We Need a Two Party System Again

[Armstead]

Feel free to comment.

[boobooday]

1. I have just one word to say to that

AMEN.

And I'm not even religious.

[KittyWampus]

2. Very good framing, IMO. Excellent in fact.

why do I like it so much?

Because it leaves no real room to dispute the fact things have collapsed into a corrupt, dysfunctional one party meal ticket for the wealthy and corporations.

Speak as if what you are saying leaves no room for argument.

[PATRICK]

3. At least

[niallmac]

4. I honestly believe we could have a two party system

again once the majority of Americans united to collectively hold economic sway over the corps. Note I do not for a second question your premise.

[Armstead]

5. One party would already reprsent that if we had a two party system

It's a chicken-and-egg problem. IMO there is already a large and growing collectrive sentment against the extent and effects of consolidated corporate power. Among them are people that could ideology be defined as "conservative" and the "center."

But there also has to be political vehicle to repreent and channel that can make it more coherent and has the ability to shape policies. The lack of such a venue leads to cynuical apathy or for people to focus their political energy on distracting side issues.

Put more simply, the political base already exists. But there is a disconnect between that widespread desire for reform and the current political sytem.

[niallmac]

6. I hope you are right about the general consensus of ill will toward

corporatization. I live in the reddest of red states so my perspective tends to get morose. But IF theb ase of animosity is out there then maybe we just need some leadership and some organizational genius to marry up.

[Armstead]

7. There is -- but it's kept outside the political context

If you listen outside the context of liberal/conservative, etc. thereis a lot of anger against the trend towards the big corporations, the abusivness of the current economy and the lack of power of the common people.

But it has been disconnected from the political system. As a result, instead of being harnased into positive movements for real reform, it gets sidetracked into cynicism, apathy, despair or rechanneled into the phony message of the CONservative movement.

A real political party would have recognized that, and spoken to those concerns by both critically addressing the problem and by offering a hopeful and positive alternative.

[deutsey]

8. We definitely need something that will defend and fight for OUR interests

Right now, with notable exceptions, protecting and expanding wealthy and corporate interests seem to be the main focus of our political system.

[ZombieGak]

9. the two party system is DYSFUNCTIONAL!!!!!!!!!!

What we need is a MULTI-PARTY system where citizens can vote their conscience and be guaranteed some repesentation... and where no one wins elections with a minority of the vote. As for our system, I just posted this to another thread:

I think the dynamics and imperatives our system creates work to drive politics to the center resulting in two parties that share more than the GOP and Dems care to admit. For instance in the US both parties have a huge common base they don't even discuss... implicit assumption that the Framers got it right and our political system needs no fundamental reforms... and our economic system got it right and there's no need to look at fundamental changes there either. All the debate is about how to tweak these systems... never to reform either. So as much as the debate rages about the tweaks... the fundamental assumptions, themselves, never get debated... only reinforced. Soon those core assumptions become a secular religion that most can't even rationally discuss. We see that here discussing the Constitution. We've been brought up to understand WHY the Constitution is as it is... never to ask WHETHER it should be as it is. So when some common sense objections are raised about how un- or anti-democratic it is... even most Dems reflexively resort to those rationalizations they learned in grade school.

[deutsey]

10. Good post.

:thumbsup:

[Armstead]

13. In an ideal world, you're right...But first things first

I think there should be at least three parties of left,right and center, or more.

But at this point I'll settle for at least having two parties.

[ZombieGak]

14. nice theory....... problem is..............

Nice theory... but even if the Dems start acting like Dems again... they will ALWAYS oppose electoral/political reforms that will make a true multi-party system possible. They prefer to game the current system and be blind to the fact that a majority of Americans are alienated from civic life. They also don't want the competition even if a true Progressive party would be a natural ally in most matters.

[Armstead]

16. As I said, first thing first

Since a viable multi-party system is so far from reality, I believe we have to at least take the first step towards having two distinct parties again.

[ZombieGak]

19. so how do you propose.......

So say you get your wish... how do you propose to EVER get the Dems to reverse their historic OPPOSITION to fundamental democratic reforms?

Until you can come up with a realistic plan to counter the anti-democratic ideology of the Democratic Party... your suggestion remains just a nice theory.

[paineinthearse]

11. Have you read Chomsky's latest?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2368845

On the greatest page, 20 votes.

[Armstead]

12. That's what prompted the original post

Chomski hit the nail on the head.

If there really were a two party system, the GOP would be in much bigger trouble than they are.

[paineinthearse]

15. A link would help others who may not have read it. nt

[Armstead]

17. I didn;t link because it was one of many things that prompted

I eas one of those who recommended that one though.

But....

http://www.alternet.org/story/30487

[ZombieGak]

18. I think you're misreading Chomsky......

I don't think Chomsky has any faith in our political system even if the Dems acted like Dems.

The post I made about the our system being dysfunctional because our two parties are essentially one... tied together by an unexamined secular religion is something Chomsky said. I just added some comments to it.

[Armstead]

20. It is possible to have a big tent liberal/progressive party

As I said above, I agree with in a larger sense that we really should have more parties that represent more than two political perspectives.

However, they will be skiing in hell before that happens in the short run. And at this point,minority parties would only suck the ability of a major party to win and actually implement change.

IMO progressive prssure groups and movements (like MoveOn and the Progressive Caucus in the House) are much more effective in actually affecting the political system....Although they have not yet changed things fundamentally, they have begun to make a difference.

[ZombieGak]

21. I see no evidence that MoveOn can....

The process you describe has been going on for time immemorial and it's never affected the core doctrine of the Democratic Party. Why? It's because these groups share that doctrine. Groups like MoveOn claim to value democracy yet it's all window-dressing. They have no operational definition of what democracy is... or what principles should underlie it. I think what happens is they may start out being Progressive but soon realize that they can have more influence within the Party if they moderate. I think we've seen this process with Kos, here at DU, at at MoveOn. I believe Progressive support for Dems should be contingent their support for structural reforms... not tweaks. Otherwise they will be co-opted.

[Armstead]

22. Well, we;'re also stuck with human nature

I suspect a lot of grass roots conservative Republicans feel the same way from the other side. Those who supported the Republican Revolution in 1994 were partially reacting to the perceived entrenched power in Washington at the time. Remember how many of the GOP "newcomers" in Congress ran because they were outsiders who ran on a promise of term limiting themselves? Now those same outsiders are the insiders.

Unfortunately human nature is what it is. That's a bigger question than the make-up of plitical parties.

[ZombieGak]

23. FUN FACT about so-called Republican Revolution of 94

According to http://www.idea.int/vt/country_view.cfm?CountryCode=US only 38.8% of the voting age population (VAP) voted in the 94 congressional elections. The so-called Republican Revolution consisted of.... what... the approval of 19.5-20% of the VAP?

What held them in power in the 90's may not have been popular support but districts designed to protect incumbents.

[ZombieGak]

24. where does human nature come into this?

Is it human nature to want to go with a winner? But that's within the context of a dysfunctional system.

I think other nations may be proving that it's also human nature to want a responsive political system.... and their voting rates prove it. We, on the other hand, rank 140th of 163 democratic nations. Our system runs counter to the idea of self-government is unresponsive. In the process alienates citizens, Yet it can continue as long as it's sustained by party partisans, single issue voters, and special interests. The above will always participate because the system meets their needs or they hope it can.