Quote:
|
The fact remains that Madison embraced the two party system and contributed heavily to its creation. He cemented the Democratic-Republican party in place when the Federalists collapsed after the War of 1812, and there can be no debate that the man viciously consolidated power in his own party throughout his presidency.
|
I don't think that founding a political party means endorsing an essentially exclusive two party system. I haven't found anything that supports your claim. He did however write a paper advocating that having many different interests and factions is more beneficial for republicanism as compared to a few special interests. I guess it is more appropriate to cite his paper as opposed to citing Madison, but I have to assume that he genuinely felt what he wrote in that essay.
Quote:
|
If you want my nutshell version of what the biggest problem in this country, it's the rise of the single-issue voter. Folks that think that, for instance, the anti-abortion candidate is their best choice despite the fact that they are voting against their class interest is a major problem. I don't mean to pick on conservatives, but many of them are violently opposed to the programs that keep the working poor afloat. However, if they cloak themselves in the anti-abortion guise, they get votes and contributions from the conservative churches that have taken up the pro-life cause. It doesn't matter that the representative routinely votes against the interest of the majority of their constituents so long as they vote correctly on that single issue. See Eastern Kansas for proof.
|
I agree. Maybe the two-party system is more of a subset of a bigger problem. When you have people who really can't even tell you what a Republican or Democrat really stands for declaring themselves as either and sometimes voting straight ticket is a problem. Maybe it is reflective of our need it yesterday culture. Candidates are made or broken on soundbites. Howard Dean? I think the true detrimental aspect of the two-party system is the lack of accountability. If there were more parties holding elected offices, I don't think that these gross over sites would be tolerated. "Oh we were wrong about the WMDs in Iraq. Sorry." If a ceo of a corporation were losing its sharholders billions a day and also resulting in thousands of lives lost, they would certainly not be employed very long. Clinton was impeached for perjury, not getting a blowjob. It's hard to be guilty of perjury when you won't testify under oath. Sorry, ranting a bit. We had a congressman making criminal sexual advances on underage boys, not only going against what most of his party vehemently opposes, but is in fact illegal. No one would speak up because of party allegiance and it would have been a blow to the image of their party near an election. As with everything in life, there are exceptions as with the Senator whose names escapes me at this moment speaking out against his party suggesting the war in Iraq may be criminal. I truly feel that if you were forced to work with people who wouldn't simply back or attempt to block a bill because of party allegiance, that this would result in having to write legislation that truly benefited the constiuents or atleast please the necessary majority of the parties needed to pass the legislation.
Quote:
|
I agree that Nader should have been allowed to debate in 2000 but not in 2004. If you're not on the ballot in all 50 states, then you don't belong in a national debate - you don't meet the most basic criteria. Running for President, by necessity requires a great deal of organisation and coordination. In 2004, Nader didn't have that so he didn't get on a lot of ballots. However, the Presidential race isn't where 3rd party candidates should start. All politics are local, and if a 3rd party can get grassroots support to get them into elected office, that's the critical mass they need to start thinking nationally. The Green Party just doesn't have the support nationally yet, although there are hotbeds of support here and there.
|
I think of the California recall election. Everyone who wished to run was given the same amount of time to express their views. I am not exactly advocating this because this resulted in I think roughly 130 candidates and was pretty much viewed as a mockery. I believe a pornstar ran. But I don't understand why if you legitmately want to run and are legitmately qualified you aren't given equal time. A great deal of organisation and coordination requires a great deal of money. To have a viable chance to get on ballots you need millions of dollars to get your name out and become recognizable. It's almost equatable to being a celebrity. In 2004 for, our options were Kerry and Bush. Both went to Yale, both were Skull and Bones members and both are ridicuously wealthy. How different were they really? Are these two, out of all the Americans in the country, the two best candidates? I don't think so but I'm not worried either. It's only a matter of time. Viral marketing works very well for many underground artists and products and it's only a matter of time before someone figures out to apply this technique to politics. I am confident that the raging beast, the Internet will lift these other parties like a phoenix from the ashes of obscurity and raise America back into an age of prosperity.