torn between parties?
 

This was somewhat inspired by Hal's post on conservative atheists which got me thinking about how the two major parties identify themselves and the divide that exists between social policy and economic policy.

The republicans and democrats often only support candidates that back the party's entire agenda ( ie republican candidates must be socially and economically conservative and democratic candidates socially and economically liberal). so those votes who are liberal on one side and conservative on the other are forced to make a tough decision.

as a socially conservative individual do you ever feel torn between your desires for social reform (banning homosexual marriage, increasing regulations on inappropriate material on television, banning abortion, keeping drugs illegal, etc) and your economic needs (a desire for universal health care or better funding for public schools)? I have noticed that it often seems that those in our society who are most affected by public education standards and general assistance are often convinced to vote for candidates who do not support these programs because such conservative candidates represent the socially conservative views that these voters hold. often voters feel obligated to place their moral or religious views above their personal needs.

there are also voters who favor liberal social policies (free access to abortion, legalization of drugs use, marriage for all, no government regulation on sexual practices, etc) but balk at liberal economic policy (ie, higher taxes, more publicly funded programs, etc ). this group usually includes most members of the libertarian party who favor minimal government intervention in personal life. since the libertarian party has yet to make much of a mark on the national scale I wonder how its members make a choice in a national election.

I wonder how members of each group have dealt with the frustration that arises from being asking to choose between your social and economic views.

Discuss. :)

Smart people turn to a party that supports their views.

ie: http://www.lp.org

Exactly. If you don't vote for the candidate you most agree with, you have no one to blame but yourself. ("You" used in the general sense.) There are more than 2 parties out there and it's long past the time when people should start looking into them.

*raises hand*

Count another Libertarian here.

Geez, we're starting to be epidemic. Tell me that doesn't scare the bejeebers outta the Democrats and Republicans.

3 people on an internet message board? Oh yea, the politicians in Washington are just shaking in their boots :)

I fully support making additional parties more powerful but the fact remains that right now we are a two party system and the libertarian party does not run candidates in many races. doesn't this bother you? also what are you doing to make the party more viable?

i didn't mean this as a "stand up and raise your hand for the libertarian party" but more as a discussion -- why are you a libertarian? how do you think our society would change if we somehow escaped the two party system? Why don't either of the dominate parties work for you?

Why don't either of the political parties work? Besides the fact both sides are throughly corrupt, neither of the candidates are that good. Bush isn't the greatest in the world, meanwhile I'm not going to vote for an asshole that only says he's against his opponent.

Also, I believe people should be free to do what they want. You want to stick your penis up some guys ass? It ain't going to be mine, but if you find a consenting adult, have fun. Abortion, I hate it, but then again, I'm not a person who is affected by those type of situations. An adult should have the right to do what they want to themselves, they should have that freedom.

Meanwhile, I don't feel taxing everyone and making all sorts of government programs is a great idea either. Welfare? I've seen first hand many situations people living off welfare and not working.

Combine that with the fact I wouldn't mind seeing all American troops pulled out of countries where we have conflicts (no problem with bases abroad in say Germany), and that leaves me with one party that shares all my beliefs.

I'm not going to split what I believe in between two puppet heads and try to pick who I hate the most. Fuck that. I'll vote for my party, be proud of it, and support them until they lose their beliefs or I die.

Besides, there aren't many libertarian candidates because, well, there aren't as many libertarians out there. In the meantime, we're going to do the best we can to convert people. If you hate Kerry and hate Bush, vote for Michael Badnarick, he'll fight for your freedom.

The flash animation on his website http://www.badnarik.org/ says it best:
- I'm George Bush, and you can trust ME to run your life.
- I'm John Kerry, and you can trust ME to run your life.
- I'm Ralph Nader, and you can trust ME to run your life.
- I'm Michael Badnarick and I can trust YOU to run your own life.

Heh, I didn't mean to imply that I'm a libertarian, just that I support third parties ;) I'm mostly aligned with libertarianism, but I don't like to label myself because people assume things about what you believe based on that.

I'll try to more directly respond to what I think you're looking for here brianna. One of the reasons I think moving beyond the 2 party system is important is quite simple. It has nothing to do with distrust, or corruption, or any of that. Simply put, the political spectrum is not one-dimensional (i.e. left vs right). I think most people know, intrinsically, that social issues and economic issues are not related. The political spectrum needs to change in popular culture and become more 2-dimensional. An x axis for economic policies and a y axis for social policies if you will. Some people are socially liberal yet economically conservative, others are economically liberal yet sociall conservative, and still others are both on either side.

I remember the second time I travelled to Vienna with my high school orchestra there was an election going on at the time - it was for some high office, I forget what exactly though. There were something like 6 parties - and seeing the graphs almost all of them had a viable chance. I thought this was very interesting then because it really represented the dynamics of political views.

Here in America politics aren't that dynamic - the communist party for example is pretty much meaningless - but I'm quite confident that if people really thought about what THEY felt concerning politics, rather than what they're told to feel, and then VOTED based on THAT and not the person they don't like, American politics would transform into a 3 or 4 party system.

EDIT: Something I forgot to mention. The fact that third parties don't have candidates in every election doesn't bother me in the least. Each election, I'll vote for who I think most represents my views, regardless of that person's party. If an election only has a democrat and republican candidate, I'll vote for the one that I like the most - not the one I dislike the least. If I don't like either of them and there are no other options, I simply won't vote in that race.

It's quite simple. If and when I vote for someone, I'm putting my name behind them. I'm not going to put my name behind someone I don't like just because I don't like the other guy even more.

I'm eternally scared of Republicans. Will never vote for one, ever, ever, ever.

I disagree with the whole concept of "parties." They're full of crap. Plus they have an unfair advantage because of the money that just pores in. I'd like to see an individual, please. With his own views. Not limited by the constricting confines of the word "Democrat," or "Republican."

Bingo. Though it will never happen, I'd be curious to see what politics would be like if candidates were all given a flat sum of money and the question was not how much money they can get for their campaign, but how intelligently can they spend what they have?

It'll never happen, but it'd make for an interesting exercise in thought I think.

Then we'd have 100 candidates and the election process would take months of public voting.

Besides that, a great deal of candidates means people can't possibly understand every single candidate's opinion.

As much as we despise them, political parties do serve a purpose. Cutting down on the number of candidates, and giving a general idea on each candidate's stance on issues.

I despise myself for saying all of that.

Unfortunately, I'd have to agree as well - they do make things more efficient though not necessarily better.

I don't like parties either but I think they are inevitable in a society with varying opinions and views.

And in a way the system has kept compromise and balance alive in the country despite the rhetoric.

It's mainly the fact it seems like a war between groups that has really made it worse to even want to be a part of a party.

i guess i feel most frustrated with the partisanship of the party system, it tends to lead to the idea that everything we say is right and everything they say is wrong, which on top of being ugly and naive is also not conducive to building a successful society.

brianna, you could always register as "decline to state" or "independent" and vote for whoever you want. Although, that sometimes excludes you from voting in primaries. Whatever you do, REGISTER. Don't lose your voice.

assilem: of course i could, and i am registered, that's not really my point. i'm unstaisfied with the majority of my options and constantly feel like i'm voting for the lesser evil and i suspect a lot of other people feel similarly.

Great. I would prefer a plethora of options as to who should run this country, as opposed to the 2-3 we normally end up choosing between.

It's like going to a restaurant and ordering chicken gizzards because the only other thing on the menu is fried shit.

I would much rather be able to select from a wide variety, and wouldn't mind spending a little time to find just the right one.

Oh, a very large majority feels similarly, which is why you need to stop, choose the "third party" you agree with, or find a candidate you would like to see in office and vote for him or her.

If everyone did that, well, most Democrats and Republicans would be out of office pretty damn fast.

If you don't believe me, look at Minnesota and Jesse Ventura. He became Governer because so many just became so frustrated with both parties and the smear campaigning left they felt neither candidate was deserving. Then you have this other guy, out of no where doing no smear campaigning, and going up and down the state in an RV getting in contact with the people.

Vote for someone you want to see in office, not against someone you'd rather not.

Except in the end, when it comes to the end, it's going to be about the same, except it will be a few people you might feel somewhat happy for voting for.

Of course, that will never happen. Democrats and Republicans would finally cross the aisle, work together, and stop the movement ASAP.

I consider myself socially liberal and fiscally conservative: keep the government out of my bedroom and my wallet. I've been a registered Dem since the age of 18. Until I wised up (grew up), I voted the straight party line. Nowadays, I vote based on the issue and the candidate.

I have also found it helpful, when deciding on a candidate, to determine what are the "deal-breaker/deal-maker" issues for me. No candidate is going to match up on all of my criteria - so I have to decide where I'm willing to compromise. This year, my number one issue is going to be winning the war on terror. I'll support the candidates that show the most willingness and ability to see it through to a successful conclusion.

Final comment on the two parties: The conservative - liberal split is a smokescreen. Personal and economic liberty are two sides of the same coin. One is meaningless without the other. The two parties splitting them up just enables them to maintain a power duopoly at the expense of the country.

Sound's very libertarian..

I'm amazed actually at how many libertarians are out there from both parties that agree on so many places but never really come out and show it...

I certainly would find myself as one though usually I always sound like i'm on the "other side" for playing devil's advocate ;)

I have voted Libertarian on several occassions - but in general find the official Libertarian party platform to be a bit out there. I do think that government has a real purpose (defense, police, court system) and would love to see the social engineering crap eliminated. I don't see the Libertarians adequately supporting the functions which are important to me.

This is a good point and something i've often thought about in regulars to the libertarians, they often go too far. I have heard libertarian groups advocate the elimination of public parks and fire stations.

I'm a registered unaffiliated, and I'm happy that way. The party system is the result of a single fact; people who bond together have more power.

The democratic process is inherently one of choosing the "lesser evil." It's the nature of compromise; you pick the best option out of what is available. The diverse nature of American opinions guarantees that no candidate is perfect, but a choice between two poor candidates is better than no choice at all.

Consider what would happen if we had more parties, and each were equally represented. There would be no popular or electoral mandate, and progress would be stymied. Imagine how much slower things would be if no party controlled the majority of the House or Senate, and a third party controlled the White House.

Well I mean i'll be the first to admit that the ideal version of libertarianism is a bit far out there.

I like to call myself a practical libertarian - there are some ideas that are just inpractical in modern society. I take whats practical and useful.

Yea, I'd put myself in a practical libertarian catagory.

I find them a very nice alternative to the very religion-centered right.

If I was living in the US, I would vote Nader in a state in which Kerry would most likely win, but in a state where it is even I would vote for Kerry. Nader would be the best, but as long as Bush is not elected its all good. Too bad im from Canada, and the same situation goes between the liberals and conservatives. I am an NDP guy, and in my province they have a chance of winning, so I will vote for NDP, but if I lived in a province in which it was close between liberals and conservatives ide vote for liberal.

Having 3 or 4 popular parties would not cause a problem. There are governments all around the world that work tieh 5,6,7,even 8 popular parties that all get a significant portion of the vote. No "mandate" means no one is feeling safe to be pushy and they must work harder at working together, or else they'll be voted the hell out.

And I like to give people a little more credit than saying that keeping track of 3 or 4 viewpoints instead of 2 is too difficult for them :rolleyes:

Yes, we'd all like to give people more credit.
Unfortunately, people as political animals do not deserve more credit.

sadly, it seems that the old saw about the states--that is a single party state with two right wings--appears correct to me in the present context.

i find myself voting entirely instrumentally--in the coming election for kerry because of a profound contempt for bush and everything he stands for--this despite the fact that kerry is well to the right of anything i would consider actively supporting.

i have to say i do not understand libertarian political ideology, in part because it is a catch-all category that in places with a real political spectrum would be split left/right--and in part because many self-described libertarians i have encountered confuse ayn rand with a philosopher, and this i cannot fathom--when i hear it, it functions as instant delegitimation.

I find myself very frustrated with the two party system. I am socially Liberal and fiscally moderate with some conservative leanings. I believe in medicinal marijuana but not other drugs. I am for civil rights and free speech. I want campaign finance reform. I believe the U.S. should take it's nose out of everyone elses business and focus on domestic issues. I believe comapnies should be penalized for outsourcing to other countries...

So see- I am screwed. I have not been happy with a Presidential candidate since I began voting..

Is libertarianism something more than "me-ism" dressed up as a potentially viable political alternative? Isn't it really about the egoistic, even anarchic, aspects of each individual's childish dream of being autonomous? I see not much more to it than the insistence that government leave its adherents alone with the fulfillment of their desires - even the anti-social ones. It has a simple charm, I suppose. But how does one actually create and govern a vast and complex organized society constructed to uphold the single principle, "do not limit my personal notion of the freedom to do exactly what I want to do"?

I don't think it is a "me-sm" - but rather it is a strict adherance to the concept of individual liberty. A true belief in liberty also requires a respect for the boundaries of others and a good measure of individual responsibility. One's liberty doesn't extend into the areas of harming others or denying them their liberty. In a small group, laws and government may be avoidable - but not in the massive scale of society today.

I'm quite the proud libertarian. I wouldn't go as overboard as some of the popular (if you want to call them that with such a small fanbase :)) libertarians in the public eye, but every party has its radicals. For that matter, the libertarian party is in itself pretty radical in today's society.

I'm fond of the idea of parties in the naive sense that I want to believe that, whatever candidate from each party is chosen, we will get from him what he promises (or at least an attempt), and that his views will remain the same until he leaves office or loses the race. Unfortunately, this doesn't happen and probably never has. I'm not going to start pointing fingers in this, as all it seems to do is piss everyone off, so I'll just leave it at that.

One thing I like seeing from the libertarian party is this movement to get a few thousand libertarians to move to Vermont or New Hampshire to eclipse the vote there and get some libertarians in congress. Great idea, and I might take part in it myself. I'm not sure as to the name of it, if anyone wants to do some digging and find out, that's up to you.

Few things get me as angry as politics, and I'm finding it difficult right now to argue my views without just getting overcome, frankly, by others' stupidity and self-administered blindness to various issues.

Y'all talk about parties and how terrible/unneccesary they are. I don't really think they're that terrible. I do want to know what the Democrats think of Zell speaking at the Republican National Convention. I love that man. :)

As a final note, I think it's odd how people tend to write and speak with larger words than they're accustomed to when it comes to politics. Like "outsmarting" the competition will get anything done whatsoever. All it does is slow things down. Say what you mean, and goddamnit, mean what you say.

That's all I got. Continue with your discussion.

Well, I was almost done for the night until I reread this.

Sure, Art, I think you're right in some ways. I'd say that libertarianism has a lot to do with fulfilling your own, if at times antisocial, desires. It does for me, anyway. You might see it as egoistsic, and that's fine. Anarchic? In some points. I want the government there to see that I'm going to be safe. I don't think they're there to administer health care in the event that I'm not, however. That comes at the expense of the people, and I think it should come at the expense of each individual person. Maybe that's just me, but I like having the choice of where I go to for my health care, and not having to pay more just because other people, many who don't pay taxes in the first place, are more sick than I am. Take that as self-centered; it most certainly is. I worked for money that I want to spend on myself or in a way that I choose. It's not too difficult.

I don't think you have the principle correct. It's "limit my personal notion of freedom to that which I can do that doesn't inhibit others' personal freedoms." Or something to that effect. :)

OK, I'm finally done. Y'all have a good night.

To the best of my recollection, I've never registered with a political party or voted in a party primary. The idea of trying to condense the broad spectrum of opinions about the issues with which we as citizens must be concerned down to a handful of mutually antagonistic ideological platforms strikes me as one of the great absudities of American culture. Moreover, I consider framing all concepts as a duality (e.g., liberal vs. conservative, good vs. evil, communism vs. capitalism, etc.), which the untrained bicameral mind naturally does as a matter of course, to be one of the hallmarks of lazy thinking.

Bingo for me as well. I like to explore and wonder and find everything about things because I realize it's much more than just black and white at times - there can be entirely different shades.

I think that one should at the very least be able to appreciate the two most obvious views in a given conflict and even be willing to play the devil's advocate if that's what it takes to get a handle on where the other guy is coming from. Anything less is shallow processing.

teph, this statement:
"...limit my personal notion of freedom to that which I can do that doesn't inhibit others' personal freedoms"
opens the can of worms, you know.

There is no agreement - nor can there ever be any - on what exactly does or does not inhibit the personal freedoms of others in a society.

It sounds good but it is thoroughly unworkable because there is no political consensus on how to define that territory - other than the complex system of interrelated laws and regulations that all societies end up with.

I am consistently torn between the two parties, trying to figure out which one is the lesser of two evils.

Right now I am leaning towards Bush, but just barely.

Art, it's quite possible that I'm not being as open-minded about this as I should be. Give me a few examples, aside from abortion.

As much as I'd like to live in an ideal libertarian state, I know that it's impractical in the real world. What I want is the gradual removal of unnecessaryily restrictive laws that do more harm than good. Marijuana is illegal, and that turns something that could be used as a legitimate medicine or recreational drug into something that people kill over, lace with strong drugs in order to expand sales, and demonize without any good reason. A better law would be to criminalize driving or operation of machinery while high, and to regulate the sale of it so that users can get a clean, unaltered product.

teph,
the entire range of "freedoms" we have are conditional and extend only to the boundary in which their uncircumscribed expression impinges on a "freedom from" of others. This is how our laws are laid out. Those who live in close proximity to others, for example, are proscribed from exercising their untrammeled expression because doing so is perceived and interpreted as a burden to their neighbors.

Also, to use MrSelfDestruct's example above - he is allowing drug (marijuana) legalization except while driving or using heavy machinery - which seems reasonable to him, I believe. But how many parents would accept their childrens' teachers being high in the classroom? This is just the first such example that came to mind here. There are as many similar examples regarding every "freedom" as there are individual ideas of freedom vis-a-vis responsibility - individual rights vis-a-vis the rights of others.

The freedom to have access to pornography - to use another popular example - butts right up against the desire others may have to avoid being exposed to porn in public or via child accessible channels. Again, this is simply one more example of the larger situation that affects all personal freedoms.

Using this sort of thinking, I'm sure you can see the implications. The result, as always in the polis, is sets of legislated limits on personal freedom, such as we see today. Each rule and regulation is always open to additional legislation and judicial review, of course. So it goes.

The proponents of more personal freedom have only a relativistic position - one that must be balanced with social responsibility as decided upon by the processes of government. Libertarianism is a set of one-sided solutions and does not provide any sort of politically viable program.

I thought that posting the following would be suitable due to the origional idea of the thread:

I THINK THAT ANYONE WHO DOESN'T LIKE THE TWO MAJOR CANIDATES SHOULD VOTE FOR ONE OF THE OTHER CANIDATES!
If that happened, then other politicial parties would rise up and get more than 5% of the votes. That would break the 2 party system in the next election by making it a 3 or more party system! That is what is needed for the long run of this country's future.
I just don't understand how so many people can vote for one of the main two when they hate them both! It defeats the purpose of having that right to vote! It also makes our country look stupid for so many people having the opportunity to care about the government and then waste that very same opportunity so many others would die for, and have died for! The view of the majority of the american people dissapoints and discust me.

This site

has valuable info reguardless of which party one leans toward. After reading through some of the information; it makes me feel like two football teams understanding that whether or not one wins or looses- NFL always wins $$$

That's exactly what the two parties are. I don't remember the details, but I know that the percentage required to get into the presidential debates was raised - by the two main parties working together - after Ross Perot succeeded in getting it.

At least there's on bi-partisan thing the parties will always agree on - and that's that 3rd parties are a bad thing for both of them.