I posted the following quote in another thread. That's an admittedly vague and rather worthless notion as stated. I wonder if any of you have any ideas about what is possible BEYOND the incessant and wearisome (in my opinion) limitations of our current Left vs. Right based national dialog. So, I'll pose it this way: How can we as a society progress beyond the limitations of what these two ideologies consist and the fruits that this struggle bears (or buries), while still remaining true to our constitutional framework? What would a post-Liberal vs. Conservative American society and its government look like? .
It's not possible. As long as there is power and influence to be had, difference of opinion will be exploited, to pit those who don't see eye to eye, against one another on every level.
The two parties represent the views of most Americans so why would we move to something else? This is why you don't see competitive third parties. It's because there is not enough room for views separate enough from the two parties to be viable.
As long as there are folks who will freely relinquish their....and your.... individual and economic liberty... for the hollow platitudes and unsustainable promises of government issued womb to tomb "security"... there will never be a "post" left/right paradigm.
I guess I wasn't really thinking about moving beyond "differences in opinion" as much as what those differences of opinion consist. Of course, as thinking creatures, we will always have disagreement. But that doesn't mean we have to be imprisoned by the seemingly rigid set of disagreements currently in vogue, does it? .
The set of disagreements are always the same because the issues are always the same..not sure what exactly your hoping for.
We could have more than 2 parties, but it will require approval voting. Regular voting only allows for the spoiler effect for third parties.
Good point. However, you could have a shift if the "views of most Americans" evolved beyond of the basic Democrat vs. Republican box. But, as you stated, there's little room. There's also little impetus. But social perspective is a dynamic thing and future events may very well provide a formidable agent for molding en masse a different perspective.
I have thought about it, but in order to not have a liberal versus conservative mindset, you have to really end the tribal nature of people. Especially in America, people have a tribal mindset which is what encourages the us versus them mindset. In this case, the two tribes, Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives. However, you can only reduce the tribal nature by getting rid of the things that allows people to get rid of it. Namely: nationalistic tendencies and blind loyalty. I don't think getting rid of these things would get rid of the tribal nature entirely, because birds of a feather will flock together, but I do think we can go a long way to reducing it. Unfortunately, that's the big problem in Representative society, people are encouraged to act upon their interests and their interests only at the expense of everybody else.
The issues, such as how we see government's role - how powerful - size - intrusiveness - etc - will probably always be with us. I'm not hoping for anything in particular. It just seems to be that these two (left/Right) filters are fairly restrictive to the whole host of possibilities.
The problem with third parties is that there is not enough on room for issues for different opinions that aren't already covered by either the republicans or democrats. Take gay marriage, your either for it or against it. I do not see how you would build a platform that is different from the republicans and democrats yet still appeals to the majority of Americans. In order to be different your ideas would have to be outside the mainstream which means you will not do well in elections. This is the problem with third parties today.
I can see a future with a sharp divide between the few rich and the many poor in 2nd world conditions where the two parties would be the party of the rich and the party that pretends to represent the poor. I can also see a future where there would be a political struggle between globalists and nationalists, or a future where the Greens face off against a combined Republican/Democratic party. I can even see a future where there is a military junta in power temporarily suspending elections while they clean up the corridors of power. What I can't see is a future where a party with true Libertarian principles faces off against a crony-capitalist/big government party nor can I see a future where the main two parties are the right-wing social conservative party and the right-wing individual freedoms party. Nor can I see, without massive and systemic changes, a system with more than two political parties that actually matter come election time.
The current system perpetuates the ultimate in elitism. In a country of roughly 300,000,000 distinct parties, only two have any influence.
A USA TODAY analysis of state voter registration statistics shows registered Democrats declined in 25 of the 28 states that register voters by party. Republicans dipped in 21 states, while independents increased in 18 states. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2011-12-22/voters-political-parties/52171688/1
That seems to be almost what we have today - at least as seen from each of the two opposing party's perspective. Yes - globalists vs nationalists. That's a definite possibility. Unfortunately, I think that last statement probably reflects reality. .
Option #1: European-style socialist democracy Option #2: Constitutional Republic with Democratic traditions
As long as we hold on to this ineffective and outdated plurality voting system, a third party coming to power will be extremely unlikely regardless of how many Americans share the views of such a party.
Try to build a platform for a third party that is different from the republicans and democrats yet can appeal to a majority of voters. You will quickly see why there aren't any viable third parties in America.
It is because of the plurality voting system. Any popular third party would likely share traits of at least one of the current major parties. This causes the vote of people who share similar views to be split. In these cases, people usually end up voting for the party which is most likely to win rather than who they really wanted. To fix this, what we need to do is change up our plurality voting system. There are plenty of good alternatives out there. Instant Run-Off for example, is almost just as simple as our current system, and yet it greatly reduces the chance of a spoiled vote, or tactical voting. Ranked Pairs on the other hand, is a slightly more complicated method, nothing that we shouldn't be able to handle though, and it has the benefit of yielding a Condorcet result, the fairest type of results there are as spoiled votes and tactical voting would be eliminated completely. Unfortunately, I have yet to hear any discussion of such changes from anyone other than myself, let alone anyone present on the political stage. -Meta
People would have to stop bull(*)(*)(*)(*)ting themselves. They would have to stop rationalizing reasons to ignore what is uncomfortable and take an honest look in the mirror everyday. Most of our political problems stem from people not being honest with themselves. Interestingly, I think technology is forcing us in that direction. If you'll notice, privacy is quickly becoming an obsolete concept. Between cell phone cameras/video and the rest of the the inventions of the information age, it is becoming increasingly difficult to avoid uncomfortable truths. Because they are everywhere. Eventually we will reach a point where every human action by everyone is logged and can be retrieved at a moment's notice for whatever purpose. When this happens, it will become impossible to continue denying things that everyone can clearly see for themselves. Not that people won't still try, but their efforts will become increasingly in vain. So essentially, as much as an Orwellian society will totally suck to live in, a potential byproduct will be a more self-aware public if only for the reason that they no longer have the luxury of denial. Sincere and authentic comunication opens up when people cannot lie.
