Over my lifetime, I have seen partisanship increase to an insensible gibbering howl of madness. And our political parties are both participating in the dividing and conquering of America on the part of the people who really own this country. We need political parties (and more of them) that will be interested in fostering sociopolitical solutions to our problems that will carry the support of a great majority of Americans, if we are going to save our country from becoming America, Inc.
We need NO political parties. We need individuals that run as...individuals. It isn't likely, and damn near impossible given their indelible history - but it would be the only thing that solves the problem. More political parties would result in multiplication of the problems we have now. More division and less "sociopolitical solutions."
Well - I am a dual citizen US/EU (Germany). I spend a good bit of time in Germany every year and follow the politics. I have never ever seen anything in Germany like the kind of political hatred I am seeing in the US this year, and on this board. My experience and observation tells me that a parliamentary system with multiple parties, many of them of limited scope, and a vote of no confidence, is a much more efficient unifying and responsive form of government than that of the US in its current incarnation.
I haven't spent much time in Germany, so this is all based on a cursory comparsion - feel free argue my theories, as I'd like to know any dissenting opinion on this regard:
The stats of the US are vastly different from that of Germany's. Any efficiency in government (with regards to parties and their influence on the political process) can be likely attributed to Germany's smaller size (population and geography), more so than its system of organizing these parties. Germany is also more culturally homogeneous than the US, so consensus can be reached more easily without some of the negative rhetoric that tends materialize around a heated change of office. If the system you speak of were applied here, the fighting and hatred would only be reorganized over a period of time - it wouldn't decrease.
The only answer to OUR problem is complete elimination of factions - not adding more of them give the unique characteristics of the US.
-- Modified on 10/27/2008 3:50:49 PM
Well, I suppose Germany is somewhat more homogeneous, although there is a 10% or so Turkish minority, and the viewpoints of Western Germans differ quite a bit from those raised in the East. There is a much strong and more effective Green party in Germany than in the US. A wider spectrum of political views find electoral expression and there is more open and public debate, more consensus building is required in order to govern. More give and take to form coalitions (rather than you get your pork AND I get mine).
I think that political parties are like special interests - easy to hate, until you realize that they are standing up for your particular point of view or special concern. With no political parties, the electorate would not have the benefit of "collective bargaining" if you will, or collective representation around issues of interest. In the end, I think that the absence of political parties might make it easier for the monied interests to assert their political will....
With two large dominant political parties, there is more polarization of the electorate, less reason for sensible solutions. It's easier for the monied elites to control the debate and the outcomes. As I read it, the founding documents of the US do not specify a two party system, and in fact there have been quite a few successful political parties in the history of our country. Interestingly, it seems that the consolidation of power by the robber barons in the 1890s coincides with the hardening of the two party dynamic, the only exception being Teddy Roosevelt's "Bull Moose Party" bid for a second presidential term, which failed.
Consider this thinking out loud..... but I'm not closed to your point of view.....
-- Modified on 10/27/2008 3:59:37 PM
Even the differences you pointed out here still display a MORE homogenous culture than the US which leads to more ideological consensus. Again, this is based on cursory knowledge of that country, but it seems that German citizens would be more able to reach out and build consensus in the manner you described because the far-reaching issues that we consider here don't exist to the same degree there. We have some pretty complex and far-reaching divisions here that are based in history (oppression of Black Americans, Civil War, the young age of the US in general) and even more deeply ingrained when you look at the divisions along geographic lines. Throw Dems and Reps and the picture and you have yet another category for people to identify with and fight against. I don't think the system you described in Germany would be the solution in our case. Ideally, the US would need to rid itself of political parties to operate in the manner you described. It would force people to examine a candidate's merits and views instead of blindly subscribing to the beliefs of blabbering talk radio hosts and other sideshows to what really matters. With more groups comes more polarization.
I see your point, however, and think it has some merit. I just think that if there was a way to experiment and apply those ideas here, you'd see the same problems that you described. I can't really say for sure. I don't think anyone can.
-- Modified on 10/27/2008 6:09:18 PM
The “complex and far reaching“ traumatic events and historical periods that we’ve gone through here in the U.S. such as those you enumerate, “oppression of Black Americans, Civil War, the young age of the US in general” overshadows anything that Germany has experienced recently. Their ring side seat for WWII, the holocaust, tens of millions dead, a complete division of their country due to Communist takeover of 1/3 of the land and people lasting half a century only to be re-unified a mere 20 years ago certainly PALES in comparison to the political turmoil that black oppression has caused us. Can you spell S-E-L-F-A-B-S-O-R-B-E-D? Oh Wait. I guess that’s another word for narcissistic.
I doubt that we will ever get away from the two major party system that we now employ. However, how about limiting the terms of office of the Senate and the House as is done with the Presidency? My beliefe is that these fat cats are allowed to get way too comfortable under the current rules.
I never considered the unlimited terms of congressmen to be a part of the partisan problem. That's an interesting observation which has merit. These guys become so indebted to the values of their parties that they begin to ignore constituents as they spend more time in office. There's a definite difference in the way freshmen and senior senators respond to the concerns of the people they represent. Good point.
The founders envisioned citizen legislators, not professional politicians.
I’ve long been an advocate of Congressional term limits. The SCOTUS struck down the concept after Republicans came into power in 1994 with term limits being part of their platform. They brought the Constitutional amendment up again in 1997 but surprise; it lacked the 2/3rds majority needed. The only way the Constitution has been amended is for the initiation to begin in the legislature. The change can be initiated via 2/3rds of the legislatures of the States calling for a Constitutional Convention but this method has never been used and is generally regarded as too risky. So we are left with a situation whereby we need authority of those being ‘fired’ to begin the process.
Hope I didn't ruin it for ya.
-- Modified on 10/27/2008 9:20:04 PM
a communist party. huh?
...but according to some, Obama is a communist. Now as a REAL communist I know you disagree, but the consensus on THIS sometimes idiotic forum seems to think that a communist party already exists. We may be close.
US.Obama works for the capitalists.