Are Politics that simple? (party affiliation, regular, parties, carry)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
An amount of partisanship is useful and builds support for necessary action. Take the 1950s and early 1960s: American liberalism was dominant in both major parties, and we are still living with the resultant failures. Some real partisanship, spurred by real policy differences, would have been helpful then to avoid the mess (failing institutions and bad policy) we have now.
Location: Sitting on a bar stool. Guinness in hand.
4,428 posts, read 6,490,376 times
Reputation: 1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by internat
Keep in mind a lot of Republicans are not conservative.
And not all Democrats are liberal. Look a Zell Miller showing up to the Republican convention. Or Joe Lieberman be force to run as a Independent and throwing his support behind McCain, yet he still calls himself a democrat.
Quote:
What would you rather have?
Well I can deal better with the less than direct way of the Democrats. I'm use to it since I was raised in Massachusetts. I just have try to cypher out what they truly mean when they are up on the stump.
Look like I said in general both parties have failed to get a good message cross to the people. Right now the Dem's and Repubs are not the ones sending any messages. It's the News on the TV and Internet that is making people vote for either party. People aren't look at either parties platforms. And that's not particularly good way to chose political leaders in my mind. You have to know what your really voting for, before you take on the consequences of pulling that lever in the voting booth.
And not all Democrats are liberal. Look a Zell Miller showing up to the Republican convention. Or Joe Lieberman be force to run as a Independent and throwing his support behind McCain, yet he still calls himself a democrat.
Joe Lieberman ran as an "independent" because he lost his primary and was too big of a sore loser to accept defeat.
Political ideology is pretty much a black/white issue. Not not talking skin color. Either you agree with an issue or you don't.
Politics as a whole is not black/white. If it was like that, then all of the candidates would be the exact same - which they are not. Many people forget that fact and make sweeping generalizations such as "Why do conservatives think ---------------" and such.
Location: Sitting on a bar stool. Guinness in hand.
4,428 posts, read 6,490,376 times
Reputation: 1721
flaming liberal
Quote:
Originally Posted by roseba
Joe Lieberman ran as an "independent" because he lost his primary and was too big of a sore loser to accept defeat.
And the big reason why he lost the primary was that we is still a big supporter of the war. Which the liberal didn't like. I not saying Joe a great Conservative. But he's definitely not a flaming liberal either.
You're partly right, of course. We do seem a simpleminded lot. But without partisanship, and the resulting daily compromise of principles for the sake of pragmatism, we would have anarchy, and accomplish nothing.
Just my take.
Discourse for various points of view is of course a most healthy thing. Our system of law and to some extent our politics are based on an adversarial dichotomy.
Considering the quite complex make up of our form of government, the complexity of the issues in our global world, it would seem only logical that such complexities cannot be boiled down in such simple terms, even through the use of metaphor. Yet it is done everyday and because it is done it is generally presented in a way understandable to the general masses and loses pertinent aspects because some things just can't be boiled down and retain their substance.
As long as the general masses keep lowering the bar, setting everything in the political, social, and religious realms into neat little check boxes, the nuance and complexity is lost. This is one of the things I agree with that Platonic vision of some of the neoconservatives, as the masses are unqualified to self rule. (I realize this is unpopular) The only way a Democracy or in our case our Republic functions in its optimal capacity is through a well educated and aware public that is actively and civilly minded. As a mass of ignorant and complacent people will only invite tyranny, oppression, and obedience.
Discourse for various points of view is of course a most healthy thing. Our system of law and to some extent our politics are based on an adversarial dichotomy.
Considering the quite complex make up of our form of government, the complexity of the issues in our global world, it would seem only logical that such complexities cannot be boiled down in such simple terms, even through the use of metaphor. Yet it is done everyday and because it is done it is generally presented in a way understandable to the general masses and loses pertinent aspects because some things just can't be boiled down and retain their substance.
As long as the general masses keep lowering the bar, setting everything in the political, social, and religious realms into neat little check boxes, the nuance and complexity is lost. This is one of the things I agree with that Platonic vision of some of the neoconservatives, as the masses are unqualified to self rule. (I realize this is unpopular) The only way a Democracy or in our case our Republic functions in its optimal capacity is through a well educated and aware public that is actively and civilly minded. As a mass of ignorant and complacent people will only invite tyranny, oppression, and obedience.
The general level of public knowledge is much higher than is popularly recognized, as is the diversity of thought that characterizes us as individuals. The use of terms like "the general masses", while certainly useful in a philosophical discussion, does a disservice to the numerous exceptions to the rule who make up the entrepreneurial, generative classes of Americans. I recall a character in one of Evelyn Waugh's novels who reminded the reader that simply acknowledging that the world is more complex than we know, and that much of what makes up human aspirations reflects simple vanity, is not sufficient to provide any particularly helpful guidance in dealing with either personal or public issues. To my mind, the American experiment, though wobbling at times on the verge of irrelevance, remains a dynamic and potentially transcendant approach to the human experience. One need only observe the range of beliefs encompassed within the two major political parties, and the struggles of those parties to define themselves anew, to sense that there is more going on here than can be explained by mere cynicism or rueful speculation on the fallibility of man.
The general level of public knowledge is much higher than is popularly recognized, as is the diversity of thought that characterizes us as individuals. The use of terms like "the general masses", while certainly useful in a philosophical discussion, does a disservice to the numerous exceptions to the rule who make up the entrepreneurial, generative classes of Americans. I recall a character in one of Evelyn Waugh's novels who reminded the reader that simply acknowledging that the world is more complex than we know, and that much of what makes up human aspirations reflects simple vanity, is not sufficient to provide any particularly helpful guidance in dealing with either personal or public issues. To my mind, the American experiment, though wobbling at times on the verge of irrelevance, remains a dynamic and potentially transcendant approach to the human experience. One need only observe the range of beliefs encompassed within the two major political parties, and the struggles of those parties to define themselves anew, to sense that there is more going on here than can be explained by mere cynicism or rueful speculation on the fallibility of man.
The term "general masses" is quite suitable in this case as the very term distinguishes the bulk of our population from the business and governing minority.
There is a reason why people who make statement such as, "All dems are liberal idiots or Reps are nothing but war mongers" are people who are seldom actually in government.
As you point out yourself there are many variances within the two current majority parties. So this notion that all perspective can be encompassed by simply left or right, Democrat or Republican is just not possible.
Indeed cynicism is permeable today as the world grows more complex, we seek to over simplify things to address the lowest common denominator. In the case of Democratic forms of government with an ignorant base will in time produce leadership incapable of adequately facing the complex issues that do in fact rule our world.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.