BUSTING THE TWO PARTY SYSTEM - first in the series "Re-Engagement"

Fellow Citizens,
This will be the first of a series of articles I am going to write concerning the re-engagement and education of our citizens of our political process. I am going to tackle the subject of party politics today. I must confess my views on this subject are cynical, skeptical, distrustful and disillusioned. I believe that above all this is job one to stop the unravelling of our republic, so I begin here.

We have become a nation of disengaged, apathetic, spoiled, uninformed and irresponsible citizens. I profess to you now folks that if the United States were a nightclub, this would be last call. If we don't become cognizant of our current situation, I think we may well let our republic slip. That would waste every drop of blood our forefathers spilled, every line of ink on our Declaration of Independance and Constitution and tear this beatiful dream from the grasp of our posterity. This is indeed how gravitous this situation is.

One vehicle for our disengagement and apathy is our current party political system. Laziness dictates this. Generally speaking, we have lost the capability of independent thought. Our stances on anything, parrot a paticular ideology, usually an absolute ididotic one, because we have no idea what the idea is we are parroting. What we do know is, that someone popular, whether it be a politician, friend or commercial said it. That is good enough for us and thus, we rubber stamp it. We aren't going to break a sweat to research a topic or candidate, even though with today's technology, it's a breeze and at our fingertips. One political commercial that makes us laugh or cry or angry and we're on board. Rhetoric rules and propaganda prolifica denominates.


Those too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber. ~Plato


An election is coming. Universal peace is declared, and the foxes have a sincere
interest in prolonging the lives of the poultry.

~George Eliot, Felix Holt


Truth is not determined by majority vote.

~Doug Gwyn


Thus by aligning themselves with a these mantras or people, or dare I say any established political party these days, they thereby allow themselves to disengage brain (were it engaged initially) and let these candidates/parties/peer groups etc. think for them These said entities are ready and willing to do it of course.This is a manifestation of the deep affliction our republic suffers at the hand of these dogmatic morons and purveyors of entropy. Engagement of the citizenry, return of independent thought and the war against apathy, are uphill battles we, as ones who want drastic change must face.

Every two years the American politics industry fills the airwaves with the most virulent, currilous, wall-to-wall character assassination of nearly every political practitioner in the country - and then declares itself puzzled that America has lost trust in its politicians.

~Charles Krauthammer


The problem with political jokes is they get elected.

~Henry Cate, VII



The Democrats seem to be basically nicer people, but they have demonstrated time and again that they have the management skills of celery. They're the kind of people who'd stop to help change a flat, but would somehow manage to set your car on fire. I would be reluctant to entrust them with a Cuisinart, let alone the economy. The Republicans, on the other hand, would know how to fix your tire, but they wouldn't bother to stop because they'd want to be on time for Ugly Pants Night at the country club.

~Dave Barry

I propose we stat by busting party politics. If we know someone who is a staunch party supporter, ask them why. They will probably say "because the Republicans/Democrats are idiots (but you choose the pejorative)". This begs another question. So you are telling me essentially you are against the Democrats/Republicans, not for your party? By this we can use rhetoric for our country and not against it. Rhetorical questions though will probably upset these folks pretty quick due to the fact they won't be able to answer many of them. But friends, educate gently and with understanding and kindness, thereby setting a good example to emulate. One which I guarantee will be contrary to the nearly intolerable dogma of either party these days. Granted there are more than two parties, but for sake of brevity and clarity, let's concentrate on those two.



All of us who are concerned for peace and triumph of reason and justice must be keenly aware how small an influence reason and honest good will exert upon events in the political field.

~Albert Einstein


Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right.

~H.L. Mencken

Take our politicians: they're a bunch of yo-yos. The presidency is now a cross between a popularity contest and a high school debate, with an encyclopedia of cliches the first prize.

~Saul Bellow

Another way we can begin to bust party politics will be to end straight ticket voting if it is allowed in your state. I have never liked that pernicious idea. This moronic concept takes laziness and disengagement to a new level. We need to share ideas concerning ending this. Perhaps a group and in grassroots local movements. Also, following this premise I believe that no candidate should have a party by their names on the ballot. Let's work on this friends.

Our cause is noble, and it is difficult for me at least to keep a civil tongue in my head. We must stop the divisivenes and come together as Americans to stop the decimation of of our republic. By a gentle and kind approach, caring for our fellow Americans and our republic in the process, we will win.

Gene

Democracy or Republic

Democracy or Republic


I find myself answering this question more and more these days. Hopefully this will suffice and I can now copy and paste a link and more thoroughly and accurately answer this very important question.

The United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy. Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf. The Framers of the Constitution were altogether fearful of pure democracy. Everything they read and studied taught them that pure democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths".

By popular usage, however, the word "democracy" come to mean a form of government in which the government derives its power from the people and is accountable to them for the use of that power. In this sense the United States might accurately be called a democracy. However, there are examples of "pure democracy" at work in the United States today that would probably trouble the Framers of the Constitution if they were still alive to see them. Many states allow for policy questions to be decided directly by the people by voting on ballot initiatives or referendums. (Initiatives originate with, or are initiated by, the people while referendums originate with, or are referred to the people by, a state's legislative body.) That the Constitution does not provide for national ballot initiatives or referendums is indicative of the Framers' opposition to such mechanisms. They were not confident that the people had the time, wisdom or level-headedness to make complex decisions, such as those that are often presented on ballots on election day.

Writing of the merits of a republican or representative form of government, James Madison observed that one of the most important differences between a democracy and a republic is "the delegation of the government [in a republic] to a small number of citizens elected by the rest." The primary effect of such a scheme, Madison continued,was to:


". . . refine and enlarge the public views by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the same purpose."


Later, Madison elaborated on the importance of "refining and enlarging the public views" through a scheme of representation:


"There are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice and truth can regain their authority over the public mind."

In the strictest sense of the word, the system of government established by the Constitution was never intended to be a "democracy." This is evident not only in the wording of the Pledge of Allegiance but in the Constitution itself which declares that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government" (Article IV, Section 4). Moreover, the scheme of representation and the various mechanisms for selecting Representatives established by the Constitution were clearly intended to produce a republic, not a democracy.

To the extent that the United States of America has moved away from its republican roots and become more "democratic," it has strayed from the intentions of the Constitution's authors. Whether or not the trend toward more direct democracy would be smiled upon by the Framers depends on the answer to another question. Are the American people today sufficiently better informed and otherwise equipped to be wise and prudent democratic citizens than were American citizens in the late 1700s? By all accounts, the answer to this second question is an emphatic "no."