Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Hawkmoon on June 19, 2012, 05:53:00 PM
-
He's at it again:
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1694403744001/gov-jesse-ventura-abolish-two-party-political-system/?intcmp=obnetwork
The Democrips and the Rebloodlicans ...
... The man has a point.
-
I found some links with text, so you don't have to listen to his obnoxious voice.
http://www.dailypaul.com/239746/jesse-ventura-abolish-both-political-parties
http://polizeros.com/2012/06/14/jesse-ventura-abolish-political-gangs-known-two-parties/
Until I see some more details, I'm going to assume this is just more of the same idiotic, ill-informed caterwauling about how we only have two major parties, and neither of them are perfect. And more of the usual, backward appeal to the anti-model of European mediocrity. 'Cause their multi-party politics has worked out so well for them. ;/
-
At one point in time I had more respect for Jesse Ventura.
Get rid of the two party system?
A one party system is by definition, NOT a good thing.
A two party system is decent though flawed, as all humans are. Can't be avoided.
Anyone who thinks we need to try a multi party system ought to start atleast by reading some Machiavelli and figure out how wily, ruthless people can manipulate it and what that means for the good order of society.
-
For the record, I'm not married to a two-party system. But call me crazy if I don't see Jesse Ventura improving on what we have now.
-
At one point in time I had more respect for Jesse Ventura.
Get rid of the two party system?
A one party system is by definition, NOT a good thing.
A two party system is decent though flawed, as all humans are. Can't be avoided.
Anyone who thinks we need to try a multi party system ought to start atleast by reading some Machiavelli and figure out how wily, ruthless people can manipulate it and what that means for the good order of society.
You mean the way they haven't been able to manipulate the two-party system? =D
What exactly is sacrosanct about two--and no more--parties? Please illuminate.
-
You mean the way they haven't been able to manipulate the two-party system? =D
What exactly is sacrosanct about two--and no more--parties? Please illuminate.
Machiavelli explained it pretty well in Discourses on Livy, IIRC. It may have been The Prince~~or maybe he just touched on the topic there. The more "parties" there are, the weaker they are (relatively) --or tend to be -- and the more contentious they become, thus making it easier for a aggressive, ruthless individual to take over and become a tyrant. That wasn't the end of it so don't lose faith yet; eventually the tyrant would be overthrown/assassinated, whatever, and another cycle would begin with a multiple party, or multiple leader type system. The result is political instability.
There's really nothing "sacrosanct" about a two party system, except ours atleast has been fairly stable with no coups d'tates. Some people think we had a "fling" with a 3 party system way back in the mid 19th century when the republican party evolved but the reality is the Whig party was pretty much all but condemned to the history books when the republican party ascended.
BTW there is no real reason why Machiavelli would claim we could not have a tyrant in our system, he just believed in an unstable system with weaker members it was more likely to happen.
-
What exactly is sacrosanct about two--and no more--parties? Please illuminate.
I don't know about sacrosanct, but our political system happens to give rise to only two parties. If Ventura has some reform that actually works, I'd like to know about it, regardless of how many parties would be involved. I just don't have high hopes for anything that begins with the usual carping about how bad the parties are, too few of them, etc. Everybody does that, but they rarely propose a real solution.
-
There's really nothing "sacrosanct" about a two party system, except ours atleast has been fairly stable with no coups d'tates. Some people think we had a "fling" with a 3 party system way back in the mid 19th century when the republican party evolved but the reality is the Whig party was pretty much all but condemned to the history books when the republican party ascended.
Even if the Republicans were a 3rd party, it only proves your point about instability. 1861, and all that.
-
The other reason we tend to maintain a 2 party system is because if enough people believe in a particular issue or goal that might create a 3rd party, one or more of the two parties generally tends to adopt that issue or at least enough members support it to force the change by electing candidates who do.
-
We do have a multi party system. We are, however, dominated by two parties.
-
We do have a multi party system. We are, however, dominated by two parties.
=| Eh .. not.... really. Yeah there's libertarians and a few others like the Communist Party of the USA and such. But they are "usually" small and ineffective.
The libertarian party is probably the most promising of the "other" parties but it still lacks real major inroads in the upper echelons of political power.
-
But they exist and do get people elected. Albeit rarely.
-
I think we're on the same side in this debate. Shall we continue? [tinfoil] [popcorn] :lol: ;) :cool:
-
Machiavelli explained it pretty well in Discourses on Livy, IIRC. It may have been The Prince~~or maybe he just touched on the topic there. The more "parties" there are, the weaker they are (relatively) --or tend to be -- and the more contentious they become, thus making it easier for a aggressive, ruthless individual to take over and become a tyrant. That wasn't the end of it so don't lose faith yet; eventually the tyrant would be overthrown/assassinated, whatever, and another cycle would begin with a multiple party, or multiple leader type system. The result is political instability.
Thats a lot like saying that playing 3-card monty on the street is a far better system than playing blackjack in the casino because some people have figured out how to actually win at blackjack.
-
Thats a lot like saying that playing 3-card monty on the street is a far better system than playing blackjack in the casino because some people have figured out how to actually win at blackjack.
No it isn't. It is what it is. Machiavelli was using historical examples to show what normally happened in reality. His examples were never dispositive of any other results, he simply dealt with "realpolitik" and what normally might be expected, because that was the pattern human behaviour would normally dictate.
Were I you I would not play card games with ol' "St. Nic."
There isn't a government (or type of same) on earth that cannot be corrupted, one way or another. Finding dishonest leaders is, unfortunatly, far too easy.
-
Looking back, and even looking forward, I don't see much difference in Rs and Ds at the Presidential level- its pretty much a rigged game where we end up with a choice between chunky turd sandwich and extra creamy turd sandwich every time.
-
Looking back, and even looking forward, I don't see much difference in Rs and Ds at the Presidential level- its pretty much a rigged game where we end up with a choice between chunky turd sandwich and extra creamy turd sandwich every time.
A lot of that is because our govt was set up to be so inefficient that it was very difficult for one man to take power and change things. It takes a very large majority to accomplish anything by yourself. There is a lot one President could do, but there are limits on that as well especially if he is opposed by a lot of guys in Congress.
But, please, don't let me get in the way of a good rant against both parties. I might agree if I could think of anything at all positive to say about the liberal dominated Democrat Party right now. I at least have a few positive things I could say about the Republican party. I can't think of a single national level Democrat who has anything approaching my views. They all tow the lefty line pretty good. It is enough of a difference that I can't see any reason to vote the other direction. I am certainly not going to vote for a Communist or allow him to win by staying home and not voting against him and the Congressmen who would support him.
-
Janos the dirty is a nice guy and was a UDT frogman but I believe that he got hit in the head a few too many times. I also think he earned the smacking around he got from a SEAL for making insensitive remarks in the presence of a dead SEAL's kin. I further believe that like Senator McCain, a genuine hero, that it is time to retire and leave the stage for others. Both have stayed too long at the fair.
Russ
-
Wow. I did not know much about "The Body." If half of what Wikipedia says is true, he is a real piece of work.
-
All party systems usually end up in disaster though, as things become more about the party and less about everyone else.
-
Jesse Ventura reminds me a little bit of Ron Paul - some of what he says reflects common sense and is perfectly resonable.
But then he keeps talking and runs off the rails a bit.
Sometimes he runs off the rails a lot.
-
I just wonder about if we had, say, 3 or maybe 4, equally powerful parties would our country might be more choatic than it is. It takes fewer votes to hand power to a particular political viewpoint in that case.
The danger inherent in factionalism is one of the main reasons why we became a Republic rather than a Democracy. The Founders completely understood the danger of factionalism because they were better educated then than now, actually, and had a firm grasp of history.
Our present two party system has actually devolved into a sort of factionalism on a macro scale; Progressive neo-Liberalism and Conservatism. (Oddly, the meaning of each of those philosophies have almost been reversed.) The Founders would be considered Liberals in their day and subjects of the King would have be Conservative. I think observing the gap between the stated values of both parties, we are getting a taste of how much worse things would be if power was nearly equally divided between 3 or 4 or more philosophical points of view. shrug.
-
All party systems usually end up in disaster though, as things become more about the party and less about everyone else.
I think that is in part what you are seeing with the Republicans now. When they got the majority in the 90's, they moved to the Big Tent mentality and the ideas took a second seat. IMO, part of the Tea Party movement affecting the Republican Party is general disgust by a big chunk of the membership over that and the parties' support of bad incumbents.
-
Republicans of the 90's and later remind me of democrats before they went full monty marxist. Because of their eclectic make up one was challenged to simply identify what a democrat believed. I think that is the problem republicans face today. They mouth a good game of free enterprise (WTHTM), conservatism (again, WTHTM), fondness of apple pie and fuzzy kittens, but when push comes to shove they are statists just like democrats though not as virulent. TEA party types breathed life into national republicans only to be compromised. Meanwhile back at the ranch a sizable and growing electorate ain't buyin' none of the elitist republicans nonsense. There is a lesson to be learned by watching Alan West and compare his fortunes against a TEA party sellout like Nikki Haley.
-
Republicans of the 90's and later remind me of democrats before they went full monty marxist. Because of their eclectic make up one was challenged to simply identify what a democrat believed. I think that is the problem republicans face today. They mouth a good game of free enterprise (WTHTM), conservatism (again, WTHTM), fondness of apple pie and fuzzy kittens, but when push comes to shove they are statists just like democrats though not as virulent. TEA party types breathed life into national republicans only to be compromised. Meanwhile back at the ranch a sizable and growing electorate ain't buyin' none of the elitist republicans nonsense. There is a lesson to be learned by watching Alan West and compare his fortunes against a TEA party sellout like Nikki Haley.
This. Times eleven billionty.
-
Republicans of the 90's and later remind me of democrats before they went full monty marxist. Because of their eclectic make up one was challenged to simply identify what a democrat believed. I think that is the problem republicans face today. They mouth a good game of free enterprise (WTHTM), conservatism (again, WTHTM), fondness of apple pie and fuzzy kittens, but when push comes to shove they are statists just like democrats though not as virulent. TEA party types breathed life into national republicans only to be compromised. Meanwhile back at the ranch a sizable and growing electorate ain't buyin' none of the elitist republicans nonsense. There is a lesson to be learned by watching Alan West and compare his fortunes against a TEA party sellout like Nikki Haley.
We have the same over here, for much the same reason - there isnt any reason for a politician to change his or her platform in order to get re-elected, all thats usually needed is to avoid falling out with the party (its worse over here because parties have a much greater power in terms of local candidate selection) and to not have any kind of public scandal.
How to fix it though? Personally, and at least over here, I would ban all national party fundraising and allow people / companies to only donate to individual candidates, with no limit on donations but everything to be recorded and made publically (and easily) available. Candidates would have to spend all their campaign money on their own campaign.