The Two Party System is so Passe

Intelligence Should Become Us

from PolMach Forums

Those that have studied history know that our founding fathers did not want party affliations during elections because they believed that it deterred from our independence.  Political parties that are in charge create a shift in power in lieu have having a balance of power.  But nonetheless, our country developed a two party system.

The Federalist party was founded in 1792 by Alexander Hamilton.  It believed in strong military, a national bank, taking power away from states and citizens, and making a treaty with England.  To combat this the Democratic-Republican party was formed.  This party was formed by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson.  The wanted to protect the rights of the citizens, denounced a national bank, opposed the vagueness of the US constitution, and wanted an agricultural based economy for the country.  The latter became the dominant party and roughly phased out the Federalist party.  But like all people that agree to disagree the Democratic-Republican party split in the 1820's.

The main problems with our two party system, if you look at it intelligently, instead of wanting to protect it for historical prosterity, is that it can be easily corrupted, it does not truly represent the ideals of the people in the United States, and it denies the ability for non-party participants to actively and effectively compete in presidential elections.

If, say, Obama had truly wanted to support "change" in this country, which is truly needed and no one has denied this, then he should have been able to go outside of his political mainstream candidates and chose a person that truly emplified his ideas.  Because he was subjected to party politics he was unable to do so and thus limited his ability to truly make good on his original campaign promises.  The same can be said of John McCain.  McCain had indicated that he would like to run with democratic contender Joe Liberman.  Liberman was less than loyal to his political democratic mainstream party.  Yet because McCain was also bound by certain party loyalties he too had to keep inside his box to make his choice.

If you consider that during the time of the political party creation most of the voters were uneducated and lacked reading and writing skills, it may have made sense for the more educated and powerful people to create policies.  Those days are long gone.  We have very few illiterate people in the United States.  The problem we have is fighting against a two party system that we were born into and seem to be trapped in keeping.

During the election the Green Party, Independent Party, Libertarian Party, and other parties were not heard from.  Not one of the contenders have been invited to the debates.  They do not have multimillion dollar party affliates to support them.  They are not invited to talk show circuits or given daily headlines on CNN.  Most Americans do not even know the names or policies of those in other parties that are running.  Many that may do not want to "waste" a vote and even though they may like their policies will vote on the two party ticket.

The only way in which people can truly be done with party politics is to show their intelligence and truly look at who is running for public office.  It should be time in our country to look beyond the same ole same ole.  People can speak of being mainstream and at times voting away from party lines, but honestly the elections prove that this is not the norm.  Millions of the people in the United States cannot name anyone other than the democrat and republican running for office.  We are becoming a people that are voluntarily remaining limited and living in a rut of political propoganda.

Democrats and Republicans continue to beat heads and beat down the American Dream

political
7,294 views 13 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top

Nice article.  Hard to find any part to disagree with.

Reply #2 from PolMach Forums Top

Very well said and I agree wholeheartedly.

There is a solution to this two-party problem that we have, it's just a matter of the people getting the cojones to do something about it.  The solution is quite simple in the short term: vote against all incumbents and for any candidate that you can actually agree with on most issues (third party candidates are prefered when applicable). 

Obviously the long term goal is to create a big enough shift in power in each and every state so that the states can change their election rules to allow anyone who wants to run, and meets the Constitutions requirements for office, is automatically on the ballot.  It is insane that some states have rules in place that make nearly impossible for third parties to get on the ticket yet Dems and Repubs are placed on it without having to do anything.

The bottom line is that there is no quick fix and we likely won't see the change we want for many years, but now is the time to start and we just have to have the strength to stick it out.

SoundPackager - Customize the Windows sound scheme
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

The bottom line is that there is no quick fix and we likely won't see the change we want for many years, but now is the time to start and we just have to have the strength to stick it out.
End of quote

The old cliche - Rome was not built in a day.  In this day of high speed internet, jet travel, microwaves and instant communication, people expect things to be done NOW (just like Veruca Salt).  But somethings - especially movements - still take time.

Reply #4 from PolMach Forums Top

The old cliche - Rome was not built in a day. In this day of high speed internet, jet travel, microwaves and instant communication, people expect things to be done NOW (just like Veruca Salt). But somethings - especially movements - still take time.
End of quote

Patience is a virtue, and it is something that far too many lack in todays instant gratification culture that we live in.  I also think the cliche "Good things come to those who wait" applies here as well.  And honestly I don't see this as a movement, movements are very linear and have a stopping point, what I propose is more of a revolution because it needs to be constantly refreshed or else we end up right back where we started.  With that said 'Welcome to the Revolution."

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

And honestly I don't see this as a movement, movements are very linear and have a stopping point, what I propose is more of a revolution
End of quote

Tommy Lee Jones - Under Seige. ;)

Reply #6 from PolMach Forums Top

Obviously, most people on here know that I am against this losey 2 party system.

The main issue is that for the States to have a multi-party system so many laws on the local, state, and federal levels would have to change.  The Libertarian party has been doing a major grass roots campaign by getting officials voted into local levels.  I am not in favor of all their issues ex lassiez-faire it looks good but it just won't work with people (maybe squizzels) and non-intervention stance on foreign policy.  Their stance on abortion/captial punishment (yes both are and are not issues at the same time. The former boils down to a religious view).  I would vote lib over green party on most days.

The party that represents me (and was started in my state, but my dumb state has a closed ballot) the best is the Constitution Party.  Again I don't like the non-intervention stance on foreign policy.  I do agree with a lot of how they believe we should withdraw out of certain organization, but NOT all internation organizations should we withdraw out of. I would vote Constitutional Party on all days that end with y, again though my State has a close party system. :-(

I hear it all the time that religion has nothing to do with politics.  Yet there is some truth to that.  I do feel that as Believers in Yeshua (Jesus) that there should be character changes and that our character changes should benefit people.  If someone is a Believer as well we have a bond already.

Today is busy day of work.  I look forward to reading peoples comments, thoughts, and what ever else you have about this article or what I said.

Reply #7 from PolMach Forums Top

Hello Peoples Party.  I hope you had a great day at work.

I have no idea how some states get away with having a closed party system.  That alone seems unconstitutional.  But, anyway, What do you think if we did away with parties all together and went back to voting on individuals and their ideas and policies?

Reply #8 from PolMach Forums Top

Tommy Lee Jones - Under Seige
End of quote

Nice pick up.  I didn't expect anyone to pick that up.  Under Seige, one of Seagals last decent movies.

I hear it all the time that religion has nothing to do with politics. Yet there is some truth to that. I do feel that as Believers in Yeshua (Jesus) that there should be character changes and that our character changes should benefit people. If someone is a Believer as well we have a bond already.
End of quote

It's not that religion has nothing to do with politics, it's that religion needs to be kept out of government.  We need our government to be completely secular in nature.  It is what the founders intended and it is what will help this country surivive.  If you want to see what happens when religion gets intertwined with government just take a look at Iran, Saudi Arabia, even England (especially when the monarchy was actually in power).  When religion gets involved in government that means that only members of that religion are treated decently, all others tend to be treated as outcasts at best, criminals at worst.

Reply #9 from PolMach Forums Top

El,

That's not necessarily true.  Look at the Soviet Union or China both are Athestic.  The founding fathers were mostly religious men who lived very religious lives.  Religion was essentially a part of their lives.  We try to make it seem like they didn't want that or a king.  How, quickly we forget that they wanted to make Washington a king.


If we look at the mighty Roman/Greek empires.  Literally, they were brought down by internal decay.  People were allowed to live however they wanted without anything to base their lives on.

 

Reply #10 from PolMach Forums Top

Quoting the_Peoples_Party, reply 9
El,

That's not necessarily true.  Look at the Soviet Union or China both are Athestic.  The founding fathers were mostly religious men who lived very religious lives.  Religion was essentially a part of their lives.  We try to make it seem like they didn't want that or a king.  How, quickly we forget that they wanted to make Washington a king.


If we look at the mighty Roman/Greek empires.  Literally, they were brought down by internal decay.  People were allowed to live however they wanted without anything to base their lives on.

 
End of the_Peoples_Party's quote

Secular and Atheistic are two completely different things.  Atheism is a form of religion anymore.  The point is that religion, no matter what it is, doesn't belong in government.  Also the SU and China were communist which is why those governments failed, it had nothing to do with atheism.  China is rebuilding as a quasi capitalistic government but they still have a tinge of socialism in there that just won't go away.

As for the founding fathers, yes religion was a part of many of their lives, but they knew to keep religion and government two seperate and distinct things.  They felt that relgion was something very personal and it had no place in government at all.  As for wanting Washington to be King, they wanted him to be the first person to run the new United States and were unsure what his title should be.  They kicked around the idea of King, but he didn't like it because it reminded him of what they had just rebelled against and so they settled on President.

From my recollection the Roman and Greek empires fell because of corruption in government, not because the people weren't governed by laws.

Reply #11 from PolMach Forums Top

Actually, the Greeks never had a united empire.  You may refer to the Macedonian empire of Alexander the Great, which simply fell apart when their leader died and there was no one leader to take his place.  The infighting over who was in charge devolved into fighting between now separate countries which lasted for centuries.  The Roman empire fell apart due to multiple factors, government corruption and a people that expected their govenment to give everything to them, with no one left to pay the taxes, were among the biggest factors, however.

Reply #12 from PolMach Forums Top

Quoting the_Peoples_Party,

El,
That's not necessarily true.  Look at the Soviet Union or China both are Athestic.  The founding fathers were mostly religious men who lived very religious lives.  Religion was essentially a part of their lives.  We try to make it seem like they didn't want that or a king.  How, quickly we forget that they wanted to make Washington a king.
If we look at the mighty Roman/Greek empires.  Literally, they were brought down by internal decay.  People were allowed to live however they wanted without anything to base their lives on.
 
End of the_Peoples_Party's quote

Hmmmm...I wonder if you know what is it about religion that doesn't work.

 

The answer is dogma; the essence of religion is the belief that a certian philosophy is unalterable and unargueable because an 'invisible man' deems it so. Nations like Germany and Russia had moments when they were ruled by dogma rather then by existing laws but rather on the unalterable principles of a single man; in a sense, history is filled with thousands of Hilters and Stalins but we call them Monarchs and Emperors.


Jacob Bronowski said it best, echoing the spirit of Thomas Jefferson and his hatred for all dogmas and religions:

 

Quoting <strong></strong>Jacob,
THERE ARE TWO PARTS to the human dilemma. One is the belief that the end justifies the means. That push-button philosophy, that deliberate deafness to suffering, has become the monster in the war machine. The other is the betrayal of the human spirit: the assertion of dogma that closes the mind, and turns a nation, a civilisation, into a regiment of ghosts — obedient ghosts, or tortured ghosts.

It is said that science will dehumanise people and turn them into numbers. That is false, tragically false. Look for yourself. This is the concentration camp and crematorium at Auschwitz. This is where people were turned into numbers. Into this pond were flushed the ashes of some four million people. And that was not done by gas. It was done by arrogance. It was done by dogma. It was done by ignorance. When people believe that they have absolute knowledge, with no test in reality, this is how they behave. This is what men do when they aspire to the knowledge of gods.

Science is a very human form of knowledge. We are always at the brink of the known, we always feel forward for what is to be hoped. Every judgment in science stands on the edge of error, and is personal. Science is a tribute to what we can know although we are fallible. In the end the words were said by Oliver Cromwell: 'I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.'

I owe it as a scientist to my friend Leo Szilard, I owe it as a human being to the many members of my family who died at Auschwitz, to stand here by the pond as a survivor and a witness. We have to cure ourselves of the itch for absolute knowledge and power. We have to close the distance between the push-button order and the human act. We have to touch people.

End of <strong></strong>Jacob's quote

Reply #13 from PolMach Forums Top

I would like to start by saying that I completely agree that religion should be kept out of government. In my opinion religions were formed as a way for government to control people. It is not hard to see when you look at the qualities of someone that is viewed as highly religious in many interpretations of religion throughout the world. I will be the first to admit that I am not very religious, nor do I know much about religions. I have noticed throughout my short life that there are many things that have happened because of religions. The Crusades, and many other wars just because of the differences in belief. I certainly don't want to tell anyone that they shouldn't believe in religion. But there is a reason that there are so many religions and interpretations throughout the world. Someone made them up at one time. It seems that instead of entertaining this idea, people have to fight to prove that their religion is the right one. For these reasons I firmly believe that government and religion should NEVER coexist. You want world peace, take out the religions.