Mark Pascal, over at The Moderate Voice serves up the aristocratic softballs:
For over 200 years we developed a preference within our constitutional system for just two parties – essentially the Ying and Yang of our unique history. Some have argued that we could use up to 5 political parties, with a new center and two additional extremes to the left and right along with the Republicans and Democrats. Without sizable financial support and charismatic leaders for all 5 points of view, plus some major changes in how we conduct Federal elections, I am unsure we could ever achieve such a multi-party system. And it might devolve into a free-for-all without effective party control that would result into more paralysis.Except that we've always had more than two, and the dominant two or three have changed over time. If you're peddling 20/20 hindsight, at least be clear. But you at least hint that control is your main issue here, in addition to willingness to free-base the Constitution.
Over the past 20 years with power shifting between Republicans and Democrats, we have had seen some incremental changes that interrupt the continuous flow of relative inaction. This comports with a political system that is not in control of major events and at best reacts to some. Both our political parties have ossified a bit over the past decade as many elected officials have become captives of large campaign contributors and powerful special interests. Some may argue we already have achieved complete systemic paralysis, but I respectfully disagree.No, there has been ~100 years of increased Federal control. Look at the action on the debt front. Of course the Federal government is reactive by design. Internationally, the US does not run the world, for all some seem to think that. Domestically, the whole point of the government is to support people figuring out their own destiny, de-conflicting as required.
It may be possible to see the growth of independent candidates that can win with just a plurality in 3-way elections is a distinct possibility for the U.S. Unfortunately, the results on governing our country would be anyone’s guess. After some reflection, most Republicans and Democrats might prefer a known opponent to an undulating group of people whose political, economic and social views are completely chimerical and unpredictable from issue to issue, and who have no party loyalty whatsoever.Completly chimerical? What chimericals are you smoking? Parties merit as much loyalty as they received Constitutional mention: 0. We're all one 330-million strong United States party, where Federal matters are concenerd, and 50 separate parties below the 10th Amendment waterline.
With a strong independent contingency of elected representatives not aligned with any political pole, and who float back and forth, in and out, around and around, and often completely out of the entire playing field, we might end up with absolute paralysis that would also result in a total inability to articulate any coherent policy positions, whether they be conservative or liberal.In other words, in a system where the voters elect principled representatives who remain un-owned by non-voter-based blocks like parties the potential for transparency is utterly terrifying.
There are limits to independent thought if it can never be focused anywhere. For each piece of legislation, not only would a dozen Senators need to be convinced, now 100 would be constantly in play. At that point, the only question would be "why bother?"Exactly. What in the name of Phineas J. Whoopie would we do if Senators were not fretting about the NFL? So, if independent thought makes a fine crap filter, why are you so inimical, Mark?
There may be no party leaders left because no one could exercise any control when the participants cannot reliably calculate any group patterns or loyalties from week to week. Being ruled by a group of pure independents might prove to be exciting and entertaining, but no guarantee anything will ever get accomplished.I'm willing to have a go at this theory. I want to test it to see if a large external threat will be less reliably managed in the absence of party control than, say, the Axis threat was under FDR. Because he certainly got way out in front of that one and saved millions of lives, didn't he? Oh, and the crushing debt burden brought on by his socialist policies was a big win, too. But you don't seem to notice the bills anywhere, Mark.
Over the past 30 years, Republicans have managed more party unity within their ranks so they have been more successful in promoting their agenda as compared to the Democrats. Due to their size and diversity, Democrats have been particularly poor at enforcing party discipline and that has been evident by their overall poor performance in actually getting their agenda passed, even when they have a clear majority.
Wow, talk about looking at the same facts and arriving at different conclusions. I'd re-state the last 30 decades (Reagan onward) as: those who love liberty are increasingly conscious. Incumbency and careerism amongst the ruling elite and their purportedly two-party system are bankrupting the country. An internet-fueled coalition of people with shred #1 of common sense are increasingly aware of the resurgence of aristocracy on the world stage, as bogus ploys such as government health care, global warming, and hate speech/crime laws are used as tools to crack down on liberty the world over.
However, demanding extreme fealty to a narrowly-defined party identity might shrink a party and permit the opposition to win and govern by default. But if the default winners still can't get their collective act together, then we are faced with continued stalemate and overall inaction. The overall success of any political party depends upon the particular leadership and cooperative talents of its member individuals, and how they can effectively work as a group to achieve specific goals.Action action action. 1,990 pages of "it's more important to employ bureaucrats than for you to have freedom" isn't enough action for you? Would that the Speaker's Botox would break free and paralyze the whole House of
This historical and constitutional preference for incremental slow change may have worked for the U.S. in the past when we were relatively isolated from each other and the rest of the world, and we were not a troubled global empire with more than 300 million inhabitants. Furthermore the rapid pace of change during the past decade will only escalate for the rest of the 21st Century. This is simply a result of our global communications and transportation systems, plus the actions of many other countries in an inter-connected global economy.You bozo. The requirement to preclude tyranny is in no way diminished by globalization. Just because information moves rapidly around the world doesn't mean that the entropy of the human soul has lessened. Far from it. A Madoff can steal more than any non-governmental thief in human history. So, instead of agreeing with your apparent tendency towards centralization, I'd argue the exact opposite. In communications, packet switching trumps circuit switching. Because centralization generally bites. I'd argue that the same holds true for politics.