All of the things you described are democratic. You have the option to participate in the local party and get invited to the regional and state conventions and make your voice heard. You get to be part of the process of vetting the candidates for your party. You have the option to find like minded people to help fund candidates that promote views you agree with. You seem to conflating democracy with EASY democracy - where you get to sit back and get the candidates you want, without much effort. The current Dems and GOP represent huge chunks of people. That happened by people organizing, convincing others of their views, etc. If you want a new view represented, its up to you to participate in the process and promote it and get people to vote on it. Money certainly is an unhelpful corrupting force, but its not the cause of the "problems" you raise. The Tea Parties, as crazy as they are, are an excellent example of getting an alternative viewpoint into the mainstream. They organize, they vote, the participate in local and regional politics, and have taken over the leadership positions of many state and local parties. Regardless of the money involved there, you still have to get real people motivated and voting. They did it with far, far less money than the two major parties put into their own efforts, so its clear that money wasn't the key driving factor.
That's not clear to me at all. The framing of social issues with economic issues is a constructed narrative i.e. there no rational reason the same groups of people would be pro-life and anti-tax or jingoistic and homophobic. It's seems more reasonable that the Tea Party was cobbled together by organizing force with a lucrative agenda; and that the backer's money was the key driving factor. Real church folk are inclusive , not exclusive. Real Americans are pro-diversity. Democratic minded people are not anti-government. And yet, if you spend enough on propaganda the opposite seems to be true and you create a profitable environment for the backers.
Are you claiming that groups of people are not capable of following "irrational ideas" without some organizing force spurring them to do so? That is true to an extent. But the reality is that we are driven not by numbers, or cold economics. We are driven by ideals, will, and values, that is what shapes a society. Qball declared that the only thing that matters is economic well-being. My perspective is that while the economy is of course important, it is a means to an end. It is not an end in and of itself, unless we're interested in a materialistic, nihilistic society, and I'm not. What that end is is determined, which in many cases, if not most, is not the product of reason.
If you share all your positions on issues, I'm sure there will be plenty that don't go together or align well logically. That's the nature of ... people. You may not agree with their views, and you may not think they make sense or feel they have been conned into believing them, but that doesn't change the fact that they do believe in them and, more importantly, they *act on them*. They are doing the hard work to get their views represented - that is the definition of democracy in action. They are a small minority, but they are engaged and active - all the money in the world can't buy that.
I'm saying that the grouping of separate unrelated issue stances to form a political wing requires a centralized organizing force, that probably has an ulterior motive, most likely elective power to move another agenda or a profit related. Because, people will do work for causes they believe in, or for causes they get paid to promote. Without an organizing force, pro-lifers may not band together with people against same sex marriage, or anti-taxers may not band together with pro-war people. With only passion there would not be a carry over between the issues, the supporters would pursue their causes separately. The creation of a coalition between them requires someone pay for a centralized organization, like the Koch brothers. Or, someone like Fox exploiting them for niche ad revenue.
Environmentalists and labor union both support the Democrats, even though their goals frequently conflict. Clearly this means that the Democratic Party is really the product of nefarious "organizing forces" and thus isn't REALLY the voice of the people.
Why don't you illustrate how frequent this conflict is before we dive into the silliness of your analogy. I'm trying to figure out why theres a conflict between the SEIU and the Sierra club that only you seem to be privy too
Are you seriously disputing that environmentalists and labor unions may have very different opinions on various issues of the day? I mean, if you want a specific example, there are labor unions which support the Keystone pipeline. There's nothing wrong with that in the slightest. Political parties have different factions, factions have different interests. Dubious however is spouting this tripe that somehow a group which follows an "irrational idea" ( which really for him means "any idea I don't agree with") must have someone up high who paid for everything. Except the Democrats have groups working together that may appear irrational at first as well, which thus goes to show how absurd his statement is.
Would environmentalist want to allow lower wages and less safe working conditions for laborers so that corporations can make more profits to stash overseas avoiding paying taxes in the country where they live, that supports them with an army, police and social services? Would labor unions support reduced regulations that would leave the children they work so hard to give a better lives undrinkable water, unbreathable air and sea levels rising into the coastal cities? No, the only people who take the opposite side of the longer-term, people-centric views are the top 1% who reap massive personal profits and buy their way out of the general condition. They "invest" their money in lawyers, public relations campaigns and buy political offices to increase their own profits. They aren't interested in The People, they aren't interested in sustainability, they aren't interested in anyone's quality of life but their own. And anybody who thinks that it is better to exploit the dirtiest oil on Earth for the profit of foreign, non-US taxed corporations in lieu of expanding cleaner domestic sources and going ahead full bore investing in renewable energies is a dupe of a highly paid PR campaign and bought public officials. Short term, short sighted, illogical
Dubious's "Everyone who disagrees with me is not just wrong, but is also a shill or a dupe" rhetoric right here in a nutshell.
Yes - I am seriously disputing this. You're the one claiming that their interests are frequently misaligned or opposed "frequently" - you cited one tiny example regarding one hypothetical union that supports one tiny issue. I can think of about a zillion counterexamples. Most unions would be indifferent - there's no tangible link between a service employees union - which are the biggest around these days and the keystone pipeline. Further what if you're a union worker who builds solar or wind energy plants? They're probably opposed. So - we're back to square 1. Cite some evidence if you're going to make a broad claim.
Huh. Perhaps there is less conflict between them than I had presupposed. Nevertheless, that ties away from my original point - that as a big-tent party, the Democratic Party naturally has conflicts over what direction to take on all sorts of policies, which is no different from the Republicans. And even if Democrats were somehow some collective hive mind, the very nature of that would mean that those opposed to various aspects of their policies would obviously work together, without being forced into it by some "organizing force". I am not disputing that the Republican Party may be wrong, after all. I am disputing Dubious's ridiculous assertions that somehow anyone who believes in their policies must somehow be deceived by propaganda and be the unwilling dupe of the 1%. Such rhetoric is no better than Tea Party bull**** about Soros, and hinders the Republic - for it turns our own countrymen into "others!"
The truth here is somewhere in between where you folks talk over each other while thinking you're far apart. An organizing force is needed for any party, let alone a transatlantic nation with 350+ millions of people. Where it can get high jacked or corrupted is because some people are smart enough to see thru or mold the system to their agendas, good or bad. But The consequences and after effect to these actions may not play as intended... Human nature and scale...all that's needed for a powerless b****fest that fantasizes conspiracies and masterminded power play. It's a lot simpler reason and tougher to overcome. The machine is rigid and lumber some, so much that people actively wish that genius could overcome it.
Two of the biggest causes for why we are where we are is cynicism and apathy among the electorate. Too many people complain about where things are but then decide that they can't do anything about it so they can't be bothered to even vote. The truth is that democracy especially representative democracy is messy and requires a lot of work to run it. Many decisions about who are the candidates and what policies are in place all start at the local level yet very few people are bothered to attend local caucuses or become delegates to political conventions. Few people also bother to research candidates running for lower offices or even vote on those. It is those type of people that end up running for higher office. At the same time people get distracted by movements that make a lot of noise but don't really get much accomplished. Occupy had noble goals but it quickly became about actually trying to occupy places than working for political change. If those people who fought the police to try to stay in parks had channeled most of their energy and resources into getting people elected and laws changed things might be different.
Commodore, you do realize that you can have an oligarchy, even if some of the oligarchs are Republicans and some are Democrats?
