|
Edited on Tue Apr-04-06 02:20 PM by bemildred
1.) It is true that the short and long term interests of "they", as I have constructed them, are in opposition, but to lose power is to lose all, and hence they will choose to rule in the rubble rather than reliquish of their one instrument of power.
2.) That is correct, and it is the third party or populist movements that are feared most, and where the most vigorous action is taken. The two parties, normally "enemies", will collude whenever the structure of power is undermined. My favorite example is in California, where back in the 90s we passed an open primary law, and the result was that within six months the two parties quietly and unanimously joined to reverse the law, which had passed by a large margin, and the issue has not been raised again. And why is this important? Because the parties ability to reject candidates at the primary level is its fundamental instrument of control over individual politicians. Without that, the parties have no means to exclude charismatic leaders with their own followings, like Mr. Perot or Mr. Dean, and such movements must be thwarted early lest they grow. It is therefore essential to keep the primaries closed and the turnout small, the better to control the result, and consequently the party itself.
Had Mr. Perot been in a position to run as a Republican he would have been much more formidable, and he would have been able to force HIS agenda into the Republican political debate. It is telling, is it not, that there are still so few national politicians that will attack the principle of aggressive foreign wars? There must be some explanation for that, don't you think? It is because such politicians will not get the support, and may be attacked, by the national parties for violating that, and certain other, taboos.
---
There are some political changes in certain states that tend to undermine the system as it has existed since the Civil War, open primaries, public financing of elections, the large public interest in the election system generated by the last few elections. It is my impression that the system is breaking down, becoming more difficult to maintain then it once was. I have tentatively considered that the current push to improve the power of the federal executive is motivated in some part by the breakdown of the old 2-party system of control.
I know is seems a bit odd at first, but I have found that it has remarkable predictive power, for instance it allowed me to anticipate that Kerry would tank in 2004, when Mr. Dean was swarmed under and Kerry installed in his place, and I take the egregious way in which he was forced to do it as an indication of how narrowly the decision was kept under control. It also allows one to explain otherwise bizarre occurrences like the foisting of Lieberman on Gore in the 2000 race and the near unanimous failure the the Democrats to protest the rigging of the 2000 and 2004 elections. And best of all it explains the long string of mediocre stooges of both parties that we have had, with only a few bright exceptions, in the Presidency. It is party control, fearing that their betters might seize power, that prevents the more able candidates from succeeding to the reins of presidential power.
I do not mean to imply that other political issues and forces are not at work, only that for certain types of occurrences and issues that appear otherwise anomalous in US politics, I have found this way of thinking very useful.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(36 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
