Have the Republicans changed from being conservative towards a club that is more interested in power than American citizens?

The republican party used to be ok. Then they let the party be hijacked by the religious right, been all down hill since then

The Republican party has certainly become too power hungry, however, you can’t completely blame them. First, the Democrats have not been as successful at getting people passionate about causes. The Republican party has the power because of their use of misinformation and morality arguments to sway the average, poorly informed citizen. The Democratic party is unwilling or unable to use such tactics. Second, the Republican party is more unified than the Democratic party, which makes them more powerful. They vote in the same direction almost all the time. If the Democratic party could promote more party unity they would be more powerful. Third, the Republican party of right now is comprised of many up-and-comers (The Tea Party Party). It can’t last.

Its not just the actions of the powerful, greedy men at the top that are to blame; it is also the apathy of the American people that needs to be addressed.

@athenasgriffin You are right. Perhaps my next question should be about why leading them is like herding cats. Perhaps the main reason is that Democrats are indeed about democracy and they welcome all opinions and suggestions.

The Republicans have become very authoritarian and march in lock step like good little soldiers. When the Tea Party became an influence, the Republican leadership saw that as a way to enforce even greater party discipline. That would be fine if they want to run their party that way but they seem to want the entire nation to operate in the same manner.

Hence Democratic -true democracy, Republican-ultimate control and punishment.

Define “world class democracy”.

I’d also suggest that, at the very least, your phrasing of your question indicates your position. Not much of a debate is to be had here.

The ultimate problem is the two party system. Seriously, how can two parties cover the huge plurality of opinion on such a massive range of issues as face any modern nation? When Bush said “you’re either with us or against us”, he was really verbalising the mindset that such a system induces: a message to home, not just the world.

This is from a leftist liberal, by the way.

@rOs you have a point but I think that there are a group of older people and some young people that don’t really care for democracy, they like law and order and value that above free will. Unfortunately there is a great deal of apathy in the general population because it seems that the control freaks get their way despite the majority opinion.

@Ron_C The problem is that the Republican strategy works. They might not be right, but good doesn’t always triumph in real life. Sometimes underhanded tactics are required to win. And the Republican party is really good at them.

Just look at what is going on with Scott Walker in Wisconsin. There is no attempt at compromise or willingness to listen to the other side. The unions are willing to take pay cuts if they can retain their collective bargaining rights, so it is not about money. The Republicans have gone so far as to put up fake Democrat candidates in the recall elections. It is all about grabbing power.

@the100thmonkey a world class democracy is one where all citizens have a vote, where there is minimal police presence first because there are few law that require forceful police action and secondly that the citizens are peaceful enough so that they are not needed.

I agree that the two party system is faulty but they used to contain a wide range on both sides. Now the conservatives have consolidated their party and suppressed opposition from withing while the progressives are still playing by the old rules. I would have hoped that the average American could see this but that is obviously not the case and the rules are such that a third or fourth party is shut out of elections and participation in government.

I don’t know. They’ve always been pretty bad.

They were hysterical about socialism during FDR; fortunately their ranks were much smaller back then.

During the Civil Rights era and for decades after the Republicans were pretty horrible and really marketed themselves to the basest humans in America.

During the 90’s we had the Gingrich congress with government shutdowns and insane, puritanical witch hunt against Clinton’s blow job.

I think there is always a tendency to reminisce about the past as better than the future. And I suppose you could argue that the Republican party’s economic and scientific doctrines (or lack thereof) today are more extreme and counterfactual than they have ever been. But in some ways (notably explicit appeals to racism) they’ve improved. I guess that’s faint praise.

“I’m undoubtedly a liberal, which means that I’m in almost total agreement with the Eisenhower-era Republican party platform.”
—Rachel Maddow

Insofar as the question is about the element of conservatism in the Republican party, I would suggest that the influence of actual conservatives has decreased while the influence of neoconservatives has greatly increased. Conservatives are more defined by what they are for, whereas neoconservatives tend to be more defined in terms of what they are against.

Neoconservatives also tend to hold onto the label of conservative while violating many putatively conservative principles. They say they are for small government, but they support using government intervention wherever it will help eliminate those things they are against. They say they are against judicial activism, but they place more importance on a judge’s personal views than they do on his or her qualifications.

In short, they substitute an agenda for a set of principles—and they are often too shallow to notice the difference. Liberalism has undergone a similar invasion by people who cannot tell the difference between been a principled firebrand and a partisan hack.

I thought neoconservatives were just modern-day warhawks who didn’t care much about social policy, let alone the deficit.

@Ron_C – That’s not a “world class” democracy; it’s a democracy. There is no room therein for flag-waving. Such a thing is usually misplaced – I don’t believe the US is a democracy in that it’s run by just two parties that demand monolithic support, even if they don’t receive it.

The two party system isn’t faulty; it’s fucked. It’s practically a priori bullshit.

It’s impossible to have any one party meet all the desires of all its constituents. I seem to remember an American president making the same point somewhat more eloquently than I ever could.

“You’re either with us or against us”. Why else, after, all, should one put irrelevant but polarising wedge questions on a ballot paper for an unrelated vote on local/regional/national representatives?

Absolutely. I lost faith in them when they chose the not so bright son of George H. W. Bush to run – and he got elected! Nepotism has no place in this country. This isn’t England with the Queen and birthrights. We are supposed to be a meritocracy – or at least give the impression we are. It was clear from the start ‘W.” was no Einstein. What an embarrassment.

Have the Democrats?
Thing is, a politician’s primary goal is to get re-elected.

@the100thmonkey, how does a multiparty system change that? Any party that gets elected must form a coalition with other parties, and the coalitions can’t please everyone either.

I’m not saying the two-party system is ideal necessarily, but I don’t really get the level of vitriol about it when many of its problems apply just as much to other systems.

It certainly looks as if conservative has been given a whole new meaning. Today’s Republican Party is more like a coalition of culture warriors, corporatists and radical right-wing revolutionaries. The dictionary meaning of conservative, believing in tried-and-true solutions and preserving existing social institutions; seems to be nearly gone from the GOP. Those few remaining members who truly are conservative are being singled out and purged, one-by-one.

I agree with @blueknight73 at the top. It has more to do with the religious right more than anything. It is a brilliant strategy. Many in the party, and the actual politcians really seem to believe their views are on the side of God. Socialism and communism is akin to atheism, remember the athiest commies, and the under God American democracy? You want to be on the side of right, and God, and democracy don’t you? The religious more easily than us atheists, follow what their leaders tell them. Clergy and politcians. They are joiners and followers by nature probably. For sure I know people on the left who behave this way also, so don’t think I don’t witness it, but I think it is a smaller part of the group. This is all generalizations, but we are talking voting and politics here, and all we need is the majority to think and act this way, not everyone.

I recently heard 50% of Republicans are Evangelical Christians. 50%! that seemed crazy high to me. But, if that is true, that is an incredible number.

Yes, my 90 and 80 year old friends believe so. Democrats held majority power in congress and senate (?) for 40 years until Newt Gingrich’s take over. You can blame the Democrats for that, being drunk and over confident after so long a time in power.

But my actual point is, my old friends knew a time when politicians from both sides would discuss realities backdoor and always come up with a decision sans too much stage acting just like what some Republicans are doing. ( it makes me cringe just thinking about Boehner and Cantor’s antics. Jokes and clowns they are. )

@mazingerz88 I blame Clinton for Bush getting elected. That bullshit with Monica Lewinski meant Bush could run on family values and good ol’ boy and win.

There’s a good joke from an episode of The West Wing titled “The Leadership Breakfast.” It goes as follows:

“There was a freshman democrat who came to Congress 50 years ago. He turned to a senior Democrat and said, ‘Where are the Republicans? I want to meet the enemy.’ The senior Democrat said, ‘The Republicans aren’t the enemy. They’re the opposition. The Senate is the enemy.’”

After telling the joke, Leo McGarry turns to Toby Ziegler and says “Those days are over.” I know it’s fiction, but I fear he was correct. It’s been a long time coming, of course. Mark Twain observed the same phenomenon in his day, as did Thomas Jefferson. The cyclical rise and fall of partisanship has always been a threat to the United States’ democracy. In times like these, however, when it is reaching one of its peaks, it is worth noting how much basic etiquette could improve our situation.

Remember: the United States was founded on dissent and compromise. We can disagree without being disagreeable. We can disagree and still be patriots. We can disagree on one issue and work together on another. These notions aren’t very popular right now. They aren’t particularly efficient when it comes to raising money. But unlike most political rhetoric, they might just help us get something done.

Well, if the “Good ole boys” of the Republican club don’t eventually own the entire Country, the “Good ole boys” of the Democrat club will eventually destroy it trying to make it “better!” Six of one and ½ a dozen of the other.

@CaptainHarley I beg to disagree. The Republicans will destroy it as well, at a much faster rate and with the poor and the clueless spilling over the chasm first.

@CaptainHarley yeah, we’re in deep trouble if we invest in our nation’s infrastructure, and education so our citizens can compete effectively on the global stage in the years ahead… right down the fucking toilet.

@mazingerz88

I have very little respect for either the Republicans OR the Democrats, which may go a long way toward explaining why I’m Libertarian and back Ron Paul for President.

I also have very little respect for either the Republicans or the Democrats, which may go a long way toward why I do not back Republicans who pretended to be libertarians when their party wouldn’t have them for president.

Of course, there is a difference between being a libertarian and being a Libertarian. For a long time, the Libertarians have been overrun by Republicans who want to smoke pot or who were running from the neoconservative takeover of their own party. They’ve started to take it back, but that’s caused its own issues.

There was a brief moment when even the Libertarian Party’s official webpage was dispelling old myths about Ronald Reagan, much to the consternation of those who still venerate him. That was short-lived, however, as the Libertarian party has never represented all libertarians equally. It represents right libertarians better than it represents left libertarians, which is why someone who is anti-choice can still be considered a Libertarian hero (despite being a Republican).

“It seems that since Bush, the Republican leadership seems primarily concerned with gaining power, destroying all opposition, fixing elections, and protecting large corporations, even non-American ones. The changes they demand are totally financed by the middle-class and the poor. They purposely ruin, disrupt, or bankrupt regulatory agencies, and are prepared to shut down the American government even if it topples the world’s economy. Their tactics seem more like a political coup than an attempt to govern. They and their Supreme Court are striking continuous blows against democracy and favoring autocratic rule. I suspect that if they win the next election, Presidential powers will expand to unexplored heights and we will rapidly become a third world oligarchy.”

The left love to blame the right and vise versa. I blame both of them. Both parties are equally guilty of everything in the above paragraph from your question. The only people who seem to understand that are the people who lean third party and dont subscribe to the two-party system.
I am a registered Republican, solely for the fact that I voted for Ron Paul in the 2008 primary and plan on doing so in 2012, but find myself disagreeing with a lot of what most Republicans say and do, as well as what the Democrats say and do.
Ron Paul has been speaking of limited government, while protecting the middle class by abolishing a system that is based on infinite expansion by devaluing its currency, abolishing an insolvent medicare system that is destroying our medical system, and best of all, to stop MURDERING people all over the world. Just because they arent Americans, doesnt mean that they dont have rights and we can just bomb the shit out of them and occupy their lands. The guy has been saying the same damn things for 30 something years. He will never be part of the Republican “leadership,” if people dont stop watching corporate media. Why would any corporate owned media station back ANY candidate, left or right, if that candidate would hurt corporations? Barack Obama talked a great talk during his campaign, but my understanding of public relations and how the media works, told me immediately as soon as they backed him and put him ahead in the “polls,” that he was another corporate tool.
Ron Paul Interview 1988

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 573. At the same time, I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies. However, I oppose the Congressional Gold Medal for Rosa Parks Act because authorizing $30,000 of taxpayer money is neither constitutional nor, in the spirit of Rosa Parks who is widely recognized and admired for standing up against an overbearing government infringing on individual rights.
Because of my continuing and uncompromising opposition to appropriations not authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution, I must remain consistent in my defense of a limited government whose powers are explicitly delimited under the enumerated powers of the Constitution—a Constitution, which only months ago, each Member of Congress, swore to uphold.
Perhaps we should begin a debate among us on more appropriate processes by which we spend other people’s money. Honorary medals and commemorative coins, under the current process, come from allocated other people’s money. We should look for another way. It is, of course, easier to be generous with other people’s money.”

Does this sound like a Republican looking for power?
And before anyone pulls the race card, he also voted against a medal for Ronald Reagan for the same reasons as above.

@chris6137 The thing is Ron Paul doesn’t have a ton of power in the party. The Republicans are awful, disrespectful, to him in my opinion. During debates other candidates laugh and practically roll their eyes at times.

@JLeslie

Watch some clips from the 2008 debates. The moderators did the same thing to him back then. It is amazing, the power of the media in persuading public opinion, just by the way they ask questions or completely ignore the person.
Remember the movie Network?
He doesnt have power, because most people are ignorant when it comes to politics and get their information from corporate owned media. I truly believe that he has the ability to make people question the role of government. The same government which has subsidized and passed laws which allowed these corporations to become the monopolies that they are, which is why I believe the media treats him like they do.

@chris6137 I like to listen to Ron Paul. He is too extreme for me on many points, but he makes me think, and he answers the questions asked. I respect him, even when I don’t agree with him.

I think Jack Abramoff and Tom Delay are perfect examples of corruption in the GOP. But one can find plenty of corruption with the Democrats too.

@Qingu – granted, but would you not agree that a two party system (or, indeed the effective two-and-a-half party system in the UK) forces people in to choices that are unrepresentative of their beliefs? This is my basic problem with party systems.

For example, I believe that there is too much bureaucracy and too little transparency in the British public sector. Eliminating unnecessary bureaucracy is a Tory mantra. However, I also believe in the necessity of unions and collective bargaining, a classic Labour party doctrine. I believe that regulation is necessary, and that deregulation can have disastrous consequences for consumers. Unfortunately, deregulation of the financial sector and privatisation have been policies of both the purported ‘left’ and right for the last 15 years. It can only be worthwhile to vote for minority parties that might more closely approximate my political and social beliefs if the political system is set up in a way that means a vote for an alternative party is not a wasted vote.

The vitriol is not specifically directed at the American political system, that’s just the context of this thread; it’s more directed at current party-political systems. They don’t represent me because they don’t represent my beliefs and interests.

@the100thmonkey, governing is not about you. Governing is about compromise. In any democratic government, you are going to vote for a party, or a coalition, or whatever, that does not perfectly represent your beliefs.

Votes in actual elections are binary, between two usually stark choices. In the case of financial regulation, Democrats certianly aren’t perfect, but I think the choice is abundantly clear: they’re a lot better than Republicans. But your involvement doesn’t have to end at the vote. You can influence your party in primaries to move more towards certain policy positions.

I think voting for minority parties is pointless and ultimately egocentric. It doesn’t help our country, it doesn’t help change our political system. It simply makes both parties ignore your vote.

@Qingu: I said as much – voting for minority parties is pointless. “Egocentric” is a value judgment. I’m sure~ that voting Green party or Scottish Nationalist party is egocentric.

Two parties can not represent the wishes of the populace. Indeed, experience suggests that the wishes of the populace come second.

The point is that the ‘compromise’ is not one that is actually representative of the people that voted for the parties – the parties become an umbrealla that is so broad that a microclimate sets itself up and pisses on the people below.

Why is two any better than one?

Votes in “actual” elections (I take this to mean “US”) are only binary if they are allowed, or forced, to be so by the voting system. Either party may ignore my vote; it’s likely they will anyway since a vote for a party does not suggest that the vote actually means anything outside of broad – and inconsistent – agreement with a ‘platform’. Wedge issues – “they’re takin’ our jobs!” dominate. Simple, mindless dualism. Us or them. With us (who’s us?) or against us. Middle-aged white men Vs. immigrants (ha!); shit Vs. the fan.

I mean, seriously – is (American) democracy so perfect that it can’t be improved?

Well, don’t wedge issues like immigration (those Muslims are takin’ over our country) dominate in European democracies with multiple parties, too?

I don’t think wedge issues are a symptom of our two party system. I think they’re a symptom of the cultishness of much of the American populace. And I’ll also note that one party seems to depend much more on them than the other.

@Qingu “Governing is not about you.”

Can we get this printed on every voter registration form? Too many people seem to think that the country should look exactly the way they want it to even if no one else agrees with them. “It would be better,” they say—but better for what, and why should I care?

“I think voting for minority parties is pointless and ultimately egocentric.”

Here I must disagree with you. It reminds me of the logic underlying a joke in The Simpsons (specifically, the Citizen Kang segment of “Treehouse of Horror VII”). Aliens take the place of Bill Clinton and Bob Dole in an effort to take over Earth. Homer reveals the plot, but to no avail:

Homer: America, take a good look at your beloved candidates. They’re nothing but hideous space reptiles!
Kodos: It’s true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about it? It’s a two-party system; you have to vote for one of us.
Man in Crowd: Well, I believe I’ll vote for a third-party candidate.
Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away!

[Next day]

Kodos: “All hail, President Kang.”
Marge: I don’t understand why we have to build a ray gun to aim at a planet I never even heard of.
Homer: Don’t blame me, I voted for Kodos.

If voting for a third-party candidate is throwing your vote away, it is only because we have convinced people that voting for a third-party candidate is throwing your vote away. Democracy is a group activity. If we all vote for a third-party candidate, that candidate will win. And it won’t do to say “but we won’t all do it” because that’s just the same circularity problem as above: the only reason we won’t all do it is because we think we won’t all do it.

Thus I support reforming how elections are conducted so as to remove the illusion that voting for a third-party candidate is tantamount to throwing your vote away. Specifically, I support changing over to some form of instant runoff voting wherein your vote shifts to another candidate if your top candidate is eliminated from the running. Even in the absence of such reforms, however, I do not think that it is pointless to vote for a third-party candidate. Willingness to do so does make people aware that neither main party candidate was persuasive enough to get the votes of certain people who still bothered to go out to their polling station. It paves the way for new candidates.

I have seen the success of this sort of voting pattern with my own eyes. When I lived in New York, the Congressman who represented my district was seen as unbeatable. For most of my time there, he ran unchallenged. Analysis of the polling data, however, showed that a sizable percentage of people who went to vote refused to pull a lever for him despite the fact that he was the only choice. Further analysis showed that how much of the vote any occasional third-party candidate who ran against him got was strongly correlated to certain positions. Eventually, a challenger realized that these two facts were the key to victory. It took him two tries, but he won an “unwinnable” seat.

@SavoirFaire, I also like that Simpsons episode.

But here’s a crucial difference. Neither of our political parties is actually controlled by space aliens both aiming to enslave us.

Both of our parties are flawed. One generally supports and implements regulation against laissez-faire economics, supports social safety nets, supports progressive taxation, and in general has a more rational/realist foreign policy. The other political party is opposed to virtually all regulation, all progressive taxation (and taxation in general), almost all social safety nets, and its modern incarnation has a deeply deluded “American exceptionalism” view of foreign policy that supports bombing people to spread democracy. These are huge differences, and I think it’s clear that one party is significantly better than the other.

If you seriously think that both parties are the same, are equally bad, that there is not a meaningful and important choice to be made here, then you are not paying enough attention.

I think there’s a certain laziness and arrogance to people who group Republicans together with Democrats. It’s easy to do this, and it makes you feel like you’re above the fray. It also gives you an out from having to compromise your ideals and choose the lesser of two evils. It’s just so easy to vote for the Green Party, it doesn’t cost you anything. It also doesn’t add anything to our society or political system.

And I absolutely dispute that we could all vote for a third party if only there was the willpower to do so. It will never happen. The closest it has ever come to happening in modern politics is Ross Perot, a billionaire who appealed to a specific class of disaffected Republicans and Libertarians, and certainly not because he made a bit of sense.

Maybe it would help if you described exactly what kind of third party you have in mind, and then explain how, exactly, such a party could win a national election—in particular how (1) such a party’s positions would enjoy broad popularity based on current polling data and (2) how such a party could overcome entrenched political and financial support for Dems and Repubs.

The fact that it will never happen is a feature of American politics.

You can like brie or camembert. If you don’t like cheese, you’re an asshole?

The point I’ve been making is that life is not black and white; there’s a whole world of greyscale out there, and even colour!

Defending the two party system is a failure of imagination.

It’s not a failure of imagination, it’s confronting reality and being pragmatic about one’s ability to participate in a democracy and enact social change. I’ll also note that you didn’t answer my questions about the feasibility of such a third party.

And your cheese analogy, like the dual-alien invasion analogy from the Simpsons, is a bad analogy. You can pick any cheese you want, and you can split the difference and eat several cheeses at one meal even. But there will only be one president, who will dominate this country’s foreign policy and much of its domestic policy for four years.

@Qingu You’ll have to show me where I said both parties are equally bad. The closest I came was saying that I dislike both. But while I dislike both breaking my toes and breaking my arm, that does not mean I dislike them equally.

As for the Simpsons reference, you seem to have missed the point of it. The problem is not that I think both of the major US political parties are controlled by space aliens. The problem is with the view that I should not use my vote in the way I see fit. Maybe this is a surprise to you, but politics is political. Voting is part of politics, and so it is a political act. If I vote for for a Democrat in an election where the Democrat is going to win with 70% of the vote, my vote counts a lot less in the grand scheme of things than if I vote for a third-party candidate who I prefer and who I think deserves to be taken more seriously in the future.

I have voted for Democrats, I have voted for Republicans, I have voted for Greens, and I have voted for Libertarians. I’ve voted for people running under other party banners as well. I do not limit myself to third-party candidates. As offensive as you might find it, I always vote my conscience. Typically, this means voting for the person I would most like to see do the job. But not always. As above, voting is political. I will vote for my second choice candidate in a close race. I understand the need to pick the lesser of two evils. But I also know when the lesser (or, sometimes, the greater) of two evils will be picked regardless of my vote.

And despite your continued arguments by assertion, my unwillingness to blindly fall into line with the two-party system does add to our society and political system. I have already given one example of how it may do so, but third-party candidates have a role even in a system where a two-party system is assumed. They turn issues that might have been ignored into serious campaign issues; they force politicians to be more nuanced in their decision-making. The help dispel the illusion of black-and-white politics that the major parties would have us accept unthinkingly.

Finally, I find it quite interesting that you dispute the physical possibility of everyone voting for a third-party candidate. I never denied, after all, that many people wouldn’t do it. I only stated that if we all voted for a third-party candidate, then that candidate would win. That seems obvious. The related point, moreover, was that the reason many people do not vote for a third-party candidate is circular: they create the conditions under which it is “throwing your vote away” by assuming that is throwing your vote away; it’s a self-perpetuating illusion. Thus my support for an alternative form of voting that eliminates the threat of “throwing your vote away.”

That reform, as I already indicated, is also part of the answer to your last question. I do not have any particular party in mind, however. My comments have been restricted to structural changes that I think would make the system more open and that would make it more likely that a third-party candidate would be successful. If I had to construct a pathway to national election for a mythical third party based on current polling data, though, I suppose the obvious thing to do would be to gather up the most popular positions on each side and cobble them together with some attention paid to whatever glaring inconsistencies there might be. But not too much attention—glaring inconsistencies have rarely been a problem with the voting populace. I’d like to see that change, but you asked for a practical answer rather than an ideal one.

@cockswain Lee Atwater is the first of the long chain of demagogues and smear artists.

Gonna have to google him. Be back later

@SavoirFaire, the reason I doubt that third parties in America are feasible is because I have yet to see a third party that actually appears to a broad swath of the populace. Libertarians are about the closest we’ve come, and their apex was basically Perot’s candidacy.

And the Green Party will never win an election in America.

Did you have another party in mind? This is why I asked y’all to be specific with what kind of party you’re talking about.

I think we liberals have a tendency to underestimate just how parochial, ignorant, and downright stupid our fellow Americans tend to be, so we inflate our expectations for rational-sounding policies and parties that back them.

Also, I disagree that voting third-party “turn(s) issues that might have been ignored into serious campaign issues; they force politicians to be more nuanced in their decision-making.” When has this happened? Particularly for liberal causes? Every time liberals start voting third-party instead of Democrats, the Democrats race to the center.

@Qingu As already stated, I’m not and never was thinking about a specific party. I want structural changes that would make third-party candidates more viable. I also think you focus too much on national elections. The Green Party, as well as other third parties, have won elections in America even if they haven’t won the presidency.

Third party candidates have also influenced Democrats and Republicans to change tacks in local elections. The perennial Green candidate in my hometown ran for just about every local office there was. No, he never won (as I recall). But he did force changes in the candidates’ platforms (often in advance as they prepared to undermine him).

I admit, he was far less effective when he ran for governor and senator, but he was also running against virtual locks and never got over local thinking to the point where he could focus on the entire state. That’s his failing as a candidate simpliciter, however, not as a third-party candidate. I’ve seen major party candidates with the same problem.

The consensus, here, seems to be that the Republican party has an excellent strategy and strict leadership, it is primarily anti-democracy. The Democrats, however, support democracy and the middle class, they have not cohesive policy.

A third party that had discipline, supported the middle class, proposed reasonable economic controls, and a rational environmental policy would be welcomed but has little chance in winning major elections. The dominant parties, despite their political differences, have gamed the system and will continue work to prevent a third party from becoming a viable choice in major elections.

Fair enough. I have no problem supporting third parties in local/state elections. As long as that support is pragmatic. And I question whether pragmatism would better be served if liberal third parties functioned as wings of the Democratic party.

I would also be very skeptical of “structural changes” without a good study of their effects of implementation. I’m conservative in that sense—I worry about sudden, massive, untested shifts in institutions.

On a related note, I’m pretty disappointed by the way Obama is handling this debt ceiling situation. Looks like he’s really going to cave (again) with lots of concessions for the GOP and little to no benefit to his base.

If he caves this country is basically fucked. I’m not going to post a hissy fit ultimatum about supporting Obama only if he stands his ground. It seems clear that Obama actually buys the bipartisanship kool-aid, and that’s the lesser of two evils to me.

Of more concern to me is the long-term implications that one of our two political parties has demonstrated time and time again that hostage-taking the entire economy to protect the wealthiest Americans is an effective political strategy.

@Qingu I am with you on this. I voted for Obama (the first president that ever won with my vote) because I thought he would actually change the way things were done in Washington. It turns out that he wanted to be more like William Jefferson Clinton than like Thomas Jefferson. He also brought too many conservative financial people into his government. He caved immediately on a single payer medical system and cut deals with drug companies and Blue-Dog Democrats. He has (had) the backing to improve financial regulation, remove big business loop-holes and subsidies, but somehow caved to the Republicans. If he caves on the budget, not only is the American economy lost, so is Europe’s and most of Asia’s.

I can;t believe that he still believes in bi-partisan government when the entire Republican agenda is aimed at destroying his presidency and damn the American public. Too bad the 9–11 bombers hit the twin towers and missed congress.

In his defense, though, believing that there could exist a true bipartisan system and trying to effect that is a noble goal. It’s just that the GOP has zero interest in reasonably compromising.

Politics are pretty dismal these days. Not looking good for the future of the the US middle class. Really bleak for the lower class.

@cockswain I like your screen name, I guess that means you can drive the boat. Your answer also sums up the general consensus here. The Republicans have gone completely over to the dark side and the Democrats seem helpless to thwart them. In fact some of the “blue dog” types are actually being pulled into that side also. No-one knows what’s in Obama’s head. Either he has a brilliant plan to really settle the debt crisis or is under the delusion that compromise is still possible.

I am just holding on and hope my dollars (the few I have left) aren’t too devalued when we begin to default. Even the Republicans gave up and are trying to duck their fiscal responsibilities by granting the president unconstitutional powers to raise the debt limit.