Is the Republican Party America's natural governing party? by Skywalken

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Is the Republican Party America's natural governing party?

POSTED BY: SKYWALKEN
UPDATED: Thursday, April 6, 2006 18:56
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4698
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, March 28, 2006 11:30 AM

I found this question somewhere very recently. The Liberal Party of Canada is often referred to as "Canada's natural governing party". Well FDR four election victories aside, the United States Republican Party has been pretty damn successfull when it comes to winning elections. Since 1861, a Republican has won 23 of the last 37 presidential elections. Also 18 of the 27 US Presidents since 1861 have been Republicans. So is the Republican Party America's natural governing party?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 28, 2006 11:48 AM

SPIKEANDJEZEBEL

No, I think they just lie and cheat better. (Not that Democrats don't lie and cheat, they are just not as good at it.)

"I have never understood why it should be necessary to become irrational in order to prove that you care. Or indeed, why it should be necessary to prove it at all." -Kerr Avon

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 28, 2006 12:45 PM

ERIC

They win because they appeal to greed, fear, and stupidity. All American values.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 28, 2006 12:49 PM

FLETCH2

Hummm, not sure how accurate that is? They have great success in getting Presidents elected but I remember Newt Gingrich saying that in 1993 they broke 50 plus years of Democrat domination of congress.

I do think Republicans have a natural advantage campaigning for President in that they tend to have fabulous party organization and they pick people that look presidential. They have great skill in making their man seem the sane and natural choice and they campaign on a broad platform.

But that's just an outsider's POV.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 28, 2006 1:08 PM

DREAMTROVE

IMHO, The republican party is more closely tied to the founding fathers, and has a wider base of appeal. The democratic party is a splinter groups and basically and aberration. The American political left should abandon it can construct something new. I've been gnawing over this for a while, and it seems to me that the democrats never change. They started out the party of indian genocide and slavery, and though they've left those two positions, they still are violently agressive and oppressive, as look at Clinton, Kerry, even some of the proposals of the Carter admin. Carter I think is basiclly a good man, but his being an okay president was greatly helped by his losing in 1980 which stopped him from implementing an already laid out potentially disasterous second term agenda. If you go back further, Johnson, Truman, etc., things are just as bad.

The contrast is I don't think that the American left, as a voting group, is like this at all. I think they're just continually suckered into supporting the democrats on the groups that "at least they aren't republicans."

I bash the left a lot, sure, but I understand in reality, there are some things that people who aren't me care about that are different, like whether people who can't make it in our sink or swim society have a support structure, whether there are state supported access to healthcare, jobs or education.

The democrats occassionally throw these people a bone, but in large part, they are about something else. Most democratic plans seem to involve control, keeping society domestically and abroad stable by keeping a hand and an eye on everything that goes on. Republicans by contrast tend to let go. Bush is really to some extent an exception to this, as was Hoover, but generally speaking.

This leads democrat-sponsored social programs to come with a large a mount of direct interference in people's lives, and internationally it leads them to seize control of key assets such as food, oil or weapons, and attempt to force people into positions. This occassionally works, but has had some spectacular disasters in its day. In the end, people remember the bad, and the democrats perpetually fail to gain majority support.

One additional point, on the "democrats are seldom in power, outside of FDR" Outside of FDR, only one democrat has ever gotten a majority of the vote, and that was LBJ, after Kennedy's assassination. Largely I think this was a simpathty vote, and partially the result of a successful truly sleazy campaign. But 4 years later LBJ couldn't win his own primary, so he can hardly be said to have had majority support.

So the American left should give up on the democrats if they don't like the product. Or, of course, I invite them to come join our side.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 28, 2006 1:11 PM

CARTOON

It's funny you should ask that.

About 13 years ago I did a study of U.S. Presidential elections and was amazed at what jumped out at me.

Since the Civil War, only one non-incumbent Democrat won the White House under "ordinary" circumstances -- Grover Cleveland.

From 1860 through 1912, eleven men were President of the United States -- Grover Cleveland being the only Democrat.

Wilson, who won in 1912, only won because Taft (the Republican incumbent) split the party vote with former President Theodore Roosevelt. Wilson had 41.6% of the popular vote, to a combined 50.4% of Roosevelt/Taft. (Taft, the incumbent, embarrassingly came in third.)

Following Wilson, there were three more Republicans. It took a major economic depression to get another Democrat elected (in 1932) -- which, suffice it to say, was a "get rid of the incumbent" decision.

Historians all agree that Kennedy (the next Democratic non-incumbent to win the White House) bought the election with voter fraud in Chicago (and a few other places) -- a mere 100,000 votes -- a 0.2% difference in the popular vote. And, unlike a later Presidential candidate, Nixon chose not to contest the election (which he had every right to do) -- something for which few people credit him.

It took "Watergate" to get the next, non-incumbent Democrat into the White House -- and that was a close election. Carter's 50.1% to Ford's 48.0%.

And in 1992, the Democrats can thank Ross Perot (and the liberal press who unabashedly and persistently tore into President Bush) for the next, non-incumbent victory.

And one thing a lot of people like to overlook is the fact that even though Clinton was twice elected, he never once had a majority of the vote (43.0% in 1992; 49.2% in 1996). More people voted against Clinton for President than ever voted for him, yet he was President twice. Go figure.

Although, to be fair, the President to gain the largest percentage of the popular vote (61.1%) was a Democrat -- incumbent Lyndon Johnson in 1964.

Since the birth of the GOP, the average Republican margin of victory over their opponents in Presidential elections was around 12% -- to the Democratics margin of victory over their opponents at around 8%.

Since the birth of the GOP, Democrats only garnered a majority of the vote a total of 7 times in 38 elections, while Republicans earned a majority 17 times in those same 38 elections.

EDIT: I think that Dream meant that aside from FDR, LBJ was the only Democrat to get re-elected with a majority of the vote.

In the 20th century, only 7 U.S. Presidents gained a larger margin of victory over their opponents in their second election*. Five of those seven were Republicans.

Nixon from a 0.7% margin of victory in 1968 to a 23.2% MOV in 1972.
Reagan from a 9.7% MOV in 1980 to a 18.2% MOV in 1984.
FDR (the only Democrat) from a 17.% MOV in 1932 to a 24.3% MOV in 1936.
Ike from a 10.7% MOV in 1952 to a 15.4% MOV in 1956.
McKinley from a 4.2% MOV in 1896 to a 6.1% MOV in 1900.
Clinton from a 5.6% MOV in 1992 to a 8.5% MOV in 1996.
GWB from a -0.5% MOV in 2000 to a 2.8% MOV in 2004.

Of the 11 U.S. presidents to be re-elected (i.e. elected a second* time) since the Civil War, 7 were Republicans and only 4 Democrats. All seven of those Republicans were re-elected with a higher percentage of the vote , while only 3 of those Democrats received a greater percentage for their re-election bid. (And this isn't counting FDR's 3rd and 4th terms -- where he got less votes in his 3rd term than in his 2nd term, and even less in his 4th term than in his 3rd term.)

(*NOTE: this statistic cannot be applied to incumbents who entered office without being elected, as their re-election was actually their first election -- i.e. TR, Coolidge, Truman, LBJ, Ford)

As a point of Presidential trivia -- can anyone here name the THREE men elected U.S. president, who garnered more popular votes than their opponents in at least three consecutive elections? (see spoiler below for answer)

Select to view spoiler:

Andrew Jackson, Grover Cleveland, FDR.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 28, 2006 1:14 PM

MYSTRE

I think its just marketing and having a better idea what people might buy.

Democrats waste allot of marketing money on what people should buy rather then what they might buy.

And of course marketing, as we all know here, depends on how much money you put into it. Republican's have traditionally spent upwards to 10x what other parties have spent on marketing. All comes down to money and who has the most...again.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 28, 2006 1:30 PM

THIEFJEHAT

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:

Although, to be fair, the President to gain the largest percentage of the popular vote (61.1%) was a Democrat -- incumbent Lyndon Johnson in 1964.

B]

That wide margin of victory can be credited on the classic political ad from 1964 that was strategically run during the last four days running up to election day. This of course was the ad showing a little girl playing with a doll and counting backwards from 10. "10 9 8 7 6..."
Then she is frozen in frame and we hear a mechiancal cold voice finsh the count "5 4 3 2 1 " And then we observe a mushroom cloud.

The raw fear that this ad sewed into the population of the time flung LBJ into a landslide win. To this day, most all 20th century historians credit this marketting strategy for LBJ's huge victory....though many contend he would have most likely still won the election on a much narrower margin anyway.

Do not fear me. Ours is a peaceful race, and we must live in harmony.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 28, 2006 1:39 PM

CARTOON

Yeah, I do remember seeing that ad (not contemporaneously, mind you -- as I was not interested in politics yet at that wee age).

I think that had a lot to do it -- as did Dream's mention of the JFK "sympathy" vote which the party got. (Don't forget, the 1964 election was less than 12 months after the assassination.)

And to be honest, most people would agree that JFK would never had been re-elected (he actually didn't get elected the first time, if you want to get technical about it). As I've said elsewhere, if not for his assassination, most people today would never had heard of him.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 28, 2006 1:47 PM

STDOUBT

"Natural". Hmmm...
Supposedly the natural governing party in the USA
is The People.
An argument could be made, however, that the natural governing party is any body of criminals
who can convince The People that they are made up of two opposing parties. It's called 'divide and conquor'. And it worked.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 30, 2006 1:01 PM

FREDGIBLET

I think that the reason for the Republican partys' success in this century is simple. The run on platforms of morality and cutting taxes. In my experience the average Republican is a W.A.S.P. that pushes for religious rules to be made law, and there is a large group of people who believe that is is just to force Christian rules on others (interestingly many of them would hate to have Islamic or Hindu rules forced on them). As for the taxes, the Democrats do waste a lot of money on social programs that are of dubious value so I can't really fault the Republicans for cutting them and trying to cut taxes. However I can fault the current government for increasing spending and cutting taxes (any accountants who can tell us what happens when you do that?).

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 30, 2006 1:16 PM

CITIZEN

Quote:
(he actually didn't get elected the first time, if you want to get technical about it)

Sounds like G W Bush.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity. But I know none, and therefore am no beast.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 30, 2006 3:55 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Since the Civil War (when the Republican party was formed), Republicans have held the WH for 60 years, Democrats for 87.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 31, 2006 5:17 AM

CARTOON

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Since the Civil War (when the Republican party was formed), Republicans have held the WH for 60 years, Democrats for 87.

Not even close.

It's Republicans 92 (giving the current president the remainder of his term), Democrats 56.

REPUBLICANS:
Lincoln through Arthur: 1861-1885*
Harrison: 1889-1893
McKinley through Taft: 1897-1913
Harding through Hoover: 1921-1933
Eisenhower: 1953-1961
Nixon through Ford: 1969-1977
Reagan through Bush: 1981-1993
Bush Jr.: 2001-

DEMOCRATS:
Cleveland: 1885-1889, 1893-1897
Wilson: 1913-1921
FDR & Truman: 1933-1953
JFK & LBJ: 1961-1969
Carter: 1977-1981
Clinton: 1993-2001

*EDIT: Even though Lincoln's VP, Johnson was a Democrat (who was never elected as President) he succeeded and essentially maintained Lincoln's Republican cabinet and administration.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 31, 2006 6:11 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:

Supposedly the natural governing party in the USA
is The People.
An argument could be made, however, that the natural governing party is any body of criminals
who can convince The People that they are made up of two opposing parties. It's called 'divide and conquor'. And it worked.

STDOUBT, my MAN!!!
"A government is a body of people, usually, noteably, un-governed."

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 31, 2006 6:22 AM

KUANGZHEDE

good thread, I would have to agree with the overwhelming evidence shown in this forum that the Republican party is America's natural governing party. While we do now live in a "big brother" mind set do to acts of terrorism that some president failed to prevent, and I do not mean Bush (in office for 6 months...takes about two years to plan an attack of that scale and with goverment resources not going to proper intelligent agencies...you do the math), the right, historically, is about protecting American's freedom to pursue happiness and limited goverment interference. The left is more along the lines of taking away peoples rights for the majority of the disenfranchised aka socialism. The "we take from the hard working rich and give to the lazy ass poor." The left views freedom from a different point of view then the right. The right concentrates on protecting a person's freedom so they have the ABILITY to produce without unjust persecution. Freedom for the left means: Freedom to have free education, free subsidised healthcare, free food stamps, etc while taking away the constitutionally protected freedoms of the middle and upper class. If you take my money and give it to someone else because I have worked harder and earned more, you are stealing from me and in turn hurting supply side economics, hurting the economy overall, and putting the poor in a worse position then if they let the capital of the well-to-do's be spent back into the system, creating lower cost on items. You can give the poor more of my tax's but if i do not spend my money, prices will go up, and the extra money the poor recieved will not overtake the difference between rising cost and there increased supplimentation.

Kuang Zhe De

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 31, 2006 7:46 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Skywalken:
So is the Republican Party America's natural governing party?

I don't think America has a natural governing party. The whole concept smacks of entitlement and I think thats the quickest way to lose elections, heck thats half the Democrats problem in recent years, particularly with the African-American community.

Democrats need to get off their buts and start offering solutions instead of expecting support on principal. "Vote for us because we're Democrats" isn't an effective long term strategy for governing.

On that note, Republicans are showing signs of developing a similar flaw. "Vote for us because we're not Democrats" is what I'm starting to see. We're not there yet, but if we don't watch out, it could happen.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 31, 2006 7:47 AM

CREVANREAVER

Quote:
Originally posted by KuangZheDe:
The left is more along the lines of taking away peoples rights for the majority of the disenfranchised aka socialism. The "we take from the hard working rich and give to the lazy ass poor." The left views freedom from a different point of view then the right. The right concentrates on protecting a person's freedom so they have the ABILITY to produce without unjust persecution. Freedom for the left means: Freedom to have free education, free subsidised healthcare, free food stamps, etc while taking away the constitutionally protected freedoms of the middle and upper class. If you take my money and give it to someone else because I have worked harder and earned more, you are stealing from me and in turn hurting supply side economics, hurting the economy overall, and putting the poor in a worse position then if they let the capital of the well-to-do's be spent back into the system, creating lower cost on items. You can give the poor more of my tax's but if i do not spend my money, prices will go up, and the extra money the poor recieved will not overtake the difference between rising cost and there increased supplimentation.

Well-written libertarian analysis of the modern American left.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 31, 2006 7:55 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by CrevanReaver:

Well-written libertarian analysis of the modern American left.

If he was describing the left, then I'm right.

He is, in fact, describing the looney left fringe, as I would say W is representative of the looney right.
Somewhere in the middle we all come closer to agreeing on many points, left or right, I think.

Nothing's free, and war is not the solution to every economic problem.

Liberal Libertarian Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 31, 2006 11:10 AM

ZANARY

This has stayed more civil than any political debate I've seen in years....

I tend to think the Republican Party is the natural governing party...and the Democrats are the reason why, particulary lately.

The Dems have an unfortunate amount of input from the celebrity fold-like they know more about leadership than anyone else. I've yet to see that most celebs ever like anyone that would make a good Commander-in-Chief during a time of crisis.

In any case, I tend to think that both political extremes are horrifying, and that a true centrist with the right backing could take an election from the two "main" parties.

Some of us can always hear music.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 31, 2006 11:26 AM

KUANGZHEDE

Oh, if only it was possible. The country seems more divided than I can remember these days. The talking heads create significant issues in unifing the country in both spirit and ideology. Unfortunatly, the only thing that ever seems to unite, even if momentarily, is great tragedy.

Kuang Zhe De

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 31, 2006 11:47 AM

CARTOON

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
I don't think America has a natural governing party. The whole concept smacks of entitlement and I think thats the quickest way to lose elections, heck thats half the Democrats problem in recent years, particularly with the African-American community.

Democrats need to get off their buts and start offering solutions instead of expecting support on principal. "Vote for us because we're Democrats" isn't an effective long term strategy for governing.

Historically, the African-American community voted Republican for about 80 years (until FDR -- when the Republicans started ignoring them, and the Democrats began reaching out to them). Since that time, they have tended to support the Democrats more often than not.

What irritates me is the way a lot of the leaders of African American groups attack other African Americans who (liberal forbid) are actually conservative (like Clarence Thomas, Condie Rice, Michael Steele, etc.).

Anyhow, as a Republican, I'm sort of hoping most African Americans will turn back to the party of Lincoln.

BTW, Rue, looking at your figures, it eventually dawned at me that you just mixed up the "Republican" and "Democrat" labels -- where, otherwise, your figures were very close.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 31, 2006 12:02 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Zanary:
This has stayed more civil than any political debate I've seen in years....

Yeah. Where's the hate?

Just a joke, don't wanna see it Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 31, 2006 12:05 PM

ERIC

Party of Lincoln??? It's sad when you have to go back a hundred and forty years for a good example. Lincoln would not recognize his 'party' today. Until 1964 the entire south voted Democrat- 'solid South' they called it. Then LBJ passed the Civil Rights Act in 1964. All those rednecks were furious, and became instant Repugs (sehgregay-shun forevah!), and the south has been red ever since. THAT'S why blacks vote Democrat.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 31, 2006 1:02 PM

RIGHTEOUS9

So many things to say...

Zanary, what are news pundits but celebrities? What honestly qualifies folks like Limbaugh, Hannity and O'reilley over any other person who happens to find a mouthpiece to speak through. A degree? They don't have jobs because they really know their shit. They have jobs because they are entertainers. How ironic that they would be the ones shouting the loudest about celebrities and politics.

And that statement about wartime presidents is wholly inaccurate. Roosevelt was a Democrat. Lincoln was a liberal of his time, and so was the Republican party. Eventually that party became the status quo and there was a flip...the democratic party became the party for civil rights and progressive thinking. The party name at the time is irrelevent. The actions of Lincoln as our President undercut any Republican claims to him as one of theirs.

George Washington, while not affiliated with a party as far as I know was a liberal of his time. Not so progressive as Jefferson but not so Elitist as Hamilton...all of the founding fathers being renegades.

Madison was the President during the war of 1812, Jefferson's partner in undermining the Sedition Act of Adams...yada yada yada...

A better idea would be for you to tell me who the great conservative Wartime Presidents have been...

To Dreamtrove... if the Republican party is more closely tied to the founding father's then can you explain It's utter contempt for the Bill of Rights?

Can you explain statements from Justice Scalia, that suggests the founding fathers didn't want sepparation of church and state, when the words of Franklin, Paine, Jefferson, Adams, etc. are very condemning of such a merger?

Can you explain Senator Cornyn's remarks that liberty isn't much use to you when your dead in the context of Thomas Paine's "give me liberty or give me death" or Franklin's admonition that those who trade safety for liberty deserve neither? Cornyn was referring to the wiretaps, by the way.

Can you justify the Republican threats against the justicial system in our country?

Is all this what our founding fathers wanted?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 1, 2006 4:47 AM

DUELIST

IMHO, the US has no natural governing party. Rather, it has a natural TWO-party system. What these two parties are called, and what they actually profess to stand for, changes every few years. Lincoln's Republican party replaced the Whig party which had morphed out of the Federalists. Fightin' Bob LaFollette, possibly the closest thing the US has ever had to an influential Socialist senator, was a Progressive REPUBLICAN. It was the Republican moralizers who brought us Prohibition. FDR was the "wet" candidate. Redbaitin' Joe McCarthy ostensibly belonged to the same party, and held the same Senate seat, once occupied by LaFollette.

This country has never been able to sustain more than two viable national parties for any reasonable length of time. There is no logic or historical consistency to the two party's stances, because the two-party system is an accident, an unintended side effect of an eighteenth century stopgap solution. Most of the Founders thought there would be dozens of political parties under their system, like in parlimentary democracies, and were shocked/dismayed/dumbfounded when their brand-new baby nation immediately polarized into the Federalists and the Democratic Republicans in the run-up to the first seriously contested Presidential election.

The Electoral College system is to blame for two-party dominance and oligarchic dominance of the executive branch. The College was an awkward political compromise slapped together at the Constitutional Convention at the last minute to keep the small states from bailing on the whole "let's be a nation" process. Its effect over time has been to cause coastal urban opinions to dominate legislative politics, while rural opinions dominate executive politics. This is the fundamental, natural split accidently built into US politics - rural conservatism vs. urban progressivism. The suburbs are the swing vote - when they feel comfy, they vote to maintain the status quo; when they feel threatened, they vote for change. Reagan was, and Gingrich and W are radicals, Clinton is a moderate, Bush Senior is a conservative. Over the long term, parties in the US have nothin' to do with stances. The sole function of each party is to operate the electoral machinery, and there is only room for two teams at the national level. Campaign Machines, that's all.

What a weird game....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 1, 2006 7:58 AM

HKCAVALIER

What's really disturbing about so many of the posts on this thread is the assumption that President = government. That is a very, very dangerous equation, but one that is becoming more and more true with every passing day. What makes American government uniquely American is the rock/paper/scissors checks and balances which the current admin. has been systematically eroding since day one.

Really, this erosion has been progressing slowing prolly from the time of Lincoln, with our government becoming more and more Europeanized and pyramidal. Americans have always had a romance with the Presidency. I think it was Rue who once said on this board that the American Presidency was like electing a new king every 4 years. Interestingly, Christianity itself is the ultimate pyramidal government with "executive branch" swallowing up all "other gods" and making itself omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient.

George Orwell called, he wants his plot back.

That said, I think there is an argument to be made that the Republican ethos lends itself to the executive branch and the Democratic ethos lends itself to the legislature. I think our government has reflected the will of the People best when Republican and Democratic power have been most at loggerheads. When that happens true bipartisanship naturally occurs.

But, as now, when one party maintains control of ALL THREE branches of our federal government (hey, historians, has that ever happened before?) we get the kind of garbage government we've been getting for the past 5 years. It's like marrying off siblings: all the recessive, maladaptive traits start to express themselves and the children come out cross-eyed and hemophiliac.

Hey, does anyone know if any of the founding fathers noticed the potential for one party controlling all three branches of government? Seems something along the lines of antitrust legislation to safeguard against one party gaining control of the entire government pie would go a long way toward preventing American fascism from taking hold.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 1, 2006 10:47 AM

REAVERMAN

The U.S. doesn't have a natural governing party. The vast majority of Americans are moderates, so neither the Democrats, nor the Republicans deserve the title. The problem is that most moderates dont get excited easily. That's why most political parties out there are on one far end of the spectrum or another, because the crazies on both sides are easily exciteable, and go out and give the extra effort to form a party. If there was a moderate third party that didn't get shot down by the Democrats or Republicans, they would most likely win almost every election. Because there isn't, folks are forced to choose between the lesser of two evils, exactly the kind of thing the founding fathers tried to prevent when they invented the system.

You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 6, 2006 5:39 PM

FUNCTIONX

If Republicans were actually Republicans - you know:

- Fiscal Responsibility
- Staying the F out of people's lives
- Supporting small business / anti-monopoly
- Making a government so small it can barely be seen
- Privatizing all government services because the government can never compete / be as efficient as a coporate service for profit.

You know... the whole REPUBLICAN thing - then yes, I think they'd be the natural party for many Americans.

If the Democrats were actually Democrats - you know:

- Supporting honest living wages for American workers
- Rejecting illegal immigration because it takes from American jobs and goes against union working laws and conditions
- Treating Social Security, Welfare, and the possibility of socialized health care as a hand up, not a hand out

You know, the whole DEMOCRAT thing - then yes, they'd be the natural party for many Americans.

//Wondering if Libertarian = Browncoat?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 6, 2006 6:56 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

HK,

As usual, thoughtful, insightful, interesting.

Nice to see you around these parts.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE