush would have never won if it hadn't been for the Electoral College. That, and I think it's undemocratic for people not to DIRECTLY vote for their presidential candidate. The Electoral College members aren't even obliged to vote in accordance with the majority of the votes cast in their respresentive district. If you look back to the 1992 election, you'll notice that Ross Perot won one vote in Washington despite his inability to get a plurality in a single district... and that flew in the face of the "winner take all" rules in Washington... only Maine and Nebraska use the Congressional Districting method.
All of that just allows the current system to continue. My last sentence positions it a bit better- that the main issue with a 2 party system is that there is no one [party] to keep the other in ideological & practical check. They don't need to be consistent, nor do they need to follow through with what they 'promise' to do.
well its also more than procedural. Currently the environment technically isn't up for a third party and the environment politically is not there.
I think this has to do with a couple of factors-
1. The people themselves are ignorant of the other parties they can vote for and
2. The media support mainstream candidates and ridicule those with outside views.
Its much more complex im afraid.
Well:
1. Most people don't care to vote for a third party that stands no chance of winning. If you reread the last few sentences in my post & responses, I point out how people find themselves having to choose between the lesser of two evils... it's either vote against BOTH parties in favor of a more ideal 3RD PARTY, or vote for the PRIMARY party's that you can at least DEAL with [or is more similar to your own views]
2. We're talking about two different issues. My post is focusing on the result of the 2 party monopoly, not about it's cause or how it gets corporations and the media to sustain the two party system. If I wanted to go into how the current system came into being, it'd take a lot more than 5 paragraphs to tackle those issues.
3. Not all media does that... just the vast majority. Public television is actually less likely to be politically biased than mainstream media since corporations are more indebted to the major political parties for kickbacks than public stations are to the legislators that approve their budgets. [Most funding for public stations comes from public donations any way, so they're not really reliant on the state or federal government. They're really just a nonprofit like the Red Cross, etc is and they likewise get some funding.]
Instead, I wanted to focus more on how the monopoly sustains itself by virtue of it's existence... a lack of choice mean a lack of accountability which in turn means a lack of consistency over time and decreasing credibility.
Post a Comment