America as a One-Party State

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

Just a friendly reminder to those that will continue to justify mutiny during what is shoring up to be an election that will be decided by a handful of swing states...yeah yeah...I know...the two party system sucks.....the one party system hasn't been so grand either now..has it?

Today's hard right seeks total dominion. It's packing the courts and rigging the rules. The target is not the Democrats but democracy itself.
Robert Kuttner

America has had periods of single-party dominance before. It happened under FDR's New Deal, in the Republican 1920s and in the early 19th-century "Era of Good Feeling." But if President Bush is re-elected, we will be close to a tipping point of fundamental change in the political system itself. The United States could become a nation in which the dominant party rules for a prolonged period, marginalizes a token opposition and is extremely difficult to dislodge because democracy itself is rigged. This would be unprecedented in U.S. history.

In past single-party eras, the majority party earned its preeminence with broad popular support. Today the electorate remains closely divided, and actually prefers more Democratic policy positions than Republican ones. Yet the drift toward an engineered one-party Republican state has aroused little press scrutiny or widespread popular protest.

We are at risk of becoming an autocracy in three key respects. First, Republican parliamentary gimmickry has emasculated legislative opposition in the House of Representatives (the Senate has other problems). House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas has both intimidated moderate Republicans and reduced the minority party to window dressing, rather like the token opposition parties in Mexico during the six-decade dominance of the PRI.

Second, electoral rules have been rigged to make it increasingly difficult for the incumbent party to be ejected by the voters, absent a Depression-scale disaster, Watergate-class scandal or Teddy Roosevelt-style ruling party split. After two decades of bipartisan collusion in the creation of safe House seats, there are now perhaps just 25 truly contestable House seats in any given election year (and that's before the recent Republican super gerrymandering). What once was a slender and precarious majority -- 229 Republicans to 205 Democrats (including Bernie Sanders of Vermont, an independent who votes with Democrats) -- now looks like a Republican lock. In the Senate, the dynamics are different but equally daunting for Democrats. As the Florida debacle of 2000 showed, the Republicans are also able to hold down the number of opposition votes, with complicity from Republican courts. Reform legislation, the 2002 Help America Vote Act (HAVA), may actually facilitate Republican intimidation of minority voters and reduce Democratic turnout. And the latest money-and-politics regime, nominally a reform, may give the right more of a financial advantage than ever.

Third, the federal courts, which have slowed some executive-branch efforts to destroy liberties, will be a complete rubber stamp if the right wins one more presidential election.

Taken together, these several forces could well enable the Republicans to become the permanent party of autocratic government for at least a generation. Am I exaggerating? Take a close look at the particulars.

I. Legislative Dictatorship
Political scientists used to describe America's Congress as a de facto four-party system. There were national Democrats, mostly liberals; "Dixiecrats," who often voted with Republicans (Congressional Quarterly called this the conservative coalition and tabulated its frequent wins); conservative Republicans; and moderate-to-liberal "gypsy moth" Republicans, who selectively voted with Democrats.



http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V15/2/kuttner-r.html

[physioex]

1. It's not that simple...

This country is more multi-ethnic and multi-cultural. Which brings along many different points of view. One of the big problems is the media which promotes a conservative agenda. But hopefully with the internet we can bring along many points of view.

[DenverDem]

2. Military-information complex

The intense mass mind control going on now is the dominating factor in allowing treasonous anti-American war profiteers to achieve a coup d'etat, and to loot the country without armed uprisings of The People against them.

[mmonk]

3. our constitution wasn't designed

with political parties in mind. And since there was no check or balance for that or influence peddling by lobbyists, it's in trouble.

[buddhamama]

4. nsma,

while agree with your post entirely,
i think some of the hardliners of the presumptuous candidate are making a mistake when they forget one very important point,
one, they themselves probably raised to others, and that is,
you're not going to agree with a candidate on every issue.

when disagreements occur,
the appropriate reaction is not to scream Basher, Naderite, etc, etc,
"sheeple" imply the said person suffers mentally.

it is extremely offensive for the majority of us who can think and reason well enough on our own.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

5. I agree.....with a caveat

When someone repeatedly ignores political reality at their peril and my own...they don't engender my deepest respect for their tactics nor their presumed intellect. Don't blame me..I didn't invent the manner in which the constitution addresses voting electorally..I was born into it just like you were.

AND while I concur that Ralph Nader has made stellar contributions to almost everything I stand for, he has also assisted all of his OWN contributions in taking a giant step BACKWARDS by his deceit in the last election wherein he claimed there was no difference.

If you or I had been half as destructive with our OWN accomplishments as he has been with his...our families would have stepped in and run an intervention.

Furthermore, Nader feels no allegiance nor do his defenders to the TEAM called Democrats..and yet, they claim I am being unfair when I treat him as the opposition he himself says he is?

[buddhamama]

7. this isn't about Nader

at least not for me. i could care less about Nader.


it has to do with politics and people skills.
you can't win people over by degrading them.
i will support Kerry, and it won't even be cause He's the only realistic option.
He wasn't my first choice but he wasn't my last either, the GUY is ok. Will I disagree with Kerry, bet on it. But i don't waste my time here doing it. You're correct Nader is the opposition and should be treated accordingly.
However, I don't appreciate being labeled a Nader enabler or Naderite whatever, If i happen to disagree with Kerry on an issue or two. And i won't be told i have a mush for brains if i do, either. That's BS!

btw, the only real issue that i have defended Nader on is his right as a citizen to run for president or any other office he so chooses.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

8. And if anyone ever does that to you , I would expect you to give them

both guns.

I take each post as they come and grant them credibility as they warrant it..you and I have had enough exchanges for me to know we are on the same team even if we see a different approach to what is a fairly similar goal.

That differs from people with NO INTENTION of helping either of us reach our goal who show up here and plant discontent in order to stir up a shit storm...I call em as I see em...and if you think I called it wrong..you are always free to take me to task..I'll either concede the point or back myself up on it...or something in between.

[buddhamama]

9. i see people who are still harboring hurt and resentment

because their candidate wasn't chosen. I do see people here who will vote for Nader. Maybe they're greens or maybe it is for the already mentioned hurt and resentment. i dunno.

common ground is possible, though.

after the convention two weeks ago a group of us(Kucinich and Dean people)got together to discuss our issues. Not one person in the group spoke against Kerry. granted, we were all there on behalf of other pols but, we were more concerned with the issues and how best to vocalize them and how to improve the party overall. Voting against Kerry was not the way to make things better. We, me, haven't given up on the issues that brought us to our candidates but we're not raving lunatics either, we know what's at stake. The time for fixing and improving will come later.

if people are here to sow discontent,
then they must be challenged.

i'm not one for party politics,
progressive issues and how best to enact them is my only real goal.

no one can accuse me though, however they might try, that i spend more time here bashing DEMS, Kerry, etc.

I've spent a lot time discussing issues and adding to the pool of info on this lying, murderous Administration.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

10. Clear...and yes..the game of politics can hurt feelings

but at a certain point, we need to dust ourselves off and get back in and do the best we can.

I've never doubted who you are...

oh..and I agree...in real life when I go to events people don't express lots of what they express here in the name of liberalism and progressivism....

[buddhamama]

13. a political board as a means of disconnecting...

it's not the virtual world for nothing.

i've come a long way from three yrs ago Teena.
i am more pragmatic and less militant.
if i can change, others can and will too.
you had a great deal to do with my evolution.
i respect you! and you are capable of listening and discussing without
being an ass--big big plus.

people for the most part are good, the ones here anyway.
if they can't eventually come to see the reality, the very real peril that our country faces, we never stood a chance with them, ever.

why are they still here, i wonder...

Love Ya' :-)

[loudsue]

6. Great post NSMA.....

This article says, very succinctly, what we've all been watching happening here at DU. It's a scary time in the U.S., and it's going to take one helluva Statesman to turn this thing around.

And I say "statesman" NOT because I'm sexist, but because in this fundamentalist religious/corporatist environment, I can't even fathom general, across-the-board acceptance of a woman in a position of highest power who would be ALLOWED the power necessary to turn things around. Which, by itself, is a symptom of the sad state of affairs we're facing, IMHO. Our country is moving Taliban/Right in more ways than I care to think about. Asscroft is only one symptom.

:kick::kick:

[noiretextatique]

11. i'm concerned about a repeat of 2000

i hope i'm wrong.

[ScreamingMeemie]

12. But, I still do not see the Democratic Party taking a definitive turn

from the same old same old. There's my problem. We need to work for real change, otherwise we are voting the same.

[GreenPartyVoter]

15. Yup. I am hoping the rumor about Dean as head of the DNC

turns out to be true.

[buddhamama]

16. i agree.

which is why, imo, we need to take back the Houses.

it'll be a Huge improvement to have Kerry in the Whitehouse
but without A Majority party behind him,
then there will only be sooo much any of them can do.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

25. I think we should focus on dumping energy into the poorest states

where the Repubs have a stronghold..Miss, Bama etc

Wasn't it Mao that said, "You can't preach religion to a hungry person."

[loudsue]

17. I partially agree, partially disagree.....

There are a great many repuke-lites in the Dem party that need to be taken out to the shed. I hope this campaign will distinguish between the more populist Dem message and the corporatist/dem message -- and that the populist message will swing some Dems back to their party's roots.

The jobs drain that the corporatists are enabling is, IMHO, THE issue that could force the masses to understand which direction this country is going in if we continue under the present influence.

:kick::kick:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

20. I think that happens in the halls of congress and the senate

Look at the states where the knuckldraggers come from and collectively we work one state at a time to turn the tide..Repubs didn't do it overnight.

[ScreamingMeemie]

22. Totally agree, just wondering why we're not getting going...

I've never been patient! ;)

I really hope Kerry comes out guns ablazing soon.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

23. Kerry's job is to win the presidency

Clinton was given a Democratic congress and senate...over the years..we lost first the congress..then the WH then the senate....if the progressives (not you) that whine incessantly about Democrats would work at the state level to clean house, you might just see a different party...Nader should be in Alabama getting people pissed (not that you are a Naderite...but my point being...until we somehow make inroads in the WORST states, we will not be the threat we can be)

[ScreamingMeemie]

26. I'm not a Naderite. You know that. But I do sit in a state that is being

woefully neglected by our candidate. I would do all that I could, but the phone calls I make are disheartening. With just a few short months to go, we really need to get going on this.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

27. I thought he had been there several times...is that wrong?

[ScreamingMeemie]

28. Yes. He has been here once since he became presumptive that I know of.

That I know of with the purpose of speaking the the common man. I could be wrong, but if I am his visits are not well publicized. I get email from the campaign. Detroit needs to be addressed. Currently, there are many who plan to stay home that we need to counteract the fundie/corporate vote.

[Cleita]

14. For the first time in the almost forty years that I have known my

Irish born, but patriotic, naturalized American, husband, he said today that maybe we needed a parliamentary system. He was referring more to the fact that the US President would have to answer hard questioning on a regular basis from a parlaiment, whereas he gets a free pass from a two-party system Congress.

My POV thinks that there would be a better representation of the spectrum of political beliefs in our country with a parlaimentary system. My only caution about this is that at times too many different opinions prevent things from getting done and gridlock results in legislation.

[loudsue]

18. There's a lot to be said for a parliamentary system....

I think the "gridlock" is sometimes preferable, CAN slow things down so that people have to think things through more thoroughly, and resists some of the knee-jerk legislation such as we got with the Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Act.

I just don't know what kind of a revolution it would take to get the country to ditch our constitution and still manage to avoid a military government. Under the current influence, I'm afraid we'd end up w/ a military government if the constitution was reconsidered.

[Cleita]

19. Maybe we don't need to ditch the Constitution but pass some

ammendments to keep the good parts and improve on it. It certainly would be preferrable than some stupid marriage ammendment.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

21. I like gridlock...it's ten times better than the agenda that was rammed

up our ass the last 4 years....I guess I am the only one that knows we are ten times safer when government moves at a snails pace within the cumbersome confines laid out by the process.

[Cleita]

24. The instant hemorrhoid system of legislation certainly is not desirable.

However, during the pre-Nazi period of the Weimar Republic in Germany, the gridlock enabled the Hitler led Nazis to garner support because the ordinary and mostly clueless citizenry were suffering, not only from the burden of the Versaille's Treaty of reparations, but also loss of jobs, starvation, and other problems that the Reichstag couldn't seem to solve. Other than that, yes we need to go slower.

[ulysses]

29. well, sure.

Today's hard right seeks total dominion.

Some of us have been saying that for years. It's why we're not great fans of Democratic "me too" centrism.

[camero]

30. I agree about the one-party state

However, we've had a problem for a long time in that the upper class has had a lock on the reins of government even at the local level with both Dems and Repubs just voting their class interest. Think Carter's deregulations and Clinton's NAFTA and GATT.

Nothing will change until the power of corps and money in politics are reined in. Dems are much better than Pubs but even Dems have been drifting right. That needs to change.

[Pobeka]

31. Multiple parties are the strength of this nation.

Maybe I'm just dense. But I wonder at the short-sightedness of the masses of people willing to accept the notion of a majority rule, no minority rights country. Have they not figured out that as soon as the "worst apple" (identified by the majority) is eliminated from power, that the "next worst apple" is in line for elimination too?

I apologize for my bias today -- I had a bad episode with my daughter's music teacher yesterday who said all this gay stuff was against god's law and was going to destroy our society. I bit my tongue because I couldn't say what I was thinking. But this comes from a lady who practices a niche sort of religion that isn't quite Jewish and definitely is not Christian, and if the hard core Baptists ever got their way these splinter religions would be outlawed.

Why do people fail to recognize that in some sense, we are all a minority, and it is to everyone's advantage to ensure that minority rights are protected? I believe this lack of understanding is at the core of why so many of the masses are willing to go down this road of one party rule.

[Liberal Classic]

32. Excellent post

It's easy to forget, but popular beliefs don't need protection.