With GOP legislators controlling everything, Dems should just go home,

[prolesunited]

sit down and shut up. <-- That was the sentiment of a CSPAN caller this morning.

What is it with so many people advocating one-party rule? Why on earth would they think it would be a good thing? Maybe I've missed something, but can you name a one-party state that has been successful and beneficial for the people?

By what "logic" do they believe this would be a good thing? What happens if the other party gets in charge?

If the Dems were the ones in charge, would you want a one-party state?

[getmeouttahere]

1. Well, it's like Malcolm X said....

the chickens will come home to roost!

Or whatever analogy you are comfortable with...I wouldn't want to be on that side EVER, but especially not when it all comes crashing down

[prolesunited]

6. Sure seems to be an awful lot of Teflon on these people

When chickens do come home, it will likely be blamed on the liberals.

[forgethell]

2. Well, the Democrats

were in charge of the entire government during the FDR years and the LBJ years. Wasn't that a good thing? Social Security, Civil Rights, etc.

Just because the Republicans are in charge, that doesn't make this a one-party state. There is still a Democratic Party, the Greens, the Libertarians, the Constitutionalists. They are legally permitted to exist, not like in the old Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. All they need to do to take charge is convince enough voters.

[whistle]

3. Fascism....

<snip>
Is America Becoming Fascist?
by Anis Shivani

Is America becoming fascist? Since mainstream media refuse to seriously ask this question, the analysis of where we are heading and what has gone wrong has been mostly off-base. Investigation of the kinds of underhanded, criminal tactics fascist regimes undertake to legitimize their agenda and accelerate the rate of change in their favor is dismissed as indulging in “conspiracy theory.” If the f-word is uttered, observers are quick to note the obvious dissimilarities with previous variants of fascism. American writers dare not speak the truth.

<snip>

If we look at historian Stanley Payne’s classical general theory of fascism, we are struck by the increasing similarities with the American model:

A. The Fascist Negations
Anti-liberalism.
Anti-communism.
Anti-conservatism.

B. Ideology and Goals
Creation of a new nationalist authoritarian state.
Organization of a new kind of regulated, multi-class, integrated national economic structure.
The goal of empire.
Specific espousal of an idealist, voluntarist creed.

C. Style and Organization
Emphasis on aesthetic structure, stressing romantic and mystical aspects.
Attempted mass mobilization with militarization of political relationships and style, and the goal of a mass party militia.
Positive evaluation and use of violence.
Extreme stress on the masculine principle.
Exaltation of youth.
Specific tendency toward an authoritarian, charismatic, personal style of command.


<snip>

All 14 characteristics of Eco’s matrix of ur-fascism apply to America to some degree. (1) the cult of tradition; (2) the rejection of modernism; (3) the cult of action for action’s sake; (4) the idea that dissent is betrayal; (5) fear of difference, or racism; (6) the appeal to individual or social frustration; (7) obsession with conspiracies, along with xenophobia and nationalism; (8) the message that the enemy is at once too strong and too weak (note the media spin on Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein); (9) the idea that pacifism is collusion with the enemy, and that life is a permanent war; (10) scorn for the weak; (11) the cult of heroism; (12) machismo, or transferring the “will to power onto sexual questions”; (13) the belief that individual rights are subordinate to the unity of the state, and that fascism “has to oppose ‘rotten’ parliamentary governments”; and (14) ur-fascism uses a language of propaganda.

No doubt, fascism is a descriptor too carelessly thrown around. Perhaps a non-controversial statement may be that the fascist tendency always exists, at the very least latent and dormant. But when more and more of the latency becomes actualized, there comes a point when the nature of the problem has to be redefined. We may already have crossed that point. As Eco notes, “Ur-fascism can still return in the most innocent
of guises. Our duty is to unmask it and to point the finger at each of its new forms – every day, in every part of the world.”

<more>
<link> http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/49/articles/is_america_becoming_fascis.html

<also link> http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm

[Norquist Nemesis]

10. Becoming?

I think we're there.

[theboss]

4. The Dems were in charge for much of the 20th Century

From 1932 to 1968, there were many years of one-party dominance.

[prolesunited]

5. Well, I'm obviously not much of a student of history

But was there as much rancor? An orchestrated effort to silence appointments? The re-writing of laws to further consolidate power?

I'm not as concerned about one party being in control, and the pendulum seems to swing back and forth. It's the current determination to annhilate your opponent and to not have any dissent. It's the caller's wish to eliminate the other party that worries me.

Is this a case of it being "same as it ever was" and I just don't have enough of a historical context to realize it?

[theboss]

11. There were quite a few sketchy moments in there

FDR's court-packing scheme was pretty hideous.
FDR's run for a third term was a far bigger break from tradition than anything having to do with the filibuster.
The Democrats' consistent sell-out to the Southern Wing of the Party on race.
The Japanese internment camps during WWII.

The notion that there used to be some sort of golden age of cooperation is largely a fantasy. I don't think that it used to be quite this personal; but I'm not sure that the image of Republicans and Democrats having a beer after dividing up the nation's spoils is a good image anyway.

[walkon]

7. Somewhat True

Some Republican Presidents in there.
Big difference is the Democrats valued Democracy - mostly - and were willing to negotiate and compromise - mostly - and were not fascists who hated the constitution.

That is not the Republican Party in the Senate, the House or the White House and those are not Republican judges the Democrats are opposing. They are corporatists, a.k.a., fascists.

[Ian David]

8. I'd like a one-party Democratic state, but just for two years

After that, I hope that BOTH sides will see the importance of not allowing a single party to maintain absolute power.

I'd love to see the Dems do things just to mess with the Repugs heads and teach them a lesson in why it is important to play nicely.

For example, ammending the pledge to say, "One Nation, Under Mickey Mouse. With Liberty, and Ice Cream for All."

[FreedomAngel82]

9. If it was the democrats

doing the same things you know good and well they would be screaming things aren't unfair etc. I think it's hilarious.