Partisan Politics: A Failed System

[J Williams]

Democrats have traditionally tried to serve the interests of the greatest majority of the people and particularly those who most need help. However, even though I am a progressive Democrat I realize that tradition has in large measure been discarded.

Since the early Nineties most Democrats have done what is politically expedient and essentially "sold out," which is why Ralph Nader’s criticism of "Republicrats" had validity (and still does). And I say that NOT because I favor a third party. Not at all.

Of course, we MUST remove Bush from power. But what then? What about a lasting solution? Will we keep playing the children’s game of "King of the Mountain," where the strongest guy (with the most money) wins sovereign (presidential) power, and then rules until someone knocks him off? Will we perpetuate an unstable partisan system that perpetuates conflict and division?

We need to face that this system does NOT produce government of, by and for the people. Not really ... not when 80 percent of all political contributions to both parties are made by the richest one percent of the population. It produces a winner-take-all contest for power and an oligarchy of sorts, with government by and for the rich, regardless of which party wins.

But we CAN have government for all the people, and we will have it as soon as enough people get the message. And that brings me to what prompted me to come here.

I read a very strong message, which is how I realized the above truth and came to want to share it. The message is in a book titled What IS the World Coming To? (ISBN: 0-595-31998-X) It’s a vision of the future where ALL of us benefit and SHARE the power, the wealth, and the bounty of the earth, as the equal joint heirs we are destined to be.

It speaks of religion, but only to turn the tables on the Religious Right and advocate mutual respect among all religions. It's really a politically revolutionary book that suggests how we the people may actually create government that represents us all.

[mike_c]

1. welcome to DU....

You'll find lots of passion here about both the failure and the supremacy of partisanship!

[kentuck]

2. Perhaps we should simply do away with Parties and replace them with..

the media? That's about what it's come to anyway. We vote for the vision of a liberal media or a conservative media. Just take out the middle men, the Parties.

[J Williams]

3. Good Point, But...

I think you're right, given our present partisan system. The media is indeed an extension and forum for partisanship.

But the problem is partisanship. After all, a partisan, according to the dictionary, is an "adherent or supporter of a person, party, or cause, especially one who shows a biased, unthinking allegiance."

Partisanship feeds on conflict and division. And our system is a winner-take-all struggle for power, where the winners benefit and the losers suffer the consequences.

[Strelnikov_]

4. Simple Solution

Move to parliamentary system where minor party representatives can have some influence.

[J Williams]

5. Yes, but ...

Yes, a parliamentary system might be a little better. But it would still perpetuate partisanship.

The book I recommended suggests a far better way. I wish I could explain it, but I fear I would not do it justice. It takes the whole book to really lay out the case for it.

Suffice it to say that it would give us equal opportunity and equal voice in determining who would represent us at the highest level of government. And we would be represented in a way that would acually represent the people as a whole.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

6. So you didn't come here to have a conversation, but to promote a book?

[J Williams]

7. Is This Not a Conversation?

This is a conversation about a new idea, provided in a message that happens to be in a book. Books have provided food for thought throughout history, and the ideas in books have provoked much conversation. That's what this is about. I read a book, and I wanted to share my enthusiasm for what it says.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

8. No. It's not. You are telling us that you are unable to express the idea,

that we have to read the book in order to understand it. That is not a discussion, or an attempt at conversation, or an attempt to promote an idea. It is an attempt to get people to buy a book.

[Strelnikov_]

9. I Agree There Would Still Be Partisanship

but it would reduce most partisan attacks to a circular firing squad.

For example, lets say the Republicans attack the Progressives on their national health care proposal. The problem is, the Democrats depend on the Progressives for their majority, so they have to wade in to defend the Progressives.

However, some Progressives and Republicans want to team up on fighting new legislation restricting the content of broadcast media (obviously talking about paleo-cons here). However, the partisan attack on the health care proposal stops the coalition in its infancy. Also, the attack ends a joint Democratic/Republican effort at tort reform.

The point is, there would have to be (some) cooperation to accomplish any legislative measures, therefore any partisan attacks would generally have a negative result.

[J Williams]

10. Not necessarily partisan attacks ...

The idea is to have all views represented at the table, and all respected. And decisions would be by consensus rather by which side wins.

The whole idea is that what we have now divides us and makes us either winners or losers. We need a system whereby all of us have a voice and we all feel like winners.

[Strelnikov_]

11. I Fully Agree. The Reason 50% Do Not Vote

is that they do not feel they are represented by the current system.

[J Williams]

12. Thanks, you're right

The present system is great for those who like to fight and want power OVER those who disagree. But it's not great for the people as a whole.

[Kanary]

26. Exactly right, loindelrio.......but there is still the judgement

even here on DU, that they don't count, don't matter, and are to be ignored.

The effort is put into going after the "center", rather than figure out how to appeal to all those who checked out of the system.

Kanary

[Beloved Citizen]

13. The problem is Democrats have not been partisan enough

Knuckling under to the Bush seizure of power in 2000 being the most glaring example. And while I am sure the American religious press might wish to issue books projecting the message that political resistance to the right harshes one's mellow, I for one am glad that there are those who in this country with the nuts to stand up to such an obviously partisan message.

Passivity in the face of evil has nothing to do with God.

And your characterization of democracy as being "the children's (sic) game of "King of the Mtn'" is puerile at best. If you think that there is no difference between Republican and Democratic rule, please join our brave armed forces and see exactly how you fare under the gentle policies of the Bush regime.

[J Williams]

15. You miss the point

I certainly did not say there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans. And you miss the point.

And I'm not talking about "passivity." I think you are not understanding what I'm saying.

[Beloved Citizen]

19. Eh?

You said: "Since the early 90s most Democrats have done what is politically expedient and essentially "sold out," which is why Ralph Nader's criticism of "Republicrats" had validity (and still does)."

Then you said: "I certainly did not say there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans."

Seems like a bit of a contradiction. I don't know what it is like in your town, but where I come from words have meaning.

[J Williams]

20. No Contradiction

Both statements are true, and there is no contradiction.

There is a great deal of difference between Democrats and Republicans, but the trouble is that Democrats no longer represent their traditional constituencies. They represent the middle, even though it is arguable whether its slightly left of middle or a bit to the right. I think it's to the right. Money has a lot of influence.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

24. Perhaps we miss your point. Please post more explanations, less problems

I am unable to understand your point or your thesis since you have not suggest much beyond "read the book". Do you have a thesis beyond something warm and fuzzy like "let's all hold hands and agree not to bicker"?

(It's a tough house here, but people do listen).

[J Williams]

29. See Promoting an Idea and Vision, below

That may address your concern.

[sweetheart]

14. over centralization is root to this problem

The federal is too large, and has gained an inertia of its own that
was never intended by the framers, rather the states were to keep and
manifest diversity in governance.

I'm for a new constitution entirely, but a parliament with minority
parties would be a start.

ps. welcome to DU J Williams.

[J Williams]

16. Thank you, Sweetheart

I appreciate that.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

17. Duopoly and No Confidence

Thank you for a thoughtful post and welcome to DU, J Williams.

The main problem is the duopoly of the Demopublicans and Republicrats. There is no real reason for having only two choices. After all, look at 1988. We had (at least) three choices and we got Clinton. If it had only been Clinton v Bush, it would likely have been Bush's second term.

I think that this duopoly is at the root of the money corruption in American politics. If third parties had more influence then the money would be more evenly spread around, divergent views would get more proportional airing, and the whole country would be better informed and more thoughtful.

Another problem is that there is a lack of a "no confidence" mechanism. In parliamentary democracies, a leader or party is easily thrown out when the representative body loses confidence. A no-confidence motion can be worded that the parliament has no confidence in the government if they retain their leader. The party could change leaders, or the loyal opposition could attempt to form a government or there could be elections (try each in sequence). Nixon would have been out in 71, 72, or 73 and the country would have been spared much agony.

Do you think that Bush could survive a no confidence motion?

[J Williams]

21. I agree partly, but ...

I think that would be better than what we have. But I think we can go even further, to a much more progressive, equitable and effective system.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

23. Are you promoting a book? You didn't offer solution to problem you pose.

Are you promoting a book? You didn't offer a solution to the problem you pose. If you weren't promoting a book, you might have summarized the thesis. Surely we don't want to use this forum to merely outline a problem and then drop a book title? If the solution is so good, more information than listing superlatives can and should be given about it.

[J Williams]

28. Promoting an Idea and a Vision

I understand your point. However, I am at a loss to try to summarize or synthesize the message in the book. I couldn't possibly do it justice here. I know saying that will draw criticism and accusations, but so be it.

I can say that a large part of the solution is to dispel the false religious myths and beliefs and the political assumptions that have been created by misguided religious and political leaders.

Also, a large part of the solution lies within the people. Once they can recognize the error and vain folly of the leadership that brought us to this point, and once they are shown the way to create government that truly represents them, they will BE the solution.

[ItsMyParty]

18. There's something about the nature of the beast...........

..the beast called man. Someone or party of people will always muscle their way to domination over the others. There will always be 'wealth', even if it's more sea shells than the other guy, and wealth always muscles it's way to domination (that's how it stays wealthy). You would be lucky if a 100 people living on a planet all by themselves could work and interact politically as your book seems to suggest much less a whole nation.....and eventually, one or two of that 100 would muscle their way to domination. It even happens within family consellations. The root of our problem is not people turned off by government and not voting. It's lazy, docile, fairly ignorant people who seek entertainment and not knowledge. They have the power to not only run for office but to research who is running and weed out these types you talk of. The greatest thing ever developed for these "types" was tv and the second greatest thing was a 24/7 sick to the core news media. It's like in a family. If you would rather bomb out and flip on tv instead of solving family problems, don't be surprised if the family falls apart.

[J Williams]

22. Hmmmm.... Pretty cynical

Sorry, but I think that's a cynical view, and pretty pessimistic. It doesn't allow for innovation or creativity that is bound to come, and in fact is coming.

There is a way to build in equality in having an equal voice and equal opportunity to determine our leadership. It would not allow the aggressive and proud and militant to win power. It would enable the humble and meek to have an equal say. That's why it was predicted that the meek shall inherit the earth. This was foreseen long ago.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

25. Evangelism?

It would enable the humble and meek to have an equal say. That's why it was predicted that the meek shall inherit the earth. This was foreseen long ago.

This book you are pushing, is it a Christian or religious evangelism book?

[J Williams]

27. No

No, it's not evangelism. That is, it's not promoting a religion. But it is promoting religious freedom and pluralism, and pointing out that the core of all religions is based on the same universal truths.

As I think I said in the beginning of this thread, it uses religious scripture to turn the tables on the Religious Right ... and that includes right-wing zealots who claim to be Christians and Jews and Muslims, all of whom betray their religion.