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.
I think the divide between conservatives and liberals has gotten completely out of control over the past couple of decades. I've always wondered if abolishing all of the political parties would allow the country to become more united. Imagine if all of the candidates were allowed to have their own personal views instead of being forced to follow all of their party's views. There would be more constructive conversations rather than having the two sides of the aisle constantly screaming at each other for having completely opposite views on every single issue.
For the sake of uniting everyone in the country, do you think the American citizens could ever rise up and start a political revolution to force the politicians to abolish all of the political parties?
Liberal and conservative are not parties. They're beliefs.
I think we need a system similar to the UK where there are several parties and rarely does one party hold a majority on it's own forcing parties to compromise and work with other parties.
But I agree with you in that I don't like party platforms. Let politicians set their own platforms and don't hold them to the company line.
If I am not mistaken in Britain parliament votes the PM making PM an indirect election. I don't personally like that because I have little say due to corruption and non-monetary kickbacks. This agreement sadly leads to that. The 17th amendment looked to curb that exact issue.
As much as I don't like the party system America has, we are stuck with it. Anytime a third party pops up, it either signals to one of the parties to siphon voters or (as seen in the 1850's) one party will mostly get replaced (at that point, it was the Whigs with the Republican Party.)
"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution."
Adams like myself is a skeptic of democracy. He hit this right on the nose and we are seeing the fruits of this on nearly a 200 year old prediction. That is pretty impressive that he had the foresight to know what U S democracy would look like.
The problem more than anything is that the two parties are more national than local so there isn't any variation anymore and thus little room for dissent if you want access to national donor money. Centralization of party on the national level is a disaster.
It gives an almost binary choice for solutions which is idiotic. When people get so tied to an ideology that they can't even mention straying from it a little without getting their heads chewed off, you are essentially blindfolding yourself in a search for solutions to our problems.
Really, the only solution I know of that will help this divide is to return power back to the states. Protect rights, but let the states and local areas come up with their own solutions. Let them compete and try different things. Lets see what works. We know that one size fits all federal solutions no matter how well intentioned almost never work, and cannot even be fixed when a problem is evident.
Each election one of the two major parties wins with like 47% of the vote and then acts like it is a mandate to force their most extreme national platform on the majority of people who didn't vote for them. It was never meant to be that way.
I would do the opposite...splinter off the parties into smaller, more specific groups....Democratic Socialists, establishment Democrats, populist/nationalist, social conservatives, fiscal conservatives etc.
I would do the opposite...splinter off the parties into smaller, more specific groups....Democratic Socialists, establishment Democrats, populist/nationalist, social conservatives, fiscal conservatives etc.
Do social or fiscal conservatives even exist anymore? Trump is pretty much the antithesis of everything Christ taught and we are headed back to trillion dollar deficits next year. As far as I can tell 'conservative values' change with what Trump says or does each day. There don't seem to be any core values on which to splinter the party. I guess on the right you could have the Trump cultist party and then a party for real conservatives.
"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution."
Thanks for the refresher. The insights of 240 years ago are still relevant today.
Do social or fiscal conservatives even exist anymore? Trump is pretty much the antithesis of everything Christ taught and we are headed back to trillion dollar deficits next year. As far as I can tell 'conservative values' change with what Trump says or does each day. There don't seem to be any core values on which to splinter the party. I guess on the right you could have the Trump cultist party and then a party for real conservatives.
I think there are normally differences of opinion among Republicans but most are currently rallying around Trump no matter what positions he takes. That's a reason I like the idea of splintering...it gives ideas more importance instead of the cult of personality. This would be healthy on both sides.
On the right you would need more than a Trump party and real conservative party. Keep in mind most of the opposition to Trump in the GOP has always been from the least conservative factions...the RINOs as they are know such as John Kasich and certainly John McCain (who is still actively critical of Trump even if he is sick and dying of cancer).
I think there are normally differences of opinion among Republicans but most are currently rallying around Trump no matter what positions he takes. That's a reason I like the idea of splintering...it gives ideas more importance instead of the cult of personality. This would be healthy on both sides.
On the right you would need more than a Trump party and real conservative party. Keep in mind most of the opposition to Trump in the GOP has always been from the least conservative factions...the RINOs as they are know such as John Kasich and certainly John McCain (who is still actively critical of Trump even if he is sick and dying of cancer).
Who defines what least conservative is? I don't see Trump's disregard for deficits, his trade wars, his unwillingness to confront a power that is attacking us, his undermining of the intelligence community and his attack on our strong alliances as any conservatism I have seen in my lifetime. As far as I can tell RINO, just means a Republican that doesn't fall in line 100% of the time, and a non-RINO as someone who falls inline no matter how much the values or definition of conservatism changes.
Paul Ryan is infinitely more fiscally conservative than Trump, yet he is a RINO
John McCain is infinitely more conservative when it comes to national security, yet he is a RINO
Maybe RINO means conservative who can think independently at times and non-RINO means sycophant to an ideology that changes by the day
I get what you are saying, I am just so disappointed in the lack of principled conservatives. I thought there were more. I supported Rand Paul in the primaries, he makes me want to vomit lately.
Who defines what least conservative is? I don't see Trump's disregard for deficits, his trade wars, his unwillingness to confront a power that is attacking us, his undermining of the intelligence community and his attack on our strong alliances as any conservatism I have seen in my lifetime. As far as I can tell RINO, just means a Republican that doesn't fall in line 100% of the time, and a non-RINO as someone who falls inline no matter how much the values or definition of conservatism changes.
Paul Ryan is infinitely more fiscally conservative than Trump, yet he is a RINO
John McCain is infinitely more conservative when it comes to national security, yet he is a RINO
Maybe RINO means conservative who can think independently at times and non-RINO means sycophant to an ideology that changes by the day
I get what you are saying, I am just so disappointed in the lack of principled conservatives. I thought there were more. I supported Rand Paul in the primaries, he makes me want to vomit lately.
Interesting that Rand Paul of all people makes you want to vomit, he seems to be the only fiscal conservative left. He is pretty much the only one who speaks out against the huge spending bills that put our country in massive debt.
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.
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.
