What Are Our True Political Parties?

Democrats and Republicans are our two major parties, officially. But do these organizations match the divisions that exist within our country, or are there "metaparties" that cross the lines of the old parties?

I think our two major parties now are the Party of Government and the Party of People. Democrats and Republicans are found in both. Here's a brief sketch of the positions of the two new parties. Do you agree with this analysis? Which side are you on?

Party of Government

• Government can solve most problems, and should be turned to before anything else.
• Society can be perfected by government regulation; the more regulation the better.
• It's always a good thing to increase government revenue and the size of government.
• Ordinary people are not competent to manage their lives without government supervision.
• Government helps people.
• All private institutions should be brought under government control or suppressed - businesses, churches, state and local governments; nothing must rival government authority.
• The Constitution should be set aside whenever it interferes with government policy.
• It's smart for government to "divide and conquer" the country by patronizing groups sufficient to support its power, while suppressing or exploiting everyone else.

Party of People

• The people and the institutions they create - businesses, churches, state and local governments - can solve most problems and should be turned to before anything else.
• Government regulation is necessary, but becomes excessive at some point. It's no more than a necessary evil.
• Government consumes the fruits of people's labor and interferes with their liberty; a smaller, poorer government is better.
• Ordinary people are the best judges of their own needs.
• Government discourages people from being productive.
• Private institutions are a necessary counterweight to government influence; they empower people.
• The Constitution is the essential law, which must not be set aside, else the country becomes a lawless dictatorship. The Constitution may be amended if found wanting.
• The country is a whole, a union. It's destructive to exploit rivalries between groups.

 

You are overthinking this.

There are haves and have nots.

Social issues can cut across that line however.

 

Seems to me there are achievers and non-achievers. The non achievers should achieve and it is in the best interest for everyone to have a system which does not punish achievement, unless you are a thief and expect to steal wealth of others..., or want a system where theft is legal or achievement is punished

 

Hussein Obama is DEFINITELY of the Party of Government.

 

I believe they are metaparties in a sense.

If there were a system in the United States to eliminate the two big parties in favor of smaller parties, there'd be several different parties that would take their place.

The Libertarian Party would get quite a lot of support from former GOP voters

The Green Party could gain ground in places like Oregon, northern California and other areas with larger wilderness areas.

The Tea Party would become independent and could become the largest single party in the US.

The unions may establish a party for their own interests.

Other parties, such as an American Rural Party could coalesce to give a voice to rural interests.

 

The issue is deserving of more discussion.

 

Some more thoughts on the OP.

“The Party of Big Government” fits the Democrats closely. It does fit RINOs as well but they are on their way out. The Blue Dogs did not quite toe the “Big Government” line and they were thrown to the wolves.


The Tea Party closely fits the stated agenda of “The Party of The People.” Its stated agenda includes “Less government” as a guiding principle.

The “Party Of Big Government” like to use social issues as camouflage for advancing or protecting its cause. Abortion, gay marriage, wealth inequality” are nothing more than trivial red herrings intended to get the weak of mind distracted from the central issue which is the advancement of Government over people.

Let me amplify.

The issue of Government vs People dwarfs abortion in importance.
The issue of Government vs People involves many orders of magnitude of people than gay affairs.
Inequality of wealth is a normal human condition that is exacerbated by Big Government.
If you get government subordinate to the people, all three of those issues disappear.

 

As usual, your post is filled with an inaccurate assessment of the situation partnered with an amazingly naive and pedestrian examination of the system.

The Tea Party isn't for the people, they're for the rich. If you want to look at who a political party is for, look at who their money comes from. The Tea Party is a corporatist movement masquerading as a popular movement. The people who started it were bought off too easily.

 

really because I see the left and the right as the parties of corporate America

 

The Democrats refuse corporate money? Wasn't Goldman Sachs their big contributor.

Regardless of where the money comes from the Tea Party's stated agenda is centered on "less government."

 

When there's a small number of political parties, those with money are able to buy off every party. The Tea Party started out great. They were a straight up popular movement. However, they attracted big money donors who held out a big sack of money. The Tea Party leadership took their hands off the wheel and started counting their money while those donors were left to take the wheel. When the donors took the wheel, their extremist views became word of the day in the Tea Party, and that is why I said that the Tea Party isn't a popular movement anymore.

Let's say for example, that there are two parties, each running a hundred candidates for office. There is twenty million dollars available to spend by corporations to influence the parties. They can give each party ten million dollars, which works out to $100,000 per candidate.

Now, let's say there are five parties and each party runs a hundred candidates, but still the twenty million dollars. Each party would only get four million dollars, or 40,000 dollars per candidate. Soon enough, the candidates realize that they're not getting as much money from the corporations as they are getting from the corporations, therefore, the candidates would listen more to the people.

Now, let's say there are fifty political parties. Each party would have a smaller number of candidates they're running, but the corporations wouldn't be as willing to pay the big bucks they used to pay because the payoff isn't as big.

Having more parties won't curb all of the issues big donors pose, but it will act as a counterbalance.

 

More than two parties has never worked. Not for lack of trying.

 

There are already many parties. Check your ballot, next election. There are always small parties that draw a small percent of the vote. Most people ignore the minor parties. It's not just money. Voters have trouble understanding the big issues as it is, and vote based on cartoonish stereotypes. If they're overwhelmed by two positions, how will they weigh multiple positions? Two parties (or two candidates) makes for a simple choice.

The problem we're talking about is how real that choice is. If the Democrat and Republican both belong to the Party of Government (most likely) or the Party of People, there's no important difference between them. I'm suggesting a redefinition of our major parties to reflect the true division between government and people.

 

There's not really a "party of the people" or "party of government". I think you're meaning libertarian or authoritarian. Authoritarians believe that people need to be dictated to by the government, and libertarians believe that the people should be free to choose. I'm talking libertarian as in the overall ideology, not the American party calling themselves Libertarians, they're actually a Libertarian Conservative party, there are Libertarian Liberals though.

Both American parties have authoritarian ideologies, the GOP has a more authoritarian ideology, while the Democratic party has only a somewhat authoritarian ideology. Both parties are also on the conservative side of the overall spectrum.

What is needed is a Proportional Representation system that will allow those other parties to have a realistic chance at being elected. You should check out my thread on PR In the Opinion Polls subforum.

You don't know what you are talking about. The only way you think it can't work is because you believe whatever you're told. You're the kind of person that the two parties rely on as their overall power base, people whose most intelligent thought would be "maybe I should just shut up because I've never been able to have an independent thought of my own." There is no room for sheeple like you in the American political system.

Did I say that the Democrats refused corporate money? No I didn't.

The Tea Party's stated agenda is dictated by their donors' interests. Their donors interests are solely motivated in making sure that THEY can get as low a tax rate as possible while shifting the tax burden onto the middle class and the impoverished.

 

Libertarian/authoritarian will do, though we differ in our perception of the leanings of Democrats and Republicans. Looking at positions rather than PR, it seems to me that today's Democratic party is authoritarian to the extent of effectively dismissing the Constitution and forming a de facto dictatorship. The libertarian position is of course anathema to both Democrats and Republicans, though the various Tea Party groups probably come closest to libertarian. I'm referring to actual positions, not the ugly and hysterical caricature promoted by all "respectable" parties.

 

What you are describing are authoritarians and libertarians.

 

Today's Democratic Party is more Libertarian than the GOP, it is only due to the perceptions and propaganda proffered by the Conservative media that the Democrats are painted as authoritarian. Mind you, I wouldn't doubt either party, if given the chance, would attempt to pervert the Constitution to suit their own aims.

My position is that the Constitution needs to be reformed into a modern document, but at the same time, until it is, it is the law. I'm Socratic like that. I believe that with each technological leap we make, the Constitution becomes less and less adequate to the task.

If you're referring to PRISM, that program started in 2007, at least a year before Obama was inaugurated. Can't blame them for something their predecessor did. Just like Bush was blamed for the housing bubble, the policies for that can be traced to 1998.

 

I don't even know what PRISM is.

But you've made yourself clear. You're an authoritarian leftist, ready to destroy the Constitution. Technology is a novel excuse though. I suppose, like many leftist authoritarians, you feel there's an analogy between technology and your authoritarianism, both of which you see as compelling and inevitable. The entire point of the Constitution is to limit the authority of the government, an idea which must seem laughably quaint to you. But you haven't reckoned with one thing: how odious an authoritarian regime is to most Americans. They're suckers for "pie in the sky," which is what Obama sold them in 2008. But as Obamacare begins to impoverish and kill people, the blinders are falling off. Authoritarians everywhere offer the same deal - cede limitless power to us and we'll take good care of you. And authoritarians everywhere do the same thing - take the power and renege on their promises of care. People must learn this the hard way, and they're learning now. The polls show women, Hispanics, and the young all turning against Obama. I know authoritarianism is a disease which can never be wholly cured, but it's going into remission for another decade or more.

 

PRISM is the NSA surveillance program Edward Snowden blabbed about. Whether or not it was illegal is moot, he had other avenues to go to than to blab to WikiLeaks. He could have done an anonymous scoop to a reliable journalist without disclosing or jeopardizing the program. Snowden is just a self-righteous ass whose sole motivation was self-promotion. Then, like a cowardly little wuss, he fled instead of taking his punishment like a man. Hell, when Socrates was found guilty, he had the honesty to drink the hemlock himself. At least Manning had the fortitude to stand up in a court of law.

Before I even mentioned authoritarianism and libertarianism as the actual terms to which you were referring, they had not even made an appearance in this thread. Ergo, I am inclined to believe you didn't really understand what authoritarianism is in this context, therefore, your calling me an authoritarianist is hilarious. Not to mention that's far from what I am.

In fact, I am a Socratic Libertarian Liberal. I find it wholly improper and asinine of you to assume what or who I am. I believe in some socialist principles, but very limited. I've had this damn argument enough on this site. Go look at the other threads I have posted on if you want an answer as to what I believe in. I'm not rehashing it for every half-comatose Conservative I come across on this site.

Technology, like many concepts in the world today, can be used for both ill and good.

I don't want to destroy the Constitution either, I want to modernize it. Keep the principles of the document but bring it into the 21st Century. This country has changed so much since 1787 that it's to be unrecognizable to Franklin, Madison, Washington, or Jefferson.

The reason I believe the Constitution needs to be reformed is that the technology has already far outstripped the capacity the Framers would have been aware of or able to comprehend or had even thought possible. We have already seen experiments of brain-computer interface where the brain could control technology directly. Once that is the case, the reverse is entirely possible, a computer could control the mind. That can be used for ill to take away the ability to think freely. Nothing in our current Constitution explicitly protects free thought. If the protections are not in place before the technology is in place. Think about it like handling a hot pan. You don't put on the oven mitt after you've already put your hand on the pan that spent an hour in the 350-degree oven. Well, maybe Taxcutter does, but he's Taxcutter.

 

A "Socratic Libertarian Liberal" is just a pretentious liberal.

 

No. I see you are another one of those Conservatives that I am going to have to spell things out for in very simple language so you can understand.

Here goes.

A Libertarian liberal means I believe in personal freedom and that there should be as little government interference with those liberties as possible.

That I'm Socratic means that I believe even an unjust law is still the law and must be followed.

 

"Libertarian Liberal" is an oxymoron. Libertarians do indeed "believe in personal freedom and that there should be as little government interference with those liberties as possible." Sadly, liberals believe they should always defer to government authority, should there ever be conflict between that and personal freedom. Libertarians believe in liberty; liberals believe in government. It's no exaggeration to observe that, for liberals, government fills the place once filled by God. So saying you're a "Libertarian Liberal" is to define yourself with an untenable contradiction.

The impudence and vanity of comparing yourself to Socrates is too silly to bear notice. While Socrates's death is a compelling tale, he's remembered for what he taught Plato. You even misunderstand the meaning of Socrates's death. Socrates was sentenced to die because he defied the law. Had he not done so, he would not have been sentenced. So your - liberal authoritarian - belief that Socrates is an icon of submission to the state makes no sense. Socrates chose to die for principle rather than obey a law he considered unjust. Shame on you for perverting the legacy of a great man to dignify your disregard for liberty. Socrates had the option of going into exile, which he did not take because he was a patriot, something which liberals find embarrassing, of course. But the final reason Socrates drank the hemlock is that he assumed his society was led by the best wisdom of the best men. When his student Plato wrote of "Philosopher-Kings" in The Republic, he was transcribing a Socratic idea. While it might have been true of small communities in ancient Greece that their laws represented the best collective wisdom, only a madman or fool would say the same about our national government today.

So, all your pretension aside, you think freedom is nice, but unquestioning obedience to the authoritarian state is how you choose to live.

P.S. Liberals have recently insisted that Obamacare must be obeyed because it's the law, no matter how much harm it does. The obvious replies are that Congress can unmake or modify the laws it makes (something it does all the time), and that Obama himself shows contempt for the law with his frequent - illegal - changes. Among today's headlines, we see that Obama will waive fines (just for 2014) on those whose insurance has been taken from them by Obamacare, and will let them buy catastrophic insurance, even though it does not meet Obamacare requirements. The President does not have the authority to make these changes. Only Congress does. How can you invoke the sanctity of the law while supporting a President/dictator who thinks the law is no more than what he says?

 

There is a plutocracy, and the best government corporate money can buy. The two parties belong to them.

 

Before yesterday, you didn't know Libertarianism and authoritarianism were the correct terminology for the concepts you were trying to describe.

American Libertarianism is different from what true Libertarianism is in the sense of politics outside of the United States.

From Wikipedia's article on the political compass:

The underlying theory of the Political Compass is that political ideology may be better measured along two separate and independent axes.[3] The Economic (Left-Right) axis measures one's opinion of how the economy should be run: "left" is defined as the desire for the economy to be run by a cooperative collective agency (which can mean the state, but can also mean a network of communes), while "right" is defined as the desire for the economy to be left to the devices of competing individuals and organizations. The other axis (Authoritarian-Libertarian) measures one's political opinions in a social sense, regarding the amount of personal freedom that one would allow: "libertarianism" is defined as the belief that personal freedom should be maximised, while "authoritarianism" is defined as the belief that authority and tradition should be obeyed.

This whole paragraph was a whole lot of wasted typing on your part. I did not compare myself to Socrates. I said I had a Socratic view of the law in that a duly passed law is the law until it is overturned or repealed and I will follow such laws, even if I do not agree with them.

Oh, and if you want to talk about being impudent, let's talk about your making an assessment of my political views based on limited information, shall we?

You should take a look at some of the threads I've created. I don't follow anything without questioning the HELL out of it. I'm not a Rushtard.

You don't know whether the law actually gave him the power to push back the implementation of the law. Even if he didn't have that power. It is wholly consistent with executive power to hold off on a law's implementation if the necessary provisions of the law are not yet met. Imagine it like a law that regulates cars before they were invented. Can't implement the law until a car is actually on the street.

My solution for you is the same one I gave to the illogical1. Go file a damn lawsuit if you want to hold him accountable. I welcome the laughter that would bring to myself and to everyone else who thinks that most ultra-Conservatives in this country are only barely intelligent enough to not need to be told when to breathe.

 

My Mormon neighbor said the same.
I said what options.
He said report to his supervisor.
I said he would lose his job and be effectively silenced.
My Mormon neighbor agreed.

Considering today's lack of protection for journalist - it would only have been a matter of time
before our NEW "ignore the bill of rights" government would have apprehended him.

Mr. Snowden is a brave man and I wish him immediate amnesty and positive recognition for his heroism.



Moi

No ​